### ![](media/image1.png){width="5.861111111111111in" height="6.986111111111111in"} 

### strategic objective 5: improved natural resources management in targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders

Kenya's natural resources---in particular its rich biodiverse areas and
savanna wildlife---are among the country's most valuable assets, and
Kenya is ranked among the top 50 countries in the world for species
richness. In 1999, wildlife-based tourism contributed 2.9 percent of
Kenya's GDP, ten percent of formal employment opportunities, and 18
percent of total foreign exchange earnings. As the health of the tourism
industry rises and falls, so does the Kenyan economy. It is critical
that the country conserve its biologically diverse natural resources if
it is to exploit the increasingly competitive global ecotourism market
and promote the sustainable management and use of its unique natural
resource base.

Kenya's natural resources provide many benefits and promise to increase
in value if they can be preserved. Identifying Kenya's biodiversity
resources is just beginning. Linkages between biodiversity and human
health are strong, because traditional herbal medicines are widely used
in Kenya, especially in rural areas. Export markets for indigenous
medicinal plants are also growing.

All wildlife in Kenya is officially owned by the government of Kenya.
Eight percent of the country has been set aside as protected
areas---national parks and reserves---for this wildlife, but estimates
indicate that ten percent of the country's wildlife lives in national
parks, 15 percent lives in the national reserves, and 75 percent lives
outside of the protected areas. Therefore, what happens outside of the
protected areas is critical to the survival of Kenya's wildlife.
Successful wildlife conservation depends on sustainable natural
resources management (NRM) practices by communities living adjacent to
protected areas.

USAID/Kenya's NRM program focuses on achieving sustainable economic
benefits through conservation of biodiversity. It addresses conservation
of a broad range of natural resources including wildlife, coastal marine
resources, rangelands, and forests in protected areas and on private
lands.

##### Importance of natural resources management in Kenya to the region

Kenya is a key country in the region due to its relative stability in
the conflict-prone region and its achievements in the area of
conservation of biodiversity. Kenya is rich in terms of natural
resources and the diversity of those resources. Sustainable conservation
of biodiversity within East Africa cannot succeed without Kenya. Among
African countries, Kenya is second only to the Democratic Republic of
Congo in bird diversity, and many of these birds migrate throughout the
region. The Serengeti-Masai Mara ecosystem, which straddles the
Kenya-Tanzania border, supports an unrivaled diversity and abundance of
large mammals but the entire ecosystem is increasingly threatened on the
Kenya side of the border by expansion of agriculture, conflict over the
coexistence of wildlife and livestock, and poorly managed tourism. Along
the coast, the Kenyan and Tanzanian coral reef ecosystem is among the
richest in the world but it is being rapidly destroyed by pollution and
over-exploitation. The Eastern Arc Mountains and coastal forests of
Kenya and Tanzania constitute one of the world's richest locales for
plant diversity. Kenya has histor­ically played a leadership role in
conservation, and reports from the wildlife sector in Kenya quickly make
their way into the inter­national press. While the focus in the past has
been on the big game animals, it is now shifting to biodiversity.
Continued assistance to the sector is required if Kenya is to remain
proactive in conservation of biodiversity and lead others in the region
to follow.

##### Realities to be addressed

Kenya has been able to partially conserve its biodiversity through its
protected area (PA) system. Over the past decade, substantial progress
has been made in securing and managing the protected areas for
conservation and economic benefits. However, even long-term conservation
efforts will not succeed until fundamental realities are reckoned with:

• Systems currently in place are insufficient to maintain Kenya's
biodiversity.

• Many protected areas do not and cannot exist as ecological isolates.

• The protected areas network does not include and protect all areas in
Kenya that are biologically diverse.

• Sustainable conservation depends on maintaining several complex and
interconnected ecosystems that, in many cases, extend well beyond
Kenya's borders.

• Wildlife needs seasonal dispersal areas and migration corridors.

• Human needs are often in conflict with animal needs.

• Women's participation in NRM is key, as discussed below, but women
have traditionally been overlooked in the conservation and management
planning processes, as well as in training programs.

##### Recent accomplishments 

To achieve sustainable conservation of Kenya's biodiversity, natural
resource management calls for an integrated approach to these
problems---one that is not focused solely on wildlife and endangered
flora. USAID/Kenya's NRM program will adopt a holistic approach to
conservation of biodiversity, addressing a range of interconnected
socioeconomic issues facing communities and biological conservation in
Kenya.

The program will build on its many successes. In some areas, a solid
base in community conservation has already been established. Significant
changes in the attitudes of USAID/Kenya-targeted communities living
adjacent to parks and reserves and in the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS)
have already been observed. Through the incentive program promoted by
the USAID-supported Conservation of Biodiverse Resource Areas (COBRA)
project, communities have shown increasing interest in investing in
nature-focused business and are generating income. In 1999, communities
earned \$119,000 and 110 people (nearly all men) were reported to be
project-employed. There were 1,143 individuals in groups (including 210
women), and benefiting households totaled over 980. The KWS has also
demonstrated willingness to promote community-based conservation. Many
targeted communities are receiving support from the KWS, which has
created a Partnership Department that has institutionalized the
Community Wildlife Program. Improved relationships between the KWS and
community groups and individuals are being seen. Communities are also
showing increasing tolerance toward wildlife, and are considering
wildlife to be an asset rather than a liability. As a result,
communities across Kenya have put two million hectares of land under
conservation. In areas with community conservation programs, wildlife
numbers have either stabilized or increased. For example, on the
Amboseli, Laikipia, and Machakos savannas, wildlife numbers appear
stable, and rangeland vegetation is improving due in part to long-term
community-based conservation in these areas. In northeastern Kenya,
however, where such interventions have not taken place, wildlife and
livestock numbers are declining due to degradation and fragmentation of
rangelands.

Experiments pairing conservation with exploitation of wildlife in areas
adjacent to parks and reserves have provided useful information on which
to model future projects. This is exemplified by the COBRA project.
Government of Kenya (GOK) formulation of new wildlife policy and the
drafting of a new wildlife bill have benefited from the COBRA
experience, and a close partnership between KWS and the Mission has been
established.

USAID/Kenya will not focus on stabilizing or reversing large-scale
biophysical trends head on. To achieve results in NRM, the Mission, the
GOK, and other donor programs will need to coordinate their efforts in
target areas. The new program will use community-based and integrated
NRM approaches to address these objectives

Implementation of the new strategy departs from the past in two
significant ways. First, the strategy adopts a more integrated approach
to NRM than was pursued in the COBRA I and II projects, which focused on
wildlife management as a means to income and employment generation.
Second, the strategy will expand the set and scope of intermediate
results to include a new forestry initiative, to strengthen advocacy for
policy reform, and to reflect improvement in the management of Kenya's
natural resources.

##### Contribution to USAID/Kenya Goal

Environmental degradation undermines long-term economic growth, impairs
critical ecological systems, and threatens human health, upon which
sustainable development depends. Careful management of natural resources
is essential if investments in development are to yield sustainable
benefits. Unpolluted and non-degraded ecosystems are required for
long-term economic growth and food security. Clean air and water are
prerequisites to human health. Addressing environmental issues builds
public and private sector partnerships, increases public awareness
through education and training, crosses gender, cultural, and class
lines, and strengthens civil societies. Successful achievement of NRM
objectives will therefore directly contribute to the USAID/Kenya Goal.
SO4 is also complementary to other SOs.

##### Gender and NRM

######## Forests 

Rural women are major caretakers and users of forests. They are the main
gatherers of fodder and fuel, and they seek out fruits and nuts that are
important for their families' nutrition. However, women typically have
unequal access to forestry information, training, education, and
research. As a result, national capacity for the development,
conservation, management, and protection of forests and forest
ecosystems is constrained.

######## Fisheries

In most fishing communities, women predominate in handling,
preservation, and processing of fish products, and in some communities,
in marketing of fish products. Post-harvest losses are often high due to
inefficient technologies and inadequate storage facilities. Improvements
in equipment and methods can make a significant difference and increase
women's capacity to generate income.

###   {#section-1 .unnumbered}

### PROBLEM analysis 

Protective measures for Kenyan ecosystems may include soil stabilization
and protection of watersheds and the coastal zone. Most endangered are
marine and terrestrial biodiversity including wildlife, rangelands, and
forests.

##### Wildlife and rangelands

Rapid growth of human populations in some key wildlife areas is having
serious detrimental effects on wildlife. For example, human population
is increasing by seven percent annually in the Masai Mara ecosystem.
These trends will have serious short-term impacts on tourism revenues,
and, if the trends go unchecked, vital species and globally important
wildlife migrations could be lost forever from Kenya and perhaps the
whole of East Africa.

##### Soils

Soil fertility is another linchpin resource showing negative trends.
Population is grow­ing at 2.2 percent per year, which is putting land
under increasing pressure. As a result, the migration from high- to
low-potential rural areas, livestock overgrazing, and lack of access to
appropriate soil management techniques are contributing to soil
fertility declines, erosion, and sedimentation in inland and coastal
waters. However, some areas where agroforestry methods are being adopted
are showing gains in soil fertility.

##### Forests

Encroachment on forests is a serious problem. Forests are the protectors
of critical water catchment areas, and loss of forests causes erosion
and increased sedimentation of waterways and coastal areas. Wood
pro­vides an estimated 98 percent of all domestic fuel in Kenya today.
Forest conversion for agriculture, fuel wood collection for domestic use
and markets, and excessive timber and non-timber product collection are
rapidly depleting Kenya's forests. In addition to decreased density and
acreage of native hardwood and indigenous fruit trees, the extent of
coastal mangroves has decreased by an estimated 70 percent in the 1900s.
However, some farm-based tree resources are increasing, providing the
future potential to lessen pressures on nearby forests. The opportunity
to address sustainable use of forest and tree resources in Kenya will
have enormous repercussions on other regions and systems throughout the
country, such as soil fertility, stream and river ecosystems,
productivity of coastal fisheries, and habitats for plants and animals.

##### Water

Water is also under threat in Kenya. Unsustainable extraction,
pollution, and sedimentation are increasing. Competition for water is
rapidly rising in wildlife areas, drylands, and coastal areas, yet
integrated water resource management is absent. Many communities engaged
in smallholder agri­culture lack the means to make efficient use of
water. Economically attractive options and stronger forces usually
prevail over more sustainable water management.

Coral reefs are also being seriously threatened. Kenya is endowed with
richly diverse coral systems, and support critical fisheries and
stabilize coastlines. However, increasing pollution from inland
sediments, oil shipping, industrial dumping, and expanding human waste
streams are serious concerns. Over-extraction of coastal and marine
resources and inadequate controls on tourism add to the pressure on
reefs.

These negative trends are worsening, due to inadequate planning, lack of
adoption of sustainable land uses, and ineffective governance. There is
a need for an improved set of policies supporting conservation and
equitable natural resource management in Kenya.

##### Impact of HIV/AIDS on the sector

NRM focus areas currently have higher prevalence rates than other areas
of the country. Much income in the focus areas is derived from family
members who are employed in towns and cities. In addition to being
conduits for the disease, the illnesses and deaths of those breadwinners
can trigger poverty, food insecurity, and reduced access to health care
and education in NRM focus areas. The impact of HIV/AIDS on NRM is
therefore likely to increase.

###   {#section-2 .unnumbered}

### Consultation & collaboration

#### Consultative process

##### Planning process 

In developing a new NRM strategic objective, USAID/Kenya's Agriculture,
Business, and Environment Office recognized the need to engage a rich
cross-section of local experts in a substantive dialog to assist in
strategy development. Major decisions regarding program focus were open
and transparent throughout the process.

The first step in the process included consultations with Mission
management, other Mission SO teams, and technical staff in USAID's
Africa and Global Bureaus to set the basic parameters of the new
program. As part of this initial "scoping" exercise, a diverse group of
Kenyan experts was brought together for four days of intensive
investigation. This group, composed of eleven key informants,
represented interests and institutions working in wildlife, soil
conservation, livestock management, coastal resources management, and
community conservation.

The outcome of this first series of consultations included an
environmental scan of the sector, an articulation of USAID's comparative
advantage, a draft strategic objective (SO), and the suggestion of an
overall strategy implied by a set of possible intermediate results. The
group also identified a short-list of assessments and analyses that
needed to be completed as part of the pro­gram. Participants expressed
their satisfaction with the outcomes and committed their future
involvement in the planning process.

The proposed split of SO2 into two SOs---one focusing on
commercialization of smallholders and the other on NRM---was approved by
USAID/W during the 1999 R4 process. The SO2 team is now in the process
of re-articulating its strategy, with a revised objective of increasing
incomes of rural households in target areas.

The second step in the process was to move from the draft SO to an
articulation of an explicit strategy, including the description of
USAID/Kenya's development hypothesis, a draft results framework, initial
performance indicators, and supporting documentation. This second step
included several workshops involving over forty organizations and dozens
of resource individuals and experts.

A small group of local experts assisted in drafting the results
framework and performance indicators. In addition, an orientation was
conducted with major donors working within the sector to explore how
their activities might contribute to, or complement, these results. To
follow up, a formal survey was conducted to document the range of donor
activities in the sector*.*

Finally, the draft strategic plan for SO4 was produced, presented, and
discussed with stakeholders in USAID/W as well as within the broad
community of stakeholders in Kenya. A group of over twenty technical
experts and collaborators was assembled one last time to review the
draft strategy in detail. Near the end of this phase, the Mission
presented the almost-final strategic plan to a broad group of customers
and conducted an orientation to ensure that the broader environment
community in Kenya was informed and consulted in the process.

In total, over eighty local experts (external to USAID), representing
nearly forty local and international organizations, were engaged in the
planning process.

Consultations will continue after the approval of this SO4 strategy.
USAID/Kenya expects to formulate an extended strategic objective team,
which will include some of the same people involved in the consultative
planning process. In addition, the Mission expects that the strategic
objective team will host annual meetings during which program
performance will be presented and discussed. It hopes to use these
meetings as fora for leveraging support for the broader reform and
coordination necessary to advance the status of natural resources
management in Kenya. Studies of donor involvement in NRM and the forest
sector also involved extensive consultations; those consulted are listed
separately in the study reports.

##### Other USG agencies active in natural resources management

Other important USG initiatives include:

• The USAID/W Global Conservation Program (USAID/G/ENV/ENR) that
supports conservation of the world's biodiversity. In Kenya, the program
is collaborating with the African Wildlife Foundation through the
Conservation of Resources in African Landscapes (CORAL) project in
Laikipia/Samburu and Amboseli/Longindo. USAID/Kenya's Conservation of
Resources through Enterprise (CORE) Project is collaborating with the
CORAL program by targeting the same areas and building on CORAL
strategies to promote a host of conservation incentives.

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Fish and Wildlife Service
(USDA/FW) grants for elephant and rhinoceros protection support
activities that build on USAID/Kenya's long-term investment in the Kenya
Wildlife Service.

• Dialogues between the USDA, the U.S. Embassy Nairobi, and the GOK on
international treaties such as the Convention on the International Trade
of Endangered Species (CITES) engage the GOK on policy formulation and
compliance with NRM-related international conventions.

• The Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program's project,
Improving Pastoral Risk Management on East Africa Rangelands, builds on
past work. Their applied research and outreach have a goal of improving
pastoral risk management using assets and income diversification,
enhancement of information flow and use, and improved access to external
resources. This research project will identify context-sensitive
interventions at various socio-economic levels.

• USAID/G/ENV/ENR's Coastal Resources Management II Cooperative
Agreement provides financial support for integrated coastal zone
management activities in Kenya through the University of Rhode Island's
Coastal Resource Center.

• REDSO/ESA provides capacity-building support for the West Indian Ocean
Marine Sciences Association (WIOMSA). Under the program, technical
advisors will receive training for several weeks in different East
African countries. The participants will then be eligible to apply for
financial assistance to demonstrate new initiatives observed during
their training. It benefits SO4-supported coastal zone management
activities.

• REDSO/ESA is exploring the development of a remote sensing activity
with USAID/Uganda through the U.S. Geological Survey under the Africa
Bureau's Tree Crops Program. The activity will monitor land use changes
at the farm level (such as the diversification of vegetation) to
determine if participating farmers are adopting agreed-upon
environmental practices. The REDSO/ESA activity could serve as a model
for any future USAID/Kenya tree crops monitoring activity.

• The U.S. Forest Service has a project that monitors forest health
using remote sensing in collaboration with the University of Dar es
Salaam's Remote Sensing Centre, and with the GIS Remote Sensing Labs at
Sokoine University in Tanzania and the Taita Hills in Kenya. SO4's
proposed forestry program is likely to benefit from this program. The
USFS is willing to provide remote sensing images of the three Eastern
Arc forest areas (the Taita Hills in Kenya, and the East Usambaras and
Ulugurus in Tanzania) and to discuss local capability to conduct
analyses beyond those sites. USAID/Kenya will collaborate with the USFS
to monitor SO4 tropical forest focus areas in Kenya, including the
Aberdares (Nyandarua) Range, Mount Kenya, and the Taita Hills.

• REDSO technical support for environmental compliance and training
ensures that all USAID/Kenya programs comply with Reg. 216.

####   {#section-3 .unnumbered}

#### customers

SO4 customers are the men and women of communities in areas adjacent to
Kenya's national parks, reserves, and other protected areas who manage
resources that support the nation's wildlife, and realize tangible
benefits from doing so.

Other customers are investors in the tourism industry. The communities
adjacent to parks and reserves will be encouraged to forge partnership
deals with investors in the development of tourism-related businesses.
SO4 customers are also those that use wood and charcoal for fuel, get
water from remote water catchment areas, and use electricity from
hydroelectric plants.

#### 

#### OTHER DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS

##### The Government of Kenya

The government of Kenya is a key partner. While there is concern over
its governance of natural resource management in Kenya, there is
nonetheless cause for optimism. The media are noticeably freer than in
the recent past and regularly monitor difficulties in the NRM sector.
Popular demand for better governance of natural resources is growing.

At the local level, interest from men and women is increasing for
participating in and benefiting from the wise use of resources. Local
constituencies for wildlife, for example, have grown thanks to the Kenya
Wildlife Service's community conservation program. Kenya's
infrastructure is recovering (albeit slowly), while currency exchange
has become freer and import and export restrictions have become fewer.
There are signs that the tourism sector---particularly inland wildlife
tourism---is also slowly recovering.

The government of Kenya is actively promoting ecotourism, enhancing
security in parks and reserves, piloting quotas for wildlife harvests,
and promoting community management of resources. The GOK has enacted a
new Environmental Management bill that has created a watchdog
Environmental Management Authority, and has initiated discussions with
stakeholders on the bill. The GOK has drafted a forestry bill, which
awaits presentation and enactment, and has drafted a water policy, which
is expected to be translated into a bill for presentation and enactment.
All of these are positive developments toward better management of NRM
by the government of Kenya.

##### The Kenya Wildlife Service

The KWS is working to get its internal management systems and financial
house in order. The KWS has crafted a new mission statement (working
closely with communities and other stakeholders) that recognizes the
role of other partners in conservation of biodiversity. The KWS is also
soliciting comments on its new mission statement from stakeholders in
consultative sessions. USAID/Kenya support has strengthened the KWS
Community Wildlife Program's ability to adequately respond to the needs
of communities and partners, and to empower men and women to act as
equal partners in conservation. KWS' new management is showing keen
interest in reviewing the draft wildlife management bill and has
requested USAID support to lead consultative meetings with stakeholders
for the vetting process. The bill will be presented to the government
for review and enactment.

##### Bilateral and multilateral donors

Because of these positive developments, many donors are contemplating
renewing support for investment in Kenya's NRM sector. Significant
bilateral donors to the NRM sector include: the Netherlands, the United
Kingdom, Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Denmark, and the U.S.
In addition, Kenya receives support from multi-lateral funding agencies
such as: the European Union (EU), the World Bank, the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), and the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP). Several of these donor agencies are engaged in protected area
management, while the others have long-term involvement in specific
sub-sectors such as forestry, water, renewable energy, and soil and
water conservation activities in areas of both high and low potential.

The EU has designed a US\$5 million biodiversity program that will be
implemented concurrently with USAID's proposed activities. The Japanese
have provided \$5 million for parks infrastructure (vehicles and
education programs) and have funded a ¥11.25 million social forestry
program. Belgium is currently implementing a BEG12.5 million program,
which might be extended beyond 2000. DFID, the Germans, the Finnish,
DANIDA, the Dutch, and the World Bank also have on-going activities in
the sector, some of which are likely to be extended and which will be
implemented concurrently with USAID's program.

#####  Nongovernmental organizations

Kenya is home to many international and local NGOs with excellent
reputations for their abilities to implement programs. The three largest
international NRM NGOs---the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the
African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), and the World Conservation Union
(IUCN)---are able to solicit external funding for NRM activities in
Kenya. Others include: the International Council for Research on
Agroforestry (ICRAF), the International Livestock Research Institute
(ILRI), the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology
(ICIPE), the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), the African
Conservation Centre (ACC), the East Africa Wildlife Society, the Society
for Protection of Environment in Kenya (SPEK), and others.

In addition, there are many community-based organizations (CBOs) working
at the grass-roots level. The USAID program is targeting NGOs and CBOs
to enhance their capacities to take on NRM initiatives.

There is good will for continued investment in NRM in Kenya, and funding
for NRM is likely to triple or quadruple over the planned SO period.

####  

### Results to be achieved

#### The strategic objective

##### Strategic Objective 5: Improved natural resources management in targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders

The proposed strategic objective will build on USAID/Kenya experience in
COBRA and other projects. Success at the SO level is a necessary step to
conserving the country's biodiversity for future generations of Kenyans
and the global community. Recognizing that it is beyond USAID's ability
to effect a measurable biophysical change in the conservation of
biodiversity within five to eight years, the SO4 program focuses on
improving NRM in targeted biodiverse areas. The program will work in
areas adjacent to protected areas to bring about a positive change in
the behavior of stakeholders in the management and wise use of natural
resources. Gender differences with respect to NRM will be identified and
addressed.

##### Development of the SO

The strategic planning process was initiated in February 1999 with
experts from Kenya's NRM sector. During the first workshop, USAID's role
and comparative advantage in the NRM sector were considered in detail,
and an initial SO statement was crafted.

It was acknowledged that USAID/Kenya's comparative advantage includes
its:

• Reputation for contributions to the wildlife sector and the promotion
of effective partnerships within the sector.

• Experience in promoting NRM at the community level.

• Credibility and effective policy support in NRM issues.

Close consultation and collaboration with other institutions and donors
will contribute to program success and enable the Mission to concentrate
its resources in areas where it has comparative advantage. As part of
the strategy development process, a survey of other donor activities in
NRM, including the forestry sector, was conducted.

The process considered several approaches. It also considered each
program option in terms of technical approach, achievable results,
accountability, and management burden. Some options targeted the
conservation of ecosystems, some made biodiversity conservation the
explicit focus, and others limited themselves to economic benefits and
nature-focused enterprises. The following consensus emerged:

Sustainable conservation requires active involvement and ownership by
female as well as male stakeholders. This in turn requires that the
stakeholders realize benefits, economic and otherwise. The approach
taken under COBRA was validated but was broadened to include
non-economic benefits such as protection and conservation of sacred
forests.

It was clear that the management of natural resources in
Kenya---including wildlife conservation---has suffered from the absence
of integrated approaches. Gains in wildlife conservation and economic
benefits made under COBRA cannot be secured without attention to other
natural resources such as soil, water, and forests.

It was also clear that resources do not allow for a program with
national impact, particularly at the field level; resources need to be
geographically concentrated for impact. SO4 is consistent with current
NRM trends and policies in empowering communities and the private sector
to participate in and benefit from the wise use of natural resources.
The SO statement was developed through a consultative process, which
identified goals and the comparative advantages of USAID investments.
Terms used in SO4 are clarified below.

##### Improved natural resources management

The strategy uses a holistic approach to address a range of
interconnected NRM issues facing communities and biodiversity
conservation; it does not focus solely on wildlife. Improvements will
focus on reversing, halting, or lessening the rate of unsustainable use
of the natural resource base through an integrated management approach.
For example, in areas where the program aims to increase stakeholder
benefits from tourism revenues by improving wildlife numbers and range
quality, it may be necessary to also address livestock stocking rates,
or water availability for both wildlife and livestock. Realizing and
sustaining the potential of Kenya's indigenous forests may require
simultaneous investments in tourism, agroforestry within buffer zones,
and sustainable harvesting of non-timber products. Where applicable, it
may be advantageous to address more ecosystem-related issues; for
example, where water is a limiting resource, improved NRM may require
attention to upstream water use issues and policies.

##### Targeted biodiverse areas

Four priority areas were selected for USAID/Kenya's NRM program,
including COBRA areas and adding the Masai Mara. The priority areas are:

• Laikipia-Samburu

• Greater Amboseli

• Coast regions including Taita-Taveta

• Greater Masai Mara

Identification of priority areas was based on the following criteria,
which are not ranked in any particular order:

• Biological richness and uniqueness.

• Extent of threat to natural resources.

• Probability of impact in maintaining critical ecological processes.

• Potential for demonstrating innovative approaches with probability of
stimulating broad, systemic changes, or probability of replication.

• Probability of immediate direct benefits to focus communities.

• Capacity and resources of USAID/Kenya's principal partners.

• Compatibility and potential for integration with other Mission
investments, e.g., in democracy and governance.

##### By and for stakeholders

Stakeholders are local groups of communities, institutions,
organizations, and individual men and women who have vested interests in
improving the management of natural resources in a targeted area.
Depending on the specific target site, stakeholders could include local
governmental institutions, commercial enterprises, private groups and
communal landowners, community-based organizations, and non-governmental
organizations.

##### Convergence with USG objectives

USAID/Kenya's SO4 is completely convergent with the U.S. Mission's goal,
articulated in the Mission Performance Plan: "Improve natural resource
management in targeted biodiverse areas. Conserve Kenya's vital natural
resources and unique biodiversity for the benefit of all its people and
the world."

##### Convergence with GHAI objectives

Convergence between the SO4 program and GHAI conflict resolution goals
lies in improving Kenyans' capacity for sustainable management of their
natural resources that could otherwise be a source of conflict within
Kenya and the region. The countries of the region share critical natural
resources that include water (Lake Victoria) and wildlife and grazing
areas. (Amboseli and Serengeti-Masai Mara savanna wildlife migrates
across the Kenya-Tanzania border.) If these transnational resources are
not properly managed in each country, food security will be threatened
and competition for resource use may be the source of regional conflict.
The activities proposed in SO4 enhance management of Kenya's natural
resource endowment. Sustainable resource management directly leads to
increased food security and reduces potential conflict. Furthermore, SO4
builds African capacity in the nature-focused tourism industry and
promotes effective African participation in the industry's management
and marketing.

USAID/Kenya's NRM program directly addresses food security by increasing
rural incomes to alleviate Kenya's growing poverty while conserving
Kenya's biodiversity. SO4 will support a range of incentives that
increase household incomes by developing entrepreneurial skills for
nature-focused businesses. Increased smallholder farmer production on
forestry buffer zones will also lead directly to increased food security
in Kenya and the region.

######## SO4 contributions to GHAI SO1, Strengthened African capacity to enhance regional food security

Many SO4 activities complement GHAI's SO1 and the Mission's SO2
activities by focusing on increasing the incomes of targeted communities
through conservation of biodiversity. The implementation of sustainable
NRM through SO4 will be promoted as one of the most cost-effective ways
of increasing overall productivity, thereby increasing food security and
reducing vulnerability to drought and dry spells. Specialists in crops,
livestock, and forestry will be required to incorporate conservation in
all projects and to look for ways of increasing production that also
conserve biodiversity.

######## SO4 contributions to GHAI SO2, Strengthened capacity to prevent, mitigate and respond to conflict in the GHAI region

Environmental advocacy and participatory local decision-making based on
monitoring and analysis promoted under SO4 will help reduce local,
district, regional, national, and cross-border conflicts over resource
use. Activities promoted under environmental advocacy will build African
capacity to plan and mitigate conflict. Prevention of conflict and
conflict resolution will be the focus of SO4-supported community
projects in areas adjacent to protected areas. Conflict over the needs
of humans versus wildlife will be included.

######## SO4 contributions to GHAI Special Objective 3, Improved access to regional information 

Technology developed and information generated through remote sensing to
monitor land-use changes at the farm level will serve as a model for
future SO4 USAID/Kenya tree crops monitoring. USFS remote sensing images
of the Eastern Arc forest areas in Kenya and Tanzania will be used in
conducting analyses beyond these sites. Information will be shared with
SO4 imple­menters working on reducing encroachment and subdivision and
will be important for local decision-making. REDSO/ESA capacity-building
support for WIOMSA (which covers Tanzania and Kenyan coastal resources)
and USAID-supported regional seminars and conferences contribute to GHAI
Special Objective 3 and will support the sharing of lessons learned and
"better practices" in the region.

##### Convergence with GOK objectives

The objectives and activities outlined in SO4 complement GOK priorities.
The I-PRSP's objective related to this sector is "To protect and enhance
water, soil, and biodiversity conservation in catchment ecosystems." The
document recognizes the importance of preserving Kenya's biodiversity
and cites, in particular, the need to deal with habitat (including
forest) degradation due to the impact this is having on Kenya's wildlife
and biodiversity. The GOK acknowledged that if the degradation trends
continue, this will threaten one of the country's major foreign exchange
earners---tourism---and recognizes the impact this will has on the
environment, the economy, and socio-political stability. The I-PRSP
commits the GOK to improving the policy and legal framework to address
encroachment and degradation and land, water, and forestry use
management. It recommends several actions including the development of
working partnerships with NGOs, the private sector, and other
stakeholders in these efforts. Some planned activities identified in the
I-PRSP are:

• Capacity-building at the national and community levels to value
natural resources.

• Preparation of community action plans for biodiversity management and
conservation.

• Development of an information data base on plant and animal species
and their uses, including uses by communities.

• Environmental and biodiversity assessment and monitoring.

####   {#section-6 .unnumbered}

#### Results framework

##### ![](media/image2.wmf)  {#section-7 .unnumbered}

#####  {#section-8 .unnumbered}

#### Assumptions and causal relationships

##### Assumptions

Critical assumptions to achieve SO5 are:

• Disruptions from internal or regional conflict in priority areas or
adjacent to protected areas will not be so extreme as to fundamentally
undermine the program.

• That political will for policy reform and collaboration within the NRM
sector will not deteriorate.

• That Kenya's macroeconomic policies and the political climate remain
essentially supportive of the proposed objective. A stable and healthy
macroeconomic environment is required to provide the government with
resources to invest in development, public services, and infrastructure
essential to the tourism sector, including roads and telecommunications.
A stable economic environment also promotes lower interest rates and
encourages the domestic and foreign investment that helps economic
growth.

##### Causal relationships

USAID assistance will improve NRM in targeted biodiverse areas by
focusing on areas outside of parks and protected areas, where
significant changes in the NRM behaviors of local stakeholders can be
made. The causal relationship takes into account the causes and effects
occurring outside and within protected areas.

The primary assumption of this hypothesis is the availability and
awareness of incentives favorable to improved NRM. Incentives will
attract and motivate local communities, and individual men and women, to
change their behavior regarding natural resources. These incentives
include access and user rights and financial and social benefits.

Incentives create opportunities, but incentives alone are not sufficient
to ensure behavior change. Behavior changes will require that
individuals and communities have access to appropriate tools,
technologies, information, and training, and incentives to use these to
change their behavior.

Within each targeted area, specific NRM initiatives will be tailored to
local needs and conditions. Examples include establishment of
nature-focused businesses, partnerships to implement NRM plans, and
local initiatives that require planning and/or external partners.
Underlying each initiative will be the principle that NRM should be by
and for the stakeholders within the targeted area, including female
stakeholders. This principle ensures that the activities supported in
each area will be sustainable and benefit the local community.

The Mission believes that focusing only on behavioral changes within
targeted areas will be insufficient to achieve the SO. Broader
engagement of environmental advocates on the national and local level
will be required to ensure broad support for NRM initiatives and the
institutional changes necessary for long-term conservation of Kenya's
vital biodiversity. Women need to be included in this engagement
process.

The causal relationship includes two other changes to which SO4 will
contribute without taking primary responsibility. One is improvement of
sustainable agricultural activities and elimination of incentives for
unsustainable land uses. In order to ensure gains in NRM, pressure from
inappropriate agricultural practices will need to be mitigated in
targeted areas. The GOK and others are working on these changes.

The other change essential to SO5 is improved management for the
conservation of biodiversity within protected areas---parks and
reserves. Most of the areas where USAID/Kenya will be working are
adjacent to parks and reserves. Negative changes in the management of
these areas will have detrimental effects outside their perimeters. SO4
assumes that the authorities managing protected areas are sufficiently
capable of realizing their mandates. SO5 will continue to make modest
contributions to these authorities and, where appropriate, foster
cooperation between these authorities and local stakeholders outside of
protected areas.

The chain of cause and effect described above, and further articulated
through the intermediate results, is sufficient to achieve significant
progress towards the SO within the five-year horizon of this strategy.
For example, incentives already exist which can be more broadly
exploited to improve NRM. However, the long-term vision includes a set
of policy and legal reforms to ensure that the gains made in this and
future NRM programs are sustainable and amplified nationally. The
Mission expects that some key reforms will be enacted during this
strategy period, notably passage of the new Wildlife Conservation Act
and the establishment of a National Environment Management Authority.
The GOK enacted a new Environmental Management and Coordination Act in
1999 that established a watchdog body to be responsible for its
implementation. The National Environment Management Authority will
harmonize policies for conservation and management of natural resources
while a draft Wildlife Bill is under review by the KWS. USAID/Kenya
intends to monitor progress on these and other reforms over the course
of this program and, if adequate progress is made, the Mission may opt
to engage in support of policy reform activities in future programs.
Support will include carrying out studies that will inform policy and
bill development as well as supporting stakeholder's consultation for
proposed bills. The Mission will make every effort to ensure that women
are included in the consultation process at all levels, and that the
roles, expertise, and needs of women in conserving Kenya's limited
resources are imbued in the process.

#### 

#### Intermediate results

##### Intermediate Result 5.1 Site-specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas

Within each priority area, specific NRM initiatives will be tailored to
local needs and conditions, including the needs of women. By
implementing these initiatives, communities will change their behaviors
in favor of improved NRM. Environmental groups working at the district,
regional, and national levels---including women's groups---will
reinforce this grassroots transformation through their political and
technical support for these initiatives (IR5.4).

The implementation of NRM initiatives combined with a reduction in land
degradation stemming from agricultural encroachment (IR5.2) and improved
management in protected areas (IR5..3) will generate improved NRM in by
and for stakeholders in the target areas (SO5).

IR5.1 is directly focused on NRM by and for stakeholders; the ultimate
customers for this result are members of communities in the priority
areas. To the extent that stakeholders exist outside of these
communities (e.g., regional development authorities and investors),
IR5.4 ensures that these players are engaged and supportive of community
initiatives.

In each priority area, active partnerships may be needed to increase the
community's ability to actualize their NRM initiatives.

The Mission expects to see concrete agreements, such as joint ventures,
Memoranda of Understanding for collaborative management, and contracts,
by which communities will implement their NRM objectives. A combination
of IRs described below will contribute to the achievement of IR4.1. The
combination of interventions will vary from one target area to another,
based on site-specific needs and conditions. For example, in some areas
an enterprise development approach is feasible (IR4.1.4), and in others
different initiatives are desirable.

###### IR5.1.1 Appropriate NRM tools and technologies adopted

Significant gains in NRM will require an influx of technical expertise
and assistance to both men and women in communities engaged in NRM
activities. Many of these tools and technologies already exist in Kenya
but need to be disseminated from current users to new adopters. In some
cases---for example, biophysical monitoring for local NRM
decision-making, developing integrative buffer zone systems for
agroforestry and wood lots---new tools and technologies will be
developed and promoted to stimulate local NRM initiatives as well as the
success of new nature-focused businesses (IR4.1.4). USAID has already
contributed in significant ways in this area and will build on prior
experience. For example, under the COBRA project, local fishing
communities have adopted new fishing techniques that pose less threat to
marine parks. Through the USAID Global Environment Center's Biodiversity
Support Project, alternative uses of forest resources are being adopted
in coastal forests. And, working with international PVOs, USAID's
program promotes more efficient agriculture, forestry and water
management in arid and semi-arid areas.

###### IR5.1.2 Integrated community NRM plans established 

Development of community-integrated NRM plans is a necessary means to
achieving the SO in some areas. For each plan to be viable, a detailed
implementation strategy will be required that brings together the local
community (including women and women's organizations), potential
investors, entrepreneurs, local government, and NRM authorities. The
particular mix of each, as well as the NRM plan objectives, will vary
according to local stakeholder requirements. Key roles of USAID's
implementing partners in community NRM planning will include
facilitating the adoption of norms for NRM implementation (pluralism by
the rules) and for conflict management. USAID/Kenya, for example,
through the cooperative agreement with the University of Rhode Island,
has supported technical assistance to the Coast Development Authority, a
GOK parastatal, for the development and implementation of a Kenyan
coastal management strategy.

###### IR5.1.3 Improved local decision-making based on monitoring and analysis

The implementation of site-specific initiatives will result in improved
NRM management at the local level and will require the availability and
application of information in local decision-making, and include the
input and expertise of both men and women. For example, a community NRM
plan may require game counts and analysis to determine appropriate
sustainable offtake quotas; a community tourist enterprise might require
information on drainage and erosion to properly situate roads and
buildings; integrated forest management may require close monitoring of
off-takes and regeneration.

######  IR5.1.4 Nature-focused business practices improved 

COBRA experience has shown that local initiatives, while a good start,
can wither if tangible benefits from wildlife conservation are not
forthcoming. Under some conditions, nature-focused businesses are a
feasible approach to realizing these benefits. Examples include
community wildlife sanctuaries with tourism development; game cropping;
diversification of agroforestry production systems; and associations of
boat owners/guides operating in national parks.

A key element in increasing the number of nature-focused businesses will
be the arti­culation of economic and financial incentives (IR5.1.5) that
already exist, and the identification of new incentives. To achieve
IR5.1.4, USAID will help develop business skills to start or solidify
nature-focused businesses resulting in improved management of
nature-focused businesses. Overall, 15 percent of funds used under this
activity will go to women's business initiatives.

###### IR5.1.5 Awareness of incentives for NRM increased 

This will result in increased numbers of beneficiaries of SO4
activities. One key premise in this IR is that adequate incentives
already exist and can be further promoted to motivate people to
implement new NRM initiatives. COBRA's success has demonstrated this is
the case. Desired changes in community and individual behaviors include
the IRs mentioned above---NRM tool adoption, community planning,
inclusion of women in NRM management processes, improved NRM
decision-making, and new business creation.

Incentives for NRM range from access to natural resources and user
rights to financial and social benefits. An example of an economic
incentive is the ability to initiate and profit from nature-based
tourist activities. Social benefits might include sustainable management
of traditional medicinal herbs and the protection of sacred lands.
Nonetheless, this SO will seek to expand the range of incentives for
improved NRM in Kenya. For example, a new cooperative agreement awarded
in 1999 includes policy and legal analyses for easements and the
piloting of easements in a few areas.

IR4.2 and IR4.3 are the primarily responsibility of other partners. In
each case,\
the NRM program is contributing to their achievement, and these results
will be monitored by USAID.

##### Intermediate Result 5.2 Encroachment and subdivision reduced

IR4.2 is a necessary response to a significant threat to potential gains
in NRM. Perverse incentives in combination with inadequate technical
inputs and investment for increased productivity and intensification are
driving agriculture into areas more appropriately reserved for other
uses. Extension of small-holder agriculture, expansion of large-scale
cropping, and subdivision of rangelands (often followed by fencing) are
repeatedly identified as major threats to sustainable NRM in priority
wildlife areas. The problem exists not only in high-potential areas, but
also in medium-potential and arid and semi-arid lands where low
agricultural yields drive encroachment into forests.

Many of the results that USAID supports in this SO will contribute to
IR5.2. Increased awareness of incentives for NRM (IR5.1.5), for example,
will directly contribute to changes in favor of more profitable and
sustainable NRM practices. Similarly, participatory community land-use
planning (IR5.1.2) that includes the participation of women, and the
promotion of alternative business activities (IR5.1.4), will contribute
to reducing encroachment and subdivision. Efforts will be made to ensure
that key\
information for improved NRM decision-making (IR5.3.1) is available to
the relevant institutions working on IR5.2.

While SO5 will contribute to this IR, the required expertise and
resources reside out­side of it. Responsibility for this result must be
shared by USAID/Kenya's SO2 IR2.1.3, other donor-assisted agriculture
programs, and relevant government agencies such as the ministries of
Agriculture and Lands and Settlement. The economic growth SO may support
some research on land and resource use policy under IR2.1.3. At the
center of the problem are lack of land and water use policy and
subsequent enforcement.

USAID will closely monitor the mitigation of incentives working against
improved NRM as well as encroachment and subdivision in the priority
areas. SO4 will seek to coordinate complementary efforts with SO2 and
the other responsible parties; the Mission will not take full
responsibility for the result.

USAID/Kenya will monitor progress of programs to reduce encroachment and
sub­division which are supported by other donors in accordance with the
guidelines articulated in the Agency's ADS. However, if USAID/Kenya
achieves the results identified under SO2's IR2.1.3 and SO5's IR5.1,
IR5.3, and IR5.3.1, this will be sufficient to achieve SO5. Although
achievements at the SO level will be greater if other donors
successfully support programs to reduce encroachment and subdivision,
SO5 can be attained even if other donor programs are unsuccessful.

##### Intermediate Result 5.3 Improved management of PAs

The USAID/Kenya NRM program will focus on areas outside parks, reserves,
and other areas where wildlife already is moderately secure.
Nevertheless, in selecting areas of "biological richness and
uniqueness," areas of intervention adjacent to and surrounding protected
areas will inevitably be chosen. It is, therefore, essential to monitor,
and to a limited degree support, the management of protected areas, lest
unexpected degradation in these areas undermine progress in priority
areas. These interventions will result in im­proved management of
protected areas based on informed decisions by KWS management.
Fortunately, a well-established partner, the Kenya Wildlife Service, has
primary responsibility for biodiversity conservation in all parks and
some reserves. For indigenous forests, the KWS collaborates with the
Forest Department. For some reserves, county councils assume primary
responsibility, sometimes collaborating with the KWS.

The option of investing in these partners is not precluded, so far it
would support other IRs and decentralization of NRM.

The result is financed by the GOK and will be achieved by the KWS and
the Forest Department. USAID/Kenya will collaborate with the KWS to help
achieve this result. USAID will provide the necessary technical
assistance to build the capacity of the KWS and the Forest Department to
better manage the protected areas. However, USAID is not financing any
of the recurrent management costs, which is the major contribution
necessary to the result, so it would be misleading to claim primary
responsibility for this result. It is critical to reiterate that USAID
will provide much of the technical assistance to develop a system to
monitor improvement in the management of protected areas. The KWS
already receives this kind of support. Consequently, the Mission will
report on and has developed performance indicators for this result.

USAID/Kenya is working in close consulta­­tion with various implementing
partners and donors to support KWS activities and is confident that the
GOK will continue to fund KWS and Forest Department management costs.
USAID has assisted the KWS to develop their strategic and working plans
and will explore ways to support the Forest Department. USAID's
technical assistance will continue to support their ability to become
more effective managers.

###### IR5.3.1 Improved availability and analysis of data for decision-making 

USAID/Kenya will contribute to further institutional strengthening of
KWS monitoring and evaluation for improved management of parks and
reserves. The availability of information will also be extended to
implementers working on reducing encroachment and subdivision (IR4.2)
and environmental groups involved in strengthening environmental
advocacy (IR4.4). The success of the IR will be measured by number of
decision-makers using data and information provided to, for example,
changing or putting management plans in place for PAs and conservation
areas.

Importantly, the Mission acknowledges that the KWS has a legislated
mandate---which is not likely to change substantially in the near
future---for wildlife conservation throughout Kenya. The KWS also must
address issues of human-wildlife conflict wherever they occur.
Consequently, though KWS priorities are within and SO4's priority areas
are outside of protected areas, USAID/Kenya envisions KWS as a critical
partner in this SO and one with whom the Mission will continue to work
closely as a key NRM stakeholder. NRM improvements outside the protected
areas will clearly enhance conservation within them.

##### Intermediate Result 5.4 Environmental advocacy strengthened

SO5 success requires that the program be implemented in conjunction with
environmental groups that are advocating and directing improved NRM.
IR5.4 aims to strengthen the ability of concerned male and female
stakeholders to effect change in their access and rights to manage
natural resources. While success in implementing site specific
initiatives (IR5.1) will lead to change in the management of natural
resources in targeted areas, local initiatives require an enabling
environment in which lasting changes in environmental management may
occur. Activities under IR5.4 will strengthen the capacity of
environmental groups to articulate their positions and to coordinate
with other groups to change unsustainable patterns of resource use.
Ability to plan and mitigate conflict over use of resources will also be
strengthened.

IR5.4 success will be measured by incremental achievements in the
ability of groups to meet, share ideas, and work together to push for
changes in NRM.

###### IR5.4.1 Constituencies for natural resource conservation established 

Local concern and initiative for broader participation in NRM is growing
in Kenya. USAID/Kenya will support civil society groups and processes
aimed at demand-side approaches to strengthened environmental governance
and support conflict mitigation over use of resources.

USAID/Kenya also aims to build capacity for governance, with a focus on
sectoral coordination and improved decision-making through monitoring
and analysis (IR5.3.1), such as the Mission has provided to the Kenya
Wildlife Service under CSP 1996-2000. This assistance will be extended
to community groups to strengthen their ability to identify realistic
objectives and monitor their effectiveness. An example is the grant,
supported by SO1, to the Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranches Association, whose
objective is to empower the community living adjacent to Amboseli
National Park to improve the management of their natural resources.

###   {#section-10 .unnumbered}

### ILLUSTrATIVE APPROACHES

The premise of the SO is that communities will take the lead in
implementing programs. And that the GOK---working through the KWS, the
Forest Department (FD), and development partners such as the Coastal
Development Authority (CDA) and local authorities---will create the
necessary enabling environment for the implementation of the programs.
SO4 is flexible to adapt to different implementation scenarios.

The Mission considered several implementation mechanisms for long-term
sustain­ability and will, in close consultation with other Mission SO
teams, the KWS, the FD, the CDA, and other donors, tailor the specific
mix of SO4 activities to the scenario that actually evolves. In each
priority area, USAID/Kenya's implementing partners will promote
incentives to motivate local communities, and individual men and women,
to change their behavior in favor of improved NRM outside the protected
areas. (In 1997, for example, SO1 funded the Amboseli/ Tsavo Group
Ranches Association to enhance their governance and accountability
practices. Since the group's objective is to improve and lobby for
better natural resources management for the benefit of their members,
the activity represented an excellent opportunity for synergy between
SO1 and SO4.) At the same time, SO2 and SO4 will provide support to
monitor changes in protected areas and changes in agricultural
practices, respectively. Below is a list of illustrative program
activities.

##### Developing and promoting adoption of NRM technologies

• Introducing and promoting agroforestry and wood lot initiatives to
ease pressure on protected areas, including working with communities to
initiate community forestry plots on trust and private lands to provide
wood, charcoal timber, and poles for construction from the buffer zones.
Since women are the primary collectors of firewood for domestic use,
women's participation in these initiatives will be critical. Decreased
time collecting wood will free women for more productive activities, and
perhaps increase household incomes.

• Promoting sustainable use of non-timber products---medicinal plants,
nature-focused business (e.g., butterfly farming), and protection of
sacred lands (e.g., *kayas*, traditional sacred places in forests). The
participation of women is critical to all such activities.

• Promoting and introducing soil conservation and water harvesting
techniques in targeted range areas, including working with targeted
group ranches to adopt improved rangeland practices. The techniques and
technology will be developed with ease of dissemination and adoption in
mind.

• Promoting Integrated Coastal Areas Management (ICAM) practices,
including protection of coral reefs, sustainable use of mangrove
forests, sustainable tourism, sustainable fishing, sustainable water
use, and waste management. Modest field support under CSP 1996-2000 to
the University of Rhode Island for their Coast Resources Management (CRM
II) Project will be increased and may include a grant to the Coastal
Development Authority to enhance its capacity to manage expanded
activities. The Mission will bring new partners on board to implement
agroforestry and range rehabilitation technologies.

##### Enhancing planning and decision making on resource use

• Supporting planning initiatives, possibly including participatory
project identification and resource planning such as range use and
wildlife counts. These planning activities will take gender into
account.

• Supporting studies to inform policy development and community
initiatives such as integrated forestry management, wildlife counts,
range monitoring, sanctuary management, etc.

• Supporting studies to inform policy development and community
initiatives that enhance the role of women in natural resources
management.

• Supporting policy and legal analysis initiatives for easements and
pilot easements in a few target areas.

• Ecological monitoring in targeted parks and reserves. The Cooperative
Agreement Grant (awarded in 1999 to AWF and Pact Inc., in collaboration
with the KWS) and a the Mpala Research Centre (recently awarded a grant)
and its partners will take responsibility for this activity. A grant to
local authorities for management and ecological monitoring of the
reserves under their control will be considered. Use of indigenous
technical knowledge will be encouraged.

##### Promotion of investment in nature-focused businesses

• Supporting activities that promote entrepreneurial business
development skills such as business plan development, stock inventory,
bookkeeping, marketing, accounting, and business management, for women
as well as men.

• Supporting nature-focused female- and male-owned business initiatives
such as wildlife sanctuaries, controlled bird hunting, game farming, bee
keeping, curio shops and tented camps, and building capacity in
eco‑tourism management and marketing.

• Supporting activities promoting business partnerships, including
promotion of entrepreneur and community joint investments, collaborative
business management, etc. This activity will be implemented under the
Cooperative Agreement with the Pact, Inc. and AWF coalition, in
collaboration with the KWS.

##### Promotion of environmental advocacy 

• Providing institutional support to women's and men's CBOs in priority
areas. Supporting activities to enhance partnership development and
networking among community groups and organizations.

• Supporting the formation of community voluntary organizations,
including establishing a national wildlife forum.

• Supporting activities that educate men and women in communities on the
new Environmental Management and Coordination Act.

• Educating male and female community and opinion leaders on
environmental problems. This could also include working with
parliamentary caucuses to address specific policy issues.

This activity will be funded through the cooperative agreement with Pact
Inc. Additional support may permit a grant to the new National
Environmental Management Authority to undertake environmental education
awareness.

###   {#section-11 .unnumbered}

### program synergies

##### Synergies with SO1, Democracy and governance

######## Advocacy and governance

SO5 will build the capacity of community groups to lobby for improved
NRM practices. SO5 will take advantage of parliamentary committees,
which are supported by SO1, to bring NRM issues into public debate to
influence legislation.

Under SO5, strengthening of community-based organizations will enhance
accountability and good governance within local communities in target
areas. SO5 will strive to improve management, introduce transparent
operations, and establish proper bookkeeping, accounting, and management
methods to try to address governance and management problems of CBOs.
This approach will help create grass-root awareness of the need for
better governance and accountability from their local leadership. This,
in turn, will contribute to the SO1 goal of improving governance and the
distribution of power among the institutions of governance.

##### Synergies with SO2, Increased rural household incomes

######## Encroachment and subdivision of land 

This result will be critical to SO5's long-term objective of improving
natural resource management in Kenya. It is a shared result with SO2 and
other development partners. While SO5 will monitor progress in reducing
encroachment on protected areas and rangelands and subsequent changes in
land use, SO2 will encourage adoption of sustainable agricultural
practices in NRM target areas. The primary responsibility for this lies
with the GOK. SO5 monitoring results will be used to inform policy
makers and advocacy groups lobbying for appropriate land use policy.

######## Sustainable NRM tools and technologies

In SO5 target areas, sustainable NRM activities will be enhanced,
including appropriate techniques to manage and improve soil fertility
and reduce soil erosion. Agroforestry , soil conservation, and water
harvesting techniques will be promoted. These techniques will contribute
to increased smallholder agricultural productivity, increased household
incomes, and poverty alleviation.

######## Medium and small enterprises

SO5's nature-focused businesses will benefit from SO2's micro- and small
enterprise (MSE) capacity-building program. Nature-focused businesses
will benefit from best practices developed under SO2.

######## Building CBO capacity

Community-based organizations (CBOs)

will be supported to strengthen their capacity to engage in business and
advocacy for improved NRM. The CBO capacity-building tool being
developed with SO5 support will be available for use by business
organizations that are supported under SO2. SO2 is also developing group
businesses and will share approaches with SO5.

##### Synergies with SO3, Reduced fertility and transmission of HIV/AIDS 

######## HIV/AIDS

With the growing recognition of HIV/AIDS' impact on the Kenyan economy,
SO5 partners will be sensitized to include HIV/AIDS messages in their
information packages to targeted communities. SO5-supported CBOs will be
entry points to targeted communities for such messages. Where SO5 and
SO3 have a common target area, such as the Kenyan coast, SO5 will
explore opportunities to link SO5-supported communities and groups with
ongoing SO3 activities.

######## Family planning services and information

Kenya's population is growing far faster than its food production
capacity. This is resulting in higher demand for land, forcing
encroachment into protected areas and adoption of unsustainable
agricultural practices. In an attempt to reduce demand for land due to
population growth, SO5 will explore opportunities to include family
planning messages and services in SO5 target areas. Modern family
planning methods will be promoted. Health centers supported by the KWS
will be used to improve family services and information.

###   {#section-12 .unnumbered}

### judging results

#### sustainability

##### Building on USAID/Kenya strengths

SO5 builds on strengths developed through USAID/Kenya's COBRA project
and its experience in community-based conservation, sustainable
agriculture, microenterprise development, monitoring, and policy-making
in the agriculture and wildlife sectors. Good relationships exist with
the KWS and other conservation partners. Potential partners with a Kenya
presence are forging ahead in areas central to SO5, and the Agency
itself collect­ively has much experience in these areas.

##### Building the capacity of communities to sustain the program

USAID/Kenya's approach to biodiversity and wildlife conservation is
based on community-led initiatives that provide benefits to the
community. This will remain a key element of IR5.1. The devolution of
wildlife management will be furthered through collaborative management
approaches (IR5.1.4), and the policy process (IR5.4.1). Monitoring
(IR5.1.2 and IR5.1.3) will ensure that results are achieved and
sustained in conserving biodiversity and contributing to reducing
poverty. Capacity-building for local ownership of community-based NRM
(e.g. of wildlife enterprises) is a key component under IR5.1.3.

SO4 is consistent with current NRM trends and USAID's policies of
empowering local communities and the private sector to participate in,
and benefit from, the wise use of natural resources. This will ensure
that communities take an active role in designing, planning, and
implementing program activities, and directly benefit from them. The
entrepreneurial approaches to be adopted by SO5 will be demand-driven to
ensure communities' sense of project ownership. Nature-focused
enterprises and businesses will take advantage of lessons learned in
SO2's micro- and small enterprise program, which supports microfinance
institutions and NGOs such as the Kenya Rural Enterprise Program and the
K-REP Bank to provide financial services to micro-entrepreneurs.

##### Enhancing program synergy through donor coordination

A donor coordination group on environment and natural resources already
exits, and USAID will continue to be an active participant. This group,
however, is not functioning well and needs to be revitalized. Donor
coordination meetings have been successful in the agriculture and health
sectors but not in the NRM sector. There is a degree of coordination
experience among donors, which can be focused on NRM. SIDA, USAID, DFID,
and DANIDA have collaborated effectively in supporting agricultural
production. JICA and FINNIDA have consistently supported forestry
activities and water resource development. The World Bank, USAID, DFID,
the EU, and GTZ have collaborated well in the Protected Area Wildlife
Service (PAWS) project of the KWS. These are models worth emulating in
the NRM sector. USAID/Kenya is currently in collaboration with the EU on
the implementation of community-based NRM programs. USAID-supported
Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE) and EU-supported
Biodiversity Conservation programs have already been established as
coordination mechanisms. The Mission will continue to take the lead, as
it did for the PAWS Program, working with other donors to revitalize NRM
donor coordination meetings to ensure maximum synergy between their
programs.

####   {#section-13 .unnumbered}

#### performance monitoring plan

The Strategic Objective Team will track the annual performance of the SO
and nine of the 16 IRs for which USAID is taking material
responsibility. Four to five data points will be reported on as required
in USAID/W R4 guidance. Performance indicators for each of these IRs are
presented below.

The remaining seven of the sixteen IRs shown on the results framework
fall outside of the Mission's primary responsibility. As described in
the development hypothesis, two of the sixteen IRs (5.2 and 5.3)
represent important changes within the causal logic that will be
achieved primarily by other organizations. In the interest of technical
rigor, these IRs have been clarified below and indicators have been
included in the Performance Monitoring Plan solely for internal
tracking.

Five IRs (5.1.5.1 through 5.1.5.5) represent policy and legal reforms
essential to the long-term sustainability of the program, but fall
beyond the manageable interest of this strategic planning period. The
government of Kenya must ultimately assume primary responsibility for
each of these five policy and legal IRs. They are shown separately in
the RF, as they are at different stages of development. The Mission
anticipates some contribution to the achievement of IR5.1.5.1 (Wildlife
policy revised and Wildlife Conservation and Management Bill
passed)---an area where the Mission has a comparative advantage. The
other four IRs have been shown in order to keep them on the "radar
screen" in case conditions indicate opportunities for expanded USAID
policy support in future years. USAID/Kenya is currently reviewing the
PMP, developing data collection protocols, and establishing baseline
data; this will not be completed until FY2001.

+-------------+-------------------+--------------+-------+----+-----+
| Result      | Performance       | Data Source  | Bas   |    | Tar |
|             | Indicator         |              | eline |    | get |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+-------+----+-----+
|             |                   |              | Year  | V  | \(  |
|             |                   |              |       | al | 200 |
|             |                   |              |       | ue | 5\) |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+-------+----+-----+
| Strategic   | 1\. Percentage of | 1\. DRSRS,\  | 2001  | T  | TBD |
| Objective   | target areas      | progress     |       | BD |     |
| 4\          | under improved    | reports,     |       |    |     |
| Improved    | NRM               | land         |       |    |     |
| NRM\        |                   | surveys,     |       |    |     |
| in targeted |                   | KWS, CDA,    |       |    |     |
| biodiverse  |                   | FD, NMK      |       |    |     |
| areas by    |                   |              |       |    |     |
| and for     |                   |              |       |    |     |
| s           |                   |              |       |    |     |
| takeholders |                   |              |       |    |     |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+-------+----+-----+
|             | 2\. Number and    | 2\.          | 2001  | 10 | 100 |
|             | type of           | Progress\    |       |    |     |
|             | stakeholders      | reports,     |       |    |     |
|             | (institutions,    |              |       |    |     |
|             | NGOs, CBOs, and   | NGO and CBO  |       |    |     |
|             | private sector    | records,     |       |    |     |
|             | organizations) in | district     |       |    |     |
|             | the target areas  | records      |       |    |     |
|             | engaged in NRM    |              |       |    |     |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+-------+----+-----+
|             | 3\. Number of     | 3\. Progress | 2001  | T  | TBD |
|             | people engaged in | reports,     |       | BD |     |
|             | NRM in target     |              |       |    |     |
|             | areas             | NGO/CBO      |       |    |     |
|             | (disaggregated by | records,     |       |    |     |
|             | gender)           | District     |       |    |     |
|             |                   | records      |       |    |     |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+-------+----+-----+
|             | 4\. Incidence of  | 4\. DRSRS,   | 2001  | T  | TBD |
|             | land-use changes  | progress     |       | BD |     |
|             | in targeted areas | reports,     |       |    |     |
|             |                   | land         |       |    |     |
|             |                   | surveys,     |       |    |     |
|             |                   | KWS, CDA,    |       |    |     |
|             |                   | FD, NMK, NGO |       |    |     |
|             |                   | and CBO      |       |    |     |
|             |                   | records      |       |    |     |
+-------------+-------------------+--------------+-------+----+-----+

  ----------------- -------------------------- --------------- ---------- ------- -------- ----------
  Result            Performance Indicator      Data Source     Baseline           Target   

                                                               Year       Value            \(2005\)

  Intermediate      1\. Number of local        1\. Progress    2001       10               60
  Result 5.1\       actions or initiatives     reports                                     
  Site specific     implemented resulting in                                               
  initiatives for   tangible change in the                                                 
  NRM imple-mented\ environment                                                            
  outside PAs                                                                              

                    2\. Number of protocols    2\. Progress    2001       3                20
                    for improved NRM           reports                                     
                    implemented with other                                                 
                    agencies including the                                                 
                    private sector                                                         

  IR5.1.1\          1\. Percentage of key      1\. Surveys,\   2001       TBD              TBD
  Appropriate NRM   stakeholders having        progress                                    
  tools/            adopted appropriate tools\ reports, NGO                                
  technologies      and technologies           and CBO                                     
  adopted           (disaggregated by type of  records, and\                               
                    stakeholder: land owners,  district                                    
                    communities, group         records                                     
                    ranches, gender, etc.)                                                 

                    2\. Number and type of     2\. Surveys,\   2001       TBD              TBD
                    conservation tools and     progress                                    
                    technologies advanced      reports                                     

  IR5.1.2\          1\. Number of integrated   1\. Progress    2001       2                4
  Integrated        community NRM plans        reports                                     
  community\        implemented                                                            
  NRM plans                                                                                
  implemented                                                                              

  IR5.1.3\          1\. Percentage of          1\. Surveys     2001       TBD              TBD
  Improved local    targeted\                                                              
  decision-making   decision-makers provided                                               
  based on          with monitoring and                                                    
  monitoring and    analysis data/information                                              
  analysis                                                                                 

                    2\. Percentage of          2\. Surveys,    2001       TBD              TBD
                    decision-makers who report follow-up                                   
                    using monitoring and       questions                                   
                    analysis data provided                                                 

  IR5.1.4\          1\. Percentage of          1\. Surveys     2001       70%              90%
  Nature-focused    businesses adopting                                                    
  business          improved practices                                                     
  practices         (disaggregated by business                                             
  improved and      activity, business owner                                               
  businesses        gender, and specific                                                   
  generating        practice targeted by                                                   
  revenue           program inputs)                                                        

                    2\. Percentage of          2\. Surveys     2001       30%              50%
                    businesses generating                                                  
                    increased revenue                                                      
                    (improved business                                                     
                    performance)                                                           

  IR5.1.5\          Percentage of stakeholders Surveys,        2001       TBD              TBD
  Awareness of      who\                       progress                                    
  incentives for    report awareness of        reports,                                    
  NRM increased     potential benefits from    NGO/CBO                                     
                    sustainable NR-related     records,                                    
                    activities, disaggregated  District                                    
                    by gender                  records                                     

  IR5.1.5.1.\       1\. Wildlife policy        1\. KWS, GOK    2001       No               Yes
  Wildlife policy   revised: yes/no                                                        
  revised and                                                                              
  Wildlife\                                                                                
  Conservation and                                                                         
  Management Bill                                                                          
  passed                                                                                   

                    2\. Wildlife Conservation  2\. KWS, GOK    2001       No               Yes
                    and\                                                                   
                    Management Bill passed:                                                
                    yes/no                                                                 
  ----------------- -------------------------- --------------- ---------- ------- -------- ----------

+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
| Result    | Performance Indicator    | Data Source   | B |    | Ta |
|           |                          |               | a |    | rg |
|           |                          |               | s |    | et |
|           |                          |               | e |    |    |
|           |                          |               | l |    | \( |
|           |                          |               | i |    | 20 |
|           |                          |               | n |    | 05 |
|           |                          |               | e |    | \) |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
|           |                          |               | Y | V  |    |
|           |                          |               | e | al |    |
|           |                          |               | a | ue |    |
|           |                          |               | r |    |    |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
| Int       | 1\. Percentage of        | 1\. Lands     | 2 | T  | T  |
| ermediate | targeted area subdivided | Office,\      | 0 | BD | BD |
| Result    |                          | land surveys, | 0 |    |    |
| 5.2       |                          |               | 1 |    |    |
|           |                          |               |   |    |    |
| Encr      |                          |               |   |    |    |
| oachment\ |                          |               |   |    |    |
| and       |                          |               |   |    |    |
| su        |                          |               |   |    |    |
| bdivision |                          |               |   |    |    |
| reduced   |                          |               |   |    |    |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
|           | 2\. Percentage of target | 2\. DRSRS,\   | 2 | T  | T  |
|           | areas excised from       | land surveys  | 0 | BD | BD |
|           | conservation management  |               | 0 |    |    |
|           |                          |               | 1 |    |    |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
| Int       | 1\. Percentage of        | 1\. KWS       | 2 | 1  | 10 |
| ermediate | managers who report      |               | 0 | 0% | 0% |
| Result    | using data/information   |               | 0 |    |    |
| 5.3       | provided to make         |               | 1 |    |    |
|           | management decisions for |               |   |    |    |
| Improved\ | targeted PAs (parks,     |               |   |    |    |
| ma        | reserves and adjacent    |               |   |    |    |
| nagement\ | areas)                   |               |   |    |    |
| of        |                          |               |   |    |    |
| p         |                          |               |   |    |    |
| rotected\ |                          |               |   |    |    |
| areas     |                          |               |   |    |    |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
| IR5.3.1\  | 1\. Number of            | 1\. Partner   | 2 | T  | T  |
| Improved  | decision-makers using    | organization\ | 0 | BD | BD |
| ava       | data and information     | reports       | 0 |    |    |
| ilability | provided                 |               | 1 |    |    |
| and       |                          |               |   |    |    |
| analysis  |                          |               |   |    |    |
| of data   |                          |               |   |    |    |
| for       |                          |               |   |    |    |
| decisi    |                          |               |   |    |    |
| on-making |                          |               |   |    |    |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
| Int       | 1\. Degree of            | 1\. Surveys   | 2 | T  | T  |
| ermediate | coordination among\      |               | 0 | BD | BD |
| Result    | environmental groups     |               | 0 |    |    |
| 5.4\      | occurring (information   |               | 1 |    |    |
| Envi      | shared, regular          |               |   |    |    |
| ronmental | meetings, joint          |               |   |    |    |
| advocacy  | planning, joint plan     |               |   |    |    |
| str       | implementation,          |               |   |    |    |
| engthened | individual groups acting |               |   |    |    |
|           | in support of group      |               |   |    |    |
|           | decision-making,         |               |   |    |    |
|           | networks)                |               |   |    |    |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+
| IR5.4.1\  | 1\. Number of            | 1\. Progress  | 2 | T  | T  |
| Const     | constituency groups      | reports,\     | 0 | BD | BD |
| ituencies | strengthened in advocacy | NGO Registry, | 0 |    |    |
| for NR    | and networking skills,   |               | 1 |    |    |
| con       | disaggregated by target  | and/or        |   |    |    |
| servation | area, at regional and    | National\     |   |    |    |
| es        | national level           | Council of    |   |    |    |
| tablished |                          | NGOs          |   |    |    |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+---+----+----+