PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND NATIONAL PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND NATIONAL Participatory Forest Management CONFERENCE

Theme: Enhancing Participatory Forest Management under the devolved governance structure

HELD AT THE Kenya FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (KEFRI) HEADQUARTERS, MUGUGA Kenya, 15TH AND 16TH JULY 2014

Convened By: Kenya Forest Service Forest Society of Kenya Kenya Forestry Research Institute Kenya Forests Working Group Kenya Wildlife Service Nature Kenya

Sponsored By: The Government of Finland Global Environment Facility United Nations Development Programme

Citation: W. Ayiemba, D. Mbithi, E. Nahama, J. Kagombe, L. Njuguna, L. W. Njuguna, J. Laigong, and J. Mwanzia(2014). Proceedings of the 2nd National PFM Conference: Enhancing participatory forest management under the devolved governance structure. July 15-16, 2014. Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Muguga, Kenya.

Report compilation: Volga Lipwoni and Leah Gichuki

ii Executive Summary This proceeding is derived from the 2nd National Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Conference held on the 15th and 16th July 2014 at the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) headquarters in Muguga. The conference brought together forestry practitioners and policy makers with the main purpose of informing PFM implementation under the devolved governance structure in Kenya. Its overall theme was “Enhancing Participatory Forest Management under a devolved governance structure”.

The conference was jointly organized by the Kenya Forest Service, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya Forests Working Group, Forest Society of Kenya and Nature Kenya. The Government of Finland, UNDP and GEF were the key conference sponsors. The conference was officially opened by Prof. Judy Wakhungu, the Cabinet Secretary - Environment, Water and Natural Resources. The event was graced by dignitaries including the Dr. Richard Lesiyampe, Principal Secretary in the State Department of Environment and Natural Resources, , Director KEFRI, Senior Deputy Directors KFS, representatives from United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Miti Mingi Maisha Bora (MMMB), and national and county government ministries. 203 participants were in attendance.

During the conference, a total of 17 papers and 2 posters were presented with plenary discussions being held in the context of four PFM thematic areas: Theme 1: Experiences with PFM implementation under the Forests Act 2005 Theme 2: PFM under changing policy and legal frameworks Theme 3: PFM planning and plan implementation experiences Theme 4: Costs and benefits in PFM

At the end of the two day conference, participants agreed on a number of key highlights. It was proposed that a committee to be composed of KFS, Community Forest Associations (CFAs) and key stakeholders be formed to lead in implementation of highlights presented below:

Theme 1: 1. Facilitate the review of PFM guidelines taking into account lessons learnt Experiences and best practices in PFM implementation that are already documented. with PFM 2. Provision of standards for identification and utilization of viable investments implementation in PFM. under the Forests 3. Development of dispute resolution mechanisms within the PFM framework. Act 2005 4. Enhancement of communication channels between community members and the KFS field officers

Theme 2: PFM 5. Support continuous strengthening of community participation at both under changing national and county levels in the forest legislations and policy. policy and legal 6. Sensitizing the judiciary and prosecutors on Natural Resources Management frameworks legislations for informed decision making. 7. Set up mechanisms for certifying officers responsible for development of PFM Plans. 8. Develop/enhance funding mechanism to support CFA operations. 9. Enhance stakeholders’ engagement, including CFAs and national government staff, in development of county policies, legislations, strategies and budgets.

iii Theme 3: PFM 10. KFS and other forest stakeholders should fast track on development of planning and plan PFMPs and signing of Forest Management Agreements to cover all forest implementation areas in the shortest possible time. experiences 11. Both the KFS and county governments should make budgetary provisions to support implementation of some community activities in the PFMPs. 12. The county governments should promote mainstreaming of PFM in non- gazetted forests under their jurisdiction, including forested large tracts of land under private ownership, through statutory provisions. 13. Slow adoption of PFM is linked to poor understanding of the process amongst the key players hence capacity building of all stakeholders including forest managers should be prioritized by all institutions facilitating the process. 14. KFS and other key stakeholders should facilitate review of the PFMPs preparation process with a view to reducing costs and time. 15. Stakeholders should facilitate development of a PFM Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Protocol with smart indicators, through a participatory process. 16. Institutions facilitating PFM at forest station level should ensure involvement of women, youth and other vulnerable groups in the PFM process through inclusion and mentorship programmes. 17. KFS should develop a database on the status of PFMPs at Forest Conservancy level, this being in addition to what exists at the national level. 18. PFM should be applied in dryland forests which are threatened by uncontrolled exploitation. 19. All stakeholders involved in community development at local level should be brought on board during the formulation of PFMPs and be encouraged to play an active role during implementation instead of that role being left to KFS and CFAs alone. 20. Enhance effective and efficient data collection and record keeping.

Theme 4: Costs and 21. Prepare and incorporate cost-benefit sharing mechanisms in the relevant benefits in PFM government policies and legislation (Government vs Communities; within communities) 22. Promote opportunities for commercialization while adding value to products and services together with the private sector 23. Work out modalities for expanding benefit sharing base e.g. Payment for Ecosystem Services, Ecotourism 24. Conduct valuation of forest resources and benefits 25. Engage the private sector in value addition to forest products and services.

Other emerging 26. Coordinate sectors that operate in same ecosystem to create synergy and issues eliminate wastage and duplication 27. CFA representation should be at all levels of forest governance 28. Information gathering / research should involve all stakeholders in the locality 29. Forest boundaries should be secured and the possibility of issuance of Title Deeds for forest lands under both the National and County governments, explored. 30. County and private land holdings lying idle should be afforested for the country to realize 10% forest cover.

iv Foreword It is now a decade since the piloting and inclusion into law the Participatory Forest Management approaches in Kenya. The approach, commonly referred to as “PFM”, was adopted by the government to ensure our forest resources are sustainably managed and also contributes to the socio-economic well being of forest adjacent communities and Kenyans at large. Tremendous achievement have been made under PFM and the credit goes not only to the government and the forest adjacent communities but also to the civil society and development partners who have and continue to support communities through Community Forest Associations (CFAs), for them to take up their roles as provided for under the policy and legislative framework for forestry management in Kenya.

As the devolved government structure in Kenya takes root, it is expected that there will be shifts in forest resources management and administration where County governments will take up certain forestry functions hitherto a preserve of the central government. It was thus on this premise that the 2nd National Participatory Forest Management Conference was organized under the theme “Enhancing Participatory Forest Management under the devolved governance structure”, primarily to share experiences and lessons learnt and chart a way forward for forestry development under the new constitutional dispensation and in line with Vision 2030.

The overall theme and the 4 sub-themes, namely 1: Experiences with PFM implementation under the Forests Act 2005; 2: PFM under changing policy and legal frameworks; 3: PFM planning and plan implementation experiences; and 4: Costs and benefits in PFM, of the conference were indeed carefully thought through, selected and adequately addressed the major concerns of devolution in the forest sector and counties. The PFM approach involves community livelihoods which has a strong linkage with rural development. The Ministry of Environment Water and Natural Resources is committed to the realization of forestry contribution to the national goal of poverty reduction and improved livelihoods. Indeed, the theme on cost benefit sharing is an important, emotive and serious issue in natural resources management which the Ministry has to deal with as soon as possible.

The Forests Act 2005 is being reviewed and the Forests Management and Conservation Bill 2014 is now about to be presented to parliament. The Bill provides for devolvement of some forestry functions to the counties and enhancement of community participation for improved livelihood. As much as the draft National Forest Policy and the Forest Management and Conservation Bill are at an advanced stage, there is always a room under subsidiary legislations to address emerging issues that may require legislation. Some of the conference recommendations could be well captured in the subsidiary legislations which will be formulated at a later stage as the laws are aligned to the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

The participants having been drawn from all stakeholders in the forestry sector: Forestry professionals, Community Based Forest Associations, National and County policy makers, development partners, government institutions and agencies, private companies and individuals with interest in forestry gives the confidence that this proceedings reflects the true status of PFM in the country. Also having given serious thought on the experiences, the documented case studies and best practices, recommendations on the way forward for PFM under the devolved governance structure and policy briefs on PFM to be developed from this conference will aptly inform the national and county legislation and policy formulation.

The Ministry recognizes that sustainable natural resource management and utilization can only succeed if it balances economic, socio-cultural and environmental concerns of the society. Secondly, it also appreciates the importance of public participation in forest management and truly this is the reason for the gathering for PFM. This conference should not be the last where stakeholders share experiences and lessons learnt for future forestry development but rather the way forward in policy making and development in general, as the Constitution requires. v The Ministry is committed to taking up the recommendations from this conference to ensure that there is an effective policy and legislative framework for effective and efficient implementation of PFM as one of the best practices in the forest sector. I call upon all stakeholders including county governments to take their active role in sustainable management and utilization of the forest resources in the country as a whole. It is only through good forest governance that we can be sure of bequeathing this precious natural resource to the future generations.

The Ministry registers its appreciation to the sponsors and organizers of this conference which has brought together key stakeholders in the forest sector, and hopes that they will continue to partner and support these kinds of gatherings for sharing information more frequently than it has been in the recent past.

RICHARD L. LESIYAMPE, PhD.,MBS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

vi Acknowledgement The conference organizers sincerely thank Prof. Judi Wakhungu, the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, for accepting to officially open the 2nd National Participatory Forest Management Conference in Kenya held on the 15th and 16th July 2014 at the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) headquarters in Muguga. The acceptance by the Cabinet Secretary was a testimony of the value placed on Participatory Forest Management as a means of improving Sustainable Forest Management and enhancing livelihood of the forest adjacent communities by the cabinet secretary. We also would like to acknowledge the Principal Secretary in the State Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Dr. Richard Lesiyampe for gracing the Conference and sharing his opinions, which were invaluable.

We would like to thank the main donors for the Conference who included the Government of Finland through Miti Mingi Maisha Bora Programme and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) through Global Environment Facility – Small Grants Programme (GEF/SGP) through Nature Kenya and Kenya Forests Working Group. It was out of their generosity that the Conference was held.

We extend special thanks to the Miti Mingi Maisha Bora Programme Manager, Mrs. Zipporah Toroitich for recognizing the need to stage the conference and initiating the process by formation of the conference organizing committee. Further appreciation goes to the Director KEFRI, Dr. Ben Chikamai on behalf of the Board and Management of KEFRI for hosting us once again. The Institute hosted the First National PFM Conference seven years ago.

We would like to acknowledge the Kenya Forest Service, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya Forests Working Group, Forest Society of Kenya and Nature Kenya for jointly organizing the Conference.

We would also like to acknowledge all the presenters without whom we would not have had the Conference. This also goes to all the participants. They sacrificed their resources to come and actively participate in the Conference.

The Conference would not have been a success without the input of the Forest Society of Kenya secretariat which played crucial role in publicity and communication and the conference organizing committee members: Daniel Mbithi, Eric Tetea Nahama (Secretary), Jane Wamboi, Joram Kagombe, Joel Laigong, Lucy Njuguna, Luke Njuguna and Washington Ayiemba, who reviewed and selected papers for presentation as per the themes and later reviewed final papers for publication. We thank you all individually and collectively for the support and cooperation that led to the success of the conference and publishing of the proceedings. The long hours you put in and your patience were indeed not in vain.

WE THANK YOU ALL.

THE TEAM-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE Mr. Joel K. Laigong

vii Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... iii Foreword...... v Acknowledgement...... vii List of Acronyms ...... x

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Conference justification...... 1 1.2 Purpose...... 1 1.3 Overall Theme...... 2 1.4 Expected outputs...... 2 1.5 Themes...... 2

2.0: EXPERIENCES WITH PFM IMPLEMENTATION UNDER THE FORESTS ACT 2005...... 5 2.1 Keynote Paper: Experiences with PFM Implementation under The Forests Act 2005...... 5 2.2 Factors That Influence Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Variations in Kenya...... 8 2.3 PFM Implementation on Experiences: A National Analysis...... 15 2.4 Exclusion of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) in decision making and its impact on forest condition ...... 20 2.5 Do CFAs have adequate capacity to engage in PFM?...... 27 2.6: Poster 1: Bottlenecks to the functionality of CFAs...... 32 2.7: Poster 2: Lessons from selected case studies on PFM in Kenya...... 33 2.8 Issues Emerging during Plenary ...... 34

3.0: PFM UNDER CHANGING POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK...... 35 3.1 Keynote Paper: PFM under Changing Policy and Legal Frameworks...... 35 3.2 The constitution of Kenya 2010 as a dynamic thrust for PFM...... 40 3.3 PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE CENTRE STAGE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN FOREST GOVERNANCE IN Kenya ...... 46 3.3 PFM: The disconnect between law, practice and reality ...... 56

4.0 PFM PLANNING AND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES...... 63 4.1 Keynote Paper-PFM planning and plan implementation experiences...... 63 4.2 The National status of PFMP Development, Approval and Implementation...... 67 4.4 PFM planning and plan implementation experiences: adoption of PFMPs to enhance effectiveness ...... 84 4.5 Participatory Forest Management under Devolved Governance: County Government perspective...... 84 4.6 Emerging Plenary Issues ...... 88

viii 5.0 COST BENEFITS IN PFM...... 90 5.1 Keynote Paper: Costs and benefit sharing in a Participatory Forest Management framework...... 90 5.3 Forest Based Income Generating Potential (IGP) high community expectations amidst low community transformation; an analysis of PFM implementation between 2005 and 2013...... 104 5.4 Payment for Environmental services and additional incentives to forest conservation: Status in and opportunities in Kenya...... 111 5.5 Equitable cost and benefit sharing – a key to success of Participatory Forest Management...... 119 5.6: Poster 3: Gains in Forest Management and Livelihood in South Nandi Forest...... 124 5.6 Emerging Plenary Issues ...... 125

6.0 CONFERENCE CLOSING ...... 125 6.1 Key Conference Highlights agreed on during plenary...... 125 6.2 Remarks by Zipporah Toroitich, Programme Manager, MMMB Project...... 125 6.3 Remarks by Dr. B. Kigomo, KEFRI...... 126 6.4 Remarks by Emilio Mugo, Senior Deputy Director, KFS...... 126 6.5 Official Closing Speech by Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Environment,Water and Natural Resources...... 126

7.0 APPENDICES...... 128 7.1 Appendix 1: Questions and Answers during plenary ...... 128 7.2 Appendix 2: List of participants...... 134

ix List of Acronyms

CBOs Community Based Organizations CBS Cost Benefit Sharing CFAs Community Forest Associations CSOs Civil Society Organisations EAWLS East African Wild life Society FAN Forest Action Network FD Forest Department FDGs Focused Group Discussions FMA Forest Management Agreement FSK Forest Society of Kenya GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographical Information System GPS Geographical Positioning System ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre IGAs Income Generating Activities IUCn International Union for Conservation of Nature KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute KFS Kenya Forest Service KFWG Kenya Forests Working Group KWS Kenya Wildlife Service MWENR Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources MMMB Miti Mingi Maisha Bora Programme NEMA national Environment Management Authority NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations NMK national Museums of Kenya NRM natural Resources Management NTFPs non-timber forest products PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PELIS Plantation Establishment for Livelihood Improvement Scheme PFM Participatory Forest Management PFMPs Participatory Forest Management Plans PRA Participatory Resource Assessment ToRs Terms of References UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WRUAs Water Resource Users Associations

x 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kenya prides itself as one of the developing countries where forest sector reforms ushered in wider stakeholder participation in forest management. The adoption of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) as a means for stakeholders, with emphasis on forest adjacent communities, to engage in forest management decision making and also ensure forest resource use sustainability has been made possible through the review of relevant policy and legal frameworks. Implementation of the Forests Act 2005 commenced in 2007 allowing for the formation of several Community Forest Associations (CFAs) primarily to enable local communities participate in forest management. Implementation of PFM has had successes and failures in an almost equal measure.

The Constitution of Kenya 2010 introduced one national government and 47 devolved county governments. The devolved governments came into being in March 2013 following the general elections. This necessitated the re-alignment of existing policies and legislation to the Constitution, among them being the National Forests Conservation and Management Bill and the Sessional Paper on National Forest Policy both of which are at the consultation stage. The consultation stage is critical in shaping the documents that will finally be enacted and calls for inputs from an informed position. The outputs of a forestry professional and stakeholders gathering such as the 2nd National PFM Conference is bound to make meaningful input into the finalisation of the two documents important for the sectors governance. The legislative and institutional review process stands to benefit from the experiences, lessons and best practices shared from the local, national and regional PFM implementation.

1.1 Conference justification Since implementation of the Forests Act 2005 commenced in 2007, the government developed Forest Rules (Community Participation Rules) and guidelines to ensure coordinated PFM implementation. The private sector and the donor community have been supportive of development of community livelihood options to reduce their high dependence on forest resources. Over this period, PFM practitioners have had several experiences and lessons that can inform policy at the national and county level, particularly at this time when there is deliberate effort to realign policies and legislations to the Constitution of Kenya 2010, and one year into the life of County governments.

With the ongoing review of the Forest Policy and the Forests Act 2005 as well as enactment of forest related laws at county level, it is imperative that forestry practitioners engage policy makers and planners so as to ensure that the spirit of PFM is sustained at the two levels of government through enactment of supportive laws. It is thus an opportune time for the 2nd National PFM conference.

1.2 Purpose The purpose of the conference is “to inform PFM implementation under the devolved governance structure in Kenya, taking cognizance of past national and regional experiences, for sustainable forest management and improved livelihoods.”

1 1.3 Overall Theme Enhancing Participatory Forest Management under the devolved governance structure

1.4 Expected outputs • Documentation of case studies and best practices on PFM in Kenya • Conference proceedings that document PFM status in Kenya as at 2014 • Recommendations on the way forward for PFM under the devolved governance structure; and • Follow-up policy briefs development to inform the legislative reviews on PFM in Kenya.

1.5 Themes Four sub-themes and questions around which conference papers and participants discussions would revolve were identified as below:

1. Experiences with PFM implementation under the Forests Act 2005: Has PFM contributed to sustainable forest management and improved livelihoods? Do CFAs have adequate capacity to engage in PFM? Are they representative of the community stakes in forest uses? Has PFM worked in non-state forests? What are the factors that lead to PFM variations across various forest areas? How do CFAs relate with other community institutions involved in natural resources management? Has access to information on PFM improved? How can PFM monitoring be enhanced for all key stakeholders? What are lessons learnt and best PFM practices for various forest tyPES and tenure in Kenya and beyond? 2. PFM planning and plan implementation experiences: Is the existing and proposed policy and legal framework supportive of PFM? Are the existing forest governance structures adequate and if not how can they be enhanced? Are there complementaries in institutions handling natural resources management? What is the implication of The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 on PFM? What is the effect of devolution on PFM? Is PFM being integrated into the county laws and the emerging institutional framework? What are the experiences and lessons learnt? 3. PFM planning and plan implementation experiences: How applicable are PFM and Participatory Forest Management Plan (PFMP) guidelines and should we have standards? Have they led to cost efficient and effective planning? What is the national status of CFAs? What is the national status of PFMP development, approval and implementation? What is the status of main streaming good governance and cross-cutting themes in PFM? Do stakeholders have capacity to implement PFMPs? What are the national and regional lessons learnt and best practices? 4. Costs and Benefits in PFM: What are the costs and benefits of PFM? What are lessons learnt on valuation of costs and benefits under PFM? Is there potential for benefit enhancement - PES, REDD+, etc? Are there adequate and equitable cost/benefit sharing mechanisms, and supportive legal framework? Has PFM been pro-poor? What is the contribution of PFM to the rural economy? What is the PFM sustainability options including incentives? What are the sources of PFM funding and how sustainable are they? What are the lessons learnt and best practices?

The target workshop participants were: the registered CFAs and CBOs working closely with partners and the national network of CFAs; development partners promoting and supporting natural resource management; technical officers involved in natural resource management with a bias on PFM activities in the region and have experiences to share; officers from public/government institutions involved in NRM with a bias towards PFM and researchers; County Executives responsible for forestry and natural resource management. Governor who coordinates forestry issues under the Council of Governors; and private companies working in partnership with the CFAs including those with Corporate Social Responsibility policies that embrace the greening and PFM concepts.

2 The conference was graced by high level government officials from the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, its departments and agencies. In his opening remarks, the KEFRI Director, Dr. Ben Chikamai, pointed out that KEFRI had been associated with PFM since its inception, having played a key role during the first PFM project at Arabuko Sokoke in 1997. KEFRI was very instrumental in ensuring that PFM became a crucial component of The Forests Act 2005 and successfully hosting the 1st National PFM conference in 2007 and has been involved in many PFM activities including the development of PFM and PFMPs guidelines, the Director said.

While speaking on behalf of KFS, the Senior Deputy Director KFS, Mr. Emilio Mugo, informed the conference participants of the progress made by KFS in approving and launching PFMPs. Participants heard that KFS had so far approved and launched 97 PFMPs. Mr. Mugo revealed that 60 FMAs have been signed so far. He further revealed that KFS had initiated the devolution of forest extension services to counties.

The Chairman County Executive Committee members for Environment & Natural Resources, committee who is also the Nandi County Executive Member in charge of Lands and Natural Resources Hon. Dr. J.K. Chumo, thanked the conference organisers for the wonderful conference and hoped that it would go a long way in ensuring sustainable management of forests in Kenya. He thanked the PS, Dr. Richard Lesiyampe for finding time to attend the conference. On behalf of the counties, he also thanked the CS, Prof. Judy Wakhungu for the good work being undertaken by her ministry. He reminded all the stakeholders that CFAs were keen on benefit sharing arrangements hence the high interest in the Forest Bill 2014. Lastly, he thanked the media for attending the event and their resolve to reporting forestry issues.

The official opening was conducted by the Cabinet Secretary, who set the tone for the conference as captured in Box 1. The current developments were highlighted as (Richard Lesiyampe, personal communication); the government in collaboration with KFS is titling all forest land; the Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation had also been asked to start planting tea so as to create a buffer zone to protect and reduce forests encroachment; the opportunities for commercial forestry on private land in Kenya was being encouraged for wood production; and the merging of departmental agencies in the Ministry was underway to create synergy, eliminate duplication and reduce resource wastage.

The Ministry was appreciative of the conference that gave participants the opportunity to share great ideas that can have a paradigm shift in utilising natural resources.

Parting quote: “the tragedy of living is not death but what dies in you when you are alive”

3 Box 1: Official Opening speech by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Prof. Judy Wakhungu as read on her behalf by the Principal Secretary, Dr. Richard Lesiyampe

All protocols observed

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am greatly honoured and indeed humbled to join you today to preside over the official opening of this second National Participatory Forest Management conference in Kenya.

Participatory Forest Management, commonly referred to as “PFM”, is a forest management approach adopted by the government to ensure our forest resources are not only sustainably managed but also contribute to the socio-economic well being of forest adjacent communities and Kenyans at large. In forest stations where the PFM process has taken off and Forest Management Agreements signed between the community and the government, positive results have been reported. In those areas, offences against the Forests Act have come down and the communities have realized both tangible and intangible benefits.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Achievements being made under PFM cannot be credited to the government alone. Several stakeholders, especially the civil society and development partners, acting as facilitators, have ensured Community Forest Associations play their roles effectively and that the objectives of PFM are met. I commend them.

I am aware that the first PFM conference held in June 2007, just after the Forests Act 2005 became effective, tackled ways of main streaming the PFM approach. The PFM approach devolved forestry to conservancy and CFAs. So far, 98 management plans have been developed and 60 Management Agreements entered into between KFS and CFAs, in view of over 200 forest stations in Kenya. In 2010 Kenyans enacted the constitution which further devolved governance to counties. With the implantation of PFM, many issues have arisen, which will be highlighted in this conference and further inform review of legislation and policies to be in tandem with the new devolved governance structures.

The selection of the theme of this conference was well thought and will address the challenges of enhancing PFM in the counties. PFM approach involves community livelihoods which has a strong linkage with rural development. My ministry is committed to the realization of forestry contribution to the national goal of poverty reduction and improved livelihoods. The Forests Act has been reviewed and the Forests Management and Conservation Bill 2014 is now about to be presented to parliament. The bill provides for devolvement of some forestry functions to the counties and enhancement of community participation for improved livelihood.

I am happy to note that the participants have been drawn from all stakeholders in the forestry sector: Forestry professionals, Community Based Forest Associations, National and County policy makers, development partners, government institutions and agencies, private companies and individuals with interest in forestry. This is the way to go in natural resource management with multi-sectoral involvement. The expected output: Documented case studies and best practices, recommendations on the way forward for PFM under the devolved governance structure and policy briefs on Participatory Forest Management will inform the national and county legislation and policy formulation.

With these few remarks I wish you fruitful discussions and declare the 2nd National PFM Conference 2014 officially open.

4 2.0: EXPERIENCES WITH PFM IMPLEMENTATION UNDER THE FORESTS ACT 2005

Session Chair: Prof. James Kung’u

Papers presented 1. Keynote Paper on Experiences with PFM implementation under The Forests Act 2005, by Mr. Emilio Mugo 2. Factors that influence Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Variations in Kenya, by Daniel M. Mbithi 3. PFM implementation on experiences: a national analysis, by Musyoki, J.K and M.T.E Mbuvi 4. Exclusion of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) in decision making and its impact on forest condition, by Paul O. Ongugo, Benjamin Owuor and Roxventa Anyango 5. Do CFAs have adequate capacity to engage in PFM? By Wanjiru Gathira 6. Poster 1: Bottlenecks to the functionality of CFAs by Washington Ayiemba and Joan Gichuki 7. Participatory Forest Management in Kenya; lessons from selected case studies by Charles Koech

2.1 Keynote Paper: Experiences with PFM Implementation under The Forests Act 2005

By Mr. Emilio Mugo1

Introduction Kenya Forest Service has embraced wider stakeholder participation in forest management and conservation in accordance with the Forests Act 2005. Forest adjacent communities have been encouraged to form Community Forest Associations (CFAs), as required by law, as a vehicle for community engagement. While it is encouraged to build on the existing community institutions rather than starting new ones for natural resource management, the Kenyan situation required starting completely new CFAs. For the new institutions to function, it requires capacity building. Both the government and the civil society have supported formation and capacity building of CFAs to ensure that they deliver their statutory mandates. This has been in terms of sustainable forest management and support to community livelihood options.

Sustainable forest management and livelihood improvement The pull factor for community participation in forest management is the benefits accruing to them. The best case study of PFM in Kenya is where forests offer more benefits. This seems to be also linked to PELIS2 which has direct benefit to CFA members. Success stories emanating from Forest Stations such as Gathiuru, Mucheene, and Meru forest stations can be linked to PELIS in those stations. It therefore goes without saying that the more the benefits from a forest the more the interest in PFM. In view of this, it is highly encouraged for stakeholders to seriously consider enhancing benefits in all forest areas where PFM approach is being adopted. It must be noted that the benefits need not necessarily be from consumptive use, but can be non-consumptive such as eco-tourism. Enhancing benefits sometimes call for capital investment and in this respect the Civil Society has been much far ahead of the government. Do we need a funding basket separate from the Forest Conservation Fund as provided by law, for financing PFM activities? This is food for thought.

CFAs capacity in PFM The fact that most CFAs have been formed as new outfits to participate in forest management; capacity building of these community institutions is inevitable. In areas where there has been deliberate effort to build capacity of CFAs, positive results have been recorded. Community trainings combined with exchange visits are highly encouraged as they result in better adoption of PFM. This is an experience gained after KFS through its various programmes supported several community exchange visits. These have helped the CFAs to network

5 with other resource management institutions. However the capacity of the CFAs to engage in PFM requires continuous capacity building as membership continues to expand. Good governance and organization capacity development is still needed among the CFAs. In some areas there have been deliberate move to build capacity of CFAs without carrying along Forest Managers resulting in unpleasant situation wrought with conflicts. The question that arises is whether civil societies should also build capacity of state officers (national and county), where such action is needed, for the success of PFM?

PFM in non-state forests PFM is not only applicable to gazetted forests but it can be applied to all tyPES of forests as long as there is mutual agreement by forest management and the adjacent communities. In Kenya, we have privately owned ranches where there is unsustainable exploitation by the adjacent communities and such ranches are candidates for PFM. Community forests in neighbouring countries such as in Tanzania, are classical examples of successful PFM in community forests and the same is yet to be seen in Kenya. Can our Counties apply PFM in community forests? This question can be best answered by the experts seated here and the County Government authorities. We however have good examples that we can emulate and they include Ntugi hill in Meru County where a community hill is under PFM with an elaborate forest management plan.

PFM variations In Kenya, PFM adoption is at various stages and is influenced by a number of factors that include: • Forest type which determines the resources available for use without compromising sustainability. • Agro - climatic conditions • Socio-cultural value attached to the forest by the community that has a stake in that particular forest. • Capacity of the participating communities in the PFM process. • Capacity and understanding of the facilitators • Resources (financial) availability to facilitate the process • Cost-benefit sharing mechanism put in place for the management of the forest.

Relationship with other community institutions CFA membership is drawn from the communities adjacent to the forest where other community institutions also draw their membership. As a result of this the membership of these institution are more or less the same e.g. the WRUAs are mainly people who have stake in water resources the more often emanate from the same forests that are managed by the CFAs. Is it necessary that these communities should have one institution for management of natural resources in their midst? In other words, do we need different community institutions to manage a particular natural resource just because they have to report to different authorities?

Access to information Good forest governance calls for, among other things, free access to information. This aspect has been elusive among key stakeholders in PFM including CFAs and even state officers. How can we enhance information sharing in PFM? Must people have unlimited access to information from all institutions regardless of the intended use of such information?

Research on PFM has been done by KEFRI and many other tertiary institutions, but how accessible are the results of these studies? How do we enhance access to research information? KFS is in the process of strengthening its Forest Information System (FIS) to cater for all citizens including the County Governments but I am afraid it may not capture crucial information of PFM which in most cases is qualitative.

6 PFM monitoring The development and implementation of the plans by the communities and other stakeholders has provided a platform for effective monitoring of PFM. This is because the key stakeholders have been provided with copies of the plans and agreements. This has assisted the community to partner with other stakeholders in implementation, hence monitoring is participatory as provided for in the plans.

Development of participatory monitoring, evaluation and reporting system for PFM is yet to be done. This is a challenge to all stakeholders for consideration. Currently, monitoring is uncoordinated and highly depends on the stakeholder who is facilitating the process. Most civil societies only report to their donors without involving the government.

Lessons Learnt • On forest protection, community involvement has greatly improved the security of the forests as information flow is enhanced and detection is timely. • Communities can greatly benefit from use of forest resources to improve their livelihood without compromising the integrity of the forest when allowed to organize and regulate them. • Sustainability of PFM can be achieved if communities are empowered to take up responsibility in the management of the forest. • The cost benefit sharing framework has to be developed, informed by the actual costs incurred by each party and the real benefits (revenue minus real costs incurred minus estimated replacement costs) accruing. Further, there is a need for clear understanding of equitable benefit sharing by all parties in PFM. • Although PFM envisages near total community participation, not all community members adjacent to the forest are involved hence inclusivity is not adequately achieved. • Other stakeholders especially Government of Kenya line ministries have a lot to contribute in the preparation of management plans. • CFAs practicing good governance with clear cost benefit sharing system have thrived well. • PFM is a costly venture and ways have to be devised for resource mobilization to implement the plans.

7 2.2 Factors That Influence Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Variations in Kenya

By Daniel M. Mbithi3

Abstract Participatory Forest Management is the deliberate involvement of communities and other stakeholders in forest management. It varies across various forests. These variations are due to several factors that influence the kind of management interventions that are instituted on a specific forest. This paper is based on experiences I have acquired as the coordinator of Participatory Forest Management in Kenya, field experiences and review of various reports submitted to KFS from our field officers over the time period PFM has been practiced in Kenya. Some of the factors include and are not limited to forest type, the forest management objectives for the particular forest, diversity of communities that border the forests in Kenya, the existing government policies and legislation, the data and information availability, the particular issues to be addressed in each forest, availability of PFM funding and emerging issues as a result of continued application of Participatory Forest Management. This paper discusses and makes recommendations on the role played by these factors on PFMP and why it evolves with time.

Introduction Participatory Forest Management is the deliberate involvement of communities and other stakeholders in forest management. Historically forests in Kenya have been managed under command and control through a system of legal provisions that have evolved over the years into Forests Act 2005, from the East Africa Forest regulations of 1902, which was later expanded into Forest Ordinance of 1911. The command and control management system was in line with forest guard’s recruitment Ordinances of 1915 and 1916.

The evolution saw the Forest legislation undergo several amendments, which took place in 1941 to 1954 to capture the Constitutional changes in the then Kenya Colony. Further review was done in 1964 resulting into Forest Act Cap 385 which provided for establishment, control and acquisition of forests in independent Kenya.

Over time, global forest management challenges emerged that include among others the issues of inclusion of communities and other relevant stakeholders in forest management. As a result, the Forest Act Cap385 became insufficient. This called for Kenya to draft a Forest Policy to replace Session Paper No 1 of 1968 and undertake revision of the Forest Act Cap 385 to the Forests Act 2005. The Forests Act 2005 established the Kenya Forest Service and applies to all forests and woodlands in Kenya (State, Local Authority and Private). It also provides for community and other stakeholders participation in forest management. This provision creates legal backing for forest adjacent communities and other relevant stakeholders to be involved in forest management. In order for the forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders to be involved in forest management, they get organized into Community Forest Associations (CFA) which are the legal entities recognized in the Forests Act 2005. In addition the country developed Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Guidelines, which were published in 2007 to act as a guide to PFM implementation.

The guidelines provide 8 steps that need to be followed when implementing PFM in forest management. The guidelines also give general principles under which PFM is implemented. The principles include the following; collaborative effort between two or more parties, free flow of information, two-way communication between stakeholders throughout the process, learning-by-doing approach, inclusion of all parties including the literate and illiterate people, application of simple but effective monitoring and evaluation system, balancing of local needs; local, district and national priorities, actions and plans being consistent with current policy and legislation, development of trust through consensus building, forest personnel acting as facilitators but not controllers of the process, determination of local expectations in the context of realistic roles, relationships, rewards and responsibilities and realization of time and financial resource requirement.

8 Despite the elaborate PFM Guidelines, PFM varies from place to place. These variations are due to several factors that influence the PFM interventions applied under different scenarios. This paper discusses and makes recommendations on how the factors influence PFM and why it evolves with time. The key topics in the paper will include forest resource tyPES forest management objectives for each particular forest reserve, community diversity, government policies and legislation, available data and information, issues to be addressed and funding.

Methodology This paper is based on experiences acquired as result of my position as a coordinator of Participatory Forest Management in Kenya, exposure to field experiences and review of various reports submitted to KFS from KFS field officers. In addition, preparation of PFM reports from my field visits and consultations and interactive discussions with community Forest Associations in various parts of the country has provided further information.

Factors Influencing PFM Variations From experience, review of field reports, consultation and interactive discussions with CFAs, the key factors that influence PFM have been identified as below: • Type of forest and its resources

• Forest management objectives

• Diversity of forest adjacent communities and their socio-economic status

• Policies and legal frameworks

• Availability of data and information

• Issues to be addressed in each PFM

• Funding

Forest types and its Resources Forest types are influenced by topography, altitude and climate. According to Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation programme (KIFCON 1992) Kenya has four main forest types that include coastal forests, dry land forest, montane forest and western rain forest. The structure and composition of plant and tree types in each of these forest types vary from forest to forest. Each forest type provides different conditions for plant growth and influence the tree species variation in either plantation forest or natural forest. This in turn influences the existence of useful forest materials.

Participatory Forest Management is based on the implementable activities, which are usually based on the forest uses. The uses of a forest depend on the resources that are available for use. The forest station is usually the minimum forest management unit where PFM practices can be implemented through the formation of Community Forest Associations by merging of several forest user groups and CBOs. At this level forest resources are in two broad categories. These are plantation forests and natural forest, which are highly influenced by forest types. Natural forests present broader opportunity for PFM values to be derived through extraction of products that may include wood and non-wood forest products, grazing and hunting and non-extractive forest values e.g. eco-tourism, biodiversity conservation, social and cultural values and carbon sequestration. The type of PFM interventions in each forest station depend on its type. The PFM activities planned in each station depend on the available resources. It is therefore necessary to understand the forest type before PFM activities are introduced, e.g. the backbone of PFM in Gathiuru is Plantation Establishment Livelihood Improvement System (PELIS) as compared to PFM in Ngare Ndare, which relies on eco-tourism and grazing as the main uses.

9

Forest Management Objectives Participatory Forest Management is based on a forest management plan that is prepared with the involvement of the community and interested stakeholders called Participatory Forest Management Plan (PFMP). Objectives to be addressed by each PFMP depend on the issues that are identified by the communities, stakeholders and Kenya Forest Service. The objectives vary depending on the forest reserve, communities, stakeholders and Kenya Forest Service overall goal. Analysis of several PFMPs across the country showed the tabulated trend of objective which reflects a lot of variation.

Station Title of Objectives PFMP 1. Gede Forest Gede Forest i) Improve management systems and institutional structures of Management CFAs managing forest station. Plan ii) Improve conditions and diversity of mangrove biological resources. iii) Increase economic benefits and improve livelihoods. iv) Increase community capacity to solve resource based conflicts and to improve mangrove management. 2. Shimba Hills Shimba hills i) Increase the capacity of CFA to manage natural resources. Management ii) Improve the quality and diversity of forest resource conservation. plan iii) Expand and diversify economic opportunities for CFAs and thus provide incentive for forest conservation. iv) Develop a CFA-wide ecological and socioeconomic monitoring to track changes in ecosystem health and human well-being in relation to land use and forest resource management. v) Improve governance and transparency to community forest associations. 3. Gogoni-Gazi Gogoni – i) Site specific natural resource initiatives implemented outside Gazi protected areas that improve or maintain mangrove forests. Forest ii) Biodiversity and the condition of natural resources improved management iii) Promote new sustainable financing mechanism that focus on plan eco-tourism. 4. Arabuko_ Sokoke i) Improve biodiversity conservation Sokoke PFMP ii) Conservation through tree nursery practices iii) Eco-tourism development 5. Gathiuru Gathiuru i) Enhance biodiversity conservation. Plantation ii) Reverse deforestation. Management iii) Improve rural livelihood with secure economic benefits from plan carbon sequestration, increased crop yields through conservation farming (PELIS) and sustainable land management, sustainable and efficient use of wood fuels, and savings base micro credits iv) Restore degraded riparian and catchment areas in gazette forest lands. v) Improve the capacity of KFS and CFA to monitor PELIS activities, grazing and other forest based activities 6. Eburu Eburu Forest i) Livelihood improvement through eco-tourism. Management ii) Grazing activities

Activities implemented in each PFMP depend on its defined objectives. When new activities need to be incorporated there may be need to restate the objectives of PFM through its revision. 10 Community and Stakeholders Participatory Forest Management require the inclusivity of all the relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis is always necessary to determine the people to be involved. Kenya has varied ethnic communities whose distribution and settlement patterns depend on tribal distribution patterns. This has resulted into variation in priority forest resources uses. This influence the priority activities and user rights defined in each Participatory Forest Management arrangements. Example of PFM settings influenced by community distribution around Ngare Ndare Forest Reserve which is influenced by five communities: Kisima farm, Kisima Community, Subuiga Community, Ngunju Community, Ethi Community, Boran Ranch Community, Ngare Ndare Community, Lewa Downs Conservancy and Manyangani Community. PFM in this setting needs to serve the interests of all the parties involved compared through incorporation of activities that carter for their interest which cannot be compared to a situation like Mukogodo whose PFM serves only livestock keepers. A similar example could be given of Sururu whose PFM serves farming, livestock keepers and hunters and gatherers, as compared to Ngare Ndare and Mukogodo. PFM cannot be effective without considering human and stakeholders as a factor of influence.

Policies and Legal Framework Different laws and government policies influence Participatory Forest Management. This is as PFM is implemented in different forests where several laws apply depending on the status of the forest and the stakeholders in the management. Most forests are managed under draft forest policy and the Forests Act 2005 but in other cases other laws play a considerable role e.g. the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act Cap 376 and other policy and legislative frameworks whose objective is sustainable management and use of forest resources. As such the following laws influence PFM in Kenya:-

The Kenya Constitution: This creates two types of governments, a devolved County Government and Central National Government. It puts management of protected forests under National Government.

Forest Policy and Forest Act 2005: Forest Management in Kenya over the years has been under Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1968 which provides direction for management and development of forests in Kenya. It addressed the issues of forest reservation, protection, management, law enforcement and utilization of forest and forest resources. PFM is implemented under a draft forest policy which laid down the foundation for the preparation of the Forests Act 2005. The draft policy objectives are:-

• To contribute to poverty reduction, improve livelihood through sustainable use and conservation of forests, trees and other allied resources. • To contribute to sustainable land use, water, soil and ecological diversity conservation • To promote participation of private sector, NGOs and communities in sustainable forestry management • To promote farm and dry land forestry • Promote forest extension, forest research training and education

Forests Act 2005: All forests (State, Local Authority, Private or Provisional) managed under the Act. It supports PFM. It recognizes CFA as the legal entity that links communities to forest management. CFAs are formed from the communities within the forest boundary, which depend on the different ethnicity which vary from place to place. This causes variation depending on the community priority needs.

Wildlife Policy and Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 376: Most of Kenyan forests serve as habitats for wildlife. Conservation of wildlife is vested on Kenya Wildlife Service through the above Act. The influence of the act depends on the kind of animals that exist in the forest.

11 Partnerships: Some forests are subject of MOUs e.g. between KFS/KWS – (Mwalunganji, Kibwezi), KFS/ WWF Country office, NMK/KFS. The PFM in these forests need to have some reference to MOUs.

Other Legislation: Environmental Management and Coordination Act No 7 of 1999, Trustland Act, Water Act, Grass Fire Act and Fisheries Act.

International agreements: Ramsar convention, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), CBD (the Convention on Biological Diversity), Forest Principles, East African Community and IGAD (the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in Eastern Africa).

When preparing to undertake PFM in a forest station, there is need to take into consideration the relevant laws to avoid conservation conflicts.

Data and Information Planning for natural resource management require correct data and information. Participatory Forest Management is supposed to be based on correct data and information on each forest resource. Data on tree volumes, species diversity, wildlife species, threatened and rare species, drainage system, eco-tourism potential etc need to be available. There is need to also gather information on how the forest is used by different gender and different ethnic groups in the communities and potential for development of income generating activities in a particular forest. Availability of this information varies from station to station and since PFM is based on information, this disparity causes variation on the kind of PFM practiced in each station. Lack of information should not discourage development and implementation of PFM as baseline information will suffice and the data and more information can be collected as the process is undertaken. This will inform updating of information for improvement.

Issues to be addressed The issues to be addressed in each forest vary from forest to forest. The following are some of the issues found in Kenyan forests across the board: forest over-exploitation, overgrazing, forest fires, excessive fire wood collection, forest encroachment, population pressure, over-exploitation of preferred tree species, wildlife damage for plantations, poor regeneration, illegal settlement, forest poaching, tree planting backlogs, pruning and thinning backlogs, threats to social and cultural values etc. The issues change with time and from place to place. Preparation of Participatory Forest Management plans are geared towards solving the issues in a particular forest. Each plan cycle addresses the current issues but more issues and challenges may emerge during the implementation of PFM. As several cycles of Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs) are implemented in a particular forest the new issues emerge as others are solved. This is a source of variation in Participatory Forest Management in different forests over time.

Funding Funding is a prerequisite to the PFM process that is instituted in each forest reserve to ensure the PFM process is undertaken. The preliminary activities to PFM require financial resources. These activities include: - 1. Identifying the community and verifying resources 2. Assessing forest area and the community 3. Preparing draft forest management plan 4. Facilitating the formation of a forest association 5. Negotiating, drafting and signing a forest management agreement and to declare the area a PFM area. (MENR, 2007)

12 The process increases community awareness on the forest resource, change in attitude on forest ownership and change in capacity for fund raising in the entire CFA/User groups. This may cause disparity among User Groups and CFAs. Funding influences the PFMP developed and the activities agreed on the developed Forest Management Agreement. PFM implementation depends on the kind of plan that is developed to guide its activities. The plan is highly influenced by the intensity of information collection and level of sensitization of stakeholders which also depend on the level of funding. An effective PFM process requires substantial amount of financial resources.

Discussions and Recommendations Participatory Forest Management has taken root in Kenya as a forest management intervention that has highly reduced cost of forest management. It generates benefits to Community ForestAssociations.

It is an intervention that is highly influenced by the forest type. It is therefore necessary to do an assessment of the resources in each particular forest before PFM is instituted.

Objectives of any PFM should be specific to the particular forest but not generalized.

Stakeholder analysis should be done to identify the relevant stakeholders and their community diversity as this will influence the various uses that need to be addressed.

Each forest reserve demands application of laws and policies depending on the resources therein. There is need to identify the applicable laws and government policies to guide the activities of PFM in each particular forest reserve.

Data and information need to be identified. Existing data and information need to be determined and identification of gaps identified. The data and information gaps need to be filled in order to have the minimum sufficient data for a particular PFM situation.

The issues to be addressed in each forest need to be Isolated.

KFS and CFAs should be ready to do the necessary fundraising to engage effectively in forest management.

Emerging issues as a result of continued application of Participatory Forest Management need to be documented to inform.

REFERENCES Government of Kenya. (1968). The Forest Policy for Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer.

Government of Kenya. (1989). Fisheries Act, Chapter 378. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer.

Government of Kenya. (1989). The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act Chapter 376 Laws of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer Government of Kenya. (1994). The Kenya National Environment Plan (NEAP) Report. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer

Government of Kenya. (1999). The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA). Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer Government of Kenya. (2005). Forests Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer.

13 Government of Kenya. (2005). Sessional Paper No. 9 of 2005 on Forest Policy. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer.

Kenya Forestry Master Plan, 1994

J.O.W Logie, B.A. & W. G. Dyson. M.A. (1962) . Forestry in Kenya, A Historical Account of Development of Forest management in the Colony . Forest Department. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. (2009). Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. (2007). Participatory Forest Management Guidelines. ,

Peter Wass (ed) (1995). Kenya Indigenous Forest status, Management and Conservation. IUCN and ODA.

Thenya, T, Wandago B.O.B, Nahama E.T, Gachanja, M. G (2008) – Participatory Forest Management Experiences (1996-2007).

14 2.3 PFM Implementation on Experiences: A National Analysis

By Musyoki, J.K4 and M.T.E Mbuvi5 Abstract Participatory Forest Management was introduced in Kenya to promote better forest management and improve livelihoods of the forest adjacent communities. This case study is a review of socio-economic surveys done to support development of Participatory Forest Management Plans in several forests in Kenya. The study documents information on how the community and other stakeholders relate with the forest, the products the community access and community perceptions on how community participation in PFM and forest management can be improved. Qualitative and quantitative data collection was undertaken through participatory methods and semi-structured questionnaires administered to forest adjacent communities respectively. It was evident that most of the forest users were living within 1 kilometre from the forest edge and not beyond 5 km except for Loita forest where we have forest adjacent communities being pastoralists. Majority of the CFA members were poor and very poor in most of the sites. The CFA members were highly interested in participating in forest management with livelihood improvement being the key motivation as indicated by more than 80% of respondents across the sites. The forests cannot meet most of the community needs. There is need for the government to deliberately support development of alternative livelihood options for sustaining community interest and participation in forest management through financial support and capacity building of community members on management of IGAs. Introduction Forests are globally important in conservation of the environment, biodiversity, water, and soil resources. Conservation of these resources is very vital because of their contribution to the livelihoods of communities living adjacent to the forest by providing them with various ecosystem goods and services (Geller et al., 2007). Sustainable forest management aims to enhance the capacity of forests to provide the desired goods and services for improvement of the livelihoods of forest adjacent communities. Kenya has embraced Participatory Forest Management (PFM) in its endeavours to attain sustainable forest management. The government is implementing PFM as a strategy to improve the management of Kenya’s forests and woodland areas for current and expected posterity. Participatory Forest Management in Kenya is a forest management approach, which deliberately involves the forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders in management of forests within a framework that contributes to community’s livelihoods (KFS, 2007). The Forest Bill 2014 Objective one demonstrates government commitment to multiple stakeholders participation in forest management as it obligates that the government shall “Establish better governance across the sector, built upon the devolution of forest conservation and management, supported by a regulatory and compliance framework, and partnerships” where the National Government is obligated to “Support forest associations on community and public land to manage forest resources, and community self-governance”. Further, The Forests Act 2005 recognizes participation of stakeholders in forest management and planning. It has clear provisions for Participatory Forest Management (PFM) that allows the local community to form and register an association and to participate in preparation of a forest management plan. It goes further to legalize the partnership by provisioning for the signing of a Forest Management Agreements (FMAs) between the community and Kenya Forest Service. The country has been implementing PFM since 1997 and over that time several Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs) have been written and a similar number of FMAs have been signed. The key challenge remains the diversity of the implementation approach adopted, the level of implementation and the asymmetry witnessed when it comes to who should participate in the process. This is despite guidelines and legislation to guide the implementation of the process and the inherent experience gained over the years. This case study provides a national synopsis of the field implementation analysis experienced during socio- economic survey undertaken to support the development of PFMPs for different forests in Kenya as required for community participation in forest management. It has also been informed by structured discussions held with communities, facilitators and Government officers. The objective of the review was to document information on how the community and other stakeholders relate with the forests adjacent to them in terms of the products the community access from them.

15 Approach Review was done for studies that had been done in several forests in the country including: Kavonge, Museve, Arabuko Sokoke, Ontulili, Ngare Ndare, Nthangu, Makongo, Loita and Kakamega forests. This was supplemented by structured discussions with key stakeholders in each forest. The socio economic collection methods involved:  Literature review  Planning meetings with CFA and KFS staff to agree on the work plan and the schedule of activities and the expected outputs  Holding PFMP awareness meetings with the community and CFA officials on the PFMP process and selection and training of community enumerators • Data collection through; literature review, FGD, key informant interview, forest transect walks and household survey. • Report compilation and feedback sessions Qualitative data collected using PRA tools were analyzed through in-depth analysis and discussions with key informants. Quantitative data collected through household surveys in the different forests were stored and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS version 11.5. The paper discusses the national PFM experience through key implementation parameters from motivation for interest to participate in management to those communities who should be involved in forest management based on those communities who have the highest interaction with the forest.

Key Observations (a): Community interest to participate in forest management There was generally a high interest (over 95%) by the communities to participate in forest management as indicated by most respondents among the forest adjacent community members. The ranges in the study include Nthangu (95%), Makongo (98%), Ontulili and Ngare Ndare (97.5%), Kavonge and Museve (99.2%). This high interest shall require a strategy for harnessing in order to have it contribute to forest management. The high interest level in participating in forest management in all the sites was being motivated by the anticipated benefits. Further high level of participation was indicated where communities were receiving benefits as was witnessed in Ontulili, Kakamega and Arabuko Sokoke forests. Community interest in PFM across the sites was noted to be due to: improvement of livelihoods through benefits from the forest; participation in forest management to achieve forest conservation through community policing and being in good terms with the government. Most of the community members living adjacent to most of the forests were not openly stating economic benefits as key objective for their interest in participation. However, 77.6% of respondents in Kavonge and Museve forests indicated accessing firewood as the reason for their interest in PFM. The community members who did not state their benefits were those in sites where there was long-term interaction between the community and KFS officers where the community did not wish to be seen to be after forest resources.

(b): Expected benefits Across the forests, the adjacent communities indicated different forest products that they expected from the forest after joining CFAs to participate in PFM and these include: accessing the forest for firewood, timber, poles and grass; establishing more tree nurseries in the forest; being allowed to start income generating activities such as eco-tourism facilities, bee keeping, butterfly farming and being allowed to practice Non Residential Cultivation in the forest under the Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Implementation System (PELIS). (c): Mode of Community Participation in forest management The community members indicated the different ways they were participating in forest management of the forests. There was variance in some activities depending on the type of forest (natural or plantation forest) and the management objective (conservation or commercial timber). However, across the sites, there were some common activities undertaken by the forest adjacent community members contributing to better forest 16 management. These include: creating awareness among other community members on the need to conserve the forest: participation in fire fighting in collaboration with KFS and other stakeholders; establishing tree nurseries inside the forest and in their homes to raise seedling for planting in the forests, their farms and in other public places such as schools; planting trees in degraded sites/gulley erosion control and also in areas designated for plantation establishment; community policing to protect the forests against illegal cutting of trees, charcoal burning and other illegal activities in the forest and in forests where plantations had been established such as in Ontulili, the CFA members were participating in forest activities such as thinning and pruning of timber trees. A significant difference was observed between the number of Ontukigo and Ngare Ndare CFA members participating in forest patrol (χ² = 8.54, p = 0.003); tree planting (χ² = 8.54, p = 0.003); and tree nursery (χ² = 12.75, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between participation of Ontukigo CFA members (97.5%) and Ngare Ndare CFA members (92.5%) in forest fire fighting activities (χ² = 1.053, p= 0.305). (d): Community suggestions on improvement of their participation in PFM The community members living adjacent to the selected forest proposed that implementation of PFM and community participation in PFM could be improved through: enhancing community awareness about the forest policy; training CFA members and other forest adjacent community members on forest management activities; encouraging formation of more community groups to plant trees in the forest and their farms to reduce pressure on the forests; establishing more nurseries to plant trees in the forest and promoting farm forests among the forest adjacent community members to reduce over-reliance on the forests. Additionally the communities anticipated to improve their participation through providing credit facilities to community members to start income generating activities in and outside the forest hence reduce overreliance on the forest; community working as a team with Kenya Forest Service in management of the forest; providing farmers with title deeds for land that they own and appropriate marking of forest boundaries to reduce encroachment of the forests. (e): The community interacting most with the forest in relation to the Forest edge Majority of the CFA members who were interacting most with the forest were those who were living within 0-1km from the forest as observed across the sites except for Loita Forest. For instance, in Ontulili and Ngare Ndare forest 63.8% of the CFA members were living within 0-1km from the forest edge. For Makongo and Nthangu no CFA member was living beyond 5km from the forest edge. It was noted that the number of CFA members participating in forest management activities decreased with increase in distance of homestead from the forest edge. (f): Well-being categorization Most of the forest adjacent community members were in poor well-being category as observed for Kavonge and Museve (poor-67.5%, very poor-25.5%), Nthangu (Poor-69.7%, very poor-20.7%), Makongo (poor-38%, very poor-40.1%). There were few cases where majority of CFA members were rich e.g. Ngare Ndare (Rich- 55%, poor-45%) and Ontulili (Rich-65%, Poor-30%, very poor-5%). Ngare Ndare can be explained by the trust membership and the nature of socio economic activities of the CFA members. This though has the danger of locking out the poor members who rely on the forest for subsistence.

(g): Forest products from the forest For majority of the forests, firewood was the main resource accessed by the CFAs and other community members adjacent to the forest. Such was indicated for Ontulili and Ngare Ndare forests by 75% of the respondents. There was a significant correlation between household size and fuel wood consumption across most of the sites (for instance in Ontulili and Ngare Ndare forests: rs= 0.156, p=0.05) and in Makongo forest block (rs= 0.200, p=0.05). Other forest products obtained from the forests by adjacent community members include: Fodder, water, herbal medicine, wild fruits, honey, manure, building materials such withies and poles obtained after thinning plantations. For some forests such as Ontulili forest and Kereita, crops such as potatoes were obtained from PELIS plots in the forest where they had been inter-cropped with trees to cut down cost of plantation establishment and management.

17 Photograph 1: CFA members harvesting potatoes from PELIS plot in Ontulili forest CFA members gained from the forest through IGAs such as butterfly farming in Arabuko Sokoke and bee keeping in Ngare Ndare forest. It was also observed that most of the forests in drier sites e.g. Makueni and Kitui have eco-tourism potential sites such as caves in Nthangu Forest and potential camping sites and viewpoints in Makongo, Museve and Kavonge. Photograph 2: A cave in Nthangu forest Other forests such as Makongo have unique bird species. In some of the sites e.g. Ngare Ndare, such biodiversity are being managed to enhance income generation through eco- tourism programs in place. This calls for policy support that enhances differentiated benefits that are forest specific in order to sustain community interest while at the same time alienating forests that may have low benefits to sustain community participation in their management. Such forests should be managed by the state through lease arrangements like Ngare Ndare and Kibwezi forests. (h): Common challenges There were several challenges faced by the forest adjacent community members and CFAs. Some of the most common challenges across the sites include: over grazing; encroachment of forest areas for agriculture; illegal cutting of trees; charcoal burning in some sites e.g. Makongo and Nthangu forests; human Wildlife conflict and crop destruction such as in Ontulili and Ngare Ndare and low motivation for participation in PFM in sites where no IGAs have been initiated and where there were no tangible benefits. Conclusions  Though PFM is different in the different sites due to difference in types of forests and management objectives, there are several similar experiences among the PFM from which researchers and PFM implementers can learn from.  Distance from the forest has been maintained as required for CFA members hence it is possible to make it a policy that CFA members be within 0-5km.  Firewood is a major forest resource that forest adjacent members need to access from the forest hence the need to enhance forests’ capacity to provide firewood adequately and in a sustainable manner. More so a program on farm forest establishment is needed in the PFM sites to provide firewood, fodder, timber and other forests to reduce pressure on the forests. Recommendations Income generation activities such as bee keeping and tree nursery establishment will help to alleviate poverty among the forest adjacent community members hence reducing over dependence on the forest.

Government should consider supporting CFAs and other community members adjacent to the forest in initiating eco-tourism programs as an IGA because of its potential for poverty alleviation and as an incentive for participation in PFM. 18 Thorough training on tree planting and forest management is needed to enhance the capacity of CFAs and community members to participate effectively in planting and management of trees in the forests and in their farms.

There is need to delineate community members who should be directly involve in PFM (0-5km) where most of the active CFA and other forest adjacent community members in forest management reside. This will help in apportioning roles and responsibilities, costs and benefits in the right way and to the most relevant people. This has also to deliberately include the disadvantaged in society guided by the pro-poor approach. A close monitoring of PFM programs is needed in all the forest to observe how they are being implemented, taking note of challenges encountered and developing strategies of how to address them.

The government should take advantage of the high interest in PFM displayed by the forest adjacent community members with a view of it as an opportunity for forest condition improvement and improvement of community livelihoods. The issues of low and/or no benefits in some of the forests need to be addressed to avoida scenario whereby the CFAs lose interest (“bubble bursts”) in PFM participation and engage in forest destructive activities especially in dry land areas. The observation that most of the CFA members and other forest adjacent community members are in the poor well-being category should remind researchers and forest managers that PFM is pro-poor hence should be implemented with the view of enhancing its capacity to improve community livelihoods. The government should support development and implementation of PFMP to speed up preservation of biodiversity and enhance community livelihoods.

REFERENCES Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2007). Participatory Forest Management Guidelines. Nairobi, Kenya Mbuvi, M.T.E, Ongugo, P.O, Maua, J.O. and Koech, C.K. (2007). Emerging values of forests: the case of Kenya. In Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Biodiversity in Africa. Proceedings of the International conference. 19-27 March 2007. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Kelbessa, E and De Stoop, C. (Eds), March 19-21, 2007, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Mbuvi, M.T.E, Maua J.O, Ongugo P.O, Koech C.K, Othim, R. and Musyoki, J. K. (2008). Loita Naimina- Enkiyio Forests’ Participatory Forest Managements’ Impacts on the Poverty Status of the Loita Maasai Narok District, Kenya. KEFRI/EMPAFORM-ARPIP Report No. KEFRI/NF/3 2008. Mbuvi, M.T.E, Maua J.O, Ongugo P.O, Koech C.K, Othim, R. A. and Musyoki, J. K. (2009). Perceptions on Participatory Forest Management Impacts on Poverty for selected forest adjacent communities in Kenya. ARPIP-KEFRI Project Report No. 1 Musyoki, J.K. (2012). The role of community forest Associations in Participatory Forest Management of Ontulili and Ngare Ndare forests in North Central Kenya. A thesis submitted to Graduate School, Kenyatta University, Kenya. Ngare Ndare Forest Trust (2008). Ngare Ndare Forest Management Plan, 2008-2013. Nairobi, Kenya. Kenya forest Service and Kenya forest Working Group. Ongugo, P.O, Mbuvi, M.T.E., Obonyo, E., Mogoi, J.N, Maua, J. O, Koech, C. O and Othim, R. A. (2007). Emerging roles of Community Forest Associations in Kenya: the cases of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest adjacent Dwellers Associations (ASFADA) and Meru Forest Environmental and Protection Community Association (MEFECAP). Proceedings of International conference on Poverty reduction and forests, Bangkok September 2007. Geller, S., McConnell, R. and Wanyiri, J. (2007). Linking National forest Programmes and Poverty Reduction Strategies, Kenya. Food and Agriculture Organization, Forestry Department, Forestry Policy and Institutions Service. Retrieved from www.fao.org/forestry November 2014

19 2.4 Exclusion of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) in decision making and its impact on forest condition

By Paul O. Ongugo6, Benjamin Owuor7 and Roxventa Anyango8

Abstract Governance of forestry structure through Participatory Forest Management is backed by the Forests Act 2005, which is undergoing a review process. It has been shown that adoption of PFM in some forest stations has resulted in improved forest condition. Community Forest Associations form the major governance structure for implementing PFM. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 created a devolved governance structure, which created the County Governments to take services closer to the local communities along-side those which will continue to be provided by the National Government. Even though it is not exclusively stated, services from the forestry sector are expected to move to the County level government. The process of devolving the sector has left out communities in decision making and formulation of rules. It is apparent that CFAs, which represent communities, are not being given their rightful place in the process. Because of this exclusion, the participation of CFAs in forest management is likely to be lower than it was before devolution and this may have impact on the way forests are managed. This study looks at the level of CFA involvement in PFM implementation through formulation of rules and decision making. The study uses International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) tools and methodology to analyse CFAs’ roles, activities and participation in for inclusive governance in the forest sector. The study was conducted on three forests: Arabuko-Sokoke, Upper Imenti and Ramogi forests where CFAs are involved in managing different tyPES of forest under varying tenure arrangements. Preliminary results show that where rules are formulated without the participation of local communities, the forests are more degraded than where local communities are involved.

Introduction It is widely believed that decentralizing the management of natural resources can increase both efficiency and equity. Efficiency increases because there is more local input resulting in better targeted policies and lower transaction costs, and equity and democracy benefits are more likely to accrue to the local communities.

Decentralization in many parts of the world has taken many forms ranging from de-concentration to devolution of power. The implication of community participation is often implied in many references such as Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Joint Forest Management (JFM), Community Forest Management (CFM) and Community Based Forest Management (CBFM). PFM is a key concept in the Forests Act 2005 with particular focus given to the formation of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) (World Bank 2007). PFM is described as a multi-stakeholder approach that involves the private sector, institutions and communities in both management activities and benefit sharing (Kallert et al. 2000).

The CFAs must enter into an agreement with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), and assist in the execution of forest resource management through various activities (Mogoi et al. 2012). A general expectation is that this will ensure sustainable forest management, based on the assumption that a broader segment of stakeholders involved will contribute to a more sustainable management of the natural resource base of the forests in Kenya (World Bank 2007). However, the political agenda needs to be taken into account, as decentralization encompasses submission of power from central actors to lower authority levels (Agrawal & Ostrom 2001). Therefore, each decentralization effort must be analyzed in accordance with its substantive elements, including the degree of power transfer to local actors and their downwardly accountability. As a minimum, analysis of decentralization efforts must take its point of departure at the national, intermediary and local level to provide an overview of the linkages between the political and legislative framework, the implementation, and the outcomes at local level (Ribot et al. 2005).

. 20 PFM under the Forests Act 2005 In recognition of the importance of forests, the Constitution obligates the State to increase tree cover to 10% of the country’s total land area, the internationally recommended minimum for ecological sustainability. It devolves the country into 47 counties. One of the objects of devolution is to recognize the rights of communities to manage their own affairs and further their development. The Constitution therefore reinforces the Forests Act 2005 that aims at decentralizing the management of forests through CFAs.

However, despite having this innovative legislation to promote community-based forest resource management, CFAs are unable to provide a significant contribution to efficient use, equitable allocation, sustainable forest management and livelihood improvement of the poor and marginalized people. This is due to the failure to take into account broader socio-economic and environmental issues. Major challenges include lack of a defined structure and hierarchy at local, regional, and national levels; diversity of origins, cultures, languages, and aspirations bringing mistrust and suspicion among members; fair responsibility and benefit-sharing challenges; and lack of transparency among officials. The implementation of the Act has therefore not been smooth. Many issues remain unresolved, such as the transfer of power and resources between the traditional bureaucracy to community, and the sharing of costs and benefits between KFS and communities. The benefits that accrue from conservation areas are not all obvious nor are they divided equitably among the different stakeholders.

Experience from the areas where PFM has been piloted indicates that community involvement is well addressed by the Forests Act 2005. But the challenge is that community, government and other stakeholders’ expectations are not in tandem with the Act. Communities in various PFM pilot sites in Kenya have shown that they are capable of carrying out effective forest production and protection measures even without the involvement of the KFS. But PFM processes in some pilot sites have raised certain challenges especially regarding CFAs. For example, do the CFAs have the right to license the extraction and movement of forest products in forests managed under PFM? Are CFAs really capable of managing an entire forest area or block since the Act advocates for one CFA per forest?

Many communities have in the last year or so attempted to form associations as provided by the Forests Act 2005 while others are in the process of forming them. Although a majority of these groups are still in the primary stages of formation, their anticipation in getting involved in PFM remains high and their objectives are clear. Most remain unorganized while others are not genuinely formed for conservation purposes and still others are driven by self-interest. It will also be challenging to implement PFM in view of the lack of clear mechanisms for benefit sharing and the slow rate of PFM embrace among foresters.

Achievements and Changing roles The roles of the CFAs have been changing over time from being directly controlled by the then Forest Department (now KFS) to a more decentralized system where they are more involved in decision making. They have further expanded their roles from lobbying to conflict management, fundraising, negotiating with KFS, initiating rural development and forestry development activities and more importantly developing systems, which are introducing equity principles and addressing the needs of the poor and disadvantaged members of the community. These new trends have also led to the formation of splinter groups due to power and leadership wrangles.

The Associations have also pioneered projects like butterfly farming, bee-keeping, farm forestry initiatives, environmental awareness programmes and eco-tourism facilities, which have improved the livelihood of the grass root communities. The initiatives have added value to PFM in a hitherto situation where communities would hardly have got any benefit from the forest.

21 Study areas The study was conducted within the associations of Ramogi Forest (Siaya County), Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (Kilifi County) and Upper Imenti Forest (Meru County). The forests were significantly affected byillegal activities of charcoal production and pole harvesting affecting the forest cover. The CFAs within the forests are involved in sustainable forest use and access through PFM: they were involved in modification, passing and coordination of rules of their associations and user groups activities e.g. in forest maintenance and management and income generating activities, such as seedling production. However, there are socio-economic differences and management strategies that affected CFA involvement in forest improvement activities.

The data was collected using International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) methodology that studies social, economic and political status of forests, by the use of association forms, product forms, user group forms and user group relationship forms using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). The members of the Associations were interviewed through focus group discussions to better understand their involvement in forest governance.

Community Forest Associations Ramogi Hill Forest – the Umba Women Group was founded in 1994, covering Siaya District, to train women in making energy saving stoves. In 1999, the group became Got Ramogi Alternative Health, formed with the need to conserve and preserve the forest and ensure sustainability. In 2002, Ramogi Cultural Education Centre was formed through awareness of the National Museums (NMK) of Kenya to create an educational centre, for learning purposes and conservation of the rich heritage. Later in 2008, KFS initiated the formation of Got Ramogi CFA with an objective of conserving the forest, as well as protecting sacred sites and indigenous trees for economic use and sustainability.

Arabuko-Sokoke Forest – the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Dwellers Association (ASFADA) was founded in 1997 to protect and conserve the Forest. This initiative was as a result of training from Nature Kenya and Birdlife International to deal with animal-human conflict in the forest. The Gede Arabuko CFA was formed 2007 with the assistance of KFS and Nature Kenya, funded by USAID to engage in management of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest area under the Gede Forest Station. There are two other CFAs in the forest found in the Jilore and Sokoke Forest Stations areas.

Upper Imenti Forest – the Meru Forest Environmental and Forest Protection Community Association (MEFECAP) was founded in 1998 to ensure sustainable forest management. The forest suffered illegal destruction from charcoal production and timber harvesting. The Ribui Kirachene Forest Operation Protection Group and Nkunga Forest Protection Self Help Group joined MEFECAP to help protect the Forest.

RESULTS Official legal status MEFECAP and Got Ramogi Community Forest association did not obtain an official legal status at the time of formation. However, it later obtained an official legal status after formation. All the other associations of Ramogi and Arabuko-Sokoke Forests obtained official legal status at the time of formation.

Source of rules The sources of rules for product use were created by national and local government legislation. However, the rules in use sometimes are completely different, varied substantially, conformed closely or conformed broadly to laws. In Arabuko -Sokoke, the legal claim to the forest is de jure (by right as established by law) and de facto (as exists, but not necessarily by legal establishment) in which the users have a formal right and they exercised it. In Ramogi, the rules used are contrary to formal law. In MEFECAP, the rules used conformed closely to laws. Some of the claims to the use of products are de jure and de facto. These source of rules, thus imply that the government is fully involved in the formulation of the rules that associations use. However the rules are sometimes different and the associations formulate rules that conform to the rules provided by the government.

22 Rules in use The associations have written statements of mission and objectives written by local users guided by external authorities and government officials. ASFADA, Gede Arabuko CFA, Got Ramogi Alternative Health, Ramogi Eco Cultural and Education Centre and Umba Women group used rules not as originally provided by a government agency. Got Ramogi community forest associations used rules provided by the government agency, but were identical in other forest associations. ASFADA and MEFECAP used rules provided by the government, but there was considerable variation from one forest association to another.

In ASFADA, Gede Arabuko CFA and Got Ramogi Alternative Health officials and forest users did not have powers to change the mission statement of the association. In MEFECAP, ASFADA and Ramogi Eco Cultural and Education Centre, the users together with the officials had the power to change the associations’ mission statement.

Umba Women Group and Got Ramogi community forest association, forest users and association officials together with government officials had the powers to change the association rules. The Associations’ officials together with the members of the user groups enforced rules created by the association.

Association activities Towards livelihood improvement and sustainable forest management, the association either participated in coordinating rules, passing rules or modifying rules to ensure forest sustainability. The activities carried out by the association included seedling planting/ production, other maintenance, harvesting forest products, distribution of forest products to users, sale of forest products, distribution of revenue, determining timing season quantity, type of technology, who is authorized and use that can be put to forest products. Their involvement was also in terms of selling of harvesting rights, renting non-transferable rights, monitoring forest condition, monitoring conformance to rules, sanctioning rule breakers.

The Associations were mainly involved in coordination activities. During the past 1 year (Table 1), ASFADA coordinated, passed and monitored rules in seedling planting and other maintenance. Gede Arabuko CFA coordinated, passed, and monitored rules in dispute arbitration among the local users. MEFECAP coordinated and modified rules in monitoring forest condition, sanctioning rule breakers, arbitrating in disputes and interacting with higher authorities. In most of the activities, the associations were not involved in either coordinating, passing on monitoring of rules. The Associations were involved in at least one activity for which they passed, coordinated or monitored the rules.

During five years prior to the past year (Table 2), only Gede Arabuko CFA coordinated and passed rules on seedling production. Most of the associations were not involved in the activities, but participated in at least monitoring, coordinating or even passing the rules. ASFADA did not participate in coordinating, passing of modifying the rules for the association activities. MEFECAP was highly involved in coordination of rules, but did not pass any rules for its activities.

23 Table 1: Activities carried out by the associations during the past year.

Activity ASFADA Gede Arabuko CFA Got Ramogi Alternative Health Ramogi Eco Cultural and Educ. Centre Got Ramogi CFA Umba Women Group MEFECAP Planted seeds, seedlings, etc. 1 3 1 1 1 1 2

Other maintenance 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Harvested forest products 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Distributed forest products to local 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 users Sold forest products 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Distributed revenue from the sale of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 forest Products Determined timing (season) of the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 harvest of forest products Determined quantity of forest 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 products harvested Determined type of technology used 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 to harvest forest products Determined who is authorized to 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 harvest forest products Determined use of forest products 1 1 2 7 7 1 2 (including religious uses)

Sold rights to harvest forest products 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 that users can trade with others Rented non-transferable rights to 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 harvest forest products Monitored forest condition 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

Monitored conformance to rules 2 2 2 7 7 1 5

Sanctioned rule breakers (e.g., fines, 1 8 1 1 1 1 5 punishment) Arbitrated disputes among local users 2 1 2 1 1 1 5

Interacted with higher authorities 2 2 2 2 2 2 5

Key: 1= Not involved 4= Coordinated, passed, modified 7= Passed 2= Coordinated 5= Coordinated, modified 8= Monitored 3= Coordinated, passed 6= Coordinated, passed, monitor

24 Table 2: Activities carried out by the association five years prior to the past year.

Activity ASFADA Arabuko Gede CFA Got Ramogi Alternative Health Ramogi Eco Cultural and Educ. Centre Got Ramogi CFA Umba Women Group MEFECAP

Planted seeds, seedlings, etc. 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 Other maintenance 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 Harvested forest products 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Distributed forest products to 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 local users Sold forest products 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Distributed revenue from the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sale of forest products Determined timing (season) of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 the harvest of forest products Determined quantity of forest 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 products harvested Determined type of technology 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 used to harvest forest products Determined who is authorized to 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 harvest forest products Determined use of forest 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 products (including religious uses) Sold rights to harvest forest 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 products that users can trade with others Rented non-transferable rights to 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 harvest forest products Monitored forest condition 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Monitored conformance to rules 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Sanctioned rule breakers (e.g., 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 fines, punishment) Arbitrated disputes among local 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 users Interacted with higher 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 authorities

Key: 1= Not involved 4= Coordinated, passed, modified 7= Passed 2= Coordinated 5= Coordinated, modified 8= Monitored 3= Coordinated, passed 6= Coordinated, passed, monitor

25 The exclusion in passing, coordinating and modifying rules resulted to increased forest destruction. Arabuko- Sokoke associations and Ramogi Eco Cultural and Education Centre rank the forest condition as about normal for the ecological zone. Got Ramogi Alternative Health, Got Ramogi CFA and MEFECAP ranked the forest as somewhat sparse since their activities were passively on coordination of rules.

Arabuko-Sokoke and Ramogi Associations are concerned about sustainable management and livelihood improvement, through an inclusive management strategy. Associations in Ramogi and MEFECAP felt that the level of conservation measures adopted is about the right level and sometimes too lax, and that if harvesting continued then the forest sustainability is endangered. However, the associations in Arabuko-Sokoke felt that conservation measures were too restrictive and more could be harvested without endangering the forests sustainability.

Conclusion - Though forest governance structure has been devolved through PFM, CFA involvement in decision making and control of rules is still under the government’s control. As a result, CFAs still feel that they have been left out in important decision making structures that affect livelihoods and forestry sector. - The devolved governance system has given forest adjacent communities the ability to fully participate in forest management. Communities managing the forests should therefore be fully included in decision making activities on matters concerning forest use and access. - Effective forest management requires participation of all stakeholders. Participation should therefore not be limited to coordination of rules, but should be all inclusive in formulation of rules, passing of rules and modification of the rules. - PFM has been used to benefit user groups through CFAs. CFAs thus formulate rules that govern forest use and access in line with the rules provided by the government. Through this, user groups engage in sustainable forest activities as they improve their livelihoods.

References Agrawal, A. and E. Ostrom. (2001). Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society 29(4): 485-514

Kallert, S.R., J.N. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin and L.L. Litchenfed. (2000). Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric and reality. Journal of Society and Natural Resources 13(8): 705-715

Kenya Forests Service. Manual on Forming and Registering CFAs.Nairobi, Kenya: Kenya Forest Service; Kenya Forests Working Group, 2009.

Kenya Forest Service. Participatory Forest Management Guidelines Nairobi, Kenya: Kenya Forest Service, 2007.

Mogoi, J et al (2012). Communities, property rights and forest decentralisation in Kenya: Early lessons from participatory forestry management.Paper presented in IASC conference, India

Ribot, J.C. (2005). Choosing representation: Institutions and powers for decentralized natural resource management. In: The politics of decentralization (eds. Colfer, C.P. and D. Capistrano). London:Earthscan.

26 2.5 Do CFAs have adequate capacity to engage in PFM? By Wanjiru Gathira9

Abstract It is widely recognized that CFA effectiveness is challenged by governance related issues, foremost of which include decision-making, operations and handling of financial resources and issues of self-sustainability. The purpose of the study is to provide an objective framework for strengthening CFAs, to better ensure they add value to the management and administration of Kenya’s forests. A sample of 20 forest stations over five conservancies was utilized. According to the study findings, the lessons learned from interpretation of the facts are that the organizational capacity levels differ from one CFA to the next. Some CFAs have established systems to enhance their forest protection efforts, with others such as Kereita CFA exhibiting a number of good practices in forest management. However, most of them; do not have sufficient resources to recruit staff, lack proper policies, procedures, and administrative and operational systems to effectively implement their mandate amongst other issues. The study recommends that CFAs be trained in governance and leadership, organizational management and organizations sustainability.

Introduction CFAs are entering into Forest Management Agreements (FMAs) with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), which confer co-management roles to the community with the KFS retaining the forest resource ownership right and the right to withdraw the agreement in total or part. A key challenge is to develop co-management approaches that are culturally, ecologically, and economically sustainable. The purpose of the study is to provide an objective framework for strengthening CFAs, to better ensure they add value to the management and administration of Kenya’s forests. Identifying realistic and affordable opportunities for capacity building lies at the core of this objective. It is also expected that a large part of the solution will be to find ways to ensure CFAs are financially stable, nimble and all with the flexibility and genuine interest to respond to the needs of their members.

METHODOLOGY 20 forest stations over five conservancies were sampled. This sample was pre-selected by KFS and it includes: 11 CFAs from Nyeri, Kiambu, Nyandarua, Murang’a and Laikipia Counties in Central Highlands Conservancy; 7 CFAs from Nakuru and Kericho Counties and Koibatek zone in Mau Conservancy; and 2 CFAs from Meru County, Eastern Conservancy. The study collected and analyzed both primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative data.

RESULTS Overview of CFA Contribution to Participatory Forest Management: The findings showed that the implementation of planned activities is a challenge to most CFAs due to lack of adequate resources. However, through voluntarism, KFS facilitation, and donor funding some CFAs have been able to deliver in a large part of their mandate. Forest Conservation: According to most CFAs that were interviewed, their conservation efforts are on track despite challenges such as delayed facilitation by KFS for required inputs, particularly during the planting season. However, despite these challenges, some CFAs have successfully met their targets on conservation and cleared the backlog in planting, thinning and pruning. For example, the CFA in the Olbolosat forest station has successfully undertaken re-afforestation activities that have led to a marked reduction in forest destruction. Forest Protection: The findings showed that some CFAs have established systems to enhance their forest protection efforts. A case in point is the Sururu CFA, which has set up 6 outposts for policing the forest that are manned by ten trained scouts. The CFA is manning the fire tower and maintains a firebreak of about 5km clearance around the forest. Overall, 7 of the 20 CFAs interviewed indicated that while they do not have scouts who can undertake surveillance and gather intelligence, they use community policing instead. For the remaining 12 CFAs, their scouts system is not well developed and their scouts do not have a harmonious relationship with the KFS rangers.

27 Forest management: Kereita CFA exhibited a number of good practices in forest management in the use of controlled grazing plans and participated in the installation of an electric fence and its maintenance. The CFA has successfully carried out controlled tree pruning. Due to successful management practices, there is minimal illegal logging at this forest station. Moreover, the Kereita CFA uses several approaches such as work plans, monthly calendar of events among others to co-manage the forest and activities undertaken by members. The CFA has set up committees at the village level, whose members are represented in the decision making executive and management committees. i). Governance and Leadership Findings and Analysis Board structure & Governing Documents: Of the 20 CFAs that were sampled, 19 indicated that they do not have sufficient resources to recruit staff, and only one CFA has a CEO/Manager who was recruited under a donor funded project. The governing documents sampled did not address critical issues such as procedures for approval of board items, title and scope of authority for the executive director/chief of staff; and the provision for filling vacancies. While the governing documents contained foundation statements (e.g., vision, mission and goals), they did not clearly articulate or answer questions such as, whom does the organization serve, how are they served and where are they served?

Organizational structure: The sampled CFAs seemed to be stuck in what might be referred to as ‘the emergent stage’ that is characterized by a highly centralized management, where only a few people wield control. Although user groups and CBOs are represented in the CFA leadership, many respondents admitted they do not know their rights or how to invoke those rights to hold their leaders accountable. Even when it was evident that the leaders were not adhering to the rules of engagement, as per their constitution, members appeared powerless to do anything about it.

Organizational control and decision-making: The study found that women, youth and persons with disabilities are inadequately represented in leadership positions (i.e., as members of executive/management committees). Over the 20 CFAs sampled, only one woman has been elected chairlady within the last 5 years and even this event was said to be a sop to external pressure from donors. There was no youth or Persons With Disabilities (PWDs) representation at the board level.

The findings indicate that the decision-making process within the CFA executive is not serving the needs of the most vulnerable groups in the lower levels of the organization, and neither does it take kindly to new members or to outsiders. The study also found that decisions made by committee members are not always properly documented.

Elections: Of the CFAs interviewed, 19 have held at least one election since their registration; 8 CFAs have not adhered to regular elections as stipulated in their governing documents and 14 CFAs elected their officials in different intervals. The findings show that Executive Committees do not always comply with rules concerning elections, as laid out in their governing documents. Some Executive Committee’s refused to call for elections and/or resisted attempts of members to do the same. Many respondents complained that while CBOs and user groups adhere to the law by regularly holding elections as stipulated in their constitution(s), some CFAs do not.

Roles and Responsibilities: The study found no provision for management or operations in the governing documents or the organizational structure. The study found that only one CFA has employed a CEO / Manager. Management and operational functions are retained by the management committee of the Board, while in others, the executive committees run the day-to-day affairs of the association under the supervision of the management committee. CFAs complained of not having sufficient funds for hiring personnel, which may explain why the executive and/or management committees frequently doubles up as the staff members in the day-to-day management of the organization

28 Accountability: Some 45% of the respondents felt that their organizations were not accountable. 55% of the respondents believe their organizations are accountable. ii). Organizational Management: Analysis and Findings a) Administration and Operations

Planning: The study found that CFAs do not undertake any formal planning process to assist them to set organizational goals or even to implement their strategic plan. Only one of the sample CFAs actually had a strategic plan in place. The rest use their Participatory Forest Management Plan and Forest Management Agreement as a framework for operational activities. 18 of the CFAs interviewed have PFMPs however, many CFAs were concerned that the existing PFMPs are close to expiry but none have been fully implemented. Only one CFA had prepared a business plan.

Work Plans: The study found that only 5 of the 20 CFAs have annual work plans but only one CFA reviews its plan on a semi-annual basis. The rest use work plans, calendar of activities, official minutes to direct their operations.

Human Resource Management: The study found that CFAs lack proper policies, procedures, and administrative and operational systems to effectively implement their mandate. However, different CFAs handle the personnel issues in different ways: one CFA uses volunteer personnel to address specific duties, one has a coordinator whose main function is to unite CBOs, one has a Public Relations officer who is responsible for conflict resolution at the village level, one has employed a graduate manager, two permanent tree nursery workers, and a watchman, 6 CFAs have recruited office clerks on a permanent basis to assist in the collection of monthly and yearly membership fees and to perform other clerical functions; and 12 CFAs have employed casual staff to manage their green houses or tree nurseries. The results indicate that it is easier for CFAs with donor funding to employ staff but that after the project ends, they usually let them go when the funding source dissipates.

Office space: The study found that of the 20 CFAs, 12 do not have formal offices, 3 have functional offices, 1 shares office space with the forest station manager, while the remainder works from their own individual offices. Most offices are ill equipped and scarcely functional. b) Financial Management Financial Management Systems: As a good practice, the study found that all CFAs keep basic books of accounts such as petty cash voucher, ledger books, receipt books and, cheque books. CFAs also have bank accounts that are operated by 3 signatories (i.e., the chairperson, secretary and treasurer).

Budget Preparation: The study found that 15 of the 20 CFAs prepare budgets while the rest do not, ostensibly because of insufficient resources. The evidence suggests that budget preparation is taken more seriously by CFAs that have received some kind of donor funding.

Financial Reporting: The study found that a good number of the sampled CFAs (18 of 20) regularly prepare financial reports. However, financial reporting tends to be inconsistent with the requirements set out in the constitution and this has generated conflict. Members of 19 out of 20 CFAs indicated that they are able to access financial records. Only one CFA has withheld financial reports from members because they are afraid that sharing the reports was likely to lead to sabotage of the leadership and wrangles among members.

Internal audit: 17 CFAs have received donor funding, which requires an external audit of their books. Only one CFA has committed to an internal audit. However, many committee members lack skills in accounting and financial matters and do not understand the approach to, or even need for, auditing.

29 Information Communication Technology (ICT) Systems The study found that CFAs do not make adequate use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) despite often having a large membership (say between 400 and 8,000 people). The data collected (e.g., contact information, fees paid, user groups/CBOs and the activities they participate in, etc.) is anachronistically recorded on paper. However, some CFAs have a number of good practices. 1 CFA uses information technology in their operations. 2 use social media platforms such as Facebook to communicate information to members. 2 have utilized posters in public places. 2 record their meetings using cameras and digital phones, and 2 have a laptop. The remaining CFAs revert to a cyber café for typing or photocopy services but this is quite challenging because these services are located far away. iii). Organizational Sustainability of CFAs Findings and Analysis Resource mobilization of CFAs through membership fees: The findings showed that the single most important source of finances for CFAs was membership fees. Secondary, but important nonetheless, is funding from annual subscription fees and user fees. To become a member of a CFA, one must submit a written application, a copy of a Kenyan National Identity Card and pay a registration fee of between Ksh. 500 and Ksh. 1,000. Depending on the fees that are charged and the number of members in a given CFA, these amounts translate to as low as Ksh. 400,000 for organizations with fewer members to over Ksh. 8 million for CFAs with greater members. CFAs also charge an annual subscription fee of about Ksh. 200 per person. Individual members are also required to pay user fees to KFS and CFAs. For example, a cow is charged Ksh. 70 per month (50 to the KFS and 20 to CFA) and a sheep is charged Ksh. 25 per month (20 to the KFS and 5 to CFA). The fee for PELIS is Ksh. 450 per half acre plot (250 to KFS, 130 to the CFA; 50 to the CBO and 20 to the user group). Some groups contribute Ksh. 1 to the CFA for the sale of every tree seedling. Resource mobilization through business ventures: Most of the CBOs and user groups that were interviewed indicated they would like to generate more revenue through a ‘for profit’ entity, with only 3 of the sampled CFAs having established a ‘for profit arm’ through a registered company. Resource mobilization through social entrepreneurial activities: Some CFA user groups/CBOs have already pioneered projects such as beekeeping, farm forestry initiatives, environmental awareness programs and eco- tourism facilities. Some user groups/CBOs now employ their members, particularly the youth, as casuals in tree nurseries. One CBO is presently building an eco-tourism venture, having prepared a business plan, applied for a license from KFS; and hosted two international tourists groups. Donor funded projects: 17 CFAs have accessed donor funding either individually or collectively. 5 have received donor funding from the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) to support various projects.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS According to the study findings, organizational capacity levels differ from one CFA to the next and this is to be expected. It is clear that many CFAs do not have adequate capacity to engage in PFM but some CFAs have managed to come up with innovative approaches and several good practices that can be strengthened, replicated and scaled up. CFAs provide KFS with good and cost effective opportunities for co-managing forests.

The study findings show that CFAs have not fully identified what their value proposition is or why members and other stakeholders actually choose to participate in the association. This is because most of them have not engaged in strategic planning process or properly defined their mission, their core values and their raison d’être, which would allow them to identify and build on their unique combination of strengths and passions. Consequently, many members have complained that despite paying their membership and subscription fees, they are not getting value for their money. In this way, associations continue to lose an important opportunity to articulate what is really important to members and what will ensure membership dues keep coming.

The study identified several good practices in good governance and leadership, organizational management and organizational sustainability in Rumuruti and Gathiuru CFAs that can be strengthened, replicated and scaled up in other conservancies.

30 It was also noted that user groups’ payments to KFS were based on a national rate, while those to CFAs varied from CFA to CFA.

The study recommends that CFAs be trained in governance and leadership, organizational management and organizations sustainability. More emphasis should be placed on training all members on book keeping thereby ensuring an equal understanding of the annual financial situation of the organization. For purposes of this study, several capacity building approaches may be undertaken, that can include but are not limited to: providing access to repositories of information and resources (for example, databases, libraries and web sites); publications; trainings (public or customized); consultations (for example, coaching, facilitating, expert advice and conducting research); and coordinating alliances and building networks.

References Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Forest Department. (1994) Kenya Forestry Master Plan 1994-2020

Laws of Kenya. The Constitution of Kenya. (Revised Edition 2010). Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General. Retrieved from www.Kenyalaw.org on 14, November 2014.

Government of Kenya. (2005). Forests Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer

Government of Kenya. GOK (1989). The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act Chapter 376 Laws of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer

Nyangores Forest Management Plan

31 2.6: Poster 1: Bottlenecks to the functionality of CFAs BOTTLENECK TO THE FUNCTIONALITY OF COMMUNITY FOREST ASSOCIATIONS

AUTHOR(S): WASHINGTON AYIEMBA AND JOAN GICHUKI ([email protected])

INTRODUCTION: The participation of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) in joint stakeholder management of forests is provided for in the Forest Act, 2005. Their actual engagement is stipulated in the Forest Management Agreements which they enter into with Kenya Forest Service (KFS): obligations and user rights clearly stipulated in this contract for management of identified forest areas. Despite satisfying the conditions as provided in the PFM Guidelines, many CFAs are yet to actively engage actual management of their respective forest areas under PFM. They are yet to fully take up their roles and responsibilities despite the resource support and capacity building they have received from development partners and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that prevent CFAs that prevent active participation of CFAs in forest management. Signing of the Nandi/Kimondi/Iruru Community Forest Agreement (CFA).

METHODS: Since 2003 the authors have engaged in supporting communities in the formation and capacity building of CFAs at the Arabuko-Sokoke, North and South Nandi, Kakamega, and Cherangani Hills forest ecosystems. Their observations, personal interactions and personal communication with the CFAs leadership, CFAs members and other stakeholders engaged in the adoption of PFM, informed the analysis of the factors as to why CFAs have not attained the expected level of engagement after a decade of PFM. The organisational capacity assessments (OCA) for some of the CFAs and CBOs in the study forest sites were used in triangulation of the validity of factors identified.

RESULTS: The key bottleneck to the effective participation of the CFAs in forest management was identified as their non-functional organisational structures and frameworks for the delivery of planned actions. Despite the outlining and even existence these structures and frameworks as described in the Participatory Forest Management Plans, they have not been set-up and put to use. The CFAs are thus not able to deliver on their expected functions in the joint management of forest with other stakeholders. Those engaging have strategic partners who are the key decision makers and managers of the actions they undertake. The factors that contribute to this bottleneck were identified as: • The Executive Committees over and above providing strategy are also the executants: CFAs have no management units that can be held accountable for delivery of planned activities • Failure to institute management unit and systems because they lack resources to fund operations • Failure to develop short-term workplan and budgets from PFMPs for which they can resource mobilize and measure delivery as they build development partners confidence in their institutions • No formal partnership agreements with civil society and private sectors who could help to implement management programs • Leaders not fully available as they have positions in other community organisations/initiatives for their livelihoods • Failure to hold AGMs and change management committees officials thus the departure of office bearers creates a gap in the CFAs knowledge and experience in PFM • Only community scouting have successfully been instituted but faces sustainability challenges from the lack of compensation for the time of scouts over prolonged periods • Engage in advocacy at the neglect of taking up of their designated roles and responsibilities • Increasingly being absorbed into KFS and looking out only for the benefits and not really how they can effectively be a check and balance • Most CFAs are yet to grow beyond the storming level of group development with regard to roles and responsibilities expected of them under PFM

IMPACT: CONCLUSION: CFAs are perceived as second level organisations that are brought on board into the CFAs require organisational capacity building support as a prerequisite to making management of respective forests at the convenience of the other established partners them functional and credible actors in the management of forests; and in joint management; and CFAs need to enter into formal partnerships with organisations that will infer CFAs are not able to effectively mobilize resources as development partners have low the organisational capacity and mentorship they require to grow into performing confidence in their ability to deliver on planned/agreed actions. status of group development. Signing of the Nandi/Kimondi/Iruru Community Forest Agreement (CFA).

REFERENCES/FOOTNOTES Enhanced sustainability at Arabuko-Sokoke – FORREMS Project, Final Report , Nature Kenya 2007 Improving Livelihoods through sustainable Government, NGO, Private Partnership in South Nandi Project, End-Review Report, Nature Kenya 2012 P. O. Box 44486-00100 Strengthening the Protected Area Network within the Eastern Montane Forest Hotspot of Kenya Nairobi, Kenya Project, Mid-term Review Report, Nature Kenya 2013 E-mail: [email protected] Empowered lives. Resilient nations Home page: www.natureKenya.org

32 2.7: Poster 2: Lessons from selected case studies on PFM in Kenya Participatory Forest Management IN Kenya LESSONS FROM SELECTED CASE STUDIES

AUTHOR: CHARLES K. KOECH

INTRODUCTION: PFM ASSUMPTIONS: • The Participatory Forest Management (PFM) approach provides for local • Local forest users make rational decisions in relation to production factors communities engagement in the control and use of forests to which they live (land, labour, capital and knowledge); adjacent. • People will participate in managing the forest they collectively use only • It excludes large scale industrial forestry which contributes to community when they clearly envisage the net tangible benefits from incomes, development solely through employment and wages, but promotes forestry products, services and perceive that they posses the necessary knowledge, enterprises and public forest services which encourage and assist forestry competence and technology to manage the resources. activities at the community level. • There are sufficient guarantees and non-participants can be restricted from • The main features of PFM entail the sharing of authority, responsibility, enjoying Forest benefits. revenues and duties amongst the established organizations managing the • Strong community institutions like CFAs exist to implement Forest respective forests, which are currently KFS and CFAs management Agreements.

Kakamega Forest under rehabilitation with Community support through CFA Promotion of IGA like nursery establishment

EXAMPLES OF PARTICIPATING FOREST ADJACENT COMMUNITIES: The Kipepeo Project in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Illustrated through butterfly farming how forest and biodiversity conservation could be achieved by non-destructive use of the forest for income benefits to the local communities. The benefits led to a change in the attitude of this community towards the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest conservation, and now they are the frontline defence of the forest against private developers and excisions. The other community forest based enterprises are: bee keeping and non residential cultivation (PELIS). The locals are employed also as tour guides to visitors in the forest. They have Community scouts who patrol and give information to the foresters on any illegal activities in the forest. Traditional Conservation of Biological Diversity by the Miji Kenda in Chale Island and Gazi Bay South of Mombasa; Maasai community at Loita Forest and the Tiriki at their cultural sites around Kakamega has been achieved through a system of taboos and religious sanctions.

Degraded Maragoli Hills Forest under rehabilitation by community members Community involvement in forest management and problem solving process and other Stakeholders

CHALLENGES TO PFM: BENEFITS OF PFM: • Rallying local communities to support KFS conservation efforts. • Income generating activities contributing to poverty alleviation locally. •Conflicts between traditional organizations, cultural practice and the • Cohesion between KFS and the locals in planning forest management and government administrative regulations. use activities • Identifying alternative income generating activities that provide tangible • Support for forest conservation by local communities. returns and alleviate poverty which is the major contributing factor to forest • Reduced degradation through collaborative protection biodiversity destruction. • Lack of management plans for many forests especially private and community forests.

Empowered lives. Resilient nations For more information contact: Charles K. Koech or Director KEFRI- or [email protected]

33 2.8 Issues Emerging during Plenary Status of the forest conservation fund: KFS has initiated the formation of the Forest Management and Conservation fund under Section 18 of the Forests Act (2005) to be used as a resource mobilization vehicle. To start off, the fund has benefited from USD 25,000 cash award won by KFS under the Edouard Saouma Award during FAO’s 38th Session of its bi-annual governing conference. KFS has also engaged Price water house Coopers (PwC) to work out the fund modalities. WWF (Worldwide Fund For Nature Conservation) is also providing support for workshops to ensure the process moves forward.

Capacity of CFAs to engage in PFM: Most CFAs have limited capacity to engage in PFM. There is need for a comprehensive capacity building programme to address these gaps.

Access to funds at county level by CFAs: Financial support for forest activities is being provided for by both the national and county governments. KFS is in the process of devolving its forest extension activities to counties.

Handling of cases with two CFAs in one forest station: In most cases conflict resolution mechanisms have been put in place within various committees at the local level to help sort out such issues.

Engagement of pastoralists in PFM: Though it is a requirement that CFAs members must be within 0 to 5 km from the forest edge, pastoralists are a unique case since they depend on the forest resource for grazing and can participate in PFM as provided for in the Forests Act.

Redefining PFM to further incorporate forests outside protected areas and those found in urban areas: The definition of PFM has not been agreed upon. However, there is no limitation on where one can practise PFM. It can be undertaken in gazetted forests and within the surrounding areas.

Fear of county governments not having the will to support forest protection thus leading to forest destruction: The constitution does not devolve the management of national natural resources such as forests to the counties. However, both the national and county governments are working hand in hand to ensure the resources they are constitutionally allowed to manage are well taken care of. The counties are major stakeholders in the PFM and their engagement will be included in definition of roles.

The need for permission from CFAs for one to access the forest: It would be difficult and against the law to exclude some stakeholders from the forest at the expense of CFAs (i.e. through concessions) as this may potentially lead to conflicts. In this regard, the concession agreement signed between KFS and the CFA in Ngare Ndare forest does not exclude other stakeholders from accessing or utilising the forest.

Role and participation of youth in PFM: In some areas youth are actively involved in PFM through groups such as Kijabe Environment Volunteers, but a lot has to be done to ensure that many more come on board. Youth need to understand that power is earned and not given so there need to work hard be in management positions. Youth can bring dynamism that is currently not available in the CFAs

Building of structures such as houses within forest land by CFA members practising PELIS in Mt. Elgon forest: PELIS does not support the settlement of community members within the forest land.

Introduction of team building for KFS and CFA to enhance their relationship: The introduction of PFM was meant to ensure that communities participate in forest management without any difficulties. What is needed is the building up of a certain level of trust and ensuring equality in forest management.

After signing of the FMA how can you introduce new activities such as REDD+, Bamboo: If the activity was agreed on as part of the ones in the FMA, the CFA should go ahead and implement. If not they should negotiate with KFS on how best to move forward. As a word of caution, there is need to diversify forest investments and avoid focusing on returns from carbon credits sale in due to fluctuations in global carbon prices.

34 3.0: PFM UNDER CHANGING POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Session Chair: Mr. Esau Omollo

Papers Presented 1. Keynote Paper on PFM under Changing Policy and Legal Frameworks By Hewson Kabugi 2. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 as a dynamic thrust for PFM by Mercy Obado 3. The Right of Public Participation in Forest Governance in Kenya by Benson Ochieng 4. PFM: The disconnect between law, practice and reality by By Mbuvi M, E. T. Nahama and J. M. Musyoki

3.1 Keynote Paper: PFM under Changing Policy and Legal Frameworks

By Hewson Kabugi10

INTRODUCTION The history of forest management in Kenya began when the country was declared a British Protectorate in 1895. The management has moved through a series of stages – colonial and post-colonial, and is now in a devolved system. Each series reflect social, economic and political realities of the time. The objectives of forest demarcation in the colonial period was to protect forests from destructive indigenous land use practices, to prevent European settlers from obtaining private ownership, and to generate revenue for the forest department through the sale of timber and minor forest products. Post-colonial objectives were catchment protection, industrial forestry development, and protection from encroachment by local communities.

The new dispensation calls for improved forest governance, devolution, sustainable forest management, partnerships and collaboration with the state and non-state actors, and efficient response to emerging issues to enable the sector contribute to meeting the country’s growth and poverty alleviation goals.

Communities’ participation in the management of state-owned forests is increasingly becoming common phenomenon in the past three decades. Many countries in Africa and Asia are promoting the participation of rural communities in the management and utilization of natural forests and woodlands through some form of Participatory Forest Management (PFM). In order to institutionalize community involvement, countries have formulated or are in the process of developing national policies and legislation

COLONIAL FORESTRY (1895-1962) Forestry Legislation Since the mid-1890s the settlers had been clamouring for land in the mile zone, and their wishes were given priority. The first forestry legislation in Kenya is The Ukamba Woods and Forest Regulation of 1887. This was followed by East African Forestry Regulations in 1902. The 1902 regulations was followed by Forest Ordinances of 1911, 1915, 1916 and 1941 which expanded the provisions of the earlier law.

The progress of colonial forestry legislation reveals an interesting pattern. First, was the move by the Forest Department to define or curve out an area of jurisdiction via the reservation process as an attempt to justify and legitimize its existence. Secondly, a deliberate attempt to consolidate and concentrate control of forest resources to the forest department by restricting entry, defining offenses, imposing fines and penalties for offences. Third, was the definition of an administrative structure for enforcement through forest guards and a Forestry Advisory Committee. Finally, by placing forestry under the direct responsibility of a cabinet Minister, the legislation entrenches forestry as a national imperative.

35 How indigenous populations were displaced Forests alienated by Forest Department either provided a home for forest-dwelling people (the Dorobo), or had been utilized by non-forest dwellers for fuel, water, grazing, honey, salt-licks, refuge or territory for expansion and protection. The forest department claimed land without considering the rights of local inhabitants and imposed strict regulations on the use of forest products by forest-adjacent communities. Native rights to the forests were not recognized; instead they were termed as either illegal squatters or tenants-at-will of the Crown.

The displaced indigenous people were confined within native reserves, under the Native Lands Trust Ordinance of 1930. Under this Ordinance, forests within native reserves were declared as native forest reserves. The provisions of this law limited further reservation of native lands, a great source of frustration to the forest department. An important consequence of confining indigenous populations to native reserves, restricting access to large forest blocks and charging for fuel, was the depletion and over-exploitation of forests within native reserves (Uhler, 1982). Forest department attempts at instituting afforestation programs in native reserves met with hostile resistance since native reserves were managed by local native councils. Later, however, the Chief Conservator of Forests gazetted forests within native reserves, effectively foreclosing the last opportunity for access to forest products by the indigenous population.

Conflict between forest department and local administration: Forest department’s disregard for indigenous population rights; their reluctance to compensate natives their loss of access to forest goods and services met with opposition from local government officials and administrators. The local administrators had to contend with complaints from an increasingly discontented native population. This made their administrative job more difficult, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s due to rising political consciousness and re-assertion of native rights. This was evident in the Lembus forest, where traditional use of forest was restricted due to a 99-year lease to concessionaires (Anderson, 1987). In order to defuse the political tension over Lembus, and to protect free grazing rights of the native populations and the customary rights that may have been exercised in the forest prior to the dates of the concession, the Government crafted the “Coryndon definition” of 1923. This provided rights for grazing, cultivation and fuel-wood gathering to the Africans.

AFTER INDEPENDENCE The operating legal framework for forest management in Kenya was provided by the Forest Act Chapter 385 of the Law of Kenya of 1942 (revised in 1982 and 1992). It remained the legacy from the colonial administration. Its purpose of reservation, protection, centralization and control of forestry within government echoes that of colonial forestry objectives in Kenya in the late 19th to mid 20th century. This Act pre-dated the 1968 policy and could not have been framed to meet the goals of the 1968 forest policy. It prescribed punishment for non- compliance with its restrictions. Although the Act permitted forest protection on un-alienated government land, rarely was such protection implemented unless gazetted (IUCN, 1996). Subsidiary legislation passed under the Forest Act allowed some communities, by virtue of customary practice and law to have the right to use forest without license or fees. During this time, Presidential directives were used to regulate certain forestry activities, for example the extraction of indigenous timber was banned though a presidential directive. While the directive has no legislative support, it is enforced, within forest reserves by the Minister under the Forest Act; and outside forest reserves it is enforced through Chiefs Act, Trust Lands Act and Local Authority Government Act, Land Act and Antiquities and Monuments Act.

Forest Policy Kenya’s first official forest policy was formulated in 1957, through White Pater number 85.Thiswas subsequently restated by the government of Kenya in 1968 as sessional paper number 1 of 1968 which remains the only official document even today. It sets out the basic principles under which forests will be managed for the greatest common good. The 1968 forest policy aims to reserve forest areas for catchment protection; to provide timber and other forest products; to protect forests from fire and grazing and eliminate private rights in gazzetted forests; to promote sustained management; to develop industrial forestry; to provide funds for policy implementation; to provide employment, in particular under the Shamba system for reforestation and forest

36 maintenance; to designate county council forests; establishment of private forests for protection and production, recreation, conservation, research and education. The policy mentioned little about afforestation efforts outside government forest reserves, and did not visualize extension services as doing anything other than issuing tree seedlings on national tree planting days. The policy does not recognize or acknowledge the role of forestry in local livelihoods; and any such consideration (e.g. through the shamba system) is purely incidental, with a central purpose of reforestation, plantation development and forest maintenance.

Around 2000, Kenyans witnessed agitation for reforms in the sector culminating to enactment of Forests Act 2005, leaving the policy document behind. The Forests Act was therefore a much awaited legislation by the forestry fraternity, including the private sector. It was seen as a solution to the many misgivings that the sector has experienced for decades. The then existing legal and policy frameworks were not supportive of farm forestry development and involvement of communities. There was clamor to be more inclusive in the decision making processes in the sector and shift from command and control principles. The new act therefore enhanced community and private sector participation in forest management under section 36(1) of the Act. This section empowers the Kenya Forest Service board to enter into agreement with any person, company, Forest Association etc. for the joint management of any forests. Although the act did not establish a firm foundation for Participatory Forest Management, it provided a base for community participation out of which PFM would grow as a meaningful management tool.

AFTER PROMULGATION OF CONSTITUTION IN 2010 The draft National Forest Policy of 2014 is the first forest policy document to emphasize the role of people’s participation in forest protection and management. This draft policy has been conceptualized in consideration of lessons in implementation of Participatory Forest Management approaches and development of PFM guidelines.

In order to ensure that the PFM is efficiently implemented by guided practitioners on the ground, the twelve PFM principles have been considered in the formulation of both 2014 forest policy and bill. The twelve principles helped to create provisions to ensure that the participatory approaches becomes everyday consideration for the Ministry and KFS in allowing full implementation of PFM in public forests, both at national and county level. The PFM Principles are:

1. People centered: For effective forest management, the Ministry and Kenya Forest Service must build an understanding of the impact of forests on rural livelihoods to ensure that people become a priority and that they become architects of their own development (Policy- 1st paragraph on Foreword)

2. Participatory and holistic approach: Encouraged participatory management as a routine and a style of promoting the involvement of local people in forest management wherever possible (Guiding Principles-on Public participation, Strategic objective- 41.(c) and section 8.2 on Public participation)

3. Good governance: The rule of law, effective institutions, access to information,transparency and accountability, professional ethics, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and the meaningful participation of citizens will be integrated in forest conservation and management (Foreword 2nd paragraph)

4. Sustainability: Forest management will be implemented in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

5. Transparency: Forest management will be based on transparency and honesty and implemented with a common vision amongst stakeholders.

37 6. Equity: Forest management will promote a balanced, fair and gender-sensitive approach. 7. Benefits: Forest management will strive to ensure tangible short and long-term benefits (benefit-sharing) to local and other stakeholders through, for example, the development of markets and enterprises to increase the values of the forest produce and the development of sustainable harvesting practices. However, the most controversial issue in relation to that is that the constitution provides for the conservation and protection of ecologically sensitive areas, utilization of the environment and natural resources for the benefit of the people of Kenya. Remedial measures: Forest management will ensure that mechanisms are in place to address fairly any conflicts that may arise i.e. develop and implement strategies for forest resource conflict resolution and management

8. Capacity building: The process of indigenous forest management will promote local empowerment by building capacity and utilising appropriate indigenous knowledge. The challenge here is the need to build the capacity of county governments to undertake forestry development on community, public and private lands.

Cultural and traditional values: Forest management will be based within the current legal and policy framework of Kenya while acknowledging cultural and traditional authority.

Partnerships: An integrated approach to forest management will be encouraged through partnerships with various stakeholders (section 8.2 on Public participation).

9. Dynamic approach: The Ministry and Service will maintain a pattern of continuous consultation and feedback amongst stakeholders, ensuring that the lessons learned can be applied to modify the process if necessary

PFM and Forest Bill The implementation of the Act shall be guided by the principle of participatory approach to forest conservation and management and shall be enshrined to ensure effective involvement of stakeholders in forest conservation and management. Rules and regulations are made for prescribing measures that enhance community participation in the conservation and management of forests (74. (1), 75. (1) and 80(3))

CONCLUSION Community involvement is a growing forestry model in which communities or groups of people have partial to full rights over specific forests, including the rights to establish, implement, and enforce rules governing access and use of those forests. These rights may be formal legal rights, or traditional or customary rights: the latter may, or may not, be legally recognized by the State.

Forest management and access to forest resources have political ramifications. In this country, we have witnessed different political situations influencing forest policy and practice and in the way forestry is organized.

The political atmosphere during the colonial period and after independence is superficially different, the forest governance systems and structures are not very different, and the pressures on forestry development are similar. What has changed is the intensity of the problem. However, the new constitutional dispensation provides a window of change and PFM may thrive.

38 REFERENCES Castro, A. P. (1991). The Southern Mount Kenya Forest Since Independence: A Social Analysis to Resource Competition. Word Development. Vol. 19, No. 12.

Draft National Forest Policy. (2014). Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources Draft Forests (conservation and management) Bill 2014. Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

GK/TMF/World Bank. (1996). Kenya: Economic Reforms for 1996 – 1998. The Policy Framework Paper. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer.

Graham, R. M. (1945). Forestry in Kenya. Empire Forestry Journal. Vol. 24, No. 2.

Hayden, G. (1979). Administration and Public Policy: Policy Making in Kenya: “We Must Pull While Others Pause.” In: Barkan, J. D. and Okumu, J. J. (Eds), Politics and Public Policy in Kenya and Tanzania. Praeger Publishers.

IUCN (1996). Forest Cover and Forest Reserves in Kenya: Policy and Practice. IUCN Eastern Africa Program, Issue in Conservation.

KENGO (1996). The Management of Land and Land Based Resources in Kenya: National Proposals for a Policy and Legal Framework. Summary Report of the Environmental Law Review Project: Kenya Energy and Environment Organizations.

KFMP (1994). Kenya Forestry Master Plan: Development Programs. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.

Logie, J. P. and Dyson, W. G. (1962). Forestry in Kenya: A Historical Account of the Development of Forest Management in the Colony. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer.

Oduol, P. A. (1986). The Shamba System: An Indigenous System of Food Production from Forest Areas in Kenya. Agroforestry Systems. Vol. 4.

Was, P. (1995). Kenya’s Indigenous Forests: Status, Management and Conservation. IUCN Forest Conservation Program with the Overseas Development Administration.

39 3.2 The constitution of Kenya 2010 as a dynamic thrust for PFM

By Mercy Obado11

Abstract Participatory Forest Management (‘PFM’) has been described as a forest management approach that roPES in communities adjacent to forests and other stakeholders in management of forests within a framework for the benefit of the community. The Forests Act of 2005 and the Forest Policy have made timid but purposive approach towards enhancing PFM. The Constitution of Kenya gives a dynamic thrust to the concept of PFM. The Constitution contains bold and dynamic provisions for enhancing PFM through its laudable public participation requirement. Article 10(2) recognizes national values and principles of governance as including sustainable development. In addition, Article 69 of the Constitution confers on the State a positive obligation to encourage public participation in the management, protection and conservation of the environment. The benefits of public participation in the conservation of the environment including management of forests have been recognized in the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) of 1998. Moreover, article 70 reinforces the provision of the Forests Act and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act in entrenching the enforceability of environmental rights. It is upon all stakeholders and communities to effectively utilize the artillery availed by the Constitution to revolutionize PFM under the devolved governance structure to ensure sustainable forest management.

1. Introduction Participatory Forest Management (PFM) has been described as a forest management approach that roPES in communities adjacent to forests and other stakeholders in management of forests within a framework for the benefit of the community.12 The Forests Act of 200513 and the Forest Policy14 have made timid but purposive approach towards enhancing PFM. The current legal framework has enabled the formation of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) that is a mechanism for local communities to be involved in the management of forest resources alongside central and devolved government institutions such as the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) County Councils.15

The Constitution of Kenya gives a dynamic thrust to the concept of PFM.16 It contains bold and dynamic provisions for enhancing PFM including its laudable public participation requirement. This paper firstly gives an overview of the existing legal framework on PFM. Secondly the paper analyses the Constitutional provisions that argument PFM in four broad sections. The first section analyses national values and principles. The second section examines the positive environmental obligation imposed on the State and how its applicability to the concept of PFM. The third section examines the positive obligation imposed on individuals and final section briefly examines enforceability of environmental rights. The paper concludes that the Constitution contains bold and purposive provisions that augment the concept of PFM and recommends that the same should be implemented to ensure transparency and accountability among local and indigenous communities adjacent to forests, public authorities and relevant stakeholders. The research methodology used is mainly primary and desktop research that is largely library-focused and takes a socio-legal approach. It comprises of a detailed study hinged on grounded theory. The materials used have been derived from both primary and secondary sources. The relevance of the research is to investigate the correlation between the Constitution of Kenya and the concept of PFM and the benefits that can be realized therein to achieve sustainable use of forest resources. 2. An Overview of Existing Legal Framework on PFM In Kenya there is a plethora of sector specific legislations that govern the environmental sector in general and forests in particular. The main legal framework that governs the forest sector is encapsulated in the Constitution of Kenya,17 Forests Act,18 Forest Policy19 and on a more broader perspective the Environmental Management

40 and Coordination Act (EMCA).20 The relevant provisions of the Constitution that buttresses the concept of PFM are discussed in the second part of this paper. It is significant to note that the Constitution was promulgated way after the commencement of the Forests Act and it is the supreme law of the land.

The current Forest Policy, which is under revision, takes radical and progressive steps as compared to the previous policy that was out of touch with the challenges the forest sector faces.21 The Forest Policy gives guidelines with respect to managing various types of forest and forest activities in Kenya.22 These are indigenous forests, farm forests, forest plantations, dry land forestry in Arid and Semi-Arid areas (ASAL), local authority forests, private forests and roadside tree planting. One of the outstanding elements in the forest policy is the provision for involvement of forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders in forest management and conservation. This is achieved through empowering local communities to manage forest resources through CFAs.23

CFAs form the key platform for implementing PFM in Kenya and find further support under the Forests Act and Regulations made thereunder. The Forests Act provides for sustainable management, conservation and rational utilization of forest resources. It contains laudable provisions that catalyze local communities to actively engage in the management of forest resources adjacent to them. Part IV of the Forests Act provides for community participation whereby members of forest community may register a community forest association under the Societies Act and apply to the Director of KFS for permission to participate in the conservation and management of a State or Local Forest.24

CFAs fall within the wider umbrella of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) and Community Forest Management (CFM). They all encompass efficient ways of achieving forest sustainability and biodiversity conservation with socioeconomic objectives. Moreover active involvement of forest adjacent communities and relevant stakeholders will enable Kenya to achieve the recommended 10% percent forest cover as set down under the new Constitution and reiterated in Vision 2030 and KFS Strategic Plan.

3. The Constitutional Provisions that Argument PFM The Constitution of Kenya 2010 is a landmark yardstick and an outstanding model for environmental management.25 This is due to the fact that it enshrines specific measures for environmental management, which can be concretely used to augment PFM. In addition, it entrenches bold and purposive environmental principles, rights and obligations, which signals unwavering commitment to ensure sustainable use of environmental resources including forests. The rationale for including environmental management in the Constitution needs not to be gainsaid. This section of the paper highlights the provisions of the Constitution that can be utilized to give a dynamic thrust to the concept of PFM. These provisions are discussed hereunder.

1. National Values and Principles Article 10(2) recognizes national values and principles of governance as including sustainable development. The main objectives of PFM as stated in the Participatory Forest Management Guidelines (2007) are to: a) Preserve biodiversity while at the same time enhancing people’s livelihoods; and b) Ensure the sustainable use of our forests so that present and future generations benefit.

In formulating long and short term strategic plans for development the Government is required to incorporate the values and principles of sustainable development. Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is fromOur Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report:26 Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

41 a) the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and b) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

2. Positive Obligations Imposed on the State The obligations of the State in respect to the environment in general and forest resources in particular are contained in article 69(1) of the Constitution.27 They are several obligations imposed on the State that are expressly or impliedly relevant to the concept of PFM. The obligation imposed on the State that is directly relevant to the concept of PFM is to encourage public participation in the management, protection and conservation of the environment. Public participation is one of the three pillars of environmental democracy.28 PFM and environmental democracy are interrelated and cross cutting. The concept of environmental democracy is illuminated under the Aarhus Convention. The full citation of the Aarhus Convention is UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. It was adopted in the 4th Ministerial Environment for Europe Conference held in the Danish City of Aarhus in June 1998.29 The implementation of the convention has gained momentum in Europe and Central Asia. It is opened to accession by non-ECE states subject to approval of the meeting of the parties.

Wates in his article sums up the convention as containing three main pillars or broad themes as: a) Access to Information; b) Public participation; and c) Access to Justice. In our present discussion we are focusing on public participation and the possible extent of this obligation on the State as applicable to forest resources. Public participation can be interpreted strictly or liberally and it involves participation of the public in various categories of decision making on matters affecting forest resources. When interpreted liberally it involves the wider public not directly affected or having an interest in the decision made by State apparatus.30 The minimum requirements for public participation as set down in the Aarhus Convention are those involving defined specific projects or activities, programmes, plans and policies and enactment of rules and regulation.

Public participation requirements on whether to license or permit specific projects or activities include: a) Timely and effective notification of the public concerned; b) Reasonable time frames for participation at an early stage; c) A right for public concerned to inspect information which is relevant to the decision making free of charge; d) An obligation of the decision making body to take due account of the outcome of the public participation; and e) Prompt public notification of the decision including making the text of the decision and reasons for the same accessible to the public.31

In addition, the public is required to participate during the preparation of plans, programmes and policies relating to forest resources. Public participation also extends to drafting of legislation and regulation that have a significant effect on the forest resources and its management.32 Kenya’s national and county legislative bodies, for instance, are directed by the Constitution to conduct their work in an open and transparent manner; Articles 118(1)(a) and 196(1)(a) specifically direct Parliament and the county assemblies respectively to hold public meetings and conduct their work in the full view of all citizens.

42 Public participation from a holistic perspective is a tool of ensuring citizenry participation in governance of resources including forest resources. Kenya as a country has made several legislative attempts of ensuring citizenry participation through Local Authority Service Delivery Action Plan (LASDAP) and the Constituencies Development Fund (CDF). Most of these ways, however, were limited to local authorities and the implementation of laws incorporating citizen participation did not reach their full potential because citizens did not fully understand their rights or embrace the opportunity. The Constitution makes citizen participation a central part of Kenya’s governance. Article 10(2)(a) states that “participation of the people” is one of our country’s values and principles of governance. Article 232(1)(d), meanwhile, instructs public servants to include citizens “in the process of policy making.”

The other implicit obligations that would indirectly require the State and its apparatus to ensure involvement of local communities and relevant stakeholders to execute include: -

a) To ensure sustainable exploitation, utilization, management and conservation of the environment and equitable sharing of the accruing benefits. Equitable sharing of accruing benefits necessitates ensuring local and indigenous communities adjacent to forest resources are part and parcel of its management and prosperity. b) Achieve and maintain a tree cover of at least ten per cent of the land area of Kenya; there is need for harnessing the synergy created by cooperation among the concerned public, local communities, stakeholders and KFS to achieve a tree cover of at least ten percent of the land area of Kenya. c) Protect and enhance intellectual property in, and indigenous knowledge of, biodiversity and the genetic resources of the communities. EMCA has taken traditional interests of local communities under consideration under section 43 and the Forests Act provides for recognition of customary rights under section 22. These provisions collectively envision the active participation and involvement of local and indigenous communities in the management of forests.

3 Positive Obligations Imposed on Individuals The positive obligations imposed upon individuals have to be interpreted in the light of the celebrated right to a clean and healthy environment. The Constitution falls into step with the EMCA by providing for the right to a clean and healthy environment that includes the right to have obligations relating to the environment fulfilled. The effect of inclusion of the right to a clean and a healthy environment in the Constitution elevates it to a constitutional Status. Moreover, the Constitution goes a step further to impose a duty on every person:

To cooperate with the State Organs and other persons to protect and conserve the environment and ensure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources.

This provision can effectively be interpreted to apply to local and indigenous communities adjacent to forest resources. However, in order for local communities to perform their obligation of protecting, conserving and sustainably utilizing forest resources there is need to ensure that they have access to information. In addition, local communities should be allowed to participate in decision making processes applicable to forest resources that are relevant to them. Deforestation and land degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa has been attributed to lack of access to information and public participation.33

Indeed, the anarchist perspective was based on the idea, that the true origins of ecological problems were not uncontrolled human desires, as supported by the authoritarian model, but “hierarchical social structures, able of distorting the human potential to create cooperative communities in ecological harmony with nature”.34 According to the anarchist approach, the crisis requires an “institutional transformation toward a pattern of decentralized, egalitarian and self-managing local communities attuned to ecological constraints and complexities”.35

43 4 Reinforcement of enforceability of environmental rights

The Constitution reinforces the enforceability of environmental rights as enshrined in article 42.36 This allows for access to justice in respect of environmental matters in general and forests in particular. This provision can only be properly implemented by ensuring that access to justice is provided for in the following three contexts;

a) Review procedures with respect to information requests

A person who requests for information and the public authority does not comply to his or her satisfaction must be provided with access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law i.e. the office of Ombudsperson. The final decisions given by such a court or competent body must be binding to the public authority holding the information.37 b) Review procedures with respect to specific (project type) decisions which are subject to public participation requirements. c) Challenges to breaches of environmental law in general.1 This involves access to administrative and judicial procedures established under municipal laws to facilitate the concerned public to ventilate breaches of the law by not only private persons but also public bodies. Hence the judicial system must be fair and affordable.

The EMCA does also provide for the right of the citizens to access redress on environmental issues by specifically providing for the establishment of the Public Complaints Committee and the National Environmental Tribunal.2 The Constitution reinforces these provisions of EMCA by requiring parliament to establish a land and environmental court that effectively enables the enforcement of the environmental rights elaborated in Article 70. This demonstrates the Constitution’s appreciation and prioritization of environmental issues. The Environment and Land Court Act3 has already established a superior Court to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, title to land in pursuance of Article 162(2)(b).

5. Conclusion and Recommendations The Constitution gives a dynamic thrust to the concept of PFM through the inclusion of explicit environmental provisions. In addition, it imposes positive obligation on not only the State but also individuals to actively participate in the protection, conservation, sustainable, equitable utilization and participatory management of forest resources. Moreover the Constitution calls for public participation in decision-making, public consultation and engagement in environmental matters and the right to take part in and contribute to the formulation of laws and regulations with respect to the environment in general and forest resources in particular.

In order to effectively utilize the artillery that entrenches the concept of PFM in the Constitution this Paper recommends that: a) There is need to perpetrate a culture of transparency and accountability in the management of forest resources among local and indigenous communities adjacent to forests, public authorities such as KFS and NEMA and the private sector. b) Public participation in the protection, conservation and management of the environment in general and forest in particular have been emphasized and this necessitates the creation of awareness and sensitization of the public on the tools that they can utilize to effectively participate in decision making. c) In order to enable individuals to fulfil their responsibilities of protection of the environment in general and forest in particular there is need to ensure that relevant information on the management of forests are availed and made easily accessible.

44 d) The relevant stakeholders such as NGOs should seize the moment and utilize the environmental tribunals such as the Environment and Land Court to ensure that the State fulfils its obligations with respect to PFM. e) The devolved system of governance is powerful artillery that should be oiled properly to ensure that it achieves its purposes for facilitating and enhancing PFM.

REFERENCES Laws of Kenya. The Constitution of Kenya. (Revised Edition 2010). Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General. Retrieved from www.Kenyalaw.org on 14, November 2014. Forest Act 2005 - Government of Kenya. (2005). Forests Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer The Forest Policy Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2007 The Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011 The Environmental Management and Coordination Act No. 8 of 1999 Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.(September 2007). Participatory Forest Management Guidelines Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, June 25, 1998, 2161 U.N.T.S 447 (hereafter Aarhus Convention). C.K. Koech et al. (2009). Community Forest Associations in Kenya: Challenges and Opportunities. KEFRI. D. Kaniaru. (2012). Environmental Courts and Tribunals: The Case of Kenya. 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 599 A. Mwenda and T. Kibutu. (2012). Implications of the New Constitution on Environmental Management in Kenya. 8/1 Law, Environment and Development Journal in Kenya. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lead-journal. org/content/12076.pdf World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987) Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, B. Toth. Public Participation and Democracy in Practice-Aarhus Convention Principles as Democratic Institution Building in the Developing World.’ Retrieved from www.epubs.utah.edu on 4th July 2014. J. Wates. The Aarhus Convention: A Driving Force for Environmental Democracy’ JEEPL (2005) 11 M. Reed. Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management. Biological Conservation 141 (2008) 2417-2431 E.P. Amechi. Poverty, Socio-Political Factors and Degradation of the Environmental in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Need for a Holistic Approach to the Protection of the Environment and Realization of the Right to Environment. 5/2 Law, Environment and Development Journal (2009) 107 D. Torgerson. (2008) Constituting Green Democracy: A political project. The Good Society, Vol. 17, N. 2, 2008

45 3.3 PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE CENTRE STAGE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN FOREST GOVERNANCE IN Kenya

By Benson Owuor Ochieng

1. Introduction Citizen participation implies the involvement of citizens in a wide range of policy making activities that include the determination of levels of service, budget priorities, and the acceptability of physical construction projects. This serves to orient government programs toward community needs, build public support, and encourage a sense of cohesiveness within neighbourhoods (UN Public Administration Glossary). Citizen participation in governance cannot establishes the necessary sense of ownership, contributes to the sustainability of development initiatives, strengthens local capacity, gives a voice to the poor and marginalized and links development to the people’s needs. Participation also guards against abuse of office by public servants and political leaders, and provides a control against excessive discretion being vested in civil servants in public procedures. Moreover, it provides checks and balances against unnecessary political interference in service delivery and disregard for professionalism and meritocracy in the public sector amongst others (Odhiambo and Taifa 2009).

There are many models of citizen participation varying in the level of influence granted to citizens. The least influence being the one way government-to-citizen information provision in which a government simply tells its citizenry what it wants them to know through media or other means. At the other end is the active citizenship or empowerment model, in which citizen groups are involved in agenda-setting and decision- making and monitoring. Based on this continuum, the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) conceptualizes participation in five categories of relationships: inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower (World Public Sector Report 2008). These are characterised by: • Inform - the government promises to provide citizens with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives and/or solutions. • Consult - the government seeks and obtains citizen feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. • Involve - the government works directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered. • Collaboration - t h e government partners with the public in each aspect of the decision, including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. And • Empower - the final decision making is placed in the hands of the public. The government implements what the public decides.

The effectiveness of each of these participation relationships hinges on governance enablers such as full political rights; civil liberties; rule of law; the right to information; freedom of expression; an independent judiciary; freedom of association and unimpeded operations of civil society organizations (World Public Sector Report 2008).

Public participation can occur in two forms: indirect involvement in which elected officials and professional administrators act on behalf of the citizens in a representative democracy and direct involvement in which citizens are directly involved in the decisions of the State. One imperative for citizen participation is t h e citizen’s statutory duty to pay taxes for service delivery that makes them not only consumers of services but essential financiers of government. Thus citizen participation should include goal setting, determination of strategies, policies, and monitoring and evaluating government services. These can be achieved through public hearings and sittings, citizen advisory councils and citizen panels, neighbourhood or resident association meetings and citizen surveys.

Kenya, like many developing countries, faces a significant challenge in attainment of sustainable development. This is attributable to the challenges that are often characteristic of highly centralised systems. These challenges include administrative bureaucracies and inefficiencies; misappropriation of public resources;

46 and marginalization of local communities in development processes. An important component of any efforts to meet these challenges is the participation of and partnership with the people in governance. The clamour for a new constitutional dispensation in the early 1990’s was necessitated by the desire by Kenyans not only to meet these challenges but also to have an active voice in the country’s governance.

The Constitution of Kenya 2010 brought a shift from a highly centralised to a decentralised governance framework, comprising of two levels of government — the national government and 47 county governments. It effectively transferred significant political, administrative and fiscal power from the national government. This provides a strong legal foundation for the enhancement of public participation through the devolved structures. In fact, the Constitution making process was itself marked by unprecedented citizen interest and engagement. However, the devolved structures have so far fallen short of dramatically improving governance as earlier envisaged. They have been marred by overlaps, duplication, and despite their multiplicity, low citizen involvement (KHRC 2010). Some scholars such as Barret et.al. 2007; Mwenda 2010; and Omolo 2010 opine that unless proper systems are put in place, devolution can only lead to the translation of central government governance failures to the sub-national units.

This paper analyses the role of effective public participation in the governance of natural resources in the forestry sector in the context of devolved governance structures in Kenya. It seeks to point out the principles necessary for ensuring wide public participation in Kenya’s new devolved governance structure. It starts by reviewing the existing platforms for public participation in decision making regarding natural resource management at the local governance level. The paper also analyses the opportunities availed by the new constitution for public participation in decision making. Finally it teases out practical options for actualizing public participation in the governance and management of natural resources at the county level.

2. Historical Overview of Public Participation in Kenya The history of citizen participation in Kenya can be traced to community development projects. Most of these were limited to local authorities and citizen participation did not reach its full potential because citizens did not fully understand their rights or embrace the opportunities in law. The first attempt to institutionalize decentralized planning in Kenya was in the 1960s through Sessional Papers. The most elaborate was the District Focus for Rural Development (DFRD) Strategy introduced in 1983. The strategy however focused on the involvement of central government field workers in planning and implementation of programmes (Amollo 2010) and not them being facilitators of communities in identifying and solving their own problems (Chitere and Ireri 2004). The DFRD Strategy was not anchored in law and hence had implementation challenges. The enactment of the Physical Planning Act in 1996 marked the major milestone in entrenching participatory development planning in law. Its major shortfall, however, is the lack of the community sensitization on their roles; hence communities in remote areas remained side-lined in participatory planning compared to the urban areas (Okello et. al. 2008).

Another breakthrough in citizen participation came in 1996 through the Kenya Local Government Reform Programme (KLGRP) that was to strengthen local authorities. The single most important measure under was to the re-introduction of state subsidy to local authorities. The Local Authority Transfer Fund (LATF) was enacted in 1988 and provides for 5% of national income tax to be devolved to local authorities, based on the criteria of population density, resource base and financial performance (Warner et. al. 2011). In 2000, the Local Authority Service Delivery Action Plan (LASDAP) was established to enhance citizen participation in the monitoring and implementation of these devolved funds. In order to access LATF, local authorities were administratively required to develop a LASDAP through a participatory approach. This saw the birth of a similar initiative at the constituency level, the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), created by the CDF Act. The Act provides for communities to participate in development through its various committees (Odhiambo and Taifa 2009).

47 The existence of several funds has been a key impediment to effective citizen engagement in devolved governance. A study on the harmonization of decentralized development in Kenya, multiple funds and the duplication of implementation jurisdictions showed that citizens were confused by the existing overlaps between administrative boundaries which have made it difficult for them to understand or recall the processes involved in fund administration (KHRC and SPAN 2010). The overlaps also made monitoring and evaluation of the funds use and outcomes difficult.

3. POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

3.0 International Environmental Agreements The concept and practice of public participation has evolved significantly in international law. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment highlighted the role of public participation in environmental management. This was further reiterated in the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: the report, titled Our Common Future and famously known as the Brundtland Report. The need for public participation in environmental management is also underpinned in the concept of sustainable development. The norms of sustainable development revolve around the concept of integrating socio-economic development and environmental considerations, which confers a responsibility on people to participate in decision making over natural resource management.

Since the Brundtland report, public to participate in natural resource management, and decision making, has been an important component of various international conventions and protocols on environment and natural resources. Some of these are: • The Convention to Combat Desertification (Article 5(d)); • The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)(Article 13); • The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Article 21); • The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing to the CBD (Article 23); and • The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Article 4).

The participation of the public in natural resources management is therefore well adopted as an instrumental mechanism in international treaties. However, they do not provide a succinct normative content to elucidate the key legal elements that would facilitate application of public participation in law, policy, and through practical implementation mechanisms for citizens.

The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development attempted to solve this puzzle by including elements that offer guidance on a normative content. Principle 10 states that “environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.” It further lists the normative content and elements of the concept of public participation. These are: the opportunity to participate in decision and policy making processes; right of access to environmental information; obligation on states to undertake public awareness; and access to judicial and administrative review mechanisms.

3.2. Policies and Laws relevant to Public Participation in Kenya

3.2.1. The Constitution of Kenya 2010 The Constitution of Kenya 2010 provides a good foundation for effective public participation. It declares Kenya a republic in Article 1 (4) and states that sovereign power of the people is exercised at the (a) national level and (b) the county level, with each of the two levels having distinct powers and functions. In Article 6(2) the Constitution obligates the two levels of government to consult and cooperate with one another in performing various functions and powers. To achieve this, the Constitution authorizes the formation of joint committees and joint authorities that maybe employed as mechanisms for enhancing cooperative government. These are pertinent to guaranteeing public participation in implementing sustainable management of certain categories of natural resources, and could also be deployed to implement a holistic ecosystem approach in managing natural resources that traverse boundaries of two or more counties.

48 The objects of devolution critical for public participation include to: give powers of self-governance to the people and enhance their participation in the exercise of the powers of the State and in making decisions affecting them in Article 174(c), and recognize the rights of communities to manage their own affairs and to further their development in Article 174 (d). In management of urban areas and cities, the Constitution states that National Legislation shall provide for the governance and management of urban areas and cities and shall in particular, provide for participation by residents in the governance of urban areas and cities in Article 184 (c).

In Article 196 the Constitution requires county assemblies to promote and facilitate public participation. Every county assembly is required to conduct its business in an open manner and hold its sittings and those of committees in public; facilitate public participation and involvement in their legislative and other businesses; and are prohibited from excluding the public or any media from any sitting except in exceptional circumstances. The Constitution Chapters on the values and principles of public service provide: involvement of the people in the process of policy making; accountability for administrative acts; and transparency and provision to the public of timely and accurate information. In the Fourth Schedule public participation is entrenched by including ensuring and coordinating the participation of communities and locations in governance at the local level as one of the functions of county governments. Counties are also to assist communities to develop the administrative capacity for the effective exercise of the functions and powers and participation in governance at the local level.

Apart from these specific provisions, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution grants a specific right to a clean and healthy environment to every person in article 42. Notably also in Article 43, the Constitution grants social and economic rights that includes the right to clean and safe drinking water; sanitation; right to food; and education, and in Article 40 sets out the right to property including land. These rights require the environment and natural resources to be managed sustainably that necessitates public participation in public decision making relating to these resources.

3.2.2. Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) of 1999 is the framework law for environmental management in Kenya that requires inclusion of environmental considerations during decision making; confers a statutory right to a clean and healthy environment in Kenya; and extends legal standing to any person to bring a claim to the High Court if that right is breached. The Act established the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) as the key public agency for implementing environmental policy, and administering provisions of EMCA. Importantly, EMCA directs that public participation is a core principle to guide the High Court when enforcing the right to a clean environment; and mandates NEMA to undertake environmental education and public awareness. This has been conducted in line with its Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Strategy through a participatory process involving key stakeholders including government agencies, the Private Sector, Civil Society Organizations and Media. This has given the ESD Strategy high acceptability and ownership, which is a good indicator for a successful integration of ESD across all sectors.

Other than NEMA, EMCA set up a number of institutional and legal tools. The District and provincial Environmental Committees were established as a mechanism for decentralizing environmental management. However, EMCA should be amended to be in line with the devolution structure. The Provincial and District Environment Management Committees should be restructured to be County Environment Management Committees. Nevertheless, in addition to the various public officers seconded to represent government departments and ministries, the provincial and district environment committees had a direct public representation in their membership. These included representatives of: local authorities, farmers, women, youth and pastoralists, local business community, Non- governmental organizations as well as community- based organisations (CBOs) engaged in environmental programmes operating in the areas. It is notable that EMCA anticipated the need for gender; age, and socio-economic equity by requiring the committees to have representatives from the various groups. Despite their establishment committees lacked statutory

49 guidelines on how to select their members from the various interest groups (Kibugi 2012). Furthermore, awareness of the existence of the committees and sometimes NEMA was very low. Such weak linkage with the public causes concern because the committees functions have a direct bearing on public participation.

3.2.3. Public participation in the management of forests

Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2007 on Forest Policy The policy calls upon the government to put in place measures to significantly increase the area under forest cover, with the aim of attaining at least 10% within the next decade. The policy also calls for empowering local communities to take an active role in forest management through community forest associations, and encourages Participatory Forest Management approaches be promoted to ensure the participation of communities and other stakeholders in the management of indigenous forests.

The Forest Act The Forest Act, 2005 is the legislative framework for the sustainable management of forests in Kenya. The Act contains good provisions on public participation, especially through Community Forest Associations (CFA); and the farm forestry. CFAs are the community level units for forest management. Every person in a forest community is eligible to join a CFA.

The Agriculture Act also promotes public participation in forest management through farm forestry. Farm forestry refers to the planting of trees outside formal forest areas. It is necessary for providing plantation timber that eases the pressure on natural forests, while providing income to farmers. The Forest Act recognizes the existence of private on-farm forests as a distinct forest category, and empowers the KFS to register these forests upon application by the farmer. Upon registration, KFS could provide technical extension advice, and financial incentives.

Agriculture (Farm Forestry) Rules 2009 The Agriculture (Farm forestry) Rules of 2009 requires every owner of agricultural land to maintain a minimum 10% tree cover on any land, regardless of size. The latter rules are command and control, and empower agriculture officers to inspect the land, and enforce the rules.

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION UNDER THE DEVOLVED GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 4.1. Background Prior to the devolved governance under the Constitution 2010, Kenya had a centralized government. Although the territory was divided into provinces, districts, divisions, locations, and sub-locations, these units were headed by administrators appointed by, and primarily implement directives of the national government, albeit with some level of decentralization. Decentralization was implemented through administrative or policy directives, for instance creation of District Development Committees (DDC) or District Security Committees (DSC). In addition, legislations on local government, CDF, environment, forests, water and agriculture set up decentralization mechanisms and units. These include local authorities and statutory committees such as the District Environment Committees; Forest Conservation Committees; or District Agriculture Committees. These entities were conferred with statutory power to make decisions and perform prescribed roles at the relevant level.

4.2. Constitutional Provision for public Participation in the devolved governance structure The 2010 Constitution sets up a complex structure of devolution, and demarcates the powers and functions of both the national and county level of government, outlined in section 3.2.1 above. It is clear that public participation in matters of governance is a principal object of the devolved government and a condition for lawful governance of the people. Indeed, this approach is firmly entrenched in the context of sustainable environmental and natural resources management. Further, the constitutional right to vote for county governors, members of county assemblies, access to information, and right to administrative justice, illustrate the role of citizens in electing their county leaders and holding them accountable.

50 4.3. Provisions of the County Governments Act The County Governments Act No. 17 of 2012 guides the implementation of Chapter 11 of the Constitution relating to devolution of government powers and functions. The Act replaced the complex system of local authorities established under the Local Governments Act. The Act makes provisions for, among others, facilitation of effective public participation in governance of county governments, including sustainable management and utilization of natural resources. The Act requires every county government to decentralize its functions and services to cities and urban areas; constituencies (as sub-county units); wards; and such other units as the county government may determine. It creates village units as primary stimulants of public participation in governance. The village units if formed and managed well, can play a key role in facilitating public participation and active implementation of sustainability objectives set out in the Constitution. It is notable that the Act leaves room for enactment of county legislation for creation of further units of decentralization.

The framework for citizen participation is set out in Part VIII of the Act, which avails several substantive and procedural mechanisms. The primary content of this public participation includes a right for every citizen to petition the county government in writing over any matter within its competence. The county government is obligated to respond to petitions and challenges expeditiously, in order to limit the resort to court action and possibly secure the integrity of public participation. The county level government may also conduct referenda on proposed laws and policies, and maybe petitioned to do so regarding planning and investment decisions. There is an obligation on county governments to put in place facilitative structures such as town hall meetings; information and technology based platforms such as websites; budget validation forums; or conventional methods such as notice boards for matters of public interest. These could be readily utilized by various natural resource sectors, at county level, to engage with citizens constructive.

The Act requires county governments to undertake public communications, and to facilitate access to information. This include using the media to undertake advocacy on core development issues such as sustainable environmental management, agriculture, education, health, security, and economics, among others. The Act further requires the county governments to develop mechanisms of public communication including television stations; information communication technology centres; websites; community radio stations. Citizens’ service centres, which are proposed as points of service delivery within the county could play an important role for public awareness, dissemination of information, and mobilization for citizens to participate in citizens’ forums. These are important mechanisms for furthering the dissemination of general and important information, and for fostering debate and discussion by citizens.

The Act grants every Kenyan a right to apply for and access information held by any county government. It requires the county governments and their agencies to identify and designate and officer to be responsible for access to information requests. Consequently, the Freedom of Information Bill is currently under formulation.

The Act makes provisions for civic education which is very critical for public participation. It requires civic education to be conducted with among others, the objectives of empowering and enlightening citizens and government; continuous and systemic engagement of citizens and government; sustaining citizens‘ engagement in the implementation of the Constitution; improving understanding, appreciation and engagement in the implementation of the devolved system of government; raising knowledge of Kenya‘s transformed political system, context and implications; enhancing awareness and main streaming of the Bill of Rights and National values; and heightening demand by citizens for service delivery by institutions of governance at the county level.

51 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion This research has examined the conceptual elements that define and determine the content of meaningful public participation in natural resources management in the forestry sector in Kenya. The research has established that although there are extensive constitutional and other legal provisions on public participation, they have not resulted in successful or effective involvement of citizens. There is limited participation of citizens in statutory committees. Importantly, there is a significant dearth in civic education which, as a knowledge source, is the primary catalyst for people to claim other rights relative to public participation.

5.2. Policy recommendations From the foregoing analysis, the following are the key recommendations that will facilitate the effective implementation of public participation in natural resources management in forestry and other sectors.

(i) A harmonized Policy and Institutional Approach to Environmental Management Sectoral management of natural resources is deeply entrenched in the Kenyan legal and institutional architecture. Despite the enactment of EMCA in 1999, this fragmented sectoral approach pervades, and has adverse effects to holistic public participation and sustainable management of natural resources that are typically linked. This, in turn, undermines the objectives of EMCA and efforts to realize sustainable development of Kenya.

As proposed by the 1992 Agenda 21, it is necessary to have a legally and institutionally integrated structure for managing the environment, and development. An important starting point is to finalize the National Environment Policy that should take into account devolution, as well as the national values and principles in Article 10 of the Constitution, which include public participation and sustainable development. The 2008 Draft Policy (GoK 2008) already acknowledges public participation as a challenge in Kenya, and identifies it as a precondition for realization of sustainable development (Ibid, p. 12). The Draft P olicy further sets a “public participation principle” as one of the guiding principles (Ibid, p. 14). With this approach, a finalized Environment Policy will likely provide harmonization of the institutional framework on the norms of environmental management, which will offer holistic guidance for public participation across the natural resource sector, and contribute towards attainment of sustainability for Kenya.

(ii) Formulation of a policy to guide public participation The various sectoral laws and policies on management set out different mechanisms for promoting public participation. The resultant challenge has been absence of a policy or guidelines on specific execution of public participation to ensure uniformity in the approach given by various sectors. A policy on public participation will eliminate or limit the misuse of the process of public participation in environment and natural resource management which has been the case across the country. It will provide clear instruments, mechanisms or processes that will constitute a comprehensive process of public participation.

(iii) Implementation of the Constitutional Environmental Duty The Constitution sets out certain obligations contingent on the Government of Kenya relating to environmental management. These obligations compel the Government and all persons to ensure sustainable exploitation, utilization, management and conservation of the environment and natural resources, and ensure the equitable sharing of accruing benefits in Article 69 (1)(a). It is useful to highlight that these obligations represent some of the legislative and other measures set out as part of realization of the right to a clean and healthy environment in Article 42. The Constitution therefore creates a sound basis for subsequent review of sectoral statutes with competence over natural resources to ascribe by these obligations. The achievement of such an outcome will, however, require significant statute and governance reform, civic education, and possibly judicial enforcement.

52 The second obligation imposes a duty on the Government to work to achieve and maintain a tree cover of at least ten per cent of the land area of Kenya. Loss of forest cover from deforestation and degradation is a major setback for environmental management law and policy in Kenya, with tree cover currently estimated at two percent. The Forest Act (2005) is silent on any definitive reforestation targets and therefore a constitutional objective of attaining ten per cent tree cover affords unrivalled legal basis and merit. However, the provision should have directed the Government to set up clear legislative and policy mechanisms on how to achieve this goal, including how such mechanisms will respect other provisions of this article like public participation, or protecting biological diversity.

The third obligation compels the Government to encourage public participation in environmental protection and management. This forms a basis for the introduction of public participation components in statutes and policies relative to environmental management. However, it is notable that the Constitution applies the term “encourage‟ raising the concern over how this obligation can be legally enforced. Since the population of Kenya is dominantly rural, and engaged in mostly land-use based economic activities like agriculture, it is important to develop an innovative approach to give legal effect, without overly inhibiting decision-making.

The fourth obligation is to establish systems of environmental impact assessment, audit and monitoring of the environment. Already, EMCA (section 58-60) provides for environmental impact assessment and audit for the category of projects set out in the second schedule of the Act. Enshrining these requirements in the Constitution is meritorious, as it underscores the importance integrating environmental and development concerns and interests in decision-making.

The Constitution also requires every person to cooperate with state organs and other persons to protect and conserve the environment and ensure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources (Article 69(2). This obligation combines the human need to utilize resources, with the contingent duty to sustainably manage and conserve these resources.

(iv) Joint committees and joint authorities for public participation in areas of concurrent jurisdiction One of the core principles guiding implementation of devolution is cooperation and consultation between the national and county governments and between county governments. The constitutional proposes the establishment of joint authorities and joint committees to resolve conflicts. This is a legal tool that can be designed and deployed as a practical option for facilitating public participation over natural resource management in situations of overlapping jurisdiction amongst more than one county government, or involving county-national government functions.

(iv) Consultative development of public mobilization regulations, targets and procedures It is necessary to develop regulations to provide for effective community participation in governance. The process of developing the regulations should be consultative. The regulations should be aimed at the setting up of flexible procedures that can be applied for public mobilization and also include procedures for providing feedback to members of the public.

(v) Decentralization of public services Decentralization of services is one of the core objects of devolution under the Constitution. Although various legislative provisions and policies will acknowledge these principles the actual implementation of decentralization can be ignored or delayed for various reasons. It is important to create citizen’s service centres that will be located at the county, sub-county, constituency and village levels. It is imperative that both national and county governments, develop a target on the implementation of decentralization of government offices and services, and provide a monitoring procedure to ensure this important objective is implemented. This may involve continuous engagement with government agencies, including lobbying for budgetary allocation.

53 (vi) Integration of public participation in formal education Public participation should be integrated into the system of education in Kenya in order to impart awareness of its importance in natural resources management. Additionally these norms can be imparted through adult literacy programmes; and civic education programmes by the county and national governments, civil society and other stakeholders. The Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) strategy developed by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA should be reviewed to incorporate provisions of the 2010 Constitution on public participation.

(vii) Access to information Ensuring public access to information, participation and justice in decision making is a crucial step towards sustainable development. The Constitution provides for a right to access to information. The state is therefore obligated to publish and disseminate information to the public.

(viii) Public interest environmental litigation and alternative dispute resolution Access to justice is an important element of public participation. Although the Constitution and statutory provisions extensively make provisions for access to justice mechanisms, the utility of this mechanism depends on how often they are invoked by the public. This includes petitioning the High Court for enforcement of the right to a clean and healthy environment through Article 22 and 70 of the Constitution; applications to the Land and Environment Court; submitting complaints to the Public Complaints Committee; the National Environment Tribunal, among others. It is necessary to develop public participation programmes that offer legal and para-legal advice on access to justice, including public interest litigation. It is equally important to ensure that provisions of the Environment and Land Court that allow for application of alternative dispute resolution mechanism, including traditional approaches, are utilized to advance the interests of sustainability.

(ix) Civic Education Civic education is an important element of public participation. It plays a role in public awareness on the existence of rights; avenues for service delivery; mechanisms for accountability; and avenues for actual participation by individual members of the public. Civic education is therefore a significant practical approach for implementing public participation. The content of civic education provided by both the national government and county governments should be consistent. The role of the Kenya National Integrated Civic Education Programme is critical to enhancing the level of awareness on rights to take part in governance, as a catalyst to constructive and effective citizen engagement in management of natural resources.

(x) Public representation in statutory organs of local governance Statutory organs of local governance are a common and preferred mechanism for public participation within the Kenyan legal system. These organs fall into two categories. The first category is the statutory committees that bear legislative authority to assist government departments in implementing policy, and are attached to government departments. Illustrations include District Environment Committees; District Agriculture Committees; or Catchment Area Conservation Committees. It is necessary to review the mechanisms for representation of the public in statutory committees in order to ensure effective public participation in natural resources management.

54 References Amollo A, 2010. Policy proposals for citizen participation in devolved governance in Kenya. Institute for Social Accountability (TISA)

Barret, B. C., Mude, G. A. & Omiti., J. M., 2007. Decentralisation and the Social economics of development: Lessons from Kenya. Cab International

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity

Chitere., P. O. and Ireri., O. N., 2004. District focus for rural development in Kenya : its limitations as a decentralisation and participatory planning strategy and prospects for the future

Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and Social and Public Accountability Network (SPAN), 2010).Harmonization of Decentralized Development in Kenya: Towards Alignment, Citizen Engagement and Enhanced Accountability.

Kenya (2008) National Environment Policy, 2008 (Draft), Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, Nairobi

Kibugi, R., 2012. Ensuring effective public participation in natural resources management through devolved governments in Kenya. Institute for Law and Environmental Governance.

Marcel C Werner, Viola A Otieno, Judi W Wakhungu, 2011. Kenya’S URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE 21st CENTURY: The Call for Innovative Initiatives from Local Authorities. Development Trust Innovation Africa (DTIA) and African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Kenya

Mwenda, 2010. Economic and Administrative Implications of the Devolution Framework Established by the Constitution of Kenya. Institute of Economic Affairs

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity , article 23

Odhiambo, M. and Taifa, A. (2009) Devolved Funds Development: A Handbook on Participation. Nairobi: Claripress.

Okello, M. Oenga, I. and Chege P (2008) Participatory Urban Planning Toolkit Based on the Kitale Experience: A guide to Community Based Action Planning for Effective Infrastructure and Services Delivery. Nairobi: Practical Action

Omolo, A. (2010) Devolution in Kenya: A Critical Review of Past and Present Frameworks in Devolution in Kenya, Prospects, Challenges and the Future. Mwenda (ed). IEA Research Paper No. 24.

The County Governments Act (No. 17 of 2012)

UN Public Administration Glossary. http://www.unpan.org/Directories/UNPublicAdministrationGlossary/ tabid/928/language/en-US/Default.aspx

World Public Sector Report 2008. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/ documents/un/unpan028608.pdf

55 3.3 PFM: The disconnect between law, practice and reality

Mbuvi38 M. T. E., E. T. Nahama39 and Josephine K. Musyoki¹

Abstract

It is 17 years since the first PFM pilot project started in Kenya and 9 years after enactment of the Forests Act 2005, and PFM is yet to be fully operational. Some stakeholders are losing interest because the anticipated benefits have remained a mirage. PFMs’ positive impact has been improved forest management but community livelihoods in most cases have hardly changed. Though The Forests Act 2005 provided for structures to be formed to facilitate the implementation of PFM in some instances they are weak and with many not upholding good governance principles. Further the livelihood opportunities provided for are for subsistence. If PFM is to meet the two objectives under the devolved government structure, the laws being formulated at county and national level must be guided by the practice (17 years) and reality (outcomes) on the ground. For meaningful livelihood improvement among forest adjacent dwellers, efforts (legislation) should be directed towards wealth creation through granting communities access right to commercial products rather than subsistence products. This paper examines lessons learnt from PFM implementation, highlights the legal and ecological challenges that impede realization of primary objectives of PFM and also provide suggestions on how these weaknesses can be addressed.

Key words: PFM, Legislation, Practice, Reality, Forest Management and Livelihoods

Introduction Local community participation in forest management and in forest ownership is increasing globally but forest based and or adjacent communities still live in a disabling environment of policy and practice that overrides some of the positive effects of increased participation and ownership. This is very dominant in Kenya where communities lost forest ownership and management during colonization. After 100 years of centralized forest management in Kenya, local community and other stakeholders’ participation in forest management and not forest ownership has been started in most forests. This is being done through a framework of Participatory Forest Management (PFM). The law allows communities to participate in forest management after meeting specific pre conditions including: development of Participatory Forest Management Plan (PFMP) and signing a Forest Management Agreement (FMA) to legalize the partnership.

From 1997 when the Forests Act 2005 became effective, local community participation in forest management has been increasing but forest communities are yet to realize the positive effects of increased public participation in forest management. The number of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) increased leading to development of 98 management plans by 2014 but only 60 forest management agreements have been signed between the CFAs and the Director, Kenya Forest Service. Of the CFAs which have signed the management agreements only a handful are engaged in forest activities that have brought tangible benefits to members’ households.

Some of the CFAs such as the one in Gathiuru forest station, which boasts of making meaningful change in household incomes and has been cited severally as a case study, heavily rely on crops harvested from forest plantation areas under Plantation Establishment and livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS). This is just but one of the several user rights prescribed by law in which the benefits are not from direct participation in forest management and sustainability is not guaranteed. The exercise of user rights by CFAs is impeded to a great extent by what has been prescribed in the existing laws and government bureaucracy. For instance, in the case of Arabuko Sokoke Forest, the CFA is yet to sign a forest management agreement with KFS, more than 17 years since it was formed.

Methodology/Approach A desktop study was conducted. The methodology involved review of field progress reports and a comparative analysis guided by the law and experience from other countries with similar ecological requirements.

56 Results and Discussions Legal provisions for community participation in forest management The intent and spirit of the Forests Act 2005 was for the forest adjacent community members to benefit from their engagement in forest management. It is for this very reason that the law requires community members to have legal recognition through registration of their Association by the Registrar of Societies. The law envisages improved livelihoods among the forest dependent communities, an improvement in forest management (reduced illegal activities) and generally, forests contributing to rural development and wealth creation. However, the reality in Kenya just as it is in many developing countries is different. According to Larson and Ribot (2007), local community participation in forest management and in forest ownership is increasing but forest based communities still live in a disabling environment of policy and practice that overrides some of the positive effects of increased participation and ownership. Questions arise as to why there is indeed positive change in the state of gazetted forests under Participatory Forest Management (PFM) in Kenya but the same cannot be said of forest adjacent community livelihoods. Do the existing laws supporting PFM in relation to community livelihoods, forest management, rural development and wealth creation, so far suffice? What has been operationalized and what needs to be done? The user rights, which can be conferred to a CFA as enumerated in Article 47(2) of the Forests Act 2005 are adequate but as things stand today, the CFAs are not exercising them fully due to both legal and bureaucratic barriers. In Kenya, there seems to be disconnect between what the law provides, what is being done in the field (practice) and the situation on the ground (reality). The Law dealing with forestry management in Kenya is adequate as per the process level of development. The legislation provides opportunities for formation of effective organization structures with clear partnership frameworks and clear prescription of what the community can access from the forest. The community through PFM has been provided with adequate opportunities to participate in forest management and livelihood activities, which have clear opportunities for rural development. It is however noted that communities have been allowed subsistence products whose access has been slowed by legislative and logistical bureaucratic requirements thereby having minimal means for wealth creation. In contrast to the Kenyan situation, community participation in forestry management has led to wealth creation in Nepal where user groups have been granted user rights to exploit timber in addition to subsistence forest use. The User Groups have special timber marks used to identify timber originating from the forests that they manage. Exploitation of timber by User Groups has led to accelerated rural development through economic and natural capital development. The legislative framework in Nepal, has further been developed to entrench community participation in forest management by having the Community Forestry Act, and the User Groups Guidelines being by-laws whose violation is punishable through the judicial system. In Kenya, the law is elaborate on how communities can participate in forest management with clear guidelines on how they can access forest resources and engage in activities that could lead to wealth creation. However, Kenya faces a challenge of bureaucracy which is impacting negatively on the communities who are now perceived to be bearing the highest costs of management.

Comparative analysis of forest legislation • The Forest Act of Nepal 1993 goal is “To meet the basic needs of local people, attain economic and social development promote healthy environment, promote development and conservation of forests and forest products by managing national forests, and provide assistance for the conservation and development of private forests”. • National Forests Conservation and Management Bill 2014 “Compliant with the objectives of the national development agenda and the constitution, the forest sector will explore new measures to halt, and reverse the pace of deforestation and forest degradation in the country and increase forest cover. There are emerging opportunities for sustainable forest financing especially through Carbon Credit schemes which the country needs to take advantage of to maximize the rate of social and economic development and secure optimum welfare of all citizens”.

57 • In Nepal, The Act gives user groups usufruct right, forest ownership is retained by the state. This is similar to Kenya but the difference is on what rights are transferred. User groups in Nepal have hammer mark for timber harvested from their forests as products. However, in Kenya, the CFA has to go through a legal process to do business before undergoing a lengthy procurement process in order to be shortlisted for harvesting trees from plantations. The long and costly process is a stumbling block for communities to exercise this particular access right. • In Nepal the process involves “handing over the forest” to the User Group while in Kenya we actually have communities participating in management where KFS undertakes the day to day management. This witnesses a reversal of roles in Nepal while in Kenya the change in roles is minimal. • The notable achievement of community forestry in Nepal “is devolving of forest managerial rights to User Groups, forest restoration, social inclusion and representation, improvement of community infrastructure, rural development and contribution to rural development” • In Cameroon, the community forestry law devolves powers to local forest management committees. The committees are able to earn revenue from the sale of forest products. • In Tanzania, the Village Government has control over forests within their jurisdiction and the authority to manage and utilize is transferred to village forest committees with the accruing benefits being used by the community. • In Kenya though the process is at infancy, the Act provides for easy access of subsistence products like grazing and firewood with commercial uses like timber and eco-tourism requiring additional access conditions. This negates the spirit of wealth creation and may not move the community out of poverty.

Figure 1: schematic representation of timber contribution to livelihood improvement and wealth creation

This calls for simplification of the law and enactment of easy to implement subsidiary legislation and guidelines in order to facilitate the process in Kenya. The Practice is premised on what is being done assessed against what the law expects (anticipates) to have been done. The point of disconnect should be witnessed through these questions: a) How are the communities implementing PFM in the field in sites where they control resources? b) How is the process being implemented in sites where the resources are in the control of the responsible body? c) How is the process being implemented in sites where the resources are in the control of a facilitating organization? d) How is the process being implemented in areas where the process is being implemented in sites where there is a Team? e) How should it be done in relation to sites where the resources are found? Why cannot it be done the way it should (anticipated) be done? 58 Reality: what is being done on the ground and what are the partner expectations. This should be used to guide the development of the laws and modify the conceptual frameworks. Is this guiding the development of the laws so that we could formalize the practical aspects? What are some of the key divergent points that require immediate action and long-term observation?

• The Forest Conservation Committee is a very efficient mechanism. The only point of concern in the field has been mode of ascending to office with a strong opinion that it should be elective. The secretary has not been contentious. • Who is supposed to take a lead role in the implementation of the plan recognizing that plans though approved by KFS have been done by a diversity of partners while appreciating that each partner has interests, which they would wish to implement. This has resulted in a diversity of management plans and failure to prioritize basic forest management activities which are pre-requisite before starting implementation of livelihood improvement activities. Additionally plans developments have stalled with ending of project funding. Reality: How is PFM being implemented in various stations? The diversity is very high with very successful diverse aspects ranging from livelihood activities to forest resource development activities like plantation establishment, forest product access, to successful livelihood activities. In Kakamega there is very vibrant community participation through NGOs and CFA. This has led to non-wood forest product development and value addition leading to production of herbal products from Ocimum kilimandischaricum and Mondia whyteii. The group runs a very successful community eco-tourism facility, butterfly farming and an education programme with education centres.

Upper Imenti CFA has been running a very efficient community managed fuel-wood access programme that has seen KFS deal only with the CFA, which manages the members’ fuel-wood access systems. Arabuko Sokoke Forest has had an exemplary IGAs programmes and an elaborate CFA structure with a very active umbrella organization entrenched in a membership organization with strong government membership. Kereita has been running a forest rehabilitation programme among many others. The trees planted are almost ready for harvesting but the law has not been changed to facilitate deliberate access to the timber from the trees, which the community has contributed immensely to developing. This is an aspect that requires immediate review as it is an activity that is being done by communities in several forests countrywide.

Key observations and management implications a) FCC is a very efficient mechanism whose composition has been praised alongside its role of linking the field with the highest KFS organ; the Board of Management. The key areas that require improvement include:

i. How representatives of the various stakeholders shall be able to effectively execute their responsibilities. This mainly refers to the community representatives who are required to link the FCC with the forest adjacent community members through gathering community views as well as communicating the decisions of the FCC back to the community. This involves distances of over 300 kilometres whose cost is to be met by the official.

ii. The mode of ascending to office has been contentious for the FCC Chair position for which it has been felt that it should be contested and not appointed to make it more representative. The post of the Secretary has been welcomed as it is. b) Who is supposed to take a lead role in the implementation of the Participatory Forest Management Plan recognizing that plans though approved by KFS have been done by a diversity of partners while appreciating that each partner has interests which they would wish to implement.

The Disconnect

Practice: what is being done BUT what does the law expect (what should have been done). Why is it that it cannot be done the way it should (anticipated) be done: The disconnect?

59 Further, while appreciating that the PFM process has been progressing albeit slowly, there are indications that the process is having a law and practice disconnect in Kenya as expressed by Ribot (2004) and also through lessons learnt from the Case of CBFM in Duru-Haitemba Tanzania, and Arabuko Sokoke forest in Kenya

(a): Duru-Haitemba Tanzania Duru-Haitemba is a much cited example of a successful community – based forest management process in Tanzania. Eight villages are managing over 9000ha of woodland as village forest reserve. The success has been attributed to the following factors: clearly defined boundaries, congruence between the rules that define the rights and responsibilities and the local conditions, strong village organizations, conflict resolution mechanisms at the village level, clearly defined property rights, and the right and ability of the village to develop a local level resource management organization (Kajembe et. al. 2005)

This is a case which Kenya has to learn from in aspects of: 1. The effective and efficient size of a CFA recognizing that in Nepal the number of households per user group has been defined.

2. The size of forest a CFA can effectively manage recognizing the varied sizes of forest under one station and the guiding wish of one CFA per station.

3. Who should join CFA realizing that PFM is modelled under the club membership system which calls for clear and enforceable property rights and responsibilities?

(b): The Arabuko Sokoke Forest case (1997 to 2014) Kenya The Arabuko Sokoke forest area in Kilifi County is credited for developing the PFM model, which is being used nationally but the process in that forest is far from being complete. The main cause being inadequate facilitation, poverty and low benefits accruing from the forest. Further, failure to actualize anticipated benefits has been a cause for dissatisfaction. The key implications includes:

1. PFM may not be feasible in all forests. High biodiversity forests may be better managed under a different regime and if it is PFM it has to be supported by an incentive based approach. 2. Communities’ expectations have to be managed to avoid loss of interest. 3. PFM requires long-term investment and commitment. 4. The key aspects of disconnect in Kenya 1. Few discretionary powers are being devolved, and the overbearing oversight is reducing that discretion further. 2. Mandates devolved to community are primarily for execution of centrally defined programs. 3. The responsibility of management is the one being devolved mostly. 4. The most lucrative opportunities are retained for central control while the least-lucrative activities are being devolved to local entities. 5. Control over subsistence resources (use values) and over resources with little commercial value is devolved. 6. The most lucrative resources (timber, tourism, minerals and oil) are being reserved for private interests or central management. 7. Allocation decisions concerning who should receive powers are being retained by central government – even though these decisions could be devolved with little consequence for natural resources, for example the approval of management plans could be done by the Ecosystem Conservators considering that in Nepal it is done by the District Forest Officers. 8. The extent of the territorial jurisdiction over which decentralization bodies have authority is being limited. 60 9. Fiscal resources are often insufficient to cover the cost of mandated service provision and management burdens. 10. Ability to pay to join and access benefits is limiting participation of the poorest of the poor in the society. 11. Access rights after forming a CFA and registering different criteria for different actors.

The Way forward 1. PFM is not feasible in all forests, some forests may be better off when managed under command and control system. 2. There is need for sustained facilitation and continuous learning and modification. 3. Devolve user rights that facilitate wealth creation through development of community based forest industries rather than promoting subsistence activities in order to sustain community participation and minimize informal forest access. 4. Deliberately support IGAs for improved community livelihoods and rural development. References Dahal, G. R. and A. Chapagain. (2008). Community Forestry in Nepal: Decentralized Forest Governance in Lessons from Forest Decentralization: Money, Justice and The Quest for Good Governance in Asia-Pacific .Pierce Colfer C. J., Dahal G. R and Capistrano D. (Eds) Earthscan Publishers. Government of Kenya (2014). Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; Draft National Forest Policy. Government of Kenya (2014). Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; National Forests Conservation and Management Bill 2014. Government of Kenya. (2007). The Forests Act, No. 7 of 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer. Government of Nepal (1993). Forest Act No. 49 of 2049 (1993) (Official Translation 1995). Her Majesty the Government of Nepal. Kajembe, G.C., N. Nduwamungu, and E.J. Luoga (2005). The impact of community-based forest management and joint forest management on the forest resource base and local people’s livelihoods: Case studies from Tanzania. Centre for Applied Social Studies, University of Zimbabwe/Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape., Commons southern Africa occasional paper; no. 8. Harare, Zimbabwe. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2007). Participatory Forest Management Guidelines. Nairobi, Kenya

Larson, A.M. and J. C. Ribot 2007. The poverty of forestry policy: Double standards on an uneven playing field. Sustainability Science, 2007, Vol. 2, Number 2. P. 16. Mbuvi, M.T.E, J.O Maua, P.O Ongugo, C.K Koech, R. A. Othim, and J. K. Musyoki. (2009). Perceptions on Participatory Forest Management Impacts on Poverty for selected forest adjacent communities in Kenya. ARPIP-KEFRI Project Report No. 1 Oyono, P. O. (2004). Institutional Deficit, Representation and Decentralized Forest Management in Cameroon: Elements of natural Resources Sociology for Social Theory and Public Policy. Environmental Governance in Africa; Working Paper 15 WRI Washington DC and CIFOR, Indonesia. Oyono, R. P. (2005),. Profiling Local-Level Outcomes of Environmental Decentralizations: The Case of Cameroon’s forests in the Congo Basin. Journal of Environment and Development Vol. 14 (2) 1 – 21. Ribot, J. (2004). Waiting for Democracy; The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization Washington DC. USA

61 3.4 Emerging Issues During Plenary Future of indigenous communities currently residing in forests e.g. the Ogieks: PFM is a good opportunity for such communities. There is thus need to enhance their capacity to participate in PFM and create awareness on the need for change of lifestyle.

Status of implementation of resolutions passed during the 1st PFM conference in 2007: Up to date all but three of the resolutions passed during the 1st PFM conference have been acted upon.

Auditing CFAs to ensure compliance to the 12 principles measuring the success of PFM: The principles are to be considered during preparation of PFMPs. As of now there is no system to audit the process. However, these principles have largely informed the current forest bill 2014.

Comparing between the Kenya situation and community conservation groups set ups in Nepal where village committees have being given authority to manage forests. To what extent does this compare with decentralisation? Tanzania and Nepal approach to PFM is from social aspects. The interest of the pro-poor should be integrated and PFM should move from implementation to utilization.

How can we address the killer threats? We cannot necessarily refer to them as killer threats but red flags that need some sort of closer attention. As for now PFM still remains on track, though there is need to graduate to meaningful engagement such as signing and implementing FMAs.

Concerns that PFM is a one sided relationship with KFS benefiting more than the CFAs: Communities participating in PFM are concerned with accruing benefits. For good PFM we need to look at the benefits wholly including the social and environmental as opposed to material benefits only.

Ensuring the application of appropriate legislation (instead of outdated legislation) by magistrates during sentencing of forest offenders: One of the ways that this can be done is through pointing out to them the relevant legislations including the specific sections and penalties. It is also upon the interested parties to push the court in meting out higher penalties as prescribed in the law.

Ensuring paid up court fees by convicted offenders are ploughed back to rehabilitate degraded forest sites: Even though fines are paid by offenders in court, the same court does not have powers to decide how and where the fine will be used. One can move to the civil court to file for damages for use in the recovery of degraded forest areas.

Most magistrates who preside over forest related cases cannot comprehend the nature of offence unless proper valuation of the forest resources is undertaken: In some cases it is recommended that they be taken to sites where the offence was committed in order for them to understand the magnitude of the situation. There is also need for lots of sensitisation for the relevant judiciary officers.

Clarification on the definition of community, different definitions including the constitution and proposed community bill: There is need for a definition based on a particular context and not a blanket description. For instance you cannot apply a blanket description while working with communities in PFM, they have to be specified to the forest resource that they have historical links with.

Clarification of public participation and the procedures for conducting it: No guidelines are in place for public participation within the sector. There are difficulties in defining the standard that is adequate. For instance parliament threw out the forest bill 2004 due to “lack of public consultations”. Due to the strict requirements by the constitution, guidelines on how to engage the public are needed to avoid a repeat of such cases.

Can the current proposed Forest Bill be amended before tabling to parliament to consider a benefit sharing criteria? No specific formula has been included in the bill, but after its enactment, there will be need for subsidiary legislation to define and operationalise a negotiated benefit sharing criteria.

62 4.0 PFM PLANNING AND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES

Session Chair: Mr. J. K. Macharia

Papers Presented 1. Keynote Paper on PFM planning and plan implementation experiences by Joram Kagombe on behalf of Ben Chikamai 2. The National Status of PFMP Development, Approval and Implementation By Elizabeth Wambugu 3. Experiences with PFM implementation under the Forests Act 2005 in Nyandarua County by Ben Kinyili 4. PFM planning and plan implementation experiences: why institutionalizing PFM will enhance its effectiveness By Rudolf Makhanu, Joram Kagombe, Thuita Thenya, Charles Koech, and David Kuria 5. Participatory Forest Management under Devolved Governance: County Government perspective by Dr. Chumo.

4.1 Keynote Paper-PFM planning and plan implementation experiences

Presented by Joram Kagombe40 on behalf of Ben Chikamai41.

Introduction Kenya’s forest sector has experienced poor governance in the past, and improving the situation has been an implicit objective in recent forest sector reforms. The reforms introduced with the (Forests Act, 2005) embraced the concept of Participatory Forest Management (PFM), through the engagement of local communities and the promotion of private investment. This has led to concomitant institutional and organization changes, such as the establishment of the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), and the formation of Community Forest Associations (CFAs). The aforesaid initiatives for change had been necessitated partly by the need to stop the escalating destruction of natural and man-made forests that had been increasing under the old forest policy and law; and partly by the need to open democratic space for local communities to take part in forest governance. One of the major reasons presented for the escalation of forest destruction was lack of community involvement in the management of the country’s forest resources, especially people who lived adjacent to them. Due to demands from local communities, the Government yielded to their pressure and allowed local communities and civil society organizations to be involved in the management of gazetted forests (Ghate, 2004) The new Forests Act 2005 recognizes the role of communities in the management of the country’s gazetted forest resources and encourages their involvement as either co-managers or contract managers of the forests. According to Article IV, Section 46 (1) of the law, communities that are the users of particular forests can be involved in the management of such forests only by forming community forest associations (CFAs). CFAs are considered as second-level community-based organizations (CBOs) formed by several CBOs with stakes in particular converging forests.

Why PFM in Kenya Increased forest destruction in 1970s and 1980, blamed on inappropriate and non inclusive forest governance policy and legislation. The policy used to manage government forests then, was developed by the colonial government (Ongugo, 2007) in 1957, but changed slightly in 1968 (GOK, 1994). The authority to govern the forests was primarily by the government through the Forest Department (FD), excluding other stakeholders. This legislation did not consider adjacent forest communities’ access to forests for its products. For over 100 years, the recently transformed Forest Department (formed in 1902 upon arrival of the Conservator of Forests) in Kenya has been managing the state forests more or less single handed. Communities participated in forestry matters as forest workers on a works paid basis or as cultivators who were instrumental in the establishment of industrial plantations under the Shamba System (now PELIS – Plantation Establishment through Improved Livelihood System).

63 In 1902, the East Africa Forestry Regulations were published. These regulations amongst other things: • Provided for the gazettement and de-gazettement of forest areas. • Listed forest offences and provided for the arrest and punishment of offenders. • Allowed for the “compounding of offences” whereby the Conservator could, by agreement with the offender, accept a sum of money in compensation for the offence, instead of taking the offender to court. • Authorized the issue of licenses to permit any act otherwise forbidden by the Regulations. • Permitted the utilization, free of charge, by bona fide travellers, of dead and fallen timber for fuel.

The Kenya Government had no formal forest policy until 1957 when White Paper No. 85 of 1957 was published. It stated the Government’s Forest principles in ten headings as Reservation; Protection; Management; Industry; Finance; Employment; African Areas; Private Forests and other forests not Under State Ownership; Public amenity and Wildlife Research and Education. The first forest policy (1957) was restated in 1968 (Session Paper No. 1 of 1968).

The Forests Act 2005 enacted in 2007 (already under review), brought a paradigm shift in forest management as it upholds the principles of public participation in natural resource management. The Act is aimed at addressing the many challenges facing the forestry sector. Its enactment, the on-going forestry sector reforms and the general commitment by the Government to uphold the rule of law, transparency and accountability through promulgation of the New Constitution provide a window of opportunity for better forest governance. In advancing good forest governance, there is a need to have clear definition of rules so that all players are able to genuinely participate in forest management, and are accountable to each other.

Milestones in PFM implementation Embracing a new/ alternative management approaches that are not well appreciated by the status quo usually takes time. This has been the case in Kenya’s Forestry sector (Thenya et al. 2007). Despite this, major benefits have begun to manifest themselves in the sector. Some of the major steps/ achievements in the implementation of PFM include the following:

New institutional arrangements The Kenya Forest Service (KFS) is required by the article ii Section 4 of the Forest Act to enter into agreements with the CFAs to manage gazetted natural forests. KFS is involved in the formation of CFAs. The CFAs that develop Participatory Forest Management plans, sign agreement with KFS and implement the plans under the supervision of KFS (Ongugo P., Mugo E., 2007). There are over twenty such agreements signed so far between KFS and CFAs some of which are being implemented.

Capacity building The contents and implications of the new forests policy and law are explained to the communities living adjacent to the country’s major forest ecosystems. For example, the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) has trained several community groups to elaborate their role, responsibilities in the arrangement and several opportunities which can enhance their livelihoods. Capacity building is also done by the civil society organizations in order to enhance their involvement in benefit sharing among different players in the forest sector. Capacity building ensures that only the right management approaches and tools are employed to ensure sustainability of forest resources (Ongugo et al., 2007).

Exploitation and marketing of forest resources Timber has been the major product exploited from forests for a long time (Seymour and Mugabe 2000; Thenya et al. 2007) yet forests are a source of many other products and services. The introduction of PFM has led to the exploitation of products that were considered minor and some even uplifted to surpass timber in value (Mbuvi et al. 2007).

For example, communities living adjacent to the Arabuko Sokoke forest and the Kenya Government obtain more benefits from the forest through butterfly farming and honey production than what used to be obtained from the sale of timber (Mbuvi et al. 2007). Stakeholders are now involved in the exploitation of natural resources such as ecotourism, bird watching and mushroom farming that accrue from forest than earlier. 64 Monitoring or the implementation process Research has continued to monitor the implementation of PFM with the aim of assessing the impacts on the forests; communities and household levels including the way benefits and costs are shared between the government and the community; and within the households. The success of PFM is only assured if benefits of managing forest resources also flow to the local communities and their households (Ongugoet al., 2007). Challenges to effective PFM implementation Conflicts of management The joint management strategy put forth by KFS and CFAs resulted in increased conflicts. CFAs have often demanded the absolute rights and dominance to control access and use of forests and their products. In some cases, CFAs have demanded an equal share of revenue collected by the forest management, especially in areas where there was more than one registered CFA (KFWG, 2013). This has heightened with the enactment of the Constitution in 2010 which has resulted in the devolution of forest management to County level government from the Central government (Constitution of Kenya, 2010).

Exclusion in decision making Decisions concerning forest access and use have often been made at the national level. The community through CFAs has been left out in policy formulation, and rule making in forest conservation. As a result, communities feel completely excluded from full participation to ensure prompt implementation of the policy. The Participatory Forest Management guidelines of 2007 (GOK, 2007) do not clearly spell out this. Hence, communities still find themselves at the mercy of the government employed forest managers when decisions concerning sustainable forest management are being made. Cases of the Senguer and Ndorobo communities of the Tugen and Mau forests respectively have been cited (Standing and Gachanja, 2014, Matin et al, 2013).

Inequality and benefit sharing The management of PFM activities requires participation of all stakeholders in all aspects of decision making and benefit sharing. The forest policy and law however, do not mention how benefits from PFM activities are to be shared between CFAs and the Government and even among members of CFAs. Inequality and gender imbalance in benefit sharing has resulted in unwilling participation among members of the CFAs.

Lack of technology to develop new products Access and use of forests has resulted in development of new products. The benefits from a well managed forest will be realized, when its products reach the market. New products have been invented, but the challenge is the capacity to produce, add value and produce more to meet the market demand. Lack of technological advancements, has resulted in low production capacity and unsustainable forest income generation. This has discouraged communities to not only participate in the management of public forests but even to develop their own forest enterprises. However, through KEFRI’s involvement in the sector, commercialization of tree farming is a concept which is already gaining currency among farming communities in the country.

Distribution of management cost CFAs primarily depend on funding from membership registration and other donors. However, there is little funding from KFS, for the implementation of their activities. Where CFAs have funding it is tied to donor conditions and which is seasonal meaning that long term planning cannot be effected. In addition, most CFAs had not put in place mechanisms for raising own funds through membership subscription, annual fees and income from supported IGA activities. In a number of CFAs, user groups had sources of funds but the main association that is expected to coordinate them lacked funding (Koech, 2009).

The CFAs participate in forest establishment and governance, though the benefits accrue to KFS. The costs of seedling production, management of PELIS sites should be shared equally, for the benefit of CFA and KFS.

Lack of trust in CFA representation Majority of forest stations have developed negotiated and signed FMAs with KFS (Government of Kenya, 2007b). However there are concerns that issues discussed in FMAs were left out in the final versions especially those related to benefit sharing. Largely FMAs focused on user rights already granted by The Forests Act 2005 consisting of traditional uses such as grazing, fuel wood collection and herbal plants. 65 Conclusion and Way Forward As a way of concluding, I would like to put forward some of the issues which the PFM planners and implementers in Kenya and the region as a whole should consider for its future enhanced success: • As contained and elaborated in the PFM guides, participatory forest planning is key to the implementation of the management agreement; • Involvement of communities in all stages of the planning and implementation process will enhance the success of PFM; • All stakeholders apart from the Government and the CFAs should engage in sustainable forest management including commercial tree farming in order to ensure sustained supply of forest products and services; and, • Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and the emerging Carbon trade will increase benefits accruing to communities from forest management. Communities need to be trained on how they can participate in these new initiatives.

References Ongugo, P.O. (2007). Participatory Forest Management in Kenya: Is There Anything for the Poor? Proceedings of the International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests, Bangkok, Thailand, September 2007. Government of Kenya. (1994). Kenya Forestry Master Plan Development (Implementation Programmes). Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Forest Department. J.V. Ludeki, G. M. Wamukoya and D. Walubengo (2006): Environmental Management in Kenya: A framework for Sustainable Forest Management in Kenya - Understanding New Forest Policy and Act, 2005. KFWG 2013a – Kenya Forest Working Group, Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs), Development, Implementation Review and Proposed Monitoring Framework Report http://www.Kenyaforests.org. Government of Kenya (GoK) (2007b): Sessional Paper No 1 of 2007 on Forest Policy, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Retrieved from: http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/government_of_ Kenya_2007_forest_policy.pdf. Ghate, R. (2004). Un-commons in the Commons: Community Initiated Forest Resource Management. New Delhi, India: Concept Publishing Company. Koech, C. K., Ongugo P. O., Mbuvi M. T. E. & J.O. Maua (2009): Community Forest Associations in Kenya: challenges and opportunities. Kenya Forestry Research Institute. Thenya, T., Nahama, E. & Wandago, B. (2007). Participatory Forest Management Experience in Kenya (1996- 2006). Proceedings of the 1st National Participatory Forest Management Conference, 6–8 June 2007, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) Headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya. Ongugo, P.O. & Mugo, E. (2007). The New Forests Act. 2005: Is It an Incentive or a Disincentive to PFM Implementation in Kenya? A paper presented to the 1st National PFM conference, 6–8 June 2007, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Headquarters, Nairobi-Kenya. Ongugo, P.O., Mbuvi, M.T.E, Maua, J.O., Koech, C.K. & Othim, R.A. (2007). Emerging Community Institutions for PFM Process Implementation in Kenya. Paper presented to the 3rd International PFM Conference, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Seymour, F. & Mugabe, J. (2000). in F. Seymour & N. Dubash, (eds.) The Right Conditions: the World Bank, Structural Adjustment and Forest Policy Reform. Washington, DC: the World Resources Institute. Mbuvi, M.T.E., Ongugo, P.O., Maua, J.O. & Koech, C.K. (2007). Emerging Values of Forests: a Blessing for Participatory Forest Management (PFM) - The Case of Kenya. Paper presented to the 3rd. International PFM Conference. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. (2007). Participatory Forest Management Guidelines. Standing, A. and Gachanja M. (2014). The political Economy of REDD + in Kenya. Anti Corruption Resource Centre, CMI. Nilufar Matin , Mohammad Shahidul Islam, Musingo, T.E. Mbuvi , Bernard Owuor Odit Paul Othim Ongugo , Mohammad Abu Syed. (2013). Group inequality and environmental sustainability: Insights from Bangladesh and Kenyan forest commons. Sustainability Journal. 66 4.2 The National status of PFMP Development, Approval and Implementation Kenya Forest Service, Elizabeth Wambugu Email: [email protected]

Abstract Forests contribute significantly towards the diversification of livelihoods of communities adjacent to forest ecosystems. Governments, funding agencies and civil society agree that development cannot be sustainable unless people’s participation is made central to the development process. While there is virtual unanimity about the need for people’s participation in development, the concept of participation in forest management and conservation and the ways to achieve it has not been clearly defined. The Forests Act, 2005 also recognizes the importance of the surrounding community in forest management and conservation. This has culminated in development of Participatory Forest Management Plan preparation guidelines.

As a result about one hundred Plans have been developed and preparation of over fifty is going on. The signed plans have enabled about forty Community Forest Associations to enter into Forest Management Agreements with Kenya Forest Service. A field survey using purposive sampling of the planning and implementation process was undertaken covering Mau, North Rift, Central and Coast forest conservancies. The findings indicate immense interest and progress on community involvement. However, the content of Participatory Forest Management Plans, the level of participation, and implementation is as diverse as the plan facilitators, the forest type, the available forest resources and the communities themselves. This therefore calls for a need to harmonize the process and set standards through a participatory process. Further, to institutionalize and strengthen community participation, there is need to empower them to overcome obstacles that interfere with their efficiency, dynamism, openness and active participation in planning, implementation and decision making.

Introduction and background Participatory Forest Management is one of the important emerging forms of forest management that aims to improve forest management and conservation through involvement of stakeholders especially forest adjacent communities. The of the role of local communities and the Civil Society (including NGOs, CBOs, Private sector companies, etc) in forest management and conservation is invaluable and has been given recognition and acceptance in the current legislation. This arrangement has been termed Participatory Forest Management (PFM). Since a management plan is mandatory as entrenched in the new legislation, the involvement of other relevant stakeholders in preparing the plan is inevitable under a PFM arrangement.

Where PFM has been initiated, it has improved the community’s sense of understanding of roles and responsibilities, improved relationships among stakeholders and helped resolve conflicts. It has also addressed equity in access and sustainable use of forest resources to some extent, it has empowered communities to make decisions as well as enabled them to appreciate ecosystem values.

Objectives of PFM 1. Improved forest conservation 2. Improved livelihoods 3. Sustainability

Reasons for preparing PFMPs include: i. A requirement by the Constitution, 2010, Forests Act, 2005, EMCA, 1999 for public participation in management of natural resources ii. A recognition that a forest reserve can be better managed if the forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders are involved

67 iii. A desire to minimize conflicts with forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders iv. A desire to create opportunities for local people and other stakeholders to contribute towards protection and rehabilitation of forest resources and hence share the costs not only of management v. Commitment to human rights and therefore to fair and equitable treatment of communities living adjacent to forest reserves who have traditionally accessed forest resources, vi. Support sustainable forest-based livelihoods in poor rural communities effectively and meet expectations

Methods of Data collection and analysis The information used on this paper is based on: A modified International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research protocol was used to collect data from forests. Socio-economic data was collected using questionnaires administered to forest adjacent households, focus groups as well as forest managers. Livelihood and participation of communities in forestry activities were documented from observations, field experiences, case studies, office reports as well as other secondary sources of information. The data on participation and households was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) and MS Excel.

Results and Discussion

Application of PFM KFS has approached PFM and promoted its application in the widest sense to ensure wide public participation in natural resources as stipulated in the Constitution, EMCA, 1999 and other legislations. This has been done by incorporating community participation in every level and type of management plan, that is strategic, ecosystem, natural forest and even forest plantations management plans.

As such, PFM and therefore PFMPs are applicable to all types of forests; rich or poor in biodiversity; intact or degraded; large or small; moist, montane, woodland or mangrove, including commercial plantations. Each forest type however presents different and diverse opportunities for PFM.

The wide variation in PFM practices depends on various factors which include: • Type of forest and its resources • Forest management objectives • Diversity of forest adjacent communities and their socio-economic status • Dynamism of forest managers as implementers • PFMP facilitators • Funding • Influence of development partners

68 National Status of PFMP Development A total number of 97 PFMPs have been prepared and some are even due for revision. These plans cover a total area of 1031459.69ha of forests nationally. a) Approved plans and forest areas under PFMPs

Conservancy No. of stations Total Forest Approximate Area (Ha) under Total forested Percent PFMPs Area (Ha)

Central 40 320681 327,439.61 97.9 Coast 12 39808 766372 5.2 Eastern 15 116806.59 231,648.28 50.4 Ewaso 2 185710 344,087.28 54.0 Mau 12 160294 458,151.13 35.0 Nairobi 2 11071.7 19,156.50 57.8 North Eastern 0 0 0 0.0 North Rift 8 100135 289,472.19 34.6 Nyanza 2 5234 - - Western 2 45332.4 80464.2 56.3 Total 95 985072.69 Masaai Mau and Karima County Forests 2 46,387 Hill (Narok and Nyeri County respectively) Total 97 1031459.69

b) Ongoing management plans All over the country the PFMP initiatives have been spreading like a bush fire and there are almost same number of plans that are ongoing as those approved all at different stages. There are about 40 CFAs in various parts of the country with ongoing PFMPs where more than 30 will be complete before the end of the financial year

FMA - Among those approved management plans, 60 CFAs have signed management agreements as shown in appendix 1

References Government of Kenya. (2005). Forests Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer. Kenya Forest Service. 2007. Participatory Forest Management Plan Preparation Manual. Nairobi, Kenya: KFS, (unpublished). Kenya Forest Service. (2014). An overview of Participatory Forest Management Planning and Implementation (Office Reports), Nairobi Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. (1994). The Kenya Forestry Master Plan. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. (2007) Sessional Paper on Forest Policy.

69 PFMP Implementation Case studies The predominant existing and potential PFM activities identified and undertaken by communities include the following: i. PELIS ii. Bee-keeping

PELIS and bee-keeping activities – Mucheene Forest Station iii. Eco-tourism

Eco-tourism activities – Board walk at the coast and Murinduko hill respectively iv. Tree nurseries

CFA nursery at Geta and mangrove nursery at the coast respectively

Sports

70 Sports events to occupy the youth in Nyandarua County Challenges • Clearly defining the modalities of sharing benefits and costs • Building the capacity of CFA to participate in viable PFM income generating activities and benefits maximization • Balancing the need to develop profitable forest enterprises with sustainable forest management

Opportunities • CFAs and CSOs enthusiasm about PFM has made the process take root and this can be enhanced • Broadening the benefits base that are appropriate to each forest type • Up scaling non-extractive income generating enterprises like eco-tourism to enhance sustainability • Creation of employment through contracts for silvicultural activities in forest plantations which will create employment while enhance the quality and quantity of forest stands

Conclusion Each forest type presents different and diverse opportunities for PFM. As such, PFM and therefore PFMPs are applicable to all types of forests; rich or poor in biodiversity; intact or degraded; large or small; moist, montane, woodland or mangrove, including commercial plantations. Considering the diversity o PFMPs, levels of participation and implementation by the communities, there is a need to harmonize the process and set standards through a participatory process.

71 Appendix 1 APPROVED MANAGEMENT PLANS AND SIGNED FMA’s 4.5 Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Planning and Plan Implementation Experiences in Nyandarua County Name of forest Conservancy Zone Area (Ha) Ownership/ Status Chehe Central Nyeri 4,945 KFS Kiandongoro Central Nyeri 7264.66 KFS Zaina Central Nyeri 11,821.46 KFS Castle Central Kirinyaga 1,4309.4 KFS Gatare Central Muranga N. 10,548 KFS Gathiuru Central Nyeri 14,908 KFS Geta Central Nyandarua 18,884.3 KFS Hombe Central Nyeri 3,618 KFS Kabaru Central Nyeri 13,394.62 KFS Kereita Central Kiambu 4722 KFS Kieni Central Thika 13,723.71 KFS Kimakia Central Muranga 7,591.1 KFS Lariak Central Laikipia 4,988 KFS Mukogodo Central Laikipia 30,189 KFS N Kinangop Central Nyandarua 6811.5 KFS Ndaragwa Central Nyandarua 34,701 KFS Ol bollossat Central Nyandarua 3326.9 KFS Rumuruti Central Laikipia 6,217.8 KFS Shamanek Central Laikipia 1,840.5 KFS Kangaita Central Kirinyaga 4,585.7l KFS Karima Central Nyeri 108.5 County Kathandeini Central Kirinyaga 9,327 KFS Kiambicho Central Muranga 746.7 KFS Nanyuki FS Central Laikipia 9,854.6 KFS Naro Moru Central Nyeri 7,195 KFS Ragati Central Nyeri 10,477.6 KFS South Kinangop Central Nyandarua 6,660.1 KFS Aberdare Forest Central Various 149,822.03 KFS/Strategic Reserve South Marmanet Central Laikipia 3,900.19 KFS Lusoi Central Laikipia 259.50 KFS Wanjerere Central Muranga S. 10,348.5 KFS

72 Kamae Central Kiambu 3,024.491 KFS Kinale Central Kiambu 10,504.87 KFS Uplands Central Kiambu 3,477.4 KFS Zuti Central Nyeri 8258.94 KFS Kabage Central Nyeri 7,131.46 KFS Njukini Central Kirinyaga 574.7 KFS Ragia Central Kiambu 3591.14 KFS Karua Central Muranga S 210 KFS Muringato/ Central Nyeri 11,225 KFS Embaringo block Mt. Kenya Forest Central & Eastern Various 213,082.64 KFS/Strategic Reserve Arabuko Sokoke Coast Malindi/Kilifi 41,600 KFS/Strategic Dzombo Coast Kwale 906 KFS Kasigau Coast Taita 202.3 KFS Kitobo Coast Taveta 160 KFS Mbololo Coast Taita 220 KFS Mwambirwa Coast Taita 375.5 KFS Ngangao Coast Taita 139.93 KFS Gede Coast Malindi 13,100 KFS Gogoni-Gazi Coast Kwale 1439.3 KFS Sokoke Coast Kilifi 19,000 KFS VAJIKI Coast Kwale 4,265 KFS Iveti Eastern Machakos 364.07 KFS Kamukima Eastern Makueni 1767 KFS Kyawea Eastern Kitui 63.10 KFS Makuli Eastern Makueni 1,653.1 KFS Ngare ndare Eastern Meru Central 5,554.3 KFS Nzaui Eastern Eastern 967.2 KFS Upper Imenti Eastern Meru Central 13,904.27 KFS Kibwezi Eastern Makueni 5,860 KFS Nyambene Eastern Meru North 6,878.40 KFS Chogoria Eastern Meru central 16,000 KFS Lower Imenti Eastern Meru Central 2,462 KFS Ruthumbi Eastern Meru central 12,605 KFS Ontulili Eastern Meru Central 33,227.15 KFS Irangi Eastern Embu 15,501 KFS Njukiiri Eastern Embu

73 Matthews Range Ewaso Samburu 93,765.5 KFS Leroghi/Kirisia Ewaso Samburu 91,944 KFS Bahati Mau Nakuru 6,956.5 KFS Dundori Mau Nakuru 3,609.2 KFS Eburu Mau Nakuru 8,760 KFS Maasai Mau Mau Narok 46,278 County Namanga Hill Mau Kajiado 11,784 KFS Sururu Mau Nakuru 13,177.4 KFS Olenguroni Mau Narok 11,000 KFS Nyangores Mau Narok 13,142.4 KFS Nairotia Mau Narok 11,000 KFS Londiani Mau Kericho 9,015.15 KFS Koibatek Mau Koibatek 8,871.5 KFS Itare Mau Bureti 16,700 KFS Karura Nairobi Nairobi 1,041.3 KFS Nairobi Arboretum Nairobi Nairobi 30.4 KFS N Nandi North Rift Nandi 10,500 KFS Saboti/Sosio North Rift Trans-nzoia 13,764.25 KFS Cherangani North Rift Marakwet 20,215.3 KFS Kimondi North Rift Nandi 6, 743,1 KFS Kobujoi North Rift Nandi 18,010 KFS South Nandi North Rift Nandi 24,753.1 KFS/Strategic Sabor North Rift Keiyo 4,047 KFS Kimothon North Rift Trans nzoia 10,243 KFS Cheptongei North Rift Marakwet 23355.7 KFS Gwassi Nyanza Suba 4,835 KFS Wire Nyanza Suba 399 KFS Cheptais Western Mt Elgon 25,540 KFS Kakamega PFMP Western Kakamega 19,792.4 KFS Kakamega Western Kakamega 230Km2 KFS/Strategic Ecosystem

FMAs signed with communities = 60 (highlighted) *Concession Management Agreements signed = 2 (Ngare Ndare and Kibwezi) By Benjamin M. Kinyili42

74 ABSTRACT Participatory Forest Management (PFM) recognizes involvement of forest adjacent communities in management and protection of forests. Nyandarua County was among the first forest ecosystem to launch and sign Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs) and Community Forest Management Agreements (CFMAs) in 2010 for five forest stations. The main objective of the study was to assess the impacts of community participation on forest management and community livelihoods. The study involved qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), household questionnaires, semi-structured interviews with key informants and Focus Group Discussions, primary and secondary data, check list, desk and literature review. From the results 78% of the forest adjacent communities are involved in PFM. The main challenges to PFM were lack of technical knowledge and information. The community requires training and capacity building on group dynamics to improve on governance, transparency and accountability. The study helped in unravelling the underlying impacts of the PFM and forest management. The study contributed to existing knowledge and understanding of forest management, protection and rural livelihood. The study will improve knowledge, information and influence policy, legislation and decision making on implementation of PFM and can be shared and up-scaled to other forest areas. 1.0 INTRODUCTION PFM is an arrangement where key stakeholders enter into a mutually enforceable agreement that define their respective roles, responsibilities, benefits and authority in the management of defined forest resources according to Springate et al. (2003) and Arnold (2001). It is a forest management approach deliberately involving the forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders in management of forests within a framework that contributes to community’s livelihoods (KFS, 2007a) and (ARPIP, 2008). PFM is carried out through stages which are interdependent and as such it is a process (FAO, 2008). Changing circumstances under devolved governance structures presented new challenWges and opportunities for forest conservation as found by Matiku et al. (2013). The previous conservation efforts under command and control had not worked well leading to continued loss of forests. The Forests Act 2005 was aimed at bridging these gaps and therefore the need for management change towards PFM. To guide these processes Kenya Forest Service (KFS) has been approving and launching PFMP and CFMAs across the country (GOK, 2005). Some of the user rights granted to these associations include collection of herbs, harvesting of honey, harvesting of timber or fuel wood, grass harvesting and grazing, collection of forest produce for community-based industries, eco-tourism and recreation according to Schreckenberg et al. (2007) and Yadav, et al. (2003).

1.1 General Objective The main objective of the study was to assess the impacts of community participation on forest management and their effects on community livelihoods, conservation and protection under PFM planning and plan implementation experiences. 1.2 Specific Objectives 1. To assess applicability of PFM and PFMP guidelines 2. To evaluate cost effectiveness and efficient planning of PFMP guidelines 3. To evaluate status of main streaming governance and cross cutting issues in PFM 4. To assess the stakeholders capacity to implement PFMPs 5. To evaluate the regional lessons learnt and best practices of PFM and PFMPs

75 2.0 METHODOLOGY / APPROACH 2.1 Methodology of carrying out the evaluation Primary data collection from the five forests stations and CFAs was done through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and observations. Interactive methods through PRA were utilized to collect qualitative data. Structured discussion through meetings was held with Forest Station Managers, community groups, opinion leaders and data adduced recorded in reports, questionnaire and data sheets. Pre-testing of data collection tools was done to authenticate the information collected.

2.2 Data Analysis and Utilization In line with the participatory and consultative approach of the study, information was jointly analyzed between the researcher and field staff. Quantitative data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS). Data were presented using graphs, pie charts, tables, case summaries and cross tabulations.

3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Background of the Study Nyandarua County has a total forest area of 49,916.2 ha concentrated on the western side of the Aberdare range with five forest stations namely; South Kinangop, North Kinangop, Geta, Ndaragwa and Ol- bolossat. The area under state forests is about 15.65% of the total county landmass (Republic of Kenya, 2002). Aberdare forest ecosystem covers, Aberdare forest reserve, Aberdare National Park, Kipipiri forest reserve, and the Kikuyu escarpment. Aberdare forest was first gazetted as a forest reserve in 1943, and covered an area of 181,594.3 ha and 49,916.2 ha were under Nyandarua. Aberdare forest reserve was gazette with the aim of forest conservation and development, which included establishment of exotic plantations, conservation of indigenous forests, regulating access to resources and sustaining forest industry (KFS, 2010).

3.2 Natural Forest Rehabilitation The KFS with support from CFAs, user groups and stakeholders have carried out natural forest rehabilitation by planting indigenous tree seedlings in the degraded forest areas, riverine and catchment areas. The total area rehabilitated in the last 5 years was 1,235.1hawith Geta 407.7ha, Olbolossat 147.4ha, Ndaragwa 372.5ha, North Kinangop 142.0ha and South Kinangop 165.5ha.

Natural Forest Rehabilitation 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 GETA 80.0 Ha . OLBOLOSSAT 60.0 NDARAGWA 40.0 20.0 NORTH KINANGOP 0.0 SOUTH KINANGOP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

3.3 Fire Management

76 Ndaragwa, Olbolossat and Geta forest stations are prone to forest fires. Therefore, fire protection and control are emphasized in the PFMPs. These are done through; cleaning of fire breaks, creating awareness on the dangers of forest fire to the public, promoting cooperation with CFA members, conducting regular surveillance of areas prone to frequent forest fires, and general training of KFS personnel on fire fighting techniques and use of newly acquired fire fighting equipment. The year 2009 had the highest fire outbreaks, 108 incidences, when PFMP was at the initiation stage. It was followed by 2011 with 59 outbreaks, half of initial incidences. The year 2012 had 44 fire out breaks and 2010 had 38 forest fires and lastly 2013 had only 14 fire out breaks due to involvement of communities and implementation of PFMPs in the five forest station. A total of 3,420.7ha of grassland, bushland, natural forest and plantation areas had burnt. The damage caused to the burnt forest was Ksh 487 million and cost of extinguishing the fires Ksh 3.7 million.

Forest Fires 40 35 30 25 GETA 20 OLBOLOSSAT 15

Fire incidences NDARAGWA 10 5 NORTH KINANGOP 0 SOUTH KINANGOP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

3.4 Seedling production Seedlings production has been done through collaboration between KFS, CFAs, projects GZDSP MMMB, CDTF, stakeholders and farmers. There has been an upward trend for both exotic and indigenous seedlings. Exotic seedlings in 2009 were 662,971 seedlings, 2010 was 895,245 seedlings, 2011 was 980,550 seedlings, 2012 was 1,112,285 seedlings and lastly 2013 was 1,116,987 exotic seedlings. Indigenous seedlings were as follows 2009 (224,254 seedlings), 2010 (228,100 seedlings), 2011 (255,414 seedlings), 2012 (294,504 seedlings) and 2013 (366,652 seedlings).There are several categories of tree nurseries: KFS 10, private 228, groups 105 with total of 343 tree nurseries. In the last five years KFS has produced 1,368,924 indigenous and 4,768,038 exotic seedlings. Private and group nurseries have produced 42 million seedlings in the last 5years.

Indigenous Seedlings Production

500,000

400,000 GETA 300,000 OLBOLOSSAT 200,000 NDARAGWA 100,000 Number Seedlings NORTH KINANGOP 0 SOUTH KINANGOP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

3.5 Water Catchment Protection, Natural Forest, Eco-tourism, Wildlife and Biodiversity 77 Natural vegetation along the river lines, water courses, wetlands and glades has been conserved. When carrying out PFMPs activities such as plantation establishment and harvesting, biodiversity hot spots and wildlife habitats are well protected from disturbance during plantation establishment and clear felling. The adjacent communities through CFAs are encouraged to develop eco-tourism sites and nature-based enterprises (NBEs) within the forest. There are seven bee keeping groups, stinging nettle for Olbolossat CFA, spinning and weaving at Geta, Mushroom at Geta, Bamboo propagation at Geta CFA, bead works at South Kinangop and Geta CFA, Trout farming at South Kinangop and fish farming at Ndaragwa forest. Other benefits to the community include grass cutting, and grazing of their livestock. The non-extractive uses of forest are eco-tourism, nature walk, picnic and bird watching.

3.6 Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) Plantation establishment activities in Kenya slowed down during the logging ban (1999-2012) according to (KFS, 2010). This caused a significant backlog in plantation establishment. PELIS was introduced in the 5 forests stations since 2009, and has reduced the establishment backlog.

3. PLANTATION ESTABLISHMENT AND LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT SCHEME ( PELIS)

YEAR/ NOTH SOUTH STATION GETA OLOBOLOSSAT NDARAGWA KINANGOP KINANGOP TOTAL

2009 108.1 55.0 13.4 20.2 47.1 243.8

2010 78.1 219.0 3.1 10.0 68.0 378.2

2011 106.5 258.8 4.0 5.2 44.0 418.5

2012 96.0 276.7 10.5 10.0 32.0 425.2

2013 206.1 245.6 20.5 12.0 30.0 514.2

TOTAL 594.8 1,055.1 51.5 57.4 221.1 1,979.9

Plantations under PELIS are well stocked, and well managed. The survival count of plantations under PELIS is over 75%. As part of PELIS arrangement, farmers are required to carry out first pruning activities in their plots and CFAs non commercial thinning. PELIS addressed food security, employment and wealth creation.

78 Plantations Establishment 300.0

250.0

200.0 GETA 150.0 Ha . OLBOLOSSAT 100.0 NDARAGWA 50.0 NORTH KINANGOP

0.0 SOUTH KINANGOP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

3.7 Forest Protection and Security It was found out that illegal activity of logging, cedar posts hewing, charcoal making in the forest had drastically reduced with help of community CFAs surveillance, sharing of information, arrest and prosecution of offenders. Ndaragwa, Olbolossat and Geta CFAs has got 20 trained community scouts each who assist the Forest Rangers in forest patrols and protection duties. With involvement of CFAs and community scouts the trend on cases prosecuted dropped from 106 in the year 2009 when CFA was initiated and PFMPs developed to 17 cases in the year 2013 as shown in the table below.

FOREST PROTECTION (CASES PROSECUTED)

YEAR/ NOTH SOUTH STATION GETA OLOBOLOSSAT NDARAGWA KINANGOP KINANGOP TOTAL

2009 32 25 36 5 8 106 2010 24 19 22 4 6 75 2011 16 12 17 3 4 52 2012 11 5 10 2 3 31 2013 6 2 6 2 1 17 TOTAL 89 63 91 16 22 281

79 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Applicability of PFM and PFMP guidelines. PFM incorporates forest resource users as forest co-managers who are organized and registered as CFAs (KFS, 2007b). The Forests Act 2005 requires such registered CFAs to develop through a participatory process, PFMPs that define specific issues to be addressed, roles in forest management and income generating activities to be undertaken, taking into consideration the legal framework, regulatory mechanisms and resource sustainability (Pokharel and Nurse, 2004). PFM is designed to benefit local communities through improved livelihoods, while at the same time sustaining forest resources.

Due to emerging need of better management of forest resources after the enactment of The Forests Act 2005, this makes it a requirement for all public forests. All 5 forest stations stakeholders initiated the process of PFMP in 2009. At that time, the forests were faced with several threats including deforestation, overgrazing, poor management and community apathy in support of good management of the forest.

Some indicators of effective PFM and PFMP guidelines implementation  CFAs constitutions registered with registrar of societies and user groups formed.  Forest level management committees formed and working effectively.  Annual general meetings held by CFAs to inform members of achievements, progress, financial status, work planning and elections done after three years.  Clear and effective grazing guidelines and grazing plans are in place for the five forest stations.  Approved guidelines for firewood collection both for domestic use and commercial purposes are in place.  Guidelines that provide for participation of adjacent communities in eco-tourism.  Guidelines on forest rehabilitation with clear roles of CFA and stakeholders.  Main streaming of livelihood activities in KFS annual work plan and budget implemented.

4.2 Cost effectiveness and efficient planning of PFMP guidelines • Functional organizational structures in place: CFAs, executive and management committees, user groups and forest level management committees • Work plans and operational plan guided activities implemented • Joint planning of activities between KFS, CFAs and other stakeholders • Conflict resolution mechanisms and management in place • Participatory monitoring and evaluation of the activities done regularly • Definition of roles/responsibilities of all stakeholders done

4.3 Status of main streaming good governance and cross cutting issues in PFM The introduction of PFM in the forest areas resulted in the following; • Fewer conflicts and improved relations among major stakeholders • Increased social, economical and political acceptability • Empowerment of marginalized groups through recognition of rights and responsibilities • Stronger partnerships and alliances against external conservation threats eg. Excisions • Enhanced skills of many different stakeholders/institutions

80 4.5 Indicators of stakeholders capacity to implement PFMPs and forest conservation;  Enhanced incorporation of scientific approaches to forest management with multi- stakeholders’ involvement with diverse expertise and experiences.  Enhanced involvement of the forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders in forest conservation, capacity building and trainings.  Minimized conflicts with forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders through formation of conflict resolution and management committees.  Create opportunities for local people and other stakeholders to contribute towards protection and rehabilitation of forest resources.  Commitment to human rights and equitable treatment of communities living adjacent to forest reserves who have traditionally accessed forest resources,  Support sustainable forest-based livelihoods in poor rural communities.

81 4.6 Nyandarua Lessons Learnt and Best Practices on Benefits of PFM to the CFA 1. Forest fires outbreaks have reduced drastically due to involvement of CFAs members in surveillance, detection, reporting and actual fire fighting. 2. Nature Based Enterprises and Income Generating Activities started, supported and promoted to improve the community livelihoods. 3. Capacity building workshops and training through partnerships with other organizations. 4. PELIS cultivation for establishment of plantations and increase of forest cover 5. Exchange visits and study tours to give exposure to the CFA members done. 6. Financial support for CFAs office renovation and secretariat by CFAs. 7. Implementation of the PFMPs has led to significant improvement in forest protection. 8. The CFAs through PFMPs has been empowered for conflict resolution and management.

4.7 Challenges facing CFAs in implementation of PFM and PFMPs 1. Compliance of the user groups with the set rules and management requirements

2. Unclear cost-benefit sharing mechanisms

3. Inadequate funds for committee meetings and sustainability of CFAs activities

4. Inadequate capacity to develop project proposals, monitoring and evaluation.

5. Governance issues, transparency and accountability

6. Political interferences especially during election of CFA leaders

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS PFM and PFMP have a huge potential for contributions towards the objective of sustainable forest management and livelihood improvement. Experiences appear to confirm the general assumption that PFM and PFMP, when well facilitated, can lead to recovery and maintenance of forest health and quality. Improvements in water discharge and quality from PFM areas has been noted. Increased signs of natural regeneration in degraded areas and reduced incidences of forest fire have been seen. The main challenges to PFM were lack of technical knowledge and information. The community requires training and capacity building on group dynamics to improve on governance, transparency and accountability.

REFERENCES

Arnold, J.E.M. (2001). Forests and people: 25 years of community forestry. Rome: FAO. ARPIP TEAM Kenya. (2008). Status of Participatory Forest Management Impacts on Poverty for Dida PFM piloting area Adjacent Community: Arabuko-Sokoke forest: Kilifi District. Nairobi, Kenya:, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Unpublished report. FAO (2008). Participatory Forest Management: A strategy for sustainable forest management in Africa. Proceedings of the international workshop on community forestry in Africa, 26–30 April 1999, Banjul, the Gambia. Rome: FAO. Government of Kenya. (2005). Forest Act No. 7 of 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer. Kenya Forest Service (2007a). Manual on Preparation of Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs). Nairobi, Kenya: KFS.

82 Kenya Forest Service (2007b). Manual on Forming and Registering Community Forest Associations (CFAs). Nairobi, Kenya: KFS Kenya Forest Service.(2010). Aberdare Forest Reserve Management Plan 2010 – 2019. Nairobi, Kenya: KFS Matiku P, Caleb M, Callistus O. (2013). The Impact of Participatory Forest Management on Local Community Livelihoods in the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Conservat Soc 2013; 11:112-29 Pokharel, B.K. and Nurse, M. (2004). Forests and people’s livelihood: benefiting the poor from community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 4(1): 19–29. Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Finance and Planning. (2002). Nyandarua Districts Development Plan (2002- 2008). Nairobi Kenya: Government Printers. Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C., Zorlu, P. and Moss, C. (2007). A way out of poverty? A review of the impacts of PFM on livelihoods. Keynote paper presented under Theme 4 ‘PFM and Livelihoods: Role of PFM in Poverty Reduction’, 1st National PFM Conference, 6–8 June 2007, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) HQ, Muguga, Kenya. Springate, B. O., Yadav, N., Dev, O.P. and Soussan, J. (2003). Institutional development of forest user groups in Nepal: Processes and indicators. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3(1): 21–36. Yadav, N.P., Dev, O.P., Springate, B. O., and Soussan, J. (2003). Forest management and utilization under community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3(1): 37–50.

83 4.4 PFM planning and plan implementation experiences: adoption of PFMPs to enhance effectiveness

By Rudolf Makhanu43, Joram Kagombe44, Thuita Thenya45, Charles Koech46, and David Kuria47

Taking cognizance of the fact that PFM has been implemented in Kenya for over the last 10 years, and realizing the lack of adequate empirical information to establish progress at site level as relates the extent to which PFM planning and implementation has been institutionalized, KFS commissioned an assessment whose findings would guide identification of priority areas for review and strategic investment in PFM. This paper is based on findings of the above stated assessment undertaken by Kenya Forests Working Group with financing from KFS through Miti Mingi Maisha Bora program. The 20 KFS pre-selected PFMPs covered five ecosystems namely humid areas of Mt Kenya, Aberdare, Mau, tropical forest of Nandi ecosystems and dry ecosystem of Laikipia. The assessment explored relevance of PFMPs to the target forest area, their effectiveness and value, affordability, usefulness in guiding management practices, commitment to their implementation and their role as instruments for good forest governance. Multi-faced structured approach was adopted in data collection and collating of information from both primary and secondary sources. This involved literature review, interviews, both structured and plenary discussions as well as consultative meetings. Among the findings were that the 20 PFMPs reviewed varied in terms of structure and formulation process and that PFMPs have no relevancy in the management of forest areas assessed mainly due to Inadequate financial resources to facilitate their implementation. The overall effectiveness of the PFMPs in terms of contributing towards achieving the ecosystem plan objectives are not clear since development of PFMPs is not anchored to specific goals in ecosystem plan where they exist. Among lessons leant is the need for development of ecosystem management plans to give direction to PFMPs, and the need to honour FMAs once endorsed for sustained stakeholder participation in PFM.

4.5 Participatory Forest Management under Devolved Governance: County Government perspective

By Dr. John Chumo48

Abstract The participation of rural communities in the management and utilization of natural resources and woodlands is a management concept taking route in many African countries including Kenya. The legal frame work and political good will have been demonstrated through implementation of The Forests Act, 2005. However, the advent of the devolved governance after the promulgation of the new Constitution in August 2010 gave a new dimension to its implementation at local level. The concept of Participatory Forest Management as envisioned in the law should not be lost while reviewing it to be in line with the new constitutional dispensation. The ongoing review of the Forests Act 2005 must ensure that the role of local communities is strengthened with real and tangible benefits being included. The current state of things indicate low levels of national government commitment to natural resource devolution as stipulated in Fourth schedule of the constitution. We recommend broader consultation and faster legislation of Forest Conservation and Management (Amendment) bill of 2014 and Implementation of Senate Recommendations on Natural Resources and Environment to fully empower local communities, improve livelihoods and county economies.

Introduction The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of Participatory Forest Management, the progress, trends and constraints under devolved system of governance. Local involvement occurs in diverse forms but broadly encompassed by the term “Participatory Forest Management”. This paper is based on documents, publications, policy documents, legislation and the author’s own experience. It generally conclusive that PFM is significant route towards securing and sustaining forests as well as improving local livelihoods a view that can be supported by the number of community forest association (CFA) formed in nearly all state forests in Kenya.

84 However formal co-management requires Participatory Forest Management plan as stated in section 35(1) of the Forest Act, 2005 a legal requirement a number of CFAs are struggling with due to resources needed, time taken before approval, denying the local communities real and tangible benefits. As of February 2012, more than 350 management plans had been submitted for review to the KFS, while less than 50 had been approved. Approval in several cases has taken over a year, attributable by knowledgeable informants to shortage of staff in KFS to review the plans. Moreover, the 2005 Forests Act gives the Director of KFS the power to revoke plan approval for any reason (Section 48 (5)). KFS has not undertaken the range of internal policy, staffing and training reforms necessary to effectively support implementation of the rights devolution provisions of the 2005 forest reform(Lawry et al. 2012). Its noteworthy to state that efforts to promote popular participation in forest management in Sub Saharan Africa have faced many obstacles and disappointments (RIBOT et al. 2010). The process of devolution of resource management involves programs that shift responsibility and authority from the state to County government “rolling back the boundaries of the state.” The promulgation of the Constitution in 2010 empowers local communities through devolution of resources to the county governments, a position that the national government is not ready to implement. Kenya Forest Service Director issued a circular titled “the role and functions of Kenya forest Service (KFS) under the devolved government system,” which gave instructions aimed at informing all decisions to be made by all public forest resource managers, technicians and professionals concerning forest resource management at the county and national government, a view that contradicts the spirit and letter of the constitution.

Policy Analysis The paradigm shift in resource management as envisioned in the Forests Act, 2005 was a welcomed legislation in Kenya; however its full implementation was curtailed by the lack of an updated forest policy. To date, the forest policy 2007 is still a draft, meaning the forest policy of 1968 is still in force. At the core of the Act is sustainable resource management, poverty alleviation through community and stakeholder participation. However the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya in 2010, further unbundled the management of various strategic resources under the fourth schedule part 2 paragaph.10. introducing devolved system where county governments are to be involved in implementation of specific national government policies on natural resources and environmental conservation, including and not limited to; a) Soil and water conservation; and b) Forestry. It’s imperative that resource utilization and management be sustainably used as stipulated under Article 69.(1) The State shall—Ensure sustainable exploitation, utilization, management and conservation of the environment and natural resources, and ensure the equitable sharing of the accruing benefits; a task that can be implemented prudently by the county governments as provided for under Article 174. The objects of the devolution of government are—(g) To ensure equitable sharing of national and local resources throughout Kenya

Opportunities for PFM in a devolved structure Forest management underwent drastic transformation from the previous command and control management to new concept community participation through formation of community forest associations. Section 46(1) of the Forests Act, 2005 states: “A member of a forest community may, together with other members or persons resident in the same area, register a community forest association under the Societies Act.” A platform that allows for co-management of state or local authority forests as detailed in Section 46(2) of the Forests Act, 2005 which states: “An association registered under subsection (1) may apply to the Director for permission to participate in the conservation and management of a state forest or local authority forest in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” However for prudent utilization and management the laws stipulate as detailed in section 35(1) of the Forests Act, 2005 which states: “Every state forest, local authority forest and provisional forest shall be managed in accordance with a management plan that complies with the requirements pre-scribed by rules made under this Act. This management tool empowers the community to legally manage and share benefits as provided for in Section 47(1) of the Forests Act, 2005 which states:

85 That an Associations approved by the Director under section 46 to participate in the management or conservation of a forest or part of such forest shall- (a) Protect, conserve and manage such forest or part thereof pursuant to an approved management agreement entered into under this Act and the provisions of the management plan for the forest; (b) Formulate and implement forest programmes consistent with the traditional forest user rights of the community concerned in accordance with sustainable use criteria; (c) Protect sacred groves and protected trees; (d) Assist the Service in enforcing the provisions of this Act and any rules and regulations made pursuant thereto, in particular in relation to illegal harvesting of forest produce; (e) With the approval of the Board enter into partnerships with other persons for the purposes of ensuring the efficient and sustainable conservation and management of forests; (f) Keep the Service informed of any developments, changes and occurrences within the forest which are critical for the conservation of biodiversity; (g) Help in fire fighting; and (h) Do any other act that is necessary for the efficient conservation and management of the forest.

The above detailed processes and legal requirements for participatory forest resource management seem to be inconsistent with the constitution. It’s recommended that the Forest Conservation and Management Bill 2014 be reviewed to incorporate the views of the county governments. County governments have the capacity to handle the administration of forests as presented by the findings of the Senate Committee on the hearings of the transfer of functions by the National Government to the County Governments. The county governments “proximity” to the local forest communities enhanced speedy consultation and decision making a recipe for efficient and prudent management of forest resources in Kenya.

Development and operationalization of Participatory Forest Management plans (PFMPs) requires resources and this can be allocated by the county government.

Conclusion and recommendation With the realization of the shortcomings in the Forest Act of 2005 after the promulgation of the new constitution, we recommend 1. Broader consultation for the proposed Forest Conservation and Management (Amendment) Bill of 2014 2. Hasten the legislation and implementation of proposed Forest Conservation and Management (Amendment) bill of 2014 3. Implement Senate Recommendations on Natural Resources and Environment which were presented as follows; • Forests - The function should be clearly unbundled, and the National government should identify and schedule the specific policies on Natural resources and Environmental conservation such as forestry which the county government should implement. Once scheduled, these policies should accordingly be devolved to the County governments for implementation. 4. Implement County Executive Committee Forum on Environment and Natural Resources memorandum presented to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources. 5. Transition Authority should devolve all the functions relating to forest as recommended by the senate and other stakeholders. 6. The registration of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) should be devolved to the County level 7. Creation of county forest conservation and management funds 8. All county governments to include forest resources in County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP)

86 References Alden, W.L. and S. Mbaya. (2001). Land, people and forests in eastern and southern Africa at the beginning of the 21st century. The impact of land relations on the role of communities in forest future. Nairobi

Brendler, T. and H. Carey. (1998). Community forestry, defined

Matiku P, Caleb M, Callistus O. The Impact of Participatory Forest Management on Local Community Livelihoods in the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya

Lawry, S., R. McLain, B. Swallow, and Kelly Biedenweg. (2012). Devolution of forest rights and sustainable forest management volume 1: a review of policies and programs in 16 developing countries United States Agency for International Development.

Laws of Kenya. The Constitution of Kenya. (Revised Edition 2010). Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General. Retrieved from www.Kenyalaw.org on 14, November 2014.Government of Kenya. (2005). Forests Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer US Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Community-based environmental protection: a resource book for protecting ecosystems and communities. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.

RIBOT, J. C., J. F. LUND, and T. TREUE. (2010). Democratic decentralization in sub-Saharan Africa: its contribution to forest management, livelihoods, and enfranchisement.

87 4.6 Emerging Plenary Issues Concerns about how the county governments are utilising the funds allocated to them. Also some of the governors might destroy the forests once they are devolved to counties: There are a number of challenges in the utilisation of funds allocated to county government. However, this is not happening in all the counties as reports indicate that majority of counties are utilising their monies efficiently. Both national and county governments in the process of setting up mechanisms aimed at closing loopholes that lead to loss of public funds. For the case of forest devolution, the current checks and balances make it impossible for anyone including county governments to misuse forest resources as was the case in the past.

Most of the chief executive officers and other top county representatives in charge of environment and natural resources do not understand forestry issues: True that there is limited capacity among some chief executive officers and other top county representatives in charge of environment and natural resources, but this is bound to change with time due to capacity building.

Concerns from the herbal medicine group on how to build their capacity and change people’s attitude towards them: There is a chance for public private sector partnerships with key stakeholders such as herbal medicine groups. Of late, most counties have had a lot of interest on alternative medicine.

How do we manage high community expectations? Need for sustained awareness and empowering the entire CFA membership as opposed to current initiatives where mostly committee members and management are well versed with all the issues. Some of the CFAs including Gathiuru and Mucheene CFAs have made huge progress in building the membership capacity thereby managing their expectations.

Level of involvement of KFS foresters during county budget planning: Before embarking on annual budget preparations, all counties have been asking key stakeholders (through print and electronic media) including communities to present their comments on the same. This is in line with the constitution and the county government laws. This is a good change for KFS officers to participate and voice their opinion on the budgets.

All counties are coming up with county integrated development plans (CIDP). The CIDP is a public document whose development is undertaken by all stakeholders within the county. This document can also be amended whenever necessary. KFS officers are also at liberty to be part of this process and ensure forestry issues are well captured.

Actualisation of value addition by KEFRI: KEFRI has been undertaking a lot of research on value addition on both trees and NTFPs. Since KEFRI is a research institution the expectation has been that the private sector picks up such research findings. In some instances, such as bamboo production and utilisation, this has been well received by the private sector and local communities. From KEFRI’s experience, there is a lot of potential for value addition for forest products within the Kenyan drylands including gum and resins.

What is the rationale by county governments starting new tree nurseries instead of supporting the already existing ones? Most county governments are supporting existing tree nursery groups by providing financial support as well as purchasing seedlings from such groups. For instance, Nandi county government will be planting 1 million seedlings which will be sourced from CFAs within the county.

Involvement of CFA related saw milling companies in forest harvesting: Even though CFAs have formed saw milling companies to bid for timber pre-qualification within gazetted forests, there is little evidence to show that they have been awarded/given preference during awarding of such tenders by KFS.

Putting in place a standard detailed biodiversity monitoring system: Such as system will be very key, there is need for KEFRI and other institutions including NMK, KFS, KWS etc. partnering on the same.

88 Further requirement by CFAs who already have a signed FMA to sign an agreement before engaging in carbon/REDD activities: Further agreements are needed before CFAs engage in carbon due to the complexity of the process. CFAs should strive to ensure that such agreements are in their favour.

Carbon/REDD lessons and experiences can be shared by groups from Mt. Kenya: At the moment REDD/ carbon in Kenya are still voluntary, thus few initiatives have been started. This can provide the much needed lessons before finalisation of the necessary tools/procedures (REDD+ readiness) needed for rolling out of the process.

Lack of definition of benefits/incentives in the new bill: There are a number of incentives proposed in the Forest Bill 2014, with room for improvements before and after its enactment.

Low engagements of private sector such as tea companies who are biggest consumers of fuelwood: Very appreciative of the work being undertaken by tea companies in Nyandarua county. Close to 14 tea companies have invested in the establishment of wood lots for fuelwood.

Lake Olbolossat in Nyandarua County is dwindling: An integrated management plan for Olobolossat is being developed and sensitization events like marathon are taking place to emphasise on the importance of conservation. Rehabilitation of the ecosystem through bamboo and tree planting is taking place in forests and farm lands.

Some of the lessons learnt in conflict management the technical interventions: Regular meetings and evaluation have been taking place including exposure tours to other counties. In some areas CFAs have formed conflict resolution and management committees.

Lots of experiences from CFAs especially on the forest bill, PFMPs, with the main issue being lack of goodwill to implement PFM: Need to come up with a formula on enforcing what has been agreed on between KFS and CFAs for easier implementation.

Promoting farm forestry: Most of the interventions within PFMPs are on farms surrounding the forests. This helps to reduce pressure on forest resources. This is a good opportunity for community members to engage in farm forestry.

KFS benefits more from the relationship between itself and CFAs:From experience CFAs are also benefiting from activities being undertaken in the forest. KFS is in the process of developing contracts for engaging with CFAs on silvicultural operations so as to ensure that they are paid when engaged for such work.

Is KFS approving PFMPs without all due diligence of reviewing them? Is it a formality to increase the number of approved PFMPs (performance evaluation) and not approving actual effective and operational plan? PFM guidelines are being reviewed and issues raised in the process will be integrated. In addition KFS is identifying weaknesses in PFMPs.

How CFAs can avoid the “template effect” to prepare plans that capture the uniqueness of our forests: This is a major concern from all stakeholders. CFAs should ensure they read through their PFMPs and approve the content before adapting PFMPs.

89 5.0 COST BENEFITS IN PFM

Session Chair: Dr. Paul Matiku

Papers Presented 1. Keynote Paper on costs and benefit sharing in a Participatory Forest Management framework by J.K. Ndambiri 2. Livelihood impacts of decentralised forest management: Empirical evidence from Sururu and Eburru Forest, Kenya By Jane Mutune, Jens Friss Lund, Raphael Wahome, David Munga 3. Forest Based Income Generating Potential (IGP), high community expectations amidst low community transformation; an analysis of PFM implementation between 2005 and 2013 by Thuita Thenya. 4. Payment for environmental services as additional incentive to forest conservation: status in and opportunities in Kenya By Joram Kagombe, Alfred Gichu, Collins Handa and Jane Wamboi 5. Cost and benefits sharing in Participatory Forest Management by David Maingi

5.1 Keynote Paper: Costs and benefit sharing in a Participatory Forest Management framework

By J.K. Ndambiri49

INTRODUCTION Participatory Forest Management (PFM) refers to processes and mechanisms which enable people with a direct stake in forest resource to be part of decision making in all aspects of forest management including policy formulation processes The core objective of PFM is to improve management of forest resources in ways that maximize benefits to all stakeholders particularly alleviating poverty among communities living adjacent or within the forests. Through PFM there is increased strengthening of local ownership and control for forest resources thereby reducing conflicts over forest use and management among all the stakeholders.

Concerns about deforestation and population growth have continued to exert pressure on forest resources, and the imbalance of authority and decision making in forest management has complicated the rights and benefits of different communities living in and adjacent to forest ecosystems.

Among the wider non-financial, ecological benefits in a PFM framework include (a) Improved management of forest resources in ways that maximize benefits to all stakeholders, particularly alleviation of poverty through improved livelihood among communities living near and within forests. (b) Increased local ownership, control, access, rights and responsibility for forest resources management, thus reducing conflicts over forest use and management. (c) Increased support for the forestry sector through engagement with a wider group of stakeholders – both inside and outside government - and involving them directly in planning and implementation of policies. (d) Vibrant multi-stakeholder platforms as a mechanism for enhanced participation of key stakeholders, improved coordination and stronger partnerships in forestry policy development and implementation. (e) International recognition of sustainability of forests where all are involved thus fulfilling international conventions and obligations.

RATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR BENEFITS IN A PFM FRAMEWORK (a) Over dependence of adjacent forest communities on forests: Studies done in Arabuko Sokoke forest by Matiku et al, (2013) indicated that households living adjacent to the forest depend on the forest for their daily subsistence in one form or another. This reliance of local people on the forest indicates an obvious link between the livelihoods of forest-adjacent households and forest resources,

90 which unless well checked could go against forest conservation objectives. Extraction of resources by local people should be maintained at sustainable levels in order to lead to sustainable human well-being as described by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and Scoones’ Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (1998).

In-situ Benefits The main forest benefits derived by local communities from forest ecosystems can be classified intotwo categories: i. Non-extractive Benefits that include climate amelioration, ecotourism, water, disease regulation, spiritual, aesthetic, recreation, and education, support to primary production functions as well as soil stabilization. ii. Extractive Benefits include removal of timber, firewood, non-timber forest products grass cutting all of which must be balanced so that all stakeholders benefit equitably.

Ex-situ Forest Benefits This is extra benefits that households receive from PFM investment in the form of training on sustainable living, incomes from nature-based enterprises, trees planted together with food crops (on-farm woodlots) that provide incomes through sale of poles and fuel wood, on farm nature based enterprises like silkworm rearing, butterfly farming, and value-addition of herbal medicine. It was noted in Arabuko Sokoke forest that in PFM zones households’ annual net incomes were higher compared to non-PFM zones households (Matiku et al, 2013).

(b) Costs incurred in Management Studies done during preparation of Kenya Forest Master Plan (1994) showed that indigenous forests incur a range of costs, including the direct costs of management as well as non-management costs incurred by local people due to the existence of forests. Other costs associated with PFM (Allaway and Cox, 1989; Thomson and Ochieng, 1993 and Emerton 1995a), is that the presence of forests incurs costs to the local population through the damage they suffer from forest dwelling-animals as well as risks associated with forest poachers, robbers who use forests as hideouts. The value local people attach to forest conservation and their support for forest conservation objectives is largely dependent on the balance between cost and benefits.

A study done by Sinclair et al., (2011) showed that supporting school fees for poor households adjacent to Arabuko Sokoke Forest was considered a higher benefit than individual benefit. This helped improve household attitudes towards the forest. Such forest protection by the local people would be expected to enhance resources available for their own access and use.

In Shimba Hills National Reserve, which contains about 700 hectares of indigenous forest, communities claimed a total of USD 45,000 in 1987-1988 as compensation for the damage caused to their crops by wildlife (Thomson and Ochieng 1993). In the area around the Aberdares forest, an estimated 36% of adjacent households lost crops to wildlife in 1991, and 61% suffered damage to fences and farm buildings (KIFCON 1992). Households living on the south-western side of Mount Kenya Reserve regularly suffered crop damage from wild animals, and lost between 50% and 83% of their harvest in 1993 (Thomson 1993). In all these cases, households were estimated to have suffered substantial financial losses as a result of wild animal damage.

Despite electric fences being constructed in some of the forest blocks in the country communities may not always see the fence as benefits as it on one hand prevents the wild animals from destroying crops on their farms but on the other hand it restricts access to the forest. This is a typical scenario of real life situations where people worry about costs and care for their immediate basic needs regardless of whether their neighbours are in a worse situation or not. The general conclusion and feeling among communities is that the household daily income from PFM is still too small to make forest-adjacent households choose to conserve the forest for its national and global ecosystem values

Jane Mutune1, Jens Friss Lund2, Raphael Wahome1, David Mungai1 1University of Nairobi; 2University of Copenhagen P.O. 1718-00100 GPO, Nairobi Correspondence author: [email protected]

91 It has been noted that households would only support forest conservation if they are unaware of the impact of forest costs on their livelihoods or if the forest is forcefully protected by the government. Therefore for people to make the choice to conserve the forest, conservation measures should be accompanied by livelihood improvement initiatives.

CONCLUSION Participatory Forest Management and associated investments enhance local peoples’ livelihoods. With substantial financial investment for capacity-building, joint management, income generating activities, and education and awareness, it is possible for forest managers to enhance household support for forest conservation through alternative household livelihood improvement options.

Ecosystem values should however be seen beyond provision of services to the local community. There is a need to assess the ways in which local people are culturally dependent on the forest and if they are willing to keep the forest just for cultural, education, and aesthetic values. Current results cast doubts about any likelihood of people choosing to keep the forest at the expense of their immediate household basic needs. As forest ecosystem services accrue beyond the borders of the forest, and as noted households next to the forest incur the highest cost of keeping the forest, it follows logically that the national and global community should help offset the costs for the most affected households adjacent to our forests. This support to local people can take the form of PFM initiatives that are fully implemented and involve all of the communities surrounding the forest. This would not only enhance household forest-linked benefits but also ensure that local people are made aware of forest ecosystem services that are beyond their immediate day-to-day needs for food, water, health, and materials for shelter. However, the financial resources involved are huge and largely come from outside government sources hence need for Government to develop necessary policy frameworks for accrued benefit and cost sharing mechanisms as envisaged in our constitution.

5.2 Preliminary Analysis on Livelihood Impacts of Decentralised Forest Management: Empirical Evidence from Sururu and Eburu Forests, Kenya

Abstract This paper analyses how PFM, after controlling pre-PFM differences, affects livelihoods of households living adjacent to Sururu and Eburu forests. Household data were collected from 286 randomly selected households. Data were analysed using propensity score matching models. Results revealed that PFM had a positive impact on CFA member households that experienced higher forest, beekeeping and tree nursery income than non- members households. The direct PFM benefits were experienced at CFA participation level mostly by the middle class. As a result the very rich and the poor who did not participate in CFA because of the CFA membership structure experienced less positive impacts of PFM. Before and after scoring method results showed that forest incomes of non-member households had decreased particularly among the poor households attributed to increased forest policing by CFA scouts and KFS officers. Thus under PFM the poor harvested less of forest products, than they would have otherwise done, from fear of financial sanctions. CFA members in Sururu with more donor support experienced more positive PFM impact than those of Eburu who held approved management plans and agreement. CFA member households associated PFM to improved ownership of physical assets such as beehives, water tanks and fish ponds besides improved social relations, financial capability and natural capital base. Under PFM implementation about 79% and 47% of the CFA members and non-member households respectively had enhanced training on income generating activities. The Kenya Forest Service absolutely controlled decision makings and access to forest resources contrary to CFA members’ expectations. Thus when properly institutionalised the findings indicate that PFM can improve rural livelihoods and thus reaching that part of its objective. Based on our findings we recommend PFM scaling up approaches and capacity building among the CFA so as to allow members participate in forest rules and decision making for improved rural livelihoods and development.

92 1.0 Introduction Ten to twelve per cent of the world’s natural forests are officially managed with some degree of popular participation, which is also the case in at least 21 sub-Saharan African countries promoting participatory approaches to natural resources management through Participatory Forest Management (Sunderlin et al. 2008).

In some of these cases, the changes in rights to manage forests seem to enable improved forest management (Blomley et al., 2008; 2010; Takahashi and Todo, 2012;), whereas the picture appears more mixed with regards to livelihood impacts (Topp-Jørgensen et al., 2005; Maharjan et al., 2009; Sikor and Nguyen, 2007; Lund and Treue 2008; Larson et al., 2007; Matiku et al., 2013; Ameha et al., 2013). Yet, the evidence based on livelihood impacts of participatory forestry is geographically biased towards more studies from South Asia, notably Nepal and India. This is problematic, given that the large differences in society and nature, as well as the models of participatory forestry, between Asia and Africa inhibit the drawing of lessons from one context to the other. In Africa, there is an emerging literature on livelihood impacts from Tanzania (Vyamana et al., 2009; Pfliegner 2011 ) but the model of participatory forestry there differs from, among others, Kenya, as it is based on the village jurisdiction, as opposed to membership of an association.

The introduction of PFM to Kenya was reported to improve forest condition and to some extent alleviate households’ poverty (Ogungo et al., 2007; Ogada, 2009; Mogoi et al., 2012). However, no analysis of the impact of PFM on livelihoods has been done. The limited studies that analyse the impact of PFM on livelihood (e.g. Matiku et al., 2013) fail to trace the causal impact of PFM on livelihoods by accounting for rival explanations of observed outcomes. Thus, there is an empirical knowledge gap on the livelihood impacts of participatory forestry in Kenya. This paper seeks to address this knowledge gap. This study examined the socio-economic outcomes of members and non-members of Community-Forestry Associations (CFA). Specifically, the study sought to examine impact differences between CFA members and non-members residing within Sururu and Eburu forest areas.

2.0 Materials and Methods 2.1 Target population and sample size An assessment of livelihood impact was sought through a quasi-experimental approach based on recall information about assets and income in the years 2003 (before) and 2012 (after) for a sample of CFA and NCFA households. The years 2003 and 2012 represent normal production years in the area with no major events affecting the local economy.

A sample frame of all households in the areas was created with the help of local informants through household mapping. Sampling distinguished CFA and NCFA members in the study sites. 59 and 49 CFA members in Sururu and Eburu forest respectively were selected. Following the rule of thumb of quasi experiments, the twice as many NCFA were sampled; giving a total sample of 309 households. However, due to time and finance constraints 48 /44 CFA and 96 / 88 NCFA member households in Sururu and Eburu respectively were interviewed.

3.2 Data collection methods and instruments The household survey used pre-tested household level questionnaires administered through personal interview approach with the help of enumerators. The enumerators were trained for two days and, to minimize measurement errors, team interviews were conducted, for three days, with the aim to generate common understanding of the questions and approaches to interviewing (Lund et al., 2011). Contextual data was collected by observations, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and transect walks.

93 Initially a scoping study was undertaken using livelihood calendars to develop an understanding of local livelihoods, resource use pattern and issues of relevance to CFAs. Data were collected between year October 2013 and March 2014 from 286 households. The household interviews were done with the heads of households, who were allowed to engage in discussions and story–telling to better understand the questions as they provided answers. Household heads were allowed to consult other household members for information they could not clearly recall. Enumerators made call back where the household head was found absent but if the household head was not available, he/she was eventually replaced with the next household excluded from the sample. The study used basic necessity surveys (BNS) for participatory wealth ranking. Focus group discussions were held to develop a list of 25 items and services for BNS. During household interviews, “before and after” scoring methods with visual aid charts were also used to assess changes in incomes from diverse livelihood activities. This kind of tool is particularly useful in measuring impact of an intervention where baseline data is weak or non-existed (see Catley et al., year not indicated)

2.3 Data analysis Impact analysis was carried using STATA software 11, psmatch2 program developed by Leuven and Sianesi (2003). The probit models and t-test differences were also employed. Poverty index were computed for each household as poverty score divided by the maximum score.

2.4 Empirical Framework The main goal here was to estimate the average impact i.e. average effect of the treatment on the treated (ATT). ATT is defined as the difference between the expected value of the outcome by project participants while participating in the project and the expected value of outcome they would have received if they had not participated in the project. Following Heckman et al (1997) and Smith and Todd (2005):

ATT= E (Y1 - Y0 │P = 1) = E (Y1│P = 1) – E (Y0│P = 1) Equation 1 Where: ATT = average impact of treatment on treated; P = membership in CFA (P = 1 if members in CFA and P

= 0 otherwise); Y1 = outcome of participant, and Y0 = outcome of the same household if it had not participated in CFA.

However, we do not know what outcomes would have looked like if the household had not participated in CFA and we cannot observe outcomes of participation and non-participation for the same household hence missing data on the counter-factual. Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) developed the propensity score matching approach that is most commonly used in quasi experimental methods, to overcome the unobserved outcome

E (Y0│P = 1). Therefore the remedy was to identify non-CFA member households (NCFA) and use them as counter-factual. Thus propensity score matching was used to constructs a suitable counter-factual of NCFA participants that were similar to CFA participants in all relevant observable attributes that affect livelihood outcomes and CFA participation. Hence, the difference in the livelihood outcomes between matched CFA and NCFA member households was inferred as the impact of the CFA implementation.

2.4.1 Matching algorithm and quality Propensity score matching and difference in difference (DiD) were employed for estimation of impact. Through the combination of matching and DiD we were able to eliminate the time constant unobservable effects associated with matching (Smith and Todd, 2005). Comparison of the value of Pseudo R2 before and after matching in the probit model was used to check matching quality. In principle the Pseudo R2 indicates how well the regressors X explain the participation probability (Caliendo and Kopeinig, 2008).

94 Variables selected for matching were hypothesised to simultaneously affect the choice to participate in PFM and outcomes of PFM (Caliendo and Kopeinig, 2008). We selected the following: education, age, sex and group membership, household size, distance to forest, ownership of domestic animals, and land size and wealth class of household head. 3.0 Results and discussions 3.1 Socio-economic characteristics of CFA and NCFA members The matching process is preceded by specification of the propensity scores. The use of PSM and difference in difference method involved generation of the propensity scores (PS), from the probit model on explanatory variables e.g. age, household size, education level, land size. The scores indicate the probabilities of respective households being members of CFAs.

The probit model results for estimating propensity scores as a function of pre-PFM observed household socio- economic characteristics are presented as below. The model is statistically significant for both sites (P < 0.00), and pseudo- R2 values show that the equation explains 59% and 54% of the variation in the choice of whether to engage in PFM or not in Sururu and Eburu respectively. The propensity scores were computed as 0.0065, for both sites, implying that the average probability to participate in the CFA for all the households is 0.65%. In both sites the association to PFM participation is negatively related to sizes of agricultural land. But the mean difference of land allocated to trees was higher in Eburu than in Sururu. Analysis revealed that 65% of women in compared to 23% in Eburu relied on the public forest for firewood. CFA members in both sites however, had more forest incomes than their counterparts, primarily because of easy access to forest related opportunities such as wildlings collection, tree nurseries and bee-keeping. However, the NCFA members had significantly higher percentage share of wage income that helped them filling in the gap in forest income. Further, the CFA members had significantly higher proportion of domestic animals and tree nurseries than NCFA member households.

95 Table 1: Economic and demographic attributes of households in Sururu and Eburu forest Sururu n=142 Eburu n=132 Variable before PFM- 2003 Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value

Education of HHhead=1, 0.129(0.679) 0.849 0.652(0.53) 0.224 if attended formal school Sex of HHhead=1, 0.8021 (0.381) 0.035 -0.570(0.454) 0.209 if female Ethnicity of HHhead=1, 0.2299(0.34) 0.507 -1.114(0.440) 0.012 if Kikuyu Ownership of domestic 1.537(0.401)** 0.000 0.47(0.321) *** 0.0209 animals=1, if yes Group membership=1, 1.399(0.507)** 0.006 0.495(0.321)*** 0.104 if yes Owned tree nursery=1, 0.867(0.39)** 0.029 2.436(0.481)** 0.0000 if yes Household size in 0.116(0.085)*** 0.076 0.1787(0.081)** 0.028 numbers Distance to nearest forest -0.216(0.22) 0.326 -0.32(0.247) 0.497 edge, KM Agricultural land size in -0.337(0.132)** 0.011 -0.038(0.107)** 0.723 acres per AEU Percentage share of wage -0.019(0.01)** 0.059 -0.019(0.0097)** 0.045 income Percentage share forest 0.33(0.077)** 0.000 0.027(0.018)** 0.024 income

Poverty score -0.135(0.11)*** 0.221 -0.0029(0.0139)*** 0.833

Land size allocated to 0.598(1.09) 0.583 0.479(1.07) 0.657 trees in acres per AEU

Constant 3.28(0.50)** 0.939(1.4) 0.524

Pseudo R2 0.5920 0.537

Prob>chi2 0.000 0.000

LR Chi2 107.70 90.25

Log pseudo likelihood -36.99 -38.89

Note: dependent variable (participation) equals one if household participated in CFA and zero if otherwise. Robust standard errors are in parenthesis, ** and *** indicate statistical level at 5% and 1% respectively.

96 Thus the significant differences between CFA and NCFA members in both sites on a number of attributes before PFM indicate the need for matching to analyse livelihood impacts.

Furthermore, for matching to be undertaken any combination of characteristics observed in the treatment group should also be observed among the control group hence common support condition for CFA and NCFA households (Bryson et al., 2002). There were found to be an overlap of propensity scores for CFA and NCFA participants implying that all CFA and NCFA member households found suitable matches and thus the sample size did not reduce.

To this end, all the CFA members found matches among the NCFA member category and the bias in covariates among the two groups has been reduced, hence the significance of matching to compare the socio economic outcomes of CFA and NCFA members before and after implementation of PFM. This is presented in the section below.

3.5 Impact of PFM on livelihoods Table 2 belows depicts that forest formed an important source of households income besides crop, livestock, wage and salaried incomes.

The changes in household livelihoods were analysed based on the sustainable livelihood framework (Scoones, 1997). According to the framework if right policies are in place and stakeholders such as CFA members, KFS and private sector benefit equitably, then we experience improved livelihoods. Thus changes in livelihood attributable to PFM were analysed considering the changes in financial, social, natural, physical and human assets that determine the livelihood strategy led by a household. Table 2 below presents incomes of CFA and NCFA members before and after matching.

Table 2: Matching estimates per Adult Equivalent Units on average impact of Sururu and Eburu forest households Unmatched Matched Incomes, 2012 Difference Difference CFA NCFA CFA NCFA

Sururu n=142

Total net household 60,325 58,592 1,733 (30) 60,325 54,260 6,065** (72) income

Total net forest income 15,495 10,581 4,914** (85) 15,495 11,043 4,452**(109)

Total net tree nursery 1,564 949 615** (29) 1,564 921 643** (31) income

Total net bee-keeping 3,400 840 2,560*** (121) 3,400 1,040 2,360***(39) income

Total net forest 8,185 6,528 1,657 (105) 8,185 6,910 1,275(91) firewood income

Total net forest fodder 1,623 1,582 41(13) 1,623 1,494 129 (25) income

Building materials 723 682 41(13) 723 678 45(9)

97 Eburu n=132

Total net household 61,022 60,325 697 (20) 61,022 55,602 5,420(103) income

Total net forest income 10,535 6,889 3,646*** (38) 10,535 6,480 4,055***(45)

Total net tree nursery 726 257 469*** (48) 726 187 539***(83) income Total net bee-keeping 436 140 296**(32) 436 80 356**(25) income Total net forest 4,027 2,964 1,063(141) 4,027 2,463 1,564(58) firewood income Total net forest fodder 2,800 908 1,892*** (92) 2,800 1,690 1,110 (72) income

Building materials 1,327 1,560 -233 (23) 1,327 1,080 247 (54)

Charcoal 1,219 1,060 159 (12) 1,219 980 239 (47)

The impact due to implementation of PFM was both positive and negative depending on CFA membership and wealth class. In both of the sites CFA members had higher forest, tree nursery and beekeeping and total household incomes than the NCFA member households. But CFA member households in Sururu had more positive impact than those of Eburu. In Sururu and Eburu participation in CFA was found to have a significant positive impact on household forest income. Focus group discussion revealed that CFA members in forest user group had explored income generating activities (IGAs) such as dairy goat farming, fish farming, bee keeping, seeds and wildlings collection that households did not undertake before PFM implementation. However, analysis of CFA and NCFA member household incomes finds that the PFM programme success in creating economic incentives for livelihood support much depends on donor support than approval of management plans and agreements. Sururu CFA members despite lack of a management agreement by the time of the study experienced more improved forest, bee-keeping and tree nursery incomes compared to Eburu CFA members who had both approved management plan and agreement.

The donor institutions that were mentioned in Sururu included Green Zone Development Project and Kenya Commercial Bank Foundation that had supplied MASULICOFA members with 155 beehives and trained CFA members on honey value addition. In Eburu Imarisha Naivasha had given ECOFA members 40 beehives. Thus the significant increase in annual bee-keeping income is attributable to PFM because such benefits were derived by households upon active participation in CFA level. In Sururu, FGDs reported that bee-keeping had higher gross margin than crop production despite the latter being the prime livelihood activities in both study sites. Crop produce e.g. potatoes, carrots, maize and green peas prices were highly controlled by exploitative middlemen unlike bee-keeping where the CFA members had direct control of the market and collectively sold the harvested honey. Thus CFA members had shifted from crop production to bee-keeping and only undertook the crop production for subsistence purposes. Value addition on forest products is important to win maximum benefits. About 54% and 17% of CFA and NCFA member household respectively processed harvested honey. In effect, MASULICOFA members in KIFANUMA community based organisation were generating incomes on honey value addition from processed honey, milking salve, beeline and candles.

98 Tree seedlings particularly for indigenous trees were reported to have expanded with the implementation of PFM and were mainly donor driven. African Wildlife Foundation, Community Development Trust Fund, Yokohama University and Geothermal Development Company were supporting MASULICOFA members with rehabilitation of the forest. Green Belt Movement was the only organisation mentioned in Eburu helping in forest rehabilitation though its activities had existed in the area long before the coming of the PFM. The aforementioned institutions were purchasing indigenous seedlings from CFA members at a preferential price through the KFS i.e. Ksh 30 for CFA members and half of that for NCFA. The NCFA only got a chance to sell their seedling when the CFA members had exhausted their stock. However, the CFA members in Sururu had more positive impact on tree seedling incomes that those of Eburu. Sururu had more donor fund support for rehabilitation of the forest. During a transect walk in the forests it was observed that Sururu CFA members had rehabilitated the forest unlike in Eburu. Key informants reported that Sururu forest had been rehabilitated with more than 2 million seedlings all purchased by AWF through KFS from tree nursery forest user groups. For every seedling sold Ksh 2 is deducted for the CFA pooled fund that was reported to have been used in purchase of fingerlings. The CFA members provided most of the casual labour during rehabilitation paid at Ksh 350 that is higher than the normal daily wage of Ksh 250 in the same locality.

Moreover, all of the mentioned institutions offered training to the CFA members that was reported to enhance livelihood. The training were mainly in support of new IGA such as fish farming and expanding the existing IGAs such as tree nursery management and value addition on honey products. Consequently, when asked about training received in the last 12 months, about 79% and 47% of the CFA and NCFA members respectively had received training. The association between CFA membership and trainings received is strongly related 2 (Gamma, 0.57) and significant ( χ = 88.70, P=0.0000). Thus, PFM has had a positive effect for enhancement in human capital particularly among the CFA members’ hence enhanced livelihoods.

Further, the CFAs studied had written forest management rules but the rules were never implemented. Key informants and FGDs claimed that KFS had been holding back power from the CFAs. Consequently, the CFAs neither make decisions nor control use of the forest resources. This is contrary to the communities expectation that KFS approval of management plans and agreement would give the CFAs more powers to participate in making of rules that control and regulate the use of the forest for instance by imposing a levy on forest products. This was never the case in both sites. But in Eburu, the CFA had made a gentleman agreement with the station manager to levy an additional Ksh 20 on each forest products accessed. However, this was never implemented because the CFA lacked a written agreement and the unwillingness of the KFS to inform the community about the extra amount on forest products levied by the CFA. This finding implies that even under PFM the communities are left out in rule and decision making that highly affect their livelihoods thus the need to scale up PFM approaches.

During the survey the households were asked to give their own perceptions on the overall effect of CFA implementation on their household wellbeing. Table 5 below presents the findings on the same.

Table 4: Overall perception of CFA effect on household wellbeing by wealth class in 2012 CFA NCFA Wellbeing Effect Non-Poor (n=81) Poor (n=7) Non-Poor (n=160) Poor (n=23) Negative effect 2% 0% 4% 9% No effect 12% 17% 63% 50% Positive effect 86% 83% 32% 40%

Table 4 is based on respondents’ self-assessment of the impact of the introduction of CFAs on their overall wellbeing. The responses have been divided based on the wealth class of the household as measured by the Basic Necessity Survey with 2012 as reference year. Overall, the distribution of the answers indicates, not

99 surprisingly, that CFA members have a more positive evaluation of the impacts of the CFA than do NCFA members.

Some of the positive effect attributed to PFM by 28% of CFA members included enhanced human capital following training on IGA e.g. value addition on honey, peace keeping, CFA exchange visits, tours and attending seminars. Improved access to loans through table banking was also reported as a direct effect by 27% of CFA members. As a result members mentioned enhanced ability to educate children, installation of electricity power in homes, improved ability to access health care and ability to contribute to National Security Social Funds. About 23% of CFA members attributed PFM to acquisition of physical assets such as water tanks, energy saving jikos, dairy goats, and green-houses and butter nuts. In addition the Green Zone had supported the MASULICOFA members by drilling a borehole, excavated two fish ponds and installed two solar panels all managed at the group level. Social network an important component of livelihood was also mentioned to have improved by 22% of the CFA member respondents. Individuals from various ethnic groups form membership to CFAs and undertake income generating activities such as bee-keeping, value addition, attend exchange visits and seminars jointly. Thus PFM enhancing social relationships can be a good platform of reducing forest related conflicts particularly in a multi-ethnic setting as is the case in Sururu and Eburu.

Further, the average poverty scores (83.23%) among CFA members as well as Table 4, both measured by basic necessity survey, for wealth ranking, indicate that the CFA is mostly composed of the non-poor households. FGDs reported that the non-poor are mostly the middle class who can afford subscription fees and time to attend group related activities. FGD revealed that the very rich households want to gain direct CFA membership but the CFA structure does not allow them. Usually membership to CFA is through the community based organisations then to forest user groups in which members undertake group and individual level IGAs. Individual membership fee to the community based organisation ranges, membership to community based organisations ranges between Ksh 300 to 500 while that to forest user group is Ksh 100, but the CBO has the mandate to register its members to CFA at a fee of Ksh 5000. Following this, the poor were reported not to afford subscription fees as well as time to attend group meetings. Thus the very rich and the poor can be said to have experienced none of the benefits that come along with PFM. Thus no-effect response (Table 4) by majority of the NCFA member households is because most of the benefits that come along with PFM are experienced at CFA participation level. Usually, the subscription fees are the main financial sources of CFAs. The CFAs were anticipating KFS to share some of the proceeds from sale of forest products but The Forests Act 2005 and the management agreements are silent on benefit sharing yet this is an important aspect of rural livelihoods.

Further, results of ‘before and after scoring’ method shown in the table below indicate that in terms of impact, there was a slight but insignificant increase in incomes from crop production and remittances. Non-members focussed their livelihoods on crop and wage incomes, though wage income had reduced due to rules banning cultivation of crops in forest land.

Table 5: Average percentage share of household incomes before and after PFM for CFA and NCFA groups Before PFM (2003) After PFM (2012) Income source CFA (n=92) NCFA (n= 182) CFA (n=92) NCFA (n= 182) Crop production 30.48 32.18 34.23 36.25 Environmental products 27.3 19.86** 30.65 17.39** Livestock production 20.86 12.59 18.78 19.28 Casual labour/wage 11.35 27.85** 8.78 17.14** income Salaried 5.84 2.11 1.57 2.45 Business 4.26 4.46 3.04 5.23 Remittances 0.91 1.05 2.95 2.3

100 However, environmental income that included hunting, firewood, seed, wildling and medicinal herbs collection, charcoal burning and building materials had increased significantly among the CFAs than the NCFA. CFA members enjoyed preferential treatment from KFS and donor institutions besides exploring new IGAs such as seed and wildling collection, fish farming, tree nurseries and bee-keeping in the forest. About ten (10) CFA scouts had been trained by KFS and deployed in the smaller administrative units. However, increased forest community policing and mandatory use of KFS forest products permits had reduced open access to the forest. This was particularly true for poor households who were revealed during FGDs not to afford money to pay for the permits. Thus it may be the case that especially the poor households from fear of financial sanctions as placed by the Forests Act 2005 in Article 52, collect less than they could have otherwise done. Hence the environmental income of NCFA member households particularly the poor decreased because of the PFM implementation. These findings agree with those of Chhetri and Larsen (2012) that enforcement of forest laws in Nepalese forests may lead to the decrease in forest products harvested by the poor from fear of financial sanctions.

Conclusion and recommendations The study finds that CFA and NCFA households adjacent to Sururu and Eburu forests engaged in diverse livelihood strategies with crop, livestock, forest and casual labour being the major sources of household incomes.

PFM had both positive and negative impacts on rural livelihoods but depending on CFA membership and wealth class, however, participating in CFA has an effect of higher forest incomes particularly for larger households with smaller parcels of land and households with more female members. Even if PFM interventions have not led to a pattern of differential access to forest products except forest products supported by external funds, non-participating households particularly the poor households coupled with mandatory use of permits and tight forest policing experienced decreased forest incomes. Therefore, major implementors of the Forests Act 2005 mostly KFS and CFA should consider ways of involving such households if PFM is to meet its twin objectives.

CFA households had higher forest, tree nursery, beekeeping and total household incomes than the NCFA member households but Sururu CFA households, with more donor support, were better off. Thus PFM programme’s success in supporting livelihoods depends more on alternative income generating projects dependent on external funding than on participation in forest management through management plans and agreements per se.

The study found that PFM in Sururu and Eburu reflects oratory more than substance and is characterised by CFA being toothless and government in full control over the use, decisions and management of forest resources. Thus our case is synonymous to development interventions such as integrated community development projects more than PFM. Therefore there is need to empower the CFAs and scale up PFM approaches to make PFM an all-inclusive approach that not only involves community in labour provision opportunities but also in forest rules and decision makings that affect rural livelihoods.

References Ameha, A., Nielsen, O.J and Larsen, H.O. (2013). Impacts of access and benefit sharing on livelihoods and forest: Case of Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 97 (2014) 162–171 Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu E., Ahrends, A. and Burgess, N.D. (2008). Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of Participatory Forest Management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42:380–391. Caliendo, M., Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J. Econ. Surv. 22, 31–72. Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D and Suji, O. (2007). Participatory Impact Assessment a guide for Practitioners. Feinstein International Centre

101 Claro, R.M., Levy, R.M., Bandoni, D.H and Mondini, L. (2010). Per capita versus adult-equivalent estimates of calorie availability in household budget surveys. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 26(11):2188-2195 Davies. R and Smith. W (1997). The Basic Necessities Survey: The Experience of Action Aid Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: Action Aid Ellis, F. (2000). A Framework for livelihoods analysis. In F. Ellis (Ed.), Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferraro, P. J. (2009). Counter-factual Thinking and Impact Evaluation in Environmental Policy. In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental Program and Policy Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 75–84. Government of Kenya, GoK, (2005). The Forestt Act, 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: Government Printer. Koech, C.K., Ongugo P.O., Mbuvi, M.T.E. and Maua, J.O. (2009). Community Forest Associations in Kenya: Challenges and Opportunities. Kenya Forestry Research Institute Larson, A.M., Pacheco. P., Toni. F and Vallejo. M. (2007). The Effects of Forestry Decentralization on Access to Livelihood Assets. The Journal of Environment Development Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 251-268 Leuven, E., Sianesi, B., (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity scorematching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Stat. Softw. Components S432001. Lund, J. F. and Treue, T. (2008). Are We Getting There? Evidence of Decentralized Forest Management from the Tanzanian Miombo Woodlands. World Development 3612:2780-2800. Lund, J.F., S. Shackleton and M. Luckert. (2011). Getting Quality Data. pp. 175-191. In: Angelsen, A., H. O. Larsen, J.F. Lund, C. Smith-Hall and S. Wunder (eds.) 2011. Measuring Livelihoods and Environmental Dependence: Methods for Research and Fieldwork. Earthscan. Lund, J.F., N.D. Burgess, S. Chamshama, K. Dons, J. Isango, G. Kajembe, H. Meilby, F. Moyo, Y. Ngaga, S. Ngowi, M. Njana, K. Skeie, I. Theilade and T. Treue. (2014). Mixed methods approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation policies: evidence from decentralized forest management in Tanzania. Environmental Conservation. Forthcoming. Maharjan, M.R., Dhakal, T.R., Thapa, S.K., Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C. (2009). Improving the benefits to the poor from community forestry in the Churia region of Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 11, 254–267. Matiku, P., Caleb, M., Callistus, O. (2013). The Impact of Participatory Forest Management on Local Community Livelihoods in the Arabuko‑Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Conservation and Society 11(2): 112- 129, 2013

Mugo. E., Nyandiga. C and Gachanja. M. 2010. Development of Forestry in Kenya (1900-2007): Challenges and Lessons Learnt. Kenya Forestry Working Group, Kenya. Mogoi, J., Obonyo, E., Ongugo, P., Oeba, V and Mwangi, E. (2012). Communities, Property Rights and Forest Decentralisation in Kenya: Early Lessons from Participatory Forestry Management. Conservat Soc 2012; 10; 182-94

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resource, (2007). Participation in Sustainable Forest Management. 2007 draft rules and guideline. MENR 2005. The Forests Act 2005

Ogada, M. J. (2012). Forest Management Decentralization in Kenya: Effects on Household Farm Forestry Decisions in Kakamega. International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, 18-24 August, 2012.

102 Ongugo, P. (2007). Participatory Forest Management in Kenya: Is There Anything for the Poor? Proceedings: International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests, Bangkok, September 2007.

Ongugo, P.O., Mogoi, J.N., Obonyo. E. and Oeba, V.O. (2008). Examining the roles of community forest associations in the decentralization process of Kenyan forests. Paper presented to the IASC conference 11-19th July 2008, England.

Pfliegner, K. (2011). The Impacts of Joint Forest Management on Forest Condition, Livelihoods and Governance: Case studies from Morogoro Region in Tanzania. PhD Thesis. University of East Anglia, School of International Development, UK.

Ravallion, M. (2006). Evaluating Anti-Poverty Programs. Policy Research Working Paper 3625. Washington DC: World Bank, Development Economics Research Group. Rosenbaum, P. and

Rubin, D. (1983). The Central Role of the Propensity Score Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55

Ribot, J.C.(2003). Democratic Decentralisation of Natural Resources: Institutional Choice and Discretionary Power Transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development 23, 53–65 (2003).

Schlager, E. & E. Ostrom (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), pp. 249-262.

Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihood Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72.

Sikor, T and Nguyen. (2007). Why May Forest Devolution Not Benefit the Rural Poor? Forest Entitlements in Vietnam’s Central Highlands. World Development Vol. 35, No. 11, pp. 2010–2025, Elsevier Ltd.

Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J. and Liddle, M. (2008). From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. Washington, DC, USA: Rights and Resources Initiative.Smith, J.A., Todd, P.E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of non-experimental estimators? J. Econ. 125, 305– 353.

Takahashi, R., Todo, Y. (2012). Impact of Community-based forest management on forest protection: evidence from an aid-funded project in Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 50, 396–404.

Thenya, T., E. Nahama, and B. Wandago. (2007). Participatory Forest Management Experience in Kenya (1996-2006). Proceedings of the 1st National Participatory Forest Management Conference, 6-8 June 2007. Nairobi, Kenya.

Thoms, C.A. (2008). Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39, 1452–1465.

Topp-Jørgensen, E., Poulsen, M.K., Lund, J.F. and Massao, J.F. (2005). Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands in Iringa District, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:2653-2677. Vyamana, V.G. (2009). Participatory Forest Management in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania: who benefits? International Forestry Review 11:239-253. United Nations Environmental Programme and Kenya Forest Working Group. (2006). Eastern Mau and South West Mau Forest Reserves. Assessment and way forward.

103 5.3 Forest Based Income Generating Potential (IGP) high community expectations amidst low community transformation; an analysis of PFM implementation between 2005 and 2013

By T. Thenya, PhD 50

Abstract Kenya forest ecosystems both natural and plantation forests are endowed with a wealth of resources that contribute immensely to the national economic development including sustenance of local community. By analysing socio-economic reports on various forests and PFMPs developed between 2005 and 2013, sizeable IGP have not been realised by Community Forest Associations (CFAs). It is notable that several factors identified and necessary for development of these sites have had no impact. Neither has the proximity of major recreation areas been a driver for IGP such as is the case of Mt Kenya PFM sites. The management of PFM sites under County government have also not had any noticeable impact as is the case of Maasai Mau. In some sites the development of business plans, signing of Forest Management Agreements did not manage to take IGP to the desired level. The failure leaves the CFAs in the same status prior to the implementation of PFM in spite of huge resources invested in mapping and detailing resources potential. CFAs stakeholder’s composition and members catchment (private, business and professionals) is the main obstacle to enabling exploitation of forest ecosystems potential. The CFAs have failed to tap on the potential of skills within the wider community from the same locality, remaining by default localised and closed units. This scenario begs for a change of implementation approach to safeguard community interest and their involvement in PFM as well as enhance forest conservation.

Introduction Tropical forests provide distinct, yet often overlooked contributions to rural livelihoods (Angelsen & Wunder, 2003; Sunderlin et al., 2005; Kaimowitz & Sheil, 2007; Chhatre & Agrawal, 2009), which must be analyzed within the broader context of regional economic development according to Duchelle, et al. (2014). For example an important activity of community forestry in Nepal is income generation. Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) generate income from various sources such as the sale of forest products, membership fees, and fines from rule violators. The income generated is not shared with the government; instead, it accumulates in the CFUG funds. The traditional approach has been to target tree growing in form of plantation as major source of income. In Kenya this is limited by ecological status with major forest areas being water sources, which is highly inadequate.

Introduction of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) in Kenya involving wide stakeholders in forestry was meant to improve management, reduce destruction and improve livelihoods. The paradigm shift was formally introduced in Kenya in 2005 following enactment of the Forests Act 2005 (Thenya et al., 2008). Although communities had been involved informally in forest management, the momentum picked with enactment of legislation to facilitate their involvement. This paradigm shift brought a new focus on forest resources in addition to firewood, grazing/forage, herbal and water. One of the interests that has been growing in communities is engagement in recreation with high expectations as a way of diversifying their livelihood and income sources but with little success.

Methodology The study took an exploratory research, qualitatively analysing documents used in the preparation of management plan. Sites selection took care of eco-climatic zone of the forest, proximity to high population, urban development and tourists attraction. The first was socio-economic reports generated during the preparation of management plans, which are the basis for identifying opportunities and contained characteristic features of community forest association. Various parameters were comparatively analysed from CFA organisation and genesis, literacy level of the community, income sources, forest use preference, forest threats, time since PFMP was completed, biodiversity component, tourism attraction features, income generation potential (IGP) not developed, constrains to IGP from community perspectives. This was followed by analysis of zonation report and finally the Participatory Forest Management plan (PFMP).

104 Results and Discussion Various Participatory Forest Management plans (PFMPs) were analysed, these included Iveti (2011 – 2016), Upper Imenti (2009-2014) and Kahurura-Nanyuki (2011-2015). KFS (2012) report indicated almost similar characteristic features of PFM across the sites. Iveti forest is located within the urban area of Machakos, which is fast expanding as part of Nairobi metropolitan. These forests ecosystem have a combination of plantation forest and natural forest in varying proportions Iveti 364.07 ha with 260.35 ha, as plantation; Upper imenti 13904.27ha with 1,085.3 ha, plantation; Kahurura-Nanyuki -9,854.6 ha Plantation 1227.38 ha. Upper Imenti forest is located within the Meru urban area, with the forest bordering Meru-Nanyuki road, within the Mt Kenya ecosystem a major tourist attraction in Kenya. While Kahurura-Nanyuki forest is again a short distance from Nanyuki town, in Mt Kenya ecosystem along the busy tourist northern corridors. It is also within fast expanding Nanyuki town with several tourist attractions. Apart from the tourist facilities in Mount Kenya, most of the other conveniently accessible tourist sites are located in the north, towards Nanyuki include Naro Moru lodge, Bantu, Sportman Arms, Ol Pajeta and Sweet Waters, which are along the Nanyuki- Nairobi road. There are two airstrips close to Nanyuki. These are Nyeri and Nanyuki. This emphasizes the characteristics geo- location features that would be expected to enable them to tap the potential of the population and infrastructural features.

Community organisation and formation is important in attracting investors and other stakeholders, where it is receptive or structured in a way to easily accommodate new entrants. The structural design of the CFA is such that it starts from household level from where user groups are formed, which in turn forms legal entities in the name of community based organisations (CBOs). It is from these CBOs that representation to the CFA is drawn (fig.1). In some instances like in the case of Iveti and Upper Imenti the CBOs are drawn from nine organisations based on buffer zones that are laid out in geographical space, which is a common trend in most CBOs. This ensures that all the administrative units around the forest are taken care of. It is notable that this makes the CFA a structurally grass root organisations and initially locks out other stakeholders at this stage, who might be business people, local professionals and organisations.

IVET HILL CFA Figure 1: Model CFA Structure PACT Kenya & The first structural weakness is imbedded in the other NGOs/CEF organisation, which creates an inherent weakness. Other potential stakeholders would join the CFA as special 9 Buffer Zones-BZC Gs groups with no grassroot representation based on this structure. For examples, business people or professional for expresses interest are invited as advisor and remain so, User gmuns meaning the CFA remains the same. Injection of expertise in organisations often acts as accelerators of the growth, Individual since they bring with them new knowledge while running the risk of re-organising the organisation, which is what the CFAs fear most.

It is notable that the formation of several CFAs was as a response to forest destruction as was the case of Upper Imenti forest, Rumuruti forest among others (Thenya, 2006). At the same time the agitation for management regime change in forest management was as a response to forest destruction rather than need for creation of income generation. This need required grass root communities that would pay close watch to the happenings in the forest and create a buffer for outsiders keen on forest exploitation.

A focus on the literacy level of the community and income sources and preference of forest use sheds a clearer picture of the community structure that connects with the CFA formations. According to the socio-economic survey conducted in Iveti in 2010, Upper Imenti in 2006 and Kahurura in 2011 the local community is largely dominated by primary and secondary school level (fig. 2).

105

Iveti Upper Imenti Kahurura 120 100 80 Figure 2: Literacy 60 level in selected 40 Percentage forest Ecosystem 20 0 None Primary Secondary College Non response Literacy Level

It is well known that when people get education they move out of rural areas in Kenya in search of jobs and improved livelihood, filtering literacy levels. This acts again as a bottle neck for the community indicating reduced capacity to handle demand or complexity of use beyond the normal forest use of firewood and grazing. Would the change of CFA composition be able to accommodate the new demand and help transform the expectations?

Livelihood and Forest Preferential Use A look at the livelihood support and income sources points to the stagnation of the community and the need to re-examine the current CFA composition and approach in forest management. For example, in Iveti forest the main source of livelihood according to 2010 socio-economic was crop farming (88%), livestock rearing (70%) and poultry (44%). While in Kahurura this was mainly crop farming (77%), livestock-milk and poultry (49%). This only emphasises the common livelihood approach. On seeking to understand the most preferred form of forest use the variation were strongly skewed towards extraction of forest products (Fig. 3). These observations were recently noted during the review of performance of PFMP implementation, calling for a need to review the process (KFS, 2012). Neither has the signing of the forest agreement nor the development of business plan changed the scenario and community remain the same.

Very Important Less Important Very Important Less Important No response 100.0 90 80 70 70.0 60 50 40.0 40 Percentage 30 10.0 20 10 0 -20.0 Habitat Forage Grazing Herbal Water Water Fuelwood Building Herbal Grazing Timber Recreation Fire wood materials medicines Forest Users

100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 Figure 3: High Ranked Very Important 50.00 Preferential use of Forest Less Important 40.00 products Iveti, Upper 30.00 Not sure 20.00 Imenti & Kahurura 10.00 0.00 Fuelwood-% Forage-% Water Herbal source-% plants-%

106 This was further assessed using the aims of forming the groups associated with the forest, it emerged that the wide spread objective was forest conservation but not investments, which to a big extent has been achieved through reduced forest destruction. In Iveti the aim of the groups was to mainstream the local communities neighbouring gazzetted forests in the management of the forests to ensure increased ownership and protection of the forests through Participatory Forest Management (PFM). While in Upper Imenti the aim of <70% of the groups was conservation and protection with income taking only (10%) and access to forest products (10%). In Kahurura (58%) the most common aim of the groups was forest conservation followed by improvement on livelihood mainly income (8%). In all the three scenarios, issues of income and recreation are rated low or not mentioned, meaning the local community see themselves as having no capacity or they are not aware of how they can contribute to improved livelihood.

The reduced forest destruction in the country can be linked to community surveillance of the forest ecosystem neighbouring them. This improved change has been recorded in several ecosystems in the country among the lower Imenti, Upper Imenti, Aberdare ecosystem among others. This change is contrary to the school of thought where forest cover decreases have been observed at an early stage of a country’s economic development, through agricultural expansion due to rising commodity demand and better access to forest areas, and eventually increases again at high income levels as part of, inter alia, a transition to a service economy; this reforestation is the result of spontaneous regeneration on abandoned lands or purposeful tree-planting activities driven by forest scarcity or environmental concerns (Mather, 1990; Rudel et al., 2005).

The threats prior to the PFM process was mainly logging, theft of forest products and fire in Iveti, in Upper Imenti this was charcoal burning and illegal logging, which are highly commercial activities. This was followed by overgrazing, poaching, forest fires and exploitation of fuel wood in that order, which unlike the first two are geared towards addressing livelihoods. While in Kahurura, the major problem was logging, poaching and encroachment. In the absence of transformation are we at any risk of seeing the emergence of these threats considering that the forest are viewed as major sources of livelihood?

Income Generating Potential The three forests that have been selected for analysis based on their suitability for recreation facility, have a wide range of biodiversity. For example, In Iveti, some of the tourist attractions that need to be developed include four campsites areas at Kitale, Kartunda, Ingulyuni and Kusyomuomo (fig 4). In addition, several nature trails and picnic sites were identified.

Figure 4: Zonation of Iveti forest Kahurura-Nanyuki forest have the highest diversity with several species including herbivores like duiker (Neotrragus moschatus), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), deffassa water buck, black and white colobus (Colobus guereza) and Sykes monkey (Cercopithecus mitis). Others are the lesser bush baby (Galago

107 senegalenses) and greater bush baby (Galago crassicaudatus). Carnivores include spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) and the striped hyena (Hyena hyena). There are several species of birds in the ecosystem including the Ayres’ hawk eagle (Hieraaetus dubius), crowned hawk eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus), hartlaub’s turaco (Turaco hartlaubi), Jackson’s francolin (Francolinus jacksoni), among others (KSF, 2011).

In Kahurura-Nanyuki forest, these potential areas include Secret Valley (with a damaged hotel), Caves- Muteru and Rest houses (Ideal for camp, used by army for practice). The tourism potential of Nanyuki Forest is even greater due to the other nearby tourist sites in the neighbouring Kabaru forest, such as Thegu salt lick campsite situated in Kabaru (Kandune beat) and which has a wonderful site ideal for tourism development. This sites host Thegu fishing camp (fig 5): The camping site was established long before independence and is frequented by locals. It stands on 2 hectares and is operated by the Ministry of Fisheries. It is near Thegu Bridge along the main road from Chaka shopping centre to Sagana state lodge.

Figure 5: Zonation of Kabaru Forest

Upper Imenti forest has several species of tourism importance, these include elephants, buffalo (rare), rabbits, dik dik, a variety of birds various species of monkeys, porcupines, wild pigs, squirrels and mongoose. In addition several other attractions include Sacred Lake Nkunga, King Muuru, Eco-tourism site at Kithoka beat, Campsite at KWS Kithoka beat and Narute trail at Kithoka (fig 6) .

Figure 6: Eco-tourism potential at Upper Imenti 108 Income generating activities not developed

Bee keeping 23% The undeveloped activities in Iveti are constrained by insufficient

No Camping sites funds (18%), capacity to manage project (22%) and government response 40% 7% restrictions (9%) (fig. 7). These reflect real challenges but more Farming 1% Timber processing important workable challenges that could be resolved through Tourism 23% mills 1% structural arrangement where assistance and capacity is built either directly or through partnership.

Wood carvings 5% Figure 7: Untapped IGP Iveti

Fish farming at The development of these identified potential (fig 8) are Water springs 3% Kithima 4% constrained by funds (52%), which could be overcome through Herbal medicine 5% partnership, capacity of the local community, which might be due to literacy level (36%) as two major challenges. It is a fact the Bee keeping 8% procurement provide huge bottle necks for community by the

Sericuiture 10% Eco-tourism way it is structured and in areas like tourism the only way out is camping sites 62% reserved investments and involvement with local investors such as hoteliers. Tourism/camping sites 62% Figure 8: Untapped IGP Upper Imenti

Similarly the same factors were mentioned as posing major constrains to development of IGP in Kahurura (fig 9), that is capital 19%, capacity 35% and information flow (3%). Again Not sure these are factors that can be resolved through local arrangements. 38% Tourism 50% Fish Figure 9: Untapped IGP Kahurura farming 1%

Micro- Farming 5% hyropower 5% Bee keeping 1%

Recommendations For Participatory Forest Management to afford a paradigm shift, make use of available resources including the management plans and human resources around it, there is need for structural change. This may include • Adjustment of the CFA formation to allow for local business people and local professional to be part of the groups, so as to create partnership with potential investors and markets • Partnerships would help to bridge the gap between literacy level and build capacity • In order to make a change, seed money is important in form of government provision through such sources like forest conservation fund • Several forests are located in urban areas and could be promoted as green spaces for these funds under urban planning, provide recreation sites and income for the CFA • Legally adjust the forest management agreement, which currently focuses on traditional use of the forest such as firewood, water and grazing

109 References Duchelle, A. E., Zambrano, A.M.A, Wunder., S, Bo¨Rner, J, Kainer, K. A. (2014) Smallholder Specialization Strategies along the Forest Transition Curve in South Western Amazonia. World Development (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.001 Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen., A, Babigumira, R, Ickowitz., A, Paumgarten, F., Shively, G. Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study., World Development (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.003 Thenya, T, Wandago, B.O.B, Nahama, E.T and Gachanja, M., (2008). Particpatory Forest Management Experiences in Kenya (1996 -2007). Kenya Forest Working Group. Kenya Forest Service. (2012). Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs) Review and Proposed Monitoring Framework Report. Miti Mingi Maisha Bora Programme Kenya Forest Service (2010). Iveti Forest Station. Participatory Forest Management Plan. Kenya Forest Service (2008). Meru Forest Station. Participatory Forest Management Plan. Kenya Forest Service (2010). Meru Forest Station. Participatory Forest Management Plan.

110 5.4 Payment for Environmental services and additional incentives to forest conservation: Status in and opportunities in Kenya

By Joram Kagombe51 Alfred Gichu52, Collins Handa53 and Jane Wamboi 54

ABSTRACT Payments for Environmental Services (PES) refer to the practice of offering incentives to communities, farmers or landowners in exchange for managing their land and resources to provide environmental services. It is incentive-based conservation approach that can achieve sustainable environmental partnerships between supplies and users of environmental services by linking suppliers and consumers of goods and services from a natural resource in a way that both parties contribute to improved delivery. The study evaluated concepts of PES in Kenya through evaluating the status on the ground, potential markets and financing mechanisms, challenges in implementations and provides recommendations for its operationalization. It combined desk studies, visits to pilot areas and stakeholders’ forum to review the results. Payment for environmental services offers an opportunity for additional incentives to forest community that complement benefits they get from Participatory Forest Management. Main challenges identified were inadequate policy and legislation, weak institutional frameworks, un-sustainable natural resource management, poor information sharing and low resource allocation. There was potential of PES in biodiversity offsets, eco-tourism, climate change mitigation and watershed services. The paper discussed options in financing mechanisms and necessary pre-requisites for PES. It concludes that PES has potential to provide incentives to the forest community and the institutions who are custodian of the natural resources.

1.0 Introduction Ecosystem services (ES) or ecosystem good and services are the benefits people get from ecosystems. Payments for Environmental Services (PES) is the practices of offering incentives to communities, farmers or landowners in exchange for managing their land and resources to provide ES. It promotes conservation of natural resources in the market place. The PES programs are voluntary and mutually beneficial contracts between consumers of ES and the suppliers of these services. The beneficiaries of the ES are willing to pay a price that is lower than their welfare gain due to the services. The providers of the ES are willing to accept a payment that is greater than the cost of providing the services. An important component of a PES scheme is that the targeted service is threatened and in short supply thus making them subject of trade.

Payment for environmental service can take the form of local mechanisms where the consumers of the service contribute to its conservation through user pay principle, and regional/international mechanisms where the developed countries who are the main producers of green gas contribute to conservation in third world countries using mechanisms like carbon markets. In both mechanisms, a clear institutional structure should be worked out and benefit flow mechanisms put in place to ensure the incentives reach the target producer. This paper introduces concepts of PES in Kenya through evaluating the status on the ground, potential markets and financing mechanisms, challenges in implementations and provides recommendations for its operationalization.

Objectives 1. Review PES work done in Kenya and other countries covering payment for water services 2. Assess ongoing PES initiative in Kenya 3. Provide linkages of PES with PFM

111 2.0 Study approach A desk study was carried out on work done on PES in Kenya and other regions. This was followed by visits to selected pilot areas to review practice on the ground and lessons learnt. The sites visited were Naivasha- Turaga, Sasumua, Ndakaini and Kapingazi. The results from desk study and site visits were discussed in a stakeholders forum where additional inputs were received.

3.0 MARKETS AND FINANCING MECHANISMS FOR PES 3.1 HYDROLOGICAL RELATED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES The main hydrological ecosystem service in Kenya is water for domestic, industrial, irrigation use, and generation of hydroelectricity. Main water sources are the five water towers, which also form catchments of river Tana and Athi that support the seven forks dams. The main supplier of hydropower is KenGen while the main domestic water provider is the Water Resource Management Authority through contracted services provided by various water boards. Currently there are no mechanisms for payment for water services by consumers neither are there mechanisms for rewards to producers for producing ES. Water provision in the country is assigned to institutions that were established under Water Act 2002. They include Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), Water boards, Water supervisory Regulatory Board and water users associations. The devolved water reforms provide for a conservation fund that is paid for water abstracted to WRMA, which is expected to plough it back to conservation activities. It’s important to explore mechanisms in place for ploughing funds for conservation and whether they meet the desired goal. A case study currently taking place in Ndakaini dam, shows that there are inadequate plough back mechanisms that has resulted in farmers within the catchment feeling that the water reservoir is of no benefit to them. More efforts should be geared to connecting the supplier of water services to the user through PES.

3.2 PILOT PES IN Kenya 3.2.1 Kapingazi Kapingazi river basin situated in Embu County was part of the Mount Kenya East Pilot Project (MKEPP) now upper Tana Natural Resource Management Project (UTaNRMP). The project’s aim was to restore river that used to supply water to Embu town before degradation. The project started in 2004 funded by IFAD with creation of five FDAs within the tea zone. The major work was on community data and tree growing for recharging flows. The project introduced planting of tree species and grasses along the rivers. Incentives for adoption of conservation measures were provided and an elaborate monitoring system was put in place. Rewards were in form of quotations provided by farmer as what they perceived as their conservation opportunity cost.

Challenges faced included; • Trees are a long term investment and to convince the farmers was not easy. • Formation of CFAs and WRUAs was born during this time which required sensitizing the community on the benefits • There was pressure on the land due to fragmentation. • There was no policy frame work concerning conservation. • There were issues of accountability and governance to the groups The key outputs were: • Rain water harvesting is not implemented by most farmers because of the available piped water supply systems to most homesteads. • Sustainable land use options where most farmers have started rearing pigs and rabbits as sustainable land use options. • The introduction of bee-keeping will be very compatible land use to planting trees. • Bio-gas as an option for farmer with zero grazing units. Field visit to the project site reviewed positive PES effects in the area with improved river flow and conservation of riverine vegetation

112 3.2.2 Naivasha- WWF (WWF-Kenya) and CARE-Kenya PES Project This is a case of restoration of the riparian vegetation aimed at reducing sediment deposited into Lake Naivasha. It was to solve conflict of water related cases in the steep slopes of the upper catchment of Turasha and Kinja rivers in Nyandarua. It started as a Pilot project to bring a viable mechanism for watershed services that delivers sustainable natural resource management and improved livelihoods. It had three phases beginning in 2006: scoping and feasibility studies including hydrological survey, cost-benefit analyses, livelihood analysis, business case analysis and legal policy framework analysis:, the implementation phases that commenced in 2008, and third and final phase was scaling up. The ecosystem faces environmental threats arising from; poor land-use practices within the watershed, unregulated and excessive water abstraction for domestic and agricultural/horticultural use, weak policy enforcement, population pressure on natural resources, water pollution and climate change. The aim of the pilot project was to develop a viable financial mechanism for payments, deliver sustainable natural resource management techniques for improved livelihoods, serve as a pilot and learning model for further expansion and replication. WWF-Kenya and CARE-Kenya provided funding and coordination, developed PES to deliver sustainable natural resource management and improved livelihoods to upstream community. The engaging partners were Lake Naivasha Water Resource Users Association (downstream buyers), Lake Naivasha Growers Group (downstream buyers – the principal participant in the project among the buyers), Upper Turasha-Kinja Water Resource Users Associations (upstream sellers), Wanjohi Water Resource Users Associations (upstream sellers), Ministry of Agriculture, WRMA, Kenya Forest Services and Provincial Administration. The mode of operation was a Contractual agreement between the ecosystem stewards and beneficiaries;. Lake Naivasha Water Resource Users Association (LANAWRUA) and Lake Naivasha Growers Group currently being the major contributor to the Association. The agreement was to compensate small-scale farmers of the Upper Turasha-Kinja and Wanjohi (WRUAs). An incentive of USD 20,000, to two groups of 470 and 504 farmers have been disbursed. In addition farmers were provided with technologies and farm inputs aimed at increasing farm productivity and livelihoods.

Some of the Lessons learnt were that sustainable provision of ecosystem services can be achieved through: changes in land-use practices, incentives to farmers, enhancing livelihoods and strong stakeholder partnership leads to more successful implementation. There is need for baseline data, establish a strong business case for negotiation based on trust building and commitment among the stakeholders, establishing a market mechanism and appropriate and adequate capacity building. The challenges were: Very high demand for change triggered additional 300 farmers, unpredictable weather pattern. Degraded public lands have become non-point source sedimentation. Complex land ownership due to inheritance, subdivision and use changes. Under valuation of the resource.

3.2.3 Sasumua pilot Studies conducted by ICRAF in conjunction with JKUAT gave following results;  Each year NWSC spends 15 million on alum in additional to other chemicals and spends US $ 50,000 per year clearing silt and flushing intake works

 Costs can be reduced with partnership between upstream land owners investing in sustainable land practices. Terraces lead to 85% reduction in sediment load, Grass filter strips, contour farming, grass waterways –each can reduce 40 – 50%

 Identified hotspots for conservation

 Upland land owners to be compensated for land use changes that generate and improve watershed. Establishing terraces and 10 m grass strips cost US$560 and 315 every year. Low maintenance cost in the following year, Implementing grass filter strips –US $312.5 per ha in first year. Farmers acceptance rate for terraces which was most effective was 45% compared to 58% for grass strips

 91% of small scale farmers showed willingness to accept payments to establish SLP

 Average WTA was US $ 938 per ha per year. WTA increased with household income and higher level of education but HH headed by women asked for lower payments

113  Main direct beneficiary is NWSC – stands to benefit from reduced expenditure on water treatment chemicals – US $ 300,000 annually in addition to reduced frequency of unclogging blocked intakes

 NSWC feels overburdened and can only pay with enabling policies

 Consumers in Nairobi – 40% willing to pay US $1.25 above monthly water bill

 However water tariff controlled by WASREB

 Administration of water catchment – 4 major player, Ministry, WRMA, WRUA, WSTF

 WSTF- financed by government but gets most money from partners. Designed to provide water and sanitation to marginalised groups. The fund also finance WRUA in development of sub-catchment plans which can later be used to access funds for implementation. However WSTF needs to be reviewed to make it effective in PES

Recommendations  WSTF – key role in supporting PES where there is no private sector buyer but Act need to change to expand mandate to subcontract WRUA to implement PES subsidy scheme

 PES to be explicitly stated in NRM policies and legal framework to ensure utility companies adhere to it

 Policy amendment to allow portion of revenue collected to be retained within area collected for use by WRUA to finance PES

 Build capacity of corporate world to understand business potential of investing in NRM through PES

3.2.4 Water credit scheme The Nature Conservancy has come up with concept of water fund where stakeholders in water sector pool resources together to support conservation efforts. It takes the form of Public Private Partnerships. Stakeholders who use water contribute to the fund and also determine how the funds will be used to support conservation in the water catchment areas

114 4. Challenges to introducing effective PES strategies and/or programs in Kenya 4.1 Policy and legislative challenges: these include:  Inadequate PES policy framework and need to entrench PES in the relevant sector policies  Lack of National Climate Change Policy where Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources are expected to review the climate change bill.  There is weak enforcement of existing legislation and Acts

4.2 Institutional challenges these include: • Undervaluation of Ecosystem Services • Low technical capacity to address PES • Strengthen the institutional capacity to address PES, law enforcement and valuation of Ecosystem Services • Poor coordination of multi-sectoral approaches necessary to PES • Inadequate capacity to establish PES baseline and to monitoring system • Poor forest governance • Inadequate capacity to exploit opportunities presented through the payment for environmental services

4.3. Sustainable NR management challenges: • Inadequate involvement of stake holders in NRM and this discourages Public Private Partnership in NRM • Inadequate NR management data and information and this hinder publishing and setting a data base on NRM • Sustaining ecosystems markets • Restoration of degraded ecosystems • Lack of management information • Inadequate inventory data of NR to guide planning • Sustaining the supplies of Environmental Services • Ensuring access to markets; local and international markets • Sustaining ecosystems markets • Restoration of degraded ecosystems

4.4 Information challenges • There is Inadequate awareness on PES at different levels which therefore encourage Education and awareness programme at all levels • Lack of management information system to capture information required for various PES programmes including REDD+ where there is need to strengthen IT sector in relation to REDD+ • Lack of harmonized standards, methods, procedures and guidelines for NR data and information collection, management and dissemination guidelines. • Natural resource data is currently scattered in different institutions and in different formats, making its access cumbersome • High cost of acquisition, processing, and dissemination of natural resource data and information, in particular geo-information. • Lack of Carbon Finance information and an understanding about realistic revenue streams in the future

115 4.5 Resource Mobilization • Tapping carbon finance through Database for carbon markets and financing

• Development of innovative financing mechanism that aim at Rewarding innovations through Budgetary allocation by treasury to promote PES

5.0 Potential 0pportunities of PES investment in Kenya Payment for ES is attractive if it’s efficient, sustainable, and its supported by policies. PES should promote conservation of ES that is worth and potentially sustainable. It should be based on self-interest of service users and providers. To actualize it, minimum base payment should be worked out based in science and mechanism for PES developed. PES has potential for income generation and environmental conservation by contributing in the following areas: • Biodiversity offsets • Eco-tourism potential -Creating eco-enterprises e.g. eco-cultural/climate based tourism development and Marketing climate as a commodity • Climate change mitigation • Watershed services

5.1 Pre-requisites for PES to generate incomes in Kenya • Enabling policy, legal and institutional frameworks for PES that align incentives with actions that sustain ecosystem services coupled with property rights, patent rights • Ensure transparent payment mechanisms – through development of PES agreements, Labelling and packaging, • Capacity building-training of suppliers • Creating partnerships with business, global partners and communities; • Securing innovative financing mechanisms for PES projects; • Research • Ecosystem valuation 5.2 Financing of environmental conservation through PES PES projects/enterprises have a potential to address key drivers of ecosystem change; e.g. Poverty. “Business can simply not function if ecosystems and the services they deliver like water, biodiversity, food, fibre are degraded or out of balance” (President WBCSD). Successful PES schemes in Costa Rica show how the scheme can be used to finance environmental conservation by allowing landholders to be compensated for the ES they provide (Chomitz et al 1998). The approach is that of delinking environmental services from financing of these services. It actively sells the services of carbon sequestration and watershed protection to domestic and international buyers. The proceeds from these sales are ploughed back to finance the provision of these services. The government acts as an intermediary in the sale of services while the private sector initiates a payment mechanism for forestry environmental services program (FESP) which reimburses money for reforestation, sustainable management of forests, forest preservation and forest regeneration (Chomitz K.M et al 1998). The PES has the potential to help conserve forest biodiversity and inject sustainable funding for the protected areas and improve rural livelihoods especially because the poor are the main beneficiaries of the scheme obtaining on average, 30-50 percent of their total income (The World Bank, 2004). There is a conscious move by many communities in Kenya to ensure that ES providers are compensated for conservation. Many community leaders in different parts of Kenya have increasingly demanded to be rewarded, even in kind, for protecting environmental goods from those who derive economic or consumptive benefits of such services. However the knowledge and frameworks on PES is undeveloped.

116 5.3 PES, community participation and poverty Payment for environmental services offers an opportunity for additional incentives to forest communities that complement benefits they get from Participatory Forest Management. In Tanzania, PES programs have been integrated with community participation in forestry management. Benefits flowing to the forest community contribute to improved livelihood for the participating members. This links up well as most of the buyers of ES would like to see poverty alleviation component being an integral part of PES. Additional benefits to the forest community will improve their participation in forest conservation in the gazetted areas and their farms leading to better provision of ES to the consumers.

5.4 Opportunities for PES in Kenya Kenya like the other East Africa countries need to address above prerequisites and challenges in PES implementation. This will give an enabling environment for PES in the country. However PES provides enormous potential in conservation of environment and providing incentives for those taking positive conservation measures. In the area of forestry PES has potential in the following areas: • Payment for hydrological services • Eco-tourism • Carbon sequestration and climate change • Intellectual property rights • Generation of power using wind power Recreation activities.

5.5 Way Forward Cost-effective PES programmes require careful design based on the characteristics of the service and the biophysical and socio-economic context. Different types of PES programmes are appropriate to different socio- economic and agro-ecological contexts. The process of designing an effective payment programme involves four important and challenging steps: identifying what should be paid for; who should be paid; how much should be paid; and what payment mechanism(s) should be used.

To realize the potential for Payment for environmental services in the forestry sector in Kenya, the following needs to be addressed: • Develop appropriate technologies to drive PES • Labelling and packaging of products from the forests e.g. mineral water, honey • Patent and copy rights for environmental service products • Research on:

o Value adding o Branding of products and services o Promote quality assurance and adhere to national and international standards o Developing a niche for various products o Product certification o Product diversification • Promote PES as a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for the main environmental service users • Promote innovative Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) based on ecosystems • Development of appropriate policy, Legal and institutions frameworks • Awareness and Capacity building on PES mechanisms and process • Create partnerships

117 6.0 Conclusion Payment for environmental services have potential to provide incentives to the forest community and the institutions who are custodians of the natural resources. There are limited pilot studies in the country on PES, but opportunities exist to engage the providers and buyers of the services. Both local and international financial mechanisms should be explored. More studies should be carried out to determine policy and legal mechanisms to support PES as well as linkages among stakeholders. Kenya can take advantage of the PES initiatives in countries where it is operational and domesticate the implementation mechanisms to the local situation. In addition more studies are required to determine valuation of various ES as it is vital to determining value in the market and possible payment mechanisms. The ministries and departments involved should come together to develop financing frameworks for PES.

References Chomitz , K., Brenes, E.and Constantino, L. (1998). Financing Environmental Services: The Costa Rica Experience. 10, Central America Country Management unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region. The world Bank.

Government of Kenya. (2005). Forests Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer Landell-Mills, N., Porras, I.T. (2002). Silver bullet or fool’s gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development. .

Pagila (2003). Can Programs of Payments for environmental Services Help {reserve Wildlife?. Workshop on Economic Incentives and Trade Policies. Geneva, Dec 2003

Powell, I., White, A., Landell-Mills, N. (2002). Developing markets for ecosystem services of forests. Forest Trends ISBN 0-9713606-3-4.

Scherr, S., White, A., Khare, A. (2004). For services rendered: The current status and future potential of markets for the ecosystem services provided by tropical forests. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) Technical Series No 21.

Government of Kenya. ( 2007). Vision 2030. Nairobi, Kenya: Government printers.

Government of Kenya. (2002). Water Act 2002. Nairobi, Kenya: Government printers.

118 5.5 Equitable cost and benefit sharing – a key to success of Participatory Forest Management.

By David Maingi55

Abstract Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is an engagement bringing together stakeholders including CFAs for resource sustainability and their welfare enhancement. Forests Act 2005 supports involvement of local communities through formation of Community Forest Associations. Successes of such engagement seem dependent on acceptable sharing of costs and benefits among relevant stakeholders, which is core to this study. The methodology adopted is studying existing approaches and research works on cost benefit sharing (CBS) locally and other countries pursuing effective and sustainable PFM. Study results on costs, benefits realized, stakeholders participating and policy and legal environment effectiveness in realizing the goal are presented together with challenges deterring realization and detailed recommendations on interventions. The study has shown that CFAs motivation lies in acceptability of CBS which necessitates need of reviewing existing PFM process as well as policy and legal practices to seal gaps and provide for conducive environment for a sustainable practice. Successful CBS framework should properly identify areas and mode of CFAs engagement hence call for review of current forest planning approach to adequately include CFAs, ensuring that resulting sharing is socially acceptable, environmentally friendly and economically viable.

Introduction Forestry in Kenya, like in many other developing countries, attracts many groups all desirous of optimizing their benefit share from the resource, while playing down their management responsibilities to the minimal levels. Such a situation cannot hold in an environment of high and increasing consumption or demand trends of the resource whose base is not increasing proportionally. Threats brought in by this imbalance indicate a need for participation of all interested parties in the understanding and management of the resource. Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is a management approach which deliberately involves stakeholders including forest-adjacent communities in management of forests within a framework that contributes to sustainable forest conservation and community livelihoods. Stakeholder participation includes not only forest management operations but also resource utilization, marketing and equitable sharing of benefits. Kenya embraced PFM to enable tapping of resources from the stakeholders for forest management as required by the Forests Act 2005. This gives an opportunity to community sharing of anticipated benefits which is also a requirement by the Constitution of Kenya 2010. It requires sustainable management of forest resources and equitable sharing of accruing benefits. The draft Forest Policy 2014 and the draft National Forests Conservation and Management Bill 2014 support the involvement of wider stakeholder participation in forest management defining the resource and, to some extent, the stakeholders involved. Kenya Forest Service (KFS), the institution mandated to implement the forest policy and ensure adherence to the constitution has been in the lead, coordinating relevant stakeholders in developing strategies that will ensure PFM succeeds. PFM with an economics bias is taken to be a viable sustainable forest management system that succeeds in engaging all relevant stakeholders under consensual terms (written or verbal) on their respective responsibilities (costs) and equitable realization of rights or gains (benefits) accruing for the achievement of desired outcomes which includes, among others, enhancement of community livelihoods. KFS as a regulator, guides and ensures equitable benefits sharing methods are in place for the Forests Act’s requirements to be achieved. Towards this end, KFS has undertaken stakeholders’ consultations and studies, all geared to providing information for a successful cost and benefits sharing mechanism. One notable intervention has been a meeting organized with CFAs leadership including NACOFA where much has been achieved. Formation and strengthening of Community Forest Associations as supported by KFS and other stakeholders was a good starting point towards consolidating community strengths in management and improving their negotiation abilities. REDD projects have come up with benefits and costs sharing ratios of international community donated funds. Experiences gained from these projects provide important lessons in tackling formulation of an effective costs and benefits sharing approach.

119 The problem Forest stakeholders are economic agents spending needed resources in forest management expecting returns from their invested outlays. Most of them including CFAs look at PFM as an investment arrangement where after participating in a series of outlays expect a similar series of returns. Any arrangement that does not satisfactory meet this expectation cannot translate into sustainable forestry. Under conditions of forest returns imbalances participating stakeholders will attempt to cover their benefits short falls by whichever means whether legal or not leading to forest degradation and deforestation. In Kenya PFM arrangements lack and require an effective sharing mechanism that satisfactorily provide for a proportionate sharing in line with contributions and subsequent expectations by the participants. It is the aim of this study to come up with recommendations that will lead to a fair benefit sharing method.

Study Approach Kenyan forests are of different types, ranging from the dry land forests to the high montane forests, with each type requiring a different set of costs and providing different set of benefits while at the same time attracting different stakeholders. There are indigenous and plantation forests, each requiring a different set of management arrangements. Under existing participatory complexities, studies on past experiences, available data and information in costs and benefit sharing provided much knowledge in designing an acceptable approach. Studying cases of benefit sharing in other countries like Ghana, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Malaysia is done to shed light from lessons learnt. Consultations with key stakeholders like KFS, National Alliance of Community Forest Associations (NACOFA) leaders and some CFAs leaders added more knowledge. The study used information gathered from existing reports and literature and experiences the writer had while studying the possibilities of CFAs optimizing their share for National Community Forest Association (NACOFA). Experiences from local REDD benefits sharing by projects in Mt Elgon, Mt Kenya and Taita Taveta have been used. Experiences from studies carried out in other developing countries like Ghana, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Tanzania ‘s Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI) have been used. Inputs from general economics of Cost and Benefit sharing in forestry were added to provide the basic principle. All data and information collected was analyzed and findings used to formulate recommendations for formulating a benefits sharing method.

Discussions Forests covered in this study are government forests in which the current policy is supporting involvement of stakeholders in their management. These include public indigenous and plantation forests and, to some extent, some county government managed forests. Indigenous forests are taken to be natural forests managed for environmental goods and service but where sustainability data is available management interventions and allowable extraction of goods can be carried out. Interventions in indigenous forests are largely conservation and apportioning of goods and services to demanding stakeholders. Plantations are those forests established in some cases for protective purposes but in most cases, are commercial establishments. Plantation forests or man-made forests require relatively large outlays in form of land, labour and management sourced from stakeholders. In management of these forests there are opportunities foregone, costs incurred, benefits realized and stakeholders involvement through well designed approaches like PFM. Stakeholders involved are interested individuals and groups in the management and utilization of forest goods and services. There are the private sector stakeholders coming in for commercial exploitation, NGOs coming in for conservation and livelihoods improvement and the government who is the regulator. The list also includes forest-adjacent communities who rely on forests for their livelihoods and are vulnerable to management changes undertaken without consultations. Other than the local communities, other stakeholders have clearly defined involvement arrangements in form of leases, licenses and agreements done incorporating orwith inbuilt benefit sharing components. For most of the stakeholders, their cost and benefit share is apportioned in the agreements signed in form of prices set for the goods and services traded. In case of unfairness to one party, it is the agreement that needs to be reviewed but in case the costs or behaviour change is not covered then the agreement should state the extent to which the sharing formula shall apply. Local communities’ involvement in forest management and their traditional dependence on forests on forests require a well-researched approach that will be fair and acceptable. As mentioned earlier local community

120 comprise of many groups with varying areas of involvement and expectations that no single formula can address. Within the same group of stakeholder there are those whose survival is injured by changes in forest management approaches and need to be compensated. To reduce the complexity of apportioning involvement costs and benefits the Policy recommended formation of associations of different forest dependent groups referred to as Community Forest Association (CFA). CFAs are supposed to represent individual member or group’s interest, they are supposed to ensure agreements are fair and operating, keep records to enable allocation of costs and benefits to individual members. The constitution and the policy in an attempt to reduce the vulnerability of this group of stakeholders require them to participate in forest management. Areas of participation are planning and plans implementation and products marketing. Non-monetary include: cultivation, water and use of forests for social activities. Some benefits are paid in kind in form of rights which communities have enjoyed for ages like grass for animals and fuel wood. Monetary gains are the stakeholders share from sale of forest goods and services. Their involvement has been identified to be through participatory planning, change of resource utilization or management behaviour and through provision of labour in management operations and protection, receiving their fair share of benefits. Benefits sharing among stakeholders in forestry became an important area for study when REDD projects attempted to allocate funds given by international community to address reduction of greenhouse gases from forest deforestation and degradation in tropical countries. Within the projects, there were donated funds from carbon trade and from forests products and services realized by the project. In all the studies, allocation ratios between stakeholders have been wholly or partly used to share the benefits. In all the cases studied, questions as to how the ratios were arrived at have not been clear. In some cases, the percentages have been modified to enable inclusion of costs and foregone opportunities to justify allocation to some stakeholders, mostly communities. Benefit sharing in Ghana is done in line with the constitution which requires that the state has to ensure that individual and private sector players all bear their fair share of social and national responsibilities. ‘Their forests are indigenous forests managed under concession arrangements and plantation forests managed by the state for provision of wood. These forests fall into three administrative based categories: (i) Stool (land owned by people and vested in the president in trust), (ii) natural trees mainly government-owned; and, (iii) government plantation forests. It is within these forest types where PFM is practiced. In all forests, benefits are shared between the Office of the Administrator of stool lands and constitution beneficiaries which include Stool, Traditional Authority and District Assembly. Benefits’ sharing is basically through percentages that are varied between forest types. An example from stool lands:- Ghana constitution, Article 267 provides for a formula on benefit sharing in relation to Stool and Skin lands. 10% of all revenue accruing from these lands has to be paid to the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) to cover administrative expenses. The remaining revenue has to be disbursed between the following constitutional beneficiaries: Stool (25%), Traditional authority (20%), and District assembly (55%). (Client earth 2013) Benefit sharing in Sri Lanka is based on approaches developed by the project “Sustainable financingand benefit sharing strategy for conservation of Puttalam Lagoon”. Benefit sharing policies are being formulated but currently distribution of REDD funds from international donors is by percentage set by project management.

Benefit sharing in Malaysia is through allocation of REDD funds and benefits through percentages and as in Sri Lanka, studies on benefit sharing are ongoing.

Benefit sharing in Tanzania is based on the fact that equitable benefit sharing leads to poverty alienation and improved livelihoods. Lesson learnt from Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI) in Kilwa is providing basic information being adopted by some conservation and certification projects. Most forests under the project are run by village governments on business principle. For benefit sharing, the communities run the forests on their land and pay government a tax, an average of 10%, composed of 31% as expenses and 65% as profit to the community. In MCDI, identification of community members for benefit allocation is easy as the village government has all the records.

121 In Kenya, benefit sharing arrangements have been done in carbon projects. These projects are expected by donors to show how funds donated and realized are distributed to the communities. These projects include Mount Elgon Region Conservation Programme in Mt Elgon area. In this programme, money received from international donors is shared between CBO and to households based on percentages arrived at by the project management. Green Belt Movement in Mt Kenya shares the benefits at 20% going to GBM while 80% goes to CFAs. Wildlife Works in Taita Taveta share benefits by giving 1/3 to community 1/3 to land owners and 1/3 to projects. In Kenya’s south coast, a good example on benefits sharing for REDD exists within the Mikoko Pamoja Project. Here, 65% of the benefits go to community based organizations, while 6% each go to costs for independent verification and fixed costs for carbon credits sold to plan Vivo, while the remaining 23% goes to the project’s steering committee expenses.

Percentages mode of benefit sharing seems to be adopted by many projects. These percentages were discussed with stakeholders while in other cases were determined by the forest owners mainly the government. The percentages as a method of benefit sharing is seen to be:- 1. Easy and quick to administer as it requires agreement between key stake holders 2. Enables achievement of the regulators goals which, in most cases, are not relevant to the resource production process 3. Can be easily changed with agreements between stakeholders 4. Use of percentages in benefit sharing raises a major problem when considering replacement of cleared forest resources. If communities or some stakeholders receive 30% of the benefits will they avail 30% in raising new resource base and when? 5. It can be abused by authorities and some influential stakeholders defeating the PFM goals.

Challenges - in developing benefit sharing method 1. Policy and legal and guidelines not adequately addressing issues of BS. 2. Diversity of products and forest types calls for many approaches and one such method cannot serve the whole range of benefits from different forest types. 3. Inadequate data and information on benefits from a given forest

Recommendations 1. Record keeping by stakeholders is very important and should be done as is the basis of fair cost and benefits arrangement. 2. Review of existing forest management plans by KFS to include emerging benefits and stakeholders. The plans should define who the stakeholders are, their roles and responsibilities. 3. Review of policies and legal guides to incorporate effective benefit sharing, providing guidelines in activities costing, benefit sharing and subsidiary roles. – Due to the dependence of costs as input factors of benefit allocation legal guidelines on costing to be developed and reviewed periodically. 4. Capacity improvement on the side of CFAs on: - Sustainable approaches in the engagement - Record keeping on all inputs and benefits 5. Information and its flow be effective and packaged for different stakeholders/audiences 6. Economic valuation of the forest so that communities can benefit not only from trees but other benefits such as water and other environmental services.

Cost Benefit recommended method Cost and benefit sharing methods should be seen as a process but not a-one-off formula solution where clear information leading to the decision is available while the environment under which it is taking place is conducive. Some key requirements include:- (a) Identification of benefits, their nature, quantities and processing conditions. (b) Determine stakeholders and their roles. (c) Quantification of costs incurred and /or opportunities foregone by each stakeholder.

122 The method can partly borrow from Ghana with modification to suit our condition. After analysis and calculation of all costs and benefits the resulting general benefit sharing formula is applied to provide benefits quantities for each BS = (B- C) – (rights) Where: BS = Net Benefit to be shared B = Gross benefits C = Total costs

Out of net Benefit to be shared the government (national government and county) share cannot be set on basis of their inputs like other stakeholders. In Tanzania 10% is charged at village level as a tax. In Ghana some incomes are not distributed but go to central government while in some forests government takes 50% share. In Kenya a percentage equivalent to income tax rate of 30% can go to the central government, while 15% go to county government leaving 55% of the net Benefits to be shared among other stakeholders.

It should be noted that this formula does not affect the National government percentage allocation of revenues to counties.

The remaining 55% to be shared among stakeholders including CFAs to be based on the management commitment expressed in their inputs to management of forests.

Sn = ((55%BS) S1n) Where:

Sn = Benefit shared for stakeholder n BS = Gross Benefit S1 = Input ration by stakeholder n

Areas of concern in the proposed benefits sharing which need to be addressed through subsidiary rules.

a) With the inbuilt guarantee of recovering all costs before allocation likelihood of inefficiencies increasing is high b) At what price are in puts valued.

References Laws of Kenya. The Constitution of Kenya. (Revised Edition 2010). Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General. Retrieved from www.Kenyalaw.org on 14, November 2014.

Access and benefit sharing from Genetic resources (ICIMOD 2008)

Chris Mesiku. (2011). Benefit Sharing Mechanisms for REDD+ in Kenya : exploring the options

Forest Act 2005 - Government of Kenya. (2005). Forests Act 2005. Nairobi, Kenya: The Government Printer

Kenya Forest Service. (2007). Participatory Forest Management Guidelines Nairobi, Kenya: Kenya Forest Service,

Mpingo conservation and development initiative brief (Kilwa 2012)

Ranasinghe, Thushara. (2010). Sustainable Financing and benefit sharing strategy for conservation and management of Puttalam lagoon. Colombia : IUCN, 2010

There distribution of benefits derived from forest resources in Ghana. (Client Earth 2013)

123 5.6: poster 3: Gains in Forest Management and Livelihood in South Nandi Forest

GAINS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT AND LIVELIHOOD IN SOUTH NANDI FOREST

AUTHORS: JOAN GICHUKI ([email protected]), GIBSON KITSAO AND WASHINGTON AYIEMBA

INTRODUCTION: OBJECTIVES: The South Nandi Forest is a transition between the lowland forest of West and • To develop and formalise partnerships in Participatory Forest Management. Central Africa and the montane forests of the central Kenya highlands. The Forest • To build the capacity of local communities and institutions in governance, was gazetted in 1936 as a Trust Forest covering 20,200 Ha since then 2,200 Ha monitoring and management of Natural resources. have been excised for settlement and tea plantations. Nature Kenya in collaboration • To improve household income through development and up-scaling of Nature with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), with funding from DFID1, Based Enterprises and partnerships with Private Sector. EU-CDTF2, DOF3 and GEF/UNDP4 has supported the adoption and development of Participatory Forest Management since June 2007 to date. This support was to enable communities living around South Nandi forest to successfully manage and benefit from forest resources as per Forest Act 2005, through improved partnerships of government, NGOs, civil societies and private sector. Prior to 2007 there had been METHODS: no development partner support to forest conservation in the Nandi forest ecosystem The Kenyan PFM Guidelines were followed in the mobilization of the South Nandi and the ongoing PFM initiatives were at the very initial stages without a clear vision. forest adjacent community and other stakeholders for the adoption and development of PFM institutions and structures. This report is a summary of the information from the project start-up documents, baseline surveys, progress reports and mid/end-term evaluation reports.

RESULTS: PFM AND FOREST CONSERVATION • Two CFAs, Kobujoi and Kimondi/Iruru, formed and have entered into Forest Man- agement Agreements with KFS for the respective forest stations • Two PFMPs for Kobujoi and Kimondi/Iruru developed and signed by KFS • CFAs organisation capacity enhanced (functional offices and engage in forest protection and rehabilitation) • 55 community institutions, CFAs/CBOs, trained in leadership governance and management • 45 government officials trained in PFM and other areas of interest • Local communities, KFS and other stakeholders have formalised working relations • 38 community scouts trained and involved in forest policing on voluntary basis • More than 500,000 trees planted within the forest area • Improved infrastructure at Kobujoi Forest Station (renovation of houses, electricity connection, resource centre and visitor facilities) • Grazing Strategy developed and instrumental in protection of newly planted sites and conservation of important biodiversity areas • Gender Strategy and Advocacy Strategy developed and have been instrumental in enhancing self-confidence and high esteem among project beneficiaries who now voice their concerns through existing community institutions and other forums beyond forestry • 37 Schools and 5 institutions of higher learning reached through environmental education, this catalyzed formation of 18 new environmental/wildlife clubs and capacity building of 38 environmental clubs • 25 year Nandi Forest Ecosystem Strategic Plan developed

LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT: • Over 5,000 households (or 20,000 individuals) directly benefited from the projects • More than Kshs 12.5 million earned from Nature Based enterprises by June 2012 • 780 beehives and honey production and processing equipments functioning at 30% capacity • 30 tree nurseries producing over 400,000 seedlings annually • Over 600,000 trees planted in on-farm woodlots and boundary planting with an estimated market value of Kshs 2.5 billion for those to be harvested by 2022 • Improved jikos reduced fuel wood consumption by 60% household in over 2,000 households

FOOTNOTES 1DFID – UK Department for International Development 2EU-CDTF: European Union – Community Development Trust Fund 3DOF: Danish BirdLife Partner 4GEF/UNDP: Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Development Program

P. O. Box 44486-00100 Nairobi, Kenya E-mail: [email protected] Empowered lives. Community tree nursery Home page: www.natureKenya.org Resilient nations

124 5.6 Emerging Plenary Issues Clarification on the criteria to be used for licensing investors planning to invest in forestry activities such as putting up of campsites: Licensing to business and private sector should ensure that communities are not locked out. However, public private partnerships key initiative.

When determining the benefits to be shared how you can take care of other issues raised bythe communities such as the right to the forest due to heritage and ties: In most cases cost is the most common denominator in sharing benefits since PFM is meant to be an investment.

Clarification on whether to value forests before requesting benefit sharing put in the forest Bill:Costs and benefits are accrued beyond national jurisdiction therefore partnerships beyond Kenyan borders are critical.

PES is still dependent on goodwill, at what point will it be anchored in law? Stakeholders are currently trying to ensure that such good initiatives are anchored into law. The forest bill has a section on PES. Water act also supports PES. Key issue is for pilot studies to inform lessons during development of guidelines to operationalise the initiatives

Need for CFAs to work together with WRUAs to implement ecosystem management plans: Most of the ecosystem plans were developed before PFM and do not take it into consideration thus they might need to be reviewed to conform to reality.

Even though there is need for ecosystem management plans, first CFAs need capacity to implement management plans, an integrated approach is the way to go but without funding how will PFM be successful.

6.0 CONFERENCE CLOSING

CHAIR: JOEL LAIGONG 6.1 Key Conference Highlights agreed on during plenary 1. The KFS and Stakeholders should fast track the development of PFMPs and signing of FMA’s 2. Harmonize sectors that operate in same ecosystem in order to create synergy and eliminate wastage and duplication 3. Review PFM guidelines taking into account the lessons learnt and best practices 4. Review the costs and duration preparing PFMPs with a view to reducing the cost and time 5. The Forest Conservation and Management Bill 2014 should incorporate provisions for strengthening community participation at both national and county levels 6. Prioritizing capacity development of all stakeholders 7. Awareness and education of judiciary and public prosecution officers on current policy and legal provision in NRM and how they apply to management and conservation 8. Encouraging the diversification of investment by CFAs 9. Certification of foresters involved in PFMPs development 10. Inclusion of dryland forests in PFM

6.2 Remarks by Zipporah Toroitich, Programme Manager, MMMB Project In her remarks, Ms. Toroitich was happy to have attended the conference and thanked everyone for turning up. In particular, she thanked the conference conveners, partners, the Ministry on Environment Water and Natural Resources, KFS and MMMB team for the hard work leading to the success of the conference. She was highly appreciative of the CFAs for being ably represented and challenged future conferences to ensure that CFAs area share their experiences and lessons learnt in either Kiswahili or English to enhance their participation.

125 According to her, there is no limit to good governance since it is key to the forest sector and also there is no key formula to forest management due to diversity of Kenya forests. She was of the view that the future of forestry was highly dependent on the current generation. Lastly, she took the opportunity to inform the conference participants that the Ministry of Environment Water and Natural Resources was in the process of rolling out a National Forest programme.

6.3 Remarks by Dr. B. Kigomo, KEFRI Dr. Kigomo informed the participants of his organisation’s appreciation and involvement in PFM. He pointed out the long journey taken by stakeholders in trying to streamline PFM into the CFAs. He was personally happy to be involved in the conference and on behalf of KEFRI thanked the funding agencies, conference organisers, community and participants for their immeasurable support.

He held the view that the conference had attained its objectives and called upon all players to come together and participate fully in order to see how best to improve PFM and make it a success.

6.4 Remarks by Emilio Mugo, Senior Deputy Director, KFS Before inviting the chief guest for the closing session, Mr. Mugo reminded all stakeholders to view forestry within the context of the bigger picture. He informed the gathering on key forestry meetings that had taken place and upcoming ones. This were; a conference on carbon in Nairobi held in the previous week, and the upcoming FSK conference in September at the Coast.

He hoped that benefit sharing would not overshadow other PFM challenges like monitoring and evaluation and PFM funding. He requested all players to take responsibility in improving PFM. He then took the opportunity to invite the chief guest Mr. Hewson Kabugi to close the conference. 6.5 Official Closing Speech by Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Dr. Richard Lesiyampe as Read on His Behalf by Director Of Conservation, Mr. Hewson Kabugi

• Kenya Forest Service Director, Mr. David Mbugua • Kenya Forestry Research Institute Director, Dr. Ben Chikamai • Forestry stakeholders • Distinguished guests

Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel greatly honoured to have been nominated to preside over the closing ceremony of a unique conference that brings together all key stakeholders in the forestry sector to address issues of sustainable forest management and utilization in Kenya. Indeed it is incumbent upon all of us who are gathered here to ensure that Kenya not only realizes 10% forest cover but also provides a clean and healthy environment, manages natural resources sustainably, and, embraces participation in national policy making and development as required by the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

The overall theme and the 4 sub-themes of the conference were indeed carefully thought through, selected and adequately addressed the major concerns of devolution in the forest sector. In fact the theme on cost benefit sharing is an important, emotive and serious issue in natural resources management, which my Ministry has to deal with. It is also my sincere hope that the participants have given a serious thought on the experiences already learned elsewhere for PFM adoption in the Kenyan context. I am, therefore confident that you have had fruitful deliberations on each one of them, flagging critical areas that each stakeholder is expected to address including my office.

I am aware that sustainable natural resource management and utilization, as our primary goal, can only succeed if it balances economic, socio-cultural and environmental concerns of the society. Secondly, I wish also to appreciate the fact that the organizers have recognized the importance of public participation in forest 126 management and indeed this is what has brought us together for Participatory Forest Management dialogue. I hope that this will not be the end of public participation but rather the way forward in policy making and development in general, as our new constitution requires.

Ladies and gentlemen, As much as the draft National Forest Policy and the Forest Management and Conservation Bill are at an advanced stage of being taken to parliament, there is always a room under subsidiary legislations to address emerging issues that may require legislation. Some of your recommendations I trust will be well captured in the subsidiary legislations, which will be formulated at a later stage as we align our laws to the new Constitutional dispensation.

My ministry is committed to taking up the recommendations from this conference to ensure that there is an effective policy and legislative framework for effective and efficient implementation of PFM as one of the best practices in the forest sector. I call upon all stakeholders including county governments to take their active role in sustainable management and utilization of the forest resources in the country as a whole. It is only through good forest governance that we can be sure of bequeathing this precious natural resource to the future generations.

Lastly, Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to register my appreciation to the sponsors and organizers of this conference, which has brought together key stakeholders in the forest sector. It is my hope that in future we will be having these kinds of gatherings for sharing information more frequently than it has been in the recent past.

With those few remarks, I hereby declare the conference closed.

I wish you journey mercies to your respective work stations.

127 7.0 APPENDICES 7.1 Appendix 1: Questions and Answers during plenary

THEME 1: EXPERIENCES WITH PFM IMPLEMENTATION UNDER THE FORESTS ACT 2005 Key note speech-Experiences with PFM Implementation under The Forests Act 2005- E.N Mugo

Q: KFS and county Governments should have a common fund to assist in forest protection activities A: There is a revolution fund that is benefiting farmers

Q: What is the status of forest conservation fund and what is the role of KFS in improving forest management and when is call for proposals expected? A: KFS has engaged PWC to work on modalities of operationalizing the fund

Q: Is there a standard process of reviewing PFM implementation procedures A: CFAs should include all possible activities in the management plans but upcoming activities can still be negotiated with the partner organisation

Q: How can KFS harmonise funds to include forests under county governments A: Financing is both at national and county levels

Q: Can PFM definition be expanded to include forests in the unprotected areas A: Definition of PFM changes with sites

Q KFS should consider organising team building activities for KFS officers and community to enhance their interactions A: This can be solved by creating trust between the two parties

Q: There is fear that county governments may not be having the will to support forest protection thus leading to forest destruction. Is there a consideration for the counties to enter into agreement with the CFAs? A: Public forests are assets that are going to be managed at national level. The counties are major stakeholders in the PFM and their engagement will be included in definition of roles.

Factors that Influence PFM – Daniel Mbithi Q: Can bamboo be introduced in an indigenous forest for carbon trading. A: This can only be done if it is included in the forest management plan. Carbon credits can be implemented in the international agreements and an agreement signed between KFS and CFA. However Bamboo presents great opportunity in commercial forestry.

PFM implementation on experiences: a national analysis- Musyoki, J.K. Q: CFA members are supposed to be from 0 to 5km radius from the forest edge what about pastoralists who come from far and want to access forest

Do CFAs have adequate capacity to engage in PFM? Wanjiru Gathira Q: What was the study conclusion? A: Results from this study were handed over to MMMB to support capacity programmes in organisational development.

Q: What is the reason why youths are not participating in PFM? A: Youth need to understand that power is earned and not given so there need to work hard to get management positions. Youth can bring dynamism that is not available in the CFAs

128 THEME 2: PFM UNDER CHANGING POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK Key note speech: PFM under Changing Policy and legal Frameworks - Mr. Kabugi Q: What is the future of indigenous communities who have been living in forests for livelihood e.g the Ogieks who for the past years have engaged in court orders against their eviction from the forest? A: PFM gives opportunity to indigenous groups but it is important to note that the lifestyle of this people is changing and so is their interaction with the forest

Q: Comparing Kenya situation to community conservation groups set ups in Nepal where village committees have being given authority to manage forests. To what extent does this compare with decentralisation? A: Tanzania and Nepal approach to PFM is from social aspects. The interest of the pro-poor should be integrated and PFM should move from implementation to utilization.

Q: Having presented on the 12 principles for successful PFM. Is there a way KFS conducts audits on CFAs to ensure compliance or no compliance to these principles. A: An audit system has been provided in the reviewed Forest Bill 2014

Q: Why are CFAs not anchored in the government system? What is the definition of “community” and who is “public” A: Definition of community should be in relation to a particular resource with outlined powers and responsibilities.

Q: How far have we implemented resolutions and the way forward from the 2007 PFM conference and how can we be sure that what is being discussion in this gathering will be worked upon and improved

Q: Do the CFAs and KFS enjoy the same privileges as far as conservation is concerned or CFA is a junior partner to KFS. Are ways of quantify community right of access.

Q: Is PFM perceived to be social or economic and legal strategy

The constitution of Kenya 2010 as a dynamic thrust for PFM - Mercy Obado Q: How does one ensure that the correct law in force is applied by magistrates instead of applying out dated legislations? A: The court should be guided by the legislations in force and magistrates should be involved in the policy review processes. KFS should sensitize the prosecution department of any new legislation / repealed laws.

Q: There is no plough back to degraded forest sites out of paid up court fees i.e. fees paid by convicted offenders; why is that the case A: The civil court can grant damages that can be used to restore damaged sites but there must be clear guidelines on how this can be done. A lot of sensitization is required on restoration orders and the sections of the law that provide for this highlighted.

Q: Who defines public participation and are there procedures in conducting the same. A: Guidelines should be provided in specific legislation defining the broad procedure

The right of public participation in forest Governance in Kenya - Benson Ochieng Q: Magistrates don’t have knowledge on value of destroyed trees such that they don’t find that being a serious matter. Could there be need for providing information on values for trees especially costs incurred towards rehabilitating a forest degraded site to the magistrate A: Valuation is important in building a viable case to natural resources management

Q: There is inadequacy in application of the law for example in penalising offenders

Q: At what level is an offender subjected to probation

129 Q: What mechanisms are being put in place to ensure issues in this forum are addressed by the concerned institutions?

Q: Where communities cannot meet litigation cost of their rights, what answer do we have for our diminishing forests?

PFM: the disconnect between law, practice and reality - Mbuvi M.T .E Q: Your presentation and that of Mr.Kabugi indicated that PFM need an overhaul for it to work effectively; how do we address these killer threats A: There is still hope in PFM and these threats are red flags need to be considered in the next dispensation

Q: On bringing communities on board or handing over what we do in Kenya. What will be the role of KFS and the government who are currently the custodians of the forests? Q: Are there attempts to quantify community contribution in terms of foregone cultural costs Q: Can the current proposed Forest Bill be amended before tabling to parliament to consider a benefit sharing criteria? Q: Can the proposed forest bill give power to CFAs to establish a conservation trust fund in each forest station

THEME 3: PFM PLANNING AND PLAN IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES Key note paper-PFM planning and plan implementation experiences - Joram Kagombe Q: Is KFS approving PFMPs without all due diligence of reviewing them. Is it a formality to increase the number of approved PFMPs (performance evaluation) and not approving actual effective and operational plan? CFA conflicts and low capacity which is seen as one big gap? What is KFS doing on boundary issues to avoid encroachment? A: PFM guidelines are being reviewed and issues raised in the process will be integrated. In addition KFS is identifying weaknesses in PFMPs

Q: How can we deal with managing community expectations since it is a threat to PFM? A: This happens due to lack of awareness where you find only CFA officials are informed about PFM.

Q: Why do KFS allocate or issue licence to private developers for projects which CFA have identified in establishing the same income generating activity e.g. hotels in forest station where CFA is not consulted or included? A: There should be a system that gives priority registered CFAs

Q: Capacity building of KFS staff at station level to positively support PFM as they view CFAs suspiciously. A: Push for a partnership between CFAs and the developers to have mutual benefit and avoid duplications.

Q: Carbon Trading. Even after signing forest management agreements, CFAs are still required to sign another agreement to benefit from carbon trading A: There is no clear formula on costing carbon trading

Q: What has been done to actualize value addition to forest products? A: KEFRI develops products and expects the industries to pick them up. There is need to develop value addition technologies for gums and resins

Q: What is the way forward on cost benefit sharing since it is a recurring problem and who is responsible for capacity building in PFM A: This calls for all stakeholders to intervene and chart a way forward

Q: How will PFM be structured to fit to farm forestry and dry land forestry? A: Intervention zone should accommodate activities that reduce pressure in the forest. Q: How can we structure PFM to suit forests outside gazetted forest?

130 Q: What is the best formula for calculating carbon trade by extension officers? Q: How is the handling of FMA done such that CFAs is short changed, who is responsible and how can it be corrected Q: What will happen to PFM on the forests that have to be fenced after introduction of animal species e. g snakes? Q: Why are we not exporting gums and resins, honey like S. Sudan? This shows there is a disconnect between good research findings and livelihood improvement Q: Can KFS in this forum make a resolution to amend the pending forest bill in that all existing and upcoming companies including saw millers, water resource board or those organisations that extract water from the forest to contribute a certain percentages to CFA conservation Trust Fund Kitty Q: Can KFS give precise and concise steps it is taking to put to rest these contentious issues of benefit sharing Q: Conflict resolution mechanisms are featuring in the studies as lacking. What is KFS doing to build conflict resolution mechanisms at PFM/Station levels? Q: How can we have standardised detailed biodiversity monitoring by community KFS and other stakeholders’ e.g. SSGs in Important Biodiversity areas

Participatory Forest Management under Devolved Governanace. County Government perspective - Dr.Chumo Q: Some of the issues raised are controversial. You mentioned promotion of herbal medicine in harvesting, processing distribution and dispensation. It is true that herbal medicine is potent but there are quite a number of underlying issues e.g. capacity building and information sharing (herbal medicine practitioners are usually secretive), patenting, practice rules (eliminating quacks or non- professionals from practice and attitude to use herbal medicine with respect to religious values. Please comment A: Time is required to build the capacity and improve management of resources. Communities should explore PPP to realise benefits.

Q: Do you think there is a danger in devolving forests to county government. We know some governors can be rogue and misuse the forest and capacity is lacking at the county level A: The public should be vigilant and reject mismanagement of funds. Capacity is ongoing at and majority of county executive ministers are professionals

Q: Why are the county executives in charge of forests not attending the conference i.e. one for Kiambu County? A: Acting as the Chair of environment ministers in all counties the interest of all counties is represented.

Q: Do county governments involve KFS foresters when developing CIDPs Q: There is lack of clear recommendations by presenters on how to address the challenges that have cut across all presentations; Benefit sharing and capacity building. What will be the conference outputs on these challenges? Q: How can CFAs and NGOs work with county government in policy legislative process Q: What steps is KFS taking to compensate CFAs for the services offered to the forest stations Q: How can CFAs be given capacity to exploit resources within their respective forest stations Q: Involvement of county budgets of all stakeholders especially foresters who do prepare work plans each year. What are you doing being the leader of all other ministers in counties to bring them to the level of understanding of forest issues the way we do Q: Since there are many county forests, the best way to negotiate with national government is to put more energy in the forest and give KFS a challenge in managing state forests and this will be released and be implemented and results seen. Q: How can we entrust more resources to county government when they are not able to effectively use what is already allocated

131 The National status of PFMP Development, Approval and Implementation - Elizabeth Wambugu Q: Referring to PFMPs “template effect”. How can we prepare plans that capture the uniqueness of our forests? A: This is a major concern from all stakeholders. Communities should ensure they read through the PFMPs and approve the content before adapting PFMPs.

Q: Since Inadequate capacity is a major challenge in PFM, where does this leave the heavy forest dependent sectors/When concession was brought out in 2012 July, over 45 interests were registered, what has really happened. Q: What role does KFS play in funding and implementing a participatory management plan. For PFM ownership, how do we build trust between KFS and CFAs?

Experiences with PFM implementation under Forests Act 2005 in Nyandarua County -Benjamin Mutuku Mr.Kinyili Q: Lake Olbolossat in Nyandarua County is dwindling, this is a fact. Corporate are buying and putting up private facilities, could this add to the injuries the lake is already suffering from? If yes, what is the way forward? A: An integrated management plan for Olobolossat is being developed and sensitization events like marathon are taking place to emphasise on the importance of conservation A: Rehabilitation of the ecosystem through bamboo and tree planting is taking place in forests and farm lands.

Q: Are there lessons learnt in conflict management and what are technical interventions? A: Regular meetings and evaluation have been taking place including exposure tours to other counties. In some areas CFAs have formed conflict resolution and management committees

Q: The PFMPs of the Nyandarua are about to lapse having been developed in 2010, are there recommendations and were the reviews compiled throughout the five years. Q: PFMPs are lacking monitoring and evaluation plans with plans having targets for achievements, it is important to have indicators for reviews on the performance of the plans including community expectations/ benefit sharing Q: What best ideas can we learnt from Nyandarua County in terms of their working relationships with stakeholders? Q: In your own view, are costs met by communities commensurate with the benefits they get from those forests or are we using the communities to eventuality have sustainability Q: What is KFS doing to ensure that all the forest stations have PFMPs?

Theme 4: COST BENEFITS IN PFM Key note speech: Cost and Benefits in PFM - Jamleck Ndambiri

Q: Yes we need ecosystem management plans but first CFAS need capacity to implement management plans, integration approach is the way to go but without funding how will PFM be successful? A: This should involve all stakeholders and PFMPs incorporated to avoid contradictions in implementing current PFMPs

Q: According to your presentation, individual members are building on the pyramid where they benefit by collecting CFA money without accountability. Can we develop a way forward to stop opening a roof for a corrupted community in the name of PFM? Q: What is the formula used for licensing investors to establish a camp site in a forest apart from advertisement? Q: Do we have a mechanism for holding KFS accountable for not adhering to management agreements Q: It does not sound good when we sell all our trees then we hear of participation Q: KFS concentrates its activities in the densely populated forests, can some of its activities be taken to the forgotten forests like Port Victoria forest in Busia County in Bungalangi Sub County Q: Who is responsible for facilitating FCC elections? Q: There is need to entrench a provision in the draft Act entailing high standards of integrity on leaders to protect CFA members from corrupt leaders.

132 Livelihood Impacts of Decentralised Forest management: Empirical Evidence from Sururu and Eburru Forest, Kenya - Jane Mutune Q: How can you compare two parameters which are not subjected to the same treatment? A: Some academic aspects were omitted in the research though economic and demographic parameters were integrated. Q: In your research, what is the meaning of “IMPACT” and how do you measure it. This causes confusion because impacts are long term indicators and implications are also diverse. A: Impact means change due to an intervention in specified time lines.

Q: Why is it that the most poor left are out of the CFA? What is the impact of this to conservation and livelihoods? Q: How did you take off the sustainability element in your research? Q: The paper lacks theoretical framework to inform the practices to guide the practices

Forest Based Income Generating Potential (IGP) high community expectations amidst low community transformation; an analysis of PFM implementation between 2005 and 2013 - Dr. Thenya Q: Why do CFAs with good management plans lose focus after five years? What are they not doing right and how can they be assisted. Q: Can we have a clear plan for reviewing management plans Q: Did you get any answers of the issue of licensing and long government processes as an impediment to community investment in eco-tourism and cottage industry

Payment for Environmental services and additional incentives to forest conservation: Status in and opportunities in Kenya - Joram Kagombe Q: PES seem to be anchored on the best will of investors leaving a gap on how to address challenges at the community level A: PES can be anchored in the legal system; this will give an opportunity to work on the details including lessons learnt in Kenya and elsewhere.

Q: PES can be mobilised at individual level. There is a student who is willing to offset her footprint during her research period in Kenya. Can we think of developing guidelines to help such people in determining their dues?

Cost and benefits sharing in Participatory Forest Management - David Maingi Q: Your valuation formula will for sure be negative; Net benefits= (Gross benefits –Total costs)-Right value. When it comes to net value the communities will say this is our heritage hence we are the right holders. Should we stop everything about benefit sharing in forests and concentrate on forest valuation and by who A: Cost is the most common denominator in sharing benefits since PFM is meant to be an investment Q: Are we to wait for the values of the forest before requesting benefit sharing put in the forest Bill. A: It is important to note that costs and benefits are accrued beyond national jurisdiction therefore partnerships beyond Kenyan borders are critical

Q: As a way forward for a successful PFM. Can we develop mechanisms to drive CFA members mind towards implementing projects which can develop income generating activities, including tendering to the CFA to rehabilitate e instead of to individuals

133 7.2 Appendix 2: List of participants

NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO

1 Abraham Gatheca QTV [email protected] 0715529833

2 Aengwo Kenneth KFS-CFA 30513 Nbi aengwoken@yahoo,com 0724054889

3 Alex Lemarkoko KFS 30513 Nairobi [email protected] 0722676965

4 Anam Echakari GEPA 2 Gilgil [email protected] 0720209025

5 Anam Echakari GEPA 2 Gilgil [email protected] 0720209625

6 Andrew C Soi KFS Box 376 Siaya [email protected] 0727405277

7 Ann Nyambura Kariuri CFA Muguga 66 Kikuyu 0714570433

8 Ann W. Kamanu KENVO 49-000221 [email protected] 0725249960 30513-00100 9 Anne Kaari KFS [email protected] 0722371651 Nairobi NMG 10 Anne Macharia [email protected] 0724357437 Newspaper MMMB- 11 Arvid Sloth [email protected] MEWNR 12 Augustine Owate KFS [email protected] 0722595886

13 Bambo Jackson KFWG Box 20110 Nbi [email protected] 0729200595

14 Beatrice Atemo NFP/MEWNR Box 30126 NBI [email protected]

15 Bedan Leboo Ngong CFA 60 Ngong Hills [email protected] 0721772048

16 Benjamin Kitonyi Daily Nation [email protected] 0721831820

17 Benjamin M. Kinyili KFS Box 2Nakuru [email protected] 0723393737

18 Benjamin Owuor KEFRI 20412 [email protected] 0725581790

19 Benson Muiruri KENAFF 66-00221 0722100601 30765-00100 20 Benson O. Ochieng ILEG [email protected] 0721840194 Nbi 93-00221 21 Bernard Kamanu Kereita CFA [email protected] 0721944314 Matathia 22 Bernard Ngoda Egerton Box 536 [email protected] 0733917199 45-30705 23 Bowen Samuel Chesoi CFA [email protected] 0732778679 Kapsabet 24 Brian Karani KFS [email protected] 0728717449

25 Brigid Chemweno The Standard [email protected] 0725728288

26 Carolyne Wanjiku FSK [email protected] 0722767970

134 NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO

27 Carrington Kibet CFA Box 280 Kitale [email protected] 0726669745

28 Charkes K. Kiberen CFA Box 4674 [email protected] 0721977818

29 Chemweno Samuel N. Kenya 74 Kapsowar [email protected] 0722999443

30 Chrispinus Wambani KFS [email protected] 0729403256

31 Christopher Murage CFA Box 65 Kereita 0710383257

32 Clement Ng’oriareng KFS 30513 Nbi

33 Daniel Kamau CDTF 62199 Nairobi [email protected] 0722334965 dmbithi@Kenyaforestservice. 34 Daniel M. Mbithi KFS Box 30513 Nbi 0725353294 org 35 Daniel Mugu Njoroge Kieni CFA [email protected] 0723442478

36 Daniel Njenga NTV [email protected] 0723326474 Nazarene 00208-100 37 Daniel Parsaloi [email protected] 0722448787 university Ngong 38 David Keith Kapkaco CFA 550 Iten [email protected] 0724067140

39 David R. Maingi Wancey 40177 [email protected] 0722786184 Box 269 40 David Ronah KFS [email protected] 0722280709 Kehancha 41 De peter Mutonye Embakasi CFA 3 Ngong [email protected] 0726407766 5206 dkerengo@Kenyaforestservice. 42 Dennis Kerengo KFS 0722341440 Bungoma org 43 Dorothy Naitore CFA 1379 Meru [email protected] 0726788667

44 Dr. Ben Chikamai KEFRI [email protected] 2042-00200 45 Dr. Bernard Kigomo KEFRI Nbi 46 Dr. J. K. Chumo Nandi County [email protected]

47 Dr. Paul Matiku Nature Kenya [email protected] 0722628405

48 Dr. Richard Lesiyampe MEWNR University of 49 Dr. Thenya Thuita Nairobi 50 Dr. Winfred Musila PAFRI 19750 Nairobi [email protected] 0722493915 2042-00200 51 Ebby Chagala Odera KEFRI [email protected] 0722611027 Nbi Chuka 52 Edwin Kiria 410, Meru [email protected] 0721227686 University 53 Elias Njeru MEWNR [email protected] 0722878852

135 NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO

54 Eliud Murgor Kobujoi 99 Kobujoi [email protected] 0722514476 30513-00100 55 Elizabeth Wambugu KFS [email protected] 0733221009 Nbi 56 Ely Mwanza KEFRI Box 20412 Nbi [email protected] 0722386677 Box 30513 57 Emilio Mugo KFS [email protected] Nairobi 58 Enock Kanyanya USAID/Kenya 65670-0607 [email protected] 0722746312 Africa Water & 59 Erastus Wahome [email protected] 0721601177 Envt 60 Eric Tetea Nahama KFS 30513, Nairobi [email protected] Mother Earth 61 Erick Ogallo 15155 Ogallojunior2gmail.com 0728435202 Network 30513-00100 eomollo@Kenyaforestservice. 62 Esau Oginga Omollo KFS 0733788457 Nbi org 63 Eunice Maina KFS Box 30513 Nbi [email protected] 0722674501

64 Evans A. Maneno KFS 110 Meru [email protected] 0722473467 Box 123 65 Evans Muswahili ASFVI [email protected] 0726488107 VIHIGA fkariuki@Kenyaforestservice. 66 Francis Kariuki KFS 141 Isiolo 0721386107 org 67 Francis Rono Nandi North CFA 592 Kapsabet [email protected] 0724713085

68 George Karanu KFS- Ragia 741 [email protected] 0722495874

69 George Mugo The Star [email protected] 0721565462

70 George Oselu KTDA [email protected] 0723990019 Kwetu Training 685-80109 71 Georgina Mbugua [email protected] 0723786190 Centre Mtwapa 72 Gerald M. Ngatia NACOFA 1291 Karatina [email protected] 0722451966

73 Gerard Ngumbi KFWG 36436-00200 [email protected] 0722563637 1117-30300, 74 Gibson Kalume Kitsao Nature Kenya [email protected] 0721854319 Kapsabet 75 Gilbert Chebet Kapyego CFA 222-Kapsowar chebet.gilbert@yahoo,com 0729268999

76 Gitonga Stephen KEFRI/MEDIA [email protected] 0722882865

77 Harold Mwatua KCFCF Box 935 [email protected] 0725515623

78 Henry W. Karuiki Aberdare CFA

79 Hewson Kabugi MEWNR Box 30126 Nbi [email protected] 0722370702

80 Hon. Nakitare Private farmer [email protected] 0726265306

136 NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO

81 J. K. Ndambiri FSK/KFS 30513 Nbi [email protected] 0722300719

82 Jacob Olonde KFWG/FEYA Nairobi [email protected] 0728925306 Green Africa Jacqueline@ 83 Jacqueline Kimeu 9164 0720439495 Foundation greenafricafoundation.org Egerton 84 James George [email protected] 071287634 University James Odhiambo Box 9096 85 KEFRI [email protected] 0721601497 Maua Kisumu Box 1025 86 James Shihuma Nature Kenya 071315481 Webuye 40241-00100 87 Jane F Wamboi KWS [email protected] 0722726713 Nbi 30197-00100 88 Jane Mutune WMI [email protected] 0714986104 Nairobi 89 Jemimah Wambui KFS 2 Machakos 0726878428 Jeniffer Adero Box 460 90 Nature Kenya [email protected] 0722630535 Ojwang’ Kakamega Box 30126 91 Jeremiah Munayi MEWNR [email protected] 0720119192 Nairobi 92 Jerome Mwanzia KFS 30513 Nairobi

93 Jerono Olgah KFS 74, Kikuyu [email protected] 0726135470

94 Joan Gichuki Nature Kenya 44486 Nairobi [email protected]

95 Joel K. Laigong F.S.K 2680 Elburgon [email protected] 0729961419

96 John K Ritich Koibatek 07224375

97 John K. Macharia KFS 30513 Nairobi [email protected] 0727264155

98 John Kioli KCCWG

99 John Mbaya FSK 284-00562 Nbi [email protected] 0722647655

100 Johnstone Koech Kimondi CFA Box 860 [email protected] 0721746194 Johnstone Maloba 8-20203 101 KFC [email protected] 0723226288 Malingu Londiani 40 N. 102 Jonathan Muta Geta CFA [email protected] 0725452416 Kinangop Box 12069 chegenjugunakarega@yahoo. 103 Jonathan Njuguna KEFRI 0722801309 Nyeri com 104 Joram K. Kagombe KEFRI 20412 Nairobi [email protected] 0720145977

105 Joseph Chege CFA 66-00221 0710912188

106 Joseph Kamondo Elburgon CFA 14661 Nakuru [email protected] 0721285587

107 Joseph Kimani K MASULICOFA 71 Egerton [email protected] 0725587969 Box 66 108 Joseph Koiy CFA 0720632636 Matathia

137 NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO Box 28 109 Joseph Kulundu Bunyala CFA [email protected] 0726989932 Nambale Joseph Nzumbi Box 1279 110 CFA Gathiuru [email protected] 0729791598 Monmi Nanyuki 111 Josephine Musyoki KEFRI Box 892 [email protected] 0722612897

112 JosephWaitagei SOCOFONA CFA Box 60 Narok 0726685357 kioli@greenafricafoundation. 113 Joshek Cheboiwo KEFRI 9164- 0722722915 org 114 Jossyline Kaari CFA METECAP 110 Meru [email protected] 0714380736 Box 30513 115 Josyline Thambu KFS [email protected] 0724741972 Nairobi 116 Judith Mugambi KCJCOC [email protected] 0722704636 Box 132 117 Julius M. Lvvayo Nature Kenya [email protected] TharakaNithi 118 Kantau Nkuruna ENDIM CFA Box 81Narok [email protected]

119 Kefa M. Wamichwe MRIT 76826 Nbi [email protected] 0722869364

120 Kenneth Cherop Nature Kenya Box 441 Iten [email protected] 0720049781

121 Kezia Nyambura CFA Rumuruti 48 Marmanet [email protected] 0720127079 Molo Visionary 122 Kidd Gedeon Orwenyi 136 Molo [email protected] 0725259674 CFA Egerton 123 Kipkoech Evans Korir 536 [email protected] 0713313213 University Box 87 124 Kiprotich Langat KFS [email protected] 0724202726 Londiani 125 Laura Yego KFS [email protected] 0722275646

126 Leah Gichuki KFWG 10541 Nairobi [email protected] 0723410274 30513-00100 127 Leo A. Ambogo MMMB – KFS [email protected] 0722609026 Nairobi 128 Lilian Awuor MEWNR [email protected] 0737217372

129 Lucy Njuguna KFWG 20110 Nairobi [email protected] 0710113981 30513 – 00100 130 Luke Njuguna KFS [email protected] Nairobi 131 M. Nyamu KFS [email protected] 0722520153 Mambili S. Lutiali, Muilesiti CFA- 14-50107 132 [email protected] 0724205777 HSC Kakamega Shinyalu 133 Margaret Wangari KFS [email protected] 0721351160 63163-00619 134 Martin Schweter KFS – MMMB [email protected] 0708724844 Nairobi 135 Mary Mbatha FSK 30513 Nairobi [email protected] 0725806405

138 NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO

136 Mary Mbeti Kariuki KENVO [email protected] 0724912237 159 137 Mary Wanjiku CFA Olbolossat 0726439616 Nyahururu 138 Mathew Biriri Lembus C.I.C.P [email protected] 0722743335

139 Mbotela William K.U [email protected] 0727848942

140 Mbuvi, M.T.E. KEFRI 1078 Malindi [email protected] 0733809951 Box 280 141 Mercy Kimosop Nature Kenya [email protected] 0720633201 Kapsowar 1601-30100 142 Mercy Obado Kabarak [email protected] 0722825978 Eldoret 143 Meshack Muga KEFRI 64636-00620 [email protected] 0722237193 Mmwanikiene@nationmedia. 144 Mike Mwaniki Daily Nation 0734288157 com 22-10300 145 Miriam Kamau KFS [email protected] 0722290251 Kerugoya Box30513 mkalenda@Kenyaforestservice. 146 Monica Kalenda KFS 0717614922 Nairobi org 147 Monicah Ndirangu KFS [email protected] 0714478972

148 Nancy Chege UNDP-GEF/SGP Box 30218 [email protected] 0762447314

149 Nelly Wangari KENVO 49 Matathia [email protected] 0722888984

150 Okotti Samuel NFP/MEWNR [email protected] 0721392003

151 Okwaro George A.W.F Box [email protected] 0733228876 Box 28 152 Oliver Ntwiga Kinyua KFS Gathiuru [email protected] 0722954546 Nanyuki 153 Patrick Kariuki KFS 30513 Nairobi

154 Patrick M. Waithira KENVO 106 Uplands [email protected] 0724886026

155 Patrick Wamiti GETA Box 33 Gilgil [email protected] 0722698869

156 Paul Chepkwony Londiani CFA 81 – Londiani [email protected] 0724955940 Box 20117- 157 Paul Opanga FSC [email protected] 0722726690 0200 Kiambu County 158 Paul W. Wanyagah 19-20319 [email protected] 0723888642 Alliance – CFAS Box 643 E/ 159 Peter K. Chumo NEWCOFA [email protected] 0720268476 Ravine 160 Peter Kiptanui Kobujoi CFA 80 Kepchemo [email protected] 0720608156 University of 161 Peter Lemiso Siravo 1125 Eldoret [email protected] 0710592817 Eldoret 162 Peter Macharia KFS-CFA 0723656677

139 NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO

163 Peter Mugo KFS CFA 17623 Nakuru [email protected] 0713535902 30513-00100 164 Peter N. Nduati KFS [email protected] 0724713085 Nairobi 165 Peter Wandera NACOFA [email protected] 0725810117 Kenyatta 166 Prof. James B. Kung’u 43848 Nairobi [email protected] 0722740719 University 30197-00100 167 Raphael Kweyu WMI-UON [email protected] 0728322788 Nairobi 168 Riako Nicholas KEFRI 20412 Nairobi [email protected] 0710689252

169 Robenson Mimera CFA Maji Mazuri robonmimwau 0729976103

170 Robert Ngotho KFS Box 1 Londiani [email protected] 0722332139

171 Robert M. Ngaruiya CFA 1197- Thika 0718039360 30513-00100 172 Rose A. Akombo KFS [email protected] 072682925 Nairobi 173 Rosemary Waithira CFA 113, Kiganjo 0723786184

174 Roxventa Anyango KEFRI Box 20412 [email protected] 0722842037 Samuel Kibunja 175 KENVO/CFA Box 57904 [email protected] 0722715374 Kamau 176 Samuel Ronyang CFA Box 174 0725294236 Samuel Wakangu Box 49 177 KENVO [email protected] 0723519144 Kiarie Matathia Katichtich 178 Samwel Kenyatta Box 184 [email protected] 0710179551 Kapkanyar CFA 179 Simon Kamonde Muguga CFA 848 Kikuyu [email protected] 0722853921

180 Simon N. Wairungu KEFRI 20412 Nairobi [email protected] 0701403542 office@ngongforestsanctuary. 181 Simon Ng’ang’a KFWG 688 Nairobi 0729840715 com 182 Stephanie Mungai MMMB – KFS [email protected] 0712360904

183 Stephen Gikonyo KENVO-CDTF 34-Matathia [email protected] 0725635053

184 Stephen Kamau W KENVO 49 Kapsabet [email protected] 0723749498 Egerton 185 Stephen Mwangi 536 [email protected] 0726569775 University 186 Tabitha Njeri Muchiri 117 Kangari 0713778203 495 Eldama 187 Tecla Chumba NACOFA [email protected] 0722395342 Ravine Kenyatta 189 Theresa Aloo 2108 Nairobi 0722750698 University

140 NAME INSTITUTION POSTAL BOX EMAIL ADDRESS TEL, NO Box 30513 190 Thomas M. Lonzi KFS [email protected] 0714709609 Nairobi Mt. Suswa co 191 Tiapukei Parkine 579 Naivasha [email protected] 0705940414 centre 192 Vashit Kirondo KFS [email protected] 0712834256

193 Vivian Orido SII 28405 Nbi [email protected] 0722499226 Volga Lipwoni Rapporteur/ 194 [email protected] KFWG 195 Wachinga Kibui KEFRI 30577 Nbi [email protected] 0724366385 Kenyatta 196 Wanjiru Cynthia [email protected] 0716333648 University 197 Wanjiru Gathira SII 28405 Nbi [email protected] 0720681584

198 Washington Ayiemba Nature Kenya 44486 Nairobi [email protected] 0725271231

199 Wilberforce Okwiri The Standard [email protected] 0729403256 Box 201 200 Wilfred Rakita KFWG [email protected] 0721314304 Olenguruon 201 William Ojijo KFS 74 Kikuyu [email protected] 0720892742

202 Willis Atie KEFRI 5-30106 Turbo [email protected] 0722480506

203 Zipporah Matumbi MEFECAP CFA Box 187 Meru [email protected]

204 Zipporah Toroitich KFS 30513 Nairobi [email protected]

141 142