WESTERN KENYA INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM ...documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/624691468271847352/E... · Web viewKENYA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

(ESMF)

KENYA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT

(KAPSLMP)

REVISED REPORT

15th June, 2007

Prepared byKenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)P.O. Box 57811- 00200 NairobiTel: 4183301-20Fax: 4183344

E1677

Email: [email protected]: www.kari.org

TABLE OF CONTENTSACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................12

1.1 OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................121.2 ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................121.3 PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................141.4 REPORT LAYOUT..............................................................................................................................14

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT........................................................................16

2.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT.......................................................................................................162.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS.....................................................................................................................162.3 SUBPROJECTS....................................................................................................................................222.4 PROJECT TARGET AREAS..................................................................................................................232.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................232.6 PROJECT COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS................................................232.7 ANNUAL REPORTING AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS...............................................25

3. SAFEGUARD SCREENING PROCEDURES................................................................................26

3.1 WORLD BANK SAFEGUARD POLICIES...............................................................................................263.2 MAINSTREAMING SAFEGUARD COMPLIANCE INTO SUBPROJECT SCREENING..................................283.3 KENYA'S ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION........................................................................................283.4 SUBPROJECT SCREENING UNDER KENYAN LAW..............................................................................283.5 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES...............................................................................28

4. BASELINE INFORMATION............................................................................................................31

4.1 BIOPHYSICAL....................................................................................................................................314.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS...............................................................................................374.3 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLAN.............................................................................................................46

5. GUIDANCE ON POTENTIAL IMPACTS......................................................................................48

5.1 OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT...........................................................................485.2 POTENTIAL POSITIVE IMPACTS.........................................................................................................485.3 POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS.......................................................................................................495.4 LOCALIZED IMPACTS........................................................................................................................555.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................................555.6 STRATEGIC IMPACTS.........................................................................................................................555.7 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES...........................................................................................................57

6. REPORTING AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE ESMF.......................................................58

6.1 KEY ISSUES AND PROPOSED ACTIONS.............................................................................................586.2 FLOWCHART FOR REPORTING AND ADVICE.....................................................................................596.3 SCREENING FOR SUBPROJECTS.........................................................................................................606.4 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL PROGRESS REPORT FORMAT...........................................666.5 DESCRIPTION OF ROLES....................................................................................................................676.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION......................................................................................................67

7. CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS...................................................70

7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING AND SENSITIZATION...........................................................................707.2 LEVELS OF TRAINING AND SENSITIZATION......................................................................................707.3 TRAINING AND SENSITIZATION REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................73

Environmental and Social Management Framework Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project

2

mailto:[email protected]

7.4 TRAINING SCHEDULE........................................................................................................................737.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAPACITY BUILDING...............................................................................74

8. ESTIMATED COSTS........................................................................................................................75

8.1 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET FOR KAPSLM PROJECT...........................................................758.2 MAINSTREAMING COSTS..................................................................................................................768.3 COSTS OF TRAINING.........................................................................................................................76

9. TECHNICAL ANNEXES..................................................................................................................77

ANNEX 1. MAPS OF THE PROJECT AREAS...........................................................................................77ANNEX 2. ITINERARY OF FIELD VISITS...............................................................................................83ANNEX 3. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED.............................................................................................85ANNEX 4. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................87ANNEX 5. POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK.......................................................90ANNEX 6. BRIEF MATRIX ON INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT.......................................................92ANNEX 7. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR EA STUDIES.............................................................................95Annex 8. Suggested Format for a Simple EMP................................................................................96


3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid LandsATIRI Agricultural Technology and Information Response InitiativeBMP Best Management PracticesBP Bank ProcedureCAP Community Action PlanCAS Country Assistance StrategyCBS Central Bureau of StatisticsCBO Community Based OrganizationCDD Community Driven Development CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCMS Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals CTU Coordination and Technical UnitDDO District Development OfficerDEO District Environment OfficerDEC District Environment CommitteeDRSRS Department of Resource Survey and Remote SensingDSC District Steering CommitteeDSDO District Social Development OfficerDSU District Service UnitEA Environmental AssessmentEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEMCA Environmental Management and Co-ordination ActERS Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment CreationEMP Environmental Management PlanESA Environmental and Social AssessmentESMF Environmental and Social Management FrameworkFFS Farmer Field SchoolsGEF Global Environment FacilityGHGs Greenhouse GasesGMP Good Management PracticesGMT Good Management TechnologiesGOK Government of KenyaIBA Important Bird AreaICC Inter-Ministerial Coordinating CommitteeICM Integrated Crop ManagementICRAF International Council for Research on AgroforestryIDA International Development AssociationIMSC Inter-Ministerial Steering CommitteeIMCE Inter-Ministerial Committee on EnvironmentIPs Indigenous PeoplesIPP Indigenous Peoples PlanIPM Integrated Pest Management


4

ITCZ Inter-Tropical Convergence ZoneKAPP Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project KAPSLM Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land ManagementKARI Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteKEMRI Kenya Medical Research InstituteKMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research InstituteKEFRI Kenya Forestry Research InstituteKWS Kenya Wildlife ServiceLVEMP Lake Victoria Environment Management ProjectM&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoA Ministry of AgricultureMoH Ministry of HealthNBI Nile Basin InitiativeNALEP National Agricultural and Livestock Extension ProjectNEMA National Environment Management AuthorityNGO Non Governmental OrganizationNMK National Museums of KenyaNRM Natural Resource ManagementNTFP Non-Timber Forest ProductOAC Operational Area CoordinatorOD Operational DirectiveOP Operational PolicyOPN Operational Policy Note PDO Provincial Development OfficerPEO Provincial Environment Officer PMP Pest Management PlanPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalRAP Resettlement Action PlanSC Steering CommitteeSIDA Swedish International Development AgencySLM Sustainable Land ManagementSMP Soil Management ProjectSRA Strategy for Revitalizing AgricultureTOR Terms of ReferenceTN Total NitrogenTP Total PhosphorusUNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeVFF Village Farmers ForumWHO World Health Organization


5

UNITS OF MEASUREMENT AND CONVERSION FACTORS

oC degree Celsiusha hectarekm2 square kilometerKShs Kenya Shillingsmm millimeterm metrem2 square meterm3 cubic meterm3/s cubic meter per secondmasl meters above sea levelUS $ United States dollaryr year


6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroductionThe Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) has requested for the preparation of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the proposed Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management (KAPSLM) Project. The project corresponds with the fundamental features of Kenya's strategy for poverty alleviation as outlined in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of 2003, the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS, 2003-2007), Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA, 2004-2014), and the National Action Program (NAP) for addressing land degradation in the context of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) prepared in 2002. The ESMF has been prepared to fully comply with environmental legislations and procedures in Kenya and with the World Bank's environmental and social safeguard policies. The purpose of the ESMF is to provide a strategic guide for the integration of environmental and social considerations in the planning and implementation of the subproject activities. The ESMF has been prepared as a guide for initial screening of the subprojects for negative impacts which would require attention prior to implementation. The screening criteria provided in the ESMF include relevant questions on environmental assessment, natural habitats, pesticides and agro-chemicals, indigenous peoples, and land acquisition and access to resources. This will ensure that all concerns related to the Bank’s safeguard policies are taken into account during the screening of subprojects for potential impacts, and that the appropriate mitigation measures are adopted to address them. ObjectivesThe overall objective of the KAPSLM Project is to achieve significant local, national and global environmental objectives. The development objective of the proposed project is that agricultural producers and other natural resource users increasingly adopt profitable and environmentally-sound land management practices and alternative livelihood strategies in the targeted operational areas. The global environment objective of the proposed project is to reduce and mitigate land degradation in the targeted operational areas and to contribute to the maintenance of critical ecosystem functions and structures.Project Target AreasThe project will cover five catchments distributed all over the country. The selection of the watersheds was based on numerous socio-economic and agro-ecological criteria (including poverty incidence, population density, agro-climatic conditions, and severity of land degradation). While an initial assessment has been conducted which is describing these broad categories, KARI has hired a consultant to conduct a more in-depth study in order to analyze the factors behind these categories. The selected sites are Kikuyu/Kinale Forest; Taita Hills; Tugen Hills; Cherangany Hills and Yala Swamp. Kikuyu/Kinale Forest and Yala Swamp are different from other sites because they are not hills and do not show the altitudinal gradients found in the other three sites. Yala Swamp has a large wetland area that has not been cultivated. In all the sites, the most common threat to biodiversity is cultivation, harvesting of natural resources and grazing.ImplementationThe project will be an integral part of the Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program (KAPP). KAPSLM will closely follow the project implementation structure that has already been established for KAPP. The project will be demand-driven and implemented under a decentralized arrangement. At the village/community level, village farmers’


7

forums (VFFs) will be the main bodies for planning and implementing approved development interventions.At the national level, KARI will implement the KAPSLM Project. The KAPSLM Project Steering Committee (KAPSLM-SC) will provide lead coordination and ensure that the results meet the targets set by the project. The functional responsibility for project implementation will be carried out by a cross-sectoral technical unit, KAPSLM-CTU. Each operational area will have an operational area coordinator OAC, five in all, located in the KAPP District Service Unit, DSU (in each operational area; in Tugen Hills, which does not fall under the KAPP operational areas, the OAC will be located at the KARI centre in Baringo). Day-to-day coordination of project activities will be handled by the OACs. The KAPSLM Project is a five-year project with a budget of about US $ 10 million. The total estimated cost for mainstreaming environmental and social concerns over an indicative period of five years into the KAPSLM Project is US $ 870,000.ReportingAnnual environmental and social progress reports will be prepared by hired consultants, coordinated by the OACs. These reports will be submitted to KARI before the Bank’s supervision mission arrives. The annual reports will be shared with KAPSLM-CTU, KAPSLM-SC, KARI, the World Bank and other relevant government agencies. The KAPSLM-SC will regularly brief and sensitize the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee (ICC).AlternativesThe decision to implement the project in the selected five catchment areas was considered because the project will have an important demonstration effect. The project is also likely to attract further resources. In addition the learning opportunity provided in the five catchment areas, which vary in agro-ecological and socio-economic characteristics, outweighs the benefits from increased coverage on just one catchment area.BiodiversityExisting rural activities and poor land management practices have affected biodiversity in two ways: i) by fuelling the demand for more agricultural land and therefore altering natural habitats; and ii) by altering the chemical properties and therefore reducing soil fertility and plant diversity. The selected catchment areas have unique habitats and biodiversity of local, national and global significance.Socio-economic CharacteristicsThe livelihoods of the populations in the five catchments are varied, in line with the different ecological zones. In a nutshell, if the catchments were categorized into two zones, that is, highlands and the lowlands, then the catchments portray a pastoralist, agricultural and a mixture of both as the dominant economic activities. Pastoralism is carried out in the lowlands while agriculture is in the highlands.All the five catchments show a rich diversity in resources from land for farming, livestock grazing and settlement to livestock for food, manure and social status. Land ownership shows great variations across the target areas. In some parts of the catchments, people have individual land titles, while in other parts people either hold communal land titles or letters of allotment.Resource ownership and control across the five catchments is dominated by men, and sanctioned as such by the respective traditions. Women and children are in many cases the key sources of labor for farming and livestock herding among the pastoralists, but the same two social categories are among those deprived of rights in and lack control of what


8

they harvest or the milk they produce. Thus the economic value in these products falls under male control. Beyond the family, the community elders and opinion leaders have a lot of influence in all the five catchment sites.Indigenous Peoples PlanThe project has triggered the safeguard policy OP 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples because indigenous peoples will also be among the project beneficiaries. The Sengwer in the Cherangany Hills, the Ogiek in the Yala River and Kikuyu/Kinale Catchments, and the Ilchamus in the Tugen Hills are marginalized and socially discriminated in their respective areas. The indigenous peoples face similar problems whether they are hunter-gatherers or semi-pastoralists. They have neither the same access to land, resources, and protection against cattle rustlers as other groups, nor the same influence, legal status, organizational, technical or economic capacities as other citizens of Kenya. The Ilchamus have been forced to act as a buffer between powerful sets of people paying the lion’s share of the costs of the clashes without participating in the benefits. The constant taking of land and constantly increased restrictions of access to natural resources have further increased the sedentarization, marginalisation, social discrimination and impoverishment of the Ogiek, Sengwer and Ilchamus.The key development vision of the hunter-gatherers – documented in their numerous publications and in the discussion during the elaboration of the IPP of the KAPSLM Project – is quite simple: they want to live in peace with their neighbours, on a piece of land big enough to carry out agriculture and graze some livestock, have access to forests to gather honey for consumption and commercial use, practice their culture, have equal access to social infrastructure and technical services and be equally represented in all decision making bodies at local, regional and national level. They don’t request special treatment, but equal opportunities. To achieve this, a good number of key issues have to be addressed: Equal access to land: In order to have equal opportunities for self-determined development, the Ogiek and Sengwer need land to settle, to farm and to graze their small herds on;Equal access to security: As a result of their social discrimination, the IPs legal titles are often not respected by their neighbours. The Ogiek and Sengwer need the support of the security forces to protect their properties and lives;Equal access to traditional sources of livelihood: The Ogiek and Sengwer need more than any other people in Kenya legal access to forests and forest products (honey etc.), as these two are their traditional sources of livelihood; andEqual access to decision making processes: In order to participate fully in the development process, voice their concerns and needs, and to guarantee that their rights, livelihoods and cultures are not negatively affected, the IPs need to be represented in all relevant decision making bodies (county councils, local consultative meetings, and KAPSLM Project structures).Safeguard Screening ProceduresThe KAPSLM Project is anticipated to have beneficial impacts on the environment since its overall objective is to promote sustainable land use and environmentally sound natural resources management through community driven development. Although the project is expected to produce net benefits in terms of natural resource management and conservation, certain project activities related to improved land management may have environmental or social impacts that require mitigation. Hence the proposed project has


9

been rated Category B under the World Bank Policy on Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), requiring a partial Environmental Assessment (EA).The ESMF is expected to cover the unknowns, to help in the screening, and to recommend mitigation measures. The screening and review process will determine how and when a particular subproject will trigger a safeguard policy, and what mitigation measures will need to be put in place. The screening and review process will also ensure that subprojects that may have potentially significant impacts will require more detailed study and the need for subproject specific EA and/or EMP. Environmental and Social ImpactsThis is an environmental project that proposes to promote technologies for sustainable management of land and related natural resources. No major environmental issues are anticipated for the project. The project beneficiaries include farmers and communities within the operational areas who participate voluntarily in project activities. The key stakeholders include the farmers, communities, CBOs and NGOs, local government, environmental management institutions and the relevant sector ministries (agriculture, water, environment, lands and communities). Since this project seeks to affect land use it has been rated as category B.The proposed project will involve direct interventions in the biophysical and human environments. The potential environmental impacts can be categorized as biophysical, and social. These impacts can occur at various stages of project development and can be positive or negative, temporary or permanent, and cumulative. On balance, the potential positive impacts of the project outweigh the negative impacts. Therefore, the KAPSLM Project has the potential to make a significant contribution to Kenya’s policies to protect and preserve the environment while reducing poverty in rural areas.In the absence of adequate capacity for environmental and social screening, potential environmental impacts at local, national and global levels may include pollution and eutrophication of water bodies, interference with wetland and animal ecology (particularly birds and fish), erosion and sedimentation. Alternative livelihoods and intensification of agricultural production (including emerging livestock) which may result in community well-being, may also lead to an increase in areas brought under cultivation and overall numbers of livestock units which may increase demand on natural resources or degrade the surrounding environment. The stakeholders will be provided with an opportunity to learn how to avoid or mitigate localized impacts from subprojects.The project is expected to generate many positive social impacts that could lead to improvements in alleviation of poverty, improved food security through better crop yields, diversified agricultural resource base, and improved household income. The project will also result in a multiplier effect on the local economy through development of entrepreneurial activities such as market outlets.Capacity Building and TrainingIn order to ensure proper implementation of environmental and social screening, mitigation measures, as well as effective natural resource management, the KAPSLM Project will undertake an intensive program of environmental and social training and institutional capacity building. Training and sensitization will be offered at four levels targeting all stakeholders including communities, service providers (extension agents, OACs, CSPs), reviewers and approval authorities.The training will be organized as follows: Level I will be target farmers, workers and community leaders. Awareness training will be provided on SLM best management technologies and practices, linkages between environmental, social and natural resource management and sustainable rural livelihoods, the use of ESMF, and the potential environmental and social subprojects. Level II will


10

target service providers, extension workers, NGOs and CBOs who will work with communities in preparing subproject applications and proposals. Training for this group will focus on potential localized environmental impacts of subprojects and suitable mitigation measures. Included in this module is training on use of ESMF, its procedures, resources and forms.

Level III training will target OACs, KAPP-DSU, DEOs, and other environment/social officers in catchment operational areas. This group will review subproject proposals and applications before they are submitted to KAPSLM –CTU for approval. Training for this cadre will focus on EA legislation and relevant environmental policies, potential environmental impacts and mitigation, use of ESMF, land acquisition and access to resources, methods of community involvement, cumulative impacts assessment, and intercommunity lesson-learning and review. Level IV will target Government approval authorities at national level including KAPSLM-CTU, KAPSLM-SC and NEMA. The identified fields of training include awareness-raising on available natural resource management technologies, environmental policies and relevant legislation. Other issues include ESMF and its procedures, cumulative impacts, potential environmental and social subprojects, and IPP.

In addition to the above training, specialized/technical training will be offered on such topics as: (a) IPM, (b) pesticides/insecticides container management, (c) small-scale animal husbandry; (d) small-scale aquaculture; (e) small-scale agriculture and irrigation schemes; and (f) alien invasive weeds etc. These specialized training areas (a-f) will target the communities and individuals and emphasize on potential environmental and social effects, and mitigation measures as well as indicators.


11

1. INTRODUCTIONThe Government of Kenya has requested World Bank financing of the Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management (KAPSLM) Project. This project corresponds with the fundamental features of the Government’s strategy for poverty alleviation as specified in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) of 2003, the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS, 2003-2007), Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA, 2004-2014), and the National Action Program (NAP) for addressing land degradation in the context of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) prepared in 2002. The project is designed to fund a number of small-scale, community-based subprojects that will be identified and planned by the communities, with the support of project-financed extension teams. This is a report of a study to produce an ESMF for the proposed KAPSLM Project.1.1 ObjectivesThe objectives of the ESMF are:

To establish clear procedures and methodologies for environmental and social planning, review, approval and implementation of subprojects to be financed under the project;

To prescribe project arrangements for the preparation and implementation of subprojects in order to adequately address World Bank safeguard issues;

To assess the potential environmental and social impacts of envisaged subprojects;

To propose mitigation measures which will effectively address identified negative impacts;

To specify appropriate roles and responsibilities, and outline the necessary reporting procedures for managing and monitoring environmental and social concerns related to subprojects;

To determine the training, capacity building and technical assistance needed to successfully implement the provisions of the ESMF; and

To establish the project funding required to implement the ESMF requirements

1.2 AnalysisThe analysis includes:

An assessment of the potential environmental and social impacts of the proposed KAPSLM Project, taking into account the World Bank's relevant safeguard policies as well as Kenya's environmental policies, laws and regulations;

A review of various studies on biophysical characteristics of the target areas covered by the project and identification of constraints that need to be taken into account during project preparation;

Ascertaining whether the project area contains any environmentally sensitive areas, cultural heritage and vulnerable groups that need to be taken into account during project preparation and implementation;


12

An assessment of the environmental and social impacts of the project activities in the target areas including the likelihood that they may affect indigenous peoples and formulation of appropriate recommendations;

Development of screening procedures (including checklists) that will be used as a mechanism in the ESMF for screening potential environmental and social impacts due to subproject interventions;

Development of appropriate methods to promote an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach that will minimize the need for chemical pesticides during project interventions;

Review of national environmental policies, legislation, regulatory and administrative frameworks in conjunction with the World Bank's safeguard policies, and formulation of recommendations in the context of the project as appropriate;

Review of the relevant conventions and protocols to which Kenya is a signatory;

Evaluation of the existing environmental and social assessment, and management capacity as well as capacity to implement mitigation measures, and formulation of appropriate recommendations, including the institutional structure and the responsible agencies for implementing the framework, a grievance mechanism and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of potential impacts;

Evaluation of capacity building and training needs and their costs; and Presentation of an outline on institutional arrangements for environmental

management, including environmental assessment procedures and monitoring indicators, as appropriate under the project.

KARI will deploy operational areas coordinators (OACs) with environmental and social expertise who will be part of the committee for screening the subproject proposals, as outlined in the process framework of the ESMF. The subprojects will be screened and given an environmental rating. The ESMF will also include a suggested format for EA, in case the need arises where a subproject is of environmental category A in nature. The ESMF will fully comply with Kenyan environmental regulations and legislative requirements and with the relevant World Bank environmental and social safeguard policies. In order to ensure proper implementation of environmental and social screening, mitigation measures, as well as effective natural resource management, the KAPSLM Project will undertake an intensive program of environmental and social training and institutional capacity building. Training and sensitization will be offered at four levels targeting all stakeholders including communities, service providers (extension agents, OACs, CSPs), reviewers and approval authorities.The training will be organized as follows: Level I will be target farmers, workers and community leaders. Awareness training will be provided on SLM best management technologies and practices, linkages between environmental, social and natural resource management and sustainable rural livelihoods, the use of ESMF, and the potential environmental and social subprojects. Level II will target service providers, extension workers, NGOs and CBOs who will work with communities in preparing subproject applications and proposals. Training for this group will focus on potential localized environmental impacts of subprojects and suitable mitigation measures. Included in this module is training on use of ESMF, its procedures, resources and forms.

Level III training will target OACs, KAPP-DSU, DEOs, and other environment/social officers in


13

catchment operational areas. This group will review subproject proposals and applications before they are submitted to KAPSLM –CTU for approval. Training for this cadre will focus on EA legislation and relevant environmental policies, potential environmental impacts and mitigation, use of ESMF, land acquisition and access to resources, methods of community involvement, cumulative impacts assessment, and intercommunity lesson-learning and review. Level IV will target Government approval authorities at national level including KAPSLM-CTU, KAPSLM-SC and NEMA. The identified fields of training include awareness-raising on available natural resource management technologies, environmental policies and relevant legislation. Other issues include ESMF and its procedures, cumulative impacts, potential environmental and social subprojects, and IPP.

In addition to the above training, specialized/technical training will be offered on such topics as: (a) IPM, (b) pesticides/insecticides container management, (c) small-scale animal husbandry; (d) small-scale aquaculture; (e) small-scale agriculture and irrigation schemes; and (f) alien invasive weeds etc. These specialized training areas (a-f) will target the communities and individuals and emphasize on potential environmental and social effects, and mitigation measures as well as indicators.The project will monitor and measure the impact of subproject interventions (positive and negative, temporary and permanent, and cumulative) on the environment. Where negative impacts from the subprojects are anticipated, the mitigation measures as outlined in the ESMF will be implemented and monitored. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the project has environmental indicators included as well. This ESMF study was carried out from 12 December 2005 to 15 March 2006. The assignment included field visits to the project sites selected by the project. The itinerary of the field visit is given in Annex 2. Government organizations, NGOs, stakeholders and other persons contacted or consulted during the entire study period are listed in Annex 3.1.3 Principles and MethodologyThe study has focused on the development of the ESMF instead of the Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) because the precise details of the subprojects in terms of location, materials required, key communities, etc. are not yet known. The ESMF is required to screen for and manage the potential environmental and social impacts of the KAPSLM Project. The ESMF Methodology involved:

Review of previous reports, published and unpublished works on the environment of the study area;

Identification of gaps existing in the available information; Field investigations; Collation of baseline data on the environmental conditions of the project area; Identification of positive and negative environmental and social impacts; Identification of environmental and social mitigation measures; Preparation of screening procedures to be used while screening subproject

proposals; and Formulation of environmental and social monitoring plans.

1.4 Report LayoutThe ESMF report is organized as follows:Executive summary


14

Acronyms and abbreviationsChapter 1 - IntroductionChapter 2 - Description of the proposed projectChapter 3 - Safeguard screening proceduresChapter 4 - Baseline informationChapter 5 - Guidance on impactsChapter 6 - Reporting and responsibilities for the ESMFChapter 7 - Capacity building and training requirementsChapter 8 - Proposed costsChapter 9 - Technical annexes

Annex 1 - Maps of the project areas Annex 2 - Itinerary of field visitsAnnex 3 - Stakeholders consulted Annex 4 - ReferencesAnnex 5 - Policy, legal and administrative frameworkAnnex 6 - Brief matrix on integrated pest managementAnnex 7 - Suggested format for EA studies.Annex 8 – Suggested format for a simple EMP.


15

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT2.1 Background to the ProjectThe Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management (KAPSLM) Project seeks to promote sustainable use of natural resources for higher productivity and incomes for the rural farmers of Kenya and the maintenance of critical ecosystem function in degraded and environmentally sensitive areas. The project will help to mainstream sustainable land management into rural agricultural programs through local investments and capacity building, and to strengthen the policy, regulatory and economic incentive framework to facilitate wider adoption of sustainable land management practices. It will also: (i) provide tangible and measurable local and global environmental benefits at the farm and catchment levels through the promotion of sustainable land management technology packages and practices that have local and global benefits (global benefits will accrue in agrobiodiversity, enhanced carbon sinks, and secured services from freshwater systems), as well as in adapting production systems to climate change; (ii) contribute to income generation and poverty reduction by improving productivity as elucidated in various Government policies and strategies such as ERS, SRA, NAP and Bank documents such as CAS; and (iii) encourage the use of indigenous knowledge and resources. The development objective of the proposed project is that agricultural producers and other natural resource users increasingly adopt profitable and environmentally-sound land management practices and alternative livelihood strategies in the targeted operational areas.The global environment objective of the proposed project is to reduce and mitigate land degradation in the targeted operational areas and to contribute to the maintenance of critical ecosystem functions and structures.2.2 Project ComponentsThe project would have four broad components that are described in this document: (i) promotion of good management practices (GMPs) and technologies (GMTs) for improved livelihoods; (ii) promotion of alternative livelihoods systems; (iii) strengthening the enabling environment for SLM; and (iv) coordination and monitoring of project activities. Funds for the project will be made available through four windows: funds to communities to increase household incomes by better management of natural resource through catchments level activities to conserve soil and reverse land degradation; capacity building to increase district and community level capacities by investments in training; investments undertaken at national level to study and launch initiatives and policies on natural resources management; and investment in project impact evaluation. Component 1: Promotion of Good Management Practices (GMPs) and Technologies (GMTs) for Improved Livelihoods This component will strengthen local capacity on the available technological solutions for sustainable land management as well as support demand-driven subprojects and their effective planning and implementation by farmer groups and communities.Subcomponent 1a: Strengthening Local Communities’ Capacity and Empowerment Adaptive management of natural resources involves action research and a learning process that builds on stakeholders’ capacity to analyse the opportunities, to identify and experiment with alternative interventions, and to generate and share knowledge about the outcomes. Typically, adaptive management outcomes are not fully understood by all the


16

stakeholders when interventions are initiated. Thus, stakeholders need ways to systematize and share learning throughout, a process that begins by contributing their knowledge to technology design, continues with an “appropriation process” of new ways to understand and face the decision-making process and finally, constitutes a part of their SLM methodologies to deal with the environment.KARI through the Agricultural Technology and Information Response Initiative (ATIRI) has demonstrated that empowering farmers does result in better uptake of technologies. This project will strive to continue empowering farmers, community based organizations, extension providers and the implementers both in knowledge and resources to better implement natural resource programs. Awareness of and training on good management technologies and practices will be conducted at village levels through workshops, on farm demonstrations, exchange visits of farmers and publications aimed at the farmer. Participatory tools such as participatory Rural Assessment (PRA), RRA, transect works and extension methodologies such as ATIRI, FFS, farmer to farmer extension and demonstration training, focal area approach, and model farmer will be used following assessment of the methods. Some of the topics identified for capacity building are sensitization on available natural resource and management including empowering the farmers to make and implement community action plans for NRM, soil and water conservation technologies, tree nursery establishment and management, water harvesting techniques, irrigation, planning, design and management; integrated pest management; conservation and utilization of biodiversity; alternative livelihoods (ecotourism, apiculture, medicinal plants, fisheries, emerging livestock); conflict resolution mechanisms; appropriate crop and livestock management systems (forages, zero grazing); marketing and value addition; appropriate reseeding technique; conservation tillage; appropriate fertility management practices; efficient use and alternatives to fuel wood; early warning systems (weather, resource degradation, etc); environmental policies and flood and fire control.The training of local opinion leaders is important to ensure the widespread adoption of appropriate technologies and practices as well as understanding policies. Opinion leaders have formed an important source of information to the community who often turn to them for interpretation of policies and seek their opinion in important matters. Targeted opinion leaders will be trained and sensitized on various issues such as conflicts early warning and resolution, available natural resource and management, policies, flood and fire control.Local organizations are a vital link in the development of community sub-projects. They not only help local communities and producer groups develop subprojects but can also be a part of the participatory outcome based monitoring that the project seeks to promote. Capacity building of NGOs and CBOs will be done at catchment level through workshops, demonstrations and developed technology and extension materials. Some of the identified training needs include: record keeping; monitoring and evaluation; policy; marketing strategies; alternative livelihoods; participatory research; land degradation/biodiversity indicators; and data collection methodologies.Subcomponent 1b: Support for Sustainable Land Management InvestmentsThis component will support community subprojects with activities to address land degradation such as soil and water conservation measures, water harvesting techniques, reseeding of degraded lands, high yielding and ecologically adapted crop and livestock varieties and genotypes, soil fertility maintenance practises etc. Investments will focus on soil erosion control, water harvesting, pasture management (reseeding denuded pastures and de-stocking, sustainable use of wetlands, riverbank and catchment protection, integrated nutrient and pest management and promotion of crop and livestock productivity, conservation of biodiversity and promotion of indigenous species use. KARI and other


17

institutions such as KEFRI have over the years developed SLM practices and technologies that are suitable for scaling-up. Support for implementing the subprojects at the district level would be provided by CBOs/NGOs/district agencies.These investments will build on KAPP and other baseline activities which seek to develop institutional and financial mechanisms that will give farmers control over extension and research services and increase their access to productivity enhancing technologies. KAPP will support the effort to establish and develop farmers’ forums, a principal tool for farmers’ empowerment, at the national, district and grassroots level; and will provide targeted support to scale-up application of technology innovations. On its part, investments under this project will be directed towards NRM technologies that complement production technologies supported through KAPP. Subcomponent 1c: Strengthening SLM Oriented Service Provision Inadequate service provision has hampered introduction of sustainable land management best management practices and technologies. Although there are some pockets of successful practices like the community wild life sanctuaries, and community forests, these are rare and limited to few areas. Thus service providers at the district and division level including extension, CBOs and NGOs will be trained to enable them to transfer promote the uptake of appropriate technology and practices to the communities. This group is also important because it is usually the usual source of information to farmers. Training will be done through farmer field schools, pilots, workshops and appropriately targeted training will be done in training workshops, exchange visits and publications. Areas identified for capacity building include: appropriate land management practices; appropriate livestock management; appropriate crop management practices; appropriate agro-forestry systems; monitoring and evaluation; conflicts early warning and consensus building; participatory research methods; appropriate water harvesting and irrigation practices; appropriate extension approach; land degradation/biodiversity indicators; marketing strategies; and flood and fire control.This will build on activities under KAPP and the national agricultural and livestock extension (NALEP) program supported by the Government of Kenya and Swedish International Development Cooperation (SIDA). KAPP and to some extent NALEP will help restructure the entire extension system and support the formulation, adoption and implementation of a revised extension policy as well as extension pilots and capacity building of services providers in 20 districts. These activities will clarify and rationalize the roles and functions of public, private and civil society organizations streamline and develop more effective and responsive public services and enhance the capacity of non-public extension service providers.Component 2: Promotion of Alternative Livelihoods Systems Land degradation has made agriculture unviable in certain areas. In addition, some of the poor lack access to good quality land, often their sole source of income. The vulnerability of the poor is exacerbated due to climate change and variation, which further limits their options. This component will promote the expansion of alternate livelihoods that are environmentally sustainable and economically viable.Subcomponent 2a: Strengthening Capacity and Market Access for Alternate Livelihoods This component will identify and develop an inventory of economically viable livelihood options as well as create an environment conducive for increased private investment and business opportunities (efficient procurement, distribution, and marketing of inputs and programs towards effective utilization of farm outputs through the development of micro enterprises). It will support enhancing local awareness and use of indigenous products; capacity for adding value to farm outputs including processing and developing marketing


18

strategies; and promotion of markets for non-timber forest products. This component will target two groups: the poorest sections, whose vulnerability is high because of limited income diversity, those in marginal areas and where agricultural land use has very high costs in terms of impact on the natural resources, as well as those with viable farm enterprises, which just need enhancing in order to improve the benefits of sustainable land management (farm forestry, biofuels etc).Subcomponent 2b: Support for Sustainable Alternate Livelihoods Investments In order for rural communities to get out of the poverty cycle, they need alternatives to their current livelihood. The project will promote value adding and alternative sources of livelihoods such as apiculture, promotion of trees such as Jetropha carcus, Aloe spp., date palm, herbal Hibiscus, Mondia whitei, Gum Arabica, Prunus Africana, Ocimum sp., etc which have products that can be sold locally and internationally. Farmers who plant maize every season with minimal returns will be encouraged to diversify into more high value crops. Matching of adopted and adapted crop and livestock varieties to niches where they are best suited will be encouraged. Main areas for potential investments include:

Value addition: Identify and promote appropriate value adding technologies for agricultural and agro-forestry produce (agro-processing) as well as non-timber forest products (NTFPs) including medicinal and aromatic plants such as Gum Arabica, sisal etc;

Marketing: Identify and facilitate access to marketing channels for farm produce; agroforestry and NTFPs; Support market information networks;

Ecotourism: Identify and preserve potential ecotourism forest/biodiversity areas by community; Promote ecotourism investments;

Apiculture: Promotion of modern bee keeping technologies; Promote community honey processing, packaging and marketing channels;

Fisheries: Identify and promote appropriate fish varieties; Identify market outlets; Promote utilization of fish products as an alternative protein source; and

Emerging livestock: Identify and promote appropriate emerging livestock e.g. ostrich, guinea fowl, crocodile, butterflies, camel; Identify and promote marketing channels for emerging livestock.

Component 3: Strengthening the Enabling Environment for SLM This component will address three main areas needed to strengthen the enabling environment necessary for mainstreaming ideas related to sustainable land management through the institutional landscape. They include addressing gaps and weaknesses in the policy framework, support for institutional capacity in planning and monitoring, and improved coordination between agencies.Subcomponent 3a: Towards a Sound Policy Framework This component will focus on strengthening the policy framework related to sustainable land and natural resources management in Kenya. It will comprise of various studies and background reports targeted at policymakers and will identify and propose solutions for existing gaps, weaknesses and overlapping or inconsistencies in the policy framework. The land use and tenure policy is under development and it will supported based on information from impact and economic analyses (cost of land degradation) and implementation of community based land management activities. It will also enhance the enabling environment by strengthening local level coordination between multi-sectoral priorities providing a model for a “bottom up” approach based national program on land management, as envisioned by the NAP that relies on adaptive management and


19

community monitoring of natural resources. The lack of a sound information system that links monitored outcomes to adaptive decision-making (that relies less on ‘control’ measures and more on market signaling and incentive measures) is a gap that needs to be addressed in strengthening the policy framework.The project will strengthen the ongoing efforts by supporting assessment of changes in land use and planning for sustainable resource use by:

Establishment of a baseline and developing a simplified monitoring framework for the collection and use of socio-economic and environmental data relevant to improving land and natural resources management at the local level, which can then be aggregated upwards for decision-making at the district, provincial and national levels;

Capacity building for the use of data for adaptive management; Capacity to identify and address links to poverty and cross-sectoral issues

(overlay of resource degradation data and mapping with poverty indicators and mapping towards improved targeting); and

Valuing the economic cost of degradation and benefits from alternate approaches.The component will seek to identify and address inconsistencies, perverse incentives and opportunities for further policy support for sustainable land and natural resources management within legislative and policy frameworks. It aims to remove the broader policy and legal barriers to improved land management through a participative process involving communities, CBOs, government agencies and research institutions. This includes mainstreaming SLM into sectoral program areas such as energy (demand management for woodfuel, improving efficiencies for biomass, strengthening institutional planning), forests (link with the new Forest Act, 2005 which shifts the emphasis for management and conservation of forests to local communities and the private sector), wildlife (coordination with KWS to reduce incidence of wildlife related conflicts), biodiversity (addressing alien invasive species, maintaining and enhancing agro-biodiversity and indigenous species), water resources (support for integrated water resources management and coordination with the Water Resources Management Authority) as well as including related priorities such as gender issues and technology dissemination, KAPP has a broad institutional strengthening agenda, targeting the relevant ministries and research system (with specific support for KARI’s transition into a more effective and responsive institution), which forms the base for the activities of this component. Subcomponent 3b: Towards Stronger Institutions This component will strengthen institutions relevant to the promotion of sustainable land management by supporting capacity enhancement and improved coordination and information sharing. Agencies that will be targeted include the relevant ministries (agriculture, land, water and regional development), research institutes and related organizations. In-country training will be organized in the catchments and within the institutes and CGIAR (including site-visits for policy makers etc). Regional and international training, where necessary, will be conducted as appropriate and may include workshops, scientific visits to other regional projects, conferences and courses. Capacity building would cover both themes (such as stakeholder consultation and conflict resolution, environmental and social impact assessment, land degradation, biodiversity conservation etc) and methods (such as policy analysis and development, project management, data management, analysis and modeling, participatory methods etc). Policy makers will also be targeted for SLM based capacity including sensitization on natural resource and management issues and available solutions, conflicts (early warning


20

and resolution) and environmental policies. Capacity building and empowerment will be done through consultative policy meetings, workshops and dialogue.Both training and coordination strengthening activities on SLM issues will build on the broader efforts to be established by KAPP. KAPP/KAPSLM will be linked to institutional structures supported by KAPP and established by the Government to implement its SRA. These include the inter-ministerial coordination committee composed of permanent secretaries of all related sector ministries (agriculture, livestock and fisheries development, cooperatives, water environment and natural resources, local government and lands) and the National Forum (which is yet to be established) that will ensure the at the proposed reforms are consistent with stakeholder views.Component 4: Project Coordination and Monitoring The period of implementation of this project is five years. This component will support the project coordinating and implementation organs at the national, district and grassroots level. As far as possible, the project coordination and implementation will be based on the institutional structures created under the KAPP both at the national and district level. Where no such structures exist at the district level, the project will provide resources for establishment of coordination units. Project implementation will follow the IDA project guidelines. This component will also support the activities related to project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) as well as impact assessment.Component 5: Payments for Environmental Services (PES)This component will pilot the implementation of a Payment for Environmental Services (PES) mechanism in watershed of the rivers that supply water to the Sasumua Water Treatment Plant operated by the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company. PES is an innovative market-based approach to conservation financing, based on the principles that those who benefit from environmental services should pay for them, and that those who contribute to generating these services should be compensated for providing them. The PES approach is attractive in that (i) it generates new financing, which would not otherwise be available for conservation; (ii) it is likely to be sustainable, as it depends on the mutual self-interest of service users and providers and not on the whims of government or donor funding; (iii) it is likely to be efficient, in that it conserves services whose benefits exceed the cost of providing them, and does not conserve services when the opposite is true. Achieving these benefits, however, requires implementing the approach correctly. Critical aspects include ensuring that there is a good understanding of how land use affects the desired environmental services and establishing appropriate institutional arrangements to mediate transactions between service users and providers at acceptable transaction costs.The main outputs of this component would be (i) a functioning PES program in the catchments serving the Sasumua Reservoir, with payments and recurring costs financed by the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company; (ii) lessons for the implementation of PES programs in Kenya and other African countries, and a specific replication strategy for Kenya. The main activities of this component will include: (a) conducting detailed technical studies to identify the specific causes of the sedimentation and water contamination problems affecting the Sasumua Reservoir and its water intakes on the Chania and Kiburu Rivers (e.g. specific land uses and their location in the catchment that contribute to sedimentation or contamination) and alternatives that would reduce the problems; (b) conducting socio- economic evaluation of upstream areas to identify the specific land users who manage the land from which problems originate and the incentives and constraints they face in making land use decisions; (c) establishing an appropriate institutional structure for the payment mechanism that will persist beyond the end of the project, in particular arrangements for payments to service providers and monitoring systems; (d) preparing a workplan for Nairobi Water and Sewerage


21

Company’s approval; (e) implementing the PES program, by contracting service providers, then verifying their compliance, and paying them; (f) drawing lessons from the pilot and developing a replication/scaling up strategy.A Draft MoU for Payments for Environmental Services in the catchments serving the Sasumua Water Treatment Plant operated by Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company will be drawn up between the company and KAPSLM Project. Assuming that this initial pilot progresses well, the KAPSLM Project would also finance the preparation of a replication strategy elsewhere in country, including initial technical studies in other watersheds where PES approaches might be implemented (such as the watershed of the Ndakaini Dam in Thika District).2.3 Subprojects The KAPSLM Project will address the agricultural and natural resources management by supporting subprojects. Some of the subproject activities include the following (see KAPSLM Project Appraisal Document and KARI KAPSLM Project Proposal; the list is not exhaustive):

Identification and promotion of non timber forest products (e.g. medicinal plants, Gum Arabica, Prunus africana, Jatropha curcas, juices, mats, etc);

Promotion of value addition of non timber forest products (NTFPs); Promotion of modern bee keeping technologies including community honey

processing, packaging and marketing channels; Small-scale aquaculture and identification and promotion of appropriate fish

varieties including market outlets; Small-scale irrigation systems; Identification and promotion of appropriate emerging livestock, e.g. ostrich,

guineafowl, crocodile, camel; Introduction of improved soil and water management technologies; Identification and preservation of potential ecotourism forest/biodiversity areas by

communities; Establishment of tree nurseries; Agroforestry for soil fertility replenishment and improved crop production; Adding value to primary products and promoting agro-processing; and Identification and promotion of marketing channels for farm produce including

the establishment of market information networkThe options outlined above are expected to contribute to improved crop and animal production, soil and water conservation, and to increase on- and off-farm biodiversity thereby improving local livelihoods and natural resource management. In addition, the measures will increase sequestration of above and below ground carbon. The above list of subprojects is not exhaustive as the development of subproject proposals will be community-driven.In the highlands the major interventions will be to increase vegetation cover. The proposed activities include reforestation and afforestation, utilization of appropriate farming technologies such as intercropping, controlled grazing in the grasslands and wetlands, and restoration of degraded grazing areas.In the midlands the major interventions will be the introduction of improved fallows, improvement of soil fertility through agroforestry and fertilizers, introduction of high


22

value trees, afforestation, promotion of emerging livestock and wetland conservation. In the lowlands the major interventions will include introduction of flood control measures, afforestation, and agroforestry including high value trees, small-scale irrigation systems, and small-scale aquaculture.2.4 Project Target AreasThe project will focus on five catchment operational areas as opposed to plot type of trials which are threatened by lack of environmental management and poor land use. These areas were selected on the basis of criteria including population density, land degradation and unsustainability of land use, poverty, agro-ecological zone and socio-cultural-economic factors. Of the five catchment operational areas, two of them (all of Taita-Taveta and 70 percent of Tugen hills) are areas classified as ASAL or arid and semi-arid lands. Two of the others also include ASALs but to a much lesser degree (about 45 percent of Cherangany and 5 percent of Kikuyu/Kinale). Farmers in all the catchments perceive shallow soils, lower soil fertility and poor water retention as problems.With substantial loss of forest cover and degradation of other natural ecosystems, the fragmented landscape and isolated patches of forests are no longer providing viable habitats and dispersal corridors leading to decreased long term viability of many wildlife species and substantial loss in other forms of biodiversity. This problem is compounded by the rapid spread of alien invasive species. Some of wetlands such as Lake Naivasha, Lake Baringo, Lake Bogoria and Lake Nakuru have been included in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. Other important wetlands within the project operational areas include the Yala Swamp, Kirandich and Chemeron dams (Tugen Hills) and Lakes Chale and Jipe (Taita Hills). The dramatic reduction in the depth Lake Baringo, from over 15 meters in 1921 to an average of 1.5 meters today is partly due to reduced inflows and partly due to the increased sediment load from surrounding catchments, both of which have changed significantly over the years due to poor land management. 2.5 Project DescriptionThe project will cover five catchments distributed all over the country as shown in Figure 1, Annex 1. These catchments were selected following criteria determined by population density poverty indices, biophysical parameters, socio cultural differences and technologies available. The overall goal of the project is to help realize local, regional and global environmental benefits from sustainable land management planning, land use and improved livelihoods in Kenya. The project’s key development goal is to contribute to modernization of Kenya’s agricultural sector and improvement of lives and livelihoods of its rural communities through development, acquisition and application of improved and profitable agricultural technologies. The project will address five main components: (1) promotion of best management practices and best management technologies for improved livelihoods; (2) promotion of alternative livelihoods systems; (3) community empowerment and capacity building; and (4) Institutional and policy analysis; and (5) payment for environmental services (PES). The project seeks to promote SLM in selected priority watersheds (Cherangany Hills, Taita-Taveta, Tugen Hills, Kikuyu/Kinale and Yala) to ensure continued ecosystem functions and productivity, and sustained rural livelihoods.2.6 Project Coordination and Implementation ArrangementsKARI will implement the KAPSLM Project at the national level. The KAPSLM-SC will provide lead coordination and ensure that the results meet the targets set by the project. The functional responsibility for project coordination and implementation will be carried out by a cross-sectoral coordination and technical unit, KAPSLM-CTU, located in Nairobi. Each operational area will have an operational area coordinator OAC, five in all,


23

located in the KAPP District Service Unit (in the case of one operational area, Tugen Hills, which does not fall under the KAPP operational areas, the OAC will be located at the KARI centre in Baringo). Day-to-day coordination of project activities will be handled by the OACs. The implementation arrangements will be such that the proposals/activities originate from the communities, and will be implemented by communities, in the target areas with scientific back up from KARI, KEFRI, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), MoA extension agents, NGOs and other service providers. The OAC will link with provincial and district development and environment committees and officers (PDO, DDO, PEO, DEO, and DSDO) in order to implement broader program activities. Applicable World Bank safeguards policies, and consequent project preparation requirements will be adhered to.Environmental and social monitoring needs will be carried out during project implementation. The monitoring and evaluation system will be linked to two key elements – land protection and household transformation- of the overall program purpose, as well as objectives and outputs. In order to assess the effectiveness of the project activities, the following environmental indicators are proposed: water quantity and quality, sediment load, soil organic content, soil salinity, deforestation/devegetation, biodiversity richness, wetland size, wildlife species, alien invasive weeds, migratory pests, and water-related disease vectors. The possible indicators for social monitoring include: demography, trained farmers, SLM activities funded and implemented, income generation, and the number of indigenous peoples in capacity building sessions.Community Service Providers (CSPs) and extension teams will assist communities in planning their subprojects, and preparing their applications, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental and social impacts. An environmental analysis will be conducted by the CSPs and extension teams for each subproject by using the ESMF checklist and other resource sheets (Chapter 6), which will consider the effects of a subproject on the environment. They will use the potential environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures table along with the resource sheets included in the ESMF to develop a subproject design and plan that will employ mitigation measures to address environmental and social concerns as highlighted by the ESMF checklist. If a subproject still has any concerns that are not addressed, then it might need distinct mitigation measures that will be outlined in a separate Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The EMP will include the following components:

subproject activity; potential adverse effects/impacts; proposed mitigation measures; institutional responsibility for mitigation (including enforcement and

coordination); monitoring requirements; responsibility for monitoring and supervision; implementation schedule; and cost estimates.

If a subproject is of category A in nature, it will require a separate EA that will comply with the Bank’s Disclosure Policy. The format of an EA is outlined in Annex 7.The nature of this project calls for an ESMF that will include a screening process to assess the potential impacts associated with subprojects. The operational area


24

coordinators (OACs) will work closely with the KAPP-DSUs and DEOs as and when required, to carry out the screening of the subproject proposals using the screening procedures and checklists.The project will be demand-driven and implemented under a decentralized arrangement. At the village/community level, village farmers’ forums (VFFs) will be the main bodies for planning and implementing approved development interventions. Implementation of selected proposals will be carried out through close supervision of the OACs. The OACs and DEO will be responsible for ensuring that the environmental and social impacts screening and review system set out in this Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) is integrated into the subprojects cycles.2.7 Annual Reporting and Performance Review RequirementsAnnual environmental and social progress reports will be prepared by hired consultants, coordinated by the OACs. These reports will be submitted to KARI before the Bank’s supervision mission arrives. The annual reports will be shared with KAPSLM-CTU, KAPSLM-SC, KARI, the World Bank and other relevant government agencies. The KAPSLM-SC will regularly brief and sensitize the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee (ICC).


25

3. SAFEGUARD SCREENING PROCEDURESThis Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) has been prepared to fully comply with environmental legislations and procedures in Kenya and with the World Bank's environmental and social safeguard policies. In this chapter, the key safeguard policies that provide the policy context to the ESMF including World Bank policies and Kenya's legal requirements on environmental assessment have been outlined.3.1 World Bank Safeguard PoliciesAs part of the ESMF process, proposed subprojects under the KAPSLM Project will be designed at the local level to ensure that they are screened for potential impacts and that they comply with the requirements set out under World Bank safeguard policies. The KAPSLM Project is an environmental project that proposes to promote technologies for the sustainable management of land and related natural resources. No major negative environmental issues are anticipated for the project. The project beneficiaries include the farmers and communities within the operational areas who participate voluntarily in project activities. The key stakeholders include the farmers, communities, CBOs and NGOs, local government, research and environmental management institutions and the relevant sector ministries (agriculture, water, environment, lands and communities). Since this project seeks to affect land use and change it has been rated as category B. The ESMF has been developed based on the inputs generated during workshops and consultations with all stakeholders and has formulated appropriate processes for screening for environmental and social safeguards in subprojects. The capacity development component of the project includes relevant training for the different levels of stakeholders to address capacity constraints for environmental and social screening of micro-projects. Further elaboration on the training can be found in Chapter 7.The KAPSLM Project calls for an ESMF that will include a screening process to assess the potential impacts associated with subprojects. In addition to the OP 4.01, the KAPSLM project has triggered other safeguard polices as indicated in Table 1 below. Using the screening and review process for subproject identification will, therefore, help determine which of the safeguard policies are triggered and what measures will need to be taken to address the potential impacts. The screening and review process will determine how and when a particular subproject will trigger a safeguard policy, and what mitigation measures will need to be put in place. The screening and review process will also ensure that subprojects that may have potentially significant impacts will require more detailed study. If a subproject is of category A in nature, it will require a separate EA that will comply with the NEMA’s and World Bank’s disclosure regulations.

Table 3.1. The World Bank Safeguard Policies

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NoEnvironmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) [X] [ ]Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [X] [ ]Pest Management (OP 4.09) [X] [ ]Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) [ ] [X]Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [ ] [X]


26

Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [X] [ ]Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ] [X]Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [ ] [ ]

Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60) [ ] [X]

Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) [ ] [X]

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01)This OP 4.01 has been triggered because there is potential that the implementation of the KAPSLM Project may lead to some negative environmental impacts. There are no potential large-scale, significant or irreversible environmental impacts associated with the project. Project interventions will focus on implementation of specific activities that improve the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. Although some land management activities may require assessment and mitigation, it is anticipated that few of the expected activities will have a negative environmental impacts. Those activities that are not addressed by the ESMF will be identified using the screening and review procedures in Chapter 6. Should the screening and review process identify subprojects that may have potentially significant impacts, more detailed study will be carried out. Such subprojects may require specific EA and this will be determined by the screening and review process.Natural Habitats (OP 4.04)There are a number of critical habitats in the project areas, however, none will be adversely affected by the project The project will not be implemented in any protected area, but will target a number of critical natural habitats for biodiversity conservation such as swamps, marshes, other wetlands, forests and grassland fragments. Since the project will focus on conservation strategies, there will be no degradation or conversion of habitats. Other project activities are also not expected to negatively impact critical habitats directly. The ESMF provides communities and extension teams with the appropriate checklist tools, resource sheets and planning methods to identify any potential impacts of subprojects on natural habitats, reserves, or protected areas, and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to minimize or avoid damage, or compensate for it. Those activities that are not addressed by the ESMF and may have impacts on natural habitats will be identified using the screening and review procedures as outlined in Chapter 6. Additionally, this being a GEF project, activities that might have a negative impact on natural habitats are not funded.Pest Management (OP 4.09)The KAPSLM Project will make resources available and strengthen the capacity of agricultural producers and other resource users to: (i) adopt SLM practices and technologies to mitigate land degradation and achieve greater productivity of crops, trees and livestock; and (ii) adopt sustainable alternative livelihood options to diversify and increase income, and reduce the pressure on the natural resources. A number of subprojects such as small-scale irrigation may result in the introduction or expansion of pest management activities in certain areas. The ESMF includes a brief IPM as a decision-making process for the selection, implementation, and evaluation of pest management practices. Those activities that are not addressed by the ESMF and may use pesticides that are likely to have impacts on the environment will be identified using the screening and review procedures as outlined in Chapter 6.


27

Indigenous Peoples ( OP 4.10)) This policy is triggered and an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) has been prepared. The Sengwer in the Cherangany Hills, the Ogiek in the Yala and Kinale-Kikuyu Catchments and the Ilchamus in the Tugen Hill catchments are the marginalised and social discriminated peoples in their respective areas. These indigenous peoples face similar problems whether they are hunter-gatherers or semi-pastoralists. During project preparation it became clear that the project might impact on indigenous peoples’ rights, lands, livelihoods and culture. To qualify for funding from the World Bank and following best practice documented in the World Bank’s policy on indigenous peoples (OP 4.10), the Government of Kenya (GoK) commissioned through the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute the preparation of the Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures of indigenous peoples. The IPP has a broad community support from the affected indigenous peoples’ communities.3.2 Mainstreaming Safeguard Compliance into Subproject ScreeningThe screening criteria provided in the ESMF includes relevant questions which will help determine if any other safeguard policies are triggered and the measures need to be taken to mitigate impacts. The screening and review process will identify any subprojects that may have potentially significant impacts which require more detailed study and the need for a subproject specific EA. This will ensure that all concerns related to the Bank’s safeguard policies are taken into account during the screening of subprojects for potential impacts, and that the appropriate mitigation measures can be adopted to address them.3.3 Kenya's Environmental Legislation The preparation of this ESMF has taken into account the requirements for environmental assessment under Kenyan law, mainly under Section 58 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, 1999. The section also requires project proponents to obtain an EA License from NEMA before the implementation of a project. The Act as well as the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003, Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 56 of 13th June 2003, requires that the project proponent submit a project report to the National Environment Management Authority.The Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999, provides for the establishment of an appropriate legal and institutional framework for the management of the environment in Kenya. Part VI (S.58) of the act makes it mandatory for environmental assessments (EAs) to be conducted before the commencement of projects involving urban development, water bodies, transportation, mining, agriculture and forestry related activities.3.4 Subproject Screening under Kenyan LawWith the above requirements in mind, for those subprojects which require an EA, as determined under the screening and review process, a copy of the EA report will be submitted to the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) for approval. NEMA will review and comment on the EA before the subproject can be appraised.3.5 International Conventions and TreatiesConvention on Biological DiversityThe Convention on Biological Diversity adopts a broad approach to conservation. It requires Parties to the Convention to adopt national strategies, plans and programs for the conservation of biological diversity, and to integrate the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, programs and policies. The proposed project is expected to conserve biodiversity, especially the rare and endangered species in the project area and its environs.


28

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification The objective of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) is to combat desertification and to mitigate the effects of drought in seriously affected countries, especially those in Africa. It seeks to achieve this objective through integrated approaches to development, supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements, in the affected areas. It lays emphasis on long-term strategies that focus on improved productivity of land and the rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable management of land and water resources, leading to improved living conditions, in particular at the community level. The proposed project is designed to implement the requirements of the UNCCD.United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeThe United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) seeks to regulate levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) concentration in the atmosphere, so as to avoid the occurrence of climate change at levels that would harm economic development, or that would impede food production activities. The Convention is founded on the principle that contracting parties should take courses of action, in respect of their economic and social activities, and with regard to the Convention's specific requirements, that will protect the climate system for present and future generations. The proposed project will assist in the implementation of the specific requirements of the Convention.Convention on Wetlands or the Ramsar ConventionThe Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is primarily concerned with the conservation and management of wetlands. Parties to the Convention are also required to promote the wise use of wetlands in their territories and to take measures for their conservation by establishing nature reserves in wetlands, whether they are included in the Ramsar list or not. Kenya ratified the Ramsar Convention in June 1990. The proposed project is expected to adhere to the Ramsar Convention's principles of wise use of wetlands in the project area.Convention on the Conservation of Migratory speciesThe Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) was adopted to conserve migratory species of wild animals given that migratory species are seen as an international resource. Such species may be terrestrial or marine. The State Members of the Convention endeavour to conclude agreements for the protection and management of migratory species whose conservation status is unfavourable and of those whose conservation status would substantially benefit from international cooperation deriving from an agreement. The Convention's Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Water birds is specific on the need to protect the migratory water birds' feeding, breeding and wintering habitats, the main ones being wetlands and open water bodies.Important Bird AreasThe Eastern Arc Mountains (Taita Hills), Kikuyu Escarpment Forest (Kikuyu/Kinale), Lake Baringo (Tugen Hills), Cherangany Forest (Cherangany) and Lake Victoria (Yala Catchment) have been identified as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) of Kenya. The Important Bird Areas Programme is a worldwide initiative working for the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainability of human use of natural resources. The project is expected to recognize these IBAs and to protect them where they occur in the project area or in the environs.

The Nile Treaties


29

There are about eleven treaties dealing with the consumptive use of the waters of River Nile and Lake Victoria. The riparian countries are under limited obligations under general international law to permit the lower riparian States an equitable share of the water, but then the exact modalities would be subject to fresh negotiations. The Nile Basin Initiative is currently addressing the issue of equitable utilization of the common Nile Basin water resources.The Nile Basin Initiative seeks to harness the tremendous potential of the Nile for the benefit of the people of the Basin, both for now and for generations to come. This becomes a major challenge because as economic development accelerates, population increases and demand for water grows. NBI's Shared Vision puts economic development at its centre. The Shared Vision is: "To achieve sustainable socio-economic development through the equitable utilization of, and benefits from, the common Nile Basin water resources" or in short "Sustainable development of the River Nile for the benefit of all".


30

4. BASELINE INFORMATION4.1 Biophysical4 .1 .1 Loca t ionThe project will cover five catchments distributed all over the country. These catchments were selected following criteria determined by population density, poverty indices, biophysical parameters, socio-cultural differences and technologies available. The selected sites are: Kikuyu/Kinale Forest; Taita Hills; Tugen Hills; Cherangany Hills and Yala Swamp. Kikuyu/Kinale Forest catchment and Yala Swamp catchment are different from other sites because they are not hills and do not show the altitudinal gradients found in the other three sites. Yala Swamp on the other hand has a large wetland area that has not been cultivated. In all the sites, the most common threat to biodiversity is cultivation, harvesting of natural resources and grazing. The location of the five catchments is shown in Figure 1, Annex 1. In each of the catchments, a number of districts will be covered by the project as shown in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Districts covered by the KAPSLM Project

Operational Area or Catchment

Administrative Districts District’s Resident

Population (1999)

Coverage Percentage

Cherangany Hills Trans-Nzoia 575,000 55West Pokot (50-85% ASAL) 308,000 15Keiyo (30-50%ASAL) 144,000 15Marakwet (30-50% ASAL) 141,000 15

Tugen Hills Baringo(50-85% ASAL) 265,000 60Koibatek 138,000 30Keiyo (30-50% ASAL) 144,000 10

Yala Catchment Butere Mumias 477,000 25Siaya 480,000 20Kakamega 603,000 20Nandi 578,000 15Vihiga 499,000 15Bondo 238,000 5

Kinale-Kikuyu Kiambu 743,000 60Nyandarua 480,000 15Nakuru 1,186,000 10Kajiado 406,000 10Narok (30-50% ASAL) 365,000 5

Taita Hills Taita Taveta (85-100% ASAL) 247,000 100

Source: Adopted from World Bank, 2005


31

4.1.2 Kikuyu/Kinale Forest Catchment Kinale Forest catchment is located in Kiambu District. The neighboring districts are Nyandarua, Nakuru, Kajiado and Narok. The altitude of Kiambu District ranges from 1,500 to 2,591 masl. Rainfall follows two main seasons namely the long rains (April-May) that average 1,275mm, and short rains (October to November) that average 150mm. The average annual rainfall is 1,239.6mm. The highest temperatures in the district average 340C while the lowest average 20.40C. Mean temperature in the district is approximately 260C.Of the five sites, Kinale Forest catchment has the highest amount of rainfall and the highest agricultural potential. It is a catchment for several rivers including Gatamaiyu River, which is a source of water for the highly populated Kimende area and Nairobi City, and the tributaries of the Athi River which include Wangenye, Gatamaiyu, Nyanduma and Kamunga. The soils in this catchment are excessively to well drained, very deep to extremely deep clay loam to clay texture with good structure. They have high water holding capacity and therefore can keep water in the profile for a long period and they vary widely in chemical properties. In terms of soil management, these soils have low degradation hazard due to their stable structure and, therefore, when cultivating steep slopes, soil conservation measures are necessary. Inspite of the fact that they have moderate natural fertility for optimum crop production, they require manure or mineral fertilizers.The catchment falls into the agro-ecological zones shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Agro-Ecological Zones of Kinale Forest Catchment

UH (Upper Highland Zone, Annual Mean Temperature 10-15oC, Seasonal Night Frosts)UH1: humid UH2: sub-humid UH3: semi-humid UH4: transitional UH5: semi-aridLH (Lower High Zone, Annual Mean Temperature 15-18oC, Minimum 8-11oC, No Frosts)LH3: semi-humid LH4: transitionalUM (Upper Midland Zone, Annual Mean Temperature 18-21oC, Minimum 11-14oC) UM5: semi-humid UM6: transitional

Within the catchment, there is intensive cultivation of tea and coffee. However, most of the farming is by small-scale production of highland crops like Irish potatoes, snow peas, several varieties of vegetable and other quick maturing annual/seasonal crops. Fruit trees are also grown and intensive dairy farming is undertaken. On the drier but cold western flanks of the escarpment the major crop grown is pyrethrum.The Kikuyu Escarpment (part of the Kinale Site) has been a major breeding ground for some of the rare bird species in the African Savanna. The forests contain pure stands of indigenous trees the following vegetation zones: Evergreen Seasonal Forest, Evergreen Forest, Evergreen Xeromorphic Forest, Evergreen Riverine Forest, and Evergreen Bamboo Forest. About 20 bird species here are considered rare, and regionally threatened species such as African Green Ibis, Ayres Hawk, Crowned Hawk Eagle, Abbot’s Starling (Cinnyricinchus femoralis) listed by IUCN and Birdlife International as vulnerable to extinct, and Red-Chested Owlet.Kinale has more challenging conservation problems than most of the other sites due to high population pressure and high commercial value of land. Pit-sawing, charcoal burning and excessive fuel collection are some of the threats. Other important contributory factors include the extremely high land value due to its proximity to Nairobi and the lack of sustainable harvesting of timber and wood. Large areas of deforested land


32

are planted with commercial plantations of Pinus, Cupressus, Podocarpus, and cedar trees both for timber and paper industries. Kinale supplies the most timber used in Nairobi for construction. Illegal felling of hardwoods mainly Camphor (Ocotea usambarensis) has been going on for years until recently when law enforcement was stepped up. 4.1.3 Taita Hills Catchment Taita Hills catchment is found in Taita-Taveta District in the southwest part of the Coast Province about 25 km from Voi Town. The neighboring districts are Kwale and Kilifi. Taita-Taveta District covers an area of 17,128 km2. It is classified as an Arid and Semi-Arid district (ASAL). Of the total area, 62%t falls under the Tsavo East National Park, 24 percent is range land suitable for ranching and dry land farming, while only 12 percent (2,055.4km2) of the total district area is suitable for rain-fed agriculture. The altitude of the district varies between 481 masl in the lowlands and 2,200 masl in the highlands. This gives the district two distinct climatic characteristics, with the hills experiencing lower temperatures of as low as 16.40C compared to the lower zones that experience temperatures as high as 300C. The average temperature in the district is approximately 240C. The district experiences two rain seasons, the long rains between the months of March and May and the short rains between November and December. However, the rainfall distribution is uneven with the highlands receiving more rain than the lowlandsThe hills form a series of steep ridges capped by rich montane forests which comprise the only portion of the Eastern Arc range of forests in Kenya. The forests have for a long time been isolated ecologically from other forests and as a result evolution has resulted in many groups of flora and fauna that are endemic to the region, including 13 taxa of plants and 9 taxa of animals. Furthermore, 22 species of plants and 3 species of animals represent the rare Eastern Arc type of flora and fauna. Scant attention has been paid to the foothill woodlands that are becoming more vulnerable as a result of expansion of human settlements an cultivation caused by rapid population growth. The indigenous forests on the hilltops are further classified as Upland/Moist forests and are distinguished into at least two forest types: Octoea Forests, which occur in the highest parts (>1,600 masl) and Newtonia Forests, occurring at 1,250-1,800 masl. Mbololo Forest, which is part of Taita Hills forests, contains the African Violet (Saintpaulia teitensis), a plant which if well managed for its economic and aesthetic potential can act as a source of income to the local community as an alternative income-generating activity.Taita Hills forests hold very unique avifauna including birds such as Taita White Eye, Taita Apalis, Taita Thrush and the restricted range Abbot’s Starling. The forests also host globally threatened species including the Taita Falcon, Abbot’s Starling, the Southern Banded Snake Eagle, the regionally threatened Ayre’s Hawk Eagle, the Red-Capped Robin, and a host of rare mammals and plants, and are listed as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Nature Kenya and BirdLife International. Other wildlife present include primates Sykes monkeys – Cercopithecus mitis, nocturnal primates – Bush babies such as the Greater Galago – Otolemur garnetti, and the Dwarf Galago – Galagoides orinus), and mammals (over 15 species of rodents, 10 species of insectivores and one species of the elephant shrew). Important rivers such as Bura, Kishushe, Mbololo, Mwatate, Paranga and Voi, as well as Njoro, have their origin in these forests and play an important role in the Taita, Kilimanjaro and coastal Kenya ecosystems. Exotic softwood plantations have been established, while demand or pole wood and charcoal has increased at an alarming rate. The gradual disappearance of forests is attributed to the demographic pressure on agriculture, firewood, timber and other wood-related demands from the forests.


33

Taita Hills have been settled by the Taita people for several centuries. The Taita people are cultivators producing a variety of crops in small-scale farming systems on hill slopes. Further down the slopes, the vegetation grades into savanna rangelands with some parts of the hills bordering the large Tsavo East National Park. Some areas within the savanna rangelands are have sisal plantations extending all the way to Voi Town. Taita Hills form a major catchment and a source of several rivers.The soils are excessively to well drained, dusky red to dark brown, sandy clay loam to clay in places rocky and stony. They are dominantly friable with moderately strong structure. They vary widely in chemical characteristics, but the dominant limitation is low pH, hence low soil fertility status. Taita Hills catchment falls into the following agro-ecological zones (Table 4.3):

Table 4.3 Agro-Ecological Zones of Taita Hills Catchment

UM (Upper Midland Zones, Annual Mean Temperature 21ºC, Minimum 11-14ºC)UM3: semi-humid UM4: transitioalLH (Lower High Zone, Annual Mean Temperature 15-18oC, Minimum 8-11oC, No Frosts)LH2: sub-humidLM (Lower Midland Zone, Annual Mean Temperature 21-24ºC, Minimum >14ºC)LM4: transitional4.1.4 Tugen Hills Catchment Tugen Hills catchment is located in Baringo, Koibatek and Keiyo Districts of the Rift Valley Province. The hills are situated on the eastern flanks of Kerio Valley and rise up to nearly 3,000 masl from the low lying plains of Lake Baringo Basin to the east and Kerio Valley and Lake Kamnarok Basin to the west. The vegetation is mainly thicket and dry woodland with high variation. The area experiences two seasons of rainfall, the long rains (March-July) and the short rains (September-November). Rainfall is about 50 percent reliable and varies from 1,000 to 1,500 mm in the highlands to an average of 600 mm in the lowlands.The soils are sandy, well drained, shallow to very deep, dusky red to dark reddish brown, bouldery and rocky, in places, strongly calcareous, saline, sodic sandy loam to clay. The terrain is characterized by deep erosion gullies that form seasonal rivers during the wet periods. Soil erosion is a major concern in the highlands and lowlands. Gulley, sheet, and wind erosion result in expanses of bare soil. Although most prominent land use in the area around the hills and the surrounding lowlands is grazing, much of the area within the hills is cultivated. An important urban centre, Kabarnet Town, is located on the hills.The catchment falls under the following agro-ecological zones (Table 4.4):

Table 4.4. Agro-Ecological Zones of Tugen Hills Catchment

UM (Upper Midland Zones, Annual Mean Temperature 18-21ºC, Minimum 11-14ºC)UM3: semi-humid UM4: transitioalLH (Lower High Zone, Annual Mean Temperature 15-18oC, Minimum 8-11oC, No Frosts)LH2: sub-humidLM (Lower Midland Zone, Annual Mean Temperature 21-24ºC, Minimum >14ºC)LM4: transitionalTugen Hills are seriously degraded with deforested and exposed hill sides, and lose weathered ground surfaces resulting in reduced precipitation and high siltation of river courses. Man-made dams such as Chemeron and Kirandich are silting up at an alarming rate. Currently the single most important threat to biodiversity in the area is that of soil


34

degradation and sedimentation of Lakes Baringo, Bogoria and Kamnarok. Recent studies have shown that the current rates of sedimentation in Lake Baringo are due to silt deposits by surface runoff that is accelerated by increasing land use activities within the catchment. Fluoride levels in the surface waters are high resulting in many cases of deformed bones among the people.Lake Baringo is the lifeline of the communities living in its basin especially within the vicinity of the lake, including the Pokots to the north, Tugens to the west and the Ilchamus to the east and southern sides. The latter form about 50% of the riparian population who are manly pastoralists. The Ilchamus and Pokots mainly practice agro-pastoralism while the Tugens are both pastoralists and agriculturalists. Politically, the communities are marginalized especially the Ilchamus and the Pokots. In this regard, they have remained poor with limited access to water, health facilities and other services. Over-gazing is a major problem in this area. Dry seasons are critical periods and most cattle graze along the lakeshore thereby interfering with the ecology of the lake. An introduced multipurpose ”wonder” tree species, Prosopis juliflora, has turned an invasive pest in the lowlands and has defied all methods of control.4.1.5 Cheragany Hills Catchment Cherangany Hills are part of the Great Rift Valley system and extend to about 60 km from the north east of Eldoret Town. They cross West Pokot, Elgeiyo Marakwet, and Trans Nzoia Districts, and cover an area of about 32,000 hectares. They form the western wall of Elgeyo Escarpment which rises to 1,830 masl. The hills have forests that are part of the upland (montane) forest found at an altitude of between 2,000 to 3,500 masl. The forests contain numerous plant species found nowhere else in Kenya and are also important habitats for several wild animals and birds. These indigenous forests constitute an important water catchment area in the country for most of the rivers that feed Kenya’s lakes and are one of the countries five water towers. The major rivers from here include Nzoia, Turkwell, Sosian, Chepkoilel, Kapteret, Suguta, Kerio and many important tributaries drain into Lake Victoria, Turkana and Baringo. The communities utilize the water from the forests through major dam projects such as Chebara, Kaptagat, and Turkwel Gorge Dams.Cherengani Hills are home to four minority indigenous groups of people who include, the Sengwer (Cherengany), Kariala (Ndorobo), a clan of Ogiek and the dominant Almo (Marakwet) who are the main forest neighbours spread evenly throughout the forest. Apart from Almo (Marakwet), who are agro-pastoralists, the other three are purely hunters and gatherers. Traditionally, all the indigenous communities in the forest areas have developed elaborate systems for managing their natural resources and for regulating their use. However, the potential in this catchment has been greatly reduced in the last century, largely by agricultural encroachment and the incidences of high timber extraction. For the last ten years the Cherengani Forest has suffered heavy destruction, especially when the people who lived in Kerio Valley moved to the highlands around Embibut, Kapyego, Kipkiluur, Chemunata, encroaching on the forest and bringing with them their intensive farming methods. This encroachment has interfered with the area’s biodiversity, and rivers and streams like Embobue, Embonem, Embo, Arror, Morun and Nzoia are drying up.4.1.6 Yala River Catchment Yala catchment is in a low rainfall area characterized as low medium rainfall area in the agro-ecological zones of Kenya where the main cash crop is cotton. This is a complex of wetlands in the delta of the Yala River, on the northeast shores of Lake Victoria. The site has three main components which include, the Yala swamp itself (currently 6,500 ha after


35

drainage of the eastern 20%), Lake Kanyaboli in the north-eastern corner, a 3 m deep lake of 1,000 ha, and Lake Sare, the most southerly of several outlets of the Yala river into Lake Victoria, 5 m deep and 500 ha in area. Formerly, the Yala River flowed through the eastern swamp (now ‘reclaimed’) into Lake Kanyaboli, then into the main swamp, and finally into Lake Victoria via a small gulf. The Yala flow is now diverted directly into the main swamp, and a silt-clay dike cuts off Lake Kanyaboli, which receives its water from the surrounding catchment and through back-seepage from the swamp. A culvert across the mouth of the Yala, some meters above the level of Lake Victoria, has cut off the gulf on the lake and, through back flooding, created Lake Sare. The predominant wetland vegetation is papyrus Cyperus papyrus, with Phragmites mauritianus in shallower areas and swamp grasses around the periphery. A thick fringe of papyrus surrounds both Lake Kanyaboli and Lake Sare. The Yala swamp complex is by far the largest papyrus swamp in the Kenyan sector of Lake Victoria, making up more than 90% of the total area of papyrus. The swamp acts as a natural filter for a variety of biocides and other agricultural pollutants from the surrounding catchment, and also effectively removes silt before the water enters Lake Victoria. The site supports an important local fishery industry for the Luo and Luhya people who live to its south and north, respectively.Drainage of the Yala swamp began as early as 1956, and there are still plans to extend the ‘reclaimed’ area over much of the present swamp. This is despite the fact that the ‘reclaimed’ land has not proved productive (and a substantial part has reverted to swamp thanks to breaches in the barrier dyke along the Yala River). This is an intensely controversial issue, pitting the obvious needs of a swelling population for agricultural land against the less conspicuous values of wetlands—for instance, water filtration, flood control, and protection of fish stocks. In the case of Yala, biodiversity conservation must be prioritized high on the list of values. It is an important site for protecting the increasingly threatened site of papyrus birds, as well as one of the last remnants of Lake Victoria’s extraordinary cichlid radiation. The area around the swamps is densely populated, and most people make a living from agriculture and fishing. A direct effect of eutrophication in Lake Victoria is the rapid spread of the water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, in the lake and other water bodies in its catchment. The climatic factors and the nutrient status of the lake are ideal for its growth. Several other aquatic weeds are found in the Lake Victoria and its satellite water bodies including wetlands. Of these, the most problematic weeds are the water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes, and the Nile Cabbage, Pistia stratiotes. The water fern (Salvinia molesta) is also found in the littoral areas of Lake Victoria. Indigenous aquatic plants growing naturally in water, such as the hippo grass, Vossia cuspidata, can achieve weed status when the water body undergoes eutrophication. Wetlands are critical biodiversity areas often hosting a large variety of bird life. Of the 1089 bird species found in Kenya, 255 species from 44 families are associated with water and aquatic systems, implying wetlands support approximately 25% of Kenya’s avifauna. Of the 255 species, freshwater bodies support 235 species or slightly over 92%. In total, 170 species are supported by the Lake Victoria wetlands, and out of this number, 82 are dependent on aquatic vegetation and water edge habitats. Wetlands in the project area are fairly well stocked with fishing birds like the Gulls, Terns, Pelicans, Kingfishers and Cormorants. Lake Victoria is world famous for its many endemic species, especially the cichlid endemism of 99% with 300 species. Since the introduction of the Nile Perch, Lates niloticus and Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis nilotica) in the late 1950s and early 1960s, there has been a large change in the ichthyofauna of the lake. The Nile perch is a voracious


36

predator preying on the cichlids particularly Haplochromis spp. The total annual fish catch in the Kenyan portion of Lake Victoria range from 180,000 to 250,000 metric tonnes, landed at over 200 beaches. Most fish caught are for domestic consumption and any surplus is sold in local markets. Farmers living near the wetlands are also fishermen.4.2 Socio-economic Characteristics4 .2 .1 K ik u yu /Ki na l e C atch men tOverviewThe Kikuyu/Kinale forest catchment falls in five districts namely, Kiambu, Nakuru, Nyandarua, Kajiado and Narok. Much of the project activity will be concentrated in the higher catchment area of Kiambu district, stretching to the others.Productivity Potential and Land Degradation IssuesThe Kinale operational area covers two very different agro-climatic zones and land use types. Above 2,100 m and to the east of the Rift Valley the land is of high potential and crops such as tea, pears, plums can do well. Horticultural crops such as cabbage, kales and carrots are widely grown for the Nairobi market and dairy cattle are mainly stall fed on account of shortage of land for grazing. Contour strips of Napier grass serve to provide fodder and to limit soil and water movement. The use of manure and fertilizer are common practices but problem of nutrient exports exceeding replacement and the acidification of the soil needs to be addressed. Attention must be given to the incorporation of organic matter and the use of the right kind of fertilizers and lime.The western part of the operational areas lies on the floor of the Rift Valley at around 1,800 m. The climate is transitional between semi-humid and semi-arid. Soils are highly erodible and conservation measures should be such as will promote the infiltration of rainfall and the maintenance of organic matter levels. Contour grass strips can play a very useful role on cropland. Strong winds are common at certain times, especially in January and February, and have caused severe wind erosion. The planting of drought resistant trees as windbreaks is very important. Schinus molle and Casuarina equisetifolia can be useful.Population and settlement patternsCompared to the other catchments, Kikuyu/Kinale catchment is home to the largest population size that cuts across the five districts. According to the 1999 Kenya Population and Housing Census, the total population for the districts in this catchment was estimated at 3,180,000 people. Population densities are high in the high potential areas of Kiambu, Nyandarua and Nakuru, which have densities of 561,145 and 164 persons per km2. The densities are relatively low in the lower potential areas of Narok and Kajiado whose densities are 24 and 19 persons per km2, respectively. Settlement within the districts also assumes a similar settlement pattern, with the high potential divisions within the districts attracting more people. Similarly, people tend to cluster around the markets and are scattered in the rest of the areas. EconomyLand and soil are key resources in the district. People in the catchment are mainly farmers and pastoralists. Most of the land in the catchment is arable and rain fed agriculture is the main economic activity. The key food crops are maize, beans, vegetables and Irish potatoes while coffee, tea, pyrethrum, wheat and horticultural products are the most important cash crops. These are grown largely on small scale but there are quite a significant number of large scale plantations of coffee, tea, wheat, flowers and horticultural crops. In addition, many people in the catchment derive their livelihood from wage employment, mostly in the large plantations. The populations in the


37

catchment are generally viewed as entrepreneurial and there are many small businesses across the district. Other economic activities include mining and floriculture, and transport industry. In the lowlands of Narok and Kajiado the main economic activity is pastoralism. Cattle, sheep and goats are the most important types of livestock in the area. However both the highlands and the lowlands people rear small herds of livestock and practice small scale cultivation respectively. The PeopleThe Kikuyu are the majority in this catchment followed by the Maasai. A few Ogiek people have also settled along the forested areas of the catchment. The Ogiek (Ogiot - sing.) ethnic group consists of 20-30 groups of former hunters and honey-gatherers, mostly living in forested highlands in west and central Kenya. Their main area of living is around the Mau forest, which is not part of the KAPSLM project. One group is in the Enoosupukia forest southwest of Maiella in the Kinale-Kikuyu catchment.The Kikuyu people are said to have migrated to their current location about four centuries ago. The Kikuyu people spread rapidly throughout the Central Province and Kenya. They are Bantu and actually came into Kenya during the Bantu migrations. The Maasai are a maa-speaking Nilotic group, largely pastoralists, who have settled mainly in the Rift Valley Province.Livelihood PracticesAgricultural production is the main economic activity for the Kikuyu people, with small scale animal husbandry (small herds averaging 2-4 cows per homestead). Small scale production of highland crops like Irish potatoes, snow peas, several varieties of vegetables and other quick maturing annual/seasonal crops dominates agriculture in the area. Fruits such as plums, pears and peaches are grown around the upper parts of the catchment. Horticulture is the main income generating activity for the people in the highlands of Kinale Forest. Cabbage, kales, spinach, carrots and other varieties of vegetables are grown for sale in the nearby Nairobi City. Milk is also a key income earner in the area, in addition to use for subsistence. Other activities include casual labor, small retail kiosks and timber sawing. In the drier but cold western flanks of the escarpment the major crop grown is pyrethrum. Mainstream pastoralism takes place in the drier lowlands, in districts areas such as Kajiado and Narok settled by the Maasai. The main types of livestock kept are cattle, sheep and goats. Grazing in these lands is free range with occasional migration of the pastoralists in search of pasture. Among the Maasai today, small scale agriculture is common around the water bodies owing to diminishing land sizes for pastoralism. While men and young men go out to graze women are left in the ‘manyatta’ constructing housing and today, farming. The Ogiek have been hunter gatherers for a long time. They collect plants, fruits, honey and other non-timber products from the forest. Honey is mainly eaten or used to brew beer. According to various reports honey was their main commodity for exchange with other communities. Land TenureLand tenure systems are as varied as the people in the catchment. Among the Kikuyu, for example, land was traditionally owned by the clan, and all community members had access to it. The landless were tenants at will. People would attach themselves to a wealthier individual as a “muhoi” (one who borrows) and it was later assumed that their interests would be safeguarded by the customary laws of inheritance. Each son among the Kikuyu is entitled to a piece of the family land through inheritance. In addition, a member of the community would claim virgin land through putting beehives or planting selected trees on a first come, or first occupier-first owner basis. Among the Maasai, land was communally owned, with all community members having equal access to land for


38

pasture. Most of them possess communal land titles, though as they tend more towards a sedentary lifestyle, families having settled in a particular “Manyatta” practice small scale agriculture in nearby arable portions of land. The Ogiek are literally squatters in Mau Forest. Institutions Social organization among the Kikuyu is centered on the family and the elders. The man is usually the head of the family though cases of single parents are common. This is partly explained by the mass capture of men by the colonialists, either as prisoners or to become plantation agriculture laborers in the white highlands. Consequently, many Kikuyu women were left as the sole managers of their families, hence the Kikuyu women are strongly empowered and still stand out distinctly with regard to personal enterprise and autonomy in income generation efforts as well as in decision making. The clan was the largest social group made up of many families within a lineage. The clan was led a council of elders (elderly and respected men in society). Among both Kikuyu and the Maasai, elders were in charge of making most of the decisions in the community. They were also in charge of settling disputes, and overseeing the proper utilization of resources in the community. Among the Ogiek, government interventions are comparatively fewer, as they have settled in ‘illegal’ settlements. To them the civil society is more relevant in development than the government, whose presence in only noticeable in other areas of the catchment. In addition, CBOs are many and vibrant among the Ogiek and to a lesser extent the Maasai. To the Ogiek, the CBOs offer a voice for the community and an alternative channel of pulling resources together. 4 . 2 . 2 T a i t a H i l l s C a t c h m e n tOverviewThe Taita Hills catchment is unique compared to the others in terms of territorial coverage as the project will be active in only one district - Taita Taveta District. The Taita-Taveta District covers an area of 17, 128km2. According to ROK, (2002), the district is classified as an Arid and Semi-Arid district (ASAL), as only 12 percent of the total district area is suitable for rain fed agriculture, mainly around Wundanyi division. Of the remaining area, 62 percent falls under the Tsavo National Park while 24 percent is range land suitable for ranching and dry land farming. Out of this arable land, 1774.5km2 is low potential agricultural land, receiving an annual mean rainfall of 650mm. Rainfall distribution is uneven with the highlands receiving more rain than the lowlands.Productivity Potential and Land Degradation IssuesTaita hills export large quantities of horticultural products to Mombasa and in order to maintain soil fertility, attention should be given to the use of organic matter and the right kind of fertilizers. All kinds of conservation measures have a role to play on account the steep slopes and high erodibility of the soil.In the lower and drier areas, the conservation measures used should be those that encourage the retention and infiltration of rainfall. On grazing land, measures are needed to maintain ground cover. Overstocking leads to less cover, greater runoff, more erosion, increased sealing, reduced infiltration, lower production of fodder and reduced carrying capacity. Periodic heavy grazing during dry seasons alternating with periods of recovery during rainy seasons is normal but continuous heavy grazing throughout the year will destroy the ground cover. Goats will survive because they are primarily browsers but the land will suffer due to erosion.


39

PopulationAccording to the population estimates by the Central Bureau of Statistics, the district had a population of 259,889 people in 2002 (CBS, 2001). The most populous divisions are Wundanyi, Voi, Mwatate, and Taveta, while the least populated are Tausa and Mwambirwa. Divisions with the highest population density (119.8 persons per km2) are Mwambirwa, Wundanyi and Taveta, while those with the least densities (19.3 persons per km2) are Voi, Mwatate and Tausa. Average population density in the district is 40 persons per km2. Economy The highlands have good potential for production of horticultural crops such as maize and beans, while the lowlands are only suitable for planting of crops with a short gestation period such as sorghum, millet and the maize varieties. These areas are also suitable for ASAL activities such as ranching and sisal growing. According to the District Development Plan, 2002-2008, over 90 percent of households in the district depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Many households also keep a variety of livestock including cattle, goats, sheep and poultry. Bee keeping in also practiced in the district. The PeopleThe Taita Hills are home to the Taita people, a well established indigenous ethnic group believed to have originated from the northeastern coastal region, which has developed a strong and unifying cultural character, in the course of their lengthy occupancy of the Taita Hills. The Taita are cultivators producing a variety of crops in small scale farming systems on hill slopes. Taita Hills form a major water catchment and a source of several rivers. The catchment is also home to the Taveta, a smaller community of people around the Taveta area and Lakes Chala and Jipe. The Taveta are unrelated to the Taita, and have cultural and customary ties to both the Kamba and the Maasai.Livelihood PracticesThe Taita are believed to be one of Kenya's most strongly agricultural peoples. Agriculture accounts for the livelihoods of an estimated 78 percent of people in the area, while 95 percent of the labor force is engaged in agriculture. They have a long history of well developed agriculture and practice growing sugar cane, millet, and latterly maize. Highly developed systems of irrigation were developed using hollowed sugar cane pipes, sometimes transporting water for distances of over a kilometer. There was extensive clearance of land- tradition dictating that men would clear land while women would then cultivate and work the fields. There was limited animal husbandry, and cattle are a relatively recent acquisition. Land TenureLand belonged to the community as a whole. It was further divided between great lineages within neighborhoods separated by ridges. Within the lineage, an individual came to own rights to cultivate land through his social position and relationship to the community. Under normal circumstances land would be acquired through first occupancy, purchase, conquest and inheritance. Most of the land in the catchment especially on the low potential areas is not surveyed and therefore many people in the catchment do not possess land titles. The surveyed land has been subdivided among family members.Institutions Social organization among the Taita people is constituted along kinship groupings, starting from a polygamous household of a mother and her children, to the larger extended family. Among the Taveta the people are organized into clans. The elders in


40

both groups settled disputes, made important decisions and conducted rituals that gave the community a lot of coherence.Various organizations have been playing an important role of empowering women. Community based organizations, majority by women, have helped them access resources that they can directly control. Membership in the CBOs varies from as few as five persons who form the common rotational credit groups ‘merry go round’ to larger groups with members from a large geographical area involved in many activities such as faming, beekeeping and handcraft making.4 . 2 . 3 T u g e n H i l l s C a t c h m e n tOverviewTugen Hills catchment falls in three districts, namely, Baringo, Koibatek and Keiyo. More than half of Baringo and just about half of Keiyo districts are classified as arid and semi arid areas, while Koibatek District is largely a high potential district. The catchment experiences two rainfall seasons: the long rains (March-July) and the short rains (September-November). Rainfall is about 50 percent reliable and varies from 1,000 to 1,500 mm in the highlands, to an average of 600 mm in the lowlands. Soils can also be divided along the two zones. The highlands have well drained soils with a high potential for agricultural activities, while in the lowlands soils are shallow and stony with outcrops and lava boulders. The soils lack adequate moisture to support meaningful agricultural activities.Productivity Potential and Land Degradation IssuesThere are steep slopes in many parts of the Tugen hills. A variety of conservation measures including the traditional brushwood barriers are used to stabilize very steep slopes. On the foot slopes, plateaus and plains, a high proportion of the land is woodland or bushland and under grazing. Attempts were made to establish group ranches in the drier areas but this has given way in some places due to pressure for demarcation of individual holdings. Several projects, notably the Baringo Semi-arid Areas Pilot Project (supported by the World Bank) and the Baringo Fuelwood and Fodder Production Project (supported by the Netherlands government) have addressed the need to improve food security, increase incomes and promote sustainable land management. PopulationThe catchment population was estimated at 547,000 people according to the 1999 population census. The population density varies across the catchment with Keiyo District having the highest density of 100 people per km2 while Baringo and Koibatek Districts have a population density of 31 and 60 persons per km2 respectively (CBS, 2002). The population is scattered in the lowlands and denser in the highlands. In all the districts, populations tend to cluster around market centers.

Economy

The catchment is characterized by two different ecological zones that also dictate the livelihood patterns of people. The highland areas of Baringo and Koibatek Districts, for instance, have well drained soils with a high potential for agricultural activities. The most important food crops in these highlands are maize and beans, while cash crops include coffee, maize, bananas and oranges. Residents also grow fruits such as mangoes, paw-paw, oranges and bananas. The lowlands of the catchment are dependent on pastoralism as the soils will not support agricultural activities (KARI, 2005). The main types of livestock kept include cattle (Zebus), sheep, goats and poultry. Pastoralists with access to water bodies practice small scale crop production mainly for subsistence. Others engage in small scale fishing. Nevertheless, the catchment is dominated by pastoralism as the


41

main occupation with the exception of Koibatek District where agriculture is the main economic activity. Some of the farmers in Koibatek also rear small herds of livestock mainly under zero grazing. The PeopleThe lowlands of Tugen Hills are home to the Ilchamus, the Pokot, and the Maasai, while the highlands are home to the Tugen people. The Ilchamus, Pokot and the Maasai are traditionally pastoralists. The three are believed to have been grazing their livestock in the lowlands of Tugen Hills around Lake Baringo, while the Tugen, Kipsigis, and other Kalenjin tribesmen in Koibatek district were cultivators practicing small scale agriculture on the highlands. At around the 18th century the Ilchamus started settling down around the Lake where they diversified their livelihoods to small scale irrigation and fishing.Livelihood PracticesLivelihood patterns for the Tugen, the larger Kalenjin group and the Pokot, Maasai and Ilchamus vary extensively. While the Tugen/Kalenjin are more of agriculturalists, the others mainly practice agro-pastoralism. The Ilchamus, Pokot and Maasai communities have settled on the lowlands of Tugen Hills south of Lake Baringo and on the islands. They depend on livestock for their survival because soils in the area lack adequate moisture to support crop production. However, those living along rivers and near the lake practice small scale agriculture but mainly for subsistence. A section of the Ilchamus that resides on the islands of Lake Baringo depends almost entirely on fishing. In general, the life of Pastoralists in the Tugen Hills catchment shows high levels of poverty. Housing structures among the Ilchamus are small and non-permanent. A few households locally viewed as being well off, have houses constructed and roofed with iron sheets. Water is a major problem both for human and livestock. The area is under-serviced with roads, hospitals as well as schools.The Tugen are divided into two major groups: the Southern Tugen (Samor) and the Northern Tugen (Arror). The Tugen believe that they came from Misri (Egypt) through the channel of River Nile and passing through Mt. Elgon before eventually settling in Baringo. They form one of the groups that make up the Kalenjin community settled across Baringo, West Pokot, Koibatek, Keiyo, Nandi and Nakuru Districts. The Kalenjin are mixed farmers, practicing both cultivation and livestock rearing. The most important crops for them are maize and beans, while the main cash crops are coffee, maize, bananas, and oranges. Other fruits grown in the area include mangoes and paw-paws. The farmers also grow a variety of vegetables such as onions, tomatoes, green grams, and kales, mainly for subsistence. The types of livestock found among the Tugen include cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry.Land TenureTraditionally, the Tugen settled down according to clan groupings, with each group inhabiting a particular land unit. The clan solely owned the land and a member of one clan could not own land in another clan’s area. The clan would distribute land to families, depending on the capacity of that family to cultivate it. On inheritance, only the eldest son could inherit land from the father, while the wives only received land for cultivation. Today, land ownership among the Tugen is mostly by individual farmers who have land title deeds. Land in the lowlands and among the pastoralists is communally owned. This, according to the Ilchamus, makes it easy for strangers to invade the land and settle there. The Pokot and the Maasai occupy vast pieces of land that are also communally owned. However, reducing land sizes and private land ownership following demarcation by the colonialists have forced the two communities to diversify their livelihoods to include small scale agriculture mainly for subsistence.


42

InstitutionsTraditionally, the four communities were organized along the family lines with the council of elders occupying a pivotal position in society. Men in all the communities are the main centers of authority in the family. Community activities are governed by traditional rules and regulations, transmitted to the community members orally and symbolically, especially during initiation ceremonies. Among the Ilchamus and the Maasai the council of elders is the most important institution in the community.4 . 2 . 4 C h e r a n g a n y H i l l s C a t c h m e n tOverviewThe Cherangany Hills catchment falls within four districts: Trans Nzoia, Marakwet, West Pokot and Keiyo. Trans Nzoia district is classified as a high agricultural potential district, while Marakwet, West Pokot and Keiyo Districts have about a half of the districts’ areas classified as ASAL. The indigenous Cherangany Hills forest is a water catchment area for most of the rivers that feed Kenya’s lakes. It forms one of the country’s five water towers. The major rivers originating from the catchment include Nzoia, Turkwel, and Sosian, Chepkoilel, Kapteret, Suguta, Kerio and many important tributaries that drain into Lakes Victoria, Turkana and Baringo. Many communities make use of the water from the forests through such major dam projects as Chabara, Kaptagat, Karadich and Turkwel Gorge Dam. The latter is also used for electricity generation.Productivity Potential and Land Degradation IssuesIn Cherangany Hills, rainfall is normally sufficient for cropping and the use of agronomic and vegetative measures of soil and water conservation should be adequate in most situations. However, structural measures such terraces and stone lines will be needed on steep slopes on the eastern side of the operational area. Terraces may also be needed on large farms on the western side. There is a high potential for sheep and dairy farming and the use of grass and agro-forestry species can play an important role in the maintenance of soil fertility.Population The catchment’s population was estimated at about 1,168,000 in 1999 (CBS, 2001). Population growth rates vary across the catchment with Marakwet District registering the lowest growth rate of 2.6 percent while Trans Nzoia has the highest growth rate of about 3.8 percent. Population is scattered in the villages and clustered in small town centers. West Pokot district has the lowest population density of 34 persons per km2, while Trans Nzoia leads with a density of 231 persons per km2 (CBS, 2001). According to the District Development Plans, 60 percent of Trans Nzoia district is arable land, mostly owned by satellite farmers and the Agricultural Development Corporation EconomyPeople within the Cherangany catchment practice both agriculture and pastoralism. Agriculture is prevalent in the high potential areas of Kitale and Cherangany Hills, where crops such as maize, beans, Irish potatoes, coffee, tea, sunflower and a variety of vegetables are grown. Small herds of livestock are also kept in these areas largely under zero grazing. The main activity in Marakwet, West Pokot and Keiyo Districts is pastoralism. Livestock management in these areas is largely under free range with relatively bigger herds. Some of the popular livestock varieties in the area include cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. In addition, it is common to find very low scale cultivation of food crops such as maize, potatoes and vegetables in sections of the low potential areas especially along the river beds. Many other people are in wage employment, rural self-employment or urban employment.


43

The PeopleThis catchment is home to three groups of people namely the Sengwer (Cherangany), the Marakwet and the Pokot, The catchment is also home to a cosmopolitan population that has settled around Trans-Nzioa district. The Sengwer (also referred to as Cherangany, a nickname given to them by the Maasai) are former hunter-gatherers, who live in the Trans-Nzoia, Marakwet and West Pokot Districts in and around the Cherangany Hills. In a letter to the Review Commission of the Constitution of Kenya, they outlined in detail the boundaries of their ancestral land, which covered most of the Cherangany Hills and the lowland of the region. The published data of the 1999 census does not provide information on the ethnographic distribution. The Sengwer themselves claim to have between 40,000 and 60,000 members.The Marakwet are considered a sub-tribe of the Kalenjin community, although linguistically they are said to be closer to the Pokot. They occupy the Marakwet District, formerly part of the Elgeyo Marakwet District. The Pokot, on the other hand, occupy West Pokot District that borders Trans Nzoia, Baringo, Turkana and Marakwet Districts, and Uganda.Livelihood Practices The Sengwer were traditionally hunters and gatherers. Their interaction with other communities such as the Maasai introduced them to small scale cultivation and animal rearing. They started planting crops and vegetables such as millet, sorghum, maize, beans and potatoes, cabbage, tomatoes, onions and fruits such as oranges, bananas, avocado and passion. Livestock reared by the community include cattle, sheep, goats and poultry.The Pokot and the Marakwet are mainly pastoralists, with much of their land being arid and semi arid. Their nomadic way of life has exposed them to different social and customary including inter-community marriages. In addition, the two groups currently practice crop cultivation, mostly growing maize beans and potatoes on the productive areas. The Pokot highly value their cattle and these will normally not be sold unless there is an emergency such as illness. Land TenureDifferent communities within this catchment have different ownership rights to land. Community’s access and control to land ranges from individual ownership by title to squatting on private or public land. Sengwer community resettled along the Kapolet and the Embobut forests face more problems associated with land ownership. Discussions with community members revealed that only about 700 have partial ownership of land, having been issued with allotment letters by the government. Letters of allotment are not final ownership documents. The Sengwer of Talau Location are better placed than their Embobut forest counterparts, in that they have ownership documents and have relatively made more investments on their land. Poorly defined land tenure rights on the other hand have often also led to conflicts among the pastoral communities usually over access and ownership of grazing areas. Among the traditional Pokot as well as the Marakwet, land was limitless and a community property to be administered by elders for the benefit of all.Institutions Communities within the Cherangany catchment are organized along the lines of nuclear family, the extended family, the clan and the council of elders. These are the traditional institutions that characterize the socio-political organization. The man is the overall authority in the family. Matters that transcend the family are referred to the extended family, which brings together the nuclear family, in laws and other relatives. The extended family can be seen as an appellate court in disputes or a booster to the nuclear


44

family in resource mobilization. From the extended family, the next level of authority is the clan and the council of elders. This is made up of respected wise old men who are thoroughly knowledgeable in community affairs. This is the highest institution in the socio-political strata among the three communities. 4 . 2 . 5 Y a l a W a t e r s h e dOverviewThe Yala catchment comprises the wetlands complex in the delta of the Yala River on the north-eastern shores of Lake Victoria. The catchment is located in the Western and Nyanza provinces cutting through some of the most densely populated and poorest areas. This catchment cuts across six administrative districts, namely, Butere Mumias, Siaya, Kakamega, Nandi, Vihiga and Bondo. The region is largely a wetland, characterized by low agricultural productivity, high population pressure and few off-farm income opportunities. Over 58 percent of households may be living in absolute poverty. The project area is characterized by a diversity of livelihood strategies, local groupings and local cultural norms. Such differences, in combination with the agro-ecological circumstances identified above, affect access to resources, the agriculture mix, petty business and other non-farm activities.Productivity Potential and Land Degradation IssuesThere are many different land use types in the Yala river basin and different measures are needed in each. In the areas over 1,800 masl, there are larger farms and cultivation is mainly mechanized. The larger field sizes warrant greater attention to measures such as terraces to control runoff. As with Cherangany, livestock farming and the use of grass in rotation with crops can do much for income generation and sustainable land management.Below 2,000 m, small holdings predominate and cultivation with oxen, or by hand, is more common than by tractors. Property boundaries are often demarcated by hedges that contribute to slowing runoff and controlling erosion. Where tea or sugar cane is grown the soil is protected against raindrop impact and soil erosion is minimal. In the lower and drier parts of the Yala River basin, annual crops predominate and the risk of soil erosion is greater. Crops such as cassava and banana provide some protection to the ground but elsewhere there is a high risk of erosion, especially on steep slopes, due to the high rainfall erosivity within the Lake Victoria Basin. Narrow grass strips, preferably with agro-forestry species such as Calliandra calothyrsus, can play an important role on sloping land in retarding the movement of soil and water, providing forage for livestock and maintaining fertility. Over time, they lead to the formation of terraces.PopulationThe catchment is inhabited largely by three ethnic groups, namely, Luo, Luhya and the Nandi. The Luo are majority in Bondo and Siaya, Luhya in Kakamega, Vihiga and Butere Mumias, while the Nandi occupy Nandi District. According to the 1999 Kenya Population and Housing census, the total population for the districts covered by the catchment was estimated at 2,875,000. The catchment has high population densities with Vihiga leading with a density of 886 persons per km2. Nandi has the lowest population density in the catchment of 200 persons per km2 (CBS, 2002). The catchment’s population is concentrated in the market centers and in areas where employees in the large cane plantations have settled. EconomyThe catchment supports different economic activities from rain fed agriculture in Nandi, Vihiga, Kakamega and Butere Mumias, to irrigation in parts of Siaya and Bondo districts.


45

Farming is both on small and large scale The main food crops in the area include bananas, beans, sugarcane, sweet potatoes, finger millet, cowpeas and horticultural crops, while the cash crops include sugarcane, maize, beans, sweet potatoes, tea, coffee and sunflower. Water availability for crop production is not a critical concern in the region due to the adequate rainfall received. In addition people in the catchment also rear livestock including cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. Dairy cattle are particularly important in Nandi, where milk is a major source of household income. In Siaya and Bondo, the economy is largely dependent on agriculture and fishing for subsistence. In addition many people in the catchment also earn their incomes from wage employment in the sugar and tea plantations and factories. Others are in the informal sector. As population in the district increases, land is increasingly being sub-divided into uneconomic portions, resulting in reduced production, incomes and employment opportunities. The PeopleThe Luhya are the largest community in this catchment area, formed largely by the Bukusu and the Tachoni groups. Other groups of people include the Saboat, who trace their origin from to the Kalenjin and finally the Iteso, who are part of the lake and river rain section of the nilotes who include the Luo. They occupy Butere, Mumias, Kakamega and Vihiga districts. The Luo have settled on Siaya and Bondo districts within this catchment and are believed to have migrated from Southern Sudan. The Nandi, a sub-tribe of the larger Kalenjin community has settled around the Nandi hills. The Ogiek indigenous people are found in Tinderet Forest.Livelihood PracticesAgriculture is the main economic activity for the three communities and it is estimated to account for 75 percent of the local employment. The people in the area are mixed farmers practicing agriculture both for subsistence and for commercial purposes. Among the livestock species reared include cattle, poultry and goats, while the most common crops for the Luhya and the Luo communities include sugarcane, maize, coffee, sunflower, millet, wheat, bananas potatoes, beans, tobacco and vegetables. However, it is noted in literature that the over-reliance on sugar cane as a cash crop has caused the region to be a food deficit area. Among the Luo and Luhya, particularly those living close to water bodies, fishing is practiced both for subsistence and for commercial purposes.Land Tenure Traditionally, land among the Luo was acquired through first cultivation or inheritance/paternal allocation. The family was the social unit that managed land but the larger community intervened whenever there was reason to, such as in time of disputes. Among the Luhya, the clan actually owned the land but allowed individual ownership within the families only for cultivation. The families were later to start subdividing the clan land to their sons.Institutions The social organization among communities in the catchment was structured along the kinship system, starting from the family to the clan. While these structures could still be in place in many of these communities, they are today used hand in hand with modern institutions that regulate people’s daily activities. Of importance is the role of community based organizations that seem to generally respond to peoples’ increased needs with dwindling resources. Mostly formed by women, the community groups serve to boost women’s resource base in a society that has traditionally favored the men. 4.3 Indigenous Peoples PlanThe marginalized and socially discriminated peoples in the operational areas include the Sengwer in Cherangany Hills, the Ogiek in Yala and Kikuyu-Kinale catchments, and the


46

Ilchamus in Tugen Hills. These indigenous peoples face similar problems whether they are hunter-gatherers or semi-pastoralists. They have neither the same access to land, resources, and protection against cattle rustlers as other groups, nor the same influence, legal status, organizational, technical or economic capacities as other citizens of Kenya.The key development vision of the hunter-gatherers – documented in their numerous publications and in the discussion during the elaboration of the IPP of the KAPSLM – is quite simple: They want to live in peace with their neighbours, on a piece of land big enough to carry out agriculture and graze some livestock, have access to forests to gather honey for consumption and commercial use, practice their culture, have equal access to social infrastructure and technical services and be equally represented in all decision making bodies at local, regional and national levels. They don’t request special treatment, but equal opportunities. To achieve this, the following key issues have to be addressed: Equal access to land: In order to have equal opportunities for self-determined development, the Ogiek and Sengwer need land to settle, to farm and to graze their small herds on;Equal access to security: As a result of their social discrimination, the IPs legal titles are often not respected by their neighbours. The Ogiek and Sengwer need the support of the security forces to protect their properties and lives;Equal access to traditional sources of livelihood: The Ogiek and Sengwer need more than any other people in Kenya legal access to forests and forest products (honey etc.), as these two are their traditional sources of livelihood; andEqual access to decision making processes: In order to participate fully in the development process, voice their concerns and needs, and to guarantee that their rights, livelihoods and cultures are not negatively affected, the IPs need to be represented in all relevant decision making bodies (county councils, local consultative meetings, and KAPSLM Project structures).


47

5. GUIDANCE ON POTENTIAL IMPACTS5.1 Overall Environmental and Social Impact This is an environmental project that proposes to promote technologies for sustainable management of land and related natural resources. No major environmental issues are anticipated for the project. The project beneficiaries include farmers and communities within the operational areas who participate voluntarily in project activities. The key stakeholders include the farmers, communities, CBOs and NGOs, local government, environmental management institutions and the relevant sector ministries (agriculture, water, environment, lands and communities). Since this project seeks to affect land use it has been rated as category B.The proposed project will involve direct interventions in the biophysical and human environments. The potential environmental impacts can be categorized as biophysical, and social. These impacts can occur at various stages of project development and can be positive or negative, temporary or permanent, and cumulative. On balance, the potential positive impacts of the project outweigh the negative impacts. Therefore, the KAPSLM Project has the potential to make a significant contribution to Kenya’s policies to protect and preserve the environment while reducing poverty in rural areas.In the absence of adequate capacity for environmental and social screening, potential environmental impacts at local, national and global levels may include pollution and eutrophication of water bodies, interference with wetland and animal ecology (particularly birds and fish), erosion and sedimentation. Alternative livelihoods and intensification of agricultural production (including emerging livestock) which may result in community well-being, may also lead to an increase in areas brought under cultivation and overall numbers of livestock units which may increase demand on natural resources or degrade the surrounding environment. The stakeholders will be provided with an opportunity to learn how to avoid or mitigate localized impacts from subprojects.5.2 Potential Positive ImpactsThe project is expected to generate many positive social impacts that could lead to improvements in alleviation of poverty, improved food security through better crop yields, diversified agricultural resource base, and improved household income. The project will also result in a multiplier effect on the local economy through development of entrepreneurial activities such as market outlets.The effective management and reversal of degradation of natural habitats through soil and water conservation techniques will lead to conservation of natural habitats and biodiversity. This will result in increased quantities and diversity of goods and services provided by the ecosystems.At the national, provincial and district levels, the project will promote rural development strategies that integrate ecosystem concerns. The project will contribute to the decentralization process through community management of natural resources and integrated ecosystem management decision-making processes.At the global level, the project will contribute to the reduction of soil degradation, improvement of crop production and sequestration of above and below ground carbon, and reduced siltation, and nutrient runoff to rivers systems draining into aquatic ecosystems. International waters of Lakes Victoria, Jipe, Chala and their influent tributaries will be protected from sedimentation through restoration of river bank vegetation.


48

The project will also contribute to the commitments made under several global conventions and treaties, in particular, Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Wetlands, UN Framework on Climate Change, and Convention to Combat Desertification;Pressure on natural habitats (remnant forests, riparian areas, wetlands, etc.) will be decreased through improved on-farm and off-farm biodiversity. All in all, the KAPSLM Project has the potential to make a significant contribution to Kenya’s policies to protect and conserve the environment while reducing poverty in rural areas. 5.3 Potential Negative ImpactsOn the whole, the project interventions will focus on implementation of specific activities that improve the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. No major environmental impacts are anticipated from the project, however, potential environmental impacts at local, national and global levels that may be anticipated include pollution and eutrophication of water bodies, interference with wetland and animal ecology (particularly birds and fish), erosion and sedimentation.With regard to the critical habitats that include swamps, wetlands and forest and grassland fragments in the catchment operational areas, none will be adversely affected by the project. The project will not be implemented in any protected area, but will target a number of critical natural habitats for biodiversity conservation. The project will focus on conservation strategies hence there will be no degradation or conversion of habitats.The potential negative impacts at local, national and global levels that may be anticipated include:

Localized pollution and eutrophication of water bodies, and interference with wetland and animal ecology particularly birds and fish.

Alternative livelihoods and intensification of agricultural production including livestock may lead to an increase in areas brought under cultivation and overall numbers of livestock units which may increase demand on natural resources or degrade the surrounding environment.

Soil erosion may occur after removing vegetation cover for land clearing, exposing the soil to water and wind erosion.

Localized agro-chemical pollution and reduction of water quality from agro-chemical use are likely to occur. Handling of pesticides and disposal of empty chemical containers requires serious attention.

Differential impacts of the KAPSLM Project capacity building efforts and investments (according to gender, wealth status, or livelihood strategy) may result in some groups relying to a greater extent than others on unsustainable use of natural resources.

The implementing agents of the KAPSLM Project have considered these risks carefully in the preparation and design of the project. Table 5.1 below sets out the factors contributing to these risks and the features of the project design that will mitigate the risks.Table 5.1 KAPSLM Project Risks Requiring Mitigation

Risk Explanation KAPSLM Project approachRural livelihoods and environments are often complex, unpredictable and fragile (e.g. rural communities in the

Rural livelihoods are diverse and complex in nature hence it is people living in a particular

KAPSLM Project is based on a full-participatory demand-driven approach containing direct funding for community


49

Risk Explanation KAPSLM Project approachcatchment operational areas are highly subdivided along clan and ethnic lines), and achieving effective participation may not be easy.

local area who understand the local environment, interactions within their society, and their economy more than outside intervening parties.

initiated subproject and providing for mobilization of local resources through the support to agro-forestry based and emerging livestock income generation activities.

Lack of adequate capacity for environmental and social screening of small-scale activities may exacerbate existing environmental and social issues affecting communities within the target areas.

Kenya lacks adequate qualified staff and mechanisms for the screening and mitigation of impacts induced from subproject activities. This is especially important since subprojects will be community driven where such expertise may be lacking. This may exacerbate current environmental stress.

The project includes a component for training and capacity building for community groups and associations to prioritize their needs and manage the environmental and social aspects of the subprojects; local government officials and other service providers to assist communities in preparation of subproject proposals, and to appraise, approve and supervise implementation of subprojects.

Differential impacts of the KAPSLM Project training and investments (according to gender, wealth status, or livelihood strategy) may result in some interest groups capturing benefits.

Some sub-categories of the population which stand to gain like the elite groups may capture some of the intended village investments, whereas more disadvantaged groups may be forced to rely on an unsustainable use of their natural resource base.

Special attention will need to be paid to poverty targeting within villages to ensure that investments in support activities and subprojects are identified and implemented so as not to lead to unsustainable use or impacts on natural resources.

Alternative livelihoods, intensification of agricultural production and introduction of emerging livestock which may result in improved well-being, may also lead to an increase in areas brought under cultivation and overall numbers of livestock.

Improved access to markets may increase incentives to increase areas under production or increase animal numbers.

Alternative livelihood strategies will seek to strengthen and add value to existing systems. The integrated nature of the project will ensure counter measures to secure the natural resources, particularly through ecotourism, agroforestry and emerging livestock components.

Rapid institutional change in the formal national, provincial and community systems for governing natural resource areas may create competing or ineffective institutions within government.

Recent changes or trends in Kenya include the move toward decentralization with the accompanying risk of ineffective restructuring, training and empowerment to ensure a successful transition.

KAPSLM Project support for institutional change will be monitored carefully, in full view of political sensitivities between the different systems, and be carried out with regular consultation with the affected parties.

There are a significant number of NGO and development agency-financed projects in the catchment operational areas with considerable rural development experience, which may be undermined by the financial weight of the KAPSLM Project if they are not effectively included in the process.

The financial size and scope of the KAPSLM Project is significant in comparison to the smaller scale NGO and bilaterally-funded development projects in rural areas. This may have implications for the relation between government administrations and NGOs, between existing projects, and communities, and for staff of government and NGOs.

KAPSLM Project will work to build capacity within national, provincial, and community administrations, and continue the collaborative approach; and consider making use of NGOs as service providers, in addition to private sector contractors where appropriate.

Rising population pressures, deteriorating resource base and intensification of the traditional production systems have led to an

KAPSLM Project investments may serve to bring back those who had migrated out in search of income earning alternatives

KAPSLM Project will work carefully with communities to devise measures to support sustainable investments and ensure the inclusion of migrants into their communities.


50

Risk Explanation KAPSLM Project approachincrease in the number of land-related conflicts, and introduction of investments in such areas may attract outside migrants that will increase pressure on existing resources.

into the recipient communities and they will also seek to benefit from the improvements. This could lead to friction or conflict and put additional pressure on limited resources.

Table 5.2 below describes many of the proposed investment activities that are likely to be undertaken by the KAPSLM Project and predicts both positive and negative impacts. However, the screening and review process included in the ESMF will identify risks and recommend for further measures. The subprojects list presented here is not exhaustive as these subprojects will be selected and developed at the village level.

Table 5.2 Potential Environmental and Social Impacts of the KAPSLM Project

Activity/Types of Investments

Positive Impacts Negative Impacts Mitigation Measures

Component 1: Building Capacity for Sustainable Land Management

Soil and water conservation technologies;

Appropriate fertility management practices;

Environmentally positive production systems;

Water management;

Integrated pest management;

Conservation and utilization of biodiversity;

Alternative livelihoods (e.g., tree nurseries, ecotourism, apiculture, fisheries, emerging livestock);

Consensus building and conflict resolution mechanisms;

Early warning systems;

Increased availability of water for human agriculture and livestock;

Improved soil fertility and crop productivity;

Enhanced environmental protection;

Better managed land and water resources will result in fewer conflicts;

Improvement in raising the groundwater level;

Creation of ponds favorable for fishing;

Increased food security due to improved agricultural production

Soil fertility improvement and erosion control;

Enriched biodiversity; Reduced greenhouse

gases (GHGs) Increase in economic

activity; Employment generation; Restoration of

vegetative cover; Increased income

from tree and products;

Diversification of crop

Potential increase of waterborne and water-related diseases such as malaria, bilharzia, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis.

Contaminated water by fertilizers;

Eutrophication of aquatic systems;

Soil degradation due to waterlogging, acidification, salinization or alkalization, etc;

Possible pesticide and herbicide use leading to soil and water pollution;

Loss of wildlife, vegetation on cultivated land

Human-wildlife conflicts; Some households’

livelihood opportunities may be restricted due to conservation efforts;

Alien invasive aquatic weeds infestation in dams;

Use of certain tree species can lead to decrease in soil fertility, nutrients, water, etc;

Transmission of diseases from wildlife to livestock;

Introduction of foreign species may potentially disrupt ecobalance;

Take prophylactic measures and apply biological control by introducing predator fish such as Gambusa affinis and Tilapia zilli;

Adequate training on handling and application of fertilizers and manure;

Adequate training in BMPs and BMTs.

Ensure planning, design and maintenance of water infrastructure is appropriate to local needs, traditions, culture and desires;

Adequate training on IPM; Avoid infringing on

protected areas, critical habitats or areas with significant biodiversity (e.g. wetlands);

Include downstream water users (e.g. water supply, irrigation, livestock watering) in planning of water storage reservoirs;

Establish transparent monitoring and evaluation system;

Livelihood diversification opportunities identified through participatory


51



Marketing and value addition;

Efficient use and alternatives to fuel wood;

Compliance to environmental policies;

Services providers’ capacity building.

production; Modernization of agro-

pastoral practices; Livelihood security

through improved land tenure and agricultural diversification/ intensification;

Reduction in poaching; Development of eco-

tourism; Better welfare and

living conditions; Support to efficient

fuel wood harvest might be a chance for significant and cultural appropriate benefits for IP in forest areas;

Support to apiculture embodies the chance for significant and culturally appropriate benefits for the IP.

Biodiversity loss due to introduction of exotic species;

Likelihood of leaving out vulnerable groups such as the Indigenous people and women in project planning and implementation;

Increased production may promote internal migration leading to more pressure on land;

As the indigenous peoples (IP) are marginalized there is a high risk, that the project does not work with them, that they do not benefit from the project and even lose their access to resources through management plans etc.

needs assessment; Aquatic weeds control; Consider use of a variety

of multipurpose and fast-growing indigenous tree species;

Select tree species and management practices that promote sustainable soil and water conservation;

Problem animal control; Ensure that the

interests/rights of the vulnerable groups are integrated into the activities.

Analysis of the needs of the vulnerable groups and what can be achieved by project (IPP).

Component 2: Investments in community SLM micro-projects Value addition

of NTFPs (including medicinal and aromatic plants) and processing;

Diversification into high value crops;

Marketing information networks;

Ecotourism; Apiculture

technologies and honey processing;

Fisheries and processing;

Emerging livestock (ostrich, guineafowl,

Alternatives to livelihood systems will reduce pressure on land;

Increased income expected with value addition and marketing;

Increased productive employment opportunities especially for women and the youth;

Decreased in anti-social activities;

Promotion of alternatives may benefit the vulnerable groups;

Medicinal products available;

More affordable health care when medicinal plants are

The alternative livelihood systems may not benefit the vulnerable, if they will follow the existing resource ownership patterns;

Value added commodities may be unaffordable to the local people;

Vulnerable groups’ livelihoods made more insecure.

Many people may not readily adopt the use of medicinal and aromatic plants for health care;

If IP’s rights to land and resources are not recognized and the IPs not represented in decision making bodies,

All community members must be involved in identifying culturally acceptable alternatives preferably through a ‘Swot’ analysis;

There is need for capacity building to ensure sustainability of the alternatives. Such as use of medicinal plants;

Alternatives should deliberately target members of the community without access to other resources;

Conduct needs and sustainability assessment for each alternative livelihood system;

Implement IPP fully.


52



camei); Promotion of

biogas technology.

used; Ecotourism will

reduce human- wildlife conflicts.

it is most likely that IPs will be displaced physically or economically thereby increasing their social discrimination and marginalization.

Component 3: Strengthening the enabling environment for SLM

Towards a sound policy framework;

Towards an improved knowledge and information base;

Towards stronger institutions;

Training of farmers;

Training of opinion leaders;

Training of Other stakeholders (Extension, Researchers, policy makers, private sector, NGOs and CBOs).

Regional and international training, where necessary, will be conducted as appropriate and may include workshops, conferences and study tours.

More knowledgeable and informed farmers;

Increased adoption of appropriate technology;

More production of crop and livestock products;

More incomes for farmers, thus improved well being;

More informed opinion leaders;

Better services from extension officers;

Accurate documentation and analysis of project activities, effects and impacts by researchers;

Increased support from the public sector;

Engagement of NGOs will result in efficiency and cost effectiveness;

CBOs will be better managed.

The most vulnerable in the community will be left out in the training because they are not either farmers and/or opinion leaders;

Training may tend to target the very poor leaving out the other well to do farmers;

Training of stakeholders may likely leave out the indigenous people who are highly under-represented;

Trained extension officers may seek better opportunities;

Private sector operatives may take advantage of the communities if their engagement guidelines are not clear;

The activities and impacts of some NGOs may not be felt or visible on the ground;

Trainings may target the voiceless and the vulnerable in the community, leaving out the men;

As IP are not involved in the decision making process is it likely that their rights, livelihoods and needs are not included in the capacity building exercise.

Deliberately include all social categories in all training levels in the catchment;

There must be deliberate efforts to include the marginalized and the IP;

Extension staff and other project staff must be adequately remunerated and motivated to ensure continuity in project implementation;

Rules and guidelines to engage the private sector must be well outlined;

There is need for a thorough institutional analysis to verify the active CBOs;

If the initiatives have to succeed, men, the key resource owners and decision makers must be sensitized on the need to involve others;

Implement IPP fully.

Component 4: Project coordination and monitoring Support Communities will The local people Project staff must


53



project coordination and implementa-tion at the national, district and grassroots level;

Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E);

Impact assessments.

identify themselves with the project activities;

Project will benefit from traditional knowledge specific to the catchment;

Organized and active community based organizations will assist in project activities.

particularly the vulnerable and the marginalized may not have the capacity to participate in the project;

The community may not be adequately remunerated for their indigenous technology and knowledge;

Community based organization run on the spirit of volunteerism. Members may not have the time to attend to project activities.

recognize the relative capacities of the local community, and the different social categories;

The project will need to incorporate the needs and the aspirations of the marginalized;

Local knowledge should be patented so that locals are not taken advantage of;

There is need for incentive packages to ensure that CBOs are actively involved in the project.

Component 5: Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Studies on

specific causes of the sedimentation and water contamination problems in Sasumua Dam;

Socio-economic evaluation of upstream areas;

Establishment of an appropriate institutional structure for the payment mechanism;

Preparation of a work plan for Nairobi Water approval;

Implement PES program, by contracting service providers.

PES will generate new financing;

PES is based on mutual self interest of users and providers, thus it will be sustainable;

PES is geared towards a conservation strategy that is based on critical cost-benefit analysis. This will result in efficiency;

Lessons can be drawn from this pilot project.

Misunderstanding of the concept by land users may result in opposition;

Affected communities and other land users may not be actively involved in the identification of problematic land uses.

Proper sensitization of all affected parties on the arrangements in PES program;

Adequate representation of all land users and affected communities in the project;

Need to respect the inputs and views of the affected parties.


54

5.4 Localized Impacts Most of the developments or subprojects planned under the KAPSLM Project will be small in scale. Consequently the significance of the direct negative environmental and social impacts is likely to be small. All the activities planned under the project will have significant positive environmental impacts especially when considering the integrated ecosystem management of catchments. Intensification of agricultural activities through development and introduction of agrobiodivesity can result in loss of existing biodiversity and increased human-wildlife conflicts. Species of importance that need to be preserved will be identified as an initial step. The species that are threatened will be replanted. Subprojects will avoid infringing on protected areas, critical habitats or areas with significant biodiversity (e.g. wetlands).5.5 Cumulative ImpactsMany of the subprojects may result in cumulative impacts on natural resources. Cumulative impacts are those that may result from individually small-scale activities with minimal impacts but which over time can combine to have a significant impact. Cumulative impacts can also be defined as impacts that potentially develop from the combined impacts of more than one subproject. Examples include:

Deforestation due to exploitation of forest resources for such use as firewood, charcoal and construction materials;

Upstream development which may have downstream impacts such as increase in erosion and eutrophication;

Illegal poaching of wildlife due to expansion of land under cultivation or increased proximity to protected areas; and

Attraction of immigrant populations to communities that have improved production systems and social infrastructure.

The stakeholders will be provided with an opportunity to learn how to avoid or mitigate localized impacts from initial subprojects so that measures can be integrated in subsequent activities. Chapter 6 provides a list of triggers, which can be used to determine whether subprojects may result in cumulative impacts, and if so, what tools to use for mitigation. 5.6 Strategic ImpactsThe stated objective of the KAPSLM Project is to achieve significant local, national and global environmental objectives. The project also intends to concentrate on interventions to promote sustainable land use. These two directions are not mutually exclusive. If the KAPSLM Project succeeds in effectively promoting integrated ecosystem management, then the environmental objectives and the goal to promote sustainable development and reduce poverty will be achieved.Other strategic issues that need to be addressed under the project are the issues of land degradation, pollution, pest management and sensitivity to vulnerable groups. These are discussed further here below.5 .6 .1 Eco log i ca l I mp act s and Lan d De grad at ionA number of the proposed activities in the subprojects can lead to both localized and cumulative impacts on biodiversity, forests, wetlands, soils and water quality. Land degradation may arise due to subprojects that involve intensification of agriculture, and concentration of livestock in particular areas. The environmental and social screening tools in Chapter 6 will be used to identify and mitigate the potential impacts as they relate to certain types of community investments.


55

5 .6 .2 Poten t ia l S our ces o f Po l l u t i onThe use of agro-chemicals such as inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, and organic manure can lead to pollution, especially due to surface runoff into adjacent watercourses, including infiltration into groundwater. This will be carefully monitored through annual reporting tools described in Chapter 6. Training will be provided to communities in proper handling and application of these materials as part of local capacity building component.5 .6 .3 Pes t Man ageme ntSuccessful Integrated Pest Management/Integrated Crop Management (IPM/ICM) is based on sound farmer knowledge of the on-going agro-ecological processes of the farming environment. Such farmers are, therefore, technically empowered to make informed decisions on the most appropriate management strategies to apply a specific period of crop development and production cycle. Furthermore, integrated crop/pest management is a farmer-centered management approach that addresses issues beyond pest management. It offers the entry point to improvement of the entire agricultural production system. It can be successfully adopted in the presence of a national Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy framework and institutional support.In all instances where high input-dependent crop/pest practices are adopted, pesticide misuse is known to be common and results in the following impacts:

Destruction of crop pollinators leading to poor crop yields; Elimination of the natural enemies of crop pests and consequent loss of

natural pest control that keeps the populations of crop pests very low; Development of pest resistance to pesticides, encouraging further increases in

the use of chemical pesticides; Contamination of the soil and water bodies; Toxicity to fish and birds; Proliferation of aquatic weeds; Pesticide poisoning of farmers and deleterious effects on human health Unacceptable levels of pesticide residues in harvested produce and in the food

chain; and Loss of biodiversity in the environment, particularly of the aquatic non-target

species.Considerable attention must, therefore, be paid to the environmental consequences of current pest management practices in Kenya. Key mitigation measures are, therefore, required to address these concerns as outlined in Tables 5.3 below.Table 5.3 KAPSLM Project and Implications for Crop and Pest Management

Project Objective/Output Crop and Pest Management Implications

1. Soil and water conservation technologies.

Increased use and reliance on inputs (fertilizers and pesticides).

2. Increase in incomes from agricultural production.

Change in current pest on/off farm production management practices.


56

3. Agricultural diversification. Change in pest control and reliance on pesticides.

4. Environmentally positive production systems.

Inclusion of IPM techniques in training curriculum.

5. Diversification into high value crops. Reliance on chemical pesticides jeopardizes product quality.

6. Seed and plant nurseries. Increased use of fertilizers and pesticides to protect seedlings.

7. Training in BMPs and BMTs. Training curriculum may be strongly biased towards input (fertilizer and pesticide) use.

8. Training of stakeholders (extension agents, policy makers, private sector, NGOs and CBOs).

Lack of attention to IPM and non-chemical pest control methods.

9. Support to rural organizations. Neglect of IPM awareness and capacity for IPM implementation.

10. Modernization of agro-pastoral practices.

Increased dependence on chemical control.

5.7 Analysis of AlternativesSeveral alternatives for the project were considered before the current proposal was prepared. The Government of Kenya has recognized the rapid decline in the natural environment and stagnation in agricultural production of the selected catchment areas as a priority. The Government, international donors, NGOs and community-based organizations, are implementing a number of jointly funded initiatives. Given the scale of land degradation, more interventions will be required to reach ecosystem sustainability.The proposed alternative seeks to capture the additional benefits generated by SLM activities. By integrating sustainable land use and environmental service functions, the alternative generates global benefits and contributes to more sustainable agricultural productivity, and income.Implementing the project in the selected catchment operational areas was considered because the project will have an important demonstration effect and it is expected to attract further resources. In addition the learning opportunity provided in the five catchment areas, which vary in agro-ecological and socio-economic characteristics, is likely to outweigh the benefits from increased coverage on just one catchment area.


57

6. REPORTING AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE ESMFThis chapter sets out the reporting systems and responsibilities of the officers in implementing the ESMF. The chapter commences with details of the issues that will be addressed by the ESMF, and the specific steps to be taken to ensure adherence to the ESMF. It then describes the various elements of the ESMF including:

flowchart for reporting and advice; screening checklist for subprojects; annual environmental and social progress report format; and description of roles.

6.1 Key Issues and Proposed ActionsBox 6.1 and Table 6.1 outline the proposed actions and measures to address them. These are:

Box 6.1 Proposed Actions for Implementation of ESMF

Service providers (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs extension workers), will work with communities to identify and fill out subproject applications/proposals by conducting environmental and social analysis. This will be done by using the screening checklist in the ESMF, the table on potential environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures, as well as the resources sheets.

The application for the subprojects will clearly state the environmental and social mitigation measures. If a subproject requires a separate EMP for specific mitigation measures, then the subproject application will also have an EMP along with it.

All these are sent to the review committee (KAPP-DSU) at the local level, which will have environmental and social expertise (e.g. DEOs, OACs.).

Once review is complete, the reviewers will sign off and forward to the approval committee -KAPSLM-CTU.

At the national level, the KAPSLM-SC will provide lead coordination and ensure that the results meet the targets set by the project.

Each operational area will have an operational area coordinator OAC, five in all, located in the KAPP District Service Unit however, in the case of one operational area, Tugen Hills, which does not fall under the KAPP operational areas, the OAC will be located at the KARI centre in Baringo.

Day-to-day coordination of project activities will be handled by the OACs. The OACs will link with provincial and district development and environment

committees and officers (PDO, DDO, PEO, DEO, and DSDO) in order to implement broader program activities.

An annual environmental and social progress report will be prepared by an independent consultant. This audit report will be shared with KAPSLM-CTU, KAPSLM-SC, KARI, the World Bank and other relevant government agencies. The KAPSLM-SC will regularly brief and sensitize the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee, ICC.

Consultancy inputs will assist in the training of key staff and the transfer of essential technical expertise in such areas as IPM, BMPs and BMTs.

Table 6.1 Issues Addressed by ESMF


58

Issue Mainstreaming of Mitigation Measures

Responsibility for Action

1. Requirements for mainstreaming of the ESMF

a. Appoint OACs;b. Annual environmental and social progress report.

a.KAPSLM-SCb. Independent consultant

2. Weak capacity for environmental and social management at district levels

a. Develop partnerships with a. a. NGOs and CSPs for environmental and social management;b. Stimulate the operation of VFFs and DFFs.

a. KAPP-DSUb. OACsc. CSPs

3. Opportunity to contribute to positive impact on natural resource management

a. Assign sufficient budget for support to program activities

a. KAPSLM-SC

4. Mainstreaming WB safeguard policies in the operational areas

a. Provide sufficient training and support to OACs to understand and apply WB safeguard policies

a. KAPSLM-CTU

5. Requirement for land tenure strengthening, and promoting decentralized governance

a. Engage community leaders and community associations, and stimulate thinking towards appropriate models for relation of communities with government

a. KAPP-DSU

6. Cumulative impacts on some environmental resources

a. Carry out assessments of cumulative impacts on groundwater, surface water resources, pastoral resources and biodiversity.b. Sensitize communities on the issues of cumulative impacts.

a. CSPs

7. Optimum integration of technical advice with a demand-driven, participatory approach

a. Sensitize communities to the range of technical advice available, and their responsibility to choose which technical advice they require.

a. OACsb. Extension Agentsc. CSPs

8. Need to provide advice on relevant environmental laws to communities

a. Provide information on relevant environmental laws to communities

a. KAPP-DSUb. OACs

9. Opportunities for positive environmental subprojects

a. Develop potential list of positive environmental subprojects and raise awareness of communities on the subprojects.

a. CSPsb. Extension Agentsc. Communities

6.2 Flowchart for Reporting and Advice

The proposed reporting lines and advisory and support mechanisms that will be used in the ESMF are depicted in Figure 6.1, while Box 6.2 provides the summary.

Box 6.2. Proposed Reporting Lines and Support Mechanisms


59

VFFs

CSPs

OACs and Contract Service Providers (CSPs) will work with communities to provide guidance and advice on potential environmental and social subprojects, potential negative environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures;

In turn OACs and CSPs will receive technical advice and support from KAPP-DSU and KAPSLM-CTU;

An independent consultant will prepare an annual environmental and social progress report and advice to both KAPP-DSU and KAPSLM-CTU. This audit report will be shared with KAPSLM-CTU, KAPSLM-SC, NEMA, KARI, WB and other relevant government agencies.

Figure 6.1 Flowchart of Reporting and Advice

Community District National

Advice+ Advice+ Advice+

Support Support t Support

Advice Report Report Report

Advice + Advice+ Advice+

Support Support Support

6.3 Screening for SubprojectsThis ESMF includes a screening process to assess the potential environmental and social impacts associated with subprojects. The KAPSLM Project is an environmental project the objective of which is that agricultural producers and other natural resource users increasingly adopt profitable and environmentally-sound land management practices and alternative livelihood strategies in the targeted operational areas. No major negative environmental issues are anticipated for the project. The project is also expected to produce net benefits in terms of natural resource management and conservation and, therefore, certain project activities related to improved land management may have environmental or social impacts that require mitigation. Hence the proposed project has been rated Category B under the World Bank Policy on Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01). The purpose of the ESMF is to cover the unknowns. Using the screening and review process for subproject identification presented here will, therefore, help determine which of the safeguard policies are triggered and what measures will need to be taken to address the potential impacts.

In addition to the World Bank's OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment, the KAPSLM Project has triggered OP 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples; OP 4.09 on Pest Management, and OP 4.04 on Natural Habitats. This screening and review process will determine how and


60

KAPP-DSU

KAPSLM-SC

KARI & WB

OACs

Annual Environ.&Social Progress Report

KAPSLM-CTU

when a particular subproject will trigger a safeguard policy, and what mitigation measures will need to be put in place. It will also ensure that subprojects that may have potentially significant impacts will be studied in greater detail. The need for subproject specific EAs will also be identified by this screening and review process.

The OACs and the extension team (CSPs, CBOs and NGOs) will work with communities in preparing subproject applications to avoid or minimize adverse environmental an social impacts. They will use a checklist (Format 6.1) together with information on typical project impacts and mitigation measures. The checklist contains a certification by the community and extension team that the application includes all measures required to avoid or minimize adverse environmental and social impacts. The subprojects will be given an environmental rating. This ESMF has included a suggested format for EA in case the need arises where a subproject is of environmental category A in nature. The OACs will be responsible for ensuring that the environmental and social impacts screening and review system set out in this Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) is integrated into the subprojects cycles.In order to ensure proper implementation of environmental and social screening, and mitigation measures, as well as effective sustainable land management, the KAPSLM Project will undertake an intensive program of environmental training and institutional capacity building. Environmental training and sensitization will be required at all levels including community workers, VFFs, DFFs, KAPP-DSU and OACs. The KAPSLM-CTU, OACs, CSPs and additional experts will provide a diverse range of technical training on environmental issues to these groups.The screening criteria outlined in this ESMF includes relevant questions which will help determine if any other safeguard policies are triggered and the measures need to be taken to mitigate impacts. This will ensure that subprojects that may have potentially significant impacts and require more detailed study receive national level approval as well as district level approval. Where an EA has to be carried out, this will be done by a NEMA registered EA expert.Figure 6.2 depicts the process that the OACs and the extension team (CSPs, CBOs and NGOs) will apply in working with the communities to avoid or mitigate negative environmental impacts for community subprojects.


61

Figure 6.2 Process of Screening for Community Subprojects

Communities will identify subprojects with the assistance of the OACs and the extension teams (CSPs, CBOs and NGOs). The proposed subprojects will subsequently be checked against the screening checklist (Format 6.1). OACs and CSPs will encourage communities to carry out this task themselves possibly with the help of the teachers, extension agents, health workers or other literate members of the community. The checklist is a simple yes/no form culminating in whether specific advice to the community on environmental mitigation is required. CSPs will give this advice, or in special cases, will call upon the DEOs for specific technical advice. The Screening forms will be reviewed quarterly at KAPSLM-CTU meetings.

Box 6.3 Rationale for the Design of Screening Checklist

There will be many subprojects supported by the KAPSLM Project. Therefore, a system that is streamlined is required, and as far as possible, communities must be responsible for completion of screening;

In most cases, communities will have very little knowledge of environmental and social screening, hence the need for CSPs, CBOs, NGOs and extension workers assistance in using the screening forms;

The screening prompts a list of yes/no answers in relation to questions on the location of the subproject and the anticipated impacts; if there are 'yes' answers to any of these questions, then the OACs, CSPs and extension workers are obliged to recommend a course of action;

This action can be for the community itself to manage or avoid impacts; OACs and CSPs, CBOs and NGOs to provide specific advice; or if necessary, technical advice can be sought from elsewhere;

Subproject specific EAs, if recommended, can only be carried out by a NEMA registered EA Expert;

The forms will be reviewed by the KAPP-DSU, signed off by DEOs and approved at the quarterly KAPSLM-CTU meetings before operations begin.


62

TargetingandIdentificationof subprojects by communities

Screening of subprojects by communities assisted by CSPs, CBOs, NGOs and extension agents

No action is necessary

OACs and DEOs to provide advice to communities on mitigation measures outlined in the ESMF

Subproject specific EA to be carried out by NEMA registered EA Expert

Monitoring and Review

Format 6.1. Screening Checklist for Subprojects

Subproject name [type here]Subproject location [type here]Estimated cost (KShs.) [type here]Approximate size of land area available for the subproject

[type here]

How was the subproject chosen? [type here]

Environmental IssuesWill the subproject: Yes NoCreate a risk of increased soil degradation or erosion?

Affect soil salinity and alkalinity?Divert the water resource from its natural course/location?Cause pollution of aquatic ecosystems by sedimentation and agro-chemicals?

Introduce exotic plants or animals?Involve drainage of wetlands or other permanently flooded areas?Cause poor water drainage and increase the risk of water-related diseases such as malaria?

Reduce the quantity of water for the downstream users?Result in the lowering of groundwater level or depletion of groundwater?Create waste that could adversely affect local soils, vegetation, rivers and streams or groundwater?

If the answers to any of the above is ‘yes’, please include an EMP with subproject application.

Natural HabitatsWill the subproject:Be located within or near environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. intact natural forests, mangroves, wetlands) or threatened species?

Adversely affect environmentally sensitive areas or critical habitats?Affect the indigenous biodiversity? Cause any loss or degradation of any natural habitats, either directly (through project works) or indirectly?

Does the project affect the aesthetic quality of the landscape?Does the subproject reduce people’s access to the pasture, water, public services or other resources that they depend on?


63

Increase human-wildlife conflicts?

If the answers to any of the above is ‘yes’, please include an EMP with subproject application.

Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals

Will the subproject:Involve the use of pesticides or other agricultural chemicals, or increase existing use?Cause contamination of watercourses by chemicals and pesticides?

Cause contamination of soil by agrochemicals and pesticides?

If the answer to the above is ‘yes’, please consult the IPM that has been prepared for the project.

Indigenous Peoples

Are there:Indigenous groups living within the boundaries of, or near the project?Members of these indigenous groups in the area who could benefit from the project?

If the answer to any of the above is ‘yes’, please consult the IPP that has been prepared for the project.

Land Acquisition and Access to Resources

Will the subproject: Yes NoRequire that land (public or private) be acquired (temporarily or permanently) for its development?Use land that is currently occupied or regularly used for productive purposes (e.g. gardening, farming, pasture, fishing locations, forests)Displace individuals, families or businesses?Result in temporary or permanent loss of crops and fruit trees?

Adversely affect small communal cultural property such as funeral and burial sites, or sacred groves?Result in involuntary restriction of access by people to legally designated parks and protected areas?


64

If the answer to any of the above is ‘yes’, please consult the mitigation measures in the ESMF, and if needed prepare a RAP.

Proposed action

Summarize the above: Guidance All the above answers are

‘No’

There is at least one ‘Yes’

If all the above answers are ‘No’, there is no need for further action;

If there is at least one ‘Yes’, please describe your recommended course of action (see below).

Recommended Course of ActionIf there is at least one ‘Yes’, which course of action do you recommend?

OACs and DEOs will provide detailed guidance on mitigation measures as outlined in the ESMF; and Specific advice is required from DEOs and OACs regarding subproject specific EA(s) and also in the following area(s)

[type here]

All subproject applications/proposals MUST include a completed ESMF checklist. The KAPP-DSU will review the subproject applications/proposals and the DEOs will sign off;

The proposals will then be submitted to KAPSLM-CTU for clearance for implementation through OACs.

Expert Advice

The Government of Kenya through the Department of Monuments and Sites of the National Museums of Kenya can assist in identifying and, mapping of monuments and archaeological sites; and

Subproject specific EAs, if recommended, must be carried out by experts registered with NEMA and be followed by monitoring and review. During the process of conducting an EA the proponent shall seek views of persons who may be affected by the subproject (Annex 7.) The WB policy set out in OP 4.01 requires consultation of subproject affected groups and disclosure of EA’s conclusions. In seeking views of the public after the approval of the subproject, the proponent shall avail the draft EA report at a public place accessible to project-affected groups and local NGOs.


65

Completed by: [type here]Name: [type here]Position / Community: [type here]Date: [type here]

Field Appraisal Officer (DEO): [type here]Signature: [ ]

Date: [type here]

6.4 Annual Environmental and Social Progress Report FormatThe format for completion of the annual environmental and social progress report is set out in Box 6.4 below. The objectives of annual reviews of ESMF implementation are: (a) to assess the project performance in complying with ESMF procedures, learn lessons, and improve future performance; (b) assess the occurrence of, and potential for, cumulative impacts due to project funded activities. These reports will be the main source of information for the World Bank supervision missions.

Box 6.4 Annual Environmental and Social Progress Report Format 1. Introduction;

2. Objective;

3. Community subprojects approved;

4. Key environmental and social issues identified from subproject screening;

5. Mitigation actions undertaken;

6. Capacity building programs implemented (training sessions held, venues, attendance and training modules);

7. Results of EAs and other required safeguard management plans (e.g., EMP, RAP, PMP, and IPP);

8. Collaboration with NGOs, CSPs, and Government line agencies;

9. Conclusions (Is the KAPSLM Project contributing to sustainable land management and community development?) Explain;

10. Lessons learnt; and

11. Recommendations that can be implemented for subprojects that will be implemented the following year.


66

6.5 Description of RolesThe roles proposed under this ESMF are summarized as follows:

The KAPSLM Project Steering Committee (KAPSLM-SC) will provide lead coordination at the national level and ensure that the results meet the targets set by the project;

The functional responsibility for project implementation will be carried out by a cross-sectoral technical unit, KAPSLM-CTU;

The OACs will handle day-to-day coordination of project activities; The extension teams (CSPs, CBOs and NGOs) and OACs will be responsible

for ensuring that the environmental and social screening and review system set out in this chapter is integrated into the subprojects cycle and that it is implemented;

Sensitization of VFFs, DFFs, CSPs to environmental and social issues will be a significant part of ensuring this integration, as will partnerships with government officers associated with the project;

The OACs will draw on the technical advice of government officers in other departments, DEOs, CSPs, CBOs and NGOs or upon traditional technical knowledge particularly of natural resource management, land tenure practices, livestock management and the use of indigenous plant and animal resources;

The DEOs will provide backstopping technical advice in environmental and social screening of subprojects and sign off subproject proposals and applications before they are submitted to KAPSLM –CTU for approval;

The OACs will coordinate inputs from VFFs, DFFs, CSPs, CBOs, NGOs, DEOs, KAPP-DSU and provide the key link between the operational area subprojects and KAPSLM-CTU; and

An independent consultant will prepare annual environmental and social progress reports for submission to KAPP-DSU, KAPSLM-CTU and KAPSLM-SC. This audit report will be shared with KARI, NEMA, the World Bank and other relevant government officials/agencies.

6.6 Monitoring and EvaluationTwo strategies are used to build a simple system for monitoring of environmental and social impacts:

The KAPSLM-CTU, DEOs and the OACs will consider the environmental and social criteria that require measurement (e.g. sediment levels). A list of initial proposals is given below; and

Using this list of criteria, a set of indicators will be integrated into recording forms to be used in a participatory approach to environmental monitoring and evaluation.

6 .7 .1 In i t ia l P rop osa l sThe key issues to be considered in the KAPSLM Project include monitoring of water quality, biodiversity, soil fertility, agricultural production, income generation and population dynamics. The goals of monitoring will be to measure the success rate of the project, determine whether interventions have resulted in dealing with negative impacts, and whether further interventions are needed or monitoring is to be extended in some areas. Monitoring indicators will very much be dependent on specific project contexts.


67

Monitoring and surveillance of the KAPSLM subprojects will take place on a "sample" basis as it would be impossible to monitor all the subprojects. It is not recommended to collect large amounts of data, but rather to base monitoring on observations by project officers and stakeholders to determine trends of the indicators.Monitoring of Participation ProcessThe following are selected indicators for monitoring the participation process involved in the KAPSLM Project activities:

Number and percentage of affected households consulted during the planning stage;

Levels of decision-making of affected people; Levels of understanding of subprojects impacts and mitigation; Effectiveness of local authorities to make decisions; Frequency and quality of meetings; and Degree of involvement of women or disadvantaged groups in discussions.

6 .7 .2 Mon i tor i ng I n d ica torsMonitoring the Implementation of Mitigation MeasuresTables 6.2 and 6.3 list the recommended indicators for monitoring.Table 6.2 Possible Indicators for Environmental Monitoring the KAPSLM Project

Environmental Indicator Methods Responsibility FrequencyWater quantity River gauging station

recordsExtension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Daily continuous recording

Water quality Sample collection and analyses

Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Quarterly

Water table level Borehole depth records Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Monthly

Sediment load Sediment analysis Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Quarterly

Soil organic content Organic content determination


Once/year

Soil salinity Salinity measurement Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs

Once/year

Deforestation/de-vegetation Vegetation cover determination

CSPs Once/year

Biodiversity richness Floral and faunal composition surveys

CSPs Once/year

Size of wetlands Visual observation and measurements of wetland size/

CSPs Once/year

Wildlife species Census of animals, reports from inhabitants

CSPs Twice/year

Weed infestation Field observation, questionnaire survey


Once/year

Migratory pests Field observation, questionnaire survey


Once/year

Water-related disease vectors Vector catches and identification

CSPS Twice/year


68

Table 6.3 Possible indicators for social monitoring of the KAPSLM Project

Social Indicator Methods Responsibility FrequencyDemography Census of inhabitants Extension teams

(CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)Once/year

No. of farmers trained in SLM methodologies

Training records CSPs Twice/year

% of community in planning meetings

Planning meetings records Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Twice/year

Number of SLM activities funded

Project records OACs, KAPSLM-CTU

Twice/year

Number of SLM activities implemented

Field survey OACs and CSPs Monthly

% of communities adopting SLM

Field survey Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Twice/year

Relative increase in income from crops and livestock

Household survey Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Twice/year

Vulnerable groups involved in identified alternative livelihood practices

Household survey Extension teams (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs)

Twice/year

Number of training sessions held on use of fertilizers and chemicals and IPM

Training records OACs Monthly

Number of Social categories represented in the training sessions


Number of indigenous people attending the trainings


Number of community members with a general understanding of arrangements under PES

Sensitization meetings records

OACs Twice/year

Evaluation of ResultsThe evaluation of environmental and social impacts mitigation will be carried out by comparing baseline data collected in the planning phases with targets and post-project situations.


69

7. CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

7.1 Environmental Training and SensitizationIn order to ensure proper implementation of environmental and social screening, and mitigation measures, as well as effective natural resource management, the KAPSLM Project will undertake an intensive program of environmental training and institutional capacity building. The objective of the training under the ESMF is to:

support representatives and leaders of community groups and associations to prioritize their needs, and to identify, prepare, implement and manage the environmental and social aspects of their subprojects;

support local NGOs and other service providers to act as extension teams to provide technical support (including basic EMPs, RAPs, IPDP, and PMPs) to communities in preparing their subprojects; and

ensure that local government officials have the capacity to assist communities in preparing their subproject proposals, and to appraise, approve and supervise implementation of subprojects.

The type of training to be offered includes: awareness-raising for participants who need to appreciate the significance or

relevance of environmental and social issues; sensitization to the issues for participants who need to be familiar enough with

issues that they can make informed and specific requests for technical assistance; and

detailed technical training for participants who will need to analyze potentially adverse environmental and social impacts, to prescribe mitigation approaches and measures, and to prepare and supervise the implementation of management plans. This training will address such matters as community participation methods; environmental analysis using the ESMF checklist; preparing EMPs, RAPs, PMPs, IPDPs, etc.; ESMF reporting; and subproject supervision and monitoring.

7.2 Levels of Training and SensitizationEnvironmental training and sensitization will be required at four levels: (i) community level (farmers, community leaders and workers); (ii) service providers (CBOs, NGO, and extension workers); (iii) review level (KAPP-DSU), OACs, DEOs, and other environment/social officers); and (iv) clearance providers (KAPSLM-CTU and KAPSLM-SC). In addition to the above training, specialized/technical training on topics such as IPM, EMP will be provided as required. Table 7.1 outlines the specific training requirements of these levels.

Level I. Community LevelThis level includes the communities themselves – farmers, community leaders and workers. They will need the first level of awareness training on linkages between environmental, social and natural resource management and sustainable livelihoods. Training will be conducted at village levels through workshops, on farm demonstration, exchange visits of farmers to see practices by themselves and publications aimed at the farmer. Some of the topics identified for training are potential localized impacts of subprojects and suitable mitigation measures; use of ESMF and its procedures; and potential environmental and social subprojects. The communities will also be sensitized on


70

available natural resource and management including empowering the farmers to make and implement community action plans for soil and water conservation, tree nursery establishment and integrated pest management. Other topics will include: conservation and utilization of biodiversity, alternative livelihoods (ecotourism, bee keeping, medicinal plants, farm woodlots, fisheries, emerging livestock), and environmental policies.Opinion leaders within the communities will be included in the training to ensure the widespread adoption of practices as well as understanding of policies. Opinion leaders form an important source of information to the community who often turn to them for interpretation of policies and seek their opinion in important matters.Level II. Service Providers/CBOs/NGOs, Extension WorkersThe service providers (CSPs, CBOs, and NGOs) and extension workers will assist the communities to formulate project proposals and fill out subproject applications. They will be made aware of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act of 1999 and other relevant environmental policies. The service providers will also need detailed training on potential localized impacts of subprojects and suitable mitigation measures. They will require thorough training on the use of the ESMF, its procedures, resources and subproject screening. In addition, they will be trained on methods of community involvement. Capacity building of NGOs and CBOs should be done at the catchment level. Building these capacities will reduce dependence on the government extension agents and provide more sustainable extension.

The trainers will be sourced from the research institutes and universities having comparative advantage within each catchment area. Training will be organized in KARI centers and other catchment institutes. Targeted training will also be done in training workshops, exchange visits and publications. Level III. Review AuthoritiesThis level includes OACs, KAPP-DSU, DEOs, and other environment/social officers. This group will review subproject proposals and applications before they are submitted to KAPSLM –CTU for approval. This group will require in-depth training on environmental-social-natural resource-sustainable livelihood linkages, environmental legislation and policies, potential subproject impacts and mitigation, use of ESMF, cumulative impacts, and intercommunity lesson-learning and review.Level IV. Approval AuthoritiesThis level includes the clearance providers or the approval level authorities. They include committees such as KAPSLM-CTU and KAPSLM-SC. The identified fields of training include awareness –raising on available natural resource management technologies, environmental policies and relevant legislation. Other issues include ESMF and its procedures, cumulative impacts, potential environmental and social subprojects, and IPP. Training for this group will be done through consultative policy meetings, workshops and organized site visits.Specialized /Technical TrainingIn addition to the above training, specialized/technical training will be offered as required on such topics as:

IPM (ICRAF); pesticides/insecticides container management (someone from ICIPE or

CropLife International); small-scale animal husbandry(Livestock Department); small-scale aquaculture (Fisheries Department); small scale agriculture and irrigation schemes (NIB); and


71

alien invasive weeds (Universities, IUCN)

This specialized/technical training should target the communities and individuals at the four levels on potential environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures as well as indicators. Table 7.1 outlines the major issues concerning crop/pest management and actions required for consideration during training.

Table 7.1 Suggested Mitigation Measures for Crop/Pest Management (the list below is general and should be used for KAPSLM Project as relevant)

Major Issues Actions Required1. Increased use and reliance (a) Promote adoption of IPM on chemical

pesticide practices through farmer education and training; and

(b) Move farmers away from input-dependent crop/pest management practices and promote use of locally produced organic matter, botanical pesticides and biological control.

2. Change current pest management (a) Allocate adequate resources to implement National Plant Protection Policy;

(b) Increase IPM awareness amongst policy makers and farming community; and

(c) Abolish free distribution of pesticides to farmers and promote safe handling and application of pesticides.

3. Enforcement of legislation (a) Strengthen institutional capacity to effectively supervise compliance with pesticide legislation.

4. IPM extension (a) Strengthen IPM extension;(b) Strengthen collaboration for field

implementation of IPM; and(c) Involve NGOs in promoting IPM activities.

5. Environmental hazards of pesticide misuse (a) Create public awareness of pesticide misuse hazards through public awareness campaigns;

(b) Carry out monitoring of pesticide poisoning in the farming and rural communities.

6. Increase in disease vectors (a) Establish strong collaboration between the project and national vector-borne disease control programs such as malaria control program.

7. Increased dependence on chemical control (a) Support traditional mixed cropping systems to keep pest species from reaching damaging levels.

(b) Promote proper disposal of unused agricultural chemicals and packaging materials. Organizations such as ICIPE and CROPLIFE could be invited to make presentations during training sessions.


72

7.3 Training and Sensitization Requirements

Table 7.2 outlines the training requirements for various groups of participants.

Table 7.2 Training and Sensitization Requirements

Training requirements for various groups of participants

App

rova

l aut

hori

ties

(KA

PSL

M-C

TU

, K

APS

LM

-SC

)

Rev

iew

aut

hori

ties

(OA

Cs,

DE

Os,

KA

PP-D

SU)

Serv

ice

Prov

ider

s (C

SPs/

CB

Os/

NG

Os)

, E

xten

sion

Wor

kers

Com

mun

ity/F

arm

ers

Lea

ders

/Wor

kers

Potential localized impacts of subprojects and suitable mitigation measures

A T T S

Potential cumulative impacts A T T APotential environmental and social subprojects A S T AUse of the ESMF, its procedures, resources and forms A T T ALocal EA legislation/procedures, relevant environmental policies, WB safeguards

A T S A

Links between environmental, social and natural resource management and sustainable rural livelihoods

A T S A

Inter-community and inter-districts lesson learning and review

A T - -

Integrated pest management A S T SPesticide/insecticide container management A S T TSmall-scale animal husbandry - A T TSmall-scale aquaculture - A T TSmall-scale agriculture and irrigation schemes A A T TAlien invasive weeds A A S S

Legend: T = Detailed training, S = Sensitization to the issues, A = Awareness-raising

7.4 Training ScheduleTable 7.3 outlines a five-year training schedule for the KAPSLM Project.

Table 7.3 Outline of a Training Schedule for KAPSLM Project

Participants Duration and Format

Frequency

Approval authorities (KAPSLM-CTU, KAPSLM-SC)

2- day workshop During year 1 of the Project1-day refresher workshop

During year 2 of the project

4-day workshop Year1 of the Project


73

Participants Duration and Format

Frequency

Review authorities(OACs, KAPP-DSU, DEOs)

2-day ESMF review workshop

Annually after year 1 and Annual Reviews

2-day refresher workshop

Annually after year 1

Service providers (CSPs, CBOs, NGOs, and extension agents)

4-day workshop Year 1of the Project3-day ESMF review workshop

Annually after year 1 and Annual Reviews

2-day refresher workshop

Annually after Year 1

Community (Farmers, Leaders, Workers)

1-day workshop per community (or a few communities that are close by)

Throughout the life of the, as needed (every 4months),3x5 = 15workshops per watershed (5 years),15x6 = 90 workshops (5 watersheds but Yala is considered twice because of the large number of communities)

7.5 Recommendations for Capacity BuildingCapacity to implement the recommendations outlined above is low. Where staff exists, training in the application of the environmental and social screening is needed. In addition it will be necessary to have the DEOs and OACs build awareness and knowledge in environmental and social screening amongst other environmental and social officers.The KAPSLM Project will address these deficiencies in accordance with the investment for capacity building across district and village administrations. Where gaps exist in terms of staff availability or qualified staff at each level of project implementation (national, district and community), measures will be taken throughout the project cycle to hire skilled personnel and train staff.Information and training will be provided among communities through workshops, on-farm demonstrations, exchange visits of farmers and publications aimed at the farmer/resource user. Reliance will be placed on participatory tools including PRAs, RRAs, transect works and extension methodologies such as ATIRI, FFS, farmer to farmer extension and demonstration training, focal area approach, and model farmer etc.


74

8. ESTIMATED COSTSThe breakdown of estimated costs for implementing the ESMF is provided in Table 8.1. This includes costs for undertaking capacity building as outlined in Chapter 7. 8.1 ESMF Implementation Budget for KAPSLM ProjectThe KAPSLM Project has a five-year GEF financing budget of US$ 10 million. The total cost of the whole KAPSLM Project is estimated at US $ 82.6 million. The total estimated cost for mainstreaming environmental and social concerns over an indicative period of five years into the KAPSLM Project is US $ 870,000. The budget lines outlined below relate to training and awareness-raising to ensure that the ESMF has significant influence within the operations of the project.

Table 8.1 ESMF Implementation Budget for KAPSLM Project (US$ x 1000)

Activity Year Total Notes

----------------------------------1 2 3 4 5

Training

Approval Authorities

Awareness raising 20 20 One 2-day workshops (yr1)

Refresher workshop 10 10 One 1-day workshop (yr2)

Review Authorities

Training 125 125 Five 4-day workshops (yr1)

ESMF review workshops 30 30 30 30 120 Five 2-day workshops (yr2-5)

Refresher workshops 30 30 30 90 Five 2-day workshops (yr2-5)

Service Providers

Training 125 125 Five 4-day workshops (yr1)

ESMF review workshops 45 45 45 135 Five 3-day workshops (yr2-4)

Refresher workshops 30 30 30 90 Five 2-day workshops (yr2-5)

Community

Awareness raising 15 15 15 15 60 Ninety 1-day workshops (yr1)

Technical Assistance

Annual Reviews 9 9 9 9 9 45 30 days/mo @ $300

EMP Preparation 10 10 10 10 10 50 50 days/yr @ $200

TOTAL 304 179 169 169 49 870


75

8.2 Mainstreaming CostsSome costs of environmental management and impact mitigation are directly integrated into the main project budget. Specifically these are:

Costs related to mitigation measures for subprojects, which will be assessed and internalized as part of the overall subproject cost; and

Cost of studies related to strategic issues of natural resource management, which are internalized.

8.3 Costs of TrainingThe total estimated cost for expenses associated with training and sensitization is included in Table 8.1. The estimate does not include the cost of deploying the Operational Area Coordinators who will coordinate the facilitators of training programs.


76

9. TECHNICAL ANNEXES

Annex 1. Maps of the Project Areas

Figure 9.1 Location of the five watersheds of the KAPSLM Project


77

Figure 9.2 Topographical Map of Kikuyu/Kinale Catchment


78

Figure 9.3 Vegetation Map of Taita Hills

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Tb

Ce

Cm

Aa

Tb

Choke

Secho

Shops

Umingu

Shops.

Chawia

Mlegwa

Wumari

Weruga

Kidaya

Kigombo

Wumingu

Wongonyi

Mwarungu

WUNDANYI

Mwarungu

Mwambirwa

MwandongoSungululuMwasangia

Mugondini

Shing'aro

MwaketutuZare Sch.

Mdundonyi

Yale Sch.

Ngambinyi

Kuangangai

Bura Shops

Wesu Hosp.

Mbale Shops

Kungu Shops

Dembwa Shops

Wusi MissionBura Mission

Mgenge Shops

Mragua Disp.

Forest Office

Bura Stations

Mgambonyi Sch.

Mbale Sch./Mission

TbAb

Gr 2

Ce

An

Cm

Am 2

Aa

Un 1

Cd

Lc 1

Pp 2

Un 1

At

Un 1

Gr 2

Gr 1

Gr 2

Gr 1

Pp 1

Cda

Am 1

Ag

Pp1Ds 2

Ds 1

Pp1

Lc 2

Pp 1

Am 1

Un 2

Pp 1

Am 1

Ds 1

Am 1

Am 1

Pp 1

Am 1

Am 1

Es

Pp1

Am 1

Es

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KilometersScale 1: 50,000

KEY

damriverroadrailway

# town/market/school

VEGETATION MAPPING AND MAP PREPARATION (2005)

Vegetation mapping P. N. WagateMap compilation P. N. WagateMap correlation S. N. WanjoguMap digitization M. Nyamai

N

Appendix 3 to Report No. P...... VEGETATION MAP OF TAITA HILLS CATCHMENT AREA

with and with ; wood-ed shrubbed grassland

Dichanthium insculptaAristida adscensionisAcacia senegalCroton DichogamusCd


Pennisetum clandestinumDigitaria scalarumEucalyptus salignaAcacia mearnsiiAm 2

with and with ; wooded shrub-bed grassland

Cenchrus ciliarisDichanthium insculptaEuphorbia nyikaeAcacia niloticaAn

with and with ; wooded shrubland to forest

Digitaria scalarumPinus radiataEucalyptus salignaPinus patulaPp 2

with and with ; grassed shr-ubland

Eragrostis superbaDichanthium insculptaAspilia plurisetaLantana camaraLc 1

with and with ; woo-ded shrubbed grassland to wooded shrubland

Digitaria scalarumPennisteum clandestinumEucalyptus salignaGrevillea robustaGr 2

Vegetation of Uplands

with and with ; shrubbed grassland

Grevillea robustaTithonia diversifoliaCynodon dactylonDigitaria scalarumDs 1

with species and ; grasslandTithonia diversifoliaCyperus Digitaria scalarumDs 2 with and with ; shrubbed gras-sland

Tithonia diversifoliaLantana camaraCynodon dactylon Digitaria scalarumCda

with and with ; wooded shrubland

Heteropogon contortusLantana camara Cynodon dactylonRhus natalensisLc 2

Unspecified seasonal swampUn 2

Vegetation of Swamps and Bottomlands

with and with ; wooded grassed shrubland to wooded shrubland to bushlandTerminalia brownii Commiphora campestris Eragrostis superba Heteropogon contortusTb

with and with ; wooded shr-ublandCombretum molle Rhus vulgaris Eragrostis superba Dichanthium insculptaCm

with and with ; wooded grassed shrublandAcacia ancistroclade Grewia bicolor Dichanthium insculpta Eragrostis superbaAa

with and with ; wooded shru-bland to grassed shrubland.Carissa edulis Rhus natalensis Hyparrhenia filipendula Themeda triandraCe

with ; forestAlbizia gummifera Podocarpus latifoliusAg

Vegetation of Mountains and Major Scarps

; forestEucalyptus salignaEs

and with ; forestCupressus lusitanica Albiza gummiferaPinus patulaPp 1

Vegetation of Hills and Minor Scarps

At

and with and ; wooded shrubland to dense shrublandAcacia brevispica Euphorbia candelabrum Cenchrus ciliaris Eragrostis superbaAb

Unspecified wooded shrubland to grassed shrubland to shrublandUn 1

Gr 1

Vegetation of Footslopes

LEGEND

with and with ; wo-oded shrubland to forestAcacia mearnsii Eucalyptus saligna Cymbopogon excavatus Rhynchelytrum roseumAm 1

with and with ; wooded sh-rubbed grasslandAcacia tortilis Terminaria brownii Eragrostis superba Heteropogon contortus

with and with ; wooded shrubbed grassland

Digitaria scalarumPennisteum clandestinumAcacia mearnsiiGrevillea robusta

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Tb

Ce

Cm

Aa

Tb

Choke

Secho

Shops

Umingu

Shops.

Chawia

Mlegwa

Wumari

Weruga

Kidaya

Kigombo

Wumingu

Wongonyi

Mwarungu

WUNDANYI

Mwarungu

Mwambirwa

MwandongoSungululuMwasangia

Mugondini

Shing'aro

MwaketutuZare Sch.

Mdundonyi

Yale Sch.

Ngambinyi

Kuangangai

Bura Shops

Wesu Hosp.

Mbale Shops

Kungu Shops

Dembwa Shops

Wusi MissionBura Mission

Mgenge Shops

Mragua Disp.

Forest Office

Bura Stations

Mgambonyi Sch.

Mbale Sch./Mission

TbAb

Gr 2

Ce

An

Cm

Am 2

Aa

Un 1

Cd

Lc 1

Pp 2

Un 1

At

Un 1

Gr 2

Gr 1

Gr 2

Gr 1

Pp 1

Cda

Am 1

Ag

Pp1Ds 2

Ds 1

Pp1

Lc 2

Pp 1

Am 1

Un 2

Pp 1

Am 1

Ds 1

Am 1

Am 1

Pp 1

Am 1

Am 1

Es

Pp1

Am 1

Es

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KilometersScale 1: 50,000

KEY

damriverroadrailway

# town/market/school

VEGETATION MAPPING AND MAP PREPARATION (2005)

Vegetation mapping P. N. WagateMap compilation P. N. WagateMap correlation S. N. WanjoguMap digitization M. Nyamai

N

Appendix 3 to Report No. P...... VEGETATION MAP OF TAITA HILLS CATCHMENT AREA


Dichanthium insculptaAristida adscensionisAcacia senegalCroton DichogamusCd


Pennisetum clandestinumDigitaria scalarumEucalyptus salignaAcacia mearnsiiAm 2

with and with ; wooded shrub-bed grassland

Cenchrus ciliarisDichanthium insculptaEuphorbia nyikaeAcacia niloticaAn

with and with ; wooded shrubland to forest

Digitaria scalarumPinus radiataEucalyptus salignaPinus patulaPp 2

with and with ; grassed shr-ubland

Eragrostis superbaDichanthium insculptaAspilia plurisetaLantana camaraLc 1

with and with ; woo-ded shrubbed grassland to wooded shrubland

Digitaria scalarumPennisteum clandestinumEucalyptus salignaGrevillea robustaGr 2

Vegetation of Uplands

with and with ; shrubbed grassland

Grevillea robustaTithonia diversifoliaCynodon dactylonDigitaria scalarumDs 1

with species and ; grasslandTithonia diversifoliaCyperus Digitaria scalarumDs 2 with and with ; shrubbed gras-sland

Tithonia diversifoliaLantana camaraCynodon dactylon Digitaria scalarumCda

with and with ; wooded shrubland

Heteropogon contortusLantana camara Cynodon dactylonRhus natalensisLc 2

Unspecified seasonal swampUn 2

Vegetation of Swamps and Bottomlands

with and with ; wooded grassed shrubland to wooded shrubland to bushlandTerminalia brownii Commiphora campestris Eragrostis superba Heteropogon contortusTb

with and with ; wooded shr-ublandCombretum molle Rhus vulgaris Eragrostis superba Dichanthium insculptaCm

with and with ; wooded grassed shrublandAcacia ancistroclade Grewia bicolor Dichanthium insculpta Eragrostis superbaAa

with and with ; wooded shru-bland to grassed shrubland.Carissa edulis Rhus natalensis Hyparrhenia filipendula Themeda triandraCe

with ; forestAlbizia gummifera Podocarpus latifoliusAg

Vegetation of Mountains and Major Scarps

; forestEucalyptus salignaEs

and with ; forestCupressus lusitanica Albiza gummiferaPinus patulaPp 1

Vegetation of Hills and Minor Scarps

At

and with and ; wooded shrubland to dense shrublandAcacia brevispica Euphorbia candelabrum Cenchrus ciliaris Eragrostis superbaAb

Unspecified wooded shrubland to grassed shrubland to shrublandUn 1

Gr 1

Vegetation of Footslopes

LEGEND

with and with ; wo-oded shrubland to forestAcacia mearnsii Eucalyptus saligna Cymbopogon excavatus Rhynchelytrum roseumAm 1

with and with ; wooded sh-rubbed grasslandAcacia tortilis Terminaria brownii Eragrostis superba Heteropogon contortus

with and with ; wooded shrubbed grassland

Digitaria scalarumPennisteum clandestinumAcacia mearnsiiGrevillea robusta


79

Figure 9.4 Topographic Map of Tugen Hills


80

Figure 9.5 Topographical Map of Cherangany Hills


81

Figure 9.6 Topographical Map of Yala Catchment

Environmental and Social Management Framework Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project 82

Annex 2. Itinerary of Field VisitsMonday, 12 December 2005

0900h Limuru-Nakuru-Kabarnet;1200h Merica Hotel Nakuru, Mr. David Yator Kiptum (Sengwer), Mr.Towett Joseph

Kimaiyo (Ogiek), Mr. Daniel Mpoiko Kobei (Ogiek);1700h Kabarnet Hotel, Tugen Hills.

Tuesday, 13 December 2005

0915h Baringo District Headquarters, Ms. Jayne D. Obiero (DSDO);1100h District Development Office, District Development Plan (2003-2008);1630h Kailer Community, Ilchamus (Njemps), Participatory Education Theatre (Dance,

Play);1700h Kailer Community, Ilchamus, Focused Group Meeting, Environment Group;2100h Kabarnet Hotel, Tugen Hills.

Wednesday, 14 December 2005

0900h Baringo District Headquarters, Mr. Daniel K. Too, (DFO/DEO);1400h Lake Baringo, Ol Kokwa Island, Mr. Orlando Leweri, Chairman, Lake Baringo

Self-Help Group/Island Youth Group, Ilchamus (Njemps), Fishermen, Pastoralists;

1700h Rift Valley Water Services Board, Kabarnet Urban Water Supply, Kirandich Dam, Mr. Bethwel Kutol, Officer-in-Charge;

1800h Kabarnet Hotel, Tugen Hills.

Thursday, 15 December 2005

1030h Lake Kamnarok National Reserve, Julius Tipino, Assistant Chief;1500h Leave for Kitale, TransNzoia;1800h North Rift Crystal Hotel, Kitale, Cherangany Hills.

Friday, 16 November 2005

0830h ViAgroforestry Centre, Mr. Godfrey Wafula, DEO, NEMA;1030h District Forest Office, Trans Nzoia, Mr. Simon K. Wahome (DFO), Mr. Gilbert

Nanderia (Deputy DFO);1400h Kitale Nature Conservancy (Private), Mr. Bonface Ndura (Proprietor), Mr. Aron

Chege (Nature Guide);1830h North Rift Crystal Hotel, Kitale, Cherangany Hills.


83

Saturday, 17 December 2005

1000h Sengwer Cultural Centre, Kapolet Forest, Mr. David Yator Kiptum, Ms. Violet Chepkoi, Mr. Joseph Cheruyot; Mr. Charles Berer; Mr. Cheruyot (Assistant Director, Livestock);

1500h Talau Sublocation, Talau Location, Kapenguria Division, West Pokot District, Focused Group Discussion, Environment;

1830h North Rift Crystal Hotel; Kitale, Cherangany Hills.

Sunday, 18 December 2005

0800h Leave North Rift Crystal Hotel, Kitale, for Kakamega;1245h Arrive Jamindas Hotel, Kakamega;1400h Peruse documentation; 1800h Jamindas, Hotel, Kakamega, Yala River Basin.

Monday, 19 December 2005

0845h Kakamega, Mr. Anthony Aura Saisi, District Environmental Officer;1000h Kakamega Forest National Park, Field Headquarters, Sergeant Phillip Mukoto,

Kenya Wildlife Service, Kakamega Forest, Mr. Solomon Kitaa; Chairman, Kakamega Forest Tour Guides Association, Mr. Nixon Sagita; Chairman Kakamega Environment Education Program (KEEP);

1400h Community –Based Medicinal Plant Enterprise, Muliro Farmers Conservation Group, Mr. Luka Musami, Muliro Factory, Gabriel Machanja, Khaega Small Scale Famer, Ocimum outgrower;

1800h. Vunduba Hotel, Kisumu.

Tuesday, 20 December 2005

0800h Leave Vunduba Hotel, Kisumu for Nandi Hills;0930h Nandi Hills, Mr. Samson Machera, Fisheries Officer, Nandi North and South

Districts. Mr. Gerald Pogita, New Fisheries Officer, Mr. Frederick Dudi, Fisheries Assistant;

1145h Kingwal Wetland, Kapsabet-Eldoret Road, Surveys.1410h Nandi Hills -Limuru

Saturday, 28 January 2006

0800h Kikuyu/Kinale, Mr. Mishek Wangumo, Community Tree Nursery, Upland Forest Station, Mr. Joseph Mwangi, Farmer, Kikuyu Ecarpment, Lari Division, Mr. S.K. Gathungu, Patron, Kijabe Girls’ High School Environmental Club.


84

Annex 3. Stakeholders Consulted

TUGEN HILLS

1. Obiero, Jayne D. (Ms.), District Social Development Officer (DSDO), Baringo District;

2. Mr. Daniel K. Too, District Forest Officer/District Environment Officer, Baringo District;

3. Mr. Orlando Leweri, Chairman, Lake Baringo Self-Help Group/Island Youth Group, Ilchamus (Njemps), Fishermen, Pastoralists; Ol Kokwa Island, Lake Baringo;

4. Mr. Bethwel Kutol, Officer-in-Charge; Kabarnet Urban Water Supply, Kirandich Dam, Rift Valley Water Services Board;

5. Mr. Julius Tipino, Assistant Chief, Lake Kamnarok National Reserve;6. Kailer Community, Ilchamus (Njemps), Focused Group Meeting, Participants:

Nolmgoi Lekituli, Joel Lemakati, Julius Lenagwenyi, Lalai Lekituli, Michael Naremo, Bernard Naremo, Paul Tikinya, John Lekituli, Ken Lengitip, Alice Naremo, Isaac Kemei, Linet Naremo, Paris Leking’olia, Lilian Megiri, Salina Keis, Nomali Lemonoi, Ngusat Lemutelia, Cllr. Joel Lesaanya, William Lesima, Narikunkera Lepeliani, Nolcheptura Lesoite, Leah Naremo, Lebene

CHERANGANY HILLS

1. David Yator Kiptum (Mr.), Coordinator, Sengwer Indigenous Development Project, and Chairman, Hunter-Gatherer’s Forum;

2. Mr. Godfrey Wafula, DEO, NEMA, ViAgroforestry Centre;3. Mr. Simon K. Wahome, District Forest Officer, TransNzoia;4. Mr. Gilbert Nanderia, Deputy Forest Officer, TransNzoia;5. Mr. Bonface Ndura, Proprietor, Kitale Nature Conservancy (Private);6. Mr. Aron Chege, Kitale Nature conservancy, Nature Guide;7. Ms. Violet Chepkoi, Mr. Jacob K. Roi, Mr. William Kiptoo, Mr. Kiptoo Kaleke,

Viola Chepngetich, Frida Chepkoech, Mr Barnabas Ng’esenwo, Mr. Charles Kiberen, Jacob K. Chebol, Mr. Joseph Cheruiyot; Mr. Charles Berer; Mr. Josiah Cheruiyot (Assistant Director, Livestock), Sengwer Cultural Centre, Kapolet Forest;

8. Sengwer Community (Talau Location);, Focused Group Meeting, Participants: Rebecca Thomas, Pius Rotich, Juliana Miron, David Biwott- Chief, Susy Aker, Gerorge Kiplimo, Richard Kiptum- Councillor, Penina C. Kiptoo, Wilson Kiplangat, Hellena Richard, Moses Krop, Torotea Simatua, Thomas Lelapa, Nelly Aker, Paul Chui, Juliana Chelal, Stanely Rotumoi, Benson Ruto, Patrick Mutwol, Joseph Ekale, Maurice Cheptot, Phillip Pogia, Mau Aker, William Kauyan, Solomon Sinyo (Assistant Chief), Charles Kirangale, Richard Paswony.


85

YALA RIVER CATCHMENT

1. Mr. Anthony Aura Saisi, District Environmental Officer, Kakamega District;2. Sergeant Philip Mukoto, Problem Animal Control Officer, Kenya Wildlife Service,

Kakamega Forest National Park;3. Mr. Solomon Kitaa, Chairman, Kakamega Forest Tour Guides Association;4. Mr. Nixon Sagita, Chairman, Kakamega Environment Education Program (KEEP);5. Mr. Luka Musami, Factory Manager, Muliro Community-Based Medicinal Plant

Enterprise;6. Mr. Gabriel Machanja, Khaega Small Scale Farmer (Ocimum outgrower);7. Mr. Samson Machera, Fisheries Officer, Nandi North and South Districts;8. Mr. Gerald Pogita, New Fisheries Officer, Nandi North and South Districts;9. Mr. Frederick Dudi, Fisheries Assistant, Nandi North and South Districts;

KIKUYU/KINALE CATCHMENT

1. Mr. Daniel Mpoiko Kobei, Chairman, Ogiek Peoples Development Program (OPDP);2. Mr. Joseph Kimaiyo Towett, National Coordinator, Ogiek Welfare Council, and

Secretary-General, Hunter-Gatherer’s Forum;3. Mr. Mishek Wanguma, Community Tree Nursery Attendant, Upland Forest Station;4. Mr. Joseph Mwangi, Farmer, Kikuyu Escarpment;5. Mr. S.K. Gathungu, Patron, Kijabe Girls High School Environmental Club.


86

Annex 4. References

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2003. Geographic Dimensions of Well-being in Kenya. Where are the Poor? From Districts to Locations Vol. 1.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2001. 1999 Population and Housing Census: Counting Our People for Development. Population Distribution by Administrative Areas and Urban Centers. Vol. I. Ministry of Finance and Planning.

Gachimbi, L.N., Gicheru, P.T., Nyang’wara, M.K., Lekasi, J.K., Sijali, V.I., and Kimigo, J. 2005. Small-Holder Farming, Rural Livelihoods, Biodiversity and Coping Mechanisms in Taita Taveta District: Baseline Survey Report. SLM Technical Report No. 01. KARI. 40 pp.

Gachimbi, L.N., Nyang’wara, M.K. and Gicheru, P.T. 2005. Participatory Rural Appraisal: A Case Study of Bartolimo Location, Kipsaraman Division, Baringo District, Kenya. April 2005. KARI. 23 pp.

Gicheru, P.T., Gachimbi, L.N., Lekasi, J. Sijali, V.I., Nyang’wara, M.K. and Wamuongo, J.W. 2005. GEF Kenya Agricultural Productivity-Sustainable Land Management Project Proposal. KARI. 66 pp.

Kagombe, J.K. and Gitonga, J. 2005. Plantation Establishment in Kenya: The Shamba System Case Study. KEFRI/FD. 28 pp.

Kailer, 2001. Kailer Community (Ilchamus) Participatory Learning Approach (PLA) Report, October 2001. PANS Team, Marigat, Baringo. 66 pp

Knausenberger, W.I., Booth, G.A., Bingham, C.S. and Gaudet, J.J. (Eds), 1996. Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa. SD Publication Series, Office of Sustainable Development, USAID Bureau for Africa, Technical Paper No. 18. June 1996. 202 pp.

Lekasi, J.K., Sijali, I.V., Gicheru, P., Gachimbi, L. and Nyang’wara, M.K. 2005. Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Wusi Sub-location in the Taita Hills Catchment. SLM Technical Report No. 10. April 2005. KARI. 23 pp.

Lekasi, J.K., Gicheru, P., Gachimbi, L., Sijali, I.V. and Nyang’wara, M.K. 2005. Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Kijabe Sub-Location in the Kinale/Kikuyu Catchment. SLM Technical Report No. 8. March 2005. KARI. 15 pp.

Lekasi, J.K., Gicheru, P.T., Gachimbi, L.N., Sijali, I.V. and Nyang’wara, M.K. 2005. Smallholder Farming, Rural Livelihoods, and Biodiversity in Kinale/Kikuyu Catchment: Baseline Survey Report. SLM Technical Report No. 6. 18 pp.

Longewan, 2001. Longewan Community (Ilchamus) Participatory Learning Approach (PLA) Report, April 2002. PANS Team, Marigat, Baringo. 49 pp

Muya, E.M. and Gicheru, P.T. 2005. Assessment of Land Degradation and its Impacts on Land Use Sustainability in Taita Taveta Catchment. Kenya Soils Survey, KARI.

Muya, E.M., Njoroge, C.R.K., Owenga, P. and Kimani, P. 2005. Assessment of Land Degradation and its Impact on Land Use Sustainability in Kinale Catchment. Kenya Soil Survey, KARI. 10 pp.


87

Nagarajan, V. and Okot-Uma, W. R., 1999. Environmental Assessment of Development Projects: A Guide for Planners and Managers. The Commonwealth Secretariat and SFI Publishing, London. 259 pp.

Nile Basin Initiative Secretariat (Nile-SEC), 2002a. Backgrounder Historique: The Nile Basin Initiative, A Precious Resource. 2 pp.

Njoroge, C.R.K. and Kimotho, P.W. 2005. Assessment of Land Degradation and its Impact on Land Use Sustainability in Tugen Catchment. Miscellaneous Soil Paper No. 61, March 2005. Kenya Soil Survey, KARI. 16 pp.

Njoroge, C.R.K., Kimani, P.K. and Gicheru, P.T. 2005. Land degradation in Cherangany Watershed. Draft Soil Report No. M70. November, 2005. Kenya Soils Survey, KARI. 22 pp.

Njuguna, S.G. 2004, Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project (WKIEMP). KARI/WB. 66 pp.

Nyang’wara, M.K., Gicheru, P.T., Gachimbi, L.N., Lekasi, J. and Sijali, I.V. 2005. Smallholder Farming, Rural Livelihoods and Biodiversity in Baringo District: Baseline Survey Report. APSLM, KARI. 33 pp.

Nyang’wara, M.K., Gachimbi, L., Gicheru, P., Lekasi, J. and Sijali, I. 2005 Participatory Rural Appraisal Report for Talau Location, West Pokot District Cherengany Hills Catchment Area. SLM Technical Report No. 17. August 2005, KARI. 22 pp.

Ong'ang'a, O., Othieno, H. and Munyirwa, K. (Eds.) 2001. Lake Victoria 2000 and Beyond: Challenges and Opportunities. OSIENALA, Kisumu, Kenya. 118 pp.

Republic of Kenya, 2000. The Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (No. 8 of 1999). Government Printer Nairobi.

Republic of Kenya, 2001. Sessional Paper on National Wetlands Conservation and Management. 2nd Draft. June 2001. 64 pp.

Republic of Kenya, 2002a. Trans Nzoia District Development Plan, 2002-2008. Ministry of Finance and Planning. 67 pp.

Republic of Kenya, 2002b. The Water Act, 2002. Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 107 (Acts No.9), 24 October 2002, 935-1053 p.

Republic of Kenya, 2002c. Nandi District Development Plan, 2002-2008. Ministry of Finance and Planning. 79 pp.

Republic of Kenya. 2002d. Siaya District Development Plan, 2002-2008. Ministry of Finance and Planning. 65 pp.

Republic of Kenya. 2002e. Baringo District Development Plan, 2002-2008. Ministry of Finance and Planning. 90 pp.

Republic of Kenya, 2003. The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003. Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 56 of 13 June 2003. Legislative Supplement No. 31, Legal Notice No. 101. Kenya Subsidiary Legislation, 2003. Government Printer, Nairobi. 237-297p.

Republic of Kenya, 2005. The Forest Bill, 2005. Government Printer, Nairobi. 885-963p.Republic of Kenya, 2005. Sessional Paper No. 9 of 2005 on Forest Policy. Government

Printer, Nairobi. 20 pp.Sijali, I.V., Lekasi, J.K., Gicheru, P.T., Gachimbi, L. and Nyang’wara, M.K. 2005.

Participatory Rapid Appraisal Report for Savane Sub-location of Ikolomani


88

Division, Kakamega District in the Yala Catchment. SLM Technical Report No. 16. KARI. August 2005. 26 pp.

SPARVS, 1998. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Administrative Procedures (Wetlands). Kenya Wildlife Service. 87 pp.

Thomas, D.B. 2005. Background Report on Land Degradation and Monitoring Methodologies, Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project (KAPSLM). Nairobi, November 2005.

Wanjogu, S.N., Were, K. and Owenga, P.O. 2005. Land Degradation in River Yala Catchment. Draft Report. Kenya Soil Survey Miscellaneous Report No. M72, October 2005. 29 pp.

World Bank, 2005. Environmental and Social Framework for World Bank Projects with Multiple Small-Scale Subprojects. Africa Region. February 2005. 36pp.

World Bank, 2005. Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management (KAPSLM) Project. Project Appraisal Document (Draft). August 29, 2005. 100 pp.


89

Annex 5. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework

Statutes and institutionsThere are about 77 statutes in Kenya that deal with environmental issues. Some of the legislative instruments have been in place for many years and are duplicated in other legislation. The most pertinent legislative instruments are the Water Act, 2002; the Public Health Act, Cap. 242; the Chief’s Authority Act, Cap 128; the Local Authorities Act, Cap. 265; the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, Cap.376; the Forests Act, Cap. 385; the Physical Planning Act, Cap.306, the Registered Land Act, Cap.300; the Agricultural Act, Cap. 318; the Trust Land Act, Cap. 288; and, the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999; and the Lake Basin Development Authority Act, Cap. 442.The Water Act, 2002 prohibits obstruction or pollution of watercourse or water resource and gives conditions in the water use permits. The Act prohibits among other things the unlawful interference with watercourses or bodies of water and prohibits the release of polluted water without treatment; and specifies penalties for polluting water used for human consumption. According to the Water Act, 2002, water belongs to the nation and water use requires permission from the Government of Kenya. The Act addresses conservation, control and apportionment and use of water resources in Kenya. The water resources management is decentralized into three levels, namely national, basin, and catchment area levels. The roles of these levels include the identification of vital water catchment areas, including wetlands, and the initiation of action for protection purposes. The Agriculture Act, Cap. 318 defines the watercourses and catchment areas in relation to crop production and related activities. The Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999, provides for the establishment of an appropriate legal and institutional framework for the management of the environment in Kenya. Part VI (S.58) of the bill makes it mandatory for environmental assessments (EAs) to be conducted before the commencement of projects involving urban development, water bodies, transportation, mining, agriculture and forestry related activities. The specific water related activities requiring EAs include construction of dams, irrigated agriculture, flood control schemes and water transfer schemes.There are over twenty institutions, which deal with environmental issues in Kenya. Some of the key institutions include the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA); the Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), the Water Department; the Forest Department (FD); the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS); the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI); the National Museums of Kenya (NMK); and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Wildlife, through NEMA, is responsible for environmental management.National Environmental Action PlanThe purpose of the National Environment Action Plan (NEAP) is to promote and facilitate the coordination of strategies and measures to protect and manage the environment into plans and programmes for the social and economic development of Kenya. The Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999, establishes the NEAP to address the protection and management of the environment at district, provincial and national levels. The NEAP will be reviewed every five years and will be subject to the consideration and approval of the National Assembly. The NEAP will,


90

among other things, identify and recommend policy and legislative approaches for preventing, controlling or mitigating specific as well as general adverse impacts on the environment. The District Environment Committees and the Provincial Environment Committees are required to prepare action plans every five years. All development activities are supposed to be conducted in accordance with the Provincial and District Environmental Action Plans.Relevant government sessional papersSessional Paper No. 1 of 2000 on National Population Policy for Sustainable Development is an update of Sessional Paper No. 4 of 1984 on Population Policy Guidelines. The paper addresses issues on environment, gender, poverty and problems faced by segments of the population including the youth, the elderly and persons with disabilities. Outline in the paper are population and development goals and objectives including improvement on standards of living and quality of life of the people; full integration of population concerns into the development process; motivating and encouraging Kenyans to adhere to responsible parenthood; and empowerment of women.The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) outlines the priorities and measures necessary for poverty reduction and economic growth. The twin objectives of economic growth and poverty reduction are borne out of the realization that economic growth is not a sufficient condition to ensure poverty reduction. In this regard, measures geared towards improved economic performance and priority actions that must be implemented to reduce the incidence of poverty among Kenyans have been identified.


91

Annex 6. Brief Matrix on Integrated Pest ManagementImplementation of Integrated Pest ManagementIntroductionIntegrated pest management is a decision-making process for the selection, implementation, and evaluation of pest management practices. It utilizes all available methods to achieve the most economically and environmentally sound management program. IPM is the integration of available techniques to reduce pest populations and maintain them below the levels causing economic injury in a way that avoids harmful side effects. Specific pest management needs vary with the crop, cropping system, pest problems, pesticide use history, socio-economic conditions, and other factors. There are, however, well-defined principles that guide the implementation of integrated pest management (IPM). Based on these principles, some guidelines can be offered for the development of and execution of IPM activities for community subprojects. The implementers of the subprojects should adopt these guidelines to the conditions found in their subprojects.IPM can decrease pest losses, lower pesticide use, and reduce overall operation costs, while increasing crop yield and stability. Successful IPM programs have been developed for pests on various crops.Steps to Implement IPMStep 1. Assess IPM needs and establish priorities

Consider the relative importance of agriculture in the overall project; Consider the relative importance of target crops as a source of community

livelihood; Review pesticide use history, trends and availability of IPM technology; Identify training needs for farmers and extension agents; and Respect and use local knowledge.

Step 2. Identify key pests for each target crop

Become familiar with key pests of target crops and the damage they cause; and

Correctly identify the common pest.

Step 3. Monitor the fields regularly

Inspect crops regularly to determine the level of pests and natural enemies; Solicit assistance of agricultural extension staff if necessary; and Determine when crop protection measures, perhaps including pesticides are

necessary.

Step 4. Select appropriate blend of IPM tools

Maximize the effectiveness of traditional and introduced non-chemical control techniques;


92

Use pesticides only if no practical, effective and economic non-chemical control methods are available;

Examples of Non-chemical Pest Management Techniques include;- Maintaining good soil fertility and a diverse agroecosystem;- Plant resistant crop varieties;- Selecting proper plant varieties for location and season;- Rotating crops;- Planting clean seed;- Correct planting and harvest periods;- Proper irrigation methods;- Correct fertilizer and rates;- Good crop sanitation;- Hand picking of larger pests;- Use of natural control agents (biological control); and- Using attractants and repellents on selected pests.

Step 5. Develop education, training, and demonstration programs for extension workers

Conduct hands-on training of farmers in farmers' fields (as opposed to a classroom);

Use the participatory "Farmers' Field School" approach; and Conduct special training for extension workers, government officials and the

public.

Format for a Comprehensive Pest Management Plan

A comprehensive pest management plan (PMP) should contain, but not be limited to, the following information:

1. Introduction1.1 Pest and pesticides management implications of project activities;1.2 Environmental consequences of pest management practices;

2. Pest management approaches in Kenya;2.1 Overview of forest, livestock and crop management problems;2.2 Current crop/pest management approaches;2.3 IPM experience;

3. Pesticide use and management;3.1 Pesticide use in Kenya;3.2 Circumstances of pesticide use and competence to handle chemical

products;3.3 Assessment of risks;3.4 Promoting IPM/ICM in the context of current practices;

4. Policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity;4.1 Plant protection policy;4.2 National capacity to develop and implement IPM/ICM (IPPM);


93

4.3 Control of the distribution and use of pesticides;5. Implementing the pest management plan (PMP);

5.1 Strengthening national capacities;5.2 Activities of the PMP;

6. Actors and partners;7. Institutional arrangements for implementation of the PMP;8. Phasing plan;9. Sustainability;10. Monitoring and evaluation;11. Budget estimates.

Annex 1. List of pesticides approved for importation and use in Kenya;Annex 2. Documents consulted in the preparation of this PMP;Annex 3. Key contacts/persons encountered.


94

Annex 7. Suggested Format for EA Studies

The environmental impact assessment study report will incorporate, but not be limited to, the following information:

(a) the proposed location of the project;(b) a concise description of the national legislative and regulatory framework,

baseline information, and any other relevant information related to the project;(c) the objectives of the project;(d) the technology, procedures and processes to be used in the implementation of

the project;(e) the materials to be used in the construction and implementation of the project;(f) the products, by-products and waste generated by the project;(g) a description of the potentially affected environment;(h) the environmental effects of the project including the social and cultural

effects and the direct, indirect, cumulative, irreversible, short-term and long-term effects anticipated;

(i) alternative technologies and processes available and reasons for preferring the chosen technology and processes;

(j) analysis of alternatives including project site, design and technologies and reasons for preferring the proposed site, design and technologies;

(k) an environmental management plan proposing measures for eliminating, minimizing or mitigating adverse impacts on the environment; including the cost, time frame and responsibility to implement the measures;

(l) provision of an action plan for the prevention and management of foreseeable accidents and hazardous activities in the cause of carrying out activities or major industrial and other development projects;

(m)the measures to prevent health hazards and to ensure security in the working environment for the employees and for the management of emergencies;

(n) an identification of gaps in knowledge and uncertainties which were encountered in compiling the information;

(o) an economic and social analysis of the project;(p) an indication of whether the environment of any other state is likely to be

affected and the available alternatives and mitigating measures; and (q) any other matters as NEMA may require.


95

Annex 8. Suggested Format for a Simple EMP

The ESMF emphasizes that an environmental management plan (EMP) should fit the needs of a subproject and be easy to use. The basic elements of an EMP are:

A description of the subproject activity; A description of potential environmental impacts; A description of planned mitigation measures; An indication of institutional/individual responsibility for implementing

mitigation measures (including enforcement and coordination); A program for monitoring the environmental effects of the subproject both

positive and negative (including supervision); A time frame or schedule; and A cost estimate and source of funds.

Table 9.1 A Simple Environmental Management Plan

Subproject Activity

Potential Environmental Impacts

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Responsibility (including enforcement and coordination)

Monitoring Requirements (including supervision)

Time Frame or Schedule

Cost Estimate

[type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here][type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here][type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here] [type here]

The above matrix should be filled out for each subproject that will have the need for a separate EMP (the screening process using the screening checklist should determine this).


96