readiness preparation proposal kenya ... preparation proposal kenya annexes draft v2.5(i) (26 april...

Kenya R-PP Annexes Draft ver 2.5(i) April 26

1

READINESS PREPARATION PROPOSAL

Kenya

ANNEXES

DRAFT v2.5(i) (26 April 2010)


2

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)

Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) Annexes

KENYA

Date submitted (expected): May 2010

R-PP Annexes Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) .............................................................. 2

Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) Annexes ...................................................... 2

KENYA .......................................................................................................... 2

Date submitted (expected): May 2010 .................................................................. 2

R-PP Annexes Table of Contents ........................................................................ 2

Component 1 (Organize and Consult) .................................................................... 4

Annex 1a-1: Terms of reference and composition of the REDD+ Steering Committee .................... 4

Annex 1b-1: Consultation and Participation I Plan .............................................................. 5

Annex 1b-2: Consultation and Participation Workshops Table ................................................ 8

Annex 1b-3: Attendees at all workshops ......................................................................... 9

1b-3(1) REDD Stakeholders Workshop on RPP on 18th November 2009 Held at Utalii Hotel, Nairobi. .................................................................................................... 9

1b-3(2):- Participants list at stakeholders workshop held at Eldoret 2 March, 2010. Western, Nyanza and North Rift (Western Block) ................................................ 14

1b-3(3):- Participants list at stakeholders workshop, Mau 30th March 2010 .................. 16

1b-3(4):- Participants list at regional stakeholders forum for indigenous people, Mau 31st 2010 ...................................................................................................... 18

Annex 1b-4: Reports of all consultation workshops ............................................................ 20

1b-4(1) Report on stakeholders workshop held at Utalii Hotel, Nairobi, 18 November 2009 ........................................................................................................... 20

1b-4(2) Report on stakeholders workshop held Western, Nyanza and North Rift (Western Block) .................................................................................................... 23

1b-4(3) Report on People’s consultation workshop – Mau. 30/3/2010 ........................ 38


3

1b-4(4) Report on regional stakeholders forum for indigenous people held at Mau. 31st March 2010 .............................................................................................. 46

1b-5: REDD+ Brochure for Kenya .................................................................................. 53

1b-6. KFS REDD+ Website Screenshot ............................................................................ 54

Component 2 (Prepare the REDD Strategy) ............................................................ 56

2a. Assessment of Land Use, Forest Policy and Governance ....................................... 56

Annex 2a-1: Forest Sector Background Paper ..................................................... 56

Annex 2a-2. List of on-going programs supporting forestry sector in Kenya ............................... 83

Annex 2a-3 Ongoing climate change and REDD+ related projects being implemented in Kenya ....... 87

2d. Social and Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 98

2d-1: Terms of Reference for the “SESA” ......................................................... 98

Component 3 Annexes (Develop a Reference Scenario) ............................................ 99

Annex 3-1 Draft outline of Components 3-4 developed by the methodology subgroup, Feb 2010 99


4

Component 1 (Organize and Consult)

Annex 1a-1: Terms of reference and composition of the REDD+ Steering Committee

Terms of reference for the Steering Committee

� Policy guidance and implementation of REDD activities

� National coordination of inter/intra-sectoral REDD activities

� Approval of REDD work plans and budgets

� Resource mobilization

� Ensure timely delivery of a national REDD strategy, national baseline emission level and an effective carbon monitoring system

� Monitoring and evaluation

� Quality control of REDD preparedness deliverables

� Provide mechanism for International collaboration with other REDD processes

Composition of the steering Committee

� Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife -Chairman

� Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources

� Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy

� Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government

� Director, Kenya Forestry Research Institute

� Director, Kenya Forest Service

� Director General, National Environment Management Authority

� Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)

� Kenya Forest Working Group

� Universities

� UNDP/ UNEP – Co-Chair

� Donor coordination group – Chair of the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (env’t group )

As a result of the R-PP formulation process, it was recommended that a NACOFA representative sit on the SC, and this will be raised at the next SC meeting


5

Annex 1b-1: Consultation and Participation I Plan

Participatory mechanisms to enhance consultations and stakeholder engagement:

The participation working group has identified several existing participatory mechanisms and structures that can enhance the consultation process as well as facilitate the active engagement of various stakeholder groups in the formulation of the R‐PP.

At the national level, the REDD technical working group has representation at the local level; the KFS structures, which include the 10 forest conservancies that have decentralized structures all the way to grassroots levels; Forest Conservation Committees (FCCs); National Alliance of Community Forest Associations; and the Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers.

At the Conservancy level, Head of Conservancies combined power with the Forest Conservation Committees to comprise representatives from: CFAs, KFS, National Environmental Management Authority, Agriculture, Provincial Administration, Timber Merchants Associations, and women & youth representatives.

At district level, there are KFS Zonal Managers, District Environment Committees (DECs), and representative of NRM ministries. At local levels, there are CFAs which comprise various forest user groups such as Water User Associations, Grazers, Village Forest Conservation Committee and also various government representations.1

FAN has more than 20 resource centres across the 10 forest conservancies that are managed primarily by CFAs and volunteers. These centers are used mainly for dissemination and outreach. Further, the organisation has an office at Njoro, on the edge of the Mau forest and at Webuye, lying between Kakamega and Mt. Elgon forests.

KFWG is a network of individuals and organizations with representation from the government, NGOs, local and international NGOs. They work with CFAs and other locally based institutions for social mobilization, advocacy and awareness raising on forestry related issues.

All of these channels will be explored to disseminate information, provide a forum for grassroots outreach, encourage participation, and establish a channel for feedback loops.

Communication Strategy

There are several channels and means of communication that will be used to reach out to key stakeholders and general public. This will include:

Radio programs built on the ongoing Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) Mazingira Yetu radio program. This program is facilitated by FAN to disseminate information about sustainable management of the environment.

1 It is recognized that the identified structures lack resources to effectively implement their planned activities. We propose that the institutional assessment to be conducted under the formulation stage takes this into consideration. (see Initial Activities at the end of this component).


6

Development and dissemination of IEC materials such as the information brochure, posters, leaflets, calendars, newsletters etc. All of these exist in KFS and other agencies including FAN and KFWG. It is expected that the REDD+ agenda will use this things

Community drama groups will be used to communicate the REDD+ message down to community levels

Public meetings known as Barazas will also be used as a medium of communication

The utilization of KFS, FAN KFWG’s website to disseminate information

Regional Workshop locations description

Western, Nyanza and North Rift (Western Block)

The rationale for clustering these three conservancies together was that they all consist of representative ecological areas in the country but are all in close proximity to one another: two water towers(Mt. Elgon and Cherangani Hills), an important tropical rainforest(Kakamega forest) and arid and semi‐arid areas (Baringo, West Pokot and Turkana). The Western Block also comprises a very diverse set of stakeholders, all with different interests in concepts such as REDD+. Stakeholders consist of indigenous peoples, pastoralists and other forest dependent communities, farmers, fisher‐folk, public institutions and the private sector. However these stakeholders have common user interest in any program that could potentially influence how forest resources are managed. It is important to note that there are ongoing forestry‐related projects within this cluster (World Bank funded Natural Resource Management Project and a Carbon Forestry Project financed by Hyundai Motors Corporation). Both projects support livelihood improvement activities for the local communities and will provide valuable lessons for the R‐PP process.

Mau block

The Mau conservancy will be treated as a special stand‐alone case due to its unique attributes: it is an expansive and diverse forest; it is the largest water catchment (water tower), with 12 rivers draining into 5 major lakes; and some lakes are trans‐boundary and recognized by the UN as Ramsar sites. One of the rivers within the Mau block supports the (Mara‐Serengeti ecosystem) of which a spectacular annual wildebeest migration has been declared one of the e Seven Wonders of the Modern World.

The conservancy comprises the Mau forest complex, which contains 21 forest blocks and a large number of other forest areas managed by communities and/or local governments and are not yet gazetted. This region is of significant importance to Kenya’s Sustainable Development Agenda including Vision 2030 and the National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) as it supports agriculture, energy, and tourism sectors among others. On the other hand, it is one of the most deforested and degraded conservancy at the moment. Due to past illegal forest excisions, issues of land tenure are being brought to the forefront. There are several ongoing conservation efforts in the area that need coordination and goodwill for their success. This include a UNEP Community Integrated Forest Resource Management (COMIFORM) Project, a WWF supported Mara River Basin Project, Save The Mau Initiative supported by the Green Belt Movement, East Africa Breweries & Equity Bank, TUNZA Mau projected supported by USAID through Forest Action Network, and the Green Zone project supported by the African


7

Development Bank among others.The Mau block consists of a diverse set of stakeholders that includes Indigenous Peoples as well as companies representing the logging, tea, wheat, pastoralism and tourism industries large

Central Highlands, Eastern, and Ewaso North (Central Kenya block).

The rationale for clustering these three conservancies into the Central Kenya block was that they contain the final two water towers (Mt. Kenya and Aberdare Ranges) not included in the Western and Mau blocks. The Central Kenya block has the largest concentration of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) involved in numerous conservation activities. These areas also experience high levels of deforestation and degradation especially in the water towers= areas. Population density is extremely high with strong negative impacts on natural resources usage and management. The increase in human populations has resulted in encroachment into the wildlife migration corridors and breeding areas, which have caused an increase in the number of human‐wildlife conflicts over time. Furthermore, the Central Kenya block has the highest concentration of charcoal and wood fuel consumption whereby the demand for charcoal far outweighs the supply. Lately there has been an attempt to explore alternative sources of energy to include biofuels, solar reflectors, and biogas. The severe droughts in the Ewaso North region always contributes to the massive migration of the pastoralist communities to the water catchment areas, creating additional social tensions and conflicts. One interesting observation in this cluster is the high concentration of trees on individual farm lands.

Coast Block.

Kenya’s coastal region has no water towers, but has significant forest areas that range from dry land forests, coastal mangroves and high water table forests that have their own biodiversity uniqueness. This region is 90% ASAL and faces similar challenges in terms of deforestation and general environmental degradation. There are numerous conservation efforts in this region including the Arabuko Soko forest, the Kaya forests and a carbon forestry project in Kwale.


8

Annex 1b-2: Consultation and Participation Workshops Table

The table shows the number of w/shops undertaken at National level and in the ten forest conservancies, targeted participants and timeline, in addition to budget estimates for facilitating the planned events.

Cluster Target Stakeholders Venue Consultations

Timeline Budget KShs

Nat National stakeholders Utalii Hotel Nairobi

One workshop 18/9/2009

Western block

(Western, Nyanza, North Rift)

CFAs, CBOs, Civil society, PSional workshop, Public Institutions: total number of participants ‐ 50 people

Eldoret One workshop 2 March 2010

500,000

Mau block IP groups. Participants 50

Other stakeholders groups: PS, Public Institutions, civil society. Participants 50

Nakuru Two workshops, one focussing on

March 30th and 31st

1 million Kshs

Central, (Central, Eastern and Ewaso North)

CFAs, CBOs, Civil society, pastoralists, farmers, PS, Public Institutions: total participants ‐70

Embu One workshop April 24th 700,000

Coast Block Other stakeholders. Total # participants 40

Mombasa One workshop April 29th 400,000

Nairobi National Validation W/shop Participants 100

Nairobi One workshop May 3rd, 2010

1 million Kshs

TOTAL 3.6 million Kshs

48,000USD


9

Annex 1b-3: Attendees at all workshops

1b-3(1) REDD Stakeholders Workshop on RPP on 18th November 2009 Held at Utalii Hotel, Nairobi.

List of Participants

Name Organization Position Telephone

e‐mail

1 Esau Omollo Kenya Forests Service (KFS )

Deputy Director 0733 788457

[email protected]

2 Kamau Julius Embassy of Finland, Nairobi

Forest Specialist 0710 607239

[email protected]

3 J.A. Odera Nyanza Forest Conservancy Committee

Chairman 0715 073348

[email protected]

4 D.G. Ndiritu Ewaso North Conservancy

Head of Conservancy

0721 331186

[email protected]

5 Wachihi J.M KFS Central Highlands Committee

HOC‐Central Highland

0729 014815

[email protected]

6 Hannah Wanjiru Green Africa Foundation

Environmentalist 0723 713213

[email protected]

7 John N. Ngugi Japanese International Cooperation Agency, Nairobi

Senior Programme Officer

0722 517254

johnngugi.ky.jica.go.jp

8 Yoich Inoue Japanese International Cooperation Agency, Nairobi

Representative 0736 203227

[email protected]

9 Dr. Ahmed Mohamed

Forest Conservancy Committee, North Eastern, Conservancy


[email protected]

10

Nickson Sasine Kamoye

NASET(N/SOUTH)

Chairman

0727 501958

[email protected]

11

J.K. Ndambiri KFS‐ North Eastern Conservancy

Head of Conservancy

0722 300759

[email protected]


10


e‐mail

12

Clement Kariuki National Association of Community Forest Associations


[email protected]

13

Fredrick Njau Green Belt Movement

Programme Officer

0723 316548

[email protected]

14

S. K.Mibey KFS‐ Western Conservancy

Head of Conservancy

0721 254926

[email protected]

15

David Githaiga UNDP 0723 785123

David.githaiga.undp.org

16

Buzzard Roby USAID Environmental Officer

0722 335314

[email protected]

17

Enock W.Kanyanya

USAID Environmental Officer

0722 746312

[email protected]

18

David Maingi WWF 0723 786184

19

Zipporah Toroitith

MMMB‐KFS 0722 350310

[email protected]

20

Harri Seppanen MMMB‐KFS 0732 310895

[email protected]

21

Maara Nelson Mau Conservancy

0722 428683

[email protected]

22

Peter Moore Clinton foundation

020 3879714

[email protected]

23

Jackson Kimani Clinton Foundation

Director, Clinton Climate Initiative, Nairobi

020 2879714

[email protected]

24

Naftal Nyibut East African Wildlife Society

0723 866082

[email protected]

25

Ochino A.M Forest Action Network‐ Forest Sector NGO

0722 462535

[email protected]

26

F.K. Kariuki KFS CFO 0721 386107

[email protected]

27

Kai Windhorst Unique/Forestry Consultants

+256782‐586291

[email protected]


11


e‐mail

28

D. Chandraselakharan

World Bank 12024588882

[email protected]

29

Haddy Sey World Bank Social Devt.Specialist

12024731610

[email protected]

30

Neeta Hooda WB Senior Carbon Finance Specialist

12024585182

[email protected]

31

Halake Dido Ewaso North Forest Conservancy


[email protected]

32

D.O. Otieno KFS‐ Nyanza Coservancy

Head of Conservancy

0722 778553

[email protected]

33

Fred O. Ogombe KFS‐ North Rift Conservancy

Head of Conservancy

0721 669509

[email protected]

34

David Mutisya Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources

Ass.Director 0735 690114

dmutisya20002yahoo.co.uk

35

John K Maina Ministry of Agriculture

Agricultural Engineer

0722 655161

[email protected]

36

Joshua Laichena Ministry of Devt of Northern Kenya & other Arid Lands

Economist 0726 465 599

[email protected]

37

John M Ngatia KFS‐ Planning Department

CFO 0711 562093

[email protected]

38

Erick F.N. Akotsi Ministry of Energy

Director, Renewable Energy

0721 367601

[email protected]

39

Ngari Alex Nature Kenya Conservation Programme Manager

0722 299021

[email protected]

40

Ben Ithagu NEMA Principal Programme Officer

0722 666542

[email protected]

41

Dr.Balozi B.K MOI UNIVERSITY

Lecturer 0733 805799

[email protected]

4 Cosmas K.P. KFS‐ Mau Head of 0733 hocman@kenyaforestserv


12


e‐mail

2 Ikiugu Conservancy Conservancy 773823 ice.org

43

Kanyinke Sena Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee

Coordinator 0725 288402

[email protected]

44

Rosemary Murkomen

Sengwel Indigenous Development Project

0722 803817

[email protected]

45

Charity M.Munyasya

KFS‐Nairobi Conservancy

Head of Conservancy

0726 861778

[email protected]

46

P.M. Kariuki KFS Headquarters

Head, Corporate Planning Dept.

0722 801309

pmkariuki2yahoo.com

47

A.N. Gichu KFS Headquarters

Head, Climate Change Programme

0722 787403

[email protected]

48

Kefa M.Wamichue

KFS Headquarters

Head, MIS 0722 863364

[email protected]

49

Gabrielle Giannini

FAO Unifellow 0733 445599

[email protected]

50

Wamugunda Ben

Nairobi Forest Conservancy Committee


51

Charles Situma Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing

0723 714388

[email protected]

52

Sang K. Joseph ERMIS AFRICA 0722 646043

Sang2ermisafrica.org

53

K.Senelwa KFS‐ Western Conservancy

0722 430883

ksenelwa2yahoo.co.uk

54

Ian Gordon International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

0733 779835

[email protected]

55

William Omondi KEFRI Ass.Director 0733 227110

[email protected]


13


e‐mail

56

Ezekiel Korir Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife

Assistant Director 0721‐950092

[email protected]


14

1b-3(2):- Participants list at stakeholders workshop held at Eldoret 2 March, 2010. Western, Nyanza and North Rift (Western Block)

No Name Organization Tel No Box No Email Address

1. Francis Rono FCC North Rift 0726339235 592 Kapasabet

[email protected]

2. Peter Mireri Girassi Hills

Osienala

0721 444257 16 Magunga [email protected]

3. Treza N. Diffu Port Victoria Forest Association

FCC Western

0710490852 3 Port Victoria

4 Clement M’maitsi

Kibiri CFA

FCC Western IFECO, Action Group

072152530 9950308 Serem

5 Chisma Sylvester

Lugari CFA

FCC western

0724 559723 19 Lugari [email protected]

6 Rosymary J. Murkomen

Sengwer indigenous Development Project (S.D.P)

0722803817 177 Kapsowar

[email protected]

7 Pamela A. Khoyaa

Kofama CFA

FCC Nyanza

0728730388 265 Oyugis [email protected]

8 Peter Wandera

Port Victoria Community Association

NACOFA

0725810117 207 Port Victoria

9. Martin Musumba

Berma 0738855164 167 Butula

10 Mwai Muraguri

Busia

KFS Western

0722676627 1233 Kakamega

[email protected]

11 George Orero Community Action for Rural Development (CARD)

0722874054

0722421626

161 Suna Migori

[email protected]

[email protected]

12 Moses Leleu Laima

Sengwer I.D Project

0714443058 3894 Kitale


15

13 Fred Marani Viagroforestry Programme

0733837154 2006 Kitale [email protected]

14 Beatrice Mbula

LVEMP II 072770092 9220 Kisumu [email protected]

15 Kanyinke Sena IPACC/IC 0725288402 59 Dolulunga, N.S

[email protected]

16 A.N. Nyaswabu

KFS North Rift 0721558963 250 Eldoret

17 Godfrey Kipkut Cheptais CFA Mt. Elgon

Western FCC

0715251519 28 Cheptais [email protected]

18 Lilly C.K. Tendet

Kimothon CFA

Teech‐Kea C.B.O

0720321544 5 Endebes

19 Paul N. Karanja

KFS Uasin Gishu 0722268029 41 Eldoret [email protected]

20 Zipporah Toroitich

KFS MMMB 0722350310 63163 Nairobi

[email protected]

21 Nolega Christine

RPK 0722389997 1401 Maraagoli

[email protected]

[email protected]

22 Godfrey Sokwny

CIPDP

Mt. Elgon

0719374862 4500 Kitale

23 Fred Matei CIPDP Mt. Elgon 0728133390 4500 Kitale [email protected]

24 Samuel Kamori

Raiply Forest Manager

0722607634 241 Eldoret

25 Joseph Mungai Raiply 0722203337 241 Eldoret [email protected]

26 Asetto Jack FAN

27 Wangeci KFS

28 Patrick Kariuki KFS

29 Kanyinke KFS


16

1b-3(3):- Participants list at stakeholders workshop, Mau 30th March 2010


1. Annah Naramat Surua

Ogiek Peoples representative

0724206620 59 Narok Ololulunga

2 Judy Nagol Ogiek 0727073510 Enaibelibel 101 Narok

3. Rev. Fredrick Lemama

N.s.P.F 0711114071 210 Narok [email protected]

4 Pastor Joseoh L. Olokepet

N.S.P.F 0720644328 50 Ololulunga

[email protected]

5 Sophy Tanki OPDP 0729426977 117 Oloomirani

[email protected]

6 Cllr Johnson K. Meopi

Cllr NCC 0728411160 10 Elburgon [email protected]

7 Cllr Paul Gugo N.C.C Ogiek 0726167116 752 Njoro [email protected]

8. Francis Maritim Ogiek O.W.C 0720363385 46 Londiani [email protected]

9. Towett J. Kimaiyo

Ogiek Welfare Council

0726335732 7150 Nakuru [email protected]

10 Joseph K. Sang IPRA Program 0722646043 17347 Nakuru

[email protected]

11 Shadrack Lenjir N.S.C.O 0728106606 33 Ololulunga

12 Cllr David Kipsang Sitienei

O.W.C 0725332898 45 Keringet

13 Thomas K. Too Ecosystem and social economic Development

0720690548 13084 Nakuru

[email protected]

14 Eunice Lenachuru

Ilchamus Developemtn consortium

0722232007 18175 Najuru

[email protected]

15 Kiplangat Cheruiyot

Ogiek peoples Development program

0722984810 Box 180 Olenguro

[email protected]

16 Kanyinke Sena IPACC/IC 0725288 402 59 Ololulunga

[email protected]

17 Rev. Paul K. Emoi

F.G.C.K 0721999502 Box 19 Elburgon

[email protected]


17

18. Simon Parkesui Ogiek Cultural (OGP)

0728089577 Box 210 Narok

[email protected]

19 Christiana Saiti Louwa

Elmolo Forum 0722662798 Loiyangalani box 7683-00100

[email protected]

[email protected]

20 Daniel Kobei OPDP 0722433757 Box 424 Egerton

[email protected]

21 Mwajuma Z. Abdi

FAN 0722705443 6353 Nairobi mabdi@jankeny

22 Simotwo S. Martin

Chepkitale indigenous peoples development

0722866483 4300 Kitale [email protected]

23 Joseph M. Barngatuny

Moriashoni 0726916360

0752916360

200 elburgon

24 Raphae Sigei Mariashoni 0728773727 200 elburgon

25 Peter Mukira KFS Nakuru 0722889830 [email protected]

26 Nickson Ole Kamoye

NASECT 0727501958 100 Ololulunga

[email protected]

27 Davis Ole Tamooh

NESDEN 0726474419 Box 1025 Narok

[email protected]

28 Mary Simat MAWEED 722857793 711 Nakuru maweedm257@gmaika

29 David Kipsang Sitieme

O.W.C 0725332898 44 Konigol

30 Patrick M. Kariuki

KFS 0722801309 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]

31 Alred N. Gichu KFS 0722787403 30513- Nairobi

[email protected]

32 Charles Ngunjiri KFS 0722241692 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]

33 Lucy Wangeci KFS 0720812835 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]

34 Jacob Munene KFS 0722 443380 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]


18

1b-3(4):- Participants list at regional stakeholders forum for indigenous people, Mau 31st 2010


1. Jackson Ledama Sumpel

Olare CFA 0729862377 76 Kilogoris

2 Paul Chepkwony Tulwap CFA 0724955940 123 Londiani

3. Leposo Ole Mutii Maa Habitat Restoration Unit

0726247977 110 -40700 Kilogoris

[email protected]

4 Emmajean Seile Tulwap CFA 0728443721 98 Londiani

5 Lucy Wangeshi Molem 0713291547 1 Londiani

6 John M. Makori Moilem 0722538491 1 Londiani

7 Simon Chege Kinuthia

Kemfa 0724972955 260 Elburgon

[email protected]

8. Kiprono Kimoking County council Koibatek

0723148118 18 Eldamaravine

[email protected]

9. John Kirorei Enkotokentim CFA

0721951427 39 Ololunga

10 Julius Korir Sekengei

Lamaiyat CFA 0728800924 17 Amalo [email protected]

11 James K. Tangus Socofona CFA 0724644558 Box 60 Amalo

12 Olemetetek K. Simeon

Olare/olosentu

0727775980 76 Kilgoris

13 Hollun Parsol Kamoye

Mau FCC 0735342083 100,20503 [email protected]

14 Albert Lagat Mau FCC member

0722941290 13478-00100 Nairobi

[email protected]

15 Leonard P. Ochieng

MOA 0729362706 Box 530 Nakuru

[email protected]

16 Kanyinke Sena IPACC/IC 0725288 402 59 Ololulunga

[email protected]

17 Edward Tikani CC Nakuru 0722845468 138 Nakuru

18.

John Ndungu Mugameli 0724588665 Box 616 Njoro

19 Tecla Chumba Nacofa/Chem 0722398342 Box 495 [email protected]


19

usus CFA Eldama Ravine

20 Elizabeth Wangari

KEFA 0722532689 320 Njoro [email protected]

21 Joseph K. Mutai County Council of Kipsigis

0721519466 Box 154 Kericho

Kipsicon.jambo.com

22 David Seur Contry Council of Transmara

0733269252 11 Kilgoris [email protected]

23 Sarah Higgins Lake Naivasha Riparian Association

0723 786007 1011 Naivasha 20117

[email protected]

24 Maara N. Tanui Mau conservancy

07222428683

Box 536 Egerton

[email protected]

25 Peter Mukira KFS Nakuru 0722889830 [email protected]

26 Ole Sopai Narok 0721627410 53 Narok

27 Alfred A. Sai Londiani CFA 0721 936450 Box Londiani

30 Patrick M. Kariuki

KFS 0722801309 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]

31 Alred N. Gichu KFS 0722787403 30513- Nairobi

[email protected]

32 Charles Ngunjiri KFS 0722241692 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]

33 Lucy Wangeci KFS 0720812835 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]

34 Jacob Munene KFS 0722 443380 30513 Nairobi

[email protected]


20

Annex 1b-4: Reports of all consultation workshops

1b-4(1) Report on stakeholders workshop held at Utalii Hotel, Nairobi, 18 November 2009

COMMENTS ‐ REDD STAKEHOLDERS WORKSHOP, 18th Nov, Utalii Hotel

NO

NAME

INSTITUTION

COMMENT/REMARK

1 Dr.Balozi, Moi University

MOI UNIVERSITY

The scientists should package the models in easily understood format to enable farmers estimate for instance the amount of Carbon in an acre of woodlot.

2 Dr. Ahmed Mohamed

FCC‐Chairman,

North Eastern

“Let us thoroughly cook well the REDD issues before consulting communities or raising it with them. We should only consult communities when everything is ready including funding. Otherwise communities are fatigued by many promising projects that never start. Avoid potential frustrations of local communities at grass root levels by not presenting issues too early thus raising false expectations.

Let us use existing local channels in place for example District Development Committees &FCC before we approach communities. Any issue on deforestation is highly welcome at grassroots level”

3 Mr. Ogombe

KFS What are the lessons learnt from Kyoto Principles that will guide the formulation and implementation of REDD?”

“The institutional and policy arrangement should not only be confirmed into a particular country but refer to other related policies under United Nation Conventions.”

“local authorities role in the management of forests in ASAL regions which are still under trustlands needs to be clarified

Governance issues on forestry should be an opportunity for introducing important reforms in the sector

4 William Omondi

KEFRI We should form a Methodology Working Group to discuss data collection and verification issues which can be used and are nationally recognized. This is due to the fact that many institutions in Kenya have data which has never been used and whose quality cannot be guaranteed any longer. Some of the data also needs to be harmonized.

5 Clement Kariuki

NACOFA What mechanisms are in place to ensure maximum benefit sharing through REDD?

What message is there for me to take back to the community on REDD


21

after the meeting?

6 Zipporah KFS “Cost of any methodology is expensive. Can simple effective, relevant methods be established that are site‐specific? Can we have homegrown kenyanized REDD Methodologies?”

7 J.A. Odera

NYANZA F.C.C

‐“Presentations provided have been on resources inventory using aerial photos and satellite imageries based on high tech (expensive) approaches that can only be bank rolled by foreign governments, World Bank, FAO etc. Can we come up with methods that can be afforded by the forest service with the help of communities and other collaborating agencies?” Can the methodologies be simplified to a level of community uptake? How do we internalize the methodologies?

How far down should we engage participation – what unit at grass‐root level?

Can there be exposure to REDD pilot activities on the ground? Working demos examples in Kenya and surrounding regions and documents to be circulated.

8 Gabriele Giannini‐FAO;

FAO Institutional arrangements,

What is the involvement of communities and local authorities?”

‐Regulation on fuel wood need to be done according to the presentation, but I understand that charcoal regulations are already done

‐drivers of deforestation are present both under the working group on policy and the working group methodology. If these groups are to be formed officially it is important to clearly define which of the two will deal with drivers of deforestation in order to avoid overlapping

9 Wamugunda Ben

120,000 HA of plantation being affected by zoning

“Are there plans of expanding plantation?”

“Are we stuck with the view that indigenous forests cannot pave way to plantations despite the shortages (eg. Poles, timber and transport of timber Chile, Malawi and Congo?)”.

When shall we start opening sawmills given that sawmilling was suspended by the Government 10 years ago.

10 Hannah Wanjiru

Green Africa foundation

Assessments of risks or challenges that the stakeholders may face during the REDD process Proposal Preparation. Some may be,

Policy‐overlapping mandate in the government sectors, the policies cannot be changed within a day. Is there a strategy to handle this?

Community not willing to participate.

Political will

Property right, private investors not willing to participate.

REDD is with us, do we wait for 2012? Let us take stock on the issues and


22

develop a monitoring system to assist in understanding where we are.

I suggest we discuss the issues in house in terms of different ecological zones and package them to eco‐zone specifically.

What is the number of targeted groups/communities that will be involved?

Has there been a pioneer project?

What is the message that will go to communities to attract their participation?

What do communities stand to gain from REDD?

Why should they participate?

Kenya needs strong political will if we have to succeed in REDD.


23

1b-4(2) Report on stakeholders workshop held Western, Nyanza and North Rift (Western Block)

1.0 INTRODUCTION Country Context: The State of Kenya Forestry Sector:

Kenya's economy has a very strong dependence on the natural environment and in particular, forestry resources. Forestry underpins most sectors, including agriculture, horticulture, tourism, wildlife, and the energy. In some rural areas, for instance, the forests contribute over 75% of the cash income and provide almost all of household's energy requirements.

Forests are very important in the lives of Kenyans because they:

Catch, store and release water, essential for human and wildlife, agriculture and industry.

Help protect and enrich soils, and reduce the severity of floods and landslides.

Moderate climate and help slow down human induced climate change such as global warming.

Protect biodiversity and shelter at least half of the world's known plant and animal species.

This is a genetic resource of unknown value that could advance medicine, food production and materials development. Many pollinator and predators of agricultural pests inhabit forest at some point in their life cycles. Provide local communities with building materials, fodder, firewood, fruits, gum and resins, medicine and sacred sites. Reduce poverty by providing forest related activities and employment to local communities. Provide food security through use of non wood forest product (wild fruits, meat, vegetables, herbal medicine etc) Provide wood including timber, poles and paper Support the agriculture, energy, and tourism sectors

Forest and Climate Change

There is growing recognition within the international community that deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries play a significant role in Climate change. Forests are responsible for about 20% of global warming. When trees are growing they absorb carbon d i o x i d e from the atmosphere but when they a re destroyed, t h e y release all the carbon d i o x i d e back into the atmosphere, causing global warming. Although Kenya is classified as a low forest cover country nevertheless; it loses about 54,000 hectares of forest cover every year. The major reasons for this loss are: conversion of forest land to agriculture and other uses, illegal logging, charcoal burning, forest fires and shifting cultivation. Loss of forest is severe in both the major water towers and the Arid and Semi Arid zones, where charcoal burning is rampant. If the country has to positively contribute to global climate change efforts, it is important that these causes are adequately addressed through interventions that provide for continued delivery of livelihood means while also securing our valued forest resources. Vision 2030, the country's economic blueprint,


24

identifies forestry as one of the key drivers of the economy through its support t to the primary y sector s including agriculture, infrastructure, tourism and energy.

Under this vision, the country aims to protect the five water towers (Mt. Kenya, Aberdares, Mau, Cherangani and Mt. Elgon) and increase the forest cover to 10% through an aggressive afforestation, reforestation and restoration programs. In addition, the country is addressing climate change through the development of a National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS). This strategy provides a framework for re-orienting national programmes towards a low carbon development pathway. NCCRS has identified the forestry sector as a strong vehicle for supporting this effort.

What is REDD?

REDD is an abbreviation for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest carbon stocks in Developing Countries. The basic idea in is that tropical developing countries like Kenya will be encouraged through incentives to: reduce the rate of deforestation and forest degradation; conserve their forests through sustainable management; and to increase areas under forest cover.

Kenya is currently participating in a program called Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) housed in the World Bank. This program will assist the country in developing a national strategy for REDD implementation and it consists of two phases, where the first phase involves the Formulation of a Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP) and where phase two consists of the implementation of the various activities outlined in the R-PP which are development of (i) a national strategy, (II) a reference scenario, and (iii) an effective monitoring verification and reporting system to measure performance of activities to reduce emissions

In the first phase, the Readiness Preparation Proposal provides a road map for taking stock of the current situation with regards to deforestation and forest degradation, and provides an overview of how the country intents to address this. The R-PP proposes work to be undertaken and funded to prepare the following core components of REDD readiness'.

An assessment of the situation with respect to deforestation forest degradation, and relevant governance issues;

Strategy options (a set of actions to reduce deforestation and/or forest degradation),

A institutional and legal implementation framework necessary to realize these options;

A monitoring system to measure, report and verify (MRV) the effect of the strategies.

A multi stakeholder consultation and participant plan outlining the participation and inclusion of relevant stakeholders in the planning and decision making process of REDD

In light of the foregoing, the Kenya Forest Service and other stakeholders such as FAN and the KFWG have organized a series of national conservancy based workshops to


25

address item (e) as above i.e. development of a multi stakeholder consultation and participant plan outlining the participation and inclusion of relevant stakeholders in the planning and decision making process of REDD. The regions being targeted are all the ten conservancies in the country beginning with Nyanza, Western and North Rift.

Therefore, the first national stakeholder consultation and participation workshop was held at the Race course Inn, Eldoret town on 2nd-March 2010. This report details the proceedings of the workshop.

2.0 PROCEEDINGS The meeting began with the usual preliminaries on house keeping, welcoming of participants introductions by participants and opening remarks and adoption of the time table by Mr. Patrick Kariuki, head of planning at KFS

The Head of Conservancy for North Rift Mr. Fred Ogombe was represented by Mr. Alfred Nyaswabu who officially opened the meeting. His speech mainly delved on

Forest reforms through implementation of the new Forest Act 2005

the new law devolves governance to communities adjacent to the forest resource through community institutions called CFAs

concentrate efforts on climate change effects redress, of which REDD is among the efforts

would also want to learn, share experiences and network with participants from different regions because climate change is a cross cutting issue and cuts across all sectors therefore requiring consultative and collaborative efforts

already existing reports on forest degradation in Marakwet forest which needs to be halted

CFAs and community groups adjacent to most forest resources are not empowered yet and needs to be conversant with the salient provisions of the Forest Act 2005 so as to engage in PFM and ultimately REDD activities

2.1 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

The objectives were as follows

Introduction to REDD+ as a climate change mitigation process

Share information on the on going REDD readiness activities in Kenya

Discuss the roles and responsibilities among various stakeholders

Discuss the opportunities and challenges related to REDD implementation

The workshop began with the following presentations


26

2.2 PRESENTATIONS

2.2.1 WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE by Alfred Gichu-KFS

Is a change of climate attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere.

The human activities release dangerous gases that warm the earth more than is required, thus causing climate change”

Causes Climate Change?

The main cause of climate change is the unlimited burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas to satisfy our hunger for energy for industries, cars, airplanes, etc

However, about 20% is caused by deforestation and forest degradation. expanding agriculture, forest fires, excisions, construction projects, and other activities directly result in loss of forests

Climate Change Manifestations

Climate change will manifest in

Reduced precipitation

High intensity of rainfall

Flooding

Drought

Sea level rise

Desertification

These will have serious impacts on key economic sectors (agriculture, energy, infrastructure, health etc).

Clarifications regarding the gases that cause climate change-green house gas effect, carbon dioxide involve 70% from

2.2.2 CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION: OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FOREST SECTOR by Alfred Gichu-KFS

Forests and climate change

Forests currently store more than one trillion tons of carbon, twice the amount floating free in the atmosphere.

Forest can store from 20 - 100 times more carbon than other vegetation on the same land area, or around 30 - 60 tons of carbon per hectare.

Almost six billion tons of carbon dioxide lost into the atmosphere each year or about 20% of the total GHG emissions.

Preventing this stored carbon from escaping is important for the carbon balance.


27

Forests have four major roles:

contribute about 20% of global GHG emissions when cleared, overused or degraded;

Kenya is reported to be losing 54,000 ha through DD

they possess a major mitigation potential through their carbon pools and sinks.

react sensitively to a changing climate and are therefore a major victim of climate change;

when managed sustainably, they produce woodfuels as an alternative to fossil fuels;

Mitigation Options

maintaining or increasing the forest area through reduction of D &D and through afforestation/ reforestation;

maintaining or increasing the stand-level carbon density through the reduction of forest degradation and through planting, tree improvement, or other appropriate techniques;

maintaining or increasing the landscape-level carbon density using forest conservation, longer forest rotations, fire management, and protection against insects;

Increasing off-site carbon stocks in wood products and

Enhancing product substitution using forest-derived biomass to substitute products with high fossil fuel requirements, and increasing the use of biomass-derived energy .

Opportunities in Kenya

Conservation and management of existing forest areas

Rehabilitation of degraded forest areas

Renewable energy from biomass

Plantation forestry development.

Rehabilitation of degraded sites in ASALs.

Agroforestry within farmlands

2.2.3 PLENARY QUESTIONS by Asetto Jack-FAN

Other gases that cause climate change effects include methane as well not only carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor and CFCs

Does tea conserve as much carbon as the forest vegetation?


28

What new opportunities exists in the REDD proposals? Conservation, rehabilitation and alternativeforms. What new approach is being advanced by KFS through the REDD approach? What went wrong with earlier approaches?

Responses: the government policies, reforms have not worked-mitigation process needs to address deforestation and degradation, bring stakeholders together to provide solutions, through incentives-climate change mitigation system approaches. Some reasons include 70% of use of biomass energy by increasing population, halt the drivers of deforestation/degradation and identify what went wrong as stakeholders

-Suggestion from Gwassi hills -every home should have a forest, stakeholder participation; global convergence in matters of opinion regarding climate change mitigation, the new arrangement is not left to the government alone or institutions-will resolve the problem

4. Can riverine tree plantation help in climate change control?

Response: removal of forests in the riverine areas has effects on climate change

NCCRS-national climate change response strategy-ministry of environment and mineral resources, national REDD+ implementation strategy-KFS, strategy on sustainable agricultural practices-ministry of agriculture

Response-need to tie up the forest policies with other sectors e.g. fisheries

5. Traditional cultural forest management-globalization changes destroyed our traditional approaches-what can the government do?

Response-forest based/dependant communities’ involvement to capture traditional knowledge systems, merging of these forms of knowledge with modern ones,

-Heading towards a low carbon development path, carbon emission reduction strategies, -Millenium Development Goals achievement, balance between development and culture/tradition maintenance

-devolvement of power to the grassroots, amplifying community voices through involvement of CFAs in resource management-increased access and control of resources

6. Budalangi, during dyke construction, they cut down all the trees, soil erosion has worsened, siltation

7. KFS issuance of permits?

8. Increase in anthropogenic activities, population increase, land sub division, leaving no area for plantation of trees or afforestation activities

9. Forests as a land use practice and in mitigation of GHGs, need to include other players/sectors-what are the current arrangements?

10. Government contribution to climate change effects e.g receipt of mixed signals, NEMA saying this and KFS saying that

11. Eucalyptus is being planted in the wetlands, especially in nyanza (rivers awachtende,kuja-migori,yala,awach kibuon), shoreline wetlands are also encroached-has the debate on eucalyptus, finally ended? is it clear now on the best way forward?


29

2.2.4 Incentive schemes by Alfred Gichu-KFS

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Voluntary Carbon Markets

REDD+

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM)

Used as a mechanism to offset emission reduction targets in Annex 1 Parties.

Can also be used as a standard to develop projects for offsetting emissions in the voluntary market.

Only afforestation and reforestation activities on areas not under forest by 1990 are allowed.

Possibilities for small scale community based activities .

Rehabilitation of degraded sites in gazetted and trustland forests, agroforestry, riverine rehabilitation are possible areas for CDM activities.

Associated with high transaction costs and stringent eligibility criteria

VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET

Less stringent procedures compared to CDM

More attractive to communities than CDM as the project costs are reduced

Benefits similar to CDM

Easier to develop as community based projects

A lot of interest in the country now within areas that are jointly managed by KFS and community Forest Associations.

REDD

Allows activities that reduce deforestation and forest degradation, forest management and conservation to participate as eligible activities in climate change mitigation

Will go into implementation after 2012

This program together with CDM allows sector wide activities to participate in CC mitigation

The policy frameworks and positive incentives are still under discussions .

Countries are being encouraged to undertake preparatory activities in readiness for its implementation


30

2.2.5 CARBON TRADING INITIATIVES IN KENYA by Alfred Gichu-KFS

The GBM currently coordinating a carbon financed community based reforestation prog. (1,800 ha Mt Kenya/ Aberdares)

Farmers around Mt. Kenya and Laikipia District implementing carbon financed community based reforestation prog.

ESCONET involved in afforestation and reforestation activities in Kikuyu escarpment

KFS and partners supporting community afforestation prog of 500 ha in Kakamega forest

KFS is developing a consultative national strategy for REDD implementation

Development of a REDD project in Rukinga Wildlife sanctuary covering 30,000 ha

PLENARY QUESTION

Where is the desk office where communities are to send proposals to or where funding is to be secured/sourced

2.2.6 WHAT IS REDD by Patrick Kariuki-KFS

REDD an acronym for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation

A proposed CC mitigation process in the forest sector

Seeks to reduce current deforestation and forest degradation trends in tropical countries, conserve available carbon stocks and where possible increase them.

REDD is about addressing the key drivers of deforestation and the underlying causes

Both incentive based process and performance based.

Participatory and country driven.

International Framework

Derives mandate from COP 13, Bali, Indonesia

REDD must be part of a post-2012 agreement

Members affirmed the urgent need to take meaningful action to reduce emissions from DD

Support capacity-building, technical assistance and transfer of technology relating to technical and institutional needs of developing countries;


31

Explore a range of actions, identify options and undertake demonstration activities; and

Mobilize resources to support the efforts.

The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility formed to build the capacity of developing countries to tap into any future system of positive incentives for REDD (Readiness Activities).

2.2.7 REDD IN KENYA by Kanyinke-consultant

Causes of deforestation in Kenya

Unsustainable utilization

expansion of agricultural land, settlement, and dev’t

Institutional failures (Weak governance ,capacity to enforce the law, forest management plans, PFM)

Poverty and inadequate resource mobilization

Forest fires and Overgrazing

Property rights in forest resources

Unsustainable charcoal production

Possible interventions

Strengthened forest and env’t sector governance

increased Afforestation and reforestation efforts

Preventing further forest fragmentation

Agric. Intensification to increase farm incomes

diversification and support to alternative livelihoods

energy efficiency, conservation , alternative energy sources

Promotion of nature based micro enterprises

Public education and awareness

Improvement on fire monitoring and management

efficiency in wood utilization

Readiness Activities

Readiness activities include

A national strategy for implementation with strategy options and the institutional and legal implementation framework,


32

Development of an historical emission reference Scenario for greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from deforestation and/or forest degradation; and

A monitoring system to measure, report and verify (MRV) the effect of the REDD strategy on GHG emissions, livelihoods

Progress Made So Far

The country has embarked on a process of developing a REDD Readiness Package ( A strategy, an emission reference Scenario and a monitoring system to assess performance

Participation Agreement and a Grant Agreement with PC of the FCPF signed to support development of the Readiness activities.

Formulation of the REDD Preparation Proposal that will inform the framework for developing the Readiness activities has started. Refer to next slide

A multi-institutional consultative forum for discussions established.

A National REDD Technical Working Group established to coordinate activities leading to formulation of the packages.

A consultation and Participation Plan developed to engage communities.

Readiness Preparation Proposal

Summarizes the activities that would need to be undertaken to make the country 'ready' to participate in REDD. R-PP would propose work to be undertaken and funded to prepare the following core components of ‘REDD readiness’:

An assessment of the situation with respect to DD;

REDD strategy options that addresses the drivers of deforestation and degradation identified in the assessment above) and the REDD institutional and legal implementation framework necessary to realize these options;

A reference scenario for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and/or forest degradation; and

A monitoring system to measure, report and verify (MRV) the effect of the REDD strategy on GHG emissions, livelihoods and biodiversity.

Kenya REDD+ Management structure

Kenya has established a functional multi stakeholder Technical Working Group (TWG)

The TWG is divided into three sub groups

o Consultation and Participation subgroup

o Methodology subgroup


33

o Policy and Institutional Subgroup

A REDD+ secretariat exists within the KFS

Kenya is in the process of forming a national REDD+ steering committee

Key Tasks for Sub-Groups

Policy and Institutional Issues

o Development of national REDD Strategy, including identification of drivers of deforestation and degradation;

o Institutional dimensions of REDD: national, regional and local-level institutions; legal framework; governance dimensions, benefit-sharing mechanisms, land tenure, etc.

Methodology - Reference Scenario ,Monitoring, Reporting ,Verification system, Biomass estimation

Consultation and Participation - National dialogue, including participation of civil society and the private sector ,elaboration of a national consultation, participation and outreach plan; identification of participatory mechanisms.

Likely impacts

1. Positive impacts

o Environmental services

o Improved livelihoods

o Land rights

o Improved forestry governance

o Increased financial flows into the forestry sector

o Low carbon development

Negative impacts

o land tenure rights for forest communities

o Disruption of livelihoods/cultures

o Trade offs?

o Political trade offs

o Legal and institutional

o Economic

o Social

Roles and responsibilities

Active stakeholders and not passive beneficiaries.


34

Roles and responsibilities in forest management and governance

Roles and responsibilities in Monitoring, Reporting and verification

Consultation and Participation

What are the burning issues?

Role of Traditional Knowledge Systems in governance, monitoring etc?

Effective lines of consultation/participation.?

Voluntary, encourage consensus building

Gender inclusive

Recognise rights to inclusion and deliberate inclusion of minority groups

A continuous process

Set up grievance and conflict resolution mechanisms

Enhance transparency accountability and respect

3.0 ANNEXES:- GROUP WORK

GROUP I REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION

“What are the main social considerations that REDD process must address?”

Responses:

Land tenure and food security

Employment

Income generation

Social equity access and benefit sharing

Gender issues

Intergenerational equity

Cultural values including crime

Literacy levels- disparity awareness and capacity building

Conflicts

governance structures within the communities

Sustainable forest management e.g. user rights

Development of relevant policies guidelines and practices

Health issues e.g. HIV/AIDs

Population dynamics e.g migration, population growth etc

Indigenous knowledge promotion


35

Conversion of forest land

Illegal activities e.g. fires deforestation

Biodiversity enhanced conservation

Provision of environmental services e.g. water quality and quantity

Promotion of Agroforestry and farm forestry

Payment for environmental services (PES)

Poverty

GROUP II REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION

“Whom do you think are the key stakeholders in REDD implementation and what role can they play?”

Key stakeholders

Community /CFAs

KFS

Development partners

GOK- Ministry of environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of land, Ministry of water, Forest Wildlife, Ministry of Finacne,Kengen

Civil society

Farmers

Research institutions

Learning institutions

Local authorities

Private sector e.g. panpaper industry, tea industry,sugar induatry,Raiply and KPLC

Politicians

Churches/faith based organizations

Forest dwellers

Media

Ministry of Northern Kenya (ASAL)

PMs Office

Ministry of planning

Roles

Forest sector governance


36

Forest protection

Reaforestation

Community/sensititization, forest adjacent, indigenous forest dwellers

Afforestation

Community mobilization

Data collection and analysis- research institutions

Provision of technical services- KFS, research institutions, development partners, GoK

Formulation and implementation of policies, (influence /implementation, GOK, civil society, KFS, CFAS)

Monitoring of stakeholders activities – KFS, GoK, CFAs, civil society

Land use planning- ministry of land, ministry of agriculture

Community and resource mobilization – civil society, faith based originations, politicians, KFS, CFAs, Development partners

Creating partnership at various levels- GOK Development partners, CFAs, civil society

GROUP III REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION

“What are the main causes of deforestation in the region and how can these be addressed?”

Responses

1. High demand of wood fuel in the fishing industry and households

Solution

Education and awareness

Own farm afforestation

Encourage use of alternative source of energy e.g solar cookers

Promotion of energy efficient jikos

Involving women in policy making concerning afforestation

2. Poor allocation of Resources for conservation

Solution

Lobby the government to allocate funds

Partnership with NGOs, private sector, community etc

3. Poverty and ignorance

Solution


37

Empower the community to access existing funding opportunities (CDF, KKV, Youth fund, wome enterprise)

Education on entrepreneurship skills

Adoption of appropriate technology

4) Political interference

Solution

Pressure groups

Strengthen governance institutions

5) lack of conservation friendly land policy

Solution

Lobby for enactment of comprehensive land policies

6) High demand for timber, charcoal, firewood

Solution

Efficient conversion (raiply)

9) intergeneration change in value attached on trees

Solution

Cultural values

Indigenous knowledge

Other causes:

10) inadequate linkage between research and reality/ extension

11) natural disasters (localised)

12) forest fires

13) human displacement (refugee camps)

14)Greed-wealth considerations

15) Brick making

16) Poor governance

17) Lack of valuing forest resources(market failure)

18) overgrazing


38

1b-4(3) Report on People’s consultation workshop – Mau. 30/3/2010

Introductions by participants and Opening remarks

Welcoming of participants

The chairman thanked all the participants for availing themselves despite their busy schedules. He informed them that this was a participatory workshop for all. The workshop is more on consultations and not teachings

Adoption of the time table

The Chairman took the members through the programme that was to guide them the whole day.

INCENTIVE SCHEMES IN CLIMATE CHANGE

The participants were taken through this session by Mr. Gichu.

The presentation highlighted three main incentives in forestry

Clean Development Mechanism

Voluntary Carbon Markets

REDD

1. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

CDM is a mechanism designed as part of the Kyoto Protocol. In Kenya is coordinated through NEMA.

The presenter talked about the some of the CDM benefits

Attract capital for projects

Provides a tool for technology transfer

Help define investment priorities in project that meet sustainable development goals

Sustainable ways of energy products

Increasing energy efficiency and conservation

Poverty alleviation

Project eligibility for CDM will be in areas that were not forested by 1990 and are likely to meet the CDM definition of afforestation and reforestation. The process supports those who do not protect or are conservation forests.

2. Voluntary Carbon Markets

They are less stringent procedures compared to CDM

More attractive to communities than CDM project

Benefits similar to CDM


39

Easier to develop as a community

3. REDD

INTRODUCTION TO REDD by Kariuki and Kanyinke Sena.

REDD allow activities that reduce deforestration and degradation.

The participants were taken through the background of REDD. REDD came from UNFCC meeting in 1992 Indonesia. In this meeting the UNFCC agreed to tackle Climate Change through mitigation and adaptation.

In 1997 Kyoto protocol agreed that developed countries should pay for reduction of emission. UNFCC in Bali conference come up with REDD Plus.

37 countries agreed to the deal and Kenya was one of them. Our main task as Kenya is to find out what contributes to destruction of forests. We should also come up with way of measuring how much we contribute to carbon emission.

The participants were take through the following topics on REDD

Key causes

Possible interventions

International Framework

REDD Readiness

Progress so far

Key Tasks for Sub Group

Discussions

The participants wanted to know if China and America will reduce their emission as they contribute to 80 percent. And how is Kenya suppose to reduce and most of the industries are closed.

Response- Kenya will use technology that will deal with emission from the industry and will also plant more trees to help observe the carbon.

We are the GMOs era with the GHG what is the relations?

Genetically modified Organics: maize production has increased even without rains through this technology where the scientists are making seeds. However there are side effects and the agriculture sector is discussing this issue.

What is KFS doing regarding the issue of Prosopsis which has no benefit to the communities?

The answer will come from the group discussion.

Questions raised

What will we be paid by the polluter of the environment


40

How shall we assist the grassroots to understand REDD so that REDD can succeed

Can seeds be provided for our nurseries because the communities are not getting seeds and are going to the forest to uproot seedlings and is this degradation

To maintain the forest landscape the Ogiek cultural values incorporates in the forest management, during establishment of plantations we very well know the colonial and 1st governments decided this without consultations, thus we now see the impacts on certain communities livelihoods , yet its in the community which is ordinarily they occupy and own, will they be given 1st priority.

Why has the government been issuing permits for logs and charcoal transportation while knowing that our forests have degraded from 12% to 1.7%

Ever since the communities have been sensitized about forest conservation and since the people are not able to access seeds, it has resulted into uprooting “saplings” thus degradation of the forest into the future can you assist in seeds acquisition

As a mitigation measure can you document issues on indigenous knowledge

What mitigation measures are there in place as a security to resource tenure

Taking into account the prosopis Juliflora issue around Lake Baring parts how will forest department and World Bank deal with this issue

What are the benefits of REDD to pastoralists communities especially those without forests

The ogiek community culture is related to certain tree and animal species and their destruction destroys their culture- what consideration will REDD give to the Ogiek

How will you help the communities without straining

If other communities are in the implementation level, why is it that it is now crating awareness

Are there areas in Kenya that area already participating in incentive programmes

What type of trees do VCM encourage communities to plant

What kind of trees should be planted in order to get rain

Way forward to prevent soil erosion in our country

How do property rights contribute to deforestation

Does VCM work with individuals

Has it ever occurred to Kenya Forest Service that the introduction of exotic trees is one of the major causes of climate change

That the forest cover at the onset of colonization was 30% and not 12% and further that destruction of forest cover amounts to historical injustice


41

How can the REDD process be interpreted in simple and local language for the purpose of the community to understand

Which institution in Kenya coordinates REDD

Responses

The ministry of Environment and Natural resources coordinates climate change. REDD is a process lead by leaders in forest management and MENR delegated the responsibilities to KFS. MENR and NEMA are active participants in the TWG. Indigenous people have been invited in the TWG and Kenya has organized a workshop which is this for the indigenous groups. All other organizations are actively involved.

The small grant – under the facility. How will the communities benefit or individual benefit from grant or REDD

How has REDD been legalized in Kenya

How was Technical Working Group (TWA) and steering committee formed

How will the Kenyans living outside forest areas going to benefit from REDD given forest resources are national resources

Do you have programs for ToTs so that the grassroots can be reached and get informed

Has this process been able to identify the need to create awareness to our MPs especially pastoralists MPS

Some people would want to give out several acres of land to the REDD process what are the dangers

Observations

Ogiek are the best People for planting trees, so they should be employed in plating the important trees in these country

Forest stations have been vandalized and vacated, Kenya forest service should work on reviving these stations so that work can become easier in these regions

Big companies like Raiply Panpaper mills are the worst in destroying our environment

The number of representations should be increased in communities and civil society so that the confidence of donor community does not go down

The FAN is not representing the indigenous people properly

Group 3

The main social consideration that REDD process should address


42

To ensure the involvement of the indigenous people in the management/employment

There will be no relocation of indigenous people in the REDD Area, instead it should respect IP land tenure

That the REDD should not interfere nor destroy the indigenous people economic support e.g bee keeping herbal medicine and livestock

Accessibility to important social cultural site e.g religious and ceremonial site

No planting of exotic trees species in water catchment areas and biological hot spots

Support the establishment of focal points where IPs can receive and share information of the general implementation of REDD e.g Narok, Nakuru Baringo etc

Staff establish and support social amenities e.g roads, schools, health, centres and micro enterprises

The REDD process should respect rights and attachments, leading to equitable benefits sharing

Group 2

Key stakeholders

The Kenya government through the KFS

Local authorities

Indigenous people/forest dwellers

Private sectors- water industry, flower industry, tea industry

UN and specialized agencies

Civil societies

Political and local leaders, religious and local leaders, women , youths

Timber industries

Roles

Government role:

- provide security

Formulation /implementation of policies

Should take in consideration declaration of UNDrip in formulation and implementation of policies

Facilitate an incentive schemes that rewards IPs for practicing Agroforestry in their lands

Indigenous communities


43

Incorporating our IPs knowledge /traditional in government policies

To identify species areas for planting various species of indigenous trees

The community to be kept vigilant to ensure forest security

Active participation of IPs and especially IPs women

Ensuring gender participation

Embarrassing Agro-forests not only in the forest demarcated areas

Promoting reforestation by planting trees to reduce deforestation /degradation

To ensure safety in honey harvesting and other forest activities

The IPs to have the right Abs(financial, other benefit generics, social projects)

Roles of UN/specialized agencies

Fundraising

Joining partnerships

Role of the timber industry

Should there be any logging the communities should benefit

The areas where trees have been harvested the trees should be replaced/planted

Creation of jobs and engaging IPs in planting and trees management

Role of water industry..

Tea industry…

Flower industry…

Role of Civil societies

Advocating and empowering the communities on the current forest resource management and legal framework

Role of Leaders

Political – participate fully in policy making taking into considerations IPs links

Local leaders

Women

Youth

Religious

All of them should be included in the REDD process and participate actively


44

Group 1

Question “What are the main causes of deforestation in the region. How can these be addressed”

Causes of DD

1. Excision for farming and settlement

Remedy

Acquire land for landless from big land owners

Proper urban planning to prevent spill over of informal settlement in agricultural land

Develop and enact legislature act to support the land policy

Strengthening forest governance in enforcing forest Act 2005

Enhance food security by proving good farming techniques and inputs providing irrigation and avoid rainfed agriculture

2. Charcoal burning /firewood

Remedy

Enhance alternative energy sources e.g biogas, windmill and solar energy

Develop and regulate policy guidelines on charcoal burning

Develop energy saving stoves/jikos

Tackle poverty and unemployment

3. Spontaneous fires

Remedy

Develop a fire prevention policy

Training communities on fire management

4. Overgrazing

Remedy

controlled grazing

Reduce stock

5. Other

Remedy

Increase community policy


45

Increase forest range package

Public education and awareness to local communities

Promote Agroforestry

Strictly enforcing the forest Act 2005

Multi-nationals should be encouraged to plant trees

Innovation to reduce over reliance on timber and timber products

6. Poverty

Remedy

Explore alternative sources of income I,e

Micro-finance

Education facilities

Tackle unemployment

Social welfare/activities

7. Breakdown of traditional forest management practices

Remedy

Communities assisted to revert back to traditional forest management practices and improve inter-generational learning process

8. Poor governance

Retrain foresters

Strengthen governance structures e.g CFSs , FCCs etc

Improve infrastructure round the forest

Allocate more funds


46

1b-4(4) Report on regional stakeholders forum for indigenous people held at Mau. 31st March 2010

Welcome note given by Mr. Gichu who stressed on tree planting as a back up for this workshop. He requested the chairman to take the participants through the workshop programme.

Mr. Gichu welcomed the participants to the meeting:

Mr. Kariuki took the participants through introductions and workshop objectives

The participants were drawn from Mau conservancy i.e Nakuru, Koibatek, Kericho , Narok and Transmara.

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

Opening remarks from the assistant Head of Conservancy

He welcomed and thanked all participants for attending the workshop. He said Mau is more affected by climate change. Most of the economic sectors are affected and forest plays a major role in climate change. Its our mandate see forests are restored. When we talk of deforestation we realize some tree species have disappeared. In the new forest act we have changed the way we operate. Communities are now more involved in forest conservation we have been able to define the roles of all stakeholder and the process is still on going.

As we embrace the concept of REDD we should be able to deal with the underlying caused in forest destructions in Mau. We should stop the blame game on destruction. We need to work together to restore Mau.

Kenya is an agricultural country, so we need to tackle the issue of climate change.

Presentation on the mechanism of forestry CDM projects

Question

If you have planted less than one hectare of trees will it be legible for CDM

Response

No- it has to be above one hectare of land. A tree will be 5 meters at maturity. In the CDM a tree will be 2 meters minimal for it to be legible for CDM

Question

Farmers have been planting trees along borders- will it be eligible for CDM , Yes even if it’s a single line, however the project concentrates in group projects as opposed to individual farmers

The carbon stocks generated by project need to be secure over the long period of time almost permanent( over 20 years)

Questions and answers


47

Q: How will the money flow come to individuals participating in REDD – the national strategy will define the procedure of how this money will flow back to individuals (national REDD Management framework)

A: There are 37 countries participating in the REDD proposal. 14 developed countries have put money in a basket through World Bank. REDD implementation will begin in 2013- at the moment we are in the process of developing proposals. As a country we are still preparing a proposal to access the funds.

Definition of a tree

A tree is a plant with a definite trunk )FAO is still discussing the definition

Most botanists define tree as woody plats having a single stem and growing at least 10 feet tall

Is bamboo a tree or grass

Q: Are plants like bougainvillea with big stems tree

A: According to CDM we are talking of the height of a tree which should be 2m. it depends on a particular forest, but it should not be a shrub. There was a suggestion that we should all give out definitions of a tree

Q: What is REDD structure

A:Refer to the TWG structure which explains the REDD. It stated with consultative forums spearheaded by Ministry of environment specifically NEMA. KFS is a focal point at the moment. The Director KFS invited all the ministries and civil societies who have clear objective in environment to constitute a technical working group. There is still a steering committee to be formed. It is important to have a consultative group at a lower level in as much as we have one at the higher level. This is what we are doing now.

Q: What is the present GoK position on the eucalyptus spp considering the Minister of Environment statements on Eucalyptus

A: Eucalyptus tree has generated a lot of debate in the country; KFS has done a research on the same in Transmara where rivers have not dried up.

KFS has provided guidelines and the same guidelines would provide with information on where to grow and under different conditions

This tree has served all fuel wood purposes, plant eucalyptus in separate areas and don’t do it along the borders where crops are planted. There would have been serious landslides in Kisii if it were not for the Eucalyptus

Q: What are the effects of green house gases on climate change

A: There are six greenhouse gases, -carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulphure Hexaflouride. (SF6), Hydroflorocarbon (HCF6), Perflorocarbon, 75% is caused by carbon dioxide, the green houses gases form a layer in the upper atmosphere such that when the rays of the sun are emitted the greenhouse gases cause the rays not to reach the earth service and a lot of heat is generated. Because of the greenhouse gases the rays


48

are trapped causing global warming. The global warming is responsible for climate change. Carbon dioxide is most common gas.

Q: Carbon absorption which species does best the indigenous or exotic

A: The faster a tree grows the more carbon it absorbs from the atmosphere, blue gum is the best in terms of absorption of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

Q: Which areas are more affected low lands or highlands in terms of climate change

A: Areas with minimal rainfall (the savannas) will be worse affected than areas receiving more than 2000 mm.

Group 2

Question for discussion: “ Whom do you think are the key stakeholders in REDD and what role can they play”

Definition of red

R- Reducing

E- Emission

D- Deforestation

D- Forest degradation

Sustainable forest management

Increasing forest cover

Key stakeholder their roles

KFS policy formulation and enforcement

Fire management and control

Sensitization of communities

NEMA assesses and audit environmental impacts

Land owner (farmer) ensure sustainable land use

Implementation of formulated policies

Min of agriculture and livestock provision of extension services for sustainable land use

Policy formulation and implementation

Coordination of farming /rearing activities

Provincial administration mobilization of communities and security


49

Policy enforcement

Civil society (CBOs, NGOs, CFAs( Policy advocacy and sensitization

Conflict resolution

Min of finance provision of financial support, monitoring and evaluation of activities

Min of local government financial support to afforestation activities, e.g licensing and monitoring

Min of water formulation of WRUA policies

Min of gender and social services mobilization of youth and women groups

Gender sensitization

Ensure gender balance governance

Sponsors /donors for financial support and capacity building

To ensure sustainable and effective REDD implementation there is need for effective transparency accountability and efficient collaboration among the stakeholders -with clear sharing of information flow, and with clear action plans and implementation time -frame

Group3

Social consideration to be considered by REDD

Positive aspects

Encourage natural economic practices e.g beekeeping, herbal medicine

Sensitize the community on the wise use of the forest resources

Research on other cheaper alternative sources of energy that is efficient and environment friendly

Respect peoples culture and enhance their cultural knowledge

Involve the community in the participatory process so as to cultivate sense of ownership

Negative aspects

Allow community members to continue collecting firewood


50

Provide access to charcoal or give alternative source of livelihood

Give assurance and build trust among the community members for them to be responsible

Recommendations:

If there has to be relocation it must be legal and with consent

Employ the local people to protect the forest and guard against the intruders (outsiders)

Create awareness and empower the community to completely own the process

Avoid bad politics

Full implementation of the Forest Act

Group 1

Causes of deforestation and their remedy

1) Encroachment of forest for agricultural use

Remedy:

Promote agro-forestry

Control of forest excision

Enlighten community on importance of conserving forest

2) Cutting trees for domestic use (fuel)

Remedy

promote alternative use energy e.g biogas, energy saving jikos, brickets

3) Logging for commercial use e.g timber , wood carvings, herbal use etc

Remedy

Enlighten the herbsman on proper ways of extracting their products without destroying the main trees

Stringent measures to be taken against illegal loggers

Lifting of the ban of plantation logging

4) Overgrazing

Remedy

Introducing of few but productive breed

Improve pasture managements e.g hay puddocking


51

5) Charcoal burning

Remedy

Proper regulation of charcoal production

Introduction of kilns

Promote alternative use of energy e.g biogas

Introduction of woodlots in shambas

6) Fire outbreaks

Remedy

Community awareness creation

Quick response to fire outbreaks and fire management

7) Drought due to climate change

Remedy

Increase of tree cover

8) Infrastructure e.g roads electricity

Remedy

Proper planning

8) Corruption ; greed

Impunity i.e remove impunity

Proper land policy

Improve moral attitude

Create political goodwill

Provincial Director of Agriculture Rift Valley- Mr. Ochieng

The Ministry of agriculture has been vey encouraged by the farmers.

Out of the concerns raised in degradation of land and a policy was raised to engage on farm forestry to enlighten the farmers and stakeholders to engage on tree improvement. As a province we have taken this initiative very seriously and that is why he was present today.

There are able personnel in the district covering district up to locational levels. There is importance of joining hands with KFS to ensure that the farmers and


52

communities in general engage in farming in general. We sent a circular to all farmers to engage the communities and stakeholders in tree planting in whatever activities they have. Trees have been planted e.g over 3000 trees in Tranzoia east, kwanza about 6000. This is not going to end at district level but cascade this activity to location levels. Min of agriculture will take lead and will ensure that trees are planted fully to increase the forest cover. Plant trees within the farm and those compatible with general agricultural practices to solve the problem of climate change. He has done 1000 tree seeddlings1000 year old and this has totally changed the environment in this place, no soil erosion is taking place. Environmental issues should not be taken as a ministry affair. Mangoes are also trees by definition and should also be encouraged to plant.


53

1b-5: REDD+ Brochure for Kenya

Brochure available at

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Feb2010/Kenya_MAGAZINE_REDD%2B.pdf


54

1b-6. KFS REDD+ Website Screenshot

277 Hits registered by April 19th, 2010 on the general Information ad Events page:


55

In addition, the REDD+ brochure, the R-PP template, and the Outline of the C&P I plan are all linked here.


56

Component 2 (Prepare the REDD Strategy)

2a. Assessment of Land Use, Forest Policy and Governance

Annex 2a-1: Forest Sector Background Paper

‘Assessment of land use and forest policy and governance in the forest sector in Kenya’

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................... 57

The context ........................................................................................ 57

Current status of forests in Kenya ................................................................................ 57

Forest sector Governance, policy and institutional context ................................................. 62

Underlying causes of deforestation and degradation (drivers of change) ............ 67

Governance drivers ................................................................................................. 69

Policy drivers ......................................................................................................... 71

Economic drivers: ................................................................................................... 72

Technology drivers .................................................................................................. 74

Other drivers ......................................................................................................... 74

Summary of the main drivers of deforestation and degradation ............................................ 75

Analysis of measures to address deforestation and forest degradation ............... 75

Recent policies and strategies to address deforestation and forest degradation ......................... 75

Impact of other on-going GoK policies and programs ......................................................... 77

Lessons learned that can guide REDD+ strategies ......................................... 77

Major knowledge gaps ........................................................................... 78

Consultation on the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and lessons learned ............................................................................................. 81

References ......................................................................................... 81


57

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to provide background information on the status of the forest resources in Kenya, describe the policy environment and challenges in the sector, and describe the trends in forest degradation, deforestation, and enhancement (afforestation/reforestation) in the past. The drivers of forest degradation, destruction, and enhancement are discussed and past efforts to address the drivers are analyzed. The lessons learned from past experience provide a basis for identifying promising REDD+ strategies.

The paper has been developed through a broad based consultative process involving a series of discussions by the technical REDD+ working group representing various institutions and organizations within Kenya, regional consultative meetings with stakeholders around the country, interviews with key stakeholders in the sector, and a review of existing literature

The context

Current status of forests in Kenya

Over 80% of the land area of Kenya consists of arid and semi arid lands (ASALs) where population density is low and livelihoods are mainly based on livestock. Woody vegetation in those areas is sparse and consists of dry bush and open wooded grassland. Most of the rural population lives in the remaining 20% where rainfall is higher and soils are suited to agriculture and this is also the area where most of the closed canopy forest occurs. Only about 12% of the land area is climatically suited to closed canopy forest. At present closed canopy forest occurs on just 2% of the land are due to progressive clearance for agriculture. Much of this area is protected, either as Forest Reserves managed by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), or as National Parks managed by Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), or as trust land forests managed by Local Authorities.

The map below is an extract from the Global Forest Cover map produced as part of FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000


58

In addition to the indigenous forests, there are approximately 107,000 ha of publicly owned industrial plantation forests under the management of KFS and an estimated 90,000 ha of private industrial plantations and fuelwood plantations serving mainly the tea industry. Plantations are located mainly in the higher elevations, and in many cases were planted as buffers surrounding indigenous forest reserves that were conserved for their water catchment and biodiversity values. The plantations are located in areas with high agricultural potential with high rainfall and fertile volcanic soils, where rural population densities are high.

The Government industrial plantations under management of KFS consist of mainly of Cupressus lusitanica and Pinus patula. They are degraded and slow-growing due to under-management and the area has been progressively reducing due to failure to replant after clear-felling or conversion to agriculture. Private plantations on the other hand are generally well managed and although their size is expanding, the extent is still small compared to government plantations.

Table 1. Areas of forest in Kenya and rate of change since 1990

Category of forest resource (using FAO definitions)2

Area (‘000 Ha) Annual change 1990 to 2010 (‘000 Ha)

1990 2000 2005 2010

2 FAO definitions used in table 1:

Indigenous Forests: A group of trees whose crowns are largely contiguous and include the ecosystem that makes it up and a tree canopy cover of over 10% and the canopy is essentially of indigenous tree species growing under natural conditions and excludes planted indigenous plantation forests. The forest is delineated through legal gazzetment. The area includes Mangroves and bamboo ecosystems.

Plantation forests: All areas of systematically planted, man-managed tree resource composed of primarily exotic species. Categories include both young and mature plantations that have been established for commercial timber production. It includes clear felled areas within plantations and excludes all plantations of non-timber such as tea and coffee. It includes associated land cover/use such as roads, fire-breaks and building infrastructure if they are too small to be clearly mapped off the satellite imagery.

Open woodlands: Land classified as forest with trees higher than 5 metres and canopy cover of between 10% – 40% or trees able to reach these threshold in situ or with a combined cover of shrubs bushes and trees above 10%. (It does not include land that is predominantly agricultural or urban land use.

Bush lands: Communities typically composed of tall, woody self supporting single and multi-stemmed plants branching at or near ground with in most cases no clearly definable structure. Total canopy cover >10% with canopy height between 2-5M

Farms with trees: Trees found on privately owned farmlands


59

Indigenous closed Canopy Forest

1240 1190 1 165 1140 ‐5

Indigenous Mangroves 80 80 80 80 0

Open woodlands 2150 2100 2075 2050 ‐5

Public Plantation Forests 170 134 119 107 ‐3.15

Private Plantation forests 68 78 83 90 +1.1

Sub‐total Forest land (total of above categories)

3708 3582 2357 3467 ‐12.05

Bush‐land 24800 24635 24570 24510 ‐14.5

Farms with Trees 9420 10020 10320 10385 +48.25

Total Area of Kenya 58037 58037 58037 58037 0

Source: FAO Forest Resource Assessment 2010. Country Report for Kenya.

Table 1 shows the data currently available on the status of the forest resources in Kenya as reported in the FAO Forest Resources Assessment Country Reports for Kenya 2005 and 2010 (draft). The data however are based on old information from the Kenya Forest Master Plan 1994 (KFMP 1994) and the projections made at that time. The data should therefore be regarded as tentative estimates and more up to data information is urgently required for planning.

Table 1 shows an annual reduction in 12,050 ha forest land in the period 1990-2010. The Indigenous closed canopy category and the Open Woodlands categories both reduced by 5,000 ha per year. This was due mainly to conversion of forest to agriculture. The state owned industrial plantations reduced by 3,150 ha per year partly due to conversion to agriculture and partly to failure to reforest after clearfelling. Forest fires also had a role in destruction of forests during this period (discussed further below). Private plantations have increased during the period. Bush-land has decreased in area by 14,500 ha per year due mainly to clearance for agriculture ha. The area of “Farms with trees” has increased annually by 48,500 ha as agriculture has expanded due to conversion of forest areas to agriculture, and due to the positive impact of farm forestry extension efforts of the past two decades which have encouraged on-farm tree planting.

Degradation of forests over the period 1990 to 2010 is an important factor which is not reflected in the above figures on forest areas. The remaining indigenous forests managed by KFS and KWS have been degraded by decades of illegal logging of valuable timber trees resulting in reduced carbon stock and biodiversity value. Public plantations have been degraded through inappropriate silviculture or neglect resulting in reduced carbon stocks. Trustland forests under the control of local authorities continue to be degraded through over exploitation for timber, poles, charcoal and fuel wood, and through unregulated grazing.


60

Estimates of carbon in Kenyan forests are provided in the FAO Forest Resource Assessment report for Kenya (FAO 2010). FAO estimates an average of 110.76 metric tonnes per ha in above-ground carbon and 26.59 tonnes of C in below-ground biomass or approximately 137 tonnes of carbon per ha. The annual loss of 12,000 ha of forest therefore results in a loss of approximately 1.6 million tons of carbon per year. Carbon losses from “Other Woodlands” (i.e. trees in grasslands and bushland) amount to 406 thousand metric tonnes of C, assuming annual loss of 33,500 ha of Other Woodland and assuming above-ground biomass of 9.77 metric tonnes of C per ha and 2.34 tonnes C in below ground biomass.

Table 3 Carbon stock in “forest” and “other woodland” categories



61

Figure 1. Location of gazetted Forest Reserves managed by KFS.

Role and importance of forests to the economy

Kenya’s forest resources are of immense importance for the environmental and ecosystem services they provide, for their contribution to economic development, for their contribution to rural livelihoods. The contribution of forests in water catchments is critical to Kenya’s rural and urban water supplies, and approximately 70% of power is hydro generated. Much of Kenya’s biodiversity and wildlife resources depend on forests, woodlands and bushland forest, and are a major factor in attracting tourism. A large rural population depends on woodland and bush resources to provide firewood, charcoal and other forest products which are critical to rural livelihoods.


62

The plantation resources make a substantial contribution to economic development in Kenya and are potentially a resource for economic development in the wider region. It was estimated that in the mid 1990s the sawmilling industry provided 30,000 direct jobs and 300,000 indirect jobs. In 2007, the forest sector was estimated to contribute about 1% to GDP (Ksh 16.4 billion) to the economy, and that more than 10% of households living within 5 kms from forest reserves depend on them for subsistence resources (FAO, 2007).

Forest sector Governance, policy and institutional context

Forest Policy and legislation

Both the Forest Policy and Forests Act have recently been revised and updated and together provide a new framework for forestry governance in Kenya. The new policy is still in draft form although the revised Forests Act 2005 has been passed by parliament and came into force in 2007. The new framework is the result of almost two decades of planning and consultation and paves the way for a new era in Kenya forestry.

The draft policy is driven by the following factors:

The importance of forests to the national economy

The need to address deficiencies including inadequate financial resources and the lack of an enabling policy and legislation

Recognition that increasing population and poverty continue to exert pressure on the country’s forest resources

Recognition that Kenya is a low forest cover country by international standards and that it aims to attain at least 10% forest cover within the next decade.

The key elements of the new policy and legislation are:

A greatly enhanced role for communities through Community Forest Associations and other mechanisms

A focus on livelihoods and sharing benefits from forests more equitably

Forest management planning that is guided by professionalism, is science based, and uses an eco-system approach.

Appropriate incentives to promote sustainable use and management of forest resources.

Establishment of semi-autonomous Kenya Forest Service as a new institution to replace the Forest Department with an expanded mandate in the management of all types of forests.

Promotion of commercial tree growing


63

Excision of gazetted forests will require EIA and parliamentary approval

Management plans are required for all major forest ecosystems

Establishment of a Forest Management and Conservation Fund

Payments for ecosystem services

Commitments to Sustainable Forest Management

Commitment to environment role of forests including water values, biodiversity values, climate change values

The new Act became operational in 2007. The subsidiary legislation and the operating rules and regulations required to implement the new Act effectively are currently at various stages of development. Four sets of regulations have been gazetted to date - the Farm forestry rules, Participation in forest Management rules, Forest charcoal regulations, and Forest harvesting rules.15 further sets of regulations or subsidiary legislation remain to be developed.

Other national laws and regulations impacting on forest resources in Kenya are as follows:

(a) The Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA), 1999. This act provides a framework for environmental and social development, harmonises the various sector specific legislation impacting on environment and the management of natural resources.

(b) The Water Act, 2002. The Act provides for regulation of riverine forests, catchment forests, and protection of wells and springs in the forest and supports the user pays principle (for water benefits) and therefore opens opportunities for catchment forest management and conservation by forest communities, and revenue generation through payments for ecosystem services.

(c) The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, Cap 376, Date? Wildlife resources occurring in forests are covered by the act and therefore it has implications for forest sector.

(d)The Agriculture Act, Cap 318. The Act’s relevance for forests is that it regulates destruction of vegetation for agricultural expansion that is one of the main drivers of forest degradation and destruction, and therefore can complement the forests act.

(e) The Antiques and Monuments Act, Cap 215. Has implications for coastal Kaya forests3.

(f) The Local Government Act, Cap 265. Substantial areas of forest are under the Local Councils in trust lands and the Act empowers County Councils to make by-laws to control cutting of timber, destruction of trees and shrubs and afforestation.

(g)The Fisheries Act, Cap 378. The Act has implications for coastal mangrove forests.

3 Kaya forests are forests regarded as sacred by coastal peoples where traditional rites are practiced


64

(h) Trust Land Act (?)

Other national and international commitments and plans which have an impact on the forest governance framework are the international conventions signed by GoK and a number of broader national level plans and strategies. The relevant international conventions are the CBD, CITES, UNFCCC, and UNCCD. The relevant national strategies are the Vision 2030, Climate Change strategy, The Arid and Semi Arid Lands policy, the Livestock Development policy, Charcoal policy. The relevance of these strategies are discussed below.

Institutional arrangements in the forestry sector

A significant change introduced by the new Forests Act 2005 was the creation of a new institution, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) as the institution responsible for the forestry sector. Under the new Act, the KFS is a “body corporate” under the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife that reports to a Board. The Board is drawn from a wide base and about half of its membership consists of ex-officio members with the remainder appointed by the Minister responsible for Forests. The ex-officio members are the Permanent Secretaries of the Ministries responsible for Forestry, Water, Finance and Local Government; the Directors of KFS, KWS, KEFRI and NEMA. The members directly appointed by the Minister are eight other persons representing forest industry, forest communities, law enforcement, Kenya Forestry Society, environment related NGOs, forestry education and research, and conservation. The KFS became operational in 2007. The organizational structure is devolved to Conservancies (Figure 2)

The KFS has a broad mandate that includes regulation of the sector, management of natural and plantation forests, protection of forests and forestry extension. Currently KFS manages most of the reserved forests but under the new Act can devolve its forest management functions to communities, private companies, individuals or other entities through concessions or other arrangements. Significant areas of gazetted forests are currently under the management of Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Local Councils.

Capacity within institutions in the Kenyan forest sector

Technical competence within the forestry sector in Kenya is high due to a long history in forestry and well established institutions offering technical forestry education. Moi and Kenyatta Universities offer degree courses in forestry, and The Forestry College at Londiani offers certificate and diploma courses. There is a large number of trained foresters working both in the technical forestry institutions such as KFS and Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) and in civil society organizations who have an interest in forests and natural resources management.


65

Capacity of civil society organizations working in the forestry sector in Kenya is strong and is a valuable resource for implementation of potential RPP activities. Civil Society is effectively engaged with the forestry sector through several well established and highly competent local organizations such as Forest Action Network (FAN), Kenya Forest Working Group (KFWG), Nature Kenya, The National Alliance of Community Forest Associations, the Greenbelt Movement, and the local offices of WWF and IUCN. Those organizations played a strong advocacy role on behalf of forest sector stakeholders during the late 1990s when there were serious public concerns about increasing forest destruction and its negative environmental impacts. At that time KFWG, FAN and the Forestry Department together prepared the Forests Bill (2000) which for the first time placed strong emphasis on Community Participation in the future of forest management.

The timber processing sector is represented by the Timber Manufacturers Association. Capacity in timber processing industry has declined dramatically over the past two decades with most of the larger sawmills closing down. A logging ban in state plantations has been in place for the past 10 years which starved the industry of raw material and drove many of the larger sawmills out of business. In the 1990s, poor governance by FD weakened the existing industry by starving the larger millers of timber while allocating roundwood resources to middlemen or small sawmillers. This resulted in a temporary proliferation of inefficient small mills and closing down of

#

#

#

# ## ##

#

# NORT H EASTERN

EWASO N ORTH

NOR TH RIF T

M AUEASTE R N

CENT R A L

COAST

NYAN Z A

W ES T ERN

NAI R OBI Ngo n g

Eldo r et Kaka m eg a

Ki s u m u N y eri Embu

Is io lo

Ga r is s a

M o m bas a

Nakur u

N


66

larger more efficient mills. At present, the capacity in the timber processing industry is weak and most sawn wood is imported from Tanzania or Malawi.

Tenure and ownership of forests

Table 4 shows most forest is either in public ownership (mainly managed by KFS and KWS) or owned by local communities (managed in trust lands by Local Authorities). Public and community forest lands have declined in area since 1990 mainly due to excision while private forestry is increasing due to increased private sector interest in commercial planting and to expansion of farm forestry.

Private forests are the responsibility of the owners and are not subject to KFS interference except in a case where the forest is mismanaged in which case it can be declared a provisional forest and becomes subject to regulation. Trees on private farms are not subject to state regulation. Local Authority forests are not regulated by the KFS unless requested to do so by a Local Authority.

Table 4 Categories of Forest ownership in Kenya

Categories of ownership Forest area (1000 hectares)

1990 2000 2005 2010

Public ownership 1,490 1 404 1 364 1 364

Private ownership 2,218 2 178 2 158 2103

...of which owned by individuals 1 2 5 10

...of which owned by private business entities and institutions

67 76 78 80

...of which owned by local communities (includes trustland forests managed by Local Authorities)

2 150 2 100 2 075 2013

...of which owned by indigenous / tribal communities

Other types of ownership

TOTAL 3,708 3,582 3,522 3,467


The role of communities

Communities have traditionally exercised rights of access to resources in forests and these rights have been strengthened in the new Forests Act and Policy. The new provisions are aimed at improving livelihoods providing increasing the direct benefits from forests to local communities and thereby reduce the pressure to convert forests to agriculture. The new measures make provision for involvement of communities in forest management and more equitable sharing of benefits

One of the mechanisms for community empowerment and benefit sharing is through the Community Forest Associations (CFAs), which are a new concept introduced to implement the provisions of the new Act. KFS can devolve management of forest


67

areas to CFAs under certain conditions. CFA members need training and other forms of capacity building to operate effectively. However few CFAs have been set up to date, and progress is slow although KFS has plans in place to get the process underway. The subsidiary legislation community participation have recently been gazetted (GoK 2010).

Access to forest resources, participation in forest management and benefit sharing arrangements between communities and KFS are elaborated in the subsidiary legislation. Benefits include access to firewood and other resources in natural forests and participation in non resident cultivation (through the taungya system) in plantations. The recent finalisation of the subsidiary legislation in this regard provides the basis for rapid progress in operationalising these provisions. Community expectations are high and there is potential for conflict over issues such as sharing revenue from timber sales or revenue from payments for ecosystem services.

Private sector involvement

On-farm tree planting has gained momentum in recent years as a result of agroforestry extension efforts over the past two decades and this is set to increase with efforts to achieve the National Plan (Vision 2030) target of 10% of land area covered in trees.

Wood processing is primarily a private sector activity and in recent years a number of saw-millers have established fast-growing plantations as a means of securing future timber supplies.

Sawmillers and other private companies have expressed interest in taking concessions on state plantations as this is now permitted through the 2005 Forests Act and elaborated in the recently gazetted subsidiary legislation (GOK 2010). No concession arrangements have been agreed to date but the subsidiary legislation now provides the basis for progress in this regard and it is possible that significant areas of state plantations will be transferred to private sector management in the future.

Significant areas of plantation forest have been established by the tea industry for use as fuelwood in drying and processing tea. The plantations are mainly fast growing eucalyptus managed on short rotations. The extent of these plantations is not known but the total area of private plantations is estimated in the FAO FRA 2010 report at 90,000 ha but this is a tentative figure.

Underlying causes of deforestation and degradation (drivers of change) A detailed list of drivers of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation is provided below. The list was generated in a series of meetings of the Policy subgroup of the REDD+ Technical Working Group, and is based on a review of reports of several previous analyses of drivers of deforestation carried out over the past decade and on the experience of the members of the working group and builds on the list of drivers described in the R-PIN. The drivers are grouped into six categories – governance


68

drivers, policy drivers, economic drivers, technology drivers, cultural drivers and others. They are discussed individually in the following sub-sections.

Table 2. Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation

GOVERNANCE DRIVERS Poor governance, incl weak institutions, corruption, illegal logging, weak law enforcement.

Weak community participation in forest management

Inadequate benefit sharing from forest resources (including revenue sharing)

Local authorities do not value their forests

Communal land systems ‐ lack of private ownership of the resources/land

Unclear tenure and access to forest resources (e.g. Local Authority forests )

De‐gazetting forest lands (Note this was an important driver of deforestation in the past although it is now addressed through the Forest Act)

POLICY DRIVERS: Allowing grazing in forest reserves during droughts causes degradation ‐

Agricultural policies urging farmers to produce more cash crops for export

Banning Taungya system has slowed reforestation

The focus on gazetted forests has led to reduced attention on dry land woodlands and other types of forests including coast and riparian forests.

Bad administration of the Taungya system

Harvesting ban in plantation forests

OTHER GOK POLICIES Inadequate of integration of the forest sector into the economy and national accounting

ECONOMIC DRIVERS: Poverty (broad issue ‐ focus on livelihoods)

Reliance on charcoal fuel / Unsustainable charcoal production/large urban market for charcoal fuel

High prices for agricultural products

Subsidies/Incentives‐ tax exemption for fertilizers, for farming tractors (this driver is similar to high prices for agric above…incorporate in above)

Fixing timber prices at too low levels

Population pressures causing clearing (Competing land uses), including agricultural expansion

Conversion of coastal forest to other uses

TECHNOLOGY DRIVERS: Lack of security of supply of timber to the sawmilling industry (low investment in timber processing technology, poor timber conversion


69

ratios)

Lack of knowledge and use of appropriate technology in tree growing, and nurseries production

Lack of knowledge by the population about impacts of deforestation.

Lack of knowledge on tree planting and lack of access to information (ref. Uganda success in tree planting partly due to provision of good extension information)

Improved saw milling technology

CULTURAL DRIVERS: The cultural urge to own land

OTHER CAUSES: (anthropogenic)

Fires used in agric clearing, inadequate capacity to manage fires

Wildlife damage (elephants and other)

Droughts

Governance drivers

Poor governance, including weak institutions, corruption, illegal logging, weak law enforcement

Weak governance in public administration in general and in the forest sector in particular is regarded as a key driver of deforestation and degradation in Kenya and is linked to many of the other underlying causes. Since the mid 1980s the strength of the Forest Department has declined. Political interference in forest administration increased, government funding declined, law enforcement declined, and staff morale declined. During this period, silvicultural treatments were reduced, and a substantial backlog of areas to be reforested increased. During this period also, substantial areas of gazetted forest reserves were excised and converted to agriculture. The timber processing industry declined as roundwood supplies from plantations dried up.

The reforms of the policy and forests act were aimed at addressing these weaknesses and improving governance in the forest sector.

Weak community participation in forest management

Until the recent policy and legislative reforms, forest dependent communities had little or no role in management of forests and were often excluded entirely. The new arrangements enable communities to be fully involved and it is expected that this will lead to better management and protection of forest resources. Little progress has been made to date in operationalising the new provisions and opportunities exist for supporting this through REDD+.

Inadequate benefit sharing from forest resources (including revenue sharing)

When communities benefit little from the forests, they place little value on the resource and the incentive to protect and conserve the resource is less. In the past,


70

communities were often excluded from forests entirely and derived no direct benefits. The new draft policy recognizes the important role that forests play in livelihoods and protects the traditional interests of communities to user rights for resources such as water, medicinal herbs, honey, fuel wood, construction material and fodder.

Forest adjacent communities have lobbied for revenue sharing from plantations and although this is not specifically provided for in the Act, it is also not excluded. Lack of revenue sharing is regarded as an important aspect of this driver of forest degradation and destruction.

Local authority forests on trust lands are degraded and poorly managed

An estimated 100,000 ha4 of forest occurs in trust lands managed by Local Councils. Generally the forests are degraded or totally destroyed by unregulated exploitation or encroachment for agriculture. Forestry is a low priority issue for councils and they do not have the technical capacity to manage the forests. Trust lands are regarded as common property by local people and consequently the forest resource is exploited without regard for sustainability.

The new forest governance procedures have attempted to address this weakness by requiring Local Councils to develop management plans and to manage their forests sustainably. Under the Act, if a Local Authority forest is not being properly managed it can be declared a “provisional forest” by KFS whereupon it receives technical and management support from KFS until such time as it is well managed whereupon jurisdiction is returned to the Local Council.

These procedures introduced by the new Act have not been operationalised as yet and provide an opportunity for action under REDD+ as carbon stock in Local Authority forests can be substantially increased through better management. In addition, the trust land forests (held in trust for communities by Local Councils) provide an opportunity for engagement of communities in forest management and for increasing the livelihood benefits of those forests.

De‐gazetting (or excisions) of forest lands

A major cause of the reduction in the forest estate in the 1990s and early 2000’s was through de-gazetting of forest reserves (i.e. change of status from protected to non- protected), usually for agriculture or settlement. Many excisions were done to legalise agricultural encroachments and settlement that had already occurred but during the 1990’s the pace of excision increased and were often motivated by individual political interests or private gain and were not in the public interest. A survey in 1999 found that over 55,700 hectares of forests in the East and West of the Rift Valley were either excised or proposed for excision between 1994 and 19995, and in 2001 the government excised a total 67,000 hectares in the period leading up to national elections.

4 Wass 1996

5 Njuguna P., Mbegera M, Mbithi D, 1999. Reconnaissance survey of forest blocks in west and east of Rift Valley. Permanent Presidential Commission on Soil and Afforestation.


71

The new Forests Act has successfully addressed this driver by introducing new legal requirements for excisions. Under the new Act, protection of gazetted forests is greatly strengthened. Any variation of forest boundaries requires approval by the local forest conservation committee, KFS and of parliament. It also requires public consultation, an independent EIA, and the loss of forest must not prejudice biodiversity conservation. In the past, the only legal requirement was the publication of a gazette notice 28 days prior to excision, during which time objections could be submitted in writing, but there was no legally defined procedure for dealing with objections and consequently objections had no impact.

The new measures have worked well and no excisions have taken place since the Act came into force in 2007.

Policy drivers

Allowing grazing in forest reserves during droughts

The practice of permitting grazing in forest reserves during drought periods degrades the forest by destroying the undergrowth and preventing regeneration of young trees. However it does contribute substantially to livelihoods and is a vital safety net for pastoralists. There are opportunities for developing forest management systems through REDD+ that incorporate provision for grazing, thereby increasing the potential carbon stock while providing important livelihood benefits.

Agricultural policies urging farmers to produce more cash crops for export

Conflicting government policies aim to produce more cash crops for export while others aim to increase the percentage of land area under forest. Policies need to be realigned so that they are in harmony.

Poor administration of the Shamba (taungya) system has reduced the incentive to reforest cleared plantation areas

The shamba system (or taungya) system was commonly used by foresters as a method of plantation establishment and reforestation. It involved growing agricultural crops along with the trees for the first couple of years until the trees shade out the crops. It significantly reduces the cost of forest establishment as weeding costs are borne by the cultivator, and moreover provides significant benefits to cultivators in the form of food. The system was often abused and young trees were often neglected or deliberately cut to enable cultivation to continue beyond the usual 3-year period. This slowed down reforestation progress and resulted in vast areas under cultivation within forest reserves. The shamba system was poorly managed in the 1990s and was banned by presidential decree. It was subsequently replaced by a modified system referred to as non-residential cultivation (NRC). This too was banned after a few years and is currently being replaced with a redesigned system being referred to as the Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) which currently covers over 8,000 hectares6.

6 http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index.php?view=article&catid=71:kfs-core-programmes&id=96:plantation-and-enterprise-division&format=pdf


72

Focus on gazetted forests and insufficient attention to dry land woodlands and other types of forests

The Forest sector traditionally focused on the closed canopy forests in the wetter regions of the country and on the valuable plantations resources. Forest and woodland resources in ASALs have important livelihood benefits especially for fuelwood and charcoal but have been neglected in forest policy and funding. ASALs cover about 80% of Kenya’s total land surface and hold 25% of the human population. Dry-land forests are mainly on trust lands and are unmanaged and degraded by unregulated exploitation.

The neglect of these areas in the past has been addressed ASAL strategy (GoK 2005) and in the new draft forest policy which recognizes the importance of ASAL wood resources in human livelihoods and the importance of ASAL biodiversity resources. These policies call for sustainable management of woody resources in ASALS, promotion of wood based micro enterprises, tree planting, rehabilitation of degraded areas, promotion of sustainable charcoal production and creation of community forest associations to manage and regulate woodland use.

The ASAL strategy is a 10-year plan for management of natural resources in the ASALs which provides for integrated natural resources management and development in the ASAL areas7. Improved management of wood resources in ASALs can increase the carbon stock, provide increased livelihood benefits to local people, and enhance their role as habitat for biodiversity. REDD+ presents opportunities for achieving those targets within the context of the GoK ASAL strategy.

Harvesting ban in plantation forests

A ban on harvesting in plantation forests was introduced as a temporary measure in 1999 to reduce rampant illegal harvesting in plantation forests. The ban has remained in place since then despite the new governance measures introduced since the mid 2000s. Although the ban is only partially effective, it has reduced felling and maintained carbon stocks. However, it has had other negative effects on the forestry sector, and overall it is regarded as a driver of forest destruction in other forests. As well as increasing pressures on the natural forests to supply timber, it has penalized licensed saw-millers, deprived them of raw materials, and reduced the incentive to invest in more efficient machinery leaving the processing sector to small inefficient operators with low conversion ratios. As a consequence, much of the sawn wood in the market is milled by chainsaws with a very low sawnwood conversion ratio.

Economic drivers:

Poverty, population pressure and agricultural expansion.

Clearance of agriculture has been one of the most important causes of deforestation and forest degradation. It is a complex issue with inter related underlying causes including poverty, population expansion, continuing reliance on subsistence agriculture, lack of alternative livelihood opportunities, competition for land, and weak governance of forest resources. The rural population is concentrated in the areas

7 GoK 2005. Arid and Semi Arid Lands, National Vision and Strategy, Natural Resources Management 2005-2015.


73

with the highest agricultural potential that have good rainfall and fertile volcanic soils. These are the same areas where closed canopy forest occurs, and there has been a history of conflict between forest authorities and forest adjacent communities due to past restrictions on access to resource and encroachment for agriculture.

Agricultural encroachment into forest reserves was often subsequently regularized by excisions which encouraged further encroachment. Weak governance resulted in weak law enforcement enabling cultivators to remain in the forest. They were often encouraged by politicians seeking political favour.

The recent changes in forest policy and legislation have made it much more difficult to excise forest land and have strengthened community access rights. This makes it more difficult to encroach and reduces the incentive to do so. However the economic incentives to convert forest land to agriculture remain high as the potential benefits under agriculture are much greater to the individual than the benefits under forest. There are opportunities to change the economic incentive regime through REDD+.

High prices for agricultural products

This driver is related to the poverty drivers discussed above and is a consequence of high population and relatively small area of productive forest land. Agriculture is productive and profitable in high potential areas as agricultural production fetches high prices. Forestry is not as profitable as the revenues are not shared with the community, making agriculture a more attractive land use option for local people.

Fixing timber prices at low levels

It has been normal in the past for the Forestry Department to set prices for roundwood. Prices were generally set at low levels which may have helped the timber users but acts as a disincentive to producers. The low price of roundwood from the forest made forestry an uneconomic option when compared to agriculture.

Reliance on charcoal fuel / Unsustainable charcoal production/large urban market for charcoal fuel

Charcoal is the most important form of cooking fuel for the majority of the population of Kenya. 2.5 million people depend directly or indirectly on the charcoal industry which is worth Ksh. 32 billion per annum. Charcoal production is concentrated in dryland areas where tree species are suitable for charcoal and where poverty levels are high. Reliance on charcoal is likely to continue in the future and switching to alternative cleaner fuels such as LPG or electricity is unlikely to gain momentum in the short term due to the cost of alternatives.

The new legislation on charcoal production and transportation will facilitate regulation of the industry and raise efficiency in production. The new legislation presents opportunities for addressing the issue through REDD+ by activities that will improve efficiency in charcoal conversion and subsequent use in cooking, and by reducing pressure on dryland woodland resources by promoting sustainable charcoal production.


74

Conversion of coastal forest to other uses

Coastal forests consisting of high biodiversity forests and mangroves that are important to fish industry. The coral rag forest is under pressure from urban and tourism development and the mangrove forests are under pressure from unsustainable use to supply the pole market. Is this a key driver?

Technology drivers

Lack of information and knowledge on tree growing

Information on tree growing and forestry is not readily available and this is regarded as a disincentive to growing trees. Information is needed in a user friendly form on issues such as matching tree species to site, which species to grow, silviculture of common commercial and agroforestry species, land preparation techniques, fire protection and other aspects of successful tree growing. Provision of such information in Uganda has had a very positive impact on expanding afforestation 8 and opportunities exist to provide similar information for Kenya through REDD+.

Lack of knowledge by the population about impacts of deforestation

Awareness among Kenyans of the value of forests has increased considerably over the past decade, due to the efforts of awareness and advocacy groups such as FAN and KFWG, and this has had a substantial impact on reducing pressure on forests. However, inadequate awareness is still regarded as an important driver of deforestation and awareness and advocacy efforts need to be sustained to reduce pressure on forests.

Low grade sawmilling technology

Sawmilling technology in Kenya is inefficient and wasteful. Roundwood conversion efficiency is low by international standards resulting in large quantities of waste wood. Wood processing efficiency has declined since the early 1990s as larger sawmillers who depended on the Forest Department for roundwood supplies failed to secure long-term supplies and as a consequence did not invest in upgraded machinery and equipment. A number of larger mills closed and were replaced by smaller less efficient mills. The logging ban resulted in closure of many sawmills.

Other drivers

Fires used in agric clearing, inadequate capacity to manage fires

The FAO forest resources assessment for 2010 shows average annual area burned in forest reserves between 1988 and 2008 of 1283 ha of plantations and 1428 ha of natural forests. No data is available for forest fires in other woodlands. Most fires are

88 SPGS Tree Planting Guidelines for Uganda


75

wildfires that occur due to natural causes or to accidental fires spreading from agricultural land clearance or burning for grazing.

Wildlife damage (elephants and other)

Elephants destroy and degrade forests and their numbers are increasing <statistics>. At Amboselli and Tsavo, elephants are blamed for destruction of the trees in the woodland savannah and degradation of the dry woodlands and for destroying trees in closed canopy forests in Aberdares and Mt Kenya areas, elephants are blamed for destruction of forest.

Summary of the main drivers of deforestation and degradation

Many of the drivers of deforestation and degradation are interlinked. Some are much more important than others. The principle drivers can be summarized in order of importance are as follows:

Clearance for agriculture (linked to rural poverty)

Unsustainable utilization (including timber harvesting, charcoal production, grazing in forests)

Poor governance and institutional failures in the forest sector

Analysis of measures to address deforestation and forest degradation

Recent policies and strategies to address deforestation and forest degradation

Implementation of past policies and strategies to address deforestation and forest degradation was constrained by weak institutions, poor governance and lack of capacity to implement the measures effectively. However, a number of measures implemented in the recent past have had positive impacts in reducing deforestation and degradation and can be regarded as drivers of increase in carbon stock.

Table 3. Measures that have reduced deforestation and degradation (drivers of increase in carbon stock)

POLICY DRIVERS: KFS reforestation programs

Charcoal regulation measures introduced

Increasing political awareness of value of forests, impacts of climate change, and of the negative aspects of loss of forests

International agenda driving interest in reforestation

Decentralization of forest management and increase in participatory forest management


76

Chief Act abolished in 1997 which ended the requirement to get permission from the chief before cutting their trees

Government efforts to achieve international conservation area targets

GoK development focus on livelihoods and sustainable development

GOVERNANCE DRIVERS:

Forests Act 2005 passed

Institutional changes reforming the forestry sector

Reform of the taungya (shamba) system

Donor support for forestry activities

ECONOMIC DRIVERS:

Valuing of forest resources and public realization of the value of forests

Establishment of plantation forests

Tea plantations require wood fuel for drying tea

Streamlining the charcoal industry

Awareness of potential funding from environmental services, including carbon activities

KPLC has started to purchase poles from Kenyan producers instead of importing.

CULTURAL DRIVERS/FOREST PRACTICES:

Traditional regard for groves and Kayas

Cultural tree planting practices

TECHNOLOGY DRIVERS:

Availability of high yielding clones/seedlings of eucalyptus

International demand for bio‐fuels

Availability of appropriate technology to monitor forests

Integrated wood harvesting

Improved charcoal production and utilization technologies

Production of high quality germplasm

Other drivers Extension programs

The comprehensive reforms in forest governance introduced over the past 5 years in Kenya are aimed at overcoming the trend of forest destruction and degradation in the past and overcoming past deficiencies. The reforms were carefully formulated over the last two decades and were based on comprehensive research and detailed data collection and therefore most promising strategy for REDD+ is to provide support for the implementation of the current reforms.

A comprehensive series of programs and sub programs have been developed by KFS to operationalise the reforms. Most are at an early stage of development and would benefit from support through REDD+. Reforms related to community participation are


77

already underway with support from a number of sources and institutional support is being provided by FINNIDA. However, additional support is required in those and in other aspects of the reforms. Annex 1 lists on-going programs being implemented with support from development partner, and Annex 2 lists climate change programs relevant to REDD+.

Impact of other on-going GoK policies and programs

As indicated earlier, other sector policies and programs have impacts on the forest and land castrategy, the water policy, ASAL policy, livestock policy and environment policy. The multi-sectoral participation in the REDD technical working group and The REDD Steering will facilitate a coordinated approach to REDD implementation. The more broad-based national development strategy paper Vision 2030 is relevant as it contains targets for forest rehabilitation and reforestation. The planned revision of the Land Act, and the proposed new constitution may also have an impact on forest cover through changes in land tenure arrangements or changes in fiscal policies.

Lessons learned that can guide REDD+ strategies The new forest governance measures and associated programs are at an early stage of implementation and have not begun to show results yet. However, two notable achievements to date are the success of the new legislation on stopping excisions and the governments U-turn on settlement of the Mau forest complex.

Impact of the new Forest Act on forest excisions. No excisions have occurred since the legislation was introduced in 2007. This was one of the main causes of forest destruction and has been successfully addressed through the changes in the law requiring parliamentary approval for excisions.

Reforestation of the Mau Forest Complex. The excision of over 67,000 of the Mau Forest complex for agricultural settlement in the early 2000’s was reversed in 2009/10 and the forest is currently being replanted. There is a strong commitment at present in government to protect and restore forests and correct the ills of the past. This remarkable change in policy and attitudes in society at large to forest loss is due to growing recognition of the negative environmental impacts of forest loss and to the awareness and advocacy efforts of the civil society organizations and to pressures from the international community.

Civil Society organizations have had a major role in raising awareness, and of changing attitudes and behavior of both politicians and civil society in general. They had an important role in facilitating dialogue between the stakeholders during the formulation of the new policy and legislation, bringing together politicians, technical forestry staff and the general public, and giving a voice to marginalized forest adjacent communities.

The most promising aspects of the recent reforms are as follows:

Strengthening the KFS. KFS as an independent Service working closely in partnership with communities, the private sector and other arms of government, has the potential


78

to radically improve governance in the sector, enable trends in forest destruction to be reversed, and to enable the benefits of sustainable forest management to be realized . The Service still faces challenges in building its institutional capacity and ability to implement its mandate. Supporting the KFS institution in a range of activities will strengthen governance of the forestry sector in Kenya. For example: support in building its institutional capacity, support in development of operational guidelines, subsidiary legislation, rules and regulations; operationalising community forest management arrangements; developing and piloting arrangements for involvement of the private sector; benefit sharing arrangements; assistance in developing forest management plans; and many other tasks which KFS faces at present

Community participation and benefit sharing. This is a major theme of the new governance arrangements and is expected to reduce pressures on forests. This theme has a number of interlinked components including benefit sharing arrangements, involvement in decision making through consultative processes, protecting customary access, and enabling equitable and fair partnerships. The modalities for operationalising the role of communities and piloting the new arrangements are under development. The RPP can make a significant contribution by supporting this process through piloting new arrangements and building capacity of both the KFS and local communities to operationalise the new arrangements.

Participation of the private sector. The new arrangements support a stronger role for the private sector but concession and other types of arrangements to facilitate this are still under development. Commercial plantations managed by the private sector are likely to be much more productive and carry much higher carbon stocks than at present if managed by the private sector. The RPP can support KFS in developing and pilot such arrangements.

Sustainable Forest Management. The new arrangements support sustainable forest management (SFM) which brings greater social and environmental benefits as well as resulting in higher carbon stock in forests. The RPP can support implementation of SFM.

<others>

Major knowledge gaps

Existing studies and data sources

The forestry sector has been extensively studied and analyzed over the past two decades leading up to the recent revision of the Forests Act and Forestry Policy. The process started with the Kenya Forestry Master Plan (KFMP) which was produced in 1994 after 5 years of analytical studies that examined every aspect of forestry in Kenya. The Master Plan (along with a restructuring plan produced in 19979) became the blueprint for reforms in the sector but due to the long delays in implementing the reforms, the Masterplan data has become outdated and in need of revision. However, several important additional studies have been carried out in the intervening period, the most important of which are:

9 Price Waterhouse 1997. Reorganisation of the management of Industrial Plantations and restructuring options for forestry department. KFD with support from World Bank.


79

Inventories of indigenous forests and other studies carried out by the Kenya Indigenous Forests Inventory (KIFCON) project with support of DFID. (Wass 1995)

FD plantation inventory updates carried out during the Kenya Forestry Development Project in the mid 1990s with WB assistance

Vegetation mapping carried out by the FAO Africover project using remote sensing

A number of detailed assessments of forest status were carried out in specific ecosystems including the Aberdares, Mt Kenya, Mau Forest and Mt Elgon

Statistics collected annually by Kenya National Bureau of Standards which provide information on the contribution of the forest sector to the national economy, and other relevant socio economic data

Strategic Environment Assessment of the Forest Act and associated studies, carried out in 2006 with assistance from the World Bank.

A number of studies on participatory forest management (PFM) carried out by the Forestry Department as a basis for a PFM strategy

Strategic planning documents (and associated background studies) for the ASALs, the charcoal sector and the livestock sector

Other recent studies relevant to REDD+ are as follows:

An analysis of the extent to which Kenya’s forest legislation and policy is linked to the GoK Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (2003-2007) and the draft 2030 Vision for Kenya. The analysis identified factors that foster or hinder the establishment of effective linkages and enhance the presence and influence of forestry in wider planning instruments with a view to strengthening financial, institutional and policy support for forestry-based poverty alleviation (FAO 2007)

In 1999, the Forests Action network (FAN) carried out a case study on the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation in the Mau Forest in Kenya. (Obare and Wangwe 1999). A study on Forest Law enforcement and governance in Kenya jointly prepared by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in 2007, supported by the Government of Finland, World Bank and World Conservation Union (IUCN) .(Mathu 2007).

<Other relevant data sources to be added here>


80

Information gaps

Inadequate data on forest resources. Despite the many studies on the forest resources there is no consolidated database of forest resource information10. The quality of existing data is variable with good data on some areas such as Mau Forest, Mt Kenya, Mt Elgon and Aberdares forests, and poor data on others such as KFS plantations, forests on private forest land, or the extent of trees outside forests. FINNIDA is supporting an update of the KFS plantation inventory but information is also needed on private plantations, trees outside forests and indigenous forests.

Data gaps related to governance drivers of deforestation and degradation. There is inadequate information on the current domestic timber requirements, the current domestic supply, the timber value chain, adequacy or deficiency and understand timber import and export dynamics, supply and demand modeling. In relation to the logging ban currently in force, there is inadequate information on the economic impacts.

Data gaps relevant to the unsustainable production of charcoal. Information is required to provide a better understanding of the charcoal value chain.

Community related drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Many aspects of community participation have already been researched but the following information gaps have been noted:

Several initiatives are already underway to increase the role of communities in forest management but the methodology for monitoring and evaluating the impact of increased community participation has not been developed.

The new Forests Act provides for benefit sharing arrangements but at present no formal arrangements have been agreed between communities and KFS. The mechanisms need to be developed and implemented on a pilot basis and the lessons learned documented. Some private companies such as PPM have experience of benefit sharing with communities but their experience has not been documented.

Manuals are required for capacity building of CFAs

Livelihoods related drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Alternative livelihood initiatives are proposed as a means of reducing pressure on forests from forest dependent communities and from clearance for agriculture, but there is inadequate information on what works and what does not work. There is also inadequate information on the impact of forestry on livelihoods and the wider economy. Disaggregated information is required that enables an assessment of the contribution of forestry to GDP.

Forest degradation due to over grazing. There is inadequate information on appropriate forest management systems that incorporate grazing, levels of livestock carrying capacity and sustainable solutions to over grazing in the ASAL areas.

10 The data on the status of Kenya forests provided in the most recent FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment Report for Kenya (FAO 2009) is still based on Kenya Forestry Master plan data from 1994, as there is no more recent comprehensive dataset available.


81

Consultation on the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and lessons learned This paper was developed through a broad-based consultative process involving review of the relevant previous studies, discussions with the technical REDD+ working group representing various institutions and organizations within Kenya, discussions at regional consultative meetings with stakeholders around the country, and interviews with representatives of forest adjacent communities, state and private forest managers, wood processing industries and forest biodiversity conservation.

The drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and analysis of current and previous strategies to address deforestation and forest degradation will be discussed further during the consultations during the consultative process of R-PP implementation described in section 1b and the analysis will continue to inform strategic approaches to implementation of REDD+ strategies during implementation.

References

FAO 2007. Linking national forest programmes and poverty reduction strategies. Kenya. Scott Geller, Rosalie McConnell, John Wanyiri. FAO Forestry Department. Forestry Policy and Institutions Service

FAO, 2009. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, Country Report, Kenya.

Forestry Department, MENR, 2007. Reorganisation of management of industrial plantations and restructuring options for the Forestry Department . Final Report June 2007

Gachanga M, 2003. Public perceptions of forests as a motor for change: the case of Kenya. Unasylva 213, Vol 55.

GoK. (Undated). Draft National Land Policy. National Land policy Secretariat.

GoK Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 1994. Kenya Forest Master Plan

GoK 2002. The First national communication of Kenya to the conference of parties to the UNFCC. Ministry of Environment and natural Resources National Environment Secretariat.

GoK. 2005. Arid and Semi Arid Lands (ASAL) National Vision and Strategy 2005 ‐ 2015

GoK 2005. The Forests Act 2005

GoK, 2007. Strategic Environment Assessment of the Kenya Forests Act (2005). Main Report, prepared for the Government of Kenya and The World Bank. FRR / IDL / Matrix Consultants

GoK. 2007. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2007 on Forest Policy. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.

GoK 2009. The National Climate Change Response Strategy.Camco Advisory Services (Kenya) Ltd.

GOK and the World Bank 2007: Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Kenya Forest Act (2005),

Kariuki J.G., Machua J.M., Luvanda A.M. and Kigomo J.N., 2008. Baseline survey of woodland utilization and degradation around Kakuma refugee camp. JOFCA/KEFRI Project technical report No 1.


82

GOK 2010. The Forests Act 2005. (No. 7 of 2005). The forests (Participation in sustainable forest management) Rules, 2009. Arrangement of rules.

Kagombe K, Gitonga J. 2005. Plantation establishment in Kenya. A case study on the shamba system. Kenya Forestry Department, MENR.

Lambrechts C, Woodley B, Church C, Gachanja M, 2003. Aerial survey of the destruction of the Aberdares range forests. UNEP

Mathu W, 2007. Forest law enforcement and governance in Kenya. A study jointly prepared by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources; Study conducted under the supervision of the AAS/AFORNET and supported by the Government of Finland, World Bank and World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Njuguna P., Mbegera M, Mbithi D, 1999. Reconnaissance survey of forest blocks in west and east of Rift Valley. Permanent Presidential Commission on Soil and Afforestation.

Obare L. and Wangwe J.B., 1999. The Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: The Case Study of MauForest in Kenya. Forest Action Network (FAN). In Verolme, Hans J.H., Moussa, Juliette, April 1999. Addressing the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation ‐ Case Studies, Analysis and Policy Recommendations. Biodiversity Action Network, Washington, DC, USA. x + 141 pp

Price Waterhouse 1997. Reorganisation of the management of Industrial Plantations and restructuring options for forestry department. KFD with support from World Bank

UNEP 2009. Kenya atlas of out changing environment. DEWA/UNEP, Nairobi.

Wass, P., 1995. Kenya’s Indigenous Forests: Status, Management, and Conservation. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK.


83

Annex 2a-2. List of on-going programs supporting forestry sector in Kenya

Agency Project Title Contents

ADB Green Zones Development Support Project

Forestry conservation; watershed management and support to forest adjacent communities

World Bank IDA

NRM Forest sector institutional reforms; community participation and benefit sharing; community and private sector investment in commercial forestry.

Finland Miti Mingi Maisha Bora ‐ Support to Forest Sector Reform in Kenya

Forest sector institutional reforms, forest information systems, PFM in ASALs. Forest sector policy, KFS institutional change, Management of gazetted forest reserves, Improved livelihoods in ASALs (including bio‐energy).

Japan/World Bank

Support to Community Based Farm Forestry Enterprises Project (using Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF))

Strengthening networks Forestry Farmer Field Schools (FFS), establishment of new FFS, sub‐grants to FFS for assessing and testing new farm forestry based enterprises, assessment of linkages between farmer groups and pivate sector regarding trading, processing and micro‐finance, investment in foretry related enterprises, training, publicity and dissemination of information.

JICA Regional Training Course on Mitigating Climate Change through Social Forestry

Training for forest sector staff from 18 countries in East and Southern Africa including Kenya.

USAID Forest/ rangeland Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Strengthening (FORREMS)

Forest sector institutional reforms, Forest Transaction Advisor. Support to development of CFAs and management plans in Mukugodo and Arabuko Sokoko forests.

FAO National Forest Program Facility; FAO‐Netherlands Partnership Program (FNPP)

Subsidiary legislation; PFM guidelines; Integrated Natural Resources Assessment (INRA), KFS website

Spain Community Based Integrated Forest Resource Conservation and Management Project in the Masaai Mau Forest.

Support forest management plan, early piloting of REDD in Maasai Mau (40 000 ha)

Sweden and Norway

Mount Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation project

France Rehabilitation of the Aberdares Forest

Rehabilitation of the degraded area ‐ technical assistance to GBM


84

Finland ‐ Local Cooperation Fund (LCF)

Commercial Agroforestry commercial agro forestry for small scale farmers in Bondo and South Nandi Districts

Finland ‐ (LCF)

On Farm tree planting & Environmental education in schools

Poverty reduction through on farm tree planting and environmental education in schools within the Mau Watershed

Finland ‐ (LCF)

Community‐ Led Agro forestry Tree planting in Migori District

Finland ‐ (LCF)

Conservation for sustainable living

Linking Community based conservation and livelihood Natural products to conscientious consumer markets for sustained poverty alleviation

Finland ‐ (LCF)

Environmental Education and Action

Schoool puppetry programme on environment

Finland ‐ (LCF)

Institutional strengthening Strengthening governance structures and organs of forest society and increasing profile in environmental management

Finland ‐ (LCF)

Post election violence on forests in Western Kenya

NGO‐ Facilitated support to Kenya forestry sector in addressing impacts of post election violence on forests in western Kenya

Finland (funding for NGOs)

Community forest mapping and governance

Participatory mapping of forest areas in three communities by using 3D mapping as a tool and preparing forest management plans

GEF‐UNDP/PPG

Strengthening the protected Area network of the Eastern Montane Forest Hotspot of Kenya

Improved community environment and natural resource governance and use, to build capacity and achieve local control and national benefits in biodiversity and land management, to support alternative livelihoods and sustainable income generating activities.

KNH/NABU Improved livelihoods for sustainable natural resources management in Arabuko‐Sokoke Forest, Kenya

Development of technologies that link human well being and sound natural resources management as a way of reducing poverty

Finland ‐ Local Cooperation Fund (LCF)

Conservation for sustainable living: capacity building, nature‐based enterprises and business support to conserve the Dakatcha woodland by and for local communities

Strengthening institutional and advocacy capabilities of CBOs, improving livelihoods through development of basic ecotourism infrastructure

CEF‐CDTF Improved Natural Resource management of the Cherangani

Strengthening decision making among the local communities and government agencies in


85

Hills Forest managing, regulating and monitoring use of natural resources

DoF/Birdlife Denmark

Joint Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement at Important Bird Areas

Support sustainable nature‐based enterprises; strengthen advocacy capabilities for sustainabe IBA management

DFID Improving Livelihoods through sustainable government, NGO, Private partnerships in South and North Nandi Forest

Maintanance of partnerships and management processes to form a basis for future sustainablilty of project initiatives

EC/RSPB Instituting effective monitoring of Protected Areas ( IBAs) as a contribution to reducing the rate of Biodiversity loss in Africa

Enpower biodiversity‐rich and resource‐poor African countries to meet CBD obligations and target to reduce biodiversity loss by 2010

CEF‐CDTF South and North Nandi forests environmental conservation and livelihoods improvement

Restoration of water catchment value, promote good governance & management of forests, and sustainable land use practices

Biota Three year bird monitoring in Kakamega forest

Investing in Community Based Capacity to Monitor Kakamega Forest

CEPF Instituting a standardized sustainable biodiversity monitoring system in the eastern Arc/ Coastal Forests Hotspots

Improving biological knowledge of species and sites in which they occur (hotspots)

CEF‐CDTF Advocating for the establishment of Community Conserved Areas in Yala, Dunga, Tana Delta and Sabaki River Mouth Wetland Important Bird Areas (IBAs), Kenya

Establishment of Community Conserved Areas to enhance sustainable use of natural resources in unprotected areas

CEPF Instituting a biodiversity monitoring system of Globally Threatened Species in Dakatcha woodland

Focuses on critically‐endangered species and small‐scale efforts to increase connectivity of biologically important habitat patches

CEPF Promoting conservation through trees for carbon sequestration and livelihoods improvements in Mandunguni Forest Reserve, Malindi District, Kenya

Development of a pilot model for voluntary carbon trading to enhance sustainable financing for conservation of the forest

USAID Enhanced Sustainability at ASF through improves natural resources management by and for stakeholders

Advancing participatory Forest Mangement, diversifying nature‐based enterprises, and strengthening institutional and partneship development.


86

PACT Increasing Local Communities economic benefits for Sustainable natural resource Management

Building enterpreneurship capacity of business owners , enhancing biodiversity conservation by and for local communities while maximising incomes for sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity

KNH/NABU Children and Sustainable Development: Investing in Education, and Social and Economic Empowerment to conserve globally threatened biodiversity in Arabuko‐Sokoke Forest, Kenya

Education and awareness on NRM, adoption of income‐generating activities and ecotourism for conservation and livelihoods

Swedbio Conservation, Policy and Development: awareness, training, and monitoring the impact of people and environmental change on important bird areas to guide monitoring, management and policy development in Kenya.

Promoting sustainable use of biodiversity to enhance the livelihoods of local communities, and empowering local communities to participate in biodiversity policy making and implementation


87

Annex 2a-3 Ongoing climate change and REDD+ related projects being implemented in Kenya

Project, Proponents and Background

Location, Social issues and Ownership

Land type and extension and Design elements

Source of carbon change

& Project Activities

Co‐Benefits, Project Risks & General issues

Kasigau Corridor REDD Project‐ Rukinga Sanctuary

Proponents:Rukinga ranching Co. Wildlide Works, Wildrlife Works Carbon and tech support by Calcarbon Ltd.

Background:

Wildlife Works started a conserv. project in ’98, leasing land from ranch. Ranch wanted to sell to non bio friendly buyer so WW then purchased maj. shares in 2000 to be able to begin carbon project.

Location:

SEKenya 150 Kms NW of Mombasa in Coast Province (between Tsavo E and Tsavo W)

Social context:

35,000 people live within 5 kms of project boundary. Two communities Taita and Duruma

Ownership:

Leasehold from GoK by Rukinga ranching Co. Ltd. Whose majority shareholder is BenBo Intl an offshore trust established by one of Wildworks main investors.

30,186 ha. in semi arid area. Was primary forest historically.

Montane forest 1% remain (due to ag) tropical dryland forest 86% project indigenous savannah 8%

4.6% project had been cleared slash and burn for maize

Qualifies as HCVF

Design Elements:

Have designated ‘out’ areas not counted in project (BOMAS) clearings for cattle 30m radius. Feel they may continue to find more. Access roads were excluded buffering 15m either side

Afforestation not possible due to lack of water and fragile

1. Fragmentation of montane areas due to illegal harvest for poles and fuelwood

2. drylands w. 5‐7 m avg. canopy. 50 species‐ very little impacted despite cattle, ecotourism. Some damage from elephants

3. grasslands in historic conditions

4. Ag encroachment area was abandoned, so native bush returning (slopes so returns eventually to montane, not to grass).

Illegal charcoal turns best hardwood into bags of coal for same. Meat poaching

Baseline:

Co Benefits:

Biodiversity‐ wildlife

Focus on local job creation and training eg carbon Forest inventory “income generating ecofriendly activities in the Project Zone

‐investing proceeds back in alternative livelihood creation in areas SURROUNDING project (reduce pressure)

Project Risks:

‐Change in legislation (expropriation risk v. low as project gains visibility and stature)


88







Wildlife works has 100 local people employed there.

Enviro Mngmt and Coord Act 8 1999‐ passed an enviro audit by NEMA.

Registration of Titles Act govern the terms of title deed by which Rukinga Ranching Co is owner of the Ranch.

Launched project with join KFS press

Land gazetted in 1970s as a private group ranch for grazing.

For long term bens: “The project has executed a Carbon Easement on the Project Area, so that the owners of the land must take into consideration the carbon values and it is our intention to get the easement registered against the title deed of the land, although there is no mechanism as of yet for that in Kenyan law.” (pg 48)

Carbon rights11

ecosystem. (tho page 38 mention nursery and reforestation efforts on slopes)

Link to KARI (Kenya Ag Res Instit) for climate appropriate cash crop (jojoba)

Launch of VCS REDD standard (late 2008) enabled the project to start, attract outside finance.

Unplanned slash and burn ag expansion is baseline scenario.

‐ Population growth estimates that relate to ag conversion‐ patches of clearing.12

Project Activities: (pg 34)

‐Forest and Biodiversity monitoring (control illegal cattle, etc)

‐clothing factory

‐Nurseries and organic greenhouse

‐Ecotourism

‐ Dryland farming (training)

‐ insufficient income due to weak/unclear carbon market

‐crop failure outside (leading to tree poaching in project)

‐cattle grazer invasion (better rangers needed)

‐drought (worsening due to CC)

‐fire (fought via education re: fallows)

11 At present it is not common practice to register a Carbon Easement against title in Kenya although the Environment Act did envisage such a concept, but not explicitly.

Wildlife Works has committed written approval from the landowners that should such a possibility exist they would cooperate fully with Wildlife Works in ensuring the successful registration. 12 The difference between the 2006 and 2026 populations gave us the total new persons on the landscape in the Project Zone from start to end of Crediting period, which when multiplied by the per head per year deforestation rate (D) gave us a total deforested hectares over the Project crediting period


89







release.

‐ Schools and bursaries

‐ Carbon Leakage mitigation (train local staff in inventories, easements)

Forest Again. Reforestation Project in Kenya.

Proponents:

Eco2librium (lead),

Kenya Forest Service, Kakamega Environmental Education Programme, National Museum of Kenya, Moi University, and BIOTA‐East Africa

Background:

This project is being proposed by two partnering organizations:

Location:

Western province of Kenya, within the established boundaries of the Kakamega National Forest‐ along the northeastern edge of the Lake Victoria basin. Project areas are south central Kakamega Forest.

Social Context:

Kakamega National Forest is surrounded by at least 57 villages (< 5 km). These communities are primarily subsistence agriculturalists. Within this province the Human Poverty Index is 36% with child mortality (< 5 years) at 14% (3rd highest

Land type:

There are two sites for reforestation:

Ilhoro (376 ha)

Kisaina site (114 ha)

Topography of sites include flat to rolling hills that vary in elevation from 1425‐1500 m. Reforestation sites have similar hydrology, soils, and precipitation patterns.

Ilhoro site is classified as non‐residential agriculture that has been abandoned since the 1980’s and has been used for the last 20‐30 years for grazing of cattle and goats from neighboring communities.

The Kakamega forest is low to mid elevation and is one of the few remaining rainforests in the series of fragmented forests in East Africa.

Baseline:

Due to socio‐economic, demographic, and institutional conditions, the most plausible land use projection for project areas is continual degradation of cleared forest land (e.g. fuelwood collection, charcoal production) and non‐forested (e.g. grazing, fodder collection) national “forest” land in this area. There remains a very high demand for timber products, forest‐related income, and grazing in forested and cleared areas. This demand is coming

Co Benefits:

Biodiversity‐ wildlife. Contains highland/montane species.

Funds from offsets are predicted to provide for over200 jobs both directly and indirectly related to reforestation over 40 years. In addition, 25‐40% of the offset revenues will fund the expansion of KEEP activities: developing nontimber sources of forest‐related income (e.g. butterflies, honey, medicines), HIV/AIDS health programs,


90







Eco2librium (EC02) and Kakamega Env Education Programme (KEEP). EC02 is a Limited Liability Company registered in Idaho (it was formerly an academic organization). It works on energy and resource conservation research and consulting, carbon management and offset development. Over the last 6 years, EC02 and KEEP have worked together to conserve the Kakamega

Forest. ECO2 has been conducting wildlife and forest conservation research for over 10 years. EC02 has also been engaged in carbon

in Kenya). The adjusted annual income (PPP) is $557. The two districts (Kakamega and Vihiga) have an estimated population of 735,000 and

608,000 people respectively.

Ownership:

Project sites are located within the boundaries of Kakamega National Forest and all land is owned and managed by the Kenya Forest Service.

Grass is the dominant vegetation with mean coverage of 59.5% and non‐permanent shrubs at 40.5%. Mean shrub height was 1.625 meters.

Kisaina site is classified as cleared forest grass/shrub land. Parts of this site are also used for grazing of cattle and goats. Shrubs are the dominant vegetation with mean coverage of 57.5% and grass at 42.5%. Mean shrub height was 1.7 m.

Design elements:

Four criteria were used to select reforestation project sites:

1. Currently non‐ forested areas with no residents (two project sites are classified as shrub/bush and failed non‐residential agriculture cleared at least 30 years ago)

from a dense and growing population with high poverty levels and less available land to cultivate. Demand is primarily for wood to cook and build, bark for medicines, and grazing.

Project Activities:

Restore 490 hectares with indigenous forests (enhancing riverine habitat and general biodiversity)

Additionally a “Green Rangers” program will be implemented that consists of employing youth ‐ that currently turns to the forest for income through the production and selling of charcoal and/or grazing ‐ from the communities to monitor planted seedlings for survival, and are paid based on seedling survival.

In preparation: a national workshop in May 2008 with

conservation education, and capacity building to enhance tourism and provide management assistance to the KFS forest station. Eco2 will also use offset funds to help leverage additional funds for clean water and micro‐hydropower development.

Project Risks:

‐ reduced rainfall (seasonally and yearly),

‐ grazing of cattle on reforested lands,

‐ wood collection (fuelwood, medicines, timber)

‐ organizational changes in primary stakeholders


91







management activities developing carbon inventories. For this project they assembled a Project Management Team (PMT) composed by organizations that are responsible for managing a certain aspect of the project.

.

2. Planted areas to form natural forest corridors between the main forest islands (Kakamega and Yala); bordered by indigenous forest, secondary indigenous forest, or plantations (hardwood and softwood).

3. Within the proposed protected use core area of the KIFCON management plan (1994) and current Kenya Forest Service Participatory Management Plan.

4. Accessible to the KEEP/CFA nurseries and forest station, thus facilitating transportation of seedlings and monitoring.

major stakeholders to discuss obstacles, possibilities and potential roles. The organizational structure was developed via a Project Management Team (PMT), preparations for upgrading the community forest association CFA nurseries (who will provide seedlings on a contractual basis), and mobilization of KEEP for community outreach and education. Private funds were awarded to measure reference forest carbon and complete the community studies. Habitat analyses, GIS work, and baseline conditions at project site were completed. Desk and site validation of project by Rainforest Alliance was completed. The PMT met to discuss all the logistical procedures associated with community outreach, capacity building, planting and long‐term maintenance, and financials.

(Eco2librium and KEEP)


92







Aberdare Range/ Mt. Kenya Small Scale Reforestation Initiative

Proponents:

Green Belt Movement on behalf of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) in association with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Kenya Forest Service (KFS); Govt of Canada, IBRD as trustee for the BioCarbon Fund.

7 PDD’s

Background:

Location:

North Imenti / Lari / Kinangop / Kieni / Central Imenti Constituency, Kenya

catchment areas of the Tana River within the Aberdare and Mt. Kenya Reserve Forests (gazetted).

Kamae‐Kipipiri site (227.1 ha). Lari & Kinangop Constituency

Social Context

Ownership: CA’s have exclusive forest user rights including environmental services like carbon rights in the framework of a Community Forest Mngmt Agreemt under

Land type:

Grassland converted to forested land

Design elements:

Communities form CA’s (constituency Community Associations or Community Forest Associations).

CA’s develop forest management plans in which CAs have exclusive forest user rights to all NTFPs.

Additional revenue will be generated from the sale of carbon (depending on growth rate and contractual agreements). CA’s assigns the verified emission reductions to the Green Belt Movement (GBM) and in exchange GBM covers i) direct project development related costs; ii) the entire charges for the

Baseline:

Project Activities:

reforest environmentally sensitive lands in the catchment areas of the Tana River within the Aberdare and Mt. Kenya Reserve Forests.

Co Benefits:

income generation opportunities for CA members to plant and tend the seedlings during the first two years. This will provide income of approximately 10 Ksh per tree (US$130 / ha) directly to the groups involved in the tree planting. This represents a significant amount of income since the annual income in Kenya is less than a dollar per person in rural areas.

Project Risks:


93







2005 Forest Act. The Community Associations of Lari, South and North Kinangop (CFAs) have allowed GBM to act on their behalf to quantify, and trade the carbon sequestered in the licensed gazetted forest.

Community Forest Management Agreements; iii) introduces income generating activities and iv) provides financial incentives to sustain community bursaries. The above order indicates revenue utilization priorities.

Machakos & Kitui Local Community Forest Initiative

Proponents:

Local communities , community based organizations.Bureau of Environmental Analysis International (listed as buyer) BEA International (listed as facilitator)

Background:

KG doc says it is ongoing in 2005, but

Location:

KG doc says Not available

Social Context:

Ownership:

Land Type:

KG doc says Not available

Design elements:

KG doc says structure of deal is Not available on

No value or amount of deal info

No info on financial flow disbursement

Baseline:

Project Activities:

Forestation projects

Co Benefits:

Project Risks:


94







no date of deal agreed

Kwale Forestry Project

Proponents:

Background:

KG doc says it is in planning stage in 2005

Location:

KG doc says no information availabl

Social Context:

Ownership:

Land Type:

Design elements:

Baseline:

Project Activities:

Co Benefits:

Project Risks:

Osentu Agroforestry & Ecotourism Project

Proponents:

(KG lists as sellers:) Local communities through three community based organisations

(KG lists Buyers as Olosho Onyok Association, Kenya Forest Service & GreenBelt Movement

Location:

Narok River Basin, Narok District, Rift Valley Province

Social Context:

Local communities through three community based organisations

Ownership:

Land Type:

Design elements:

Government Payment for reforestation and carbon credits (funded through the CDM office).

Funds are distributed directly to the implementing groups: they purchase seedlings and distribute to the people for free, keeping records, providing oversight and

Baseline:

Project Activities:

Measures include:

1)tree planting along river basin

2)control of over exploitation of natural resources by provision of seedling and community forestry

3)promote eco‐tourism through demarcation of conservation zone

Co Benefits:

Project Risks:


95







Background:

Olosho Onyok: provides funding; Kenya Forest Service: provides technical leadership, materials and capacity building; GreenBelt Movement: funding, seedlings, capacity building and training.

Joseph ole Mpoe, P. O. Box 34 Narok

(Deal Information provided:)

22 May 2008 for Olosho Onyok funds,

Oct 2007 for Kenya Forest Service

rewarding the best efforts.

Bamburi‐Lafarge Fuel Conversion

Proponents:

KG doc says seller is:

Manufacturing Plant, local communities.

KG doc says Buyer is: Lafarge International, Bamburi Cement Company Ltd.

Location:

Kenyan Coast (Mombasa and outlying districts)

Social Context:

Ownership:

Land Type:

Design elements:

1) The manufacturing plant is implementing conversion to coal to reduce carbon emissions. The fuel to be used will be firewood.

2) the company is implementing a project to support local communities to grow tree stands on their

Baseline:

Project Activities:

The local communities are getting seedlings and getting educated on tree husbandry. When full conversion is done the tree will be paid for at commercial rates.

Co Benefits:

Project Risks:

Lafarge company is bearing carrying out the project.


96







Contact person Ms. Sabine Bear.

Background:

KG Value amount of deal:

Ksh 100 million (Approx US$ 1.5 million).

farms, which it will purchase at premium prices for use as fuel for its plants.

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

(bundled carbon plus other ecosystem services)

Proponents:

KG doc says seller is:

Local communities and collaborating organisations (usually CBOs) KG doc says Buyer is:

Various buyers (mainly study projects in technical areas of Carbon, few instances of actual implementation.

Location:

Various locations

Social Context:

Ownership:

KG doc has no info on amount of deal

Land Type:

Design elements:

Electronic guides for land/carbon surveillance, project targeting, measurement and monitoring of soil, vegetation & socio‐economics in landscapes, capacity building.

Baseline:

Project Activities:

ICRAF leads multi‐disciplinary teams in research in this full ecosystem accounting (including for soil carbon, trees outside the target area).

Co Benefits:

Project Risks:

The ICRAF also hosts the ASB partnership which working along various themes (Dr. Brent Swallows is the Global ASB coordinator).


97







Background:

Lou Verchot, P. O. Box 30677‐00100, Nairobi, Kenya.


98

2d. Social and Environmental Impacts

2d-1: Terms of Reference for the “SESA”


99

Component 3 Annexes (Develop a Reference Scenario)

Annex 3-1 Draft outline of Components 3-4 developed by the methodology subgroup, Feb 2010

Methodology Subgroup Breakout Session

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Director’s Boardroom

Members of Methodology Working Group:

Present:

Esa Haabsalo (MMMB)

Neeta Hooda (WB)

Jackson Kimani (Clinton Foundation)

Mwangi Kinyanjui (DRSRS)

Julius Muchemi (ERMIS)

Kefa Wamichue (KFS)

Absent:

Joshua Lichena (Ministry of Development for Northern Kenya and Arid Lands)

Charles Ksituma (DRSRS)

Gabriele Gnini (FAO)

David Githaiga (UNDP)

Ian Gordon (ICIPE)

DRAFT OUTLINE OF COMPONENT 3

Background Information

Current forest cover and management zones in Kenya (insert KFS atlas maps)

Recent rates of deforestation: 12,000 ha/yr (FAO FRA2005) emphasize importance of REDD+ in Kenya (including enhancement of carbon stocks and sustainable forest management)

History of National Communications re: LULUCF?

Drivers of land use change in Kenya (forest loss, forest gain): conversion to agriculture, illegal logging for charcoal production (conversion to grassland), fires


100

Forest Definition for Kenya: propose available options available, suggest 15%? Potentially different definitions for different agroecological zones that Kenya has defined?

Framework for Developing Reference Scenario: IPCC

Forest to nonforest

Nonforest to forest

Forest remaining as forest covers enhancement of carbon stocks (A/R, sustainable forest management), forest degradation

Goal of Component 3

Develop reference scenario that forecasts emissions and removals of CO2 into the future in the absence of REDD+ incentives. Involves two sub-goals:

Quantification of historic emissions/removals from deforestation, degradation, and enhancement of C stocks (DDE) for the period 2000 to 2009 at a national scale using the IPCC framework; and

Development of future trajectories of emissions/removals over different time periods and under different economic and development scenarios.

Activities to Accomplish Goal

ACTIVITY 1: Obtain historic data for changes in forest area and carbon stocks

Activity 1a: Identify and enhance capacity, staffing and technological capabilities within relevant groups

Determine hierarchical management structure for developing the reference emission level

National Level (KFS, DRSRS, Climate Change Office, Kenya Soil Survey)

Meso-level (ERMIS, NGOs, plantation companies, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kenya Forest Research Institute, Kenya Forestry College, Kenyeta Univ of Agriculture and Technology’s Department of Geomatic Engineering)

Local level (communities/CFAs)

Identify additional staffing needs and develop coordination among groups

What new positions need to be established for the national REDD+ program related to developing the REL?

Additional GIS staff at DRSRS – dedicated, full-time team of 5-7 staff


101

~ 10-15 carbon stock inventory teams (one team per conservatory?)

Determine how various groups will collaborate/coordinate to share data and information

Who is responsible for what

Potentially utilize existing communication technology to develop web mapping tool that links local community centers to national database at KFS

Identify technological needs

Imagery acquisition:

Potentially acquire panchromatic SPOT imagery (10-m resolution): available for 1999 to present, 8-day basis

Other potential imagery sources e.g. aerial photos, AFRICOVER (Landsat-based)

Digital 3-D models developed from local knowledge of land cover?

Improved internet connections (high speed, fiber optic)

Desktop computer + peripherals for each staff member

External data storage on dedicated server

GIS software (GIS, ERDAS, IDRISI, ENVI)

Data management software

Updated inventory equipment (handheld GPS devices, distance measuring equipment, laser range finders, clinometers, dbh tapes, etc.)

Identify training needs

Remote Sensing/GIS:

Send key staff to remote sensing conferences

Training on use of GIS software + new extensions

Training to university students on GIS component

Training on emerging remote sensing methods for identifying forest degradation

Training of staff on information management and technology

Carbon stock measurement: Training on use and maintenance of field equipment + plot measurement

Kenya Forestry College students

Local communities

KFS staff

Training of KFS staff on use of IPCC methodologies for calculating emissions/removals

Training of staff on monitoring other co-benefits e.g. biodiversity

Activity 1b: Quantify area changes: deforestation, forestation and forest degradation at national and sub-national scales


102

Identify standards for developing a national basemap

Map Projection

Map Scale

Datum

Metadata standards

Data Management System for compiling national databases

Determine time period for historical reference scenario

Identify whether existing data products are available/appropriate for use in developing historical reference scenario

Acquire imagery for reference time period and classify each map into forest/non-forest according to forest definition

Develop 2 products:

Map of deforestation (due to agricultural conversion, fire, intensive fuelwood collection)

Map of forestation

Perform accuracy assessment on historical reference time period for recent year and assume same for previous years (>80%)

On recent year map, stratify existing forest areas based on spectral characteristics of lands that were deforested and forested over the reference time period to inform carbon stock field sampling

Identify historical rate of forest degradation, planting trees outside forests:

Investigate emerging technologies in remote sensing for detecting forest degradation (Souza/Asner)

Investigate local community mapping approaches and sampling strategies for assessing historical trend of forest degradation and tree planting

Activity 1c: Quantify carbon stock changes: develop emission/removal factors for deforestation, forest degradation, and enhancement of carbon stocks

Identify key carbon pools to include in historic estimate of emissions/removals

Aboveground biomass

Belowground biomass (estimate based on IPCC equation)

Soils where relevant

Dead wood where relevant

Litter exclude, likely not significant

Identify whether existing inventory data are available/appropriate for use in developing historical reference scenario – if so, compile into central database


103

If existing data not appropriate, collect new data:

Plantations:

Growth and yield tables – not as precise for estimating carbon

Develop local biomass regression equations for plantation species (more accurate)

Natural forests + savannas/open woodlands:

Verify pantropical biomass equations for Kenyan forests

Acquire local equations developed for Kenyan savannas/open woodlands

Identify sampling strategy: use remote sensing information about where lands were deforested in past, sample in forest lands with similar spectral characteristics

Identify number of field plots required to achieve given level of accuracy and precision

Conduct field campaign

Trees outside forests:

Develop strategy for sampling local communities on historical changes in tree cover in e.g. ag lands

Investigate use of historical aerial imagery

Compile field data on carbon stocks into central database

Activity 1d: combine area changes with emission/removal factors

Use IPCC methodologies

Assess uncertainty in emissions/removals using IPCC approach

ACTIVITY 2: Develop future trajectory under different economic/development scenarios

Vision 2030: how will forest cover change over time? Plans to reduce deforestation/increase forest cover to 10%?

ACTIVITY 3: Subject REL to internal and external verification

DRAFT OUTLINE OF COMPONENT 4 (MRV)

Background Information

MRV system monitors the performance of REDD+ interventions

Goal of Component 4


104

Develop a monitoring, reporting and verification system that allows for transparent accounting of emissions and removals of CO2 through time that can be compared against the projected reference scenario

Develop a monitoring system that allows for transparent monitoring of other social and environmental impacts (SESA)

Activities to Accomplish Goal

ACTIVITY 1: Outline management framework for national MRV system

Develop organizational flowchart to identify which institutions/ministries are responsible for which component of MRV process

KFS has ownership

Role of other groups: Kenya Wildlife Service, local communities/CFAs, universities

ACTIVITY 2: Evaluate monitoring systems that are already in place in other countries to identify learning opportunities

US methodology for quantifying enhancement of carbon stocks in extended rotation plantation systems

Regional knowledge sharing, e.g. Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia

ACTIVITY 3: Identify new data that will come on board in the near future that could be used for future monitoring (e.g., satellite monitoring system out of ROC)

ACTIVITY 4: Design monitoring system

Identify frequency of monitoring

Identify population of interest, stratify into monitoring strata

Natural forests

Plantations

Trees outside forests

Locations of forest-dependent communities + buffer zones

Develop plan for assessing uncertainty

Accuracy

Precision

Bias

Develop data archiving system


105

Develop system to harmonize use of different datasets through time and how to handle decisions about changing monitoring options over time

ACTIVITY 5: Design reporting system

Determine levels of accuracy and precision for reporting emissions/removals

Look into available reporting frameworks (e.g. IPCC GHG inventory)

Design reporting framework that summarizes data, estimation methods and uncertainty

ACTIVITY 6: Design verification system

Look into available systems

ACTIVITY 7: Test monitoring system in pilot areas to identify potential issues

Subject monitoring events to pilot verification audit

ACTION ITEMS:

Kefa: identification of forest ownership issues in Kenya, how KFS defines forest+trees on farmland, new forest laws (CFA role)

Kefa or Jackson: Send Winrock atlas booklet (UNEP)

Kefa: Forest zone boundaries (72 zones with stations within) used to identify who needs to be trained/capacity building

Esa: local equations developed for biomass of savanna/open woodlands by 4 growth forms (Timo Pukkala reference)

Kefa: concept note with Jackson (Clinton Foundation) and KFS (Kefa) on carbon accounting system

James: follow up on acquisition of panchromatic SPOT 10m imagery for whole country since 1999-present. Processed to show NDVI.

Julius: provide info on what has been done with 6 pilot communities re: 3-D models

Kefa: draft a flowchart of linkages between remote sensing, carbon stocks, hierarchy of who is doing what where and how it all links together up to Climate Change Office

Winrock: get Kenya’s NC from UNFCCC

REDD+ POLICY OPTIONS:

Extended rotations on plantations?

Policy made to stop conversion of plantations to agriculture demonstrates that certain policies introduced in the past have slowed down land use change. Highlight governance issues.

Improve efficiency on supply side and demand side of cookstove fuel

CONSULTATIONS: what methodology-specific information needs to be included?


106

Use CFAs for monitoring certain components

How have local communities been involved in monitoring processes and how do they see their role?

Issue of monitoring trees outside of forests – enhancement of stocks – degradation. Big community aspect.