Project document

7.3Co-Financing

336. 
     Government resources are meagre for the conservation of these globally important forest areas. Without GEF resources and the leveraged co-financing, in cash and in kind, the landscapes will remain without the protection they require. Moreover, the opportunities to create CCAs will not last forever as the remaining unprotected forest habitats are being converted to farmlands with little biodiversity value.
     
337. 
     Total Government co-financing for this project is estimated to be from four sources. The first set of funding is from the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), of which 80% in expected in cash and 20% in kind. The second set of funding is from the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), of which 80% in expected in cash and 20% in kind. The third set is from the Kenyan Forest Research Institute (KEFRI), of which 80% in expected in cash and 20% in kind. The fourth set of funding is from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) of which 80% in expected in cash and 20% in kind.
     
338. 
     NGO co-financing, in the form of cash through support from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is coming through the national NGO Nature Kenya.
     

7.3.1Total NGO co-financing is USD 1,500,000

339. 
     Nature Kenya will provide co-financing in the region of USD 1,500,000 in cash over the course of the project lifecycle.
     

7.3.2Total Government of Kenya co-financing is USD 10,470,000 (of which USD 8,376,000 is in cash)

340. 
     KFS is committed to co-financing of the amount of USD 5,500.000 in cash and in kind. KWS is committed to co-financing of the amount of USD 2,850,000 in cash and in kind. NEMA is committed to co-financing of the amount of USD 620,000 in cash and in kind. KEFRI is committed to co-financing of the amount of USD 1,500,000 in cash and in kind.
     

7.3.3Total United Nations Development Programme co-financing is USD 500,000

341. 
     UNDP supports this project. Their contribution is estimated as USD 500,000 over the lifespan of this project, provided for annually in proportional cash amounts.
     

7.4Cost Effectiveness

342. 
     The relatively limited area of remaining forests in the under protected West Evergreen/ Hill forests of the Eastern Montane Hotspot places a conservation premium on this ecosystem type. Once degraded, the costs of rehabilitating this ecosystem are high, calculated at up to USD 500 per hectare. The costs of the management strategy proposed herein are considerably lower, estimated at below USD 100 per ha per year. A precautionary approach to management of this ecosystem is justified from a cost angle. While some biodiversity can be recovered through forest restoration, some losses are irreversible once they have occurred. The project will also seek to enhance the cost efficiency of PA management by: (i) improving institutional effectiveness, thus ensuring that the impact-per-unit investment is improved; (ii) sharing management benefits and costs with other stakeholder groups, building ownership in PAs and addressing the costs that derive from the pressure placed on PAs by these groups; and (ii) managing PAs at a cluster level within landscapes, thus generating significant economies of scale in PA operations.
     
343. 
     Nature Kenya’s experience in Kinangop and Kikuyu escarpment and Kakamega forest is that the involvement of local communities and the local authorities in the management of biodiversity and fragile unprotected ecosystems will contribute to compliance with established legislation. However, without additional support to create appropriate institutions, coordination structures and action processes, it is unlikely that the work by these partners will achieve tangible conservation outcomes. The Kenya government has developed policies and legislation but the lack of resources do not allow the development of guidelines and regulations and awareness creation at site level to facilitate their effective implementation. Nature Kenya and other partners have developed a biodiversity monitoring framework but a lack of capacity and site-based coordination structures mean that the framework cannot be implemented.
     
344. 
     Local communities are willing to conserve, but the lack of incentives and livelihoods options is a key barrier to their action. Nature Kenya experiences in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest are that income generating activities are a practical incentives and solutions to conservation challenges but their investment capital e.g. beekeeping is beyond the ability of government and local communities. That is why it is critical to provide incremental support to current resources to offset barriers and create a framework for sustaining conservation action by local communities and partners. GEF resources are sought to support the establishment of a strong foundation based on tools and models and structures for ensuring sustainable action manageable with available community and government resources. GEF, through the now-ended GEF Africa NGO-Government Partnerships for Sustainable Biodiversity Action already demonstrated the value for local level capacity building and it is this successes, lessons and experiences.
     
345. 
     The project will work directly with the staff of the various agencies and organisations involved. It will also be based out of their offices and hence will make a direct contribution to their office costs and hence will operate at minimum cost to deliver maximum conservation impact.
     
346. 
     Around forests the project will work with villages over the development of village forest reserves and the development and implementation of JFM agreements. If the benefits are greater than the costs then communities will be likely to take on management responsibilities for these areas and hence reduce the cost of project implementation and spread the load across further stakeholders.
     
347. 
     Despite important and conceptually sound recent shifts in policy and legislation concerning forest resource management, success in implementing these will depend on building District and community capacity, a process for which government has limited financial resources and expertise. Given the heavy work load and limited personnel deployment of government departments and agencies and their budgetary constraints, the project will provide essential resources and specialist skills required to improve the conservation status of Montane Forests in the landscapes that are the focus of the project.