**[FORREMS PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT 2004]{.underline}**

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

USAID/FORREMS selected three biodiverse ecosystems to achieve Strategic
Objective Number Five (5) SO5 *"Improved Natural Resource Management in
and Outside Protected Areas by and for Stakeholders"*.

FORREMS project implementing partners comprise KWS, FD, KEFRI, AWF/LWF,
NK and NEMA in collaboration with community stakeholders in three (3)
focal areas through Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Range
Rehabilitation and Environmental Management. Partners have formed teams
providing leads in Mukogodo Landscape, Mt. Kenya and Arabuko Sokoke
Forest (ASF).

Mukogodo focal area implementing partners include AWF/LWF, KEFRI, NEMA,
FD, and KWS. FD and KWS work jointly in Mt. Kenya, whereas ASF
implementing team includes NK, FD, KWS, KEFRI and NMK.

FORREMS M&E committee developed clear and measurable reference
indicators as guiding parameters for the achievement of SO5 through four
Intermediate Results (IRs);

*IR 5.1 'Site Specific Initiatives For NRM Implemented Outside Protected
Areas',*

*IR 5.3 'Improved Management of Protected Areas' and*

*IR 5.4 'Environmental Policy and Legislative Reform Advanced'.*

Partners identified problems and needs relevant in their areas of
activity and laid workplans leading to the achievement of the Strategic
Objective.

1)  **Mukogodo** activities have achieved high land use change. A wide
    range of tools and technologies have been adapted for participatory
    dry land conservation. The following Nature Based Enterprises (NBEs)
    have been established under FORREMS; hay bailing, fodder production,
    agro-forestry, and seedling production. Aloe farming has also gained
    support from the FORREMS program.

2)  **In NW Mt. Kenya**, fifty-three (53) ha[^1] of degraded sites have
    been mapped and identified for reforestation or restocking. This
    exercise, including seedling procurement, involved individual and
    CBO stakeholders who benefited financially. Fourty-two (42) ha have
    been reforested through the rehabilitation program of Magacha block
    in Irangi forest. Boundary mapping between plantation forests and
    indigenous forests has been proposed and Terms of Reference (TOR)
    put in place. A reconnaissance survey has been conducted for Two
    hundred and fifty (250) ha set for commercial plantation
    improvement. Mount Kenya Joint Management Task Force (MKJMTF) has
    been revived under the MOU and TORs set.

3)  **Arabuko Sokoke Forest** includes the forest adjacent dwellers
    within a five (5) Km belt around the forest reserve. Project target
    areas include Dida, Mida, Kararacha, Kakuyuni and Mabuani. The main
    activities in 2003/04 have been the completion of the Pilot
    Participatory Forest Management in Dida, consolidation of the
    existing nature based enterprises, *Aloe vera* farming and creation
    of community structures that will facilitate the delivery of the
    project objectives. Specific activities include agro-forestry in
    community lands, beekeeping, butterfly farming, eco-tourism
    enterprises. Around the forest 22ha of woodlots have been planted. A
    sum of 2,043 stakeholders have benefited through workshops and
    training.

Through the FORREMS program some partner institutions have been
strengthened through staff training for improved decision-making in NRM
inside and outside protected areas. Equipment such as vehicles,
computers, digital cameras, LCD projector, etc have also been procured.

#  1.0 INTRODUCTION

## Project Background

USAID's Forestry/Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Management
Strengthening initiative (FORREMS) is a four and-a-half year program
within the Mission's Natural Resource Management (NRM) portfolio.
Subject to availability of funds, it has an estimated funding level of
about \$5.1 million and should conclude in September 2006. FORREMS will
support two components:

Strengthening the Government of Kenya NRM institutions through capacity
building, technical assistance and material support with focus to
improving forest management, rangeland conservation and environmental
management.

To involve community user groups in NRM through organizational capacity
building to facilitate active participation of CBOs in conservation and
Nature Based Enterprises. The community beneficiaries will have more
incentives to contribute to improved NRM through PFM.

## FORREMS Intermediate Results

The FORREMS program will contribute to the strategic objective number
five (5) " **Improved natural resource management in targeted biodiverse
areas by and for stakeholders",** through the following three (3)
Intermediate Results;

{Contributing to each of these IRs is a set of Sub-IRs as explained in
the Results Framework.(Appendix I)}

-   IR 5.1 Site specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside PAs

-   IR 5.3 Improved Management of PAs

-   IR 5.4 NRM and Environmental policy and legislative reform advanced

## 1.3 brief on project sites

The FORREMS program's geographic focus has been selected on the basis of
rich biodiversity, critical water resources, remnant indigenous forests,
the potential for significant economic benefits to local communities and
USAID's strategic NRM objective for Kenya. These focal areas include:

a)  Mukogodo division in Laikipia district

b)  North West Mt. Kenya, and

c)  Arabuko Sokoke Forest in North Coast.

### 

### 1.3.1 MUKOGODO LANDSCAPE

The area for project implementation comprises Mukogodo forest reserve
measuring 26,000 ha including the neighboring four group ranches namely
Kuri kuri, Makurian, Lekuruki and Il Ngwesi, located in Mukogodo
Division, Laikipia district, Rift Valley Province. The landscape also
borders large-scale private ranches of Borana, Lodiaga, Lewa Downs
Conservancy and Isiolo District. Maasai communities who have a strong
tradition of natural resource governance and management inhabit the
project area. The group ranch committees are responsible for resource
allocation, distribution and management within the group ranch. The
communities have divided the forest reserve into four areas with each
ranch being responsible for management of its portion of the forest.
Most parts of the group ranch are degraded due to overgrazing and soil
erosion. There is potential for development of nature-based enterprises
in four group ranches. Prior to the inception of FORREMS program, two
group ranches, Lekuruki and Iingwesi group ranches had developed
community lodges namely Tassia and Il Ngwesi. Multiple stakeholder
involvement in Natural Resources Management is aimed at making natural
resources more responsive to local needs. The argument is that if
decision making can be brought closer to the primary users, then
resources will be more efficiently, equitably and sustainably managed in
line with their local long-term interests. The four group raches cover a
total area of 61,516 ha and the area identified for conservation is
approximately 11,022 ha.

**Site Specific Interventions**

1.  Rehabilitation of degraded rangelands

2.  On-farm tree planting

3.  Natural resource inventories,

4.  Developing and implementing integrated land use plans

5.  Participatory forest management initiatives

6.  Enterprise development

7.  Water points development

8.  Fodder/grass bulking

9.  Capacity building in community organization maintenance.

### 1.3.2 MT. KENYA

Mt. Kenya is located on the Eastern side of the Great Rift Valley. The
Northern slopes reach the Equator 180km North of Nairobi. It covers
Nyeri and Kirinyaga districts in Central Province and Meru Central, Meru
South and Embu districts in Eastern Province.

FORREMS identified Mt Kenya as a focal area on the basis of its rich
biodiversity, critical watershed, critical habitat, indigenous forests,
potential for significant economic benefits to the local communities.

Six forest stations[^2] covering 98,105 ha in North West Mt. Kenya were
chosen as target areas. This is because they are prone to fires, high
human/wildlife conflicts, wildlife/plantation conflicts and illegal
activities. Other areas of consideration include Irangi and Imenti
forests.

Mt Kenya is surrounded by a high potential agricultural area with a
population of 450,000 individuals. Illegal activities threaten
conservation of indigenous tree species and commercial plantations.
These activities also threaten the continuity of the National/forest
reserve (N/FR). Incidences of encroachment into the PAs are high.
Community forest user groups are collaborating with FD and KWS within
PFM framework.

**Site Specific Interventions at Mt Kenya**

1.  Rehabilitation of indigenous forest;

2.  PFM in plantation management

3.  Woodlots and fuel wood harvesting;

4.  Professional training in forest management;

5.  Infrastructure development;

6.  On-farm forestry;

7.  Timber marketing;

8.  Support to key CBOs

9.  Advancing a management partnership between KWS and FD;

10. Development of management plans.

### 1.3.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST

The Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (ASF) lies close to the Indian Ocean in Kilifi
and Malindi Districts of Coast Province, Kenya. In the 1960s, ASF
covered an area twice as large as the 41,765 ha it covers today. It is
the last large remnant of the north-coast forests that once dominated
Kenya\'s coastal fringe, and is a globally important forest for
biodiversity conservation as well as a vitally important resource for
the local communities. ASF is a dominant feature of the local landscape
and regulates fresh water flow to the adjacent Mida Creek and mangrove
forest. The creek and mangrove in turn provide fish nurseries, important
over-wintering grounds for migrant waders, and a nutrient and sediment
trap protecting the Watamu coral reef. The Watamu/Arabuko area is the
only place in Kenya where reef, beach, creek and forest occur together
in this way, offering considerable potential for a landscape approach to
Natural Resource Management (NRM).

**Project sites, location and area**

The project is targeting the forest adjacent dwellers within a
5-kilometer belt around the ASF. There are 18 sub-locations extending
around the forest, with 51 villages actually bordering on the forest and
having a population of about 104,000 people. The project is administered
from the Gede Forest Station and the marketing of the nature based
products at the Gede Ruins Museum.

**Site Specific Interventions**

1.  Advancing PFM,

2.  Expanding and diversifying nature-based enterprises,

3.  Establishing a monitoring and evaluation program,

4.  Strengthening institutions and partnerships,

5.  Ecosystem management inside and outside the Forest (agro-forestry,
    alternative fuel supply, fire control, boundary marking,
    rehabilitation and restoration, problem animal control, linking with
    District Environmental Committees in planning and problem solving),

6.  Gender, equity, empowerment

7.  Advancing policy.

# **INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS**

# 

### *Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS)*

The mandate of KWS is to conserve and manage wildlife in Kenya. KWS has
five sections that participate in FORREMS -- the Central Monitoring and
Evaluation Unit, Forest Coordination Unit ('Forestry'), Ecological
Monitoring, GIS and Laikipia Station (KWS mandate)

### *1.4.2 Forest Department (FD)*

The Forest Department collaborates with KWS, NMK, KEFRI, AWF/LWF, NEMA,
Community Forest User Groups and other relevant stakeholders in drafting
guidelines and approving management plans for improved management of
forests consistent with the proposed forest policy framework and
anticipated new forest legislation.

The mandate of the Forest Department is to contribute to the growth of
the natural resource sector by enhancing development, conservation and
management of all forest resource base in the country. This entails
ensuring an increasing supply of forestry products and services for
meeting the basic and industrial needs of the present and future
generations.

### *1.4.3 Kenya Forestry Researcy Institute (KEFRI)*

KEFRI collaborate with FD, KWS, NEMA and AWF/LWF in Laikipia and FD,
PACT Kenya in Taita Taveta. In Arabuko Sokoke forest, KEFRI is one of
the main working with FD, KWS, NMK and Nature Kenya. KEFRI has shared
their experiences in Dryland Rehabilitation, PFM, development of
strategic plan, and on-farm tree planting with community members during
awareness creation meetings. KEFRI brings demonstrated expertise in the
use of these technologies to FORREMS and has played a vital role in
extending these management practices to stakeholders.

### *1.4.4 African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) / Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF)* 

These bring to bear strong NRM and business development skills. The
Laikipia Wildlife Forum has " on the ground presence" and a strong
constituency through its membership. The partnership demonstrates
improved rangeland and dryland forest management practices among local
communities, channeling FORREMS funds to priority NRM developments such
as water

points and expanding economic enterprises through business development
and training. AWF/LWF works within all the thirteen group ranches
including Mukogodo forest and Samburu Nature.

### *National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA)* 

NEMA is empowered under the Environmental Management and Coordination
Act (EMCA) to develop guidelines and regulations relating to overall
environmental conservation and management and to ensure all users of
Kenya's natural resources comply with these regulations. NEMA is also
involved in Environmental Assessment and establishment of environmental
protection guidelines.

NEMA has two main objectives:

**a)** To develop the guidelines and regulations that will
operationalize EMCA (e.g., guidelines for EIA and environmental audits,
for environmental screening and for conservation orders and
environmental easements). Further the FORREMS Program will support
infrastructure development.

**b)** To build the capacity of local authorities to ensure compliance
with EMCA. Here, a particular area of focus will be to assist local
partners in the use of these guidelines in planning development
activities. At the local level, partners will also work with DECs to
address conservation priorities through action plans for managing marine
resources, forests and rangelands and with resources to implement and
leverage resources in support of plans. Additional support will help
establish functional offices and enable DECs to interact with
communities in establishing environmental easements

### *1.4.6 Nature Kenya (NK)*

The key role of Nature Kenya is program management and coordination,
ensuring the delivery of planned activities to achieve the planned
outputs to the intermediate results under 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. Nature
Kenya is implementing the project with the Arabuko Sokoke Forest
Management Team (ASFMT) that comprises of officers from the KWS, FD, NMK
and KEFRI stations in Malindi and Kilifi Districts. At the community
level Nature Kenya works with Forest Adjacent Dwellers Association
(FADA), an umbrella of CBOs around ASF, to engrain PFM and nature based
enterprises. Nature Kenya and the ASFMT are building their capacity to
participate in Natural Resource Management at ASF ecosystem.

## 1.5 Anticipated Project Results 

As progress towards SO5 objective, target results for the first year of
implementation have been set. The performance indicators have been
projected as follows:

a)  Positive land use change is expected at 6,113 ha across the three
    focal areas. Positive land use change will be indicated by number of
    hectares under improved NRM. This will constitute land management
    actions, dedicated to natural resource conservation, protection
    and/or improved management. At the project sites, areas under
    improved management will be delineated using participatory mapping
    and GIS.

b)  Number of stakeholders directly or indirectly benefiting from
    involvement in improved NRM is expected to total 661 persons in the
    year 2004. The direct beneficiaries will receive funding, training,
    technical assistance, resource or financial returns under the
    program. Indirect beneficiaries are those who receive 'spin-offs' or
    'down stream' positive impact. Disaggregation by gender will be done
    to determine male/female participation.

c)  Appropriate conservation tools and technologies adapted for positive
    land use change will facilitate conservation, protection and
    sustainable utilization of natural resources. The disaggregation is
    by geographic area and by gender. Performance target set for year
    one: five (5) tools and/or technologies in use.

d)  Organizational capacity of community user groups strengthened. The
    Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) tool has been identified as
    an important tool to "score" strengths and weaknesses of
    organizations, thereby the performance will be determined by
    Organisational Capacity scores of targeted CBOs. FORREMS
    stakeholders will be trained on Organisational Development to
    facilitate results.

e)  Increased benefits from NBEs measured by the number and type of NBEs
    established i.e. initiated and operational. Revenue generation and
    other benefits for participants from NBEs is expected from the three
    focal areas. An increase in number and type of enterprises will
    contribute to the rural economy.

f)  Financial and non-financial benefits generated by NBEs: Income in
    the form of salaries or wages, 'dividends' paid from operational
    profits are expected to double baseline from the third year of
    programme implementation.

g)  Functionality of information systems for decision-making: Index
    scores are expected to increase, reflecting the level of
    functionality of improved monitoring, evaluation and reporting
    systems. This will improve access to accurate information necessary
    for improved NRM for decision-making.

h)  Level of NRM and Environmental policy/legislation advancement. The
    forest policy and bill were targeted for level III i.e. finalization
    of policy intervention.

**1.6 PROJECT MONITORING**

### *1.6.1 Linkage to S05 Result Framework* 

The results framework provided by USAID for the FORREMS program is both
a planning and a management tool (Appendix II). It is central to the
strategic plan and provides a program-level framework for implementing
partners to gauge progress toward the achievement of results and to
adjust relevant programs and activities accordingly. The results
framework provides an important opportunity for the operating unit to
work with its partners and community members to build consensus and
ownership around shared objectives and approaches to meeting those
objectives. The results Frameworks therefore functions as an effective
communication tool because it succinctly captures the key elements for
achieving an objective (i.e. program intent and content).

### *1.6.2 Indicator Reference Sheets* 

Monitoring and Evaluation workshops have been held at Naivasha, Karen,
KWS safari walk and Nanyuki with the M&E task force specifically to
develop reference data sheets (Appendix III). The Monitoring and
Evaluation committee developed eight indicators for use in measuring the
performance of the partners activities in the three focal areas. Three
other indicators are still being developed. These include:

-   Level of policy & legislative advancement,

-   Advancement in 'competence' in developing policy and administrative
    frameworks,

-   Advocacy capacity index of targeted groups

These Indicators are either quantitative or qualitative in nature and
were generated based on the SO5 results framework. The indicators were
selected according to expected relevance to measure the impact of the
FORREMS interventions inside and outside the Protected Areas.

The indicator reference sheets were constructed using a participatory
approach. USAID team collaborated closely with development partners,
counterparts and beneficiaries during the indicator selection process.

In addition to a precise definition of each indicator, the Performance
Indicator Reference Sheet also includes concise information on:

-   The relationship of the indicator to the SO, Intermediate Results
    and related program objectives;

-   A plan for data collection (methods, sources, frequency, estimated
    cost, and responsible organizations or individuals;

-   A plan for data analysis, reporting and review (method of analysis,
    presentation of data, review of data, and targeted reporting
    population;

-   A discussion on quality issues (dates for assessments, limitations,
    and actions taken to address limitations);

-   Information for the performance data table (method of calculation,
    notes on baseline and targets);

-   Other comments / information as relevant

# 2.0 Performance Results for 2004

2.1 Table 2 : Showing Summary Of Key Results During 2004 In Focal Areas

+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
| *     | *    | ** | * | **M       | **Mt      | **Arabuk   | **R  |
| *IR** | *Ind | Ta | * | ukogodo** | Kenya**   | o-Sokoke** | emar |
|       | icat | rg | A |           |           |            | ks** |
|       | or** | et | c |           |           |            |      |
|       |      | ** | t |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | u |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | a |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | l |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | * |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | * |           |           |            |      |
+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
| SO5   | Land | *  | * | Range     | **42ha**  | **22ha**   | Posi |
| Imp   | use  | *6 | * | rehab     | Refo      | on farm    | tive |
| roved | ch   | ,1 | 1 | ilitation | restated, | woodlots   | land |
| NRM   | ange | 13 | 1 | Agr       | Magacha   | planted    | use  |
| in    |      | ha | , | oforestry | block     | under PFM  | ch   |
| tar   |      | ** | 2 | nurseries |           |            | ange |
| geted |      | [^ | 9 | es        |           | **         | has  |
| areas |      | 3] | 4 | tablished |           | 11,200ha** | thus |
| by    |      |    | h |           |           | Operat.    | far  |
| and   |      |    | a | **A total |           | Forest     | been |
| for   |      |    | * | of 30     |           | Mgt. Plan  | a    |
| st    |      |    | * | ha**      |           | and        | chie |
| akeho |      |    |   |           |           | guidelines | ved. |
| lders |      |    |   |           |           |            |      |
+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
|       | No.  | *  | * | **688:**  | **153:**  | **2043:**  | Ta   |
|       | of   | *6 | * | bene      | benefi    | st         | rget |
|       | stak | 61 | 2 | ficiaries | ciaries:- | akeholders | achi |
|       | ehol | ** | 8 | through   | Financial | benefited  | eved |
|       | ders | [^ | 8 | Inventory | wages to  | through    |      |
|       | be   | 4] | 4 | training, | casuals   | workshops  |      |
|       | nefi |    | * | Forest    | hired for | and        |      |
|       | ting |    | * | scouts    | v         | training.  |      |
|       | from |    |   | training, | egetation |            |      |
|       | inv  |    |   | M&E       | mapping,  |            |      |
|       | olve |    |   | workshop, | seedlings |            |      |
|       | ment |    |   | Organ     | sales by  |            |      |
|       | in   |    |   | isational | CBO       |            |      |
|       | impr |    |   | de        | members,  |            |      |
|       | oved |    |   | velopment | senior    |            |      |
|       | NRM  |    |   | training, | staff     |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | Sens      | trained   |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | itisation | in        |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | and       | program   |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | awareness | ma        |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | meetings  | nagement, |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | PMP, NRM  |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | and       |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | Part      |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | icipatory |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | resource  |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | m         |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | anagement |            |      |
|       |      |    |   |           | planning  |            |      |
+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
| 5.1   | Cons | *  | * | **15:**   | **6:**    | **6:**     | Nu   |
| Site  | erva | *5 | * | Con       | M&E       | Buffer     | mber |
| spe   | tion | ** | 2 | servation | systems   | zones,     | of   |
| cific | t    |    | 7 | demo      | and       | Ag         | cons |
| i     | ools |    | * | areas on  | d         | roforestry | erva |
| nitia | and  |    | * | community | atabases, | (nurseries | tion |
| tives | tech |    |   | land,     | NRM plans | m          | t    |
| for   | nolo |    |   | Agr       | on GoK    | anagement, | ools |
| NRM   | gies |    |   | oforestry | lands and | Community  | and  |
| i     | in   |    |   | and farm  | community | nurseries  | tech |
| mplem | use  |    |   | forestry, | lands,    | identified | nolo |
| ented |      |    |   | Tree      | Natural   | farmers    | gies |
| ou    |      |    |   | nurseries | resource  | i          | in   |
| tside |      |    |   | on        | fora a,   | dentified, | use  |
| PAs & |      |    |   | community | Rehab     | species    | are  |
| 5.3   |      |    |   | land and  | ilitation | s          | more |
| Imp   |      |    |   | gazetted  |           | election), | than |
| roved |      |    |   | land,     |           | M&E        | t    |
| manag |      |    |   | Con       |           | systems    | hose |
| ement |      |    |   | servation |           | and        | t    |
| of    |      |    |   | trusts,   |           | databases, | arge |
| prot  |      |    |   | NRM plans |           | PFM,       | ted. |
| ected |      |    |   | on GoK    |           | Natural    | Out  |
| areas |      |    |   | lands and |           | resource   | of   |
|       |      |    |   | community |           | fora ,     | tw   |
|       |      |    |   | la        |           | Resource   | enty |
|       |      |    |   | nds,Water |           | mapping    | (    |
|       |      |    |   | ma        |           |            | 20), |
|       |      |    |   | nagement, |           |            | fif  |
|       |      |    |   | PFM,      |           |            | teen |
|       |      |    |   | grazing   |           |            | (15) |
|       |      |    |   | m         |           |            | are  |
|       |      |    |   | anagement |           |            | in   |
|       |      |    |   | systems,  |           |            | use. |
|       |      |    |   | Natural   |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | resource  |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | fora,     |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | Natural   |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | resource  |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | networks, |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | NBEs,     |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | Resource  |           |            |      |
|       |      |    |   | mapping   |           |            |      |
+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
| 5.4.1 | Orga |    |   | Natural   | None      | None       | Part |
| Cons  | nisa |    |   | resource  |           |            | ners |
| titue | tion |    |   | ma        |           |            | did  |
| ncies | capa |    |   | nagement, |           |            | not  |
| for   | city |    |   | conflict  |           |            | rec  |
| NR    | of   |    |   | ma        |           |            | eive |
| co    | c    |    |   | nagement, |           |            | OCA  |
| nserv | ommu |    |   | G         |           |            | trai |
| ation | nity |    |   | overnance |           |            | ning |
| e     | user |    |   | and       |           |            | so   |
| stabl | gr   |    |   | admin     |           |            | per  |
| ished | oups |    |   | istration |           |            | form |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | ance |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | mea  |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | sure |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | ment |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | for  |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | this |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | i    |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | ndic |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | ator |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | was  |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | limi |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | ted. |
+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
|       | Nu   |    | * | **4       | Nil       | *          |      |
|       | mber |    | * | NBEs**:   |           | *5NBEs:**E |      |
|       | of   |    | 9 | Hay       |           | cotourism, |      |
|       | NBEs |    | * | bailing   |           | A          |      |
|       | est  |    | * | and       |           | piculture, |      |
|       | abli |    | * | fodder    |           | Agr        |      |
|       | shed |    | * | pr        |           | oforestry, |      |
|       |      |    | N | oduction, |           | Aloe       |      |
|       |      |    | B | agro      |           | farming,   |      |
|       |      |    | E | forestry, |           | Butterfly  |      |
|       |      |    | s | seedling  |           | farming    |      |
|       |      |    | * | pr        |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | * | oduction, |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | E | NTFPs     |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | s |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | t |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | a |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | b |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | l |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | i |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | s |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | h |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | e |           |           |            |      |
|       |      |    | d |           |           |            |      |
+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
| 5.11  | F    |    | U | Nil       | Nil       | US \$ 3164 | More |
| Site  | inan |    | S |           |           |            | F    |
| spe   | cial |    | \ |           |           |            | inan |
| cific | bene |    | $ |           |           |            | cial |
| i     | fits |    | 3 |           |           |            | bene |
| nitia | g    |    | 1 |           |           |            | fits |
| tives | ener |    | 6 |           |           |            | expe |
| for   | ated |    | 4 |           |           |            | cted |
| NRM   | by   |    |   |           |           |            | in   |
| i     | NBEs |    |   |           |           |            | 2005 |
| mplem |      |    |   |           |           |            |      |
| ented |      |    |   |           |           |            | N    |
| ou    |      |    |   |           |           |            | on-f |
| tside |      |    |   |           |           |            | inan |
| PAs   |      |    |   |           |           |            | cial |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | bene |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | fits |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | are  |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | li   |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | kely |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | to   |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | ac   |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | crue |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | from |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | f    |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | inan |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | cial |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | bene |
|       |      |    |   |           |           |            | fits |
+-------+------+----+---+-----------+-----------+------------+------+

**Environmental and NRM policy and legislative reform advanced**

Status of policy and legislation environment encouraging community
incentives for NRM:

-   Forest policy being finalized for presentation to the cabinet and
    publication into sessional paper after parliamentary approval. It
    scores 60% (see table 3).

-   Forest bill 2004 debated in June 2004, rejected, and will be tabled
    before parliament as from December 2004. It scores 60%

## 

## 2.2 Challenges And Lessons Learned 

##### 

####### Issues Affecting Project Implementation

1)  The community was very eager to start implementing therefore
    initiation of projects' activities was successful. In particular,
    the proposed projects at Mukogodo were in line with the community's
    wishes.

2)  Through the FORREMS project, implementing partners have been
    borrowing expertise from each other to enrich their activities on
    the project sites. Efficiency and strength in teamwork has been
    realized through focal area implementing teams.

3)  Awareness, sensitization and organizational capacity building fora
    have assisted community members to understand project issues.

4)  Clear lines of responsibility and understanding between partners in
    the project areas, making it easy to execute work as well as monitor
    and evaluate progress.

## 

####### Challenges

1)  Funds for implementation of single activities held by different
    partners hence joint workplans and budget are very important. While
    this may work in some areas, it may be necessary to provide funds to
    various partners to enable them fully implement those activities
    where they have a comparative advantage

2)  Challenges in procurement of equipment due to long process of DA1
    forms approval

3)  Community members appear to be very sensitive about their status in
    the forest as some of them reside in the forest and have fear of
    being evicted. It's important to maintain the status quo until the
    planning and PFM process is completed

4)  Partners have not been prompt in ensuring that the activities and
    budget flow reach the ground to create impacts.

5)  Heavy rains that pounded the area in January-March 2004 made roads
    impassable and delayed implementation of activities.

6)  Some office bearers of the ILMAMUSI/Mukogodo FAT were not very
    effective because they were committed in other leadership positions.
    This hampered progress of key community activities.

7)  Land claims by the Maasai in Laikipia and consequent invasions of
    some key farms made area unstable hence threatening key activities.

8)  The implementation period, eight (8) months was insufficient for
    accomplishing the first year workplan activities since USAID funds
    for the project were released late.

####### Lessons Learned

1)  Sub-committees appear to be the best arrangement for steering
    activities since activities under sub-committees were progressing
    better than work left to specific institutions.

2)  Local community groups and committees need support to improve their
    capacity to be able to fully implement their activities e.g. the
    ILMAMUSI committee.

3)  Projects, particularly the NBEs that address immediate community
    needs but also contribute to the conservation of the environment
    should be emphasized for increased support from communities and
    impact.

## 2.3 Opportunities and Prospects

1)  The FORREMS partners will assist the CBOs running tree nurseries in
    sourcing for market to target commercial tree farmers within the
    focal areas and buyers from urban areas. In the long term, this
    would lead to achievement of projected targets and
    self-sustainability.

2)  Proposed emergency fire plans will be developed and implemented
    across borders collaboratively between FD and KWS. This will cover
    cover the forest reserves and national parks/reserves as well as the
    adjacent community lands. Concerns by FORREMS partners over
    including other potential stakeholders such as the Armed Forces Fire
    Brigade/Engineering Unit have been raised.

3)  There is room for enjoining KEFRI's technical and research capacity
    to complement other partners input to Mt. Kenya project activities
    such as vegetation cover surveys and rehabilitation prescriptions
    for the degraded sites and NBE consultancy for market openings.

4)  Dead wood from senile cedar in the Mukogodo forest reserve protected
    area in abundant. In the Forest Act a subsidiary legislation which
    covers the use of forest products exists. This product could be
    allocated for sale by FD and proceedings ploughed back to the
    conservation initiatives for Mukogodo under the subsidiary
    legislation.

5)  Grazing management plans which consider the needs of the pastoral
    communities adjacent to the forest reserves will be useful. These,
    once developed and implemented will facilitate easements as well as
    relieve fragile protected natural resources bases (i.e. water
    catchments, indigenous forests) off pressure from livestock and
    human degrading impacts.

6)  Improving caves at Naro Moru for eco-tourism to benefit Community
    Based Organizations in Mt. Kenya ecosystem.

# 

# 3.0 baseline performance indicators and data

### *Performance Data Table (PDT)* 

The PDT (Appendix V) shows targets set for each of the eight indicators.
The revised indicators 1 & 2 are in the revised PDT shown in Appendix V.
Both of these tables give the baselines and actual performances of the
FORREMS activities. From these, the trend of the activities can be
determined as declining, stable/constant or increasing (Appendix IV & V)

.

The PDT is meant for guiding partners evaluate the performance of their
activities against set targets

The M&E FORREMS workshops decided upon indicator target levels for the
Financial Years based on the feasibility of achieving them within the
context of available resources. The Performance and thus the targets are
expected to increase annually.

### *Data Quality Assessments*

For data quality, all indicators are expected be subjected to quality
assessment process whereby they are evaluated on a ten (10) point
criteria as shown below:

1)  Direct (the measure closely tracks the result it is intended to
    measure).

2)  Objective ( the measure is operational precise and uni-dimensional).

3)  Adequate (the number of measures tracked for a given result should
    be the minimum necessary to ensure progress toward the result is
    sufficiently captured)

4)  Practical (Data can be collected on a timely basis and at reasonable
    cost)

5)  Attributable to FORREMS (the extent to which a result is caused by
    FORREMS sponsored activities)

6)  Management useful (measure should be deemed useful by program
    management staff)

7)  Level of Results Achieved (Measure should reflect progress at the
    FORREMS program level)

8)  Reliable (Data is sufficiently reliable quality for confident
    decision making)

9)  Quantitative (Indicators are numerical where possible)

10) Disaggregated (Indicator data can be disaggregated by gender, age,
    location, or other dimension where appropriate)

## 3.1 LAND USE CHANGE

## 

Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #1

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** None                                     |
|                                                                       |
| **FORREMS Result #1:** same as SO statement                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Indicator:** Same as SO level indicator #1\--***Land use change in  |
| target areas* tools & technologies in use**                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** Hectares of land under positive use in the |
| FORREMS target areas of NE Laikipia, N Mt. Kenya and the North Coast. |
| 'Positive use' refers to land management actions that are             |
| purposefully dedicated to natural resource conservation, protection   |
| and/or improved management. These actions may occur inside gazetted   |
| National Parks, National Reserves, Forest Reserves or Trust Lands or  |
| outside these areas on community lands or private farms. Examples of  |
| 'positive land use change' are the initiation or expansion of:        |
| participatory forest management in gazetted Reserves; agroforestry or |
| conservation farming on farms adjacent to Protected Areas;            |
| conservation areas, sanctuaries or easements established on community |
| or private lands; tree nurseries and conservation 'demo' areas on     |
| community or private land; and areas within gazetted Reserves that    |
| are managed under site-specific guidelines or operational plans.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Number of hectares under improved NRM            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by:** Geographic area, gender (male/female owned or   |
| managed farms)                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** This indicator measures the     |
| FORREMS program's direct contribution at the SO level. It tracks      |
| FORREMS' impact on the SO's stated goal of improving land use in      |
| support of biodiversity conservation and sustainable NRM. This is an  |
| important measure of the validity of the SO's development hypothesis  |
| \-- that increased benefits to rural households from NRM coupled with |
| improved Protected Area management structures will 1) lead to         |
| increases in the amount of land under improved NRM and 2) decrease    |
| the depletion of biodiversity and the degradation of natural          |
| ecosystems.                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:** Delineate areas under improved management |
| using participatory mapping, GIS and remote sensing (aerial           |
| photography, satellite imagery).                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly Reports and Performance |
| Assessment Reports from partners and independent evaluations          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** KWS, Forest Department, Africa Wildlife           |
| Foundation, NEMA, Nature Kenya and KEFRI                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Quarterly & annually in     |
| October                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** Expensive---possibly          |
| \$15,000/year                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Charles Oluchina              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** August 2004, USAID will  |
| take the lead and work closely with FORREMS partners.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** Not Applicable  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** Not         |
| Applicable                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Site visits &     |
| audit of partner data                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** See 'Data Collection Method' above.                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Display targets and actual performance in   |
| performance summary data table segregated by geog area and gender     |
| where applicable. Tables, charts, graphs or maps will be used to      |
| present data.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data:** Review with FORREMS M&E sub-committee and Program |
| Steering Committee in April & October also in SO portfolio reviews,   |
| monthly meetings, or activity or program-level reviews with           |
| implementing partners.                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** CBJ, Annual Report, annual FORREMS PMP report, |
| program briefs to the Ambassador or success stories.                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets: **The baseline amount for this indicator  |
| is 'zero' (0) ha. Targets have been set for FY '04, the first year in |
| which the initiatives of FORREMS partners could be expected to start  |
| 'paying off' at the SO level.**                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E**                                |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11 /10 /03                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

## 

## LAND USE CHANGE

Hectares of land under positive use in the FORREMS target areas of NE
Laikipia, NW Mt. Kenya and the North Coast. 'Positive use' refers to
land management actions that are purposefully dedicated to natural
resource conservation, protection and/or improved management. These
actions may occur inside gazetted National Parks, National Reserves,
Forest Reserves or Trust Lands or outside these areas on community lands
or private farms. Examples of 'positive land use change' are the
initiation or expansion of: participatory forest management in gazetted
Reserves; agroforestry or conservation farming on farms adjacent to
Protected Areas; conservation areas, sanctuaries or easements
established on community or private lands; tree nurseries and
conservation 'demo' areas on community or private land; and areas within
gazetted Reserves that are managed under

site-specific guidelines or operational plans.

**3.1.1 MUKOGODO LANDSCAPE**[^5]

A total of 11,022 ha (to be confirmed) in Mukogodo Forest has been
identified as a conservation area in four (4) community group ranches
namely: Ilngwesi, Makurian, Kurikuri and Lekuruki.

-   In Makurian GR, a range rehabilitation demonstration area measuring
    **18 ha** has been designated and set aside. Conservation techniques
    applied include; barbed wire-post fence to keep off animals, water
    harvesting and spreading terraces, grass reseeding, soil and water
    microcatchments.

-   One (1) tree nursery at Dol Dol by FD. This is in a plot, of about
    20 ha which will include a proposed campsite.

-   In Ilngwesi GR, an area measuring 65 ha has been set aside for hay
    production.

-   In Lekuruki GR, hay bailing demonstration site measuring 12 ha was
    set aside and fenced.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Two (2) private tree nurseries at Ethi and Chumvi were established
    as a result of concern over the impact of degradation - 20,000
    seedlings each

-   Naibunga Conservancy which is outside Mukogondo, a total of 17,200
    ha in 9 community group ranches has been set aside for conservation.
    Naibunga conservancy is made up of land designated for conservation
    in Koija, Tiamamut, Kijabe, Nkilorit, Morpusi, Ilpolei, Munishoi,
    Musul and Ilmotiok group ranches.

######## 3.1.2 MT. KENYA 

**42 ha** were reforested with mixture of *Prunus africanum, Fagara
microphylla, Vitex keniensis* indigenous pioneer tree species in Irangi
forest Magacha block jointly by Bill Woodley Trust/COMPACT, forest
community user groups, with FD and KWS Forest Program providing
technical guidance. The MKJMTF visited Magacha block in June 2004 and
found that survival was above average.

In NW Mt. Kenya 100 ha of degraded sites have been designated for
rehabilitation. 43 ha in Nyeri[^6] and 10 ha in Meru[^7] Central were
mapped and identified. Nine thousand (9000) indigenous tree seedlings
were procured from CBOs for restocking or reforestation on these sites.
Due to insufficient short rains in April/June the enrichment planting
was deferred to October/November/December 2004. No land use change is
yet effected in NW Mt. Kenya.

**3.1.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST**

An Operational Forest Management Plan and Guidelines for PFM
implementation developed for the **11,200 ha**[^8] under the Dida PFM
pilot area: 7,000 ha and 4,200 ha under community and gazetted forest
respectively.

Around the forest, **22 ha** of woodlots were planted.

## land Use change in target areas RESULTS Contd'

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **FORREMS Results: Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource   |
| management in targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** None                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Indicator: *Land use change in target areas* tools & technologies   |
| in use**                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **INDICATOR DESCRIPTION :** Hectares of land under positive use in    |
| the FORREMS target areas of Mukogodo Landscape, NW Mt. Kenya and      |
| Arabuko Sokoke Forest. 'Positive use' refers to land management       |
| actions that are purposefully dedicated to natural resource           |
| conservation, protection and/or improved management. These actions    |
| may occur inside gazetted National Parks, National Reserves, Forest   |
| Reserves or Trust Lands or outside these areas on community lands or  |
| private farms. Examples of 'positive land use change' are the         |
| initiation or expansion of: participatory forest management in        |
| gazetted Reserves; agroforestry or conservation farming on farms      |
| adjacent to Protected Areas; conservation areas, sanctuaries or       |
| easements established on community or private lands; tree nurseries   |
| and conservation 'demo' areas on community or private land; and areas |
| within gazetted Reserves that are managed under site-specific         |
| guidelines or operational plans.                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Number of hectares under improved NRM            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by:** Geographic area, gender (male/female owned or   |
| managed farms)                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **COMMENTS:** During 2004, out of the expected target of **6,113ha**  |
| in the first year of project implementation, **82ha** of land have    |
| been brought under improved positive land use change. Central         |
| Monitoring and Evaluation Unit -- KWS-Hqs, have received reports over |
| this period from implementing partners, for data analysis and         |
| validation. Data Sources include; KWS, Forest Department, Africa      |
| Wildlife Foundation, NEMA, Nature Kenya and KEFRI                     |
|                                                                       |
| Baseline = **90,113 ha**                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Cummulative total area brought under positive land use change:        |
| **90,095ha**.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  ------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------------------- ----------------------------
  **LAND USE                                                                  
  CHANGE IN                                                                   
  PROJECT                                                                     
  SITES**                                                                     

  **Baseline                                                                  
  (b):                                                                        
  90,113ha**                                                                  

  **PROJECT                                           **Sub-unit targeted for **Specify type of positive
  SITE**                                              land use change**       land use change in target
                                                                              area**

  **1) Mukogodo                                                               
  Landscape**                                                                 

  **Year**      **Expected                **Actual                            
                results**                 results**                           

  2004          1,893ha                   18ha        Makurian Group Ranch    Range rehabilitation demo
                                                                              area has been identified and
                                                                              is currently under
                                                                              conservation with active
                                                                              participation by the
                                                                              Mukogodo community.

                Nil                       Nil         Ilngwesi Group Ranch    Land set aside for hay
                                                                              bailing; 65ha

                Nil                       Nil         Lekuruki (Sieko) Group  hay bailing demo site set
                                                      Ranch                   aside and fenced;12ha

                Nil                       Nil         Ethi Private Ranch      20,000 seedlings planted

                Nil                       Nil         Chumvi Private Ranch    20,000 seedlings planted

  **2) Mt.                                                                    
  Kenya**                                                                     

  **Year**                   **Expected   **Actual                            
                             results**    results**                           

  2004                       Nil          42ha        Magacha block in Irangi Reforestation of 42 ha with
                                                      forest                  indigenous species. In NW
                                                                              Mt. Kenya 43 ha of degraded
                                                                              sites have been identified
                                                                              for rehabilitation.

  **3) Arabuko                                                                
  Sokoke**                                                                    

  **Year**                   **Expected   **Actual                            
                             results**    results**                           

  **2004**                   4200 ha                  PFM Area                Operational Forest
                                                                              Management Plan and
                                                                              Guidelines for PFM
                                                                              implementation developed for
                                                                              11,200 ha under the Dida PFM
                                                                              pilot area: 7,000 ha and
                                                                              4,200 ha under community and
                                                                              gazetted forest
                                                                              respectively. This is yet to
                                                                              be implemented.

                             20 ha        22ha        Adjacent farm woodlots  22 ha of woodlots planted.
  ------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------------------- ----------------------------

**3.2 NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS BENEFITTING FROM INVOLVEMENT IN IMPROVED
NRM**

**Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #2**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** None                                     |
|                                                                       |
| **FORREMS Result #2:** same as SO statement                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Indicator:** Same as SO level indicator #2--- ***Number of          |
| stakeholders benefiting from involvement in improved NRM*** **use**   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** Number of stakeholders directly or         |
| indirectly benefiting from involvement in initiatives under FORREMS   |
| that improve NRM. 'Stakeholders' are defined as individuals or        |
| institutions committing time or resources to or benefiting from the   |
| FORREMS program. The term refers to individual farmers or resource    |
| users, community-based associations or user groups, NGOs or GoK       |
| institutions. 'Benefits' are improvements in such parameters or       |
| conditions as revenue or income, financial position, accessibility to |
| resources, capacity to perform within institutional mandates, or      |
| institutional sustainability. There are two categories of             |
| beneficiaries of FORREMS initiatives ---direct and indirect. 'Direct' |
| beneficiaries are those stakeholders that receive funding, training,  |
| technical assistance, resource access or financial returns under the  |
| program. 'Indirect' beneficiaries are those who receive 'spin-offs'   |
| or 'downstream' positive impacts from FORREMS. For example, butterfly |
| farmers directly benefit from TA that improves market access leading  |
| to higher financial returns for pupae sold. On the other hand, a      |
| registered Group Ranch member indirectly benefits if the              |
| institutional capacity of the management committee to govern and      |
| manage funds is enhanced.                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Number of individuals                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by:** Type of benefit (direct or indirect). Direct    |
| beneficiaries will be disaggregated by gender                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** This indicator measures the     |
| FORREMS program's direct contribution at the SO level. It tracks      |
| FORREMS' impact on the SO's stated goal of increasing the number of   |
| Kenyans benefiting from improved land management, biodiversity        |
| conservation and sustainable NRM. This is an important component of   |
| the internal logic and validity of the SO's development hypothesis    |
| \-- that increases in the amount of land under improved NRM and       |
| decreases in the depletion of biodiversity or in the degradation of   |
| natural ecosystems really do stem from increased 'benefits' to        |
| stakeholders. It will be important to develop mechanisms that test    |
| this hypothesis through direct assessment of 'cause and effect'.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:** Identify direct and indirect              |
| beneficiaries for FORREMS activities, perform incremental counts and  |
| maintain a cumulative database.                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly Reports, performance    |
| assessment reports                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** KWS, Forest Department, Africa Wildlife           |
| Foundation, NEMA, Nature Kenya & KEFRI                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Quarterly & annually in     |
| October                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** Inexpensive; probably \<      |
| \$1,000/year.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Charles Oluchina              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** August 2004, USAID will  |
| take the lead and work closely with FORREMS partners.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** Not Applicable  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** Not         |
| Applicable                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Site visits and   |
| audit of partner data                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** Data will be analyzed using simple arithmetic      |
| tools and graphics packages                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Display targets and actual performance in   |
| performance summary data table segregated by type benefit and gender. |
| Tables, charts and graphs will be used to present data.               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data:** Review with FORREMS M&E sub-committee & Program   |
| Steering Committee in April & October; portfolio review, monthly      |
| meetings, activity or program-level reviews with all implementing     |
| partners.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** CBJ, Annual Report, Annual FORREMS PMP report, |
| program briefs to the Ambassador, success stories.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets**: Beneficiary baselines start at 'zero'   |
| (0) for new initiatives and with the most recent 'tally' for          |
| initiatives that are continuing under FORREMS.**                      |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E**                                |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

## 

## Number Of Stakeholders Benefiting From Involvement In Improved NRM

Number of stakeholders directly or indirectly benefiting from
involvement in initiatives under FORREMS that improve NRM.
'Stakeholders' are individuals or institutions committing time or
resources to or benefiting from the FORREMS program. The term refers to
individual farmers or resource users, community-based associations or
user groups, NGOs or GoK institutions. 'Benefits' are improvements in
such parameters or conditions as revenue or income, financial position,
accessibility to resources, capacity to perform within institutional
mandates, or institutional sustainability. There are two categories of
beneficiaries of FORREMS initiatives ---direct and indirect. 'Direct'
beneficiaries are those stakeholders that receive funding, training,
technical assistance, resource access or financial returns under the
program. 'Indirect' beneficiaries are those who receive 'spin-offs' or
'downstream' positive impacts from FORREMS. For example, butterfly
farmers directly benefit from TA that improves market access leading to
higher financial returns for pupae sold. On the other hand, a registered
Group Ranch member indirectly benefits if the institutional capacity of
the management committee to govern and manage funds is enhanced.

**3.2.1 MUKOGODO LANDSCAPE**[^9]

In Mukogodo, **518** stakeholders benefited **directly** and **170
indirectly**. Out of the direct beneficiaries only 70 males and 11
females could be disaggregated by gender. Thus the disaggregation is
incomplete. However from the preliminary data, it can be deduced that
participation of females in NRM in Mukogodo is low.

The following stakeholders in Mukogodo benefited from FORREMS support in
the following ways:

-   36 community members were trained in methodologies for natural
    resource inventory and planning in February 2004 and later in April
    2004, the group were involved in the actual data collection for
    developing the inventories and NRM planning.

-   21 community members (18 male, 3 female) were trained as forest
    scouts in partnership with KWS to provide security for biodiversity
    conservation in Mukogodo Forest. They will be coordinated through a
    community office that is being developed by FORREMS in Mukogodo. The
    communities are paying these scouts.

-   4 Community members were trained in monitoring and evaluation of
    community based activities.

-   19 community representatives (16 male, 3 female) from ILMAMUSI
    participated in an exchange visit to Arabuko Sokoke to learn
    concerning participatory forest management. This was designed to
    expose them to and prepare them for PFM, which is being developed in
    Mukogodo forest.

-   67 community members were trained/reached during meetings to develop
    the umbrella structure (ILMAMUSI) for participatory forest
    management. Training also included conflict management and
    constitution building.

-   An office is being developed for the ILMAMUSI forest management
    committee.

-   188 community members consulted during sensitization meetings for
    the development of PFM

-   A hay bailing seminar was conducted for Lekuruki group ranch for 12
    community members (6 men, 6 women). A hay baler was also procured
    for the community but training on how to use it is yet to be
    conducted.

-   Organizational development training was provided for 11 members of
    Meirishi self help group from Lekuruki. This group will engage in
    hay production.

-   Training was conducted for 21 members of the Makurian demonstration
    plot committee at Dol Dol in March-April 2004.

-   Organizational development training conducted for 18 members of the
    Naningo Youth Group from Ilngwesi Group Ranch. This was designed to
    strengthen the group to effectively engage in the hay production
    program.

-   70 stakeholders attended the national aloe stakeholders' dialogue
    workshop convened in Nanyuki to guide the development of the
    sub-sector.

-   Visioning workshop held for 51 participants (38 community
    representatives, 13 partners) for the Mukogodo Landscape in Nanyuki
    in October 2003. In this workshop, the overall vision for the
    Mukogodo landscape was developed.

-   19,150 seedlings distributed to .....no. of farmers

######## 3.2.2 MT. KENYA[^10]

In Mt. Kenya, **23 direct** beneficiaries were involved. A total of
**115 indirectly** benefited. It appears the primary contribution of
females in improved NRM is marginalized here. At the institutional level
15 KWS and FD staff received technical training from USAID.

######## 

######## 3.2.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST

In ASF**, 2,043** stakeholders benefited **directly and indirectly**
i.e. 1,329 males and 714 female (though it is difficult to prove this,
it is assumed that this benefit is extended to 4 or 5 other members of
the household).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** None                                     |
|                                                                       |
| **FORREMS Result #2:** same as SO statement                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Indicator:** Same as SO level indicator #2--- ***Number of          |
| stakeholders benefiting from involvement in improved NRM*** **use**   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** Number of stakeholders directly or         |
| indirectly benefiting from involvement in initiatives under FORREMS   |
| that improve NRM. 'Stakeholders' are defined as individuals or        |
| institutions committing time or resources to or benefiting from the   |
| FORREMS program. The term refers to individual farmers or resource    |
| users, community-based associations or user groups, NGOs or GoK       |
| institutions. 'Benefits' are improvements in such parameters or       |
| conditions as revenue or income, financial position, accessibility to |
| resources, capacity to perform within institutional mandates, or      |
| institutional sustainability. There are two categories of             |
| beneficiaries of FORREMS initiatives ---direct and indirect. 'Direct' |
| beneficiaries are those stakeholders that receive funding, training,  |
| technical assistance, resource access or financial returns under the  |
| program. 'Indirect' beneficiaries are those who receive 'spin-offs'   |
| or 'downstream' positive impacts from FORREMS. For example, butterfly |
| farmers directly benefit from TA that improves market access leading  |
| to higher financial returns for pupae sold. On the other hand, a      |
| registered Group Ranch member indirectly benefits if the              |
| institutional capacity of the management committee to govern and      |
| manage funds is enhanced.                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Number of individuals                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by:** Type of benefit (direct or indirect). Direct    |
| beneficiaries will be disaggregated by gender                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** This indicator measures the     |
| FORREMS program's direct contribution at the SO level. It tracks      |
| FORREMS' impact on the SO's stated goal of increasing the number of   |
| Kenyans benefiting from improved land management, biodiversity        |
| conservation and sustainable NRM. This is an important component of   |
| the internal logic and validity of the SO's development hypothesis    |
| \-- that increases in the amount of land under improved NRM and       |
| decreases in the depletion of biodiversity or in the degradation of   |
| natural ecosystems really do stem from increased 'benefits' to        |
| stakeholders. It will be important to develop mechanisms that test    |
| this hypothesis through direct assessment of 'cause and effect'.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  --------------- ------------------- ----------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------------------------
  **#2                                                                                                     
  STAKEHOLDERS                                                                                             
  BENEFITING FROM                                                                                          
  INVOLVEMENTIN                                                                                            
  IMPROVED NRM**                                                                                           

  **Name of Focal **Type of Benefit** **Beneficiaries (Number of                                           
  Area**                              individuals)**                                                       

                                      **[Number of direct                                                  **[Number of indirect
                                      beneficiaries, i.e. those                                            beneficiaries (5 next of kins
                                      that receive funding,                                                per direct
                                      training, technical                                                  beneficiary)]{.underline}**
                                      assistance, resource access                                          
                                      or financial returns from the                                        
                                      program\[1\]]{.underline}**                                          

                                      **Male**                      **Female**   **Total**    **Value of   
                                                                                              benefits     
                                                                                              (Kshs)**     

  **Mukogodo**    Inventory training  31                            5            36           N/A          170

                  game scouts         18                            3            21           "             

                  monitoring &        5                             0            5            "             
                  evaluation                                                                               

                  Visioning workshop  Not determined                Not          37           "             
                                                                    determined                             

                  OD                  Not determined                Not          20           "             
                  training/Ilmamusi                                 determined                             

                  Exchange visit to   16                            3            19           "             
                  ASF (PFM)                                                                                

                  Developing of       Not determined                Not          67           "             
                  umbrella structure                                determined                             
                  (PFM)                                                                                    

                  Sensitization       Not determined                Not          190          "             
                  meetings                                          determined                             

                  Institutional       Not determined                Not          247          "             
                  training                                          determined                             

                  Grand Total         70                            11           642          \-           170

  **Mt Kenya**    Financial returns   10                            3            13           7,800        65
                  to casual workers                                                                        
                  in identification                                                                        
                  of degraded sites                                                                        
                  for rehabilitation                                                                       

                  Sale of Seedlings   Not determined                Not          10           90,000       50
                  by CBO members                                    determined                             

                  Technical training                                             15                        
                  for KWS and FD                                                                           
                  staff funded by                                                                          
                  USAID. [^11]                                                                             

                  Grand Total                                                    23           97,800       115

  **Arabuko       Training, Technical 1,329                         714          2,043[^12]   Not          See footnote (\*)
  Sokoke Forest** assistance,                                                                 determined   
                  Resource                                                                                 
                  Assessment,                                                                              
                  Financial returns                                                                        
  --------------- ------------------- ----------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------------------------

3.  **CONSERVATION TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN USE**

**Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #3**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** 5.1-Site specific initiatives for NRM    |
| implemented outside Protected Areas; **and** 5.3-Improved management  |
| of Protected Areas.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **FORREMS Result #3:** *Appropriate tools & technologies for          |
| forest/range management adopted by communities and/or Government in   |
| target areas*                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Indicator:** Conservation tools and technologies in use **tools &   |
| technologies in use**                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** A conservation "tool or technology" is     |
| defined as a device or application of science that facilitates        |
| conservation, protection or sustainable utilization of natural        |
| resources. Examples of conservation tools or technologies are: 1)     |
| Buffer zones around Protected Areas; 2) Land trusts or Conservation   |
| trusts; 3) Agroforestry and farm forestry; 4) Monitoring & evaluation |
| systems and databases; 5) Conservation leases and/or easements; 6)    |
| NRM plans on GoK, community and private lands and that target a       |
| variety of resources (forest products, non-timber forest products,    |
| rangeland, wildlife); 7) Water harvesting & management; 8)            |
| Participatory forest management; 9) Grazing management systems; 10)   |
| Natural resource *fora* or networks. "Use" means formally adopted,    |
| recognized, implemented or followed. 'Target areas' are NE Laikipia,  |
| N Mt. Kenya and the North Coast.                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Number of technologies and/or tools in use.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by:** Geographic area, gender                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** This indicator measures the     |
| number of conservation tools / technologies in use by stakeholders.   |
| The indicator is quite broad in scope because 1) it applies to both   |
| communities and GoK agencies that are using an array of conservation  |
| tools to improve NRM, and 2) both communities and GoK are operating   |
| inside & outside Protected Areas. This indicator quantifies the       |
| adoption of technologies and practices that lead to sustainable use   |
| of natural resources. It supports the hypothesis that an increase in  |
| the number of conservation tools and technologies in use leads to     |
| improved management of the natural resource base and ultimately to    |
| positive changes in land use. The number of conservation tools /      |
| technologies in use reflects stakeholders' access to new concepts and |
| management approaches and their ability to put them into practice.    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:** Assessment of users using 'rapid' or      |
| 'formal' means; use of remotely sensed information (aerial            |
| photography, satellite imagery) that identifies/counts applications   |
| of tools, technologies and practices in target areas.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly Reports, performance    |
| assessment reports                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** KWS, Forest Department, Africa Wildlife           |
| Foundation, NEMA, Nature Kenya and KEFRI                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Quarterly & annually in     |
| October                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** Expensive---possibly          |
| \$15-20,000                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Charles Oluchina              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** August 2004, USAID will  |
| take the lead and work closely with FORREMS partners.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** Not Applicable  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** Not         |
| Applicable                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Site visits and   |
| audit of partner data                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** Data will be analyzed using SPSS and other         |
| graphical tools                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Display targets and actual performance in   |
| performance summary data table segregated by geog area and gender.    |
| Tables, charts and graphs will be used to present data.               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data:** Review with FORREMS M&E sub-committee in April &  |
| October; Portfolio review, Bi-weekly meetings, activity or            |
| program-level reviews with all implementing partners.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** Annual FORREMS PMP report, program briefs to   |
| the Ambassador, success stories.                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets: **Baselines** **start at 'zero' (0)       |
| although on-going applications of tools / technologies that are       |
| supported under FORREMS will count as 'new' starts.**                 |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E**                                |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11 /10 /03                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

## CONSERVATION TOOLS AND/OR TECHNOLOGIES IN USE

A conservation "tool or technology" is defined as a device or
application of science that facilitates conservation, protection or
sustainable utilization of natural resources. Examples of conservation
tools or technologies are: 1) Buffer zones around Protected Areas; 2)
Land trusts or Conservation trusts; 3) Agroforestry and farm forestry;
4) Monitoring & evaluation systems and databases; 5) Conservation leases
and/or easements; 6) NRM plans on GoK, community and private lands and
that target a variety of resources (forest products, non-timber forest
products, rangeland, wildlife); 7) Water harvesting & management; 8)
Participatory forest management; 9) Grazing management systems; 10)
Natural resource *fora* or networks. "Use" means formally adopted,
recognized, implemented or followed. 'Target areas' are NE Laikipia, NW
Mt. Kenya and Arabuko Sokoke Forest, North Coast.

**3.3.1 MUKOGODO** **LANDSCAPE**

Fourteen (14) tools and one (1) technology have been in use by
stakeholders. In summary;

-   Soil and water conservation terraces and micro catchments, grass
    re-seeding and perimeter fence integrated in the Makurian
    rehabilitation demonstration site.

-   Conservation trust developed:(i) To manage Naibunga Conservancy
    and (ii) To strengthen the management of natural resources and
    associated enterprises in Il Ngwesi group ranch

-   The process of developing a strategic management plan for Mukugodo
    forest has began led by FD and KEFRI.

-   A five-year strategic plan has been developed for Ilngwesi group
    ranch to guide NRM and development in the group ranch.

-   The process of NRM planning for the Naibung'a community conservancy
    consisting of 9 group ranches was completed and draft reports have
    been produced. In group ranches where the process was completed
    earlier, aspects of the NRM plan are being implemented.

-   The process for participatory forest management of the Mukogodo
    forest has been initiated.

-   On-farm tree planting in ethi & chumvi 19,150 seedlings planted.

-   Checklist of important trees and other plants with market potential
    for NBEs

-   Natural resource fora and a network exist in the Mukogodo area.
    These include ILMAMUSI, focal area teams, and Resource Management
    Area committees.

-   Natural resource inventories, ecological species, and
    ethno-botanical surveys and socioeconomic surveys conducted in the
    four (4) GRs.

-   M&E systems in place

**3.3.2 MT. KENYA**

Four (4) tools have been initiated and/or are in use. These include:

-   Integrated NRM plan for Mt. Kenya under review

-   Fire Management Plan (FMP) for Mt Kenya ecosystem initiated. Six
    localized FMPs for NW Mt. Kenya will be developed from the ecosystem
    FMP. Three (3) meetings with Meru Central and Nyeri DFOs have been
    held to plan on emergency fire plans.

-   Rehabilitation of degraded sites -- Magacha block in Irangi forest

-   M&E system by the MKJMTF

**3.3.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST**

At Arabuko-Sokoke Forest 5 tools and 1 technology were adopted.

-   Buffer zones around protected areas -- woodlots were established on
    farms that neighbour the forest on the northern border from Kakuyuni
    to Mida, running along the 20 km fence.

-   Agroforestry and farm forestry -- 22 ha of wood lots were planted in
    villages that neighbor the north and east of the forest (Sidzeni 4
    ha, Roka 6 ha, Kakuyuni 5 ha, Mkongani 4ha, Mida-Majaoni 3 ha)

-   M&E systems and databases - Monitoring protocols and framework were
    developed for biodiversity. Protocols developed for vegetation,
    butterflies, birds, and elephant shrews.

-   PFM -- Operational Forest Management Plan and Guidelines developed.
    Changing of the Dida Forest Adjacent Forest Association (DIFAAFA) to
    a society is on-going.

-   Natural resource fora and networks -- Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Adjacent
    Association (FADA) committee strengthened and the Arabuko- Sokoke
    Forum operationalised.

## 

+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
| **#3:  |                        |                   |               |
| CONSER |                        |                   |               |
| VATION |                        |                   |               |
| TOOLS  |                        |                   |               |
| &      |                        |                   |               |
| TECHNO |                        |                   |               |
| LOGIES |                        |                   |               |
| IN     |                        |                   |               |
| USE**  |                        |                   |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
| **Name | **Sub-unit**           | **Specify tools   | **Number of   |
| of     |                        | in use**          | tools and/or  |
| Focal  |                        |                   | technologies  |
| Area** |                        |                   | in use**      |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
| **Muko | Makurian               | Conservation demo | 1             |
| godo** |                        | area              |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        | Ethi                   | Agroforestry and  | 3             |
|        |                        | farm forestry,    |               |
|        |                        | Tree nurseries    |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        | Dol Dol                | Tree nurseries    | 1             |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        | IlNgwesi               | Conservation      | 1             |
|        |                        | trust             |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        | 4 GRs/Forest reserve   | NRM plants, Water | 7 tools; 1    |
|        |                        | management, PFM,  | tech          |
|        |                        | Grazing           |               |
|        |                        | management        |               |
|        |                        | systems, Natural  |               |
|        |                        | resource for a &  |               |
|        |                        | networks, Nature  |               |
|        |                        | based enterprises |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        | Chumvi                 | Tree nurseries    | 1             |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
| **Mt.  | ** **                  | M& E systems;     | 1 tool        |
| K      |                        | MKJMTF            |               |
| enya** | N/FR & NW Mt Kenya     |                   |               |
|        |                        |                   |               |
| ** **  |                        |                   |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        |                        | NRM plans in GoK, | 2 tools       |
|        |                        | community &       |               |
|        |                        | private lands     |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        |                        | Natural resource  | 2 tools       |
|        |                        | for a & networks; |               |
|        |                        | Workshops,        |               |
|        |                        | training seminars |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        |                        | Databases (GIS)   | 1 technology  |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        | Irangi forest, Magacha | Rehabilitation;   | 1 technology  |
|        | block                  | *Artificial       |               |
|        |                        | Reafforestation   |               |
|        |                        | of wildlife &     |               |
|        |                        | NRCdegraded sites |               |
|        |                        | into indigenous   |               |
|        |                        | forests*          |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
| **A    | Kakuyuni to Mida       | Woodlots          |               |
| rabuko |                        | established from, |               |
| Sokoke |                        | along the 20 km   |               |
| Fo     |                        | fence.            |               |
| rest** |                        |                   |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        | Sidzeni, Roka,         | .Agroforestry and |               |
|        | Kakuyuni, Mkongani and | farm forestry in  |               |
|        | Mida-Majaoni           |                   |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        |                        | M&E systems and   |               |
|        |                        | databases         |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        |                        | PFM --            |               |
|        |                        | Operational       |               |
|        |                        | Forest Management |               |
|        |                        | Plan and          |               |
|        |                        | Guidelines        |               |
|        |                        | developed         |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+
|        |                        | Natural resource  |               |
|        |                        | fora and networks |               |
|        |                        | ; (FADA)          |               |
|        |                        | committee         |               |
|        |                        | strengthened and  |               |
|        |                        | the AS Forum      |               |
|        |                        | operationalised   |               |
+--------+------------------------+-------------------+---------------+

## 3.4 Organizational Capacity Of Community User Groups

**Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #4**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** Site specific initiatives for NRM        |
| implemented outside Protected Areas                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **FORREMS Result #4:** *Management capacity of community groups       |
| improved*                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **Indicator:** Organizational capacity of community user groups       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** . 'Organizational Capacity' is a           |
| reflection of how well user groups perform in seven areas\--1)        |
| governance, 2) natural resource management 3) administration, 4)      |
| financial management, 5) conflict management, 6) sustainability and   |
| 7) advocacy. The 'Organizational Capacity Assessment' (OCA) tool will |
| be the instrument of assessment. The OCA tool is used to 'score'      |
| strengths and weaknesses of organizations across 196 items in the     |
| seven areas noted above. These items are scored on a scale of 1-6     |
| where 1=needs immediate attention; 2=needs major attention; 3=needs   |
| attention on a wide scale; 4=needs attention on a limited scale;      |
| 5=acceptable, needs minor attention; and 6=acceptable no need for     |
| immediate attention. A modal score is obtained for each set of        |
| elements in the seven assessment areas. The seven modal scores are    |
| then averaged to give a single 'measure' of Organizational Capacity   |
| for each organization. Organizations are then ranked according to     |
| where their Organizational Capacity scores place them with reference  |
| to four levels of organizational development: Nascent (average medial |
| scores [\<]{.underline} 2.3); Emerging (2.4-3.5); Expanding (3.6-4.8) |
| or Mature (4.9-6.0).                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Organizational Capacity scores of targeted CBOs  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by:** CBOs organized in the current year, CBOs        |
| organized in the previous years, Mgmt committees of Group Ranches     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** FORREMS is designed to          |
| strengthen forest and range conservation and environmental            |
| governance. Conservation programs and projects outside PAs require    |
| competent local organizations to transform labor, land, resources,    |
| and technologies into sustained improvements in the livelihoods of    |
| local people & in the condition of natural resources. FORREMS will    |
| support CBOs to develop and mature. This should improve their         |
| competency, and ultimately, increase their impact upon conservation   |
| and development in their geographic areas Each CBO will be            |
| periodically assessed after receiving support from specific partners  |
| responsible for CBO development (*e.g* AWF, Nature Kenya) in their    |
| areas of weakness. This will generate a 'new' score that will be      |
| compared to previous ones to indicate progress (or lack thereof) in   |
| organizational capacity.                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:** The OCA tool, administered by a team of   |
| three that represent FORREMS partners not directly involved in the    |
| development of a specific CBO. This should lend some objectivity to   |
| the evaluation process.                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly reports, performance    |
| assessment reports                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** OCA report forms                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Biennially                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** \$20,000                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Mr. Charles Oluchina          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** August 2004              |
|                                                                       |
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** N/A             |
|                                                                       |
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** N/A         |
|                                                                       |
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
|                                                                       |
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Repeat methods    |
| used in 1^st^ Data Quality assessment (DQA)                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** Compare the target values to the OCA values to     |
| determine the status and trends of CBO development. Report            |
| qualitative information describing organizational capacity            |
| development efforts.                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Display targets and actual performance data |
| in Performance Summary Data Table.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data:** Review with FORREMS M&E Sub committee in April    |
| and October                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** Annual FORREMS PMP report                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets: **Baselines** **start at the OCA score of |
| supported CBOs at the start of FORREMS assistance.**                  |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E Unit**                           |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/10/03                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

**ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY USER GROUPS**

**Precise Definition(s):** . 'Organizational Capacity' is a reflection
of how well user groups perform in seven areas\--1) governance, 2)
natural resource management 3) administration, 4) financial management,
5) conflict management, 6) sustainability and 7) advocacy. The
'Organizational Capacity Assessment' (OCA) tool will be the instrument
of assessment. The OCA tool is used to 'score' strengths and weaknesses
of organizations across 196 items in the seven areas noted above. These
items are scored on a scale of 1-6 where 1=needs immediate attention;
2=needs major attention; 3=needs attention on a wide scale; 4=needs
attention on a limited scale; 5=acceptable, needs minor attention; and
6=acceptable no need for immediate attention. A modal score is obtained
for each set of elements in the seven assessment areas. The seven modal
scores are then averaged to give a single 'measure' of Organizational
Capacity for each organization. Organizations are then ranked according
to where their Organizational Capacity scores place them with reference
to four levels of organizational development: Nascent (average medial
scores [\<]{.underline} 2.3); Emerging (2.4-3.5); Expanding (3.6-4.8) or
Mature (4.9-6.0).

**Unit of measure**: Organisational capacity scores of targeted CBOs

**Disaggregated by**: CBOs organized in the current year, CBOs organized
in the previous years, management committee of group ranches

######## 3.4.1 MUKOGODO LANDSCAPE

-   Community members were trained in Natural resource inventory and
    planning methodologies

-   Community members were trained as forest scouts in partnership with
    KWS to provide security for biodiversity conservation

-   Community trained in M&E

-   Community representatives from the ILMAMUSI were trained in PFM,
    training also included conflict management and constitution
    building.

-   Gave technical advice on process of developing a strategic forest
    management plan for Mukogodo landscape

-   Conducted visioning workshop

-   Created an umbrella community structure for the four group ranches
    and developed an action plan for the umbrella body

-   Community members trained on nursery techniques, management and
    seedling handling

####### 3.4.2 MT. KENYA

The warden Embu and Senior warden Mt Kenya are laying terms of
participatory NRM with ten (10) Forest user groups[^13]. The MKJMTF has
selected some areas as the main sites from which FORREMS will contribute
in improving CBOs' performance.

####### 3.4.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST

Organization capacity assessment (OCA) of groups has not been done on
any of the targeted CBOs for capacity building. Three groups have
benefited:

-   Arabuko Sokoke Forest Adjacent Dwellers Association (FADA) -
    facilitation of regular meetings of delegates at which the groups
    constitution and structure of association as umbrella reviewed. As
    community group in charge of electric fence, technical support on
    establishing a sustainable fence maintenance unit provided. The
    groups' Chairman was facilitated to attend national fora to
    disseminate the ASF experience.

-   Dida Forest Adjacent Area Forest Association (DIFAAFA) - review of
    guidelines for PFM implementation that include roles and
    responsibilities of members, officials and user groups. Strengthened
    governance and review constitution, faciliting change of the CBO to
    a society, one of the requirements for community participation in
    forest management. Facilitated the Chairman to disseminate the ASF
    PFM experience at national fora.

-   Mangagani Butterfly farmers -- assisted in building business
    planning capacity and investment evaluation, in developing spin off
    activities from income from butterfly farming.

-   Beekeeping farmers in ASF -- developed network beekeepers that will
    facilitate training on modern methods of beekeeping, standardization
    and quality control and marketing.

  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------
  **Name of Focal Area**      **Name of targeted CBO**

  **Mukogodo Landscape**      ILMAMUSI

                              Naibunga

                              RAMACS

                              Orereti

                              GR committees

                              Rangeland rehab committee

                              Grass bulking committee

                              Scouts & Guides association

  **Mt. Kenya**               NONE

  **Arabuko Sokoke Forest**   AS- Forest adjacent Dwellers Association

                              Dida Forest Adjacent area Forest
                              Association

                              Arabuko Sokoke Management team

                              Mangagani Butterfly farmers
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------

3.5 NATURE BASED ENTERPRISES ESTABLISHED

Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #5

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** 5.1-Site specific initiatives for NRM    |
| implemented outside PAs                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **FORREMS Result:** #5-B*enefits from nature-based enterprises        |
| increased*                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Indicator:** Nature-based enterprises established                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** A nature-based enterprise is one that      |
| utilizes or depends upon the surrounding natural resources or         |
| environmental goods and services to generate revenue or other         |
| benefits for participants. The management of the enterprise strives   |
| for sustainability; *i.e*, an approach to enterprise management that  |
| "meets the needs of present participants or beneficiaries without     |
| compromising the options and needs of future participants".           |
| Productive or service sectors where one finds nature-based            |
| enterprises include ecotourism, agroforestry, apiculture, fodder      |
| production and NTFPs. '**Enterprises**' are those natural             |
| resource-based businesses targeted under the FORREMS program.         |
| '**Established**' means initiated and operational. Target areas are   |
| currently defined as the 3 FORREMS focal areas -- NE                  |
| Laikipia/Mukogodo, N Mt. Kenya and the N. Coast.                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Number & type of enterprises                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by:** Type of business, geographical area             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** This indicator is based on the  |
| hypothesis that an increase in number and types of enterprises        |
| *(i.e.,* diversification of enterprises) contributes to more wealth   |
| (revenue/benefits) in the rural economy.                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:** Consolidated from site performance        |
| reports, assessment of enterprises by implementing partners           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly reports, performance    |
| assessment reports                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** Focal area base maps, reports, M&E database       |
| (built from focal area teams' reports), performance reports and       |
| database of enterprise inventories                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Quarterly & annually in     |
| October                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** Moderate                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Mr. Charles Oluchina          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** To be conducted in       |
| November 2004                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** None            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** None        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Repeat methods    |
| used in 1^st^ DQA                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** Data are analyzed and summarized by the            |
| responsible partners. Analysis includes use of relevant computer      |
| packages e.g. SPSS, MS excel, MS Word                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Tables with disaggregated categories,       |
| supporting narratives and maps of occurrence within group ranches and |
| in areas adjacent to PAs.                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data**: Review with FORREMS M&E Sub Committee & Program   |
| Steering Committee in April/October                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** Annual FORREMS PMP report                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets: **Baselines** **start with the number of  |
| enterprises FORREMS is assisting at the start of its interventions in |
| target areas**                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E unit**                           |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11 /10 /03                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

## 

## Nature-Based Enterprises Established

**Precise Definition(s):** A nature-based enterprise is one that
utilizes or depends upon the surrounding natural resources or
environmental goods and services to generate revenue or other benefits
for participants. The management of the enterprise strives for
sustainability; *i.e*, an approach to enterprise management that "meets
the needs of present participants or beneficiaries without compromising
the options and needs of future participants". Productive or service
sectors where one finds nature-based enterprises include ecotourism,
agroforestry, apiculture, fodder production and NTFPs. '**Enterprises**'
are those natural resource-based businesses targeted under the FORREMS
program. '**Established**' means initiated and operational. Target areas
are currently defined as the 3 FORREMS focal areas -- NE
Laikipia/Mukogodo, N Mt. Kenya and the N. Coast.

**Unit of measure**: Number and type of enterprises

**Disaggregated by:** Type of business**,** Geographic area

####### 3.5.1 MUKOGODO LANDSCAPE

The following nature based enterprises have been established in the
Mukogodo area.

-   Hay bailing and fodder production in Il Ngwesi GR by Naningo Youth
    Group (30 persons) at initial stages of strengthening by FORREMS .
    It has also been initiated in Lekuruki.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seedling production at Ethi and Chumvi : two tree seedling
    nurseries. The seedlings are under production and require 9 months
    to be ready for planting/sale.

-   Apiculture in Naipotaki Cooperative had earlier been initated by
    CORE and is now being strengthened under FORREMS.

In addition, an enterprise scoping exercise has been conducted and
options/scenarios for enterprise development developed. This will be
developed or supported during FORREMS.

####### 3.5.2 MT KENYA

No NBE was established by FORREMS project in 2003/2004. Viable
enterprises will be selected from the pool of those already in use by
various existing forest user groups. Most of the NBEs in use include
apiculture, tree seedling nurseries, poles and rafters etc.

####### 3.5.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST

-   Eco-tourism (scenic sites and roads) -- road signages and clearance
    of walking trails in collaboration with the community guides. (how
    many beneficiaries??)

-   Agro-forestry -- 22 ha of woodlots, 46,040 trees planted. (how many
    beneficiaries??)

-   Aloe farming -- 8,000 suckers procured and under multiplication in
    community nurseries. Farmers have been identified and soil sampled
    in the planting area. (how many beneficiaries??)

+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| **#5: NATURE-BASED      |                                            |
| ENTERPRISES             |                                            |
| ESTABLISHED**           |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| **Name of Focal Area**  | ## Type Of NBE Established                 |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| **Mukogodo**            | Apiculture                                 |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Hay bulking                                |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Agroforestry                               |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | NTFPs - (herbal medicines, wild fruits,    |
|                         | tree seeds, Aloe)                          |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Tree seedlings nurseries                   |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| **Mt. Kenya**           | NONE                                       |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| **Arabuko Sokoke        | Ecotourism (bicycle hire)                  |
| Forest**                |                                            |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Ecotourism (handicrafts)                   |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Ecotourism (scenic sites and roads)        |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Apiculture (modern technology)             |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Apiculture (honey processor)               |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Apiculture (business andmarketing plan)    |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Agroforestry (woodlots and fodder)         |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Aloe farming                               |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                         | Butterfly farming(business and marketing   |
|                         | plans)                                     |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

6.  **FINANCIAL BENEFITS GENERATED BY NATURE-BASED ENTERPRISES**

Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #6

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** 5.1-Site specific initiatives for NRM    |
| implemented outside PAs.                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **FORREMS Result: #5-** *Benefits from nature-based enterprises       |
| increased*                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Indicator:** Financial benefits generated by nature-based           |
| enterprises.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** 'Financial benefits' are revenues          |
| generated by nature-based enterprises that are payable to local       |
| community members, landowners, other qualified stakeholders or to     |
| support community services. Examples of financial benefits include    |
| income in the form of salaries or wages, 'dividends' paid from        |
| operational profits to members of a group, monies invested in         |
| 'spin-off' enterprises or funds invested in community infrastructure  |
| or services (*e.g.,* school buildings or bursaries, road repair,      |
| clinics or posho mills).                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Amount of net revenue generated by nature-based  |
| enterprises and paid out                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by**: Type of enterprise; gender                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** This indicator rests at the     |
| heart of the SO5 program, and is central to the SO's development      |
| hypothesis. FORREMS is striving for the sustainable utilization of    |
| natural resources, for the conservation of biodiversity and for the   |
| improvement of rural economies. The SO realizes that conservation and |
| sustainable NR utilization is virtually impossible without the active |
| participation of rural community members in improved NRM. The SO      |
| hypothesizes that financial benefits, flowing directly from           |
| profitable, nature-based enterprises, are powerful incentives for     |
| communities to maintain or protect the natural resources upon which   |
| these enterprises depend. These benefits are also important potential |
| 'drivers' for improving rural economies.                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:** Assessment of the financial records of    |
| nature-based enterprises using surveys & audits. Document the amount  |
| and intended recipients of net revenues paid out.                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly reports, performance    |
| assessment reports                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** Reports from AWF & Nature Kenya                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Quarterly & annually in     |
| October                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** Moderate\--\$15,000           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Charles Oluchina              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** November 2004            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** N/A             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** N/A         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Same as initial   |
| DQA                                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** Track changes in the amount net revenues and in    |
| the proportions of financial benefits (net revenues) earmarked for    |
| various recipients---salaries, 'dividends', community infrastructure  |
| support.                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Display targets and actual performance data |
| in Performance Summary Data Table.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data**: Review with FORREMS M&E Sub Committee & Program   |
| Steering Committee in April & October                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** CBJ, Annual Report, Annual FORREMS PMP report, |
| program briefs to the Ambassador, success stories                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets: **There are two baseline**                |
| **statistics---1) total net revenue of enterprises at the beginning   |
| of FORREMS-assistance and 2) total proportion of net revenues         |
| earmarked for various recipients.**                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E Unit**                           |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/ 10/ 03                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##  

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

## 

## Financial Benefits Generated By NBEs

## 

######## Precise Definition(s): 'Financial benefits' are revenues generated by nature-based enterprises that are payable to local community members, landowners, other qualified stakeholders or to support community services. Examples of financial benefits include income in the form of salaries or wages, 'dividends' paid from operational profits to members of a group, monies invested in 'spin-off' enterprises or funds invested in community infrastructure or services (*e.g.,* school buildings or bursaries, road repair, clinics or posho mills).

**Unit of measure**: Amount of net revenue generated by nature based
enterprises and paid out

**Disaggregated by:** Type of enterprise, gender

######## 3.6.1 MUKOGODO

No financial benefits have been generated in the first year.

######## 3.6.2 MT. KENYA

No NBE worked upon by the FORREMS project so far.

######## 3.6.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST

Agro-forestry (\$ 3,164 income to community for sale of seedlings**)**

7.  **NON-FINANCIAL BENEFITS ACCRUED FROM NATURE-BASED ENTERPRISES**

Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #7

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** 5.1\--Site specific initiatives for NRM  |
| implemented outside PAs.                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **FORREMS Result:** *#5- Benefits from nature-based enterprises       |
| increased*                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Indicator:** Non-financial benefits accrued from nature-based       |
| enterprises                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** There are several types of 'non-financial' |
| benefits from well-managed, financially sound enterprises -- 1)       |
| improvements in rural livelihoods that result when enterprise         |
| managers, boards or individuals chose to invest profits for the       |
| 'greater good'; (i.e, philanthropy), and 2) improved 'processes' or   |
| capacities that are available to the 'larger' community in which the  |
| enterprise functions. Examples of the former include improvements in  |
| community infrastructures *e.g.,* improved road networks,             |
| establishment or refurbishment of new schools or clinics, or improved |
| water systems or sanitation. Examples of the latter include enhanced  |
| governance (organizational, managerial, business skills and           |
| transparency), enhanced security or increased                         |
| empowerment/participation on the part of women in organizational      |
| decision-making or in NRM when enterprise managers or employees bring |
| their expertise and insights to other community groups or activities. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Unit of Measure:** Number of structures or systems that are         |
| improved or established as a result of the proceeds from nature-based |
| enterprises.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Disaggregated by**: Geographic area                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** FORREMS is striving for         |
| improved household and rural livelihoods, and these can be measured   |
| in part by non-financial benefits that accrue from environmentally    |
| sustainable and profitable NRM. The importance of this indicator      |
| rests on the notion that the positive impacts of non-financial        |
| benefits are complementary to the impacts of direct, financial        |
| benefits. In addition, they will probably be felt by a 'larger        |
| circle' of rural residents than will the financial benefits. For      |
| instance, if enterprise profits are invested in roofing a school      |
| (i.e, the 'philanthropy' noted above), the impact will be felt by     |
| many children in the community in contrast to employee wages that     |
| support individual families. Tracking this indicator and drawing      |
| attention to how sustainable NR utilization improves rural            |
| livelihoods on a broad scale are means of enticing more rural         |
| dwellers to practice sound NRM. This indicator is closely related to  |
| #6, and probably will not be realized without the strong performance  |
| of indicator #6.                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:** Assessment of the financial records of    |
| nature-based enterprises using surveys & audits. Document the         |
| community structures and/or institutions that are improved, built or  |
| that increase their effectiveness as a result of support from         |
| revenues paid out from nature-based enterprises.                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly reports, performance    |
| assessment reports                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** Reports from AWF & Nature Kenya                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Quarterly & annually in     |
| October                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** Expensive\-- \$15 - 20,000    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Charles Oluchina              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** November 2004            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** N/A             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** N/A         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Same as initial   |
| DQA                                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** Identify the type of non-financial benefits that   |
| are derived from the operation of nature-based enterprises. Track the |
| change in the amounts and types of these non-financial benefits over  |
| time.                                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Display targets and actual performance data |
| in Performance Summary Data Table.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data**: Review with FORREMS M&E Sub Committee & Program   |
| Steering Committee in April & October                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** Annual FORREMS PMP report                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets: **This is probably a new indicator. Thus, |
| baselines** **would be 'zero' (0).**                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E Unit**                           |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/12//03                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

## 

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

## 

## Non-Financial Benefits From NBE's

**Precise Definition(s):** There are several types of 'non-financial'
benefits from well-managed, financially sound enterprises -- 1)
improvements in rural livelihoods that result when enterprise managers,
boards or individuals chose to invest profits for the 'greater good';
(i.e, philanthropy), and 2) improved 'processes' or capacities that are
available to the 'larger' community in which the enterprise functions.
Examples of the former include improvements in community infrastructures
*e.g.,* improved road networks, establishment or refurbishment of new
schools or clinics, or improved water systems or sanitation. Examples of
the latter include enhanced governance (organizational, managerial,
business skills and transparency), enhanced security or increased
empowerment/participation on the part of women in organizational
decision-making or in NRM when enterprise managers or employees bring
their expertise and insights to other community groups or activities.

**Unit of measure**: Number of structures or systems that are improved
or established as a result of proceeds from nature based enterprises

**Disaggregated by:** Geographic area.

######## 3.7.1 MUKOGODO

No non financial benefits have been generated thus far.

######## 3.7.2 MT. KENYA

No non-financial benefits have been realized.

######## 3.7.3 ARABUKO SOKOKE FOREST

The main non-financial benefits have been technical assistance to the
Forest adjacent dwellers association (FADA), tree nursery owners,
butterfly and beekeeping farmers, and individuals and CBOs seeking
advice on investments of their income from Income Generating Activites.

3.8 FUNCTIONALITY OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR DECISION-MAKING

Indicator Reference Sheet: FORREMS Indicator #8

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Performance Indicator Reference Sheet**                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Strategic Objective:** Improved natural resource management in      |
| targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **SO5 Intermediate Result:** 5.3 Improved Management of Protected     |
| Areas                                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **FORREMS Result:** *#6 Information systems improved for management   |
| outside & inside PAs*                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Indicator:** Functionality of information systems for               |
| decision-making                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DESCRIPTION**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Precise Definition(s):** The 'functionality' of a database is a     |
| reflection. This indicator presents an indexed score from five (5)    |
| criteria representing the degree of functionality of a given          |
| information system. **[Criterion 1:]{.underline}** Data are routinely |
| collected and entered into a computerized database; 0 points = no     |
| routine data collection or entry is haphazard.; 1 point = data are    |
| often collected and entered in a routine fashion; 3 points = data are |
| always collected &entered punctually. Criterion 2: In-depth analyses  |
| of data is conducted annually (or more often); YES = 1 point, NO = 0. |
| Criterion 3: Annual (or more often) reports of data analyses and      |
| interpretation are produced; YES = 1 point, NO = 0. Criterion 4:      |
| Number of copies of results circulated; None = 0, 1-10 = 1 point,     |
| 11-25=2 points, 26 or more = 3 points. Criterion 5: Stakeholders can  |
| easily obtain the results & reports of data analyses; 0 = Not         |
| available, 1 = Not easily accessible; 2 = Moderately accessible; 4 =  |
| easily accessible. Thus the maximum points for determining            |
| 'functionality' of a database is 12. The indexed score is interpreted |
| as follows: 0-4=Not functioning; 5-9=Functional; 10-12=Highly         |
| functional. The informations systems being assessed with this         |
| indicator are: 1)KWS-GIS, 2) Those that track CBO performance in      |
| organizational capacity and financial benefits and 3) databases on    |
| land use change                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| **Unit of Measure:** The index score                                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Disaggregated by**: NA                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Justification/Management Utility:** 'Functional' information        |
| systems are necessary for improved databases will lead to improved    |
| access to accurate information which will then result in improved     |
| local NRM decision-making. An increase (or lack thereof) in the       |
| indexed score reflects the level of functionality of targeted         |
| monitoring databases. It is envisaged that providing Wardens with     |
| improved information will result in improved NRM decision-making.     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID**                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Collection Method:**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Method of Acquisition by USAID:** Quarterly reports and Performance |
| Assessment Reports from partners and independent evaluations          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Source(s):** KWS, Forest Department, Africa Wildlife           |
| Foundation, NEMA, Nature Kenya and KEFRI                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Frequency/Timing of Data Acquisition:** Quarterly & annually in     |
| October                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition:** Expensive---possibly          |
| \$15,000/year                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Responsible Individual(s) at USAID:** Charles Oluchina              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **DATA QUALITY ISSUES**                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:** August 2004,USAID will   |
| take the lead and work closely with FORREMS partners.                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):** N/A             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:** N/A         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:** September 2006           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments:** Site visits and   |
| audit of partner data                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING**                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Data Analysis:** See 'Data Collection Method' above.                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Presentation of Data:** Display targets and actual performance data |
| in Performance Summary Data Table segregated by geog area and gender  |
| where applicable. Tables, charts, graphs or maps will be used to      |
| present data.                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Review of Data**: Review with FORREMS M&E Sub Committee & Program   |
| Steering Committee in April & October also in SO portfolio reviews,   |
| monthly meetings, or activity or program-level reviews with           |
| implementing partners.                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Reporting of Data:** Annual FORREMS PMP report, success stories.    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **OTHER NOTES**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notes on Baselines/Targets: **The baseline amount for this indicator  |
| is 'zero' (0) ha. Targets have been set for FY '04, the first year in |
| which the initiatives of FORREMS partners could be expected to start  |
| 'paying off' at the SO level.**                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Location of Data Storage: **KWS CM&E Unit**                           |
|                                                                       |
| Other Notes:                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 11/12//03                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Key Results over the Reporting Period**

FUNCTIONALITY OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR DECISION-MAKING

**Precise Definition(s):** The 'functionality' of a database is a
reflection. This indicator presents an indexed score from five (5)
criteria representing the degree of functionality of a given information
system. **[Criterion 1:]{.underline}** Data are routinely collected and
entered into a computerized database; 0 points = no routine data
collection or entry is haphazard.; 1 point = data are often collected
and entered in a routine fashion; 3 points = data are always collected
&entered punctually. Criterion 2: In-depth analyses of data is conducted
annually (or more often); YES = 1 point, NO = 0. Criterion 3: Annual (or
more often) reports of data analyses and interpretation are produced;
YES = 1 point, NO = 0. Criterion 4: Number of copies of results
circulated; None = 0, 1-10 = 1 point, 11-25=2 points, 26 or more = 3
points. Criterion 5: Stakeholders can easily obtain the results &
reports of data analyses; 0 = Not available, 1 = Not easily accessible;
2 = Moderately accessible; 4 = easily accessible. Thus the maximum
points for determining 'functionality' of a database is 12. The indexed
score is interpreted as follows: 0-4=Not functioning; 5-9=Functional;
10-12=Highly functional. The informations systems being assessed with
this indicator are: 1)KWS-GIS, 2) Those that track CBO performance in
organizational capacity and financial benefits and 3) databases on land
use change

**Unit of Measure:** The index score

1)  Besides the FORREMS M&E systems which are used for decision making
    on the management of the project, several other initiatives are in
    use to support decision making within the project. These include:

-   In the communities, a monitoring system involving forest scouts has
    been set up. Forest scouts have been trained and deployed to patrol
    the conservation areas and the Mukogodo forest. An office has been
    constructed to coordinate their efforts and collate the information.
    Information collected from their work has been useful in decision
    making on use of the forest especially through grazing. The
    information from the scouts will also be very useful for PFM.

-   In Makurian, a rangeland rehabilitation committee has been set up to
    oversee the conservation processes of the range rehabilitation plot.
    This committee has been monitoring the plot for changes in the area
    and the information will be very useful for the process.

Data on forest cover of the Aberdares has been acquired from UNEP and
fed into the GIS database. Ground Truthing with KWS-GIS operational
assistance, has been done in identification of wildlife corridors in and
around the Mt Kenya Ecosystem. Vegetation and forest cover digital
mapping for the eight \'Forest Conservation Regions\' proposed under the
new Forests Bill has also been accomplished.

3.9 LEVEL OF POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE ADVANCEMENT

**Forest policy and legislation**

FORREMS resources used to facilitate participation in reviewing the
Forest Bill 2004. A paper on PFM was presented at the \'MPs\' workshop
on Forestry (Jan. 2004). The MPs' concerns of the bill after tabling in
the parliament were reviewed.The policy and legal reform process breaks
down into six milestone phases as shown below:

**(I)** Problem identification/diagnosis **(II)** pre-formulation and
development **(III)** Finalisation of policy intervention **(IV)**
Debate **(V)** Adoption **(VI)** Implementation and Enforcement

####### 

####### Policy

The Forest Policy 2004 is being finalized for presentation to the
Cabinet and publication into a Sessional paper after Parliamentary
approval. It is therefore at stage (III)-Finalization of Policy
Intervention and it scores 60%. It is hoped that by December 2004 a new
forest Policy will be in place. (See table 3 for details on scoring)

**Legislation -Forest Bill 2004**

The Forest Bill had reached stage (IV)- "Debate" in June 2004, but it
was shot down in Parliament and it will be re-introduced again for
debate. The Forest Policy/legislation process has scored 60%. Intense
lobbying is going on to ensure this time round the Forest Bill gets
Parliamentary approval and hopefully be enacted into Law.

**Table 3: Level of Policy/Legislation advancement**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Program</strong></p>
<p><strong>Phase (Weight)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="5"><strong>Forest Policy</strong></td>
<td colspan="5"><strong>Forest Legislation</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>04</strong></td>
<td><strong>05</strong></td>
<td><strong>06</strong></td>
<td><strong>07</strong></td>
<td><strong>08</strong></td>
<td><strong>04</strong></td>
<td><strong>05</strong></td>
<td><strong>06</strong></td>
<td><strong>07</strong></td>
<td><strong>08</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>I (25)</strong></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>II (20)</strong></td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>III (15)</strong></td>
<td>15</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>IV (10)</strong></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>V (10)</strong></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>VI (10)</strong></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Total (100)</strong></td>
<td><strong>60</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>70</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
<td><strong>-</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

## 3.10 Advocacy capacity of targeted groups.

Not much was accomplished in terms of policy advocacy except for the few
meetings that were held at group ranch level to sensitize members of the
new Forest Bill and Policy. The aim was to draw linkages between
existing local institutions, site-specific policies, cultural norms,
by-laws and our NR legislation. This task will be covered in depth in
year two (2) work plan.

## 

## Results by Focal Area

During the first year of FORREMS 2004, the programme's activities were
focused in three areas, namely; Mukogodo, NW Mt. Kenya and Arabuko
Sokoke forest at the coast. Background information on each focal area as
well as a summation of FORREMS activities and results during the
recording period is as follows.

### [MUKOGODO FOCAL AREA]{.underline} 

### Location, Population and Background

The area for project implementation is Mukogodo landscape that includes
Mukogodo forest reserve of 26,000 hectares and the neighboring four
group ranches namely Kuri kuri, Makurian, Lekuruki and Il Ngwesi,
located in Mukogodo Division, Laikipia district, Rift Valley Province.
The landscape also borders large-scale private ranches of Borana,
Lodiaga, Lewa Downs Conservancy and Isiolo District. Maasai communities
who have a strong tradition of natural resource governance and
management inhabit the project area. The group ranch committees are
responsible for resource allocation, distribution and management within
the group ranch. The communities have divided the forest reserve into
four areas with each ranch being responsible for management of its
portion of the forest. Even though the area has not been under direct
management of Forest Department, the local community has used it for
decades with insignificant detriment.

Mukogodo acts as an important dry grazing pasture retreat area for the
community. The forest is also a source of most springs flowing into the
group ranches. Some community members reside in the forest but still
take care of the forest. The forest is subdivided into 4 regions with
each community group ranch taking care of the forest within its area.
The main livelihood base for the community is livestock keeping. Most
parts of the group ranch are degraded due to overgrazing and soil
erosion There is potential for development of nature-based enterprises
in four group ranches. Prior to the inception of FORREMS program, two
group ranches, Lekuruki and Iingwesi group ranches had developed
community lodges namely Tassia and Il Ngwesi.

**Conservation Resources and Issues**

One may argue that if the communities have been conserving the forest
for years with minimal noticeable degradation, why then involve the
government, which will translate to increased management costs. This is
not true because:

-   With initiation of settlement schemes around the forest, this is
    translating to higher use of forest products through construction of
    permanent houses by the communities.

-   Managing the increasing interests and stakeholders in Mukogodo.
    Being a virgin forest there is a likelihood of opening up the forest
    for non-consumptive use like eco-tourism. The communities need the
    government for regulatory purposes and as a guarantor for ensuring
    local national and global interests and obligations.

-   Managing potential conflicts over values, resource use interests and
    perceptions.

This multiple stakeholder involvement in natural resources management is
aimed at making natural resources more responsive to local needs. The
argument is that if decision making can be brought closer to the primary
users, then resources will be more efficiently, equitably and
sustainably managed in line with their local long-term interests.

**FORREMS Conservation Strategy for Mukogodo**

**Table 1: Areas of the Group Ranches Allocated for Conservation**

  ---------- --------- --------- -------------- ----------------- ---------------
  **Group    **Total   **GR area **Areas        **General         **Overall
  Ranch      Size      within    identified for conservation      Biodiversity
  (GR)**     (ha)**    Forest    conservation   Strategies**      Threats**
                       Reserve   (ha)**                           
                       (ha)**                                     

  Il Ngwesi  13,172    3,985     To be          Rangeland         Rangeland
                                 confirmed      rehabilitation    degradation
                                                and forest        (soil erosion,
                                                restoration       overstocking,
                                                                  overgrazing,)
                                                                  water shortage
                                                                  (watershed
                                                                  destruction),
                                                                  encroachment
                                                                  into the
                                                                  forest;
                                                                  settlement

  Lekuruki   18,398    10,717    2015           Water development 
                                                and livestock     
                                                management        

  Makurian   11,173    4,157     727            Rangeland         
                                                rehabilitation;   
                                                Agro-             
                                                biodiversity      
                                                practices         

  Kuri Kuri  18,773    10,690    8280           Enterprise        
                                                development       
  ---------- --------- --------- -------------- ----------------- ---------------

Figure 1

**Key Results over the Recording Period**

During the year 2004 the significant achievements included;

1.  **Land Use Change**

A total of 11,022 ha (to be confirmed) in Mukogodo Forest has been
identified as a conservation area in four (4) community group ranches
namely: Ilngwesi, Makurian, Kurikuri and Lekuruki.

-   In Makurian GR, a range rehabilitation demonstration area measuring
    **18 ha** has been designated and set aside. Conservation techniques
    applied include; barbed wire-post fence to keep off animals, water
    harvesting and spreading terraces, grass reseeding, soil and water
    microcatchments.

-   One (1) tree nursery at Dol Dol by FD. This is in a plot, of about
    20 ha which will include a proposed campsite.

-   In Ilngwesi GR, an area measuring 65 ha has been set aside for hay
    production.

-   In Lekuruki GR, hay bailing demonstration site measuring **12 ha**
    was set aside and fenced.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Two (2) private tree nurseries at Ethi and Chumvi were established
    as a result of concern over the impact of degradation - 20,000
    seedlings each

-   Naibunga Conservancy which is outside Mukogondo, a total of 17,200
    ha in 9 community group ranches has been set aside for conservation.
    Naibunga conservancy is made up of land designated for conservation
    in Koija, Tiamamut, Kijabe, Nkilorit, Morpusi, Ilpolei, Munishoi,
    Musul and Ilmotiok group ranches.

2.  **Number Of Stakeholders Benefiting From Involvement In Improved
    NRM**

In Mukogodo, 518 stakeholders benefited directly and 170 indirectly. Out
of the direct beneficiaries only 70 males and 11 females could be
disaggregated by gender. Thus the disaggregation is incomplete. However
from the preliminary data, it can be deduced that participation of
female in NRM in Mukogodo is low.

The following stakeholders in Mukogodo benefited from FORREMS support in
the following ways:

-   36 community members were trained in methodologies for natural
    resource inventory and planning in February 2004 and later in April
    2004, the group were involved in the actual data collection for
    developing the inventories and NRM planning.

-   21 community members (18 male, 3 female) were trained as forest
    scouts in partnership with KWS to provide security for biodiversity
    conservation in Mukogodo Forest. They will be coordinated through a
    community office that is being developed by FORREMS in Mukogodo. The
    communities are paying these scouts.

-   4 Community members were trained in monitoring and evaluation of
    community based activities.

-   19 community representatives (16 male, 3 female) from ILMAMUSI
    participated in an exchange visit to Arabuko Sokoke to learn
    concerning participatory forest management. This was designed to
    expose them to and prepare them for PFM, which is being developed in
    Mukogodo forest.

-   67 community members were trained/reached during meetings to develop
    the umbrella structure (ILMAMUSI) for participatory forest
    management. Training also included conflict management and
    constitution building.

-   An office is being developed for the ILMAMUSI forest management
    committee.

-   188 community members consulted during sensitization meetings for
    the development of PFM

-   A hay bailing seminar was conducted for Lekuruki group ranch for 12
    community members (6 men, 6 women). A hay baler was also procured
    for the community but training on how to use it is yet to be
    conducted.

-   Organizational development training was provided for 11 members of
    Meirishi self help group from Lekuruki. This group will engage in
    hay production.

-   Training was conducted for 21 members of the Makurian demonstration
    plot committee at Dol Dol in March-April 2004.

-   Organizational development training conducted for 18 members of the
    Naningo Youth Group from Ilngwesi Group Ranch. This was designed to
    strengthen the group to effectively engage in the hay production
    program.

-   70 stakeholders attended the national aloe stakeholders' dialogue
    workshop convened in Nanyuki to guide the development of the
    sub-sector.

-   Visioning workshop held for 51 participants (38 community
    representatives, 13 partners) for the Mukogodo Landscape in Nanyuki
    in October 2003. In this workshop, the overall vision for the
    Mukogodo landscape was developed.

-   19,150 seedlings distributed to .....no. of farmers

3.  **Conservation Tools And Technologies In Use**

Fourteen (14) tools and one (1) technology have been in use by
stakeholders. In summary;

-   Soil and water conservation terraces and micro catchments, grass
    re-seeding and perimeter fence integrated in the Makurian
    rehabilitation demonstration site.

-   Conservation trust developed:(i) To manage Naibunga Conservancy
    and (ii) To strengthen the management of natural resources and
    associated enterprises in Il Ngwesi group ranch

-   The process of developing a strategic management plan for Mukugodo
    forest has began led by FD and KEFRI.

-   A five-year strategic plan has been developed for Ilngwesi group
    ranch to guide NRM and development in the group ranch.

-   The process of NRM planning for the Naibung'a community conservancy
    consisting of 9 group ranches was completed and draft reports have
    been produced. In group ranches where the process was completed
    earlier, aspects of the NRM plan are being implemented.

-   The process for participatory forest management of the Mukogodo
    forest has been initiated.

-   On-farm tree planting in ethi & chumvi 19,150 seedlings planted.

-   Checklist of important trees and other plants with market potential
    for NBEs

-   Natural resource fora and a network exist in the Mukogodo area.
    These include ILMAMUSI, focal area teams, and Resource Management
    Area committees.

-   Natural resource inventories, ecological species, and
    ethno-botanical surveys and socioeconomic surveys conducted in the
    four (4) GRs.

-   M&E systems in place

4.  **Organizational Capacity Of Community User Groups**

######## 

-   Community members were trained in Natural resource inventory and
    planning methodologies

-   Community members were trained as forest scouts in partnership with
    KWS to provide security for biodiversity conservation

-   Community trained in M&E

-   Community representatives from the ILMAMUSI were trained in PFM,
    training also included conflict management and constitution
    building.

-   Gave technical advice on process of developing a strategic forest
    management plan for Mukogodo landscape

-   Conducted visioning workshop

-   Created an umbrella community structure for the four group ranches
    and developed an action plan for the umbrella body

-   Community members trained on nursery techniques, management and
    seedling handling

5.  **Nature-Based Enterprises Established**

The following nature based enterprises have been established in the
Mukogodo area.

-   Hay bailing and fodder production in Il Ngwesi GR by Naningo Youth
    Group (30 persons) at initial stages of strengthening by FORREMS .
    It has also been initiated in Lekuruki.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seedling production at Ethi and Chumvi : two tree seedling
    nurseries. The seedlings are under production and require 9 months
    to be ready for planting/sale.

-   Apiculture in Naipotaki Cooperative had earlier been initated by
    CORE and is now being strengthened under FORREMS.

In addition, an enterprise scoping exercise has been conducted and
options/scenarios for enterprise development developed. This will be
developed or supported during FORREMS.

## Financial And Non-Financial Benefits Generated By NBEs

No financial/Non-financial benefits have been generated in the first
year.

**MUKOGODO RESOURCE MAP**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.126388888888889in"
height="7.497916666666667in"}

**MT. KENYA FOCAL AREA**

## Location, Population and Background

Mt. Kenya is located on the Eastern side of the Great Rift Valley. The
Northern slopes reach the Equator 180km North of Nairobi. It covers
Nyeri and Kirinyaga districts in Central Province and Meru Central, Meru
South and Embu districts in Eastern Province.

The gazetted area of Mt Kenya ecosystem include a 213,831 ha
National/forest Reserve (N/FR) under joint MOU management by KWS and FD,
and 71,500 ha National Park (NP) under KWS.

FORREMS identified Mt Kenya as a focal area on the basis of its rich
biodiversity, critical watershed, critical habitat, indigenous forests,
potential for significant economic benefits to the local communities.

Six forest stations[^14] covering 98,105 ha in North West Mt. Kenya were
chosen as target areas. This is because they are prone to fires, high
human/wildlife conflicts, wildlife/plantation conflicts and illegal
activities. Other areas of consideration include Irangi and Imenti
forests.

There are sites whose forests have been degraded by Non Resident
Cultivation (NRC) farmers and wild animals. Some FORREMs resources will
be utilized to rehabilitate plantations and mixed indigenous forests in
these areas for commercial forest management and Biodiversity
conservation respectively.

1.  **Land Use Change**

**42 ha** were reforested with mixture of *Prunus africanum, Fagara
microphylla, Vitex keniensis* indigenous pioneer tree species in Irangi
forest Magacha block jointly by Bill Woodley Trust/COMPACT, forest
community user groups, with FD and KWS Forest Program providing
technical guidance. The MKJMTF visited Magacha block in June 2004 and
found that survival was above average.

In NW Mt. Kenya 100 ha of degraded sites have been designated for
rehabilitation. 43 ha in Nyeri[^15] and 10 ha in Meru[^16] Central were
mapped and identified. Nine thousand (9000) indigenous tree seedlings
were procured from CBOs for restocking or reforestation on these sites.
Due to insufficient short rains in April/June the enrichment planting
was deferred to October/November/December 2004. No land use change is
yet effected in NW Mt. Kenya.

2.  **Number Of Stakeholders Benefiting From Involvement In Improved
    NRM**

In Mt. Kenya, 23 direct beneficiaries were involved. A total of 115
indirectly benefited. It appears the primary contribution of females in
improved natural resource management is marginalized here. At the
institutional level 15 KWS and FD received technical training from
USAID.

3.  **Conservation Tools And Technologies In Use**

Four (4) tools have been initiated and/or are in use. These include:

-   Integrated NRM plan for Mt. Kenya under review

-   Fire Management Plan (FMP) for Mt Kenya ecosystem initiated. Six
    localized FMPs for NW Mt. Kenya will be developed from the ecosystem
    FMP. Three (3) meetings with Meru Central and Nyeri DFOs have been
    held to plan on emergency fire plans.

-   Rehabilitation of degraded sites -- Magacha block in Irangi forest

-   M&E system by the MKJMTF

4.  **Organizational Capacity Of Community User Groups**

The warden Embu and Senior warden Mt Kenya are laying terms of
participatory NRM with ten (10) Forest user groups[^17]. The MKJMTF has
selected some areas as the main sites from which FORREMS will contribute
in improving CBOs' performance.

5.  **Nature-Based Enterprises Established**

No NBE was established by FORREMS project in 2003/2004. Viable
enterprises will be selected from the pool of those already in use by
various existing forest user groups. Most of the NBEs in use include
apiculture, tree seedling nurseries, poles and rafters etc.

6.  **Financial Benefits Generated By NBEs**

No NBE worked upon by the FORREMS project so far

7.  **Non-Financial Benefits From NBEs**

No non-financial benefits have been realized.

## MT. KENYA FOCAL AREA

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.370138888888889in"
height="8.500694444444445in"}

**Arabuko Sokoke Forest**

### Location, Population and Background

The Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (ASF) lies close to the Indian Ocean in Kilifi
and Malindi Districts of Coast Province, Kenya (see figure 10). In the
1960s, ASF covered an area twice as large as the 41,765 ha it covers
today. It is the last large remnant of the north-coast forests that once
dominated Kenya\'s coastal fringe, and is a globally important forest
for biodiversity conservation as well as a vitally important resource
for the local communities. ASF is a dominant feature of the local
landscape and regulates fresh water flow to the adjacent Mida Creek and
mangrove forest. The creek and mangrove in turn provide fish nurseries,
important over-wintering grounds for migrant waders, and a nutrient and
sediment trap protecting the Watamu coral reef. The Watamu/Arabuko area
is the only place in Kenya where reef, beach, creek and forest occur
together in this way, offering considerable potential for a landscape
approach to Natural Resource Management (NRM).

The project is targeting the forest adjacent dwellers within a
5-kilometer belt around the ASF. There are 18 sub-locations extending
around the forest, with 51 villages actually bordering on the forest and
having a population of about 104,000 people (Fig.11). The project is
administered from the Gede Forest Station and the marketing of the
nature based products at the Gede Ruins Museum.

![](media/image3.png){width="2.8229166666666665in"
height="2.785416666666667in"}

ASF is one of the most important biodiversity sites in Kenya. It has
been ranked as the second most important forest for threatened bird
conservation on mainland Africa and is one of 19 Important Bird Areas
(IBAs) in Kenya that have been prioritized as critical sites for
intensive and immediate conservation action. ASF is part of the East
African Coastal Forest/Eastern Arc Forest complex that ranks among the
top 25 biodiversity hotspots on earth.

Figure 10: Map Of Arabuko Sokoke Forest Along The Kenyan Coast

**Key Results over the Recording Period**

During the year 2004 the significant achievements included;

1.  **Land Use Change**

An Operational Forest Management Plan and Guidelines for PFM
implementation developed for the **11,200 ha**[^18] under the Dida PFM
pilot area: 7,000 ha and 4,200 ha under community and gazetted forest
respectively.

Around the forest, **22 ha** of woodlots were planted

2.  **Number Of Stakeholders Benefiting From Involvement In Improved
    NRM**

In ASF, 2,043 stakeholders benefited directly and indirectly (though it
is difficult to prove this, it is assumed that this benefit is extended
to 4 or 5 other members of the household.). The direct stakeholder
disaggregate, by gender, to 1,329 males and 714 female.

3.  **Conservation Tools And Technologies In Use**

At Arabuko-Sokoke Forest 5 tools and 1 technology were adopted.

-   Buffer zones around protected areas -- woodlots were established on
    farms that neighbour the forest on the northern border from Kakuyuni
    to Mida, running along the 20 km fence.

-   Agroforestry and farm forestry -- 22 ha of wood lots were planted in
    villages that neighbor the north and east of the forest (Sidzeni 4
    ha, Roka 6 ha, Kakuyuni 5 ha, Mkongani 4ha, Mida-Majaoni 3 ha)

-   M&E systems and databases - Monitoring protocols and framework were
    developed for biodiversity. Protocols developed for vegetation,
    butterflies, birds, and elephant shrews.

-   PFM -- Operational Forest Management Plan and Guidelines developed.
    Changing of the Dida Forest Adjacent Forest Association (DIFAAFA) to
    a society is on-going.

-   Natural resource fora and networks -- Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Adjacent
    Association (FADA) committee strengthened and the Arabuko- Sokoke
    Forum operationalised.

4.  **Organizational Capacity Of Community User Groups**

Organization capacity assessment (OCA) of groups has not been done on
any of the targeted CBOs for capacity building. Three groups have
benefited:

-   Arabuko Sokoke Forest Adjacent Dwellers Association (FADA) -
    facilitation of regular meetings of delegates at which the groups
    constitution and structure of association as umbrella reviewed. As
    community group in charge of electric fence, technical support on
    establishing a sustainable fence maintenance unit provided. The
    groups' Chairman was facilitated to attend national fora to
    disseminate the ASF experience.

-   Dida Forest Adjacent Area Forest Association (DIFAAFA) - review of
    guidelines for PFM implementation that include roles and
    responsibilities of members, officials and user groups. Strengthened
    governance and review constitution, faciliting change of the CBO to
    a society, one of the requirements for community participation in
    forest management. Facilitated the Chairman to disseminate the ASF
    PFM experience at national fora.

-   Mangagani Butterfly farmers -- assisted in building business
    planning capacity and investment evaluation, in developing spin off
    activities from income from butterfly farming.

-   Beekeeping farmers in ASF -- developed a network beekeepers that
    will facilitate training on modern methods of beekeeping,
    standardization and quality control and marketing.

5.  **Nature-Based Enterprises Established**

-   Eco-tourism (scenic sites and roads) -- road signages and clearance
    of walking trails in collaboration with the community guides. (how
    many beneficiaries??)

-   Agro-forestry -- 22 ha of woodlots, 46,040 trees planted. (how many
    beneficiaries??)

-   Aloe farming -- 8,000 suckers procured and under multiplication in
    community nurseries. Farmers have been identified and soil sampled
    in the planting area. (how many beneficiaries??)

6.  **Financial Benefits Generated By NBEs**

Agro-forestry (\$ 3,164 income to community for sale of seedlings**)**

7.  **Non-Financial Benefits From NBEs**

The main non-financial benefits have been technical assistance to the
Forest adjacent dwellers association (FADA), tree nursery owners,
butterfly and beekeeping farmers, and individuals and CBOs seeking
advice on investments of their income from Income Generating Activites.

**ASF RESOURCE MAP SHOWING POPULATION DENSITIES AND FOREST-ADJACENT
DWELLERS**![](media/image4.png){width="5.625in"
height="7.356944444444444in"}

[^1]: Source: KWS Forest Report

[^2]: ^1^ ^NaroMoru,\ Gathiuru,\ Nanyuki,\ Mariana\ ,Mucheene,\ Meru.^

[^3]: Source: Revised PDT

[^4]: Source: Revised PDT

[^5]: Source: LWF/AWF Report

[^6]: In Nyeri, the distribution of the 43 ha is as follows: Naromoru-10
    ha, Nanyuki-23 ha, Gathiuru-10 ha. Most of the areas were opened for
    cultivation under NRC and later abandoned. Some are encroachment on
    the indigenous forest.

[^7]: In Meru Central 10 ha in Ontulili Block --Ontulili Forest Station
    was identified and mapped for rehabilitation.

[^8]: Source: Ayiemba Report

[^9]: Source: AWF/LWF Report, Kagombe Report

[^10]: Source: KWS Forest Report

[^11]: This includes PFOs, DFOs around Mt. Kenya ecosystem and Snr.
    Warden Aberdares.

[^12]: ^\*^ The disaggregation between direct and indirect beneficiaries
    has not been show, an assumption is made that this benefit is
    extended to 4 or 5 other members of the household

[^13]: Kirinyaga Afforestation and Tourism Attraction Group (KAATA),
    Kariki Youth Group (KYP),

    Irangi Honey Collectors Group (HCG), Gikumbo/Githuthum Moat Self
    Help Group (GGMSHG),

    Ragati Forest Retired Officers Self Help Group (RFROSHG), Hombe
    Community Afforestation and Agroforestry Group.(HCAAG),

    Mathina Young Women Group (MYWG), Friends of Mount Kenya Forest
    (FMKF), Kithunguri Beekeepers Group (KBG), Nyagithai/Kariko Moat
    Group (NMMKMG)

[^14]: ^1^ ^NaroMoru,\ Gathiuru,\ Nanyuki,\ Mariana\ ,Mucheene,\ Meru.^

[^15]: In Nyeri, the distribution of the 43 ha is as follows:
    Naromoru-10 ha, Nanyuki-23 ha, Gathiuru-10 ha. Most of the areas
    were opened for cultivation under NRC and later abandoned. Some are
    encroachment on the indigenous forest.

[^16]: In Meru Central 10 ha in Ontulili Block --Ontulili Forest Station
    was identified and mapped for rehabilitation.

[^17]: Kirinyaga Afforestation and Tourism Attraction Group (KAATA),
    Kariki Youth Group (KYP),

    Irangi Honey Collectors Group (HCG), Gikumbo/Githuthum Moat Self
    Help Group (GGMSHG),

    Ragati Forest Retired Officers Self Help Group (RFROSHG), Hombe
    Community Afforestation and Agroforestry Group.(HCAAG),

    Mathina Young Women Group (MYWG), Friends of Mount Kenya Forest
    (FMKF), Kithunguri Beekeepers Group (KBG), Nyagithai/Kariko Moat
    Group (NMMKMG)

[^18]: Source: Ayiemba Report