RP500v3

Public Disclosure Authorized

KENYA FOREST SERVICE

Natural Resource Management Project

Public Disclosure Authorized Process Framework Final Version Public Disclosure Authorized

Public Disclosure Authorized

Process Framework for NRM Project in Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills July 2011 Updated 13th February 2013 Prepared by Esther Lowe & Margaret Ombai Tacitus Ltd: The Participatory Development Consultants Page | 1 [email protected]

Page | 2

Table of contents Table of contents ...... 3 List of abbreviations ...... 6 Executive summary...... 7 1. Project Description ...... 11 1.1 Project development objective ...... 11 1.2 Project component 2: Management of forest resources ...... 11 1.3 Project activities restricting access to forest resources ...... 12 1.4 Objectives of the Process Framework ...... 12 2. Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework ...... 13 2.1 Policy framework: The Forest Policy (2007) ...... 13 2.2 Legal framework: The Forest Act (2005) – Strengths and Challenges ...... 13 2.2.1 The Forest Act 2005 in relation to the needs of VMGs ...... 15 2.2.2 Recommendations on the way forward ...... 16 2.3 Institutional framework ...... 16 3. Procedures for Meaningful Consultations and Involvement of Project Affected Peoples in Project Activities ...... 18 3.1 Procedures for development of eligibility criteria for PAPs ...... 18 3.1.1 Criteria for establishing eligibility for entitlements for PAPs ...... 18 3.1.2 Assessment of levels of vulnerability of the Ogiek and Sengwer: The IP Census ...... 19 3.2 Procedures for identification of impacts and mitigation strategies: Findings of the Social Assessment ...... 22 3.2.1 Identification of impacts and mitigation strategies ...... 22 This was undertaken during the Social Assessment exercise, which in the case of NRMP, was conducted by KFS in 2010. The procedures and steps that were followed in the identification of impacts and mitigating strategies are listed below: ...... 22 3.2.2 Summary of the 2010 SA Findings ...... 22 3.2.3 Recommendations of the SA relevant to the PF ...... 24 3.3 Procedures for identification of livelihood options and sub-project activities ...... 24 4. Complaints and Grievance Resolution Mechanism ...... 25 4.1 Current status ...... 26 4.2 Sources of grievances ...... 27 4.3 Redress mechanism ...... 28 4.4 Grievance redress procedures ...... 28 4.5 NRMP Focal Point ...... 29

Page | 3 5. Administrative and Legal Procedures ...... 30 5.1 Administration and communication ...... 30 5.2 Legal Procedures for the administration of the PF...... 31 5.3 Assessment of Institutional Capacity to Implement the Process Framework ...... 31 6. Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements ...... 32 7. Implementation Schedule and Budget ...... 33 The total cost of activities that are not part of the regular NRMP project activities as described in the project document combine to the following [approximate] total for the remaining two years of the project: ...... 33 8. Interagency and Public/ NGO Consultation ...... 34 8.1 First round of Public Consultations: Development of Process Framework ...... 34 8.2 Second Round of Public Consultations: Disclosure of the Process Framework ...... 34 9. Recommendations ...... 35 10. List of References ...... 36 Annex 1 Terms of reference ...... 38 Annex 2 List of Consultants and Team Preparing Process Framework ...... 44 Annex 3 Records of Inter-Agency and Public/NGO Consultations ...... 46 3.1 PF VALIDATION IN CHERANGANY HILLS ...... 46 3.2 PF VALIDATION IN MOUNT ELGON ...... 46 3.3 ROUND ONE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS TO DEVELOP THE PF AND VMGPS ...... 46 7TH APRIL 2011 ...... 46 PLANNING MEETING WITH MOUNT ELGON VULNERABLE AND MARGINALISED PEOPLES COORDINATING COMMITTEE ...... 46 8TH APRIL 2011 ...... 46 INTERVIEW WITH KFS FORESTER – AND CURRENTLY ACTING DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER - MR. ISAAC SABULEY ...... 46 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE OGIEK VMGS OF IYAA ...... 46 9TH APRIL 2011 ...... 46 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE OGIEK VMGS OF KAPSANG ...... 46 10TH APRIL 2011 ...... 46 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE OGIEK VMGS OF TOBOO ...... 46 11TH APRIL 2011 ...... 46 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE FOREST ADJACENT COMMUNITIES ...... 46 12TH APRIL 2011 ...... 46 CONSULTATIVE MEETING WITH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ...... 46 MARAKWET ...... 47

Page | 4 11TH APRIL 2011 ...... 47 COURTESY CALL ON THE MARAKWET ZONAL MANAGER, MR. ALFRED NYASWABU ...... 47 COURTESY CALL TO THE MARAKWET EAST DC, MR. JOSEPH M. KISANGAU ...... 47 PLANNING MEETING WITH THE MARAKWET VULNERABLE & MARGINALISED PEOPLES COORDINATING COMMITTEE ...... 47 12TH APRIL 2011 ...... 47 COURTESY CALL TO THE KFS CHERANGANI FOREST STATION...... 47 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS OF KAMOI ...... 47 13TH APRIL 2011 ...... 47 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS OF EMBOBUT ...... 47 WEST POKOT ...... 47 15TH APRIL 2011 ...... 47 COURTESY CALL TO WEST POKOT ZONAL MANAGER, MR. GABRIEL KARIUKI ...... 47 COURTESY CALL ON THE DC, WEST POKOT ...... 47 PLANNING MEETING WITH THE WEST POKOT VMGCC ...... 47 16TH APRIL 2011 ...... 47 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS WEST POKOT ...... 47 TRANS NZOIA ...... 47 18TH APRIL 2011 ...... 47 COURTESY CALL ON TRANS NZOIA ZONAL MANAGER, MR. S.K. WAHOME...... 47 COURTESY CALL ON TRANS NZOIA EAST DISTRICT COMMISSIONER ...... 47 COURTESY CALL ON TRANS NZOIA WEST DISTRICT COMMISSIONER ...... 48 PLANNING MEETING WITH THE TRANS NZOIA VMG COORDINATING COMMITTEE ...... 48 20TH APRIL 2011 ...... 48 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS TRANS NZOIA ...... 48 Annex 3.4 List of participants to the consultative meetings ...... 48 Annex 3.5 Some pictures taken during the various consultative meetings ...... 48

Page | 5

List of abbreviations

CAHW Community Animal Health Worker CHEMUDEP Cherangany Multipurpose Development Programme CFA Community Forest Association CIPDP Chepkitale Indigenous People Development Programme EMCA Environmental Management and Conservation Act FAC Forest Adjacent Community FCC Forest Conservation Committee HOC Head of Conservancy IP Indigenous People IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework KFS Kenya Forest Service LNGO Local Non-Governmental Organizations M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NRMP National Resource Management Project OP The World Bank’s Operational Policy PF Process Framework PFM Participatory Forest Management PM&E Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation SEA Strategic Environment Assessment SFM Strategic Forest Management SIDP Sengwer Indigenous Development Project VMG Vulnerable and Marginalised Group VMGCC Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups Coordination Committees VMGP Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups Plan VMP Vulnerable and Marginalised People ZM Zonal Manager

Page | 6 Executive summary

NRM project description: The project has four components: (1) Water resources management and irrigation, (2) Management of forest resources, (3) Livelihoods investments in the Upper Tana catchment, and (4) Management, monitoring and evaluation. The NRMP became operational on December 10, 2007, although start of implementation was delayed due to post-election violence. The project operational area includes forests in Aberdares, Upper Tana, Kakamega, Nandi, Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills. This Process Framework specifically deals with matters of restriction of access to forests and use of forest products and resources, under the NRMP Component 2 which is implemented by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS). The Process Framework was developed with a specific focus on the Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills regions. Objectives of the Process Framework: Forest Act 2005 spells out how people can access and use forest resources and the redress mechanism in case of disputes. Howerwer, in World Bank funded projects, when it is determined that actions of the project may result in adverse effects due to, e.g. strengthened restrictions of access to forest and forest resources or involuntary resettlement, then the Safeguards Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement is triggered. In the case of NRMP, the policy was triggered in relation to Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon and the g. For this reason, the Government of Kenya has undertaken to develop this Process Framework (PF) to establish the process by which members of potentially affected communities can participate in planning of project components, determination of measures necessary to achieve the policy objectives, and implementation and monitoring of relevant project activities. The PF also establishes mechanisms for redress of grievances that may arise during implementation. Policy, legal and institutional framework: The broad objective of the Forest Policy (2007) is to provide continuous guidance to all Kenyans on the sustainable management of forests including indigenous forests, farm forestry, industrial forest development, dry land forestry, forest health and protection, private sector involvement and participatory forest management. The Forests Act (2005) makes legal provisions for the establishment, development and sustainable management of forests, including conservation and rational utilisation of forest resources for the socio- economic development of the country. It makes provision for Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and how forest communities may be involved in the co-management of forests and benefit sharing. Kenya Forest Service (KFS), established in February 2007 as a state corporation under the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, is the institution mandated under Act to implement the Forest Policy objectives. At the community level, the Act provides for the establishment of CFAs to work with KFS in the management forest resources while at the conservancy and national levels, FCCs and the Board support KFS in its work. Procedures for involvement of PAPs in identification of impacts and mitigation strategies: The procedures that should be followed in the identification of impacts and mitigating strategies include: 1. Desk study; 2. Consultations with PAPs representatives at the grassroots level and the KFS zonal staff; 3. Broad and detailed public consultations with the PAPs based on advanced information of agenda and accessible venues; 4. Consultations with relevant government departments and non-governmental actors; 5. Initial analysis to collate information from various stakeholders; 6. Workshops for the verification, analysis, validation and adoption of findings and recommended strategies; 7. Monitoring of occurrence of impacts and mitigating according to agreed strategies. Procedures for identification of livelihood options: The process to be followed by PAPs in the identification of relevant livelihood options and sub-project activities for NRMP support would consist of the following key steps:

Page | 7 a) Conducting a participatory planning process with the PAPs. This would involve public consultations to identify livelihood options and agree those that can be supported under the project; b) Using information from the public consultations to develop Action Plans for each zone to ensure that the affected people receive social and economic benefits; c) Establishing (if they are non-existent), and mounting a training programme for, activity (user) groups to ensure effective and efficient implementation of sub-projects; d) Reviewing, approving and implementing environmentally friendly livelihood support projects; e) Participatory monitoring and evaluation by both KFS and the PAPs. Eligible activities under NRMP and applicable participatory consultation tools: In Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon, identification of livelihood support activities would be undertaken in consultation with the VMGs based on the findings of the Social Assessment (2010). Eligible activities revolve around improving livestock breeds, bee keeping, cottage industry, conservation and reforestation activities, eco-tourism, water bottling, poultry keeping, horticulture, small-scale irrigation, fish farming etc. In order to ensure the active participation of PAPs, some of the applicable participatory tools would include Focused Group Discussions; Semi-Structured Interviews, Key Informant Interviews and Options Assessments – all conducted in a face-to-face situation - to ensure that the reasoning behind given positions or perceptions are clearly understood, triangulated and documented. Procedures for determination of eligibility criteria: In order to determine eligibility for project support, KFS in consultation with the PAPs will agree on criteria that are relevant and feasible to prioritise the most vulnerable PAPs and which are specific to a given area or zone. The participatory procedures for the development of eligibility criteria are: 1. A brainstorming meeting by VMGCC or other representative body in each zone, with participation of KFS Focal Point, to identify initial acceptable eligibility criteria and the reasons for the same; 2. Presentation of the initial criteria to PAPs in consultative forums at accessible venues and soliciting additional views from them; 3. With support from the KFS Focal Point, analysing information from the various PAPs consultative forums and documenting agreed criteria; 4. Incorporating the agreed criteria into the working by-laws of the VMGCC; 5. Disseminating the agreed criteria to the PAPs, KFS and other relevant stakeholders. The following are some of the criteria to consider in determining levels of vulnerability: A. Issues of land ownership, complete with land titles; B. Access, within easy reach, to basic social amenities such as water, schools, health facilities, markets etc. The recommended distances - by the UN - to health and water facilities are 5 and 3 Km radius respectively; C. Ability to undertake unrestricted livelihood activities including small scale enterprises within the settlement areas (i.e. a comparison of people living within the forest glades and those that live outside the forest – regardless of any resources such as livestock that the former may own). Proportions of Ogiek and Sengwer/Cherangany in the project area that is vulnerable: To assess the levels of vulnerability of Ogiek and Sengwer in the project area in preparation of this PF, the consultants tested the applicability of the suggested criteria (A-C above). The assessment was undertaken at two levels: 1) vulnerability levels among VMGs (Sengwer and Ogiek); and 2) vulnerability of VMGs compared to the dominant communities with whom they live side by side. The assessment concluded that: 1. In the first category of vulnerability are the Sengwer VMGs who live in Embobut forest, Marakwet East, who form about 30.5% of Sengwer population in Cherangany Hills. They have no claim to land ownership, cannot undertake unrestricted livelihood activities in the forest and have no basic social amenities (schools and health facilities within the recommended distances – 1 and 5 km radius respectively). 2. The Ogiek of Chepkitale which forms about 85% of the Ogiek in Mount Elgon is in the second category of vulnerability. The land that they claim is a legally gazetted Game Reserve and fall within the Mt Elgon forest ecosystem. They cannot undertake unrestricted livelihood activities in the

Page | 8 forest and have no basic social amenities (schools and health facilities within the recommended distances – 1 and 5 km radius respectively), but they refuse to be resettled in Chebyuk. 3. In the third category of vulnerability is the Sengwer of Kapolet in Trans Nzoia East who forms about 7% of the Sengwer in Cherangany Hills. These have been given land parcels but have no legal ownership documents such as letters of allotment or title deeds and are in dispute with KFS on the status of what they call Kapolet phase two which is a legally gazetted forest but which they claim was promised to them by the forer President Moi. 4. In the fourth category of vulnerability are the Sengwer and Cherangany who live in West Pokot (about 25% and 23% respectively) and in Marakwet West (about 35% and 69% respectively). This category answers positively to all the suggested vulnerability criteria in the sense that they have legal titles to the land parcels that they own, they can undertake unrestricted socio-economic activities in the areas in which they are settled, and, like all other Kenyans in rural areas, have access to the basic social amenities within reach. Detailed analysis of levels of vulnerability is presented in section 3.1.2 of this report. Grievances redress mechanism: “Grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs) are institutions, instruments, methods and processes by which a resolution to a grievance is sought and provided”1. The mechanisms provide an effective avenue for expressing concerns and achieving remedies for communities. Grievances and disputes may arise at several stages of the Project’s planning and implementation and may be related to KFS, or may be a result of conflicts between groups affected by the Project. To redress grievances that may arise between the PAPs and KFS, a two-fold (internal) mechanism is proposed to compliment the mechanism laid down by the Act, and is designed with the aim of resolving grievances at the earliest opportunity and at the lowest possible level – community and zonal levels. It is important to state from the outset that this PF is for application in NRM project areas that are under World Bank Financing.

Proactive Approach: This approach would promote a common understanding through a four-pronged process following free, prior and informed consultation and dialogue, including: (a) wide-spread disclosure of project information and discussions on the way forward with regard to known complaints; (b) clarification of the criteria of eligibility for assistance; (c) clarification of the duties and responsibilities; and (d) community conservation education and public awareness. An NRMP focal point will be assigned at the project implementation level, to assist field operations and to bring in professional experience of working with local communities. Reactive Approach: Conflicts that do arise in the course of project implementation would be dealt with through the grievance redress mechanism stipulated in the Forest Act 2005, i.e. the process involving the CFA, FCC and the Tribunal as appropriate, or, in case of the VMGs, through their coordination committees (VMGCCs). In this regard, a four step grievance redress mechanism is proposed. In the first place, the VMGCC should try as much as possible, to deal with, and resolve (especially using traditional and formal conflict resolution techniques) grievances brought to it by individuals or group. Should this fail, the committee should forward the grievance – in writing - to the Zonal Manager (ZM) and Head of Conservancy (HOC) simultaneously. The ZM/HOC should acknowledge in writing, receipt of the complaint and give progress report on solutions, next actions etc. If resolution is not possible at the zonal/HOC levels, or if the solution proposed by these levels is not satisfactory to the complainant(s), the complainant(s) through the committee can take the case forward to the KFS Head Office before seeking redress from an independent mediator or arbitrator, and finally, the dispute resolution Tribunal stipulated in the Forest Act, or the normal Court of Law. Administration and communication: The administration of the Process Framework will involve a two-way communication and cooperation between KFS and the VMGs/PAPs. On its part, KFS may invite participation of other relevant government institutions and departments in the administration of this PF. On the part of VMGs, the PF will be administered by the VMGCC, while other PAPs such as the FACs would administer the PF through their respective CFAs. In case of conflicts involving the VMGs and FACs, the KFS Focal Point will

1 Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) 2009 Page | 9 encourage and facilitate their respective bodies (VMGCC and CFA) to resolve the issues. Similarly, depending on the origin of a complaint that is forwarded to the ZM/HOC, the ZM/Focal Point would work with the respective body (CFA or VMGCC) to resolve the complaint. Communication is a key factor in the successful implementation of the NRMP. During the Social Assessment in 2010 and the plenary and key informant interviews sessions in February 2011 in Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills, all VMGs expressed the view that they prefer participatory (two–way, face-to-face) communication that would ensure that they are not mere receivers, but also initiators and analysts of information and legitimate grievances. The most effective modes of communication in the VMG areas involve the use of word of mouth through formal and informal leaders, chief’s barazas and community meetings. KFS should as much as possible resort to these modes of communication, while also ensuring that complaints and agreed solutions are recorded and properly stored in easy to retrieve systems. Monitoring arrangements: KFS has the primary responsibility for implementing an M&E system for the NRMP, including the Process Framework. VMGs and other PAPs need to be involved in the implementation of the monitoring system as they also have a responsibility in, and are a major factor to, the successful implementation of the PF. Indicators that are adequate and appropriate for consultation and monitoring the effectiveness of the PF include: number of participants in consultation process, number of grievances and conflicts that are reported, recorded, acknowledged and addressed, number of grievances resolved and remedial activities (and at which level), and the amount of time it has taken to resolve them. The two-way communication with PAPs, including VMGs, on grievances are in built into the mechanism itself, in terms of the timeframes for feedback to the complainant. Implementation schedule: Implementation of the Process Framework activities is considered as part of the regular KFS activities. In this respect, the grievances will be addressed as and when they arise. However, once they arise and are registered, the timeframes indicated in the four-step process would have to be adhered to. Interagency and public/NGO consultation: To develop this PF, the consultants held a total of 11 public consultations – 10 in the first round and one in the second round, in which a total of 1,012 people participated.

Page | 10

1. Project Description

1.1 Project development objective2 The original objectives of the Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP) are3: “To enhance institutional capacity to manage water and forest resources, and improve the livelihoods of communities participating in the co-management of water and forests.” The project operational area includes forests in Aberdares, Upper Tana, Kakamega, Nandi, Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills. The NRMP became officially effective on December 10, 2007, although start of implementation was delayed due to post-election violence. The project has four components: (1) Water resources management and irrigation, (2) Management of forest resources, (3) Livelihoods investments in the Upper Tana catchment, and (4) Management, monitoring and evaluation. This Process Framework (PF) specifically deals with matters of restriction of access to forests and use of forest products and resources, under the NRMP Component 2 which is implemented by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS). The Process Framework was developed with a specific focus on the Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills regions.

1.2 Project component 2: Management of forest resources With the passage of the Forest Act in 2005, Kenya is advocating a major shift away from exclusive government conservation and management of forest resources. The Act emphasizes joint management by government, local communities and the private sector for the protection and sustainable uti9lization of forest resources and products. This requires improved forest governance and participation and investment by stakeholders. To operationalize the Act, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife and the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) require (i) assistance in creating a transparent and accountable regulatory and institutional framework, and (ii) targeted support to implement the Act. The NRM project covers the following sub-components under Component 2: Management of Forest Resources: Subcomponent 2.1 Forest Sector Institutional Reforms Activities planned under this sub-component were meant to assist the Government of Kenya with the reforms necessary to transform the former Forest Department to the semi-autonomous KFS. Inputs were to be targeted at activities enabling institutional arrangements to enhance forest governance and improve revenue capture not supported in the Government budget. As at the time of developing the Process Framework, KFS had been operational for about four years, and the key elements of the envisaged reforms under this sub-component have largely been achieved. Subcomponent 2.2 Enabling Community Participation and Benefit Sharing While the Forest Act is innovative with respect to the promotion of stakeholder participation, it does not clearly articulate rights and responsibilities of concerned parties, process for developing and approving management plans, or benefit sharing arrangements. Issues of decision-making, management responsibilities and benefit-sharing are to be dealt with in the subsidiary legislation or review of the Forest Act. In this regard, assistance would be provided to identify and prioritize an array of partnership models to implement the legislative framework and improve benefit sharing. Bank financing of this subcomponent would emphasize sustainable and participatory forest management.

2 Information in this paragraph is taken from: Resettlement Policy Framework: Western Kenya Community Driven Development and Flood Mitigation Project and the Natural Resources Management Project. Environmental Resources Management, January 2007 3 The project document is currently undergoing restructuring and objectives and project components will be adjusted accordingly. Page | 11

Subcomponent 2.3 Community and Private Sector Investment in Commercial Forestry The Forest Act 2005 aims at revitalizing Kenya's forest industries and ensuring closer integration between forest products, manufacturing, harvesting and forest management objectives as well as to generate increased rural incomes. Assistance would be provided to strengthen institutional support services for the creation of an enabling environment for community and private sector involvement in development and management of production forests. This would be achieved by supporting the establishment and operationalization of a KFS Investment Centre. In addition, Bank financing would assist in developing capacity in KFS to motivate and manage private investment in sustainable forest management.

1.3 Project activities restricting access to forest resources The Forest Act 2005 spells out how forest communities can access and use forest resources. The sustainable conservation of forests, the implementation of the Act and the specific forest related activities of the NRMP (Component 2) might require the involuntary physical and/or economic access restriction to protected and non-protected forests. The project activities in both the Cherangany and Mount Elgon Forests include:  Empowering forest communities in the co-management of the forests;  Forest boundary demarcation;  Rehabilitating degraded forests areas;  Support to sub-projects for livelihood improvement for project affected peoples. While in the face value all the above activities may appear positive and without much adverse effects, the SA undertaken by KFS in 2010 revealed that the VMGs have fears and reservations, in particular, if the activities are implemented without their involvement. Examples of some of their fears and concerns highlighted in the SA include:  Exclusion of the VMGs especially those who live in the forest, from participating in decision- making levels of CFAs (which are the legally instituted instruments for co-management and benefit sharing;  Forest boundary demarcation not respecting the 1895 boundaries;  Rehabilitating forests in disputed areas;  Possibility for restricted access to, and utilization of forest resources and products on which they depend for their livelihood and cultural activities;  Possibility for forced resettlement or resettlement in areas that are not culturally appropriate, resulting in the destruction of cultural values, language, and livelihood activities that are dependent of the forest. Despite the VMGs fears, the Government of Kenya, recognizes that, given, their close association with land, forests, water, wildlife, and other natural resources, the physical relocation of the affected people, or other measures which reduce their access to livelihood-related resources, has complex implications, and may entail significant adverse impacts on their identity, culture, and customary livelihoods. For this reason, and in order to comply with the World Bank Safeguards Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement the Government of Kenya is required to develop a Process Framework when a World Bank- funded project may cause restrictions in access to natural resources in legally designated parks and protected areas, such as gazetted forests in Kenya, which results in adverse impacts on livelihoods of the affected persons.

1.4 Objectives of the Process Framework Good practice has demonstrated that the objectives of the Bank’s policy – OP 4.12 - can be better achieved through a participatory process and rehabilitation and mitigating interventions along the lines outlined in this Process Framework. The Process Framework establishes a process by which members of potentially Page | 12 affected communities can participate in planning of project components, determination of measures necessary to achieve the policy objectives, and implementation and monitoring of relevant project activities. It covers restrictions of access to legally designated forest conservation areas, which result in adverse impacts on livelihoods of the affected people. To determine the appropriate coverage of the Process Framework, the consultant’s team (for details see Annex 2) undertook numerous consultations with the project affected people (see detailed records in Annex 3), together with a review of the Social Assessment4 (2010) and the Forest Act (2005). These confirmed what potential impacts on peoples’ livelihoods may be, and should project activities result in restriction of access to the forest and forest resources, then this Process Framework would applied to redress the grievances.

2. Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework 2.1 Policy framework: The Forest Policy (2007) The broad objective of the new Forest Policy (Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2007) is to provide continuous guidance to all Kenyans on the sustainable management of forests. The Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1968 did not provide for adequate harmonisation between resource policies but the the 2007 policy has taken cognizance of other existing policies relating to land and land use, tenure, agriculture, energy, environment, mining, wildlife and water. Further, this policy stresses the need for greater cooperation and linkage among resource owners, users, and resource planners. The Forest Policy addresses indigenous forest management, farm forestry, industrial forest development, dry land forestry, forest health and protection, private sector involvement and participatory forest management. It recognizes that there are benefits arising from involvement of local communities and other stakeholders in forest management. Most importantly, the policy emphasises the importance of forests for water and biodiversity conservation and for the provision of fuel wood, and cost and benefit sharing. The key elements of the new policy are: 1. A new forest legislation to implement the policy. 2. Expanded mandate in the management of all types of forests. 3. Involvement of forest (adjacent) communities and other stakeholders in forest management and conservation. 4. Forest management planning based on an ecosystem approach. 5. Appropriate incentives to promote sustainable use and management of forest resources. 6. Institutional transformation of the Forest Department into a semi-autonomous Kenya Forest Service. The policy proposes to address local and global forestry issues and challenges to ensure fair contribution of the forestry sector to the country’s economic development. The implementation of this policy is expected to improve the social welfare of the Kenyan population without compromising environmental conservation.

2.2 Legal framework: The Forest Act (2005) – Strengths and Challenges The Forest Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) sets out the legal framework for the establishment, management and conservation of forests in Kenya. The Act, in its preamble, recognises that forests play a vital role in the stabilization of soils and ground water, thereby supporting the conduct of reliable agricultural activity, and that they play a crucial role in protecting water catchments in Kenya and moderating climate change by absorbing green house gasses. Further, the preamble states that Kenya is committed to the inter-sectoral development and sustainable use of forestry resources and is committed,

4 Report of the NRMP Social Assessment of IPs in Cherangany Hills and Mt Elgon: Natural Resources Management Project - Tacitus Ltd, Jul 2010 Page | 13 under International Conventions and other agreements to promote sustainable management, conservation and utilization of forests and biological diversity. Building upon the findings of several preceding studies, including NRMP Social Assessment for Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon (KFS/Tacitus, 2010), Community Forest Associations in Kenya: challenges and opportunities (KEFRI, 2009), and The Strategic Environmental Assessment on Kenya Forest Act (World Bank, 2007), some of the strong points of the Act that support community involvement in forest conservation include:  The Act in part 2 section L states that KFS shall “collaborate with other organizations and communities in the management and conservation of forests and for utilization of biodiversity therein”.  In part IV section 2, the Act and associated conditions highlights opportunities for commercial activities on the part of forest associations (CFAs). These include, among others, collection of fuel- wood and agricultural poles, and harvesting of non-timber forest products (honey, fruits, medicinal plants, fish farming), and the management of forest and water resources.  In part 2, section 17, the Act has created a Forest Management and Conservation Fund for purposes of funding activities of the KFS. According to this section, “... amongst other activities, the fund shall be used for promotion of community-based forest projects; the maintenance of sacred groves and other areas of cultural, ethno-botanical or scientific significance”.  Rehabilitation of degraded forests by the KFS is given due attention in the Act. The Act in part IV elaborates on community participation in forest management as one of the strategies to rehabilitate the forest. The ongoing Green Zone project and “Kazi Kwa Vijana” are further initiatives to rehabilitate the forest. Some of the key challenges5 of the Act, some of which are also being experienced in the NRMP project areas, include:  Ownership of the forest: Prior to the Forest Act 2005, some forest reserves were gazetted with people in them. This situation was not addressed even as the new Act came into force. Despite the fact that according to the law, the forest dwellers were, prior to the Forest Act 2005, (and continue to be) in the forest illegally, their perspective is that the forest is their traditional, historical and socio-cultural home land. According to them, the legal status that vests ownership of the forest in the state is in contention. This situation has been and continues to be a source of conflict between the forest dwellers and the KFS, which is mandated by law to implement the Act. Examples include the conflict with the Ogiek of Chepkitale (Mount Elgon) who live in a gazetted game reserve to which they can only get to by passing through the forest, and who have resisted resettlement at Chebyuk due to claims of socio-economic and socio-cultural reasons6, and the Sengwer that live in Embobut in Cherangany Hills who are ready for resettlement under given conditions;  Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and cost and benefit sharing: The proposed involvement of local communities is a good intention; however, some of the emerging local community associations (CFAs) may not be genuine in partnerships7. Similarly, sharing of costs and benefits continue to be a source of diverging perspectives. Communities bordering (FACs) and residing in the forest are the major groups with complaints regarding the distribution of benefits from timber value. The claim for benefit sharing is premised upon the Forest Act 2005 which promises participatory co-management of forest resources and benefit sharing. Actualisation of this promise

5 Confirmed by KEFRI (2009): “CFAs: challenges and opportunities” and The World Bank Agricultural and Rural Development Department (2007): “The Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Kenya Forest Act” 6 See 1.3 above and detailed findings in Report of the NRMP Social Assessment of IPs in Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon, Kenya Forest Service - Natural Resources Management Project. Tacitus Ltd (Jul 2010) 7 The PF study found that currently some of the CFAs are managed as private (or family) businesses according to some VMGCC members at the consultative meeting at Kaibos, West Pokot, and others are known to not have been constituted properly as reported by the KFS Marakwet Zonal Manager and the SA report. Page | 14 in practice remains a grey area since clear rules and regulations on how to operationalize it are yet to be put in place, but this also applies to the sharing of responsibilities and costs, not just the benefits.

2.2.1 The Forest Act 2005 in relation to the needs of VMGs In line with the terms of reference for the development of the Process Framework (see Annex 1), this section briefly analyses the Forest Act 2005 with a view to assessing ‘... the degree to which current access rights granted by the Forest Act 2005 fails to meet the specific needs of the VMGs...” In addition to the strengths and challenges listed in 2.2 above, other gaps found in the Act that specifically relate to VMGs are discussed in summary below. Recognition of VMGs: The Act, in its current form (it is now under review) is good for the protection and conservation of the forests and promises co-management and benefit sharing to participating communities through the CFAs. However, in its current status, it does not make reference to VMGs who have a historical or socio-cultural and economic attachment to the forest as explicitly as the new the Constitution. The Act presumes that the VMGs are part of the forest community but their specific recognition by the Constitution demands that they should likewise be recognised by the various legal instruments which deal with issues that touch on their rights. Access to forest resources and products for socio-economic and livelihood purposes: The Act was enacted by Parliament to provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management of forests, including conservation and rational utilization of forest resources for the socio-economic development of the country. Nevertheless, access to resources that would enhance the socio-economic status and livelihoods of the VMGs and other PAPs is subject to certain conditions such as acquisition of given permits or licenses. It is the view of VMGs and other PAPs that the current cost of permits and licenses are unaffordable to them, especially for resources that touch on their livelihoods such as water and firewood, and certain products required for economic purposes such ad bamboo for making mats or herbal medicines for sale. Co-management: The VMGs, in particular those who reside in the forest, were excluded (as at the time of developing the PF) from participation in the community level governance and benefit sharing structures such as CFAs. Also, while the Constitution provides for the participation and representation of VMGs in governance and other spheres, including through affirmative action, this is currently not catered for in the Act. For example, in Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon, the forest dwellers (Ogiek of Chepkitale and Sengwer of Embobut) are not represented in the CFAs as currently constituted. The reason that was initially given for this was the fact that they were living in the respective forests illegally and therefore could not participate in the CFAs. This situation has however changed and KFS is now sensitising them – through the VMGCCs – to become actively involved in the CFAs. Free, prior and informed consultation: While the development of the Act was based on wide civil society consultation, the Act itself does not provide for consultation with the VMGs (or other Kenyans) in the drawing of the terms and conditions for obtaining permits and licenses that are required to enable people to use and access the forest produce. It is to be assumed that the VMGs would be the ones who would be most affected by these provisions. It also does not provide for full disclosure where any project is undertaken that may adversely affect the VMGs as is required by the Bank’s operational policies on IPs. Steps for Operationalizing the PFM guidelines: It is important to note that in order to operationalize the demands of the Forest Act 2005 for participatory forest management and benefit sharing, KFS has elaborated an eight (8) step Participatory Forest Management (PFM) guidelines, which if implemented, should satisfy the demands for the free, prior and informed consultations and would lead to inclusion of the PAPs/VMG in decision-making. These include: i. Identify target community and the resources ii. Undertake a participatory assessment of the communities and the forest resources iii. Prepare a draft forest management plan Page | 15 iv. Facilitate a process of forming forest associations v. Negotiate a forest management agreement for a declared PFM area vi. Undertake the implementation of the PFMP vii. Review and Revise PFMP viii. Monitor and Evaluate.

2.2.2 Recommendations on the way forward The Terms of Reference for the development of this PF demands that recommendations be made for addressing any gaps that may be identified in the Act in relation to access rights of the VMGs. For remedial measures, the Process Framework recommends the establishment of an agreed upon conflict resolution mechanism to deal with people’s grievances, but in terms of the Forest Act and the gaps identified, KFS and the Ministry for Forestry and Wildlife should consider the following: 1. Institute affirmative action to secure participation of PAPs, in particular, VMGs in forest governance structures: While the Act already guarantees community participation in co- management of forests and benefit sharing thereof, the ongoing review of the Act should secure the active involvement of VMGs, especially the forest dwellers, in governance structures in the spirit of affirmative action as guaranteed by the Constitution in order to secure their inclusion in decision-making structures including CFA, FCC and the Board. 2. Mount a dialogue and sensitization campaign to enable informed participation by VMGs in the governance structures: Even as the Act is being reviewed, KFS should embark on a dialogue and sensitisation campaign process to enable the VMGs understand the rules and regulations governing participation in the governance structures of the forest with a view to bringing to an end the negative feelings and perceptions that currently mark the relationship between KFS and the VMGs in the NRMP operational areas. 3. Operationalise and apply the provisions of the Participatory Forest Management (PFM) guidelines in order to satisfy the principles of free, prior and informed consultations as required by the World Bank OP 4.10. 4. Align the Act with the Constitution of Kenya: In the ongoing review, it is important for the Government of Kenya, to align the Act with the provision of the Constitution regarding participation of VMGs and their desire to access forest resources and produce for livelihoods purposes.

2.3 Institutional framework Kenya Forest Service (KFS) is the institution in Kenya, mandated under the Forest Act 2005 to implement the forest Policy objectives. Established in February 2007, KFS is a state corporation under the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, together with the Kenya Wildlife Service which is responsible for managing protected game parks and game reserves. The Act mandates KFS to develop and sustainably manage forest resources for Kenya's social-economic development. The specific mandate of KFS is to provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management of forests, including conservation and rational utilisation of forest resources for the socio-economic development of the country. The KFS management structure comprises 10 conservancies that are ecologically demarcated, 76 Zonal Forest Offices, 150 forest Stations, and 250 divisional forest extension offices located countrywide which are critical in forest management and surveillance. The introduction of Participatory Forestry Management (PFM) under the Act has led to the formation of 325 Community Forest Associations (CFAs) at the community level countrywide, including in Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon. These CFAs are formed by forest (adjacent) communities and are working with KFS to sustainably manage forest resources. Most of the CFAs are currently preparing to enter into forest management agreements with KFS based on agreed forest management plans. This will confer Page | 16 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. The CFAs are formed by individual members who join by paying a prescribed membership fee. The CFA structures are rather diverse although this is being harmonized.8 Other institutions that are created by the Forest Act to work with KFS in the management of forests are the Forest Conservancy Committees (FCC) at the Conservancy level and the Kenya Forest Board (KFB) at the national level. A FCC is established in each forest conservancy area to monitor the implementation of the Act and other forest regulations within the area, to advise the Board on all matters relating to the management and conservation of forests in that area, to review and recommend to the Board applications for licences and renewals thereof, and to assist, in consultation with the Board, local communities to benefit from royalties and other rights derived from flora or fauna traditionally used or newly discovered by such communities In addition to KFS, there are a number of other institutions with various mandates for managing Kenya’s natural resources, of which forests are a key resource. The implementation of the mandates of each of these institutions has implications for the NRMP in its operational areas. These institutions include: i. The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), whose mandate it is to conserve rare species of flora and fauna, both of which reside inside the forest. The parent Ministry of KWS is the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife. ii. The National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), whose mandate it is to coordinate the activities of all government and non-government actors involved in natural resources conservation through strengthening the legal and institutional framework for environmental management. The parent Ministry of NEMA is the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources. . . iii. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation, whose mandate includes conservation of water catchment areas – usually within the forests - and distribution of water, and which is a partner in the NRMP. iv. . v. The Ministry of State for Special Programmes (MSSP) whose mandate, among others is to resettle Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), including Forest Evictees wherever they are in Kenya. The Ministry has the following instruments to enable it fulfil its mandate: a> The Prevention, Protection and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons and Affected Communities Act, 2012, which was passed by Parliament in January 2013. The Act makes “provision for the prevention, protection and provision of assistance to internally displaced persons and affected communities and gives effect to the Great Lakes Protocol on the Protection and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons, and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and for connected purposes”. Key elements of the Act include: (i) IDPS have basic rights, including to safe access to essential food and potable water, basic shelter and housing, essential medical services and sanitation; and education; (ii) GoK shall establish a prevention mechanism to be able to take action to prevent internal displacement; (iii) Arbitrary displacement is prohibited and an act punishable under the law; and that (iv) measures for assistance and protection of the needs of vulnerable groups be put in place. This Act goes a long way in guarding against arbitrary evictions. Under the law, Government of Kenya is also tasked with educating the public about the law and seeking their input into processes for displacement and relocation. b> The Interministerial Task Force for the Resettlement of IDPs and Forest Evictees: In order to carry out its mandate of resettling Post Election Violence (PEV) IDPs and Forest Evictees prior to coming into force of the Act, the MSSP had instituted an Inter-ministerial Task Force on IDP and Forest Evictees Resettlement. The core mandate of the Task Force is to

8 See report by KEFRI (2009): “CFAs: challenges and opportunities” Page | 17 identify and purchase land, and to settle the IDPs and forest evictees, of which the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife is a member. According to a member of the Task Force, the Task force can only purchase land when it is clear that it has no cumbrances and when it has been accepted by the IDPs or forest evictees as the case may be. Among the support that the Task Force is required to provide to the people to be resettled are:

 Transportation to the resettlement site;  Temporary housing as construction of the more permanent housing units goes on;  Social infrastructure including schools, health facilities, water, roads etc;  Food ration for six months  Supporting parents to enrol their children in nearby schools while their own schools are being constructed;  Agricultural inputs for livelihoods enhancement projects.

i. The County Councils, whose mandate it is, among others, to preserve the forests and get revenue contribution in lieu of rate. The parent Ministry of the County Councils is the Ministry of Local Government. In Mt Elgon, the County Council has allowed the gazettement of Chepkitale as a game reserve under the management of KWS. Prior to 2000, this was a Trust Land and home to the Ogiek of Mt Elgon. The gazettement of this game reserve, which part of the Mt Elgon forest ecosystem, has led to a lot of conflicts between the Ogiek of Chepkitale on the one hand and the County Council, KWS and KFS and the Office of the President on the other.

3. Procedures for Meaningful Consultations and Involvement of Project Affected Peoples in Project Activities This Process Framework outlines the criteria and procedures as described in OP 4.12, which is triggered in cases where project-induced involuntary restriction of access to forest and other protected areas under the mandate of KFS result in adverse livelihoods impacts. To ensure that eligible, affected persons are assisted in their efforts to restore or improve their livelihoods in a manner that maintains the environmental sustainability of the natural resources in question, this Process Framework describes the participatory process by which the PAPs will be involved in: (a) Developing eligibility criteria of affected persons;, (b) Identifying impacts and mitigation strategies; and (c) Identifying livelihoods options and sub-project activities.

3.1 Procedures for development of eligibility criteria for PAPs The initial screening of Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills NNRMP regions identified the Ogiek in Mount Elgon and the Sengwer/Cherangany in Cherangany Hills as the VMGs in these areas, who would be the most affected by access restrictions as their livelihoods depend on access to the forest and the use of forest resources. For these VMGs and other affected people, the NRMP offers livelihoods support sub-projects that should assist them to restore, or improve, their livelihoods to a situation similar to that before the restrictions.

3.1.1 Criteria for establishing eligibility for entitlements for PAPs In order to develop eligibility criteria for PAPs, the KFS Focal Point will facilitate a participatory consultative process with the respective CFAs or Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups Coordination Committees (VMGCCs) as well as with the VMGs, to establish relevant and feasible criteria for assistance through the

Page | 18 sub-projects. The output of the consultative process should be a prioritization of beneficiary groups based on levels of vulnerability that are specific to the particular zone. It might also include some of the Forest Adjacent Communities who are affected by the restrictions in the same way as the VMGs. In this regard, the recommended participatory procedure to be applied by KFS and the PAPs for the development of eligibility criteria include: 1. A brainstorming meeting by the Focal Point and VMGCC or other representative body in each zone, to identify initial feasible eligibility criteria and the reasons for the same; 2. Presentation of the initial criteria to PAPs in consultative forums at accessible venues to solicit their views on what might constitute acceptable and feasible eligibility criteria; 3. Analysis of the information from the various PAPs consultative forums and documentation of agreed criteria; 4. Incorporating the agreed criteria into the working by-laws of the CFA or VMGCC; 5. Disseminating the agreed criteria to the PAPs, KFS and other relevant stakeholders. While implementing the suggested procedure, KFS/VMGs could consider levels of vulnerability as part of the criteria for assessing eligibility. In this respect, some of the vulnerability factors to consider include: A. Issues of legal land ownership, complete with land titles; B. Walking distances (access) to basic social amenities such as water, schools, health facilities, markets etc. The recommended distances to school for primary school children, health and water facilities are 1 km radius, 5 km radius and 3 km radius respectively; C. Ability to undertake unrestricted livelihood activities including small scale enterprises within the settlement areas (i.e. a comparison of people living within the forest glades and those that live outside the forest).

Other Eligibility criteria for sub-projects Explicit eligibility criteria for ensuring equity and participation by all will be developed for each of the sub- project-call-for-proposals for livelihoods and economic support – if this is considered necessary under the project – during the participatory planning process and will depend on the available funding and the sector applicable. Some of the eligibility criteria could include:  Constitution/by-laws governing group operations and detailing how individual members would share benefits generated by the group;  Registration certificate of self-help group;  Minimum number of members (as will be advised by the department of culture and social services in the respective conservation areas);  Bank account of the group;  An agreed amount of the groups own contribution (as proof of ownership and readiness by the group). People that are engaged in any form of illicit or unsustainable resource use (e.g. illegal tree felling, encroaching, charcoal burning) will not be supported by the project and should be dealt with according to the law. In this regard, the VMGCC needs to be an active partner of KFS in ensuring that illegal activities are duly reported.

3.1.2 Assessment of levels of vulnerability of the Ogiek and Sengwer: The IP Census It was a requirement of the Terms of Reference that the Process Framework should provide an assessment of “...the degree to which the Ogiek and Sengwer are vulnerable and marginalized and or the proportions of their population that is vulnerable...” In assessing the levels of vulnerability of the Sengwer/Cherangany of Cherangany Hills and Ogiek of Mount Elgon, the vulnerability criteria suggested in 3.1.1 (A-C above) were used. The assessment of levels of vulnerability of the respective VMGs was undertaken at two levels: 1) vulnerability levels among VMGs (Sengwer and Ogiek), and 2) vulnerability of VMGs compared to the Page | 19 dominant communities with whom they live side by side. The assessment took into consideration the Sengwer/Cherangany and Ogiek population (countrywide) and compared this with their estimated population in Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon respectively in order to arrive at their estimated proportions. Since the distribution of ethnic groups in the various administrative units in Kenya have not been officially published by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), the estimated population of the Sengwer/Cherangany in Cherangany Hills and and Ogiek in Mount Elgon was derived from discussions with the respective communities during fieldwork to develop this PF, and from discussions with staff of the KNBS, based on the respective national population figures. Table 1 below presents the national population of the Sengwer, Cherangany and Ogiek according to the officially published figures from the national population and housing census of 2009. Table 2 presents the estimated population of the Sengwer in Cherangany Hils. Table 3 presents the estimated population of the Cherangany in Cherangany Hills, and, table 4 presents the population of the Ogiek in Mount Elgon in general and in ‘the forest’ in particular.

Table 1: Countrywide population of the Sengwer, Cherangany and Ogiek Population National Figures Sengwer 33,187 Cherangany 15,956 Ogiek 78,691 Source: Report of the National Housing and Population census (2009)

Table 29: Estimated population of Sengwer in Cherangany Hills Districts Estimated % of National Sengwer % of Sengwer Population Population population in Cherangany Hills West Pokot 2,115 6.4% 25.3% Trans Nzoia East 789 (of whom 564 2.4% (of which 1.7% are 9.5% (of which 6.8% are in Kapolet) in Kapolet) are in Kapolet) Marakwet West 2,899 8.7% 34.7% Marakwet East 2,543 7.7% 30.5% Total population in Cherangany 8,346 25.2% 100% Hills

Table 310: Estimated Population of Cherangany in Cherangany Hills Districts Population % of Cherangany % of Cherangany National Population population in Cherangany Hills West Pokot 3,278 20.5% 23.5% Trans Nzoia East 1,016 6.4% 7.3% Marakwet West 9,642 60.4% 69.2% Marakwet East - - - Total population in Cherangany 13,936 87.3% 100% Hills

Table 411: Estimated Population of Ogiek in Mount Elgon District Population % of National Ogiek % of Ogiek Population Population in Mount Elgon

9 These figures are estimates only and cannot be attributed to the CBS 10 Ibid 11 Ibid Page | 20 Ogiek in the Forest12 2,292 3% 85%

Ogiek in other areas of Mount 410 0.5% 15% Elgon Total population in Mount 2,702 3.5% 100% Elgon

From the above national and estimated district (zonal) population figures of the Ogiek and Sengwer Cherangany, the assessment of their proportions that are vulnerable concluded that: 1. In the first category of vulnerability are the Sengwer VMGs who live in Embobut forest, Marakwet East, and who form about 30.5% of Sengwer population in Cherangany Hills. This category has no claim to legal land ownership, cannot undertake unrestricted livelihood activities in the forest and have no basic social amenities (schools and health facilities) within 1km13 and 5km14 radius and beyond. 2. In the second category is the Ogiek of Chepkitale who forms about 85% of the Ogiek in Mount Elgon. This category has no claim to legal land ownership of the game reserve in which they live, cannot undertake unrestricted livelihood activities in the reserve and have no basic social amenities (schools and health facilities) within recommended distances and beyond. However, the government has offered them alternative land at Chebyuk which they are unwilling to accept and have gone to court to reverse the status of Chepkitale to Trust or Community land. In relation to the Sengwer of Embobut, the Ogiek of Chepkitale have a comparatively advantageous status since they could, if they chose to, negotiate with the government concerning the adequacy of the alternative land at Chebuyuk since the land has been set aside for their resettlement. 3. In the third category of vulnerability is the Sengwer of Kapolet in Trans Nzoia East who forms about 7% of the Sengwer in Cherangany Hills. These have been given land parcels but have no legal ownership documents such as letters of allotment or title deeds. They have a place to live, but they are still unsure whether they can stay here or will be resettled again. Also, they are in conflict with KFS concerning the status of what they refer to as Kapolet phase two which they claim was promised to them for resettlement by former President Moi but which to date remains an officially gazetted forest area. 4. In the fourth category of vulnerability are the Sengwer and Cherangany who live in West Pokot (about 25% and 23.5% respectively) and in Marakwet West (about 35% and 69% respectively). This category answers positively to all the suggested vulnerability criteria. They have legal titles to the land parcels that they own, they can undertake unrestricted socio-economic activities in the areas in which they are settled and, like all other Kenyans, have access to the basic social amenities within walking distances. Compared to their more dominant community counterparts - the Pokot and Marakwet respectively - the only claim to vulnerability/marginalization by the Sengwer/Cherangany in these zones is with regard to their historical and socio-cultural ties to the forest and their minority status that would make them unable to compete fairly in elective positions. In terms of livelihood, they are in similar status as the more dominant communities and other Kenyans in rural areas. The only priority they have over category 5 is the fact they are Sengwer/Cherangany and therefore have traditional attachments to, and association with, the forest as defined in the IPPF for NRMP. In current relation to the forest, they can actually be categorised as Forest Adjacent Communities (FACs). 5. In the last category is the FACs that also depend on forest resources such as pasture, firewood, water etc for their livelihood, and who currently have such access rights, provided that they have fulfilled given conditions set out by KFS as stipulated in the Act.

12 It is not clear if ‘Forest’ stands for Division, Location or sub-location since the Ogiek who live in the forest have no legally recognized administration unit. 13 Information given by officials of in the Education Sector 14 Information given by people in the health sector Page | 21 3.2 Procedures for identification of impacts and mitigation strategies: Findings of the Social Assessment Ideally a Process Framework is developed at the start of a project, as it describes the process by which potentially affected communities will participate in planning. This Process Framework for the NRMP is developed while the project is already in its third year of operation and therefore some activities have already taken place or are going on right now. 3.2.1 Identification of impacts and mitigation strategies This was undertaken during the Social Assessment exercise, which in the case of NRMP, was conducted by KFS in 2010. The procedures and steps that were followed in the identification of impacts and mitigating strategies are listed below: 1. Desk study: to get a first set of secondary information on the possible impacts and mitigation measures that may have been identified during project preparation or which may exist in various literature on the PAPs; 2. Consultations with PAPs representatives at the grassroots level: Identification of, and discussions with, PAPs grassroots representative organisations and institutions – IPOs and traditional institutions, women and youth, to determine possible impacts and mitigating strategies; 3. Identification of appropriate and accessible venues for public consultations: This involved a consultative meeting with PAPs grassroots representatives, the IPOs and KFS on appropriate and accessible venues for public consultations with PAPs. 4. Advance information to PAPs: Through their representative organisations, the IPO officials, and KFS, – the consultations itinerary, explaining objectives, dates and venues for public consultations to discuss, identify and agree on possible impacts of the project on them, and mitigation strategies, was sent to the IPs in all three zones in Cherengany Hills and in Mt. Elgon; 5. Broad and detailed public consultations with the PAPs were undertaken according to gender, age and interest groups (e.g. women and youth groups) on possible impacts and mitigation strategies from the perspectives of each PAPs group; 6. Consultations with relevant government departments (NEMA, Ministry of Lands, Department if Livestock, Ministry of Public Health, the Provincial Administration) to determine potential impacts of the project and mitigating strategies from their respective points of view; 7. Consultations with implementing agency staff, including the KFS project staff, the KFS Zonal Managers in each of the four project districts, the KFS Ditrector), on potential impacts of the project on PAPs and possible mitigation measures; 8. Collation of information: Conduct initial analysis to collate information from various stakeholders; 9. Verification, validation and adoption of potential impacts and mitigation measures: In a (series of) workshop(s) of representatives of all stakeholders, present findings for analysis, verification, validation and adoption; 10. Monitor occurrence of impacts and mitigate according to agreed strategies. Note: The process and procedures described above were tested during the Social Assessment conducted by KFS in 2010 for the NRMP in Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills, and were found to be appropriate and effective, and in line with the free, prior and informed consultations that is being advocated by NRMP. Findings of the 2010 SA are summarized below. 3.2.2 Summary of the 2010 SA Findings The Social Assessment started with a desk study, which involved reviewing a wealth of information in a number of documents in order to enrich the Social Assessment’s field findings. The field work was carried out in a highly participatory manner, in line with the principles of free, prior and informed consultations as outlined in the IPPF for the project. The fieldwork was marked with a number of high profile consultative meetings with VMGs, FACs and government officials in both regions (Mt. Elgon and Cherengany Hills), and one validation workshop in each region.

Page | 22 Benefits of NRMP: The findings of the Social Assessment indicated that VMGs in both Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon feel that NRMP, through its proposed activities, has a lot of potential benefits for them. In the first place, and for the first time, there is a possibility of unlocking doors for genuine consultations between VMGs and government on a number of issues through the free, prior and informed consultation process which the VMGs consider as one of the strong points of the project. In particular, the project will enable the VMGs to consult and negotiate with Government, especially on issues relating to settlement and legal land ownership; access to forest resources for cultural, social and economic purposes; participation of VMGs in forest management and benefit sharing; research into, documentation and application of indigenous knowledge in the conservation and management of forests and forest resources among others. Finally, the project has the potential of accelerating the pace of socio-economic development for VMGs through capacity building of VMGs and facilitating the establishment of conservation-based enterprises as a way of enhancing forest conservation while reaping benefits from it. They consider that these benefits can only be realised if the project is implemented with their full participation and support. Adverse impacts of NRMP: Most of the perceived adverse impacts of the project activities on the VMGs, especially the forest dwellers (in Mount Elgon and Embobut forests) and the Sengwer of Kapolet, are related to the issue of land ownership and resettlement. They are concerned that implementing some of the proposed NRMP activities such as demarcation of forests and rehabilitation/restoration of degraded forest areas may negatively impact on them if they are not fully consulted and their concerns taken into account. Some of these issues (such as the Kapolet and Chepkitale land status) are being contested in court, and they feel that until a final agreement/decision has been reached, no forest restoration activities should take place in the contested areas. They are also concerned about the possibility of losing the cultural and socio-economic benefits associated with the forest as well as the loss of their collective attachment and claim to the forest if they are dispersed through resettlement. Finally, they are concerned that dispersed resettlement would make them lose their culture, language and identity through assimilation. Some of the adverse effects foreseen by the VMGs, especially if the project is implemented without their full involvement and support, include the following: - Demarcation of forest boundary resulting in reduction of land that may be set aside for their resettlement (see section 4.1 below for details); - Marginalisation of VMG evictees following exclusion from fair and prompt compensation and resettlement, representation, enjoyment of socio-cultural and economic rights and preservation of their culture; - VMGs are not involved in co-management of forest and benefit sharing, leading to further destruction of the forest and increased conflicts, disharmony, and mistrust. Suspicion between neighbouring communities and also between the VMGs and the Government may be entrenched, and may become an obstacle to effective co-management of forests as foreseen in the Forest Act 2005. This last concern might seems to be self-inflicted due to the fact that some VMGs initially – especially those that fall under categories 3 and 4 above (see 3.1) refused to join CFAs – a situation that has since changed. However, the forest dwellers (in Embobut and Chepkitale) genuinely fear participation in CFAs which have other stakeholders due to the fact that such CFAs would not effectively agitate for their land rights. Also, in such CFAs, they may also lose out to other stakeholders in ‘fair’ elections due to their minority numbers. In addition, they are yet to be sensitised on the pros and cons of the CFA, after initial messages by KFS staff that they were in the forest illegally and needed to move out of the forest before they could be sensitised on the CFA concept and its implications for them. In this regard, a two pronged approach – sensitisation and affirmative action – would mitigate their fears. According to the VMGs, all the above (perceived) adverse impacts would perpetuate their disarticulation as VMGs, leading to further marginalization. In addition, the above effects would mean that the VMGs would be unable to provide for their needs or sustainably plan for their future. Chapter 3 of the Social Assessment spells out in detail all the possible impacts and mitigation strategies as were identified by the VMGs and other stakeholders, although it was not easy for the VMGs to identify and assess the possible impacts without full disclosure of what the NRMP is about. Page | 23 The call for consultations between KFS/NRMP and the VMGs: In all the public consultations in the four zones – Mount Elgon, Marakwet, West Pokot and Trans Nzoia East - the one single thread permeating them was the call for dialogue, sensitization and timely information sharing.

3.2.3 Recommendations of the SA relevant to the PF

Need for ongoing and sustained consultations: Despite the participatory process of the Social Assessment and the development of this Process Framework, there is an urgent need to establish on-going dialogue and sustained consultations between KFS and the VMGs. A short term consultancy cannot substitute project work; however in-depth the short term consultants may try to tackle issues. There is a need to initiate a true and well intentioned dialogue with the VMGs as a matter of urgency following the momentum created by the Social Assessment, the VMGCC formation and training, and the development of the Process Framework. In this regard, goodwill and change of attitude is required on the part of the KFS implementing arm, the Zonal Managers as well as the VMGCCs. Timely provision of information and sensitization: KFS should provide sufficient and timely information and sensitisation on the activities of NRMP, through a well developed communication strategy, including information on community rights, roles and responsibilities in the sustainable exploitation of forest resources and what the VMGs should and should not expect from the project. This sensitisation programme should also include KFS staff and the relevant government departments including the Provincial Administration, for them to understand the objectives and proposed activities of the NRMP and the provisions of the IPPF in relation to the Forest Act and other relevant laws, and lobby for its acceptance across the board as the guiding document for implementing forest conservation activities in the NRMP areas. Capacity Building of KFS: The above will not be possible without capacity building in dialogue, consensus building and team-working, partnership, negotiation, facilitation and mediation skills for KFS/NRMP staff and the (primary) stakeholders as one of the steps in tackling the many existing grievances and conflicts, and entrenching dialogue as the modus operandi.

3.3 Procedures for identification of livelihood options and sub-project activities Following the recommendations from the Social Assessment in 2010, and to ensure success of the project, KFS has facilitated the establishment of clear structures for engagement with the Ogiek and Sengwer communities in Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills respectively. These community coordinating structures are critical since they will leverage as organs for the VMGs engagement with the project and KFS. The project area is divided into four conservation zones which are represented by four Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups Coordinating Committees (VMGCCs): Marakwet VMGCC, Trans Nzoia VMGCC, West Pokot VMGCC, and Mount Elgon VMGCC. The committees were elected by their people through participatory community forums in each zone. All four VMGCCs completed orientation training in April 2011, equipping them with knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for performing their roles effectively. With support from the KFS, the VMGCCs (in Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills), CFAs or other acceptable PAPs representative structures will be instrumental in setting up, organising and strengthening common interest groups or activity (user) groups. These groups will consist of women, men and youth, or other groups from within the community that have a common interest (e.g. bee keeping, basket making, eco- tourism, forest rehabilitation/restoration) and as an organised entity can apply for support and funding for the NRMP sub-project activities. KFS will assist these common interest groups with their formation and registration, general capacity building in management, proposal writing and planning as well as technical skills training. The process to be followed by PAPs for identification of relevant livelihood options and sub-project activities for NRMP support would consist of the following key steps:

Page | 24 f) Conducting a participatory planning process following the participatory process and steps similar to those outlined in 3.2 (1-9 above) to ensure that PAPs take part in identifying what they should receive as culturally appropriate social and economic benefits, and when potential adverse effects on these PAPs are identified (based on 3.2 above), those adverse effects are avoided, minimized, mitigated, or compensated for; g) Developing Action Plans for each zone (in Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills, these plans are known as VMGPs) that set activities and measures to ensure that the affected people receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity of the project implementing agencies through capacity building. The VMGCC, as the VMGs representative that will be instrumental in the implementation of the action, should participate in its development to ensure that they not only understand its content, but that they can own it too; h) Establishing and training activity (user) groups (technical training as well as training on general management and governance) to provide them with the capacity to participate actively and efficiently in project implementation; i) Reviewing, approving and implementing environmentally friendly livelihood support (sub-) projects through signed contracts according to the action; and, j) Monitoring and evaluating implementation following agreed upon participatory mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to both KFS and the PAPs. The livelihoods of the PAPs are closely tied to the forest. Therefore it is imperative to tie the livelihoods support activities to the already existing livelihoods as much as possible. Eligible activities in the respective action plans will be financed through the NRMP, with an allocated (annual) budget for each zone. In Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon, identification of the livelihood support activities would be based on the findings of the Social Assessment (2010) and consultative planning meetings (2011) with the communities and their representatives. Eligible activities revolve around improving livestock breeds, bee keeping, cottage industry, conservation and reforestation activities, eco-tourism, water bottling, poultry keeping, horticulture, small-scale irrigation, fish farming etc.

Some participatory tools for identification of impacts and mitigating strategies and planning of livelihood sub-projects In order to ensure the active participation of PAPs in the procedures established under 3.2 and 3.3 above, some of the applicable participatory tools would include Focused Group Discussions; Semi-Structured Interviews, Key Informant Interviews and Options Assessments – all conducted in a face-to-face situation to ensure that the reasoning behind given positions or perceptions are clearly understood and documented. This also allows for on-the-spot triangulation (cross-checking) of information and secures ownership of findings by a majority of stakeholders. Note: The procedures described in this Process Framework for the identification of livelihood sub-projects have been tested by KFS in Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills, while developing prototype VMGPs for Mount Elgon and Marakwet conservation zones.

4. Complaints and Grievance Resolution Mechanism According to the Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) 2009, “Grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs) are institutions, instruments, methods and processes by which a resolution to a grievance is sought and provided”. The mechanisms provide an effective avenue for expressing concerns and achieving remedies for communities, while promoting a mutually constructive relationship and enhancing the achievement of project objectives. In absence of a project specific GRM, the PAPs are likely to seek solutions outside the project, in issues which could easily be addressed internally and at local level. This scenario could lead to Page | 25 adverse consequences such as hostilities, project delay, loss of time & resources and subsequently high project costs.

4.1 Current status It is the intention of the Forest Act 2005 for the forest communities to be represented in the Forest Conservation Committees (FCCs) through the Community Forest Associations (CFAs). However, as it was at time of developing this PF, members of the VMGs in Cherangany Hills (Sengwer) and Mount Elgon (Ogiek), especially those that still live in the glades in the forest, had not been included in the CFAs, yet. For this reason, it is safe to assume that the VMGs in the respective forests are not represented in the CFAs, FCCs or the Board and therefore it would be difficult for them to air their grievances through these existing structures. In terms of formal grievance mechanisms, the Forest Act at Section 63(2) states that: “the provisions of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act [EMCA] regarding reference to the Tribunal established under that Act shall apply to the settlement of disputes arising under this Act.” The said Tribunal is established under section 125 of the EMCA and is composed of a chairman appointed by the Judicial Service Commission, an Advocate nominated by the Law Society of Kenya, a lawyer with professional qualifications in environmental law appointed by the Minister and two persons who have demonstrated exemplary academic competence in the field of environmental management, appointed by the Minister.15 The said Tribunal allows for legal representation for any person appearing before it.16 However, the VMGs and other affected people appearing before a Tribunal may desire legal representation, which may be out of their reach given the high costs required to retain an advocate. The procedure developed for this Process Framework, based upon the ideas and opinions of VMGs and other potentially affected people, is different from what the Act prescribes and should be set up for local grievance registration and resolution through their coordination committees, until such time that they have been properly integrated into the CFAs. It is designed as an internal grievance redress mechanism that should enable the PAPs and KFS to settle grievances quickly and at the lowest level possible. It should be seen as complementary to the procedure stipulated in the Act. In the event that this internal grievance redress mechanism fails to achieve its purpose of quick grievance resolution, then VMGs would be encouraged to have recourse to the tribunal as stipulated in the Forest Act. They would also need to be sensitised to the fact that even the determinations of the Tribunal, if not satisfactory to them, can still be challenged by making an appeal to the High Court, whose orders shall be final. The following subjects are not covered by this Process Framework: - Grievances and issues that are not related to the NRM Project; - Issues related to governmental policy, which are outside of the remit of the NRM Project; - Issues of insecurity i.e. cattle rustling and ethnic related conflicts should be brought to the attention of the Ministry of Internal Security, Office of the President, represented by the District Commissioner at District level, and by the District Officer, Chief, Assistant Chief at the various local administrative levels. - Land and resettlement issues, for which a separate grievance process was developed (see Resettlement Policy Framework for the Western Kenya Community Driven Development and Flood Mitigation Project, and the Natural Resource Management Project, 2007, section 11, page 71-73). It stipulates these matters should be addressed to the District Lands Officer at the District Steering Group, assisted by the local Land Control Board.

15 Section 125 (1) (a, b, c & d); Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act 16 Section 132; EMCA Page | 26 4.2 Sources of grievances Grievances and disputes may arise at several stages of the Project’s planning and implementation and may be related to KFS, or may be a result of conflicts between groups affected by the Project. Possible grievances and conflicts include (examples are taken from the cases reported during the consultative meetings; see verbatim records in Annex 3):  Inadequate or poor communication, sensitisation and information sharing (e.g. no/late disclosure on what the project is about and how it will affect people resulting lack of understanding and misperceptions of what the project’s intentions are (e.g. already three years of project implementation have gone by without the people knowing fully about it or seeing any of its benefits); different KFS departments/staff sending out different messages on what people can expect and may or may not do);  Inadequate consultation and coordination with stakeholders and concern over exclusion in decision making (lack of harmony and coordination between bodies of law and legal procedures);  Limited institutional capacity (e.g. KFS staff not adequately sensitized on NRM project strategies and equipped to employ participatory forest management approach in order to guide conflicts towards constructive rather than stalemate situations; VMGCCs have been established but still have very little capacity and lack an effective forum for social dialogue between them and KFS. Despite their training, some of them continue to perceive themselves as ‘activists’ rather than peace-makers and vehicles for quickly bringing the project benefits to the VMGs);  Policy contradictions and gaps (e.g. forest policies and laws implemented without taking into account people currently living in the gazetted forests; KFS officials in the field are executing work in accordance to the Forest Act, while the VMGs site the IPPF and NRM project objectives, leading to hostilities as both parties defend their stance (this scenario provides a fertile ground for hostility and unethical practices by both parties));  Negative impacts of (new) restrictions on physical access to forest and forest resources (e.g. physical access restrictions/road blocks; implementation of access fees and permits which previously were not there; perceived (rightly or wrongly) corruption and other misconduct of forest officers in the enforcement of these user rights/permits; );  Disagreements over excising of forest areas and certain boundaries, for example, while the KFS position is that this activity concerns the external boundary, the Ogiek of Chepkitale is concerned with the inner boundary – separating the Trust Land (currently Game Reserve) and the forest. On the other hand, the Sengwer of Kapolet is concerned about the external boundary and whether or not it affects the ‘contested phase II’ of their (promised17) resettlement land);  Inadequate information on, and understanding of the concepts of co-management and benefit sharing (e.g. lack of clear modalities and regulations for co-management and benefit sharing, limited understanding of, competition for, and use of resources or disputes over access to a resource use area, improperly constituted CFAs, difficulty to join/participate in CFAs);  Possible (future) dissatisfaction with development and implementation of the VMGPs (e.g. uncoordinated planning, failure to address the real issues of the VMGs);  Possible (future) discontentment regarding performance of mitigation measures (e.g. support for alternative livelihoods, inadequate monitoring and evaluation of programmes);

17 The Sengwer of Kapolet claim that former President Moi promised them land for resettlement at the contested Kapolet Phase II, which is legally a gazetted forest. During the 2010 Social Assessment, they were unable to produce proof of such a promise. Page | 27 4.3 Redress mechanism The risk of conflicts arising within or between affected communities and/or the KFS, during planning and implementation of NRMP activities, are real and must be addressed. Having grievance procedures in place helps to: - Address complaints quickly and systematically; - Prevent minor issues from becoming major ones; - Resolve problems at the lowest possible level; - Build trust and confidence between the affected peoples and KFS staff; - Helps the different actors to identify underlying causes of conflicts and exploring a multiplicity of options for a unanimous agreement. One of the basic principles of grievance procedures should be that they are based on good faith, meaning that both parties will make every effort to resolve them without delay and with respect to each other’s position, and that the grievances should be solved at the lowest level possible. Affected groups or individuals identified under the Project should be made aware at every stage that grievance procedures are in place and be advised on how they can access this mechanism. A two-fold mechanism, with both proactive and reactive elements for resolution of conflicts, disputes and grievances that might arise, is proposed. Proactive Approach: Recognizing that many conflicts arise due to differences in understanding and perceptions, a proactive approach would be adopted to avoid conflicts before they start. This approach would promote a common understanding through a four-pronged process following free, prior and informed consultation and dialogue, including: (a) wide-spread disclosure of project activities and objectives and discussions on what to do about known grievances; (b) clarification of mitigation measures and criteria of eligibility for assistance; (c) clarification of the duties and responsibilities of all stakeholders in the process, and in particular the composition and roles of the CFAs, VMGCCs and KFS; and (d) community conservation education and public awareness regarding forest management and conservation, the Forest Act, the CFA concepts, and modalities for co-management and benefit sharing. Co-management and benefit sharing modalities and regulations must be developed and enacted as soon as possible, as this could become a major source of conflict if not dealt with and clarified in the early stages. Reactive Approach: Conflicts that do arise in the course of project implementation would be dealt with through the appropriate channels. CFAs have access to the formal channel through the FCC and the Board. However, as yet, some VMGs are excluded from these governance structures and until such time that they are properly represented on the CFAs, they are advised to air grievances through the respective coordination committees (VMGCCs). They will liaise with the KFS staff on the ground (foresters) to find a solution to the problem. If resolution is not possible at the community and forest station level, the complainant through the VMGCC can seek advice simultaneously from the Zonal Manager’s office and regional level Head of Conservancy. If still not solved at these levels, the case can be brought forward to the KFS Head Office before seeking redress from an independent mediator or arbitrator or resorting to the grievance resolution Tribunal as stipulated in the Forest Act 2005. In fact, at any point in this process, the complainant has the prerogative of filing a court case, if he or she so wishes. However, such action is both costly and time-consuming, and often results in much-delayed resolution of grievances.

4.4 Grievance redress procedures The 4-step grievance redress mechanism is designed with the objective of solving disputes at the earliest possible time, which will be in the interest of all parties concerned. It is incumbent on KFS staff to deal as efficaciously as possible with all complaints over restriction on access to the forest and forest resources so that aggrieved parties can raise their complaints, and receive fair and impartial consideration of their grievance, without the need to resort to the formal judicial system (i.e. the Tribunal or other courts of law).

Page | 28

Resolution of conflicts or grievances at the community level should use the following mechanism:  Discuss the issues with the aggrieved party in order to determine the validity of the complaint and the options for dealing with it and tries to solve it as a Committee;  If not able to deal with it, apply the traditional conflict resolution mechanism whereby it brings the matter to the Council of Elders or to the administratively recognised Village Elder system used by the Provincial Administration at the Sub-locational Level. Failure at this level, then the issue goes to step 2. In all cases, the reporting and agreed solutions or way forward should be documented, even at the community level, to enhance the keeping of a body of information that can be used for reference in future.

4.5 NRMP Focal Point There is an urgent need to establish a field based NRMP focal point18 to engage with the VMGs and other project affected communities, on an ongoing basis in order to sensitise them, and also to take responsibility for the on-the-job training of the VMGCC and the development and implementation of the VMG livelihood support plans. KFS will decide, based on its staff capacity (in terms of people skills) at the zonal level, whether to identify officers from the station, Zonal Manager’s office or Conservancy levels to be designated as Focal Points, or whether to recruit such staff from the open market.

18 As recommended by Tacitus Ltd following the Social Assessment in 2010 and by PDC following the establishment and training of VMGCCs in 2011. Page | 29 In addition to enhancing dispute prevention and resolution and supporting the VMGs in the implementation of the livelihood support sub-projects, the Focal Point will also liaise with other agencies/stakeholders involved in the implementation of the project and act as a bridge between KFS and local communities through effective socio-cultural communication. Should it be the case that a deployment is made from amongst the existing KFS staff and should it also be the case that such staff lacks the requisite people skills, then KFS would need to organise for an orientation/training on the skills necessary for engaging with PAPs along the lines stipulated in the PFM guidelines and OP 4.10. It would be wrong to assume that CFAs are all capable to do their work properly, or that the training that has been given recently would suffice for the VMGCCs to do their work. Putting it into practice requires the project to have a dedicated staff who understands the mandate of KFS to conserve the forest and also has ‘people skills’ to employ a participatory approach following PFM guidelines and principles. The participatory implementation process, including ‘free, prior and informed consultations’, requires both people skills/disposition and knowledge of KFS. Currently, the former would seem to be lacking among some KFS staff on the ground in terms of personality, attitude or skills. They need to be enabled to employ a participatory forest management approach as stipulated in the Act and in the Participatory Forest Management Guidelines19. Some officers have already received a first training in participatory forest management, however, working with local communities and use of participatory methodologies is not learned overnight, and additional training in communication and facilitation skills is needed for both the VMGCCs and KFS officers. While awaiting deployment/employment of a Focal Point, the Process Framework recommends someone from within the North Rift Conservancy to take up this position on an interim basis to sort out current conflicts and pave the way for a full time permanent focal point.

5. Administrative and Legal Procedures 5.1 Administration and communication The key government agency involved in the project and who has the responsibility for the administration of this Process Framework is the KFS. Other government institutions that are also connected with the project due to their various mandates, and which may be involved in the administration of the PF together with KFS include the Office of the President, Kenya Wildlife Service, the County Council and Ministry of Lands. The community counterparts of the KFS that would be involved in the administration of the PF are the CFAs, but in the case of VMGs, especially the forest dwellers that are not (yet) represented on the CFAs, VMGCCs were formed for each of the four zones to work as counterparts to the KFS Zonal level staff. All these institutions together will be responsible for ensuring that various actions are carried out to ensure that PAPs/VMGs are not inconvenienced or do not suffer loss on account of the project. In this respect, the administration of this PF will follow the four-step procedure stipulated in the grievance resolution mechanism in section 4.3 above. For the implementation of this PF to be undertaken effectively and efficiently, there is an urgent need to establish an NRMP focal point to engage with the VMGs on an ongoing basis as discussed above. In addition, KFS has responsibility to disclose the Process Framework to the different stakeholders, using different media while taking into consideration the people living in the operational areas. In particular, the grievance redress mechanism needs to be shared widely, so that all stakeholders are informed as to how to air their grievances if they want KFS to act upon it. In addition, the final document will be shared by the World Bank in the publicly accessible Info-shop. Communication is identified as one of the main challenges facing the implementation of the NRMP. Internally (within KFS national and zonal levels), the project does not have clear communication strategies and different KFS staff/departments are sending out different (sometimes conflicting) messages. Externally, there were no clear communication channels between the PAPs/VMGs and the NRMP as well as between

19 Participatory Forest Management Guidelines, Kenya Forest Service (Dec 2007) Page | 30 PAPs/VMGs and other stakeholders including relevant line ministries. In response to this, KFS established the VMGCCs as a channel of communication with VMGs. The study by Participatory Development Centre20 sought to establish what mode of communication the VMGs considered appropriate and effective at each of the following levels: a) Within the VMP communities; b) Between VMGs and NRM Project; c) Between VMGs and other stakeholders including the government line ministries. Through plenary discussions and key informant interviews in the two regions (Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills), all VMGs expressed the view that they prefer participatory (two–way, face-to-face) communication. Limited exchange of information with the VMGs and the various development actors has in the past resulted into lack of information, misunderstanding, rumours and suspicion. Dependency on “unofficial information” - mainly from individuals, some with self interest - provided fertile ground for misunderstandings among VMGs themselves and among VMGs and NRMP. A two-way communication process will ensure that VMGs are not seen as mere receivers of information, but also initiators of information and legitimate grievances as well as any other agenda of their own. The PDC study also describes the different common and preferred media of communication in the project operational area21. “A vast majority of the VMGs are illiterate and amongst the poorest of the poor. These aspects affect the choice of media that may be appropriate and accessible to most of them. The most effective modes of communication in the VMP areas involve informal communication, using word of mouth. This is mainly done through formal and informal leaders (including opinion leaders and self-styled spokespeople) and community meetings. Informal communication spreads amazingly fast throughout the community due to the fact that most of the VMGs are closely knit communal and oral societies, with various internal dynamics of iterating amongst themselves”.

5.2 Legal Procedures for the administration of the PF The Process Framework reviews the legal basis for acceptance and enforcement of measures and terms included in the Framework. The grievance redress mechanism is designed with the objective of solving disputes at the earliest possible time, at the lowest level possible, and in the interest of all parties concerned. It also delineates the responsibilities of the various government and communal entities involved in the project. Period of agreements are stipulated in the grievance process and need to be adhered to by all parties. The Process Framework and dispute resolution mechanism are in force for as long as the NRMP is implemented with World Bank funding, even if these agreements are superseded or rendered ineffective by other government actions. The PF should be seen as an internal mechanism for resolving intra and inter VMG conflicts and conflicts that may arise between the PAPs/VMGs and KFS. It should be seen as being complementary to, and not a replacement of the legal procedures for disputes resolution stipulated in the Act. Moreover, should the internal mechanism fail, the concerned parties are encouraged to have recourse to the process prescribed by the Act or other legal dispute redress mechanisms of the land. 5.3 Assessment of Institutional Capacity to Implement the Process Framework

The NRM project is being implemented through the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MFW). The KFS and the MFW are both familiar with the World Bank Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (O.P. 4.12). The KFS team participated in the World Bank training on

20 See Chapter 7 (pages 27-29) from the Report on establishment of Coordination Committees for Vulnerable and Marginalised People in the NRM Project operational areas: Natural Resources Management Project. PDC, Mar 2011 21 See Chapter 8 (pages 30-32) from the Report on establishment of Coordination Committees for Vulnerable and Marginalised People in the NRM Project operational areas: Natural Resources Management Project. PDC, Mar 2011 Page | 31 Safeguards in November 2010. The NRMP Social Assessment of 2010 recommended that KFS deploys NRMP Focal Points in each of the project zones. This recommendation fully implemented and there are NRMP Focal Point in each Zone. KFS Zonal Managers and Provincial Administration (District Commissioners, local Chiefs and line ministries) were also sensitized and consulted in developing the process framework, which enabled them to be aware of their roles and responsibilities in the PF implementation. Finally, the PF report recommends the engagement/deployment of an NRMP Focal Point, based on the ground, to be responsible for day to day consultations with the PAPs and other stakeholders, fast track implementation of the Grievance Mechanism and the VMGPs, and, to be the link between KFS/NRMP and the PAPs on NRMP matters.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation Arrangements This section reviews the arrangements for participatory monitoring of project activities as they relate to impacts on PAPs within the project area, and for monitoring the effectiveness of the measures taken to improve, or at a minimum to restore, incomes and living standards PAPs who may be adversely affected. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is an important management tool for decision-making during the course of project implementation. M&E is more beneficial to both project managers and beneficiaries if it is undertaken in a participatory manner. Participatory M&E (PM&E) helps project managers and the affected people not only to keep the project on track, but also ensures that ‘blame-games’ between the community and the implementing agency are avoided and that all stakeholders have a mutual understanding of arising issues, thus fostering respect among all concerned parties. Also, it helps to keep unpractical demands on check, as lessons that are learnt are used to either fine tune implementation plans or to adjust them to make them more realistic. PM&E also helps to clarify objectives as wells as responsibilities of all stakeholders. KFS has the primary responsibility for implementing an M&E system for the NRMP, including this Process Framework. VMGs and other PAPs need to be involved in the implementation of the monitoring system as they also have a responsibility in, and are a major factor to, the successful implementation of the Process Framework. The overall goal of the PM&E process under the Process Framework is to:  Ensure effective communication and consultation takes place;  Report number and type of grievances and resolutions;  Document the performance of mitigating measures through implementation of Action Plans; and,  Allow KFS and VMGs/PAPs to evaluate whether affected groups or individuals have experienced a change in their living standard (i.e. in keeping with the World Bank Safeguard Policy that no one is worse off as a result of the project). Indicators that are adequate and appropriate for consultation and grievance procedures which are working effectively include: . number of participants in the consultation process; . the number of grievances and conflicts that are registered, acknowledged and addressed within the stipulated timeframes; . the number of grievances that are resolved (and at which level), the amount of time it has taken to resolve them and the remedial activities undertaken and as part of mitigation measures. KFS will set up an internal reporting mechanism whereby zonal staff will report to HOC and Head Office on the above indicators, the types of grievances and how they have been dealt with. Among the important implementation factors which VMGs and other PAPs would be monitoring and which would be the key success indicators for them are: - Consultations, involvement and participation in decision-making during the NRMP planning and implementation;

Page | 32 - Co-management of forest and benefit sharing; - Unrestricted access to forest resources needed for socio-cultural, medicinal and livelihood purposes. - Capacity building; - Information and feedback on agreements reached. In terms of mitigating measures, Action Plans22 will be developed by KFS and the PAPs for livelihood support to affected people in each of the operational zones. These plans, including their detailed monitoring and success indicators, would together serve as the Plan of Action required by the Bank's policy to be developed and submitted to the Bank during project implementation and prior to enforcement of new restrictions of access to forest resources, describing the specific measures to assist persons to be adversely affected by the proposed restrictions.

7. Implementation Schedule and Budget

Implementation of the Process Framework activities is considered part of the regular NRMP/KFS activities (e.g. staff salaries, transport, meetings, per diems etc.) In this respect, the grievances will be addressed as and when they arise. However, once they arise and are registered, the timeframes/schedule indicated in the four step process (see 4.4) would have to be adhered to, up to step 4. Should there be a need to go either to the mediator or arbitrator, then the timeframe for mediation/arbitration would have to be agreed between the two parties (KFS/VMGCC) on the one hand and the mediator or arbitrator on the other. The schedule for grievances taken either to the Tribunal or courts of law would be given by the respective presiding officers.

Additional costs this would include the establishment of an NRMP focal point office at the Conservancy level, estimated at a cost of US$20,000 per annum.

Any restriction of access issues resulting from NRMP are fully expected to be resolved at the local level, in the context of the participatory governance mechanisms and/or those of traditional authorities. However, VMGCCs can hardly be expected to bear the cost of an arbitrator, lawyer or Tribunal, therefore a fund of approximately US$10,000 should be set aside to cover the costs of facilitation of a more formal grievance process since the need for arbitration would be a joint decision between KFS/NRMP and the VMGCC/Complainant.

Training in conflict resolution and management, and, monitoring of safeguards for NRMP/KFS staff, VMGCCs and other stakeholders involved is expected to cost approximately US$12,000.

The total cost of activities that are not part of the regular NRMP project activities as described in the project document combine to the following [approximate] total for the remaining two years of the project: - NRMP focal point office: US$40,000; - Conflict resolution activities: US$10,000; - Conflict management training US$12,000; Total: US$62,000.

22 At the time of finalizing this PF, 2 prototype VMPPs had already been developed, one for Mt Elgon and one for Marakwet in Cherangany Hills. Page | 33 8. Interagency and Public/ NGO Consultation The Terms of Reference for the development of the Process Framework required that the consultants hold two rounds of pubic consultations with the VMGs and other stakeholders. The first round of pubic consultations was aimed at dialoguing with the VMGs and other stakeholders on the best, practical and accessible mechanisms for resolving grievances and conflicts that may arise in the course of implementing the NRMP. The second round of pubic consultations was aimed at disclosing, through a public forum to present the first draft Process Framework in order to enable the VMGs to verify, validate and adopt it. A total of 1012 people participated in the consultations for the development of the Process Framework (including 170 people who participated in the public disclosure of the Process Framework at Kapcherop in Cherangany Hills on 26th May 2011). See Annex 3 for detailed records of all the public consultations and other meetings.

8.1 First round of Public Consultations: Development of Process Framework In order to prepare the Process Framework, the consultants held discussions and meetings with various government institutions including KFS staff both at the national and zonal levels. Other government departments who held discussions with the consultants included the Office of the President (during courtesy calls on the District Commissioners in Mount Elgon, Marakwet East, West Pokot, Trans Nzoia East and Trans Nzoia West) and interdepartmental meetings with officials of relevant line ministries in Mount Elgon at Kapsokwony. The purpose was to share with them ideas and issues that were emerging from the public consultations and to get their views on the grievance resolution mechanisms. As for NGOs, the consultants held discussions with the Coordinator of SIDP (who is also the Chairman of the Trans Nzoia VMGCC) and some members of the LNGO who are also members of the same VMGCC. In West Pokot, the Coordinator of CHEMUDEP participated in the public consultation forum at Kaibos, while in Mount Elgon the leader of CIDP participated in the public consultation forum at Toboo. A total of 840 people participated in the first round of pubic consultations to prepare the Process Framework. The consultants held a total of nine (10) public consultations with the VMGs in the four zones – three in Mount Elgon, two in Marakwet, two in West Pokot, two in Trans Nzoia and one public consultation with forest adjacent communities in Mt Elgon. Each public consultation was preceded (a day earlier) by a consultative meeting with the respective VMGCC members so as to ensure that they were properly informed about the objectives of the consultancy and their role in its success. In addition, the consultants itinerary for fieldwork, including all the dates for meeting with the VMGCCs and for public consultations had been sent to the VMGCCs by KFS/NRMP prior to the departure from Nairobi by the consultants so as to ensure adequate time for the VMGCCs to mobilise the VMGs for the public consultations. Finally, on arrival in the field, the consultants made telephone contacts with the respective VMGCC Chairpersons and the KFS Zonal Managers with a view to ensuring that everybody was adequately informed about the assignment, and the timings/dates of the various meetings and public consultations.

8.2 Second Round of Public Consultations: Disclosure of the Process Framework To disclose the Process Framework to the VMGs, a second round of public consultations was held at Kapcherop in Cherangany Hills and at Toboo in Mount Elgon. The aim of this exercise was to present the draft Process Framework to participants from the four project zones – Marakwet, Trans Nzoia East, West Pokot and Mount Elgon – with a view to giving them an opportunity to verify, correct, add/remove ideas, validate and adopt the Process Framework. Disclosure in Cherangany Hills A total of 170 VMGs participated in the disclosure meeting at Kapcherop. Also in attendance were two of the KFS Zonal Managers for the region, KFS NRM Project Officer and the Local Councillor. Following the presentation, participants gave comments and asked questions of clarification. At the end of the exercise,

Page | 34 all participants, including all the VMGCC officials and members from each of the three (Cherangany Hills) zones, certified the Process Framework as validated and adopted. Disclosure in Mount Elgon A total of 155 people – including 18 (of the 20) VMGCC members turned up for the disclosure meeting. Also in attendance were the KFS Mount Elgon Zonal Manager, NRMP Social Development Officer and the World Bank representative, Ms Gibwa Kajubi. Nevertheless, the Mount Elgon VMGCC and the local NGO (CIDP) representatives led the VMGs in declaring that the disclosure would not take place until such a time that KFS would give an assurance in writing, that the Ogiek of Chepkitale would be allowed unconditional access to their homes in the disputed game reserve which to them, is trust land, and an undertaking that the inner forest boundary would be demarcated to enable the Ogiek of Chepkitale know the boundary between the game reserve/trust land and the gazetted forest area. In spite of attempts by the KFS ZM and Social Development Officer to resolve the stalemate, the VMGs and the VMGCC refused to allow the disclosure to take place. They however sought to reassure KFS, the World Bank and the consultants that while they accepted the Process Framework and the VMGP in principle – since they themselves had participated in the development of the two23 – they however did not wish the two outstanding grievances/conflicts to be subjected to the proposed Process Framework and Grievances Redress Mechanism. It is as a result of the adoption of the PF by the Cherangany Hills VMGs and approval of the same in principle by the VMGs of Mount Elgon that this final draft of the PF has been prepared. Also included in this final draft are comments on the second draft by KFS management, which held a workshop in Nakuru from 29th June to 1st July in order to study the PF and generate comments that would make it more user-friendly to all parties that would be involved in its administration.

9. Recommendations Mount Elgon The following recommendations have been necessitated by the stalemate in Mount Elgon resulting from the twin demands by the VMGs that KFS gives in writing, unconditional assurance that the community would have unrestricted access to Chepkitale. This stalemate resulted in the failure to undertake the public disclosure of the Process Framework and VMGP to the VMGs of Mount Elgon. In order to unlock the stalemate, the following suggestions are recommended, before KFS will be able to follow the steps listed for the Cherangany Hills zones: - Urgently follow up on the promise by the Mount Elgon Zonal Manager that his office would address the problems around the existing [physical] access restrictions. - Together with the above, KFS should respond to the outstanding request by the Ogiek of Chepkitale that the inner boundary, separating the game reserve (trust land) from the gazetted forest, should be agreed upon with their full participation. If the decision is to undertake the demarcation, then KFS should give the VMGs clear timelines on when the exercise would be initiated and an assurance on how they would be involved in the exercise, while at the same time asking for their support, understanding and cooperation on the issue. The mobilisation can be done through the VMGCC. - Once a way forward has been agreed upon concerning the twin issues of the [physical] access and the issue of demarcation, KFS should ask the VMGCC to convene a public consultation forum and officially disclose the PF and VMGP for Mount Elgon.

Cherangany Hills: Marakwet, Trans Nzoia, West Pokot

23 The idea for a mediator/arbitrator came strongly from Kapsang in Mount Elgon and was subsequently supported by VMGs in other zones. Similarly, the idea of processing grievances through the various KFS levels was reconfirmed by the Ogiek VMGCC during the VMPP planning workshop in Kitale on 26th April 2011 in response to a question posed by the WB representative who observed the planning process. Page | 35 - Firstly, the VMGs, other PAPs and other stakeholders in Cherangany Hills should be made aware by KFS that this process framework and grievance procedures are in place and be advised on how they can access this mechanism. - Secondly, as a matter of urgency, KFS should consider a dedicated position of an NRMP Focal Point to support and improve communication and dialogue as well as the project implementation and collaboration with the PAPs, especially the VMGs.

General There is a need to initiate a true and well intentioned dialogue through meaningful consultations with the VMGs following the momentum created by the current process of engagement through the Social Assessment, the VMGCC formation and training, and the development of the Process Framework. In this regard, good will and change of attitude is required on the part of the KFS implementing arm, the Zonal Managers as well as the VMGCCs. Through sensitization and training, build the capacity of all the Zonal Managers and their staff to enable them initiate ongoing dialogue, sensitisation and timely sharing of information with the VMGs as a way of building trust, confidence and good will, and in order to avoid or reduce unwarranted negative feelings and perceptions against KFS. There is a need to move with speed to disclose the VMGP for Marakwet and complete the exercise of VMGP development in West Pokot and Trans Nzoia. As soon as the VMGP is disclosed successfully in an area, KFS should immediately initiate implementation of sub-projects as a show of goodwill and commitment to supporting the uplifting of peoples livelihoods. Due to their “youthfulness” in governance, decision-making processes and sub-project implementation, KFS should facilitate the VMGCCs to work as a team, in particular, with regard to all decisions and issues concerning external communication. In this respect the Focal Point should be instrumental in supporting the VMGCCs in the initial stages of sub-project implementation to ensure that timelines are adhered to, and as a way of imparting practical on-the-job training to the. To ensure successful administration of this PF and implementation of the VMGPs, build the capacity of the KFS staff and the involved community entities in dialogue, consensus building, team-working, partnership, negotiation, facilitation and mediation skills. This will assist in tackling the many existing grievances and conflicts, and entrenching dialogue as the modus operandi. KFS should provide sufficient and timely information and sensitisation on the activities of NRMP, through a well developed communication strategy to give guidance on the key messages and communication channels: including information on community rights, roles and responsibilities in the sustainable exploitation of forest resources and what the VMGs should and should not expect from the project. This can be done through a combination of methods e.g. leaflets, radio broadcasts and public meetings. This sensitisation programme should also include KFS staff and the relevant government departments including the Provincial Administration, for them to understand the objectives and proposed activities of the NRMP and the provisions of the Forest Act and other relevant laws, and lobby for its acceptance across the board as the guiding document for implementing forest conservation activities in the NRMP areas. Make use of the Participatory Forest Management Guidelines to ensure that the implementation of NRMP is undertaken according to the World Bank operating principle of free, prior and informed consultation. Finally, develop co-management and benefit sharing modalities and regulations and sensitise the PAPs on the same to avoid the prospect of co-management and benefit sharing becoming major sources of conflict.

10. List of References 1. A guide to designing and implementing grievance mechanisms for development projects – Advisory Note. The Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman for the International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), Members of the World Bank Group (Jun 2008)

Page | 36 2. Community Forest Associations in Kenya: challenges and opportunities. Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), C.K. Koech, P.O. Ongugo, M.T.E. Mbuvi and J.O. Maua (2009) 3. Conflict Management in Based Natural Resource Project, Michael Warner (ODI) 4. Effective Natural Resource Management for Conflict Prevention, Patricia Kameri Mbote, Joel Musaisizi and M Waithaka 5. Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for Rwanda under LVEMP II, final report. Rwanda Environment Management Authority (REMA), Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project Phase II (first edition November 2008, updated in March 2011) 6. Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework. Western Kenya Community Driven Development and Flood Mitigation Project and the Natural Resources Management Project (Dec 2006) 7. Involuntary Resettlement Sourcebook – Planning and implementation in development projects. The World Bank (2004) 8. Operational Manual OP 4.10 Indigenous People. The World Bank (2005) 9. Operational Manual OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement. The World Bank (2001) 10. Operations Manual. Natural Resource Management Project, Upper Tana Catchment, Livelihood Component (May 2010) 11. Participatory Forest Management Guidelines. Kenya Forest Service (Dec 2007) 12. Process Framework for mitigating potential adverse livelihood impacts, China. Sustainable Forestry Development Project (date unknown) 13. Process Framework for the restriction of access to natural resources – Biodiversity Conservation Project. Ministry of Economy and Regional Integration/Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Guinea Bissau (Nov 2010) 14. Report of the NRMP Social Assessment of IPs in Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon. Natural Resources Management Project. Tacitus Ltd (Jul 2010) 15. Report on establishment of Coordination Committees for Vulnerable and Marginalised People in the NRM Project operational areas. Natural Resources Management Project. PDC (Mar 2011) 16. Resettlement Policy Framework. Western Kenya Community Driven Development and Flood Mitigation Project and the Natural Resources Management Project. Environmental Resources Management (Jan 2007) 17. Sessional Paper No.1 of 2007 on Forest Policy. Ministry of Environmental and Natural Resources (2007) 18. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Kenya Forests Act 2005. The World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Department (2007) 19. The Constitution of Kenya, Republic of Kenya (2010) 20. The Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA). Republic of Kenya (1999) 21. The Forest Act, 2005, No. 7 of 2005,. Republic of Kenya (Nov 2005) 22. The National Land Policy. Republic of Kenya (2007) 23. The Strategic Environmental Assessment on Kenya Forest Act, [World Bank] Agricultural and Rural Development Department (2007) 24. Understanding the new Forest Policy and Forest Act, 2005. Environmental management in Kenya: A Framework for Sustainable Forest Management in Kenya (2006)

Page | 37 Annex 1 Terms of reference Terms of Reference for the development of Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plans for the Natural Resource Management Project Introduction and Project Background: The Natural Resources Management Project (NRMP) will address key issues regarding vulnerable and marginalized peoples (VMGs) and other forest-dependent communities in Kenya: It will harmonize the forest policy with the draft land policy, implement a participatory forest management approach, and support livelihoods improvement of populations in the operational areas (Aberdares, Upper Tana, Kakamega, Mount Elgon as well as the Nandi and Cherangany hills). The project will ensure: (a) comprehensive documentation/mapping of settlements, land use areas and cultural sites of IP are comprehensively documented through a Social Assessment; (b) that the vulnerable and marginalized peoples (VMGs) are well represented in pertinent forest livelihoods related decision- making bodies and processes; (c) that a comprehensive strategy to rehabilitate the livelihoods of Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups in the project areas is elaborated in an open-minded and fully participatory option assessment/Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plan; and (d) that the Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plans are implemented in a comprehensive manner so that the vulnerable and marginalized peoples (VMGs) are enabled to benefit from participatory forest management and reforestation. Project Components: The NRMP became effective on December 10, 2007. The objectives of the NRMP are to enhance the institutional capacity to manage water and forest resources in a sustainable and participatory way.” The project has four components; (i) Water Resources Management and Irrigation; (ii) Management of Forest Resources; (iii) Livelihood Investments in the Upper Tana Catchment, and (iv) Management and Monitoring and Evaluation. The first two components support the legal and institutional reforms contained in recent legislation, as well as investments in catchment areas. The third component provides assistance to communities participating in management of the resources. The fourth provides oversight and monitoring and evaluation for the project. Legal and Policy Requirements related to Restriction of Access to Natural Resources: The Government, recognizes that, given, their close association with land, forests, water, wildlife, and other natural resources, measures which reduce the access of vulnerable and marginalized groups to livelihood-related resources, has complex implications, and may entail significant adverse impacts on their identity, culture, and customary livelihoods. During NRMP preparation, the Bank’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples (See Attachment 1) was triggered with regard to Component Two: Management of Forest resources due to the presence of the Ogiek and Sengwer Communities in the Mount Elgon and Cherangany Hills regions respectively. When actual sub-project sites are yet to be identified an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF)/Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Planning Framework (VMGPF)24 is developed to ensure that these communities benefit from the project and are not adversely impacted, and to ensure that measures be put in place to mitigate such actions and /or compensate adversely affected peoples. An IPPF was developed, the NRMP is now ready to ramp up implementation and receive sub-project grant applications from communities in these areas. The World Bank’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.10 requires that when sites are known the IPPF should be advanced into Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plans (VMGPs) that presents specific activities to be carried out at specific sites. A Social Assessment was done for the two areas as a first step to developing Vulnerable and Marginalized People’s Plans. The Kenya Forest Act 2005 spells out how forest communities can access and use forest resources. However, in order to comply with the World Bank Safeguards Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement the Government of Kenya is required to develop a Process Framework when a World Bank- supported project may cause restrictions in access to natural resources in legally designated parks and protected areas, such as gazetted forests in Kenya. The Framework establishes a process by which members of potentially affected communities can participate in planning of project components, determination of measures necessary to achieve the policy objectives, and implementation and monitoring

24 In the Kenya context, Vulnerable Peoples Planning Frameworks (VMGPFs) and Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plans (VMGPs) are equivalent to the World Bank’s definitions of Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and Indigenous Peoples Plans (IPPs). The former terminology is in line with Kenya’s new constitution. Page | 38 of relevant project activities. In developing the Process Framework the consultants will ensure that it is in line with (a) National laws, the 2005 Forest Act and the Environment Act of the Government of Kenya and (b) World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 and OP 4.12 on Resettlement and the World Bank Disclosure Handbook (December 2002). The Bank must satisfy itself that the framework conforms to World Bank Safeguards Operational Policy (OP4.12) Involuntary Resettlement (See Attachment 2) as a condition for Board review. In addition, during project implementation and prior to enforcing of the restriction, the borrower prepares a plan of action, acceptable to the Bank, describing the specific measures to be undertaken to assist the displaced persons and the arrangements for their implementation. The plan of action could take the form of a Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plan25 prepared for the project. Objectives of the Assignment: The Government of Kenya through Kenya Forest Service (KFS) seeks to engage a consultant to:  Prepare a Process Framework for the Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP). The Process Framework will be prepared as a precondition and to inform the development of Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plans (see assignment under (b)). The process framework is to be conducted taking into account the ongoing consultancy on Developing Local Governance Structures and Consultative Mechanisms for the Project Affected persons (PAPs) in the Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon areas.  Prepare Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plans (VMGPs) under the Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP) Livelihoods Component. Two prototype plans will be prepared -- one for the Sengwer Communities in the Cherangany Hills region and one for the Ogiek Peoples in the Mount Elgon region. The VMGPs will be based on the social assessment (conducted June 2010) and in consultation with the affected indigenous peoples' communities. The Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plans will set out the measures through which the NRMP will ensure that (a) indigenous peoples affected by the project receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits; and (b) when potential adverse effects on indigenous peoples are identified; those adverse effects are avoided, minimized, mitigated, or compensated for26. See Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework for the WKCDD/FM & NRM - Draft (10/01/2007) 76 and report on the NRM Social Analysis of IPs in Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon, Social Assessment for the NRMP, Tacitus Ltd, June 2010 Study Area. The assignment will be carried out in close consultations with the vulnerable and marginalized peoples in the Cherangany Hills and Mount Elgon. These groups are the Sengwer/Cherangany of Cherangany Hills and the Ogieks in Mount Elgon. It may also include other members of the forest adjacent communities. Scope of Work and Main Tasks: Building on the Social Assessment that was prepared with these same communities in 2010, the assignment is to be carried out in two stages, comprising of (a) the development of a Process Framework and (b) the deployment of two Prototype VMGPs, according to the following principles. A. The Development of a Process Framework, bringing international experience and best practice to inform the process, working in close consultation with forest adjacent communities, Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples’ Groups, NGOs and Government to produce the following:  Guidelines on how project affected peoples (PAPs) and members of forest adjacent communities are to be involved in identification of impacts and mitigation strategies  Methods and procedures by which communities will identify and choose potential mitigating or compensating measures

25 A local consultant is being hired to work with the international consultant. The local consultant will be responsible for preparing two proto-type Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plans – one for the Cherangany Hills and one for the Mt. Elgon region. 26 See Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework for the WKCDD/FM & NRM - Draft (10/01/2007) 76 and report on the NRM Social Analysis of IPs in Cherangany Hills and Mt Elgon, Social Assessment for the NRMP, Tactitus Ltd, June 2010 Page | 39  A complaints and grievance process for resolving disputes relating to resource use restrictions that may arise between or among affected communities, and grievances that may arise from members of communities who are dissatisfied with the eligibility criteria, community planning measures, or actual implementation.  Assess the degree to which the Ogiek and Sengwer are vulnerable and marginalized and or the proportions of their population that is vulnerable, and develop criteria for judging vulnerability.  Asses the degree to which current access rights granted by the Forests Act 2005 fails to meet the specific needs of the VMGPs and recommend remedial measures. KFS and the consultant will lead inter-agency coordination and Public/NGO Participation. The Process Framework will be developed in a participatory manner and in close consultation and cooperation with all key stakeholders (vulnerable and marginalized people groups/communities, FACs, key line ministries, and NGOs). The community groups and other key stakeholders will be consulted at least twice: (i) in meetings held during preparation before the process framework is finalized and (ii) when a draft process framework is available (a summary of the Process Framework will be available prior to the meeting). The draft and final Process Framework and other relevant materials will be provided to affected groups in a timely manner prior to consultation and in a form and language that is understandable and accessible to the groups being consulted. The Consultant should maintain a record of the public consultation and the records should indicate: means other than consultations) e.g., surveys) used to seek the views of affected stakeholders; the date and location of the consultation meetings, a list of the attendees and their affiliation and contact address; and, summary minutes). B. The Development of two prototype Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples Plans which will outline for each:  the findings of the social assessment and the overlap of land use areas;  a framework for ensuring free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected indigenous peoples' communities during project implementation;  an action plan of measures to ensure that the indigenous peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity of the project implementing agencies;  when potential adverse effects on Vulnerable and Marginalized Peoples groups are identified, an appropriate action plan of measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for these adverse effects.  the cost estimates and financing plan for the VMGPs,  accessible procedures appropriate to the project to address grievances by the affected indigenous peoples' communities arising from project implementation, and  mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project for monitoring, evaluating. The consultant will seek the advice of the international consultant preparing the process framework and ensure that the international consultant brings international experience and best practice to inform the VMGPs. The consultant will be responsible for developing the content of the VMGP as well as for ensuring timely delivery. In developing the VMGPs the consultant will ensure that they are in line with (a) National laws, the 2005 Forest Act and the Environment Act of the Government of Kenya and (b) World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 and OP 4.12 on Indigenous Peoples and Resettlement (See Attachment 2) respectively and the World Bank Disclosure Handbook (December 2002). The community groups and other key stakeholders will be consulted at least twice: (i) in meetings held during preparation before the VMGPs are finalized and (ii) when a draft VMGP is available (a summary of the VMGPs will be available prior to the meeting). The draft and final VMGPs and other relevant materials will be provided to affected groups in a timely manner prior to consultation and in a form and language that is understandable and accessible to the groups being consulted. The Consultant should maintain a record of the public consultation and the records should indicate: means other than consultations) eg, surveys) used to seek the views of affected stakeholders; the date and location of the consultation meetings, a list of the attendees and their affiliation and contact address; and, summary minutes.)

Page | 40

Reporting Process Framework: The consultant will provide a Process Framework report that is concise and limited to significant social and environmental issues. The main text should focus on findings, conclusions and recommended actions, supported by summaries of the meetings held, data collected and citations for any references used in interpreting those data. Unpublished documents used in the assessment may not be readily available and should also be assembled in an appendix. Organize the Process Framework according to the outline below. (This is the format suggested in OP 4.12).  Executive Summary  Description of the Project  Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework  Procedures for Involvement of Project Affected Peoples (PAPs) in:  Development of Eligibility Criteria for PAP  Identification of impacts and mitigation strategies  Identification livelihood options and sub-project activities  Complaints and Grievance Resolution mechanism  Administrative and Legal Procedures  Monitoring Arrangements  Implementation schedule and costs  Inter-Agency and Public/NGO Consultation  List of References  Appendices: o List of Consultants and Team preparing process framework o Records of Inter-Agency and Public/NGO Consultations, Communications, Meetings; o Data and Unpublished Reference Documents: Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plans: Provide two VMGPs that are concise and limited to significant social and environmental issues. The main text should focus on findings, conclusions and recommended actions, supported by summaries of the meetings held, data collected and citations for any references used in interpreting those data. Detailed or uninterrupted data are not appropriate in the main text and should be presented in appendices or a separate volume. Unpublished documents used in the assessment may not be readily available and should also be assembled in an appendix. The details for preparing VMGPs are in Attachment Three. Consulting Team: The consulting team will include the following: A Social Development Specialist with at least 10 years experience with vulnerable and marginalized groups/Indigenous Peoples in the Kenya context, community participation in project design and operation working in close consultation with an international expert familiar with Involuntary Resettlement, IP issues in the African Context, and developing livelihood options in large scale development projects. Note: the team will be required to work closely with KFS social development specialists to define arrangements for the final report, especially as the Process Framework is to incorporate findings from the parallel study on developing local governance structures for the communities in the Cherangany and Mount Elgon areas. Schedule for progress reviews, interim and final reports, and other significant events. The VMGPs will be developed reporting directly to the Director of the Kenya Forest Services. Given the participatory nature of the assignment it is anticipated that the assignment will take up to three months. Key dates are as follows (please note these dates were updated upon the signing of the contract, see correct time line in the Inception Report): Process Framework:  First draft Process Framework is due April 20, 2011;  Second Process Framework April 29, 2011;

Page | 41  Final report of the Process Framework May 13, 2011 submitted to the Government of Kenya/ KFS and shared with the World Bank;  Process Framework Report Disclosed in country and in World Bank Infoshop May 27, 2011.

Page | 42 VMGPs:  First draft VMGP is due May 2, 2011;  Prototype draft VMGP is due May 27, 2011;  Final Prototype VMGP June 15, 2011 submitted to the Government of Kenya/ KFS and shared with the World Bank. Other Information: The consultant shall draw on the findings and conclusions of the Social Assessment prepared in 2010 for the NRM project, the World Bank and Government Kenya legal and policy frameworks related to involuntary resettlement and forests as well as draw on the findings of a parallel consultancy commissioned by the GoK to make recommendations for the Governance structures for the Livelihoods Component of project for the Cherangany and Mount Elgon regions.

Attachment One: World Bank Operational Manual OP 4.10- Indigenous Peoples Attachment Two: World Bank Operational Manual OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement Attachment Three: Guidance on Preparing IPPs (Not attached in this report, but all documents available on the internet)

Page | 43

Annex 2 List of Consultants and Team Preparing Process Framework Name: Margaret Ombai Position: Team Leader and Participatory Methodologies Expert Task Overall responsibility for the assignment, including:  Development of methodology and tools for collecting information  Responsibility for the successful conduct and completion of field work according to the methodology and process described in this proposal  Overall leadership for the entire assignment and the visioning exercise  Responsible for data analysis, drawing of conclusions and recommendations  Responsible for teamwork between the two sub-teams  Facilitation of the planning and feedback workshops  Responsibility for timely completion of the assignment, writing the draft report and presentation of draft and final reports to KFS/NRMP Name: Esther Lowe Position: Senior Consultant responsible for the development of the PF Task Overall responsibility for the development of the PF, including:  Contribution to the development of methodology and tools for collecting information  Responsible for the review of literature related to the development of the PF  Responsible for the successful conduct of the field level actions (according to the methodology and process described in this proposal) leading to the development of the PF  Responsible for data analysis, drawing of conclusions and recommendations related to the PF  Responsible for incorporating PF related comments from stakeholders into the final report  Responsible for writing of the PF report  Co-facilitator of the planning and feedback workshops  Responsible for the timely completion of the PF (taking into consideration the timelines for the submission of deliverables under this aspect of the assignment) Name: Catherine Wanjiku Position: Assistant to Senior Consultant Task Works under the direction of the Senior Consultant responsible for the development of the PF  Supports the Senior Consultant in all aspects of fieldwork related to the development of the PF including: o Data collection and Analysis o Give input into the writing of the 1st draft PF o Any other duties assigned by the SC (PF) Name: Mary Goretti Position: Overall Documentalist Task Works under the direction of the Team Leader  Supports the Sub-Teams in all aspects of fieldwork related to the documentation of : o Public consultation venues, dates and list of attendees o Verbatim documentation of important conclusions, suggestions and recommendations in order to enable

Page | 44 the writing of summary minutes o Supports the Sub-Teams in preparation of PPPs for the feedback/validation and planning workshops o Compilation of the minutes of public consultations o Responsible for taking photos at meetings

Page | 45

Annex 3 Records of Inter-Agency and Public/NGO Consultations On File. 3.1 PF VALIDATION IN CHERANGANY HILLS 3.2 PF VALIDATION IN MOUNT ELGON 31st MAY 2011 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE MEETING VNUE: TOBOO GLADE, MOUNT ELGON TIME: 1 PM – 6 PM PARTICIPANTS: VMGCC, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, KFS ZONAL MANAGER AND NRMP SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST, WORLD BANK REPRESENTATIVE A total of 155 VMGs participated in the meeting, including 18 of the 20 VMGCC members. PRESENTATION OF THE GRIEVANCES

3.3 ROUND ONE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS TO DEVELOP THE PF AND VMGPS 7TH APRIL 2011 PLANNING MEETING WITH MOUNT ELGON VULNERABLE AND MARGINALISED PEOPLES COORDINATING COMMITTEE VENUE: IYAA/STEN GLADES, MOUNT ELGON 8TH APRIL 2011 INTERVIEW WITH KFS FORESTER – AND CURRENTLY ACTING DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER - MR. ISAAC SABULEY VENUE: IYAA GLADES, MOUNT ELGON CONSERVANCY PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE OGIEK VMGS OF IYAA VENUE: IYAA/STEN, MOUNT ELGON CONSERVANCY 9TH APRIL 2011 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE OGIEK VMGS OF KAPSANG VENUE: KAPSANG GLADES, MOUNT ELGON 10TH APRIL 2011 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE OGIEK VMGS OF TOBOO VENUE: TOBOO 11TH APRIL 2011 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE FOREST ADJACENT COMMUNITIES VENUE: KABOYWO FOREST STATION, MOUNT ELGON 12TH APRIL 2011 CONSULTATIVE MEETING WITH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS VENUE: CHEPKWONY Page | 46 MARAKWET 11TH APRIL 2011 COURTESY CALL ON THE MARAKWET ZONAL MANAGER, MR. ALFRED NYASWABU VENUE: KFS ZONAL MANAGER’S OFFICE, KAPSOWAR - MARAKWET COURTESY CALL TO THE MARAKWET EAST DC, MR. JOSEPH M. KISANGAU VENUE: DC’S OFFICE, MARAKWET EAST PLANNING MEETING WITH THE MARAKWET VULNERABLE & MARGINALISED PEOPLES COORDINATING COMMITTEE VENUE: KAPYIEGO 12TH APRIL 2011 COURTESY CALL TO THE KFS CHERANGANI FOREST STATION VENUE: KAPCHEROP PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS OF KAMOI VENUE: AIC CHURCH, KAMOI 13TH APRIL 2011 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS OF EMBOBUT VENUE: MARON GLADES WEST POKOT 15TH APRIL 2011 COURTESY CALL TO WEST POKOT ZONAL MANAGER, MR. GABRIEL KARIUKI VENUE: KFS OFFICE, KAPENGURIA The consultant wished to know the nature of benefits that the community at large, through the CFAs, gain COURTESY CALL ON THE DC, WEST POKOT VENUE: DC’S OFFICE, KAPENGURIA PLANNING MEETING WITH THE WEST POKOT VMGCC VENUE: KAIBOS 16TH APRIL 2011 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS WEST POKOT VENUE: KAIBOS PRIMARY SCHOOL, KAIBOS TRANS NZOIA 18TH APRIL 2011 COURTESY CALL ON TRANS NZOIA ZONAL MANAGER, MR. S.K. WAHOME VENUE: KFS ZONAL MANAGER’S OFFICE, KITALE COURTESY CALL ON TRANS NZOIA EAST DISTRICT COMMISSIONER VENUE: TRANS NZOIA EAST DC’S OFFICE Page | 47 COURTESY CALL ON TRANS NZOIA WEST DISTRICT COMMISSIONER VENUE: TRANS NZOIA WEST DC’S OFFICE - KITALE PLANNING MEETING WITH THE TRANS NZOIA VMG COORDINATING COMMITTEE VENUE: KAPOLET SENGWER CULTURAL CENTER 20TH APRIL 2011 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SENGWER/CHERANGANY VMGS TRANS NZOIA VENUE: KAPOLET SENGWER CULTURAL CENTER

Annex 3.4 List of participants to the consultative meetings Full list participants at the inter-agency and public/NGO consultations, communications, and meetings. On File.

Annex 3.5 Some pictures taken during the various consultative meetings Attachment for sample pictures recorded during inter-agency and public/NGO consultations, communications, and meetings. On File.

Annex 3.6 Summary of NRMP consultations on SA, PF, and VMGPs

Free Prior and Informed Consultations Process for Social Assessment (SA), Process Framework (PF) and Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plans (VMGPs)

1. The Social Assessment (SA) Process: Consultations with Sengwer and Ogiek IPOs and IPs Step 1: 18th April 2012: IPOs Participated in Planning for how to involve Sengwer and Ogiek IPs actively in the SA Process Output IPOs Represented IPO Leader IPOs sensitized on:  Sengwer Indigenous Development Project (SIDP) David Kiptum Yator (also  Free, prior and informed Chairman of the VMGP consultations process required Coordinating Committee for the SA process  Cherengany Multipurpose Development Programme Solomon Cherongos  Need for active participation (CHEMUDEP) of Sengwer and Ogiek IPs in  Sengwer Kabolet Land Allocation Committee Jacob K. Tekeroi the SA  The Sengwer Spokesman Dickson K. Rotich  Need for active participation  Sengwer Cultural and Information Centre; Sengwer Moses Leleu Laima of IPO leaders in the SA Cherengany Cultural Group; Cherengany Sengwer process Consolidated Bonds (Endowment Bonds and Trust Bonds;  Identified Sengwer and Ogiek villages in the Cherengany  Talau Location Sengwer Youth Representative Pius Arap Rotich Kokwai Hills and Mt Elgon in which to  Sengwer Traditional Group conduct SA  Marakwet West District Chairman and Kapcherop Water Paul K. Kibet  Agreed on IPOs Project responsibilities for mobilizing  Chepkitale Indegineous Development Programme (CIDP) Fred Matei Sengwer and Ogiek IPs to and Chepkitale Trust Land participate in SA  Kick started SA process with full participation and support of the Sengwer and Ogiek IPO leaders

Step 2: 19th April to 6th May 2010: Implementation of the SA in Cherengany Hills According to Plan Developed by IPO Leaders  A total of 981 Sengwer and Ogiek IPs consulted in 12 public forums covering a total of 57 Sengwer and Ogiek villages and two feedback, verification and validation [of initial findings] workshops. Breakdown is below.

Page | 48 District IPO Leader Name of IPO Responsible for mobilization of IPs No of IPs Consulted Trans Nzoia David Kiptum Yator Sengwer Indigenous Development Project (SIDP) 75 District West Pokot Solomon Cherongos Cherengany Multipurpose development Programme (CHEMUDEP) 167 District Marakwet David Kiptum Yator Sengwer Indigenous Development Project (SIDP) 364 Paul K. Kibet Councilor and Marakwet West District Chairman Mt Elgon Fred Matei Chepkitale Indigenous People Development Programme (CIPDP) 316  Participation in the feedback, verification and validation workshop in Cherengany Hills 64  Participation in the feedback, verification and validation workshop in Mt Elgon 59 Total No of Sengwer and Ogiek IPs Consulted during the SA process in Chrengany Hills and Mt Elgon 1,045

Outputs of the SA Process Three main outputs:

1. IPs sensitized on the objectives of NRMP and the purpose of free, prior and informed consultations; 2. IPs sensitized on the objectives of the SA, how its findings would help IPs and KFS, and the need for their full participation in the process; 3. IP views, knowledge and perceptions collected on: o Historical background of the Sengwer; o Current production systems of the Sengwer o Sketch Maps drawn by participants showing their historical and current areas; o Project stakeholders according to IPs participating in the SA consultative meeting o Perception of participants on the possible positive and adverse effects of the project; o Measures and strategies for avoiding, reducing, minimizing or compensating adverse impacts of the project on IPs; o Level of support for the project by IPs; o Level of knowledge by IPs of the IPOs that speak on their behalf, and their impact on IPs; o Level of knowledge and understanding of the IPPF by IPs; o Communication strategy that should be adopted by KFS for implementing the project; 4. IPs produced sketch maps of their current and historical territories and livelihood production activities they are engaged in 5. Initial findings of the SA (on above) verified and validated by IPs through selected representatives from each consultation forum Some Pictures from the Social Assessment Work

Planning Meeting with IPO Leaders from all 4 project areas on 18th April 2010

Consultative meeting with women at Kapolet: 19/04/10

Page | 49

A mapping exercise at Kapkok in Embobut: 21/04/10 A lorry load of timber at night near Embobut Forest: 21/04/10

Degraded forest areas next to glades in Embobut Forest: 21/04/10 People loading Irish potato onto a lorry near Embobut

Page | 50

Validation workshop at Sibanga in Cherengany Hills: 27/04/10

Sengwer Dancers Entertain the SA Consultants at the end of the Validation Workshop

2. Consultation Process for the Development of Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Plans (VMGPs) and Process Framework (PF) in Cherengany Hills and Mt Elgon: 7th April to 28th July 2011 Step 1: 28 Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups Coordinating Committee (VMGCC) Officials – 11 from Mt Elgon and 17 from Marakwet Participated in Planning for how to involve the Sengwer and Ogiek IPs in the VMGPs and PF Development Consultation Process Output 1. VMGCC officials sensitized on:  Purpose of the VMGPs and PF Free, prior and informed consultations process necessary for the development of the VMGPs and PF  Need for active participation of Sengwer and Ogiek IPs in the VMGPs and PF development  Need for active participation of VMGCC leaders in the VMGPs and PF development process  Identified Sengwer and Ogiek villages in the Cherengany Hills and Mt Elgon respectively in which to carry out consultations for the VMGPs and PF development  Agreed it was the responsibility of the VMGCCs to mobilize Sengwer and Ogiek IPs to participate in the VMGPs and PF development process  Kick started the VMGPs and PF process with full participation and support of VMGCC leaders in each of the two areas (Mt Elgon and Marakwet in Cherengany Hills)

Step 2: Consultations Leading to the Development of PF and VMGPs in Mt Elgon and Cherengany Hills  A total of 1,543 Sengwer and Ogiek IPs participated in 17 Consultation forums (including 2 VMGP planning workshops covering 3 days each) in Chrengany Hills and Mt Elgon. In each project zone, the process was spearheaded by the respective VMGCCs.

Page | 51 Breakdown is below. District No of IPs Consulted Trans Nzoia District 71 Consultations were for development of PF only West Pokot District 157 Consultations were for development of PF only Marakwet 909 Consultations were for development of both PF and prototype VMGP

Mt Elgon 406 Consultations were for development of both PF and prototype VMGP Totals No of IPs consulted 1,543

Step 3: Disclosure of the PF and VMGPs in Cherengany Hills and Mt Elgon  A total of 425 IPs participated in public forums to disclose PFs and VMGPs in Chrengany Hills and Mt Elgon as shown below Date Activity No of IPs Participating 26th May 2011 Disclosure of PF 170 Sengwer from Marakwet, Trans Nzoia and West Pokot 28th July 2011 Disclosure of VMGP 101 Sengwer from Marakwet 31st May 2011 Efforts are made to publicly disclose the PF and VMGP in Mt Elgon but the 154 Ogiek of Mt Elgon disclosure did not happen as the CIPDP IPO leader, Mr Fred Matei, the VMGCC and IPs insisted that while they have no problems with the 2 documents which they participated in developing, they could not be disclosed until outstanding pre-project issues of access and land are resolved. This was inspite of the VMGCC having given the date for this purpose.

Outputs of the SA Three main outputs:

1. PFs for Cherengany Hills and Mt Elgon 2. Two prototype VMGs – one for Marakwet and the other for Mt Elgon 3. Successful disclosure of PF and VMGP in Cherengany Hills

Page | 52 Some Pictures from Consultative Meetings in Cherengany Hills to Develop the PF

Consultative meeting with the VMGCC of West Pokot – Cherengany Hills at Kaibos: 15th April 2011

Public consultations at Kaibos, West Pokot, Cherengany Hills: 16th April 2011

Public consultations at Kapolet, Trans Nzoia East, Cherengany Hills: 20th April 2011

Consultative meetings with the DC, East Marakwet and the VMGCC of Marakwet at Kapyego, Embobut Forest – Cherengany Hills: 11th April 2011

Public Consultations at Maron, Embobut Forest, Marakwet, Cherengany Hills: 13th April 2011

Page | 53 Pictures from Public Consultations on the Development of the PF and VMGP in Mt Elgon and Cheregnay Hills: 7th – 20th April 2011

Planning Meeting with the VMGCC of Mt Elgon at Iyaa/Sten: 7th April 2011

Public consultations (plenary sessions and various working groups) at Iyaaa/Sten – Mt Elgon: 8th April 2011

Public consultations (plenary sessions and various working groups) at Kapsang – Mt Elgon. A picture showing an IDP camp of Forest Evictee: 9th April 2011

A tree that has been burnt to smoke out bees and public consultations at Topoo – Mt Elgon: 10th April 2011

Public consultations with FACs at Kaboywo: various working groups and a youth transporting firewood to the market – Mt Elgon: 11th April 2011

Page | 54 Implementation of VMGPs in Cherengany Hills

Following the development and successful disclosure of a prototype VMGP in Cherengany hills, round one financing of planned income generating activities for uplifting the living standards of the Sengwer have been completed in all three Cherengany Hills zones and financing for round 2 is underway.

Below are some pictures showing some of the income generating activities in Cherengany Hills.

Sengwer Beneficiary Groups welcomes supervision mission members

A passion fruit farm Dairy Animals

Coffee Seedlings Poultry

Page | 55