Forest and Farm Facility Baseline Study Report for

Contracting Agency:

Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Report Developed By:

Joseph Muriithi Gitonga

May 2015

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iv LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 General Background Information ...... 1 1.1.1 Location and Administrative Units of Laikipia County ...... 2 1.1.2 Topography and Bio-Physical Features of Laikipia County ...... 2 1.1.3 Climatic and Rainfall Patterns of Laikipia County ...... 3 1.1.4 Population and Demography of Laikipia County ...... 4 1.1.5 Geology, Soils and Agro Ecological Zones ...... 4 1.1. 6 Land Tenure, Land Use and Forestry and Farm Related Activities in Laikipia County ...... 5 1.2 Opportunities and Challenges to Forest and Farm Production ...... 6 1.2.1 Opportunities ...... 6 1.2.2 Challenges ...... 8 1.3 Objectives of the Baseline Study ...... 9 1.4 Methodology ...... 9 1.5 Definitions ...... 10 2.0 TYPOLOGY OF FOREST AND FARM PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS ...... 11 3.0 KEY INFORMATION ON FOREST AND FARM PRODUCER ORGANISATION WITHIN LAIKIPIA ...... 17 4.0 KEY SUPPORTING AGENCIES FOR SERVICE PROVISION TO FOREST FARM PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS...... 29 REFERENCES ...... 32 ANNEX ONE: MAP OF LAIKIPIA COUNTY ...... 33 ANNEX TWO: LAIKIPIA COUNTY LAND USE MAP ...... 34

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sub Counties of Laikipia County and Area of Coverage ...... 2 Table 2: Agro Ecological Zones of Laikipia County ...... 5 Table 3: Classification of Producers Organizations in Laikipia County ...... 13 Table 4: Key Information on Selected Producer Organizations ...... 17 Table 5: Supporting Agencies ...... 29 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii

The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) is a multi donor programme hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). Since it was launched, the programme implementation had been ongoing in six pilot countries where four additional countries were admitted in 2014 being one of them. In Kenya, the programme is being piloted in two counties namely Laikipia and .

Laikipia County is one of the 14 counties within the Rift valley region and one of the 47 counties in Kenya. The County is semi arid receiving a mean annual rainfall of between 400mm-750mm. The main land uses include small scale agro pastoralism, sedentary and semi nomadic pastoralism, ranching and large scale farming. In relation to forestry, the county has a forest cover of 6.2% with six gazette forests covering 580Km2. Agro-forestry is also practiced especially in the high and middle potential parts of the county.

This baseline study was undertaken in Laikipia County. It aimed at developing an inventory and status of the forest and farm producer organizations in the County as well as providing specific baseline information of selected producer organizations. Methodology applied for this exercise was mainly qualitative where both primary and secondary sources of data were referred to.

This baseline established that the forest and farm producer organizations in Laikipia County were organized into six major categories. These categories include (i) Local NGOs, Trusts, Networks and Foundations, (ii) Water Resources Users Associations (WRUAs), (iii) Community Forest Associations (CFAs), (iv) Common Interest Groups and Self Help Groups, (v) Producer cooperatives and (vi) Ranches. In terms of providing specific details for selected forest and farm producer organizations, it provides details that include: name of the organization, contacts, date and status of registration, key functions, nature of business or project being undertaken, existence of business plans or strategic plans, source of funds and the challenges faced

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge the support given by the FAO FFF coordinator Mr. Philip Kisoyan during the undertaking of this baseline survey. I’m so much indebted to the National and County officers consulted during this exercise especially officers from the KFS, Department of Agriculture and Department of Cooperative Development; your help was very instrumental in shaping out the outcome of this study.

To all officers and members of the organizations consulted either through face to face or telephone interviews, receive my appreciation.

Lastly to all who contributed, in one way or the other, in ensuring the successes of the socio- economic exercise kindly accept my gratitude.

Joseph Gitonga

Consultant

iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AG Attorney General ASAL Arid and Semi Arid Lands ASDSP Agricultural Sector Development Support Programme CBO Community Based Organization CDTF Community Development Trust Fund CECM County Executive Committee Member CEF Community Environment Facility CERA-Rights Centre for Research and Advocacy in Human Rights CETRAD Centre for Training and Integrated Research in ASAL Development CFA Community Forest Association CO Chief Officer DFID Department for International Development DFID Department for International Development ENNDA Ewaso Nyiro North Development Authority FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FFF Forest and Farm Facility FFF-SPAK Farm Forestry-Small Producer association of Kenya IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KFS Kenya Forest Service KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics LAFONET Laikipia Forest Network LAICCODO Laikipia Central Community Development Organization LAICONAR Laikipia County natural Resources Network LWF Laikipia Wildlife Forum NDMA National Drought Management Authority NGO Nongovernmental Organization NRM Natural Resources Management PFMP Participatory Forest Management Plan SCMP Sub catchment Management Plan SHG Self Help Group SID Society for International Development TILT Tree is Life Trust TIST The International Small Group Tree Planting Programme UEN-WRUA Upper Ewaso Water Resources Users Association UN United Nations WDC Water Development Cycle WRMA Water Resources Management Authority WRUA Water Resources Users Association WSTF Water Services Trust Fund

v

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Background Information

Agricultural land use and management presents major development challenges to many developing countries especially in the sub Saharan Africa. The area under cultivation has expanded notably and there is conversion from fallow based cropping systems to continuous cultivation. However, the per capita food production had been on the decline. Environmental problems associated with agricultural production cannot be ignored as they have direct impact on the smallholders’ livelihoods and incomes. Agro-forestry, which is defined as a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource management system that diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land uses at all levels, could be applied to help solve some of these problems.1 Forests provide a starting-point for rotational agriculture and protection. On-farm trees also provide shade, windbreaks and contour vegetation. Trees/forests also provide low-cost soil nutrient recycling and mulch. Other inputs include arboreal fodder and forage, fibre baskets for storing agricultural products, wooden ploughs and other farm implements, etc

The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF) is a multi donor programme, hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). The programme was launched in September 2012 and is being implemented in six pilot countries which include Guatemala and Nicaragua in Latin America, Gambia and Liberia in Africa and Nepal and Myanmar in Asia. Towards the end of 2014 four more other countries were admitted to the programme which includes Bolivia, Kenya, Zambia and Vietnam. The FFF programme envisions smallholders, communities and indigenous people’s organization having improved their livelihoods and the decision making over forest and farm landscapes. Its activities are organized under there working area or pillars namely strengthening smallholder, women, community and indigenous peoples’ producer organizations for the business/Livelihood and policy engagement; Catalyze multi sectoral stakeholder policy platforms with government at local and county levels; and Linking local voices and learning to global processes through communication and information dissemination.2

1 CAB international (2002), (eds S Franzel and S. J. Scherr), Tree on the Farm, Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry practices in Africa, CABI Publishing, UK, Online Library 2 FAO Kenya (2015), FFF Baseline Study TOR for Laikipia County,

1

In Kenya, the programme is still in its formative stages and is being implemented in two pilot counties namely Laikipia and Nakuru Counties.

1.1.1 Location and Administrative Units of Laikipia County

Laikipia County where this baseline was undertaken is one of the 14 counties within the Rift Valley region and one of the 47 counties in the Republic of Kenya. It borders to the North, County to the North East, to the East, County to the South East, and to the South West and to the West. It lies between latitudes 0o 18” and 0 o 51” North and between longitude 36o 11” and 37o 24’ East. It covers an area of 9,462 km2 and is ranked as the15th largest county in the country by land size.

Administratively, the county comprises of five administrative sub-counties (formerly districts) namely: Laikipia Central, Laikipia East Laikipia North, Laikipia West and sub- counties. The county is further sub-divided into15 divisions, 51 locations and 96 sub-locations respectively as indicated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Sub Counties of Laikipia County and Area of Coverage

Sub County Area (KM2) Divisions Locations Sub Locations

Laikipia Central 1,107.3 4 7 11

Laikipia East 1,863.1 2 7 16

Laikipia North 2,600.2 1 9 14

Laikipia West 3,088.1 4 14 28

Nyahururu 803.3 4 14 27

Total 9,462 15 51 96

Source: County Commissioner Office (2015)

1.1.2 Topography and Bio-Physical Features of Laikipia County

Laikipia County occupies a plateau that is bounded by the Great Rift Valley to the west and the Aberdare and Mt. Kenya massifs to the south. The plateau descends to the floor of the Rift Valley in the North West. Its altitude varies between 1,500 m above sea level at Ewaso Nyiro North River basin in the North to a maximum of 2,611 m above sea level around Marmanet

2 highlands. The other areas of high altitude include Mukogodo and Ol Daiga Forests in the eastern part of the county at 2,200 m above sea level.3

The county is endowed with several natural resources which include pasture rangeland, forest, wildlife, undulating landscapes and rivers among others. The high and medium potential land constitutes 20.5 per cent of the total county’s land area while the remaining 79.5 per cent is low potential hence unsuitable for crop farming. The limiting factors to agricultural production are the poor weather conditions characterized by frequent dry spells and poor rainfall distribution. In terms of forest cover, the county has gazetted forest area totaling to 580 Km2 comprising of both the indigenous and plantation forests. The indigenous forests include Mukogodo and which are under threat from encroachment. The plantation forests include Marmanet and Shamanek.4

1.1.3 Climatic and Rainfall Patterns of Laikipia County

The climatic influence of high mountains surrounding the semi-arid plateau of Laikipia County produces a steep ecological gradient, giving rise to several eco-climatic regimes, which range from the sub-humid to semi-arid conditions. The mean annual temperatures vary from 16oC to 20oC indicating a low annual temperature variation mainly as a result of the county’s location around the equator. Diurnal amplitude is however high with maximum temperatures going beyond 25oC and minimum night temperatures sometimes falling below freezing point leading to frost. January, February and March are the warmest months the February recording the highest temperatures. The high temperatures are said to be conducive for agricultural production as they influence the length of growing season, however, this is usually inhibited by the occurrence of forest.

The rainfall pattern is generally bi-modal but unreliable and seasonally scattered across the year. There are two noticeable rainy seasons where the long rains occur between March and May while the short rains occur between October and December. It’s however noting that the rainfall increases at higher elevation in the South western part of the County and is weakly tri- modal. Most parts of the county receive 500mm-700mm of rainfall per annum with decreasing amounts towards the centre and the northern boundary of the County. A small section on the western and south western side receives more rainfall, the total reaching between 800-1000mm per annum around Nyahururu. The highland of Marmanet in Nyahururu Sub county receives the

3 ETC East Africa (2001), Poverty, Target Groups and Governance Environment in Laikipia District 4 GOK (2013), Laikipia County: First County Development Profile

3 highest amount of rainfall of over 900mm annually while the drier parts of Mukogodo in Laikipia North and Rumuruti in Laikipia West Sub counties receives the lowest amount of rainfall averaging 400mm annually.5

1.1.4 Population and Demography of Laikipia County

According to the 2009 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) housing and population census, the county had a total population of 399,227 people comprising of 198,625 males and 200,602 females. This population presented a 2.3% growth rate between 1999 and 2009 census.6 Based on this growth rate, the population is project to be 479,072 by 2015. In terms of poverty manifestation, the County has an overall Human Development Index of 0.4118 compared to the National Index of 0.5608. The county Human Poverty Index stands at 57.3% as compared to the National Index of 29.1. In relation to inequality, the county has a Gini index of 0.369.7

1.1.5 Geology, Soils and Agro Ecological Zones

Volcanic rocks, basement systems rocks and basic igneous rocks dominate the geology of the County. This has given rise to the black cotton soils that are spread in most parts of the county and dark reddish brown to red friable soils and rocky soils especially on the hillsides. Most of the black cotton soils are fertile though poorly drained and present major problems for road communication especially during rainy seasons when they turn sticky and slippery. Fertile soils are also found around the mountainous areas and are classified as red brown sandy clay loam luvisols. Dark brown clay loam phaezoms occur on the low ridges of the county and are poor to moderately fertile soils characterized by rock outcrops and most are found in the drier areas of the county. In the east of the county, hills and minor scarps are covered by soils that are moderately fertile.8

In terms of Agro Ecological Zones (AEZ), the county exhibits the characteristic of AEZ II to AEZ VI. These characteristics are as shown in the Table 2 below

5 Laikipia Meteorogical Stations Data, 2015 6 KNBS (2010), The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census, Counting Our People for the Implementation of Vision 2030, Volume 1A Population Distribution by Administrative Units 7 KNBS and SID (2013), Exploring Kenya’s Inequality, Pooling apart or Pooling Together?, Laikipia County, Nairobi. (A Gini index of ‘0’ represents perfect equality, while an index of ‘1’ implies perfect inequality) 8 ETC East Africa (2001), Poverty, Target Groups and Governance Environment in Laikipia District

4

Table 2: Agro Ecological Zones of Laikipia County

AEZ Soils Types Descriptions Potential Limitations Land Use II Soil on Reddish brown, sand Wheat, maize, Excessively mountainous areas clay loam potatoes drained III/IV Soil on hills and Reddish clay loam with Sheep, cattle Excessively minor scarps rock outcrops shallow and poor workability III Soil on step faulted Rock and stony loam Sheep, cattle Shallow and scarps of Rift poor workability Valley V/IV Soil on plateau and Reddish brown Ranching Hard pan high plains IV Soil on uplands Clay, loam, grayish, Ranching Poor drainage brown clay III Soils on dissected Dark brown clay Wheat Cracking clay VI erosion plains Dark brown clay, loam, Ranching Poor moisture sandy clay, loam to retention and sandy clay workability VI Sony sandy loam with Ranching quartz gravel

Source: SARDEP (2002)

1.1. 6 Land Tenure, Land Use and Forestry and Farm Related Activities in Laikipia County

The main land uses in the county include small scale agro-pastoralism, sedentary and semi- nomadic pastoralism, ranching and large scale farming especially horticultural and wheat based. Agricultural potential is high on the south western part of the county while pastoralism is mainly practiced on the northern and north western part of the county. Over 20% of the land in the county is arable with the total area under crop production being about 1,984Km2. It is reported that over 60% of the households derive their livelihood from agricultural based activities where only 20% are large scale farmers. Generally it could be said that a greater portion of the county is ideal for livestock keeping as opposed to agricultural farming. This is evidenced by the fact that there are 43 registered ranches which cover about 50% of the total land in the county. 13 of these ranches are community group ranches while 30 are owned by companies or individuals. The main practices in these ranches are wildlife conservation and livestock keeping.

As relates to forestry, data from KFS indicates that the county has a forest cover of 6.2%. There are six gazetted and one non gazetted forest in Laikipia covering a total area of 580 KM2. Mukogodo forest in the Northern part of the count is the only gazetted natural forest while the rest are plantation forests and includes Lariak, Marmanet, Ng’arua, Rumuruti and Shamanek

5 forests. All these forests are under a forest manager and Community Forest Associations have entered into an agreement with KFS to manage the respective forests or part of the forests. Over the years these plantation forest have experienced significant degradation with part of the forests especially in Marmanet, Ng’arua and Rumuruti having been excised for agricultural and settlement purposes. The situation has further been aggravated by illegal logging, forest fires and uncontrolled grazing. Increased demand for timber based products and increased awareness for conservation had seen increased community adoption of agro forestry practices. Data gathered from KFS offices on the ground indicated that agro-forestry is mainly practised in the high and middle potential areas of the county which includes parts of Laikipia East, Central and West Sub Counties and the whole of Nyahururu Sub County. In Laikipia East and Central Sub Counties, the practice is mainly planting of trees along the farm borders with very few farmers having small wood lots. In these areas, the main tree species that were reported to be planted include Grevillea robusta, Casorina species, Cypress, Red Cider and Bottle Brush species. In parts of Laikipia West and Nyahururu Sub Counties, the practice is similar with some farmers having own forests/wood lots of 0.085-10 ha in size. This is mainly facilitated by the fact that the land holding in these areas are higher as compared to Laikipia East and Central Sub Counties. In a way this supports the view by Marenya and Barret (2007)9 and Otsuki and Ogo10 (2009) that relatively richer farmers tend to adopt agro forestry. In Laikipia North Sub County, the practice is not common but since the area is mainly a range, there is natural proliferation of trees especially the Acacia species.

1.2 Opportunities and Challenges to Forest and Farm Production

1.2.1 Opportunities

The Constitution of Kenya 2010: This presents the main legal basis for participation in the promotion of farm and forestry activities. Chapter Five of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 on Land and Environment clearly spells out the principles of land policy including equitable access to land, sustainable and productive management of land resources and elimination of gender discrimination in Law customs and practices related to land and property in land (Article 60 (1) (a) (c) and (f)). This provides for an opportunity for the smallholders, women, community and indigenous people to participate in forestry and farm related livelihood and policy engagement; Article 63 (d) (i) and

9 Marenya, P.P. and Barrett C.C, 2007, Household level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in Western Kenya, Food Policy 32 (4): 515-536 10 Otsuki T and Ogo T, 2009, Determinants of adoption of agro forestry in Kenya. Osaka University, Mimeographed.

6

(ii) provides for legal protection of community land that can be used as forest or grazing area and protection of indigenous community land; while Article 69 (2) provides for community participation in protection and conservation of the environment and sustainable use of natural resources. The freedom of association provided for in Article 36 further reinforces the opportunity for the communities to organise themselves in smallholders and/or indigenous people’s organisations.

Devolved System of Governance Although this is legally provided for in the Constitution of Kenya 2010, the actual devolution of functions to the counties provides an opportunity for support of forest and farm producer organisations. Since agriculture ( and all its related functions including livestock keeping and fisheries), water supply and forest extension are some of the devolved functions, the producer organisations can take advantage of these to tap financial resources and technical expertise that can help them increase production as well as linkage to markets.

Availability of Carbon Credit Market The carbon credit is an emerging market in the area where farmers are compensated for the indigenous trees they plant which help in carbon sequestration. The International Small Group Tree Planting Programme (TIST) was reported to be leading the compensation in the county and particularly in the high agricultural potential and middle potential areas of the county. Interaction with some of the producer organizations however revealed that there was limited information as to the operation of the programme and how the producers can participate in the carbon credit.

Increased Demand for Wood Based Fuel and Timber Products. As the population increases, there is increased demand for wood based fuel (firewood and charcoal) in order to meet the household energy needs. There is also increased demand for timber for construction of houses, fencing and making of furniture. The supply of these products at the moment is lower than the demand which has resulted to increased forest degradation as people try to address this need. This presents an economic opportunity that could be taken advantage by the farm and forestry project.

Empowered Stakeholders In the past there has been a lot of investment in the County on issues related to natural resources management. This has contributed immensely towards empowerment of the stakeholders in relation to management of own natural resources. The Forest and Farm project

7 could take advantage of this by building on the existing capacity as well as filling in the gaps for maximum impacts.

1.2.2 Challenges

Lack of Well Coordinated Functional Market Systems and Insertion in Value-Chains Although there exists high demand for wood based products and fuel, which is as a resulted of increased population, the markets for such products is not well coordinated. Individual producers engage in the market in an informal manner which limits them from realising full gains from their investment. This study also observed that most community forestry initiatives were currently being promoted by development organizations and requires a number of adjustments. Most local forest users were engaged in market exchange under rules with which they were unfamiliar with, nor did they have the necessary capacities to influence or take advantage of them. A case in place was with the Community Forest Associations (CFAs) where it was reported that when it comes to negotiating Forest Management Agreements (FMA) with KFS, most of them felt like there wasn’t fair play and that their forestry activities become subject to a normative institutional framework different from the one they had in mind. It was also observed that the vast majority of forest-based communities and smallholders continued to participate mainly in primary production, with little connection with downstream chain actors beyond local intermediaries. Their participation in the supply- or value-chain was sporadic, as they cannot supply the market with steady volumes or qualities. This limits the opportunities of joint learning with other chain actors and, eventually, to strengthen their bargaining power.

Cumbersome Regulatory Framework Forestry regulatory frameworks influence how local producers access and manage forests and how they interact with markets. Cumbersome regulatory frameworks tend to operate as institutional barriers and to impose excessive transactions costs to local forestry producers. Commercial forestry production tends to be more regulated than other economic sectors due to concerns for forest conservation. For one to harvest trees for sale, permits have to be sought from the local chiefs and KFS a process which is sometimes marred by corruption. There is thus the need to have localized regulatory framework that will ensure that the communities and smallholders, who have access to forests through individual or collective ownership, or through temporary use rights, like the social forest concessions, can easily reap economic gains from their efforts as well as be encouraged to participate in conservation initiatives

8

Disincentives Created by Conservation Restrictions As observed with the CFAs and the Water Resources Users Associations (WRUAs), there was a disincentive to the local communities to participate effectively in forestry activities which was reported to have been occasioned by the restrictions to harvest trees by the KFS. KFS was reported to have given the rights to harvest to specific sawmilling companies which de-motivate the local communities and smallholders who have cut back or given up earlier gathering or grazing activities for conservation purpose. There is need for the farm and forestry project to have a different model that will encourage trade off as well as provide incentives for these affects.

Conflicts Between Livestock Keepers and Tree Growers As was reported by some of the producer organizations consulted, there exist conflicts between tree growers and livestock keepers where the latter were reported to be grazing on the seedling planted by the former. This was reported to be so especially during the dry spell where migrating livestock keepers/ pastoralists were reported to be grazing their livestock keepers on anything that is green. This could be explained by the fact that valuation of anything is related to utility and therefore the livestock keepers were likely to value their livestock more that the trees planted by the tree growers thus leading to conflicts.

1.3 Objectives of the Baseline Study

According to the Terms of Reference for this assignment, this baseline study aimed at providing more detailed initial overview on:

1. Inventory and status of Forest and Farm producer organizations in Laikipia County 2. Collection of specific baseline information matched to the outputs and indicators selected for the work plans such that future monitoring and learning reports have a credible baseline against which to monitor and attribute progress.

1.4 Methodology

Data gathered for this baseline was from both primary and secondary sources. For the primary sources, the study engaged the relevant national and county governments’ officers either through face to face interview or telephone interviews. It also involved face to face and telephone interviews with representatives of various community based institutions and engagement of officers in charge of forestry, agriculture and water programme in some agencies such as Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF). Secondary sources of data included review of

9 various national government reports, policies and legal frameworks, review of county development plans and legislations and review of past researches on agro forestry in Laikipia. Although there wasn’t much documentation on previous researches on forest and farm issues in Laikipia County, interviews with the various KFS forest extension officers indicated that in the recent past the demand for timber based products and energy had contributed a lot to increased adoption of agro forestry in bid to have own source at the smallholders’ level. Support in accessing seedling by various organizations was also reported to have contributed towards planting of trees at the farm level.

1.5 Definitions

Human Development Index: - A tool developed by the United Nations to measure and rank countries' levels of social and economic development based on four criteria: Life expectancy at birth, mean years of schooling, expected years of schooling and gross national income per capita. The HDI makes it possible to track changes in development levels over time and to compare development levels in different countries.

The Human Poverty Index (HPI): - Is a measure of poverty that was introduced in the UN's 1997 Global Human Development Report. The aim was to create a composite index that brings together the different areas of deprivation that affect the quality of life. The HPI is premised on the understanding that if human development is about enlarging choices, then poverty means the denial of the most basic opportunities and choices.

10

2.0 TYPOLOGY OF FOREST AND FARM PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS

This baseline survey established that the forest and farm producer organizations in Laikipia County were organized into six major categories. These categories include (i) Local NGOs, Trusts, Networks and Foundations, (ii) WRUAs, (iii) CFAs, (iv) Common Interest Groups and Self Help Groups, (v) Producer cooperatives and (vi) Ranches.

1. Local NGOs, Trusts, Networks and Foundations: - These were somewhat meso level legally registered organization although with direct touch with the community. They included organizations that were in a position to tap external project funding but implemented the project through community groups as the entry to the community. This baseline established that there were 2 such NGOs, 3 Trusts and 3 networks 2. Water Resources Users Associations: - These were community based legally registered association with a mandate to manage a given sub catchment which is river based per WRUA. The foundation of these organizations was informed by the legal provisions in the Water Act, 2002 which provided for community participation in water resources management. The membership of the WRUAs is drawn from riparian land owners, water projects, large scale farmers, individual water users and water companies. The Water Resources Management Authority is also a member but without votes. In Laikipia County there were 16 active WRUAs in operation. 3. Community Forest Associations: - Like the WRUAs, CFAs were also community based legally registered association but their mandate was to help in co-management of the forest and forest reserves. Their foundation was informed by the Legal provision in Forests Act, 2005 which provided for the registration of CFAs to help in co-management of state forest which were then faced by wanton deforestation. An individual CFA is in charge of a specific forest or forest block. The membership of such CFAs is drawn from forest adjacent communities who are organized into various user groups. There are 10 CFAs in Laikipia County. 4. Common Interest Groups and Self Help Groups: - These were formally organized groups that were either registered with the department of social services or not registered. There membership was drawn from community members with a common interest in life such as promotion of livelihood activities, income generation or self help through pooling of resources. They include women groups, youth groups, beekeeping groups, farmers groups, tree nursery groups, environmental conservation groups etc. There number is enormous but can easily be reached through the meso level organizations, CFAs or WRUAs. Alternatively

11

they can be reached through the department of social services or through relevant government department and ministries. 5. Producer Cooperatives: - These were legally registered body corporate that were made up of members whose drive was to thrive economically. Unlike the others, the cooperatives were self sustaining with resources for their operations being drawn from own resources such as membership and share contributions. In the county, there were 14 such cooperatives. 6. Ranches: - Ranches cover 50% of the total land in Laikipia County. There were 43 registered ranches 30 of which were private while 13 are group ranches. The biggest covers 92,555.21 acres while the smallest covers 416.45 acres. The smallholders were mainly in the group ranches where they communally owned the ranches and utilized the resources thereof in a communal manner.

Other than the common interest and the self help groups the others serves as umbrella bodies or networks through which smallholders organizations are linked to the district, county or national level.

Table 3 below presents a tabular typology of the main classification of the forestry and farm producer organizations in Laikipia County:

12

Table 3: Classification of Producers Organizations in Laikipia County

Main Legal Status No per Membership Legal Potentials Challenges category Category in Mandate/Area the County of Coverage Local NGO, The NGOs are 2 local Membership is -The coverage -Have already -Most of them are Trusts and registered under the NGOs, 3 mostly corporate of these established systems dependent on donor Networks NGO Act that has network and where they work organizations for promoting farm funding been replaced by 3 active through groups is the entire and forestry -For most of them the Public Benefits Trusts county with production including farm and forestry is Organisations (PBO) some covering operation base and not their core business Act of 2014; Trusts more than one staff but a component on are registered under county -They can legally livelihood promotion Land Act while cover the entire activities Networks are mostly county -Are mainly meso informal -Are self regulating level organizations with sound that so not have a management direct stake on farm systems and forestry but are just interest parties WRUAs Registered under 16 in the Membership is Each WRUA -Are able to internally -Multiple user groups the Societies Act county mainly drawn covers a given mobilize resources have overlapping/ from river sub catchment through membership competing claims on resource users contributions and the forests. This is the and includes water charges which case both among local water project, they can channel to and other users and riparian land co-funding of the among different owners, administrative costs categories of local individual river of the project user; consequently users, large -members have a there is a lack of scale farms and direct stake on water shared attitudes water resources thus it is towards resource use, companies easy to capture their and a potential for among others interest conflict. -Can tap additional -Each WRUA is legally funds to support agro limited in coverage to forestry through the a specific sub

13

Water Development catchment Cycle (WDC) -Most of them have operational base and basic staff -Closely monitoring by WRMA acts as regulatory CFAs Registered under 10 in the Membership Each CFA -Have forestry as -Multiple user groups the Societies Act county drawn from covers a given their core business have overlapping/ forest adjacent forest or forest -Most have forest competing claims on groups who are block management plans the forests. This is the organized in and agreements case both among local specific user which allows them to and other users and groups invest in production among different activities in the forest categories of local such as beekeeping, user; consequently fishing etc while there is a lack of conserving the forest shared attitudes -Most have use towards resource use, groups that have and a potential for established tree conflict. nurseries -Each CFA is legally -Since membership is limited by in coverage mainly drawn from to cover a specific forest adjacent forest/ forest block communities it is -Most of them do not easy to promote farm have operational base forestry in the name -Although majority of conservation have forest management agreements, this agreements are not clear on benefit sharing which may act as a disincentive

14

Common Are registered under Numerous in Membership Area of -Small-scale forest -Tree growing is only Interest and the department of number drawn from coverage products available to those with Self Help social services as depending community limited to manufacturing and access to land that Groups Community Based on the members with a specific trade can be they can farm. It may Organisations common common interest activities due available to the also not be possible (CBOs) or self help interest usually a to their lack of landless as well as to for sharecroppers and groups minimum of 10 legal those with access to other farmers with and a maximum registration the land, to women tenurial constraints of 40 although as well as to men, -They are not legal this may vary and to some of the institution and this no urban poor liability transfer -Majority draw their -Majority have poor membership from organisational smallholders who can structures and engage in hedge systems grow intercropping or -Some require a lot of boundary tree follow up to be planting effective Producer Are registered under 14 active Membership Limited to the -Can harness own -Majority are limited to Cooperatives the Cooperative Act. cooperatives drawn from fully scope of financial resources daily or agricultural in the county registered activities -Most have an production and members registered to operational base and change of their core through share undertake. basic staff mandate has to be contributions However can -Their close working approved by the operate within with government registrar before the entire officers acts as effecting county or regulatory -Farm forestry is not across other their main interest counties unless it is through contributing directly to opening their interest of branches planting of Calliandra or Leucaena Spp for fodder -Some are marred by corrupt leadership

15

Ranches The private ranches There are The There area of -They are -The common are registered 30 private membership of coverage is homogeneous user property regime through the Trust ranches and the group within their communities, with especially among Land Act while the 13 group ranches is respective shared attitudes to group ranches may group ranches are ranches drawn from the ranches resource use. lead to lack of registered through registered -The private ranches sustainability of the Group Ranch community have great interest in forestry and farm Act members commercial activities where the usually defined conservation tragedy of the by clans and activities using a commons is likely to families business model occur -Since most of these ranches are in the low potential areas survival of seedling planted is usually questionable The group ranches are characterized by poor leadership

16

3.0 KEY INFORMATION ON FOREST AND FARM PRODUCER ORGANISATION WITHIN LAIKIPIA

Key information on some of the forest and farm producer organizations within Laikipia County was gathered. The information gathered included the name of the organization, contacts, date and status of registration, key functions, nature of business or project being undertaken, existence of business plans or strategic plans, source of funds and the challenges faced. This information is as presented in the Table 4 below:

Table 4: Key Information on Selected Producer Organizations

LOCAL NGOs, TRUSTS AND NETWORKS

NAME AND DATE OF MEMBERSHIP KEY NATURE OF EXISTENCE SOURCE OF CHALLENGES CONTACTS REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS BUSINESS/ OF FUNDS/ AND STATUS PROJECTS BUSINESS SUPPORT PLAN Centre for Founded in Not a Promotion of -Beekeeping Has a -DFID-Funding Unreliable Research and 2002 and membership economic, activities strategic -Uwezo sources of Advocacy in registered in organization social and -Promotion of on plan Kenya- funding Human Rights 2008 with the but works cultural rights farm tree planting Research and (CERA- National NGO through -Research and funding Rights) board organized documentation Contact: membership 0720423940 groups Laikipia Founded in Not a Promotion of -Construction of UNDP-funding Unreliable Central 2002 and membership environmental biogas plants sources of Community registered in organization conservation -Provision of funding Development 2003 with the but works seedling for on Organisation National NGO through farm planting (LAICCODO) board organized -Community Contact: membership awareness 0725348406 groups creation on conservation -Climate change mitigation and

17

adaptation Laikipia Formed in 2013 A membership Natural -Development of -Laikipia Weak NRM County organization resources laws and policies County- institutional natural whose governance affecting funding framework in Resources members are devolved -East African the county and Network drawn from mandates on Wildlife uncoordinated (LAICONAR) stakeholders in natural resource Society- conservation Contact: the NRM governance funding practices 0725149076 Tree is Life Formed in 2002 Not a Conservation -Promotion of Has a valid -UNDP Unreliable Trust (TILT) and registered membership of natural biodiversity strategic GEF/SGP- sources of Contact: as a Trust in organization resources conservation plan funding funding 0721809474 2006 under the but works -Promotion of -CDTF/CEF- Ministry of Land through CBOs, renewable Funding SHGs, CFAs energy -Act!- funding and WRUAs -Capacity -PAT Italy - building of CFAs funding -Climate change mitigation and adaptation Laikipia Formed in 2012 An umbrella A forum for -Public Have a LWF- Capacity Forest and registered body for CFAs networking of awareness strategic building Network with the AG in Laikipia CFAs creation on plan (LAFONET) office devolved structures Kenya Started An umbrella A forum for -Community Have a 5 Unreliable National operations in body for networking to mobilisation years donor funding Farmers the county farmer groups promote agri -Farmers strategic and lack of Federation in2013 business trainings plan means of Laikipia transport Chapter Contact: 0727045250

18

WATER RESOURCES USERS ASSOCIATIONS (WRUAS)

NAME AND DATE OF MEMBERSHIP KEY NATURE OF EXISTENCE OF SOURCE OF CHALLENGES CONTACTS REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS BUSINESS/ BUSINESS FUNDS/ AND STATUS PROJECTS PLAN SUPPORT Upper Ewaso Formed in 2009 187 members Management -Promotion of Have a valid WSTF- Inadequate Narok WRUA and registered of whom 180 of upper energy Sub Funding financial Contact: in 2010 with the are Ewaso Narok efficient stoves Catchment GEF/SGP- resources 0710584021 AG office smallholders, 2 sub catchment -Planting of Management Funding are CFAs and of sustainable trees in the Plan (SCMP) 5 are access to riparian and on horticultural water farms farms resources and -Tree nursery reduction of water based conflicts Lower Ewaso Founded in 600 members, Management -Rain water Rural Focus, Inadequate Narok WRUA 2010 and 12 ranches of water harvesting LWF and resources and Contact: registered in and 14 resources to -Tree planting WRMA on support from 0722397860 2011 with the conservancies minimize on the riparian capacity stakeholders Attorney conflicts area building General (AG) between - Fish farming Office and have farmers and and bee a bank account pastoralists keeping projects Ndivai WRUA Founded in 200 Addressing -Tree nursery Have a valid Financial Inadequate Contact: 2010 and water scarcity -Digging of sub catchment support from management 0725857212 registered with in the sub shallow wells management WSTF skills social services catchment plan (SCMP) Nyahururu Founded in 250 Protection and Catchment Have a valid LWF to Inadequate WRUA 2010 and conservation rehabilitation SCMP develop the human and Contact: registered with of Nyahururu through tree SCMP financial 0721879706 social services River planting resources Kinamba Founded in 35 Promotion of -Community Have a valid -WRMA- Inadequate WRUA 2010 and sound water awareness SCMP Capacity organisational Contact: registered in management creation on building capacity in

19

0723808726/ 2011 with the and water -LWF and terms of 0734613517 AG office conservation resources Rural Focus- policies and practices conservation Development procedures of SCMP Muhotetu Founded in 3 water Conservation -Tree planting Lack of WRUA 2010 and projects of water along the financial Contact: registered with resources for catchment support and Box 244 AG office improved mobility Nyahururu livelihood Melwa WRUA Founded in 140 Promotion and -Awareness Lack of Contact: 2011 and regulation of creation and financial 0728293411 registered with sustainable community support AG office water use mobilisation Olmoran Founded in 30 Mitigation and -Awareness WRMA, LWF Inadequate WRUA 2011 but not management creation and Rural skills on water Contact: c/o registered of water based Focus on management chief conflicts capacity 0716367569 building Pesi WRUA Founded and 674 Mitigation and -Tree planting Have a valid -WSTF, Low capacity Contact: registered with Management along the sub SCMP WRMA and on conflict 0726768350 AG office in of water based catchment LWF-Finances resolution and 2003 conflicts -Awareness -Rural Focus vastness of the creation and United area of -Fish farming Trust-Training coverage -Tree nursery Mutara Founded in 1600 Mitigation and -Community Have a valid -WSTF Limited WRUA 2006 and Management mobilization SCMP financial finances and Contacts: registered with of water based and support poor 0726585975 AG office conflicts awareness understanding creation of water policies Suguroi Founded in 500 Mitigation and -Catchment Have a valid -WSTF- Limited WRUA 2006 and Management protection SCMP financial financial registered with of water based support support and AG office in conflicts mobility 2010

20

Engare Founded in 242 and 1 Community -Catchment -Poor water Ngobit WRUA 2008 and conservancy sensitization protection management Contact: registered with on sustainable 0725952391 AG office water use Upper Ewaso Founded in 80 and 6 Promotion of -Tree planting Rural Focus, Poor Nyiro WRUA 2010 and ranches equitable in the sub CETRAD and understanding Contact: registered in distribution of catchment and LWF who have of the water 0722900593 2012 with the water riparian assisted in management AG office protection capacity rules building Formed in 2000 82 projects, Mitigate and -Pegging of Have a valid -SNV-Capacity Inadequate WRUA and registered farms and manage water riparian SCMP building organisational Contact: with AG office individual based conflicts boundaries -UNDP/GEF/ capacity 0735783419 in 2001 members -Tree planting SGP-Funding leading to on riparian and -LWF- conflicts of on farm Development interests -Agri business of SCMP and -Installation of Funding water -WSTF- harvesting and Funding storage -CDTF/CEF- facilities Funding

Likii WRUA Formed in 2001 19 projects, Promotion of -Tree planting Have a valid -UNDP/GEF/ Unclear Contacts: and registered farms and equitable in the riparian SCMP SGP-Funding guidelines on 0726971228 in 2002 with the individual distribution of area -LWF- permit AG office members water in the -Promotion of Development issuance sub catchment energy saving of SCMP and -Limited stoves and Funding financial biogas -WSTF- resources technology Funding -Inadequate -Promotion of -CDTF/CEF- knowledge and drip irrigation Funding skills among technology the -Pollution management control committee

21

Ontulili Formed and 400 Conserve and -River pegging Have a valid -WSTF- -In adequate WRUA registered with protect the sub -Tree planting SCMP Funding resources both Contacts: AG office in catchment in the riparian -Rural Focus- financial and 0728093408 2008 and on farms capacity human building and research -LWF- capacity building and provision of tree seedlings Sirimon Formed in 2004 4 projects Conservation -Tree planting Have a valid -LWF- capacity -Limited WRUA and registered of the sub on riparian SCMP building, resource Contacts: in 2006 with AG catchment and -community funding and mobilization 0722765592 office management training on provision of skills of water based water use tree seedlings -Lack of conflicts -Rehabilitation -WSTF- means of of water pans Funding mobility

COMMUNITY FORESTS ASSOCIATIONS (CFAS)

NAME AND DATE OF MEMBERSHIP KEY NATURE OF EXISTENCE OF SOURCE OF CHALLENGES CONTACTS REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS BUSINESS/ BUSINESS FUNDS/ AND STATUS PROJECTS PLAN SUPPORT Mukogodo 13 user Conservation -Beekeeping Has a Poor CFA groups. It has and co- participatory governance (ILMAMUSI) a delegate management forest board of 52 of Mukogodo management members and forest plan (PFMP) in a committee of place 13 members out of which 3 are female Lariak CFA Registered in 1000 members Conservation -Capacity Has a PFMP in LWF-Capacity 0726761709 2007 with the of which 600 and co- building of the place and a building AG office as an are women management community on management CDTF/CEF- association of Lariak forest conservation agreement funding

22

-Promotion of energy saving stoves -Promotion of beekeeping activities North Formed in 2009 520 members Conservation -Forest Has PFMP but LWF-capacity No Marmanet and registered with an and co- protection and not approved building management CFA with AG office executive management scouting agreement 0728293411 committee of 5 of North -Tree nursery with KFS members 3 of Marmanet which are forest women organized in 26 user groups South Formed in 2008 1100 members Conservation -Forest Has a valid LWF-Capacity Limited Marmanet and registered out of which and co- protection PFMP building and financial CFA with AG office 750 are management -Tree planting preparation of resources 0720796293 women, The of South in the state the PFMP executive Marmanet forest committee is forest -Tree nursery made of 17 -Beekeeping members of -PELIS whom 5 are -Fisheries women Shamanek Formed in 2008 Estimated Conservation -Fish farming Have a valid LWF- Limited CFA and registered members and co- -Grazing PFMP and Preparation of financial 0763379706 with the AG about 1000 management management Management the PFMP resources and office 50% of whom of Shamanek -Tree planting Agreement -TILT/CDTF- capacity are women. forest in the state Capacity building The forest and on building management farm committee is made up of 19 members 9 of whom are

23

females Muringato Formed in 2012 Has 3000 Conservation -Wild Have a PFMP No CFA and registered registered and co- harvesting of awaiting management with AG office members. The management cape chestnut approval agreement committee is of South seeds with KFS made up of 19 Laikipia forest -Tree planting members 9 of block in the state whom are forest female Rumuruti CFA Formed in 2005 Conservation -Tree planting Have a PFMP -Poor and registered and co in the state in place governance with AG office management forest and on leading to high of Rumuruti farm degradation forest -Poaching -Forest fires Solio CFA Formed in 2012 135 registered Agro forestry -On farm tree In process of -LWF-training Climatic and registered members. The in the planting developing and variability in 2013 with the committee is settlement -Tree nursery PFMP development affecting tree AG office made up of 10 scheme of PFMP planting members of whom 4 are female Tigithi Ngobit CFA Lusoi Hill CFA

PRODUCER COOPERATIVES NAME AND DATE OF MEMBERSHIP KEY NATURE OF EXISTENCE OF SOURCE OF CHALLENGES CONTACTS REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS BUSINESS/ BUSINESS FUNDS/ AND STATUS PROJECTS PLAN SUPPORT Kangemia 2003 66 Men Dairy Producer and No Members -Hawking of Fcs LTD 44 Women marketing milk by brokers cooperative -Low Milk production Ntrurukima 2013 46 Men Dairy Producer and No Member -Hawking of FCS Ltd 26 Women marketing milk by brokers

24

cooperative Low Milk production Savannah 2013 32 Men Horticulture Producer and Yes Members Inadequate Fresh 30 Women Potatoes seed marketing farming capital Horticultural C Multiplication cooperative Reliability of S Ltd of certified farming water Sweetwater 2012 36 Men Hay Producer and No Members Marketing Hay Growers 22 Women marketing during rainy CS Ltd cooperative season Harvesting Tigithi Umoja 2013 29 women Dairy Producer and No Members -Hawking of FCS Ltd 36 Men marketing County milk by brokers cooperative Government Low Milk production Mulatha FCS 2011 79Men Dairy Producer and No Members -Hawking of Ltd 71 Women marketing milk by brokers cooperative Low Milk production Nyambigishi 1984 126 Men Dairy Producer and No Members -Low Milk FCS Ltd 68 Women marketing production - cooperative Competition Winyitie FCS 1984 46 Men Dairy Producer and No Members -Competition Ltd 29 Women marketing County -Low Milk cooperative Government production Marmanet 1981 198Men Dairy Producer and No Members Competition FCS Ltd 124 Women marketing cooperative Muhotetu 1988 198 Men Dairy Producer and No Members Competition FCS Ltd 150 Women marketing County -Low Milk - cooperative Government production Karaba 2011 142Men Dairy Producer and No Members Competition FCS Ltd 73Women marketing Low Milk cooperative production Ngarua Dairy 2011 476 Men Dairy Producer and No Members Low Milk FCS Ltd 312 Women marketing County production cooperative Government Competition

25

Ngarua 2010 Maize Milling Producer and YES Members New Maize Millers FCS marketing disease Ltd cooperative Members loyalty Payment to the farmers Management problem Ngarua 1984 Coffee Producer and No Members Low coffee Coffee FCS marketing production Ltd cooperative Poor extension services

COMMON INTEREST GROUPS/SELF HELP GROUPS/COMMUNITY BASED ORGANISATIONS (CBOs)11 NAME AND DATE OF MEMBERSHIP KEY NATURE OF EXISTENCE OF SOURCE OF CHALLENGES CONTACTS REGISTRATIO FUNCTIONS BUSINESS/ BUSINESS FUNDS/ N AND PROJECTS PLAN SUPPORT STATUS Rafiki Child Aid 2006 with Has 23 -Environmental -Community No -CDTF/CEF- Dependency Programme department of members but conservation resource documented Funding on donor 0710922131 social services its reach is for improved centre plan -Kinderhilfe funding as a CBO 17000 livelihoods in Planting of Germany- community Segera trees in the funding members Location of riparian area Laikipia North and on farm -Promotion of renewable energy -Promotion of beekeeping -Promotion of

11 The baseline established that there were numerous such groups with the social services department indicated that there were thousands of registered groups. To reach specific ones, the government department for various relevant sectors can facilitate this as they are on contact with them on a day to day basis. For instance the KFS extension officers can easily facilitate reaching of tree nursery groups and the agriculture department can help reach the farmers groups and common interest groups. However the study was able to sample but a few of such organization.

26

income generation activities -Rehabilitation of dams Umoja Women Started 2009 15 of whom 1 Livelihood -Tree nursery No Own members Climatic Group, Doldol and registered is a woman promotion and -Tree planting documented contribution variations Contact: with social advocating for -Group general plan 0713277735 services girl child rights retail shop Solio Rehema Started in 32 men and 4 Livelihood -Beekeeping No Own Climatic Bee Hive Self 2014 and women promotion -Beekeeping documented contributions variations and Help Group registered with and trading in plan and capacity inadequate Contact: social services hive products building from water 0701109763 CERA Rights Podo Established in 11 men and 5 Livelihood -Beekeeping No Own Climatic Enviornmental 2009 and women promotion -Beekeeping documented contributions variations and Youth Group registered with and trading in plan and capacity inadequate Muthengera social services hive products building from water Laikipia West department CERA Rights Contact: 0724397949 Marura Rongai Established in 10 men and 38 Environmental -Renewable No Own Lack of water Women Group 2013and women conservation energy documented contributions storage (under registered with and drip -Tree nursery plan and Drip facilities SUWEMA social services irrigation and planting irrigation kits CBO) department -Environmental from former Contact: awareness Laikipia East 0701846714 creation MP -Drip irrrigation Marura Established in 6 men and 15 Environmental -Poultry No Own Inadequate Environmental 2013and women conservation keeping documented contributions financial CBO registered with -Tree nursery plan and County resources Contact: social services -Tree planting government 0724777881 department around dams and other water

27

resources Osutua Established in 400 members Beekeeping -Honey No Own Inadequate Beekeeping 2006 production and documented contribution finances to Group, value addition plan but have commercialize Kimanjo of hive previously honey Laikipia North products received processing Contact: capacity and packaging 0720698964 building support from SITE, Desert Edge and currently CERA rights is offering the same.

28

4.0 KEY SUPPORTING AGENCIES FOR SERVICE PROVISION TO FOREST FARM PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS

This baseline established that there were several agencies that were supporting some selected forest and farms producer organizations. The kind of support was reported to include capacity building, direct funding, supporting strategic and business plans development, initiation of projects and supporting research among others. These agencies included government agencies, private companies, International NGOs and Foundations. Table 5 below presents a brief description of the various agencies

Table 5: Supporting Agencies

ORGANISATION DESCRIPTION AREA OF TYPE OF SUPPORT CONTACTS COVERAGE GIVEN IN RELATION TO FARM AND FORESTRY The County Agriculture and natural The entire county -Environmental Respective relevant Government of Laikipia resources is a devolved conservation CECM/ CO function and thus a core -Support of the smallholder mandate of the County produces government -Policy direction - Laikipia Wildlife Forum This is a private Entire Laikipia -Capacity building 0726500260/ (LWF) membership organization County but Located -Support to institutional 0202166626 supporting various at Nanyuki strengthening conservation initiatives. The -Facilitate development of organization works through management plans WRUAs, CFA, Wildlife -Facilitate registration of conservation groups, WRUAs and CFAs ranches and school clubs -Provision of Tree seedlings Centre for Integrated A bilateral agreement In all the ASAL -Research and training on 0725348449 Training and Research between the Government of Counties but is agriculture and sustainable for ASAL Development Kenya and Swiss located at Nanyuki livelihoods (CETRAD) Confedaration Government. Its core mandate is to spearhead training and research in the ASAL areas of Kenya.

29

Zeitz Foundation A charitable foundation Segera Location of -Supporting schools on 0729809764 located at Segera Ranch. It Laikipia North Sub water conservation assists neighbours of County -Supporting tree planting Segera ranch to improve -Supporting beekeeping their livelihoods through activities supporting micro projects UNDP/GEF/SGP A UN agency programme Has supported -Supporting renewable supporting various activities projects across the energy, climate change, geared towards bio-diversity whole county sustainable land conservation. have funded a management, tree planting number of past and ongoing and other related project which range from initiatives. sustainable land management, renewable energy, rehabilitation of water catchments etc CEF/CDTF CDTF is a semi Currently supporting -Supporting activities 0723046988 autonomous government 5 project in Laikipia related to conservation of agency. Its community County water catchment, range environmental facility is lands and forests supported by DANIDA and European Union KFS A government agency Has officers in all -Supporting policy direction Laikipia North: mandated to manage state the sub counties of including entering into 0702443939 forests and forest reserves Laikipia County management agreements Laikipia with CFAs on management East:0710685150 of the respective forests/ Laikipia Central: forest blocks 0721160150 Laikipia West: 0722877468 Nyahururu: 0723221784 ENNDA A government agency Has a region office -Rehabilitation of the 0722246753 mandated to plan and in Nanyuki riparian areas coordinate the -Development of water implementation of projects infrastructure

30

in Ewaso Ngiro North basin -Support of livelihood and catchment areas activities NDMA A government agency Have county offices -Supporting of livelihood 0720402422 mandated to coordinate and in Nanyuki activities supervise matters related to -Drought preparedness drought management in the and mitigation country -Promotion of agro forestry TIST A nongovernmental Operates within the -Carbon credit organization focusing on entire county climate change mitigation Olpejeta Conservancy A private company located Operates around -Supporting farming 0722390007 in Laikipia Central sub Laikipia Central and communities with tools and county. has been supporting East sub counties implements the neighboring -Supporting income communities to a radius of generation activities about 10 KM around the conservancy as corporate social responsibility Agricultural Sector A programme of the Covers the entire -Supporting livelihood 0722377150 Development Support national government aimed county with offices activities in line with the Programme (ASDSP) at promoting development at Nanyuki identified value chains of the Agriculture sector. At -Community capacity the county level the building for improved programme had identified livelihood three main value chains where it is directing its effort.

31

REFERENCES

CETRAD (2014) Sun Catchment Directory for Upper Ewaso Ngiro River Basin, Resources International

ETC East Africa (2001), Poverty, Target Groups and Governance Environment in Laikipia District

FAO Kenya (2015), FFF Baseline Study TOR for Laikipia County, Nairobi

GOK (2013), Laikipia County: First County Development Profile

KNBS (2010), The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census, Counting Our People for the Implementation of Vision 2030, Volume 1A Population Distribution by Administrative Units

KNBS and SID (2013), Exploring Kenya’s Inequality, Pooling apart or Pooling Together?, Laikipia County, Nairobi.

Laikipia Meteorogical Stations Data, 2015

Marenya, P.P. and Barrett C.C, 2007, Household level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in Western Kenya, Food Policy 32 (4): 515-536

Otsuki T and Ogo T, 2009, Determinants of adoption of agro forestry in Kenya. Osaka University, Mimeographed.

CAB international (2002), (eds S Franzel and S. J. Scherr), Tree on the Farm, Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry practices in Africa, CABI Publishing, UK, Online Library

32

ANNEX ONE: MAP OF LAIKIPIA COUNTY

Source: CETRAD 2012

33

ANNEX TWO: LAIKIPIA COUNTY LAND USE MAP

Source: Report on Land Deals in Kenya, A Case Study of Laikipia District, 2011 By John Letai

34

35