Ecosystem Services Under REDD
Initiatives – Potential in Kenya
Kingiri Senelwa &
Balozi B. Kirongo
Alfred Gichu &
Kepha Wamichwe
Agenda
Overview of the Forest Sector in Kenya
Initiatives, Potential and Experiences Related to
Ecosystem Services in Kenya
Some thoughts and the way forward
Challenges
Concluding Observations
Overview of the Forest Sector in Kenya
• Kenya’s gazetted forest cover has
declined to about 1.7 % of land area
N
#
Lokichokio
#
Mandera
LO IM A H I LL S
M OU N T KU L AL
M AR SA BIT
M OU N T NY IRO
ND O T OS RA N GE
SE KE R R
EM B OB U T
MAT H EW S R AN GE
LE RO G H I
M OU N T E LG O N
TU RB O
KA T IM O K
M UK O GO D O
KA KA M E G A
KA PT A G AT
LA RIA K
PE RK E RRA
CA TC H M EN T
NG A IA
ND A RE
TH U U RI
LE M BU S
TIN DE R ET
#
Kisumu
Equator
M OU N T KE N Y A
M EN E N G AI
EA S TE R N M A U
M UU M O N I
AB ER D AR ES
GW AS I
M AA SA I M AU
#
Garissa
IM BA -CH AK U Y U
CH EP ALU N GU
KA M IT I
NG O N G H ILL S
LO IT A
#
%
NAIROBI
EN D A U
M AK O NG O
LU N GI
KY E M UN D U
#
Major towns
Forest
Lakes
National bo undar y
LA M U M AN G RO V E S
NA M A N GA H IL L
NO RT H CO A ST M A N GR OV E S
MODIS: Percent Tree Cover
0
0 - 15
16 - 26
27 - 37
38 - 48
49 - 61
62 - 75
76 - 100
Waterbodies
LO IT O K IT O K
AR AB UK O SO KO K E
M WA N DO N G O
M WA CH I
#
60
0
60
120 Kilometers
SH IM B A H ILL S
MOMBASA
SO UT H CO A ST M A N GR OV E S
• Overall, tree cover is not good
• Forest and tree stocks generate
a range of wood and NWFP&S
Land cover change analysis shows declining forest
cover (1970’s-2000)
•Land being converted to agric.
•In 2000, 15,500 km2 was
covered by tree-closed
vegetation; 30,600 km2 was treeopen; 3,300 km2 was woody
closed vegetation.
– The forest loss in the period
1970’s-2000 is equal to 1150
km2: almost 7% of the total tree
closed area of 1970’s.
– 1990-2005 annual rate of
deforestation was 0.3%.
– 1990-2005 forest growing stocks
decreased (forest degradation)
by 0.08 m3/ha/yr
•Remnant forests are degraded
– Deforestation & degradation is
continuing
Kapchemutwa Forest Reserve
Open canopy – degraded indigenous forests
Mt. Elgon Forest Reserve
Failed Shamba-system; fragmented forest plantations
Mt. Elgon Forest Reserve
Shamba-system areas not planted
Kaptagat Forest Reserve
Shamba-system areas not planted with tree seedlings
Settlements in Nkareta area on the
lower boundaries of the Maasai Mau
forest block
Encroachments along the eastern
boundary of Maasai Mau (“B – E" on
Map 1)
• Ogiek settlements
• Logging of indigenous trees mostly Podo
Extensive encroachments on the
south west corner of Ol Pusimoru
("F" on Map 1)
Forest corridor connecting the Maasai
Mau/Ol Pusimoru block with the South
West Mau/Transmara block.
Encroachments deep into South
West Mau emanating from the 2001
excision ("G“ on Map 1)
Almost completely
settled including
the indigenous
forest blocks.
Completely cleared and settled
forest area in the south western part
of Maasai Mau ("E" on Map 1)
Causes of deforestation & forest degradation?
• Unsustainable utilization - Wasteful harvesting & utilization
• Institutional failures - weak governance structures, inadequate capacity
for law enforcement, inadequate community participation in managt.
• Poverty and inadequate resource mobilization - forestry sector has been
marginalized with inadequate budgetary allocation for forestry
• Property rights in forest resources - most woodlands in Kenya are still
on trust-land and are still lacking a clear legal management framework
• Shifting cultivation system still exists on trust-land in semi-arid regions
• Pressure for expansion of agriculture land, settlement, and development
• Unsustainable charcoal production and marketing
• Overgrazing, wildlife damage and forest fires
• Replacement of superior forest cover types in privately owned highconservation natural forests are being converted to coconut plantations.
There are questions that need answers
There are questions that need answers
• What are the implications of the degradation of ecosystems on the
well being of Kenyans?
– Floods, erosion, siltation, land degradation, hydro power problems, droughts,
diseases and pests, declining agricultural productivity & food scarcity, portable
water availability, conflicts over land resources, biodiversity destruction, ……….
• Can we articulate and express the services and values of these
forest ecosystems for economics and livelihoods?
• What are the costs of not considering ecosystems to be economic
parts of livelihood infrastructure, or of failing to invest funds to
maintain them?
• Can these values actually make a difference to land use decisions,
livelihood planning, infrastructure development, investment
appraisals and financial flows, etc?
• What is the potential of REDD, and what are the attendant benefits?
Without attempting to address the questions
• Potential of forest & tree cover recovery/restoration (REDD) is high
• Political noise notwithstanding, Kenyans recognise the value of
forests, forest ecosystems and their services
• Options to reverse deforestation and forest degradation exist
– Potential for tree cover expansion is largest on farms
• The Forests Act (2005) spells out a number of incentives
– Farmers have taken up tree planting as viable farm enterprise
• Tree cover on farms is on the rise
– Need to formalise how people are planting trees, how they are managing, etc
– Reforestation in government / gazetted forests
– Reversing forest degradation
• Water catchments rehabilitation efforts – Mau, Mt. Kenya, Mt. Elgon,
Cherengani Escarpments
• This provides entry points for REDD for additional benefits and
incentives
Initiatives, Potential and
Experiences Related to Ecosystem
Services in Kenya
Some Case Studies
Greenbelt Movement Reforestation Project
• Located in Aberdare Ranges and Mt. Kenya
Mt. Kenya
Aberdare Ranges
– These are catchment areas of river Tana (hydro, water, irrigation)
– Portfolio of Small Scale Reforestation CDM project.
Greenbelt Movement Reforestation Project
• Carbon pools selected
– Above ground biomass.
– Below ground biomass.
• Project expected to sequester ≈ 400,000tco2e in the first 10 yrs
(2017)
• Sites eligible for CDM AR projects were selected based on remote
sensing time series analysis.
– Non-forest areas were detected on Landsat images from February 25th,
1987 and February 21st, 2000 to meet pre 1990 criterion.
• The project will:
– Reforest 2000ha of degraded land with indigenous tree species ONLY.
– Use 20 year crediting period with the option of renewal twice (to a
maximum of 60 yrs).
• Communities have exclusive user rights for NTFP.
Mau Forest Complex
• The largest remaining block of moist indigenous forests in East
Africa, covering approximately 900 km2.
• One of the 5 major water towers and catchments in Kenya
• The destruction of Mau has been systematic over time:
– The State systematically degazetted the forest and allocated the land
– Corruption infiltrated the process - big parcels of forestlands to elites;
– Logging companies – PPM, Timsales licensed, enhanced deforestation.
• A number of calamities have been associated with the destruction
• Government efforts to rehabilitate the forest
–
–
–
–
Taskforce to study the issues last year
Evict settlers – some are legal, others are illegal
Compensate legal settlers (1,900??) only
Re-forestation efforts by Government
• The efforts are being met with of hurdles
– Majority of Kenyans support Government efforts
Forestry-Based Carbon Offset Project
• Located in Kakamega Forest,
which represents the eastern-most
edge of the Congolean forest belt
that covered equatorial Africa
• Almost 50% of the forest area lost
since 1933 when the forest was
gazetted
Numbers are estimated hectares of each site.
Dark grey- current indigenous forest
Light grey - original gazetted forest boundary.
Kakamega Forest
Forestry-Based Carbon Offset Project, Kakamega (contd)
• Three broad goals of the project includes
– Promote and/or maintain forest biodiversity;
– Sequester carbon equal to mature forest; and
– Enhance local communities in sustainable ways.
• The project includes four components
– Reforestation of native tree species to connect forest islands,;
– Mechanisms to reduce forest use through on-farm tree planting and energy efficient
stove production and dissemination;
– Education and outreach; and
– Strategies to provide sources of income based on sustainable use of forest biodiversity.
• Project expected to reforest up to 500 hectares in the next 5 years
with high diversity indigenous species to sequester ≈ 422,003
tco2e in the anticipated 40yrs of the project.
• Planting Strategies:
– 1000 seedlings/ha, thinned to 500-600 trees/ha within 5 yrs of growth.
– Nursery and seedling production by CFA’s and communities
– Start planting adjacent to natural forest to promote early use of sites by wildlife.
Western Kenya
Integrated Ecosystems
Management Program
Western Kenya are lands
west of the Mau with four
main river basins
River
basin
Area
(km2)
Forest
reserves
(km2)
%
forest
cover
Nzoia
13,094
1,646
12.6
Yala
4,212
438
10.4
Nyando
4,694
602
12.8
Sondu
3,435
812
23.6
If you super-impose the
population structure of
the region on these
picture, you get a very
interesting scenario
• Western Kenya has some
of the highest rural based
population concentration
spots in the country (up to
1000/km2).
– These has specific effects
on a number of effects on
peoples’ livelihood and the
environment
Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystems Management (contd)
• Western Kenya's rich biodiversity has suffered due to of land
degradation, deforestation and loss of vegetative.
• WKIEM Project aim to improve productivity and sustainability of
land use systems in Nzoia, Yala & Nyando watersheds by:
– Supporting on and off farm conservation strategies; and
– Improve the capacity of local communities and institutions to identify,
formulate and implement integrated ecosystem management activities
capturing local and global environmental benefits.
• The objectives were to be community driven with communities
deciding on resources for infrastructure investments, technical
assistance & implementation of ecosystem management activities.
• The benefits include:
–
–
–
–
Reduced land degradation;
Reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) accumulation in the atmosphere;
Improved on and off farm biodiversity; and
Decreased erosion in watersheds
Wildlife Works REDD Carbon Offset Project
• This is a carbon Offset project designed to take advantage of the emerging
Global Carbon markets covering REDD
• Located in Rukinga, Kenya, the project is seeking to
– Employ the voluntary Carbon Standards (VCS) to carry out its activities
– Create jobs for communities that were destroying their magnificent wilderness for survival
• Operations:
– A Joint Venture of Wildlife Works Inc. and Colin Wiel Enterprises established to pursue
the use of emerging marketplace for REDD Carbon Offsets as a sustainable and
scalable funding mechanism for biodiverse forest protection.
– Project seeks to help communities, private individuals etc to monetize forest and
biodiversity assets
– The project has already restored huge piece of land to a healthy vibrant ecosystem full of
elephants, lions and 50 other species of large mammals.
– Social benefits todate include the development of class rooms for local schools,
community health care, organic farming greenhouse to promote income generating
activities;
Other related Activities / Initiatives
• The Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund is supporting activities to
reduce deforestation & forest degradation in Taita Hills, Kenya.
– The forest area is about 250 km² and part of a global biodiversity hot-spot.
• In 2004 a 5-year UNDP supported project started on reducing illegal
logging in Kenya dryland forests and woodlands through improved
governance.
– Its objectives are to determine the scale of illegal logging. promote
multiple use and alternative livelihoods, build the capacity of local
communities and government agencies, etc
• The 2nd Phase of the “Miti Mingi, Maisha Bora” Project supported by
Government of Finland could support the preparation of a national
forest inventory as a baseline for a REDD program.
• The World Bank Natural Resource Management Project supported
the rapid assessment of forest resources, forest boundary
demarcation, and implementation of guidelines for community
forestry associations.
Projects benefits cycle
CLIMATE CHANGE
Reduced global
warming
Capacity building
Reforestation
Direct jobs (paid labour for
INCREASED FOREST Increased
tree planting, weeding...)
COVER
biodiversity
Reduction of CO2
in atmosphere
Sale of non wood Environmental Income
Reduced forest products goods and services
Carbon credits
deforestation
Community
projects
Skills
Employment
COMMUNITY WELL
BEING
Some thoughts and the way forward
• Numerous site-specific efforts, minimal nationally consolidated studies
– These are isolated activities formulated with different aims. The efforts need to
be consolidated, to provide learning experiences for REDD national strategy
• Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Readiness Plan Idea Note (FCPF RPIN) has been prepared, submitted and approved (World Bank)
• Kenya has undertaken some policy reforms (e.g. Forests Act 2005)
• Although Kenya has very low forest cover, the forests are important for
water catchments, biodiversity conservation and peoples’ livelihoods.
– A strong link between water catchments, PES, community forestry, etc
– Efforts to entrench PES in forestry sector – KWS, Ken Gen, Water, etc
• Innovative approaches, with activities “outside forests” (agriculture &
energy) are important in addressing issues of deforestation,
degradation and promotion of PES schemes
– Support afforestation and reforestation to reduce the national timber deficit
Four Broad Challenges
• Policy and legislative
–
–
–
–
Lack of national climate change policy and strategy with regards to land-use projects
Lack of subsidiary legislations to operationalise the Forests Act 2005
Sectoral instruments which currently fall under several statutes and ministries
Insecurity or lack of land tenure rights on Trust lands
• Institutional
– Weak capacity for law enforcement; coordination of multi sectoral approaches and
participation among stakeholders to implement REDD program; establish REDD baseline
inventory and to monitor changes in carbon stocks; and exploit PES opportunities
– Weak forest governance (evident illegal logging, political interference in use of forest
land, and degradation in the forest resource base)
• Sustainable forest management
– Poor state of forest management
– Lack of management information, inadequate inventory data to guide planning
• Information
– Lack of harmonized standards, methods, procedures and guidelines for natural resource
data and information collection, management and dissemination guidelines
– Natural resource data is currently scattered in different institutions and in different
formats, making its access cumbersome
– Lack of Carbon Finance information and an understanding about realistic revenue
streams in the future
Concluding Observations
• Kenya has some experiences with carbon finance projects.
– But initial investment to develop and implement a national REDD program is substantial.
– In the short-term, Kenya requires that initial foundations are laid to establish the
institutional environment for a REDD program, baselines and monitoring procedures.
• Small-scale farmers and poor communities involved in forest utilisation
need tangible incentives to reduce deforestation and forest degradation.
– REDD co-benefits might provide incentives to engage farmers
– An integrated rural development approach reducing deforestation pressure and providing
alternative income generation for the youth is required to implement a REDD project.
– A REDD strategy with additional revenue streams and benefits (eco-tourism, NWFP&S,
biodiversity offsets and/or water services) is required.
• A REDD project will strengthen the awareness at the political level to
support forest conservation in a multi-sectoral approach.
– However, REDD cannot be successful as a stand alone project.
• Kenya has recognized the policy momentum of REDD and CC and is
ready to develop and implement national REDD projects in partnership
with civil society, research and other government agencies.
As I finish Mr. Chairman,
I want to leave us with a question:
Would this arrangement, where trees are
paying more than tea qualify under REDD?