Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Mau forest on fire: Mau-‐mandala.wildlifedirect.org
Narok County Forest Carbon Project
First Assessment Report
Kanyinke Sena
February 2015
2
The UN Climate Summit’s New York Declaration on Forests pledged to “halve the rate of loss of natural forests globally by 2020 and strive to end natural forest loss by 2030”. This is in addition to “reducing deforestation derived from other economic sectors by 2020, support for alternatives to deforestation driven by basic needs (such as subsistence farming and reliance on fuel wood for energy) in ways that alleviate poverty and promote sustainable and equitable development.” The Declaration also commits to “restoring 150 million hectares of degraded landscapes and
forestlands by 2020 and significantly increasing the rate of global restoration thereafter, which would restore at least an additional 200 million hectares by 2030.”1 The Summit recognized that “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also to help countries build resilience and prepare for a world of dramatic climate and weather extremes, mobilizing finance for climate action is a priority. And a robust price on carbon is one of the most effective strategies to unlock private investment into the forestry sector.”2 Kenya participated in the UN Climate Summit. It is also participating in efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Kenya’s REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP) to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) estimates that Kenya has 3.47 million ha of forest (indigenous forests, open woodlands, and plantations) and an additional 24.5 million hectares of bush-‐land. However, Kenya loses about 12,000 hectares of forest each year through deforestation (primarily conversion of forests to agriculture or for public or private development projects).3 In 2010, Kenya developed a National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) that recognizes that deforestation and forest degradation must be addressed if Kenya is to achieve its climate change mitigation and
1 New York Declaration on Forests http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-‐content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/FORESTS-‐New-‐York-‐Declaration-‐on-‐Forests.pdf 2 Economic Driver, Action Statement: Caring for Climate Business Leadership Criteria for a Carbon Price at http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-‐content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/FINANCING-‐CARBON-‐PRICING-‐Caring-‐for-‐Climate-‐Carbon-‐Pricing.pdf 3 Kenya Readiness Preparation Proposal at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Jun2010/KENYA_REDD-‐RPP-‐JUNE_12th_2010.pdf
1.0 Introduction
A Tea farm in Mau forest K. Sena
3
adaptation and sustainable development goals.4 A Climate Change Bill (2014) is under consideration “to provide a framework for mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change on all sectors of the economy and levels of governance.”5 Currently, there are over ten (10) forest carbon projects in various parts of Kenya. Unfortunately, none is located in Narok County. Reports indicate that not only are communities playing a significant role in the projects, they are also benefiting in various ways.6 Besides, these projects are also contributing to Kenya’s climate change mitigation and adaptation goals. Can a forest carbon project be possible in Narok County as a means of addressing the deforestation menace in County and contribute to Kenya’s REDD+ program and national climate change goals? To answer this question, an exploratory email was circulated in August 2014 to a few international organizations spearheading REDD+. The response was lukewarm. But a conversation with Brighter Green on a bus ride in Paraguay in December 2014 reignited the idea. A concept note was developed and shared with Brighter Green and Tribal Link. A joint action plan that included a planning trip to Kenya was developed. However, efforts to fundraise for the planning trip were unsuccessful though promising. An opportunity to travel to Kenya emerged through an invite from the African Commission’s Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment and Human Rights for its East Africa consultation in January 2015. Personal donations from Pamela Kraft (Tribal Link) and Mia Macdonald (Brighter Green) made possible a short visit to Narok as part of the trip. This report is a summary of the visit’s findings on possibilities for a forest carbon project in Narok.
Narok County is situated in Kenya along the Great Rift Valley, 2 ½ hours South West of Nairobi. It covers an area of approximately 17,944 sq. km and has a population of 850,920.7 Temperatures range from 12˚ Celsius to 28˚ Celsius depending on the season and altitude. The warmest month is January and the coldest July. Rainfall patterns vary according to place but on average, Narok County gets between 500 mm to 1,800
4 National Climate Change Response Strategy, April 201 at http://cdkn.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/04/National-‐Climate-‐Change-‐Response-‐Strategy_April-‐2010.pdf 5 Climate Change Bill, 2014 at http://www.reconcile-‐ea.org/downloads/ClimateChangeBill2014%20(1).pdf 6 See for example Wildlife Works Kasigau Corridor REDD+, Kenya at http://www.coderedd.org/redd-‐project-‐devs/wildlife-‐works-‐carbon-‐kasigau-‐corridor/ 7 The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census Report, Volume IC, Population by Age, Sex and Administrative Unites, August 2010.
2.0 Narok County
4
mm per annum. Narok has two rainy seasons. The long rains are usually between mid-‐February and May and the short rains are experienced between November-‐December. The County has a diverse topography that ranges from the highlands of the Mau (3200 meters above sea level) to the lowlands of the Mara at (900 meters above sea level).
Data collection methods utilized to assess the potential for a forest carbon project in Narok included face-‐to-‐face interviews, questionnaire, literature review and observation. The face-‐to-‐face interviews that targeted large landowners and government officials including National REDD+ secretariat were conducted in Narok and Nairobi respectively. A questionnaire was shared with fifty (50) randomly selected individuals through five (5) Community Forest Associations (CFAs) chairpersons. 36 responses were received. The respondents comprised of 30 men, 5 women and 1 primary school. This introduced an interesting gender dynamic that needs to be developed.
Data on the forest cover and rate of deforestation was not readily available.8 However, the County was well endowed with indigenous forests. For example, Maasai Mau, Enoosupukia, Olpusimoru and Transmara forest blocks of the Mau Forest complex are found within Narok County. Together, they measure 107 278 hectares (Maasai Mau 46, 278, Enoosupukia 10 000, Olpusimoru 16 000 and Trans Mara 35, 000). Narok too is home to the 400 sq. km community managed pristine Loita Naimina Enkiyo forest.9 The land in-‐between the forest blocks and the Maasai Mara game reserve in the southern parts of the County also contains large tracks of forests on individual freeholds lands. Besides supporting agriculture, livestock and water needs of the Narok population, the forests in Narok are critical for the health of the Maasai Mara game reserve and Lake Natron in Tanzania -‐ the breeding area for the
8 Attempts to get this from KFS were frustrating. 9 Karanja F, TessemaY and Barrow E, Equity in the Loita/Purko Naimina Enkiyio Forest in Kenya: Securing Maasai Rights to and Responsibilities for the Forest, 2012 at https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2000-‐019-‐11.pdf
3.0 Methodology
4.0 Data analysis
3.1 Forestry in Narok
Deforestation through land sales in Ololoipangi K. Sena
5
flamingoes of the Rift Valley. Maasai Mara game reserve is world renowned for it annual wildlife migration spectacle. The Maasai Mara reserve, systained by the Mara River that flows from Mau forest, has been classified as a World Heritage Site on the basis of its natural properties.10 Similarly, flamingoes bred in Lake Natron, watered solely by River Ewaso Nyiro that flows from Mau forest, sustains tourism in Lakes Nakuru, Elementeita and Bogoria. The three lakes system has also been inscribed into the World Heritage List.11 However, over the last 30 years, forests in Narok have suffered tremendous hardship. UNEP’s assessment of deforestation trends in Maasai Mau forest shows shocking images of forest loss between 1978 and 2008.12 Analysis of the images shows that about 8,214 hectares of forest cover was lost inside the Maasai Mau Forest, and about 31,755 hectares lost outside the forest boundaries in that period. This totals 39,969 hectares – representing about 39% of the total forest cover inside and outside the boundaries of the Maasai Mau.13 This is the situation in all other forest areas in Narok County except perhaps Loita Naimina Enkiyo. The underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation in Narok County include various economic, social, cultural and political factors.14But despite numerous calls by communities in Narok and efforts by the government and other actors, including UN agencies, to support rehabilitation activities of the gazeted portions of forests in Narok County and the Mau forest complex in general, politics remains a major stumbling block.15 According to UNEP, agriculture is main driver of deforestation in Narok.16This is leading to massive conversion of forest areas and savannah grasslands to wheat, barley, maize and other crops plantations. And if a statement by Narok County governments Director of Communication is anything to go by, agriculture in Narok is set to expand.17 Charcoal production is another major problem. The charcoal menace is associated with the change of land ownership from communal to individual parcels. This change reduced space for pastoralism and hunting and gathering and pushed Maasai and Ogiek into farming. Forests and shrubs were cleared and turned into charcoal. And the charcoal was transported and sold in Nairobi, Kisii, Kisumu and other major cities. High Charcoal prices in the cities
10 UNESCO World Heritage Committee, The African Great Rift Valley -‐ The Maasai Mara, at http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5512/ 11 UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Kenya Lake System in the Great Rift Valley at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1060 12 UNEP et all, Maasai Mau Assessment and Way Forward at http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Maasai-‐Mau_assessment%20and%20way%20forward.pdf 13 Ewaso Nyiro South Development Authority et al, Maasai Mau Status Report, 2005 at http://www.iapad.org/publications/maasai_mau_report.pdf 14 Naomi Lanoi and Kanyinke, The Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Maasai Mau Forest, Global Forest Coalition, 2009 at http://vh-‐gfc.dpi.nl/img/userpics/File/UnderlyingCauses/Kenya-‐Report-‐Underlying-‐Causes-‐Workshops.pdf 15 See for example BBC News, Kenya’s heart stops pumping, 29th September 2009 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8057316.stm 16 Ibid foot note 9 17 Diana Diado, Agribusiness the Next Frontier for breadbasket, Maasai Digital Media at http://maasaimedia.com/2014/10/23/agribusiness-‐the-‐next-‐frontier-‐for-‐breadbasket/
6
encouraged more deforestation for charcoal production in Narok.18By driving deforestation, agriculture and charcoal production in Narok is contributing to global climate change.
It for this reason that it is important for communities to take leadership in the conservation of forests in Narok County, by shifting attention from gazetted forests to forests in their private individual farms. Hopefully, when substantial results are achieved at this level, it might trigger serious conservation efforts in gazetted forest areas. In pursuit of this objective, a questionnaire titled “Narok Forest Carbon Project Survey” containing 14 questions was developed as an assessment tool of community interest. The first questions sought to get an overview of the land ownership size per individual or family. Questions three to seven sought to understand whether the lands contained any forested areas, the sizes forests in the land and whether they were willing to commit part of their land for forest conservation. Questions eight to ten aimed at understanding how the community were organized in line with the provisions of the Forest Act, 2005. This was important because Kenya’s REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal (RPP) had envisaged reaching out to communities through the structures provided by the Forest Act. Questions eleven to thirteen aimed at understanding the different livelihoods and/or payments that the communities receive from their forests. These ranged from carbon payments, payments for environmental services and other economic activities they carry out besides timber and bee keeping. The last question sought to highlight the community’s perspectives on the importance of the conservation of the Mau ecosystem.
18 Rob Bailis, Narok's charcoal commodity chain: land use change and charcoal production in southwestern Kenya, 2001 at http://www.charcoalproject.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2011/08/7_Bailis_Kenya_Narok_CCA.pdf
3.2 Community perspectives
CFA's meeting in Ololulunga K. Sena
7
The total acreage represented by those interviewed amounted to approximately 15 870 acres. Those with large parcels of land were mostly families historically connected to the power structures. They owned acreages that ranged from 1 000 to 5 000 acres. Besides what they were allocated during the Land adjudication process in the early 70’s, some had increased their acreages through purchases from poorer community members of different group ranches during the subdivision of group ranches into individual freehold titles from mid-‐1990’s. Most utilize portions of these lands for livestock grazing and wheat farming, while tracks remain with forests or bushes. The 36 Small-‐scale landowners interviewed owned land that equaled 863. 6 acres. The respondents owned land sizes that ranged from 0.5 acres to 100 acres with the average being 15 acres. The five women interviewed owned acreages that ranged from 1 acre to 100 acres. The smaller parcels mostly belonged to immigrant communities’ members who have bought land in Narok. Those with 5 acres and above were indigenous Maasai and Ogiek of Narok.
Of the 15 870 acres of land owned by those interviewed, 7 410 contained forests, almost all of it indigenous. The large landowners had almost 7 000 acres of forested lands while the small landowners had a total of 410 acres out of the total 870 acres they owned. All interviewed including officials from the Narok County government understand the importance of forests and actually want a healthy forest in Narok. The small landowners were willing to increase forests areas in their lands to 440 acres – half of what they have. The big landowners too are willing to commit part of their lands to forests. However, they didn’t quantify the sizes they were willing to commit. Of all respondents, only two (2) would not commit part of their land to forest. One cited the small size of his land (0.15 ha) as the main reason, while the other did not provide any reason. All recognized the important functions of forest. They cited functions that included provision of rain, firewood, timber, wind breaker, clean air, fodder, medicine, forage for bees, prevention of soil erosion, water, carbon sequestration, shade, fruits, and aesthetic values.
a) Land sizes and tenure
b) Forests in interviewees lands
Indigenous forest in private land; Ololoipangi
8
Communities in Narok are primarily organized for forest conservation through both traditional and formal structures. Traditional forest management is still practiced mainly around Loita Naimina Enkiyo forest and its environs. However, traditional structures have collapsed in other parts of Narok especially in the areas bordering the Mau forest complex blocks. The collapse of traditional structures is attributed to the change of livelihood
systems from pastoralism and hunting and gathering to farming. Land laws that focussed on individual landholdings as opposed to communal land holdings are to the underlying drivers of the change. However, communities (mainly Maasai) who own land adjacent to the Maasai Mara game reserve are reverting back to communal management of land through establishment of conservancies. So while each individual has a title to his land, the land is communally managed as a conservancy. Conservancies around the Mara include Olchoro Oirowua, Lemek, Enoonkishu, Mara Naboisho, Mara North, Olkinyei, Olare Motorogi among others. While this are laudable efforts in community conservation, land selling by individuals within the
conservancies pose serious challenges to conservation efforts. Land buyers are mainly rich non-‐Maasai whose only interest is to build a tourist facility to attract tourist dollars. This has resulted in the mushrooming of tourist camps in almost every bush in the conservancies. The formal organization of communities for forestry activities around the Maasai Mau forest is in the form of Community Forest Association (CFA’s). Under the Section 46 of the Forest Act 2005, “a member of a forest community may, together with other members or persons resident in the same area, register a community forest association under the Societies Act (Cap. 108).” Once registered, a Community Forest Association (CFA) may apply to the Director, Kenya Forest Service, for permission to participate in the conservation and management of a State forest or local authority forest in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Five (5) CFA’s have been registered and participate in the management of the Maasai Mau forest, a 46, 278 hectare forest area vested in the Narok County government. Each of these CFA’s has its own management plans and a map as per their areas of management. The CFA’s also regularly coordinate on activities. But according the CFA officials the activities are minimal and far apart. They haven’t therefore has a sustained impact on the restoration of the Maasai Mau forest.
c) Community organizing and on-‐going projects
9
The CFAs cut across Narok South and Narok North districts. Some of their activities include: -‐
i. Enkutuk Endim CFA – This covers Ololulunga, Oloshapani, Melelo, Endoinyo
Ngiro and Nkareta west locations. The activities they carry out include, tree planting, tree nurseries development by individual members and limited bee keeping by a few members. One member has preserved his 80 acres for primate conservation and a bird sanctuary. However, most are converting their land to agriculture. Each member of the CFA finances his or her own activities. Interestingly, a local CBO received a Kshs. 30 million grant from the European Union’s Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) to support forestry activities within the CFA’s jurisdiction. However, despite having undertaken activities in the area none of those interviewed mentioned this. This dynamic needs to be explored.
ii. Sokofana CFA that covers Sogoo and Sagamian locations. The activities they are undertaking include Beekeeping, reforestation, water catchment conservation, brick making, tree nursery dairy and poultry farming. While a few members fund their own activities, most of the CFA’s activities are funded by a Kshs. 30 million grant from the CDTF.
iii. Naisoya/Kisiriri CFA – that covers Naisoya, Kisiriri and Olekurukai locations. iv. Olokurto CFA that covers Olokurto and Naituyupaki locations v. Olpusimoru CFA that covers Olpusimoru location.
The last three CFA’s also undertake some or most of the activities carried out by the previous CFAs. Organizations like the Greenbelt Movement, Kenya Forestry Working Group, Forest Action Network and WWF have supported some activities in the Area. A forest carbon project initiated in Enoosupukia trust land in 2009 has not, ostensibly, progressed because of low community support.19
19 The Green Belt Movement Community Forest Climate Initiatives at http://www.greenbeltmovement.org/sites/greenbeltmovement.org/files/GBM%20climate%20finance%20report%202011%20(1).pdf
Figure 1 Maasai women receiving improved stoves in a partnership between KFS and Enkutuk Endim CFA
10
Thirty-‐six (36) out of forty-‐one (41) people interviewed had heard about forest carbon credits schemes and other payments for environment (PES) services programs. However, not many were aware of how this programs work. When asked about their impressions on these schemes their comments included: -‐ § “They have not been implemented and they have not impacted communities
locally,” Peterson ole Lemein – male 50 years, from Ololulunga. § “We would like it to be taught to the community for them to know the importance
of forests,” Naomi Laon, Female 36 years, Olokurto. § “We do support,” Glady’s Sururu, female 20 years, Naitupuyaki CFA. § “I support and welcome fully,” Samuel Ntete, male, 35 years, Naitupuyaki CFA § “They are good because they can be a source of income and encourage
conservation,” Antony Ololchoki, male, 40 years, Olokirikirai § “It will help members of this community to earn from it as well as motivating many
others to conserve their forests for themselves and future generations,” Kantau Nkuruna, male, 60 years, Ololulunga.
From the responses, it is clear that a lot of community awareness on carbon credits schemes has been undertaken. This was mainly during Kenya’s REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal development process. However, the understanding is vague with many thinking that “trees on the farm will be counted then one gets paid for them to remain standing.” However, ERMIS Africa has trained a few on carbon measurement and monitoring.20
• Ogiek Peoples Empowerment Program (OPEP) honey packaging project started recently by Ogiek youth in Narok. They have branded the honey “Ogiek Mau Forest
honey”. The project was funded by Uwezo fund,21a a flagship programme of Kenya’s vision 2030 aimed at enabling women, youth and persons with disability access finances to promote businesses and enterprises at the constituency level, thereby enhancing economic growth towards the realization of the same and the Millennium Development Goals No.1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) and 3 (promote gender equality and empower women). Ogiek Peoples Development Program (OPDP) facilitated OPEP’s
20 ERMIS Africa at http://www.ermisafrica.org 21 UWEZO fund http://www.uwezo.go.ke/
d) Forest carbon schemes and other payments for environmental services
11
registration.22 The youth sell the honey through supermarkets in Narok. The impact of this is that Ogiek are now taking interest in their forests and lands rather than in formal employment. If this can be supported to grow, it will definitely play a big role in forest conservation in Narok County.
From the community responses, it’s clear that they support and actually want a forest carbon project. They are also willing to commit part of their lands to the project. The Narok County government is also open to the idea. However, the on-‐going political turmoil in Narok may delay its participation. The several programs that are being under taken by the CFA’s can provide useful entry points for the forest carbon project. However, an implementation and coordination structure will need to be developed. Partnerships and external expertise will be critical. Linkages with on-‐going programs that include Kenya’s National REDD+ program, CBD’s program of Work on Protected Areas and the ICCA Consortium activities needs to be established and strengthened so that the community can learn and share through this channels.
It is encouraging that the community welcomes the idea of a forest carbon project. But for such a project to be certifiable under the either the Community, Carbon and Biodiversity Standard23 or Voluntary Carbon Standard,24 it must provide i. Measurable climate and environmental benefits ii. Net positive social impacts iii. It must be legally compliant iv. It must be effectively managed. To manage community expectations and design a good project, the above must be pursued through a thoroughly consultative process that will involve communities, farmers, County Government, the National REDD+ team and other partners. It will also be important to ensure that voices of women, youth and persons with disabilities are included in the discussion. An analysis of the charcoal menace in Narok would also need to be undertaken on the onset. This will call for a study on this issue.
22 Ogiek Peoples Development Program http://www.ogiekpeoples.org 23 CCB Standards at http://www.climate-‐standards.org/ccb-‐standards/ 24 Verified Carbon Standard at http://www.v-‐c-‐s.org
f) Next steps
e) Conclusion and Next Steps
12
Addressing deforestation and forest degradation in Narok County will definitely have positive climate and environmental benefits depending on the implementation. This may be in the form of more predictable rain, reduced desertification, increased water levels in rivers, increase in wildlife populations among others. However, this will need to be measurable for the project to qualify through either or both of the standards. This therefore calls for a baseline scenario and a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system. Partnerships will therefor be entered into with organizations with expertise to develop and/or train communities on both. Priority would be to visit and learn from at least two forest carbon in Kenya and ERMIS Africa on the methodologies they used to design baselines and an MRV system.
It is expected that once functional, the project will have positive economic and social impacts at various levels. This might include increased income generating opportunities for communities; improved health and food security and taxes for the government among others. A process to identify what this would be and how they will be distributed would therefore be necessary. Experiences from existing carbon projects will be instrumental in this discussion. Opportunities for developing alternative sources of energy, for example biogas in Narok town, will be explored to reduce dependence on charcoal.
A corporate structure for implementing the project will have to be designed through a consultative process. Experiences from existing carbon projects will inform this process.
Once established, a staff will be employed to run the project professionally. It is clear at the moment how many staff will be eventually employed, as this will become clear as the project develops.
§ Measurable Climate and environmental Benefits
§ Positive Social Impacts
§ Must be legally complaint
§ Must be effectively managed
