Ana səhifə

Project document

Yüklə 2.65 Mb.
ölçüsü2.65 Mb.
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   24

6.2Independent evaluations

  1. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows: An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at exactly the mid-point of the project lifetime. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit.

  2. An independent Final Technical Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal Project Board meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Technical Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

7.PART V: Incremental Logic

7.1Baseline Course of Action

7.1.1Summary of Baseline Situation

  1. The Baseline is the “business-as-usual” scenario that would take place during the next 5 years in the absence of the interventions planned under the project. A number of conservation interventions have already been undertaken in these forests, as detailed below. Without the proposed outcome of this project these interventions will remain the baseline situation.

  2. Under the Baseline scenario biodiversity would continue to be lost. With in-effective management the patches of Eastern Montane Forest are threatened by encroachment, by over harvesting (timber, poles, fuel, hunting), and edges are eroded by fire. Non-gazetted patches are converted (legally) to cultivation; and forest connectivity is lost. The solution to the conservation predicament facing the Montane Forests would be an expanded and effective PA network, encompassing forest sites with highest global significance, co-managed by empowered national and local institutions to nationally mandated management standards. Additionally, to locate sustainable mechanisms to fund the protected area network.

  3. In the forest landscapes that will be the focus of in this project there is a real opportunity to enhance the protected area networks through the development of additional community conservation areas managed at the local level.. Without the GEF Alternative, the baseline situation will continue such that there will be continuing and rapid conversion of forest land outside of reserves for agricultural purposes and unsustainable use of natural resources within the reserves. This will result in the loss of forest connectivity and also the gradual reduction of forest biodiversity values.

  4. Most of the priority forests are situated in districts which have been split administratively. Most were gazetted as trustland forests and forest reserves in the 1930s. The forest are natural assets of national importance providing critical ecological services to the country in terms of water storage, river flow regulation, flood, mitigation, groundwater recharge, reduction of soil erosion and siltation, water purification, conservation of biodiversity and micro-climate regulation. In addition, through ecological services, they support key economic sectors in Western Kenya including energy, tourism, agriculture and industry.

7.1.2Baseline Situation – Rationalized PA Estate Management

  1. The three priority forest landscapes covered by the Project occupy, in addition to the network of forest patches and the Mau Forest Complex makes up approximately 500,000 ha of land in Western Kenya. They are part of the Protected Area (PA) network of Kenya which consists of National Parks, National Reserves, Forest Reserves and Game Sanctuaries and constitutes approximately 9% of the country’s 586,600 sq. Km. area. The National Parks (NPs) and National Reserves (NRs) cover an area of 44,400 sq. Km while the Forest Reserves (FRs) numbering 200, cover an area of 10600 sq. Km (Maps of FRs, NPs, NRs and Game Sanctuaries).

  2. Most of the priority forests are fragmented. The Cherangani Forest (96600ha of gazetted forest) has 13 forest reserves, the biggest of which is Embotut Forest. The Kakamega Forest is fragmented with a mosaic of primary and secondary forest interspersed with farms and in the past was connected to the Nandi Forests. This connectivity has been lost.

  3. There are two Nature Reserves (Yala and Isecheno) and a National Reserve (3200 ha of closed canopy indigenous forest) in Kakamega Forest. In North Nandi forest there is the Nandi Nature Reserve (3434ha.) though with no special protection.

  4. KWS, WRMA, NEMA, KFS are in the process of developing an Integrated Management Plan for Kakamega Forest which seeks to implement on ecosystem approach for the forest blocks. A Management Plan is being developed for both North and South Nandi Forests with the assistance of the Nandi Environment Forum while an Ecosystem Management Plan and Site Management Plans are mooted for Cherangani Forest.

7.1.3Baseline Situation – Community Management in Forest Conservation

  1. There are Site Support Groups, Community Conservation Associations and Community Conservation Areas (CCAs) in the Nandi – Kakamega Forest Complex, the Dry Grassland – Moist Forest Mosaic of Mau Narok and the Forest – Moist Grassland Mosaic of Busia downstream of the rivers emanating from Nandi –Kakamega Forests.

  2. Cherangani Hills: CFA’s have not been formed but there is the Cherangani Hills CBOs Consortium which undertakes conservation activities around the forest through a project implementation committee constituted by KFS, Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Local Government officials, representatives of CBOs and community members. The consortium is funded by CEF with Nature – Kenya as strategic partner.

  3. North and South Nandi Forest: In addition to the development of Water Resource Users Associations (WRVAs), in the North and South Nandi Forest there exists the Nandi North Environment Forum (NEF) under which there are several CBOs. NEF is funded by CEF with Nature – Kenya as strategic partner. It undertakes conservation activities around the forest and two Community Forest Associations (Kimondi and Kobujoy)

  4. Kakamega Forest: There are many CSOs that are engaged in conservation in one way or another in the surrounding of the forest. This has led to duplication of activities and escalation of conflicts between CSOs themselves and the managing authorities. Some CBOs have so many activities which they are unable to implement effectively due to lack of capacity. Kakamega Environmental Education Programme (KEEF) is one of the major organizations involved in conservation and management activities around the forest.

  5. Civil society groups are involved in the following conservation activities: tree nursery establishment, environmental awareness creation, community policing, onfarm woodlot promotion, rehabilitation of forest, fish farming , supply of gravitational water, river bank protection and management, promotion of environmental governance , energy conservation, promotion of commercial tree planting associations, butterfly farming, tour guiding, and silk processing,

  6. Capacity gaps amongst CBOs include the following: most of the CBOs are relatively new and are still grappling with leadership and governance issues; there is still inadequate knowledge and skills on technical issues as well as management e.g. raising of tree seedlings, eco-tourism, monitoring and evaluation etc; there are inadequate communication skills for example, for changing attitudes of the public about forest ownership from negative to positive; weak lobbying and advocacy skills; lack of capital investment, equipment and materials; inadequate financial resources; difficulties with gender mainstreaming due to culture in some communities

7.1.4Baseline Situation – Operational Capacity for PA Management

  1. The Western Kenya Forest PA system is managed by two government agencies: KWS for NPs and NRs through the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act of 1989 and the newly transformed KFS for protective and productive forest management via the Forest Act of 2005. NEMA plays an oversight role in the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources through the Environment Management and Conservation Act (EMCA) of 1999. KFS and KWS, now in one Ministry (Ministry of Forests and Wildlife) have been collaborating in the protection, conservation and management of forests through a Memorandum of Understanding (for example in Kakamega). Under the MoU 44 forests were to be managed in a synergistic manner. The MOU has expired but there is an intention of reviving it. However, government agencies lack the funds, cooperation and human capacity to manage forests at site level at present.
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   24

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət