1

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (ESMP)

SUMMARY

Project Title: AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION WITHIN THE GREEN ZONES

DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT PROJECT PHASE II

Project Number: P-KE-AAD-005

Country: Kenya Department: RDGE/AHAI

Division: RDGE 2/AHAI 1 Project Category: 2

1. Introduction

Kenya is one of the least forested countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with a cover of 7.2%, equivalent to

4,195,051.20 ha (KFS 2017), making any forest conservation project to be of very high significance.

Natural forests occupy 2% of total land area (about 1,165,292ha) while a considerable area (2.13 million

ha) consists of woodlands, bushland and mangroves. 140,000 ha of the forests are industrial forest

plantations that provide the economy with 90% of its wood requirement.

Forests are ranked high as national assets of significant economic, environmental, social and cultural

values. They are the foundation for the success of key productive sectors such as agriculture, tourism,

water, energy, infrastructure, wildlife, industry and livestock. Indeed, forests play a key role in

protection of water catchments that provide water for domestic use, agriculture, industry and to generate

hydro-electricity. The five major water towers in Kenya constitute the forests of Mt Kenya, Aberdare,

Mau, Cherangani and Mt Elgon ecosystems. Water from these towers is estimated to be more than 15.8

billion cubic meters per year which is more than 75% of the renewable surface water resources of

Kenya (UNEP 2012). In addition, forests support provision of environmental services including

resilience to impacts of climate change. Their ability to sequester carbon dioxide, one of the key

greenhouse gases, confers forests an important role in mitigating adverse effects of climate change.

Forests are also important as repository of biodiversity and are habitats of about 6000 species of plants

including 1700 trees, 360 species of mammals, 1079 species of birds and thousands of insects (Wass,

1995). Moreover, non-wood forest products such as herbal medicines, gums and resins all derived from

forests are important locally and internationally.

In terms of national development, forests play a central role through provision of various products such

as sawn wood, firewood, charcoal, construction materials, transmission poles, pulp paper and other

wood products. It is estimated that over 90% of country’s rural population energy requirement is met

by fuelwood. This is demonstrated by the charcoal industry whose economic value is estimated to be

Ksh.135 billion (NFP, 2016). In addition, the furniture market of the informal sector (jua kali) targeting

domestic market had an estimated production value of Ksh.23 billion while the formal furniture industry was estimated to be worth Ksh.15 billion in 2013. On the overall, forests directly contribute

3.6% to the national GDP excluding vital environmental services.

2

However, notwithstanding the above significance of forest resources, the country’s lands and

landscapes have in the past two decades become degraded, causing a myriad of different challenges to

people and wildlife alike. Degradation of natural forests is currently a major challenge in the country

and a whole range of forest ecosystem services have been affected. For instance, degradation has led

to; decline in hydrological functions, increase in carbon emission into the atmosphere, loss of biological

diversity and decline in soils productivity. The deterioration of such forest ecosystem services is often

felt most at the local level, but it has implications also at the national and global level. This afforestation

and reforestation within the green zones development support project phase II, which is a follow up of

the Green Zones Development Support Project (GZDSP) phase one project which was formulated in

2005, is thus expected to contribute significantly to addressing the challenges linked to forest

degradation.

2.0 Brief project description and key components

The proposed project, Green Zones Development Support Project Phase II, seeks to undertake afforestation

and reforestation within the Mt. Kenya, Aberdare and Mau Forest Ecosystems. The proposed project

implementing agency, the Kenya Forest Service, plans to undertake afforestation and reforestation of

gazetted forest areas to enhance forest conservation for provision of ecological, environmental and

economic goods and services in Aberdare forest ecosystem, Mt Kenya forest ecosystem and Mau forest

ecosystem. These ecosystems occupy a total area of about 149,822 ha, 277,117.60 ha and 250,447 ha

respectively. Out of the 149,822 ha of the Aberdare forest ecosystem, 125,048 ha is natural forest while

24,774 ha is plantations area. Specifically, for the Aberdare, the project will focus on the following

Counties and their respective forest stations: Nyandarua (Geta, South Kinangop, and Olbolsat), Kiambu

(Kieni, Uplands and Kamae), Nyeri (Zaina, Kiandongoro), and Murang’a (Kimakia, Gatare, and

Kiambicho).

For the Mt Kenya forest ecosystem, out of the 277,117 ha, 18,183.1 ha is natural forest while 24,774 ha is

plantations area. In this ecosystem, the project will focus on the following counties and their respective

forest stations: Embu (Irangi & Njukiiri Forest Stations), Meru (Meru Forest Station & Lower Imenti),

Nyeri (Gathiuru & Kabaru stations), Kirinyaga (Castle, Kangaita and Kathendeini) and Tharaka Nithi

(Chogoria, Kiera hills). For the Mau forest ecosystem, out of the 250,447 ha, 209,356 ha is natural forest

while 41,091 ha is plantations area. The Green Zones Development Support Project Phase II will also

support infrastructure development, which includes construction of a community resource centre, a forest

rangers camp and a community based timber and potato processing centre for which site specific ESMPs

will be prepared once the sites have been identified.

3

Under Legal Notice No. 150 of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999, (Cap 387),

the proposed project on Afforestation and Reforestation falls under the second schedule for projects

that require an Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) before commencement, hence the

conduct of an Environmental Impact Assessment which was the basis of this ESMP summary. Three

detailed ESIA reports covering the three water towers of (i) the Aberdare Ranges, (ii) Mt. Kenya forest

ecosystem and Mau forest ecosystem were prepared and their key aspects have been included as part

of this summary.

The project goal is to improve forest conservation and community livelihoods for sustainable forest

management in Kenya. The project will be implemented in two technical components, namely.

Component I: Forest Conservation and Livelihood Support for Climate Change Resilience and

Component 2: Sustainable and Inclusive Value Chain Development. Component 3: Project

management and coordination will support implementation of the project and will include baseline

studies, M&E system, Midterm Review, End term Review, project audit, and steering committee

meetings. The key outcomes expected by the end the project period are:

i. Increase forest area by 388,750 ha

ii. Establish and develop timber, bamboo, potato, cereals and pulses value chains

iii. Increase household income by Ksh.150,000.00

iv. Enhance food security by producing 1.18 million tons of food estimated at Ksh.22.8 billion

(farmgate costing).

Table 1: Key project activities and target outputs by end of project

Activity Unit Target

Area protected for natural regeneration ha 300,000

Area of state forest rehabilitated through planting ha 10,250

Bamboo planting in conservation areas and farmlands ha 2,000

Agroforestry development on-farms ha 10,000

Woodlot establishment on-farm ha 5,000

Fruit orchards established ha 250

Riverine rehabilitation Km 100

Hilltop afforestation ha 300

Quantity of food produced through climate smart agriculture Tons 1,181,763

Forest rangers camps No 2

Value chains development No 2

Training centre for value chain development No 1

Community income generating activities No 45

The proposed 6-years project will be implemented in 15 counties based on levels of degradation, social and

environmental vulnerability and water catchment potential. These are Embu, Meru, Machakos, Tharaka-

Nithi, Nyeri, Murang’a, Kirinyaga, Kiambu, Nyandarua, Nakuru, Baringo, Kericho, Bomet, Nyamira and

Kisii.

The specific project components will include the following:

4

2.1 Revamping of tree nurseries: All the implementing forest stations in Aberdare forest ecosystem will

have their tree nurseries provided with necessary inputs and equipment. Forest adjacent communities will

also be supported through CFAs to raise seedlings to complement KFS nurseries.

2.2 Natural forest rehabilitation: Natural forest rehabilitation will constitute the largest component of the

project, and will entail enrichment planting of severely/moderately degraded areas and protection for

natural regeneration on areas with low level of degradation. Enrichment planting will be implemented

through spot pitting (localised digging of planting holes) to minimise site disturbance. A total of 3000 ha

of severely/ moderately degraded forest areas will be rehabilitated, while 75,000 ha of low degradation

areas will be protected for natural regeneration.

2.3 Plantation establishment: Industrial plantation areas with planting backlogs and failed plantations will

be given priority before new areas for planting are opened up. The establishment will involve Plantation

Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS), a system where forest adjacent communities

are given an opportunity to prepare planting sites and integrate their crops with trees, leading to enhanced

food security and better survival of planted tree seedling. The main plantation tree species will be Cupressus

lusitanica, Pinus patula and Eucalyptus species. The target for plantation establishment for the ecosystem

will be 2500 ha. It is also estimated that 295,441 tons of food will be produced, thereby contributing to food

security.

2.4 Maintenance and protection of planted sites: In order to ensure adequate tree establishment of planted

sites, maintenance in form of weeding will be done using labour from forest adjacent communities. In

addition, the areas will be protected through either electric fencing or temporary fence to keep away grazers

and other human activities. Community scouts and forest rangers will also protect planted sites throughout

the project period. Other protective measures include protection from forest fires through maintenance of

firebreaks, monitoring and control of pest and diseases.

2.5 Monitoring of rehabilitation sites: Prior to commencement of rehabilitation activities, KEFRI will

establish monitoring plots to track and report changes occasioned by project intervention. The monitoring

plots will be located through sampling in areas where rehabilitation is targeted. The plots will be monitored

periodically for any changes in species composition and health. KEFRI will thereafter produce a report

showing the status of intervention and provide recommendations.

2.6 Alignment of forest boundaries: In the Aberdare ecosystem, forest areas border with farmlands and

have occasionally been subjected to encroachment. The project will support boundary alignment,

replacement and maintenance of lost beacons in order to maintain the integrity of gazetted forests.

2.7 Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs): The project will support review of PFMPs for 5

forest stations within the ecosystem to entrench participatory management of the forest for effective

implementation of planned project activities as detailed in this chapter. The review will be completed within

the first year of the project. In addition, the project will fund implementation of the PFMPs in order to

achieve the desired goals.

2.8 Maintenance of forest roads

No new roads will be constructed in the ecosystem as the current road network is sufficient. However, the

project will maintain forest roads through spot gravelling; heavy gravelling; light grading; bridge repair;

bush clearing; culvert installation; and maintenance of cut-off drains. Roads will be maintained as necessary

before the onset of the rainy season.

5

2.9 Community ecotourism support

As part of community livelihood support, the project will support development of a community ecotourism

facility and a forest park. These will be part of CFA implementation of PFMPs that have identified and

prioritised this activity in the said document.

2.10 Capacity development of stakeholders

As part of capacity development of stakeholders, the project will support exchange visits, training and study

tours for technology acquisition. This will target CFA members, CBOs and GOK staff involved in project

activities within the project areas.

3.0 Major environmental and social impacts and climate change risk

The purpose of the ESIA which was conducted was to study the potential impacts of the proposed

afforestation and reforestation project on the biophysical, social and natural environment of the (i)

Aberdare Forest ecosystem, (ii) Mt. Kenya forest ecosystem and (iii) Mau Forest ecosystem as well as

their surroundings.

3.1 Positive environmental impacts

The project by its very nature has inherent environmental and climate change benefits which include:

3.1.1 Carbon sequestration: The proposed project will contribute to the sinking of atmospheric carbon

dioxide through photosynthesis on a large scale as a result of afforestation and reforestation. Further, any

timber products obtained from the plantations will sequester carbon when in use.

3.1.2 Regulation of stream and river flows: Sustainable forest management ensures that at any given

time, most of the forest area is under tree cover of various ages. Enrichment planting and reforestation with

indigenous species will improve the soil structure thereby increasing infiltration and reducing runoff. This

will reduce the sporadic stream flow that often results to downstream flooding.

3.1.3 Climate amelioration: Afforestation and reforestation will increase the amount of moisture in the

atmosphere and contribute to regulation of precipitation in the ecosystem through the process of evapo-

transpiration.

3.1.4 Forest fires hazard reduction: Establishment of forest will reduce areas with grass cover,

incorporate fire breaks and hence reduce fire hazards. Sites dominated by grass and herbs are prone to fires

from livestock herders who periodically scorch the areas for seasonal grass rejuvenation and/or accidental

torching. The forest restoration in such areas will reduce the fire occurrence incidences.

3.1.5 Improved soil productivity and conservation: The soil structure, organic matter and biodiversity

under the restored and established forests will be enhanced through increased root activity. Trees act as

nutrient pumps extracting leached nutrients from lower soil horizons and replenishing the soil through litter-

fall.

6

3.1.6 Improved water quality and quantity: Afforestation and reforestation will increase forest cover that

is expected to reduce soil erosion and therefore reduce sedimentation of rivers and water bodies. The

quantity of water available for use is expected to increase by improving the conservation functions of water

catchments.

3.1.7 Enhanced biodiversity: Healthy forests are associated with high biodiversity. Afforestation activities

within degraded natural forests will contribute to restoration of the lost flora and fauna.

3.1.8 Increased forest cover: Afforestation and reforestation activities are expected to restore the forest

area of 5500 ha through planting and additional 75,000 ha through protection for natural regeneration. The

planting activities will contribute to an increase of 3.7% of gazetted forest cover in the ecosystem, while

protection for natural regeneration will contribute to additional cover.

3.2 Positive social impacts

In terms of positive social impacts, the following were identified and analyzed.

3.2.1 Reduction on forest encroachment: Afforestation will reduce planting backlogs, discouraging

encroachment by adjacent communities looking for agricultural and grazing land. Establishment of

plantations under PELIS will also act as buffer zones to indigenous closed canopy forests higher up in the

mountains scarps. It is also envisaged that by provision of alternative source of wood, the plantations will

ease pressure on the indigenous forests.

3.2.2 Sustainable supply of wood and other forest products: During plantation establishment through

PELIS, the second and subsequent tree thinning will provide useable wood. Much of this wood will be

available as fuel wood. On harvesting of the plantations under PELIS, there will be a supply of timber into

the market. Both operations will contribute to meeting the wood demand in the country and hence

improving the overall national economy. CFAs through user groups will be supported with nature based

income generating activities some of which will be carried out in the natural forests.

3.2.3 Creation of employment: The project will provide direct employment to forest adjacent

communities (CFAs members) during implementation of various activities of the project such as site

preparation, nursery operations, planting, weeding, pruning and non-commercial thinning of the

plantations under PELIS.

3.2.4 Enhanced community participation in forest management: The project, through CFAs

involvement as per the Forests Conservation and Management Act, 2016 will promote local community

involvement in forest management and the attendant benefits to KFS. The project will also support review

and implementation of 5 PFMPs

3.2.5 Improved food security: Through PELIS there will be an increase in food production in the

ecosystem. The amount of food production is estimated at 295,441 tonnes of combined maize, beans,

potatoes and fruits for entire period of project execution in the ecosystem.

7

3.2.6 Improved public image towards forestry sector: Afforestation and reforestation in the ecosystem

will restore public confidence in the management of national forests and enhance the public image of the

Kenya Forest Service. The project will further enhance Public-Private Partnership through involvement of

Community Forest Associations in implementation of the project.

3.2.7 Improved aesthetics and ecotourism: Well managed and planned forests world over are popular

tourists attraction site. The project through afforestation and reforestation will enhance the aesthetic value

of the forest especially considering that the region is a popular tourist destination.

3.2.8 Research and education opportunities: The project will utilize technologies from research in the

afforestation and reforestation activities. The impacts from afforestation and reforestation will also be

monitored to generate new knowledge for application. The project will support some Masters level

academic studies and also offer attachment/ internship opportunities to students.

3.2.9 Capacity enhancement of stakeholders: As part of capacity development of stakeholders the project

will support exchange visits, trainings and study tours for technology acquisition. This will target CFAs

members, CBOs and GoK staff and other stakeholders.

3.2.10 Improved livelihoods: PELIS, nature based IGAs, clean water, employment, food and acquired

knowledge will lead to general livelihood improvement of the forest adjacent communities among other

beneficiaries.

3.3 Potential Negative environmental impacts

The afforestation and reforestation project will also contribute to some negative environmental impacts as

outlined.

3.3.1 Increased water use: Nursery operations to raise seedlings for afforestation and reforestation will

require the use of additional water resources. The projected annual seedling production during the project

cycles will be about 1 million seedlings, which will require additional water in the tree nurseries.

3.3.2 Soil disturbance: The soils to use in raising of the tree nursery stock will be sourced from nearby

closed canopy forest areas resulting in localized soil disturbance. In addition, land preparation and digging

of planting holes will also cause soil disturbance. Since the soils within some of the planting sites are deep

friable volcanic soils with high erodibility potential, this may expose the soil to erosion during the heavy

rains prevalent during the planting period. However, this is a temporary impact that may occur in the month

between pitting and planting.

3.3.3 Increased risk of pollution from chemicals and solid waste: The nursery phase may involve use of

small quantities of pesticides to protect tree seedlings from plant pathogens. These pesticides may leak into

the water ways thereby polluting the water. Pollution may also arise from waste disposal by the public

visiting the ecotourism sites.

3.3.4 Pests and diseases: Plantations of single species as envisaged in the reforestation component of the

project may be prone to easy spread of pests and diseases. This may become an environmental and socio-

8

economic concern due to the destruction the pests and diseases might cause to the plantation and when they

have to be controlled using pesticides.

3.4 Potential Negative social impacts

The negative social impacts social impacts were also identified for further analysis. These are discussed

below.

3.4.1 Human-wildlife conflicts: There is expected increase in human-wildlife conflicts especially related

to damage to food crops grown under the PELIS system. Where farming is practiced under PELIS program,

wild animals like baboons, elephants and various antelopes raid the farms destroying crops.

3.4.2 Increased social conflicts: Controlling grazing is essential for afforestation and reforestation.

However, conflicts with grazers arise when they are required to adhere to the grazing rules especially during

the dry season where grazers invade restricted forest areas. Under PELIS the available parcels of land are

not able to meet the demand of allotees leading to dissatisfaction.

3.4.3 Inequity among community members: Participation in project activities implementation will be

through CFAs. However, membership to CFAs is by registration and community members not belonging

to CFAs may feel left out of the benefits accruing from the proposed project. This may lead the beneficiaries

being better off than others and hence creating inequity.

3.4.4 Increased tax burden: The proposed project will be financed through a concessional loan borrowed

from development partners. Although concessional loans have favorable terms, their accrued interests are

paid through taxation and that increases the existing tax burden.

3.4.5 Downscaling of afforestation and reforestation activities at end of project period: The proposed

project will run for a period of six years. However the need for afforestation and reforestation is far much

higher than what will be achieved within the project. Therefore at the completion of the proposed project,

there will still be need for continuation and upscaling of project activities in areas not covered by the project.

3.4.6 Human caused fires: Some of the participatory forest management activities under implementation

such as honey harvesting, may result in unanticipated forest fires. Furthermore, involvement of

communities in afforestation and reforestation activities has a risk of accidental fires brought about by

illegal activities such as: smoking, cooking, use of fire for land preparation and use of fires as animal

repellent.

4.0 Enhancement/mitigation measures and complementary initiatives

The ESIA has identified a number of mitigation measures to address the negative impacts and these

include:

7.1 Mitigation measures for significant impacts

The project, through the ESIA conducted has identified a number of mitigation measures for the identified

negative impacts and these are summarised in the table below:

9

Table 2: Mitigation of environmental and social impacts

No. Negative

Impact

Proposed mitigation measures Responsible

1 Increased

water use • Water early in the morning and late afternoon

• Use watering cans and not hose pipes

KFS, CFAs

2 Pest and

diseases • Early reporting of any incidence

• Undertake integrated pest management strategies

KFS, KEFRI,

CFAs

3

Increased risk

of pollution

from

chemicals and

solid wastes

• Provide waste bins

• Use licensed waste disposal agents

• Restrict the use of pesticides to those that are

biodegradable and registered by the Pesticide and

Poisons Control Board

• Restrict the use of pesticide to the affected seedlings

only

• Avoid use of pesticide on rainy days

• Collect empty pesticide containers and forward for safe

disposal

KFS,

Hoteliers,

Tour guides

KFS, CFAs

Mitigation for social Impacts

No. Negative impact Proposed mitigation measures Responsible

1 Increased social

conflicts • Fence off planted forest areas to keep off livestock

• Encourage cut and carry of fodder

• Adhere to PELIS rules

KFS , CFAs

2 Inequity among

community

members

• Wider stakeholders involvement

• Involvement of the political class

• Awareness creation

KFS,

National and

County

governments

3 Human – wildlife

conflict • Fencing off some hot spot forest areas

• Construct game moats

• Use of thunder flash

• Stock anti snake venom

KWS, KFS

4 Human caused

fires • Awareness creation

• Creation of firebreaks

• Patrols and surveillance

KFS, CFAs

5 Downscaling of

afforestation and

reforestation

activities at end

of project period

• Put sustainable exit mechanism KFS,

National

treasury

5.0 Environmental and social monitoring program

The Kenya Forest Service (KFS) will have the responsibility of providing internal monitoring and

evaluation of the project. KFS will also undertake annual environmental self-audits and reports which will

10

be submitted to the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA). It is expected that NEMA,

as the agency responsible for environment will also conduct oversight monitoring on ESMP implementation

as appropriate based on the approval conditions imposed in the ESIA approval.

The Bank, on the other hand will conduct routine bi-annual supervision missions to ensure all activities,

including ESMP implementation are on track. The ESIA and ESMP has identified mitigation measures that

all parties will need to monitor status of implementation. A third party will also be engaged for baseline,

Mid-term Evaluation and End Term evaluations.

6.0 Public consultations and disclosure requirements

Kenya has entered the era of participatory development in all matters of national welfare. Participation in

this case is not just through elected representatives but also through direct engagement with citizens. The

Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA, 2015) and its subsequent Environmental

(Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 underscore the need for stakeholder participation in the

ESIA process. Communities in neighborhoods to a proposed project are expected to live amicably with the

project if implemented. They have the most to gain if the project impacts are beneficial to them. Conversely,

they have the most at stake if the project generates negative impacts that can adversely affect their lives.

Not just neighbours but for projects whose impacts have a wide geographical spread, distant communities

need to be involved. Stakeholder input is thus vital at the earliest stage possible in project development and

should continue throughout the project cycle.

The preparation of the ESIA and RAP benefited from a participatory approach at the various stages.

Public consultation in this project was carried out with the following objectives:

• To inform the local people, leaders and other stakeholders about the proposed project and its

objectives.

• To seek views, concerns and opinions of people in the area concerning the project.

• To establish if the local people foresee any positive or negative environmental impacts from the

project and if so how the impacts can be addressed.

• To give a platform for information sharing and opinion gathering in relation to the proposed

project.

11

For Government institutions, the ESIA consultation processes targeted local authorities and institutions

whose roles where connected to the project, including such as CSOs, local authorities, among others.

This category was also consulted as key informants on sectoral policy and to provide advice on key

issues emerging during the ESIA study and on mitigation measures to be put in place so as to minimize

adverse impacts in respective sectors.

The community consultations on the other hand highlighted concerns on the benefits and possible

impacts of the proposed program, and community involvement in program activities. It was noted that

the selection of sites and infrastructure was in agreement with the desires of the beneficiaries who also

indicated their willingness to fully participate in all program activities during implementation. All

stakeholders acknowledged that environment and forest degradation was a major threat to development

that needed to be stemmed.

During the ESIA and RAP preparation process, affected communities were given detailed information

about the project through presentations by Consultant teams. The presentations highlighted the project

background, objectives as well as potential socio-economic and environmental impacts with feedback

and expectations received from those present. In order to understand the socio-economic dynamics of

the proposed project, a public participation workshop was conducted with participants drawn from a

range of stakeholders including line ministries, county government, foresters, CBOs, NGOS, politicians,

business people, and community members. Using a sector based checklist and the stakeholder workshop;

environmental impacts were identified, analysed and significant ones mitigated.

The public consultation proves also included formation of working groups intended to give stakeholders

a chance for detailed discussion and concurrence on foreseeable impacts from the proposed project.

Three (3) thematic areas consistent with proposed project objectives were agreed upon to structure the

discussion of the working groups as follows:

(i) Technical issues: Hydrology, biodiversity, education and research

(ii) Human issues: Political, community and culture

(iii) Forest use issues: Forest management aspects.

Among the key concerns raised by stakeholders were the following:

Table 3: Public’s reaction to the project presentation by the manager

No. Questions or Comments Response

1 How is the Project intending to

involve the youth in production

of seedlings and implementing of

other activities

The Project will involve the youth. The first phase targeted youth

and women and much was achieved. However, women are more

enthusiastic and the target was surpassed in phase 1. However,

many youth who were enrolled in project activities in the first

phase did not remain active to the end of the project as they were

distracted to new ventures. It is proposed that in the new project

youth can be useful in production of bamboo seedlings which is

a high value seedling. Each county will have interns to assist in

implementation of the project to build their experiences just as it

was done in phase 1 where some youths gained enough

experience which enabled them to be absorbed in KFS

2 How will the Lantana camara be

eradicated? Has KEFRI done

No research has been on eradication of Lanatana camara.

Recommended control include, continuous manual removal and

use of the material for energy production.

12

No. Questions or Comments Response

research to avoid it re-colonising

areas after eradication

The clearing of Lantana camara

should also consider utilisation

of cleared material probably for

production of energy

Experience gained in managing other invasive species like

Prosopis will be used.

3 How can the youth be involved in

EIA processes

The youth are targeted as a stakeholder in public participation

process to learn, But it is important that the youth are organised

in groups so that they are easy to reach

4 How do people who participated

in the public participation forum

EIA process get feedback to

establish their contributions were

considered in the report

Through sensitization meetings.

5. There is need for experts to

communicate on projects to

avoid locking out possible

collaborators

There will be sensitization of stakeholders during the

implementation.

6. The Project could discuss with

counties on how to share in the

budgeting process so that there is

no duplication and wastage of

funds thereby address issue of

institutional barrier that bring

about wastage of resources

The project budget is not clear at the moment but the Project is

keen to work together with counties to ensure harmony in

delivery of services, This could enable counties to factor in the

contribution of the project in meeting county priorities for

harmonised implementation. The Project commits to share work

plans with counties so that the counties can easily integrate the

projects activities in their own work plans.

7 The issue of benefit sharing

continues to trouble projects and

it could also affect proposed

project. Communities view saw

millers as people who did not

participate in process of tree

growing and only come to

harvest mature trees. Do we have

anything that has been developed

to iron out this issue through

probably CSR processes

This is an issue that crops up a lot and has also been raised in the

constitution 2010. KFS attempted to develop a policy on benefit

sharing but it was overtaken by the Government driven effort to

develop benefit sharing laws that address all resource. Earlier on,

in the 1980s, forest projects were entirely focussed in forest

estate. However currently all forest projects are supposed to use

ecosystem approach and are required to look beyond the forest

estate and include activities outside the forest that benefit

communities. It should be appreciated that it is not very beneficial

to depend directly on forests in the government estate which is a

limited resource and it is more beneficial to have forestry

activities and allied IGA that are on-farm and improve the

economic and livelihoods of communities. Not much money

comes from harvesting trees if costs of production are factored in

but the benefit sharing will be institutionalised through law.

Benefit sharing should also factor in also the cost sharing issue

8 Where the project will involve

growing of horticultural crops, it

should collaborate with

appropriate agencies to ensure

that acceptable standards are

maintained.

The Project will collaborate with KEPHIS on such issues. It will

also collaborate with the Potato Centre as an opportunity of

bringing high quality germ plasm of potato for better product and

increased productivity

13

Since project implementation will require continuous engagement and consultations with beneficiaries

and other stakeholders, the project implementation includes components such as use of local labour from

forest adjacent communities in order to ensure that adequate tree establishment of planted sites, and

maintenance in form of weeding will be done.

6.0 Institutional arrangements and capacity building requirements

The project will be executed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry through the Kenya Forest

Service. The Kenya Forest Service is the agency mandated to coordinate management of all types of forestry

resources and will be the implementing agency in this project. A project steering committee (PSC), chaired

by the principal secretary responsible for forestry in the ministry of environment and natural resources, will

provide overall policy guidance and approve project work plans and budgets for project implementation. A

project management unit (PMU) will be established by KFS to implement the project. The PMU will be

responsible for the overall project management.

The Kenya Forest Service will have the overall mandate to implement the project through its Ecosystem

Conservators. The KFS has the core mandate for management of afforestation and reforestation. However,

it implements the mandate in partnership with other institutions in the forestry and environmental sectors

that over support through oversight, policy and technical interventions. Afforestation and Reforestation is

also subject to various policies and laws. Some of the laws and regulations are specifically implemented by

KFS while other policy, laws and regulations have been promulgated at the national, regional and

international levels to guide the conservation and management of natural resources to which KFS is

expected to be in line with as it undertakes afforestation and reforestation.

Kenya Forest Service (KFS) was established in February 2007, as a state corporation under the Ministry of

Environment and Natural Resources, mandated under the Forests Management and Conservation Act, 2016

to implement the Forest Policy objectives. The KFS is a semi-autonomous institution whose mandate is to

provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and

rational utilization of forest resources for the socio-economic development of the country. It is should be

noted that KFS is a successor organization to the Forest Department that had the mandate over forest

management from the early 1900s.

KFS is charged with forest administration, policy development, forest regulation, training, extension and

protection of forests. In addition, the Service works closely with the various sectors such as agriculture,

water, land, energy and tourism for efficient management of the forest resources. The Service has a mandate

to among others:

(a) Formulate policies and guidelines regarding the management, conservation and utilization of all

types of forest areas in the country;

(b) Manage all State forests;

(c) Protect forests in Kenya in accordance with the provisions of the Forests Management and

Conservation Act, 2016;

(d) Enforce the conditions and regulations pertaining to logging, charcoal making and other forest

utilization activities;

(e) Collaborate with other organizations and communities in the management and conservation of

forests and for the utilization of the biodiversity therein;

(f) Promote the empowerment of associations and communities in the control and management of

forests;

(g) Manage forests on water catchments primarily for purposes of water and soil conservation, carbon

sequestration and other environmental services.

14

Within the conservancies are County Ecosystem Conservators, forest Stations, and divisional forest

extension offices located countrywide who are part of the transitional arrangement with county

governments for management of forest resources that are under the management of counties.

Other structures that will play a role in the implementation of the project will include:

• Forest Conservation Committees (FCC)

The FCCs are created under section 20 of the Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 to work with

KFS in the management of forests at the Conservancy level and the Board of Kenya Forest Service at the

national level. The FCC is also supposed to advise the County Governments on conservation and utilisation

of forests under their jurisdiction. The Central highlands FCC will have a direct role to play in the proposed

project.

• Community Forest Associations (CFAs)

The introduction of Participatory Forestry Management (PFM) under the Forests Act 2005 has led to the

formation of Community Forest Associations (CFAs) at the station level countrywide. The CFAs are

formed by forest (adjacent) communities and work with KFS to sustainably manage forest resources. The

Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 fully recognizes CFAs as partners in forest management

under Part IV of the Act, article 48.

7.0 Estimated costs

The ESIA has estimated the costs for ESMP implantation at Kshs 37,300,000.00 (Kenya shillings thirty

seven million three hundred thousand shillings only). Details of the breakdown are as follows:

15

Table 4: Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) costing

Environmental

impact

Proposed mitigation measures Responsible Monitoring

time frame

Mitigation

costs (Ksh)

Increased water

use

• Water early in the morning

and late afternoon

• Use watering cans and not

hose pipes

KFS, CFAs During the

nursery phase

400,000

Pest and

diseases

outbreaks

• Early reporting of any

incidence

• Undertake integrated pest

management strategies

KFS, KEFRI,

CFAs

Throughout

the project

phases

500,000

Increased risk of

pollution from

chemicals and

solid wastes

• Provide waste bins

• Use licensed waste disposal

agents

• Restrict the use of pesticides to

those that are biodegradable

and registered by the Pesticide

and Poisons Control Board

• Restrict the use of pesticide to

the affected seedlings only

• Avoid use of pesticide on

rainy days

• Collect empty pesticide

containers and forward for safe

disposal

KFS,

Hoteliers,

Tour guides

KFS, CFAs

Throughout

the project

phases

200,000

Increased social

conflicts

• Fence off planted forest areas

to keep off livestock

• Encourage cut and carry of

fodder

• Adhere to PELIS rules

KFS , CFAs Throughout

the project

phases

3,000,000

Inequity among

community

members

• Wider stakeholders

involvement

• Involvement of the political

class

• Awareness creation

KFS, National

and County

governments

Throughout

the project

phases

3,000,000

Human –

wildlife conflict

• Fencing off some hot spot

forest areas

• Construct game moats

• Use of thunder flash

• Stock anti snake venom

KWS, KFS Throughout

the project

phases

21,600,000

Increased tax

burden

• Prudent use of funds

• Regular audits

KFS, National

treasury

Throughout

the project

phases

600,000

16

Environmental

impact

Proposed mitigation measures Responsible Monitoring

time frame

Mitigation

costs (Ksh)

Human caused

fires

• Awareness creation

• Creation of firebreaks

• Patrols and surveillance

KFS, CFAs Throughout

the project

phases

3,000,000

Downscaling of

afforestation

and

reforestation

activities at end

of project period

• Put sustainable exit

mechanisms

KFS, National

treasury

On project

completion

5,000,000

Total cost of mitigation measures 37,300,000

8.0 Implementation schedule and reporting

The project, to be implemented over a six year period (2018 – 2024), has put in place a robust

implementation and reporting mechanism which is summarized in the diagram below:

17

The Project has put in place the above management and coordination system that assist to will oversee the

effective implementation and management of the project activities, with grass root structures at community

level that will ensure ownership of the interventions and with a Project Management Unit responsible for

direct day-to-day implementation of the project activities and reporting to an oversight Project Steering

Committee. This structure is designed to provide support to project infrastructure, technical support, staff

capacity development as well as ensure the monitoring and evaluation of the project.

9.0 Conclusion

From an environmental point of view, it is clear that the overall environmental and socio-economic impacts

of the project are expected to be positive since the main goal of the project aims at restoration, conservation

and sustainable use of natural resources for livelihoods improvement. As matter of fact, it is expected that

the number of positive environmental and social impact far outweigh the negative impacts. The enhanced

forest cover will result to improvement in ecological function of natural forests including water quality

regulation, carbon sequestration, reduced soil erosion and mitigation of flash floods. Support to plantation

establishment in the Aberdare ecosystem will revamp the status of plantations establishment in the short

run and contribute to supplying of wood sustainably in the long term. The forest plantations will also

contribute in reducing encroachment into the adjacent natural forests as they provide a buffer. The expected

social benefits far outweigh the social costs. It is expected that increased incomes and availability of forestry

resources to forest adjacent communities will substantially improve the quality of life. Gross incomes from

PELIS is expected to be over 1 billion shillings annually which will substantially positively impact on the

13,000 households who will directly participate in project activities while 100,000 households living

adjacent to the forest areas will benefit from technology demonstrations and restoration of ecosystem

services.

On the other hand, the negative environment and social impacts identified will be adequately mitigated as

prescribed in the ESMP. The ESIA done for the various components of has proposed a range of mitigation

measures for the anticipated impacts and these, if implemented should be able to support environmentally

sound implementation of the project.

10.0 References and contacts

This ESMP summary was prepared based on information contained in the detailed project documents

provided by the client, KFS.

For further information please contact:

Onesmus Maina, Task Manager, African Development Bank, Nairobi. E-mail: O.MAINA@AFDB.ORG

Ambrose Oroda, Consultant, African Development Bank, Nairobi. E-mail A.ORODA@AFDB.ORG

Justin Ecaat, African Development Bank, Regional Directorate, East Africa, Nairobi Kenya. e-mail:

J.ECAAT@AFDB.ORG