1 March 8, 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development by Vernon R. Booth and Jack Marubu. It was prepared by Management Information Systems (MSI) under the Kenya Support Program. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/KENYA’S SUPPORT TO THE KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE (KWS) “WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROJECT” (WCP) ii FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/KENYA’S SUPPORT TO THE KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE (KWS) “WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROJECT” (WCP) March 8, 2013 Contracted Under: 615-IL615-005-008 Kenya Support Program iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... vi Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions ...................................................................................................... vi Project Background ..................................................................................................................................................... vi Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods and Limitations ................................................................................... vii Findings and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... vii Evaluation Purpose & Questions ................................................................................................................ 1 Evaluation Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Evaluation Questions .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Policy and Legislation Review ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation Methods & Limitations ............................................................................................................. 4 Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Evaluation Limitations .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations .............................................................................................. 5 Question One ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Question Two .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Question Three ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Question Four ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Overall Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Summary of Recommendations (to USAID) ........................................................................................................ 22 Summary of Recommendations (to KWS)............................................................................................................ 23 Lessons Learned for Future USAID NRM Projects ............................................................................................ 23 Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work ................................................................................................ 24 Annex 2: Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................... 28 Annex 3: Getting To Answers ................................................................................................................. 37 Annex 4: Topics of inquiry during site visits ........................................................................................... 40 Annex 5: Evaluation Limitations ............................................................................................................. 43 Annex 6: Summary of Objective Achievements ..................................................................................... 45 Annex 7: Chronology of Implementation Letters ................................................................................. 48 Annex 8: Summary of WCP Budget (US$), Data provided by KWS) .................................................. 51 Annex 9: Sources of Information ............................................................................................................. 52 Annex 10: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest ................................................................................... 55 Annex11: Alignment of the SOW Objectives ........................................................................................ 57 Annex 12: Illustration of varying descriptions ........................................................................................ 62 iv Annex 13: Alignment of Objectives in WCP work plan ........................................................................ 64 v ACRONYMS ABEO Agriculture Business Environment Office AWF African Wildlife Foundation BSC Balanced Score Card CBO Community Based Organizations CED Community Enterprise Development CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CM&E Central Monitoring & Evaluation Unit CORE Conservation of Resources through Enterprise CWS Community Wildlife Service COBRA Conservation of Bio diverse Resource Areas FAR Fixed Amount Reimbursement FOG Fixed Obligation Grant FORREMS Forest/Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Mgmt Strengthening GIS Geographic Information System GOK Government of Kenya HQ Headquarters HWC Human Wildlife Conflict ICT Information and Communication Technology IPR Implementation and Procurement Reform IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature KATO Kenya Association of Tour Operators KWCA Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association KWS Kenya Wildlife Service LWF Laikipia Wildlife Forum M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MTW Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRM Natural Resource Management PAs Protected Areas PAC Problem Animal Control PAWS Protected Areas and Wildlife Systems PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PFMRAF Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework PS NPA Permanent Secretary Non Protected Areas NRT Northern Ranges Trust RFMS SO Regional Financial Management Services Strategic Objective SOW Statement of Work TNC The Nature Conservancy TOR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development WC&MW Wildlife Conservation & Management Act WCP Wildlife Conservation Project vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The Wildlife Conservation Project (WCP) implemented by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) since 2006, follows on from two other major interventions funded by USAID. WCP has functioned under several no-cost extensions without any reviews by the USAID/Kenya/Agriculture Business Environment Office (ABEO). Since the tenure of WCP has been extended beyond its planned termination by more than three years, ABEO concluded that now would be an appropriate time to assess whether WCP is achieving its objectives and to gain insights from the manner in which WCP was implemented that could inform possible future interventions. To respond to these objectives, the Evaluation asks four questions: 1. Has the project achieved the objectives and outcomes of WCP (as stated in the SOW), and did those lead to the intended goal? If not, identify why not (was the development hypothesis flawed in some way?) and provide recommendations for strengthening the development approach that was used. 2. Has the strategic focus of the program been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID? Are there ways in which it could be improved? 3. Has the mechanism of support (direct funding via PILs) been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID, including the new USAID Forward business model? Are there ways in which it could be improved? 4. Considering this project, and its predecessors, are there improved strategic and operational approaches to a future partnership in light of current KWS priorities? The key audience is therefore USAID’s ABEO and KWS who will use the results of this evaluation to assist both parties to determine whether to continue this partnership and, if so, in what form. PROJECT BACKGROUND KWS emerged as a government parastatal in the late 1980’s after the institutional collapse of the department responsible for managing and conserving wildlife in Kenya. KWS thus inherited a dysfunctional administration and a situation in the country characterized by high levels of illegal activity. With considerable support from government, international donors and other stakeholders, KWS was able to reverse this situation and bring order to conserving wildlife outside of its protected areas, notably by enforcing a ban on all forms of consumptive utilization imposed by its predecessor. However it was not able to offer an alternative livelihood strategy to the affected communities and over the next ten years, it grappled with developing and testing strategies aimed at developing its own brand of community-based natural resource management. In conjunction with this process, KWS was also responsible for driving the tourism industry, which made significant contributions to the country’s GDP. As an organization however, KWS suffered from its own internal mismanagement. It also inherited a mandate that had been shaped by the earlier policy and legal framework. This resulted in a high turnover of its executive (13 CEO’s in 14 years). 2004 saw a turning point in these events with the appointment of a new Director who immediately set about reforming the organization and bringing some stability. This was achieved by first developing one of three strategic plans that encompassed clear objectives to build the capacity of KWS. In the first five vii years (2005 – 2010), the strategy focused on establishing sound financial management systems and information on the resource based both inside and outside the protected areas. This strategy drew heavily on the recommendations presented in an assessment of the wildlife sector that had been commissioned by USAID. Central to this process was the recommendation to review the existing wildlife policy and prepare a new Wildlife Bill that would address the shortcomings that had affected KWS and its ability to implement its mandate effectively in the preceding 15 years. WCP was therefore designed to facilitate this reform process and identified four broad objectives:  Protected area management support  Institutional management strengthening  Science-based conservation to enhance management of protected and non-protected areas  Enhanced wildlife co-management Over the course of the next seven years, WCP set about implementing a wide range of activities to address these objectives. EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation design and methods used to conduct the evaluation were driven largely by Evaluation Question One (had the project achieved its objectives) and Four (what approaches should be considered for any future cooperation). To arrive at answers to these questions, the Evaluation team first reviewed the past history of USAID – KWS engagements dating back to 1992. Unfortunately WCP was designed with no project performance indicators against which its success (or failures) could be gauged. In addition, the evaluation could not find a clear statement of the goal of WCP other than a statement in the Statement of Work (SOW). Data collection therefore relied on obtaining secondary source information, site visits, interviews with key informants, and observations. The team also reviewed a large number internal KWS reports (KWS annual reports, WCP annual reports, technical reports, work plans, project management documents e.g. Implementation letters etc.) in its effort to assess whether WCP was successful or not. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The initial findings of this evaluation exposed a series of modifications to the project objectives that evolved with the changing circumstances in Kenya. Not only did the wording on the objectives change, but some were dropped and others added to the work plans. This also applied to a number of activities. The end result was that the “objectives” listed in the initial WCP Work Plan (and two different versions of this were provided to the team) did not directly relate to the objectives of the project stated in the SOW. Nonetheless, the overall conclusion of this evaluation found that WCP had to a large degree met its objectives as well as, assisted KWS to achieve its objectives as defined in the 2005 – 2010 Strategic Plan. KWS has emerged from the process in a far stronger position institutionally with sound financial and business management systems, better access to information on the status and distribution of key mammal species, clear management plans for its national parks, and focused research conducted that will assist it to make informed management decisions. viii Where WCP was not as successful was in its ability to progress its interface with local communities and drive the process of building models that would provide sustainable incentives to communities to conserve wildlife on their land. This failure is a result of the impasse that exists regarding the acceptance of the new Wildlife Policy and Bill which has yet to be passed by Parliament. KWS, through WCP, has attempted to work around this impediment and has achieved some successes, but the key activities that would test the devolution of user rights to communities have had to be placed on hold. The evaluation concludes that there is scope for USAID to continue to engage with KWS and the wildlife sector as a whole. It suggests however that USAID investigates alternative contracting arrangements as the “cost-reimbursement” process has been more of a hindrance than an asset. It recommends that USAID investigates the options available under a “Fixed Amount Reimbursement” (FAR) and takes the necessary steps to conduct the required due diligence to set this in motion. The next steps in this relationship center around supporting KWS roll out its latest strategic plan (2012 – 2017, dubbed KWS 2.0). This is will set in motion the third step in the reform process. It is therefore recommended that: 1. USAID should assist KWS to develop a master plan for wildlife sector that coordinates all stakeholders and builds capacity in KWS to become a policy/regulatory body and not an implementer. 2. Future contracting mechanism needs to be simple, flexible and able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances in the country and KWS needs. In this regard, the USAID Forward FAR mechanism seems to be the most appropriate way forward as this offers the greatest flexibility in project design, i.e. by objective or region. 3. The capacity of KWS to absorb large projects needs to be assessed. For example, should such a large project be implemented in-house or through a subcontract to manage the requirements associated with FAR? 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE & QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE USAID’s support of Kenya’s environmental sector dates back to the 1970s. In 1992 the focus was on wildlife management with major interventions beginning with the Conservation of Bio-diverse Resource Areas (COBRA) project (1992 – 1998) followed by the Conservation of Resources through Enterprises (CORE) project (1999 – 2004). At this point, USAID took stock and commissioned an assessment of the wildlife sector (Wachira, N, 2004). This report provided a range of recommendations to strengthen the institutional and management capacity of Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS) and guided USAID/Kenya in its development of the $2.0 million Wildlife Conservation Program (WCP). WCP has undertaken a series of activities dating back to August 2006 under two broad work plans. Since none of the activities under these work plans had been evaluated, the USAID/Kenya/ Agriculture Business Environment Office (ABEO) resolved to assess progress to date, and the strategy and mechanisms employed by the KWS/USAID partnership overall. This exercise would not only bring closure to WCP (targeted to end February 28, 2013 with no cost extension through to June 30, 2013) but also provide a framework to discuss options to continue its partnership with KWS. The purpose of this evaluation therefore is: …"to measure and document the achievements and areas requiring improvement in the current project as a way to gain insights and acquire lessons learned on the ongoing partnership between USAID and KWS (SOW).” The audience of this evaluation is therefore USAID, ABEO and KWS. The results of the evaluation will be used to assist KWS and USAID to determine whether to continue this partnership and, if so, in what form. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The Statement of Work (SOW) lists the following questions (in priority order) to be addressed in the evaluation: 1. Has the project achieved the objectives and outcomes stated in C.1.2. and C.1.3, and did those lead to the intended goal? If not, identify why not (was the development hypothesis flawed in some way?) and provide recommendations for strengthening the development approach that was used. 2. Has the strategic focus of the program been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID? Are there ways in which it could be improved? 3. Has the mechanism of support (direct funding via PILs) been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID, including the new USAID Forward business model? Are there ways in which it could be improved? 4. Considering this project, and its predecessors, are there improved strategic and operational approaches to a future partnership in light of current KWS priorities? 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) is a state corporation established by an act of Parliament, Cap 376 in 1989, with the mandate to conserve and manage wildlife in Kenya’s protected and non-protected areas. Since its inception, KWS has made inroads to improving the management of wildlife that occurred after Kenya gained independence in 1963. It has done this by enlisting international support for conservation, establishing infrastructure, and developing human capacity. These efforts were made possible through the support from the Government of Kenya (GOK), local and international donors, local communities, and non-governmental organizations. Two key USAID funded programs contributed to this process. The first was the Conservation of Bio diverse Resource Areas (COBRA) Project that ran from 1992 – 1998. The project was designed to help KWS establish a link between wildlife as a national resource and wildlife as a source of economic and social well-being for rural communities. The components of COBRA addressed developing KWS’s management support for its Community Wildlife Program, human resources capacity, establishing “Wildlife” and coordinating research and policy analysis (DAI, 1999). The Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE) Project (2000 – 2004) was the second major intervention that was implemented under the wildlife component of USAID/Kenya’s Natural Resources Management Strategic Objective Five (SO5). At the conclusion of COBRA, USAID brought together seven national and international organizations to work towards the conservation of natural resources and the promotion of socio-economic growth among local peoples through the development of conservation-based enterprises. The overall goal of CORE was therefore to improve conservation and management of natural resources through increased benefits to communities and landowners in areas critical to parks and reserves. The key CORE hypothesis was: If people benefit from wildlife and other natural resources, then they will take care of these resources, using them sustainably (MSI, 2002). At the conclusion of CORE, USAID commissioned the “Report on Kenya Wildlife Sector Assessment” (Wachira, N, 2004). This assessment was not a final evaluation of CORE but rather an assessment of the current issues and opportunities within Kenya’s wildlife sector. The report based its premise on two scenarios: 1. In the absence of policy change, it recommended that USAID support landholders to engage in policy debate and change with the caveat that in the absence of significant policy changes substantial financial support to KWS should be considered very carefully. 2. Should policy change occur, then there was substantial scope for investment, largely in assisting wildlife competent authorities, including KWS, to become technically, financially and institutionally viable. At that time there were positive signs that there would be a change in policy. In 2004 a new Director was appointed Julius Kipng’etich to strengthen KWS which, prior to that time, had gone through a period of sharp decline characterized by apathy and low productivity within the ranks of the organization. Financial stability had been elusive with KWS operating on budgetary deficits as a result of poor fiscal management occasioned by fraud, declining GOK and donor support and inefficiencies in revenue collection and internal resource utilization. The organization had suffered from a high turnover of 13 chief executives within a span of 14 years (KWS, 2005). KWS elected to implement a wide range of reforms in order to stabilize the organization. These changes were to be affected through a number of strategic management tools and initiatives. The first of three of these was through the approval of the Strategic Plan 2005– 2010 in June 2005 (KWS, 2005). This 3 plan focused on enhancing the science for wildlife management, information for institutional development and strengthening, and marketing for financial management. The mandate of the Strategic Plan 2005–2010 was accomplished by the end of 2008, and was replaced by the Strategic Plan 2008–2012, that builds on the achievements of the previous plan. This marked the second phase of the reform process and focused on enhanced management that embraced Information and Communication Technology (ICT) systems, greater institutional capacity, and improved relationship with stakeholders, particularly the community conservancy initiatives. The third phase of the reform process is to commence with the imminent launch of the 2012 – 2017 Strategic Plan dubbed the “KWS 2.0” strategy. The focus of this plan places greater emphasis on the urgency of “protecting the natural heritage from the threats of a growing population, climate change, wildlife crime, and abuse of the environment.” To achieve this, three priority areas are identified, namely: conservation stewardship, people excellence, and collaborative partnership (KWS, 2012). To successfully implement this plan, KWS will need to impress upon the government the urgent need for enacting appropriate legislation and policy, engage the treasury for budgetary support, and extend partnerships for funding in Kenya and abroad. KWS will also need to strengthen relations with communities living near wildlife areas as well as ensure they benefit from the presence of wildlife in their areas (Kipng’etich 2012). It was against this background that WCP was formulated: KWS needed support to develop its corporate management systems and USAID’s agenda was to build capacity to conserve Kenya’s wildlife, building on its earlier support to KWS through COBRA and CORE. The process of developing the project also drew heavily on the conclusions and recommendations that emerged from the 2004 Wildlife Sector Assessment. POLICY AND LEGISLATION REVIEW Upon gaining independence in 1963, the Kenyan government retained the monopoly on wildlife use ownership with minimal use rights granted to landowners. This position became increasingly more difficult to defend as more and more land owners embarked on various wildlife utilization schemes. By 1970, the then Wildlife Conservation and Management Department realized that it had to embrace this and issued several cropping licenses to harvest wildlife. In 1975, the government embraced the concept of conserving and managing wildlife while optimizing returns from its utilization for the benefit of landowners who co-existed with wildlife. This notion was incorporated in the Wildlife Management Act of 1976, which allowed for a variety of utilization activities, including sport hunting, game cropping for meat and game ranching and farming (Mwenja, 2008). However, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department was incapable of implementing the policies set forth in both the 1975 Policy and 1976 Act due mainly to corruption and incompetence within the Department (Mwenja, 2008). Their inability to manage consumptive utilization eventually led to the ban of all mammal hunting in Kenya (Legal Notice No 120 1977). One year later, a ban on the sale of trophies and wildlife curios (Act No 5. 1978) was imposed thereby putting an end to the once thriving legal consumptive utilization of wildlife. The objective of this policy reversal was to halt the rapid depletion of wildlife that had occurred during the 1970s as a result of illegal bush meat and trophy hunting. However, without offering an alternative livelihood strategy, banning subsistence use was bound to fail and has since become a source of unending conflict between wildlife authorities and local communities (Mwenja, 2008). 4 The failure of the government Wildlife Conservation and Management Department resulted in the formation of KWS through the amendment of the Wildlife Act of 1989 as a parastatal. With substantial international donor support, KWS was able to halt illegal use of wildlife. Yet without amending its utilization policies, KWS continued to alienate communities from the management and sustainable use of wildlife on their land. To accommodate this, KWS re-introduced a “pilot” plains game cropping scheme in 1990 following approval of the ‘Zebra Policy’, which gave incentives to landholders who husband, rather than exploit wildlife. These schemes provided economic incentives for improved wildlife management outside protected areas that held limited potential for photographic tourism. Between 1991 and 2003, some 71 private and communally managed properties benefited from this scheme but after allegations of misuse by some ranches, KWS cancelled the pilot cropping program. The impact of this moratorium on wildlife utilization was to encourage land owners to convert their land to alternative land uses. It also re-ignited the illegal bush meat trade as landowners now viewed wildlife as a costly liability and no longer an asset. In an attempt to reverse this process the Member of Parliament for Laikipia, G.G. Kariuki, introduced a motion to amend the 1989 Wildlife Act to secure benefits for communities from wildlife. This amendment was passed by Parliament in 2004 but following some aggressive lobbying by various interest groups, the President refused to sign the amended Wildlife Act into law (Mwenja, 2008). It was at this stage that USAID commissioned the Wildlife Sector Assessment that led to the government initiating a consultative process to review the Policy and Act. After extensive consultation, a Draft Wildlife Policy and Draft Bill were made public in 2007. The initial Policy re-introduced clauses supporting consumptive use of wildlife but as was the case previously, there has been intensive lobbying within the wildlife fraternity with the result that the Draft Bill has been modified several times. An impasse now prevails with government being pulled in many different directions with the result that the new Wildlife Act has yet to be signed into law. It is under this policy and legal environment that WCP was designed and implemented. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation design and methods used to conduct the requested evaluation of the Wildlife Conservation Program (WCP), implemented by Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), are driven largely by Evaluation Question One and Four. These questions examine whether and to what degree the project achieved its intended results, at multiple levels, over the period 2006-2012, and what lessons can be drawn from predecessor projects that can inform future approaches. To arrive at answers to these questions, the Evaluation team has first reviewed the past history of the USAID – KWS engagements, noting that there are five distinct time blocks for which evidence will be needed to address the SOW’s evaluation questions. Data collection therefore relied on obtaining secondary source data, site visits, interviews with key informants, and observations. The team reviewed internal KWS reports (KWS annual reports, WCP annual reports, technical reports, work plans, project management documents e.g. Implementation letters). The team employed the following analysis techniques in its review of the data: planned/actual comparisons; trend analysis; pattern/content analysis; response convergence; mixed methods 5 integration; and stakeholder workshop validation. This data was analyzed to track the progress of the project implementation, highlighting its successes and identifying areas that hindered its progress. A more detailed description of the methodology is provided in Annex 2. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The Evaluation team encountered several limitations that impacted its performance, and on the methodological approach summarized above that required the team to adjust its approach. The more significant of these included:  Delayed access to foundation documents and project performance data  Difficulty in identifying the “goal” of WCP  Difficulty in identifying the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) for WCP and reference to the USAID SO5 Objectives  Confusing chronology and structure of key documents  Lack of information on budget management These limitations are described in greater detail in Annex 5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS This section will answer the four questions based on findings, conclusions and recommendations for each question. QUESTION ONE: Has the project achieved the objectives and outcomes stated in C.1.2. and C.1.3, and did those lead to the intended goal? If not, identify why not (was the development hypothesis flawed in some way?) and provide recommendations for strengthening the development approach that was used. To address Question One, the Evaluation team has first examined broader issues pertaining to the structure and implementation of WCP. The Evaluation team then deconstructed the question into specific parts to answer the question. It provides an assessment of the following:  Whether the individual outcomes (which we call activities) were achieved;  Whether the achievement of those activities added up to the achievement of objectives in the SOW; and  Whether the achievement and activities led to the intended goal. Each of these is dealt with in the follow sections. 6 Findings Design and structure of WCP The genesis of WCP emerged from a combination of events: the ending of the CORE project; the conclusions and recommendations of the Wildlife Sector Assessment and the appointment of a new Director who initiated a reform program to restructure KWS. To achieve this, KWS developed and approved the 2005 – 2010 Strategic Plan. WCP was thus designed to help KWS fulfill its objectives as defined in this plan. A key factor to emerge from the Wildlife Sector Assessment was the recommendation to review the Wildlife Policy and Bill. This process was put into action and by 2007, the draft Policy and Bill were made available for public debate. The design of WCP had assumed the passage of the new Wildlife Bill. However, this did not happen. Consequently WCP has been implemented within this policy and legal vacuum such that many of the activities related to community empowerment as envisaged in the 2005 – 2010 Strategic Plan have not taken place. In terms of WCP design, the Evaluation Team has been unable to establish what the goal of WCP is from any of the documentation despite requests to KWS and USAID to provide this information. The Evaluation Team was also informed by USAID at its initial meeting (January 15, 2013) that there was no PMP for WCP. This was later confirmed by KWS. In addition to the lack of a defined project goal and PMP, there appears to have been two versions of the WCP work plan at its inception in 2005/2006 that has injected a level of confusion in the planning process for WCP, especially when defining “results”, “objectives” and “activities”. This confusion has affected the way the Evaluation has addressed answering SOW Question 1: Has the project achieved the objectives and outcomes stated in C.1.2 and C.1.3. As best that can be determined from the documents available to the Evaluation Team, the objectives of WCP in the 2005 work plan (document labeled Ver. 4.0A USAID/KWS Work plan, dated 28th December 2005), initially focused on four broad Components: 1. Wildlife policy and legislative reforms 2. Integrated management, information and monitoring systems 3. Increasing the constituency for conservation 4. Science-based conservation to enhance management of protected and non-protected In the process of adjusting to the demands from the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife for KWS to relinquish its role in guiding the process to review the new wildlife policy, the component (Wildlife policy and legislative reforms) was dropped from the WCP objectives in the 2006 official version of the work plan. The objectives were re-formulated to read: 1. Protected area management support 2. Institutional management strengthening 3. Science-based conservation to enhance management of protected and non-protected areas 4. Enhanced wildlife co-management The wording of these four components has, however, changed in various work plans during the course of WCP. One has been dropped (Science-based conservation to enhance management of protected and non￾protected areas) and none appear similar to the three objectives listed in the SOW. This is illustrated in Annex 12. 7 During the course of its tenure, WCP was implemented in two phases: Phase I: July 2006 – June 2010 during which the work plans focus on the four broad objectives (but described as “activities” in the SOW) and Phase II: June 2012 – February 2013. The SOW provides a list of activities which it describes as “…a mix of overall KWS institutional capacity development support, strategy development support, site￾specific investments, and research.” To address the confusing and disjointed structure of WCP, the Evaluation Team has reverted to the definition of “goal” that appears in the SOW: The goal of this activity is to enhance economic growth and biodiversity conservation for the sustainable benefit of the people of Kenya and as a world heritage. To address the issue of the missing PMP, and after reviewing the available documentation, the Evaluation Team found the following:  The objectives identified in the 2006 – 2010 Work Plan are aligned to the USAID SO5 Objectives (see below)  It is possible to use the Indicators identified in the KWS 2005 – 2010 Strategic Plan to verify WCP Objectives (see below) In order to ensure that there is consistency in the approach, the evaluation will adhere to the three Objectives defined in the SOW (Section C.1.2) Assessment of achieving activities (or outcomes in SOW) Objective One: To improve the management of protected areas The WCP identified a large number of “objectives”, “activities” and “sub-activities” in the annual work plans under Objective One. The attention to detail in these work plans makes it difficult to track the progress and life of a particular objective/component across the life of the project. To do this one has to consult the annual reports (which in themselves provided varying amounts of detail), examples of reports produced by KWS or observations in the field. Examples include: Construction of Kimana gate at Amboseli The construction the Kimana Gate was a long drawn out process lasting three years. The delays were largely a result of restrictions in the procurement process (both within KWS and USAID) and it was not until USAID lifted the procurement threshold from US$2,500 to US$250,000 was this matter resolved. The gate is now operational (Figure 1). Figure 1: The entrance gate (right) to Amboseli National Park at Kimana has facilitated processing visitors to the Park (left). 8 Figure 2: Tourism Ranger at Tsavo East processing Safari Cards. The introduction of this system has improved tourism income four fold. Figure 3: An example of the type of information that is produced from the MIST database. The data are used to inform the decision making process (poster from Tsavo East National Park) Improved financial control (e.g. Safari Card) An achievement of WCP has been the installation of the Safari Card that now captures real time data entry and reduces delays at the entrance gates. The sophisticated software has illuminated the potential for fraud that virtually crippled KWS prior to 2004. Tourist revenues have increased from ~Ksh800 million/year to over Ksh 4 billion since the system was installed. Development of database systems (e.g. MIST) As a result of WCP, KWS has been able to commission and implement a database system, MIST (Management Information System) that captures a wide range of information related to the status and distribution of animals both inside and outside the protected areas. Virtually all KWS staff have been trained on how to record data while approximately 1000 Community Rangers are feeding information into the system. The main database is located at KWS Headquarters from where various reports can be generated, e.g. incidence of human wildlife conflict, elephant distribution etc. 9 (Andanje, Bundotich and Maloba M. 2011, Figure 3). Other examples of outputs that have contributed to the improved management of the protected areas include the production of a comprehensive assets register (KWS 2007), development and implementation of 14 Park Management Plans and conducting various targeted research programs (e.g. lion movement, habitat rehabilitation, control of invasive species, aerial and ground surveys). Objective Two: To strengthen capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs This objective is closely related to the science-based result in the work plan. The Evaluation Team has therefore identified activities that focus on production of specific strategies for endangered species. In this regard it was found that KWS achieved its objective by drafting, formulating and approving several strategic plans for endangered species, e.g. lion and hyena, cheetah, sea turtles, bio prospecting and rhino. To implement these KWS has appointed Liaison Officers to drive the process at national level. Through these offices, the plans are being used to focus the research efforts of the various stakeholders involved with a particular species (Kuloba, 2012). However, a closer inspection of the work programs reveals that various research related activities have not been completed or these have been undertaken using alternative sources of donor funding (for example Parks Canada have stepped in to assist with the invasive species and habitat restoration). There is now a need to address broader issues related to rangeland ecology outside of the protected areas. Objective Three focuses on Policies and strategies to promote improved wildlife conservation among communities The rationale of WCP with respect to this objective was to implement key activities that would test devolving user rights to communities. In the absence of the new Wildlife Bill some of the activities have to be delayed (especially those related to devolving user rights to communities). Nonetheless, WCP, through the Community Enterprise Development (CED) division were able to advance a number of key interventions, such as the following:  Development of Community Conservancy Strategy  Promotion of Community Conservancies  Production of the management plan for Oleria  Training of Community Rangers  Support to Human Wildlife Conflict mitigation A key development has been the formation of the Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association (KWCA). Since August 2012, the CED has convened several meetings with stakeholders from the wildlife sector throughout the country to tease out the objectives of such a body. This culminated in December 2012 with the formation of a national body by private landowners, conservationists and investors from across the country that will provide them with a platform to directly and progressively participate in wildlife industry governance. A 14-member interim board for KWCA has been inaugurated to lead the formalization, registration and engagement with sector players. The board is also expected to develop a business plan, carry out advocacy, fundraising, governance and communication. 10 KWCA brings together private, group and community conservancies that will steer the wildlife conservation agenda outside of protected areas in Kenya. It is through such associations that KWS hopes to consolidate its partnership with communities and landowners to promote wildlife based enterprises that will spur revenue generation and sustainable wildlife utilization. However, to achieve this, KWS has had to develop regulations using the existing legislation to guide the registration of conservancies as a means to circumvent the problem of not being able to draw on legislation proposed in the new Wildlife Bill. The draft conservancy regulations of 2012 mirror the proposed Wildlife Bill of 2011which explicitly recommend the devolution of rights to landholders and the institutionalization of the wildlife industry (see http://www.kws.org/info/news/2012/23_conservancy_2012.html, and http://www.kws.org/info/news/2012/03_12_12_conservationists.html). Summary of findings: The Evaluation Team used three examples of work plans to gauge the progress of completing the planned activities. These were 1) 2005 – 2006, 2) 2008 – 2009 and 3) 2012 – 2013. Notwithstanding the problems of having to decipher the structure of the work plans, this analysis shows that WCP achieved 47% of its planned activities in 2005 – 2006, 62% in 2008 – 2009 and 69% in 2012 – 2013. Overall the three work plans selected for this analysis identified 43 “objectives” (or sub￾components) and 139 activities. Of these 77 (55%) activities were completed or are in progress (see table below). The summary of the detailed individual work plans and summaries are provided in Annex 6. Total number of objectives, activities and % completed Number WCP "Objectives" or "Subcomponent” Number of activities Number activities completed % completed activities Phase 1 Work Plan: 2005 - 2006 22 76 36 47% Phase 1 Work Plan 2008 - 2009 10 37 23 62% Phase II Work Plan: 2012 - 2013 11 26 18 69% Overall 43 139 77 55% Assessment of achieving objectives Based on this analysis and in the absence of a project PMP, it is not possible to measure whether the objectives of WCP have been met. To do this, the Evaluation Team had drawn on the 2005 – 2010 Strategic Plan and aligned the SOW objectives to the indicators identified in this document. As the analysis Annex 11 demonstrates WCP met the objectives of the Strategic Plan and was one of the reasons why KWS moved to develop a second strategic plan (2008 – 2012) as part of its reform program. Assessment of achieving the goal 11 As stated above, no goal appears in project documents as such. The goal as stated in the SOW for this evaluation is stated as the following: To enhance economic growth and biodiversity conservation for the sustainable benefit of the people of Kenya and as a world heritage. Conclusions At the outset of WCP, it was the intention of the newly installed Director of KWS to transform a dysfunctional organization and make it viable by implementing a series of reforms as defined in its Strategic Plans. An array of objectives and activities that would contribute to this transformation was identified in WCP. In this regard the development hypothesis of WCP was entirely appropriate. However, the implementation of WCP was influenced by the failure on the part of GOK to formally promulgate the new Wildlife Policy and Bill. Nonetheless WCP was successful in achieving the majority of the activities identified under the objectives in the various work plans. The outputs have greatly improved the way KWS is now managed as a professional wildlife conservation organization, for example:  It has installed improved financial management systems (e.g. asset register, safari card)  Upgraded and improved its in house Information Technology (e.g. installation of LAN)  Undertaken focused park management activities (e.g. habitat rehabilitation)  Initiated and improved data collection system (MIST) to monitor status of wildlife inside and outside protected areas  Under taken targeted research (e.g. lion collaring, removal of invasive species)  Coordinated the training of its own staff and Community Rangers These achievements can be tracked through the WCP and KWS annual reports and the 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan. WCP has not, however, been able to move the process of engaging with communities, a key aspect of the Strategic Plan. This is through no fault of WCP but rather the impasse that exists regarding the promulgation of the new Wildlife Policy and Act. Recommendations KWS made great strides to consolidate its business and conservation management systems under the two reform strategic plans. At the protected area level, KWS needs to consolidate these gains and ensure that the current park management plans (now 5 years into their tenure) are aligned to the latest strategic plan (KWS 2012 - 2017). Targeted research should continue to focus on census and monitoring of indicator species, particularly those migratory populations that rely on community rangelands. In this regard, KWS needs to identify tools to advance integrated rangeland conservation policies and large scale integrated land management. Coupled with this KWS, with support of USAID, should focus on ensuring that the Wildlife Bill is sufficiently robust to accommodate a wide spectrum of wildlife management strategies. QUESTION TWO: Has the strategic focus of the program been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID? Are there ways in which it could be improved? 12 Findings As discussed above, WCP was designed to address the transformation process initiated by the newly appointed Director. As such the WCP Objectives are consistent with the KWS 2005 – 2010 Strategic Plan. On conclusion of this plan, KWS used the Balanced Score Card (BSC) approach to developing the 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan which is premised on the five key perspectives of the Balance Scorecard (KWS, 2008): 1. Enhance wildlife conservation 2. Attain Financial sustainability 3. Enhancement of partnerships with customers and stakeholders 4. Improvement of internal business processes for quality service delivery and 5. Strengthening and modernizing institutional capacity to ensure among other objectives, a happy and motivated workforce. The latest strategic plan (KWS Strategy 2.0) has also adopted the BSC approach to arrive at its strategic objectives1 : 1. Strengthen and modernize institutional capacity 2. Enhance quality service delivery 3. Enhance financial sustainability 4. Enhance partnerships with customers and stakeholders 5. Enhance wildlife conservation The strategies of KWS 2.0 are closely aligned to the previous plan (2008 – 2012). These strategies are designed to complete the third phase of the KWS transformation process and lead the organization towards the national 2030 Vision. Apart from consolidating on the achievements made to date, the KWS 2.0 strategic plan is anticipating the promulgation of the new Wildlife Policy and Bill and thus places emphasis on implementing the new policy. WCP objectives are aligned with components the objectives of 2005 – 2010 Strategic Plan which in turn are linked to the USAID SO 5 objectives. The 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan can be linked to the previous Strategic Plan (and SO 5 objectives) with the exception of SO2 (Attain Financial Stability) . This is illustrated in Annex 13. Conclusions The strategic focus of WCP was aligned with the broad strategy of KWS to introduce management and conservation reforms. This was to be achieved through the implementation of three strategic plans. In this regard, WCP was appropriate for the development of the institutional structures envisaged in the strategic plans, and to deal with a variety of wildlife management issues and challenges within the protected area systems. Yet, the WCP objectives and work plan activities should have been reviewed 1 The Evaluation Team only had access to the draft plan. 13 when the 2008 - 2012 Strategic Plan was introduced to ensure that it was still aligned with the overall objectives of KWS. In the absence of the new Bill, the strategic focus of WCP outside of protected areas was derailed, and KWS has had to adapt its work plans and subsequent strategic plans accordingly to accommodate this. Recommendations The objectives of any future project being considered by USAID needs to be closely aligned with the strategic objectives of KWS 2.0. QUESTION THREE: Has the mechanism of support (direct funding via PILs) been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID, including the new USAID Forward business model? Are there ways in which it could be improved? Findings WCP has operated through a PIL issued on the August 4, 2006. This document set out the terms and conditions for the engagement between KWS and USAID/Kenya and draws particular attention to the procurement procedures and the manner that KWS will be reimbursed for funds spent against approved work plans. The key clauses of the initial PIL that have impacted on WCP implementation are:  USAID and KWS will jointly participate in the procurement process with all decisions documented in an open and transparent fashion in procurement files. The Team Leader of USAID/Kenya’s NRM Strategic Objective (SO5) is responsible for country contracting approvals under this agreement with the appropriate internal clearances as per ADS 305.3.5. USAID will provide all approvals to KWS in writing.  Procurements not exceeding $2,500: In procurements that do not exceed $2,500, awards may be made without USAID’s prior approval or without obtaining competitive quotes provided o The Government Contracting Agency/Procurement Services Agent considers the price reasonable o Such purchases are distributed equally between qualified suppliers, and o The awarding official documents these conclusions in the contracting agency/procurement service agency records of the procurement (sic) A summary of the Implementation Letters (IL) is provided in Annex 7 (Chronology of Implementation Letters) WCP has had six (seven with the latest) no-cost extensions during the course of the tenure. The primary reason for the requests has been the results of delays in the cost-reimbursement process. The delays have been encountered on both sides since both the GOK and USAID procurement process and have affected WCP’s ability to complete activities as planned. This situation has been aggravated by delays on both sides to submit repayment requests and receiving funds. All of this has culminated in a protracted conclusion to WCP. For example: 1. Approval of Work plans and Budgets: KWS submitted a request for approval of the 2008- 2010 work plan to USAID/Kenya on October 9th 2008. The approval was granted on January 7, 2009 (3 months later) and the letter released to Permanent Secretary (PS) Treasury on January 14 8, 2009. The PS Treasury acknowledged receipt of the same on a letter dated January 16, 2009 and it was received at USAID on February 5, 2009. 2. Reimbursements: KWS submitted a request for reimbursement of KSh 4,771,559 for Kimana Gate on December 14, 2011. Action was taken by Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) on December 15, 2011 and the vouchers submitted to Regional Financial Management Services (RFMS). Payment to KWS was done on December 27, 2011. RFMS says reimbursement should not take more than two weeks if all documentation is correct. 3. No cost extension Amendment of PIL: KWS submitted a request for extension of the current WCP on November 7, 2012. It was not easy to establish when the request was received (a soft copy was sent as an attachment via email) as the copy in the file at USAID is not stamped. Internal clearance process commenced on December 14, 2012 and the process was completed on January 15, 2013 and PIL dispatched to PS Treasury with copies to other PS's on January 22, 2013. The whole process took 2 months. 4. Delays in getting no objection letters: KWS report in their annual reports that delays in receiving “no objection letters” can be up to 2 months. To illustrate these points and their impact of implementation, the following three events are related: 1. Chronology of events related to the design and construction of Kimana Gate and Information Center in Amboseli National Park illustrate these points (extracts from KWS annual reports for WCP): 2008: Joint assessment team of provide recommendations on final design elements for the new gate and information center at Kimana in Amboseli. KWS is the process formulation of bill of quantities (BQ) and engineer’s estimates (expected lapsed time – 4 months). BQ and design plans presented to USAID for approval. Procurement was to be done through competitive bidding for construction. Construction expected to take 12 months. Both donor and KWS experience slow responses to requests for procurement. 2009: Various consultative meetings between KWS and USAID to finalize the documentation of the BQs and specification for gate construction. USAID approve the Request for Proposal Document (RFP), and the process for recruitment and development of an Environmental Impact Assessment project report. 2010: Delays in getting letter of no-objection from USAID. USAID requirements that any procurement exceed US$ 2,500 must be approved in writing prior to implementation of activities is amended. The approval letter for the activities was received two months into the implementation period i.e. beginning of September 2010. 2011: Site handed over to Brown Bark Engineering Systems Ltd on March 28, 2011 and work commenced. Construction expected to take six months. Site meeting held on May 10, 2011 and the entire foundation work up to slab level completed. Second site meeting held on July 28, 2011. KWS/USAID joint site meeting held on September 28, 2011 and works up to roofing level plus finishing in progress. Completion of construction works expected by December 27, 2011. 2012: The commissioning of the gate ceremony was held on April 30, 2012. 2. Dr Lekishon Kenana: Senior Research Scientist responsible for specific research programs within the overall research framework being conducted by KWS. 15  His interaction with WCP has been through the Invasive Species Project, and the production of the Endangered Species strategies and peripherally with the lion collaring program in Nairobi and Amboseli  Dr Kenana explained how the program to illuminate invasive plant species from Amboseli was being implemented o Started project in 2010 with systematic surveys to plot the extent of the plants. Project then set up “before/after” photographs. o Set up a 1 x 1km enclosure plot to monitor the re-growth of woody vegetation in Amboseli under WCP.  Funding for the activities was provided by KWS. However the Research Division was unable to get refunded for these costs. This placed other initiatives at risk, e.g. it was not possible to start the eradication program in Nakuru as planned because of the lack of funds. The Research Division then approached by Parks Canada to get the funds to carry out field work. 3. Related events that affected the purchase of tracking collars for lions  Initially collars were supposed to be fitted to lions in Amboseli to track movements and mitigate human-carnivore conflicts.  Budgets were developed initially for Tsavo, but later KWS wanted to switch the funds to be used in Amboseli.  USAID rejected this budget because the work plan initially stated “Tsavo” and the request to USAID was for “Amboseli”.  Funds were withheld with the result that the quote (from supplier in South Africa) expired.  When the process was re-worked, AID could not release funds to the supplier to secure order and supplier would not start the manufacture of the collars without this deposit.  KWS could not secure a bank guarantee.  Process took more than a year with no success. In the end the project went to an alternative donor to secure and fit the collars. Data on the use of the budget are incomplete. From the information available, it is estimated that 81% of the initial budget has been spent. The remaining budget balance will be exhausted under the final no￾cost extension that ends in June 2013 (Annex 8). USAID Forward USAID plans to change the mechanism under which it engages with government recipients in the future by emphasizing innovation and results in implementation and procurement. These mechanisms are outlined in the USAID Forward program. This will affect the manner in which USAID will enter into a contract with KWS in the future. Essentially USAID’s new ADS 220 outlines the policies and procedures for greater use of reliable partner country systems to implement direct assistance in USAID funded projects. Under this system, USAID has three options for contracting with a recipient such as KWS: 1) a “Fixed Amount Reimbursement” (FAR); 2) a cost reimbursement; or 3) a resource transfer (budgetary support). 16 According to USAID, budgetary support is not an option. Under a FAR, deliverables are expected to be specific and tight. The emphasis is on reimbursement based on output rather than inputs or costs. For a cost reimbursement mechanism, there are no specific deliverables, but it can only be used for up to $500,000 USD, unless a Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF) assessment of the partner country systems is undertaken. In order to ensure effective use of US Government funds, USAID undertakes a PFMRAF assessment of the partner country systems that will be the recipient of these funds. The caveat here is that if the recipient fails the PFMRAF review, it will not be eligible for USAID funding support. Certain conditions put a parastatal (such as KWS) outside the definition of a government partner, particularly if the majority of the board of trustees is not made up of government personal. The following text taken from ADS 220 refers: *Parastatals: ….. *Because of government funding/control, parastatals should be treated as a partner country government agency and therefore fall under this ADS chapter when they meet the following four criteria: 1) A majority of the members of the supreme governing body is comprised of government officials; 2) The parastatal delivers public goods; 3) The parastatal is subject to audit by the state Supreme Audit Institution; and 4) The parastatal uses the Partner Country government’s Public Financial Management and procurement systems. It is at the discretion of the Mission to decide whether to carry out a PRMRAF if a parastatal does not meet the above requirements. If KWS is determined not to be a partner country government agency, it is eligible for other kinds of assistance, such as those described under ADS 303 – Grants and Cooperative Agreements to NGOs. Conclusions The use of PILs has been a cumbersome process for both KWS and USAID that has led to delays to completing WCP within the timeframe. Any difficulties encountered by KWS to accommodate financial planning, or delays in receiving approvals for budget expenditures throws the work plans off track, leading to delays in implementation. The current mechanism of support (via re-reimbursable PILs) is not conducive for KWS to efficiently carry out work plans such as those identified under WCP. KWS has shown that it is capable of sourcing funds from alternative donors in the event that it experiences difficulties with the USAID procedures. USAID Forward provides greater flexibility to implement projects with similar objectives to WCP. KWS needs to provide information on its board structure and composition so that the USAID Regional Legal Advisor can make a determination whether KWS is a government or non-government partner, according to USAID’s parameters. If it is, then given the nature of a wildlife project, which is dynamic and fluid in its very nature, some flexibility in deliverables is required. A FAR may be too restrictive. Gaining PFMRAF status will improve the ability of KWS to manage large USAID funded projects. If it is determined not to be a government entity under USAID’s definition in ADS 220, then several other possibilities open, such as the Fixed Obligation Grant under ADS 303. 17 Recommendations USAID/Kenya should investigate its options to either proceed with the PFMRAF process for KWS (if not already done) or (in the event that KWS does not qualify) investigate alternative contracting arrangement, i.e. contract agreement. QUESTION FOUR: Considering this project, and its predecessors, are there improved strategic and operational approaches to a future partnership in light of current KWS priorities? Findings Priorities of KWS have changed since its inception in 1990’s. Few lessons learned from the earlier programs (COBRA, CORE) still apply. Both these programs were implemented by third parties (DAI and AWF respectively) whereas WCP has been implemented in-house. Secondly, COBRA was designed to help KWS establish a link between wildlife as a national resource and wildlife as a source of economic and social well-being for rural communities (DAI, 1999). To do this, COBRA facilitated the creation of the Community Wildlife Services that then drew heavily on the experiences elsewhere in the region where community based natural resource management (CBNRM) programs were being implemented. KWS, as an organization was less than 6 years old - COBRA was thus assisting it to develop its own brand of CBNRM within the laws that existed at the time. The CORE program anticipated achieving seven key results (MSI, 2002): 1. Significant organizational development of at least 10 key Community Based Organizations (CBOs) demonstrated by their ability to work with a common purpose and to run and monitor conservation enterprises on their land and oversee equitable benefit distribution. 2. Successful operation of 20 community based conservation enterprises demonstrated by their ability to generate employment, income and financial and social benefits to community shareholders. 3. 10 new, successful, active and mutually beneficial partnerships between communities and the private sector demonstrated by their ability to generate financial and social benefits satisfactory to both parties. 4. Identification of the benefits and drawbacks of selected “innovative conservation instruments” demonstrated by the design and testing of such instruments in 3 conservation areas. 5. Increased size and visibility of the domestic constituency for conservation amongst the Kenyan citizenry demonstrated by the ability of target groups to undertake networking and advocacy activities and promote relevant policies, legislation and tools to encourage community incentives for wildlife conservation. 6. Increased ability of CBOs to conserve and manage natural resources demonstrated by capacity of CBOs to conserve land and manage natural resources, improved data and access to social and biophysical monitoring databases, and reduction in human wildlife conflicts. 7. Improved monitoring, evaluation and reporting systems within KWS demonstrated by utilization of new ME&R tracking systems and improved data and access to social and biophysical monitoring databases. Yet even at this time it was recognized that if community enterprises were to be sustainable in the long term it would be necessary to review the wildlife policy and draft a new Bill. The Wildlife Sector Assessment conducted in 2004 confirms these views and provides a critical review of the status of wildlife conservation in Kenya at that time. It also identified the challenges facing KWS as an organization mandated to conserve Kenya’s wildlife which the scientific community claimed to be in serious decline, especially outside of the protected areas. 18 This Assessment also identified positive interventions being undertaken by the NGO community who were testing different models to engage communities in sustainable conservation practices. A significant conclusion of the Wildlife Sector Assessment was that Kenya needed to shift its paradigm regarding its approach to wildlife conservation and to do this it needed to its Wildlife Policy and draft a new Wildlife Bill. KWS responded to the challenges raised in the Assessment report, first by appointing a dynamic Director and secondly by recognizing that KWS as an organization had to change. To achieve these reforms, KWS embarked upon developing robust strategic plans that encompassed clear performance indicators to monitor progress. These strategic plans (three strategies have been developed in life of WCP) adopted two broad pronged approaches: develop the business and financial management systems of KWS and consolidate its information regarding the status of wildlife in the country, particularly its flagship and endangered species. KWS initially played a central role in the wildlife conservation and management policy and legislative review process but later relinquished this role when the government, through the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, established a 15-member National Steering Committee in July 2006 to spearhead the review process in consultation with other stakeholders. The committee was supported by an eight￾member secretariat headed by Mr. Kipkorir Lagat (Ministry of Tourism & Wildlife) as the National coordinator and Mrs. Munira Anyonge-Bashir (KWS) as the Vice National Coordinator. A technical team of five consultants procured by USAID through a financial management agency supported both the national steering committee and the secretariat. A two-day national symposium held in Nairobi in October 2006 generated the key issues that guided the 22 regional workshops later held across the country. Key issues that were considered in the new policy included the following:  Definition of wildlife – what is the scope?  Wildlife ownership and responsibilities.  Land use changes - habitat fragmentation (competing land uses).  Incentives for land owners, communities and private sector and equitable benefit sharing  Strengthening institutional framework, Decentralization and Devolution of authority and responsibilities  Roles of various actors in the wildlife management and other related sectors – Government, landowners, private sector and NGOs.  Human –Wildlife Conflict, Problem Animal Control and Compensation  User rights o Consumptive utilization - cropping, culling, game ranching and hunting o Non- consumptive utilization – eco-tourism Meetings were also held with ministerial departments who have linkages with the wildlife sector and the secretariat planned to hold a retreat with all MPs before the draft is finalized in February. At the end of January, the National Steering committee and the Secretariat held a consultative forum with the KWS management (KWS, 2007a). Nelson (2012) summarizes the cultural and biologically diversity of Kenya and how the more recent, formalized community conservation arrangements have developed across its landscapes. He highlights the role that traditional pastoralist play in land use and management practices, based around livestock management, that are a central element of natural resource governance: pastoralist communities have 19 long protected important resources – such as forests, water sources, and dry season grazing refuges – through customary mechanisms. However, weaknesses in collective customary forms of land tenure have led to the erosion of these traditional communal management systems. Kenya’s legal framework for ‘Group Ranches’ – privately titled collective rangelands used for communal livestock production – provides a way for pastoralist communities to formalize rights over communal pastures, and has been widely adopted in Maasai communities in the southern and central parts of the country. But the Group Ranches have been increasingly sub-divided during the past twenty years (Nelson, 2012). In recent years new community conservation areas termed ‘conservancies’ have been widely created in pastoralist areas in southern and central Kenya, facilitated and supported by a wide range of government (i.e. KWS), NGO, private sector, and external donor resources and interests. Organizations such as the African Conservation Center (ACC) and NRT have played a key role in developing the management framework for these conservancies and scaling them up over larger areas in recent years. These conservancies provide a range of local values, including clarifying and firming up local land tenure over pasture and grazing areas, improving security through networks of community scouts and communications infrastructure and law enforcement bodies, and providing a legal structure for communities to enter into third-party joint ventures with tourism investors in order to generate local revenue from wildlife (Nelson, 2012). Just recently (in the last few weeks) KWS has developed a legal framework for community conservancies which will afford then greater protection in terms of the new Wildlife Policy and Bill. However, while these emerging communities are widely supported by civil society, donors, and private sector, the draft policy (GOK, 2011) is yet to create an enabling context for their establishment and governance. Added to this are constitutional changes as adopted through Kenya’s new constitution in August 2010. While the constitution provides general strengthening of devolved and democratic governance in Kenya, it also provides for critical reforms to the country’s land tenure framework. Specifically, these reforms call for the replacement of trust land – a historically weak tenure class managed on a trustee basis by County Councils that has been vulnerable to alienation and encroachment and which makes up the majority of land in Kenya – with a new tenure category of ‘community land’. This has the potential – if implemented effectively – to transform the historic weakness of communal and customary land rights in Kenya’s rural areas, which, as in most African nations, has been the greatest impediment to securing and sustaining traditional or newly established conservancies (Nelson, 2012). There are allegedly different versions of the draft Wildlife Bill so it is unclear whether the version being consulted is the final one or not. Nonetheless a review by WWF (2012) of a draft Wildlife Bill, 2012 states that:  Section 1 of the proposed Bill vests all wildlife in the State on behalf of and for the benefit of the people of Kenya. The Bill also confers the right to use wildlife resources as derived from the Constitution of Kenya to individuals, communities or bodies corporate in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.  Section 42 provides for the establishment of wildlife conservation areas and Committees, including the establishment of regional wildlife committees (sub section 4 (g)).  Section 47 provides for the establishment of wildlife associations and wildlife managers which may be formed by communities, land owners, groups of land owners and existing representative organizations 20 for the purpose of conflict resolution and cooperative management within a specified geographic area.  Sections 68 and 69 make it easier to address human wildlife conflicts and allow the killing or wounding of a wild animal in defense of self, however, this has to be reported to the authority soonest.  Section 72 (1) provides for the Grant of wildlife user rights by the Service upon successful registration of the applicant with the Wildlife Conservation Area Committee (WCAC). A general permit may be granted for non-consumptive wildlife user rights such as: Wildlife-based tourism; Commercial photography and filming; Educational, Research, Cultural and Religious purposes.  Consumptive user rights are provided for in Section 72 (2) upon successful registration of the applicant with the WCAC through an issuance of a license for activities such as: Game farming, Game ranching, Live capture, Research involving off-take, Cultural activities involving hunting, Cropping and Culling. The duration of user rights for consumptive wildlife utilization are, however, all limited to a duration of 1 year with every license expiring on the 31st December of the year in respect of which the license was issued. This is a severe limiting factor as it will not attract investment without security of a longer term conditions2.  The draft Bill provides for the development of management plans for community conservancies provided that nothing in any document connected with the letting shall be construed as in any manner abridging the overall control of the wildlife conservancy or sanctuary by the land owners, or as preventing the Authority from giving directions as to the manner in which the premises concerned shall be managed in the interest of the long term conservation of wildlife resources. In addition, the Bill states that individual land owner, group of landowners or a community may, with the approval of the Authority enter into a partnership or management agreement with a suitably qualified agent on mutually agreed terms for the management of the wildlife conservancy or sanctuary. This section of the Bill seems to seek to convert community conservancies to protected areas under the management of the Authority. As already stated, the Act provides that all wildlife, whether within the Protected Areas or otherwise is vested in the state, mandating KWS to manage wildlife even outside protected areas. This, therefore, takes away some of the rights of landowners to manage and benefit from resources on their own land. A crucial factor that would allow KWS to achieve its vision and goals hinges on the statutes that are framed by new Policy and the regulations in the Bill presently before Parliament. Unfortunately various conservation organizations in the country have influenced the content of these important conservation instruments with the result that the Bill has not been passed or signed into law. Outside of the protected areas, USAID is supporting several other NRM-related projects that target community conservation (NRT, PACT, AMF, LWF, etc.). Each of these interested parties is independently pursuing different conservation models that involve communities. 2 In an earlier version of the draft Bill (2011), all reference to consumptive use has been removed. The draft Bill categorically states that sport hunting is not permitted (Section 8.3). 21 Many of these organizations work on issues of land tenure, wildlife conservation, and pastoralist livelihoods in Kenya’s rangelands, due to a variety of interlinked socio-economic issues and challenges facing pastoralists and wildlife conservation. As such these groups played a key role in facilitating the formation of conservancies, including fundamental issues of land tenure, development of governance bodies, and establishment of joint ventures with tourism companies. Some of the most prominent NGOs involved in facilitating establishment of community conservancies include the following (Nelson, 2012, David Western, pers comm.).  African Conservation Center: was established principally by Dr. David Western, who was KWS director in the mid-1990s but subsequently developed ACC to facilitate and champion community-based conservation. ACC has worked primarily in Maasai rangelands in the southern Rift Valley, around Amboseli National Park, and in Laikipia in central Kenya. A major focus has been on working with communities to establish conservancies and integrate tourism and wildlife interests with strengthened local land tenure and incorporation of traditional grazing practices (http://www.conservationafrica.org).  Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT): serves as the lead facilitator of a growing (currently 18) number of community conservancies in northern-central Kenya, as well as conservancies elsewhere such as the Ishaqbini Conservancy in Garissa District, established to protect the critically endangered Hirola antelope (www.nrt-kenya.org/) KWS is about to embark on its latest strategy (KWS 2.0 for the period 2012 – 2017). This strategy intends to address the third part of the reform process that started in 2005. Unfortunately it is not being carried forward by the Director who masterminded KWS’s recovery as he resigned in November 2012. It is unclear therefore whether the new Director (Mr. William Kibet Kiprono) will continue to re-enforce the initiatives accomplished in the last eight years. It is noted too that KWS is incurring a large operational deficit (currently ~Khs1 billion) and is relying on government interventions, the donor community and other NGO partners to fill the gap (see KWS 2011 Annual Report for detailed financial statement)3. Conclusions KWS has evolved as an institution responsible for wildlife conservation over the last 20 years. During this time, there have been significant changes political and socio-economic changes that have impacted on conservation. The challenges identified by the 2004 Wildlife Sector Assessment remain and although 3 KWS, as a state corporation established by an Act of Parliament, and with the mandate to conserve and manage wildlife in Kenya, and to enforce related laws and regulations, is not geared towards profit –making. For this reason GOK is often required to fund KWS operations from annual Government Budget estimates. In 2010/2011 financial year this was KSh.740 million representing 13% of the total KWS budget. The total amount contributed by the other partners including USAID was KSh.581million representing 10% of the budget for the year. Omitting budgetary support from GoK and other partners would be misleading and referring to the Net deficit of KSh.402 million would be more appropriate to the users of the statement of comprehensive income. 22 positive steps were taken to revise the Wildlife Policy and Bill, the current draft has been influenced by various interested parties such that in its current form, the Bill will maintain the status quo. In the absence of an appropriate enabling environment KWS will continue to be hampered in consolidating progressive wildlife conservation initiative in the country, particularly outside the protected area system. The net result is that wildlife populations are predicted to continue to decline. KWS is not coping to meet its mandate: the increasing human population and land use changes that are taking place and are poised to accelerate in the future are placing pressure on wildlife outside the protect area's which in turn will place further pressure on KWS’s financial and human resources (especially technically skilled persons). As a result, KWS will continue to rely on donors and NGO’s to fill the budget gap and meet the demands from local communities. KWS is about to embark on implementing KWS 2.0 – a strategy that is dependent on whether the new Wildlife Bill provides the appropriate enabling environment. It is also doing so in the absence of significant donor funding, particularly in areas outside of the protected areas. Recommendations It’s been 10 years since the last review of the wildlife sector. There is now a need to repeat this exercise in the light of the new constitution that is advocating devolving user rights to Counties. KWS should develop and over-arching framework to support new Wildlife Bill and coordinate all stakeholders involved in implementing the conservation policy and associated 5-year strategy (KWS 2.0). KWS, in conjunction with USAID, should develop a new program focusing on supporting the KWS 2012 - 2017 Strategic Plan and in particular consolidate conservation initiative outside of the protected areas. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 1. WCP successfully contributed towards turning around a dysfunctional organisation into a well￾managed institution with a clear vision of how it will fulfil its mandate. 2. WCP successfully put the “product” on the ground, albeit it with some difficulty due to cumbersome procurement procedures. 3. WCP has been able to adapt and modify its approach to implementing some of the planned activities in absence of the Wildlife Policy and Bill. In this regard, WCP has not moved away from the objectives laid out in the respective Strategic Plans. 4. The draft Bill, in present form, will maintain the status quo of how wildlife is currently being managed. This approach is unlikely to reverse the decline in wildlife in the country. 5. KWS deficit will continue to grow without donor support. It needs to become a “leaner, meaner institution” in order to address the challenges facing the wildlife sector. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (TO USAID) 1. USAID should assist KWS to develop a master plan for wildlife sector that coordinates all stakeholders and builds capacity in KWS to become a policy/regulatory body and not an implementer. This support should also address rolling out KWS 2.0. 2. Future contracting mechanism needs to be simple, flexible and able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances in the country and KWS needs. In this regard, the USAID Forward FAR 23 mechanism seems to be the most appropriate way forward as this offers the greatest flexibility in project design i.e. by objective or region,. 3. The capacity of KWS to absorb large projects needs to be assessed. For example, should such a large project be implemented in-house or through a subcontract to manage the requirements associated with FAR? SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (TO KWS) 1. Government has been pulled in different directions by various interested parties regarding the Wildlife Policy. KWS needs the full spectrum of tools at its disposal to successfully manage conservation imitative inside and outside of protected areas. It therefore needs to advocate for a Bill that supports all options to sustainably utilise and conserve Kenya’s wildlife. 2. KWS should be the overall policy and regulatory agency driving the conservation agenda in the country. 3. It is necessary to re-think rangeland conservation policies and large scale integrated land management strategies. 4. With the help of its NGO partners, KWS should identify the tools that all stakeholders can use to reduce vulnerability of wildlife and pastoral communities. 5. KWS, through its CED Community Enterprise Development Division, should take the lead in formulating an overarching policy that is implemented through its partners rather than become an implementing agency. LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE USAID NRM PROJECTS 1. It is not possible to effectively implement a NRM project in a policy/regulatory vacuum. 2. Funding mechanisms must be flexible and able to adapt expeditiously to changing circumstances. 24 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK STATEMENT OF WORK C.1. BACKGROUND USAID’s support of Kenya’s environmental sector dates back to the 1970s. Wildlife management has been a focus since 1992, beginning with the Conservation of Bio diverse Resource Areas (COBRA) project, followed by the Conservation of Resources through Enterprises (CORE) project, and the on￾going $2.0 million Wildlife Conservation Program (WCP). The previous programs built significant management and technical capacity within Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), including operationalization of KWS’ community wildlife service department, institutionalization of the central monitoring and evaluation unit; strengthening of the rhino management unit; establishment of the ecological monitoring, and strengthening of the forestry coordination unit. C.1.1. Program Goal The goal of this activity is to enhance economic growth and biodiversity conservation for the sustainable benefit of the people of Kenya and as a world heritage. Under the Wildlife Conservation Project (WCP), USAID supports specific actions to boost park management systems. These include strengthening management of select Protected Areas (PAs), including wild fire management; upgrading the “Smartcard” system; and improving the overall information management system and corporate capacity of KWS. The project also supports biodiversity conservation more firmly rooted in science through activities such as wildlife monitoring, national strategies for endangered species, strengthening the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) unit, and use of park management plans. The program also includes formulation of conservation strategies for highly endangered species, including sea turtles, lions and spotted hyenas. C.1.2. Program Objectives The specific objectives of this program include: 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network; 2. To strengthen the capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs and, 3. To facilitate adoption of policies and strategies that will promote improved wildlife management and biodiversity conservation among communities. C.1.3 Program Activities The KWS/USAID partnership has been implemented through a Project Implementation Letter (PIL) with the Government of Kenya, as amended, that provides for direct funding to KWS to implement KWS priorities. This project builds on an array of activities that have been implemented through PIL No 8 that began in 2006, as amended six times – the latest being a no-cost extension of the program from June 30, 2012 to February 28, 2013. 25 The initial areas of focus have been adjusted to include new activities, as warranted by the situation in the country. The conservation of sea turtles, lions, spotted hyenas and securing and restoring Mau Forest, for example, were added through amendments to the original implementation letter. Phase I: July 2006 – June 2010 In July 2006, four KWS sections submitted a joint work plan and budget to USAID for support during the period 1 July 2006 through 30 June 2010, as follows:  Protected Area management (PAs), including wild fire management  Institutional Management Strengthening (IMS)  Applied Research & Biodiversity Monitoring, which included endangered species conservation,  strengthening of CITEs, bio-prospecting and Turtle conservation; and  Community Wildlife Service (CWS), including a sandalwood conservation strategy Phase II: June 2012 – February 2013 Current activities are a mix of overall KWS institutional capacity development support, strategy development support, site-specific investments, and research:  Construction of the Kimana Gate in Amboseli National Park  Habitat management in Amboseli National Park (for habitat rehabilitation and range management; wildfire management; and invasive species management)  Upgrading of the Safari Card Revenue Collection System nationally  Support to the KWS Integrated Database System  Lion research project in Tsavo National Park (and lion collaring in Nairobi National Park)  Development of a Bio prospecting Strategy  Development of the Sea Turtle Strategy  General Management Plan for Olerai Community Conservancy  Executing a business plan for Olerai Conservancy  Feasibility studies of six community conservation areas (Rimpa, Empaash, Yatta B, Mailua, Kipwa and Blue Post) in Nairobi National Park ecosystem to establish their viability as proposed conservancies.  Co-management on securing rights to land and natural resources for biodiversity and livelihoods in the North Coast (Boni, Dodori and Kiunga), including development of a Management Plan for the area, dubbed “KiBoDo”. 26 Figure 1 provides a geographic orientation of current project sites. C.2.1. Overview Under this task order, MSI shall conduct a final performance evaluation of USAID/Kenya’s support to the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). The purpose of this evaluation is to measure and document the achievements and areas requiring improvement in the current project as a way to gain insights and acquire lessons learned on the on-going partnership between USAID and KWS. The KWS/USAID partnership has been implemented through a PIL, as amended, that provides for direct funding to KWS to implement KWS priorities. As such, the approach appears to have anticipated much of what is intended under the current USAID Forward business model. Therefore, MSI shall also examine the experience of the relationship in light of USAID’s current effort to work through local institutions. The current project builds on a series of activities dating back to August 2006. Since none of those activities has been evaluated, USAID/Kenya/Agriculture Business Environment Office (ABEO) felt the time was ripe to take stock of progress to date, the strategy and mechanisms employed, the KWS/USAID partnership overall, and to consider the way forward. Thus, while the exercise is a “final” evaluation of a project targeted to end 28 February 2013, it is also a “formative” evaluation of a potentially on-going and important bilateral relationship, and a “retrospective” review of joint experience in the partnership. The audience for this evaluation is USAID’s Agriculture, Business and Environment Office (ABEO) and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). The results of the evaluation will be used to assist KWS and USAID to determine whether to continue this partnership and, if so, in what form. C.2.2. Key Evaluation Questions To gather information in support of the purpose of the evaluation, the MSI shall address the following questions (in priority order): 1. Has the project achieved the objectives and outcomes stated in C.1.2. and C.1.3, and did those lead to the intended goal? If not, identify why not (was the development hypothesis flawed in some way?) and provide recommendations for strengthening the development approach that was used. 2. Has the strategic focus of the program been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID? Are there ways in which it could be improved? 27 3. Has the mechanism of support (direct funding via PILs) been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID, including the new USAID Forward business model? Are there ways in which it could be improved? 4. Considering this project, and its predecessors, are there improved strategic and operational approaches to a future partnership in light of current KWS priorities? C.2.3. Evaluation Design and Data Collection Methods MSI shall propose a design and methodology to generate the highest quality and most credible evidence that corresponds to the questions being asked in Section C.2.2 using sound social science practices and tools used in a manner that minimizes the need for evaluator-specific judgments. To facilitate this, the following documents are provided:  2006 Implementation.pdf  2008-9 Impl Ltr.doc  2004-5 Work Plan.doc  2005-6 Work Plan.xls  2007-8 Work Plan.doc  2008-9 Impl Ltr.doc  2012 Work Plan.xls C.2.4. KEY PERSONNEL The team shall include senior-level M&E and natural resource management / protected area expertise. It will also include one member from KWS, who will participate in data collection to the extent that KWS schedules permit, and who will be required to contribute to the analysis leading to findings, conclusions and recommendations. Locally hired staff should be utilized when qualified individuals are available. Page 8 of 18 28 ANNEX 2: EVALUATION METHODS Evaluation methodology The evaluation design and methods used to conduct the requested evaluation of the Wildlife Conservation Program (WCP), implemented by Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), are driven largely by Evaluation Question 1 and 4, which examines whether and to what degree the project achieved intended results, at multiple levels, over the period 2006-2012. Answering these questions will also involve reconstructing of the project’s evolution as well as the evolution of KWS, as an organization, and Kenya’s approach to wildlife conservation over this period. Evaluation Question 4 in particular examines whether predecessor projects implemented by KWS can inform options and recommendations for future approaches to the USAID/Kenya – KWS partnership. By addressing these two questions, much of the data generated will allows the Evaluation Team to respond to Evaluation Question 2, that considers the appropriateness of the strategic focus of USAID’s work through KWS. Multiple sources of evidence, representing a range of perspectives will be assembled by the Evaluation Team. The range and type of evidence will involve both qualitative and quantitative data that can generate credible evidence that can be analyzed using a mixed method in an integrated manner that gives appropriate weight to the views of key stakeholders. The Team will work directly with USAID to identify options with respect to implementation mechanisms for the future of its partnership with KWS (Question 3) and will analyze these options in relation to findings on Evaluation Questions 1, 2 and 4 to reach conclusions with respect to Evaluation Question 3. EVALUATION DESIGN An initial review of the WCP and its predecessor projects identified five distinct time blocks for which evidence will be needed to address the SOW’s evaluation questions. While the evaluation’s focus will be primarily on the last two of these time periods, significant aspects of earlier periods in the history of the USAID/Kenya – Kenya Wildlife Service have significant bearing on more recent strategies and achievements. While the three early periods shown in Table 1 will not receive the same degree of attention as the final two, parallel data collection and analysis methods (where feasible) will be used to obtain and interpret evidence across this full historical span. Table 1: Timeline of WCP and its predecessor projects Pre-2000 2000-2004 2005 2006-2010 2010-2012  COBRA Project  CORE Project  Wildlife Assessment  New KWS Director  WCP Proposal Development  Initial WCP Implementati on Period  Later WCP Implementati on Period  No-Cost Extensions 29 Across this timeline and particularly with reference to the 2006-2012 periods the evaluation design will assess WCP at three distinct levels:  The institutional level, i.e., how KWS’s strategies, procedures and human capital changed over the course of the WCP.  The operational level, i.e., how KWS management of the protected areas changed over the course of the WCP;  The status of wildlife level, which will involve a secondary source analysis of outcomes at the wildlife status level over the time period and factors within and beyond the WCP that may have influenced changes at this level. Research to date on the WCP indicates that no formal baseline study was conducted at the start of the project. Nor, it appears, were performance targets established for the project at the objective level to monitor project performance beyond the activity and output level. The Evaluation Team will investigate if it will be possible to estimate change over the project period or identify alternative indicators from earlier project documents. MSI will supplement this overall approach with more detailed approaches for examining each of the three functional levels at which project effects were anticipated. 1) Institutional level: The evaluation team is borrowing concepts from USAID’s NGO Sustainability Assessment model, which uses narrative descriptions along a performance scale to examine aspects that NGOs contribute to their performance. For KWS, it is anticipated being able to characterize six aspects of institutional status “before” and “after” the WCP, as illustrated in Table 2. Table 2: Characterization of six aspects of institutional status over time Institutional Aspects Before After Program – protected area management policies, strategies and practices Program – management policies, strategies and practices beyond protected areas Accountability – Program M&E practices 30 Institutional Aspects Before After Financial Management – Budgeting, Revenue Generation Human Capital – Hiring, Training, Career Development 2) Operational Level: At this level the focus will be on WCP project work plans and higher level project objectives. Performance will be examined in terms of the degree to which intended results were achieved as well as conformance with expectations about the schedule for implementing activities, producing outputs, and achieving outcomes. Some overlap is anticipated between this operational level review and the examination of changes over time at the institutional level. 3) Wildlife Status Level: The primary secondary source for this level is the USAID/Kenya 2004 Wildlife Assessment, and a number of secondary sources that will be helpful for characterizing the status of Kenya’s wildlife in the late WCP implementation period. DATA COLLECTION To ensure completeness and validity of the evidence, the Evaluation Team will use a mix of data collection methods in this evaluation (see Table 3). Additional detail on each method and its application in this evaluation is provided below and in Annex 3: Getting to Answers. Table 3: Data collection methods for the four evaluation questions Data Collection Methods Evaluation Questions Secondary Source Data 1,2,3,4 Site Visits (utilizing mixed methods) 1,2 Group Interviews 1, 4 Key Informant and other Individual Stakeholder Interviews 1,2,3,4 Observation 1, 2 Aerial Survey Data, internal KWS reports 1 31 Secondary Source Data In order to answer Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Team will conduct an in-depth review of documents and records to enable them to build a historical timeline of the program from its inception to closure. This will include understanding the environment in which the program was started, the development of work plans over the years, the approval of amended Implementation Letters, the implementation and monitoring of activities, achievement of milestones and use of financial resources. For Question 1 in particular, multiple and possibly conflicting information from secondary sources will help the team determine the degree of consensus among stakeholders on specific issues, and a divergence of perceptions at given points in time will serve as a signal to the team to probe further using other data collection methods to develop a holistic view of what occurred, and how changes the evaluation team detects were viewed across the range of project stakeholders. Documents Consulted A. Work Plans, Log Frames, Performance Monitoring Plans 1. 2012 Work Plan 2. (Copy of) USAID-KWS July 2012-Dec 2012 work plan revision extension 3. 2005-6 Work Plan 4. KWS 2006-2007 Work Plan 5. Final Log frame _KWS; Feb 2010 6. KWS 2006-2010 Work Plan 7. KWS Performance Contract 2012-2013 8. KWS Performance Contract Report Q1 FY 2012-2013 9. Organizational Structure 10. USAID-KWS 2008-09 Work Plan and Indicator Sheet 11. 2007-8 Work Plan 12. 2004-5 Work Plan 13. Performance Monitoring Plan for SO5: Improved Natural Resource Management in Targeted Biodiverse Areas by and for Stakeholders. February 2004 14. Draft Final Report. Mid-term evaluation of USAID/Kenya NRM Projects B. Financial 1. (Copy of) KWS 2006-2010 budget 2. KWS PIL Financial Plan 2004-2005 3. KWS PIL Financial Plan 2004-2005 re-alignment 4. KWS 2006 no cost extension budget 5. KWS final budget Oct 2003 to June 04 6. KWS 2006-2010 budget July 2006 7. KWS Financial Statements as at 30 June 2011 C. Implementation Letters & Extension Memos 1. 2007-8 Implementation Letter 2. 2006 Implementation 3. 2008-9 Implementation Letter 4. Action Memo: no cost extension 2005 to 2006 32 5. Action Memo: no cost extension 2007 to 2008 6. Extension IL#8; 2010-2011 7. KWS draft PIL 2004-2005 8. KWS 2006 no cost extension IL 9. KWS signed IL 2010 (to extend to 2012) 10. Extension IL#8; WCP 11. Extension IL#8; WCP letter updated 12. Sign IL No cost extension 2012 13. Signed memo no cost extension 2012 D. Strategic Plans 1. KWS Strategic Plan 2005 - 2010 2. KWS Strategic Plan 2008 - 2012 3. KWS Community Enterprise Strategic Plan 2012-2017 4. Olerai Community Management Plan 5. Proposed Bio prospecting Strategy 6. KWS final strategic plan 2009 - 2012 7. USAID Kenya Strategy Statement 2006-11 - without budget 8. KWS Draft Strategy 2.0 E. Project Progress Reports 1. Asset Registry Phase II Progress Report 3; 2007 2. June 2008 Progress Report 3. KISTCON Progress Report Nov 2009 (Turtle Conservation) 4. KWS-USAID Jan-Nov 2011 Report 5. MIST Progress Report Jan-Nov 2011 6. KWS HCPA Report 7. KWS no-cost extension July-Oct 2008 8. KWS Signed IL Amend 8 (2010) 9. Safari card Status Report 10. USAID-KWS 2008-09 Work Plan and Indicator Sheet 11. Wildlife Conservation Program Annual Report 2009 - 2010 12. Wildlife Conservation Program 2006 - 2010 Work Plan: Progress Report For July 2006 To June 2007 13. USAID Wildlife Conservation Programme: Th Quarter Report Fy 2007/08 14. USAID Component Reporting : Component: Protected Area Management - Habitat Management In Southern Conservation Area 15. KWS/USAID Wildlife Conservation Programme: Progress Report October 2012. So5: Improved Environment And Natural Resource Management In Targeted, Biodiverse Areas (Project No. 615-005.01) F. Annual Reports - KWS 1. Annual Report - 2009 2. Annual Report - 2010 3. Annual Report - 2011 33 4. Annual Report - 2012 G. Evaluation 1. NRM Mid-term evaluation of USAID/Kenya NRM Projects 2012 2. Host Country Procurement And Financial Management Assessments Of Kenya Wildlife Services (Kws) By PricewaterhouseCoopers - July 2010 3. USAID Wildlife Sector Performance Monitoring Plan Feb 2010 4. Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE): Mid-term Evaluation Final Report. July 2002 5. Policy On Establishment Of Conservancies, Training And Management Of County Reserve, Private And Community Rangers 6. The goals and objectives of the training from KWS perspective 7. The Wildlife Bill, July 2011 8. Kenya Wildlife Service statement on status of wildlife conservation 9. Draft Wildlife Policy, 8 July 2011, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, Republic of Kenya 10. Fact sheet on Wildlife Security and Human Wildlife Conflict issues 11. Report on Kenya Wildlife Sector Assessment 12. USAID/Kenya: Improved Management of Natural Landscapes and Climate Resilient Development A Multi-year Strategy for Natural Resources and Global Climate Change Management FY 2012 - 2017 Site Visits Four site visits are anticipated covering two protected areas (parks) and one conservancy, namely:  Amboseli National Park  Tsavo East National Park  Olerai Community Conservancy The criteria used to select these sites included: (a) the size of the protected area (PA), (b) how the park area and the community relate to each other, and (c) diversity of alternate livelihood options for surrounding communities, and (d) degree of interface between community incomes and the wildlife population. On site the evaluation team will utilize key informant and group interviews and observation techniques discussed further below. Key Informant and other Individual Stakeholder Interviews 34 The evaluation team will conduct interviews with key informants4 and other individual stakeholders to gather data on all four evaluation questions. As in the case of document review, key stakeholders will be drawn from KWS, USAID and sources external to these two organizations. Key informants for this study to be interviewed are selected purposively (e.g., on a criteria basis (staff position held) and include specific KWS senior staff (e.g. in finance, customer service, tourism and research). Interviews will be on a one-on-one basis. The evaluators will also interview individuals who are not associated with either KWS or USAID but may be impacted by both WCP specifically and wildlife conservation in Kenya generally. These include:  Oleria Conservancy Management Committees  The Kenya Association of Tour Operators  NGOs: Given that there are many NGOs operating in the wildlife sector in Kenya, the Evaluation Team will focus only on the major organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), African Wildlife Fund (AWF), East African Wildlife Society (EAWS), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and African Conservation Center (ACC). Somewhere around a dozen interviews are anticipated in this category. Observation During site visits the Team will have an opportunity to observe and record data on processing times and other aspects of park management that will facilitate comparisons between sites and against policies, procedures and KWS performance reporting. Aerial Survey Data, Internal KWS reports To detect changes over time, the evaluation team will access census data (where feasible). Kenya has longitudinal aerial survey data that captures wildlife population changes over time. It will also review reports and published material available from KWS and the internet. DATA ANALYSIS 4 “Key informants” are defined as individual who have specialized knowledge in an area of expertise or because of their oversight position with respect to an area, population, project or other domain. The distinction between “key informants” and other respondents or stakeholders, who can general speak only to their own experience, is consistent with the use of this term in USAID’s TIPS on Conducting Key Informant Interviews. 35 A variety of analysis methods will be used to enable the Team to answer the four evaluation questions. Analysis methods are matched to evaluation questions as well as to data collection methods shown in the Table 5 below. Table 4: Analysis methods matched to evaluation questions Data Analysis Methods Evaluation Questions Planned/Actual Comparisons 1 Trend analysis 1, 2 Response Convergence / Divergence analysis 1,2,3, 4 Pattern/Content Analysis 1,2,4 Mixed Methods Integration/Findings Synthesis 1,2,3,4 Contribution Analysis 1 Post-Analysis Workshop/Stakeholder Consultation 1,2,3,4 Analysis methods that will be used include:  Planned/Actual Comparisons Comparisons of this type will be used most extensively in the examination of the WCP work plans and performance data in reports and in the KWS performance indicator database, its planned and actual timing of activities and outputs and its planned versus actual expenditure patterns within and across project components.  Trend Analysis / Comparison over the project period In order to answer Questions 1 and 2, which capture the extended period of time covered by the project, the Evaluation Team will document trends and break segments of the project timeline into segments to make institutional, operational and wildlife status “then and now” comparisons as discussed above. Points in time for the project will be characterized as ‘the early years’ and ‘the later years’ without specifying the actual year. This is because the actual years may change based on when key issues observed.  Pattern/Content Analysis At the question level as well as at the site visit level, qualitative data will be examine for patterns so that comparisons can be made between respondents and sites. This will involve both broad patterns and the more detailed examination of how different respondents answered the same 36 question, e.g., park wardens, ranger groups, NGOs. As the numbers of individual and sites involved in this evaluation is small, it will not be possible to use qualitative analysis software but will instead review interview notes by hand to code patterns of response across individuals or groups.  Response Convergence / Divergence analysis With several sets of key informants and other types of respondents, the evaluation team anticipates using common questions in both group and individual interviews with the intention of comparing answers, e.g., across park wardens, or between KWS and NGOs or USAID informants. On common questions the team will examine the degree of convergence/divergence in responses. Divergent responses may prompt follow-up interviews by phone or other actions aimed at explaining divergence in the reporting of facts or provision of organizational or individual perceptions and opinions.  Mixed Methods Integration/Findings Synthesis In mixed methods evaluations an essential element of the data analysis involves integrating data from various methods to arrive at findings. This synthesis process sometimes involves a form of convergence/divergence analysis for examining data coming from different methods, e.g., observation and interviews. Where different methods produce conflicting evidence, the Evaluation Team will, to the extent possible, double back to examine why these data conflict. Equally important is the process used by the Team to weight the data from various methods in arriving at both statements of finding and conclusions. Invariably some types of data are stronger than others, in the sense that they are more reliable or inherently trustworthy. At the same time, it cannot be said that quantitative data are automatically stronger or merit greater weight than qualitative data on a particular question. The Teams data analysis process as it moves toward the documentation of its findings will involve a deliberate effort to identify the specific lines of evidence available for answering each question and transparent process within the Team for deciding what weigh should be given to each line of evidence in the team synthesis of findings.  Post-Analysis Workshop/Stakeholder Consultation Following the analysis, the Team will conduct a workshop with KWS and USAID to discuss initial findings, conclusions and recommendations. Based on discussions and agreements reached at this workshop, the Team will amend its findings, conclusions and recommendations as warranted and present its final conclusions and recommendations to USAID at a debrief meeting before preparing a full draft version of their report. 37 ANNEX 3: GETTING TO ANSWERS Evaluation question Type of answer/ evidence Source Method Sampling/ selection Data analysis methods 1. Has the project achieved the objectives and outcomes stated in C.1.2 and C.1.3, and did those lead to the intended goal? If not, identify why not (was the development hypothesis flawed in some way?) and provide recommendations for strengthening the development approach that was used. Explanation Comparison Description Documents - WCP progress reports - KWS annual reports - KWS work plans - USAID wildlife sector assessment - Scientific reports on wildlife status, community programs Database - W&CS database Individuals - USAID staff - current and former - KWS – current and former staff; Park Wardens, Rangers, Finance, Customer Service, Research Dept. - NGOs: IUCN, WWF, AWF, EAWS, TNC - Community Leaders (Conservancy Management Committees & Managers) - Private Sector: Kenya Association of Tour Operators, park visitors Secondary Source Review Site Visits Group interviews Key Informant Interviews Observation Aerial Survey Data / Photographs / Documentary Films Purposive (criteria) sampling of sites, NGOs Convenience sampling of park visitors and tour operators Quota sampling of KWS Rangers Criteria sampling for KWS and USAID staff Planned/Actual Comparisons Trend analysis Response convergence and divergence analysis Pattern / Content Analysis Mixed methods integration / findings synthesis Contribution analysis Post-analysis workshop / stakeholder consultation 38 Evaluation question Type of answer/ evidence Source Method Sampling/ selection Data analysis methods 2. Has the strategic focus of the program been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID? Are there ways in which it could be improved? Description Comparison Documents - USAID Kenya Strategy - KWS Strategic Plans (2005-2010, 2008 – 2012) - Financial Documents - KWS 2006-2010 Work Plan - 2004 Wildlife Sector Assessment - Conservation and Management Strategies - Community Management Plans USAID & KWS staff -former and current Secondary Source Review Site Visits Key Informant Interviews Observation Criteria sampling for KWS and USAID staff Trend analysis Response convergence and divergence analysis Pattern / Content Analysis Mixed methods integration / findings synthesis Post-analysis workshop / stakeholder consultation Evaluation question Type of answer/ evidence Source Method Sampling/ selection Data analysis methods 3. Has the mechanism of support (direct funding via PILs) been appropriate for the development and institutional objectives of KWS and USAID, including the new USAID Forward business model? Are there ways in which it could be improved? Description Comparison USAID & KWS current staff, including USAID G2G team, contracting team Secondary Source Review Key Informant Interviews Criteria sampling for KWS and USAID staff Response convergence and divergence analysis Mixed methods integration / findings synthesis Post-analysis workshop / stakeholder consultation 39 Evaluation question Type of answer/ evidence Source Method Sampling/ selection Data analysis methods 4. Considering this project, and its predecessors, are there improved strategic and operational approaches to a future partnership in light of current KWS priorities? Description Comparison Answers to Evaluation Questions 1, 2 and 3 Documents - CORE & COBRA Project Documents - 2004 Wildlife Assessment Report - KWS 2012-2017 Strategic Plan - GoK Wildlife Policy and Act Individuals - KWS & USAID staff – former and current Secondary Source Review Group interviews Key Informant Interviews Criteria sampling for KWS and USAID staff Response convergence and divergence analysis Pattern / Content Analysis Mixed methods integration / findings synthesis Post-analysis workshop / stakeholder consultation 40 ANNEX 4: TOPICS OF INQUIRY DURING SITE VISITS The evaluation team has identified the initial topics of inquiry that will be covered in the questions posed to the different groups. Instruments are under development for each of the data collection methods that the team will use. In the development of the instruments, consideration is being given to balancing the need for a flexible approach to data collection, as necessitated by the unique attributes of various conservation areas, with the need for replicability should USAID wish to conduct a similar evaluation in the future. At Ranger level  Assess basic background information o How long have the Ranger(s) been in KWS/at this location o What are their positions/ranks? o What are their operating procedures? o Do they have adequate patrol equipment o What reporting/feedback mechanisms do they use  Training o What training have they undergone? o When (including any refresher courses) o Was this useful? o What other training do they think will be useful?  Problems o Describe the types of day-to-day problems/challenges that you face  PAC  Anti-poaching  Tourist management  With different animals  Livelihoods (housing, schooling etc.)  Impressions on wildlife/conservation o Are the wildlife populations increasing/decreasing o Which species and over what time o Reasons for increase/decrease  Dealing with public o Local communities o Tourists o Government officials o Their attitude towards KWS o Attitude towards wildlife  Any other issues 41 At Warden Level  Assess basic background information o How long has the Warden been in KWS/at this location o Area of responsibility o Describe the working relationship/linkages with HQ and other institutions o What are the station operating procedures? o Access to budgets o Access to communications o is there adequate patrol equipment o What reporting/feedback mechanisms do they use  Park management o Is there a management plan o How is it being implemented o How are AWP produced/approved o Any issues with this approach?  Training o What training have they undergone? o When (including any refresher courses) o Was this useful? o What other training do they think will be useful?  Problems o Describe the types of day-to-day problems/challenges that they face  PAC  Anti-poaching  Tourist management  With different animals  Infrastructure (e.g. road and fence maintenance)  Impressions on wildlife/conservation o Are the wildlife populations increasing/decreasing o Which species and over what time o Reasons for increase/decrease o Maintenance and effectiveness of fences o Opinion of key animals strategies  Implementation  Are these showing results  Data collection and feedback o What monitoring systems are used o Does the system work o It is useful o Interactions with MIST 42 o Safari Card  Dealing with public o Local communities (including cooperation) o Tourists o Govt. officials o Their attitude towards KWS o Attitude towards wildlife  Any other issues At Community Based Organization level  Structure of CBO o Brief history of its formation o How it operates o Anticipated benefits  Management plan o Describe the process o What are the expectations o Does this meet their needs o What is missing o What are their expectations  Training o What training has the CBO undergone? o When o Was this useful? o What other training do they think will be useful?  Problems o Describe the types of day-to-day problems/challenges that they face  Impressions on wildlife/conservation o Are the wildlife populations increasing/decreasing o Which species and over what time o Reasons for increase/decrease o Maintenance and effectiveness of mitigation methods  fences  Dealing with other stakeholders o Local communities o Tourists and tour operators o Govt. officials o Their attitude towards KWS o Attitude towards wildlife  Any other issues 43 ANNEX 5: EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The Evaluation Team encountered several limitations that impacted on its performance, and on the methodology approach described above. This required that the Team had to adjust its approach in the field as more information and clarity became available with the acquisition of key foundation documentation. These limitations are listed below:  Delayed access to foundation documents and project performance data The Evaluation Team was not provided with a full set of documents related WCP e.g. the initial project proposal, approved project document, approved work plans and budgets, or annual reports. The documents provided in the SOW introduced a level of confusion at the outset of the evaluation as these did not align to the actual process on the ground. For example:  the file labeled “2006 Implementation.pdf” is the letter of approval from USAID (Implementation Letter No 8, dated 4th August 2006).  The file labeled 2008 – 9 Impl Ltr.doc is the Implementation Letter, Amendment 2 refers to the KWS’ FY07/08 work plan activities (not 2008 – 9) After requesting to see the relevant Project Document, the Evaluation Team was sent a file labeled “4 Year Work Plan USAID Ver. 4.0 (28th December 2005).doc”. It was against this document and the accompanying work plans that the Evaluation Team began to construct its approach to the evaluation. It soon became evident that the objectives in this document did not correspond to the subsequent WCP annual work plans. The Evaluation Team then approached KWS and was provided with a photocopy of the original document: “Wildlife Conservation Program 2006 – 2010 Work Plan” dated July 28th, 2006” and labeled “Draft Ver. 2.0A USAID/KWS Work plan”. This document was signed by Mission Director, USAID and the Director of KWS dated 2/11/06.5 During the course of the evaluation and after interviews with various persons involved with WCP, the Evaluation Team was made aware of other key documentation (annual reports, copies of signed Implementation Letters, work plans in excel format etc.). These were sent through to the Team at various stages that then had to review and adjust its approach as the new information became available  Availability and short tenure of key KWS staff 5 The Evaluation Team does not have an electronic copy of this document. 44 In the original methodology, it was the intention of the Evaluation Team to interview a broad range of KWS staff in the field to cross reference information and data concerning the implementation of WCP. What was found was that many of the senior staff had only either recently moved to a particular station or had recently joined KWS. Their institutional memory of events and activities related to WCP were therefore limited. As a result, the Team had to adjust its approach in order to gain an understanding of the achievements of WCP on the ground.  Confusing chronology and structure of key documents Having arrived at a point where the Evaluation Team was satisfied that it had received the bulk of the documentation, it set about summarizing the data. However this process proved to be extremely difficult as little attention was paid to correctly labeling the electronic documents. In particular no dates were provided to track the history of the paper trail and very often the electronic files were incorrectly labeled. Added to this was that there was little consistency to the way work plans (for example) were structured and formatted. This made the comparison from one year to the next extremely difficult.  Availability of population trend data (aerial and ground surveys) The intention of the Evaluation Team was to obtain data on wildlife population trends to gauge whether there had been a positive (or negative) impact on protected area management during the life of WCP. This information is available at KWS, however despite requests for these data, none has been provided. The Evaluation Team as therefore had to alternative source for this information.  Budget management WCP has operated on a series of Implementation Letters (7 in all) since its inception. Each year KWS has requested a “no cost extension” and has rolled over various amounts of money from the previous year’s budget. The Evaluation Team has not been provided with a summary of the budgets or budget management. It therefore cannot draw any conclusions to answer points raised in SOW Question 3. 45 ANNEX 6: SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENTS Work plan WCP Component USAID SO5 SOW Evaluation Objective Number WCP "Objectives" or "Subcomponent” Number of activities Number activities completed % completed activities Phase 1: 2006 - 2010 Work plan: 2005 - 2006 Total number of objectives, activities and % completed: 2005 - 2006 22 76 36 47% 1 Facilitation of an Enabling Policy/Legal and Institutional Framework I.R. 5.4 NRM & Environment al policy and legislative reform advanced Not aligned to any objective 0 8 This activity was removed from the WCP work program and implemented separately under the auspices of the Ministry N/A under WCP 2 Integrated management, information and monitoring systems. I.R. 5.3 Improved management of protected areas 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network 8 23 18 78% 3 Increasing the constituency for conservation through identification and application of innovative tools for securing land for conservation I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas 3. To facilitate adoption of policies and strategies that will promote improved wildlife management and biodiversity conservation among communities 4 14 2 14% 4 Science based conservation to enhance protected and non-protected areas management. I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas & 5.3 improved management of protected areas 2. To strengthen the capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs 7 27 15 56% 46 Work plan WCP Component USAID SO5 SOW Evaluation Objective Number WCP "Objectives" or "Subcomponent” Number of activities Number activities completed % completed activities 5. Human Resource Capacity Development I.R. 5.3: Improved management of protected areas 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network; 3 4 1 25% Phase 1: 2006 - 2010 Work plan: 2008-2009 Total number of objectives, activities and % completed: 2008 - 2009 10 37 23 62% 1 Protected Area Management I.R. 5.3: Improved management of protected areas 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network; 2 2 100% 2 Integrated management, information and monitoring systems. 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network; 1 7 6 86% 3 Increasing the constituency for conservation through identification and application of innovative tools for securing land for conservation I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas 3. To facilitate adoption of policies and strategies that will promote improved wildlife management and biodiversity conservation among communities 3 10 3 30% 4 Science based conservation to enhance protected and non-protected areas management. I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas & 5.3 improved management of protected areas 2. To strengthen the capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs 6 18 12 67% 5. Human Resource Capacity I.R. 5.3: Improved management of protected 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s 1 3 1 33% 47 Work plan WCP Component USAID SO5 SOW Evaluation Objective Number WCP "Objectives" or "Subcomponent” Number of activities Number activities completed % completed activities Development areas protected area network; Phase 2: 2012 - Feb 2013 Work plan Total number of objectives, activities and % completed: 2012 - 2013 11 26 18 69% 1 Protected Area Management I.R. 5.3: Improved management of protected areas Constructio n of Gate at Kimana 1 1 1 100% 2 Integrated management, information and monitoring systems. 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network; 1 2 2 100% 3 Increasing the constituency for conservation through identification and application of innovative tools for securing land for conservation I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas 3. To facilitate adoption of policies and strategies that will promote improved wildlife management and biodiversity conservation among communities 2 9 7 78% 4 Science based conservation to enhance protected and non-protected areas management. I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas & 5.3 improved management of protected areas 2. To strengthen the capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs and, 6 11 7 64% 5. Human Resource Capacity Development I.R. 5.3: Improved management of protected areas 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network; 1 3 1 33% Overall total number of objectives, activities and % completed 43 139 77 55% 48 ANNEX 7: CHRONOLOGY OF IMPLEMENTATION LETTERS 1. Project Implementation Letters (PIL) Nos. 35 dated 10/1/2003 ii) KWS’ Letter dated October 13, 2004: KWS work plan for FY 2004 – 2005. Purpose of this letter was to: a. Provide USAID’s approval for an increased budget level for KWS approved 2003 – 2006 programs to support the wildlife policy and legislation review process. b. Extend IL No. 35 through June 30, 2005 c. Roll over balance from previous year’s IL No. 35 budget ($ 134,486) and earmark and commit a total of $377,357 to support November 2004 to June 2005 work plan at total of $511,843. 2. Implementation Letter Number 35 Amendment No. 4 Ref: (i) Kenya Wildlife Service Letter. Ref: KWS/357 Vol. VIII Dated February 15, 2006, (ii) Project Implementation Letter No. 35 Amendment No. 2 Dated July 15, 2005 Purpose of this letter was to: a. Concur with KWS’ request for a no-cost extension of the COBRA/CORE bridging work plan; and b. Amend IL No. 35 as follows: i. provide a new end date of September 30, 2006; and c. roll over the balance of US$ 153,142 to support KWS’ implementation of and reimbursement for the following previously agreed activities: a) KWS 2003 – 2004 financial year recipient￾contracted audit; b) development of institution-wide fixed assets register which was a key recommendation of the 2000-2002 audit; and c) Phase I of the Smartcard system upgrade. 3. Action Memorandum for the Mission Director: Date: March 6, 2006. Subject: Approval of the Kenya Wildlife Service six months no-cost extension request. In July 2005, USAID approved a five months (July 1 to November 30) bridging work plan to implement a set of priority transitional activities from COBRA/CORE pending completion of its 4 year proposal to be supported under the Mission’s new wildlife program. Among the activities envisaged for implementation included:  The wildlife policy review  Establishment of the KWS Asset Register  Training Needs Assessment  Finalization of key management plans  Upgrading the Smartcard system KWS delivered on most of these but failed to complete the training needs assessment (TNA) pending the completion of KWS’ five year strategic plan; the wildlife policy and legislation review process; and the implementation of the asset register and recipient contracted audit for FY 2003-04 which was delayed by procurement process. This 6-month no-cost extension thus facilitated the completion of these outstanding tasks but also provided the opportunity for KWS with support from USAID, to finalize the technical and financial aspects of the WCP that was due to run from June 2006 to June 2010 49 4. Wildlife Conservation Program: 2006-2007 Work Plan This undated work plan is a result of the proposal submitted to USAID. The activities identified planned to build on the gains made in the previous program but also included new activities to support the devolution and reform program of KWS. These therefore were geared towards addressing the objectives of the 2006-2010 corporate strategic plan and the 2004 Wildlife Sector Assessment report. The KWS-USAID partnership therefore aimed to support KWS in protecting natural ecosystems and biodiversity inside and outside its Protected Area estate and to assist USAID achieves development results under its Strategic Objective 5 (SO5). The purpose of the USAID funds were therefore to be used to develop management regimes, policy and legislation for wildlife conservation while making impacts as measured by indicators under the SO5 Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). This strategic support was “...expected to reorganize KWS and develop critical functions, while at the same time build capacity within KWS to meet expected new policy dimensions and strategic objectives.” Four result areas were identified: (i) Wildlife policy and legislative reforms coordination (ii) Integrated management, information and monitoring systems (iii) Increasing the constituency for conservation (iv) Science-based conservation to enhance management of protected and non-protected areas. The budget was: PROGRAM ELEMENT USAID US$ KWS US$ Protected Area Management 62,000 7,000 Institutional Management Strengthening 485,000 323,000 Applied Research & Biodiversity Monitoring 175,000 31,000 Community Wildlife Management 47,000 30,000 Audit & Evaluation 31,000 0 TOTAL 800,000 391,000 5. August 4th, 2006: Implementation letter (Ref KWS/367): USAID Development Assistance Grant Agreement No. 615 – 005 : Improved Natural Resource Management ; Wildlife Conservation Program - Kenya Wildlife Service Program Implementation Letter No. 8 Purpose of this letter was to: a. Approve 4-year (2006 – 2010) Wildlife Conservation Program b. Approve 1st year Work plan (2006 – 2007, see above) In July 2006, KWS produced the 2006 – 2010 Wildlife Conservation Project and submitted it to USAID for funding. The Evaluation Team received two versions of this document 50 c. Commit US$800,000 to implement AWP 1 d. Provide guidance to KWS on USAID procurement procedures This letter also approves the objectives and proposed implementation plan of the “Kenya Wildlife Service Wildlife Conservation Program, 2006 – 2010”. It also confirms that the proposed activities contribute to USAID’s natural resources management (NRM) program for Kenya. The overall proposed budget up to a maximum of US$2,000,000 is approved subject to program performance and availability of funds. However since USAID had not yet certified the KWS accounting and procurement procedures, the project was initially required to follow guidelines provided by USAID to jointly approve each step in the procurement process. The Team Leader of the USAID/Kenya’s NRM Strategic Objective (SO5) would approve such procurements. The funding mechanism provided to KWS was on a cost-reimbursement basis or via USAID direct payment to vendors. Under this method KWS would spend its own money and seek reimbursement on a monthly basis. Direct payments had to be supported by certified invoices, and receipt of all goods and services had to be acknowledged. Procurement by KWS was not to exceed US$2500. Audits were required according to USAID guidelines, and KWS were required to submit semi-annual (6- month) reports for monitoring purposes. The second report required KWS to submit a certified estimate of its matching contribution for that year work plan. 51 ANNEX 8: SUMMARY OF WCP BUDGET (US$), DATA PROVIDED BY KWS) Program Element USAID Total KWS Total USAID Balance KWS Balance: January 2013 USAID Spent KWS Spent Total spent % Spent Protected Area Management 333,000 40,000 121,834.05 50,217.92 211,165.95 (10,217.92) 200,948.03 60% Institutional Management Strengthening 690,000 346,000 - 87,841.52 690,000.00 258,158.48 948,158.48 137% Applied Research & Biodiversity Monitoring 524,000 103,000 34,699.41 18,568.62 489,300.59 84,431.38 573,731.97 109% Community Wildlife Management 324,000 128,000 188,982.05 4,834.36 135,017.95 123,165.64 258,183.59 80% Audit and Evaluation 129,000 3,000 39,664.37 10,902.71 89,335.63 (7,902.71) 81,432.92 63% Total 2,000,000 620,000 385,179.88 172,365.13 1,614,820.12 447,634.87 2,062,454.99 81% 52 ANNEX 9: SOURCES OF INFORMATION List of documents reviewed Andanje, S., Bundotich, G. and Maloba M. 2011. Management Information System (MIST) implementation Report. Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya DAI, 1999. Conservation of Bio diverse Resource Areas (COBRA) Project: Kenya (1992-1998): Summary Report Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development under the COBRA Project Contract number 623-0247-C-00-3002-00. Andrew Watson. February 1999. DAI 7250 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814. (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDABR137.pdf). Kipng’etich, Julius. 2012. Laying the Foundation for Conservation of Kenya’s Natural Resources in the 21st Century. The George Wright Forum, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 30–38 (2012). Kuloba, B. 2012. Annual Carnivore Researchers and Conservation Conference Proceedings, 26th-27th July 2012. Held at Nairobi Safari Walk. Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya. 36 pages. KWS 2005: KWS Strategic Plan 2005-2010. Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya KWS 2007. Establishment of a Fixed Assets Register. Progress Report 3, 27th November 2007, Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya KWS 2008: KWS Strategic Plan 2008-2012. Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya KWS 2011: Annual Report and Financial Statements, 2011. Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya KWS 2012: Wildlife stakeholders agree to formation of a national conservancies' body. Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya KWS 2012: KWS Strategic Plan 2.0. Draft Strategic Plan: 2012 – 2017. Kenya Wildlife Service. P. O. Box 40241 GPO 00100, Nairobi, Kenya MSI 2002: Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE): Mid-term Evaluation Final Report USAID/Kenya SO 5 Submitted by: Drew Lent, Team Leader, Strategy and OD Specialist Michael Fox, Enterprise Development Specialist Dr. Steven Njuguna, NRM Evaluation and Policy Specialist James Wahome, NRM Evaluation and OD Specialist. June 17, 2002, USAID Contract: AEP-I-00-00- 00024-00, Task Order No. 810 (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDABW589.pdf) Mwenja, I. 2008. The evolution of Kenya’s protectionist wildlife policy. SWARA October – December 2008 Wachira, N., Child, B., Ottichilo, W.K., Ka,meri-Mbote, Kimondo, G.K., Taita, S. 2004. Report on Kenya Wildlife Sector Assessment. Prepared for USAID/Kenya, by Wachira N Associates, Management Consultants, The Houdit House, No 20 Muhoho Avenue, Nairobi. April – June 2004. People Interviewed Name Organization Position Helene Carlson USAID/Kenya Program Officer, PDA Charles Mandivenyi USAID/Kenya Performance Management, Evaluation, and Learning Specialist, PDA Beatrice Wamalwa USAID/Kenya Program Management Specialist, ABEO Albert Waudo USAID/Kenya Project Management Assistant, ABEO Enock Kanyanya USAID/Kenya Forestry and Environmental Management Specialist, ABEO 53 Name Organization Position Ben Wandago USAID/Kenya Biodiversity and NRM Specialist, ABEO Mervyn Farroe USAID/Kenya Office Director, PDA Jane Mwangi USAID/Kenya Program Development Specialist, PDA Munira Bashir KWS HQ Community Enterprise Development Edwin Arum KWS HQ Senior Projects Accountant Dr Samuel Andanje KWS HQ Head of Ecological Monitoring Department Robert Leposo KWS HQ Safaricard Systems Administrator Lekishon Kenana KWS HQ Senior Research Scientist, Southern Conservation Area Richard Chepkirory KWS Senior Warden, Amboseli National Park McNichol Kitavi Kaloki KWS Tourism Warden, Amboseli National Park Stephen Mwiva KWS Research Scientist, Amboseli National Park Peter Kimani KWS Research Assistant, Amboseli National Park James Saoli KWS Corporal, Amboseli National Park Peter Wamoke KWS Ranger, Amboseli National Park Edith Kashumba KWS Ranger, Amboseli National Park Joseph Tembur KWS Driver, Amboseli National Park Benard Kuloba KWS HQ Carnivore Liaison Officer Charles Oluchina The Nature Conservancy, Nairobi Kenya Program Manager Greg Overton The Nature Conservancy, Nairobi Director of External Affairs, Africa Region Ali A. Kaka IUCN, Nairobi Regional Director Leo Niskanen IUCN, Nairobi Regional Technical Co-ordinator Dr David Western African Conservation Centre Director AFC, Nairobi Joseph Dadacha KWS Acting Senior Warden, Tsavo East Michael Wanjau KWS Acting Assistant Director, Tsavo Conservation Area (Senior Warden Community Wildlife Service, Tsavo East). Hellen Bowen KWS Tourism Officer, Point of Sales, Tsavo East Benson Nzivo KWS Customer Service Supervisor, Tsavo East Fred Kaigua Kenya Association of Tour Operators Chief Executive Officer David Sorimpau, Oleria Conservancy Conservancy Manager 28 Community rangers from various conservancies on training course at Manyani 54 Sites Visited 1. Kenya Wildlife Services Head Quarters 2. Amboseli National Park 3. Tsavo East National Park 4. Manyami Law Enforcement Training Academy 55 ANNEX 10: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Name Vernon Booth Title Mr Organization Evaluation Position? Team Leader Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. 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 56 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 March 6, 2013 57 ANNEX11: ALIGNMENT OF THE SOW OBJECTIVES WITH THE INDICATORS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2005 – 2010 STRATEGIC PLAN KWS Objectives from 2005 - 2010 Strategic Plan WCP Objectives (from SOW) SO 2: Enhanced wildlife conservation, protection and management 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network; Comment/Examples Indicator Result 2.1:KWS leader in wildlife conservation Global recognition of KWS as a center of excellence on wildlife research Conservation and management models and standards Yes Endangered species strategies Biodiversity inventories Yes Aerial and ground surveys Intellectual property and bio-prospecting standards Yes Bio prospecting strategy Research outputs/documents Yes Invasive species Domesticated and institutionalized international protocols and other legislation Yes CITES Adoption of KWS's conservation models by communities and/or private wildlife conservationists’ and local authorities In progress Oleria & KiBoDo, Mau Forest SO 3: Strengthen institutional capacity 2. To strengthen the capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation Comments 58 KWS Objectives from 2005 - 2010 Strategic Plan WCP Objectives (from SOW) programs Indicators Result 3.1. Ops/fiscal stability New revenue streams developed (including new and expanded tourism and non-tourism facilities/products) No planned WCP activities Organisation wide policies and procedure manuals No planned WCP activities Indicators Result 3.2. Organisational structure HR policy developed Job evaluation exercise performed and clearer functional jurisdictions outlined Yes TNA Approved and implemented new organisational structure No planned WCP activities Human resources and administration procedure manuals No planned WCP activities Environment, health and safety policies No planned WCP activities Rationalised and improved salary structure and incentive schemes No planned WCP activities Trained, well-equipped and functional staff Yes Various training activities Succession planning and training program document No planned WCP activities Trained change champions and number of staff trained on change management No planned WCP activities Performance management framework No planned WCP activities 59 KWS Objectives from 2005 - 2010 Strategic Plan WCP Objectives (from SOW) introduced and performance contracts signed Ethics and integrity policy defined and implemented No planned WCP activities Organisational culture and cohesive plan No planned WCP activities Indicators Result 3.3.Devolution of park ops Categorisation of parks stations on objectively established and developed criteria No planned WCP activities Improved responsiveness to operational and community-wildlife issues Yes HWC Units Indicators Result 3.4: Infrastructure Development Houses and offices with services for Wardens, rangers and staff No planned WCP activities New fleet of vehicles, plant, aircraft and other equipment, refurbished fleet (lorries, graders and heavy machinery), size of transport fleet (roads and air-wing) rationalised No planned WCP activities Gate, roads, airstrips, fences, water points and physical infrastructure constructed and renovated Kimana gate, Amboseli NP Rationalised office space at KWS headquarters No planned WCP activities Title deeds and ownership documents obtained No planned WCP activities Comprehensive assets register Yes Assets register done and functioning 60 KWS Objectives from 2005 - 2010 Strategic Plan WCP Objectives (from SOW) Improved signage Yes Signs in Amboseli/Tsavo Indicator Result 3.5: ICT requirements MIS needs assessment, specifications and integration report Yes LAN installed Smartcard or alternative revenue collection system document Yes Safari Card Fully implemented systems with staff trained on use of systems Yes MIST training Establishment of MIS support services Yes MIST database Communication equipment and system Yes VSAT etc. SO 4: Improve KWS's recognition, linkages, and relationships with stakeholders 3. To facilitate adoption of policies and strategies that will promote improved wildlife management and biodiversity conservation among communities Comments Indicator Result 4.1: KWS Linkages improved Databases of stakeholders and key organisations put in place Yes Register of Community Conservancies Number of consultations and sharing of information between stakeholders, GoK and KWS Yes Various stakeholder meetings Collaboration with communities, local authorities, private game ranches and cross border/regional collaboration Yes Various stakeholder meetings Number of MOU's and PPP agreements Work in progress Oleria 61 KWS Objectives from 2005 - 2010 Strategic Plan WCP Objectives (from SOW) signed Indicators Result 4.2:KWS profile enhanced Agreed and approved designed logos for various parks in KWS Agreed brand and image colours, as well as agreed typeface to be used in all publications and letters Standards for stationary Increased awareness by the public on KWS activities Number of press releases and feature articles written and distributed to the media Number of seminars and briefings held with opinion leaders An effective and interactive website for KWS 62 ANNEX 12: ILLUSTRATION OF VARYING DESCRIPTIONS OF PROJECT RESULTS/COMPONENTS/OBJECTIVES IN DIFFERENT WCP WORK PLANS WCP 2006-2010 Work Plan July 28, 2006 KWS 2006-2010 Work Plan (Proposal) Not dated KWS 2006/2007 Final Work Plan Action Memorandum on PILs 2008 & 2012 Evaluation Objectives SOW 2012 Protected area management support Improved management of select protected area (PAs) To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network Institutional management strengthening Strengthen institutional capacity Strengthen Institutional capacity to implement integrated land/ seascape bio-diversity conservation programs Strengthened ‘corporate capacity’ of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs To strengthen the capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs Science-based conservation to enhance management of protected and non-protected areas Conducting and coordinating research activities to support and improve conservation and management of biodiversity Achieve policy; legal and regulatory framework and autonomy. Achieve policy, legal and regulatory framework and facilitate adoption among conservation based communities; To facilitate adoption of policies and strategies that will promote improved wildlife 63 management and biodiversity conservation among communities. Enhanced wildlife co￾management Improving KWS’s linkages, recognition and relationships with stakeholders Improve KWS’ Linkages, Recognition and Relationships with Stakeholders Enhanced KWS capacity to promote community-centered wildlife management and biodiversity conservation in line with the revised wildlife policy and law. 64 ANNEX 13: ALIGNMENT OF OBJECTIVES IN WCP WORK PLAN, KWS STRATEGIC PLAN, USAID SO5, AND EVALUATION SOW WCP Objectives from 2005 - 2010 Work Plan KWS Strategic Objectives: 2008 - 2012 Strategic Plan USAID SO 5 WCP Objectives (from SOW) 1 Facilitation of an Enabling Policy/Legal and Institutional Framework SO1: Enhanced Wildlife Conservation I.R. 5.4 NRM & Environmental policy and legislative reform advanced 1. To improve the management of Kenya’s protected area network 4 Science based conservation to enhance protected and non￾protected areas management I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas & 5.3 improved management of protected areas 2. To strengthen the capacity of KWS to implement integrated land/seascape biodiversity conservation programs SO2: Attain Financial Stability 3 Increasing the constituency for conservation through identification and application of innovative tools for securing land for conservation SO3: Enhance Partnerships with Stakeholders and Customers I.R. 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas 3. To facilitate adoption of policies and strategies that will promote improved wildlife management and biodiversity conservation among communities 2 Integrated management, information and monitoring systems. SO 4: Enhance Quality Service Delivery I.R. 5.3: Improved management of protected areas 5. Human Resource Capacity Development SO5: Strengthen and Modernise Institutional Capacity 65 U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523