Document of
The World Bank
Report No:
PROJECT BRIEF
ON A
PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND
IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 10 MILLION
TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF KENYA
FOR A
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT
(KAPSLM) PROJECT
August 29, 2005
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective {Date})
Currency Unit =
= US$1
US$ = SDR 1
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 – December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AfDB
ALRMP
APL
ATIRI
BMPs/BMTs
CAS
CBD
CBOs
CIRAD
ESMF
FAO
FFS
FMS
GEF
GEO
ICRAF
IFAD
INM
IP-ERS
KAPP
KAPSLMP
KAPSLMP-SC
KARI
KEFRI
KSC
LADA
M&E
African Development Bank
Arid Lands Resource Management Project, Kenya
Adaptable Program Loan
Agriculture Technology and Information Response Initiative,
Kenya
Best Management Practices/Best Management Technologies
Country Assistance Strategy
Convention for Biological Diversity
Community Based Organizations
Centre de Cooperation International en Recherche
Agronomique pour le Developpement
Environment and Social Management Framework
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
Farmer Field School
Financial Monitoring System
Global Environment Facility
Global Environment Objective
International Center for Research in Agroforestry
International Fund for Agriculture Development
Integrated Nutrient Management
The Investment Program for the Economic Recovery
Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation, Kenya
Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project
Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land
Management Project
Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land
Management Project Steering Committee
Kenya Agriculture Research Institute
Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KAPP Steering Committee
Land Degradation Assessment Project
Monitoring and Evaluation
NALEP
NAP
NARP
NBSAP
NCB
NEMA
NEPAD
NGOs
NRM
NTFPs
OP
PDO
PRA/RRA
SIDA
SLM
SRA
SSA
STAP
UNCCD
UNDP
UNEP
UNFCCC
WRMA
National Agriculture and livestock Extension Programme,
Kenya
National Action Program for Addressing Land Degradation
in the Context of the UNCCD, Kenya
National Agriculture Research Program, Kenya
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
National Coordination Board
National Environment Management Agency, Kenya
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development
Non-Governmental Organizations
Natural Resource Management
Non-Timber Forest Products
Operational Program (GEF)
Project Development Objective
Participatory Rural Appraisal/Rapid Rural Appraisal
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
Sustainable Land Management
Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture, Kenya
Sub-Saharan Africa
Scientific and Technical Advisory Program
United Nations Convention for Combating Desertification
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Environment Program
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Water Resources Management Agency
Vice President:
Country Manager/Director:
Sector Manager:
Task Team Leader:
Gobind Nankani
Colin Bruce
Karen McConnell Brooks
Berhane Manna
KENYA
Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management (KAPSLM)
CONTENTS
Page
A.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1
1.
Key sector issues ................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Rationale for Bank and GEF involvement .......................................................................... 3
3.
Higher level objectives to which the project contributes .................................................... 5
B.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 5
1.
Lending instrument ............................................................................................................. 5
2.
Project development objective and key indicators.............................................................. 6
3.
Project components ............................................................................................................. 7
4.
Lessons learned and reflected in the project design .......................................................... 11
5.
Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection ............................................................ 13
C.
IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 14
1.
Partnership arrangements .................................................................................................. 14
2.
Institutional and implementation arrangements ................................................................ 15
3.
Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results ................................................................ 16
4.
Sustainability and Replicability ........................................................................................ 17
5.
Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ............................................................... 17
6.
Loan/credit conditions and covenants ............................................................................... 18
D.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 19
1.
Economic and financial analyses ...................................................................................... 19
2.
Technical ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.
Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 20
4.
Social................................................................................................................................. 20
5.
Environment ...................................................................................................................... 22
6.
Safeguard policies ............................................................................................................. 23
7.
Policy Exceptions and Readiness...................................................................................... 23
Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background ......................................................... 24
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies ................. 27
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 29
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description ...................................................................................... 38
Annex 5: Project Costs ............................................................................................................... 44
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 46
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ..................................... 49
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements ...................................................................................... 55
Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis ............................................................................. 61
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 62
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision ..................................................................... 63
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File ................................................................................. 64
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits .............................................................................. 65
Annex 14: Country at a Glance ................................................................................................. 67
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis ....................................................................................... 69
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review ................................................................................................ 86
Annex 17: Maps......................................................................................................................... 100
A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
1. Key sector issues
Declining economic growth. Kenya’s economic performance is not keeping up for its
population of 30.1 million with an annual growth of 2.3 percent. In fact, it declined since the
1970’s from about 7 percent to just over 2 percent in the 1990’s and averaged at 1.4 percent in
2001-03. Poverty and food insecurity have increased in the same period. According to the
Investment Program for the Economic Recovery Strategy (IP-ERS), the proportion of the
population living in poverty rose from about 49% in 1990 to more than 56% in 2003. These
figures reflect the poor performance of major sectors, including agriculture and are due, in part,
to the unprecedented drawdown of natural capital resulting in productivity losses.
Poor performance of agriculture. Agriculture, the largest sector of the economy accounting
for 26 percent of the GDP, 60 percent of total employment and 75 percent of merchandize
exports, remains the key rural development challenge for Kenya. The growth rate in agriculture
has been declining over the last 25 years, recovering partially in 2003 (2.6 percent) but falling
again in 2004 (1.4 percent). Structural weaknesses such as market distortions, poor
infrastructure, low labor productivity and inadequate support services and external factors
including low international commodity prices and climate change are determinants. The impact
on the poor is severe given that 67 percent of the population and 80 percent of the poor live in
rural areas and are largely dependent on sector activities. The Government of Kenya’s Strategy
for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA) places a high priority on agricultural growth and identifies
land degradation and its associated threats to the ecology as a key constraint to agricultural
growth.
Kenya constitutes one of the most degraded areas of the About 70 percent of Kenya’s
population live in the 12 percent of total land area (581,679 square kilometres) which is
classified as being of medium to high potential for agriculture and livestock production.
The growing population and the resulting increase in demand for land, energy and water is
putting tremendous pressure on the natural resources.
Land degradation is widespread and manifests itself in multiple ways including:
 Over-exploitation and poor use of the natural resource base;
 Excessive soil erosion, gullying and increased sediment loading of water bodies;
 Nutrient depletion due to burning of biomass1;
 Reduced ground cover and lower carrying capacity of pastures;
 Continued loss and degradation of forest areas as well as clearing of farm forestry;
 Reduced flows of water, drying up of water courses, worsening water quality;
 Habitat loss and threats to biodiversity
 Loss of carbon sinks
 Increased damages from cycle of droughts and floods as well as increased degree and
frequency of such extreme events;
1
Recent estimates by the World Agro-forestry Center indicate that in the Nyando River Basin alone, soil worth
US$42.7 million is lost every year (estimations are based on a soil value of US$ 12/MT). Since 1962, 3.2 million
MT of soil have been washed into the Lake Victoria and over 50% of the land in Western Kenya has been
abandoned due to depletion of soil nutrients.
1

Increased vulnerability of and gradual reduction in incomes of rural families;
There are multiple issues that underpin the trend of increasing land degradation in Kenya. Some
of the major barriers that facilitate land degradation or constrain sustainable land management
are:
Lack of Community Awareness and Social Factors
 Lack of awareness of Land degradation issues and access to SLM technologies
 Untenable traditional land management practices – such as fallowing to restore fertility –
due to high population density and fragmentation
 Social issues, including inheritance and burial practices
 Lack of champions for sustainable land management
Policy Factors (including lack of incentives for SLM):
 Unclear property rights implying lower investments in sound land and natural resources
management
 Inadequate control over forest reserves, leading to the treatment of land as a patronage
tool within a context of increased electoral competition
 Increased demand for wood-fuel and charcoal2 and high prices for charcoal in an active
commercial market
 Deficiencies in the policy framework, including barriers to adoption of, and investment
in, sustainable land management technologies
 Weakness in the legislative and legal framework, in particular lack of cross-sectoral
coordination on land management (NRM is covered under 77 different statutes that are
limited to a specific sectoral or functional focus)
 Insufficient mechanisms to address environmental externalities and lack of incentive
structures to promote environmental management (such as payments for environmental
services3)
Low Investment and Institutional Factors:
 Inadequate investments in agriculture and weak extension systems
 Absence of alternate livelihood opportunities
 Lack of sustainable rangeland management regimes leading to overgrazing and
loss/degradation of vegetation
 Inadequate land-use management and protection in the country’s catchment areas
 Weaknesses of research programs (targeting, applicability, cost effectiveness, demand
drivenness, etc.) and lower attention to the use of indigenous knowledge
 Absence of regular and accurate assessments and monitoring of natural resources,
combined with the lack of capacity to analyze and develop decision support information
systems
2
Charcoal demand is currently at 20 million metric tons.
PES systems can provide incentives to maintain land uses that generate or protect ecosystem services. Farmers
who adopt practices that, for example, reduce downstream impacts or increase carbon sequestration could
potentially receive payments that compensate them for their costs on the basis of the value of benefits generated or
accrued elsewhere.
3
2
Persistent diminishing productivity and the absence of significant investment to raise land
productivity have generated recent policy debate and highlighted the need to address land
degradation and improve natural resources management through interventions at the macro as
well as at the farm and community levels.
The Government Strategy
The Government recognizes the need for raising land productivity to raise rural incomes and
improving the sustainability of land use and has responded through its various strategies (ERS,
SRA, NAP etc.) Its development strategy, articulated in the Economic Recovery Strategy for
Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS) (2003-2007), identifies agriculture as among the prime
drivers of the recovery program and places particular emphasis on sustainable agricultural growth as
a critical element in poverty reduction. The Government adopted its, Strategy for Revitalizing
Agriculture (SRA), 2004-2014) which recognizes the lack of a coherent land policy as one of the
impediments to sound land use leading to environmental degradation. A comprehensive land policy
covering use and administration, tenure security, and delivery systems is under preparation/review.
The draft policy is expected to have far reaching implications on: (i) existing legislation and the
institutions mandated with the management of natural resources; (ii) land management; and (iii)
the extent to which local communities can participate in these activities.
A National Action Programme (NAP) for addressing land degradation, in the context of the
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was prepared in 2002 through a
thorough consultative process. The following are priority areas of the NAP:
 A robust enabling environment that enables communities to access and manage local
resources;
 Development of ecologically sound land use policies and plans;
 Information and knowledge base for addressing land degradation;
 Implementation of a targeted awareness to foster cooperation and a common
understanding on sustainable land management;
 Capacity building of stakeholders;
 Support to local community initiatives to develop long-term financial mechanisms.
 Sectoral Foci: Energy, Vegetation cover, energy, forest conservation, Agriculture and
pastoralism, soil and water resources management.
 Cross-Sectoral Foci: Gender mainstreaming, science and technology, poverty and
environment linkages, use of early warning systems.
The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action plan (NBSAP, 2000) recognizes encroachment
for agriculture and the resulting loss of vegetation as a major threat to biodiversity. Further, it
notes the link between soil erosion resulting from hillside and dry land cultivation and
monoculture. The project is in response to these threats and addresses a key objective of the
NBSAP by providing increased support to local communities towards sustainable farming
practices that conserve agro-biodiversity and maintain ecosystem services.
2. Rationale for Bank and GEF involvement
Efforts to address land degradation have generally had limited success in Kenya. The
implementation of measures to control and reverse land degradation require comprehensive and
integrated approaches to sustainable land management. The Government has explicitly
3
highlighted environmental management as key element of the Government poverty reduction
strategy and is already engaged in related activities. The ongoing policy dialogue on land and
natural resources management (i.e., the preparation of a revised land policy and a new Forest
Bill) is the result of the Government’s initiative. Despite the many efforts by the Government in
implementing its program, it is impeded by resource and capacity constraints; this project is in
response to the Government’s request for additional support to achieve the desired results.
The scale of the land degradation and the need to maintain globally significant ecosystem
services, under threat, call for GEF’s involvement. GEF incremental support will promote the
integrated watershed approach and contribute to the maintenance, conservation and restoration of
the structural and functional integrity of critical ecosystems in the targeted catchment and
operational areas mitigating threats to globally significant biodiversity and genetic resources,
above and below-ground carbon sequestration and the health of international water systems.
The proposed project is consistent with the GEF operational program (#15) on Sustainable Land
Management and addresses its strategic priorities - (I) capacity building, including
mainstreaming of SLM in national development frameworks, policy reforms and institutional
strengthening, and (II) implementation of innovative and/or indigenous SLM practices through
on-the-ground investments and community capacity. The proposed project will support
implementation of the Government’s National Action Program (NAP) priorities – strengthening
the enabling environment, capacity building, knowledge sharing and awareness-raising – by
helping to address some of the barriers preventing the widespread uptake of, and improving the
incentives for sustainable land management activities, supporting land use and tenure policy
reform, strengthening involvement of local communities in decision making and management
processes, knowledge sharing and awareness creation, and capacity building.
Moreover, the cross-sectoral nature of the problem involves the need to mainstream into sectoral
and national priorities, an area of competitive advantage for the Bank. The project will
complement KAPP, which focuses on institutional strengthening and reform in the agriculture
sector (including revamping of public service delivery including research and extension, promoting
empowerment of farmers and wider uptake of improved technologies). The project will be able to
draw comprehensively on Bank and GEF supported land management initiatives and existing
knowledge with land management. It will also draw synergies from other on-going and planned
Bank operations in the sector (e.g., Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP),
Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project, the Western Kenya Community
Driven Development Project, and the proposed Kenya Natural Resource Management Project).
The proposed project also fits with the latest Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) for Kenya,
prepared in May 2004, with one of its four main themes focusing on reducing vulnerability and
strengthening communities by: (i) increasing agricultural productivity and competitiveness, (ii)
improving environmental management; (iii) strengthening local governments; and (iv)
implementing measures targeted at poor regions and communities. Further, it corresponds to the
priorities of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) on agriculture,
environment and empowerment. In particular, the project will support Thematic Area One of
NEPAD Action Plan for combating land degradation and desertification.
4
Lastly, the Bank has convened the TerrAfrica Partnership, a multi-partner platform that aims to
scale-up SLM across SSA, providing a built-in scale-up mechanism that the project will access
to leverage impact. Activities center on building coalitions at regional and national levels to
promote SLM across sectors, share knowledge, and help coordinate investments, thereby
maximizing efficiencies and impacts. The TerrAfrica partnership is inclusive, involving SSA
countries, civil society and research organizations, multilaterals and bilaterals (i.e., the AfDB,
European Commission, FAO, GM of the UNCCD, IFAD, NEPAD, UNCCD Secretariat, UNDP,
UNEP, and the World Bank).
Eligibility
Kenya ratified the UNCCD in 1997 and developed its National Action Program (NAP) in 2002.
The activities proposed in AP-SLM are consistent with UNCCD’s call for implementation of
activities aimed at preventing and/or reducing land degradation, rehabilitating partly degraded
lands and reclaiming of degraded lands through National Action Programs. They also have an
excellent fit within the strategic considerations of the GEF operational program on Sustainable
Land Management (OP15), including mainstreaming into national development frameworks,
promoting cross-sectoral approaches to land management (building on synergies with the
programs of partners and other development agencies) and using an integrated ecosystem based
approach, enhancing participation of stakeholder (especially producers and local decisionmakers, with a particular emphasis on participation of women), strengthening the policy
environment, information base and capacity as well as on the ground investments.
In addition, Kenya signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992 and ratified it
in 1994. Further, it has signed and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1994.
3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes
The proposed 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 functions 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 (CAS); and (iii) encourage the use of
indigenous knowledge and resources.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Lending instrument
In light of the need for grant funding for the wider promotion of SLM methodologies as well as
the global benefits accruing from an integrated ecosystem management of environmentally
5
critical catchment areas, a GEF grant is being proposed as the instrument for this project, which
will be closely linked to the KAPP, a phased Adaptable Program Loan.
2. Project development objective and key indicators
The development objective (PDO) 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 (GEO) of the proposed project is to reduce and mitigate land
degradation in the targeted operational areas and to contribute to maintenance of critical
ecosystem functions and structures.
Specifically, the 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.
Enhance the institutional capacity of all relevant stakeholders to promote sustainable land
management practices and alternative livelihood strategies based on participatory and
demand-driven approaches.
Evaluate the impact of existing policies affecting the management of natural resources and
contribute to the removal of barriers hindering the widespread adoption of SLM practices.
Facilitate the exchange of information on best practices in sustainable land management
among farmers, communities, extension agents, researchers, development partners, and
policy makers.
The project aims to address land degradation and improve land management in five operational
areas: Taita-Taveta, Tugen Hills, Kinale-Kikuyu Cherangani Hills, and Yala catchements.
Monitoring of performance will be based on outcome indicators and would include the
following:
Outcome Indicators at PDO/GEO level:
 Area (in ha) on which promoted SLM technologies and practices have been adopted (total;
total per watershed)
 % of income of farm and non-farm households increased in targeted watersheds due to
adoption of promoted technologies and strategies (in average for all households; in average
for households per watershed; in average for landless; in average for female-headed
households)
 Percent of soil loss reduced in targeted watersheds
 Percent of land under vegetative cover in targeted watersheds
 % increase in soil moisture content (soil samples on selected plots)
 Sedimentation rate of selected reservoirs reduced by X %
 % increase in carbon storage capacity
6
3. Project components
It is proposed that the project would have 4 components: (1) Building capacity for SLM; (2)
Investments in community SLM micro-projects; (3) Strengthening the enabling environment for
SLM; and (4) Coordination, monitoring and evaluation of project activities. Investment in
monitoring and impact evaluation will be integral to each activity in these windows.
Component 1: Building Capacity for Sustainable Land Management (GEF Increment USD
3.70 million, Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.87 million, Baseline USD
13.02 million)
This component recognises the critical need for capacity at multiple levels for the implementation of
the objectives of the project and seeks to address these gaps. It will target communities and service
providers for training and capacity enhancement as well as help build a broader awareness of the
potential and impact of SLM.
Community capacity building
This subcomponent will support capacity building among producers and resource users within
communities and empower households to analyse opportunities, identify and experiment with
alternative interventions, and generate and share knowledge on adaptive management of natural
resources. It will help communities create consensus for and develop micro-catchment land use
plans through participatory approaches, involving local communities, advisory service providers,
and researchers as well as support farmer groups and communities in developing and
implementing demand-driven micro-projects that come out of micro-catchment plans. To the
extent possible the project will focus its capacity building efforts on existing CBOs and farmer
groups. Particular emphasis will be placed on social inclusion to ensure adequate representation
of women, landless, and other disadvantaged groups.
Community capacity would be support in both thematic (information on the best management
practices (BMPs) and technologies (BMTs), and alternate options for income generation) and
methodological areas (preparing micro-project proposals, credit financing and savings, areas,
accessing market information and so on). Some of the issues are: (i) soil and water conservation
technologies; (ii) appropriate fertility management practices; (iii) environmentally positive
production systems (conservation tillage, agro-forestry, forages, zero grazing, INM etc); (iv)
water management (e.g. conservation and harvesting techniques, irrigation planning); (v)
integrated pest management; (vi) conservation and utilization of biodiversity; (vii) alternative
livelihoods (e.g. tree nurseries, ecotourism, apiculture, medicinal plants, fisheries, emerging
livestock); (viii) consensus building and conflict resolution mechanisms; (ix) early warning
systems (vulnerability); (x) marketing and value addition; (xi) efficient use and alternatives to
fuel wood; and (xii) compliance to environmental policies (including flood and fire control).
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 on participatory tools, including Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA), Rapid
Rural Appraisal (RRA), transect works and extension methodologies such as ATIRI, Farmer
Field Schools (FFS), farmer to farmer extension and demonstration training, focal area approach,
and model farmer etc. In particular, community opinion leaders will be sensitized on various land
management issues such as identification of community priorities; development and
7
implementation of community plans; resource use conflicts and resolution, and
policies/regulations related to NRM. Moreover, local organizations will be trained in output and
outcome based participatory monitoring and evaluation; data collection methodologies and
record keeping; and identification of resource degradation indicators.
Services Providers Capacity
This component will address weaknesses in service provision by building local capacity on the
available technological solutions for sustainable land management. It will build on KAPP support
activities on extension reform and target public and private extension agents and service providers
(including CBOs and NGOs) at the division and district. It will enable them to transfer
information and locally adaptive technologies and practices to the communities under a demanddriven and competitive service provision framework. Capacity will be enhanced through
appropriately targeted training (e.g. through learning workshops, exchange visits and
publications) and field based learning (e.g. site visits, demonstration plots, and pilots) provided
by qualified national and international research and extension institutions. Capacity building
efforts will focus on both technical and methodological areas. The former include: sustainable
resource use planning and management; livestock management; crop management practices;
water harvesting and irrigation practices; marketing strategies; agro-forestry systems; marketing;
agro-processing and other alternative livelihood strategies. The latter include project
management methods, participatory research and extension methods; participatory and outcome
based monitoring and evaluation; conflict management and consensus building among others.
The component will seek to mainstream the objectives and methodologies of SLM within the
extension reform program 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: Investments in community SLM micro-projects (GEF Increment USD 4.00
million, Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.61 million, Baseline USD 3.50
million)
This component will support community micro-projects that are identified within the microcatchment plans developed by communities to address land degradation and/or provide alternate
means of livelihoods.
Communities will select from a menu of technologies and practices to address land degradation and
generate income that are examined through cost-benefit analysis and adapted to the agro-ecological
conditions of the targeted project areas, and apply these BMPs and BMTs through micro-projects.
They will access the necessary technical assistance from public and private service providers. The
menu includes BMPs and BMTs on soil and water conservation, water harvesting, reseeding of
degraded lands, forest rehabilitation, pasture management, high yielding crop and livestock varieties
and genotypes, soil fertility maintenance etc.
8
The component would also support micro-projects that are identified within the micro-catchment
plans that promote alternate livelihoods and income generation, creating incentives for
environmentally sensitive land management. Investments would be in the areas of value addition
of NTFPs (such as medicinal and aromatic plants, Gum Arabica, sisal etc) and agroforestry
(promoting trees such as Jatropha curcas, oil palm, Hibiscus, Gum Arabic, Prunus africana etc)
and processing; diversification into high value crops; marketing information networks and
strengthening marketing channels where feasible; ecotourism including facilitating community
and private sector partnerships; apiculture technologies and community honey processing,
packaging and marketing channels; fisheries including appropriate fish varieties, processing and
links to market outlets; and promoting emerging livestock (e.g. ostrich, guinea fowls, camel) and
identifying market opportunities.
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’ fora, 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. Investments under this project will be directed towards NRM technologies
that complement production technologies supported through KAPP.
Another important initiative towards sustainable land use management is the promotion of biogas
technology at the rural household level through a more efficient use of animal waste. Installation of
family-size biogas would be a significant step towards reduction of pressure on the country’s
depleting woody biomass, amelioration of the lot of rural women, soil conservation, and improved
environmental outcomes. The project would make a provision to help plan and commence the work
based on a review of technical, financial and economic justification.
Component 3: Strengthening the enabling environment for SLM (GEF Increment USD 1.80
million, Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.61 million, Baseline USD 46.47
million)
This component will strengthen the enabling environment necessary for mainstreaming
sustainable land management approaches through the policy and institutional landscape. It will
seek to address gaps in the policy framework, support for institutional capacity for planning and
for monitoring and improved coordination between agencies.
Towards a sound policy framework
This component will support the Government in implementing its policy objectives, as
elucidated in the NAP, related to sustainable land and natural resources management. It will
support various studies and analyses that assess the current and proposed policy and regulatory
frameworks (including land and forest policies) for potential implications on land degradation.
The studies will seek for a better understanding of the linkages between and the impact of
policies and institutions (such as regulation, incentives/disincentives in agricultural production,
marketing, and resources management; subsidies, tariffs, and pricing of agricultural inputs and
commodities; environmental laws) on the management and use of natural resources, specifically,
factors affecting the widespread adoption of sustainable NRM practices and technologies.
9
The component will also support stakeholder consultations on these various policy issues as well
as seek to remove existing policy and legal barriers through a consultative process involving
communities, CBOs, government agencies and research institutions. Policy makers will also be
exposed to SLM & NRM issues through consultative policy meetings, workshops and dialogue.
The results of the studies and the consultative process, will contribute to the development of an
agenda of actions for better land and natural resource utilization and a shift in the approaches
towards addressing degradation. In addition, this component will support the piloting and
operationalization of payments for environmental services programs, by developing on the
knowledge base, identifying appropriate buyers and producers of environmental services (water,
carbon, biodiversity etc), building capacity and promoting dialogue.
Towards an improved knowledge and information base
The component will also address the gaps towards a sound information system that would link
outcomes to adaptive decision-making (relying less on ‘control’ measures and more on market
signaling and incentive measures) and support 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 Bill currently being
considered by Parliament, 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 invasive species, maintaining
and enhancing agro-biodiversity and indigenous species), water resources (support for integrated
water resources management and coordination) as well as gender issues and technology
dissemination. A sound information system relies to a significant degree on an adequate M&E
framework. The project will strengthen the ongoing Government efforts for an improved M&E
system by:
 Establishing baselines 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.
 Building capacity to analyze and interpret data for decision-making and management.
 Building capacity to identify and address NRM links to poverty and cross-sectoral issues.
 Valuing the economic cost of degradation and demonstrating benefits from alternate
approaches.
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. In-country training (including site-visits for policy makers) will be organized and
agencies that will be targeted include the relevant ministries (Agriculture, Environment,
including forests, wildlife, NEMA, Lands, Water and Community development), research
institutes and related organizations. Regional and international training, where necessary, will be
conducted as appropriate and may include workshops, conferences and study tours. Capacity
building would cover topics such as stakeholder consultation and conflict resolution,
environmental and social impact assessment, land degradation, biodiversity conservation
(themes) and methods (policy analysis and development, project management, data management,
analysis and modeling, participatory methods etc.).
10
Component 4: Project coordination and monitoring (GEF Increment USD 0.50 million,
Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.34 million, Baseline USD 7.20 million)
The implementation period for this project is six years. This component will support project
coordination and implementation at the national, district and grassroots level, both through
institutional structures created under the KAPP and those adapted or created under the project as
necessary. The project coordination organ will include competitively selected personnel with the
required skill-mix (agronomy and economics, SLM/NRM, communications, community and
social development, M&E etc).
This component will also coordinate the activities related to project monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) as well as impact assessment. The detailed institutional arrangements for project coordination and implementation, to be supported under this component are detailed in section C2
below.
4. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design
The proposed KAPSLMP will build on experiences and lessons learned from sustainable natural
resource management projects supported by the Bank, GEF, and Government of Kenya. It will
also build on the GEF STAP Review and UNDP assessment reports.
A. Lessons learned from Bank supported projects
(i)
Sao Paulo Land Management Project, Brazil (Project ID: P006474):
In order to optimize integration and collaboration of the different institutions and agencies,
the project will set out: (i) management and implementation structure with clear
responsibilities at all levels, and emphasis on strong local participation; (ii) strategies based
on technological changes adapted to local needs and conditions to produce immediate
benefits; (iii) provide extension workers with intensive training in group dynamics and use of
participatory methods; (iv) participatory methods for selecting micro-watersheds and
activities based on technical, environmental, and social criteria; and (v) a robust monitoring
and evaluation system. It will also carry out studies to inform the country’s legal framework,
including sanctions against activities detrimental to the environment and community efforts.
(ii)
Matruh Resource Management Project I and II, Egypt (ID: P005153/P074075)
As a first step, the project was designed to implement adequate training and capacity building
as prerequisites to the start-up and implementation of activities particularly those requiring
beneficiary participation.
(iii)
Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project I and II, China (ID:
P003540/P056216)
The proposed project will seek farmer-to-farmer exchange to pilot/project areas and use a
comprehensive awareness campaign to publicize project objectives and activities for a
sustained period of time.
(iv)
National Agricultural Research Project II, Kenya (ID: P001354)
Experience from NARP I and II centered around the emphasis on the need for clarity and
specificity regarding benchmarks and indicators as well as paying special attention to the
11
quality of monitoring and evaluation in place, and greater focus on end users and integration
with country broad strategy. The project’s M&E will be carried out with a strong technical
and scientific component associated with biophysical and social measurement. The proposed
implementation arrangement for the project was also influenced by the generally positive
implementation experience of NARP I and to use the administrative capacity within KARI
particularly on the fiduciary aspects.
(v)
Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project (KAPP, Project ID: P082396)
Recognizing that delays in the flow of funds is one of the main reasons for the current slow
implementation; the proposed project has designed a financial management system that
would allow uninterrupted flow of funds. Community organization will receive funds using
impress accounting system where funds will be released in advance and beneficiaries will
submit accountability reports in respect of amount already spent during the period.
B. Lessons learned from GEF supported projects
The operational program on land degradation (OP 15) was approved by the GEF Council in 2003
and since then 19 projects have been approved so far. The first project – Agricultural
Rehabilitation and Sustainable Land Management Project, Burundi - was endorsed by the GEF
CEO only in May 2004 and therefore, lessons learned during implementation are very limited.
C. Recommendations from GEF STAP Reviews
(i)
Community-Based Land Management Project, Republic of Guinea (ID:
P081297)
The project was designed to deal effectively with the local variations in causes and effects of
land degradation and would support locally-adapted and less blueprint oriented technical
approaches. The experiences from Guinea show that: (i) local participation in selection of
activities, technology development and adaptation, and monitoring was crucial for the
success of the project; (ii) ownership of the land degradation agenda should be at both the
local and national levels; (iii) sustainability of project activities will depend on profitability
of selected investments activities, strong support from all levels of government, and
involvement of local communities in all aspects of project design, implementation, and
evaluation. The proposed project supports community driven projects and community
participation for effective implementation; has well focused activities; and has both the
government support through the ongoing development of a policy on land management.
(ii)
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Sustainable Land Management Project,
Burundi (ID: P064558)
Sustainable land management projects need to deal effectively with the economic and social
issues. Experience for Brazil also show that outcomes from sustainable management
practices are unlikely to benefit evenly and compensation mechanisms for “losers”, if any
should be identified. The proposed project will support adoption of sustainable land
management practices and linking conservations objectives with production and income
objectives.
(iii)
Sustainable Land Management in Semi-Arid Sertao, Brazil (ID: 2373)
12
Questions have been raised regarding the lack of information and a thorough understanding
related to the causes and effects of land degradation. Funds under PDF-B were used to
support KARI to carry out a study and the recommendations were used in the project design.
D. Lessons learned from Government/KARI supported projects
A review of the ATIRI program carried out in 2002 acknowledges that the program could serve
as a desperately needed model for other projects where projects are anchored on
multidisciplinary /multi-institutional working mechanisms and participatory approaches. The
review indicates that the project objectives need to be clarified to all stakeholders at national,
district and farmers levels during project development, greater emphasis should be placed on
capacity building programs at all levels and to all stakeholders (implementers and services
providers, e.g. the NGOs, CBOs, private trade and business partners) and competitive selection
of local service providers could avoid risk that new entities would become overly bureaucratic.
The proposed project will, proactively pursue the promotion of various stakeholders’
partnerships to add value to the implementation and management of the project once it is
underway.
E. Land degradation-related projects supported by GEF
A review of the “GEF Land Degradation Linkage Study” from 2001 recommended that: (i)
projects should not only focus on redressing the effects of land degradation, such as soil erosion,
vegetation destruction, and water pollution, but also the drivers of land degradation; and (ii)
monitoring and evaluation of land degradation projects. The project will support development
and implementation of a viable monitoring and evaluation system that will include
environmental and social indicators.
F. Lessons from UNDP Assessment
The lessons learned from a UNDP assessment of 8 land degradation projects supported by GEF
included that: (i) the development of viable alternative land use systems requires a substantial
investment in high-quality targeted research; and (ii) large and rapid impacts on land degradation
may be obtained by addressing policy and economic structures affecting land use. These lessons
have been incorporated into the current project by including components aimed at informing
policy makers through studies and project activities likely to put pressure on several policy areas
where reforms are needed for the development of a favorable policy environment.
5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
The project was initially designed as part of a larger IDA program (KAPP). The instrument
selected for the KAPP is an APL. While KAPP is ongoing, the preparation of KAPSLMP has
lagged behind because of the need for additional data to underpin the preparation. Given the
timeline, it was proposed to classify this project as partially blended GEF project linked to IDA
KAPP. Similarly, activities under KAPSLMP, like those under KAPP, are long-term and require
sustained efforts, support, and flexibility (development of institutions, generation and adoption of
technologies, etc.) throughout the project life. Therefore, even if the activities are fairly small, it
was agreed to extend the project duration to six years.
Four alternatives were considered for addressing the problems of land degradations in Kenya and
determining the project intervention areas: (i) reducing the number of operational intervention
13
areas; (ii) stretching the intervention areas to embrace more watersheds; (iii) focusing only on
alternative livelihoods interventions given the degraded natural resource situation and
consequently lower potential for agriculture; and (iv) seeking alternative implementation
arrangements dedicated to project coordination and accountable through its Head to the
President’s Office.
The arguments for enlarging the project intervention areas are that land degradation is
widespread in Kenya and increasing the number will increase the impact of the project. The
counter-argument is that this approach will increase the complexity of project design and
implementation and the project’s approach should be to look for workable entry points in order
to mitigate implementation difficulties.
The alternative of increasing the project intervention areas does not offer good prospects of
significant impact, when it is clear that, in the past, similar projects have not made noticeable
differences in addressing land degradation issues because of implementation difficulties with
large areas of intervention.
Seeking remedies other than investment in land degradation was also considered. The rationale
is that it will be hard for some of these watersheds to become self-sufficient. Off-farm
employment opportunities, however, will be harder to develop because agriculture is still the
source of growth linkages and one that could stimulate off-farm employment and income
generation schemes.
The project will require an appropriate institutional structure which will continue to operate
beyond the end of the project. The argument for an alternative implementation arrangement arose
on account of the work load in KARI. The counter-argument is that KARI through its past
activities has gained substantial experience in implementing World Bank projects. As such, it has
significant institutional experience and a wealth of knowledge generated over the years that will
have applicability in this project. Therefore, it is proposed that a Lead Consultant reporting to the
KAPP Secretariat will be contracted under a TA component to carry out the day-to-day
responsibilities of project management. In addition, the Government Steering Committee set up
in consultation with the Bank to oversee the implementation of KAPP will include
representatives of the Ministries of Land and Water. Similarly, the Interagency Forum will
include Permanent Secretaries of these two Ministries to advise Government on matters related
to sustainable land management and natural resource use.
C. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Partnership arrangements
The success of the project will depend largely on participation by stakeholders at the different
levels and empowering local communities to ensure a sense of ownership and responsibility for
project outputs/outcomes. The development of alternative livelihoods is also dependent upon the
voluntary participation of local communities and the participatory identification of suitable
livelihood alternatives.
Stakeholder participation and ownership both during project design and implementation is the
corner stone of the project. The design of the project was based on extensive consultations with
stakeholders at various levels. National level and district level workshops within catchments
14
were conducted as were Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) that targeted farmers and village
communities in the catchments, to fully incorporate local priorities. A socio-economic survey
was also conducted to elicit farm level inputs.
NGOs and other community based organizations will have an important role to play in project
implementation and success. A wider audience will be engaged through the community
awareness campaign, to be designed with local conditions in mind. Checklists will be developed
for discussions of the main components of the project and project interventions. The M&E
framework will include mechanisms for a steady flow of information among stakeholders.
Stakeholder groups will include: (i) local communities and resource users; (ii) Service providers
(NGOs, CBOs and Government implementing agencies) as well as research organizations (such
as KARI, KEFRI, ICRAF) involved in the development and delivery of demand driven research
and extension; and (iii) government agencies in the context of policy analysis and reform.
Coordination between donor agencies, especially GEF projects in Kenya, and government
institutions has been recognized as vital to avoid, if not minimize, duplication, improve
effectiveness of activities and to scale-up outputs. The linkages between agencies including
UNDP, UNEP, FAO, IFAD, CIRAD, ICRAF, KEFRI, KARI, etc., are being developed into a
more structured coordination mechanism, through consultations between partners and the
Government (NEMA and sectoral ministries).
2. Institutional and implementation arrangements
The implementation arrangements for this project will have a considerable degree of linkage
with the KAPP structures already set up by the Government in consultation with the Bank. The
KAPP Steering Committee (KSC) which includes Government officials from the Ministries of
Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Cooperatives, Environment, and Local Government,
will be expanded to include the representatives of Ministries/Agencies of Water (both the
Ministry of Water and the Water Resources Management Authority, WRMA) and Land, as
well as representatives of the National Coordination Board (NCB) established within the
NAP for UNCCD.
The KAPSLMP-SC, chaired by Director, the Ministry of Land, will provide lead coordination,
adopt activity plans for the project, pay special attention to inter-sectoral coordination, and
promote integrated solutions. The Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee established
following the launching of the SRA will provide direction to the KAPSLMP-SC to ensure that
results meet the targets set by the project and address any emerging policy constraints.
The KAPSLMP-SC will be closely linked to the KAPP implementing structure but will include a
skill-mix that is required by the multi-disciplinary nature of the program. A competitively
hired/seconded person (with significant project management skills) will Head the Secretariat and
will be accountable to the President’s Office. A team of technical specialists will handle the
functional requirements of developing and implementing the program including: (i) developing a
master annual work program based on the work program for each component; (ii) developing an
associated disbursement plan and releasing funds, in a timely fashion; (iii) maintaining proper
accounts; (iv) coordinating project activities at the national and the catchment levels; (v)
implementing a monitoring system that is integral to each activity and is effectively linked to
15
planning for periodic adjustments in activities, when necessary; and (vi) monitoring and
evaluating the project to ensure effective implementation.
KARI will assume the fiduciary responsibilities given its extensive experience with Bankfinanced projects. Accordingly, KARI will be responsible for the project’s financial management
system. Much of the procurement in the project will be split between transactions taking place at
the cluster catchments levels and procurement organized at KARI headquarters.
More detailed implementation arrangement is in Annex 6.
3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results
The responsibility for this task will lie with the KAPSLMP-SC for supervision and strategic
planning of project activities and functionally with the coordination group. The monitoring and
evaluation system will be linked to two elements – land protection and household transformation
- of the overall program purpose, as well as objectives and outputs. Given the wide array of
players involved in project activities, implementation will require a simple and effective
monitoring and evaluation framework that is based on monitoring (and data collection) being an
integral component of each project activity, data starting at the community level and flowing
upwards. While this approach will involve greater planning and capacity assistance up-front, it
will reduce costs and be sustainable over time as opposed to periodic internal evaluations that are
costly and often seen as extraneous demands for information.
The envisaged M&E system, supported under the project, is designed as a two-track monitoring
and evaluation system involving an internal monitoring and an independent evaluation of project
impacts. The internal monitoring system is central to sound management and keeps project
management informed on day to day performance, and provides early warning for mid-stream
corrective actions on a continuous manner. The project will also provide funds for independent
evaluations using existing and future surveys on project outcomes and impacts.
During the preparation of the project, partial baselines have been developed in the 3 operational
areas (Kinale/Kikuyu, Tugen Hills, Taita Hills) and are ongoing for the other two (Yala River
and Cherangani Hills). Additional baseline activities are planned during preparation as well as in
early implementation, including market access, hydrological, water quality, soil erosion and GIS
mapping of degradation (based on data for vegetation and forest cover, water flows and quality
and soil erosion). Overlays of these maps with poverty and suitability assessments will help
prioritise activities and implementation as well as assist local development of micro-watershed
plans. In-turn, community based ground-truthing and local knowledge will enrich the
information base.
A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) will also be developed to facilitate monitoring of
project activities and performance, define the structures, roles and responsibilities of the various
stakeholders, and establish the structures and mechanisms (including web-based) for data and
information sharing. The system will be closely linked to the emerging regional M&E systems of
the TerrAfrica regional platform. TerrAfrica will be working over the next year to finalize this.
Good work in this area is being pioneered and tested by FAO, a TerrAfrica partner, under their
LADA project (Land Degradation Assessment).
16
4. Sustainability and Replicability
The main issue of sustainability is whether the project will result in effective gains in
productivity and income in targeted communities to the degree that the communities will be
economically self-sustaining over time. Replication will be promoted through: (i)
technologies/practices developed and adapted under the project; and (ii) mainstreaming of SLM
issues into broader strategies and multi-sector work. The former will be addressed through
component 1 (particularly through capacity building of service providers), and component 2
(particularly through identification and adaptation of technologies/practices). The latter will be
addressed mainly through component 3 (by improving the knowledge and information base; and
by promoting stronger institutions). In particular, lessons learned through this project would be
very useful in scaling-up, especially considering the diversity in land-use patterns among the five
project operational areas, and are expected to be applied to policy and project development
throughout Kenya. SLM methodologies identified as good practices, policy studies and impact
assessments will also be useful in the design and scale-up of land management activities through
the TerrAfrica and Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa, which provide
mechanisms for sharing of capacity, technical information and learning.
The greatest threats to project sustainability will be institutional arrangements and public
participation. Sustainability of the project will be attained through continued stakeholder
participation and institutional capacity building. The proposed GEF project is closely associated
with an IDA APL for a period of twelve years. The intention is that over the six years of GEF
project implementation, sustainable land management issues will be successfully mainstreamed
into decision making and processes through concrete and visible benefits from project
interventions, reforms to the policy framework and strengthening of institutions.
The project will also result in visible livelihood benefits and other economic incentive structures
at the local level and the development of an information sharing network. Consequently, many of
the activities carried out through this project are likely to be implemented without project
funding once the benefits of implementing such practices have been demonstrated.
5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
One of the main risks relates to the sustainability of the various sub-components supported under
the project. The project design incorporates several features to mitigate this sustainability risk.
First, the basic approach is to ensuring sustainability is to route service provision along multiple
providers. Second, the project will aim to introduce low cost technologies so that the incentive
and ability to make profits makes it worthwhile for the farmers to use these technologies and for
the service providers to continue in business.
The second risk relates to the speed at which funds will be able to flow as exemplified in the
slow movement of the KAPP, and its implications for the speed of implementation. The project
will adopt report based disbursement method and simplified accounting arrangements to ensure
timely financing of on-going activities.
The third risk is that women could be discriminated against due to the customary laws in rural
areas. The project recognizes the central role of women in land and proposes special attention to
gender matters during project implementation. Accordingly, the project will develop gender
17
sensitive planning procedures, highlight issues of importance to women, mobilize, through mass
awareness programs, women as active project partners and stakeholders. Project training will
address gender relations and project monitoring and evaluation plan will develop indicators that
are gender sensitive.
The fourth risk is that some stakeholders and communities may choose not to participate in the
program or are not able to work together to manage communal resources. First, the project is
designed to maximize stakeholders and community participation. Second, the project will
undertake need assessments and demonstrate the potential benefits and use “converts” as part of
the outreach program. Third, given that the project activities will reflect community priorities
and implemented by them, there is no reason to anticipate a shift in the willingness not to
participate.
The fifth risk is the lack of capacity to implement the project. Timely implementation of project
activities will depend on the capacity of implementing agencies and degree of collaboration. It is
recognized that there are fundamental capacity gaps and weaknesses in several areas and at all
levels. The project has identified the important capacity needed with regard to SLM and will
support strengthening and seek competitive provision of services. However, there remains a
capacity related risk that exceeds the scope of the project. The project will build on the existing
coordination structures (KAPP, SRA, NAP coordination, etc.) and link with related ongoing and
proposed interventions (projects including ARLMP, WKCDD, NRM etc) in defining its capacity
building efforts and to enhance cross-sectoral collaboration.
While efforts will be made to minimize the risk by introducing tested technologies, providing
technical assistance, and building the capacities of the stakeholders, at this stage, it is not
possible to rule out the concern that one or more of the stakeholders will not function effectively
having a significant adverse effect on the project’s ability to meet its targets. The concern could
be mitigated by identifying and encouraging community and national level champions to play a
key role in the project.
Other project specific risks and proposed mitigating arrangements
a)
Risk
Misuse of and failure to
account for project funds
Rating
S
Mitigating arrangements
 Institution of independent and effective internal
audit and risk management function
b)
Ineffective audit functions
S
 Adoption of a risk based audit approach and employ
international best practices
 Institution of Board Audit Committee
c)
Delayed funds flow
S
 Streamlining of quarterly FMR reporting
arrangements and adoption of report based
disbursement method
d)
Low accounting capacity in
community based initiatives
S
 Adoption of simplified accounting arrangements
 Ongoing capacity enhancement initiatives
6. Loan/credit conditions and covenants
Actions required prior to negotiations:
18
1
2
3
4
Action
Financial Management Manual updated, reviewed and agreed
Arrangements for efficient remittance of funds agreed
Head office FM staffing completed
FM manual revision completed and simplified guidelines for CBO reporting
prepared, reviewed and accepted
Actions required prior to credit effectiveness:
Action
1
Adoption of a risk based internal audit approach and establishment of Board
Audit Committee
2
Quarterly financial monitoring reporting arrangements, including arrangements
for collating community initiative inputs in place
D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY
1. Economic and financial analyses
A framework will be developed to carry out economic analysis prior to appraisal. Both costbenefit and cost-effectiveness approaches will be used in the design of the framework for microprojects. Moreover, the economic cost of land degradation under a business as usual scenario
will be analyzed and estimated within the economic analyses.
The economic benefits associated with specific SLM practices within the operational areas fall
into two main categories: (i) benefits in the upper watersheds from reduced soil erosion, reversal
of degradation of land and increased productivity from sustainable forest, pasture and
agricultural land management; and (ii) benefits in the lower watersheds from reduced flooding
and sedimentation of water courses and thus less damage to infrastructure, agricultural crops,
etc., as well as improved land productivity.
The overall ERR for the project, will cover upstream and downstream benefits as well as
increased incomes from non-farm opportunities (sustainable marketing and use of NTFP and
other NR products). The economic analysis will consider three aspects: a) Quantifiable benefits:
This will include economic benefits generated from increased production (fodder, NTFPs such
as medicinal plants and herbs; fuelwood, timber; crops, agro-forestry etc) as well as reduced
losses due to environmental risks (forest/bushfires, flooding and related damage to infrastructure,
soil erosion etc) – these direct benefits will result from the implementation of the micro projects;
b) Non-quantifiable benefits: significant values accruing from biodiversity protection,
enhancement, regeneration and recovery of natural vegetation, stabilization of land resulting in
less soil erosion and sedimentation of water courses, and reduced risk of landslides; and c)
Sensitivity analysis: The response of the rate of return on the key variables will be analyzed to
refine project activities. For instance, the number of hectares of forest and pasture land
rehabilitated in each micro-catchment would be compared with the percentage reduction in
annual costs repairing downstream flooding (damage) towards integrated planning of land and
water resources.
2. Technical
The project technical design is appropriate to the country’s need. Special attention will be paid to
identifying land management technologies and estimating the likely effect of these various
19
technologies on productivity and environmental benefits. Technical capacity is likely to be a
constraint on program implementation at all levels. Moreover, in light of the move towards a
land policy by the country the project places special emphasis on increasing capacity for
information gathering, analysis and use at different levels – for management at the local level
using practical and simple tools and for detailed assessments to inform policymakers at the
provincial/national level. Communication is a key feature for the success of project activities. A
sound communication strategy at the local level will spread interest among communities and will
increase their participation, while communication of issues and results at the sectoral ministry
level will enhance coordination. The project will support capacity building (workshops, training
courses, distance learning and on the job training), development and implementation of a
communication strategy including the use of mass media (radio, schools, etc.) in local languages
for local awareness and capacity building, and the development of a monitoring and information
system (including community monitoring and feeding into decision-making).
A major challenge relating with increasing agricultural productivity is the largely degraded land
and resource base. Project activities will seek the twin track approach of enhancing the
ecological base for greater yields as well as of promoting income generating activities and offfarm employment opportunities that would reduce the degree of dependence of households on
natural resources under pressure.
3. Fiduciary
The project’s financial management risk is assessed as being moderate provided that the following
proposed critical actions are implemented as provided in the financial management action plan:
i.
An effective and independent project oversight function vested in the Board Audit Committee
that will conduct independent institutional risk management on an ongoing basis, monitor
compliance with laid down policies and procedures, review and recommend enhancement of
accounting and internal controls. Internal Audit will adopt a risk based audit approach and report
directly to the PSC.
ii.
FMRs have been identified as the preferred basis of funding disbursement. Quarterly FMRs will
be expected to contain sufficient details to support (i) fund accountability; (ii) procurement
progress; and (iii) discussion on project progress including highlights of issues requiring
attention, thereby improving project progress monitoring. The proposed form of presentation will
be agreed during project negotiations.
iii. Inefficiencies in the flow of funds and accountability are eliminated through adoption of
simplified accounting procedures and elimination of bureaucratic payment approval processes.
Agreed procedures, including benchmark timelines will be agreed and confirmed during
negotiations.
A World Bank Financial Management Specialist (FMS) will review and refine the financial
procedures during appraisal.
4. Social
About half the population in the project operations areas is below the poverty line, and dependent
on small farming, agro-pastoralism, forest resources and other NRM based livelihoods such as
apiculture, charcoal burning, fishing, and casual labor etc. Opportunities for increased land
20
productivity are expected to have social impacts that provide incentives for community solutions
to problems of land degradation and improve community responsibility for the environment,
reduce the consequences resulting from resource-abusing practices, and ensure sustainable use of
their lands while maintaining or enhancing the ecological base..
A social analysis will be carried out as part of the project preparation. The analysis will rely on
the following approaches:
(i)
Data gathering from secondary sources. This includes: (a) World Bank social analysis
studies such as the Kenya country social analysis, social assessments from related projects such
as Arid Lands, Agricultural Productivity, as well as studies commissioned for this project, (b)
local statistics and other GOK data of the project areas, (c) research and academic published
materials on the relevant project issues in these areas, and (d) other donors and NGO reports that
address social development issues in relation to natural resource management and use.
(ii)
The Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The framework will
include social safeguard issues and will screen for projects that have the potential to trigger the
World Bank safeguard policies. It will identify in detail the conditions under which a particular
policy is triggered and indicate that any sub-project triggering it will be ineligible for funding.
The framework will also screen for sub-projects impacting indigenous peoples as defined by the
World Bank safeguard and direct such sub-projects to the relevant mitigation plan which is being
prepared under this project.
(iii) Field work. Depending on the quality of the available data, the study would focus on
using a range of participatory techniques (open and closed interviews, focus group discussions,
participant observation, case history and PRA) to derive the required information to fill the
identified gaps.
The understanding of relevant issues of social dynamics, institutional set up, vulnerable subgroups and sub project impacts, will feed into the drafting of the operational manual. The aim is
to ensure that project processes and structures reflect the understanding of social issues and are
designed to maximize positive impacts, especially on the most vulnerable sub-groups.
It is expected that groups in 3 of the watersheds fall into the category of Indigenous Peoples. An
anthropologist will develop an action plan that ensures that special needs of such groups are
taken into consideration in accordance with the World Bank safeguard policy.
The social assessment will use the above approach. Where necessary recommendations will be
specific to a watershed to accommodate maximum appreciation for the varied cultures and
production systems (farming, pastorals, gatherers, agro-business etc.):
In order to identify interventions/strategies to respond to specific needs of vulnerable groups
(e.g. female headed households, landless labor, share-croppers, and foragers) in the context of
sustainable land management, the analysis will include:

A description of current resource use patterns (formal and informal) with an analysis of
patron client and other social and economic relationship (e.g. lineage and clan) that
influence productive behavior.
21

Identification of sub-groups with regard to community decision making processes, use of
common property resources, social stigmas and economic vulnerability. An attempt will
be made to analyze their specific needs and target interventions (and budget) to address
these. Recommendations will also be made with regard to consultation and participation
of these groups in community decision making in the project

A set of monitorable indicators to measure project impact on the targeted sub-groups.
Also, the analysis will identify sources of conflict, with special attention to available
mechanisms for conflict management including the following:

An assessment of the social and economic relationships between groups residing in each
watershed, with special attention to current patterns of natural resource use and potential
for conflict. The analysis will cover both formal and informal patterns of use, identify
past and existing clashes over resource use and identify any sub-groups that are
particularly vulnerable.

A description on the effectiveness of traditional and formal grievance channels and
recommend on appropriate avenues to include in project design; to the extent possible,
the roles of key players such as community leaders, religious heads, traditional judges
etc. will be analyzed and recommendations made.

Specific attention paid to existing conflict areas between farmers and pastoral
communities, including tensions with indigenous group’s dependant on forest resources.
Finally, the analysis will include: (i) institutional structures involved in regulating land
management in the identified areas (e.g., public, private, small NGOs, religious NGOs, CBOs,
traditional technical experts such as water readers); and (ii) guidelines/channels for effective
consultation and participation of all project beneficiaries and other impacted sub-groups.
5. Environment
This 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.
An ESMF will be developed based on inputs generated during workshops and consultations with
all stakeholders and will include appropriate processes for screening for environmental
safeguards in micro-projects. The capacity development component will include training to
address capacity constraints for environmental screening as well as for implementing the ESMF.
The ESMF will include a mechanism and procedures for screening potential environmental and
social impacts of the proposed subprojects. It will assess potential environmental and social
impacts, and propose mitigation measures. It will also establish institutional arrangements for
22
monitoring of subprojects, and include in the ESMF an Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
checklist to minimize the need for chemical pesticides. During the screening process, should it be
found that a safeguard policy will be triggered by a sub-project; a subproject specific
environmental management plan will be prepared before the subproject is approved. The ESMF
will include the necessary format for such management and/or mitigation plans.
6. Safeguard policies
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01)
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11)
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10)
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)*
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50)
Yes
[X]
[X]
[X]
[]
[]
[X]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
[]
[]
[]
[X]
[X]
[]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness
The project will comply with all applicable Bank policies. The procurement documents for the
first year activities will be completed and ready for the start of project implementation. Also, the
project implementation plan (PIP) will be developed and appraised in terms of realism and
quality. Finally, condition of Grant Effectiveness will be agreed during negotiations.
In addition to access to the Quality Enhancement Team (chaired by the Sector Manager, AFTS2)
throughout project preparation for vetting key design issues, the team will seek a formal Quality
Enhancement Review early in the preparation process.
*
By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the
disputed areas
23
Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
Key sector issues
Declining economic growth. Kenya’s economic performance is not keeping up for its
population of 30.1 million with an annual growth of 2.3 percent. In fact, it declined since the
1970’s from about 7 percent to just over 2 percent in the 1990’s and averaged at 1.4 percent in
2001-03. Poverty and food insecurity have increased in the same period. According to the
Investment Program for the Economic Recovery Strategy (IP-ERS), the proportion of the
population living in poverty rose from about 49% in 1990 to more than 56% in 2003. These
figures reflect the poor performance of major sectors, including agriculture and are due, in part,
to the unprecedented drawdown of natural capital resulting in productivity losses.
Poor performance of agriculture. Agriculture, the largest sector of the economy accounting
for 26 percent of the GDP, 60 percent of total employment and 75 percent of merchandize
exports, remains the key rural development challenge for Kenya. The growth rate in agriculture
has been declining over the last 25 years, recovering partially in 2003 (2.6 percent) but falling
again in 2004 (1.4 percent). Structural weaknesses such as market distortions, poor
infrastructure, low labor productivity and inadequate support services and external factors
including low international commodity prices and climate change are determinants. The impact
on the poor is severe given that 67 percent of the population and 80 percent of the poor live in
rural areas and are largely dependent on sector activities. The Government of Kenya’s Strategy
for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA) places a high priority on agricultural growth and identifies
land degradation and its associated threats to the ecology as a key constraint to agricultural
growth. .
Kenya constitutes one of the most degraded areas of the About 70 percent of Kenya’s
population live in the 12 percent of total land area (581,679 square kilometres) which is
classified as being of medium to high potential for agriculture and livestock production.
The growing population and the resulting increase in demand for land, energy and water is
putting tremendous pressure on the natural resources.
Land degradation is widespread and manifests itself in multiple ways including:
 Over-exploitation and poor use of the natural resource base;
 Excessive soil erosion, gullying and increased sediment loading of water bodies;
 Nutrient depletion due to burning of biomass4;
 Reduced ground cover and lower carrying capacity of pastures;
 Continued loss and degradation of forest areas as well as clearing of farm forestry;
 Reduced flows of water, drying up of water courses, worsening water quality;
4
Recent estimates by the World Agro-forestry Center indicate that in the Nyando River Basin alone, soil worth
US$42.7 million is lost every year (estimations are based on a soil value of US$ 12/MT). Since 1962, 3.2 million
MT of soil have been washed into the Lake Victoria and over 50% of the land in Western Kenya has been
abandoned due to depletion of soil nutrients.
24




Habitat loss and threats to biodiversity
Loss of carbon sinks
Increased damages from cycle of droughts and floods as well as increased degree and
frequency of such extreme events;
Increased vulnerability of and gradual reduction in incomes of rural families;
There are multiple issues that underpin the trend of increasing land degradation in Kenya. Some
of the major factors that help explain or facilitate land degradation are:
 Inadequate investments in agriculture and weak extension systems;
 Weaknesses of research programs (targeting, applicability, cost effectiveness, demand
drivenness etc) and lower attention to the use of indigenous knowledge
 Inappropriate and unsustainable agricultural practices such as cultivation on steep slopes,
in marginal areas etc
 Overgrazing, and loss/degradation of vegetation;
 Untenable traditional land management practices – such as fallowing to restore fertility –
due to high population density and fragmentation;
 Inadequate land use management and protection in the country’s catchment areas;
 Unclear property rights implying lower investments in sound land and natural resources
management;
 Inadequate control over forest reserves leading to the treatment of land as a patronage
tool within a context of increased electoral competition;
 Absence of alternate livelihood opportunities;
 Increased demand for wood-fuel and charcoal5 and high prices for charcoal in an active
commercial market;
 Deficiencies in the policy framework including barriers to adoption of, and investment in,
sustainable land management technologies;
 Weakness in the legislative and legal framework, in particular lack of cross-sectoral
coordination on land management (NRM is covered under 77 different statutes that are
limited to a specific sectoral or functional focus);
 Absence of regular and accurate assessments and monitoring of natural resources
combined with the lack of capacity to analyze and develop decision support information
systems;
 Insufficient mechanisms to address environmental externalities and lack of incentive
structures to promote environmental management (such as, payments for environmental
services6);
 Social issues including inheritance and burial practices;
 Lack of awareness among the groups contributing to the degradation regarding the
impacts of their actions; and
 Lack of champions for sustainable land management (a reflection of its cross-sectoral
nature)
5
Charcoal demand is currently at 20 million metric tons.
PES systems can provide incentives to maintain land uses that generate or protect ecosystem services. Farmers
who adopt practices that, say, reduce downstream impacts or increase carbon sequestration could potentially receive
payments that compensate them for their costs on the basis of the value of benefits generated or accrued elsewhere.
6
25
Persistent diminishing productivity and the absence of significant investment to raise land
productivity have generated recent policy debate and highlighted the need to address land
degradation and improve natural resources management through interventions at the macro as
well as at the farm and community levels. Further details on land degradation in the proposed
project areas are in Annex 1.
The Government Strategy
The Government recognizes the need for raising land productivity to raise rural incomes and
improving the sustainability of land use and has responded through its various strategies (ERS,
SRA, NAP etc.) Its development strategy, articulated in the Economic Recovery Strategy for
Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS) (2003-2007), identifies agriculture as among the prime
drivers of the recovery program and places particular emphasis on sustainable agricultural growth as
a critical element in poverty reduction. The Government adopted its, Strategy for Revitalizing
Agriculture (SRA), 2004-2014) which recognizes the lack of a coherent land policy as one of the
impediments to sound land use leading to environmental degradation. A comprehensive land policy
covering use and administration, tenure security, and delivery systems is under preparation/review.
The draft policy is expected to have far reaching implications on: (i) existing legislation and the
institutions mandated with the management of natural resources; (ii) land management; and (iii)
the extent to which local communities can participate in these activities.
A National Action Programme (NAP) for addressing land degradation, in the context of the
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was prepared in 2002 through a
thorough consultative process. The following are priority areas of the NAP:
 A robust enabling environment that enables communities to access and manage local
resources;
 Development of ecologically sound land use policies and plans;
 Information and knowledge base for addressing land degradation;
 Implementation of a targeted awareness to foster cooperation and a common
understanding on sustainable land management;
 Capacity building of stakeholders;
 Support to local community initiatives to develop long-term financial mechanisms.
 Sectoral Foci: Energy, Vegetation cover, energy, forest conservation, Agriculture and
pastoralism, soil and water resources management.
 Cross-Sectoral Foci: Gender mainstreaming, science and technology, poverty and
environment linkages, use of early warning systems.
26
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
Sector Issue
Project
Latest Supervision
(ISR) Ratings
Bank-financed
IP
DO
Drought Management and
CDD
Arid Lands Resource Management
Project (second phase ongoing)
S
S
Second National Agricultural Research
Project (closed)
S
S
Agricultural Research
S
S
Environment
Lake
Victoria
Environment
Management Project (ongoing)
Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem
Management Project
Water Management
Watershed Resources Development and
Management (planned)
Civil Society
Empowerment
Decentralization
Western Kenya CDD (planned)
Local Government Reform (planned)
Other Development
Agencies
SIDA
 National
Agricultural
Livestock Extension Project
(NALEP)
and
EU

Agricultural Research Support
Project (ongoing and planned)

Horticulture and traditional
Crops project
Central Kenya Dry Area
Smallholder
S. Nyanza CDD (planned)
IFAD
FAO


USAID




DFID

Special Program for Food
Security (SPFS)
Environment
& Natural
Resource
Management
Kenya Dairy Project
Kenya Maize Development
Project
Horticultural
Drops
27
GTZ


DANIDA

JICA

AfDB
Development Project
Kenya
Agriculture
Biotechnology
Support
Program
North
Eastern
Pastoral
Development Program
Smallholder
Development Project
Agriculture Policy
Project (planned)
Dairy
Reform

Promotion of Private Sector
Development in Agriculture

Agricultural Sector Support
Project (ongoing and planned)

Smallholder
Horticulture
Empowerment
Project
(planneds)
Smallholder Irrigation Project
(planned)
Baringo Integrated RD Project
(planned)



Support
to
Development
28
Livestock
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
PDO
Project Outcome Indicators

Project Development
Objective (PDO):
The PDO 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.
Global Environmental
Objective (GEO): The GEO of
the proposed project is to
reduce and mitigate land
degradation in the targeted
operational areas and to
contribute to maintenance of
critical ecosystem functions
and structures.





Area (in ha) on which
promoted SLM
technologies and practices
have been adopted (total;
total per watershed) – area
needs to be specified for
each major technology
% of income of farm and
non-farm households
increased in targeted
watersheds due to
adoption of promoted
technologies and
strategies (in average for
all households; in average
for households per
watershed; in average for
landless; in average for
female-headed
households)
Percent of soil loss
reduced in targeted
watersheds (field
measurements or
estimated through USLE
or similar models)
Percent of land under
vegetative cover in
targeted watersheds (GIS
measurements)
% increase in soil
moisture content (soil
samples on selected plots)
Sedimentation rate of
selected reservoirs
reduced by X % (field
measurements or
quantitative models)
29
Use of Project Outcome
Information



Help to assess the impact
of the project and indicate
if changes in project
design are necessary.
Help determine if
technology generated and
disseminated meet real
needs of farmers and
producers and improve
environmental integrity.
Help determine/assess if
component outcomes are
successfully translated
into desired outcomes at
PDO/GEO level or
whether disconnect
exists.

Intermediate Outcomes
% increase in carbon
storage capacity (method
to be discussed with
scientists)
Intermediate Outcome
Indicators
Use of Intermediate
Outcome Monitoring
Component 1:
Building capacity for
sustainable land management


Communities in
operational areas have the
capacity to systematically
plan interventions aimed at
sustainable land
management and
alternative livelihood
strategies
Service providers have the
capacity to effectively
provide demand driven
SLM services and support
for alternate livelihood
strategies.




Number of microcatchment plans
developed and approved
Client satisfaction with
SLM oriented service
provision at capacity
planning stage (percent of
positive responses or
ratings, with particular
focus on women)
Number of service
providers who
successfully completed
SLM training
% of service providers
trained who continue to
provide relevant service
after completion of
training

Number of producers
adopting promoted land
management technologies
(total; total per watershed;
women)
Number of households
adopting alternative



Indicate whether
community capacity
building is translated into
effective SLM planning.
Help to demonstrate if
service providers have
acquired appropriate
skills to promote SLM
options and alternative
livelihood options.
Help determine if service
providers are able to
adequately met NRM
needs of resource users
and if further
improvements in demanddriven service delivery
are needed.
Component 2:
Investment in SLM microprojects and promotion of
alternative livelihoods
systems

Communities in targeted
watersheds are empowered
and have the resources to
adopt SLM practices/
technologies and
alternative livelihood
options


30
Evaluate relevance and
responsiveness of
selected technical and
methodological
approaches to promote
SLM practices and
alternative livelihood



livelihood options (total;
total per watershed; total
female-headed)
Client satisfaction with
SLM oriented service
provision at
implementation stage
(percent of positive
responses or ratings, with
particular focus on
women)
Number of
SLM/alternative
livelihood micro-projects
approved and received
funding (particular focus
on micro-projects
implemented by women)
Number of
SLM/alternative
livelihood micro-projects
rated as satisfactory
(particularly microprojects implemented by
women).



strategies.
Assess if capacity
building efforts are
translated into increased
adoption of SLM
practices/technologies.
Help flag unsuccessful
implementation of SLM
micro-projects and take
corrective measures.
Indicate whether
institutional set-up of
project implementation
needs revision.
Component 3:
Strengthening the enabling
environment for SLM

Policy-makers and other
relevant stakeholders are
enabled to make informed
decisions about SLM
issues




Number of studies and
background papers on
SLM prepared and
disseminated through
workshops/seminars and
publications.
Number of relevant
sectoral programs in
which NRM issues have
been successfully
mainstreamed
Number of policies
drafted and regulation
formulated to address core
issues of SLM
SLM information system
31


Help determine changes
needed in policies and the
incentive climate to
encourage uptake of
sustainable land
management practices
Demonstrate the
commitment of policy
makers to addressing
NRM and poverty
reduction issues
established to inform
political decision-making
process
Component 4:
Project coordination and
monitoring

Implementing unit
(KAPSLMP Secretariat)
efficiently functions as a
facilitator of decentralized
project management and
coordination




Implementing unit
developed annual master
work program based on
work programs submitted
by implementers in time
(as threshold number of
days/weeks after agreed
deadline for master plan
can be used)
Funds released to microprojects in a timely
fashion against agreed
work plans (number of
days elapsed since agreed
deadline)
% of annual progress and
M&E reports delivered
from CBOs and
supporting stakeholders to
PIU in time (as threshold
number of days after
agreed deadline for
submission)
% of micro-projects for
which community-based
M&E has been undertaken
32



Evaluate performance of
the project coordination
unit and determine if
corrective measures are
needed.
Evaluate implementation
of a decentralized and
participatory M&E
system.
Evaluate efficiency of
resource use.
Arrangements for Results Monitoring
Outcome Indicators
PDO/GEO Level
 Area (in ha) on which promoted
SLM technologies and practices
have been adopted – area needs to
be specified for each major
technology
o Total (in all watersheds)
o Total per watershed

% of income of farm and non-farm
households increased in targeted
watersheds due to adoption of
promoted technologies and
strategies
o in average for all households
in all watersheds
o in average for households per
watershed
o in average for landless
o in average for female-headed
households

% of soil loss reduced in targeted
watersheds
Baseline
To be
determined
YR1
YR2
YR3
YR4
YR5
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
tbd
33
Data Collection and Reporting
YR6
Frequency and
Reports
tbd
Data Collection
Instruments
Responsibility
for Data
Collection
Yearly project
summary report by
PIU, with results
from micro-projects
progress reports
Interviews/focus
groups with
participating
farmers/
communities,
supplemented by
baseline survey
and follow-up
surveys
Executing
agencies/service
providers,
research
institution hired
for surveys, and
PIU
See above
See above
(surveys will not
be conducted
annually)
See above
See above
Field
measurements;
alternatively
parameters for
selected
modeling
Scientists from
national/
international
institutions; PIU
approach will be
determined (e.g.
USLE)

% of land under vegetative cover
in targeted watersheds
See above
GIS/satellite
images
Scientists from
national/
international
institutions; PIU

% increase in soil moisture content
(in each watershed)
See above
Collecting and
analysis of soil
samples
Scientists from
national/
international
institutions; PIU

% decrease of sedimentation rate
of selected reservoirs
See above
Field
measurements
will be
conducted and/or
parameters for
selected
modeling
approach will be
determined
Scientists from
national/
international
institutions; PIU

% increase in carbon storage
capacity (in total for all
watersheds)
See above
Data collection
methods to
quantify above
ground and soil
carbon
sequestration
have to be
identified based
on discussion
with ICRAF
scientists
Scientists from
ICRAF and other
institutions; PIU
Results Indicators for Each
34
Component
Component 1: Building Capacity for
SLM

Number of micro-catchment plans
developed and approved

Client satisfaction with SLM
oriented service provision at
planning stage

Number of service providers who
successfully completed SLM
training

% of service providers trained who
continue to provide service after
completion of training
Annual progress
reports prepared by
service providers
Numbers as
indicated in
progress reports
will be
summarized and
synthesized in
annual PIU
report
Service Providers
and PIU
(watershed
coordinator)
Annual progress
reports prepared by
service providers
Focus groups
and interviews
with targeted
beneficiaries
PIU (watershed
coordinator)
Annual PIU progress
report
Participation will
be monitored by
executing
agencies
Executing
agencies, PIU
(watershed
coordinator)
See above
List of providers
participated in
training to be
compared with
register of
service providers
PIU (watershed
coordinator)
Yearly project
summary report by
PIU, with results
from micro-projects
progress reports
Interviews/focus
groups with
participating
farmers/
communities
supplemented by
baseline survey
and follow-up
Executing
agencies/service
providers,
research
institution hired
for surveys and
PIU
Component 2: Investments in
Community SLM Micro-Projects

Number of farmers adopting
promoted land management
technologies
o Total in all watersheds
o Total per watershed
o Women in all watersheds
35
surveys

Number of households adopting
alternative livelihood options
o Total in all watersheds
o Total per watershed
o Female-headed households in
all watersheds

Client satisfaction with
SLM/alternative livelihood options
oriented service provision at
implementation stage

Number of SLM/alternative
livelihood micro-projects approved
and received funding

Number of SLM/alternative
livelihood micro-projects rated as
satisfactory
See above
See above
See above
Annual progress
reports prepared by
service providers
Focus groups
and interviews
with targeted
beneficiaries
PIU (watershed
coordinator)
Yearly project
summary report by
PIU, with results
from watershed
progress reports
Watershed
coordinator will
monitor and
present this
information in
progress reports
PIU (watershed
coordinator)
Depends on the
duration of microprojects (as soon as
micro-project is
finished an
evaluation will be
conducted)
Focus groups
and interviews
with
beneficiaries
Independent
institution hired
for evaluation
Yearly project
summary report by
PIU
Number of
studies and
papers will be
captured through
overall
monitoring
process
PIU
See above
See above
See above
Component 3: Strengthening the
enabling environment for SLM

Number of studies and background
papers on SLM prepared and
disseminated through
workshops/seminars and
publications

Number of relevant sectoral
36
programs in which NRM issues
have been successfully
mainstreamed

Number of policies drafted and
regulation formulated to address
core issues of SLM
 SLM information system
established to inform political
decision-making process
Component 4: Project Coordination
and Monitoring

Implementing unit developed
annual master work program based
on work programs submitted by
implementers in time (number
weeks after agreed deadline for
master plan)

Funds released to micro-projects in
a timely fashion against agreed
work plans (number of weeks
elapsed since agreed deadline)

% of annual progress and M&E
reports delivered from CBOs and
supporting stakeholders to PIU in
time (number of weeks after
agreed deadline for submission)
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
Yearly project
summary report by
PIU
Through overall
monitoring
process
PIU under
supervision of
PSC and other
project overseeing
units
See above
See above
PIU
See above
See above
PIU and
watershed
coordinator
See above
See above
PIU (watershed
coordinator)
 % of micro-projects for which
community-based M&E has been
undertaken
37
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
The development objective of the proposed project is to reduce and mitigate land degradation in
targeted operational areas by accelerating uptake of locally driven sustainable land management
practices, contributing to maintenance of critical ecosystem functions and structures.
Specifically, the 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.
Enhance the institutional capacity of all relevant stakeholders to promote sustainable land
management practices and alternative livelihood strategies based on participatory and
demand-driven approaches.
Evaluate the impact of existing policies affecting the management of natural resources and
contribute to the removal of barriers hindering the widespread adoption of SLM practices.
Facilitate the exchange of information on best practices in sustainable land management
among farmers, communities, extension agents, researchers, development partners, and
policy makers.
The project aims to address land degradation and improve land management in five operational
areas: Taita-Taveta, Tugen Hills, Kinale-Kikuyu Cherangani Hills, and Yala catchements.
Project components
It is proposed that the project would have 4 components: (1) Building capacity for SLM; (2)
Investments in community SLM micro-projects; (3) Strengthening the enabling environment for
SLM; and (4) Coordination, monitoring and evaluation of project activities. Investment in
monitoring and impact evaluation will be integral to each activity in these windows.
Component 1: Building Capacity for Sustainable Land Management (GEF Increment USD
3.70 million, Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.87 million, Baseline USD
13.02 million)
This component recognises the critical need for capacity at multiple levels for the implementation of
the objectives of the project and seeks to address these gaps. It will target communities and service
providers for training and capacity enhancement as well as help build a broader awareness of the
potential and impact of SLM.
Community capacity building
This subcomponent will support capacity building among producers and resource users within
communities and empower households to analyse opportunities, identify and experiment with
alternative interventions, and generate and share knowledge on adaptive management of natural
resources. It will help communities create consensus for and develop micro-catchment land use
plans through participatory approaches, involving local communities, advisory service providers,
and researchers as well as support farmer groups and communities in developing and
38
implementing demand-driven micro-projects that come out of micro-catchment plans. To the
extent possible the project will focus its capacity building efforts on existing CBOs and farmer
groups. Particular emphasis will be placed on social inclusion to ensure adequate representation
of women, landless, and other disadvantaged groups.
Community capacity would be support in both thematic (information on the best management
practices (BMPs) and technologies (BMTs), and alternate options for income generation) and
methodological areas (preparing micro-project proposals, credit financing and savings, areas,
accessing market information and so on). Some of the issues are: (i) soil and water conservation
technologies; (ii) appropriate fertility management practices; (iii) environmentally positive
production systems (conservation tillage, agro-forestry, forages, zero grazing, INM etc); (iv)
water management (e.g. conservation and harvesting techniques, irrigation planning); (v)
integrated pest management; (vi) conservation and utilization of biodiversity; (vii) alternative
livelihoods (e.g. tree nurseries, ecotourism, apiculture, medicinal plants, fisheries, emerging
livestock); (viii) consensus building and conflict resolution mechanisms; (ix) early warning
systems (vulnerability); (x) marketing and value addition; (xi) efficient use and alternatives to
fuel wood; and (xii) compliance to environmental policies (including flood and fire control).
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 on participatory tools, including Participatory Rural Assessment (PRA), Rapid
Rural Appraisal (RRA), transect works and extension methodologies such as ATIRI, Farmer
Field Schools (FFS), farmer to farmer extension and demonstration training, focal area approach,
and model farmer etc. In particular, community opinion leaders will be sensitized on various land
management issues such as identification of community priorities; development and
implementation of community plans; resource use conflicts and resolution, and
policies/regulations related to NRM. Moreover, local organizations will be trained in output and
outcome based participatory monitoring and evaluation; data collection methodologies and
record keeping; and identification of resource degradation indicators.
Services Providers Capacity
This component will address weaknesses in service provision by building local capacity on the
available technological solutions for sustainable land management. It will build on KAPP support
activities on extension reform and target public and private extension agents and service providers
(including CBOs and NGOs) at the division and district. It will enable them to transfer
information and locally adaptive technologies and practices to the communities under a demanddriven and competitive service provision framework. Capacity will be enhanced through
appropriately targeted training (e.g. through learning workshops, exchange visits and
publications) and field based learning (e.g. site visits, demonstration plots, and pilots) provided
by qualified national and international research and extension institutions. Capacity building
efforts will focus on both technical and methodological areas. The former include: sustainable
resource use planning and management; livestock management; crop management practices;
water harvesting and irrigation practices; marketing strategies; agro-forestry systems; marketing;
agro-processing and other alternative livelihood strategies. The latter include project
management methods, participatory research and extension methods; participatory and outcome
based monitoring and evaluation; conflict management and consensus building among others.
39
The component will seek to mainstream the objectives and methodologies of SLM within the
extension reform program 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: Investments in community SLM micro-projects (GEF Increment USD 4.00
million, Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.61 million, Baseline USD 3.50
million)
This component will support community micro-projects that are identified within the microcatchment plans developed by communities to address land degradation and/or provide alternate
means of livelihoods.
Communities will select from a menu of technologies and practices to address land degradation and
generate income that are examined through cost-benefit analysis and adapted to the agro-ecological
conditions of the targeted project areas, and apply these BMPs and BMTs through micro-projects.
They will access the necessary technical assistance from public and private service providers. The
menu includes BMPs and BMTs on soil and water conservation, water harvesting, reseeding of
degraded lands, forest rehabilitation, pasture management, high yielding crop and livestock varieties
and genotypes, soil fertility maintenance etc.
The component would also support micro-projects that are identified within the micro-catchment
plans that promote alternate livelihoods and income generation, creating incentives for
environmentally sensitive land management. Investments would be in the areas of value addition
of NTFPs (such as medicinal and aromatic plants, Gum Arabica, sisal etc) and agroforestry
(promoting trees such as Jatropha curcas, oil palm, Hibiscus, Gum Arabic, Prunus africana etc)
and processing; diversification into high value crops; marketing information networks and
strengthening marketing channels where feasible; ecotourism including facilitating community
and private sector partnerships; apiculture technologies and community honey processing,
packaging and marketing channels; fisheries including appropriate fish varieties, processing and
links to market outlets; and promoting emerging livestock (e.g. ostrich, guinea fowls, camel) and
identifying market opportunities.
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’ fora, 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. Investments under this project will be directed towards NRM technologies
that complement production technologies supported through KAPP.
40
Another important initiative towards sustainable land use management is the promotion of biogas
technology at the rural household level through a more efficient use of animal waste. Installation of
family-size biogas would be a significant step towards reduction of pressure on the country’s
depleting woody biomass, amelioration of the lot of rural women, soil conservation, and improved
environmental outcomes. The project would make a provision to help plan and commence the work
based on a review of technical, financial and economic justification.
Component 3: Strengthening the enabling environment for SLM (GEF Increment USD 1.80
million, Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.61 million, Baseline USD 46.47
million)
This component will strengthen the enabling environment necessary for mainstreaming
sustainable land management approaches through the policy and institutional landscape. It will
seek to address gaps in the policy framework, support for institutional capacity for planning and
for monitoring and improved coordination between agencies.
Towards a sound policy framework
This component will support the Government in implementing its policy objectives, as
elucidated in the NAP, related to sustainable land and natural resources management. It will
support various studies and analyses that assess the current and proposed policy and regulatory
frameworks (including land and forest policies) for potential implications on land degradation.
The studies will seek for a better understanding of the linkages between and the impact of
policies and institutions (such as regulation, incentives/disincentives in agricultural production,
marketing, and resources management; subsidies, tariffs, and pricing of agricultural inputs and
commodities; environmental laws) on the management and use of natural resources, specifically,
factors affecting the widespread adoption of sustainable NRM practices and technologies.
The component will also support stakeholder consultations on these various policy issues as well
as seek to remove existing policy and legal barriers through a consultative process involving
communities, CBOs, government agencies and research institutions. The results of the studies
and the consultative process, will contribute to the development of an agenda of actions for better
land and natural resource utilization and a shift in the approaches towards addressing
degradation. In addition, this component will support the piloting and operationalization of
payments for environmental services programs, by developing on the knowledge base,
identifying appropriate buyers and producers of environmental services (water, carbon,
biodiversity etc), building capacity and promoting dialogue.
Towards an improved knowledge and information base
The component will also address the gaps towards a sound information system that would link
outcomes to adaptive decision-making (relying less on ‘control’ measures and more on market
signaling and incentive measures) and support 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 Bill currently being
considered by Parliament, 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 invasive species, maintaining
and enhancing agro-biodiversity and indigenous species), water resources (support for integrated
water resources management and coordination) as well as gender issues and technology
41
dissemination. A sound information system relies to a significant degree on an adequate M&E
framework. The project will strengthen the ongoing Government efforts for an improved M&E
system by:
 Establishing baselines 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.
 Building capacity to analyze and interpret data for decision-making and management.
 Building capacity to identify and address NRM links to poverty and cross-sectoral issues.
 Valuing the economic cost of degradation and demonstrating benefits from alternate
approaches.
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. In-country training (including site-visits for policy makers) will be organized and
agencies that will be targeted include the relevant ministries (Agriculture, Environment,
including forests, wildlife, NEMA, Lands, Water and Community development), research
institutes and related organizations. Regional and international training, where necessary, will be
conducted as appropriate and may include workshops, conferences and study tours. Capacity
building would cover topics such as stakeholder consultation and conflict resolution,
environmental and social impact assessment, land degradation, biodiversity conservation
(themes) and methods (policy analysis and development, project management, data management,
analysis and modeling, participatory methods etc.). Policy makers will also be exposed to SLM
& NRM issues through consultative policy meetings, workshops and dialogue.
Component 4: Project coordination and monitoring (GEF Increment USD 0.50 million,
Government and Beneficiary contribution USD 0.34 million, Baseline USD 7.20 million)
The implementation period for this project is five years. This component will support project
coordination and implementation at the national, district and grassroots level, both through
institutional structures created under the KAPP and those adapted or created under the project as
necessary. The project coordination organ will include competitively selected personnel with the
required skill-mix (agronomy and economics, SLM/NRM, communications, community and
social development, M&E etc).
This component will also coordinate the activities related to project monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) as well as impact assessment. The detailed institutional arrangements for project coordination and implementation, to be supported under this component are detailed in section C2
below.
Districts covered by KAPSLM in each operational area
Operational
Area/Catchment
Cherangani Hills
Administrative Districts
Trans-Nzoia*
West Pokot* (50-85%
ASAL)
42
Coverage
(percent)
55
15
Keiyo (30-50% ASAL)
Marakwet (30-50% ASAL)
±±
Baringo (50-85% ASAL)
Tugen Hills
Koibatek
Keiyo (30-50% ASAL)
Butere Mumias*
Yala
Siaya*
Kakamega*
Nandi
Vihiga
Bondo
Kiambu
Kinale-Kikuyu
Nyandarua*
Nakuru*
Kajiado
Narok (30-50% ASAL)
Taita Taveta* (85-100 %
Taita Hills
ASAL)
±±
Operational area with no KAPP districts
* KAPP districts
43
15
15
60
30
10
25
20
20
15
15
5
60
15
10
10
5
100
Annex 5: Project Costs
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
Local
Foreign
Total
US $million US $million US $million
Project Cost By Component and/or Activity
Total Baseline Cost
Physical Contingencies
Price Contingencies
Total Project Costs1
Interest during construction
Front-end Fee
Total Financing Required
1
Identifiable taxes and duties are US$m ___, and the total project cost, net of taxes, is
US$m___. Therefore, the share of project cost net of taxes is ___%.
44
Co-financing by Component (in USD millions)
The project would be financed from two sources. These sources are (GEF, to provide US $ 10
million; (b) GoK, to provide US$ 2.43 million.
GEF Funds will be used to support capacity building including participatory planning at
community and appropriate levels of government for sustainable land management, investment
in community SLM activities and technical assistance. The project will also support activities to
strengthen the policy and institutional frameworks. The GOK contribution would cover all taxes
and duties related to government expenditure and staff salaries.
The project is linked to KAPP, financed by IDA and Government and will build on the latter’s
support of government structures created to implement the SRA i.e. the inter-ministerial
coordination committee, which will have an oversight of SLM activities and oversee the
implementation of a coherent over-all framework in the sector.
Component
I Building Capacity for
Sustainable Land Management
II Investments in community
SLM micro-projects
III Strengthening Enabling
Environment
IV Project Coordination and
Monitoring
Total
IDA
3.80
Govt. Baseline
KAPP
Total
9.40
3.50
GEF
Increment
Govt. &
Benef.
KAPSLMP
KAPSLMP
Total
13.20
3.70
0.87
4.57
3.50
4.00
0.61
4.61
26.50
19.97
46.47
1.80
0.61
2.41
6.20
1.00
7.20
0.50
0.34
.84
40.00
30.37
70.37
10.00
2.43
12.43
45
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
The implementation arrangements for this project will have a considerable degree of linkage
with the KAPP structures already set up by the Government in consultation with the Bank. The
KAPP Steering Committee (KSC) which includes government officials from the Ministries of
Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Cooperatives, Environment, and Local Government,
will be expanded to include the representatives of Ministries/Agencies of Water (both the
Ministry of Water and the Water Resources Management Authority, WRMA), Communities
and Land, as well as representatives of the National Coordination Board (NCB) formed
within the NAP for UNCCD. The KAPSLMP-SC, chaired by Director, the Ministry of Land,
will review progress in project implementation, adopt activity plans for the project and pay
special attention to inter-sectoral coordination and policy issues and promote integrated
solutions. It will provide lead coordination, and ensure that results meet the targets set by the
project.
The functional responsibility for project coordination and implementation will be with a crosssectoral coordination and technical unit (KAPSLMP-CTU), located in the XXXX and overseen
by the KAPSLMP-SC. This unit will be closely linked to the KAPP implementing organization
structure but will include a skill-mix that is required by the cross-sectoral, multi-disciplinary
nature of the program. A competitively hired/seconded project coordinator (with significant
project management skills) as well as a team of technical specialists in land economics,
agronomy, natural resources/ecology, social development, communication/community programs
etc. will handle the functional requirements of developing and implementing the program within
the KAPSLMP-CTU. This operating group will (i) develop a master annual work program based
on the work program for each component, in consultation with the various
implementers/stakeholders (Community based organizations, CBO & Non Governmental
organization, NGOs/ district agencies, research institutes/universities/technical experts); (ii)
develop an associated disbursement plan and release funds, in a timely fashion, against agreed
work plans and monitored outcomes; (iii) ensure that the institutions utilizing project funds have
proper accounting systems and maintain proper accounts (the financial management system and
processes as managed by KARI under KAPP will also be used for the KAPSLMP); (iv)
coordinate project activities at the national and the operational area levels by guiding and
overseeing the activities of the operational area coordinators (see below); (v) implement a
monitoring system that is integral to each activity and is effectively linked to planning for
periodic adjustments in activities, when necessary; and (vi) evaluate the project, including
community evaluations, to ensure effective implementation.
Each operational area will have a operational area coordinator, five in all, located in the KAPP
District Service Unit, DSU; (in the case of one operational area, Tugen Hills, which does not fall
under the KAPP operational area, the operational area coordinator can be located at the KARI
centre in Koibatek). The role of the coordination unit (KAPSLMP-CTU) is to ensure that the
objectives and the implementation goals of the KAPSLM are achieved on the ground in the
operational area. The coordinator will monitor activities, identify barriers, be a conduit for
46
information, resources and technical assistance/capacity building, foster community development
of micro-watershed plans, design and implementation of micro-projects (including monitoring
and safeguards), and link with provincial and district development and environment committees
and officers (DDO, PDO, DEO, PDE) in order to implement broader program activities. There
will be periodic field visits by and meetings and ongoing communication between the technical
and coordination group at the center and the operational area coordinators to ensure that the
thematic and operational priorities of the program are in focus.
The KAPSLMP-SC, supported by the coordination and technical group (KAPSLMP-CTU),
will regularly brief and sensitize the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee, ICC
(composed of the Permanent Secretaries of the lead Ministries and was set up following the
launch of the SRA in 2004) as well as other relevant national bodies advising the government
on policy (sectoral such as agriculture, water, energy, forests and cross-cutting environment,
gender, poverty etc).
Public and private service providers including community-based and non-governmental
organizations (CBOs & NGOs), extension and others, after selection, will produce work
programs including capacity building, technical assistance and service provision that will be
guided and reviewed by operational area coordinators and the technical team. DSUs, CBOs, and
NGOs will be trained to support farmers and village communities in designing, developing and
implementing micro-projects that are consistent with the micro-watershed plans and meet the
criteria set out in the PIP (guided by the OP 15). They will also act as a channel for
dissemination information on land management technologies and practices and stimulating
interest/action in taking advantage of the opportunities offered under the project.
KARI will assume the fiduciary responsibilities given its extensive experience with Bankfinanced projects. Under the proposal, KARI will be responsible for the project’s financial
management system. Funds will flow from the GEF special account to the project Special
Account, maintained by the Ministry of Finance in accordance with GOK procedures. The
Ministry of Finance will transfer funds to a local currency project operating account
administered by KARI. Payments for centrally procured items will be made directly by KARI
Headquarters, in line with existing KARI approval procedures. Community organizations and
other implementing agencies will receive and account for funds from KARI using a system of
imprest accounting. Additional accountability enhancement proposals expected to be instituted
during the life of the project comprise (i) vesting of overall project oversight and risk
management responsibilities in the Board Audit Committee; (ii) a coordinated internal audit
function that will report directly to the Board Audit Committee; (iii) streamlining fund
remittance and accountability processes; (iv) adoption of simplified accountability for
community initiatives; and (iv) adoption of a report-based method of disbursement, using
quarterly financial monitoring reports (FMR).
Much of the procurement in the project will be split between transactions taking place at the
cluster operational areas levels and procurement managed centrally at KARI headquarters.
Financing for community projects generated at cluster level will depend on applications received
for communities and procurement would be carried out in accordance with the simplified
47
procurement procedures provided in Bank’s procurement guidelines. More detailed
implementation arrangement is in Annex 6. This will also be refined during appraisal.
48
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
A
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Financial Management Assessment Summary
The purpose of the project’s financial management assessment was to determine whether the
financial management system is capable of producing timely, understandable, relevant, and reliable
financial information that would allow the Bank, other donors and Government to plan and implement the
project, monitor compliance with agreed procedures, and appraise progress towards its objectives. The
assessment aimed at determining the project’s readiness to adopt report-based disbursement, the preferred
method of disbursement for projects with significant community based activities.
iv.
The project will, as much as possible, rely on KARI’s mainstream financial management systems.
It will also build on existing systems relied upon during implementation of an ongoing IDA – financed
project, LVEMP and KAPP. A brief of the findings following financial management assessment is as
follows:
v.
Risk management and internal control arrangements - A number of fund accountability
weaknesses observed in previous projects implemented by KARI is attributed to the absence of an
effective internal audit function. It is proposed that a strong and independent internal audit arrangement
responsible for oversight of the activities of the KAPP accounting and internal control functions and
community based initiatives is required. The function will also conduct independent institutional risk
management on an ongoing basis, monitoring compliance with laid down policies and procedures, and
reviewing and recommending enhancement of accounting and internal controls.
vi.
Funds flow and accountability arrangements – Unnecessarily long fund remittance and payment
processes should be reviewed. KARI should conduct internal reviews and assessments of payment
processing procedures with a view to improving efficiency, effective control and timeliness. Key
considerations in the process will include (i) adoption of simplified accountability guidelines and
procedures for community initiatives; and (ii) realigning the role of technical oversight functions from
involvement in routine transaction processing to conducting independent reviews. KARI should also
develop benchmark processing timelines to be adopted and monitored.
vii.
Quarterly financial monitoring reporting – Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR) have been
identified as the preferred basis of funding disbursement. However, a number of difficulties are
envisaged:
viii.
(a)
Collation of monthly accountabilities – Given the large number of implementing units, it is
critical that the capacity of reporting units to prepare comprehensive, yet simplified and standardized
monthly statements of expenditure and fund balances is developed as soon as possible. Under this
arrangement, it is expected that KS collates and submits implementing units’ financial accountability and
project implementation progress information on a timely basis.
(b)
FMR preparation capacity – KARI’s capacity to prepare and submit quarterly FMRs is assessed
as weak for the reason that heavy reliance is placed on a few individuals. It is recommended that a large
pool of competent personnel be developed ahead of credit effectiveness.
49
Financial management manual - KAPP’s current accounting and internal control procedures are
documented in a Financial Management Manual. The manual incorporates MoF financial management
guidelines as well as guidelines developed by KARI. The manual should however, be revised to take
account of proposals in this assessment, notably the role of internal audit and the revised responsibility of
the KS. The manual should also include guidelines for operations of community initiatives. It will
subsequently be subject to review and approval by the IDA ahead of credit effectiveness.
ix.
Institutional and staffing arrangements –KAPP will be responsible for the overall financial
management of the project. Project activities will as far as possible, be based on existing institutional
arrangements, including the KAPP accounting and reporting systems. Matters requiring attention in order
to ensure the establishment of reliable accounting and internal control systems include:
x.
1. Financial management staffing at KAPP - There is need to enhance the technical capacity of KAPP’s
financial management staff, particularly the training of key staff in financial monitoring reporting. At
present, too much reliance is placed of limited staff for FMR reporting purposes and the grant accounting
function considered weak.
2. Financial management capacity - Ongoing initiatives to build financial management capacity at
community level under KAPP should be expedited.
Annual financial reporting and independent audit arrangements – Under Kenyan legislation,
the responsibility to audit all Government funds and activities is vested in the Kenya National Audit
Office, which is mandated to subcontract such services in the event of capacity or other constraints. Due
consideration will be taken of the KNAO capacity and commitment to ensuring compliance with
Government and Development Partners’ requirements for timely auditing and reporting. There has been
significant improvement in the office’s ability to ensure timely auditing and reporting of donor-funded
projects’ financial statements. The KARI institutional audit has, however, often been delayed beyond the
required reporting deadline.
xi.
Financial management action plan - The outcome of this review is included in a financial
management improvement plan comprising actions to be completed prior to project negotiations, prior to
credit effectiveness and ongoing actions to be followed up during project implementation.
xii.
Country issues
The current Government that came into office in December 2002 has made a commitment to
strengthen the financial management and control environment in order to achieve economy, efficiency
and effectiveness in the use of public funds. With the support of a number of donor assisted initiatives,
including the IDA-funded Public Sector Management Technical Assistance Project (PSMTAP),
Government is seeking to rapidly enhance the financial accountability framework, particularly through
strengthening legislation related to public financial management and the audit of public funds.
xiii.
The most recent piece of diagnostic work that provides an up to date critical assessment of issues
that may impact on this operation at country level is an ongoing Country Integrated Fiduciary Assessment
(CIFA). A new Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) was effected in May 2004. Both these works have
reviewed government’s performance since the last Country Financial Accountability Assessment (in
2001) and CAS (in 1998). A recurring theme is that policy changes agreed under past and ongoing
projects have not been implemented consistently. Project implementation has generally been slowed
down by constraints in the flow of resources and limited absorptive capacity arising from bureaucratic
processes in Government.
xiv.
50
The 2004 Country Portfolio Performance Review (CPPR) highlights Government’s commitment
to improving portfolio performance, particularly in the last three years, and agreement was reached on
several key issues, some of which have been applied in the design of this operation. These include actions
to improve audit compliance, closer monitoring of project performance by MoF and improvements in the
flow of project resources.
xv.
Financial management systems
Internal controls and financial management guidelines - The project’s internal controls are
based on the KARI’s established accounting and internal control systems and documented in financial
operations manual and guidelines. The manual is currently being revised and will be subject to review by
the IDA FMS prior to project effectiveness.
xvi.
Planning and budgeting - Budgeting for the project has been undertaken centrally by KARI in
consultation and with extensive detailed input by the respective implementing entities. The budget is
based on the Government Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Proposed periodic reporting
guidelines require periodic activity, cash flow and procurement projection, analysis and review on an
ongoing basis, included in quarterly FMRs that will form the basis of requests for reimbursement of
funds.
xvii.
Books of accounts and list of accounting codes - The project’s accounting records will be
maintained on KARI’s computerized accounting system, FoxPro™. The system is currently being
upgraded. The codes relating to the project are integrated in KARI’s Chart of Accounts that matches the
classification of financial statements.
xviii.
Audit arrangements
Internal audit - There is need to realign the functioning of KARI’s internal audit along best
practice guidelines issued by the international Institute of Internal Auditors, including implementation of
an independent systems compliance and risk based approach. The effectiveness of internal audit is
expected to be complemented by the institution of a Board Audit Committee that will support the demand
for internal audit services and follow-up of internal audit findings. It is recommended that the KARI audit
committee be established as soon as possible, ahead of credit effectiveness.
xix.
External audit - Under Kenyan legislation, the responsibility to audit all Government funds and
activities is vested in the Kenya National Audit Office, which is mandated to subcontract such services in
the event of capacity or other constraints. There have been significant improvements in the office’s ability
to ensure timely auditing and reporting. The office is considered to be sufficiently independent, applied
internationally acceptable auditing guidelines and therefore, acceptable to IDA.
xx.
Reporting and monitoring
Financial monitoring reports – The form and content of periodic financial monitoring reports
will be developed and agreed ahead of project negotiation. Primary contents of quarterly FMRs will
comprise (i) Financial Reports, including a statement of sources and uses of funds by funding source, a
statement of uses of funds by project activity/component; and fund balance statements supported by bank
statements (ii) Physical progress (output monitoring) report and (iii) a procurement plan and progress
report. FMRs will cover all project activities, including counterpart funding and non-cash contributions
wherever reasonably quantifiable.
xxi.
xxii.
As FMRs will form the basis of periodic funding disbursements by IDA, they will include a
51
detailed report of projected cash requirements for each ensuing 6 months period supported by (i) a
procurement progress report and related cash flow projection and (ii) a fund balance statement supported
by bank balance certificates and reconciliation statements.
Annual financial statements – KARI’s financial statements shall be prepared in accordance with
International Public Sector Accounting Standards (which inter alia includes the application of the cash
basis of recognition of transactions). Indicative formats of financial statements will be agreed during
negotiations.
xxiii.
IDA funding agreements require the submission of audited financial statements, taking into
consideration the 2003 Audit Policy Guidelines of the World Bank, within six months after the year-end.
xxiv.
Implementation support plan
IDA implementation support missions will be conducted at least every six months. The mission’s
objectives will include that of ensuring that strong financial management systems are maintained for the
project throughout its life. In addition, Statement of Expenditure reviews will be carried out regularly to
ensure that expenditures incurred by the project remain eligible.
xxv.
B
DISBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Report based disbursement
Requests for disbursement by IDA for activities to be financed from pooled funds will be made
on the basis of approved work plans cash flow projections for eligible expenditures (report-based
disbursements). IDA will make advance disbursements from the proceeds of the Credit into the project
Special Account to expedite project implementation. Advances will be used by the borrower to fund
eligible project expenditures.
xxvi.
Alternative disbursement methods
Upon credit effectiveness; the borrower will be required to submit a withdrawal application for an
initial deposit into a separate, non-commingled Special Account, in an amount specified in respective
funding agreements. Replenishment of funds to the Special Account will be made upon evidence of
satisfactory utilization of the advance, reflected in SOEs and/or on full documentation for payments
above SOE thresholds. Replenishment applications would be required to be submitted regularly.
xxvii.
Another acceptable method of withdrawing funds is the direct payment method, involving direct
payments to suppliers for works, goods and services upon the borrower’s request. Payments may also be
made to a commercial bank for expenditures against pre-agreed special commitments. The IDA
Disbursement Letter will stipulate the minimum application value for direct payment and special
commitment procedures.
xxviii.
Remedies
If ineligible expenditures are found to have been made from the Special Account, the borrower
will be obligated to refund the same. If Special Accounts remain inactive for more than six months, IDA
may reduce the amount advanced.
xxix.
IDA will have the right, as to be reflected in the funding agreement, to suspend disbursement of
the funds if significant terms of funding agreement, including reporting requirements, are not complied
xxx.
52
with.
C
OVERALL RISK ASSESSMENT
xxxi.
Summary of project-specific risks and proposed mitigating arrangements
Risk
1 Misuse of and failure to
account for project funds
Rating
S
2 Ineffective audit functions
S
 Adoption of a risk based audit approach and
employ international best practices
 Institution of Board Audit Committee
3 Delayed funds flow
S
 Streamlining of quarterly FMR reporting
arrangements and adoption of report based
disbursement method
4 Low accounting capacity
in community based
initiatives
S
 Adoption of simplified accounting
arrangements
 Ongoing capacity enhancement initiatives
xxxii.
Mitigating arrangements
 Institution of independent and effective internal
audit and risk management function
Overall risk assessment
Type of Risk
Risk
Rating
Risk Mitigating Measures
Inherent Risk
1. Corruption
S
2. Poor governance
S
3. Weak Judiciary
S
4. Weak Management
capacity
M
Government anti-corruption action plan to be
considered and monitored
Government anti corruption action plan to be
considered and monitored
Government has prepared a governance action
plan that has been considered and is being
monitored
Appropriately qualified and competent
management staff have recently been recruited in
KAPP
Overall Inherent Risk
S
Control Risk
1. Implementing Entities
M
2. Funds Flow
S
3. Staffing
M
There are ongoing initiatives to improve the
technical capacity of various implementing
entities
The 2004 CPPR action plan is monitored on a
quarterly basis
There are ongoing initiatives to improve the
technical capacity of various implementing
entities
53
4. Accounting Policies and
Procedures
M
5. Internal Audit
S
6. External Audit
M
7. Reporting and
Monitoring
8. Information Systems
M
Overall Control Risk
M
M
The project’s FM manual will be developed to
take account of lessons learnt from previous
projects
Significant strengthening of the function is
included in prior actions
The capacity of the National Audit Office has
improved significantly and is being monitored
A report based disbursement mechanism is
proposed under this operation
KARI’s existing systems are assessed as
sufficiently capable of accounting for project
activities
The project financial management risk is assessed as being moderate provided that the financial
management arrangements are properly implemented and the financial management action plan
satisfactorily addressed.
xxxiii.
D
xxxiv.
1
2
3
4
xxxv.
1
2
xxxvi.
1
2
3
Financial Management Action Plan
Actions required prior to negotiations
Action
Financial Management Manual updated, reviewed and agreed
Arrangements for efficient remittance of funds agreed
Head office FM staffing completed
FM manual revision completed and simplified guidelines for CBO reporting
prepared, reviewed and accepted
Actions required prior to credit effectiveness
Action
Adoption of a risk based internal audit approach and establishment of Board
Audit Committee
Quarterly financial monitoring reporting arrangements, including arrangements
for collating community initiative inputs in place
Actions required following credit effectiveness
Action
Project independent audit arrangements completed
FM capacity of community initiatives improved
Arrangements for KARI’s timely financial statements reporting in place
54
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
The last Kenya Country Procurement Assessment Review (CPAR) was conducted in 1997.
Following the findings and recommendations of the CPAR, the Government of Kenya (GOK)
applied for the Bank’s support to implement the recommendations of the CPAR, and
subsequently received from the Bank an IDF grant which was approved in 1998. Using the
proceeds of the grant, GOK started a procurement reform program. The main outcomes of the
reform program were (i) the establishment and gazetting in March 2001 of National Public
Procurement Regulations, (ii) the production of a myriad of standard bidding documents, and
(iii) a Procurement Bill, which is currently awaiting Presidential assent, passed by Parliament in
2005. The National Public Procurement Regulations of 2001 govern procurement under all
public procuring entities. The Public Procurement Regulations allow the Bank procedures to
take precedence over any contrary provisions in the national regulations. The Government's
standard bidding documents and procedures for NCB have been reviewed by the Bank and found
to be acceptable.
Procurement of goods and works for all GEF-financed components will be carried out in
accordance with the Bank’s Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits
(January 1995 and revised in January and August 1996, September 1997 and January 1999).
Consulting services by firm or individuals financed by GEF will be awarded in accordance with
the Bank’s Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers
(January 1997, revised in September 1977 and January 1999, and May 2002). The appropriate
World Bank standard bidding documents will be used for all International Competitive Bidding
(ICB) and the World Bank’s standard Request for Proposals (RFP) for the selection of
consultants.
Procurement Plan
A procurement plan covering goods and consultancy service contracts for the first year of project
implementation is under preparation and will be finalized duration appraisal. The plan includes
relevant information on goods, works and consulting services under the Project as well as the
timing of each milestone in the procurement process. The procurement schedule will be updated
once every six months and reviewed by IDA during supervision missions. As community
demand-driven investments cannot be identified up-front, an operational manual that provides all
the guidelines that will be used in preparing, screening, and implementing sub-projects is under
preparation and will be finalized before project effectiveness.
Advertising
Two General Procurement Notices (GPN) - one for consulting services and one for goods - will
be prepared for the Project and published in the United Nations Development Business (UNDB).
GPNs will describe all ICB for goods, as well as consulting assignments costing US $200,000
equivalent or more per contract.
Procurement Implementation
55
Consultancy services and technical assistance, and ICB and NCB contracts for goods will be
procured centrally by the KAPP Secretariat (KS) and KARI under their respective project
components. However, procurement of goods, works, and services for community-related
activities under the Farmer Empowerment Component will be carried out by beneficiary
communities under the guidance and supervision of the respective District Services Units
(DSUs). Procurement of community-based requirements could be classified into two categories:
(i) Simple procurements that communities can carry out themselves and (ii) relatively complex
procurements for which communities may need external technical expertise. For the latter
category of procurement, communities will seek assistance from the relevant district Government
departments or KS through the DSUs. DSUs will be responsible for the procurement of their
unit-specific needs, but will also be overseeing the smooth implementation of community
procurements and preparing periodical reports on the procurement status of their respective
communities, and submitting such reports to KS.
Goods
The GEF will finance goods estimated to cost the equivalent of US$2.45 million in addition to
goods required as inputs in community sub-projects. The non-community goods include office
equipment, vehicles, laboratory equipment and farm inputs which will be procured centrally by
the KAPP Secretariat. Contracts costing the equivalent of US $150,000 or more per contract will
be procured by KS through ICB procedures. Procurement for community sub-projects will be
carried out by beneficiary communities in separate small contracts.
Goods estimated to cost less than the equivalent of US $150,000 per contract will be procured
through NCB procedures.
Goods that are estimated to cost less than US $50,000 equivalent per contract will be procured
through shopping procedures in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Operational
Manual. The request for quotations will be made in writing to at least three qualified suppliers.
Direct purchase: Procuring directly from the supplier without getting other quotations may be
allowed when there is only one supplier and/or the amount is small as prescribed in the
Operational Manual.
Works
The GEF will finance only the costs of such works that may be required as part of community
sub-projects budgeted under the Grants to Community component. Works contracts under this
component will be awarded through one of the following procedures:
Quotations: Contracts of works estimated to cost the equivalent of US $50,000 or less per
contract may be procured under lump-sum, fixed-price contracts awarded on the basis of
quotations obtaining in writing from at least three local contractors. The request for quotations
will include description of the works, including plans and technical specifications as appropriate,
required completion time, and a standard form of contract acceptable to IDA.
Force account: Communities may implement subprojects using its own resources
(skilled/unskilled labor, materials, equipment), or hiring labor and purchasing materials
56
themselves and subcontracting the rest of the work to petty contractors by obtaining three
quotations.
Direct Contracting: Direct contracting of one contractor without getting other quotations may be
allowed, upon prior clearance of the Community Sub-project Committee, when there is only one
qualified contractor and/or the amount is small as prescribed in the Operational Manual.
Consultant services
The total cost of IDA-financed consultant services and technical assistance, excluding costs of
services of trainers, external facilitators of workshops, or TA that may be needed for community
sub-project, is estimated at about US$0.4 million equivalent. Except as detailed below,
consulting services will be selected through competition among qualified short-listed firms based
on Quality- and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS).
Consultants for financial audits and other repetitive services estimated to cost less than US$
50,000 equivalent per contract will be selected through Least Cost Selection (LCS) method.
Consultants' services for training estimated to cost more than US$15,000 equivalent per contract
will be procured through the Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications (CQ) method.
In exceptional cases when selection of consultants through competitive process is not
practicable, the borrower may, upon prior clearance with the Bank, hire consultants through the
single-source selection method stipulated in paras 3.8-3.11 of the Guidelines.
Consultants for services meeting the requirements of Section V of the Consultant Guidelines will
be selected under the provisions for the Selection of Individual Consultants (IC) method.
Individual Consultants will be selected through comparison of job description requirements
against the qualifications of those expressing interest in the assignment or those approached
directly.
Communities which may not be capable of implementing their sub-projects may procure the
service of NGOs and other consultants to provide technical assistance and help them manage
community sub-projects. KS or DSUs will assist such communities in the selection of NGOs
following the procedure prescribed in paragraph 3.14 of the Consultants’ Guidelines.
To ensure that priority is given to the identification of suitable and qualified national consultants,
short-list for contracts estimated under US$ 200,000 equivalent per contract may be comprised
entirely of national consultants (in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the
Consultant Guidelines), provided that a sufficient number of qualified firms (at least three) are
available. However, if foreign firms have expressed interest, they will not be excluded from
consideration. The RFP as developed by the Bank will be used for requesting proposals, and for
selection and appointment of consultants.
Bank Reviews
Procurement of GEF-financed goods contracts estimated to cost US$ 150,000 equivalent or more
as well as consulting contracts of US$ 100,000 equivalent or more for firms and US$ 50,000
57
equivalent or more for individual consultants will be subject to prior review by IDA. Post
reviews of contracts awarded below the above threshold levels will be carried out selectively by
IDA during supervision missions and/or by an independent procurement auditor. Terms of
Reference (TOR) for all consultancy contracts as well as all single source selections, irrespective
of the contract value, will be subject to prior review.
KS will prepare and submit to the Bank for its review an annual training program, as part of the
project annual work plan. The training will, inter alia, identify: (a) the training envisaged; (b) the
personnel to be trained; (c) the selection methods of institutions or individuals conducting such
training; (d) the institutions which will conduct training, if already selected; (e) the duration of
proposed training; and (f) the cost estimate of the training.
Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (US$ million equivalent)
Procurement Method1
Expenditure Category
NCB
ICB
N.B.F.
Total
Other2
Cost
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. Works
2. Goods
3. Services
4. Training
5. Meetings &
Workshops
5. Grants to
Communities
6. Operating Costs
Total
1/
2/
0.25
(0.25)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
0.20
(0.20)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
1.80
(1.80)
0.40
(0.40)
0.10
(0.10)
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
2.25
(2.25)
0.40
(0.40)
0.10
(0.10)
0.10
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.25
(0.25)
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.20
(0.20)
(0.10)
6.60
(6.60)
0.55
(0.55)
9.55
(9.55)
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
(0.10)
6.60
(6.60)
0.55
(0.55)
10.00
(10.00)
Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the IDA Credit. All costs
include contingencies.
Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services,
services of contracted staff of the project management office, training, technical assistance
services, and incremental operating costs related to (i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lending
project funds to local government units.
58
Table A1: Consultant Selection Arrangements (optional) (US$ million equivalent)
Consultant Services
Selection Method
Expenditure Category QCBS QBS
SFB
LCS
CQ
Other N.B.F.
0.160
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
A. Firms
(0.160) (0.00) (0.00) (0.04)
(0.00) (0.00) 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
B. Individuals
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
(0.00) (0.20) (0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.68
0.00
Total 0.00
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Total
Cost1
0.20
(0.20)
0.20
(0.20)
0.40
(0.40)
1\ including contingencies
Note: QCBS = Quality- and Cost-Based Selection
QBS = Quality-based Selection
SFB = Selection under a Fixed Budget
LCS = Least-Cost Selection
CQ = Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications
Other = Selection of individual consultants (per Section V of Consultants Guidelines),
Commercial Practices, etc.
N.B.F. = Not Bank-financed
Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Credit.
Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review1
Contract Value
Threshold
Procurement
Expenditure Category
(US$ thousands)
Method
> 150,000
NCB >50,000
1. Works
2. Goods
>=150,000
> 50,000<200,000
3. Services(Firms)
=<50,000
=50,000
3.(a) Individual
consultants
ICB
NCB
QCBS
LCS
CQ
IC
Contracts Subject to
Prior Review
(US$ millions)
>150,000
>150,000
>100,000
>50,000
Total value of contracts subject to prior review:
Overall Procurement Risk Assessment: Average
Frequency of procurement supervision missions One every six months (includes special
proposed: procurement supervision for post-review/audits)
59
Procurement situation and proposed course of action
In line with the proposed institutional arrangements for the implementation of the project,
procurement will be carried out directly by or under the guidance and supervision of KARI and
the yet to be established KAPP Secretariat. Procurement decisions under the KARI project
component will be executed through the existing institutional management structure of KARI.
Procurement of inputs to Non-KARI components will be carried out at three levels by the KAPP
Secretariat (KS), KAPP District Offices (DSU), and Community Sub-project Implementation
Committees (CSIC). The proposed minimum number of people that would be required for
managing the procurement function at the three levels, the minimum procurement capacity, and
their duties are summarized in the Matrix below.
KARI, as an institution, has a long experience in Bank procurement procedures as it has
completed implementation of two Bank-funded projects (i.e. NARP I and NARP II) and is
currently implementing the Lake Victoria Environmental Management project (LEMP) – which
is financed by a GEF grant administered by the Bank. That notwithstanding, at the moment,
KARI has no procurement staff that is well conversant with the Bank procurement procedures. It
has lost its only experienced procurement officer as a result of the Government directive issued
in May 2003 on the suspension of all procurement officers in the entire public sector. The
suspension has been lifted, and some of the suspended procurement officers who are below 50
years have been reinstated and posted to central Government ministries and departments.
Parastatals, like KARI, were left out in the postings.
Immediate employment of a qualified procurement officer(s) by KARI will not only be crucial
for the implementation of its component under the project, but it will also be a necessary
condition for the envisaged KARI’s institutional support to the KAPP Secretariat.
As the KAPP Secretariat is expected to carry out central procurements of the project, and
supervise and give guidance to other institutions in all matters of project implementation,
including procurement procedures and decisions, it is imperative that special consideration be
given to timely identification of appropriate procurement personnel for the KS.
It is expected that KARI will have recruited a procurement proficient officer(s), and KAPP
Secretariat will have been established and staffed with adequate personnel including a
procurement officer by project appraisal. Procurement capacity assessment be carried out during
appraisal and a plan action will be recommended.
60
Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
61
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
62
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
Planned
Acutal
PCN review
Initial PID to PIC
Initial ISDS to PIC
Appraisal
Negotiations
Board/RVP approval
Planned date of effectiveness
Planned date of mid-term review
Planned closing date
Key institutions responsible for preparation of the project:
Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included:
Name
Title
Bank funds expended to date on project preparation:
1. Bank resources:
2. Trust funds:
3. Total:
Estimated Approval and Supervision costs:
1. Remaining costs to approval:
2. Estimated annual supervision cost:
63
Unit
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
64
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
Difference between
expected and actual
disbursements
Original Amount in US$ Millions
Project ID
FY
Cancel.
Undisb.
P083131
2005
Purpose
KE-Energy Sector Recovery Prj (FY05)
IBRD
0.00
IDA
80.00
SF
0.00
GEF
0.00
0.00
83.46
P083250
2005
Financial and Legal Sec TA
0.00
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P085007
2005
MSME Competitiveness
0.00
22.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P049618
2004
KE-Nairobi Wtr & Swg Inst Rst SIL
(FY04)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P078209
2004
KE-Dev Learning Centre LIL (FY04)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P082396
2004
KE-Agricultural Productivity Prj (FY04)
0.00
27.00
0.00
0.00
P082615
2004
KE-Northern Corridor Trnsprt SIL (FY04)
0.00
207.00
0.00
P078058
2003
KE-Arid Lands 2 SIL (FY03)
0.00
60.00
0.00
P082378
2003
Free Primary Educ. Support
0.00
0.00
P066490
2002
PUB.SEC.MGMT.TA
0.00
P070920
2001
HIV/AIDS Disaster Resp. (Umbrella)
P070718
2001
Regional Trade Fac. Proj. - Kenya
P066486
2001
P046871
P001319
Orig.
Frm. Rev’d
-0.25
0.00
18.50
0.00
0.00
21.38
-0.75
0.00
13.69
1.43
0.00
0.00
2.42
0.29
0.00
0.00
37.34
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
196.28
2.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.92
-3.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.64
-4.55
0.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.07
7.92
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.04
6.97
0.00
0.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.78
11.00
0.00
Decentr. Reprod. Health & HIV/AIDS
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.69
24.04
24.04
1997
KE-GEF Lake Victoria Env SIL (FY97)
0.00
9.80
0.00
9.80
0.00
4.16
4.19
0.00
1996
URBAN TRANSPORT
0.00
115.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.88
34.92
0.00
0.00
678.80
0.00
9.80
0.00
521.25
84.53
24.04
Total:
KENYA
STATEMENT OF IFC’s
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
In Millions of US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
2000
AEF AAA Growers
0.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
1997
AEF Ceres
0.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
1997
AEF Deras Ltd.
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996
AEF Equitea
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
2000
AEF Lesiolo
3.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
AEF Locland
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
2000
AEF Magana
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
1997
AEF Makini
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
1997
AEF Redhill Flrs
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
1982
Diamond Trust
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
1998
GBHL
1.75
0.00
3.00
0.00
1.75
0.00
3.00
0.00
2001
Gapco Kenya
14.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
IPS(K)-Allpack
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
65
Loan
IPS(K)-Frigoken
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
IPS(K)-Prem Food
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
1994
Intl Hotels-Ken
2.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996/99
K-Rep Bank
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
2003
Kenair
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
1983/91
LIK
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
2000
Mabati
4.00
0.00
4.50
0.00
4.00
0.00
4.50
0.00
2004/05
Magadi Soda Co.
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
1994/96
Panafrican
15.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
1972
TPS (Kenya)
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
2000
Tsavo Power
12.98
0.83
1.04
17.12
12.98
0.83
1.04
17.12
2.66
8.54
17.12
61.26
2.35
8.54
17.12
Total portfilio:
76.66
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
2004
BP Kenya
2003
Kenair
2005
Kongoni
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total pending committment:
0.00
66
Annex 14: Country at a Glance
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
Ke nya
S ubS a ha ra n
A f ric a
Lo winc o m e
32.2
400
12.8
703
490
347
2,310
450
1,038
2.3
2.7
2.3
2.4
1.9
2.3
55
36
45
77
20
57
15
96
97
95
..
36
46
103
..
58
35
87
94
80
..
30
58
82
44
75
39
92
99
85
19 8 3
19 9 3
2002
2003
6.0
5.8
12.2
14.3
Gro ss do mestic investment/GDP
Expo rts o f go o ds and services/GDP
Gro ss do mestic savings/GDP
Gro ss natio nal savings/GDP
20.9
25.9
18.7
16.5
17.6
38.9
22.6
20.5
13.4
26.9
12.2
15.8
12.9
24.9
8.2
12.8
Current acco unt balance/GDP
Interest payments/GDP
To tal debt/GDP
To tal debt service/expo rts
P resent value o f debt/GDP
P resent value o f debt/expo rts
-4.4
2.5
60.7
32.4
..
..
2.9
3.6
123.6
28.1
..
..
2.4
0.8
50.0
16.1
36.7
135.2
-0.2
0.7
47.2
15.8
31.2
123.4
P O V E R T Y a nd S O C IA L
2003
P o pulatio n, mid-year (millio ns)
GNI per capita (A tlas metho d, US$ )
GNI (A tlas metho d, US$ billio ns)
D e v e lo pm e nt dia m o nd*
Life expectancy
A v e ra ge a nnua l gro wt h, 19 9 7 - 0 3
P o pulatio n (%)
Labo r fo rce (%)
M o s t re c e nt e s t im a t e ( la t e s t ye a r a v a ila ble , 19 9 7 - 0 3 )
P o verty (% o f po pulatio n belo w natio nal po verty line)
Urban po pulatio n (% o f to tal po pulatio n)
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Infant mo rtality (per 1,000 live births)
Child malnutritio n (% o f children under 5)
A ccess to an impro ved water so urce (% o f po pulatio n)
Illiteracy (% o f po pulatio n age 15+)
Gro ss primary enro llment (% o f scho o l-age po pulatio n)
M ale
Female
GNI
per
capita
Gro ss
primary
enro llment
A ccess to impro ved water so urce
Kenya
Lo w-inco me gro up
KE Y E C O N O M IC R A T IO S a nd LO N G - T E R M T R E N D S
E c o no m ic ra t io s *
GDP (US$ billio ns)
19 8 3 - 9 3 19 9 3 - 0 3
(average annual gro wth)
GDP
GDP per capita
Expo rts o f go o ds and services
4.1
0.8
7.1
1.9
-0.6
0.6
2002
1.1
-1.2
2.6
2003
Trade
Do mestic
savings
Investment
Indebtedness
2003-07
1.8
-0.4
9.9
Kenya
3.1
1.2
7.6
Lo w-inco me gro up
S T R UC T UR E o f t he E C O N O M Y
19 8 3
19 9 3
2002
2003
(% o f GDP )
A griculture
Industry
M anufacturing
Services
34.2
19.4
11.8
46.4
31.5
16.9
10.0
51.6
16.9
19.0
13.0
64.1
15.8
19.6
13.6
64.7
P rivate co nsumptio n
General go vernment co nsumptio n
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
62.9
18.4
28.2
63.0
14.5
34.0
68.7
19.1
28.1
73.9
17.9
29.6
19 8 3 - 9 3 19 9 3 - 0 3
(average annual gro wth)
A griculture
Industry
M anufacturing
Services
2.3
4.1
4.8
4.7
1.6
1.4
1.4
2.0
2002
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.3
2003
G ro wt h o f inv e s t m e nt a nd G D P ( %)
10
5
0
98
4.9
4.0
1.3
7.2
1.7
5.5
2.0
3.1
-9.0
4.3
-3.7
-12.0
67
00
01
GDI
02
03
GDP
G ro wt h o f e xpo rt s a nd im po rt s ( %)
1.5
1.6
1.4
-8.6
30
0.4
4.8
3.0
8.0
-15
15
0
98
P rivate co nsumptio n
General go vernment co nsumptio n
Gro ss do mestic investment
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
99
-5
99
00
01
02
-30
Exports
Imports
03
Kenya
P R IC E S a nd G O V E R N M E N T F IN A N C E
19 8 3
D o m e s t ic pric e s
(% change)
Co nsumer prices
Implicit GDP deflato r
G o v e rnm e nt f ina nc e
(% o f GDP , includes current grants)
Current revenue
Current budget balance
Overall surplus/deficit
19 9 3
2002
2003
Inf la t io n ( %)
20
15.0
11.8
46.0
25.7
2.3
8.4
6.6
11.4
15
10
5
0
24.5
0.8
-5.3
29.5
2.3
-1.0
19 8 3
19 9 3
21.6
-4.1
-6.5
20.7
0.3
-3.6
98
99
00
01
02
GDP deflator
03
CPI
TRADE
(US$ millio ns)
To tal expo rts (fo b)
P etro leum
Co ffee
M anufactures
To tal impo rts (cif)
Fo o d
Fuel and energy
Capital go o ds
Expo rt price index (1995=100)
Impo rt price index (1995=100)
Terms o f trade (1995=100)
2002
2003
E xpo rt a nd im po rt le v e ls ( US $ m ill.)
980
179
232
113
1,361
120
545
204
1,103
62
177
241
1,606
75
407
329
2,169
50
84
467
2,772
146
607
754
2,411
1
81
504
3,564
153
879
856
92
96
96
80
86
93
98
108
91
108
120
89
19 8 3
19 9 3
2002
2003
1,552
1,687
-135
2,238
1,953
285
3,286
3,435
-149
3,563
4,235
-672
4
-190
63
-360
241
-134
581
-135
782
0
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
97
98
99
00
Exports
01
02
03
Imports
B A LA N C E o f P A Y M E N T S
(US$ millio ns)
Expo rts o f go o ds and services
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
Reso urce balance
Net inco me
Net current transfers
C urre nt a c c o unt ba la nc e t o G D P ( %)
2
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
-2
Current acco unt balance
-262
165
298
-25
Financing items (net)
Changes in net reserves
484
-222
157
-323
-277
-21
458
-433
406
13.3
489
58.0
1,067
78.7
1,480
76.2
19 9 3
2002
2003
7,111
566
1,631
6,112
13
2,447
6,755
6
2,736
M emo :
Reserves including go ld (US$ millio ns)
Co nversio n rate (DEC, lo cal/US$ )
E X T E R N A L D E B T a nd R E S O UR C E F LO WS
19 8 3
(US$ millio ns)
To tal debt o utstanding and disbursed
3,628
IB RD
506
IDA
334
-4
-6
C o m po s it io n o f 2 0 0 3 de bt ( US $ m ill.)
To tal debt service
IB RD
IDA
515
53
3
632
156
19
536
13
60
572
8
67
Co mpo sitio n o f net reso urce flo ws
Official grants
Official credito rs
P rivate credito rs
Fo reign direct investment
P o rtfo lio equity
0
191
59
9
0
65
150
-40
2
0
90
31
-67
80
0
264
-105
114
152
0
Wo rld B ank pro gram
Co mmitments
Disbursements
P rincipal repayments
56
120
18
20
226
108
0
66
54
113
122
56
68
G: 926
A: 6
F: 449
B: 2,736
E: 2,029
C: 112
D: 497
A - IBRD
B - IDA
C - IM F
D - Other multilateral
E - Bilateral
F - Private
G - Short-term
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
This annex includes a brief review of the environmental situation in Kenya, with focus on land
degradation; Project development goals and global environmental objectives, the baseline
scenario without GEF financing versus the alternative scenario of a GEF project blended with the
IDA Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project (KAPP) and presents the incremental cost analysis.
Land and Natural Resource Degradation
Only 17 percent of the land in Kenya is arable of high to medium potential for agriculture and
livestock production. Land use is therefore intensive in these areas. About 87 percent of Kenyans
live in rural areas relying on land for their livelihoods. Increasing population (a current growth
rate of 2.3 percent), poverty and climate shocks have impacted the natural environment while
unsustainable agricultural practices, use of marginal and ecologically sensitive lands and weak
governance are driving the degradation.
The section in the PAD on land degradation lists many of the factors that contribute the
worsening trend in Kenya. Land degradation driven by factors such as untenable traditional land
management as a result of high rural population growth, deforestation, over-grazing, loss of
soil/fertility due to inadequate application of soil amendments and soil and water conservation
measures, stream/riverbank cultivation, destruction of water catchments and wetlands,
biodiversity loss, livelihood opportunities, is a major cause for low crop productivity in Kenya.
Poor management of the nation’s water catchments has led to excessive soil erosion, increased
cost of water treatment, rapid siltation of reservoirs and a reduction in their economic life.
Recent estimates by the World Agro-forestry Center indicate that in the Nyando River Basin
alone, soil worth US$42.7 million is lost every year (estimations are based on a soil value of US$
12/MT). Since 1962, 3.2 million MT of soil have been washed into the Lake Victoria and over
50% of the land in Western Kenya has been abandoned due to depletion of soil nutrients. Soil
erosion and siltation and reduced flows in a number of important rivers (Nzoia, Turkwell,
Sosian, Chepkoilel, Kapteret, Suguta, Kerio and many important tributaries drain into Lake
Victoria, Turkana and Baringo Bura, Kishushe, Mbololo, Mwatate, Paranga and Voi Gatamaiyu,
the latter being a source of water to the highly populated Kimende area and Nairobi City and also
tributaries of Athi River) due to watershed degradation,is seriously undermining the value of
water resource investment and to water ecosystems.
Catchment degradation is threatening critical habitats for biodiversity of local and global
significance. The country has over 35,000 identified species of animals, plants and microorganisms, many of which are endemic only to Kenya/Eastern Arc. But with substantial loss of
forest cover and degradation of other natural ecosystem, the fragmented landscape and isolated
patches of forests are no longer providing corridors for biodiversity dispersal and have resulted
in decreased long term viability of many species. Wetlands in the country are diverse in type and
distribution and cover 2-3% of the country’s surface area. Some of Kenya’s wetlands such as
Lake Naivasha and Lake Nakuru have been included in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of
international importance. Other wetlands include Lake Baringo, Chemeron dam (Tugen Hills)
and Lake Chale in Taita. The dramatic reduction in the depth Lake Baringo, from over 15 metres
69
in 1921 to an average of 1.5 metres today is partly due to reduced inflows and partly due to the
increased sediment load from surrounding catchments, a consequence of poor land management.
Adverse policy incentives, lack of sound policy and regulatory frameworks, poor governance as
well as low long term investments in the land are root causes while resource use planning is
hampered by poor monitoring and lack of environmental and natural resource related data. The
main land degradation issues and primary focus for sustainable land management in the five
Catchments are presented in the table below.
Operation
al Area
(OA)
Main Land
degradatio
n Issues
Kinale-Kikuyu
Soil erosion
Low soil
fertility
Water pollution
Land
conversion to
inappropriate
uses
Charcoal
burning
Primary
Soil
focus for
conservation
sustainable measures
land
Sustainable use
manageme of fertilizer
nt
inputs
Integrated
nutrient
management
(INM)
Integrated Pest
management
(IPM)
Agroforestry &
afforestation
Taita Hills
Tugen hills
Cherangani
Hills
Yala
Nutrient runoff
Loss of organic
matter and
nutrients
Low fertility
Salination
Sodicity
Soil erosion
Severe wind
erosion
Flash floods
Soil acidity
Low soil fertility
Charcoal burning
Loss of
nutrient bases
through runoff
Loss of
organic matter
and nutrients
Low fertility
Charcoal
burning
Agroforestry
Promoting
indigenous trees
species
Prevention of
runoff, gully
erosion
Terraces, strip
cropping, grass
strips
Sustainable use
of fertilizer
inputs and INM
Irrigation design
and management
Water harvesting
and management
IPM
Agroforestry &
afforestation
Rangeland
Management
Water harvesting
and management
(Gabions check
dams)
Improving
Irrigation water
use efficiency
Drought resistant
and Indigenous
species
IPM and INM
Addressing
salinity
Farm stoneline
and trashline
construction
Grass strips and
windbreaks
Contour farming
Agroforestry
Gully
rehabilitation
Restoration of
upper
catchment
with
indigenous
species
Terraces, strip
cropping and
grass strips
Sustainable
use of
fertilizer
inputs and
INM
Soil erosion
Low soil
fertility
Water
pollution
Land
conversion
Inappropriate
farming
methods
Soil
conservation
measures
Sustainable
use of
fertilizer
inputs and
INM
Agroforestry
&
afforestation
70
KAPSLMP –Development and Global Environment 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 maintenance of critical
ecosystem functions and structures.
It will address land degradation in selected watersheds in order to ensure continued ecosystem
functions, reduce risks to globally significant environmental assets and help sustain rural
livelihoods. This will be accomplished through the promotion of sustainable land management
technology packages and practices that have local and global benefits. This will involve the
integrated utilization of soil, water, air, and floral and faunal bio-diversity for physical and socioeconomic development, paying particular attention to the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem
integrity.
Specifically, the 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.
 Enhance the institutional capacity of all relevant stakeholders to promote sustainable land
management practices and alternative livelihood strategies based on participatory and
demand-driven approaches.
 Evaluate the impact of existing policies affecting the management of natural resources and
contribute to the removal of barriers hindering the widespread adoption of SLM practices.
 Facilitate the exchange of information on best practices in sustainable land management
among farmers, communities, extension agents, researchers, development partners, and
policy makers.
The project aims to address land degradation and improve land management in five operational
areas: Taita-Taveta, Tugen Hills, Kinale-Kikuyu Cherangani Hills, and Yala catchements (please
see additional details on the catchments in the appendix).
While land degradation is recognized as a priority for action, there remain several barriers
preventing the widespread uptake of sustainable land management activities. This include the
lack of tested, locally applicable and easily accessible integrated technologies, human and
financial resource capacities, inadequate coordination between various service delivery providers
leading to a haphazard access to solutions, lack of incentives for improved management, and
weaknesses in the policy and monitoring frameworks.
The proposed project is closely associated with the Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project
(KAPP), which was approved by the World Bank in June 2004. The KAPP is a broad based
program that is seeking to contribute to the sustainable increase of Kenya’s agricultural productivity
71
and improvement of the livelihoods of its rural communities through the improved performance of
the agricultural technology supply and demand system.
GEF funds will supplement IDA financing and strive for incremental benefits accruing from
establishing the basis for sustainable land management while fostering secondary global
environmental benefits such as preventing losses in biodiversity as well as in carbon sinks. The
program will promote community directed micro-projects addressing land degradation,
advancing sustainable agricultural systems and targeting some of the root causes of driving
encroachment and degradation of forests, wetlands and other ecologically sensitive ecosystems
through an integrated micro-watershed approach, and including research and pilots, capacity
building, and institutional strengthening. It will seek ‘win-win’ options in enhancing the
ecological and economic value of land use. It will enhance the institutional and technical
capacities of communities, service providers and agencies to achieve sustainable land
productivity and management.
Global benefits accruing from Project activities will also help Kenya in meeting some of its
global environmental obligations as represented by its participation in international
environmental conventions:
 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, ratified in 1997
 Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified in 1992
 Contracting party to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 1990
 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified in 1994
Baseline Scenario - KAPP
The new Government’s development strategy articulated in the Economic Recovery Strategy
2003-07 (ERS) and its sectoral priorities outlined in the Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture
(SRA) set the directions that the country is seeking to move in to address decline in agricultural
growth, productivity and increase in poverty.
KAPP, supported by IDA is broad based program focusing on the restructuring of the
agricultural technology and services system. In the first phase, the emphasis is on overhauling
the research institutional structure and on establishing the coordinating mechanisms and
consultative towards improved access to information that would help guide the implementation
of the Government’s Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture.
SLM is part of KAPP's strategy for increasing agricultural productivity. KAPP is focusing on (i)
the establishment of a pluralistic research system; (ii) building consensus on the reform of the
extension system and the empowerment of the clients; (iii) pilot interventions in 20 districts to
test innovative and decentralized extension/research/education activities; and (iv) initiation of
activities for improved management of soil and water in 5 selected watersheds. The last focus
area will be addressed by KAPSLM. Hence, KAPP and KAPSLM have to be seen as very much
integrated and complementary projects.
The Government for its part has taken some action in halting the processes that led to the gross
violations of environmental safeguards occurring in the prior years, but is hampered to a large
extent by the lack of resources, capacity, coordination needed to make a significant impact on the
72
ground in implementing its strategy for combating land degradation as laid out in the National
Action Program. Meanwhile, the reform process, especially of the research sector provide a very
useful opportunity to scale up the uptake of identified and tested technologies that would lead to
increased productivity, restore soil quality and lead to sustainable land management and reduce
the threat to vulnerable environmentally important ecosystems.
Alternative Scenario: GEF supported KAPSLMP
Under the GEF alternative scenario – the IDA financed KAPP will be supplemented by the GEF
financed KAPSLMP, a jointly coordinated project, with the global environmental objective to
promote a community driven integrated approach towards improved management of natural
resources within five critical catchments in order to combat key land degradation problems.
Overall goals will focus on the maintenance of critical ecosystem functions including
hydrological cycles, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration fostering multiple global benefits
through maintenance of healthy watersheds, reducing threats to natural habitats (forests and
wetlands) agrological and wetland biodiversity (including the preservation and sustainable
management of critical habitat for a broad range of bird species) and carbon sinks (the climate
change literature indicates that levels of 0.5 t/ ha/ annum carbon could be sequestered through
improved land management, and 2PgC of the global 3PgC currently building up per annum
could potentially be absorbable by agriculture, indicating a solid synergy of local and multiple
global benefits from SLM activities.)
KAPSLMP will focus on three key areas, consistent with the strategic priorities of the GEF
under the operational program on sustainable land management, including capacity building of
producers, communities, service and information providers, implementers and relevant
government agencies; funds for financing micro-projects planned and implemented by the
communities, with technical support, (including piloting of mechanisms that enhance the
financial sustainability of the activities) as well as support to the development of a sound policy
framework, including targeted mainstreaming of SLM priorities within national and sectoral
programs. Further detail is provided in the main section of the PAD.
While, there are other ongoing and planned GEF activities in Kenya (see attached matrix), they
do not address the project focus areas, both in spatial and thematic terms. The various
implementing agencies, including the UNDP, UNEP, FAO, IFAD and the World Bank among
others, are coordinating closely and developing measures to enhance coordination on these issues
within the Government as well in order to promote project to project linkages and the
establishment of a network of technical practitioners for periodic sharing of information and
capacity. As a part of this, an analysis of the objectives of these projects, coverage areas, themes,
is ongoing to ensure that duplication and overlaps do not occur. It is proposed that the KAPSLM
be the main opportunity for establishing the coordination mechanisms and dialogue towards a
country partnership program.
On-site and off-site effects of land degradation will be assessed, qualitatively and - to the extent
possible - quantitatively as part of a project preparation study. This study would include issues of
global environmental significance such as carbon sequestration, sedimentation into water bodies
and biodiversity. (Please see annex II for a draft template)
73
Table 1: Incremental cost matrix for GEF funding
Component
Cost
Cost
Category
US$M
Baseline:
13.70
Building capacity for
sustainable land
IDA
3.80
management
Capacity building of
producers and
communities in targeted
operational
areas/watersheds to
enhance the uptake of
sustainable land
management practices
Domestic
Benefits
Improved capacity
and quality of
service provision,
farmer
9.40 empowerment,
reduced conflict,
Increased income
diversification and
income levels;
improved farmermarket linkages.
Government
Capacity building of
service providers to
improve quality of SLM
related service provision
GEF
alternative:
IDA
Government +
Beneficiaries
GEF
Increment
17.77
Provides
communities with
immediate options
3.80 to address land
degradation that
10.27 threaten
agricultural
productivity and
condition of
3.70
natural resources.
Capacity in a wide
variety of thematic
and technical
areas empower
communities, help
expand their
planning horizon,
and contribute to
their development
vision.
Micro-watershed
catchment plants
provide
frameworks for
74
Global Benefits
Capacity building
efforts are likely to
have positive
externalities through
improvements in the
Ag. Sector.
Activities aiding the
revitalization of the
sector are likely to
have environmental
benefits through
improvements in
research and service
provision quality,
albeit more defused
and general.
Specific and targeted
capacity building
will create
momentum for
processes and
activities that have a
sustained impact on
the trends of land
degradation.
Capacity building
among producers
and natural resource
users targets many of
the gaps that
contribute land
degradation and
provide tools for
directing investments
in land management.
Component
Cost
Category
Cost
US$M
Investment in SLM microprojects and promotion of
alternative livelihoods
systems
Baseline:
3.50
IDA
3.50
Community initiated
micro-projects to mitigate
land degradation as well as
to provide alternate income
generation options and
GEF
incentives for sustainable
alternative:
land management
8.11
75
Domestic
Benefits
integrated
development
initiatives.
Increased incomes
and food security,
alternate
livelihood options,
reduced
vulnerabiltiy
Additional
resources at the
village level,
Global Benefits
Increased income
and income diversity
may reduce the
vulnerability of
farmers to economic
and climactic shocks
and thereby reduce
the exploitation of
natural capital.
Efforts to address
land degradation
help to (i) maintain
Component
Cost
Category
IDA
Cost
US$M
3.50
Government +
Beneficiaries
0.61
GEF
Increment
4.00
76
Domestic
Benefits
longer term
sustainability of
on-farm and
alternate
investments
enhanced
Increased income
diversification and
income levels;
improved farmermarket linkages;
Integrated
Ecosystem
approach and PES
ensure that sound
management of
land improve
returns to land as
well and reduce
risk of income
losses.
Global Benefits
global values of
trans-boundary water
resources, (ii)
conserve natural
habitats and on-farm
and wetland
biodiversity, and (iii)
preserve forest and
wetland carbon sinks
Substantial
improvement in the
ability of relevant
national agencies to
meet global
environment
commitments.
Promotion of
alternative livelihood
options contributes
to reducing pressure
on marginal lands
and other scarce
natural resources and
creates incentives for
SLM.
Integrated
Ecosystem approach
and PES programs
build in
sustainability of
efforts leading to
lasting global
benefits
Component
Strengthening the enabling
environment for SLM
Contributing to the
development of a sound
policy framework
(including assessment of
the land use policy and
mainstreaming of SLM
priorities into sectoral
programs)
Strengthening relevant
institutions to achieve
project objectives and in
implementing some of the
priorities of the NAP.
Cost
Category
Baseline:
Cost
US$M
46.47
IDA
26.50
Government
19.97
77
Domestic
Benefits
Capacity
enhancement of
agricultural sector
at three levels –
research systems,
extension services,
and policy
formulation.
Global Benefits
Minor environmental
benefits may accrue
over time due to
service
decentralization and
efficiency gains
through improved
agricultural
technologies.
Component
Project coordination and
monitoring
Cost
Category
GEF
alternative:
Cost
US$M
48.88
IDA
26.50
Government +
Beneficiaries
20.58
GEF
Increment
01.80
Baseline:
7.20
IDA
6.20
Government
1.00
78
Domestic
Benefits
Long-term,
holistic, and
strategic planning
of NRM policies
through capacity
building of policymakers and other
relevant
stakeholders.
Assessments,
studies and other
activities
contribute to the
development of a
sound policy
framework and
support to
institutions
enhances its
implementation,
addressing barrier
removal and
enabling
widespread
adoption of
sustainable land
management
practices.
Capable staff in
place to manage
and coordinate
project activities,
which largely
focus on
agriculture sector
reforms.
Global Benefits
Global benefits will
occur through policy
formulation which
aims at reducing the
degradation of
natural resources and
its negative
environmental and
socio-economic
benefits. Without an
adequate NRM
policy framework
global benefits are
unlikely to occur.
Without institutional
support, weakened
agencies will
continue to remain
ineffective in
stemming the trend.
Minor global
environmental
benefits arising from
application of
environmental
safeguards.
Component
Total
Cost
Category
GEF
alternative:
Cost
US$M
8.04
IDA
6.20
Government +
Beneficiaries
1.34
GEF
Increment
0.50
Baseline
(total):
70.37
IDA
Government
40.00
30.37
79
Domestic
Benefits
Decentralized
management,
coordination, and
M&E of NRM
investments will
enhance local
participation and
thereby improve
efficiency and
effectiveness of
project activities.
Inclusion of SLM
specialists to
manage and
coordinate issues
at multiple levels,
champion SLM
activities and act
as focal points for
information
sharing.
Global Benefits
Improved
management and
coordination of
NRM project
activities will help to
harness full global
environmental
benefits of proposed
investments.
ATTACHMENT 1
Assessment of Natural Resources and Biodiversity in the Catchments7
An assessment of biodiversity issues, threats and conservation needs in the operational areas of
KAPSLM was conducted. The selected sites are: Taita Hills; Tugen Hills; Cherangani Hills;
Kinale Forest and Yala Swamp. Kinale forest catchment and Yala swamp catchment are different
from other sites because they are not hills and do not show an altitudinal gradient found in other
sites. Kinale forest is protected forest. Yala swamp on the other hand has a big part with
permanent water that keeps people off from intensive cultivation.
In all the sites, the most common threat to biodiversity is cultivation, human harvesting of
natural resources and grazing. There are many policy gaps especially in the integration of the
many sectoral regulatory documents and the capacity of the extension personnel to link up the
different sectors involved. There are positive developments towards involvement of local
communities in the conservation of biological diversity in their own areas but more is needed in
the recognition of local communities’ contributions by government and in the sharing of benefits
from biodiversity conservation.
LAND USE / LAND COVER IN OPERATIONAL AREAS
Land use has been categorized into protected areas, mono-cropping areas, mixed cropping areas,
grazing areas, forests, natural vegetation and settlements. The following is a summary of land
use in the catchments:
Table 1. Indicators for land use patterns in the Catchments
Land Use Taita Hills Tugen Hills Cherangani
Hills
Protected
Areas
Monocropping
Mixedcropping
Grazing
Forests
Kinale
forest
Yala
Swamp
Partial
None
None
Forest
None
Foot hills
Not known
Hill slopes
and foot
hills
Hill slopes;
foot hills
and whole
catchment
Around the
forest
Small holder
mixed and
dairy farms
In small
holder farms
and
roadsides
Not known
Hill slopes
and foot
hills
Hill slopes
and foot
hills
Hill slopes and
foot hills
Hill slopes and
foot hills
Hill top and
hill sides
Natural
Hill top and
vegetation hill sides
Settlements Sparse hill
Hill top and
hill sides
Hill top and
hill sides
Sparse on
Hill slopes; foot
hills and whole
catchment
Hill top and hill
sides
Hill top and hill
sides
Sparse on hill
Protected
forest
Within
forest area
Dense and
Small holder
mixed farms
In small
holder
farms;
roadsides
and swamp
None
Papyrus
swamp
Dense and
Details are available in the report by Joseph Maitima (International Livestock Research Institute) and Harrison
Rware (Dept. of Range Management, University of Nairobi)
7
80
sides and
dense on
foot hills
foot hills
and whole
catchment
sides and dense
on foot hills
encroaching
into the
forest
encroaching
into the
swamp
TAITA HILLS
The Taita hills are found in Taita-Taveta district, southwest of the Coast province 25km west of
Voi town. The hills form a series of steep ridges once capped by rich montane forests, which
comprise the only portion of the eastern arc range of forests in Kenya. The forests have over a
long period of time been isolated ecologically from other forests and as a result evolution has
resulted in many groups of flora and fauna being endemic to the region, including 13 taxa of
plants and 9 taxa of animals. Among the plants is a rare coffee species (Caffea fadenii).
Furthermore, 22 species of plants and 3 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 in human settlements and 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 Ocotea forest: which occur in the highest parts
(>1,600 a.s.l) and Newtonia forests: occurring at 1,250-1,800 meters above sea level. Mbololo
forest, which are part of Taita hill forest, contains the African Violet (Saintpulia 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 activities.
Taita hill forests hold very unique avifauna biodiversity birds such as Taita white eye, Taita
apalis, the Taita thrush and the restricted range Abbot’s starling. They also host globally
threatened species including the Taita falcon, Abbott’s sterling (also range restricted) and the
Southern banded snake eagle, and the regionally threatened Ayre’s hawk eagle, the Red-capped
Robin and a host of rare mammals and plants, and is listed as an important bird area (IBA)
(Nature Kenya). Other wildlife present include primates (monkey species - Cercopithecus mitis,
nocturnal primates- Bushbabies, Greater Galago-Otolemur garnetti and the Dwarf GalagoGalagoides orinus) and mammals(over 15 species of rodents, 10 species of insectivores and one
elephant shrew).
Important rivers such as Bura, Kishushe, Mbololo, Mwatate, Paranga and Voi, as well as Njoro
have their origin from these forests and play an important role in the Taita, Kilimanjaro and
coastal Kenya ecosystems. Exotic softwood plantations have been established, while demand for
pole wood and charcoal has increased at an alarming rate. The gradual disappearance of forests is
attributed to the demographic pressure for agriculture, firewood, timber and other wood related
demands from the forests.
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 vegetation grades into dry savanna rangelands and some parts of the hills border
with the large Tsavo east National Park. Some areas within the savanna rangelands that are
suitable for cultivation the have? major crops is such as sisal grown with plantations extending
all the way to Voi town on Nairobi Mombasa road some 25 km. Taita hills form a major water
catchment and a source of several rivers some of which provide water for a rice irrigation
scheme.
81
TUGEN HILLS
Tugen Hills are located on the eastern flanks of Kerio valley and rise up to nearly 3000 meters
above sea level from the low lying plains of Lake Baringo basin to the east and the Kerio Valley
to the west. The hills are characterized by thickets and dry woodland vegetation types with high
variation. The soils are sandy and the terrain is characterized by deep erosion gullies that form
seasonal rivers during the wet months. 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 center Kabarnet is located there. There is little information on the biodiversity of
Tugen hills but the area is known as a habitat for reptiles and bird species, including flamingos
around the lake.
Tugen hills are seriously degraded (deforested and exposed hill sides, loose weathered ground
surfaces), resulting in reduced precipitation and high siltation of the river courses emanating
from it. Currently the single most important threat to biodiversity in the area is that of soil
degradation through surface runoff into Lake Baringo. Recent studies have shown that current
high rates of sedimentation in lake Baringo is due to sediment deposits by surface runoff that is
accelerated by increasing land use activities within the catchment. Studies should be done to
determine the impacts of these high surface runoff on biodiversity especially the invertebrates,
and the below ground biodiversity.
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 east and Ilchamus to the south and
eastern sides. The latter form about 50 percent of the riparian population who are mainly
pastoralists. The Ilchamus and Pokots mainly practice agro-pastoralism while Tugens are more
of agriculturalists. Politically the communities are marginalized especially the Ilchamus and the
Pokots. In this regard, they have remained to poorer with limited access to water, health facilities
and other services. Over-grazing is a major problem in this area Dry seasons are critical periods
and most cattle graze along the lakeshore thereby interfering with the ecosystem of the lake. The
land tenure system is group ranch and grazing is communal. An area of conflict is cattle rustling
which creates friction between communities in the basin hence limiting collective responsibility
in management of the lake and its basin.
CHERANGANI HILLS
Cherangani hills are part of the rift valley system, extend to about 60km from the north east of
Eldoret, and are located at the northern fringe of Kenya, crossing West Pokot, Elgeiyo
Marakwet, and Trans Nzoia Districts, covering an area of about 32,000 hectares.. They form the
western wall of Elgeyo Escarpment which rises to 1830 meters. Cherengani Hills have forests
that are part of the upland (montane) forest found at an altitude of between 2000m to 3500m
above sea. These forests contain numerous plant species found nowhere else in Kenya and also
important habitat for several wild animals and birds. This indigenous forest is a water catchment
area in the country for most of the rivers that feed Kenya’s lakes and forms one of the countries
five water towers. The major rivers from here include Nzoia, Turkwell, and Sosian, Chepkoilel,
Kapteret, Suguta, Kerio and many important tributaries drain into Lake Victoria, Turkana and
Baringo. The communities make use of the water from the forests through major dam projects
such as Chabara, Kaptagat, Karadich and Turkwel Gorge dam, which also has electricity, based
on the Turkana River.
82
The hills are home for the Marakwet people who are part of the greater Kalenjin group who
migrated here from the north several centuries ago. The area is well provided with streams useful
in agriculture as most of the area has low rainfall. The hills provide the best farming
environments for the Marakwet people and are an area with intensive land use.
Other indigenous groups include the west Pokots. 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.
Recently due to economic liberalization and farm enterprise diversification, coffee growing has
become an important form of land use in areas around the hills. Also, tea factory has been built
to process tea produced in the area. Plans to improve roads network in the area may also increase
land use activities. Another phenomenon that is perhaps unique in this area among all the sites is
that this area has for a long time experienced civil unrest due to intertribal cattle rustling that
resulted into occasional sometimes serious unrest although the situation appears to be changing.
KIKUYU/ KINALE
Of all the sites discussed in this report, Kinale forest catchment has the highest amount of rainfall
and with the highest agricultural potential. It is a catchment for several rivers including
Gatamaiyu, which is a source of water to the highly populated Kimende area and Nairobi City
and also tributaries of Athi River (Wangenye, Gatamaiyu, Nyanduma and Kamunga).
Within the catchment there is intensive cultivation with a number of large scale tea and coffee
farms. 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. On the drier but cold western flanks of the escarpment the major crop grown is pyrethrum.
Kinale has more challenging conservation problems than most of other sites due to high
population pressure and high commercial value of land.
Pit sawing, Charcoal burning and excessive fuel wood collection have been some of the threats.
Other important contributory factors the extremely high land value due to its proximity to
Nairobi and the lack of sustainable harvesting of timber and wood. This has resulted in massive
deforestation around the forests. Large areas of deforested land are planted with commercial
plantations of pine, podocarpus and cedar trees both for timber and paper industries. Kinale
supplies the most of the 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.
The Kikuyu escarpment 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 and cover 6 types of
vegetation zones (Evergreen seasonal forest, Evergreen forest, Evergreen xeromorphic forest,
83
Evergreen riverine forest, and Evergreen bamboo forest). About 20 bird species found here are
considered rare, and regionally threatened species such as the African green ibis, Ayres hawk
eagle, Crowned hawk eagle, Abbott's Starling (Cinnyricinclus femoralis) listed by the IUCN and
Birdlife International as vulnerable to extinction and Red- chested owlet.
YALA
Yala catchment is in a low rainfall area 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 drainage
of the eastern 20 percent), 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. The swamp is largely uncultivated but plans are under way for a large
scale rice production scheme that will clear most of the natural vegetation to give room for
paddies. Yala swamp is home for many fish species some of which would be threatened as a
result.
The Yala flow has been 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. The predominant vegetation is papyrus Cyperus papyrus, with Phragmites
mauritianus in shallower areas and swamp grasses around the periphery. 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 even though it has not proved productive and a
substantial part has reverted to swamp. 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.
Yala 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.
Lake Kanyaboli shows considerable potential for ecotourism, which could potentially be
developed through a local site-support group as at other sites.
Apart from drainage, major threats to wetlands include water off take for irrigation upriver,
intensification of fertilizer and biocide inputs, and unsustainable exploitation of papyrus. In
addition, large-scale cutting, mainly for the mat-making industry, and extensive burning to open
up land for cultivation are taking their toll on the swamp, despite the remarkable regenerative
abilities of papyrus.
84
ATTACHMENT II
Draft template for assessment of alternate land uses (local and global benefits)
land use
systems
Forest
Oil Palm
Extensive
cash crop
Intensive
cash crop
Food
crop/long
fallow
Food crop/
short fallow
Pasture
Other
Global Environmental Concerns
Biodiversity
Carbon
aboveground
storage
(plants #
aboveground species per
tC/ha
standard plot)
Agronomic Sustainability
Soil
Structure
Nutrient
Export
Cropprotection
85
National concerns
potential
profitability
$/ha
Labor
require
ments
Small holder concerns
Returns to
Labor
Household
food
security
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
STAP TECHNICAL REVIEW
By
WILLIAM CRITCHLEY
Vrije Universitiet Amsterdam
15 August 2005
1.
PREAMBLE
This document comprises a re-review of “Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land
Management Project” (KAPSLMP) hereafter referred to as “KAPSLMP” or “the project”. An
original review was carried out in June 2005, and the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) was
duly revised in the light of that report.
It is noted that there are several improved and expanded sections in the revised PAD. These
include, amongst others (a) a bulleted list on factors explaining land degradation, (b) project
development objectives and indicators, (c) lessons learnt (under component 4), (d) institutional
and implementation arrangements, (e) critical risks, and (f) appraisal summary.
The current review follows the agreed terms of reference (TOR) relating to the project appraisal
document. The thirteen issues in the TOR are covered, including the eight sub-questions under
the first issue. There is also a general comment section. The re-review is based on the original
(16 June 2005) review. Issues that have been addressed in the revised PAD are acknowledged (or
simply removed from the review), while attention is drawn to issues where the document still
needs improvement. These are highlighted as issues to address under each section.
2.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The draft Project Appraisal Document (PAD) is now at an advanced stage, despite the fact that
there is still some editing required8. Overall the PAD sets out a case for a project with merit, and
one that can be recommended to the GEF for support. The connection between poverty and the
agricultural land that the majority of Kenyans (and the majority of the poorest Kenyans) depends
on is clear. The need for improved agricultural production coupled with, and achieved through,
better natural resource conservation is at the heart of “sustainable land management” (SLM): this
theme is core to the project and central to the OP 15 funding window of GEF. The PAD follows
a GEF path, but fails to emphasise well enough the global implications: the connection to climate
8
In addition to the issues that still need addressing there are various small errors, including inconsistencies in data
(see the “Key Sector Issues” at the beginning of the document and then compare with Annex 15) as well as
mistakes in botanical names and place names in the catchment description sections – sections that are generally
rather weak.
86
change through carbon sequestration and potential impact on biodiversity, and specifically agrobiodiversity.
Issue to address: There clearly is potential global environmental significance in terms of both
biodiversity and carbon storage. This requires more prominently highlighting in the PAD.
Response: Various sections of the document (rationale, outcome indicators, RF, ICA) have been
amended to highlight the considerable global environmental significance of the project.
Moreover, an assessment will be made during the project preparation to study the on-site and
off-site effects of land degradation both, qualitatively and - to the extent possible –
quantitatively. This study (see draft TOR in attachment I) would include issues of global
environmental significance such as carbon sequestration, sedimentation into water bodies and
biodiversity. This data will be reflected in the document as well as in the ICA.
The strength of, and rationale for, the project is its attempt to establish a model to follow in
improving land management in marginal areas. In this sense it is informed by, and builds on, the
“catchment approach” originally developed under the Government of Kenya/ Sida-supported
National Soil and Water Conservation Programme (NSWCP) and modified under the National
Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP) as the “focal area approach”.
KAPSLMP intends to take these basic approaches further into zones where there have been
“...uncoordinated and frequent shifts on mandate of dryland development”. This is undoubtedly
a valid goal. KAPSLMP correctly concentrates on a potentially powerful cocktail of what is
already known in terms of technologies and management practices – which is where the bulk of
the GEF money (nearly two thirds) is dedicated. It eschews the “silver bullet” approach of a
single solution which has failed in the past. There is also an important acknowledgement that
investment is essential in creating an enabling environment in which to nurture SLM. Despite its
omissions and further editing needs, this reviewer strongly supports the proposal for
KAPSLMP in principle, and both its relevance and eligibility for GEF funding.
3.
SPECIFIC ISSUES REVIEWED
3.1.
Scientific and Technical Soundness
There is no doubt that land degradation is a major on-site and downstream threat in many (if not
most) Kenyan watersheds, both to ecosystem function and also as a contributor to rural poverty.
The antithesis, sustainable land management associated with improved agricultural performance,
can help lift farmers out of poverty while providing local, watershed level and (when on a large
enough scale) global environmental benefits. One sees figures in the climate change literature of
0.5 t/ ha/ annum carbon which can be sequestered through improved land management, and
2PgC of the global 3PgC currently building up per annum being potentially absorbable by
agriculture.
Issue to address: This potential win-win scenario – and its global implication - is central to the
current proposal and should be emphasised more.
Response: Addressed
Will the approach achieve objective of addressing land degradation?
The general approach adopted by the project is correct: there is a solid on-site, on-farm, focus (in
contrast to wasting money on the more spectacular reclamation of “badlands” and gullies by
structural methods such as gabions, which should always remain a secondary concern, but
became a fad in Kenya some years ago). As has been noted, the link between conservation and
87
production – where conservation is addressed through vegetative and biological means - is
clearly spelt out. Two more points are worth making here: the first is that the project underscores
the importance of making use of already known technologies and management practices, namely
the “good management practices” or GMPs, and the “good management technologies” or GMTs
(examples however are not given). That is a refreshing change from projects that are founded on
the basis that technologies (or approaches) are the limiting factor and need to be developed. The
basis answers are indeed available already after decades of formal and informal research and onfarm verification. The second extra point is that the five-year horizon of KAPSLM is much more
realistic than the conventional three-year intervention typical of so many projects.
Issue to address: An annex or simply an expanded box in the text, giving some examples of
GMTs and GMPs and their impact on sustainable land management would add value to the PAD.
Response: While some of these technologies/practices are listed in a box in Annex 15, a more
detailed list, along with analysis of their cost effectiveness will be included in the Project
implementation manual (PIM).
Risks and constraints associated with project?
There are a number of risks associated with this project, but these can be largely avoided through
skilful and sensitive management. The first is that there may be “territoriality” (unhealthy
competition) between this project and other similar interventions. Sound working relationships
and synergies need to be established at the start. There may also be a danger of “fatigue”
amongst farmers and staff who have seen projects and programmes come and go: can
KAPSLMP present itself in a novel and stimulating way? Public relations are important. Flow of
funds is recognised in the proposal as a potential constraint, and this reviewer agrees. A further
risk is that monitoring and evaluation (which is correctly highlighted) may prove more
complicated than envisaged, and should not be taken as a “given”: experience tells that, in the
field, M&E is rarely given the priority that it requires. Two further, rather more specific risks
regard farmers. The first is that the poorest farmers may be left behind by a demand-driven,
semi-privatised extension system, if indeed such a system emerges in Kenya. This is a current
worry expressed by some in Uganda with the new NAADS programme. The second potential
risk is the danger of over-concentration on “model farmers” and local opinion leaders: the
message here is beware of the “favoured farmer syndrome” where jealousies can be aroused.
Gaps?
As was pointed out in the introduction there is little attention given to carbon sequestration – nor
potential payments for carbon sequestration: what of the Bank’s BioCarbon fund? or Kyoto’s
clean development mechanism? Another intriguing new dimension to SLM is payment for
environmental services. Perhaps this subject is still too young to be adopted by KAPSLMP, but
at least some thought should be given to it. There could also be potential for using marketing
channels in another way to support SLM: that is certification of organic/ sustainably farmed
produce. Another underplayed aspect is water development. In several of the watersheds
mentioned, provision of domestic water is a severe constraint and may limit the project’s
effectiveness. Returning to this reviewer’s support for concentrating on existing, known,
technologies and approaches it is gratifying to see that the revised document now furthermore
acknowledges the potential gains from keeping an eye out for local innovative solutions to
specific problems. It is also important not to over-emphasise individual land users at the expense
of common property/ community issues. Turning now to outcome indicators, KAPSLMP is,
88
naturally, intimately concerned with increase in soil organic matter, increase in biodiversity/
agrobiodiversity and hydrological function of the watersheds. Will they be included as
indicators? Several of these points are highlighted below, but other “gaps” are also included.
Issue to address: How will the water question be addressed (directly or indirectly)?
Response: Water issues are an integral part within the integrated ecosystem approach that the
project seeks to promote. Hydrological studies are planned during the project (component 3) to
help guide the community watershed plans in conjunction with other bio-physical data. The
stakeholders involved include the Ministry of water, the Water Resources Management Agency
of Kenya as well as water users associations and relevant NGOs. Further, water issues (quality,
flows timing and volume, sedimentation etc.) are a key area for payments of environmental
services programs which the project seeks to promote.
Issue to address: What attention will be given to market mechanisms for carbon sequestration,
environmental services or certification of organic/ sustainably farmed produce?
Response: Promotion of alternative livelihoods (see component 1) to reduce the pressure and
unsustainable use of land, Eco-agriculture and payments of environmental services (carbon,
water etc.) are a few of the market based mechanisms that the project will actively support.
Issue to address: Soil organic matter, biodiversity, hydrological function: how will these be
monitored? Are they to be included as outcome indicators?
Response: The Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) template is a model for incorporation and
monitoring of global and local environmental as well as economic profitability indicators. A
matrix of these indicators is included as attachment II in Annex 15. However, the detailed M&E
framework to be developed as a part of the preparation before appraisal will provide detail on
the monitoring and specific outcome indicators (including soil organic matter, structure,
hydrological indicators etc.).
Controversial aspects?
There are few controversial aspects envisaged. It would be hard to argue with the rationale for
the project, other than from a cynical viewpoint. There may perhaps be some discussion about
how the watersheds have been chosen (from a political/ ethnic standpoint) but that is inevitable.
Nevertheless if the issue under 3.4 is addressed, this will assist in justification.
Aspects requiring extra research?
Little detail is given regarding the aspects to be monitored in relation to SLM and its benefits.
How, for example, can a monitoring system capture whether a hectare of land (or a microwatershed) is being sustainably managed or not? Or its status has improved? This could provide
an opportunity for useful and interesting participatory research. While the GMPs and GMTs are
accepted to be valid, there is a dearth of information on their technical and economic validity.
Again, here emerges a topic which is researchable during the span of the project intervention.
How will model of sustainable use be developed? How effective will it be?
It is not very clear precisely what this question means: if it refers to the technical and
management packages on offer, then there is considerable potential for development of a
sustainable model of land use. One starting point would be to visit areas of Eastern and Central
Kenya and see how the various practices are combined successfully there. Naturally these will
need to be tailored (through participatory methods) to the technical and socio-economic
requirement of the watersheds under the project.
89
Sufficient evidence that project offers best long-term solutions?
In answer to this question, the evidence alluded to certainly exists in solid experience (though
mainly from smaller interventions) and is supported extensively in the literature, both within
Kenya and outside. KAPSLMP (when the PAD is further developed) will be a project that
embraces most elements of a new and enlightened approach to SLM and poverty.
3.2. Global environmental benefits
Sustainable land management is, by definition, the explicit focus of KAPSLMP. And SLM is at
the heart of ecosystem function with its positive impacts on biodiversity (particularly
agrobiodiversity), above and especially below ground, and carbon sequestration. The latter,
carbon sequestration, addresses climate change. There are no drawbacks envisaged.
3.3. Project’s context within GEF goals
KAPSLMP fits well within the GEF context. Its focus on sustainable land management in the
face of serious land (water and biodiversity) degradation and related poverty - and thus relevance
to OP 15 - is self-evident. Thus, the link to carbon sequestration and climate change which, as
mentioned already, needs to be brought out more clearly in the document. There is also a strong
connection with OP 12 through the proposed better management of crop, pasture and other forms
of land use, including wooded areas, and thus an integrated ecosystem approach. Beside these
technical aspects, KAPSLMP is explicitly committed to the interests of stakeholders, both in
terms of its demand-drivenness and participatory involvement in planning and activities.
3.4. Importance of the area of intervention from a conservation perspective
This is one aspect where there is a lack of clarity in the proposal. There are five “key catchment
areas” and talk of “critical ecosystem functions in degraded and fragile areas”. There are two
points here that need clarification. The first is the selection criteria. Is it on the basis of
“fragility”? Or lack of NSWCP/ NALEP intervention previously or currently? Or in order to
cover a range of agroecological zones? Or with indigenous peoples in mind9? Or (probably) a
mix of all of these and other considerations. The second point is: what is the precise unit of
intervention? Though “watershed” and “catchment” are the terms mentioned throughout, these
are confused by talking of (for example) “Tugen Hills” “Taita Hills” or “Cherangani Hills”.
These ranges are not discrete hydrological watersheds. Neither precise administrative zones. It
should be recollected that many of Kenya’s main successes have been based on community units
within watersheds (though under the NSWCP this was confusingly termed the “catchment
approach”). Equally there have been implementational problems when interventions cut across
administrative or community boundaries.
Issue to address: Within the PAD (in brief initially, in full later) there needs to be an explanation
of the selection criteria used in identifying the “catchments”. This then should be supplemented
by a map with the catchment boundaries and the main river systems associated with each
catchment.
Response: The selection of the watersheds was based on numerous socio-economic and agroecological criteria (including poverty incidence, population density, agro-climatic conditions,
9
The indigenous communities mentioned in respect to the Cherangani Hills are unlikely to be found there: the
slopes of Mount Elgon more probably? The Cheranganis are home basically to the Marakwet, the Pokot (towards
the north) and some immigrant individuals
90
and severity of land degradation). While an initial assessment has been conducted which is
describing these broad categories, KARI will hire a consultant to conduct a more in-depth study
in order to analyze the factors behind these categories (see draft TOR attached as attachment II).
The study is supposed to be available before appraisal.
3.5. Scope for replication of the project
Potential replicability is a real strength of KAPSLMP and surely a precondition for such a
project in the first place. What is done in the five areas is vital – but what can spread both within
and outside Kenya is potentially even more important. There is indeed mention of “similar ecoregions” (again a plea: what eco-regions are actually covered in the 5 watersheds?) and
“outside” spread. Certainly this can be the case and development of a model for dissemination of
the overall approach should be a priority. In this connection it needs to be stressed that whatever
is set up in this phase should be as far as possible through institutional embedding and not
exclusive to the project. The exit strategy (which deserves a mention?) would then be to
withdraw extra support funding, but leave in place the enduring institutions and pathways.
Issue to address: An institutional organogram would be useful and instructive.
Issue to address: Is the establishment of the “catchment coordinators” intended to be eventually
a model for the whole country? If not, who would carry out this function elsewhere?
Response: Please see institutional arrangement for details. A detailed organogram will be
developed and added after the implementation arrangements are finalized at appraisal. The
replicability of institutional arrangement will also be assessed as a part of the institutional
arrangements. A key priority is to work with existing governmental institutions that have been
established previously or as a part of KAPP. However, given the cross-sectoral nature of the
issue (SLM) it may become necessary to add/modify appropriate local structures.
3.6. Potential for continuation of changes the project aims to achieve
Many of the comments in 3.5 are relevant to this question also. Furthermore, there will be
continued support from the 12-year IDA APL as is pointed out in the PAD. That is a real bonus,
and will help “extend” the 5-year planned intervention. On another level, the fact that the project
concentrates on-farm, while establishing an enabling environment for SLM should certainly help
launch an enduring process of conservation through production – as pointed out in the PAD. The
proposed monitoring system will enable continued changes to be tracked.
3.7. Consistency of project design with operational strategies of other focal areas.
The focus on SLM implies that biodiversity and climate change are addressed, as already noted.
The direct relevance of this project to integrated ecosystem management is also self-evident. It is
hard to envisage any negative impacts.
3.8. Linkage to other programmes/ action plans
A large number of other programmes and action plans have connections with KAPSLMP: this is
well covered in the PAD. At a continental level NEPAD’s thematic area # 01 is supported. There
is mention of the GOK’s two relevant recent strategies (Economic Recovery and Revitalisation
of Agriculture) as well as the PRSP and NAP. It is demonstrated also how the project builds on
the KAPP and the 12-year IDA APL. A matrix of 12 Kenya GEF SLM-related projects is
provided also, though discussion of the connections that will be forged is as yet missing. While
the link with FAO’s Farmer Field Schools is mentioned in passing, there is also a good match to
91
be made with FAO/ UNDP’s “FFS- Promoting Farmer Innovation” project. What about the
obvious future connection to LADA (which will assess land degradation in drylands as well as
looking for successes in SLM)? Another link-up that could be very worthwhile is with WOCAT
– the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (www.wocat.net) which
(a) provides a monitoring and evaluation format dedicated to soil and water conservation/ SLM
as well as having a network in Kenya and (b) has several Kenyan SLM successes documented
and analysed including the catchment approach, the farmer innovator approach, the success of
Grevillea robusta in Central Kenya, and an example of “conservation agriculture”: these and
others all highly relevant to KAPSLMP.
Issue to be addressed: Important Kenyan, non-GEF links such as those mentioned above need to
be made explicit in the PAD.
Response: Noted. Efforts to coordinate closely with other GEF projects/implementing agencies
as well as to link with relevant programs/institutions (LADA, FAO/UNDP FFS, CGIAR
institutes) will be done through the project. Dialogue between GEF agencies in Kenya has
already commenced. And TerrAfrica (a multi-partner platform that aims to scale-up SLM across
SSA) provide potent mechanisms to strengthen GEF and non-GEF relationships. Activities
center on building coalitions at regional and national levels to promote SLM across sectors,
share knowledge, and help coordinate investments, thereby maximizing efficiencies and impacts.
The TerrAfrica partnership is inclusive, involving SSA countries, civil society and research
organizations, multilaterals and bilaterals (i.e., the AfDB, European Commission, FAO, GM of
the UNCCD, IFAD, NEPAD, UNCCD Secretariat, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank)
Moreover, it is envisaged that several CGIAR agencies will be closely involved in the
implementation of project activities.
3.9. Mechanisms for participation and influence on management of the project
It is encouraging to note that the project design has been steeped in a participatory process,
involving a range of stakeholders. It is noted that CBOs will be involved in work plans, and
farmers and communities in the development of micro-projects. Throughout the PAD there is a
participatory theme, but of course putting this into practice so that it influences management will
depend on multiple factors, including awareness raising and appropriate training. The
mechanisms to achieve this, however, are basically in place.
3.10. Other beneficial or possible damaging environmental effects
As (rather briefly) mentioned in the PAD, there will be positive effects downstream, especially
with respect to sediment delivery and hydrological regimes. In some of the intervention areas
(Tugen Hills and Cherangani Hills at least) many people have agricultural/ livestock interests
both upstream and downstream. Damaging environmental effects are highly unlikely.
3.11. Capacity building
There is a good – if currently rather general - description of the planned capacity building in the
PAD (page 10). This will evidently be a strong component of the project, and would benefit from
being described in a little more detail. It is refreshing to see that this capacity building is planned
to take place at all levels. Turning the concept around, it is pleasing also to see that the existing
capacity of the farmers/ land users is acknowledged and will be tapped. Experience suggests that
perhaps the biggest challenge will be in changing the attitudes of project/ Ministry staff, many of
92
whom will have been trained under a conventional “transfer of technology” model, furthermore
focusing on high potential areas. NGOs will be key in delivering and facilitating training.
3.12. Innovativeness of the project
The overall approach of the project – drawing a strong connection between conservation and
production under the umbrella of sustainable land management - is innovative, at least on this
scale. Other innovative elements are the search for alternative livelihood sources – focussing on
indigenous plant products for the international market (Neem tree, Azadirachta indica, and
Balanites aegyptiaca also perhaps?) again, on this scale, as many smaller projects (in Kenya and
elsewhere) have looked into this. The degree of commitment to M&E is refreshingly new, and
the explicit use of “opinion leaders” is also novel. Finally, KAPSLMP will, while relying on
technologies and management methods already on the shelf, keep an eye open for local
innovation in both SLM and alternative livelihoods by the farmers and communities themselves.
3.13. Potential for impact based on lessons and best practices from other projects
KAPSLMP must be careful to beware “institutional amnesia” which is precisely the point of this
question. There is a wealth of experience in SLM in Kenya – both current and historical, both
failures and success. “Lessons learned and reflected in the project design” is a new and important
section in the revised PAD, yet still the Bank’s experience under the “Baringo Pilot Semi-Arid
Area Project” (1980 onwards) is missing. Much could be gleaned from literature (official: but
mainly “grey”). That would be a good, perhaps even essential, starting point for the project
itself.
Issue to be addressed: Some lessons from BPSAAP should be mentioned – including for
example: the need to respond to local priorities, the key element of water provision, importance
of access roads to improve marketing, difficulties associated with operating projects which cut
across administrative boundaries, and the constraint of ineffective financial mechanisms for
transfer of funds.
Response: The lessons learned section notes key points from several relevant projects, including
many of the aspects mentioned above. Participatory approaches, market access and related
issues, integrated ecosystem development and financial mechanisms for longer term
sustainability (PES etc.) are recognized as integral to addressing the barriers to adoption of
SLM and incorporated within the project design as far as possible within the scope of the
project.
93
ATTACHMENT I
Terms of Reference for Economic and Financial Analysis
Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project, Kenya
Background
The World Bank is supporting the Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management
Project (KAPP-SLM) in Kenya. The development objective of the proposed project is that
agricultural producers increasingly adopt profitable and environmentally-sound land
management practices and alternative sustainable livelihood strategies in the targeted
watersheds. It is proposed that the project would have four components: (1) Promotion of SLM
best management practices and best management technologies; (2) Promotion of alternative
livelihoods systems; (3) Strengthening the enabling environment for SLM; and (4) Coordination,
monitoring and evaluation of project activities. KAPP-SLM will probably be implemented in
five watersheds in Western and Southern Kenya, namely Cherangani Hills, Taita-Taveta, Tugen
Hills, Kinale-Kikuyu and Yala Watersheds. Project implementation would be supported by a GEF
Grant of US$ 10 million. The proposed consultancy would address a crucial element of project
preparation, the economic and financial analysis.
Economic and Financial Analysis
The economic and financial analysis would consist of three major components: (i) analysis of the
biophysical and socio-economic setting in the targeted watersheds; (ii) cost-benefit analysis, both
from the private and social perspective; and (iii) fiscal analysis to assess fiscal implications and
financial sustainability.
1. Analysis of the biophysical and socio-economic setting
The economic and financial analysis of the project should begin with analyzing the biophysical
and socio-economic setting in the targeted watersheds. The analysis of the former would aim at
gaining a better understanding of the biophysical causes and the severity of land degradation in
the selected project sites. The consultants would have to identify the major forms of natural
resource degradation, e.g. whether land degradation is mainly associated with nutrient depletion
due to low use of inorganic and organic fertilizer coupled with declining fallow periods, and/or
with soil erosion due to deforestation, crop production on steep slopes with limited investments
in soil and water conservation measures. The analysis should be strengthened with some
quantitative information which indicates the extent of the major forms of land degradation in the
watersheds (e.g. nutrient balances, amount of soil loss) and its impact on yields (e.g. yield trends
for major crops).10 The analysis of the socio-economic setting would aim at assessing the
incentives for agricultural producers and other resource users to conserve the natural resources.
This part would include the analysis of markets, services, institutions, and distortions (e.g. taxes
and subsidies) affecting land management decisions. Experiences from other countries have
shown that farmers are rational decision-makers and hence the study could help to identify
external economic and policy factors which hinder the adoption of presumably more sustainable
land management practices and technologies. Understanding the incentives faced by agricultural
producers is necessary, if patterns of resource use are to be understood and appropriate responses
10
However, it is important to note that yield trends only reflect the impact of land degradation if other factors are
held constant.
94
to the degradation problem formulated. The results of this section are crucial for project design
and implementation, because it will help to identify the optimal interventions for promoting the
adoption of sustainable land management practices and technologies.
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
As a next step, the consultants would be expected to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess
whether the project is financially and economically justified. Hence, the overall objective would
be to estimate the costs and benefits of the proposed project (or at least components of the
project) and determine common indicators for economic returns (i.e. Internal Rate of Return and
Net Present Value). While the exact methodology will depend on the specific form of land
degradation in the targeted watersheds (which is supposed to be identified in the first
component), the basic principles of the analysis are universal and straightforward. First, the
effects of continued erosion (or other types of land degradation) on productivity are estimated for
the time horizon of interest. These are then used to estimate returns at each point in time and
reflect the situation without any project intervention (“without project” scenario). Second, the
calculations are repeated under the conditions that would be experienced if a specific
conservation practice were adopted (“with project” scenario). The returns to the investment are
then obtained by taking the difference between the streams of discounted costs and benefits in
the cases with and without the adoption of the respective conservation practices. It is important
to note, that the approach described thus far estimates only the returns to the specific
conservation measure being examined, not to conservation per se or the project as a whole.
Data requirements would comprise (i) biophysical data for the quantification of degradation rates
and yield losses; and (ii) economic data (mainly input levels and prices for crop production
budgets). The effects of land degradation/soil and water conservation can be estimated directly
based on statistical methods or by modeling the biophysical environment and translating effects
of land degradation (e.g. soil loss) on yields for example through regression analyses. The
statistical method could be based on the estimation of time trends of yields. This approach
requires a time series of yields both with and without the specific management
practice/technology under consideration. In addition, it requires information on changes of any
other variables that might affect yield over the same period. This approach is associated with
several problems, including data availability and reliability, and restrictions on the use of results.
An alternative would be to develop a detailed parametric model of the biophysical environment.
A relatively simple model would be the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), which aims at
estimating the amount of soil loss. Hence, as a next step the relationship between cumulative
erosion and yield would need to be established. If yield data could be obtained together with the
amount of soil loss on the same plots, a regression analysis could be applied. The constraints of
this approach are related to the fact that they require a detailed qualitative and quantitative
knowledge of the biophysical environment which makes building and validating the model a
complex endeavor. To conclude, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages and the
approach to choose is mainly driven by data availability.
The economic data requirements are mainly determined through the data needs for crop
production budgets. The first step would be to estimate the level of the use of various inputs. The
consultants would have to ensure that input levels adequately reflect practices in the areas being
studied. Input levels for activities which have not yet been adopted might be obtained from
experiment stations or other regions where these practices have already been adopted. One
95
difficulty in estimating input levels for inter-temporal analysis is that they are unlikely to remain
constant over the entire period of the analysis. At some point, returns under the degrading
practices might become so low that cultivation would cease entirely. As in the case of input
levels, the most important need for data on prices and costs (including labor costs and discount
rates) is to ensure that they accurately represent the situations in the different study areas. This
would probably require some field work by the consultants.
Once the consultants have estimated the returns to a specific technology/practice (i.e. the Internal
Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV), he/she would have to extent the analysis to
the regional, i.e. watershed, and project level. Therefore, the consultants would need to estimate
(i) the pattern of degradation at the aggregate level; and (ii) the adoption rates of the various
technologies under consideration. The consultants would also have to determine whether and
how project overhead costs should be accounted for.
The analysis described so far has been carried out in private terms, i.e. it provides estimates of
the costs and returns to conservation practices as perceived directly by farmers (this type of
analysis is often referred to as ‘financial analysis’). However, private costs and benefits might
diverge from the social costs and benefits for natural resource/land conservation, because (i)
market failures or policy-induced distortions might distort signals perceived by agricultural
producers; and (ii) externalities caused by land degradation might impose costs on the society in
addition to the decline in productivity on the fields where degradation occurs, e.g. the siltation of
reservoirs and flooding (analyses who account for social cost and benefits are often referred to
‘economic analysis’). While the correction for distortions is straightforward (see for example
Gittinger, 1982), it is more challenging to reflect the effect of externalities in the economic
analysis. Methodologies for quantification and valuation of externalities will be developed in
collaboration with the consultants, the Bank team, and KARI.
As mentioned above, the overall objective of the analysis is to calculate the expected IRR and
NPV for the proposed project, or at least project components. Since it can be expected that many
assumptions will be made for the calculation of the economic indicators, the consultants would
also be expected to extensively conduct sensitivity analyses by changing the values of certain
parameters and variables, such as the estimated impact of land degradation on yields, adoption
rates, and prices. The consultants would have to compare the study results with the results from
economic and financial analyses of comparable investments and projects in Kenya, Sub-Saharan
Africa, and other regions. Other project benefits are difficult to quantify in economic terms, but
the consultant would be expected to mention and discuss them in detail. Such potential benefits
could include biodiversity protection and enhancement, regeneration and recovery of natural
vegetation, reduced risk of landslides, and forest rehabilitation.
3. Fiscal Analysis
This analysis seeks to estimate the fiscal implications beyond project implementation and
provides therefore valuable information on the expected financial sustainability of activities
initiated under the project. In other words, the fiscal analysis aims at assessing the likelihood that
sustainable local sources of funds will be available at the end of the project to take over from
funds provided under the project. As part of this analysis, the consultant would have to determine
the expected recurrent costs at the end of the project (based on the project cost tables provided by
the project team) and make projections on the fiscal impacts of sustaining activities. To do so,
96
the consultants would also have to accurately account for the impact of cost-sharing mechanisms,
including beneficiary contributions to advisory service and investments.
Expected Outputs
As the first output the consultants have to develop a list with data needs for the proposed
analyses. This list will be submitted to the local consultant, who will start with data collection
before the arrival of the international consultant. As the main output the consultants are expected
to prepare report of 25-30 pages, single spaced, excluding any annexes. The report has to cover
all the issues mentioned in the TOR, and is expected to include the calculation of the common
economic indicators for project analysis, i.e. economic rate of return (ERR), net present value
(NPV) etc. The report has to discuss in detail how these indicators have been calculated and
which data have been used. Two weeks before the final deadline the consultant has to submit a
draft report to the Project Implementation Unit and the World Bank Team for review. The
consultant is expected to incorporate the comments in the final report. An executive summary of
the final report of 8-10 pages would have to be prepared for Annex 9 of the Project Appraisal
Document. Moreover, the consultants are expected to develop electronic files and spreadsheets
which would be used to perform the economic analysis. These files would have to be submitted
to the project teams with the final report.
Type of Contract
Two consultants will be hired in the period September 1 – November 30, 2005: one international
consultant (for 40 days) and one local consultant (for 25 days). The international consultant will
have the overall responsibility for conducting the analysis and submitting the final report. The
local consultant will support the international consultant, in particular regarding data collection
efforts and during the mission.
Timeline
Deliverable
Deadline
Draft Report
October 14th, 2005
Final Report (plus summary and electronic
November 30th,
files)
2005
Required Qualifications
The consultants are expected to hold a Master’s degree (or PhD) in economics, agricultural
economics, or natural resource economics. They need to have a strong background in the
economics of sustainable land management/natural resource management in developing
countries. Moreover, the consultants should have strong quantitative skills. Extensive experience
with project work in collaboration with international development agencies, in particular related
to economic and financial analysis, is desired.
97
ATTACHMENT II
Terms of Reference for Study on Selection Criteria of Project Sites
Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project
Background
KARI selected five watersheds in Western and Southern Kenya as target areas for the
Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project (KAPP/SLM-P).
Background papers prepared by KARI indicate that site selection was based – among other
criteria – mainly on poverty indices, population density, and biophysical factors. While these
broad categories seem to be relevant and meaningful for site selection in the context of land
degradation (or more generally natural resource degradation), it is essential for project appraisal
and implementation to get a better and more thorough understanding of the factors describing
these categories.
Study objectives and structure
The major objective of the analysis is to provide justification for site selection and support for
project design and implementation. The consultant would be expected to (i) determine the
specific criteria/factors for the selection of the five watersheds; and (ii) collect and analyze
information and data on these criteria/factors for each watershed. The consultant would have to
focus the analysis around the following pre-selected criteria/factors for each watershed:
I. Socio-Economic Criteria:
1. Poverty incidence (% of people below poverty line in all Provinces and Districts captured by
the project)11
2. Population density (number of persons per sq.km in all Provinces and Districts captured by the
project)12
3. Road and market access (km of all-weather roads per 100 sq.km in all Provinces and Districts
captured by the project; distances from selected communities in each watershed to nearest 3-5
towns with reasonable market size)
4. Farming systems and alternative livelihoods in each watershed (including major crops;
importance of livestock; importance of off-farm and non-farm activities)
5. Land tenure systems (description of types and their importance, e.g. leasehold, freehold,
customary etc.)
II. Agro-ecological Criteria:
1. Agro-climatic conditions for each watershed (e.g. humid, semi-humid, semi-arid, arid)
2. Soil fertility classes for each watershed
3. Nutrient depletion and soil loss over time for each watershed (to quantify the severity of land
degradation)
4. Yield trends (of major crops) for each watershed
11
The project team has identified the 1997 Welfare Monitoring Survey and the 1999 Population and Housing
Census as potential data sources. However, the consultant would have to explore the availability of more recent data.
12
The project team has identified the Statistical Abstract from 2003 as a potential data. Again, the consultant would
have to explore the availability of more recent data.
98
5. Major environmental threats for each watershed (in addition to land degradation; e.g.
extinction of particular species).
Another important criterion for site selection, which the consultant would have to address, is the
intended overlap with KAPP and the targeted area of other projects and programs.
Expected outputs and timeline
The consultant would have to summarize his/her findings in a report of 15-20 pages (singlespaced, without any annexes). The reported has to be submitted to KARI and the World Bank
Team by September 30th, 2005.
Required qualifications
The consultant is expected to hold a Master’s degree in agricultural or natural resource
economics, or agricultural sciences. He/she needs to have extensive experience with the analysis
of farming systems, and their socio-economic and agro-ecological environment in Kenya.
99
Annex 17: Maps
KENYA: Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land management
100