Final MSP Brief
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT BRIEF
Project Summary
PROJECT IDENTIFIERS
1 Project Name: Developing Incentives for 2 GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP
Community Participation in Forest Conservation
Through the Use of Commercial Insects in Kenya
3 Country: Kenya
4 Country Eligibility: Kenya ratified the Convention
on Biological Diversity on July 26 1994
5 GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity
6 Operational Programme: Forest Ecosystems (OP3).
Strategic Priority: BD-1 Catalysing the Sustainability
of Protected Area Systems.
7 Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs:
In this last year the new Government of Kenya (elected in late December 2002) has consistently stressed the
importance of the remaining areas of natural forest cover as the basis for water catchment, biodiversity and
livelihood resources that drive both national development and local household security. The new policy and
legislative processes, reduction of corruption in forestry management and a welcoming of civil society
involvement in forest management exemplify this commitment.
The new Forest Bill emphasises the role of community participation in forestry, and the developing Forestry
Strategy process (UNDP 2003) stresses the need for real incentives to drive such participation. These new
strategies follow increasing concern about the levels of past forest clearance (both legal excision and illegal
encroachment) as well as extreme over-harvesting in many forests leading to loss of forest cover, and increased
degradation and consequent loss of biodiversity.
Kenya has embarked on a development path that embraces increased industrialisation including cottage
industry, which reduces pressure on land resources. Increased linkage to private sector enterprise is part of that
strategy. Kenya has developed a participatory and ambitious PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper) that
prioritises the importance of forests and forest based ecological services for national development. Increasing
rural livelihoods, whilst reducing pressure on land based natural resources, was an important goal of the
environment – poverty cross-cutting component
The Kenya National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) stressed the value of natural closed
evergreen forests for both biodiversity and for ecological services. Kakamega and Arabuko-Sokoke were
singled out for biodiversity importance in planning papers. The Kenya National Environmental Action Plan
(NEAP) emphasised the increasing levels of threats facing all of Kenya’s forest woodland resources due to lost
managerial capacity and increasing population pressure. Both NBSAP and NEAP called for greater donorgovernment partnership to combat these issues.
The Environmental Framework Act 2000 calls for enhanced levels of partnership and collaboration between all
sectors and all levels of government, as well as between government and communities and the private sector.
The Act establishes District Environmental Boards to oversee such collaboration
43. GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement:
Director General of NEMA – Professor R W Michieka. 23 April 2004. (see Annex 1)
1
Final MSP Brief
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
1. Project Rationale and Objectives:
Rationale: Improving forest resource management, that includes a strong biodiversity conservation component,
requires a strategic mix of planned law enforcement and local capacity building that includes community
participation based on incentives. These incentives should be based on the diversification of local livelihood
options. All of this needs to operate within a supportive enabling environment at Local, District and Central level
requiring an investment into policy support and institutional strengthening and awareness raising so to allow
informed decision-making.
Kenya, with a new environmentally conscious political party in power has just overhauled her forest sector, with
improved management capacity, and a new Forest Bill and Forest Policy are before Parliament. Both the policy
and law stress the need for collaborative forest management. Many important forests are prioritised for support to
conservation; and renewed donor support to a sector that has been greatly under-funded in the past years looks
increasingly possible1.
Despite the small area of closed forest in Kenya (>2% of land area), these forests are of great biodiversity value
(high localised endemism) as well as providers of ecological services. The last decade has seen a decline in forest
conservation capacity. However the political will is now renewed to rebuild capacity, embracing communitygovernment – private sector partnership. This project provides a mechanism to do so.
In the past three years, ICIPE, the main project proponent for this MSP, has pioneered a set of rural community
livelihood support mechanisms that are based on the sustainable use of natural forest products. This has been
done on a pilot basis (including some Mwingi and Kakamega sub-villages) using “commercial insects” (honey
and wild silk-moths) and medicinal plant products. This input, funded from IFAD, MacArthur Foundation and the
GEF Small Grants Programme has been extremely successful.
Insects are the basis of the two most important income earners (honey and wild silk), and whilst insects are one of
the critical natural resources of forest ecosystems, our understanding of their biodiversity, including distribution
and function is poor. Besides serving as efficient pollinators and crop protection elements, insects are good
indicators of beneficial resource management of an ecosystem. This project will help to make communities and
national institutions more aware of the ecological and economic importance of insects and their forest habitats.
The project will focus on insects’ usefulness in supporting community-based efforts for minimizing forest and
associated biodiversity loss.
One of the barriers to forest conservation is the lack of linkage between the forest managers and the rural
development sector – including civil society and the private sector. There is a need for strong collaboration and
linkage between the conservationists and the developers to achieve synergies of purpose around important forest
resources. In particular this requires introducing proven development initiatives to act as the incentive for forest
conservation by local communities.
1
The Kenya Government Donor Coordination Committee on Environment has a Forest Sector Sub-Committee that met in February
2004, and agreed that sectoral reforms in the past year warranted restored and increased donor support.
2
Final MSP Brief
This present project, based around three different globally significant biodiverse rich forest areas, is to scale up
the livelihood support mechanism in forest adjacent villages, to a critical mass that has the ability to protect the
neighbouring forest, particularly the buffer forest, as the source of sustainable income. IFAD would co-finance
the income support, and GEF support is requested to build linkages to the forest conservation institutions to work
with the developing community forest conservation – user groups.
Improved buffer-zone conservation would ensure greater protection of the core areas of the two major forest
blocks (Kakamega and Arabuko). These core areas are supported through other initiatives, which serve as
baseline and co-financing to this GEF MSP intervention (see Annex 6a & 6b).
Overall Goal
The national protected area system of forest reserves
is strengthened through improved incentives for real
collaborative forest management with communities.
Objective
To demonstrate in three different forest sites that the
biodiversity of Kenya’s forest protected area system
can be maintained through collaborative management
systems using incentives based on income from
commercial insects.
Outcomes
1 The conservation of forest-protected areas is
supported through improved buffer zone management
with the involvement of local communities.
2 Methodologies and capacities to improve the
livelihoods of forest adjacent communities, that are
based on commercial use of insect resources, are
developed, linked to forest habitats and scaled-up.
The project will develop five interactive outputs to
achieve these outcomes:
Output 1 A forest management framework in place
that facilitates community participation in buffer zone
enterprise and conservation in all project sites.
GEF contribution:
USD 150,000
Others contribution: USD 250,000 GoK in kind
USD 150,000 USAID
EU 50,000 BCP KFR
Total
USD 600,000
Output 2 Forest adjacent communities, through
registered Forest Associations are actively engaged in
forest conservation through buffer-zone management
and enterprise.
GEF contribution: USD 100,000
Others contribution: USD 350,000 USAID ASFR
USD 100,000 IFAD all sites
Total
USD 550,000
Impact indicators:
1) On Biodiversity
a) Abundance ratings of wild silkmoth and pollinator bees are
stable or increase. Forest dependent bird species show no loss
of species or population abundance in core and buffer areas.
b) A total of 12,000 ha of forest and woodland across three
separate Forest Reserves will be under improved multistakeholder management.
c) Habitat monitoring in buffer zone and core zone in final year
(and post project + 5 years) shows no loss of forest area.
2) On Pressures
a) No new demands made by communities for excisions in
target forests, and no illegal encroachment
b) Evidence of illegal activity (cutting/harvesting) in buffer
zone reduced by 50% by final year.
c) Threat Reduction Response shows positive trend across all
years of project.
3) On Response Measures
a) WB/WWF PA tracking tool with positive scores.
b) Forest Associations formed in all target villages.
c) Income Generation Groups formed and increase in number,
capacity and financial turnover.
Performance Indicators:
1a) Forest Management Plans for Buffer Zones (all FR in
Mwingi) stipulate role of communities in forest management.
1b) Detailed buffer zone resource assessments in place and
used in M&E processes.
1c) Lessons and policy implications of the project “forestry community partnership” are disseminated to government and
conservation partners in Kenya and elsewhere, seeking to
strengthen conservation policy and policy implementation.
2a) At least six Community Forest Associations are registered
as approved PFM partners at the three sites.
2b) At least six Community FAs are involved in managing at
least 12,000 ha of forest totalled across all sites.
2c) At least six Community FA Plans for buffer zone
management in place, approved and under implementation
across all sites
2d) Insects Income generation activities provide forest
3
Final MSP Brief
Output 3 The capacity of communities and
institutions to manage and utilize both wild and
mulberry silk-moth and honeybee biodiversity for
income generation is increased
GEF contribution:
USD 280,000
Others contribution: USD 330,000 IFAD
USD 50,000 EU BCP
USD 100,000 ICIPE
Total
USD 760,000
Output 4 Improved methodologies and insect
resources are available at sites to allow efficient
resource use for improved livelihoods and
conservation practices.
GEF contribution:
USD 270,000
Others contribution: USD 270,000 IFAD
USD 100,000 ICIPE
USD 100,000 Viking Ltd.
Total
USD 740,000
Output 5. Effective project administration,
monitoring and coordination has enabled timely and
efficient implementation of project activities.
GEF contribution: USD 200,000
Others contribution: USD 400,000, IFAD
Total
USD 600,000
2. Estimated Budget (in US$)
GEF: US$
1,000,000 US $
Co-financing: US $
IFAD
1,100,000
ICIPE
200,000
USAID Nature –Kenya
500,000
Viking Limited
100,000
EU BCP Arabuko
50,000
EU BCP Kakamega
50,000
Govt Kenya FBD/Districts,
250,000 (in kind)
Co-Finance Sub-Total:
2,250,000
TOTAL:
3,250,000 US $
extraction benefits to six community FAs.
3a) At least 900 community members trained in management
and utilisation of wild and mulberry silkmoths and African
honeybees for income generation at end of project.
3b) At least six community FAs empowered to run silk and
honey businesses supported by Viking Ltd and other traders
3c) The number of farmers becoming involved in commercial
insects continues to increase in all sites beyond the numbers
initially trained in this project. Total number to exceed 3,000
farmers two years after project completion.
4a) 30 apiaries (average 20 hives each), 20 silkmoth rearing
houses and 10 wild silkmoth farming sites established and
operational.
4b) 5 marketplaces (including processing and packaging
facilities) are established for silk and honey products at all
three sites
5a) Annual Project Steering Committees held, and reported on.
5b) Detailed Baseline Assessment (Forest Resource,
Biodiversity, CBOs and Livelihoods) are prepared in year 1
and feed into full M&E plan, with final evaluation assessment
in last year.
5c) Timely production of reports, documents.
4
Final MSP Brief
INFORMATION ON INSTITUTION SUBMITTING PROJECT BRIEF
Information on project proposer: ICIPE – The International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology
The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) was established in Nairobi Kenya, in April
1970 as a centre of excellence for research in insect science and its application in Africa. The centre’s mandate
includes the protection of biodiversity in Africa and its sustainable utilisation for the development of local
communities and small -scale farmers, particularly women groups. ICIPE seeks to fulfil this mandate by
developing technologies to provide additional food sources and increase rural income in Africa. It acts as a
nucleus of research that addresses basic problems in the conservation of beneficial insects and their judicial
utilisation. Training at ICIPE addresses three major areas: professional scientific training at post-doctoral and
post-graduate levels; short-term courses in useful insects and harmful pests management for beekeepers, silk
farmers, NARS agriculturists, insect scientists, and technicians; and short training courses for farmers as trainers.
ICIPE has pioneered the development of successful community enterprise around commercial insects in East
Africa with pilot trials at sites in Kenya (including Kakamega and Mwingi) and Uganda. The project will be
implemented by ICIPE through continuing the ongoing collaboration with the Kenya Forestry Department,
Ministry of Agriculture, IFAD and Viking Limited (private sector).
The ICIPE Project Leader, Dr Suresh Raina, received a prestigious World Bank Finalist innovation Award in
2002 for the pioneering work on use of commercial insects in rural development and establishing four honey and
silk operational marketplaces in East Africa by giving ownership to the community.
Date of initial submission of project concept: Initial ideas under discussion since 1999 in different formats.
B. INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
3. Project Identification Number: PIMS 85
4. Implementing Agency contact person:
Dr. Alan Rodgers, Regional Coordinator for Biodiversity, GEF/UNDP; alan.rodgers@undp.org
Dr. C Gakahu, Asst Resident Representative, UNDP Kenya. christopher.gakahu@undp.org
Project linkage to Implementing Agency program:
1 UNDP Kenya has a long history of Technical Assistance in Kenya, with an emphasis on support to local
communities, and institutional capacity building. UNDP Kenya has a successful history of GEF project
implementation, including working in the forest and resource conservation sector, at both full size projects and
through the Small Grants Programme.
2 UNDP is a major partner with the Government of Kenya in natural resource management and conservation,
including the development of the recent (2003) consultative Forest Conservation and Management Strategy.
3 UNDP has a substantive focus on governance issues and poverty alleviation/livelihoods support. Governance
involves decentralisation and community empowerment; issues, which underpin the philosophy of this project
through the strengthening of village-based civil society.
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Country Ownership
Programme and Policy Conformity
Programme Designation
Project Context
Biodiversity of Global Significance
Socio-Economic Issues
Threats to Biodiversity at Project Sites
Root-Cause Analysis
Baseline Analysis
Project Rationale and Objectives
7
8
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
5
Final MSP Brief
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The GEF Alternative
Project Description
Project Strategy:
Project Objectives and Key Components
Costs and Finances
Incremental Cost Analysis
Co-Financing
Budget
Sustainability, Cost Effectiveness, Replicability, Risk Analysis
Coordination with other IAs and GEF Projects
Stakeholder Involvement, Social Assessment and Public Involvement Plan
Implementation Modalities and Timeline
Lessons Learned
Monitoring and Evaluation
References
Annexes
1 Letters of Endorsement
2 Commercial Insects the Concept of Sericulture and Apiculture
3 Project Maps
4 Threats and Root Cause Analysis
5 Incremental Cost Analysis
6 Logical Framework
7 Co-Financing Letters
8 Development of Apiculture / Sericulture Enterprise and Marketing Strategy
16
16
17
18
20
21
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
Acronyms and Abbreviations
A-S
CAS
CBBP
CBO
CCF
CEPF
DFO
EU BCP
FA (FADA)
FD (KFD)
FR
GEF
ICD (P)
ICIPE
IFAD
IUCN
KARI
KIFCON
M and E
MSP
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve
Country Assistance Strategy (A World Bank Planning Tool)
Cross Borders Biodiversity Project (A UNDP GEF Project 1998 – 2004)
Community Based Organisation
Country Cooperation Framework (A UN Planning Tool)
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
District Forest Officer
European Union (funding) Biodiversity Conservation Programme
Forest Association, a CBO. (Forest Adjacent Dwellers Association)
Forest Department, Kenya Forest Department
Forest Reserve
Global Environment Facility
Integrated Conservation and Development (Project)
International Centre
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project (DFID funded, closed 1994/5)
Monitoring and Evaluation
Medium Sized Project (in GEF terms – this project is an MSP)
6
Final MSP Brief
MOU
NEMA
NGO
NP
PA
PFM
TOR
UNDP
USAID
Memorandum of Understanding
National Environmental Management Authority – formerly “NES”
Non-Governmental Organisation
National Park
Protected Areas
Participatory Forest Management
Terms of Reference
United Nations Development Organisation
United States Agency for International Development
7
Final MSP Brief
IMPROVED FOREST CONSERVATION THROUGH SUSTAINABLE USE OF
COMMERCIAL INSECTS
COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
Country Eligibility
Kenya ratified the CBD on July 26th, 1994; is a member state of the Global Environmental Facility; and is eligible for
technical assistance through the United Nations System.
Country Drivenness
Kenya has established a network of protected areas (wildlife, forest and marine / freshwater ecosystems) covering some
12% of the land surface as the basis for conserving its country’s biological diversity. Closed forests cover some 1.6% of
the land surface, and most forests are in the PA system. This PA system helps meet Kenya’s global and national
commitment to biodiversity conservation, as expressed within Kenya’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(NEMA 2000). Of this total the forest reserves have always been most vulnerable to encroachment, overuse and
degazettement due to growing demand for agricultural land and fuel-wood resources, which override perceived benefits
from the forest. The new forest policies and legislation as well as the over-arching environment policy and legislation
provide for seeking incentives for local communities to accept and actively conserve the natural forest cover, through
participatory management processes.
The project supports the environment and development goals of the recent Country Assistance Strategy (CAS). The
current CAS is to support Government Policy for Accelerated Development by focusing on (i) sustainable human
development and (ii) stable economic growth. Environmental management is treated as a crosscutting issue to be
addressed with natural resources management projects, GEF projects and as mainstreamed components of rural
development operations. The protection of forests and biodiversity conservation through the introduction of income
generating activities such as apiculture and sericulture in the core buffer and peripheral zones of each project site is
proposed in the baseline program in “Support to competitive broad-based growth in the rural sector’’. The CAS
recognizes that variable climatic conditions and the current population explosion, which are an impediment to stable
growth, are compounded by the degradation of natural resources including forests, vegetation cover and biodiversity. The
project further supports the Environment Strategy of CAS whose basic challenge is to protect the forest ecosystem from
further harm and manage natural resources in such a way as to ensure the survival of populations and boost outputs of
services and products.
The main policy and regulatory institutions in Kenya are within Central Government. Policies and laws are interpreted
and implemented at Central, District and Local levels of government. While there has been an increasing trend towards
decentralisation of planning, decision-making and resource management from Central to District level government in the
past years, and from District to Village to household levels, Government is in the process of implementing polices. The
project will empower people to work together with government to avoid further biodiversity loss. These backward and
forward linkages between the local level activity and the higher order district and central activity in policy and legislative
issues are key to ensuring successful biodiversity resource conservation. Such linkages are stressed within the UN
Government Country Cooperation Framework (CCF) that has a strong sustainable development framework. The CCF
suggests that poverty eradication needs of Kenya will be addressed through four main areas of concentration: (a) good
governance for sustainable development; (b) employment and sustainable livelihoods; (c) gender mainstreaming and the
empowerment of women; and (d) environment and natural resource management. Interventions under these areas will be
crosscutting and mutually supportive, thus enhancing the impact of efforts to eliminate poverty, mainstream gender and
preserve the environment. This proposal includes specific activities at all these four levels, helping to ensure compatibility
with the overall framework.
8
Final MSP Brief
Endorsement
The project has been endorsed by the GEF Operational Focal Point, (Letter of 23 April 2004) is attached in Annex 1
PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY
Program Designation & Conformity
This proposed community based forest conservation project is consistent with Operational Program 3: Forest Ecosystems.
The focus of the project is on building the capacities of local communities to manage and benefit from the utilization of
forest linked resources so as to foster the conservation of adjacent forests of biodiversity significance.
This project will directly address GEF Strategic Priority BD I (sustained protected area systems). The particular emphasis
is on sub activity 1) improve opportunities for sustainable use, benefit sharing and broad stakeholder participation among
communities – indigenous groups and the private sector. There is a considerable private sector involvement in this
proposal. The project has specific components designed to disseminate on ground results and lessons learned into national
policy processes that address the forest PA network. The emphasis on local sustainable use of biodiversity products within
the agricultural landscape has linkages to SP 2 (mainstreaming biodiversity in the productive landscape). However the
overall objective is to promote better conservation of the forest protected area system of Kenya hence the submission as
an SP1 Project.
The project is consistent with COP for CBD guidance on the conservation of critical ecosystems and threatened species
and supports the active involvement of local communities in management decisions and as beneficiaries of protected
forest management. It responds to COP 3 guidance through promoting capacity building for conservation and sustainable
use of silkmoth and honeybees for improving the management of forest ecosystem. In line with COP 4, 5 and 7 guidance,
the project takes an ecosystem approach to maximize biodiversity conservation in a range of ecosystems under different
management regimes, involving a range of stakeholders including local communities as well as the private sector, NGO’s
and government agencies.
Most forests are protected as Forest Reserves in Kenya, and may under past legislation be de-gazetted by Ministerial
notification. They thus have a much less secure status than National Parks and National Reserves that require an Act of
Parliament to de-gazette2. When local people are disenfranchised from access of resources and benefits from these forest
reserves and are extremely short of cultivation land, then there is considerable pressure or support from local communities
for such de-gazettement. The management of the Forest Reserve (FR) PA system is just beginning to make changes to
accommodate support to forest adjacent communities. This is the role of this project: to provide resources to allow
Forestry Sector to show how the FR protected area system can be managed so as to both conserve resource values and
provide benefit flows to communities. This will be done at three ecologically different sites, and results will be
disseminated into policy and management processes to ensure a wider adoption countrywide.
Project Context
Kenya’s loss of forest cover and associated biodiversity, have led to serious environmental deterioration and consequent
decreased food production and increasing rural poverty. Closed canopy forests cover less than 1.8% and woodland less
than 15% of the total land area, yet every year forests in Kenya are under increasing pressure from encroachment, burning
and overuse and, until early 2003, from “legal” excision. Thousands of people live within five kilometres of forest
boundaries in Kenya and benefit from a whole range of goods and services from the forest (Davies 2002; Gordon and
Ayiemba, 2003), but demand for land often outweighs these critical services.
2
See Norton-Griffiths 2000. Note that the draft Forest Bill requires greater control; of such degazettement.
9
Final MSP Brief
Unsustainable levels of forest resource harvesting (including timber extraction, pole and fuel-wood cutting and
overgrazing) have resulted in a decline in the status of forest resources including forest biodiversity. This has
compounded the long-term deforestation trend that has resulted in reduced forest cover. Over the past 20 years, Kenya lost
some 50% of the existing forest (eg IUCN 1996). These increased pressures on forests are due to the general pattern of
consumption combined with the requirements for infrastructure for human settlements as populations grow. The
environmental services of forests are already diminished locally and regionally to present problems of immediate
consequence. The crisis arises because of the importance of forests and their constituent biodiversity for environment,
economy, and for society. In recent years Kenya has seen: floods, mudslides, soil erosion, and siltation of dams and
reservoirs, during heavy rains that are directly linked to the loss of forest cover. Large volumes of water and soil
sediments, which could have been retained in forested watersheds, flow into the sea or silt up reservoirs. In the dry season,
hydropower and water supply systems fail, as the dams, reservoirs, rivers and streams dry up, no longer fed by stored
water in forest soils. In addition to the damage caused to ecological services, this forest degradation leads to local
extinction of biodiversity (Wilson 1988). Kenya’s forests contain a large number of endemic and globally threatened
species. For example, its coastal, western and eastern arc forests are home to over 105 globally threatened (IUCN Red
List) species. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity Kenya is obliged to protect these species, nearly
all of which are forest-dependent.
Many rural communities are dependent on forest resources for water, for energy and poles, for medicinal plants and for a
variety of products to augment incomes. Like many other societies in Africa, Kenyan communities have been
marginalized from forest management and conservation processes. However new policies and legislation encourage
such partnership across the village – forest boundary.
In order to improve interactions between the people and the forest environment, ICIPE has developed income generating
package of practices such as apiculture and wild and domesticated sericulture designed to bring about adequate income
through meaningful employment in the rural areas (see Annexure I). Implementing honeybee and silkworm rearing
practices by small landholders will raise incomes. But if the access to these insect resources is linked to productive forest
buffer zones, then these practices will serve to maintain forest’s biodiversity and protect the environment, as well as
increasing the economic well-being of the poor by sustainable use of the natural forest resources (Raina, 2000).
Biodiversity of Global Significance: The Three Conservation Target Sites
The three focal areas for the project are chosen to cover the range of Kenya’s ecological zones. These are: ArabukoSokoke Evergreen Forest in coastal Kenya, Kakamega Wet Evergreen Forest in western Kenya, and Mwingi Dry
Woodlands in eastern Kenya. These sites represent dry coastal forest, rainforest, and woodland ecosystems respectively.
Each of these areas host regionally and globally important biodiversity.
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (41,760 hectares) is a Forest Reserve under the joint management of Forest Department (FD),
Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS), National Museums of Kenya (NMK) and the Kenya Forest Research Institute (KEFRI).
Arabuko-Sokoke is one of the most important biodiversity sites in Kenya and has been ranked as the second most
important forest for threatened bird conservation on mainland Africa (Collar & Stuart 1988). It is one of 19 Important
Bird Areas that have been prioritised as critical sites for intensive and immediate conservation action in Kenya (Bennun &
Njoroge 1999). It is part of the East African Coastal Forest / Eastern Arc Mountain forest complex that ranks among the
top 25 biodiversity hotspots on earth (Myers et al. 2000). Arabuko-Sokoke is home to 6 globally threatened bird species
and 5 globally threatened mammals, an additional 5 bird species are strict coastal forest endemics. A small population of
around 100 elephants lives in the forest and these are responsible for periodic crop raiding which causes great bitterness
among the 110,000 subsistence farmers who live on its margins. The over-exploitation of the forests resources, driven by
extreme poverty (per capita incomes of less than $50 a year) of these neighbouring communities, has been responsible for
the degradation of the forest (Gordon, 2003).
10
Final MSP Brief
Other conservation initiatives have been working in Arabuko-Sokoke, mainly on forest biodiversity assessment
management plan preparation, habitat restoration and the start of successful community conservation (CC). USAID is to
finance many of these activities within the core forest blocks, through BirdLife International’s Kenya partner (Nature
Kenya). This Community process has stressed the need for broader and diversified income sources than agriculture and an
initial reliance on butterfly farming.3
Kakemega Forest Reserve and National Reserve
Kakamega Forest (20,000 hectares) is a Forest Reserve under FD and part of it is also gazetted as a National Reserve
under KWS. It is a mid-altitude tropical rainforest (the only one left in Kenya), and is the easternmost outlier of the Congo
Basin forests. Kakamega hosts 2 globally threatened and 15 regionally threatened bird species. Its mammalian fauna is
diverse and shows clear affinities to the West African rainforest. Kakamega is a complex and fragmented wet forest,
divided into southern and northern blocks by past encroachment; and the forest has been under attack from inside and
outside for many years (eg Kokwaro 1988, and Rogo, et al 1999 {a paper from ICIPE}). A large and growing human
population surrounds Kakamega Forest, reaching densities of over 1,000 people per square kilometer in Vihiga District 4.
The forest has suffered from logging for commercially valuable timber, and clear felling of indigenous forest to make way
for agriculture and plantations of exotic trees. Local people are estimated to derive products worth US $ 1.7 million from
the forest each year - but this use is non-sustainable (Emerton 1992)5. Forest protection was inadequate a decade ago,
especially in the in the biologically important southern sector (Emerton 1992), and there has been no improvement since
then. Forest conservation problems in western Kenya have been flagged in many documents. One example was the recent
World Bank GEF Agricultural Support Programme in Western Kenya, which targets improved agricultural productivity in
the high density farming zone – including the surrounds to Kakamega Forest6.
Mwingi Forest Reserves, Eastern Province.
Much global attention has been focused on destruction of tropical rainforest and its consequences, but less attention has
been given to the tropical and sub-tropical dry forests and woodlands in Kenya. Yet these habitats are at least as
problematic and are disappearing as fast or faster, and their loss is likely to have a more severe impact on people living
nearby. They are major sources of fuel wood and poles for rural and urban markets. Like the rainforests, they protect and
cool soil, directly affecting soil fertility and productivity. They also act as store of carbon and are therefore relevant to
dealing with climate change. They also harbour significant biodiversity resources within a complex of thorn tree (Acacia,
Commiphora) woodland communities. Indigenous people have learned to live in symbiosis with these woodlands by
relying both upon the milk and meat that animals produce from tree-browse, and upon the replenishment of soil fertility
that the trees bring to agriculture. Such woodland degradation increases rural poverty and local desertification (Shepard et
al., 1993).
There are two significant Forest Reserves in Mwingi, these are Nuu - Imba in the south and the larger Mumoni – Gaikuyu
complex in the North. Mumoni has hill-top dry forest patches at higher altitude, and dry woodland and riverine forest
lower down, covering an area of 14,550 hectares. Hill forests are as yet little degraded, as they are further from markets
for fuelwood, and as some degree of community conservation still persists. However, away from the hills, on both
communal and private land there is continuing forest fragmentation and destruction, particularly for charcoal. The
globally threatened Hinde’s Babbler, which has a very restricted range in Central Kenya from Machakos to Mwingi
(Njoroge and Bennun 1999), occurs in the riverine thickets and woodland. The pancake tortoise, Malacochersus tornieri,
is endemic to these hilly habitats in Kenya and northern Tanzania. In Kenya, it is found now only in Kitui-Mwingi on
3
Butterfly farming was pioneered here by a successful GEF Small Grant input, such farming still continues, and some families receive
considerable income, and do protect the forest. However the market is saturated (for Arabuko spp.) with no room for more families to
join. The project leader for the butterfly project, leads the conservation section in ICIPE, and co-authored this MSP.
4
Note that an earlier project input (through Smithsonian Institution and ICIPE) provided support to birth control inputs, in recognition
of this pressure – proposed in the Rogo et al paper of 1999.
5
Emerton was writing as part of a large DFID project - KIFCON – Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project which halted in
1994 as the Permanent Secretary Environment said the project was trying to involve people in forestry! Things have changed.
6
Project development for this MSP is in touch with KARI (the main WB-GEF partner) and our planned outputs / activities are
complementary to their agricultural programme – not overlapping.
11
Final MSP Brief
scattered rocky hilltops. It is threatened by habitat destruction and over collection for trade. This project will help to
prevent habitat destruction, as conservation of the trees will become beneficial to the local people through bee-keeping
and wild silk farming.
The Mwingi area has low potential for conventional agriculture, and the local population augment their agro-pastoralist
income from the forest and woodland resources. Bee-keeping has long been an important source of income using
traditional hives. Honeybee and wild silkmoth conservation and income-generating practices can raise the economy of
communities and the region and protect the dry forest and also reduce land degradation. Mwingi will be used as a training
base in the project for other regions since it has a strong group of beekeepers, which has developed a honey marketplace
for their hive produce, and a strong market linkage is being established.
Socio-economic Context: Social Issues
Whilst Kenya is not classed as a Least Developed Country (LDC) the inequalities in income distribution means that most
rural people are subject to significant poverty. Recent economic growth estimates have been consistently below the rate of
population growth. Per capita income in 2001 was only $271, and 43% of the population live on less than one dollar a
day. In response to the inequalities of development and continuing poverty, local people develop approaches to cope with
negative situations. The coping mechanisms can include poaching, swamp reclamation and cutting trees for charcoal or
firewood or timber for sale. To the local people these actions are not regarded primarily as degrading environment or
causing deforestation, but as means of survival. Poverty forces the local communities to use the “free” resources around
them. This is what makes the linkage between poverty and environmental degradation. The linkage has been recognised
at global and national levels, and is now routinely taken into account in forest management plans. For example the
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Strategic Management Plan recommends the adoption of “a strategy aimed at addressing the
causes of poverty amongst forest-adjacent communities”, and specifies a renewed focus on commercial insects (including
butterflies) as an appropriate income generating activity for the communities.
Rural Poverty-Environment Linkages:
The project is located in some of the most impoverished areas in Kenya that also host some of the highest level of forest
biodiversity in the region (Fig.1). The forest resources are currently under threat from the vicious cycle of poverty and
natural resource degradation. Because the people are poor, they are forced to rely on the “free” resources in their
immediate surroundings. With human population growth, exploitation of these resources leads to unsustainable extraction
rates, causing further environmental degradation, which in turn exacerbates poverty. The project will help to break this
cycle by improving local livelihoods and linking them to the continued presence of natural forest and woodland. It will do
this by introducing income-generating activities, based on both wild and domesticated commercial insects, and by
building local technical and organisational capacity through co-operative marketing and production. These livelihood
support options will be linked to forest buffer zone management, leading to improved forest management.
Threats to Biodiversity at the Target Sites and Root Causes of Threats
The overall forest biodiversity values of these three target forest Protected Areas (and in most other forest resources in
Kenya) have been reduced and degraded in the past two decades by three main causes: encroachment and conversion of
forest habitat, reduction in forest canopy cover by fire, excessive logging and grazing, and targeted species overharvesting almost to the point of local extinctions – eg Prunus africana, Brachylaena huillensis. Timber trees, carving
wood species, medicinal plants, pole species and good charcoal species (eg Acacia tortilis and A. xanthophloea at Mwingi
etc) are especially targeted. These are the obvious signs on the ground. Contributing to these signs are the lack of
management plans and conservation implementation capacity, lack of collaboration between stakeholders, and antagonism
to conservation measures in face of poverty. Poverty exacerbated by problem animals and crop losses; crop-raiding
negatively affects community attitudes to conservation and management initiatives: e.g. at Arabuko-Sokoke discussions
on PFM are undermined when elephants have been raiding.
12
Final MSP Brief
The root causes (tabulated in Annex 4) of this extreme set of pressures on of what are national level protected areas have
become obvious in recent years – lack of political and administrative support to forest conservation and sustainable
management. The forest estate became used for land-based political gifts. Timber, charcoal, fuelwood were treated as
almost open goods. Increased population density7, combined with poverty has greatly increased subsistence extraction on
the forests. Forest sector capacity was increasingly weak and greatly under-funded. Whilst the sector has long mentioned
the need for greater community involvement, this has not been easily possible within the existing policy and legislative
frameworks and prevailing political process. However the change in Government (December 2002) has changed that. The
new Forest Bill specifically requires greater participation from Communities, as does the new draft Forest Policy (2004)
before cabinet in June 2004. Excisions to the forest estate will not be rubberstamped. BUT, the reality of weak capacity
remains. In late 2003 the Forest Department lost over half its senior staff in a move to reduce corruption etc. The
Department has reduced capacity and collaborative management with communities and the private sector is essential.
The forest protected area system is extensive with some 300 reserves, of which 150 are significant for biodiversity
conservation. The forest department needs mechanisms to scale-up successful collaborative initiatives, seeking to
publicize good case studies, and use them in training demonstration programmes.
Whilst there are good examples of successful rural development, the forestry sector suffers from a lack of partnership
process with other sectors and the commercially oriented private sector. Community partnership is seen by the Forest
Policy, Forest Bill and developing Forestry Strategy Papers as essential for long-term sustainable forest management, but
there are few successful examples, where incentives for community participation are based on resource revenues, )other
examples are based on sustained water floews – eg UNDP-GEF Cross-Borders). Implementing sustainable and equitable
Participatory Forest Management (PFM) will require support and goodwill from all sides.
Figure 1 shows in diagrammatic form the pattern of pressures on the forests, distinguishing three zones – the core forest
protection zone, the outer forest buffer or “sustainable-use” zone; and the peripheral village agriculture zone.
Fig. 1 Stylised diagram of forest and peripheral settlement zones in Kakamega, Arabuko-Sokoke sites in Kenya
2
BUFFER
1
CORE
3
HUMAN
SETTLEMENT
Zone Three:
Peripheral high density. Human settlement/cultivation (> 1000 people/sq km in Kakamega)
Peripheral medium density. Human settlement/cultivation (> 100 people/sq km in Arabuko-Sokoke)
Peripheral low density. Human settlement/cultivation (>50 people /sq km in Mwingi areas).
Baseline Scenario and Ongoing Course of Action
7
The Smithsonian Institute has just completed a project around Kakamega, seeking to increase population control measures.
13
Final MSP Brief
The Baseline is composed of several distinct parts (conservation, rural livelihoods through central processes, rural
livelihood through community empowerment and the involvement of the private sector), these parts, unfortunately, have a
history of little or no linkage.
Conservation. Forest conservation inputs in Kenya go back a long way in history, with major Forest Reserve gazettement
(for water and timber) dating back one hundred years. However the forestry sector has been greatly reduced in capacity
(resources, staffing levels, political support and so reduced morale and functional efficiency) in recent years. This state of
affairs has led to the continued degradation of resources even within legally constituted Forest Reserves. For Kakamega:
“As human population increases, parts of the forest are being cleared and burned. As a result biological diversity is
decreased, there is increased “desertification {erosion, loss of vegetated cover, drying streams) and increased hardship
for local inhabitants. The exploitation of resources has taken place in a haphazard, excessive, wasteful and uncontrollable
way, such that not only is the forest resource diminishing, it is losing its capacity to recover, Rogo et al 1999. They go
onto quote “A 1991 survey showed that standing timber volume reduced by 50% in 26 years and in 1992 fuel-wood
cutting exceeded re-growth by 800%” This builds on the earlier KIFCON8 project, for which Kakamega was a flagship
site.
This state of affairs was realised many years ago: Walter Lusigi in 1982 wrote: “Rapid population growth, limited arable
land and shortage of employment (income) opportunities have resulted in high pressure on forest resources in Kenya.”
“The problems of forest management are people-oriented – no army or law can prevent people from invading forests if
alternative means of food production are not provided.” Kokwaro in 1988 repeated these sentiments in a more detailed
description of Kakamega.
A more recent survey (Gibbon and Mbithi, 20029) states: “There is increasing pressure on the forest from the 57
surrounding villages, totalling some 1900 households and a population of 171,000 people. Historically and currently most
forest adjacent households access the forest for domestic needs. There are however a number of illegal activities,
including charcoal, pitsawing, and gold panning in streams. Gibbon and Mbithi provide a strong baseline dataset on
household dependence and incomes. Table 1 below summarises these pressures.
The Forest Department maintain a Provincial, District and local level conservation presence, addressing both sustainable
use regulation as well as protection, but FD is little empowered to function effectively. In November 2003 the Ministry
sacked ALL 850 Forest Officers in Kenya and handed over forest control to District Security Forces. As of early February
2004, some 300 officers were reengaged after vetting for non-corruption. Capacity is weak.
The new Forest Bill (to be enacted in June this year) provides for Community Participation in Forest Management,
through registering and accepting approved Forest Associations with detailed MOUs with forestry setting out rights and
responsibilities. Kenya Forestry and Civil Society has little experience with such participatory forestry, but initial trials (in
Arabuko by EU support and in Kajiado and Taita by UNDP GEF support10) show that there is a need for great trust and
capacity building on all sides. Training programmes for both forestry and Civil Society have started (an initiative
pioneered by UNDP-GEF, CARE, WWF and Ford Foundation) and continue. But the need for practical hands on capacity
to implement participatory forestry outstrips training capacity. Experience also suggests that whilst the policy
environment is changing, this takes time to reach decentralised levels (ACTS 2003).
Forest Management Plans, and especially the collaborative process behind a strong participatory plan, can lead to greatly
enhanced conservation activity, as evidenced in Arabuko. Kakamega has yet to develop a strong participatory process, and
conservation leadership is not strong. By linking Kakemega and Mwingi to the experience at Arabuko, this project will
capitalise on lessons learned and help to ensure benefits to the national PA system for forests.
8
KIFCON (Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project, with DFID funding) ended prematurely over forest governance issues, in a
well-publicised intergovernmental argument.
9
The Commonwealth Secretariat, in recognition of global biodiversity values, funded this study.
10
Cross Borders Project, see Terminal Report by Timberlake and Moyini, UNDP 2004.
14
Final MSP Brief
Table 1 Details of Forest Resource Use (after Gibbon and Mbithi 2002 (a & b). A: Kakamega
Resource Use
Subsistence: % Households
Fuelwood
76%
Charcoal
Grazing
67
Thatch
46
Poles
37
Timber
34
Wild Seedlings *
34
Plant Medicines
39
Mining (alluvial gold, gems)
(* Suggesting there is great interest in planting trees on farm!)
Commercial: % Households
27%
27%
29
18
6 (specialists)
10 (specialists)
B: Arabuko (Note little or no commercial use in western areas of Arabuko)
Resource Use
Fuelwood
Foodstuffs
Poles
Plant Medicines
Subsistence: Adjacent Villages
69%
71
65
61
Subsistence :Villages of 2km
50%
38
46
63
Rural Livelihoods through Central and Local Processes
.
a) Kakamega
Since the premature end of KIFCON in 1994, there has been no major support programme for Kakamega conservation,
although a number of smaller interventions have helped maintain some conservation impetus. A review Gibbon and
Mbithi (2002) looked at these smaller interventions in detail, documenting their contribution to household income and
subsistence (eg eco-tourism, timber, etc)
The basis or rural livelihoods is agriculture, with a mixture of both food and cash crops. The great human densities at
Kakamega (> 250 people per sq km across all four districts, up to 1000 in Vihiga) are forcing a more intensive agriculture.
One consequence of this intensification in forest adjacent villages is that there is little incentive for trees on farm as
fencing or woodlots. Fuelwood and poles are in practice “free goods”. Government maintains Central and District
agricultural support processes, and also supports crop based parastatal agencies, but capacity has been weak and probity is
questionable. Extension services were inadequate. Recent support from the World Bank via IDA and GEF to Agriculture
in western Kenya recognizes these inefficiencies and is supporting adaptive research to maintain fertility, improve cash
crops and support stall fed cattle keeping. There is support to agro-biodiversity, using productive legumes producing
green manure, fodder and fuelwood
A variety of small-scale processes have been tested at pilot locations and villages adjacent to the forest at Kakamega,
prompted by concern for forest conservation. These include inputs from a consortium of MacArthur, UNDP Small Grants,
Smithsonian and IFAD to ICIPE; including:
 Support for birth control practices.
 Support for ecotourism (limited scale)
 Support for use of medicinal plants to produce commercially acceptable products (Natur-rub – from Ocimum, and a
Kenyan equivalent to viagra).
15
Final MSP Brief
 Trial beekeeping and silk production on farm –using mulberry trees planted as hedgerows and woodlots and domestic
silk moth).
The lessons show that income can increase significantly and that people will grow trees on farm (mulberry) with silk
income as the incentive. Note that mulberry has been planted in many areas as a multi-purpose tree (fuel and fodder and
fruits) apart from silk potentials.
b) Arabuko-Sokoke. Coastal agriculture has long been neglected in East Africa, and is relatively poor. There are
significant crop losses from elephants, monkeys and other vermin around the forest itself. Extension services are still
poor. Tree crops (coconut, cashew, citrus, mango, jackfruit) provide both food and income. Household incomes are low,
and livelihoods are reliant on out migration labour earnings – enhanced in the past by illegal logging and charcoaling.
Poverty is thus high.
The new Forest Management Plan for Arabuko Sokoke (2001) was the first of a new generation of participatory holistic
plans, incorporating PFM approaches into buffer zones. This provides a model for other areas11. Further developments
include the creation of Forest Committees at village level, which themselves are incorporated into a larger Forest Adjacent
Dwellers Association, with growing advocacy capacity. A second study by Gibbon and Mbithi (2002b) reviewed the
status of Arabuko and the role of the ongoing interventions to support rural economies and reduce pressure on the forest.
Their main recommendations were that despite the good beginnings in community support (eg the butterfly programme
with 700 people):
 “There is a need to experiment with interventions to allow forest product diversification, based on small scale
enterprise development.”
 “Strengthening practice – policy linkages in mechanisms to enhance Collaborative Forest Management”.
b)
Mwingi. Mwingi is a new District in semi-arid Ukambani, and has attracted considerable development attention
in the past few years, through the UNDP supported Capacity 21 programme for environmental governance, Belgian
support for alternative livelihood systems (including on farm honey). ICIPE/IFAD has mobilized the embryo
organizations together in a group in collaboration with District Livestock and Forest Departments. A community honey
marketplace has been developed which will serve as a model for the communities of other project sites.
Mwingi is semi-arid, with a 66% chance of crop failure each year. Over half the people are below the national poverty
line and income from high densities of livestock and forest resources are essential to augment subsistence crops.
Baseline Costing
Summaries of costs of ongoing conservation initiatives, and support to community interaction with Natural Resources are
given in Annex 5 on Incremental Costs, and summarised in Table 2. These figures do not include the social development
baseline.
Conservation baseline includes ongoing forest support, the presence of extension agencies through agriculture and ruralcommunity development agencies at district level, as well as input from a number of small conservation agencies (eg
UNDP Small Grants for eco-tourism, Smithsonian Institute support for population planning etc.
Table 2 Baseline Cost Estimates – per year – and over project lifetime - are as follows:
Item
Forest Conservation
Community Empowerment
Sustainable Forest Use
11
Arabuko
100,000
50,000
20,000
Mwingi
10,000
0
10,000
Kakamega
50,000
25,000
20,000
National
50,000
50,000
50,000
Total
210,000
125,000
100,000
Total 4 Years
840,000
500,000
400,000
The model was adapted by Cross Borders GEF project in 2003, for example.
16
Final MSP Brief
On Farm Tree Growing
Total
20,000
190,000
10,000
30,000
20,000
115,000
50,000
200,000
100,000
535,000
400,000
2,140,000
Summary of Baseline Situation
Whilst there are a number of developing and apparently successful rural development initiatives in Kenya that include
honey and silk, they have not yet been integrated into forest conservation processes. Equally, whilst Kenya has just
embarked on policy changes to allow participatory forest management, there is little on-ground experience and capacity to
instigate PFM. One significant gap has been the identification of incentive measures that will allow a meaningful
investment into conservation by local communities who have been used to what was close to a free access regime for
forest products12. The honey and silk initiatives, within a buffer-zone context could provide that incentive.
Kenya is starting new decentralisation policies, empowering districts to coordinate development activity; again there is
limited on-ground experience with linking District Environment Committees to forestry and to rural development.
Partnership with the private sector and civil society is just beginning.
Forest conservation and management are rebuilding in Kenya, with a new regime in place as of end January 2004.
Capacity is weak, in terms of management planning with a focus on partnership, on Participatory Forest Management and
integration of biodiversity into management processes.
Rationale and Objectives for Developing Project;
Improving forest resource management, that includes a strong biodiversity conservation component, requires a strategic
mix of law enforcement and local capacity building with community participation based on incentives through the
diversification of livelihood options. All of this needs to operate within a supportive enabling environment at local,
District and Central level requiring an investment into policy support and institutional strengthening and awareness raising
so to allow informed decision-making.
Kenya, with a new environmentally conscious political party in power has just overhauled her forest sector, with
improved management capacity, and a new Forest Bill/Policy are before Parliament. Many forests are prioritised for
conservation. Renewed donor support to a sector that has been greatly under-funded in the past years looks probable.
In the past two years, ICIPE, the main project proponent for this MSP, has pioneered a set of rural community livelihood
support mechanisms that are based on the sustainable use of natural forest products. This has been done on pilot basis
(including some Mwingi and Kakamega sub-villages) using “commercial insects” (honey and wild silk-moths) and plant
based medicinal products. This input, with funding from IFAD, MacArthur Foundation and the GEF Small Grants
Programme has been extremely successful.
However, one of the barriers to forest conservation is the lack of linkage between the forest managers and the rural
development sector – including civil society and the private sector. There is a need for strong collaboration between the
conservationists and the developers to achieve synergies of purpose around forest resources. This requires introducing
proven development initiatives to act as the incentive for forest conservation by local communities.
This present project, based around three different globally significant forest areas, is to scale up the livelihood support
mechanism in forest adjacent villages, to a critical mass that has the ability to protect the neighbouring forest, as the
source of sustainable income. Experience at Arabuko-Sokoke has shown that even small numbers of farmers benefiting
from commercial insects can have significant impacts on forest conservation: the protests of 150 butterfly farmers helped
to prevent the excision of 2,500 ha from this forest (Gordon & Ayiemba 2003). We therefore expect meaningful
conservation benefits for the forests even with the minimum target group of 900 farmers. IFAD would co-finance the
12
See Forest Conservation and Management Strategy 2003, supported by UNDP
17
Final MSP Brief
income support, GEF support is requested to build linkages to the forest conservation institutions to work with the
developing community forest conservation – user groups.
Insects are the basis of the two most important income earners (honey and wild silk), and whilst insects are one of the
critical natural resources of forest ecosystems, our understanding of their biodiversity, including distribution and function
is poor. Besides serving as efficient pollinators and crop protection elements, insects are good indicators of beneficial
resource management of an ecosystem. This project will help to make communities and national institutions more aware
of the ecological and economic importance of insects and their forest habitats. The project will focus on insects’
usefulness in supporting community-based efforts for minimizing forest and associated biodiversity loss.
Within the overall programme IFAD co-finance will focus on apiculture and sericulture products development, validation
and establishment of marketing linkages through action research on efficient pro-poor mechanisms linking the
communities with markets to their profits. Viking Limited Nairobi will assist in establishment of market links from traders
to the communities and vice versa. The research strategy of IFAD therefore will focus to position embryo organizations of
silk and bee farming groups to derive the sustainable profit from a rapidly growing silk and honey industry. The action
research of both GEF and IFAD would include the empowerment of local communities through ownership of small and
medium enterprises, enhancement of management skills and developing linkages with private traders for product
promotion.
ICIPE through GEF support will assist them through capacity building and the development of the whole assembly line
connecting them to the commodity chain. It will stimulate the brand franchise growth of the products. Because of the
organic product certification (ICIPE and ITC Geneva assistance) they would find a considerable demand in the OECD
markets. GEF role is confined to implement the operational research in the field and support the marketplace development
initiatives Viking limited and other private traders will assist in developing marketing linkages and business transactions
for communities, the marketing strategy is given in Annex 8.
GEF ALTERNATIVE
The project is consistent with the objectives related to the GEF Biodiversity focal area. Specifically, it is consistent with
the GEF Operational Program # OP3 - Forest Ecosystems. The individual protected area sites, identified as national
priorities in the Kenya Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, are regionally/globally significant in protecting the
biodiversity in Kenyan forests. The project supports conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within and outside
the protected forests by improving forest management through involvement of local communities who depend upon them
for their livelihoods. It responds to COP guidance under the CBD13 by promoting capacity building, especially the local
communities, generating off farm employment, creating local business capacity through construction of hives, rearing
cages, and related appliances for rearing and harvesting of silkmoth and honeybees.
The project fits well within the framework of SP1, in that it works with communities seeking adequate incentives for
collaborative management of protected areas, the project demonstrates innovative ways of working with the private sector
and links this partnership back to PA management in the buffer zones, and the project seeks to use these results and
lessons to influence the policies and programmes that address all forest protected areas in Kenya (and beyond)
It will also promote conservation and sustainable use through adaptive management of forest landscapes and meets the
objectives of other international conventions. GEF’s operational strategy, which emphasises the integration and
implementation of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, fits well with the project’s aim to apply in forest
conservation processes the techniques of raising bees and silkworms for rural income generation. The integration of such
insect activities into forest management systems will improve livelihoods and will reduce livelihood dependence on
forests. Forest conservation capacity will be upgraded through forest conservation training.
13
Including new guidance from COP 7 (Malaysia 2004) on Protected Areas and on Sustainable Use.
18
Final MSP Brief
While the IFAD co-finance grant will be used primarily for strategic research and development of optimal insect strains of
silkmoth and honeybees and market linkages of the products, the GEF grant will be used to conserve biodiversity and
train the rural poor in sericulture and apiculture and to support to inter-communal management of conservation areas. It
may also help to scale up commune-based initiatives in sericulture and apiculture in providing strategies for the marketing
of insect-based products for income generation and ecosystem preservation. ITC Geneva and Viking Ltd Nairobi will
also assist in developing market and marketing linkages for the products of silkmoth and honey bee rearing in the
peripheral buffer zone of the forests.
Currently, forest management plans for Kakamega are being developed under an EU-financed BCP project, and they are
already in place for Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. We will ensure that the activities of this project are fully linked to the
management plan of the forest department. Moreover, stakeholder workshop to examine the management planning issues
will be planned.
The developmental objective is to ensure that forest adjacent communities and forest management authorities in three
project sites have successfully mainstreamed conservation of biological diversity through adoption of income generating
activities through sericulture and apiculture. It also ensures that rural population s have better access to productive natural
resources and to the local and international markets for the products of sericulture and apiculture.
This project seeks five main outputs:
 A forest management framework in place that facilitates community participation in buffer zone enterprise and
conservation in all project sites
 Forest adjacent communities through registered Forest Associations are actively engaged in forest conservation
through buffer zone management and enterprise.
 The capacity of communities and institutions to manage and utilize wild and mulberry silkmoth and honeybee
biodiversity for income generation is increased.
 Improved methodologies and insect resources are available at sites to allow resource use for improved livelihoods
and conservation practices.
 Effective project administration, monitoring and coordination have enabled timely and efficient implementation
of project activities.
GEF financing requirement is US $ 1,000,000. Details are given in Table 3.
PROPOSED PROJECT STRATEGY
The project will assist Government and the larger conservation and development community in Kenya to address the
interface between the conservation of biodiverse rich forests and the livelihoods of forest adjacent communities. Three
distinct forest systems are used to pilot this approach, giving the ability to influence the entire forest protected area system
in Kenya, through dissemination of best practices into the policy development and implementation process.
The project aims to demonstrate innovative forest conservation practices through new options for poverty reduction
around three globally and regionally important forests in Kenya by introducing the proven sustainable productive
activities of apiculture and sericulture operations targeted to reduce pressures on forests and their productive natural
resource base and their biodiversity in the project areas (Fig.1 and Annex 2).
The project’s fundamental approach is based on close integration of investments into productive rural infrastructure, forest
resources and human and institutional capital, in a way that reduces pressure on the three projected forests and their
biodiversity and resources. This investment will improve the living standards of the people who depend on these resources
for their livelihoods. There are also several direct links between the commercial insect programme and forest
conservation. Because of the close dependence of honey production on wild nectar sources in the forests, positive attitudes
to forest conservation in the local communities will be reinforced. The use of wild silkmoths will further increase
19
Final MSP Brief
community awareness of the benefits of conserving biodiversity. The use of mulberry as a multipurpose tree (fuel, fodder
and fruits in addition to silk) will also reduce pressure on forest resources. Biodiversity conservation and poverty
reduction are the project’s cross cutting themes and thus combine the five project components and related activities
described below. To measure the medium term impacts from the proposed project, an appropriate approach will be to
implement activity plans in three defined forest areas, where the impact of human pressures on the resource base and
biodiversity is immediate. To protect biodiversity three approaches are proposed, which mirror the three pillars of the
CBD. The first approach is the training of local people in the methods and benefits of conserving biodiversity. The second
approach uses techniques to implement the sustainable use of biodiversity resources. And the third approach is to ensure
that the products, benefits and costs of conservation and resources produced are shared equitably.
Expected Outputs and Key Components:
Overall Goal
The national protected area system of forest reserves is strengthened through improved incentives for real collaborative
forest management with communities.
Project Objective
To demonstrate in three different forest sites that the biodiversity of Kenya’s forest protected area system can be
maintained through collaborative management systems using incentives based on income from commercial insects.
Outcomes
1 The conservation of forest-protected areas is supported through improved buffer zone management with the
involvement of local communities.
2 Methodologies and capacities to improve the livelihoods of forest adjacent communities, that are based on commercial
use of insect resources, are developed, linked to forest habitats and scaled-up.
These two outcomes will be achieved through five components, each with a distinct output. The linkages between these
components and the threats/root causes (see Annex 4 and above) are detailed in the Logical Framework in Annex 6.
Output 1 A forest management framework in place that facilitates community participation in buffer zone enterprise and
conservation in all project sites. Key Activities will implemented through the Kenya Forest Department and are:
 Awareness raising and capacity building within District Partners (Forestry and District Environment Committees)
for community partnership.
 Specific PFM – ICD training for partner staff.
 Buffer Zone management planning stressed within Forest Management Plan processes, and buffer zone pilot
intervention areas identified.
 Kakamega – detailed aerial resource assessment carried out (KFD/KWS).
 Networking district partners (and between districts for Kakamega)
 CBO survey and link to District PRSP processes (livelihood/poverty mapping).
 Reserve boundary demarcation in Mwingi, Buffer demarcation elsewhere.
 Biodiversity assessment in Buffer Zones (contrast core) focus on tree regeneration and use, and useful
commercial insect indicators.
GEF contribution:
USD 150,000
Others contribution: USD 250,000
USD 150,000
EU 50,000
Total
USD 600,000
FD implementation
GoK in kind
USAID Arabuko
BCP in Kakamega
20
Final MSP Brief
Output 2 Forest adjacent communities, through registered Forest Associations are actively engaged in forest conservation
through buffer-zone management and enterprise. Activities will be implemented by FD/ICIPE:
 Creation of Village Forest Committees (model from Cross Borders/Arabuko)
 Scale up Committees to registered Forest Associations (as per Forest Bill).
 Scale up to overall Site Based Association, linked to DFO / Dist. Environment Committee.
 Buffer zones patrolled and protected, sustainable resource strategies in place.
 Fire breaks installed and village jurisdictions agreed and in management plan.
 Degraded areas restored (buffer planting, regeneration tending, gully plugging).
 Tree Nursery support for restoration.
 Training for Forest Associations {FA} - study tours, cross visits, site-training workshops.
 FAs involved in buffer zone M&E processes, targeting insects and tree growth.
 FAs promote on farm tree use, fuel wood surveys, pole use surveys
 FAs promote improved energy stoves etc on farm.
GEF contribution: USD 100,000
Others contribution: USD 350,000
USD 100,000
TOTAL
USD 550,000
FD / ICIPE Implementation
USAID Arabuko
IFAD all sites
Output 3 The capacity of communities and institutions to manage and utilize both wild and mulberry silk-moth and
honeybee biodiversity for income generation is increased. Key Activities will be implemented by ICIPE and include:
 Selection of villages, sub-villages and household clusters (link to buffer zone areas).
 Household livelihood and income mapping in pilot areas.
 Training of participating groups on site and in ICIPE for apiculture and sericulture ventures.
 Training for apiaries providing honey and hive products, and for processing and packaging facilities.
 Training community members in wild-silk moth recognition, collection of useful races, and monitoring.
 Training and support for mulberry planting on field borders, for domestic silk moth, fuel and fodder.
 Training and support for silk preparation including reeling and weaving in village marketplaces.
 Upgrade these household activities to village processes.
 User Groups are formed, registered, trained and capacity to manage enterprise is built
 Communities are linked to and working with private sector markets (Link to Output 4).
GEF contribution:
USD 280,000
Others contribution: USD 330,000
USD 50,000
USD 100,000
Total
USD 760,000
IFAD all sites
EU BCP Arabuko
ICIPE facilities
Output 4 Improved methodologies and insect resources are available at sites to allow efficient resource use for improved
livelihoods and conservation practices. Key activities are implemented by ICIPE and partners:





Apiaries established and operational in all three sites.
Queen rearing and royal jelly production system established.
Silkmoth rearing houses and wild silkmoth farming sites established and operational.
Marketplaces (including processing/packaging facilities) established for silk/honey products at all three sites.
Marketing linkages established through Viking Ltd.
GEF contribution:
USD 270,000
Others contribution: USD 270,000
IFAD
21
Final MSP Brief
Total
USD 100,000
USD 100,000
USD 740,000
ICIPE facilities
Viking Ltd. Markets
Output 5. Effective project administration, monitoring and coordination have enabled timely and efficient
implementation of project activities. Key Activities will be:
 Forest facilitators in place and functioning at all three sites
 Overall supervision from FD is functioning and supported.
 Project Management Unit in ICIPE is staffed, functioning and providing leadership and oversight.
 Project partnership between co-finance and baseline is functioning, supported by NEMA at national level and
Environment Committees at District level.
 National and Site Level Steering Committees are held as planned.
 Funds disbursed and accounted for satisfactorily (UNDP NEX Audit Procedures)
 Project Independent Evaluations held on schedule (midterm and terminal).
 M and E processes are coordinated at site and national levels, from baseline to impact assessments on both
biodiversity and livelihoods.
 Project documented and results lessons disseminated. Training brochures are in place and used.
 Outreach mechanisms in place addressing both livelihood (PRSP) and conservation policy processes.
GEF contribution: USD 200,000
Others contribution: USD 400,000
Total
USD 600,000
IFAD
FINANCING PLAN AND INCREMENTAL COSTS
The overall GEF alternative is US$3,380,000 (See Annex 5 for detailed incremental cost analysis), plus a total baseline
across the four years of US$2,140,000 giving a total of US$ 5,520,000. The GEF increment is US$ 1.0 million, and cofinancing is $2.380 million. All co-financing is confirmed in writing in Annex 7.
Incremental cost assessment
Without the support of the GEF and leveraged cofinance the project objectives are unlikely to achieved. Experience at
Arabuko-Sokoke (Gordon and Ayiaemba, 2003) and elsewhere in the region has demonstrated that external support for
forest-based community livelihoods can help drive local communities to conserve forest resources and participate in PFM
initiatives. Ongoing income generation activities that are based on the sustainable use of forest resources build confidence
in the PFM process, alleviate the poverty that drives forest degradation, and motivate communities towards advocacy on
behalf of forest conservation. Despite these benefits, there are no funds available within the Kenyan Forest Department
budget to support community income-generating activities and there is little capacity among he FD staff to initiate and
sustain non-timber based enterprises. GEF and other financing are therefore required to access the necessary skills and
expertise for the establishment and sustainability of community “Income Generation Associations” (that also act as Forest
Associations) based on income from commercial insects.
The baseline scenario has a current yearly cost of US$ 535,000 across all sites and central inputs; see table 2.
Cofinancing is provided as follows:
ICIPE provide the technical and administrative leadership for the project, and has a well developed training base for
commercial insects. ICIPE has adequate quality control laboratories for product testing. ICIPE brings practical partnership
with research facilities at National Museums of Kenya and University of Nairobi for identifying and testing races of
moths and honey-bees. ICIPE has a well-established field-training centre in Mwingi for both sericulture (wild silk) and
22
Final MSP Brief
apiculture. ICIPE provides these facilities and administrative infrastructure as in kind support to the project, costed at
$200,000 over four years.
Viking Ltd Kenya is a registered company (Kenya and UK) in the field of Material and Natural Resources – Market
Access and Development. Viking have worked with ICIPE / IFAD before on the piloting of product marketing, and have
developed linkages at Kakamega and Mwingi. Viking invests time, vehicle support and expertise in this MSP process,
costed at 100,000$ (see co-finance letter).
IFAD provide US$ 1,100,000 co-finance, towards the survey, documentation and testing of bee and silk-moth races,
quality selection and testing, inputs to product quality and market development. This is based on their successful
partnership with ICIPE in the prior pilot project.
Nature Kenya (with funding via USAID) provides support to the community of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forests in naturebased enterprise (150,000$) and support to participatory Forest Management and Management Plan implementation in
Arabuko-Sokoke (350,000$).
EU – BCP (Biodiversity Conservation Programme). Provide support to Forest Management Planning Processes for
Kakamega, with a focus on managing the core forests both via KFD and KWS. This is 50,000$. EU – BCP (Biodiversity
Conservation Programme). Provide support to Forest-based community enterprise in Arabuko-Sokoke. This is 50,000$.
Government of Kenya provide in kind support through the forest, agriculture and environmental sectors of government,
including central and district levels. This is estimated at 200,000$ over the four years.
BUDGET. The GEF Budget by Input in US $ is as follows:
Component
GEF Cost
PDF A The project development was financed by ICIPE.
None
MEDIUM SIZED PROJECT
Personnel
200,000
Subcontracts in Forestry
150,000
Training
170,000
Equipment
262,000
Travel
70,000
Monitoring Evaluation, Documentation, Lessons Learned
60,000
Miscellaneous
Institutional Overhead (ICIPE) and Audit
MS Project GEF Total in $US
23,000
65,000
1,000,000
23
Final MSP Brief
TABLE 3: COST AND FINANCING (in thousand US $) across outputs and sites: K- Kakamega; A- Arabuko-Sokoke; M- Mwingi
Project Outputs
Indicative
Costs
GEF
Financing
.
IFAD* CoFinancing
USAID CoFinancing
EU BCP CoFinancing
VIKING Ltd
Co-Financing
1. A forest management
framework in place that
facilitates community
participation in buffer zone
enterprise and conservation in all
project sites.
2. Forest adjacent communities,
through registered Forest
Associations are actively
engaged in forest conservation
through buffer-zone management
and commercial insect’s
enterprise
3. The capacity of communities
and institutions to manage and
utilize both wild and mulberry
silk-moth and honeybee
biodiversity for income
generation is increased
4. Improved methodologies and
insect resources are available at
sites to allow efficient resource
use for improved livelihoods and
conservation practices.
5. Effective project administration,
monitoring and coordination has
enabled timely and efficient
implementation of project
activities.
Total Project costs
600
K – 275
A –250
M – 75
150
K – 100
A – 25
M – 25
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
350
K 0
A – 150
M–0
50
K – 50
A– 0
M–0
550
K – 150
A – 400
M – 50
100
K – 50
A – 25
M – 25
100
K – 50
A – 25
M – 25
350
K–0
A – 350
M–0
760
K – 450
A – 195
M –115
280
K – 170
A – 60
M – 50
330
K – 230
A – 60
M – 40
740
K –420
A –185
M –135
600
K – 340
A – 140
M – 120
3,250
270
K – 160
A – 70
M – 40
200
K – 110
A – 50
M – 40
1,000
270
K – 170
A – 60
M – 40
400
K – 230
A – 90
M – 80
1,100
GOK
(In Kind)
0
K–0
A–0
M–0
ICIPE COFINANCING
(IN KIND)
0
K-0
A-0
M-0
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
0
K-0
A-0
M-0
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
50
K–0
A – 50
M–0
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
100
K - 50
A - 25
M - 25
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
0
K– 0
A– 0
M–0
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
500
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
100
100
K – 40
A – 30
M – 30
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
100
100
K - 50
A - 25
M - 25
0.0
K-0
A-0
M -0
200
0
K–0
A–0
M –0
0
K –0
A –0
M –0
250
250
K – 125
A – 75
M –50
*IFAD Finance mainly includes support for assessment of seri-apiculture products for Brand Franchise Growth of the local industry and for
establishing marketing linkages for the local community. It also includes maintenance of apiculture and sericulture practical modules for training
and 60%project staff salaries (US $400,000) in the Commercial Insects Programme at ICIPE.
24
Final MSP Brief
Sustainability, Cost Effectiveness, Replicability and Risk Assessment
Sustainability.
Project design and the strength of the co-finance on top of a significant baseline combine to ensure
sustainability in several ways. The basis for the sustainability of project activities will be an improvement
of forest ecosystems through a decrease in the forest degradation process; as well as investments into
human and institutional capacity, complemented by the investments into productive rural cottage industry.
The project takes heed of lessons learned from other GEF and donor projects in these fields – see later
section.
Capacity development at all levels (community, district, central forestry) is targeted within all core outputs
(1-4). The project will provide local people with needed expertise in community forestry inputs,
institutional support as well into product enterprise. The project assists district involvement (in new
districts, with little past institutional support) and provides\ support to the partnership process.
Of concern to many donor agencies is the issue of sustainability of rural enterprise based on natural
resource products. UNDP documentation suggests a high failure rate, unless key inputs take place. Chief
of these concerns is the provision of market linkages, and developing a scenario where the project can pull
out without damaging fragile CBO initiatives. Having an adequate Market Information and Exit Strategy
is essential. Past experience in Kenya shows that the growing national and global market demand for
natural products requires an increasingly high standard of goods. Many rural African traders and exporters
have experienced difficulties responding to these demands in all natural resource production systems,
including apiculture and sericulture. A good product emerges out of baseline research and investment that
incurs extra costs for developing competitive products. Such higher standards are mostly associated with
premium prices in the national and export markets. More often these higher standard goods are an ‘entry
ticket’ into the market and a source of competitive advantage.
These concerns over standards are heightened by the mounting complexity of environmental and social
aspects of national and international trade, with an array of often incompatible bureaucratic measures,
from company specific codes of conduct through regional initiatives to global systems of certification. The
result is considerable frustration in the marketplaces and fears that these voluntary market-based
requirements will simply hamper export prospects (“green protectionism’’).
There is a need for better market information services among local communities living near the forests.
This project provides that information in a village friendly manner.
Replicability
Replicability is addressed at two levels. Firstly at community level in terms of spreading uptake of insect
technologies. Low-technology approaches for honey and silk production have been developed and tested
at rural community level, and combined with social and market support to produce economically viable
activities. Experience to date shows that these approaches are easily adaptable to local circumstances and
find ready uptake in different areas of East Africa. Demand for the honey- and silk-based products is
increasing in local markets become aware of the assured availability of good quality products. Experience
in the ICIPE pilot stages suggest continuing spread and adoption of technologies aster project direct
support stops.
Quality honey and silk markets already exist but they are difficult to access for small farmers, and it is that
difficulty or “barrier” that this project will overcome. The result of value adding and capacity building of
the target community through training to process the silk and honey-based products provide an important
mechanism and leverage the marketplace development with strong marketing linkages and assured
market.
25
Final MSP Brief
The project builds partnership between rural development process and forest conservation, empowered by
new policy and legislation. The rural development inuts provide forest based incentives for participatory
forest management – the lack of these incentives was cited as a major barrier to successful PFM. Kenya
does not have a wealth of PFM experience (UNDP – GEF Cross Borders, Nature Kenya – Birdlife
Arabuko are initial processes providing lessons) and so more experience will allow greater replication
based on tested innovation.
Secondly, replication is considered at the broader policy and applicability level. The project concepts
pioneered here can be replicated elsewhere – both the livelihoods approach and the PFM – buffer zone
approach. The project does have outreach funding to address policy processes and advocacy for incentives
to promote linkages between conservation and livelihoods.
Cost Effectiveness
This is a MSP, to run over four years in three sites, with considerable levels of both conservation and
development co-finance. GEF outlays in each site are therefore necessarily small – but focused on real
tested needs and requirements. The whole project is based on much past testing of the technical and socioeconomic and institutional processes. This past testing is based on strong linkages to the private sector,
with guaranteed markets for quality products.
Risk Assessment Risks to the project and activities to counter risks include the following;
Risk
Critical Risks (reflecting assumptions in the fourth column of Annexure II)
Rating Risk mitigating measure
Risks Associated with Moving From Outputs to Objectives
Local communities expectations are higher
than the initial impacts of apiculture and
sericulture projects on cash incomes, and
non-cash benefits are lower than estimated.
Local communities do not understand
benefits of sustainable use of natural
resources or have insufficient interest (due to
fear of loosing own cash) or inadequate
knowledge to participate in project activities.
M
M
Transparent procedures to select and reach target beneficiaries
will be prepared. Detailed financial analysis of the forest
resource management and income generating activities to be
financed by the project will be carried out.
The project will provide extensive start-up support at the
community level. Both on-site and in-house training will be
provided to local community and local institutions. Supported
activities must be able to generate financial benefits quickly.
Wide dissemination of information about economic and
financial benefits of proposed activities will ensure that the local
communities are allowed to retain the benefits.
Risks Associated with Moving from Components to Outputs
Failure of local communities to organize
themselves
Market incapacity to absorb silk and honey
products resulting from project inputs.
Lack of governance and improper use of
project funds detract from project progress.
M
Overall Risk Rating
M
M
M
Ensure that intensive consultation with communities is done
before project effectiveness.
Establish effective market linkages and market intelligence
service through IFAD grants.
Establish accounting standards to be maintained by ICIPE and
programme Coordinator and devolve management of
implementation to beneficiaries where peer group pressure can
reduce risk of corruption eg. Circulate the quarterly expenditure
accounts, profit made by the community, Bank balance of the
community account etc through newsletters to stakeholders
Risk Rating: H (High Risk); M (Modest Risk); N (Negligible or Low Risk)
IA Coordination and Linkages to GEF and IA programs and activities
Whilst Kenya has a large and still growing GEF portfolio, there are few specific national forest projects.
Most GEF project development activity in the forest sector stopped when Government of Kenya was
proposing major forest degazettement. Some ongoing regional projects did continue and provide a source
26
Final MSP Brief
of lessons learned in terms of both project management and conservation results (eg the UNDP Cross
Borders Project an Integrated Conservation and Development Project which developed strong linkages to
the NGO sector for community support). UNDP maintained support to forestry via Civil Society
Organisations, and the UNDP - COMPACT – Small Grants activity is showing considerable success
around Mount Kenya (and provides lessons to the new UNEP – IFAD Mount Kenya Ecosystem Project).
The World Bank has a large Agricultural Support Programme in Western Kenya (executed via KARI (The
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute), with linkages to ICRAF for Agro-Forestry. This project works
around Kakamega, in pilot villages with a focus on adaptive research and learning to maintain and
improve soil fertility in face of extreme human densities. Support to oil seed cash crops and livestock are
part of another IDA support programme. Kakamega was one administrative district and is now four
(Kakamega, Vihiga, Lugari and Butere), capacity support via District Agricultural and Livestock Officers
now is spread across four districts.
There is no specific GEF support to either Arabuko (funded through USAID for core forestry) or Mwingi
(which may get support from a future phase of an Arid and Semi-Arid Lands IDA programme).
Kenya has a strong GEF Coordination Process (which will be enhanced in the forthcoming GEF Country
Dialogue Process - May-June 2004). And, the Donor Government Environment Coordination Group has
restarted its forestry sub-group, at which this GEF MSP Proposal was mentioned (February 2004). This
group provides a further avenue for coordination.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
PLAN
The project concept and design has been developed in a participatory manner. Rapid rural appraisal and
qualitative social assessments were undertaken in order to characterize the forest adjacent populations and
their dependence on forest resources. These data were then used to develop a menu of potential project
interventions. Then community meetings were held where project objectives were explained and
communities’ willingness assessed and the menu of interventions presented. Community members were
encouraged to identify the overlap between their priorities and the menu project interventions. This
information was then used to develop sericulture and apiculture management plans for income generation
that forms the basis of the project design.
Stakeholder consultations and identification of key partners and target groups were undertaken with
project development funds from ICIPE and IFAD. Details follow.
Local communities
Primary Partner Contact Information:
a) Mwingi District:
Beekeeping: Imba; Katuuni; Kathiani; Ngaani; Itiva and Nzou were first six Beekeeper Groups, now
followed by seven more.
Sericulture: Mathyakani Wild Silk CBO, has a market place and a silk reeling unit. (This is the trial unit
that will offer training for other developing sites)
b) Kakamega Sites (two Districts):
Beekeeping:
Sericulture: Ileho Location and Malava Division settlements have a mulberry silk rearing house. The
Kakamega groups took advantage of the early pilot group: Kamiro Women Group, in Othoro in Western
Kenya.
c) Arabuko-Sokoke Sites (two Districts): No formal CBOs yet through ICIPE directly. The project will
build on the recent initiatives through Nature Kenya in Dida area, an initiative that itself started with a
27
Final MSP Brief
follow-on to the UNDP-GEF Small Grant Butterfly Project. The Dida group is a registered FA, linked to
FADA.
Local authorities
The Local Government, through the District Commissioner and District Agricultural Officer / District
Development Officer, have been involved with the project since its onset. The DDO provides the entry
point to the District Development Committee. Such district staff have participated in early capacity
building training courses.
Formal links with the forestry department started with the development of this current proposal, although
foresters have been partners in the development process (see the reviews by Gibbon and Mbithi 2002,
which mention ICIPE inputs).
National Conservation and Development Agencies: The Forest Department and Partners.
The project development process has been in touch with past and present Chief Conservators of Forests,
and with biodiversity staff in NEMA. Staff have visited ICIPE central facilities and interacted with
developing village units and district partners. ICIPE is in close touch with development partners (Nature
Kenya and the EU Biodiversity Conservation Program) over activities in Arabuko and Kakamega.
The Chief Apiculture Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture has provided national level support since
project conception.
Public Involvement Plan
The public are directly involved as one set of project beneficiaries and implementers at site level – through
the village based product user groups and Forest Associations. These will become officially recognized
CBOs. At site level these groups come together – using the Arabuko (and Zanzibar Jozani GEF Project)
experiences - as broader associations registered as an NGO. This larger institution then liases with District
authorities within and without Project Site Task Forces to coordinate project activity at site level, and
ensure linkage with other initiatives at the site.
The rural public are supported in capacity building (institutional process and registration, gender issues,
enterprise training, etc) and linked to the private sector through specific trading partners – such as Viking
Ltd, for value added product quality. This links the far-flung rural producers with urban markets in Kenya
and overseas.
Lessons Learned from Others in Drawing up this MSP
UNDP-GEF New York
The new 2003 guidebook “Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation14” provides considerable
information on developing sustainable and commercially viable small businesses within a biodiversity
conservation context. Specific lessons of relevance here include: the need to invest in market
development, the need to build strong linkages and partnerships to the larger private sector, and the need
to provide entrepreneurship skills to the developing local enterprises. The Guidebook stresses the large
number of small natural resource based enterprises that fail, and that great care is needed in building
capacity. This was mirrored by recent journalistic overview of such initiatives in Newsweek Magazine
February 2004.
14
Bovarnick, A and Gupta, A. 2003 Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation : Improving the Design of
Small Business Development Strategies in Biodiversity Projects. UNDP-GEF New York.
28
Final MSP Brief
The UNDP Briefing Notes on “How to Engage the Private Sector” provided useful guidance on marketing
needs and training.
Cross Borders – East Africa: a UNDP-GEF Project
1. That integrating conservation with development (ICD) requires real linkage between the
developmental use of resources and maintaining forest integrity and status. Water from, forest
catchments provides such linkages; merely providing village industry such as handicrafts does
not.
2. Creation of strong village level forest conservation committees is possible, but requires a real
threat or benefit situation to bring people together, and conflict resolution requires time, skilled
facilitation and trust.
3. Whilst small-scale initiatives may succeed with donor support, it is less easy to scale-up such
initiatives to levels where they produce conservation benefits.
4. Integration of government, CBO, and private sector interests is possible and very worthwhile.
Projects should invest in such networking.
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve
1. Management planning by consensus takes time and money15, but the long-term benefits of
stakeholder awareness, agreement and partnership are very great.
2. Networking Village based CBOs into larger advocacy bodies has great benefit eg the FADA of
Arabuko.
ICIPE
The success of past pilot initiatives from ICIPE has been derived from several factors: The absolute need
for AIG interventions in poverty stricken communities; the considerable investment in training, in on
ground support, and starting small and having adaptive field oriented management and research where
interventions can adapt to local circumstances. Strong linkages with technical partners (University,
Museums), with conservation agencies at national and district levels (Forestry, NEMA), and with private
sector partners have contributed to these successes.
Jozani Forest Conservation - Zanzibar - a UNDP-GEF Project.
Forest Associations at village level can develop strong MOUs with Government over the management of
protected Areas – both buffer and core zones. However building association capacity needs dedicated staff
inputs from both forestry and social facilitators.
Madagascar
A UNDP-World-Bank-GEF project on forest conservation showed successful use of domestic silk moths
as income earners around forest villages.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TIMELINE
The project will be implemented by ICIPE through primary collaboration with Forestry Department,
NEMA, IFAD, Viking Limited and UNDP-GEF. UNDP will develop a Special Service Agreement with
ICIPE as a member of the International UN community of institutions in Kenya.
15
See the 2001 Framework Management Plan for Arabuko-Sokoke FR.
29
Final MSP Brief
ICIPE will establish the Project Management Unit at Nairobi Headquarters (in fact this continues with the
past pilot phase unit – renamed to reflect this project. This will be headed by the Commercial Insects
Programme Coordinator (CIPC), who will be assisted by a team of four professional staff:
 Silk Moth Technical Officer (to be based in Kakamega)
 Honey Technical Officer (to be based in Arabuko-Sokoke)
 Training Coordinator (to be based at ICIPE)
 A Post Harvest Coordinator (to be based at ICIPE)
Five technical assistants provide village based support to developing community-based organisations
Staff salaries are jointly financed by GEF and IFAD. Administrative support costs, office space,
laboratory facilities (quality control for silk and honey, Insect identification, testing, selection and
manipulation) infrastructure and vehicles are contributed by ICIPE.
A National Project Steering Committee comprising of stakeholders from Cooperating Institutions
(including site-based community representatives, Districts, Forest Department, Agriculture, NEMA,
UNDP and Co-Finance) detailed TOR will be developed for the Project Document.
This project has a focus on the conservation of biodiversity in three forest areas in Kenya. However it is
not implemented in a vacuum. It has established strong operational ties with an ongoing IFAD project for
product development and with Viking Ltd for establishing market linkages for the various products
emerging out of conservation practices in the forest ecosystem. The project links with the expertise and
commitment of existing Forest Department and other Government services, local NGO’s and local groups
to implement activities for which they have comparative advantage. By selecting the District Community
Development Plan as the basis of all planning, activities and investments, the project will avoid
duplication at local level will be able to establish a transparent relationship with all development partners,
as well as leverage additional commitment from other donors. ICIPE is in contact with several
organisations involved in biodiversity conservation, and linkages with these institutions have been
established through collaborative MOU. These organisations and institutes are:
 National Museums Kenya for bio-indicator studies.
 Nairobi University Kenya for pollinator bee race selection, and support to production systems for
Royal Jelly.
 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Kenya for information on agricultural
development at project sites.
Initially, 300 farmers / beekeepers each from three forest areas will be selected to participate in the
implementation phase of the forest conservation programme in the first year. The numbers of participants
will be increased in the subsequent years, depending on local responses to this new venture. Providing
farmers with extension services and training will help them build confidence in new income generation
technologies of api-sericulture as they become more skilled in such ventures (Annex 8).
Project Duration – Schematic Workplan (To be detailed in the Project Document)
OUTPUTS
Months
6
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
1 Forest Conservation Capacity etc
2 CFM by Forest Communities
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
3 Sericulture and Apiculture Inputs
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
4 Product Marketing, Up-scaling
5 Project Management and M & E
= =
30
Final MSP Brief
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
Monitoring and evaluation activities will measure project progress using quantifiable indicators of project
achievements. These indicators will measure the level of involvement of stakeholders and the performance
of the actions undertaken to achieve the project objectives. This project takes advantage of emerging
guidance from GEF and from UNDP-GEF on the use of impact indicators based on strong baseline
datasets. The Impact Indicators described in the summary for this proposal and in the Log-Frame focus on
demonstrating such impact.
Data from the KWS past and on-going monitoring program provides baseline information on biodiversity
levels and allows the checking of subsequent changes over the lifetime of the project. This will allow the
measurement of the level of biodiversity gain or loss after the project has introduced the additional income
sources based on utilization of silkmoth and honeybees for cloth and honey production respectively.
Assessments on resource dependence (see Gibbon and Mbithi 2002) based on earlier KIFCON
methodologies allow monitoring the dependencies on forest biomass for household income.
The project will be monitored and evaluated in close collaboration with Forest Department and Districts
and the GEF Operational Focal Point; and will follow the guidelines established by UNDP-GEF.
Independent reviewers appointed by UNDP/GEF, Government and IFAD will evaluate the project
annually. In the second year, farmers will evaluate the progress of the project at ICIPE-sponsored field
days.
Main impact and performance indicators have been selected, and will be further discussed and refined in
consultation with the stakeholders to allow participatory monitoring and evaluation of the project activity
and results.
Success in outputs related tto forest and biodiversity conservation will be verified by:
 The inclusion of community buffer zone initiatives in the Forest Manbagement Plan process, and
formation of Forest Associations (FAs).
 The degree of acceptance of wild-silk technologies, tree ownership and bufferzone protection by
Fas.
 The extent of reduced cutting and grazing and burning, and no encroachment in the buffer-zones
 The increased levels of regeneration of native tree species, and abundance statistics of silkmoths.
Success in the outputs related to national and local capacity building will be verified by
 The degree to which improved knowledge about apiculture and sericulture and forest conservation
is being used to organize communal and inter-communal planning.
 The percentage of people who have benefited from training and awareness modules who are
engaged in api-sericulture technologies for additional income generation.
 The percentage increase in the involvement of women in sericulture and apiculture ventures,
including harvesting, processing and marketing of the products.
The implementing agency (the Commercial Insect Programme at ICIPE) will prepare and submit periodic
and annual project performance progress and evaluation reports, as required by UNDP.
REFERENCES
Accorti, M,. Guarcini, R., & Odoo, L.P. (1991) The bees as a biological indicator and test insect. Redia 74
(1): 1-15.
Bennun, L.A., and Njoroge, P. 1999. Important Bird Areas in Kenya. Nairobi, Nature-Kenya.
31
Final MSP Brief
Collar, N. J. and Stuart, S. N. 1988. Key forests for threatened birds in Africa (Monograph Number 3).
Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.
Emerton,S. 1992. Summary of findings on forest utilization in Kakamega forest. KIFCON. Nairobi,
Karura Forest Station.
Gibbon, H. and Mbithi, D. 2002a. Kakamega Forest Working Paper 1. KFD and Commonwealth
Secretariat.
Gibbon, H. and Mbithi, D. 2002b. Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Working Paper 1. KFD and Commonwealth
Secretariat.
Gordon, I. and Ayiema W., 2003. Harvesting butterfly biodiversity for improving livelihoods and forest
conservation: The Kiepeo Project. Journal of Environment and Development, vol. 12, No. 1. 82-98.
KIFCON 1992. Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Pilot Project Volume 2: Working Papers. Unpublished KIFCON
Report. Nairobi: Karura Forest Station.
Kokwaro, J.O. 1988. Conservation status of the Kakamega Forest in Kenya: The Easternmost relic of the
equatorial rainforest of Africa. Monograph of Botany. Missouri Botanical Gardens. 25: 471:489.
Lusigi, W. J. 1982. Socio-economic effects and constraints in forest management in Kenya. Pp 123 130, in
E.G. Hallsworth (ed): Socio-economic Effects and Constraints in Tropical Forest Management. London.
John Wiley & Sons.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.
NEMA (2000). The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Govt of Kenya, Nairobi.
Norton-Griffiths, M. 2000. Policy Failure and Wildlife Loss. In: Innovation, ACTS Press Nairobi
Raina, S. K., et al. 2000. In Sericulture and Apiculture Prospects for the New Millennium (eds. S.K. Raina
et al.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Conservation and Utilisation of Commercial
Insects, November / December 1999.
Raina, S. K. 2000. The Economics of Apiculture and Sericulture Modules for Income Generation in
Africa. IBRA UK Publication pp 86
Rodgers, W. A. 2003. Biodiversity and cross-border conservation in East Africa. In Integrating
Sericulture and Apiculture Technologies with Regional Development Operations (eds. S.K. Raina et al.).
Proceedings of the Trainers Course and Third International Workshop on Conservation and Utilisation of
Commercial Insects, November December 2000.
Rogo, L., Lwande, W., Miller, S., Herren, H., and Chapya, A. 1999. Kakamega Forest: An Integrated
Conservation Project. Bull. East African Natural History Society 29 (3): 9-13
Wilson,E.O. 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press. Washington DC. pp 521
LIST OF ANNEXES
1. Endorsement Letter from OFP.
2. Commercial Insects: Logic and Species of Significance at Sites.
32
Final MSP Brief
3. Maps of Project Sites.
4. Threats / Root Cause Matrix.
5. Incremental Cost Analysis.
6. Logical Framework Analysis.
7. Co-financing Letters.
8. Apiculture / Sericulture Development and Marketing Strategies
33
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 1: LETTER OF ENDORSEMENTFROM GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT
34
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 2: INSECTS OF BIODIVERSITY AND COMMERCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
A. THE INSECT FAUNA INVOLVED
1. List of indigenous pollinator bee families in Kenyan forest sites:
There are several several genera and species of interest:
Family Apidae: sub family Apinae (honey bees, several distinct races of Apis mellifera).
Sub family Euglossonae (the orchid bees).
Sub-family Meliponinae (the stingless bees, M. meloponula, meliplebeia, plebeiella, apotrigona,
axestotrigona, cleptotrigona, lliotrigona, hypotrigona, pleibina, dactylurina).
Wild silk cocoon forming genera of moths in Kenyan Forests and Woodlands:
The family Lasiocampidae includes the genera: Bombycopsis, Ceratopacha, Chrysopsyche,
Diapalpus, Gonometa, Grammodora, Haplopacha, Leichriolepsis, Leipoxais, Mallocampa,
Mimopacha, Pachymeta, Pachypasa, Pseudometa, Streblota, Taragama, Trabala
The families Saturnidae and Thaumetopoidae include: Antistathmoptera, Argema, Epiphora,
Goodia, Holocera, Ludia (Saturniidae); andAnaphe (Thaumetopoidae)
More Specific Site Records are listed below:
Silk-moth
spp
Family
Locality
Host Plant
Gonometa sp.
Lasiocampidae
Mwingi District 1 species
Acacia elatior, A. senegal.
Arabuko FR
1 species
Several
Kakamega FR
3 spp plus
Several
Epiphora vacuna
Saturniidae
Kakamega forest
Several
Anaphe panda
Thaumetopoeidae
Kakamega forest
Bridelia micrantha
Lechriolepsis
pulchra
Lasiocampidae
Kakamega forest
Unidentified shrubs
Argema mimosae
Saturniidae
Mwingi District
Sclerocarya birrea, Spirostachys venenifera and
Lannea schweinfurthii
Philotherma sp.
Lasiocampidae
Mwingi District
Sclerocarrya birrea
Argema mimosae
Saturniidae
Arabuko- Sokoke FR
Spirostachys venenifera Lannea schweinfurthii
B: The Basic Concepts of Sericulture and Apiculture
Sericulture is the process of rearing silk producing insects either in captivity as in the mulberry
sericulture or in the field/forest as in wild sericulture. The mulberry silkmoths are the bivoltine16
races of Bombyx mori; and the wild silkmoths involve indigenous/endemic species occurring in
the natural forest habitat; many such species require protection. Sericulture is a labour intensive
process involving a chain of interdependent operations that involve the rural community. It
requires cultivation or identification and protection of the host plant, silkworm egg production,
silkworm rearing, silk cocoon reeling for the raw silk, and finally weaving on hand-loom or
power-loom for the silk-cloth. At each production stage the community earns sizable income and
creates rural employment. One acre (0.4 hectares) of mulberry plantation can produce 500kg of
16
Meaning TWO reproductive cycles per year. IFAD ICIPE research is attempting to break this dia-pause
and allow up to 6 cycles per year, greatly increasing farmer income.
35
Final MSP Brief
silk cocoons in 5 rearing cycles per year and yield 70-75kg of raw silk and generate a net income
of US $ 1,600 (data from ICIPE field tests).
TWO FORMS OF SERICULTURE ARE PROPOSED IN THIS PROJECT. 1) Wild Silk Moths
Here the wild species of silk cocoon forming genera are targeted in the natural forest habitat.
Each forest site will require surveys to monitor abundance and host specificity of selected taxa, note not all large moths produce silken cocoons, and some are better producers than others. Such
monitoring will be done in association with CBO members. Moths will be encouraged to lay on
selected host plants (eg large Bridelia and Teclea / Vepris trees) in the forest buffer zones which
are protected by the CBO members. Cocoons formed on these wild tree hosts will be collected
and taken for reeling (a proportion will be allowed to hatch to rebreed on hosts). Reeling will be
done at Silk Market Places that will be established at site centres (using the successful model at
Mwingi for demonstration). Silk weaving will be done collectively at these market places.
2) Domestic (the Mulberry) Silk Moths. Farmers will be encouraged to grow mulberry trees
(Morus alba – using different provenances at each site). Experience at two pilot trials in
Kakamega shows that this is easily feasible. Mulberry grows rapidly (allowing moth feeding on
leaves at 1.3 metres high – reached at 8 months after planting). Mulberries produce fodder, fruit
and fuelwood as well as moth feeding substrate. Farmers plant on field boundaries. Here the
correct race / strain of mulberry silk moth will be introduced and bred on the mulberries. Cocoons
will be processed at village Rearing Houses.
Apiculture.
Apiculture or beekeeping is the science and art of managing honeybee colonies in such a way as
to obtain the maximum adult worker bee population to coincide with the major nectar flows
within a given area, so as to utilize the population to the best advantage for both honey production
and pollination of crops. Other potentially valuable products from the bee-hive include royal
jelly, beeswax, pollen, propolis and bee venom. In addition, the selling of queens and packaged
bees is another way of generating income from beekeeping enterprises. Several factors contribute
to successful beekeeping, but of most essence are good locations (with abundant nectar and
pollen sources), with queens bred from productive stock or adapted to local situations and good
management skills. Communities can earn an income of US $ 25-30 per Langstroth hive and US
$7-8 per traditional log hive, in one season, through sale of honey. Two seasons are possible over
much of East Africa, and one household can easily cope with 12 hives. The sale of other hive
products is additional income.
In this project, initial surveys will help identify optimum races (aggressiveness, productivity etc).
Villagers will be taught honey production techniques, emphasis will be placed on the successful
trials from Mwingi and starting at Kakamega, using the honey market place approach as a venue
for quality control and marketing. Details are given in Annex 8.
Linking Sericulture and Apiculture to Forest Conservation.
Both enterprises provide income-generating activities that have a dependence on the proximity of
good quality natural forest. Good forest will have a variety of trees providing nectar throughout
the year. Most crops on agricultural fields will have a boom and bust flower and nectar
production. Wild silk moth sericulture is dependent on the abundance of host trees in the forest,
with no fires etc. When poverty of forest adjacent communities is a major cause of forest
degradation, then alternative income generation – through a focus on forest related products - can
reduce such degradation.
36
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 3 THREE PROJECT MAPS
The silk and honey marketplace sites for the communities. Please note that
the location may be changed during the implementation process.
37
Final MSP Brief
The silk and honey marketplace sites for the communities. Please note that the
location may be changed during the implementation process. The map shows the forest
zones (green) within the District.
38
Final MSP Brief
The silk and honey marketplace sites for the communities. Please note that
the location may be changed during the implementation process.
39
Final MSP Brief
Annex 4. Threats, problems and root causes of biodiversity degradation in forest
management zones.
ZONE
Core
Forest
Zone
Edge
Buffer
Zone
IMMEDIATE THREAT / PROBLEM
ROOT CAUSE
Degradation, caused by unsustainable
subsistence use of tree and fuelwood
resources, facilitated by low level of
protection
Management plan either not written (K, M)
or not fully implemented (A-S);
Illegal logging for commercially valuable
timber in Kakemega and Arabuko-Sokoke
1.
Area heavily used for fuel-wood and fodder
1.
Area is source of income from illegal
timber and charcoal.
2.
No community management system in
place to govern access to buffer zones
(K,M);
Unsustainable extraction of pole-wood for
house construction at Arabuko-Sokoke and
big logs to construct traditional hives for
beekeeping.
No institutional role for community forest
management in the forest system
2. High population density means high
demand for fuelwood with little room for
fuelwood planting
3. No recognition of the value of the forest –
treated as open-access or free goods
belonging to government
3
4.
5.
6.
Settlement
Cultivation
Zone
No motivation to plant multi use trees on
farmland
(and in places little available space for
trees). Little awareness of forest sustainable
-use alternatives.
Threat of excisions for settlement at
Kakamega
Elephant crop-raiding damages livelihoods
and inflicts injury on local communities at
Arabuko-Sokoke causing great resentment
to conservation
Land degradation at Mwingi due to cutting
of trees for fuelwood and charcoal
40
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
No institutional role for community forest
management and protection in the forest
system
High population density means high
demand for fuelwood with little room for
fuelwood planting
No recognition of the value of the forest –
treated as open-access or free goods
belonging to government
Poverty and lack of alternative
livelihoods forces reliance on free
resources of forest and incomes from
illegal activities.
Forest staff do not enforce forest
regulations.
Lack of alternative construction materials
for domestic dwellings
Population growth puts huge pressure on
land outside forest.
Government policies and inadequate
legal protection for Forest Reserves
under existing Act.
Weak local constituencies for forest
conservation
Inadequate resources available to protect
farmers and their fields from elephants
Poverty forces Mwingi farmers to cut
trees and make charcoal.
Inadequate realisation of benefits from
living trees
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 5: INCREMENTAL COST MATRIX
(Note that GEF alternative/increment figures per output are based on the activity costs per output as in log-frame
below, plus pro-rata costs across the personnel, equipment travel lines etc in the budget table in main text.
Domestic
Benefits
Baseline
GEF Alternative
Increment
1 Forest Reserves, of local & national
significance, have been greatly degraded in
past years as forest sector has lost capacity to
conserve effectively. Local communities and
parts of private sector have used forest
resources as open access goods, giving shortterm local benefit at expense of longer-term
ecological services. These short-term benefits
have included encroachment and conversion
of forest.
1 Forest sector allows
involvement of local
communities in conservation
and management, with emphasis
on buffer-zone. This reduces
open access regime to a
sustainable off-take with habitat
restoration. This allows better
ecological service flows.
2 Forest based alternative
incomes based on commercial
insects raises rural livelihood
status, reducing demand on
woody biomass.
The community–conservation
frameworks developed here will
be assimilated into the broader
forest protected area system in
Kenya
Partnership leads to
less conflict, greater
flow of services and
improved livelihoods
2 Rural livelihoods have worsened owing
to high population pressure on scarce land
resources, with few alternative income
opportunities
Global
Benefits
Output 1:
Significant forest biodiversity has been
seriously degraded in past decades,
including loss of restoration capacity and
connectivity, as reserves have been
encroached and over-used. Whilst forest
policy is changing there is little capacity to
translate policy into action.
A forest management framework in place
that facilitates community participation in
buffer zone management in all project sites.
Total Baseline: $1,040,000
GEF:
$ 150,000
Other:
$ 450,000
Baseline: $ 1,040,000
Total:
$ 1,640,000
Globally significant
biodiversity is
conserved at 3 sites
and lessons support
policy and increased
investment across the
Forest PA system
GEF: $ 150,000
Other $ 450,000
Total: $ 600,000
Output 2:
Forest adjacent communities, through
registered Forest Associations are actively
engaged in forest conservation through
buffer-zone management and enterprise.
Total Baseline: $500,000
GEF:
$ 100,000
Other:
$ 450,000
Baseline: $ 500,000
Total: $ 1050,000
GEF $ 100,000
Other: $ 450,000
Total: $ 550,000
Output 3
The capacity of communities and
institutions to manage and utilize both wild
and mulberry silk-moth and honeybee
biodiversity for income generation is
increased. Total Baseline: $300,000
GEF:
$ 280,000
Other:
$ 510,000
Baseline: $ 300,000
Total:
$ 1090 ,000
GEF: $ 280,000
IFAD: $ 360,000
ICIPE: $ 100,000
EU BCP $ 50,000
Total: $ 790,000
Output 4
Improved methodologies and insect
resources are available at sites to allow
efficient resource use for improved
livelihoods and conservation practices.
Total Baseline: $300,000
GEF:
$ 270,000
Other:
$ 500,000
Baseline: $ 300,000
Total:
$1070,000
GEF:
IFAD:
ICIPE
Viking
Total:
Output 5
Effective project administration, M&E, and
coordination has enabled timely and
efficient implementation of project
activities. Total Baseline: NIL
GEF:
Other:
Baseline:
Total:
GEF: $ 200,000
IFAD: $ 400,000
Total: $ 600,000
41
$ 200,000
$ 400,000
$0
$ 600,000
$ 270,000
$ 300,000
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 770,000
Final MSP Brief
Baseline
Total
$2,310,000 PLUS Sustainable
Development Baseline (>> $1,000,000)
GEF Alternative
$ 5,450,000
42
Increment
$ 3,310,000
Final MSP Brief
Annex 6. Logical Framework Planning: 6a Geographic Scope of Project Intervention
Improved Conservation of Natural Forest Protected Areas in Kenya through Linking Improved Livelihoods of Adjacent Communities to Forest
Buffer Zone Management in Kenya
MOUNTAIN FORESTS
COASTAL FORESTS
WESTERN FOREST
DRY WOODLANDS
Other Forests
Mt. Kenya: UNDP SGP
Mt. Kenya: UNEP/GEF
Mt. Elgon: IUCN
ArabukoSokoke: This GEF
Arabuko Sokoke: USAID
Kaayas :
WWF
Kakamega: This GEF
Kakamega : ICIPE
Mau Forests: EU
Mwingi FR: This GEF
Dry Mts : GEF CBBP
Taita Hills: CEPF
Taita Hills: GEF CBBP
Other Woodlands are in
National Parks eg Tsavo.
Project Intervention
43
Final MSP Brief
Annex 6 Logical Framework Planning 6b. Partner Interventions by Site
Overall Goal
Improved Conservation of Three Specific Natural Forest Reserves through Linking Improved Livelihood of
Adjacent Community to Forest Buffer Zone Management.
KAKAMEGA FOREST RESERVE
ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST
RESERVE
CONSERVATION
KFD / KWS
GEF This Proposal
EU/UNDP
Mac Arthur Foundation
CONSERVATION
KFD / KWS / KEFRI / NMK
USAID – Nature - Kenya
GEF This Proposal
LIVELIHOODS
GEF This Proposal
IFAD
GEF WB Agriculture
GoK – Agriculture
Smithsonian
MWINGI FOREST RESERVES
CENTRALISED SUPPORT
CONSERVATION
Policy/Dissemination/Lessons GEF
Livelihood Training ICIPE
Insect Research IFAD/ICIPE
Marketing IFAD/Viking
M & E for:
 Conservation GEF
 Livelihood IFAD/ICIPE/GEF
Reporting GEF/ICIPE
KFD
GEF This Proposal
LIVELIHOODS
LIVELIHOODS
GEF This Proposal
IFAD
Nature Kenya
GoK – Agriculture
GEF This Proposal
IFAD
Belgian CBO Support (over)
GoK – Agriculture
44
Annex 6: Logical Framework Planning 6c Project Output Diagram
Final MSP Brief
Overall Goal
Improved Conservation of Three Specific Natural Forest Reserves through Linking Improved Livelihood of
Adjacent Communities to Forest Buffer Zone Management.
Immediate Objective 1
Immediate Objective 2
To support the conservation of forest protected areas
through improved buffer zone management with the
involvement of local communities.
To develop methodologies and capacities that improve the
livelihoods of forest adjacent communities that are based on
commercial uses of insect resources that are linked to forest
habitats.
Output 1
A forest management framework is
in place at all three project sites that
facilitates community participation
in buffer zone management.
Output 2
Forest adjacent communities
through registered Forest
Associations are actively engaged
in forest conservation through
buffer zone management and
enterprise.
Output 3
The capacity of communities and
local institutions to manage and
utilise both wild and mulberry silk
moth and honey-bee diversity leads
to higher levels of income
generation.
Output 4
Improved insect resources
methodologies and markets are
available project sites to allow
efficient resource use for improved
livelihoods and conservation
practices.
OUTPUT 5
Effective project administration, coordination and monitoring has enabled timely and
efficient implementation of project resources.
45
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 6 : 6d : LOG FRAME MATRIX
Project strategy
Objectively verifiable indicators
Project Goal
The national protected area system of Impact indicators:
forest reserves is strengthened through
4) On Biodiversity
improved incentives for real
collaborative forest management with a) Abundance ratings of wild silk-moth and
pollinator bees are stable or increase. Forest
communities.
Sources of verification
Assumptions
Participatory and scientific monitoring
reports.
The planned operations of income
generation activities in sericulture and
apiculture to support decentralization and
to strengthen commune capacity and
investments are successfully
implemented
Ecological monitoring reports (Forest
dependent bird species show no loss of species or Department and ICIPE and National
Museums of Kenya).
population abundance in core and buffer areas.
Objective
b)
A
total
of
12,000
ha
of
forest
and
woodland
across
To demonstrate in three different
three separate Forest Reserves will be under Specific use of TRA methods, and
forest sites that the biodiversity of
specific use of WB/WWF tracking tool
improved multi-stakeholder management.
Kenya’s forest protected area system
c) Habitat monitoring in buffer zone and core zone in
can be maintained through
final year (and post project + 5 years) shows no loss Socio-Economic analysis reports
collaborative management systems
of forest area.
Implementation of income generation
using incentives based on income from
technologies linking protected areas
commercial insects.
5) On Pressures
and critical forest ecosystem
Outcomes
1 The conservation of forest-protected
areas is supported through improved
buffer zone management with the
involvement of local communities.
2 Methodologies and capacities to
improve the livelihoods of forest
adjacent communities, that are based
on commercial use of insect resources,
are developed, linked to forest habitats
and scaled-up.
Project strategy
Outputs:
No socio-economic obstacles in adoption
of technologies by communities.
No significant environmental
catastrophe, or interference.
Pressures on Forest Resources do not
grow due to increased poverty
a) No new demands made by communities for
Annual report of community and inter excisions in target forests, no illegal encroachment
community associations.
b) Evidence of illegal activity (cutting/harvesting) in
buffer zone reduced by 50% by final year.
c) Threat Reduction Response shows positive trend
across all years of project.
6) On Response Measures
a) WB/WWF PA tracking tool with positive scores.
b) Forest Associations formed in all target villages.
c) Income Generation Groups formed and increase in
number, capacity and financial turnover.
Objectively verifiable indicators
Sources of verification
Assumptions
Final MSP Brief
1 A forest management framework in
place that facilitates community
participation in buffer zone enterprise
and conservation in all project sites.
1a) Forest Management Plans for Buffer Zones Annual/periodic work program reports.
(all FR in Mwingi) stipulate role of Detailed M and E schedule prepared at
Communities.
Inception Report
Forest management plan preparation
processes are fully participatory and
flexible
Site task force Minutes/Reports
1b) Detailed buffer zone resource assessments in
Mid-Term and Evaluation Reports
place and used in M&E processes.
Plan contents recognize Project
1c) Lessons and policy implications of project
FR – Community partnership are disseminated
to government and elsewhere
2 Forest adjacent communities,
through registered Forest Associations
are actively engaged in forest
conservation through buffer-zone
management and enterprise.
2a) At least six Community Forest Associations Annual/periodic work program reports.
are registered as approved PFM partners at the Detailed M and E schedule prepared at
three sites.
Inception Report
Communities have interest and capacity
to allow meaningful registration
2b) At least six Community FAs are involved in Site task force Minutes/Reports
managing at least 20,000 ha of forest totalled Mid-Term and Evaluation Reports
Ministry of Social Welfare Registration
across all sites.
Records
2c) At least six Community FA Plans for buffer
zone management in place, approved and under
implementation across all sites
3. The capacity of communities and
institutions to manage and utilize both
wild and mulberry silkmoth and
honeybee biodiversity for income
generation is increased
3a) 900 community members trained in
management and utilisation of wild and
mulberry silkmoths and African honeybees for
income generation.
Annual /periodic work program reports.
Detailed M and E schedule prepared at
Inception Report
Site task force Minutes/Reports
Mid-Term and Evaluation Reports
3b) At least six community FAs empowered to FA Committee Meeting Minutes
Early benefits from income generation
activities are sufficient incentive for
communities to improve behaviour
toward forest conservation and actively
engage in conservation activities.
4a) 30 apiaries (average 20 hives each), 20 silkmoth Annual and periodic work program
rearing houses and 10 wild silkmoth farming sites reports.
established and operational.
Mid-Term and Evaluation Reports
4b) 5 marketplaces in total (including processing and Site level Task Forces
packaging facilities) established for silk and honey FA / CBP Committee Minutes.
products at all three sites
Project results and community
commitments are sufficient incentive for
sustainability in the community
association
run silk and honey businesses supported by
Viking Ltd and other traders
4. Improved methodologies and insect
resources are available at sites to allow
efficient resource use for improved
livelihoods and conservation practices.
Final MSP Brief
5.Effective project administration,
monitoring and coordination has
enabled timely and efficient
implementation of project activities.
5a) Annual Project Steering Committees held, and Annual and periodic work program Communal co-ordination in
reported on.
reports.
implementation of the project activities
5b) Detailed Baseline Assessment (Forest Resource, Detailed M and E schedule prepared at
Biodiversity, CBOs and Livelihoods) are prepared in Inception Report
year 1 and feed into full M&E plan, with final Financial / Management Audits
evaluation assessment in last year.
Mid-Term and Evaluation Reports
5c) Timely production of reports, documents
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 7 a & b LETTERS OF CO-FINANCING
Draft MSP Annexes Feb 2004 WAR
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 7 c LETTERS OF CO-FINANCING
Co-financing IFAD letter, forest department and NEMA will be attached soon
Draft MSP Annexes Feb 2004 WAR
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 8 a.
Draft MSP Annexes Feb 2004 WAR
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 8 b.
Beekeepers from several locations will open respective bank accounts (B*1 – B*6) and elect
representatives (R) who in turn elect a Chairman (CBC) for one fiscal year. Chairman with
committee members will purchase harvested honey (HP) from beekeepers, process and pack it for
sale in the marketplace established by the group. ICIPE will assist in training, setting post-harvest
facilities and introducing traders (HONEY TRADER). The initial capital for honey purchase and
profit obtained through sale of honey after processing is deposited (upward arrow) in the bank
account (B) operated by the Chairman and two elected committee members. This generates a
revolving fund (Note. GEF/IFAD will provide initial capital) to buy honey in the subsequent
harvests. This will establish a self-sustainable honey marketplace which gives hard cash to the
honey producers thus strengthening rural development and empowering villagers to control their
produce and market with no middleman.
Draft MSP Annexes Feb 2004 WAR
Final MSP Brief
ANNEX 8 c.
DEVELOPMENT MODULES FOR SILK MARKETPLACE AT KAKAMEGA,
ARABUKO-SOKOKE AND MWINGI FORESTS
Industrial cocoon producing farmers from groups in three Villages, opened a bank account (B) and
establish respective silk cocoon marketplaces for the farmers to sell their produce. The farmers
receive a receipt for cocoon sale from the group representative. The cash is collected by the
farmers from the respective banks on production of the receipt (bank issues this receipt book to the
authorized representative) to the cash counter. The group representatives elect the Chairman who
manages Silk-cocoon Post Harvest unit for cocoon processing and a silk-marketplace for the sale
of finished fabric in the Kakamega/Arabuko-Sokoke/Mwingi project sites. The chairman and the
two group representatives operate the account (B) and funds generated by sale of the silk fabric are
deposited in the account. Future purchase of cocoons and the payment to the processing members
is operated through this fund (Initial set up will be organized by ICIPE by giving a revolving fund
from the GEF/FAD project). Eventually ICIPE will arrange the marketing linkages with the local
and international traders
Draft MSP Annexes Feb 2004 WAR