Page 1 of 102

Terminal Evaluation of UNEP/GEF Project “ Development and Implementation of a Sustainable Resource Management Plan for Marsabit Mountain and its associated

Watersheds in Kenya. Otherwise known as Mount Marsabit Ecosystem Project (MESP

Project Number: GFL/4779

Harriet Matsaert UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit

June 2009 Email: harriet@matsaert.net

Insert Photo 1: Songa Village with Marsabit Forest in the background.

Page 2 of 102

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 10

Acronyms and Abbreviations. ......................................................................................................... 10

1.  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Context..................................................................................................................................................................................................11 1.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................................................................................12 1.3 Project goals and objectives .......................................................................................................................................................12 1.4 Project Activities..........................................................................................................................................................................12 1.5 Terminal Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................................15

2.  Evaluation Scope, Objective and Methods ................................................................................. 15

3. Performance and Impact: Findings.............................................................................................. 15 3.1 Attainment of Objectives and Planned results  (see Annex 5 for detailed description of goals, outcomes, indicators and verification). ........................................................................................................................................16 3.1.1 Attainment of Project Goal (A)  (See Annex 5 for detailed description). ............................................................16 3.1.2  Attainment of Outcome 1.........................................................................................................................................................17 3.1.3 Outcome 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................17 3.1.4 Outcome 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................................18 3.1.5  Outcome 4 .......................................................................................................................................................................................19 3.1.6  Project Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................................................20 3.1.7 Relevance..........................................................................................................................................................................................20 3.1.8  Efficiency .........................................................................................................................................................................................20

3.2  Sustainability....................................................................................................................................................................................21 3.2.1 Financial Sustainability.............................................................................................................................................................21 3.2.2  Socio­political Sustainability .................................................................................................................................................21 3.2.3 Sustainability of Institutional framework/governance.........................................................................................22 3.2.3 Environmental sustainability .............................................................................................................................................23

3.3  Achievement  of outputs and activities ................................................................................................................................23 3.4 Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation systems........................................................................................................25 3.5 Replicability/Catalytic role. ........................................................................................................................................................27 3.6  Preparation and Readiness........................................................................................................................................................28 3.7 Country ownership/driveness..............................................................................................................................................28 3.8 Stakeholder participation/public awareness ................................................................................................................29 3.9  Financial planning (see Annex 4 for breakdown of budgets and co‐financing)................................................30 3.10 Implementation approach....................................................................................................................................................31 3.12 UNEP supervision and backstopping. .............................................................................................................................33

4.  OVERALL RATINGS TABLE ........................................................................................................... 34

5.  Lessons....................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1 MSc Studies are a useful tool for Science led Development.........................................................................................36 5.2 Water Projects can act as instruments of conflict resolution .....................................................................................36 5.3 Water and Protection are key factors for afforestation in Pastoralist areas. ......................................................36 6.4 The Dissemination Strategy is a critical element of project design. ........................................................................37 5.5 Stakeholder Analysis is critical when there are many actors involved..................................................................37 5.6 Keep Management Structure Simple for Medium Sized Projects..............................................................................38 5.7 Forestry Projects need time to mature..................................................................................................................................38 5.8  Advantages of using an Opportunistic and Actor Oriented Approach to Project Management. ...............39

Page 3 of 102

6.  Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 39 6.1  Dissemination of Baseline data and Project Lessons.....................................................................................................39 6.2  Follow up project to consolidate work done already. ...................................................................................................41   

  Annexes Annex 1   Terms of Reference    1 Annex 2  Documents Consulted  12 Annex 3  Meetings, email correspondence and field itinerary  13 Annex 4  Budgets  16 Annex 5   Achievement of Goals and Outcomes  22 Annex 6 Achievement of Outputs and Activities 28 Annex 7  Recommendations of Mid Term Review and Action taken  35 Annex 8  The findings of postgraduate student baseline studies  42 Annex 9  Checklist for Interviews  59 Annex 10   Changes in Outcome 3  60 Annex 11  Brochure on the project  62  

Page 4 of 102

Executive Summary 1.   This terminal evaluation was carried out between May and June 2009.   The 

consultant met with, or corresponded with key stakeholders involved in the project including representatives of government bodies, civil society and community groups. 

Background to the Project 2. Marsabit Mountain is a unique and fragile ecosystem consisting of extensive upland mist

forest on an extinct volcano within an arid setting. The forest provides the only source of water for the surrounding desert region and is one of the critical ‘water towers’ in North Eastern Kenya. It also provides a home to many wildlife species. The mountain contains both gazetted forest and wildlife reserves.

3. The survival of the forest has been threatened by forest clearance for farming and urban development, firewood collection, and the increase in water extraction through boreholes. In 2001 the Kenya Forest Working group carried out an appraisal of the forest status and recommended the urgent development of a forest management plan1.

4. The project under review was designed by AGREF in 2003, and addressed KFWG’s concerns. Its overall goal was to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the unique mountain ecosystem in Marsabit by developing a management plan that could be replicated in similar environments in the Horn of Africa.

5. The key project outcomes were: • Land use management plan for Mt. Marsabit developed. • Enhanced knowledge base and information for long term monitoring and management of

the Marsabit mountain ecological system. • Enhanced natural resource management of the Mt Marsabit ecosystem through

demonstration activities on sustainable land and water management at pilot sites. • Enhanced capacity of local and national stakeholders including communities and

institutions to sustainably manage natural resources and to resolve land-use conflicts. 6. The project design complemented other national initiatives for forest conservation and

with new legislation on forest and environmental management2. It addressed a number of GEF priorities (Operational programme 15 on Sustainable land management and Operational Programme 4 on Mountain ecosystems). The project had strong complementarity with the two other GEF projects in Marsabit area (Desert Margins and Indigenous Vegetation project).

7. UNEP subcontracted project execution to UNOPS, who in turn subcontracted AGREF to carry out fieldwork. AGREF submitted expenditure accounts and technical reports directly to UNOPS, who were responsible for disbursement of funds. The UNEP task manager attended steering committees and gave technical input and other support to project staff.

8. In the first year the project team facilitated and coordinated 15 MSc studies carried out by students at Nairobi and Kenyatta University. These provided baseline information on the status of the mountain ecosystem, investigated the causes of forest degradation and generated management recommendations. The theses formed the basis for advocacy, management planning and demonstration activities in the remaining years of the project. They also provided baseline information and indicators for monitoring the forest status over time.

                                                        1 Kenya Forest Working Group Rapid Appraisal of Marsabit Forest (2001)  2 Environmental and Coordination Act. 1999, Kenya Forest Act (200%) 

Page 5 of 102

9. It should be noted that Marsabit is a difficult environment to work in due to poor infrastructure and ongoing ethnic conflict. The project experience many constraints due to local conflict, drought and as a result of the political upheaval following the 2007 elections.

Project Achievements, Strengths and Weaknesses Achievements 10. Outcome 1: Land use management plan for Mt. Marsabit developed. The project

came close to achieving this outcome. Key stakeholders accepted the recommendations generated by the project and a planning process was initiated, led by KWS. However, after the December 2007 elections, the process was abandoned. Both KWS and KFS appear committed to complete the process, though there are no definite dates or funds allocated as yet.

11. Outcome 2: Enhanced knowledge base and information for long term monitoring and management of the Marsabit mountain ecological system. MSc studies generated innovative and practical recommendations, which have been widely accepted by the key stakeholders involved in the conservation of Marsabit Mountain. The key recommendations were to develop woodlots and dams outside the forest in order to protect and allow regeneration of the forest trees. The project piloted a water-harvesting machine suitable for mist mountains (based on recommendations from an MSc study). Baseline studies also provided valuable indicators of the forest status. However, for this outcome to be fully achieved, the information collected needs to be synthesised and archived to ensure it is accessible to key stakeholders (government, community and civil society groups) for future use.

12. Outcome 3: Enhanced natural resource management of the Mt Marsabit ecosystem through demonstration activities on sustainable land and water management at pilot sites. The key achievements of the project are summarised in the table below. Changes in Natural Resource management

By who Notes

Fenced and irrigated woodlots for afforestation.

Schools Some Marsabit entrepreneurs.

These plots demonstrated which trees could be successfully grown for commercial purposes in the area. Trees which have done well include Acacia seyal, Kigelia Africana, Terminalia spinosa and Acacia nilotica. The plots also highlighted the importance of fencing and water as preconditions of successful afforestation (many former projects failed because these two elements were not in place). Demonstration woodlots were set up in schoolyards and private individuals also established a number of

Page 6 of 102

commercial woodlots. Dam construction for watering livestock outside the forest.

Planned by community in Gotu Gardi and several other sites. Implemented in other areas with EU funding.

Though this activity is at an early stage only, the project’s studies have raised awareness of the benefits of grazing and watering livestock outside the forest in order to allow regeneration of indigenous forest trees.

Water harvesting from mist forest

Kenya forestry service in Marsabit

One of the students designed a ‘water machine’ which can be used to harvest the water vapour generated by the moss in mist forests. A water machine is now in use in the KFS nursery in Marsabit. Elders in Hurri Hills have requested that one should be used to harvest moisture for reforestation in their area.

The activities under this outcome were revised during the project life (see annex 10 and description in 3.1.4 below). This was in response to the realisation that other projects were already doing these activities, and to allow the project to focus on the recommendations generated by the MSc studies. The emphasis moved from a range of income generating activities, agro forestry and livestock marketing to a focus on water (constructing dams) and woodlots. This outcome has not been fully achieved. While considerable achievements were made in forestation (including raising awareness of the importance of water and protection), the woodlot demonstrations did not reach maturity in the project life. The project team were successful in finding funding for dams (which couldn’t be achieved within the project budget), but these were not built by the end of the project life. As a result management plans linked to the dam construction (fodder banks, tree planting, water charging etc) were not implemented. While there appears to be a growth in local awareness of forest conservation issues, changes in practices have not yet occurred.

13. Outcome 4: Enhanced capacity of local and national stakeholders including communities and institutions to sustainably manage natural resources and to resolve land-use conflicts. The project has succeeded in increasing capacity of local and national stakeholders in a number of ways.

Capacity Development Of Who Notes Research skills and field experience for working in indigenous forests.

Mc students, Academic staff. Several of the students trained have gone on to work in this field.

Ability of local people to advocate for forest conservation

Local NEMA office. Macoco KFS KWS

Student’s MSc theses have given material to support advocacy work.

Page 7 of 102

Know how for tree planting in semi arid areas.

KFS staff NGO staff

The importance of irrigation and fencing is now clearly understood.

Afforestation skills School staff (children/parents)

Some skills developed through participating in school woodlot activities.

Knowledge on water harvesting

KFS staff Visitors to nursery

Unfortunately the size of the ‘water machine’ is such that individuals cannot easily replicate this technology. However elders in Hurri hills are planning to replicate the idea for afforestation of Hurri hills.

Conflict management and joint planning

Community members (Gotu Gardi)

Community members have struggled with and overcome ethnic conflicts in order to generate a joint resource management plan. The possibility of water development has acted as a powerful incentive for peace building.

The project’s has been successful in building awareness, capacity and catalysing action at the district level. It has less impact on increased awareness at the national level. Many of those interviewed recommended that more be done to share project findings with key national actors. At the community level, there is more work to be done in capacity building (both for woodlot management and forest management.

14. The project had a significant catalytic role at the Marsabit level. This included support and implementation of recommendations by key stakeholders, demand for further studies for science led development, requests for woodlots etc. The opportunities for wider replication have been limited due to the fact that the project outcomes were not fully achieved.

Key Strengths 15. The project benefited from the local knowledge and experience of the project manager.

The project’s implementation approach was characterised by flexibility, opportunism and a focus on identifying with and working with individuals who were effective and passionate about forest conservation. This approach has allowed the project to cope and respond to the extreme constraints it has encountered, and has contributed to its considerable success and to the sustainability of its work.

16. The project’s monitoring and evaluation processes were comprehensive and effective. The project ‘learned’ and adapted accordingly during its life. Despite problems with high turnover of members, the project was able to work successfully with the steering committee to change key project outputs when necessary. The mid term review provided useful recommendations for the final year of the project.

17. The project made efficient use of funds. Considerable co-financing was made in kind by the government of Kenya. The project was also successful in leveraging $1.5 million

Page 8 of 102

from the Kenyan Ministry of Northern Kenya and other Arid lands to construct the dams recommended by the project.

Constraints 18. The project time frame was too short to meet the aim of changing attitudes and

management practices. Trees grow slowly and more time is needed for people to see the benefits of woodlots.

19. The double layer of project management: UNEP and UNOPS also created some unnecessary bureaucracy. At one point provision of funds were delayed by 5 months as UNOPS management structures were reorganised (see section 3.10 on implementation approach). Some key stakeholders who will be critical to the sustainability of the project (e.g. KEFRI, KARI) were not involved in the project and appear to have little knowledge of its outcomes. The project would have benefited from an extensive analysis of key stakeholders in Marsabit mountain conservation at the project planning stage and the development of strategies to engage key stakeholders.

20. The project could have done more to synthesise, document and share baseline information and lessons learned so that they are accessible to key national stakeholders and community forest management groups.

21. While the relevance of the project goal to GEF is high, replicable lessons (and public goods) will only be generated if the process of finalising and implementing the forest management plan is followed through and documented (see recommendations).

Sustainability of Project Outcomes 22. The project team succeeded in negotiating funding to build the dams. Further funding

may be forthcoming from the French Development Agency and Ministry of Livestock. It is not clear whether KWS/KFS have funding allocated to implement the forest management plan. School woodlot projects are struggling to find funds to continue their work. Socio political sustainability is a concern as Marsabit is currently experiencing considerable ethnic conflict. However, the dam projects have been found to have a positive impact in bringing together different ethnic groups. The formation of local environmental alliance and strong support by local stakeholders promises well for the sustainability of the institutional framework and governance structure. The sustainability of monitoring the forest status is also a concern as none of the organisations interviewed indicated that they would take on responsibility for this activity.

Conclusion 23. The project’s achievements have been considerable (particularly given the constraints

experienced), but there is still more work to be done to meet the project goal, both for Marsabit level outcomes and to create ‘public goods’ for GEF.

Lessons and Recommendations. 24. Key Lessons which can be drawn from this project include (see section 5 for full

discussion): - General lessons for GEF projects:

• Value of MSc studies for Science led Development • Importance of Stakeholder Analysis when there are many actors involved. • Need to keep Management Structure Simple for Medium Sized Projects. • Forestry Projects need time to mature • Advantages of using an Opportunistic and Actor Oriented Approach to Project

Management.

Page 9 of 102

• The Dissemination Strategy is a critical element of project design. Lessons specific to pastoralist and mist mountain ecosystems:

• Water Projects can act as instruments of conflict resolution • Water and Protection are key factors for afforestation in Pastoralist areas. • Development of water harvesting technology for Mist Mountains.

25. As this is a terminal review, recommendations are restricted to essential action which is

needed to enhance the project’s impact. The consultant recommends • Wider Dissemination of Project Lessons • Synthesis and archiving of project findings so that they can be used for future monitoring

activities. • Follow up project to consolidate work done already.    

Page 10 of 102

Acknowledgements Many thanks to all of those who gave me their time and shared their thoughts on this project.  I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr Chema for accompanying me to Marsabit and showing me round the project sites.  Thanks also to Mohammed Sessay and the UNEP Evaluation and Oversight team for facilitating this evaluation.  Acronyms and Abbreviations.

 AGREF    Agriculture Research Foundation  ALRMP    Arid Lands Resource Management Programme CBOs    Community Based Organisation EMCA    Environmental Management and Co‐ordination Act FHI     Food For the Hungry International  GEF    Global Environmental Facility IPAL Integrated Project in Arid lands KARI    Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KEFRI    Kenya Forest Research Institute KFS    Kenya Forest Services KFWG Kenya Forests Working Group. KMD Kenya Meteorological Department. KWS Kenya Wildlife Service KWS    Kenya Wildlife Service M &E    Monitoring and Evaluation Macoco Marsabit Conservation Consortium MENR Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources MOARD   Ministry Agriculture and Rural Development  MSP    Medium Size Project NEMA National Environment Management Authority NGO    Non Governmental Organisations NR    Natural Resource NRM    Natural Resource Management NRMP    Natural Resource Management Plan OP    Operational Programme UK    United Kingdom UNEP    United Nations Environmental Programme UNOPS    United Nations Office Project Services 

Page 11 of 102

1. Introduction

1.1 Context Marsabit Mountain is a unique and fragile ecosystem consisting of extensive upland forest on an extinct volcano within an arid setting. It is one of a number of ‘mist forests’ which exist in this region. Over thousands of years these forests have developed a distinct plant association endemic to this area. Much of the recharge of the water sources in the forest come from mist condensate on species of saprophytic moss plants living on indigenous forest trees. Marsabit forest provides the only source of water for the surrounding desert region and as such is one of the critical ‘water towers’ in North Eastern Kenya. It also provides a home to many wildlife species including greater kudu, buffalo, oryx, genet cat, klipspringer, caracal, common duiker, grant gazelle, bushbuck, grevys zebra, lion, monkeys and a species of dryland elephant only found in this area. There are two crater lakes; Lake Paradise and Elephant pool lake. The mountain contains a gazetted forest reserve, and the wider area is also a gazetted wildlife reserve and has considerable potential for tourism revenue, particularly when the Marsabit road is completed. Despite its critical importance to the region and its double ‘gazetting’, the survival of the forest has been threatened by forest clearance (particularly around Marsabit town) and the increase in water extraction through boreholes which is thought to be contributing to the drying up of both the forest lakes. Over 18,000 people living in the town and adjacent environs use water and wood from the forest (KWS training report). In 2001, in response to local concerns, the Kenya Forest Working group sent a team to carry out a ‘rapid appraisal’ of the forest’s status. The team recommended that a management plan be developed for the mountain. This should consider, among other things, land use planning for the whole mountain, forest zoning for utilisation and preservation, additional/alternative sources of fodder during dry periods, firewood (woodlots, agro forestry), the provision of water outside the forest and monitoring and correction of sustainable utilisation levels3. These recommendations have been addressed both by this project and by sister GEF funded projects, the Indigenous Vegetation project which looked at zoning of grazing around the forest and the Desert Margins Project which has a wider regional mandate.4 The project qualified for GEF funding because its activities related directly to GEF strategic priority SLM 2 on Implementation of Innovative and Indigenous Sustainable Land Management Practices the priority areas under the GEF Operational Programme 15 on Sustainable Land Management. It would contribute to SLM2 through the implementation of sustainable land management practices with a focus on management of the interface between a unique highland forest and its surrounding lowland pastures. The activities of the project would have wider relevance to other ‘mist mountains’ ecosystems in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia. Insert photos:

Photo 2. Cattle in Marsabit forest (estimated 50,000 in May 20095) Photo 3. Traditional well dug for livestock watering in forest gorge (May 2009) Photo 4. Wood collectors leaving forest (May 2009)

                                                        3 Kenya Forest Working Group Rapid Appraisal of Marsabit Forest (2001)  4 Pers comm. Esau Omollo, KFS 5 Pers comm. Meshak Cheto, KFS 

Page 12 of 102

Photo 5. Elephants come to drink in the last remaining water in Lake Paradise (May 2009)

1.2 Project Background Project design was led by Dr Chema of AGREF (Agricultural Research Foundation) who had long experience of working in the Marsabit area under the IPAL programme. The project was initially designed to address land management in the lowland as well as the highland areas, and was later adapted to focus on the mountain only, as the Indigenous vegetation programme and desert margins programme (both GEF funded) were working in the lowland areas. The project was designed together with, and aimed to work closely with key actors in forest conservation. These included the Kenya Forestry Service, Kenya Wildlife Service Ministry of Water, County Council, Arid Lands Resource Management Programme, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) and Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD).  The Universities of Nairobi and Kenyatta were key partners in providing students to carry out research activities in the forest.  Local schools became important partners in hosting wood lots as the projects developed6.  While the project was funded and task managed by the UNEP/GEF, UNOPS was given responsibility for project execution.   In turn UNOPS subcontracted project implementation to AGREF.  The AGREF project manager sent financial and technical reports to UNOPS who in turn were responsible for disbursement of funds. The UNEP task manager also provided technical and other support to the project but was not involved in reporting procedures.

1.3 Project goals and objectives The overall goal of this project was to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the unique mountain ecosystem in Marsabit by developing and implementing a management plan that could be replicated in similar environments in the Horn of Africa. The project planned to use a ‘science-led model7’ to achieve the following outcomes (see annex 5). • Land use management plan for Mt. Marsabit developed. • Enhanced knowledge base and information for long term monitoring and management of

the Marsabit mountain ecological system. • Enhanced natural resource management of the Mt Marsabit ecosystem through

demonstration activities on sustainable land and water management at pilot sites. • Enhanced capacity of local and national stakeholders including communities and

institutions to sustainably manage natural resources and to resolve land-use conflicts.

1.4 Project Activities 2004

                                                        6 Initially the number of partners was much larger. Partners who were identified at the beginning of the project but did not end up getting involved in project activities were: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Ministry of Livestock Development (MALD), Ministry of Agriculture. 7 By ‘science led model’ we mean that major recommendations are driven by and defendable by scientific data. (pers comm. Project Manager). 

Page 13 of 102

Project activities began in 2004. Fifteen MSc students carried out baseline studies in the forest (see annex 8). Three forest transects were marked and documented. Studies were able to quantify the extent of forest loss (estimated at 100 ha per year from 1973 – 2005), and predict a deficit in water for human and livestock use of 44,000m3/year under current conditions8. The studies showed that key contributing factors were the entry of livestock into the forest in search of water (trampling by livestock prevent regeneration of indigenous trees), and the use of forest wood by most of the population of Marsabit for cooking. Sinking of boreholes outside the forest is also believed to contribute to the drying up of mountain lakes due to lowering of the water tables in aquifers, (however this needs to be confirmed by further studies of forest aquifers9). Studies also provided a baseline inventory of plants, animals and provided information on current carbon storage in the forest. This together with the transect information provides a baseline for ongoing forest monitoring. Based on the findings of the studies, the project prioritised the development of water supplies outside forest (by damming gorges) and the planting of woodlots (for firewood and commercial purposes). This was the focus of the next four years of project activities. Together with Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and a local NGO, Food for the Hungry International (FHI) the project initiated planting activities, planting 6000 tree seedlings in the March/April rainy season. 2005 As the studies were completed the project began to share the results, raise awareness of the current status of the forest and meet with others to discuss implementing the recommended forest management plans. Extensive meetings were held with local stakeholders and villagers living around the mountain. In October 2005 the project was officially launched. High levels of local insecurity and drought inhibited the project’s activities this year. However by the end of 2005 the six focus communities for testing and validating project management recommendations were selected. These were: Logo Logo, Parkishon, Girib Dombo, Kubi Bagassa, Badassa and Gotu Gardi. 2006 This year work began on developing woodlots and sustainable water management practices in the selected focus sites. At this stage the project made the decision to drop several of the planned activities (in the initial log frame) relating to the development of sustainable livelihoods e.g. market development, rearing of dairy groups. Project staff realised that not

                                                        8 “This refers to the slope (gradient) in a water availability regression line – not the total amount of water available. This is despite the extremely low average water consumption by pastoralists in the mountain area. Surveys (65 manyattas or villages, 2,041 households, 11,941 people both adults and children) showed that for an average Marsabit family (1.89 adults and 3.98 children) the volume of water consumed per day is a very low 166 litres. “ Pers comm. Project Manager  9 Use of a tracer in the crater lake water using a safe and easily quantifiable isotope and long term sampling from boreholes has been considered. The seepage of such a tracer might take months to years before it emerges in boreholes. AGREF are looking for funding and have a PhD student ready to do a hydro‐geological study that will clarify this and many other crucial hydrological issues in the greater Marsabit area. The candidate is an engineer from the Kenya Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Pers comm. Project Manager  

Page 14 of 102

only were these activities being developed by other local agencies. They also decided that it would be most useful for them to focus specifically on the key priorities raised by the forest studies (water and woodlots). Reallocations in the budget were made up to the allowed 30%. This year the project activities were further hampered by local insecurity. A plan to build a dam in a gorge at Gotu Gardi had to be temporarily abandoned as the communities who used this gorge refused to work together. Another constraint this year was caused by a change in management structure in UNOPS which resulted in a five-month delay in cash transfers to the project (PIR 2008 page 29). The first project steering committee was held in March 2006. 2007 This year the project extended its community activities to five sites. They were approached with requests to set up woodlots in several additional schools and responded to these requests. However activities in Logo Logo had to be abandoned due to the distance from the project office and lack of telecommunications. A central nursery was established and a water-harvesting machine developed, based on plans developed by one of the MSc student. This machine provided water to irrigate the tree seedlings. A brochure and video of the study findings were produced and presented at the GEF conference in South Africa. A major achievement this year was the agreement of the key stakeholders: KWS, KFS and the Ministry of Water to work together to create a joint management plan for Marsabit Mountain. The Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries committed funds for the construction of 8 dams in gorges around the mountain. 2008 This year began with the post election violence which cause enormous disturbance to the workings of government. As a result the joint management process for Mount Marsabit was abandoned. The Ministry of Livestock reduced the quantity of cash pledged for dam construction. The mid term project review, initiated in 2007 was completed in March 2008. It recommended that the project should lobby for continued support for the activities it had initiated. Intensive lobbying by the project manager and UNEP resulted in the newly formed Ministry of Northern Kenya pledging 100 million shillings for the construction of dams in the mountain gorges. The project received an extension to continue its activities until funds ran out. In the final year it continued its work with school woodlots as well as moving increasingly into supporting individual woodlots. The mid term review also recommended that the project put some effort into dissemination of project results. A website and book sharing project results were recommended. Neither of these was achieved. A significant activity this year was the formation of a local coalition to support afforestation. Macoco (Marsabit conservation coalition) is committed to planting 100,000 trees a year on

Page 15 of 102

the mountain. This dynamic group has also been instrumental in obtaining funding for the EU Community Trust Development Fund, to continue building on the activities of the project.10

1.5 Terminal Evaluation This evaluation was carried out in May 2009 by Harriet Matsaert. The objective of this evaluation was to establish whether the project met its objectives (see annex 1 for terms of reference). The consultant assessed the project’s performance and the implementation of planned project activities and planned outputs against actual results. She reviewed the recommendations of the mid term Evaluation and their implementation. She was asked to focus on the following main questions: A. Have the land-use planners and implementers adopted and enforced an agreed

comprehensive plan for Marsabit Mountain and have the villages in the project are embraced this plan?

B. Are the village and district levels using the enhanced information system for decision making on land use?

C. Are sustainable crop livestock production systems and income generating activities being implemented in the project area?

D. Is there local capacity to sustainably manage natural resources and resolve land use conflicts in the project area?

2. Evaluation Scope, Objective and Methods

The evaluation was carried out in May 2009. During this time the consultant reviewed project documents, held meetings with key individuals involved in the project and visited project sites. Interviews were held in Marsabit and Nairobi with some communication also by email (see annex 2 and 3 for list of documents consulted, interviews carried out and itinerary of field visit). A checklist (see Annex 9) was used to ask key informants about their vision for the development of Mt Marsabit and how they felt the project had contributed this. Project partners were also asked to comment on the technical validity and sustainability of the project’s activities.

3. Performance and Impact: Findings The following section provides a review of the project performance and impact based on eleven evaluation aspects (A-K) as provided by the UNEP. The evaluation is generally performed based on a 6 point constructed scale whereby:

HS = Highly Satisfactory S = Satisfactory MS = Moderately Satisfactory MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory U = Unsatisfactory HU = Highly Unsatisfactory

                                                        10 Pers comm.  Macoco. 

Page 16 of 102

3.1 Attainment of Objectives and Planned results (see Annex 5 for detailed description of goals, outcomes, indicators and verification).

3.1.1 Attainment of Project Goal (A)  (See Annex 5 for detailed description). The project goal was “to promote long-term conservation and sustainable use of the unique mountain ecosystems in Marsabit District, in other arid districts and, through collaborative arrangements elsewhere in the Horn of Africa including Uganda, Ethiopia, Sudan and eventually, Somalia, by developing and implementing a science-led management plan”. (Revised Log Frame, Mid Term Review Annex 7.1). All stakeholders’ interviewed11 agreed that the information collected by the project has been enormously valuable in quantifying the extent of forest degradation, analysing its causes and providing concrete and practical science led management recommendations. The science led approach was particularly appreciated because local stakeholders felt the need for ‘hard facts’ to substantiate their arguments for forest conservation, and to generate intervention options that were realistic because they were grounded in a real understanding of local conditions. It was also noted that “for the first time in the history of the Mount Marsabit ecosystem, the GEF project brought together key stakeholders to develop a natural resource management plan that is owned by key institutions and local communities” (Richard Mugacha, UNOP). What has not been achieved is the full validation of the project recommendations. The recommended dams were not built during the project life, and because these were not completed, the planned water management structures were also not finalised. Most stakeholders interviewed12 felt that this was due to the short time frame of the project. Three years is very short for a project that involves tree planting and which has the aim of building awareness and changing natural resource management practices. The full attainment of the project goal was also constrained by the nature of the recommendations generated by the initial studies. The initial project plan had not envisaged that dams would be a recommendation of the studies. Though there were alterations in the project budget, this did not stretch to the construction of dams. So the project was dependent on finding external funding to implement this recommendation. The project team, and UNEP had considerable success in doing this. They obtained pledges of funding for the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, and later from the Ministry of Northern Kenya for dam construction. However the dams were not completed by the end of the project. In order to meet the project’s wider aim of developing a model which could be validated elsewhere it would be useful to continue to engage with forest user communities as dams are built and to document the effectiveness of the dams and water user associations (see recommendations). The project’s findings and recommendations have been shared with others more widely through presentations at two conferences and the production of a brochure. Elders from Hurri Hills visited the project sites and have requested a similar project in the Hurri Hills. However, to maximise the impact of the project’s considerable insights and achievements it would be useful to disseminate the findings more widely (see recommendations). Government partners stressed the importance of disseminating findings and building awareness at central government level so that the importance of Marsabit Mountain is                                                         11 Pers comm.NEMA, KFS, KWS, Md Sessay, WNWDA, KARI, ALRMP. 12 KWS, KFS, School principals, NEMA. WNWDA.

Page 17 of 102

understood and funds can be made available to continue the work the project has started.13 While all those interviewed were aware of the student theses produced by the project, several did not have copies of these theses and were not clear where they could be obtained14. The consultant was concerned that the findings of the student theses should be synthesised and archived in such a way that they are accessible for further monitoring activities15.

3.1.2  Attainment of Outcome 1 Land Use Management Plan for Mt. Marsabit developed. The project did considerable work in lobbying for the development of a land use management plan for Mount Marsabit. In 2006 the KWS, KFS and the Ministry of Water agreed to develop a plan. The process was to be led and funded by KWS. An initial meeting was held in Nanyuki to launch the process. However everything was put on hold after the post election crisis. There is now a new KWS area director in Marsabit. He did not seem aware of the past plans, but did say that KWS would be favourable to taking this forward. The KFS Deputy Director of Forest Conservation and Management also indicated that the management plan is still on KFS’s agenda. However neither was able to confirm dates or resources allocated to this activity.16 In 2007 the project supported the development of a local civil society body: Macoco (Marsabit Conservation Consortium). This organisation has representation from NEMA, local environmental management committees and sits on the District Natural Resource forum. It is taking a lead at the local level in developing management strategies for the area. For example Macoco has committed itself to maintaining the tree nurseries set up by the project, and to fulfilling the goal of planting 100,000 trees a year around the forest. Members of Macoco have also been successful in obtaining funding from the EU Community Development Trust fund for activities which follow the project’s recommendations (e.g. small dams, fuel conserving technologies, water user groups).17 In conclusion we can say that this outcome has been partially met.

3.1.3 Outcome 2 Enhanced knowledge base and information for long term monitoring and management of the Marsabit Mountain ecological system. The information produced by the student theses (see appendix 8) fills a real gap in knowledge about the mountain and has been greatly appreciated. It provides the ‘ammunition’ for advocacy work by groups such as NEMA, but also allows realistic, science led management options to be developed. This information will be invaluable for future monitoring of forest health and trends in its use.                                                         13 Pers comm.ALRMP staff 14 KFS, KWS, ENWDA, ALRMP, FHI did not have copies of the thesis. The NEMA representative in Marsabit does have soft copies. The Marsabit ALRMP representative was aware of these copies and felt happy to access information via NEMA 15 A staff member at KARI is currently synthesising project findings for use by the Kenya Arid and Semi Arid Lands project (KASAL) (Pers comm. Dr Ngutu), but the consultant was unable to see a copy of this. 16 Pers comm. Esau Omollo, KFS,   John Kagwi, Area Director KWS Marsabit. 17 Pers Comm.  NEMA 

Page 18 of 102

As mentioned above, it is important that the information is synthesised and stored in such a way that it can be accessed and used by others in the future (see recommendations).

3.1.4 Outcome 3 Enhanced NRM in the Mt. Marsabit ecosystem through demonstration activities on sustainable land and water management at pilot sites It should be noted this outcome was changed during the project life as a result of the findings of the initial studies. The initial outcome (from PIR 2007) was stated to be Agreed aspects of the land-use plan, in particular formulation of appropriate environmental conservation and sustainable land use policies on Mt. Marsabit, introduction of integrated and sustainable crop-livestock production systems and establishment of alternative income generating activities approved and implemented. The key change was drop the initial wide range of planned activities, which included livestock marketing, introduction of dairy goats, agro forestry and alternative income generation activities, to focus closely on water development and tree planting outside the forest. See annex 10 for a full breakdown of activities under Outcome 3 before and after it was changed. The project initiated two key demonstration activities: tree planting and water harvesting. There were a number of innovations in these activities which have been appreciated by local stakeholders. The emphasis for tree planting was on providing water and protection to the seedlings. Trees were planted only in fenced areas with permanent water sources. Surprisingly, this has not been done in the past (in the highlands of Kenya its sufficient to give out trees as livestock are restrained). NGOs and KFS have tended to focus on planting large numbers of trees unprotected only to find that most did not survive the dry season due to destruction by livestock. Staff from KFS, KWS and ALRMP were struck by the success of the project’s approach and feel that this has generated important lessons for future afforestation projects in pastoral areas18. A second demonstration activity was the construction of the ‘water machine’ at the project’s central nursery. This water harvesting structure was based on the findings of one of the MSc students. Its large roof surface harvests considerable water from mist condensation, which is collected in a large tank and used to irrigate the tree seedlings. Elders from Hurri Hills, who visited the nursery, would like to replicate this in their own area. Photo 6. Water Machine A key recommendation based on the studies was to build dams in gorges around the forest to provide water outside the forest and thereby keep livestock, a major cause of forest degradation, from the forest. Together with the focus communities, the project discussed the development of water committees around these dams. These would be responsible for maintaining the dams, conserving the area around the dams and setting up tree nurseries in the vicinity. Charging for water would pay for maintenance of the dams. As no dam was completed in the project life, this model could not be tested. However, a key project success is that it has persuaded others of the validity of this recommendation. The Ministry of Northern Kenya has agreed to follow up this recommendation and construction of the first

                                                        18 Pers comm.. John Kagwi KWS, Meshak Cheto KFS, Doyo Godana ALRMP. 

Page 19 of 102

dam at Gotu Gardi is already taking place.19 An important benefit of keeping livestock and herders outside the forest would be to allow natural regeneration of indigenous trees most of whose seeds resist artificial propagation. Though the project was completed before the demonstration woodlots could be harvested (a minimum of 5 years), and before the dams were built, local stakeholders still felt that the studies and initial work had resulted in a significant increase in local awareness of forest conservation issues20.

3.1.5  Outcome 4 Enhanced capacity of local and national stakeholders, including communities and institutions, to sustainably manage natural resources and to resolve land-use conflicts. Through providing information on the forest, the project has enhanced the capacity of stakeholders to lobby to protect the forest, as well as the basis to plan management strategies. The project staff experienced many constraints in developing activities because of the high level of conflicts in the area. However, a positive finding was that water issues can actually bring opposing groups together. An example of this occurred in Gotu Gardi, where after initial conflicts which brought project activities to a halt in 2006, members of different groups came together to agree plans to develop a dam in the gorge. In Dirib Gombo, members of different ethnic groups are also working together in managing their water resource. Project members have found that water can act as ‘glue’ to bring communities together.21 “The project has united warring communities through join endeavours and exchange visits. This work is becoming a peace forum” (pers comm. John Wako, community member of Marsabit Forest Conservation Committee). Stakeholders interviewed reported that people around the forest now have a better awareness of the importance of the forest and that the commitment to protect the forest has increased.22 As mentioned above, a concern is that the data collected should be made accessible for future use. The project manager feels strongly that action rather than academic papers are the right outputs from the studies. The consultant agrees with this point of view. However, there is a ‘middle way’ with action combined with ‘smart’ dissemination targeted strategically at reaching the various key users of the information generated (see recommendations). While there is some enthusiasm by school staff about the woodlots situated at school sites, the consultant found that the school staff were experiencing problems in maintaining and developing the woodlots without external assistance. The school staff had depended on project staff to come and prune the trees, they did not appear to know how to do this independently. Although the primary purpose of fencing had been to protect seedlings for the first 1-2 years from browsers, we saw signs that, in the absence of the project, fences had been allowed to fall into disrepair, damage by pupils had taken place and weeding had not been carried out. Trees grow slowly and it can take some time for the school community to see the benefits of the planting. A longer project life would have helped the tree plots to have

                                                        19 Consultant visited the dam site on May 27th 2009. 20 Pers comm. Mamo (NEMA), John Wako (community member) “ the project has led the process [of forest conservation] by creating awareness and showing through the woodlots, what can be done” 21 Pers comm. Dr Chema. 22 KWS, KFS, NEMA, Macoco

Page 20 of 102

become more firmly established. The schools we visited have very minimal resources and unfortunately none have been able to obtain funds for continued support to the wood lots. On the national, the project has enhanced the capacity of Universities though enhancing the training of graduate students and supporting field research supervision by their professors23. Photo 7. Woodlot at Songa Primary School. Photo 8. Headmaster at Hekima Primary School woodlot.

Overall Rating: Moderately Satisfactory.

3.1.6  Project Effectiveness Given the limitations of time frame, external disruptions and change of focus, the project can be said to have been effective in meeting its planned goals and outcomes. Limitations have been in full validation of the water harvesting model, synthesis and dissemination of study findings and full handover of woodlots.

Effectiveness: Moderately Satisfactory.

3.1.7 Relevance   This project addresses one of the eligible activities within the GEF Operational Programme No. 4 on the Mountain Ecosystem, GEF OP No 13 on conservation of Agro-ecosystems and GEF OP No. 15 on “Sustainable Land Management”. The project addressed local and global benefits specifically mentioned in GEF OP 15 (contribution to biodiversity protection and planning, sustainable land management options, contribution to peace through cross tribal agreements for water management). It was extremely relevant to the concerns of this OP, and had strong complementarity with the two other GEF projects in Marsabit area (Desert Margins and Indigenous Vegetation project). The comment of the UNEP task manager is that this project has been particularly relevant to GEF because it has catalysed action in the form of development of local action and national level funding for dams.24 The potential for replication and wider global lessons would be enhanced if the implementation of the dams was recorded and outcomes monitored. Impact would also be improved by increased dissemination of the project findings and outcomes (see recommendations).

Relevance: Highly Satisfactory.

3.1.8  Efficiency The project budget was $924,000 US. There was an additional commitment of 2,260,391 US $ made by the Kenyan government. The cash co-financing did not materialise, however the project received considerable in kind funding through provision of staff housing, office space and staff support from GOK. The project can be considered to be efficient in that it resulted in a commitment by GOK (Ministry of Northern Kenya) of 100 million shillings ($1.5

                                                        23 Pers comm..  Richard Mugacha, UNOPS 24 Pers comm.  Mohammed Sessay. 

Page 21 of 102

million) for the construction of the dams recommended by the project. In addition project activities have formed the basis for project proposals by Macoco which have been funded by the EU community trust development fund. Project costs were also reduced through partnership with Nairobi and Kenyatta Universities. These universities provided free tuition to the MSc students who carried out their thesis research with the project. The project’s activities have high complementarity with, and relevance to, current developments in government practice (restructuring of KFS and KWS, Water Act, Forest Act etc), and this has increased the efficiency of its work in terms of creating impact with limited funds. UNEP and UNOP staff interviewed by the consultant were satisfied with the efficiency of the project25.

Efficiency: Highly Satisfactory.

3.2 Sustainability

3.2.1 Financial Sustainability Financial sustainability is the greatest concern of the stakeholders consulted.26 Many expressed concern that finances would not be forthcoming to follow through activities that the project has started. This was identified as a key concern during the project’s mid term review. As a result the project and UNEP staff worked hard to obtain funding for the next stage. They were successful in getting support and a financial commitment from the Ministry of Northern Kenya to continue work on the dam construction projects. Tenders have been put out and this work has begun. The Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries have also shown some interest in funding dams for livestock watering but this appears to have faded27. KWS and KFS are committed to the development of the forest plan but are unable to set a firm date and have not indicated that finances are available28. It remains to be seen whether these finances will materialise.

Financial Sustainability: Moderately unlikely

3.2.2  Socio‐political Sustainability The socio-political stability is a major threat to the development of sustainable management plans for the forest. Conflict between different tribal groups around the forest has led to instability, displacement of groups and has slowed down longer-term development activities. However, project staff are optimistic that water development can provide a way of bringing disparate groups together. A historical view of deforestation shows that large tracts of forest are lost before each election, as land is given away to curry favours by local politicians. The growth of public                                                         25 Pers comm. Md Sessay, Martin Okun, Richard Mugacha 26 Pers comm. ALRMP, KFS, NEMA, school principals. 27 Pers comm. Dr Chema 28 Pers comm. Esau Omollo, KFS, John Kagwi, KWS 

Page 22 of 102

awareness and civil society interest groups such as Macoco should help reduce this risk. Greater awareness of the importance of the forest at the national level would also prevent this occurring.

Rating: Moderately Likely

3.2.3 Sustainability of Institutional framework/governance The sustainability of the institutional framework and governance structures for forest management appear to be good as the project activities complement and have provided support to ongoing restructuring of KFS forest management structures which give more control and decision making powers to communities living around forests. The Ministry of Water’s strategy for water development in Marsabit area also complements (and draws on) the projects findings and recommendations.

The formation of Macoco has increased the sustainability of the project’s works. Association members are active in education, lobbying and have succeeded in obtaining funding from the EU’s Community Development Trust Fund for project’s which build on this project’s recommendations29. (pers comm. John Wako, community member of Marsabit Forest Conservation Committee, pers comm. Mamo, NEMA). Macoco are committed to maintaining the nurseries formed by the project and to following through the recommendation to plant 100,000 seedlings per year. Following the mid term review, the project manager and the UNEP task manager made considerable efforts to ensure that the project’s recommendations for dam construction were continued after the end of the project life. As a result of this lobbying, the Ministry of Northern Kenyan and Arid Lands agreed to take on this work and allocated funding for it. However, there are a number of areas of concern. The first is for the sustainability of the forest monitoring system. The project has collected extremely valuable baseline data and has created the basis for an effective monitoring system. However, it is not clear who will take responsibility for this. KWS appears mainly concerned with monitoring wildlife species and poaching, KFS does not have the resources to carry out monitoring activities. KARI and KEFRI were suggested as possibilities30. Neither was closely involved in the project’s activities. In order to maximise the positive impact of the project’s work it is important to ensure that the data collected is shared with the potential monitoring agents. The development of the management plan would be a good time to decide on monitoring responsibilities (see recommendation).

The project has generated a demand for further studies e.g. study of mountain aquifers (pers comm. John Kagwi, KWS), study of clone eucalyptus (pers comm. Chema), propagation of indigenous tree species (Chema). A question the project raises is how we can institutionalise the production of science to guide decision-making.

                                                        29 These include advocacy, construction of small dams, improved charcoal production, brick making machines, fuel efficient jiko, tanks for rain water harvesting and 14 tree nurseries. 30 Pers comm. KFS and KWS staff. 

Page 23 of 102

A final concern is for the sustainability of the school woodlot projects. The local schools appear extremely under resourced and have lack of resources and skills to carry out maintenance of the woodlots.

Institutional/Governance sustainability: Moderately Likely.

3.2.3 Environmental sustainability All the activities developed by the project promote environmental sustainability in the management of Marsabit Mountain. A key threat to the sustainability of project outcomes is the increased incidence of drought due to climate change. When livestock numbers within the forest are controlled, indigenous trees can regenerate. However, the mountain is a traditional drought refuge for livestock owners and in times of drought (as the consultant observed in her visit in May 2009) it is difficult to deny access into the forest. Increased settlement in the forest margins, clearance of land by farmers, or for urban development also threatens the viability of the forest. The project’s activities have raised awareness and local concern about this issue, and new forest management structures31 should help protect the forest from further clearance.

Environmental Sustainability: Moderately Likely.

3.3 Achievement of outputs and activities For detailed description of achievements under each output and activity, and for completion of recommended action suggested by mid term review (see annexes 6 and 7). It should be noted that these did change considerably from the initial design as a result of information collected by the studies, and as project team became aware of the work of others in the area. Consequently a number of the planned activities under Outcome 3 (for example work on forage production, agro forestry and dairy goats) were dropped as the project team made the decision to focus on woodlots and water (see discussion of this in 3.1.4, and annex 10 for details of change of outputs and activities). Successfully delivered outputs were: - Mapping of forest transects - Status and trends in changes in mountain flora and fauna biodiversity, abiotic resources

established. - MSc Theses completed (see Annex 8 for details) - Baseline information on transects - Incorporation of study findings into natural resource management plan.

                                                        31 Grass root Environmental management committees are being assisted by an environmental lawyer to merge local land use regulations with the Environmental Management coordination act and the forest act.  These groups then have representation on the newly formed regional forest conservation committees.  This is Ewaso North Conservancy (has one appointed chair, and reps from Moyale, Marsabit, Samburu and Isiolo).  The TORs for this committee are just being developed, but they should have considerable impact on the forest management plans..  Pers comm. John Wako, Marsabit representative, Forest conservation committee. 

Page 24 of 102

- Development of water harvesting techniques - Development of tree nurseries and woodlots (one central nursery and four satellite

woodlots surviving, in addition four schools have independently established woodlots). - Woodlots established - Process of boundary mapping initiated. - Brochure produced to share project findings. - Seminars held to share findings. - Consultations with communities. - School staff carried out exchange visits to other sites. Elders from Hurri Hills visited the

sites to look at the feasibility of replicating this in their areas. - Communities collaborating on water management.

The following outputs were not achieved: - - community agreement on NRM plan in 40% of communities - wide scale change in community NRM practices (though shoots of change can been seen

in the pilot sites and in subsequent projects initiated by Mecoco using EU Community Development Trust Funding).

- information/data system in place (data available but not synthesised for accessibility). - Strong socioeconomic baseline32 - Journal articles, video, book, website. - Participation of women wood collectors in afforestation activities33 - Funding proposals by schools. - Water associations legalised34.

The mid term review recommended a number of areas that needed to be strengthened before the end of the project: strengthening local institutions, identifying alternative livelihood strategies (to take pressure off the forest), mobilising additional resources for financial sustainability, continued lobbying to put a forest management plan in place, and dissemination of project findings. The project team did well, and achieved positive results in the last year, in looking for finances for dam construction (agreement with Ministry of Northern Kenya), strengthening local institutions (support to Macoco). The team also continued lobbying for the forest management plan though this remained uncompleted at the end of the project life, this can be said to be outside he project team’s control (Outcome 1). Community action plans and water management structures (Outcome 3) were not completed as planned by the end of the project life. This was due to the fact that the dams had not yet been built, and was outside the project team’s control.

                                                        32 (There were two students)This was due to problems with one of the thesis and follow up by the thesis superviser. In addition, one of the two students got a well paying job in an NGO and has been able to complete the write-up despite pleas from his supervisor and the project to surrender his raw data for compilation by other scholars. 33 Women wood collectors were once made to plant seedlings as a condition to obtaining  permits, and were very unhappy to do this.  This was the only project activity involving this group. 34 “Unfortunately there was no de facto legal Association but Gotu Gardi has been assessed by a District Cooperatives Officer for legal registration. There are Water User Associations at all boreholes but these are not recognised legal entities (can not sue or be sued). The only recognised legal entities would be Cooperatives registered under the Cooperatives Act or Societies, under the Societies Act.” Pers comm. Dr Chema  

Page 25 of 102

A key area that was not addressed in the last year was the dissemination of the project findings (activities related to Outcome 2). The planned website and book did not materialise. Overall Rating: Moderately Satisfactory.

3.4 Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation systems. The project team produced technical and financial technical reports at six monthly intervals. The consultant reviewed the following reports. Project document (2004) Technical and financial reports: Progress report June – Dec 2004 – June 2005 (?) Progress report July – December 2005 Progress report April – June 2006 Progress report July – September 2006 and annex Progress report Oct – Dec 2006 FA Monitoring tool. Progress rep Jan – March 2007 Progress rep April – June 2007 and annex Progress report Oct – Dec 2007 Annual PIR reports: July 2005 – 2006, July 2006 – June 2007, July 2007 – June 2008 Midterm review - March 2008 Steering committee minutes – March 2006, March 2007 There was no terminal report completed for the project.35 M&E Design Design of the M&E followed standard GEF/UNEP processes. A shortcoming in the design was in considering the impact of imposing a double layer of accountability through involvement of AGREF, UNOPS and UNEP (see discussion below under implementation). There appears to have been a failure to budget sufficiently for M&E activities such as the terminal report (see budgeting below). Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory. M&E plan Implementation Focal points for monitoring were the project manager, the UNOPS desk officer and the UNEP task manager. Steering committee meetings were critical events where changes in the project outcomes were agreed. While the MSc students were working in the forest, the project manager held daily ‘debriefing’ sessions where the students shared information and discussed

                                                        35 According to the project manager, computers were taken by the Ministry of Northern Lands at the end of the project on the understanding that they would be made available to the Agref team for further use. This has not happened and reports which were on the computer and which would have been used to create the terminal report are not accessible. 

Page 26 of 102

ideas. The regular monitoring reports are extremely detailed and comprehensive. The project shows a good level of self-reflection and ability to adapt to new information opportunities and constraints that arose during the project life. Richard Mugacha, of UNOPS, observed that the M&E framework was highly satisfactory and aligned the project towards the realization of its output targets and overall implementation outcomes36. The project team showed some dissatisfaction with the steering committee, due to the high turnover of steering committee representatives over the project life and resulting lack of continuity. However the 2006 steering committee meeting was used successfully to change the project outcomes to respond to new priorities coming from the forest studies (see 3.1.4). The mid term review was very successful in allowing the team to take stock of achievements and areas that needed more attention. The review resulted in a number of important recommendations. Some of these were followed up in the last year, resulting in improved project outcomes (See Annex 7 for details). UNEP subcontracted project management to UNOPS, who in turn subcontracted implementation to AGREF. It is not clear that the additional ‘monitoring’ layer of UNOPS added any value to the monitoring and evaluation process. The UNOPS staff member consulted indicated that the double layer: UNOPS/UNEP, had value in giving UNEP an added quality in reporting, attaining agreed deliverables and compliance with audit requirements. However this may not be really essential in a medium sized project. On the negative side the double layer appeared to increase bureaucracy in project management and at one point created a serious problem when funds were held up for 5 months.37 The Focal Area Portfolio Monitoring Tool monitors how project relates to GEF targets. This should make it a useful tool for GEF coordinators to assess how far the project contributes to GEF’s wider aims. The consultant found only one completed report for 2006. Rating: Moderately Satisfactory. Budgeting and funding for M&E There was no budget for project monitoring and evaluation activities, though a small sum ($251 US) was spent on internal monitoring review meetings. The budget for steering

                                                        36 Pers comm. Richard Mugacha, UNOPS 37 The project mid term report notes that “Frequent problems arising from the inconsistency between accounts reported by AGREF and those reported by UNOPS to UNEP were caused by the use of different templates for reporting purpose at UNOPS and UNEP., MOUs between UNOPS and AGREF requiring different templates and timeframe for budgeting and reporting as well as high turn-over of staff in charge of Marsabit project at UNOPS and FMOs at UNEP. Whereas UNOPS on one hand has a restricted role of overall supervision of project implementation focusing mainly on following up on administrative and financial issues, UNEP on the other hand is contributing to technical aspects of project implementation and direct AGREF support.

These technical and administrative bureaucratic layers (AGREF UNOPS UNEP) led sometimes to delays in disbursement of funds from UNOPS to AGREF.” Mid Term Review page 22. 

Page 27 of 102

committee meetings ($12,423) was only partially used ($3660 spent). Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory. Overall Rating: Moderately Satisfactory.

3.5 Replicability/Catalytic role. Evidence of the project’s catalytic role can be seen in the following: • formation of a local conservation consortium (Macoco) and use of data for lobbying and

advocacy. • Data has been used by NEMA for education and advocacy work (NEMA state of the

environment report and training PowerPoint presentations for environmental management committees)

• Project findings and recommendations have formed the basis of new projects which have been funded (CDTF and Min of NK).

• French Development Organisation are considering funding follow up activities in Marsabit (Dr Chema pers comm.).

• Ministry of Livestock Development/ADB are considering supporting the construction of a weir (Progress report July – September 2006)

• Ministry of Northern Kenya have agreed to build dams at sites identified by the project. • School woodlot projects resulted in requests from many other schools. • Demand for further studies e.g. aquifer study38, study of eucalyptus clone. • AGREF planning to replicate the ideas in the Hurri hills, Mt Kulal and Kaya forests in the

coast. • Interest by Equity bank in providing banking to water users associations

Opportunities for replication: - • There is potential to replicate management plans in other mist forests in Marsabit.

Visiting elders from nearby Hurri Hills have requested a similar project in their area • Science led advocacy and development also a replicable model (though need to find

appropriate institutional setting for this). • Approach to tree planting is relevant to other pastoral areas39.

The opportunities for replication are very good BUT the impact would be greater if findings were well documented and shared with others particularly at the national and international level.

Overall Rating: Satisfactory.

                                                        38 Pers comm. J Kagwi, KWS  39 “Lessons from this project (on protecting tree seedlings) are relevant to all pastoral areas” (pers comm. Mechak Cheto, KFS).  

Page 28 of 102

3.6 Preparation and Readiness The project’s strength was that it responded to a definite need and built on recommendations by the Kenya Forest Working Group (Rapid Forest Appraisal 2001) and the long experience of the IPAL project in Marsabit area. The project manager had extensive experience of working in Marsabit and of the key institutions and organisations involved. Having said this, a constraint was that the project team had little experience of the mountain area itself. The initial project document reflects the lack of awareness of the true nature of the issues to be addressed in conserving Mt Marsabit (see particularly activities in outcome 3). Happily the strong monitoring and evaluation system was able to identify and change these planned activities as the project progressed. The goals of the initial project document were also, in the opinion of the consultant, over ambitious given the fact that the changes required involved extensive changes in attitudes and practices and management actions involving more than one government agency (KWS, KFS, Ministry of Water and the County council). Any project involving tree planting also needs a longer time frame than three years to convince people of its utility (woodlots need a minimum of 5 years before you can begin to harvest). Nearly all the stakeholders consulted regretted the short length of the project, given its ambitious goals. An additional shortcoming in planning was in the consideration of how key stakeholders would be involved. Key stakeholders such as KARI and KEFRI never really got involved in the project40. University supervisors were reluctant to put time into the development of a book to summarise study findings. The project manager puts this down to lack of motivation in terms of funding to do these activities. Overall Rating: Unsatisfactory.

3.7 Country ownership/driveness The project’s complementarity with recent policy developments (Forest Act 2005, Water Act 2002) and restructuring of key ministries (Kenya Forest Services and Ministry of Water) shows that it is extremely relevant to Kenya’s national environmental and development agenda41. Country ownership of the project process was not as strong as it could have been due to the funding being largely channelled to AGREF, a non-profit company (Company Limited by Guarantee). Lack of significant funding, or ‘buy in’ limited the day-to-day involvement of important government stakeholders: KARI, KEFRI, KFS and KWS. The project was criticised by some stakeholders for not making enough efforts to influence the national agenda42. The project manager’s response to this is that the nature, cause and extent of the problem were not recognised until the project was coming to an end. Indeed it could be argued that the pilot activities need to be followed through for some more time to draw lessons before national level lobbying is carried out (see recommendations).

                                                        40 Initially it was planned that they should provide 4 students to the project, but this didn’t happen. 41 “ the timing was very good in that the project started working here just as KFS was restructuring and provided the information to motivate people to take action” John Wako (community member). 42 Pers comm. ALRMP, KWS.

Page 29 of 102

Project and UNEP staff did make good efforts to lobby at the national level during the last year of the project. Ultimately and despite the criticisms, there is evidence of good ‘buy in’ of the results and of drive to follow through the project’s recommendations demonstrated by the following: • All stakeholders interviewed appreciative of data collected and in agreement with

recommendations of the project43. • The Ministry of Northern Kenya has agreed to fund the construction of the dams

recommended by the project. • Strong support of project activities by NEMA and incorporation of project findings into

District Environmental plans.44 • KFS committed to develop forest management plan in near future.45 • Water development authority staff say the project has provided a model for interaction

with communities in Marsabit.46 Overall Rating: Moderately Satisfactory.

3.8 Stakeholder participation/public awareness There are a large number of stakeholders involved in the activities and planned outcomes of this project. They include: - National organisations: Kenya Forestry Services, Kenya Wildlife Services, Ministry of Water, Ministry of Northern Kenya and other Arid lands, Kenya Meteorological Department, Tree Biotech Project, Universities, Kenya Forest, Working Group, Forest Action Network. Kenya Association of Forest Users, Ministry of Cooperative Development and Marketing. Local: Marsabit District Natural resource Forum, District Environmental Committee, District Steering Group, Macoco, Country Council, local administration (chiefs), traditional elders, NGOs (FHi), NEMA, Schools, seed collectors, Catholic church, Environmental management committees, forest management committees, District Youth Programme. International: International Remote Sensing Centre, Belgium, UNU, Canada, OUCE (Oxford), New Mexico State University). Other GEF projects (including desert margins project and indigenous vegetation project in Marsabit). The project team engaged with stakeholders in the following ways: - National • initial consultations in project design (particularly KARI, KWS and KFS) • Production of leaflet to share project findings. • Steering committee meetings. • Meetings with key stakeholders in last year of the project.

Marsabit • briefings to District Steering group and District Environmental committee during project

life. • Briefings and provision of information to NEMA and Macoco.47                                                         43 Pers comm.KWS, KFS, ALRMP, Water Development Authority 44 Pers comm. NEMA 45 Pers comm. Esau Omollo, KFS 46 Pers comm. Mr Maitima, Ewaso Nyiro Water Development Authority

Page 30 of 102

• Meetings with leaders in communities around the mountain. • Response to requests by local groups and schools to get involved in project activities. • Joint projects (with KFS, ALRMP, FHi, Catholic church) • Video? (not seen by consultant, not sure how much this was used).

International • Presentation (using Posters, Brochure and the project Video) at GEF conference in Cape

Town • Presentation at a conference in Iceland.

A particular strength of the project was its opportunistic approach whereby it responded to requests and good ideas coming from stakeholders who were particularly enthusiastic and motivated. This has resulted in a core groups of extremely motivated forest advocates (ex employees and project partners) who are continuing the project’s work even today48. There was criticism by some local stakeholders that the project did not participate regularly in District Planning forums, or harmonise its activities with NGOs49. These criticisms are not borne out by the evidence of project activities. The issue here may be due to the high turnover of staff amongst some of the key agencies (KWS, NGOs etc) and the fact that the project has not been active since December 2008. The consultant’s impression is that the level of awareness of project findings and forest management issues is high amongst Marsabit stakeholders. The formation of Macoco is evidence of the high level of local buy-in. However, national level awareness could be increased through increased dissemination of project findings (see recommendations).

Overall Rating: Satisfactory.

3.9 Financial planning (see Annex 4 for breakdown of budgets and co-financing). The GEF funding provided to the project was $924,000 and and in-kind co-funding from Kenya (Ministries, Research Institutes, and Universities) for US$ 1,504,099. The final analysis of co-financing and leveraged resources provided by Martin Okun, Financial Management officer at UNEP, shows a total sum of $2,260,391. This can be broken down into the following

1. The AGREF (Agricultural Research Foundation) contribution was in the form of foregone income by a decision to stay in the project area continuously for 39 months and contribution of equipment and assets to the project.

2. Two public universities shared the cost for the more than a dozen post-graduate students through partial waiving of tuition and supervisory fees

3. It took several years, but ultimately, NGOs and CBOs and individual community members have been contributing financially (largely fuel for vehicles) and labour to the project.

4. Although poorly endowed itself, the local district forest services office seconded 5 staff members and casual workers midway through the project whom they pay.

5. Kenya Wild Service provided staff time as well as subsidies in housing and office space.

                                                                                                                                                                             47 The project team avoided holding too many workshops as government staff demand sitting allowances for these. Instead they preferred the strategy of giving information to key information providers such as NEMA. 48 Pers comm. John Wako, Mamo, Katelo. 49 Pers comm. FHi, KWS.

Page 31 of 102

6. The largest input has been agreement to the project’s main request of constructing 6 rock-catchment dams on the periphery of the forest largely to keep livestock out of the forest but also provide domestic water for villagers. The new Ministry of Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands has put in process the construction process in collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. A joint team of administrators, surveyors and engineers is already in the field for this work. A total of Kshs 100million (about $1.5million) is in the budget for this.

There was some variation in the initial budget with significantly more money than expected being used for community support activities (see annex 4). Changes in the budget were agreed at the project’s steering committee meetings. All budget variance fell within the 30% limitation and was deemed acceptable by the UNEP FMO.50 AGREF submitted quarterly financial reports to UNOPS and UNEP. As mentioned above, the value of this ‘double layer’ of management is questionable. There were problems faced at the beginning of the project due to an inconsistency between UNEP and UNOPS templates for financial reporting. At another point, dispersal of funds was delayed due to a change in UNOPS management (see Mid Term review p 22). Apart from these hitches, financial planning and management appears satisfactory. Overall Rating: Satisfactory.

3.10 Implementation approach. The project management structure was extremely simple at the field level. While the plan had been to have a project manager based in Nairobi with field coordinator in Marsabit, the project manager ended up spending much of the project life in Marsabit. In the first year, the project manager was joined by 15 MSc students. Once their theses were completed, the project team in Marsabit consisted simply of the project manager, IT specialist and a driver. Two steering committee meetings were held during the project life (should have been three). Reporting, as mentioned earlier was from Agref to UNOPS. The project was effective in using the results of the MSc studies to redefine and improve project performance indicators and targets51. The project implementation, at field level, can be described as highly flexible and opportunistic. This approach was extremely well suited to the difficult environment and circumstances faced by the project and allowed them to adapt rapidly and to maximise the positive outcomes of the project. Constraints experienced by the project included: • drought • security problems at project sites52 • effect of post election violence on government partners • high turnover of staff in key Ministries.                                                         50 Pers comm. Martin Okun 51 Pers com.  Richard Mugacha , UNOPS 52 Local conflict mentioned as a problem in 2005 (lost four months) ( PIR 2006). Progress reports Dec 2204 – June 2005, July – Dec 2005. This is often due to disputes over scarce resources particularly water. Conflicts halted work in Gotu Gardi in 2006 (Progress report April – June 2006). Security problems Badassa school (Progress report Jan – March 2007).

Page 32 of 102

• Financial constraints caused by excessive layers of project implementation and execution between AGREF, UNOPS and UNEP53

• adaptation of log framework to respond to findings of student studies and to avoid duplication by activities being carried out by other stakeholders (outcome 3 largely changed)

• high responsiveness to recommendations coming from student theses (e.g. construction of water harvesting machine, development of plans for dams).

• Project team identified and made efforts to work in partnerships with individuals with real enthusiasm and motivation for forest conservation issues (e.g. Mamo at NEMA, key nursery workers, community members, members of the Catholic mission in Marsabit).

• Project team responded to requests by schools and groups with real enthusiasm and proven commitment to tree planting.

• Project team responded to constraints in government ministries after the post election violence, by increasing its efforts to build a local civil society consortium for forest conservation.

• UNEP/project team extended project life to compensate for constraints experienced. • Team learnt from mistakes and adapted its approach accordingly e.g. experimentation

with individual woodlots to address constraints in community management of school lots.

On the whole the project implementation approach was extremely effective and has maximised the positive outcomes in what was an extremely difficult working environment and political environment. The project team did not find the steering committee meetings useful54 largely due to the high turnover of Ministry representatives. However, from her review of the minutes of the two steering committees, the consultant feels that they played an important role in informing key stakeholders of project activities, authorising change and maintaining accountability. Its unfortunate that only two steering committee meetings were held and that none were held in Marsabit itself. One constraint in implementation was the failure to obtain full reports from all of the students who did studies in the forest (thirteen reports were obtained, socioeconomic report was of poor quality). The project team have reflected on this and have identified that the best students to involve are scholarship students (highest calibre) who are working for an MSc degree (high motivation). (see project lessons).

Overall Rating: Satisfactory.

                                                        53 Pers comm.. project manager.   In addition the mid term review notes that “Since UNOPS has not been able to monitor project implementation at ground level to assess the factors affecting the implementation process, there are cases where the release of the funds is not matching the needs on the ground as far as the implementation timeliness is concerned. Although these have not been significant problems, delayed disbursement of funds by UNOPS has sometimes forced AGREF to pre finance some expenses like diesel to keep the field operations going” p 31 The reviewer also notes that “Another challenge faced by the UNOPS in terms of discharging its project executing role appears to have been linked to some human capacity problem, where UNOPS was some-how overstretched in managing several projects from the same coordination desk and also at a time when there was a high turnover of the focal persons charged with overseeing the implementation of this project. Unfamiliarity with the ground situation also seems to have been a course of delay in approving the field request in good time and for the appropriate amount of funding: p 33  54 The project cannot recall an instance where key inputs have been made at the steering committee nor its success can be linked directly to it. (PIR 2008)  

Page 33 of 102

3.12 UNEP supervision and backstopping. This appears to have been satisfactory. The only issue is that of the double layer of management with UNOPS.

Overall Rating: Satisfactory.

Page 34 of 102

4. OVERALL RATINGS TABLE

Criterion Evaluator’s Summary Comments Evaluator’s

Rating

A. Attainment of project objectives and results (overall rating)

Sub criteria (below)

The project has worked under significant constraints (environmental and political). Project goals were ambitious and timing short to achieve these. Given this context its achievements in working towards the project’s goal have been considerable.

Moderately satisfactory

A. 1. Effectiveness Project achievements have been considerable given the constraints faced.

Moderately satisfactory

A. 2. Relevance Project highly relevant to GEF priorities with good potential for replication and wider global lessons.

Highly satisfactory.

A. 3. Efficiency Good use of funds and succeeded in leveraging significant sums for continuation of work started.

Highly satisfactory.

B. Sustainability of Project outcomes

(Overall rating)

Sub criteria (below)

Completion of management plan and recommended interventions requires considerable funding and government support. Verbal commitment has been given.

Moderately unlikely.

B. 1. Financial Key GOK departments are under resourced and Marsabit has low profile at the national level.

Moderately unlikely.

B. 2. Socio Political Increase in awareness by civil society, and peace building through joint water initiatives look promising for socio political sustainability.

Moderately likely.

B. 3. Institutional framework and governance

Many positive developments but concerns over continuity of activities initiated by the project (forest monitoring, maintenance of tree lots).

Moderately likely.

B. 4. Environmental Project recommendations and ongoing initiatives are beneficial to the local environment.

Moderately likely.

C. Achievement of outputs and activities

Much achieved. Community management plans and water management structures not completed because dams not yet

Moderately satisfactory.

Page 35 of 102

Criterion Evaluator’s Summary Comments Evaluator’s

Rating

built. Dissemination not adequate.

D. Monitoring and Evaluation

Project M&E regular and resulted in adaptive and accountable project management. Problems with UNOPS management layer.

Moderately Satisfactory

D1 M&E Design Double layer of accountability was cumbersome. Failure to plan and budget for some activities.

Moderately unsatisfactory.

D2 M&E plan implementation Regular monitoring occurred and monitoring instruments enabled the project to respond and change as appropriate. Some problems with steering committees and some monitoring activities not carried out.

Moderately satisfactory.

D3 Budgeting and funding for M&E

There was no budget for M&E activities apart from steering committee meetings

Moderately unsatisfactory

E. Replicability/Catalytic Role Very good. But need to disseminate findings more widely. Satisfactory

F. Preparation and readiness Unrealistic goals. Not enough consideration of how to involve key stakeholders.

Unsatisfactory

G. Country ownership / driveness

High level of appreciation by local GOK stakeholders, but some key actors, particularly national level, not involved as much as they might have been in project implementation.

Moderately Satisfactory

H. Stakeholders involvement Very good. More dissemination of project findings would help. Satisfactory

I. Financial planning All appears to be in order here. Some problem with delay in disbursement by UNOPS.

Satisfactory

J. Implementation approach Flexible, opportunistic management style well suited to the project context.

Satisfactory

K. UNEP Supervision and backstopping

No problems identified except with UNOPS/UNEP discontinuities. Satisfactory

Page 36 of 102

5. Lessons

5.1 MSc Studies are a useful tool for Science led Development Applicable Contexts All GEF projects. Project Context The use of MSc studies for investigations on key forest issues and characteristics was extremely effective (see section 3.1). The studies were focused, of high quality and provided results and practical recommendations in a short period of time. The results were highly appreciated by key stakeholders and there is a demand for further similar studies to guide development decisions (e.g. study of clone eucalyptus, aquifer mapping). The project experience was that the best results were achieved when working with MSc students rather than students who were not working towards an academic qualification, as the latter were less motivated to complete their work and write up (for example if offered alternative employment). The payment arrangement could also be used to motivate students to complete writing up and dissemination e.g. lump sum payment on successful provision of report. In addition to providing useful and practical information, using national students for MSc studies enhances university programmes and builds up local knowledge and capacity of key environmental issues. Using students from the area in question is particularly valuable for providing local expertise, capacity and awareness. Prescriptive Action Project designers should consider using MSc students to support science led development projects. Ensure that payment is structured in such a way to motivate students to fully complete and disseminate their work.

5.2 Water Projects can act as instruments of conflict resolution Applicable contexts Pastoralist areas (Kenya and elsewhere?) Project Context The project team found that water projects are of such high priority that even groups who are in conflict can be persuaded to meet together and cooperate to bring these about (see section 3.2.2). Prescriptive Action Water projects could be an entry point for organisations focusing on peace building in Northern Kenya.

5.3 Water and Protection are key factors for afforestation in Pastoralist areas. Applicable contexts Forestry projects in pastoral areas. Project Context

Page 37 of 102

Recent afforestation efforts in Marsabit have been largely unsuccessful as livestock destroy the seedlings during the dry period. Forestry staff told us that in other areas of Kenya, staff simply give out seedlings, or plant seedlings and survival rate is good. The project studies looked at the constraints in planting in Marsabit and realised that water and livestock damage in the dry season were key issues. As a result all the project’s tree planting initiatives emphasised water availability and protection. Tree lots were set up only at sites of permanent water and fences were built around the planted areas. These fences could then be moved to extend the planted area as the trees matured. Though this lesson may appear to be ‘obvious’ it represents an important innovation in practice in Marsabit area. The lesson was mentioned with appreciation by KFS and KWS staff55. Prescriptive Action Projects planning afforestation in pastoral areas should plan and budget for adequate water and fencing.

6.4 The Dissemination Strategy is a critical element of project design. Applicable Context All GEF projects Project Context In order for the project’s goals to be achieved it is essential that a wide number of stakeholders are involved and informed of the key forest issues, mechanisms involved and management options. Disseminating project findings and management recommendations is therefore critical to the project’s success. Despite this fact, dissemination was not giving much consideration in the project design. For example there was no budget for a book summarising the MSc findings, for production of a web site, nor was there a plan to synthesise findings in such a way that they could be used by key stakeholders for further monitoring of the forest health. Prescriptive Action A dissemination strategy must be central to project design. No project should be passed unless the team are satisfied that dissemination has been adequately considered. This does not necessarily have to be in the form of academic papers. Project teams should consider who needs the knowledge generated (e.g. for application, advocacy, awareness raising) and in what form it should be best generated. (see also recommendations below).

5.5 Stakeholder Analysis is critical when there are many actors involved. Applicable Context Projects with many actors involved. Project Context Weaknesses in the project’s sustainability (see section 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 and 3.6) derive in some part to the failure to identify and sufficiently involve the actors who would play a

                                                        55 Older woodlots in Marsabit show that tree planting has been carried out successfully in the past.  However, there is a high turnover of staff in key ministries and most forestry staff come from non pastoral areas.  It seems that the institutional memory of these institutions has been poor. 

Page 38 of 102

key role in implementing project recommendations and continuing action begun by the project. Examples of this include the lack of financial incentives to draw KARI staff into the project, lack of involvement of KEFRI, who in practice should have a key role in science led forestry innovation and lack of financial incentives for academic staff to work on a scientific publication of the results. Prescriptive Action To increase project effectiveness and sustainability, project planning must include a clear analysis of key actors in the focus sector and a realistic strategy for involving them in the project.

5.6 Keep Management Structure Simple for Medium Sized Projects. Applicable Context GEF medium sized projects. Project Context The management of this medium sized project was delegated to UNOPS who in turn delegated management to the AGREF team who were the initiators and designers of the project. In practice this resulted in a double layer of management which does not appear to have added any benefits to the project, but rather created additional bureaucracy and delays in funding. See sections 3.4 and 3.10. 56 Prescriptive Action This situation may be a ‘one off’ due to the particular circumstances of the project. However, a more general lesson is to minimise the layers of management in medium sized projects.

5.7 Forestry Projects need time to mature Applicable Context GEF medium sized forestry projects involving tree planting.

Project Context Tree planting activities began in 2005 and the project came to an end in 2008. The aim of the tree planting plots was to demonstrate the potential to create sources of firewood and income outside the forest. The hoped for outcome was a change in local attitudes and management practices. However the demonstration could not be completed because it takes at least five years from planting to harvesting timber trees. Communities around the wood plot sites have not yet been able to see the full benefits of the wood plots. This may explain why in some cases wood plots are not being adequately cared for. The consultant also found that local managers of wood plots did not feel fully qualified to manage the plots (see 3.15 and 3.6)

                                                        56 This lesson was also noted in the mid term review: “One lesson that UNEP/GEF may want to address for similar future projects is the reduction of the bureaucracies from three levels (UNEP-UNOPS –AGREF) to only two levels (AGREF- UNEP) provided the implementing institution is well known for transparency and accountability like AGREF has been so far”. P 33  

Page 39 of 102

The majority of the stakeholders interviewed57 felt strongly that the project had ended too soon, and emphasised the need for a longer time frame for projects involving tree planting. Prescriptive Action

Projects involving tree planting need to be given a longer time frame and/or be more realistic in terms of what they can achieve in the project period.

5.8 Advantages of using an Opportunistic and Actor Oriented Approach to Project Management. Applicable Context All GEF projects, but particularly applicable in difficult situations which require a flexible and pragmatic approach. Project Context This project faced an exceptionally difficult working environment (see 1.4 and 3.10). Constraints addressed included drought, local conflict and political upheaval. The fact that the project was able to achieve considerable success despite the enormous constraints faced is due, to a large extent, to the opportunistic, flexible and actor oriented approach used (see 3.10) for examples. In particular the project managers identification and focus on working with individuals who were particularly motivated and passionate about the forest means that the work developed by the project (particularly advocacy work) is still being continued today, in some cases without funding. This success can be attributed to the project manager’s considerable local knowledge and experience. In a case where a team does not have this kind of experience, tools such as stakeholder analysis, innovation systems and positive deviance analysis can be used to identify key actors, opportunities and to promote a responsive management style. Prescriptive Action Use of tools such as stakeholder, innovation systems and positive deviance analysis can help identify key actors and opportunities at the project planning stage and as part of project monitoring. 6. Recommendations As this is a terminal review, recommendations are restricted to essential action which is needed to enhance the project’s impact.

6.1 Dissemination of Baseline data and Project Lessons Issue/Problem The project has generated valuable baseline data on Marsabit forest which can be used for further monitoring of the forest status. The project’s experience, as discussed in section 5, has also generated lessons which have applications more widely to other GEF projects or afforestation projects in other pastoral areas.

                                                        57 Pers comm. Mr Maitima, Ewaso North Water Developmet Authority, KWS, KFS, ALRMP, Headmaster, Songa Primary School 

Page 40 of 102

However the current dissemination of this information has been limited (see 3.15 and 3.8). MSc reports are not easily accessible (soft copies were found with the project manager and NEMA Marsabit office only), and a web search does not locate any information whatsoever on the project or, perhaps more importantly, the status of Marsabit forest. Many of the stakeholders interviewed indicated that they would like copies of the MSc reports58 While the MSc findings are enormously valuable they are not readily accessible to those who will be involved in ongoing monitoring (KARI, KEFRI, Forest Action Group, KFS, local community environmental management groups). The MSc theses are large and very academic documents and information from these is not in a form which can be easily used by some of the above groups. It would be useful to synthesise the key findings of the project and to develop indicators which could be used by these groups for ongoing monitoring of the forest status. In addition a number of those interviewed stressed the importance of sharing the project findings for information and advocacy at the national level59. Without this Marsabit based offices may not receive the funds they need to carry through the planned activities. Dissemination of broader lessons has also been very limited (GEF presentation and presentation at conference in Iceland). This is regrettable as the project has much to share. Doing this will increase the impact of the projects work and should increase the chances of the project’s goal and outcomes being achieved. Recommended action (feasible, specific (who, what), performance target included) The development of the following dissemination material is of high priority. It is recommended that GEF funding be provided to assist UNEP in producing this material. This activity should be undertaken as soon as possible in order to keep up the momentum created by the project, and to prevent duplication of studies by others. Material to be produced and target audience/users. What Who to produce Target audience/users Baseline findings and key indicators documented in a form to make them accessible for forest monitoring.

KARI Marsabit staff are already synthesising the MSc studies. These reports could form the basis of this output. Consultant to review and complete in consultation target groups to ensure information is usable and relevant..

Agencies responsible for monitoring forest status (KFS, KWS, KEFRI, Forest Action group). Community environmental management groups.

Hard copies of MSc (compiled into a book, or bound together).60

AGREF UNEP Representatives of other related GEF projects in

Field based government and NGO staffs (with poor access to internet) and key archives (bureau of statistics, NEMA

                                                        58 Mr Maitama, Ewaso North Water Development Authority, Esau Omollo, KFS, Cheto KFS (Marsabit), Fatuma Abdikar (ALRMP), John Kagwi KWS.  Tuke Guyo, FHi. 59 Pers comm.. John Kagwi, KFS, Fatuma Abdikar ALRMP. 

Page 41 of 102

Marsabit. office etc). Soft copies of MSc on DVD AGREF As above: key government

offices, NGOs and civil society groups.

Share lessons on developing forest conservation in Mist Mountains. Short article or film to be posted on relevant website (UNEP, Kenya Forest Action Network, KFS etc)

UNEP communications team/ media consultant61. It may be sufficient to create and distribute copies of the existing video.62

National and international stakeholders with an interest in forest conservation issues. Copies/presentation to national government organisations and donors.

It would also be useful to print additional copies of the leaflet produced by the project which summarises the project’s findings. This could also be posted on a relevant website.

6.2 Follow up project to consolidate work done already. Issue/Problem The project has achieved a lot, but due to the enormous constraints experienced, an unrealistic time frame for forestry trials, and unforeseen recommendations (see 3.10) has not been able to fully achieve its goal, particularly with regard to wider lessons contributing to the GEF OP s it addresses (see 1.4, 3.1.1, 3.10). The project team believe that what is missing from the GEF design is “a mechanism of follow-up of proven beneficial practices developed by GEF projects to ensure that painstakingly derived breakthroughs do not go to waste through inaction or by overstretched or disinterested ministries especially since the project areas are not inhabited by politically powerful constituents” (PIR FY08). Nearly all of the stakeholders interviewed (and all local stakeholders) requested an extension to allow the project to follow through what it has started. Recommended action (feasible, specific (who, what), performance target included) What should be done: - A follow up activity is recommended to allow satisfactory completion and lesson learning from the project. Lessons and follow on activities could also draw from associated GEF projects in Marsabit: The Desert Margins project and Indigenous Vegetation project. Who could implement this? Ideally, GEF should provide additional funds to allow the AGREF team to follow through the work it has started. Key activities for further action are: - - additional studies to support ongoing forest conservation plans (aquifer study, clone

eucalyptus trials). - Further advocacy work, particularly at the national level. - Documentation of the process of developing dams and water committees to manage

these.                                                                                                                                                                              60 This book could include findings from other GEF projects in Marsabit: the Indigenous Vegetation and Desert Margins Projects. 61 This work could be combined with the ongoing production of materials for the Drylands Livestock Wildlife Environment interaction project (DLWEIP). 62 The consultant has not been able to locate a copy of this so cannot judge which target group its aimed at. 

Page 42 of 102

- Follow through woodlots to first harvest. - Dissemination and syntheses work (6.1 and 6.2)63

Failing this, it is recommended that the process of dam development be monitored and documented so that lessons can be learnt from the process. This might be done by AGREF or through one of the University partners, perhaps as one or more MSc studies. Timing This activity should be initiated as quickly as possible to build on the activities and momentum developed by the project.

                                                        63 Some dissemination work is already planned by UNEP and will be combined with dissemination of the Indigenous vegetation and Desert margins project.  Costs of this activity should be reimbursed by GEF as this is an essential part of project completion. 

Page 43 of 102

Annex 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION

1. Objective and Scope of the Evaluation 

The objective of this terminal evaluation is to establish whether the project achieved its objective of ensuring the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the unique mountain ecosystems in Marsabit by developing and implementing a management plan that could be replicated in similar environments in the Horn of Africa and the future impacts. The evaluation will also assess project performance and the implementation of planned project activities and planned outputs against actual results. In addition, the evaluation will review the recommendations of the mid term Evaluation and their implementation. It will focus on the following main questions:

A. Have  the  land‐use planners and  implementers adopted and enforced an agreed comprehensive  plan  for  the  Marsabit  Mountain  and  have  the  villages  in  the project area embraced this plan? 

 B. Are  the  village  and  district  levels  using  the  enhanced  information  system  for 

decision making on land use?  

C. Are  sustainable  crop  livestock  production  systems  and  income‐generated activities being implemented in the project area? 

D. Is there local capacity to sustainably manage natural resources and resolve land use

conflicts in the project area?

2. Methods This  terminal  evaluation  will  be  conducted  as  an  in‐depth  evaluation  using  a participatory approach whereby the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives of the  executing  agencies  and  other  relevant  staff  are  kept  informed  and  consulted throughout  the  evaluation.  The  consultant  will  liaise  with  the  UNEP/EOU  and  the UNEP/DGEF  Task  Manager  on  any  logistic  and/or  methodological  issues  to  properly conduct  the  review  in  as  independent  a way  as possible,  given  the  circumstances  and resources offered. The draft report will be circulated to UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives  of  the  executing  agencies  and  the  UNEP/EOU.    Any  comments  or responses to the draft report will be sent to UNEP / EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of any necessary or suggested revisions. The findings of the evaluation will be based on the following:

1. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to: 

(a) The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and financial reports to UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review reports) and relevant correspondence.

(b) Other project-related material produced by the project staff or partners.

Page 44 of 102

(c) Relevant material published by GEF and the project team.

2. Interviews with project management and technical support including the Project

Management in UNOPS, UNEP, Agricultural Research Foundation (AGREF), and other partners (e.g. KARI, Forest Department, KWS, KEFRI, MOARD, ITDG-EA and ALRMP, collaborators, and members of the Steering Group.

3. Interviews  and  telephone  interviews  with  the  stakeholders  involved  with  this 

project.  The  Consultant  shall  determine whether  to  seek  additional  information and opinions from representatives of donor agencies and other organisations.  

 4. Interviews with the UNEP/DGEF project Task Manager and Fund Management

Officer, and other relevant staff in UNEP dealing with biodiversity related activities as necessary

5. Field visits to mountain Marsabit in Kenya, the surrounding communities and

government offices responsible for the area and the project activities.

6. Evaluator’s vetting of the third and final Tracking Tool for Reporting Progress at

Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet completed for this project (Draft to be prepared by project team in advance of evaluation)

Key Evaluation principles.

In attempting to evaluate any outcomes and impacts that the project may have achieved, evaluators should remember that the project’s performance should be assessed by considering the difference between the answers to two simple questions “what happened?” and “what would have happened anyway?”. These questions imply that there should be consideration of the baseline conditions and trends in relation to the intended project outcomes and impacts and potential externalities. In addition it implies that there should be plausible evidence to attribute such outcomes and impacts to the direct or indirect actions of the project.

Sometimes, adequate information on baseline conditions and trends is lacking. In such cases this should be clearly highlighted by the evaluator, along with any simplifying assumptions that were taken to enable the evaluator to make informed judgements about project performance.

3. Project Ratings  The  success  of  project  implementation  will  be  rated  on  a  scale  from  ‘highly unsatisfactory’ to ‘highly satisfactory’. In particular the evaluation shall assess and rate the project with respect to the eleven categories defined below:64  

A. Attainment of objectives and planned results:

                                                        64 However, the views and comments expressed by the evaluator need not be restricted to these items. 

Page 45 of 102

The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project's major relevant objectives were effectively and efficiently achieved or are expected to be achieved and their relevance. Effectiveness:  Evaluate  how,  and  to  what  extent,  the  stated  project objectives  have  been  met,  taking  into  account  the  “achievement indicators”.  In  particular,  the  analysis  of  outcomes  achieved  should include,  inter alia,  an  assessment  of  the  extent  to which  the  project  has resulted  into  the  sustainable management  of  the Marsabit  forest  and  its environs.  Assess  the  crop  livestock  production  systems  and  income‐generated activities being implemented in the project area. 

As far as possible, also assess the potential longer-term impacts considering that the evaluation is taking place upon completion of the project and that longer-term impact is expected to be seen in a few years time. Frame recommendations to enhance future project impact in this context. Which will be the major ‘channels’ for longer term impact from the project at the national and regional scales? The evaluation should formulate recommendations that outline possible approaches and necessary actions to facilitate an impact assessment study in a few years time.

• Relevance: In retrospect, were the project’s outcomes consistent with the  focal areas/operational program strategies? Ascertain  the nature and  significance  of  the  contribution  of  the  project  outcomes  to  the wider portfolio of the UNEP. What is the contribution of the project to the national related policies and strategies?  

• Efficiency:  Was  the  project  cost  effective? Was  the  project  the  least cost  option? Was  the  project  implementation  delayed  and  if  it  was, then did that affect cost‐effectiveness? Assess the contribution of cash and in‐kind co‐financing to project implementation and to what extent the  project  leveraged  additional  resources.  Did  the  project  build  on earlier initiatives, did it make effective use of available scientific and / or technical information. Wherever possible, the evaluator should also compare  the  cost‐time  vs.  outcomes  relationship  of  the  project  with that of other similar projects.  

 B. Sustainability:

Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-derived outcomes and impacts after the project funding ends. The evaluation will identify and assess the key conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after the project ends. Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, e.g. stronger institutional capacities or better informed decision-making. Other factors will include contextual circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are relevant to the sustainability of outcomes. The evaluation should ascertain to what extent follow-up work has been initiated by relevant stakeholders and how project outcomes will be sustained and enhanced over time.

Page 46 of 102

Four aspects of sustainability should be addressed: financial, socio-political, institutional frameworks and governance, and ecological. The following questions provide guidance on the assessment of these aspects: • Financial resources. Are there any financial risks that may jeopardize

sustenance of project outcomes? What is the likelihood that necessary financial and economic resources will not be available once the GEF assistance ends (resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and trends that may indicate that it is likely that in future there will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)? To what extent are the outcomes of the project dependent on continued financial support?

• Socio-political: Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project?

• Institutional framework and governance. To what extent is the sustenance of the outcomes of the project dependent on issues relating to institutional frameworks and governance? What is the likelihood that institutional and technical achievements, legal frameworks, policies and governance structures and processes will allow for, the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? While responding to these questions consider if the required systems for accountability and transparency and the required technical know-how are in place.

• Environmental. Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of project environmental benefits? The TE should assess whether certain activities in the project area will pose a threat to the sustainability of the project outcomes.

C. Achievement of outputs and activities: • Delivered outputs: Assessment of the project’s success in producing each

of the programmed outputs, both in quantity and quality as well as usefulness and timeliness.

• Assess the soundness and effectiveness of the methodologies used for developing the technical documents and related management options in the targeted project area.

• Assess to what extent the project outputs produced have the weight of scientific authority / credibility, necessary to influence policy and decision-makers, particularly at the local, national and regional level.

D. Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation systems.

The evaluation shall include an assessment of the quality, application and effectiveness of project monitoring and evaluation plans and tools, including an assessment of risk management based on the assumptions and risks identified in the project document. The Terminal Evaluation will assess whether the project met the minimum requirements for ‘project design of M&E’ and ‘the application of the Project M&E plan’ (see minimum requirements 1&2 in Annex 4). GEF projects must budget adequately for

Page 47 of 102

execution of the M&E plan, and provide adequate resources during implementation of the M&E plan. Project managers are also expected to use the information generated by the M&E system during project implementation to adapt and improve the project.

M&E during project implementation 

• M&E design. The Terminal Evaluation should verify that the projects had sound M&E plans to monitor results and track progress towards achieving project objectives. This M&E plan should include a baseline (including data, methodology, etc.), SMART indicators (see Annex 4) and data analysis systems, and evaluation studies at specific times to assess results. The time frame for various M&E activities and standards for outputs should have been specified.

• M&E plan implementation. The Terminal Evaluation should verify that: an M&E system was in place and facilitated timely tracking of results and progress towards projects objectives throughout the project implementation period (perhaps through use of a logframe or similar); annual project reports and Progress Implementation Review (PIR) reports were complete, accurate and with well justified ratings; that the information provided by the M&E system was used during the project to improve project performance and to adapt to changing needs; and that projects had an M&E system in place with proper training for parties responsible for M&E activities.

• Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. The terminal evaluation should determine whether support for M&E was budgeted adequately and was funded in a timely fashion during implementation.

E. Replicability/Catalytic role:

What examples are there of replication and catalytic outcomes? Replication approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as lessons and experiences coming out of the project that are replicated or scaled up in the design and implementation of other projects. Replication can have two aspects, replication proper (lessons and experiences are replicated in different geographic area) or scaling up (lessons and experiences are replicated within the same geographic area but funded by other sources). Specifically: Evaluation should describe the catalytic or replication actions that the project carried out.

Assess whether the project has potential to be replicated, either in terms of expansion, extension or replication in other countries and/or regions and whether any steps have been taken by the project to do so and the relevance and feasibility of these steps

F. Preparation and Readiness

Were the project’s objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible within its timeframe? Were the capacities of executing institution and counterparts properly considered when the project was designed? Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated in the project design? Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and the roles and responsibilities negotiated prior to project implementation? Were

Page 48 of 102

counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation, and adequate project management arrangements in place?

G. Country ownership/driveness:

This is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental agendas, recipient country commitment, and regional and international agreements. The evaluation will: • Assess the level of country ownership. Specifically, the evaluator should

assess whether the project was effective in providing and communicating information that catalyzed action in participating countries to improve decisions relating to the Marsabit forest.

• Assess the level of country commitment to address the issues concerning the sustainable management of the Marsabit forest.. 

H. Stakeholder participation / public awareness:

This consists of three related and often overlapping processes: information dissemination, consultation, and “stakeholder” participation. Stakeholders are the individuals, groups, institutions, or other bodies that have an interest or stake in the outcome of the UNEP financed project. The term also applies to those potentially adversely affected by a project. The evaluation will specifically: • Assess the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification and

engagement of stakeholders and establish, in consultation with the stakeholders, whether this mechanism was successful, and identify its strengths and weaknesses.

• Assess the degree and effectiveness of collaboration/interactions between the various project partners and institutions during the course of implementation of the project.

• Assess the degree and effectiveness of various public awareness activities that were undertaken during the course of implementation of the project.

I. Financial Planning

Evaluation of financial planning requires assessment of the quality and effectiveness of financial planning and control of financial resources throughout the project’s lifetime. Evaluation includes actual project costs by activities compared to budget (variances), financial management (including disbursement issues), and co- financing. The evaluation should: • Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including reporting,

and planning to allow the project management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for a proper and timely flow of funds for the payment of satisfactory project deliverables.

• Present the major findings from the financial audit if one has been conducted.

• Identify and verify the sources of co- financing as well as leveraged and associated financing (in co-operation with the IA and EA).

• Assess whether the project has applied appropriate standards of due diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.

• The evaluation should also include a breakdown of final actual costs and co-financing for the project prepared in consultation with the relevant

Page 49 of 102

UNON/DGEF Fund Management Officer of the project. (table attached in Annex 2 Co-financing and leveraged resources).

J. Implementation approach:

This includes an analysis of the project’s management framework, adaptation to changing conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes in project design, and overall project management. The evaluation will: • Ascertain to what extent the project implementation mechanisms outlined

in the project document have been closely followed. In particular, assess the role of the various committees established and whether the project document was clear and realistic to enable effective and efficient implementation, whether the project was executed according to the plan and how well the management was able to adapt to changes during the life of the project to enable the implementation of the project.

• Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project management and the supervision of project activities / project execution arrangements at all levels (1) policy decisions: Steering Group; (2) day to day project management.

• Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial support provided by UNEP/GEF.

• Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project.

• Assess whether the logical framework was used during implementation as a management tool and whether feedback from M&E activities more broadly was used for adaptive management.

K UNEP Supervision and Backstopping • Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial

support provided by UNEP/DGEF. • Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and

constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project.

The ratings will be presented in the form of a table. Each of the eleven categories should be rated separately with brief  justifications based on the findings of the main analysis. An overall rating for the project should also be given. The following rating system is to be applied:  HS = Highly Satisfactory

S = Satisfactory

MS = Moderately Satisfactory

MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory

U = Unsatisfactory

HU = Highly Unsatisfactory

4. Evaluation report format and review procedures 

Page 50 of 102

The report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain; the purpose of the evaluation, exactly what was evaluated and the methods used. The report must highlight any methodological limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based findings, consequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons. The report should be presented in a way that makes the information accessible and comprehensible and include an executive summary that encapsulates the essence of the information contained in the report to facilitate dissemination and distillation of lessons.

The evaluation will rate the overall implementation success of the project and provide individual ratings

of the eleven implementation aspects as described in Section 3 of this TOR. The ratings will be presented in

the format of a table with brief justifications based on the findings of the main analysis.

Evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a complete and balanced manner. Any dissident views in response to evaluation findings will be appended in an annex. The evaluation report shall be written in English, be of no more than 50 pages (excluding annexes), use numbered paragraphs and include:

i) An executive summary (no more than 3 pages) providing a brief overview of

the main conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation; ii) Introduction and background giving a brief overview of the evaluated

project, for example, the objective and status of activities; The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, 2006, requires that a TE report will provide summary information on when the evaluation took place; places visited; who was involved; the key questions; and, the methodology.

iii) Scope, objective and methods presenting the evaluation’s purpose, the evaluation criteria used and questions to be addressed;

iv) Project Performance and Impact providing factual evidence relevant to the questions asked by the evaluator and interpretations of such evidence. This is the main substantive section of the report. The evaluator should provide a commentary and analysis on all eleven evaluation aspects (A − K above).

v) Conclusions and rating of project implementation success giving the evaluator’s concluding assessments and ratings of the project against given evaluation criteria and standards of performance. The conclusions should provide answers to questions about whether the project is considered good or bad, and whether the results are considered positive or negative. The ratings should be provided with a brief narrative comment in a table (see Annex 1);

vi) Lessons (to be) learned presenting general conclusions from the standpoint of the design and implementation of the project, based on good practices and successes or problems and mistakes. Lessons should have the potential for wider application and use. All lessons should ‘stand alone’ and should:

Briefly describe the context from which they are derived State or imply some prescriptive action; Specify the contexts in which they may be applied (if possible, who

when and where) vii) Recommendations suggesting actionable proposals for improvement of the

current project. In general, Terminal Evaluations are likely to have very few (perhaps two or three) actionable recommendations.

Page 51 of 102

Prior to each recommendation, the issue(s) or problem(s) to be addressed by the recommendation should be clearly stated. A high quality recommendation is an actionable proposal that is:

1. Feasible to implement within the timeframe and resources available 2. Commensurate with the available capacities of project team and partners 3. Specific in terms of who would do what and when 4. Contains results‐based language (i.e. a measurable performance target) 5. Includes a trade‐off analysis, when its implementation may require utilizing significant resources that would otherwise be used for other project purposes. 

viii) Annexes may include additional material deemed relevant by the evaluator but must include:

1. The Evaluation Terms of Reference,  2. A list of interviewees, and evaluation timeline 3. A list of documents reviewed / consulted 4. Summary co‐finance information and a statement of project expenditure by activity 5. The expertise of the evaluation team. (brief CV). 

TE reports will also include any response / comments from the project management team and/or the country focal point regarding the evaluation findings or conclusions as an annex to the report, however, such will be appended to the report by UNEP EOU.

Examples of UNEP GEF Terminal Evaluation Reports are available at www.unep.org/eou

Review of the Draft Evaluation Report Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or Project Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation.   The DGEF staff and senior Executing Agency staff are allowed to comment on the draft evaluation report.    They  may  provide  feedback  on  any  errors  of  fact  and  may  highlight  the significance of such errors in any conclusions. The consultation also seeks feedback on the proposed recommendations.  UNEP EOU collates all review comments and provides them  to  the  evaluators  for  their  consideration  in  preparing  the  final  version  of  the report.  5. Submission of Final Terminal Evaluation Reports. The final report shall be submitted in electronic form in MS Word format and should be sent to the following persons:

Segbedzi Norgbey, Chief,  UNEP Evaluation and Oversight Unit  

    P.O. Box 30552‐00100     Nairobi, Kenya 

Page 52 of 102

    Tel.: (254‐20) 7623387     Fax: (254‐20) 7623158 

Email: segbedzi.norgbey@unep.org      With a copy to:      Maryam Niamir‐Fuller     Director     UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination     P.O. Box 30552     Nairobi, Kenya     Tel: + 254‐20‐7624165 

Fax: + 254-20-624041/4042 Email: maryam.niamir-fuller@unep.org

Carmen Tavera

Portfolio Manager United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF) PO Box 30552 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 20 7624153 e‐mail: Carmen.Tavera@unep.org   Mohamed Sessay Task Manager United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF) PO Box 30552 Nairobi, Kenya e‐mail: Mohamed.Sessay@unep.org 

 

The final evaluation report will be published on the Evaluation and Oversight Unit’s web-site www.unep.org/eou and may be printed in hard copy. Subsequently, the report will be sent to the GEF Office of Evaluation for their review, appraisal and inclusion on the GEF website.

6. Resources and schedule of the evaluation This final evaluation will be undertaken by an international evaluator contracted by the Evaluation and Oversight Unit, UNEP. The contract for the evaluator will begin on 1 March 2009 and end on 30 May 2009 (1 month) spread over 13 weeks. The evaluator will submit a draft report on 30 April 2009 to UNEP/EOU, the UNEP/GEF Project Manager, and key representatives of the executing agencies. Any comments or responses to the draft report will

Page 53 of 102

be sent to UNEP/EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of any necessary revisions. Comments to the final draft report will be sent to the consultant by 15 May 2009 after which, the consultant will submit the final report no later than 30 May 2009.

The evaluator will after an initial telephone briefing with EOU and UNEP/GEF then travel to Kenya to visit the project site and meet with project staff.

In accordance with UNEP policy, all UNEP projects are evaluated by independent evaluators contracted as consultants by the EOU. The evaluators should have the following qualifications:

The evaluator should not have been associated with the design and implementation of the project. The evaluator will work under the overall supervision of the Chief, Evaluation and Oversight Unit, UNEP. The evaluator should be an international environmental expert. The consultant should have the following minimum qualifications: (i) experience in natural resource management and planning (ii) experience with management, implementation and evaluation of projects (iii) experience with ecosystem management related issues (iv) experience in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) issues. Knowledge of UNEP and GEF programmes and activities is desirable. Fluency in oral and written English is a must. (i)

54

Annex 2 Documents Consulted GEF Secretariat Medium Sized Project Agreement Review (July 2003) Marsabit Project Document (2004) Medium size project brief: GEF. Development and Implementation of a sustainable resource management plan for Marsabit mountain and its associated watersheds (June 2003) Brochure prepared for GEF conference in Cape town. Kenya Forest Working Group Rapid Appraisal of Marsabit Forest (2001) NEMA – State of the Environment Report. NEMA environmental training reports: Ngurunit, Illaut, North Horr, Korr, Isako Mala, Malobot. Presentation for GEF assembly presentation (2008) Map showing transects (soft copy) Half yearly technical and financial reports (12) Progress report June – Dec 2004 – June 2005 (?) Progress report July – December 2005 Progress report April – June 2006 Progress report July – September 2006 and annex Progress report Oct – Dec 2006 FA Monitoring tool. Progress rep Jan – March 2007 Progress rep April – June 2007 and annex Progress report Oct – Dec 2007 Annual PIR reports (3) – seen July 2005 – 2006, July 2006 – June 2007, July 2007 – June 2008 Midterm review - March 2008 Steering committee minutes – March 2006, March 2007 Websites KEFRI: http://www.kefri.org Kenya Forests Working Group GEF Kenya Forest Action Network http://www.fankenya.org

55

Annex 3 Meetings, email correspondence and field itinerary List of interviewed persons. Contact Name Institution Contact Date Mr Martin OKun FMO/UNEP UNEP Nairobi

Martin.Okun@unep.org Tel 0722 612576

May 2009

Dr Sam Chema AGREF/GEF Marsabit Project Manager

AGREF/AACC Waiyaki way samchema@gmail.com

May/June 2009

Mohammed Sessay

UNEP Task Manager

UNEP/GEF Nairobi May 2009

Mr Maitima (Regional Manager)

Ewaso North Water Development Authority.

0725513710; wrma.ewasongiro@yahoo.com

May 25th

Mr Wangombe (Technical)

Ewaso North Water Development Authority.

May 25th

John Wako Marsabit Forest Conservation Committee

Jowadu2006@yahoo.com 0726 260311 069 2102072

May 25th

Mr SS Katelo Ex project staff (now working with Macoco)

Katty-on-Sunday@yahoo.com Tel 0725734139

May 27th

Mamo B Mamo District Environmental Officer.NEMA, Marsabit

Boru_mamo@yahoo.com Tel 0725746493

May 27th

Meshak Cheto, Forester, Marsabit

Kenya Forestry Service

KFS office, Marsabit. May 27th

John Kagwi Area Director, Kenya Wildlife Service, Marsabit office.

kwsmarsabit@yahoo.com May 27th

Stephen Mwongela,

Headmaster, Hekima primary school

May 28th

Sister Mary Catholic Mission, Dirib Gombo

May 28th

Peter Guyo Headmaster, Bagassa Primary School.

May 28th

Paul Lechornai Headmaster, Songa Primary school.

May 28th

Dr Ngutu Crop Department, KARI

May 29th

Doyo Godana ALRMP/OOP 0724369880 May 29th Prof Joseph UON/Project Field 0724- 369880 June 2nd

56

Gathuma Coordinator University of Nairobi, Kabete Guyo Tuke Feed the Hungry

International 0729 215698 gtuke@fh.org

Email correspondence

Richard Mugacha UNOPS RichardM@unops.org Email correspondence Nick O’Regan UNOPS NicholasO@unops.org Email correspondence Fatuma Abdikar ALRMP 020 227496 May 21st Esau Omollo Deputy Director,

Forest Conservation and Management, Kenya Forest Service.

0733 788457 June 4th

Michael Gachanja Chief Executive, Kenya Forests Working Group

Email correspondence.

Attempted but failed to have meeting with:- Mr Hussien Charfi, Chief Mountain location (phone but couldn’t reach) Field Itinerary May 25th Travel from Nairobi to Isiolo

Interview with Ewaso North Water Development Authority. Mr Maitima (Regional Manager) and Mr Wangombe (Technical) Interview with John Wako, community representative of Marsabit Forest Conservation Committee.

May 26th Travel from Isiolo to Marsabit (three breakdowns en route). May 27th Meeting with Katelo and Mamo (NEMA, Macoco)

Meeting with Meshak Cheto, Forester, Marsabit Visit to Gotu Gardi Dam Meeting with John Kagwi, Area Director, Kenya Wildlife Service Viewed ‘enrichment forest’ marked out for school educational activities. Visit to tree nursery and ‘water machine’, Marsabit

May 28th Visit to Hekima Primary School, Dirib Gombo Visit to Sister Mary, Dirib Gombo Visit to Dirib Gombo borehole and nursery Visit to Kubi Bagassa school, borehole and nursery Visit to Bagassa Primary School Visit to Songa Primary School Visit to forest, pastoralist wells, Lake Paradise and hotel site.

May 29th Meeting with Dr Ngutu, Crop Department, KARI. Meeting with Mamo and Katelo Meeting with Doyo Godana, ALRMP Visit to private wood lot.

57

Travel Marsabit to Nanyuki May 30th Travel Nanyuki to Nairobi.

58

Annex 4 - Budgets Budget in UNEP format Marsabit: GFL/2328-2770-4779

OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE

10

PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT

Budget as per Rev. 1 (US$)

Final exp. As as per UNOPS (US$)

Variance (US$)

1100 Project Personnel w/m 1101 Project Manager 36 108,506 113,599 -5,093 1102 Field Coordinator 36 86,000 68,000 18,000 1199 Sub-Total 194,506 181,599 12,907 1201 Consultants w/m 5,000 5,000 0 1299 Sub-Total 5,000 5,000 0 1300 Administrative support w/m 0 1301 Executive officer 36 60,931 66,599 -5,668 1302 Executive Assistant 36 21,500 23,500 -2,000 1303 Data Assistant 36 12,900 21,240 -8,340 1304 Driver 1 36 10,500 30,543 -20,043 1305 Driver 2 36 9,675 0 9,675 1306 Driver 3 36 9,643 0 9,643 1381 UNOPS Support Costs 76,000 68,085 7,915 1399 Sub-Total 201,149 209,967 -8,818

59

1600 Travel on official business (above staff) 0 1601 Field Coordinator 45 days/year 860 1,094 -234 1602 Project Manager 65 days/year 3,592 4,207 -615 1603 Executive officer 65 days/year 2,600 3,277 -677 1604 Executive Assistant 850 4,017 -3,167 1605 Data Assist 9 days/year 1,447 2,842 -1,395 1606 Driver Field 2 6 days/year 3,015 1,050 1,965 1607 Driver Field 3 2,161 3,597 -1,436 1608 Driver HQ 6 days.year 974 0 974 1699 Sub-Total 15,499 20,084 -4,585

1999 Component Total 416,154 416,650 -496

2100 Sub-contract to Government Agencies,

Institutes 0 2101 AGREF 59,000 0 59,000 2199 Sub-total 59,000 0 59,000

2199 Component Total 59,000 0 59,000 30 3100 Fellowships (total stipend/fees, travel 0 costs, etc) 0 3101 Fees for 3 per year 24,541 19,684 4,857 3102 Supervision 10,950 4,793 6,157 3103 Stipend 15,348 13,858 1,490 3199 Sub-Total 50,839 38,335 12,504 3300 Meetings/conferences (give title) 0 3301 Facilitation for public bodies 22,730 10,434 12,296 3302 Participatory analyses and reviews 24,505 24,991 -486 3303 Community support 22,216 75,492 -53,276 3304 Field trips and tours 100 580 -480

60

3305 Internal M&E review meetings 0 251 -251 3306 Project Steering Committee Meetings 12,423 3,660 8,763 3399 Sub-Total 81,974 115,408 -33,434

3999 Component Total 132,813 153,743 -20,930

40 EQUIPMENT & PREMISES COMPONENT 0

4100 Expendable equipment (items under $1,500

each, for example) 0 4103 Computer Software 356 356 0 4199 Sub-Total 356 356 0

4200 Non-expendable equipment (computers,

office equip, etc) 0 4201 Server 12,013 0 12,013 4202 Desktops x4 (Only 3 Desktops requested) 2,547 17,750 -15,203 4203 Laptops x1 0 4,976 -4,976 4204 Scanner x2 ( Only 1 scanner requested) 12,000 414 11,586 4205 HP B&W Printer 2,267 0 2,267 4206 Vehicles 95,915 100,273 -4,358 4207 Cannon Multimedia Projector 2,500 1,874 626 4208 Overhead Projector 0 0 0 4209 Photocopiers x2 (Incl in Desktops cost) 0 3,086 -3,086 4220 HP Colour Printer x 2 (purchased by AGREF) 0 0 4299 Sub-Total 127,242 128,373 -1,131 4300 Premises (office rent, maintenance 0 of premises, etc) 0 4301 Office rent, maintenance 43,202 58,296 -15,094 4399 Sub-Total 43,202 58,296 -15,094

4999 Component Total 170,800 187,025 -16,225

61

50 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT 0 5100 Operation and maintenance of equip. 0 5101 Operation costs and Maintenance 6,000 0 6,000 5102 Bank Charges 7,711 2,805 4,906 5103 Repair & maint. of vehicles & insurance 84,890 116,096 -31,206 5104 Repair, maint. of all office equip & insurance 21,654 21,861 -207 5199 Sub-Total 120,255 140,762 -20,507

5200 Reporting costs (publications, maps,

newsletters, printing, etc) 0 5201 Reporting costs (publications, maps etc) 2,000 2,700 -700 5299 Sub-Total 2,000 2,700 -700

5300 Sundry (communications, postage, freight,

clearance charges, etc) 0 5301 Communication/telecommunication 22,978 23,120 -142 5399 Sub-Total 22,978 23,120 -142 5999 Component Total 145,233 166,582 -21,349

99 GRAND TOTAL 924,000 924,000 0

62

Co-financing and Leveraged Resources (For projects which underwent a mid-term, phase or a terminal evaluation in FY 08)

1. Co-financing

Co financing (Type/ Source)

IA own Financing (mill US$)

Multi-lateral Agencies (Non-GEF) (mill US$)

Bi-laterals Donors (mill US$)

Central Government (mill US$)

Local Government (mill US$)

Private Sector (mill US$)

NGOs (mill US$)

Other Sources* (mill US$)

Total Financing (mill US$)

Total Disbursement (mill US$)

Proposed

Actual Proposed

Actual Proposed

Actual

Proposed

Actual Proposed

Actual

Proposed

Actual

Proposed

Actual

Proposed

Actual Proposed

Actual

Proposed

Actual

Grant

Credits Loans Equity 1,500,00

0 58,32

5 346,040 1,904,36

5 In-kind 339,962 16,064 356,026 Non-grant Instruments

2,260,391

Other Types

TOTAL 2,260,391

Please describe “Non-grant Instruments” (such as guarantees, contingent grants, etc): Please explain “Other Types of Co-financing”: Please explain “Other Sources of Co-financing”:

63

2. Leveraged resources Please describe in 50 words the resources the project has leveraged since inception and indicate how these resources are contributing to the project’s global environmental objective.

6. The IA (Agricultural Research Foundation) contribution was in the form of foregone income by a decision to stay in the project area continuously for 39 months and contribution of equipment and assets to the project.

7. Two public universities shared the cost for the more than a dozen post-graduate students through partial waiving of tuition and supervisory fees 8. It took several years, but ultimately, NGOs and CBOs and individual community members have been contributing financially (largely fuel for vehicles)

and labor to the project. 9. Although poorly endowed itself, the local district forest services office seconded 5 staff members midway through the project whom they pay. 10. Kenya Wild Service provided staff time as well as subsidies in housing and office space. 11. The largest input has been agreement to the project’s main request of constructing 6 rock-catchment dams on the periphery of the forest largely to keep

livestock out of the forest but also provide domestic water for villagers. The new Ministry of Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands has put in process the construction process in collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. A joint team of administrators, surveyors and engineers is already in the field for this work. A total of Kshs 100million (about $1.5million) is in the budget for this.

DEFINITIONS AND GUIDANCE Only those projects which, during FY 2007, have gone through mid-term evaluations or that have been closed are required to report on co-financing and leveraged resources65. “Proposed” co-financing refers to co-financing proposed at CEO endorsement. Co-financing are resources committed by the GEF Implementing and/or Executing Agencies or by other non-GEF source, that will be managed with the GEF allocation as part of the initial financing package for the GEF project and without which the GEF objectives cannot be met. Information should include: co-financing by source, type, and total disbursements by June 30, 2007. Please see Table 1 as the reporting format. Leveraged resources are defined as additional resources—beyond those committed to the project, itself by GEF and co-financiers at the time of approval—that are mobilized later as a direct result of the project. As such, leveraged resources do not form part of the committed financing plan at the outset and are not defined as “co-finance”. Leverage is nevertheless a very important indicator of GEF’s catalytic effect. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and may be from other donors, NGOs, foundations, governments, communities or the private sector.                                                         65 The GEF Council approved the GEF policy on Co-financing (C20/6) on September 16, 2002. This policy required that all projects regularly report type and source of co-financing as well as leveraged resources.

64

Annex 5 – Achievement of Goal and Outcomes

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification

Verified by Evaluator.

GOAL LEVEL

 

Goal: To promote long-term conservation and sustainable use of the unique mountain ecosystems in Marsabit District, in other arid districts and, through collaborative arrangements elsewhere in the Horn of Africa including Uganda, Ethiopia, Sudan and eventually, Somalia, by developing and implementing a science-led management plan.

Science led model developed by the Marsabit project available for replication in similar ecosystems in Kenya and another Eastern African country by the end of the project.

Project documents submitted to UNEP and funding agencies. Model and associated information posted on project website.

Model has been verbally developed and shared but not yet fully validated as dams have not been built. Theses are available in soft copy from Agref (and UNEP?). No synthesis of data, or summary of model available for replication. No web site. Lobbying towards joint management plan with key stakeholders.

Project Outcome Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outcomes generated Verification by evaluator

Achievement Rating

Outcome 1

1.1. Boundary plans for the Forest Reserve and

Framework for management developed by

Marsabit brochure Powerpoint presentations

MU

65

Project Outcome Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outcomes generated Verification by evaluator

Achievement Rating

Land Use Management Plan for Mt. Marsabit developed.

National Park agreed by key institutions by the end of the project. 1.2. Comprehensive NRM plan for the Marsabit Mountain ecosystem developed and agreed by at least five key institutions (KWS, Forest sector, Water sector, NEMA, County council) and by five community groups by end of the project.

the project and shared using brochures and powerpoint presentations. Key stakeholders are committed to developing boundary maps and management plans for Marsabit mountain.

(project, NEMA) NEMA state of the environment report. Pers. Comm. KWS, KFS, John Wako, ALRMP, Water Services Dept. Endorsement of management recommendations by key stakeholders.66 Ministry of Northern Kenya has tendered for construction of recommended dams. The evaluator verified that one of these dams is now under construction. KFS will use the project’s outputs in the development of a management plan for the forest.67

Outcome 2 2.1. An information Results of theses Student theses MS                                                         66 Pers comm.. Mr Maitima, Ewaso North Water Development Authority, pers comm. Meshak Cheto and Esau Omollo. KFS. Pers comm. John Wako, community member of Marsabit Forest Conservation Committee. Pers comm. Doyo Godana, ALRMP (appreciated concrete recommendations). 67 Pers comm. Esau Omollo, KFS

66

Project Outcome Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outcomes generated Verification by evaluator

Achievement Rating

Enhanced knowledge base and information for long term monitoring and management of the Marsabit Mountain ecological system.

system/database on Mt. Marsabit is available on-line for users interested in mist mountains, by the end of the project. 2.2. At least 80% of key local institutions are in the position to use the NRM plan for better decision making. 2.3. Bio-physical and socio-economic indicators for monitoring trends of natural resources and land use changes in the Mt. Marsabit ecosystem defined by first year of the

incorporated into planning. Project brochure and presentations. Appreciation of increased knowledge of this environment which allows better decision making by stakeholders68 Appreciation that local awareness of forest conservation increased.69 District Environmental committee has made use of the data for its State of the Environment report.70 KARI synthesising data to guide KASAL project.71 Has provided NEMA and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  68 Pers comm.. Mr Maitima, Ewaso North Water Development Authority. pers comm. Meshak Cheto and Esau Omollo. Pers comm. Doyo Godana, ALRMP 69 Pers comm.. Mr Maitima, Ewaso North Water Development Authority, pers comm. John Wako, community member of Marsabit Forest Conservation Committee. pers comm. Meshak Cheto and Esau Omollo, pers comm. John Kagwi, KWS. Pers comm. Doyo Godana, ALRMP

70 Pers comm. Mamo, NEMA 71 Pers comm., Dr Ngutu, KARI. 72 Pers comm. Mamo, NEMA

67

Project Outcome Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outcomes generated Verification by evaluator

Achievement Rating

project and incorporated in the NRM plan by end of the project.

Macoco with hard data to support advocacy for forest conservation72.

Outcome 3 Enhanced NRM in the Mt. Marsabit ecosystem through demonstration activities on sustainable land and water management at pilot sites

3.1. At least four community groups engaged in sustainable conservation activities by end of the project. 3.2. At least 40,000 tree seedlings surviving at project sites by end of the project. 3.3. At least two water harvesting techniques devised and tested by the end of the project. 3.4 At least five institutional owned woodlots established and surviving at pilot sites by the end of the project. 3.5 Sustainable land and water practices replicated by at least six new

Information being used by NEMA and Mamaco for lobbying, advocacy and to generate project proposals. Treelots established at school and personal sites. Nursery established in Marsabit and several community locations. Waterharvesting machine built at marsabit nursery. Water harvesting through damming gorges planned, and to be implemented by Ministry of Northern Lands.

Pers comm: NEMA and Mamaco staff, John Wako. Evaluator viewed woodlots at Dirib Gombo, Kubi Bagassa, Bagassa and Songa schools, and one personal woodlot (Mr Nassir) on outskirts of Marsabit town. Success of tree planting much increased.73 Evaluator viewed nurseries in Marsabit, Dirib Gombo and Kubi Bagassa. Evaluator viewed water harvesting ‘water machine’ at Marsabit

S

                                                        73 Pers comm.. Meshak Cheto, KFS

68

Project Outcome Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outcomes generated Verification by evaluator

Achievement Rating

institutions by the end of the project.

nursery. Evaluator viewed site of proposed dam at Gotu Gardi. Confirmed work has started on construction of dam. Project monitoring reports.

Outcome 4 Enhanced capacity of local and national stakeholders, including communities and institutions, to sustainably manage natural resources and to resolve land-use conflicts.

4.1. Number of participatory technical and policy meetings held at local, district and national levels for the purpose of developing the NRM plan by end or the project. 4.2. At least four community groups and schools facilitated by the project to submit project proposals for donor funding by the end of the project. 4.3. At least 70% increase in awareness of the importance of improved environmental

Meetings were held to discuss the NRM plan. Donor proposals submitted by groups in Dirib Gombo and Gotu Gardi. Collaboration by different ethnic groups in Gotu Gardi and Dirib Gombo to create joint water management plans. Development of ‘body corporate’ identify for water groups ongoing (awaiting construction of

Project monitoring reports. Pers comm.: NEMA and Mamaco staff. Pers comm.: Dr Chema Appreciation of project’s activities in creating channels for working with local communities. (Pers comm.. Mr Maitima, Ewaso North Water Development Authority).

MS

69

Project Outcome Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outcomes generated Verification by evaluator

Achievement Rating

management and sustainable land-use in the project area by the end of year 3. 4.4. A number of natural resources based conflicts mitigated at the project sites by the end of the project. 4.5. At least two communities sharing a water resource assisted by the project to establish a legal entity recognized by the Water Act 2002 for managing their finances, water and the environment by the end of the project. 4.6. At least five seminars/consultations/ workshops on NRM conducted by end of the project.

dam). Seminars held at stakeholder meetings, and presentation in Cape town and Iceland. Project outputs being used by Mamaco for training activities.

70

Annex 6 – Achievement of Outputs and Activities74.

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating OUTCOME 1 Output 1.1.: A science-led model for participatory NRM planning

OP 1.1.1 Three permanent transects for monitoring natural resources and land use changes established by the end of the first year of the project. OP 1.1.2 The process of harmonization of Forest Reserve and Park boundary plans initiated by the end of the project. OP 1.1.3 By the end of the Project 40% of targeted communities in the project area have discussed and agreed upon the outline of an NRM plan.

GPS coordinates and transect lay out sketch Baseline information on the transects in theses.

Viewed map showing transects. Did not view baseline map or land use (showing hotpoints etc) Did not view map of NRM plan. Student theses. Project monitoring reports.

MU

Output 1.2: NRM plan for Mt. Marsabit Ecosystem

OP 1.2.1 The process of legalization of the NRMP including the agreed boundary plans for the Forest Reserve and National Park boundaries initiated

Process initiated, stakeholders are keen to progress but plans on hold due to lack of resources (?)

Pers comm.: KWS, KFS, Water Development authority. Site visit.

U

                                                        74 See below for detailed description of activities under each output.

71

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating by the end of the project. OP 1.2.1. By the end of the Project 50% of targeted communities in the project area have endorsed the NRM plan developed based on sustainability principles and have started to manage NR accordingly.

Change in management by communities delayed because dams not yet built. Drought also constraint to tree planting.

Project monitoring reports. No evidence of participatory approaches used for visioning and planning with community and stakeholders.

OUTCOME 2 Output 2.1.: Resource inventory including proceedings from students’ theses

OP 2.1.1 An information system/database in place by the end of the project: OP 2.1.2 Status & trends in changes of mountain flora and fauna biodiversity established at project sites. OP 2.1.3 Status and trends in changes in abiotic resources (water, soils, and climatic elements) established at project sites. OP 2.1.4 Status & trends in socio economic attributes established at project sites OP 2.1.5 Students’ progress reports and theses available by the end of the project.

Data in theses (except mammal and socioeconomic data). Data has not been synthesised into an inventory that can be used by others. KARI undertaking synthesis of thesis data for Kenya Arid Semi Arid Lands Project. Copy of theses with NEMA.

Student theses NEMA has copies of all theses. KARI is using data from theses. (pers comm. Dr Ngutu KARI)

MU

72

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating Output 2.2.: Website & dissemination strategy

OP 2.2.1 Application of trends of NRM in the development of resource management plan by end of the project. OP 2.2.2 Journal articles, book consolidating students’ theses, and video documentaries completed by end of the project. OP 2.2.3 Project website elaborated, functioning and easily accessible to interested users by end of the project. OP 2.2.4 At least ten seminars/consultations/workshops held for dissemination of baseline information by the end of the project.

Use of data in project brochure and project proposals by Mamaco. Seminars for steering committee, KARI, GEF and at conference in Iceland. Presentation to District Environmental committee Presentation at Desert margins workshop at KARI, Marsabit. Chairmen of school committees visited each others schools.

Project brochure Pers comm: Mamaco Project monitoring reports. Pers comm: KARI. Was not able to locate copy of video. Pers comm. Dr Chema. Interviews with school headmasters.

U

OUTCOME 3 Output 3.1: Local NRM practices/innovations (sustainable woodlots, tree nurseries and water systems)

OP 3.1.1 Water harvesting technique devised and tested by the end of the project. OP 3.1.2 At least twenty institutional and individual woodlots supported by the project by end of the project.

‘water machine’ at Marsabit nursery Central nursery in Marsabit. Records of project supported woodlots.

Viewed water machine at nursery. Viewed 4 school and 1 individual woodlot. Viewed 3 nurseries.

S

73

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating OP 3.1.3 At least four tree nurseries (one governmental and three community) established and supported by end of the project.

Project progress Reports and Mid Term Review Report Monitoring and evaluations reports.

Pers comm.: Dr Chema

Output 3.2: Afforested hotspots

OP 3.2.1 At least 100 women issued with permit to harvest fuelwood in the forest participating in afforestation activities by end of the project. OP 3.2.2. At least 10,000 indigenous seedlings planted by communities including schools and surviving in the forest hotspots by end of the project.

Trees planted for commercial use at school sites around the forest. Did not observe large scale planting of indigenous trees.? Enrichment areas for school planting identified in forest.

Visit to tree lots. Viewed forest ‘enrichment’ areas identified for school planting.

U

Output 3.3: Additional co-financing

OP 3.3.1 At least ten communities and schools facilitated to develop proposals for alternative funding by the end of project.

Proposals developed in Gotu Gardi and Girib Gombo (by Mamaco) for dam and brickmaking/waterharvesting projects. No funding obtained for continued support to woodlots.

Project monitoring documents Pers comm.: Dr Chema, Mamaco Ministry of Northern Kenya has tendered for construction of recommended dams. The evaluator verified that one of these dams is now under construction.

U

Output 3.4.: Community-based NRM legal bodies

OP 3.4.1 At least three water user associations legalized under new

Discussions in progress

Pers comm.: Dr Chema, Mamaco

U

74

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating water act by the end of the project.

EMC groups being developed *check locations

OUTCOME 4 Output 4.1. : Empowered/trained local institutions and communities in NRM

OP 4.1.1 At least twenty seminars/consultations held by the project with communities and local institutions on the NRM plan by end of project. OP 4.1.2 At least twenty exchange visits to the project sites organized by the end of the project.

Seminars and consultations and exchange visits held. Formation of Mamaco as coordinating body for conservation initiatives. Two meetings held with parent community at Kubi Bagassa Chairman of Badassa school management committee and head teacher attended steering committee meetings. No evidence of training for communities in tree planting and management.

Project monitoring reports Pers comm.: school personnel Pers comm.: Mamaco

MS

Output 4.2.: Safe environment for NRM

OP 4.2.1 At least two communities collaborating on

Collaboration in Girib Gombo and Gotu Gardi

Project monitoring reports Site visits

S

75

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating water use management by the end of the project.

Pers comm.: Mamaco, Dr Chema, Katelo

ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATED PROJECT OUTPUTS Output 1.1 A science-led model for participatory NRM planning Activity 1.1.1: Map out current land use as baseline Activity 1.1.2. : Map out the NRM plan based on results of discussions, taking into consideration points that will minimise human conflict and maximize environmentally-friendly outcomes, raise food security and reduce poverty. Activity 1.1.3 : Identify land-use conflict and degradation hot-spots Activity 1.1.4.: Identify source of land degradation and human conflicts, and, through participatory methods, design solution mechanisms Output 1.2 : NRM plan for Mt. Marsabit Ecosystem Activity 1.2.1. : Discuss vision on resources use with both the villagers, district officials and collaborating institutions Activity 1.2.2.: Using participatory approaches establish an agreed plan for land use with compliance enforcement mechanisms that have both community-based and official components Activity 1.2.3. : Promote the process of formulation of appropriate policy framework for Mt Marsabit through interaction and sharing of information with District Officials- from outcome 3 Output 2.1 Resource inventory including proceedings from students’ theses Activity 2.1.1.: Baseline inventory of plants and animals in the mountain forest and its immediate environs and comparison of the current status with situation over the last 20 or so years in order to determine trends Activity 2.1.2.: Examination of the mist trapping mechanism of moss species that appear to have a symbiotic relationship

76

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating with certain trees and their contribution to ground moisture in the forest Activity 2.1.3: Baseline studies on spatial and temporal changes in land use systems and their effects on land degradation. The studies would include socioeconomic and soil parameters, following set transects (1) Activity 2.1.4: Undertake analysis of climatic data, its long-term trends and its effects on the mountain ecosystem (2) Activity 2.1.5: Conduct studies to assess/estimate the amount of carbon stored in above-and below-ground biomass in the area Activity 2.1.6: Engage graduate students, their supervisors and local collaborators in generating baseline data that will contribute to NRM plan and overall monitoring and evaluation Output 2.2: Website & dissemination strategy Activity 2.2.1.: Preparation of reports/bulletins, book consolidating student theses and journal articles as well as creation of video documentaries and project website to disseminate information Activity 2.2.2: Conduct seminars/workshops to disseminate the information gathered Output 3.1: Local NRM practices/innovations (sustainable woodlots, tree nurseries and water systems) Activity 3.1.1.: Implement woodlot systems on individual holdings, and institutional compounds. Activity 3.1.2. : Promote local innovation through development of adaptable water harvesting techniques in mist mountain. Activity 3.1.3.: Establish a large central tree nursery to facilitate afforestation in hotspots within the forest and provide interim support for community afforestation pending development of their own tree nurseries. Output 3.2: Afforested hotspots Activity 3.2.1.: Implement afforestation at pilot sites in areas surrounding the mountain with the aim of reducing pressure on the forest ecosystem Activity 3.2.2.: Facilitate involvement of schools in afforestation within the forest and in related awareness raising of communities including parents and students.

77

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Outputs generated Verification by

Evaluator Achievement

rating Output 3.3: Additional co-financing Activity 3.3.1.: Support communities in preparing proposals to leverage additional funding for the construction of dams at identified gorges in project area for sustainability of project impact. Activity 3.3.2. : Assist communities in developing project proposals related to maintenance and expansion of their woodlot independent of the project. Output 3.4: Community-based NRM legal bodies Activity 3.4.1. : Facilitate participatory community water resource management at identified water sites through the strengthening of water user associations and related bodies under water, forest and wildlife policies and EMCA (1999). Output 4.1: Empowered/trained local institutions and communities in NRM Activity 4.1.1: Contribute to the strengthening of the capacity of relevant institutions and local communities for sustainable land-use and water management. Activity 4.1.2: Raise awareness through seminars, consultations with local institutions and communities and exchange visits.Activity 4.1.3: Organize on-site training courses on identified issues including tree planting. Activity 4.1.4.: Facilitate a communication mechanism (for advise on land and water management techniques) between local communities and relevant institutions (Kenya Wildlife Service, Forest Department, Water sector and Livestock) through NRM plan. Output 4.2: Safe environment for NRM Activity 4.2.1: Promote conflict resolution through additional water resources shared by different ethnic groups

1) Complementary socio-economic data collected by FHI 2) Needs to be strengthened to include relative humidity data collection and analysis to assess contribution of cloud and mist to the

water budget gap in the information analysis gap.

78

Annex 6: Recommendations from Mid Term Review and Action Taken

Recommendations Responsibility Task Time Frame Deliverables Action Taken

1. Identify urgent project risk management to address the negative impacts of the December 2007 post election violence and the looming drought and conflicts in the project area.

AGREF Project Manager in collaboration with UNEP/GEF Task Manager and supportive development partners

Lobby for bilateral and multilateral additional financing of project outcomes and impacts;

Forge linkages and collaboration among stakeholders ( communities , Government institutions and development partners)

January to September 2008

Discussions with relevant development partners to commit some resources for continuation of positive project outcomes.

Linkage between project target communities and Government supported District Drought Monitoring Committees.

Commitment of emergency funds to support continuation of project success and to mitigate negative impacts of conflicts, drought and post election violence.

Negotiation with Ministry of Northern Kenyan and agreement that they will follow up project recommendations.

2.Strengthen and legalize the local institutions for long term for sustainable management of natural Resources:

Project and the District Cooperative office to steer the process in collaboration with key public institutions ( KWS, Forest and Water, NEMA).

Provide leadership in mobilizing the relevant public institution;

Empower the environmental committees, financial management

July 2007 to September 2008

Empowered and functional legal community entities;

Community bank account;

Linkages between local communities and development partners

Mamaco are continuing these discussions. Not possible to finalise until dams are built.

79

Recommendations Responsibility Task Time Frame Deliverables Action Taken

committees, water committees and the target communities through training;

Assist local institutions to establish legal entities and bank accounts;

Encourage the local communities to establish linkages with development partners.

3. Identify alternative non-livestock based livelihoods that will take off pressure from the protected forest.

Project Team in partnership with the relevant Government institutions

Finalise on a comprehensive Natural Resource Management Plan

July 2007 to September 2008

Operational Natural Resource Management Plan that is owned by key Government Departments

Firm commitments by a few Development partners to

Project worked hard on this but ministries are moving very slowly. Change of personnel also a constraint.75

                                                        75 New area director of KWS did not seem to know about the management plan, though KWS was meant to play the leading role.

80

Recommendations Responsibility Task Time Frame Deliverables Action Taken

Leverage and lobby for substantial public investment in the area to provide alternative livelihoods

Encourage Government departments to inscribe the proposed NRMP activities in their annual budgets .

address at least the Water Development issue.

Budget allocation by key public sectors to support NRMP activities

4.. Mobilise additional resources for Mount Marsabit Watershed Development initiatives.

Project Manager in collaboration with other Development partners ( EU, French Development Agency, UNDP-Kenya)

The Mount Marsabit Watershed Development is the key to reducing the pressure on forest and wildlife habitat degradation

to be rainwater harvesting and

January to September 2008

NRMP activities mainstreamed by Government Departments mainstreamed in their annual budget for 2008/2009.

Complementary resources by development partners NRMPs implementation and for project outcome follow up.

Funded proposals for

Successful negotiation with Ministry of Northern Kenya.

Project staff successful in getting CDTF funding.

Macoco replicating project activities in other areas. Committed to planting 100,000 trees per year.

81

Recommendations Responsibility Task Time Frame Deliverables Action Taken damming of the Gotu Gardi Gorge should be followed up with ADB and the relevant Ministry during the remaining part of the project life.

Afforestation and Re-afforestation of Marsabit watershed area by all stakeholders should be intensified to enhance water supply and woodfuel outside the protected

continuation of some project outcomes and impacts;

Progress towards damming of Gotu Gardi Gorge through follow up and lobbying;

Replication of Community driven afforestation and re afforestation activities around the mountain.

5. Take advantage of the enabling policy environment by assisting the neighboring local

KWS/project team in collaboration with other Key Stakeholders in Marsabit

Intensify extension and public awareness on the new opportunities

March to September 2008

Community wildlife Warden consultations with communities;

Discussions between project target communities and

No action taken

82

Recommendations Responsibility Task Time Frame Deliverables Action Taken communities to initiate community based eco-friendly and income generating enterprises. .

Ecosystem(Forest service, Water Sector and County Council)

under the revised sector policies ( wildlife, Water, and forestry)

District Tourism Warden on potential tourism enterprises.

Public awareness meetings

6 Disseminate project findings and baseline information/data for wider circulation

Project manager

identification of the consultant to finalise the website design and operation

Post the relevant project information to the website for wide circulation

Make contingency arrangement for compilation of a book to document project findings good practices and baseline data.

March to September 2008

A functional website containing the relevant project information for dissemination ( maps, project transects, tables with geo-referenced data

Strategy for the follow up action of the book approved by the steering committee.

Nothing achieved here.

7. Continue to lobby for the finalisation of legal boundaries for protected forest and wildlife area.

Project Manager and Project Steering committee in collaboration with

Follow up on the progress of survey work done in 2007 through the

April to September 2008

Project steering Committee discussions and follow of finalization of Kenya Survey map showing clear boundaries of Forest and

Nothing achieved here. Though KFS and KWS say they are committed to this.

83

Recommendations Responsibility Task Time Frame Deliverables Action Taken KWS and Forest Service.

relevant institutions;

Provide some logistical support to the Surveyor to validate the boundaries with the relevant stakeholders ( county Council, Communities and KWS and Forest Department.)

wildlife protected areas.

84

Annex 7: The Findings of Postgraduate Student Baseline Studies in Mount Marsabit Ecosystem  Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

1. Mulinya I. Caroline MA. THESIS, University of Nairobi, 2006

A study of climatic trends in relation to land use change in the mount Marsabit region in eastern province of Kenya

-The study established a rainfall decrease of approximately 5.18 mm per year during this period of study while maximum and minimum temperatures increased by approximately 0.010C and 0.050C respectively. -Forest lands have decreased from 190 km2 in 1973 to 160 km2 in 2000, which is about 11% decrease in area. The rangelands have increased in area from 1840 km2 in 1973 to 1885 km2 in the year 2000 with an increase of about 2.4%. -Agricultural land has increased from about 50 km2 in 1973 to 200 km2 in 2000, which is about 400% increase. -Urban lands have also increased by about 85.7% from 3.5 km2 in 1973 to 6.5 km2 in 2000. -Whereas the forests are decreasing in area the other land uses are increasing. -There is a possibility that a decrease in

-All stakeholders - government, NGOs CBOs and development partner’s should contribute through relevant policies to carry out appropriate conservation measures such as afforestation, reforestation and agro forestry. -There is need to create awareness and educate the communities in and around Mount Marsabit on sustainable management of natural resources. -Future research should focus on the effects of population growth on the socio-economic aspects in relation to climate variability and educate the community to ensure that the Mount Marsabit forest is protected. -Future research should focus on the implication of declining rainfall trends on the socio- economic activities of the Mount Marsabit area.

85

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

forest area could be affecting the local rainfall amounts of the Mount Marsabit area as a result of the removal of the cloud forest. The impact on rainfall could also be due to reduction of the orographic effect of the forest cone. -This change in rainfall amounts is likely to impact negatively as this could give rise to conflicts between wildlife and humans.

2.Ambrose Sunya K. Oroda . MSc. Thesis (KENYATTA UNIVERSITY, 2006) 

The impact of land fragmentation and increased sedentarization on the land cover and resources of mount Marsabit forest and its immediate

-The forest cover decreased by about 5861ha, from 18400 ha in 1973 to about 12500 ha in 2005 (a decrease of 32%). -The area under agriculture increased from about 3600 ha in 1973 to about 29000 ha in 2005 (an increase of about 480%). The area under urban development

-There is need to protect the forest, particularly from internal destruction -There is immediate need of developing a land use policy to help in the planning and management of the Mt. Marsabit Forest and the immediate surroundings. There is need for further studies to determine the extent of the internal forest destruction.

86

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

surrounding

and settlements increased from about 100ha in 1973 to about 400ha in 2005 (an increase of about 300%). -More than 2,500 tonnes of wood-fuel are removed from the forest annually while internally the forest is being degraded through deforestation to feed livestock and for other construction needs.  -In conclusion, increased land sub-division and sedentarisation have resulted in significant decrease in the forest cover and in forest degradation. -The increased sedentarisation has also resulted in increased agricultural activities particularly towards the marginal areas.

OUKO, CAROLYNE A. Msc. Thesis, University of Nairobi, 2005

Estimation of above and below ground carbon stocks in selected land use patterns in Mt. Marsabit ecosystem.

-Total carbon, total nitrogen, pH, exchangeable magnesium, exchangeable calcium and CEC were significantly lower in cropped and pasture compared to forest -The total (above and belowground)

-Agro forestry systems are promising management practices to increase aboveground and soil carbon stocks and reduce soil degradation -The strategies to increase the soil carbon pool

87

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

carbon stocks were significantly lower (P < 0.001) in cropped and pasture compared to forest areas. -The carbon stocks declined by 47.4% and 45.6% in cultivated and range sites relative to the forest site. -Belowground carbon tended to be almost stable at 100cm forest, 80cm in pasture land and 60 cm in cropped land probably because soil C contents generally decrease with depth, as organic inputs are primarily deposited on the soil surface or occur in the topsoil where most of the turnover of fine roots occurs. -The rooting system of the trees in the forest was dense compared to the bushes in the pastureland and the crops in the cropped land use systems.

should include soil restoration and woodland regeneration, no-till farming, use of cover crops, nutrient management, manuring application, water conservation and harvesting and, agroforestry practices. -Further research that needs to be carried out include the greenhouse gas emissions and the potential of improved vegetation cover improvement on carbon sequestration in Mt. Marsabit ecosystem.

NYAMWEYA N.  HUMPDEN 

An assessment of butterfly species diversity in relation 

-Butterfly indices of abundance were highest in the natural forest habitat during both the dry and wet seasons.

-It is recommended that the local attitude of the forest adjacent communities be changed by enabling them to get cash incomes from

88

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

MSc. Thesis, University of Nairobi, 2003 .

to plant structure and phenology in mt. Marsabit national park, kenya 

-The forest had a significantly higher number of species than other habitats in both seasons -There was a significant correlation between plant species diversity and butterfly species diversity -Butterfly assemblages were more abundant in the natural forest despite the lower plant species diversity than other habitats. -The main groups of butterflies in the forest were generally the migratory type showing the importance of Marsabit forest as a stop over for feeding and breeding of butterflies. -The major threat to butterfly habitats was the rapid shrinkage of the forest cover evidenced by the high rate of exploitation. -

rearing forest butterflies for export to the live butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and America. Butterfly farming will create a linkage between the surrounding communities livelihood and forest conservation. -More vegetation cover should be encouraged to improve the habitat potential for the butterflies. -There is need for a project on the island biogeography of butterflies and their plant resources, in the Mt. Marsabit. -Further investigations should be carried out to establish the effect of different grazing patterns on the distribution and abundance of butterflies. -There is need for conservation strategy aimed at preserving all remaining butterfly diversity mainly in the high forest by preventing the shrinking of their habitats, with the main tactic being comprehensive forest habitat protection.

89

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

Despite the threat, the butterfly species found in the forest and associated wetlands indicated that the ecosystem was of potential conservation, rearing and ecotourism areas based on the surrounding communities.

KARAU JAMES NGONDI  MA (Economics) UoN, 2006

Report on the economic analysis of alternative agricultural systems in marsabit mountain region

-Agroforestry has higher gross margins per acre for crop and animal production across the board. -The results shows that Teff has the highest gross margin per acre compared to wheat, beans and maize in that order. -Vegetable production in the two divisions was mostly confined to Kales, tomatoes and potatoes. -The overall analysis for livestock farming in the two divisions indicated that the gross margin for livestock stood at 45 % of the total livestock output. -Vegetables gave the highest gross margin per acre when grown mixed with trees as

-Farmers should be encouraged to practise agroforestry. -The government and other agencies should train the farmers on how to practice agroforestry. -Farmers should be encouraged to adopt modern farming technology. This includes use of fertilisers, manure, mechanization -There is need for farmers to practise commercial farming especially in livestock production as opposed to traditional farming. -Farmers should be encouraged to keep proper records of inputs and output in their farm production.

90

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

compared to the other crops. It was also revealed that vegetables, fruits and cereals gave the highest gross margin per acre in that order. -The percentage gross margin analysis for individual cereals shows that cereals favoured mostly to grow in agroforestry as opposed to pure stands -Agroforestry is more favourable in Miraa crop production in the region compared to when miraa is grown in a pure stand.

-Tarmacking of Isiolo-Moyale road will enhance transport of agricultural produce. -Formation of co-operative Societies will help the farmers in marketing of their produce at competitive prices and at minimal transport costs.

MUCHURA, HENRY MWANGI  Msc. Thesis, University of Nairobi, 2005

Bryodiversity of mount marsabit forest and bryophytes mist trapping ability assessment

-The mist traps collected in trap reservoir 1 – 3 liters of water per meter squared per day. Considering the bryophytes water (intercept) retention capacity of more than 600 times own dry weight, a total of 7.2 litres of water per meter squared per day is retained by bryophytes, before any water collected in the reservoirs. The controls could trap 1-2 litres per meter squared day. -The total bryophytes mist trapping ability

-The mist water can be trapped and availed to community outside the forest, as a way to conserve Mt Marsabit forest. -It’s important to monitor mist days, duration, intensity of mist, effects of varying attitude to water harvested, the effect of the sun, wind, temperature, humidity and general physical environment. This would assist in determining the amount of water likely to be harvested per unit area.

91

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

9.2 litres of water per meter squared per day, 92,000 liter of water per Ha. of bryophytes /day. Working with a conservative figure of one misty day a week, a hectare of bryophytes trap more than 4 million litres annually. -The evidence that mist water is compensation factor for Mt Marsabit forest community development in significant.

-The estimation of bryophytes cover on Mt. Marsabit forest would help indicate the amount of water availed to ecosystem by way of bryophytes. -The trees, which associate with bryophytes, their population increase would lead to more ground water, and possibly re-springing of streams long dried. -The mist trapping efficiency of other bryophytes needs to be ascertained. -Possibilities of mist trapping using bryophytes on large scale, grown as a crop for mist trapping on Mt. Marsabit and other mountains. -Investigation on use of various synthetic materials to trap mist, despite their successful else where in the world. -There is need to find out the most favorable wind speed for mist trapping or wind speed

92

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

that allows maximum water installation in both laboratory situation and natural forest situation.

Mutisya Kyundi  Msc. Thesis, University of Nairobi,

Vegetation response along a livestock grazing gradient in mount Marsabit ecosystem, northern Kenya.

-Results of the cover change study indicate that there was a reduction of 633.3 ha (9.1%) in natural forest and 67.9 ha (80%) in riverine vegetation. -Between 1989 and 1999, a ten year period, cattle population in Karare location increased from 3566 to 6740 heads, an increase of 47% while between 1999 and 2004, a five year period, the increase was 81.5%. -Herbaceous cover, which is inversely related to canopy cover compliments tree cover for protection of soil against erosion and is the main source of food for grazers.

-Diversification of income sources should be emphasized to reduce over-reliance in milk sales for income generation and subsistence. A potential income source would be in improvement of livestock marketing. -To minimize the mortality of established and adult trees, the forest should be rested from grazing at critical times such as during extended dry periods through early warning and provision of pasture and water to resident stock outside the forest -There is also need for strategies to reduce pressure on critical species such as Olea europium through resource substitution, control of harvesting activities and plantation efforts.

93

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

-The changes occurring in both the woody and herbaceous vegetation represent a degradation process. -The presence of weedy Triumfetta flavensis and annual grasses in all grazing categories attests to disturbance of vegetation in all livestock intensity categories. -The study indicates that effects of over-grazing and accompanying human activities on the mountain vegetation reduce vegetation cover especially the tree component. This leads to vegetation composition changes which reduce capacity of the overall vegetation to protect soil against erosion and enhance soil water retention and allow for full development of the soil. -Water dynamics not only affect the forest ecosystem but also the lowlands and the riverine vegetation that rely on the dry season flow from the mountain forest.

-A monitoring system on the status of key species for warning signals should be designed and operated in the mountain ecosystem. -Technologies on alternatives in house construction such as making of bricks and blocks and their adoption will reduce the high demand for Olea europium for construction. -Where recruitment of some plant species is affected by seed limitation, seed addition and seedling planting may be the only available option for the tree establishment. -A combination of agro-forestry system, improved milk breeds (cattle and goats) and rearing systems should be promoted among the pastoralists around the mountain to reduce pressure on forest vegetation especially during the dry periods. -Diversification of income sources should be intensified to reduce over reliance in milk sales for income generation and subsistence.

94

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

-High densities of livestock reduce cover of herbaceous plants and litter thereby exposing the soil to erosion and other degradation processes. -Exploitation of the forest resources for commercial and subsistence use seem to be the underlying cause of reduction in forest cover and changes in vegetation composition.

-Indigenous traditional knowledge of the ecosystem and specific plants should be borrowed and worked into the scientific methods to counter causes of forest destruction and to promote ecosystem restoration.

Ramat Godana MSc. thesis, University of Nairobi, 2006.

The trend and impacts of forest resources utilisation on Marsabit mountain ecosystem

-Causes of forest depletion included policy deficiencies relating to the forest management and conservation, establishment of settlement schemes on the mountain by the policy makers, which has led to sedentarization and population growth, which has triggered overgrazing, increased demand for, agriculture land, firewood energy and building poles. The amount of firewood, building poles and charcoal extracted by the residents from the forest was quantified.

-There is need of managing forest under a harmonized forest policy that advocate for local community participation. -Energy saving technologies need to be adopted at household level to reduce wood fuel demand and there is need to utilize renewable sources of energy like solar and wind energy, which is readily available. -Pastoralism should be perceived as viable option for arid lands by policy makers.

95

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

-The environmental impacts noted include receding forest cover, soil erosion and increasing pressure on the forestland and increasing demand on forest products, the social economic impacts included human-wildlife conflicts and the declining food production while climatic impact is seen as declining rainfall, which result into mist reduction and adverse local climatic changes.

E.W. Githae Assessment of plant species diversity in Mt. Marsabit forest in relation to conservation. .

-A total of 70 species were sampled, of which, 52 Species were trees and shrubs, 12 were herbs and 6 were climbers. Rinorea Convallaroides (Bak.f.) Eyles ssp. marsabitensis Grey-Wilson (Violaceae), an endemic and rare species, and Drypetes gerrardii (Hutch.) (Euphorbiaceae), werethe two most important species. Their dominance led to low species diversity in the forest. Several species of ecological concern were also found. Diversity was 2.735

-In order to reduce further degradation of the forest, it is recommended that the forest adjacent communities be made aware of the appropriate agroforestry technologies and sustainable utilization of the forest. -Creation of woodlots of indigenous species from Mt. Marsabit forest should also be introduced. This will provide timber, fuelwood, medicine and fodder to the people living around the forest.

96

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

(Shannon-Wiener), 0.880 (Simpson's) and 0.296 (Evenness). The structure had five strata corresponding to that of the Kenyan natural forest. There was variation among and within transects and eight plant species associations were identified. These were; Croton dichogamous community, Strychnos henningsii/Teclea simplicifolia association, Drypetes gerrardii/Rinorea convallaroides association, Cassipourea malosana community, Croton megalocarpus/Olea europaea association, Orypetes gerrardii community, mixed forest species and secondary forest species community. Profile diagrams were established for each association - There was strong evidence of overgrazing, destruction by wild herbivores and human extractive activities.

E.A. Okoth:  CHARACTERIZAT The main findings were [1] erodibility Recommended soil conservation measures

97

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

.

ION AND ASSESSMENT OF EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE SOILS OF MOUNT MARSABIT FOREST ECOSYSTEM Study conducted to determine soil types, erosion susceptibility and to recommend appropriate soil conservation measures.

highest on steep slope gradients [greater than 10%] [2] higher predicted erosion susceptibility on cultivated hill slopes [3] high rates of soil erosion in areas with little or no protective vegetation cover and those on steep slopes.

vary with topography [1] gabions to control gulleys at Sagante [2] terraces and planting grass strips along river- beds at Karare [3] contour cultivation at Songa [4] general Afforestation.

Mutuku Mutinda:  University of Nairobi- Msc. In Range Management ( 2004)

The effects of habitat change on the avifauna of mount Marsabit forest, Kenya

- The results of the study indicated that the park is rich in bird habitats and hence bird species. A total of 153 bird species belonging to 43 families were recorded. Most of the birds were resident in the forest but there was clear movement of

- Protection of Mount Marsabit forest and the associated wetlands is crucial to conservation of birds and biodiversity in general.

98

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

birds up and down the mountain slope even on daily basis. - Typical dry land species moved up the mountain during the dry season in search of food and water. -Large fruit eating birds such as pigeons remained in the forest throughout the study period. -Bird densities varied significantly amongst mature forest, degraded forest, open shrubland and farmland habitats. -This study added 13 new species to the list of birds known to occur in the area. - The endangered William’s Lark (Mirafa Williamsi) and the vulnerable Lappet-faced Vulture (Torgos tracheolitos) and Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) were found in the park. In addition, 25 migratory species were recorded.

99

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

- This study has shown that birds can be valuable indicators of the effects of upland forest fragmentation on biodiversity.

Maingi Tetu:  University of Nairobi- Msc. In Range Management ( 2004)

Effects of introduction of improved technology on rural livelihoods and conservation of Mt. Marsabit forest: a case study of livestock production systems among communities living around Marsabit Mountain ecosystem.

No data or results available by Mid Term Project manager to pursue the matter with the supervisors

A. Hassan: 

A survey of Marsabit Mountain mammals.

No data or results available by Mid Term Project manager to pursue the matter with the supervisors

Karau: 

Economic analysis of alternative

No data or results available by Mid Term Project manager to pursue the matter with the supervisors

100

Name of the Student – Partner institution Degree Programme and year of registration

Research Topic Research Findings Recommendations

agricultural systems in Marsabit Mountain region.

M.L.Loltome

Water resources assessment for Marsabit Mountain catchment area and its associated watersheds. Study investigated mountain’s water resources potential/availability, water demand/use and accessibility trends.

The main findings were [1] competition for water could be the primary cause of land, human & wildlife conflicts[2] available water resources [both surface & ground] are changing in quantity. Some wells and springs have dried up.

Project manager to pursue the matter with the supervisors

101

Annex 9 – Checklist for Interviews CHECK LIST – FIELD VISIT   

Introduction (role of the organisation, involvement in management/conservation/use of Marsabit mountain, and relationship to project)  

What is your vision for the future of the forest resource?  

Who do you feel are the key players in bringing this about?  

Strengths (AI):What is the best thing this project has done?  

Technical: thoughts on the technical outputs (theses and recommendations). (are these feasible, environmental impact…)

 Do you have a copy of the reports and recommendations? If not, do you know where you can

access them?  

Socioeconomic: do the recommendations meet the needs of all forest users (mobile pastoralists, gender, ethnic groups…)

 How much has the project contributed to the long term conservation and sustainable use of the

forest: specifically has it managed to:  

Create a management model that works (which could be used elsewhere) Increasing the amount of land being sustainably managed Increase in forest area Raising incomes Creating a knowledge base which can be used for long term monitoring of the mountain. Increasing capacity of stakeholders to manage the mountain resources (new knowledge, links,

access to resources…).  

Forcefield: what will help the project plans be completed, what will hinder this? (risks: political, social, alternative activities, resources etc).

 What could the project/UNEP have done better or differently?

 Lessons/Recommendations?

102

Annex 10 Changes to Outcome 3 Changes in Outcome 3 Initial Activities planned (from PIR 2007) Output 3: Activity 1: Implement agroforestry systems in areas surrounding the mountain with the aim of reducing pressure on the forest ecosystem Activity 2: Implement woodlot systems on individual holdings, communal land and institutional compounds Activity 3: Implement activities geared towards forage production and soil and water conservation at the farm level with the aim of reducing grazing pressure in the forest during the dry season Activity 4: Introduction of dairy goats Activity 5: Assess the adaptability as well as socio-economic value of dairy goats in the area Activity 6: Conduct seminars/workshops on integrated crop-livestock systems and dairy goat management Activity: 7: Assist DLMC in assessing the viability of collection, collation, analysis and dissemination of livestock marketing information. Activity: 8: Identify potential alternative sources of income and assess conditions and risks Activity 9: Support establishment and later on scaling-up of bee keeping activities alongside agroforestry and woodlot systems Activity 10: Test and promote income generating activities based on sustainable exploitation of natural resources (e.g. medicinal plants around Logologo, sustainable charcoal production, etc.) Activity 11: Promote the process of formulation of appropriate policy framework for Mt Marsabit through interaction and sharing of information with District Officials Outcome 3 (from mid term review) Output 3.1: Local NRM practices/innovations (sustainable woodlots, tree nurseries and water systems) Activity 3.1.1.: Implement woodlot systems on individual holdings, and institutional compounds. Activity 3.1.2. : Promote local innovation through development of adaptable water harvesting techniques in mist mountain. Activity 3.1.3.: Establish a large central tree nursery to facilitate afforestation in hotspots within the forest and provide interim support for community afforestation pending development of their own tree nurseries. Output 3.2: Afforested hotspots Activity 3.2.1.: Implement afforestation at pilot sites in areas surrounding the mountain with the aim of reducing pressure on the forest ecosystem Activity 3.2.2.: Facilitate involvement of schools in afforestation within the forest and in related awareness raising of communities including parents and students. Output 3.3: Additional co-financing