proceedings of the gef national portfolio

1

PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEF NATIONAL PORTFOLIO FORMULATION EXERCISE

WORKSHOP HELD AT THE

GREAT RIFT VALLEY LODGE, NAIVASHA

22ND TO 25TH MARCH, 2011

Compiled by National Environment Management Authority GEF Operational Focal Point P.O box 67839- 00200 - Nairobi Tel: 020- 605522/3/6/7: Email: [email protected]

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.......................................................................................................................v

LIST OF ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................vi

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 SESSION 1: OPENING ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 OPENING REMARKS BY DIRECTOR GENERAL NEMA/OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT............................... 2

1.2.1Challenges and Opportunities for GEF Projects as highlighted in DG’s Speech ........................ 4

1.2.2 Opportunities ................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 REMARKS BY PERMANENT SECRETARY (PS), MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND MINERAL RESOURCES/POLITICAL FOCAL POINT ......................................................................................................... 4

1.4 REMARKS BY VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES ............................................................................................ 5

1.4.2 Remarks by Government Representative Ministry of Energy ................................................... 5

1.4.3 Remarks by Representative of the Academia Nairobi of University ......................................... 5

1.4.4 Remarks Representative from NGO on behalf of NGOs – Nature Kenya................................... 5

1.4.5 Remark by POPs Convention focal point on behalf of Conventions focal points...................... 5

1.4.6 Remarks by Coordinator of the SGP ............................................................................................ 5

2.0 SESSION 2: PRESENTATIONS ................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 OBJECTIVE/ PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP ........................................................................................... 6

2.2 GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF GEF, GEF GOVERNANCE, OPERATIONAL MODALITIES AND FOCAL AREAS ...... 6

2.2.1 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY (GEF) V PROGRAMMING OVERVIEW.......................... 6

2.2.2 GEF REPLENISHMENT.................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.3 GEF V REPLENISHMENT .............................................................................................................. 7

2.2.4 NATIONAL GEF PORTFOLIO IDENTIFICATION EXERCISES (VOLUNTARY BASIS) ................. 7

2.2.5 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT AND REDD-‐PLUS PROGRAM ..................................... 8

2.2.6 NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................... 8

ii

2.2.7 INCREASING THE NUMBER OF GEF AGENCIES.......................................................................... 8

2.3 BIODIVERSITY FOCAL AREA (BD) ............................................................................................................ 9

2.4 CLIMATE CHANGE FOCAL AREA (CC) ..................................................................................................... 9

2.5 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT/REDD PLUS (REDD+) .............................................................. 10

2.6 NATIONAL GEF GOVERNANCE AND COUNTRY EXPERIENCE – GEF IN KENYA...................................... 11

2.6.1 Responsibilities of GEF Political Focal Point............................................................................. 11

2.6.2 Responsibilities of GEF Operational Focal Points..................................................................... 11

2.7 IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES PRESENTATIONS....................................................................................... 14

2.8 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO).................................... 14

2.8.1 FAO Mandate: .............................................................................................................................. 14

2.8.2 FAO and MDGs............................................................................................................................. 14

2.8.3 FAO Builds Databases to Share Knowledge .............................................................................. 14

2.8.4 FAO Comparative Advantage as a GEF Agency ......................................................................... 15

2.8.5 FAO and the Global Environment Facility – A Strategic Match................................................ 15

2.9 UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (UNIDO) .......................................... 17

2.9.1 UNIDO’S proposed interventions............................................................................................... 17

2.9.2 UNIDO Kenya GEF Allocation Request ...................................................................................... 18

3.0 WORLD BANK....................................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME (SGP) ................................................................................................... 18

3.1.1 GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) Project Identification Form........................................... 19

3.2 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP) ................................................................... 21

3.2.1 GEF 4 SNAP SHOT EVALUATION ............................................................................................... 21

3.2.2 UNDP GEF PROGRAMMING STRATEGIC PRIORITIES .............................................................. 23

3.3 DISCUSSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 24

4.0 SESSION 3............................................................................................................................................. 26

4.1 GEF KENYA CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION ......................................................................................... 26

iii

4.1.1Guiding Principles/ Criteria for Prioritization........................................................................... 26

4.1.2 NBSAP and outcomes of COP 10 Meeting in Nagoya ................................................................ 26

4.1.4 NCCRS .......................................................................................................................................... 27

4.1.5 The Cancun Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 27

4.1.6 Kenyan’s Vision 2030 key areas ................................................................................................ 27

4.1.7 Eastern Africa Ministerial Consultations................................................................................... 28

4.1.8 Partnerships and co-‐finance ...................................................................................................... 28

4.1.9 Sector strategies.......................................................................................................................... 28

4.2 PROGRAMMATIC APPROACHES AND OPTIONS FOR LEVERAGING FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES... 30

4.2.1 SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT (SLM)/REDD+ .............................................................. 30

4.2.3 REDD FUNDING........................................................................................................................... 30

4.2.4 OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................................................... 31

4.4 GROUP WORK ON 5 KEY AREAS FOR FOCUS AS A COUNTRY .............................................................. 32

4.4.1 Biodiversity Group ...................................................................................................................... 32

4.4.2 Climate Change Group ................................................................................................................ 32

4.4.3 Land Degradation Group ............................................................................................................ 32

4.4.4 POPs Group.................................................................................................................................. 32

5.0 SESSION 4............................................................................................................................................. 33

5.1 GROUP PRESENTATIONS...................................................................................................................... 33

5.1.2 OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES AND PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS GROUP ...... 33

5.1.3 BIODIVERSITY GROUP................................................................................................................ 34

5.1.4 CLIMATE CHANGE GROUP ......................................................................................................... 35

5.1.5 LAND DEGRADATION GROUP.................................................................................................... 36

6.0 SESSION 5............................................................................................................................................. 37

6.1 PRESENTATION OF THE CONCEPTS...................................................................................................... 37

6.2 QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS .......................................................................................................... 38

iv

6.3 SCREENING OF THE CONCEPTS............................................................................................................ 39

6.4 PLENARY PRESENTATIONS ON THE SCREENING OF CONCEPTS........................................................... 40

6.4.1 GROUP1 – ENERGY ..................................................................................................................... 40

6.4.2 GROUP 2 -‐ BIODIVERSITY .......................................................................................................... 42

6.5 WAY FORWARD ................................................................................................................................... 45

ANNEX 1: PROGRAMME ............................................................................................................................ 46

ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS............................................................................................................... 47

ANNEX 3: BRIEFS ON THE CONCEPTS ........................................................................................................ 48

ANNEX 4: RESULTS FRAMEWORK OF THE FOCAL AREAS........................................................................... 58

v

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: FAO and the Global Environment Facility – A Strategic Match................................................. 16

Figure 1: GEF-4 resources mobilized by UNDP vs. other GEF Agencies (data in US$ million from GEFSEC) ................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2: Percentage of Available GEF - 4 Resources channeled through UNDP................................... 21

Figure 3: Management Performance Indicator: Delivery rate UNDP Minimum = 70% (data from ATLAS) ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 2: UNDP GEF Programming Strategic Priorities .......................................................................... 23

Table 3: STAR GEF-5 Allocation and Utilization (All amounts in US$) by Kenya ................................... 28

Table 4: GEF 4 RAF Projects ................................................................................................................... 29

Table 5: Concepts Received with proposed budgets.................................................................................. 37

Table 6: Cluster focusing on Agro-ecosystems.......................................................................................... 42

Table 7: Enhancing protected area networks management....................................................................... 42

Table 8: Forests plus REDD+ projects ..................................................................................................... 43

Table 9: Deferred Projects ........................................................................................................................ 44

vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AfDB African Development Bank CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CEO Chief Executive Officer (of the GEF) COP Conference of the Parties (to a convention) CSO Civil society organization EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EGTT Expert Group on Technology Transfer FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons IDB Inter-American Development Bank LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry MDB Multilateral Development Bank MDG Millennium Development Goal NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NGO Non-governmental organization ODS Ozone Depleting Substances OPS-4 Fourth Overall Performance Study of the GEF PES Payment for Ecosystem Services POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants RAF Resource Allocation Framework RBM Results Based Management REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation SAICM Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management SCCF Special Climate Change Fund SFM Sustainable Forest Management SLM Sustainable Land Management STAR System of Transparent Allocation of Resources SGP Small Grants Programme TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

1

BACKGROUND

The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, helps developing countries including Kenya fund projects and programs that protect the global environment. Today GEF grants support projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. GEF funding activities are programmed in phases and following a restructuring in 1994, the GEF Trust Fund was replenished (GEF-1, 1994-1998) at $2.0 billion for a 4-year period. In 1998 GEF-2 at $2.75 billion, GEF-3 in 2002, $3 billion; and in GEF-4 2006, $3.135 billion (2006-2010). Throughout the GEF’s history, country programming has been traditionally mediated by the GEF Implementing Agencies. After the 3rd replenishment period, GEF Council in Oct. 2002 endorsed policy recommendations that requested the GEF to establish a new system for allocating scarce GEF resources. The aim was to maximize the impact of these resources on global environmental improvements and promoting sound environmental policies and practices. The Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) adopted by the GEF Council in September 2005 was to allocate GEF resources to recipient countries based on global environmental priorities and country-level performance. The RAF began implementation with the start of the fourth replenishment period of the GEF (on or after July 1, 2006) to June 2010. During 2009-2010 the GEF secretariat decided to upgrade the Resource Allocation Framework to System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) $4.25 billion replenishment scenario. During the phase, Kenya was allocated 18.21$ m (Climate Change- CC, Biodiversity- BD, Land Degradation-LD, to the tune of 5.00, 8.95, and 4.26 respectively giving a total of US $18.21. To further strengthen GEF’s strategic engagement at country-level, during the GEF5 replenishment period, each country was requested to prepare, with GEF financial support, a national portfolio formulation exercise. This preparation/submission of the exercise is not a prerequisite for GEF project funding. It covers all relevant focal areas and should describe how GEF allocations will be programmed with projects/programs that reflect national and regional priorities to benefit the global environment. The GEF National Portfolio Formulation Exercise for Kenya was held from 22nd to 25th March 2011 at Great Rift Valley Lodge Naivasha. NEMA as the OFP for GEF organized the meeting after mobilizing the resources internally. Participants included members of the National Steering Committee made up of key stakeholders including government ministries and departments, GEF Implementing Agencies (UNEP, World Bank, UNDP, UNIDO, and FAO), Academia and Civil Society organizations. The objective of the meeting was to identify the country’s priority areas and recommend bankable project proposals for endorsement by the focal point for submission to the GEF secretariat/ council. The participants were to review all project proposals seeking funding from GEF to ensure that they address national priorities and generate local, national and global environmental benefits.

2

DAY 1

1.0 SESSION 1: OPENING

CHAIR PERSON PAUL MATIKU

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The meeting started at 10.00am with a word of prayer and opening remarks from the main facilitator of the workshop, Mr. Wilson Busienei from GEF Operational Focal Point (OFP) -NEMA. He welcomed participants to the workshop and informed them that GEF has had several changes on its strategies which are meant to bring in new innovations to strengthen the existing approaches. He added that the new innovations were meant to enhance country ownership while increasing its responsiveness and effective and efficient delivery of support from GEF. He said that this led to the introduction of new requirements for accessing resources on the Biodiversity and Climate Change focal areas in the year 2006 during GEF 4 phase. He concluded that during GEF 5, System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) was introduced and adds Land Degradation in addition to Biodiversity and Climate Change as was the case in GEF 4. STAR is aimed at enhancing country ownership of projects, improving the effectiveness of the partnership, accountability to the Conventions programs and project cycle simplification. Participants then introduced themselves. Mr. Busienei then invited Ms. Salome Machua, the Representative of Director General (DG) NEMA to give the opening remarks.

1.2 OPENING REMARKS BY DIRECTOR GENERAL NEMA/OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT

By Ms. Salome Machua on behalf of Director General, NEMA Dr. Ayub Macharia Among the key issues highlighted in the DG’ s Speech as read by the Ms Salome Machua Deputy Director at NEMA, were the new innovations, strategies adopted and changes in GEF since its formulation. He noted that the workshop was to focus on the projects areas of national benefits. He added that the aim of the meeting was to review the submitted concepts and to ensure that they address national priorities and generate local, national and global environmental benefits. This gives a sense of ownership and impact expected after GEF 5. It was noted that NEMA houses the GEF OFP for the country whose mandate was to endorse the projects that had been identified and reviewed by the NSC for funding from GEF. GEF focus was now on new innovations and strategies which would impact and benefit the country in the environment sector. It was indicated that GEF 5 has adopted a new approach concerning funding and priority areas of focus. Some of the regional projects focused were on promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Some of the challenges faced in preparation of GEF project proposals highlighted included sourcing of co-financing of projects, frequent changes in the application format and eligibility criteria.

3

In his speech the OFP indicated that under the new approach, the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) in the GEF 4 Phase, countries were allocated a maximum amount of money for a period of four years (2006 – 2010). In this phase, Kenya was allocated US $ 8, 350, 000 and 4, 000, 000 for Biodiversity and Climate Change respectively. Some of the projects to mention a few which were implemented during the period included:

• Strengthening the Protected Area Network within the Eastern Montane Forest Hotspot of Kenya- UNDP/ Kenya Forest Service, Kenya Wildlife Service, Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, NEMA and Nature Kenya

• Wildlife Conservation Leasing Demonstration for Nairobi National Park- WB/ KWS At Regional and Global level:

• Promoting Energy Efficiency in Buildings in Eastern Africa- UN-HABITAT and UNEP/DTIE in collaboration with Ministry of Housing.

• Supporting the Development and Implementation of Access and Benefit Sharing Policies in Africa- MEMR, NEMA and GIZ

• Promoting Sustainable Transport Solutions for East Africa-UNEP/ UN-HABITAT, ITDP Europe, City Councils of Addis Ababa, Kampala and Nairobi

• Various Operational Phases of the GEF Small Grants Programme- UNDP/ UNOPS.

He added that the implementation of the projects demonstrated Kenya’s commitment to working with the GEF, Implementing Agencies and GEF member countries within the region to enhance sustainable environment management and improve the livelihoods of its people. Indeed it is through the cooperation that we are able to generate community, national, regional and global benefits he added. Further to the changes introduced for the fourth cycle, GEF also introduced further changes in GEF5. The new requirements covered access to resources on Biodiversity, Climate Change and Land Degradation focal areas. In the new approach referred to as System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR), Kenya was allocated US$ 18.21. The resources were distributed as follows: US$ 8.95m – Biodiversity, 5.0m – Climate Change, 4.26m – Land Degradation. Additional requirements for Kenya were that the Small Grants Programme (SGP) underwent upgrading and thus is required to source funds under STAR to address the three focal areas. On Progress to date, the SGP under UNDP have submitted their Project Identification Forms (PIFs) for the Full-sized project covering Biodiversity (BD), Climate Change (CC) and Land Degradation (LD). The OFP has since approved to source funds for the SGP from the 3 focal areas as follows; BD 2.0 m, CC 1.5 m, LD 2.0m totaling to 5.5m. The GEF National Steering Committee (NSC) has been constituted whose purpose is to approve projects and propose for endorsement by the Operational Focal Point.

4

The remaining grants will be allocated to various projects strategically according to national priority areas as outlined in various national frameworks, strategies and sector specific plans. These include Vision 2030 targets, the National Climate Change Response Strategy, National Biodiversity Action Plan, National Action Plans for UNCCD among others and GEF guidelines The country will focus on programmatic approaches and priority projects which cross–cut GEF focal areas.

1.2.1Challenges and Opportunities for GEF Projects as highlighted in DG’s Speech

• The issue of co-finance which is a requirement for funding of projects is a challenge. • The frequent change in the application formats as well as eligibility criteria is a challenge

- RAF and STAR for reviewing of projects. • Implementation of regional projects- some countries lag behind in the national approval

processes hence causes delays in project implementation • Under the Small Grants Programme (SGP), the demand for allocation is high and thus the

programme is unable to fund all the requests (A maximum of US $ 50, 000 for 2 years). This also applies to the other GEF focal areas.

• Climate change has brought serious challenges in the implementation GEF programs • Lack of a Monitoring and Evaluation tool for GEF Projects in Kenya. If it was in place,

informed impacts and challenges as well as lessons learnt of the projects would be documented.

• In most of the projects, little finances trickle down to the communities while most of the funds are utilized by consultancies.

1.2.2 Opportunities

• Programming under GEF 4 and 5 phases made the process country driven thus increasing ownership.

• An indicative allocation at the beginning of the cycle helps countries to program and source for co-finance where appropriate.

• Programming gives an opportunity for many stakeholders to be involved in the process and the projects

• For Kenya, expertise is available given that most of the GEF Implementing Agencies are located in Nairobi.

1.3 REMARKS BY PERMANENT SECRETARY (PS), MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND MINERAL RESOURCES/POLITICAL FOCAL POINT

By Mr. Patrick Wahome on Behalf of the PS, MEMR The Representative to the PS MEMR, who is also the political focal point for Kenya Mr. Patrick Wahome conveyed apologies from the PS for not being able to attend the meeting as he was out of the country on official duties. He then noted that the exercise should be driven by the Kenya Vision 2030. He noted Kenya’s need to use the Natural Resources in a sustainable manner. He emphasized that by achieving efficiency in use of the resources; the goals of vision 2030 will be achieved. He then declared the meeting officially open.

5

1.4 REMARKS BY VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES

1.4.2 Remarks by Government Representative Ministry of Energy representing Government Departments – Mr. John Maina Mr. John Maina noted that Ministry of Energy is an important stakeholder in this process. This is because some of the projects proposals submitted are on renewable energy and energy efficiency.

1.4.3 Remarks by Representative of the Academia Nairobi of University

Include the University of Nairobi, Kenyatta University and Kenya Polytechnic among others. Prof. Sheila Okoth said that universities facilitate production of energy efficient products and have also introduced energy efficiency training programmes in their university curriculum.

1.4.4 Remarks Representative from NGO on behalf of NGOs – Nature Kenya

Mr. Paul Matiku highlighted that in the implementation of the various projects in the region, GEF facilitates the removal of barriers to achieve the global benefits. He added that in GEF 5 the expansion of protected areas was the main focus with special attention also being given to the Indigenous communities around these protected areas. He noted that the objectives of a number of projects over the years could not be realized as there is deficit in finances where GEF comes in to support. Each country is required to come up with finances for the protected areas as part of the co-financing option and to reflect on what to be brought into play to ensure swift implementation of the projects. He acknowledged NEMA for the improvement in the coordination of GEF activities since 1994. 1.4.5 Remark by POPs Convention focal point on behalf of Conventions focal points – Mr. Francis Kihumba from MEMR He emphasized the importance of chemicals (POPs) and hazardous waste focal area. It was noted that despite the effects caused by chemicals to the environment it has not featured strongly in most programmes. It was noted that GEF should include POPs in the next allocation phase where resources are allocated from the onset. 1.4.6 Remarks by Coordinator of the SGP – Nancy Chege It was noted that SGP works with the ministries together with the NGOs and CBOs within all the focal areas. The NGOs and CBOs develop proposals together with their partners. The line ministry involved in assisting the NGOs and CBOs should put together their proposals for forwarding to GEF depending on the targets/objectives they would want to achieve. It was noted that SGP is yet to ask NGOs and CBOs to submit their proposals.

6

2.0 SESSION 2: PRESENTATIONS

2.1 OBJECTIVE/ PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP

Presented By Wilson Busienei He started by stating the overall objective of the meeting was to prioritize areas of focus for GEF 5 phase for Kenya. Specific Objectives he stated were as follows:

GEF Governance structures at International and National level Appreciate/ understand prioritization criteria/ guiding principles Appreciate areas of funding leverage Screen GEF concepts Prioritize concepts/ areas of focus for GEF 5

He pointed out that the output of the exercise was to develop a document that would describe country's strategic priorities under each of the GEF focal areas.

2.2 GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF GEF, GEF GOVERNANCE, OPERATIONAL MODALITIES AND FOCAL AREAS

Presented By David Githaiga - UNDP

2.2.1 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY (GEF) V PROGRAMMING OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

GEF is the largest international source of environmental funding. It is the financial mechanism for:

- Convention on Biological Diversity - UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) - Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

It also provides support for activities on chemical management under:

- The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the Ozone Layer GEF manages two funds under UNFCCC namely:

- Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) - Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)

GEF also provides secretariat services for the Adaptation Fund Board

7

2.2.2 GEF REPLENISHMENT

• GEF 1: July 1, 1994 – June 30, 1998: US$ 2 billion • GEF 2: July 1, 1998 – June 30, 2002: US$ 2.75 billion • GEF 3: July 1, 2002 – June 30, 2006: US$ 3 billion • GEF 4: July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2010: US$ 3.135 billion • GEF 5: July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2014: 4.28 billion

Negotiations on GEF 5:

- March 17 – 18, 2009 – Paris - June 25 – 26, 2009 – Washington, DC - October 14 - 15, 2009 – Paris - November 13, 2009 – Washington, DC - March 9 - 10, 2010 – Rome - May 12, Paris

2.2.3 GEF V REPLENISHMENT – Context

• Resources needed to tackle global environmental problems estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars

– UNFCCC: $200 billion/year required by 2030 as additional investment, half in developing countries, for new low-emission technologies, if emissions are to be reduced by 25 percent of 1990 levels;

– Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) interim report on funding for new technologies estimates an additional $300 billion to $1 trillion a year

– To reverse rapid degradation of natural resources and to preserve ecosystem services, estimates from intergovernmental and major international processes run as high as $50 billion per year

– GEF 5 : 4.2 billion – 52% increase over GEF IV – but this is still a drop in the ocean compared to magnitude of the cost required globally

2.2.4 NATIONAL GEF PORTFOLIO IDENTIFICATION EXERCISES (VOLUNTARY BASIS)

• Countries may request funding (from corporate programme) - of up to 30,000 USD; • May be prepared under the guidance of GEF National Steering Committee chaired by the

GEF OFP; • The plan should link with national planning processes and planning processes of the GEF

Agencies; • It is NOT a pre-requisite for obtaining GEF funding – if countries have other plans;

8

2.2.5 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT AND REDD-PLUS PROGRAM

Primary Objective: reducing deforestation and forest degradation and enhancing carbon stocks in non-forest lands, as well as management of peatlands.

REDD+ Programme will not support the substitution of native forests with plantations, regardless of benefits in Carbon sequestration

Eligible measures include:

- PA creation and management; - Integrated watershed management; - Certification of timber and NTFPs; - Payments for ecosystem services (PES); - Financial mechanisms related to carbon; - Development and testing of policy frameworks to slow the drivers of undesirable land-

use changes; - Work with local communities to develop alternative livelihood methods to reduce

emissions and sequester carbon; - Systems to measure and monitor carbon stocks and fluxes from forest and non-forest

lands.

2.2.6 NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

GEF Secretariat will have the ability to provide direct grants to recipient countries for the funding of National Communications/Reports to the conventions the GEF currently serves (paragraphs 17-19 of the Policy Document).

Countries have the option to continue receiving support from GEF Agencies in the form the implementation of their National Communications as is current practice (paragraph 19 of the Policy Document).

Role of the GEF Secretariat in programming and oversight of the national communications remains to be articulated. A detailed proposal is to be submitted to the GEF Council on this issue.

2.2.7 INCREASING THE NUMBER OF GEF AGENCIES

Some of these agencies are UNDP, UNEP, IFAD, AfDB, FAO, UNIDO, European Bank, Inter American Bank, Asian Development Bank and World Bank

9

Criteria to be a new GEF Implementing Agency:

(i) the proposal is endorsed by the country’s GEF operational focal point; (ii) the entity meets the GEF minimum fiduciary standards, and the cost of such assessment

is borne by the entity; and (iii) the entity demonstrates a clear “comparative advantage” (paragraph 26 of the Policy

Document). GEF support for carbon finance: GEF will review options to support carbon markets in recipient countries (paragraph 71 of the Programming Document).

Some of the Options to be explored are:

(i) capacity building to help create enabling legal and regulatory environments; (ii) support of programmatic carbon finance and other activities under the post-2012 climate

regime; (iii) demonstration of technical and financial viabilities of technologies; (iv) partial risk guarantees and contingent financing for carbon finance projects; and (v) Co-financing of innovative projects, with credits to be retained in the recipient country

for further project replication.

2.3 BIODIVERSITY FOCAL AREA (BD)

GOAL: Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and maintenance of ecosystem goods and services

OBJECTIVES

1. Improve sustainability of protected area systems 2. Mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into production

landscapes/seascapes and sectors 3. Build capacity to implement Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 4. Build capacity on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing 5. Integrate CBD obligations into national planning processes through enabling activities

funded from Focal Area Set asides

2.4 CLIMATE CHANGE FOCAL AREA (CC)

Focus on more transformational impact, programmatic approaches and sectoral issues

GOAL Support developing countries and economies in transition toward a low-carbon development path

10

OBJECTIVES

1. Promote demonstration, deployment, and transfer of advanced low-carbon technologies 2. Promote market transformation for energy efficiency in industry and buildings 3. Promote investment in renewable energy technologies 4. Enabling Activities and Capacity Building 5. Promote energy efficient, low-carbon transport and urban systems 6. Conserve and enhance carbon stocks through sustainable management of land use, land-

use change, and forestry (LULUCF)

2.5 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT/REDD PLUS (REDD+)

GOAL: Achieve multiple environmental benefits from improved management of all types of forests

OBJECTIVES

1. Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services;

2. Strengthen enabling environment to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon sinks from LULUCF activities

11

2.6 NATIONAL GEF GOVERNANCE AND COUNTRY EXPERIENCE – GEF IN KENYA

By Joseph Masinde

This presentation was done by Mr. Joseph Masinde of NEMA. He explained that NEMA coordinates the implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). He also noted that the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources (MEMR) is the GEF Political Focal Point and is concerned primarily with issues related to GEF governance, including policies and decisions, and with relations between member countries and the GEF Council and Assembly. On the other hand, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) is the GEF Operational Focal Point which is concerned with the operational aspects of GEF activities, such as endorsing project proposals to affirm that they are consistent with national plans and priorities and facilitating GEF coordination, integration, and consultation at country level. Mr. Masinde also explained the responsibilities of NEMA and MEMR under GEF as listed below:

2.6.1 Responsibilities of GEF Political Focal Point include the following

• to receive documents and correspondence related to the governance of the GEF from the Secretariat and distribute that information to appropriate officials and interested parties in the country,

• to communicate the Government's views/comments/suggestions on these matters to the Secretariat,

• serve as the contact point for other members of the constituency in which it is included and in particular for the Council Member representing that constituency, and

• Serve as the contact point within the country on GEF governance matters, to inform interested parties, including country's focal points for the global environment conventions, about GEF activities, and to facilitate in-country consultations on GEF governance matters.

2.6.2 Responsibilities of GEF Operational Focal Points include

• to ensure that GEF proposals and activities in the country are consistent with country priorities and country commitments under global environmental conventions,

• to facilitate broad based in-country consultations on GEF operational matters, • to identify project ideas to meet country priorities, • to endorse project proposals, and • to provide feedback on GEF activities, including implementation of projects • Monitoring and evaluation - helps the Evaluation Office to identify stakeholders and

coordinates meetings with stakeholders. Ensure that recommendations from evaluations are incorporated into project activities and proposals.

He also acknowledged the presence of a GEF National Steering committee which drew members from relevant stakeholders for example the Government Ministries, Civil Society and NGOs among others.

12

The Role of Implementing Agencies is to manage GEF projects on the ground, provide technical advice during project design/ formulation and implementation, facilitating the flow of funds and monitoring and evaluation. GEF implementing agencies include the following

• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) • World Bank • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) • United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) • United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) • African Development Bank (AfDB) • International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

Mr. Masinde noted that the challenges facing GEF in Kenya were:

• The MEA FPs and other stakeholders have yet to learn more on the GEF strategies for focal areas to effectively develop and assess our program priorities vis-à-vis GEF identified priorities.

At present, we have yet to expand our coordination to include more Private sector and NGOs.

Coordination on project development in the area of international waters, bio-safety and POPS has yet to be enhanced too.

Inefficiency of reporting systems; lack of M&E database of GEF projects, within GEF-OFP office and executing agencies Implementing lead agencies fail to submit regular report on the status of their on-going

and completed projects to GEF-OFP; Strong need to link existing monitoring mechanisms of IAs with the monitoring of GEF-

OFP. In order to improve for the future and make GEF Kenya responsive to the needs of the country in terms of project development and implementation, the following activities needed to be undertaken;

Database updating Systems and procedures for M&E of GEF Kenya projects will be developed (M&E tool.) Coordination mechanism need be institutionalized and strengthened, with primary aim of

defining specific national priorities vis a vis GEF programs and strategies; Questions and Comments Among the questions raised included:

• What is the difference between the PFP and OFP? • Who chairs the NSC meeting (NEMA or MEMR)? • What is the legitimacy of NEMA as regards the role of the OFP? • Is there a budget for GEF monitoring unit?

13

Mr. Masinde in response to the questions stated that there were clear functions of PFP and OFP as stated in his presentation. Mr. Busienei said that GEF policies are formulated by the GEF Assembly where all GEF members including Governments sit once in four years while the GEF council sets programmes for GEF. The council is represented by various constituencies. For the eastern Africa constituency is represented by Ethiopia. The representative communicates with PFPs. It was reiterated that the OFP endorses GEF projects. Participants were also informed that documents will not be accepted by GEF secretariat unless endorsed by the OFP. It was agreed that the implementing agencies engages the OFP if a project is underway and provide reports on the same. It was also emphasized that the implementing agencies should submit reports to OFP for monitoring and evaluation as well as follow ups. It was noted that there is need for capacity building for the purpose of training stakeholders on GEF operations and structures. The need to identify more funding opportunities for the proposals that will not be funded by GEF was also highlighted. It was therefore suggested that NEMA should;

• organize for capacity building meetings • create GEF database • create awareness especially in universities and other institutions • Hold national dialogues with UNDP and other Implementing Agencies with a view to

having more meetings with a wide range of stakeholders to appraise them on GEF.

14

2.7 IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES PRESENTATIONS

2.8 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS (FAO)

Presented by Philip Kisoyan

2.8.1 FAO Mandate:

FAO is a specialized UN agency tasked to assist member countries to achieve food security for all. FAO's mandate is to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy. FAO’s Strategic Framework (2000-2015) specifically highlights the twin objectives of sustainable production and natural resource conservation. In adopting this Framework, FAO’s member countries confirmed FAO’s commitment to help countries and regions develop coherent policies and programmes for efficient and socially desirable sustainable management of terrestrial and aquatic resources. The strategy also aims for the conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization of natural resources for food and agriculture, with special emphasis on fragile ecosystems and environments at greatest risk. At the same time, it commits to tackle these issues by:

• Broadening partnerships, • Enhancing interdisciplinary, • Capacity building, • Knowledge management, and • Dissemination of best practices.

2.8.2 FAO and MDGs

FAO works directly towards the achievement of the first MDG, reducing global hunger and poverty by half by the year 2015. It also supports the achievement of the other MDGs, especially MDG-3 for promoting gender equality and empowering women, MDG-7 for ensuring environmental sustainability and MDG-8 for developing global partnerships.

2.8.3 FAO Builds Databases to Share Knowledge

With the support of global networks of experts, FAO compiles and supports a range of world-class reference databases, standards and regulatory norms that make cutting edge and up-to-date information available online to all. FAO sponsors dozens of databases, including:

• Food and agriculture - FAOSTAT • Land resources - TERRASTAT • Water resources – AQUASTAT • Aquatic resources - FISHSTAT) • Water administration - FAOLEX • Food safety and quality – CODEX Alimentarias Commission / WHO/FAO guidelines • Global Forest Resources Assessment - FRA • Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture - GIEWS • Global Information System on Forest Genetic Resources - REFORGEN • Domestic Animal Diversity Information System - DADIS • Database on Introductions of Aquatic Species - DIAS • Land Resource Information and Decision Support System - LRIS • Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring Sites - TEMS

15

• Global Terrestrial Observing System - GTOS • Interactive Bioenergy Information System - i-BIS.

In addition, FAO contributes to the digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties (FAO/UNESCO), the FAO/IIASA Global Agro-ecological Zones Study (FAO/IIASA), and leads programmes, such as the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA), Africover and its expansion under the Global Land Cover Network (GLCN).

2.8.4 FAO Comparative Advantage as a GEF Agency

FAO’s global convening powers - FAO facilitates some of the world’s most important international fora for intergovernmental consultation, building consensus and setting standards in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and is the repository for numerous international treaties and Agreements FAO’s broad in-house expertise - FAO’s staff of professionals and experts in its Agriculture, Economic and Social Development, Fisheries, Forestry, Natural Resources Management and Environment and Technical Cooperation Departments and its Legal Office brings the type of expertise needed to address these issues FAO’s information systems and networks - FAO, a prime source of data and information on food, agriculture, land, water, fisheries and forestry resources, is at the forefront of gathering and disseminating information through its member countries and field projects FAO’s network of field offices - FAO has representations in 74 countries; an additional 37 countries are covered through multiple accreditations. In addition, FAO maintains five regional offices, with out posted technical staff FAO’s resource mobilization capacity - FAO’s Technical Cooperation Department has been instrumental in mobilizing resources in support of technical assistance, capacity building and investment projects in agricultural and rural development, natural resources and environmental Management FAO’s global partnerships - FAO works in broad partnership with governments, national, international and non-governmental institutions and civil society to broaden the base of understanding and increase chances for success in addressing existing and future sustainable development and environmental priorities.

2.8.5 FAO and the Global Environment Facility – A Strategic Match

FAO’s Strategic Framework (2000-2015), Medium-term Plans and Programmes of Work and Budget and the GEF Strategy, Focal Area strategies, objectives and programmes highlight the match between FAO and GEF strategic and programmatic priorities.

16

Table 1: FAO and the Global Environment Facility – A Strategic Match

GEF Focal Area FAO expertise and priorities

Biodiversity (BD)

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity important to agriculture (plants and animals), forestry and fisheries

Sustainable forest management

Climate Change (CC)

Bioenergy

Carbon stocks conservation in soil and forest and monitoring of carbon fluxes in land use systems (REDD and LULUCF)

International Waters (IW)

Implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

Ecosystem approach to sustainable fisheries management

Integrated water resources and watershed management

Land Degradation (LD) Sustainable land and water management

Sustainable forest management

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Pesticide life-cycle management through implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides

Inventory, safeguard, elimination and prevention of obsolete pesticides; Integrated pest management

Adaptation (LDCF/SCCF) Adaptation in agriculture, forest and grazing production systems

17

2.9 UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (UNIDO)

Presented By Paul Njuguna

It was noted that UNIDO is focusing on Climate change focal area with emphasis on Waste to Energy. He highlighted some of challenges faced by Kenya in the energy sector as: 1. Lack of Adequate Energy in Kenya, a large percentage of people lack access to basic energy for domestic use and for industrial processing. 2. Environmental degradation due to the fact that most of the energy used is biomass in form of firewood and charcoal and this has lead to massive environmental degradation. 3. Waste management. The management of waste is a major problem in Kenya and organic constituent in waste constitutes more than 60%. He gave some Solutions and they include: 1. Utilizing Renewable Energy. Kenya has a huge potential of Renewable Energy which can be used in areas without access to energy and reduce reliance on traditional sources like Hydro-power. 2. Reducing Negative Environmental Impact. Utilization of organic wastes to produce energy that replaces the use of firewood and charcoal 3. Profiting from Waste. Turning organic waste into energy is a Profitable way of waste management

2.9.1 UNIDO’S proposed interventions include:

A. Conversion of waste to Energy from Organic Waste to produce Biogas Note: Waste will produce biogas that will be used as gas, or used to generate Electricity. 1. Biogas from Municipal Waste water treatment and water hyacinth e.g. Kisumu and Nyahururu municipals (Co-finance available) 2. Waste from Slaughterhouses. Upgrading Dagoretti project to include all slaughterhouses (co-finance available) and Slaughterhouses in other towns 3. Agro/Farm Waste e.g. Flower farms (e.g. Karuturi) and Agro waste from export, e.g. Vegfru (Co-finance available) 4. Waste in schools and other public facilities e. g. Food and Human Waste in Schools/Prisons/Sanitation facilities in slums (co-finance available) B. Study of potential Assessment of the available potential for bioenergy technologies from organic wastes C. Capacity building at institutional and human level in the area of renewable energy. Supporting the formation of a Resource Center for Renewable Energy in conjunction with local research institutions, to enhance the human capacity in the field of Renewable Energy (co-finance available) D. Policy Support Strengthening of policy and regulations in the area of Renewable Energy development by engaging with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), the energy regulator (Co-finance available)

18

2.9.2 UNIDO Kenya GEF Allocation Request

(Full sized project) - USD 3,000,000 and Co-financing Target - USD 8,300,000 UNIDO hopes to partner with various organizations to implement including UN Agencies, NGOs, Government Institutions, Private Sector, and Local communities.

3.0 WORLD BANK

Presented By Christian Peters

The World Bank representative challenged Kenya to become more strategic not to lose GEF allocation. He described Tanzania as having lost its allocation for not having a clear strategy. He also advised that submissions made should be solid and not fragmented. He encouraged

• Co-financing of the projects to ensure sufficiency of funds. • Prioritization of the different focal areas to solidify • Look at the impacts of cross-sectoral achievements • speeding up the process; • be clear on the strategies and show the objectives • Benefits likely to accrued • Cost benefit analysis • Look at regional submissions; cross linkages of the submissions across borders

3.1 SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME (SGP)

Presented By Nancy Chege

It was noted that SGP was established in 1992 and since it has undergone significant changes in the past years it has been in operation. She noted that SGP is administered by UNDP and SGP operates in 122 countries in Africa, the Arab States, Asia, Eastern and Central Europe, and Latin America. SGP promotes grassroots action to address global environmental concerns. She highlighted that a maximum funding of USD 50,000 is given for community projects after the proposals has been reviewed by the SGP National Steering Committee. All the GEF funds channeled to communities through NGOs and CBOs. For sustainability of projects, co-financing and partnerships are key and should be included in the projects. She pointed out for Kenya, the Small Grants Programme underwent upgrading and thus is required to source funds under STAR to address the three focal areas. SGP has submitted their Project Identification Forms (PIFs) for the Full-sized project covering Biodiversity (BD), Climate Change (CC) and Land Degradation (LD). The Operation Focal Point has since approved to source funds for the SGP from the 3 focal areas as follows; BD 2.0 m, CC 1.5 m, LD 2.0m totaling to 5.5m.

19

3.1.1 GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) Project Identification Form

Title: 5th Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in Kenya

GEF Focal Area: Multi-focal

Objective: To secure global environmental benefits through community-based initiatives in key terrestrial and marine ecosystems of Kenya

Total Project Cost: USD 5,000,000

Agency Fee: USD 400,000

o Has already been cleared by the GEF Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Biodiversity Focal Area Objective Mainstream biodiversity and sustainable use into production landscapes, seascapes and sectors Expected Outcomes

• Conservation of forest ecosystems through community implementation of the Forest Act • Enhanced effectiveness of conservation in community conservancies • Improved conservation of globally significant coastal and marine BD through

strengthened LMMAs and BMUs SLM Focal Area Project Component

• LD 1: Agriculture and Rangeland systems: Maintain or improve flow of agro-ecosystem services sustaining the livelihoods of local communities

LD 2: An enhanced enabling environment within the forest sector in dryland dominated countries

Expected outcomes

Pastoral and agricultural lands in arid and semi-arid areas under improved management practices

Increased tree cover and increased biomass to maintain carbon stocks in drylands Climate Change Focal Area Objective Renewable Energy: Promote investment in renewable energy technologies Expected Outcome: • Information, know-how and financial barriers to the adoption of modern biogas installations

and other renewable energy technologies removed to achieve up-scaling and replication of SGP GEF V pilot initiatives

• Information and capacity barriers for participation of small scale renewable energy producers in the Feed-in-Tariffs (FIT) removed

20

Capacity Development Objective

• CD 2: Generate, access and use of information and knowledge

• CD 5: Capacities enhanced to monitor and evaluate environmental impacts and trends

Expected Outcomes

• Increased capacity of SGP stakeholders to diagnose, understand, the complex nature of global environmental problems and to identify solutions

• Enhanced public awareness of communities contributions towards addressing global environmental challenges

• Enhanced capacity of SGP grantees to monitor their projects.

Looking forward to working with Operational & Political Focal point by the end of the year 2011, she concluded.

21

3.2 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP)

Presented by David Githaiga and Christopher Gakahu

3.2.1 GEF 4 SNAP SHOT EVALUATION

Figure 1: GEF-4 resources mobilized by UNDP vs. other GEF Agencies (data in US$ million from GEFSEC)

Figure 2: Percentage of Available GEF - 4 Resources channeled through UNDP

22

Figure 3: Management Performance Indicator: Delivery rate UNDP Minimum = 70% (data from ATLAS)

23

3.2.2 UNDP GEF PROGRAMMING STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

Table 2: UNDP GEF Programming Strategic Priorities

UNDP is mandated to work with the country to addresses the national development challenges. Together with the government, UNDP develops the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) which is a detailed operational plan for the country and outlines the activities and programmes to be carried out between the Government and UNDP thus address some of the national challenges faced. CPAP is a 5 year Plan. The programmes highlighted as areas of focus in this plan are Energy, Environment and Climate Change Programmes. The plan is developed in consultation with the various plans developed by the government e.g. National Plan and Strategies and Vision 2030 while also referring to some of the sector specific strategies and programme plans such as National Climate Change strategies developed by the Ministry of Environment and Mineral resources.

Target UNDP/GEF Strategy

Knowledge Management

Programming Kits Project learning networks Lessons learned publications Practitioner guides Resource kits Project publications Outreach publications Web based real-time system for documentation and rosters Interactive integrated web-based services for data and information Tool kits and guidance materials Disseminate and exchange knowledge through workshops and seminars On-line training courses Communications strategy for KM products

Strengthen IT capabilities

Match systems to human capacities Establish own systems where corporate systems are inadequate Establish incentives for staff to improve IT competencies and innovation Identify and resolve IT constraints and exploit opportunities

Communications and outreach

Establish a common EEG communications strategy Establish an EEG coordinating focal point Work with GEFSEC and IAs to provide common strategic GEF vision Expand UNDP/GEF web site as single entry point on all UNDP/GEF information Link website to MIS Regularly disseminate GEF information internally within UNDP Ensure EEG positions vis-à-vis conventions match UNDP/GEF needs Maintain close dialogue with convention secretariats

24

Some of the areas of focus that the UNDP works in conjunction with various government departments to mention but a few are such as;

• Mainstreaming Environment and Poverty into planning processes – together with Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources

• Provision of energy services – in conjunction with Ministry of Energy • Inclusion of gender dimension into programming – in conjunction with the Gender

Ministry among others. UNDP supports the Government to manage its resources and provide clean and reliable energy for development for instance support the government in seeking alternative clean and renewable energy and also works in partnership with other UN agencies. Since the main source of energy for a large number of households in Kenya is (wood fuel) and this contributes largely to carbon emission to the atmosphere thus contributing to climate change, there is need to assist the country in coming up with better ways of producing charcoal. In terms of natural resource management UNDP in collaboration with Nature Kenya, KFS and Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources deals with the wise-use issues on water governance and sustainable land and forest management namely on Western Montane forests project. Some of the climate change mitigation programmes are done with focus on the forest sector and supporting the government in the Carbon Markets. UNDP also runs several programmes dealing with Climate Change adaptation in ASAL regions through assisting communities by developing new strategies to cope with the effects of Climate change.

3.3 DISCUSSIONS

It was noted that the allocation criterion by the SGP depends on the work to be the implemented. Furthermore the allocation to various focal areas depends on what the country has been allocated and the same ratio of allocation is used to arrive at the figures. The allocation comes from the GEF Global Secretariat which is based in Washington, DC. GEF has documents for better understanding on the allocation of the resources and further details can found at their website. It was also noted that FAO is the focal point for POPs. Members were informed that there was no limit for co finance. Members were requested to note that the financial resource allocated to each country would only be provided if that country (i.e. Kenya) meets the eligibility criteria for funding through good projects submitted to GEF. It was stated that there should be no competition for resources among implementing agencies. The Government ministries involved were informed that it was necessary to strengthen the aspect of integration between all the ministries. It was clarified that Implementing Agencies do not develop any projects or programmes. National partners identify the programme to undertake and then seek for assistance. Also,

25

NEMA has to clear the concept before it’s forwarded to the GEF. Therefore, for the project to be accepted by GEF it has to meet minimum requirements set. The baseline shows what is done in the country’s formulation exercise. There is no overlap because implementing agency does not develop programmes. Furthermore, the UN agencies do not have the mandate and responsibilities but rather are specialized agencies. They are therefore required to go into projects that fall within their mandates. Some Implementing Agencies have global mandates while others have national mandates e.g. UNDP Some of the Recommendations given were:

• Promotion of Intra-Government Communication • Improvement and updating of database • proposal writing in line with national areas focus • need for capacity building on GEF structures • improve access to resources by the communities who are meant to enjoy the benefits and

positive impacts of the projects that are being carried out NEMA was also challenged to ensure that the members in the NSC should create a link between the subgroups in the focal areas of Biodiversity, Land Degradation and Climate Change. The representation at the NSC level should be a technical person who is knowledgeable on the focal areas as outlined under GEF. The OFP was also challenged to come up with an M&E criteria or tool for the submitted projects and also the reports should be submitted to NEMA to avoid delay in remittance of funds to ensure the process is hastened in meeting the deadline for concepts submission. Thereafter the implementing Agency must report to GEF.

26

4.0 SESSION 3

CHAIRPERSON PROF. SHEILA OKOTH

4.1 GEF KENYA CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION

Presented By Wilson Busienei

4.1.1Guiding Principles/ criteria for prioritization

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and outcomes of COP 10 Meeting in Nagoya

National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) and outcomes of the COP 17 Cancun

Kenya National Action Plan- UNCCD Vision 2030/ MDGs GEF 4 projects GEF Ministerial Consultations- Nairobi 18th -20th January 2010 Partnerships/ co-finance Lead Agency Strategies

4.1.2 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and outcomes of COP 10 Meeting in Nagoya

NBSAP was done in 2000 and hence there is need to review and update The update is underway to conform with the CBDs new strategic plan 2011-2020 agreed

in COP10 COP10 achieved its three (3) inter-linked goals:

Adoption of a new ten-year (10) Strategic Plan to guide efforts to save biodiversity through enhanced action to meet the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

A resource mobilization strategy that provides the way forward to a substantial increase to current levels of official development assistance in support of biodiversity.

A new international protocol on access and sharing of the benefits from the use of the genetic resources of the planet.

4.1.3 NBSAP and outcomes of COP 10 Meeting in Nagoya

Among the targets linked to the Strategic Plan, the CBD meeting agreed to:

At least halve, and where feasible, halt the rate of loss of natural habitats including forests.

Expand protected areas to 17% of land (and inland water) ecosystems and 10% of marine and coastal areas.

Restore at least 15% of degraded natural areas. Make special efforts to reduce pressure on coral reefs.

27

4.1.4 NCCRS

1. Adaptation Intervention particularly for the most vulnerable sectors Agriculture and food security Livestock and pastoralism Water sector Forest Sector

2. Mitigation measures Energy-Promoting use of alternative renewable energy such as solar, biomass, wind,

Efficient/ energy saving firewood stoves; Development of waste to energy programmes; Reviewing the country’s building codes

Agriculture –Biotechnology; Organic farming Transport-Low cost and efficient public transport; Proper urban transport;

Encourage non-motorized transport

4.1.5 The Cancun Outcomes

The Conference delivered a balanced package of decisions that set all governments towards the path of low-emissions future and support enhanced action on climate change in the developing world

It also launched initiatives and institutions to protect the poor and the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures

In addition, Parties agreed to launch concrete action to preserve forests in developing nations

Agreement to stay below 2oC temperature rise and a set of a clear time table for reviewing to ensure global action is adequate to meet emerging reality of climate change.

4.1.6 Kenyan’s Vision 2030 key areas

Environmental hotspots:

degradation of water catchment areas (water towers), Pollution and toxicity from agrochemicals wastes in urban areas, climate change, increasing forest cover from 1.7% to 10%, Charcoal development Programme, and alternative wood based sources Programmes to address livelihoods of the arid and semi-arid communities Rapid decline in population in and outside protected areas

28

4.1.7 Eastern Africa Ministerial Consultations

Clean Energy Programs- Access to clean energy which will contribute to fighting energy poverty

Waste to energy programs- investing in technologies for waste- to- energy management to increase access to energy

Food Security Program-Agriculture, livestock and Fisheries management- Opportunity to harness from International Waters Focal Area

Sustainable Landscape programs- Integrating land management for Biomass, protected areas suitability and multiple benefits from forestry as well as threatened species

4.1.8 Partnerships and co-finance

The project must show a degree of partnerships The project must also have the co-finance

4.1.9 Sector strategies

Ministry Strategies Departmental Strategies

Table 3: STAR GEF-5 Allocation and Utilization (All amounts in US$) by Kenya Focal areas STAR GEF-5

Indicative allocation

Allocation utilized

PIFs cleared by CEO awaiting approval

Allocations remaining to be programmed

BD 8,950,000 0 1,944,000 7,006,000 CC 5,000,000 0 1,512,000 3,488,000 LD 4,260,000 0 1,944,000 2,316,000 TOTAL 18,210,000 0 5,400,000 12,810,000 GEFs Strategic Objectives

NB: Refer to STAR Results Framework (Annex 5)

Discussions

AGRA representative noted there are many projects but the funds available are inadequate. There should be a stronger criterion developed based on the level of advancement/development of the project under GEF 4. There should also be prioritization based on National or regional status. The proposals should also focus on focal areas as required by the GEF 5 i.e. Combine focal areas as one programme to avoid having so many projects which would be a barrier to facilitation and not meet the basic requirements.

29

Table 4: GEF 4 RAF Projects

Project Name Agency Focal Area Total(USD)

Wildlife Conservation Leasing Demonstration World Bank

BD 799,997

Conservation & Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach

UNEP BD 532,200

Supporting the Development and Implementation of Access and Benefit Sharing Policies in Africa

UNEP BD 64,020

Improved Conservation and Governance for Kenya Coastal Forest Protected Area System

UNDP BD 872,720

Promoting Sustainable Transport Solutions for East Africa UNEP CC 1,045,000

Promoting Sustainable Transport Solutions for East Africa UNEP CC 55,000

4th Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme (RAF1) UNDP BD 170,000

4th Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme (RAF1) UNDP CC 130,000

Strengthening the Protected Area Network within the Eastern Montane Forest Hotspot of Kenya

UNDP BD 4,965,000

Strengthening the Protected Area Network within the Eastern Montane Forest Hotspot of Kenya

UNDP BD 150,000

LGGE Promoting Energy Efficiency in Buildings in Eastern Africa UNEP CC 1,364,000

LGGE Promoting Energy Efficiency in Buildings in Eastern Africa UNEP CC 17,600

Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use for Improved Human Nutrition and Well-being

UNEP CC 344,980

Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use for Improved Human Nutrition and Well-being

UNEP BD 11,000

4th Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme (RAF2) UNDP BD 430,000

4th Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme (RAF2) UNDP CC 570,000

TOTAL 11,521,517

30

4.2 PROGRAMMATIC APPROACHES AND OPTIONS FOR LEVERAGING FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES

GEF PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH – FAO

Presented By Philip Kisoyan The GEF was created to fulfill a unique niche – that of providing financing for programs and projects to achieve global environmental benefits, and in support of sustainable development in specified focal areas (BD, LD, CC, IW, POPS, ODS). Every project is to be a country-driven opportunity to meet the program priorities of the relevant convention. The overall aim of the GEF programmatic approach is - “to secure larger and sustained impact on the global environment through integrating and mainstreaming global environmental objectives into a country’s national strategies and plans through partnership with the country”. The benefits of programmatic approach

enhanced opportunities to generate synergies across the focal areas of the GEF within the framework of national sustainable development;

an enhanced scope for catalyzing action, replication and innovation; improved opportunities for maximizing and scaling up of global environmental benefits; An open and transparent dialogue-driven process which will increase political will and

ownership on the integral linkages between sustainable development and the global environment.

4.2.1 SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT (SLM)/REDD+

The GEF considers sustainable forest management “a dynamic and evolving concept that aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental value of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations”.

The inclusion of Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) into the Climate Change Strategy enabled support to projects and programs that deliver global benefits across all three GEF focal areas that are directly relevant to forests: biodiversity, climate change and land degradation.

4.2.3 REDD FUNDING

In GEF-5, for the first time a separate funding envelope (USD 250 M) for Sustainable Forest

Management (SFM)/REDD+ will become available for countries willing to invest portions of their allocations from biodiversity, climate change and land degradation toward more impactful SFM/REDD+ projects.

REDD+ Eligibility Funding for SFM/REDD+ is mainly being provided through individual country allocations for biodiversity, climate change and land degradation. For the next funding cycle, the GEF will provide incentives for countries to combine portions of their STAR allocations from different focal areas to generate multiple environmental and social benefits deriving from SFM/REDD+ and LULUCF projects. Accordingly, the overall goal of the GEF-5 SFM/REDD+ Strategy is to “achieve multiple environmental benefits from improved management of all types of forests”.

31

4.2.4 OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

MULTI-LATERALS: GLOBAL MECHANISM (UNCCD), FOREST CARBON PARTNERSHIP FACILITY (WB), EC ETC BI-LATERALS: USAID, SIDA, DFID, DANIDA ETC Clarification Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, REDD - effort to create a financial value from the forests.

32

4.4 GROUP WORK ON 5 KEY AREAS FOR FOCUS AS A COUNTRY

After the presentations, groups were formed according to the GEF focal areas to discuss and give 5 key areas where the country should focus on for GEF 5. Furthermore the groups were given Terms of Reference (ToRs) to guide in their discussions. The TORs were given as follows: 4.4.1 Biodiversity Group: • Based on the criteria given:

Outcomes/ commitments of COPs -Nagoya Ministry strategies GEF Ministerial Consultations Co-finance/ partnerships

• Highlight 5 key areas on which Kenya should focus in order of Priority for the GEF 5 Phase

4.4.2 Climate Change Group: • Based on the criteria given:

Outcomes/ commitments to COPs Ministry strategies GEF Ministerial Consultations Co-finance/ partnerships


4.4.3 Land Degradation Group: • Based on the criteria given:



4.4.4 POPs Group: • Based on the criteria given:



33

DAY 2

5.0 SESSION 4

5.1 GROUP PRESENTATIONS

POPs GROUP

5.1.2 OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES AND PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (ODS AND POPS)

The outcomes and commitments to the COPs Decisions on the outcomes and commitments to the COPs therefore action points can be found in

• International Conference on Climate Change 1 and 2 • World Summit for Sustainable Development • COPs 1 – 25 of the Montreal Protocol • UNEP Governing Council 26; Converting waste into energy and the decision on Mercury • Vision 2030 of the Kenyan Government

The Ministry strategies include:

1. Policies and legislations on the protection of the environment. 2. Vision 2030 (Waste Minimisation) 3. Investments of sustainable development 4. Ministry of Environment and NEMA strategic plans 5. Sectoral strategies from Health, Agriculture, Ministry of Trade and Industrialization,

PCPB, Energy, KPLC etc NB: GEF Ministerial Consultations: No reports at the moment Strategic approaches in terms of Co financing and partnership Co-financing

• Multilateral Ozone Fund • Government of Kenya e.g. Nairobi River Basin Programme • Ministry of Forestry • SAICM Fund • GTZ

Partnerships

• HIV Fund (Dioxins) • Tuberculosis Fund (Dioxins) • Mobile Phones Partnership Initiatives • Mercury Partnership • Government • Private Sector • Dioxins and furans • Global Malaria Fund on DDT

Some of the identified priority areas for the ODS and POPs Group were:

34

1. Review and Update National Implementation Plan (NIP). 2. HCFCs Phase out Implementation Plans. 3. Dioxin Action Plans. 4. Development and Implementation of management plans of persistent toxic substances

(PTS). 5. New POPs reduction plans and new implementations.

Discussions It was noted that whereas there was a lot of competition on other focal areas, there was less competition in chemical focal area. Thus there was room for proposals to be submitted to GEF on this focal area.

5.1.3 BIODIVERSITY GROUP

The goal of the biodiversity focal area is the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecosystem goods and services. The outcomes and commitments to the COPs and processes followed: • Looked at all criteria as presented and developed our key criteria, starting with what GEF

recommends (GEF eligibility), going down to outcomes/commitments of Nagoya (CBD Strategic Plan) and then to country aspirations (Ministry strategies).

• Focusing on Nagoya as the overall COP the group derived the outcomes or commitments of the same, e.g. expanding PA network, and ministerial strategies such as protection of biodiversity in PAs and outside PAs and at landscape level.

• Agriculture: Genetic resources access and benefits sharing. Agricultural biodiversity, what is the main issue? Pollination-enhancing biodiversity within agricultural systems e.g. cropping that maintains biodiversity, livestock that does not harm ecosystems

• Reference: Decision adopted by the Conference of Parties to CBD at its 11th meeting, No X/2: the Strategic plan for biodiversity and the Aichi Biodiversity targets, specifically 11, 13 and 14.

Some of the key priority areas as highlighted by the Group were:

1. Expanding protected area landscape coverage and enhancing connectivity 2. Reducing degradation of biodiversity in protected area systems, especially threatened

species 3. Genetic resources access and benefit sharing (ABS) including the role of biotechnology,

livelihoods including food security, clean energy, 4. Governance and institutional capacity for protected area management 5. Exotic and alien invasive species

Following the above criteria or the areas of focus that the concepts should meet a Second level filter developed would also take into consideration the following features

1. Capacity of the proponents 2. Co-financing 3. Parallel funding 4. Partnerships 5. Stage of development of the project

35

6. Programmatic approach 7. Private sector Involving

Discussions Increasing the protected areas receive very little attention with regard to especially at the community level. According to CBD the target area cover should be increased to 10% percent coverage. Other options available to expand the protected areas were through expansion of areas covered by the wildlife habitat thus an increase in the size of the protected areas. It was noted that the areas outside the protected areas do not necessarily translate to unprotected areas since there are indigenous communities protecting the biodiversity within these areas in a sustainable manner. An example given was the Kinangop Highland Grassland with an endangered bird species whose niche was increased by increasing the area covered by the wildlife population within this ecosystem. Some of the areas which are still under consideration for the same exercise are the Tsavo, Amboseli and the Maasai Mara regions. It was noted that KWS is putting in place a system that will enhance biodiversity conservation through expansion of space by creating connectivity between two or more ecosystem boundaries thus increase the protected area coverage. It was also observed that some of the criteria set for the 2nd level filter should be included in the 1st level or the key priority areas to be considered e.g. Co-financing and partnerships. The wetlands under the public lands which are covered by forests can be protected within the county level by the county governments in line with the new constitution as nature reserves.

5.1.4 CLIMATE CHANGE GROUP

The overall goal of the GEF in climate change mitigation is to support developing countries and economies in transition toward a low-carbon development path. Key areas in order of Priority for Kenya in area of Climate Change Mitigation for GEF V are as follows:

a. Promotion of conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks through sustainable management of land use and forestry REDD+

b. Promotion of Renewable Energy c. Promotion of energy Conservation and Efficiency d. Capacity/Policy Building

Discussions Some of the projects within this focal area can lobby for funds from other bilateral funds to ensure facilitation of the projects and the types of renewable energy areas of focus should be defined e.g. wind energy, solar energy among others. It was emphasized that the group should look at each concept in its own strength in line with the National focal areas to ensure national benefit from the projects undertaken under climate change.

36

5.1.5 LAND DEGRADATION GROUP

The goal of the land degradation focal areas is to contribute to arresting and reversing current global trends in land degradation, specifically desertification and deforestation. The types of landscapes considered by the group were Forests, Dry lands, Wetlands, Woodlands, Grasslands and which requires more attention. The criteria used in this focal area Degradation of Wetlands are listed below:

a. Sustainable land management that will represent the best possible combination of productive and sustainable agro-ecosystems with conserved and/or restored wetlands.

b. Selection of degraded wetland hot-spots to be redesigned to produce goods (food), services (ecosystem) such as water functions, reduced erosion, carbon sequestration to improve livelihoods

c. Benchmark sites could cover forests, dry land and wetland ( a transect through the two or separate benchmark sites

d. Sustainable harnessing of goods and services from the wetland in a manner that activities upstream do not impact negatively downstream (e.g. sand harvesting)

Discussions The issues of concern which were raised for clarification by the group: What should be the main area of focus in wetlands? Is it where they are present for instance in the dry area or in the coastal region (Inland or coastal wetlands)? What is affecting wetlands – pollution? It was emphasized that more focus had been given to grasslands, and that the focus now should be shifted to wetlands. However, even if priority was to be given to wetlands, it should address watersheds and aquifers. It was also noted that Kenya’s wetlands though few, were all threatened. Members were informed that wetlands cover only 4 - 6% of the total land cover in country and that they should be focus since they are not designated as protected areas. This was seconded with a proposal by members to look at the interlinkages between wetlands and the other ecosystems for example wetlands and forests or agricultural land whereby people use wetlands for food production since land has been degraded.

37

6.0 SESSION 5

CHAIRPERSON FRANCIS KIHUMBA

6.1 PRESENTATION OF THE CONCEPTS

The concepts presented for review were as listed below. The presentations were done by the OFP, lead agencies and the implementing agencies where appropriate.

Table 5: Concepts Received with proposed budgets NO. Title Amount

(US$) 000,000

Focal Area

1 Intelligent Power Dispatch Control Center For Kenya & East Africa Power Pool

1.5 Clean Energy

2

Frameworks for prevention, and management of biological invasions in East and Southern Africa

6 Biodiversity, Land Degradation

3 Renewable Energy from Waste for Industrial Use in Kenya 3 Clean energy & Waste-

Energy

4

Market Transformation for Highly Efficient Biomass Cookstoves for Institutional, Small and Medium Scale Enterpries and Households in the East Africa Region

26 Clean energy & Waste-Energy

5 Upscaling conservation agriculture and agro-biodiversity conservation in arid and semi arid lands of Kenya

3 Food Security

6 Kenya Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resources Management Project (TaNRMP)

6 Food Security & Sustainable Landscapes

7

Scaling up the Environmental and Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Land Management interventions through a GEF-AGRA partnership – East, West and Southern Africa


8 Conservation of Kenya Mangrove FORESTS and associated ecosystems

2.5 Food Security & Sustainable Landscapes

9

Strengthening Capacity of Local Communities and Relevant Institutions for Integrated Land Use Planning in the Lake Naivasha Watershed (Kenya)


10 UNEP/GEF WISP 2020: Support to Sustainable Land Management and livelihood in Pastoral Drylands.


11

Enhancing Wildlife Conservation in the Productive Southern Kenya Rangelands: Institutional Capacity, Ecological Viability and Economic Diversification

5 Sustainable landscapes

12

Sustainable Charcoal Production and Bio-energy Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and promote Income Generating Activities for livelihood improvement in arid and Semi-Arid lands of Kenya

3.989 Sustainable landscapes

13 Restoration, measurement and commercialization of commodities and ecosystem services in deforested Mau tropical forest

14

Sustainable landscapes

14

Support to Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD + Implementation in Kenya

4 Sustainable Landscapes

15

Enhancing the ecological integrity of the Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem through sustainable management and utilization of the natural resources for improved livelihoods and poverty reduction


16 Sustainable Forest management in the transboundary Mara River Basin 1.5 Sustainable landscapes

38

(Kenya Tanzania)

17 Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management in communal and non-state forests


18 Work on Waste for Climate Change in Urban Kenya 1.6 Waste-Energy TOTAL 92.089

6.2 QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Members sought to know why the need for GEF external funding for Dandora dumpsite and Intelligent Power Dispatch bearing in mind those business entities such as Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) and Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KENGEN) and City Council can fund the exercise respectively. What would be the level of segregation of the Waste to Dandora Dumpsite? Members were informed that the level of segregation of the waste would depend on where the waste originated from and since waste cannot be segregated in low income areas this would act as an opportunity for employment to the locals. It was also noted that NEMA would enforce the policies and regulations and City Council would work on the logistics. The tariff to be charged for the generated waste would depend on the type of energy and where it is from as set by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and this would determine the bankability of the project undertaken on energy generation focus being on renewable energy. The technology transfer would be on the local level thus the local community members who are knowledgeable would use it thus encouraging the expansion of these technologies to other members. It was reiterated that the project is wholesome as it did not focus only on Dandora Dumpsite. The project is to be done together with JICA. Given that the project on Sustainable Charcoal Production and Bio-energy Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and promote Income Generating Activities for livelihood improvement in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya is multi funded the members sought if the project has had any Intellectual Property Rights – The Improved Jikos and Kilns for Schools). It was noted that the project has a Civil Society Organization implementing partner and the quality of the stoves were certified by KEBS. it was reported that financial incentives were needed for the project. The project element focused mainly on energy efficiency thereby the quality issues or the minimum performance standards were met as set by Government Regulatory body KEBS. It was also noted that the stoves were affordable to schools since the materials used for their construction were tax exempted. Further, there was an element of the revolving funds for this process. It was highlighted that the technology used has enhanced the energy efficiency up to 90%. On the waste to energy project as presented by UNIDO, it was noted that assessment for the amount of energy and the viability of the project would be done by experts and bulk of it was to be done by consultants. The energy produced was to be used by the people within the community

39

and the extra will be fed to the national grid and this would depend on the amount of energy produced and amount required for use by the schools and slaughterhouses. It was noted that UNIDO has not considered the issue of CDM but are to work closely with UNDP so that the project can have CDM components. On Southern Rangelands Project, issues were raised on how cultural aspects and climate variability will be taken into consideration? On sustainability, it was reported that this will be achieved through cultural preservation. However, the changing culture and competing land uses was noted as a threat to the rangelands. An intervention on this would be enhancing connectivity and improving the livelihoods of the Maasai. On the Mangrove Forests project, members were informed that KFS had done a concept paper on a comprehensive management plan for the management of the mangrove forests which will be made available upon completion. Emphasis on mangroves especially on their role in tackling climate change noting that they serve as coastal wetlands hence protection of coastal ecosystem and coral reefs as well as on disasters such as tsunami makes the project a priority for the country. Upon the completion of the presentation of the concepts and with advice from the chair it was noted that the projects with similar components to be reviewed accordingly while the energy projects with technologies that have failed should be looked at and improved upon.

6.3 SCREENING OF THE CONCEPTS

With advice from the chair, two groups were formed to evaluate and review the concepts above so as to come up with strategic concepts that meet the criteria as outlined and as agreed by the teams the previous day. Furthermore the groups were given Terms of Reference (ToRs) to guide in the screening of the concepts. One group dealt with concepts on Energy Programme and the other focused on concepts dealing with Food Security and Sustainable Landscapes Programmes. The main aim was to rationalize the concepts developed. The TORs as set for the members were as follows: • Assess the similarities of the concepts in terms of content and geographical coverage • Linkage to National areas of focus and focal area objectives within the STAR • Budget feasibility Vis–a–Vis proposed activities • Give at most three recommendations Members were informed that the budgets should be logical and meet the budgetary limits as set in the STAR allocation for each of the focal areas. The concepts chosen should be more strategic in order to derive national benefits from the projects to be implemented and also meet the criteria as set by GEF thereby enabling facilitation and funding of the selected concepts. Members were also advised to use a programmatic approach while focusing on concepts with bigger impacts. In so doing, concepts with similar and small components could be joined

40

together to form a larger concept while ensuring that the projects meet the focal areas objectives and national priorities discussed while taking note of the available resources.

6.4 PLENARY PRESENTATIONS ON THE SCREENING OF CONCEPTS

6.4.1 GROUP1 – ENERGY

Projects selected The projects selected by the energy group were;

1. Waste to Energy. - Renewable energy from waste for industrial use in Kenya. 2. Waste to Energy- Work on waste for climate change in urban Kenya. 3. Market transformation for highly efficient biomass cook-stoves for institutional, small

and medium scale enterprises and households in Kenya. 4. Sustainable Charcoal production and Bioenergy technologies to reduce GHG and

promote income generating activities for livelihood improvement in arid and semiarid lands in Kenya.

Regional Projects: 1. Intelligent Power Dispatch Control Center for Kenya and EA Power Pool.

It is not currently a priority for Kenyan because it is tools to assist companies manage their power outage. However, the focus for the country is to have as many sources alternative clean of energy.

The group therefore made the following observations: A. Similarities in content

1. Projects 1 and 2 have similarities in Clean Energy and Waste to Energy from various sources

hence could come as one concept

2. Project 3 and 4 have similarity in energy efficiency and conservation and therefore should come up with one concept.

B. Similarities in geographic coverage; For projects 1 and 2, no similarity, the geographical areas are various and will not significantly affect implementation. C. Linkages with National Priorities;

Projects are within the following priorities. 1. Promotion of Renewable Energy 2. Promotion of Energy Conservation and Efficiency

41

D. Budget Feasibility

1. Waste to Energy Projects USD 1.6M + USD 3M = USD 4.6M 2. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Projects USD 0.5M + USD 4.0 M = USD 4.5M

Total Requested: USD 9.1M Available budget USD 3.5M

E. Recommendations 1. Link up with already existing programs in government. 2. Programmatic approach for UN Implementing Agencies in the spirit of delivering as one. 3. Agencies find a way of fitting within the available budget

42

6.4.2 GROUP 2 - BIODIVERSITY

The following clusters were made for the Food Security and Sustainable landscape programmes:

Table 6: Cluster focusing on Agro-ecosystems

No.

Title Amount (US$) 000,000

Focal Area

Proponents/IA Cluster concepts combined

Reasons Additional remarks

5

Upscaling conservation agriculture and agro-biodiversity conservation in arid and semi arid lands of Kenya

3 Food Security

MoA/ FAO

Combine 5,6& 7

6

Kenya Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resources Management Project (TaNRMP)


Combine 5,6& 7

7

Scaling up the Environmental and Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Land Management interventions through a GEF-AGRA partnership – KAKAMEGA & Mt Kenya


AGRA/ UNEP

Combine 5,6& 7

Similar

Need to refine geographic scope of the three

Table 7: Enhancing protected area networks management

11



KWS/ UNDP

Combine with 15

15



KWS/ UNEP

Combine with 11

Similar objectives-programatic similarity similarity-improving livelihoods based on conservation initiatives

Bring out strongly Access & benefit sharing (ABS) - NEMA to address issue of IA.

43

Table 8: Forests plus REDD+: (8, 13, and 17) + 14 as standalone)

No. Title Amount (US$) 000,000

Focal Area Proponents/IA Cluster concepts combined

Reasons Additional remarks

8

Conservation of Kenya Mangrove FORESTS and associated ecosystems


KEMFRI/UNEP Reconsider the budget 7 objective in light of the other 3 GEF projects. Downscale 7 focus on two objectives-CC mitigation &ecosystem services

AMCEN priority for African countries

3 projects under International waters exist therefore project has no chance outside STAR

13

Restoration, measurement and commercialization of commodities and ecosystem services in deforested Mau tropical forest

14


UON/ UNEP Bring out ABS

Merge with 17 and focus on SLM. Reconsider the title and objectives & clarity on whether in forest or outside

Need to clarify political position for the MAU Need to consider organization-NEMA to take charge.

17

Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management in communal and non-state forests


KFS/ FAO Merge with 13 above

14

Support to Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD + Implementation in Kenya


KFS/ FAO Stand alone Consider budget if we are providing seed money

16

Sustainable Forest management in the transboundary Mara River Basin (Kenya Tanzania)


Regional (for international waters)

44

Table 9: Deferred Projects

9



Deferred

PMs office implementing similar project on governance around Lake Naivasha WWF addressing similar issues in wide range of activities

10

UNEP/GEF WISP 2020: Support to Sustainable Land Management and livelihood in Pastoral Drylands.


Global hence deferred

Observations: Integrated and Sustainable landscapes programme Clusters • SLM Agro ecosystems : 5,6,7 • Enhancing protected area networks management: 11&15 • Forests: (SFM & REDD+) (8, 13, and 17) + 14 as standalone) Budgets It was advised that the members should propose budget without exceeding the proposed allocation according to the STAR focal areas of support. Recommendations

• One programme should contain various components to capture all the focal areas under the STAR allocation.

• For Component/Project No. 16 it was recommended to be captured under focal area, International waters

• The Budgets proposed in the components to be reviewed downwards

45

6.5 WAY FORWARD

With advice from the chair, members were asked to combine the clusters to expedite the process in order to meet the set deadline. Thereafter, a one day meeting shall be held for all the clusters on 31st March, 2011, venue to be communicated via letters of invitation for the meeting. The OFP was asked to request for the same members in attendance during the NPFE for ease in the articulation of issues during discussions to be carried out. This would be emphasized through the letters of invitation by acknowledging the contributions made by these particular members at the GEF NPFE held at the Great Rift Valley Lodge, 22nd – 25th March 2011. The official letters to be made to all members present together with the absent agencies with a view to tackle all the underlying issues. It was also suggested that concept owners, NGOs, CBOs and Lead Agencies were to be contacted to enhance a sense of ownership and letters to be sent as a follow up to the meeting held. It was suggested that during the meeting five groups will be formed to discuss the cluster and each should have at least 3 actors. Members were informed that the members of the NSC were KFS, KWS, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Agriculture/ Livestock, Kenya Mission to the United Nations Office in Nairobi (KMUNON), Small Grants Programme, Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, Fisheries Department (KEMFRI), National NGOs (Nature Kenya), International NGO (WWF), Academia (University of Nairobi), National Museums of Kenya, Kenya Industrial Property Institute, Implementing Agencies (UNIDO, UNDP, FAO, IFAD, UNEP, World Bank. It was noted that since the end of March deadline was not met it was agreed that they shall be sent by early April. It was further agreed that the PIFs should be done as early as possible so that they will be at the GEF Secretariat by beginning of July so that they could be discussed at the GEF Council meeting in November and feedback shall be received by 2012. Operational focal points and proponents (cluster members) to meet and rationalize/consolidate the cluster proposals, identify roles, budgets and co financing on 31st March 2011 and thereafter NSC meeting to approve on 8th April 2011. The chair acknowledged the hard work of the members who made it possible for the discussions held and milestones achieved. UNDP was acknowledged for the facilitation of the exercise and OFP for the coordination of the exercise. The meeting was officially brought to a close by the PS MEMR Representative, Mr. Wahome Patrick.

46

ANNEX 1: PROGRAMME Date Activity Responsibility Time

22th March 2011 Travel to Naivasha 2.00 pm

Registration Participants 8.30-9.00 am

Introductions All 9.00 – 9.15 am Welcome Remarks DG NEMA 9.15 - 9.35 am

Opening Remarks PS MEMR 9.35 - 10.00 am Tea Break (10.00am-10.30am)

Purpose /objective of the meeting NEMA 10.30 - 10.45 am Global overview of GEF

• GEF Governance • Operational modalities • Focal Areas

UNEP GEF 10.45 -11.15am

GEF in Kenya • Governance • GEF Projects and implementing

Agencies

NEMA 11.15 - 11.45am

Implementing Agencies Presentations Agencies 11.45 – 1.00 pm Lunch (1.00pm-2.00pm)

Criteria for prioritization NEMA 2.00 – 3.00 pm Programmatic Approaches and options for leveraging funds from other programmes- SFM/REDD/ LDCF/SCCF/Adaptation Fund

UNDP GEF 3.00 – 3.30 pm

Group Work- Areas of focus for the country Lead Agency 3.30 – 4.30 pm

23th March 2011

Plenary presentations on focus areas Lead Agency 4.30 – 5.00 pm Finalization of focus areas Lead Agency 8.30 - 9.00 am GEF 5 Concepts Presentations NEMA/

Agencies 9.00 - 10.00 am

Tea Break (10.00am-10.30am) Group work- screening the concepts Lead Agency 10.00 - 1.00 pm

Lunch (1.00pm-2.00pm) Plenary presentations on the screening of concepts

Lead Agency 2.00 - 4.00pm

Way forward ALL 4.00 - 5.00pm

24th March 2011

25th March 2011 Travel Back to Nairobi

47

ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

NO. NAME INSTITUTION EMAIL ADDRESS MOBILE 1 James Mwang’ombe

Mwamodenyi KFS [email protected] 0733849103

2 Peerke de Bakkers UNEP/DTIE [email protected] 0722641683 3 Jan Willen de Hoop UNEP/DTIE [email protected]@gmail.com 0712359997 4 Victor Gathogo KNCPC [email protected] 0725899898 5 Jane M.Kibwage Ministry of

Fisheries [email protected] 0722715517

6 Chris K.Ngetich NEMA [email protected] 0733780668 7 John K. Maina Ministry of Energy [email protected] 0722655161 8 Samuel Munene NEMA [email protected] 0720912392 9 Salome Machua NEMA [email protected] 0722212644 10 Stephen Katua NEMA [email protected] 0721210267 11 Patrick Wahome MEMR [email protected] 0722275237 12 David M. Kiama DRSRS [email protected] 0729072754 13 Christopher Gakahu UNDP [email protected] 7624458 14 Stanley S. Atsali KIPI [email protected] 0717269843 15 Joseph Masinde NEMA [email protected] 0722756865 16 Paul Njuguna UNIDO [email protected] 0722486879 17 Zena Nzibo KMUNON [email protected] 0711275158 18 Stephen Manegene Ministry of

Forestry and Wildlife

[email protected] 0722628919

19 James Mathenge KWS [email protected] 0711434518 20 Muitung’u Mwai NEMA [email protected] 0722760292 21 R. K. Ngugi UON [email protected] 0721294097 22 John Mumbo NEMA [email protected] 0723856480 23 Nancy Chege GEF-SGP [email protected] 0722881712 24 Isaiah N Kyengo NEMA [email protected] 0721302101 25 Wilson Busienei NEMA [email protected] 0722232034 26 Paul Omondi NEMA [email protected] 0720765445 27 Catherine Ndegwa NETFUND [email protected] 0721697201 28 Rose A.Akombo KFS [email protected] 0727682925 29 Bernard Kirui KMFRI [email protected] 0722985542 30 Kennedy T. Thiongo MET [email protected] 0722267499 31 John Mathenge KFS [email protected] 0713562093 32 Philip Kisoyan FAO [email protected] 0722872580 33 Francis Kihumba SAICM MEMR [email protected] 0722431110 34 Harron Wanjohi NEMA [email protected] 0722552603 35 Reuben Sinange NETFUND [email protected] 0722749668 36 Paul Matiku Nature Kenya [email protected] 0722800394 37 Sheila Okoth UON [email protected] 0733559250 38 David Githaiga UNDP [email protected] 0723785123 39 Beatrice Khayota NMK [email protected] 0733780668 40 Christian Peter World Bank [email protected] 0733625779 41 Bashir Juma AGRA [email protected] 0738803806 42 Abdullah O. Esmail MLD [email protected] 0722247300 43 Mathenge Gitonga KFS [email protected] 0721289883 44 Kiunga Kareko WWF-KCO [email protected] 0724255315 45 Lucy Ng’ang’a Ministry of

Agriculture [email protected] 0721884693

48

ANNEX 3: BRIEFS ON THE CONCEPTS

1. Work on Waste – for Climate change in urban Kenya Programme: Waste to Energy The project seeks to transform way in which waste is valued in Kenya by showing the environmental, economic and social benefits of improved waste management. Objectives of the Project are

• Profitable or cost neutral collection, sorting and processing of solid municipal waste to allow conversion to energy, compost and recyclables. • Adaptation of proven technologies to local circumstances • Legal and financial arrangements to supervise and manage public private partnerships and capacity building • Reduction or mitigation of GHGs • Involvement of private sector, NGOs, and CBOs • Create employment and increased awareness

Brief on the proposed project UNEP will support the initialization of the planned segregation stations and will actively build the capacity of the involvement of the stakeholders, so that the segregated waste will have the quality needed for technologies that will process the waste. The segregated waste is proposed to be used in the following major routes and technologies;

• Wastes to energy – KenGen waste to energy project • Waste to compost – large scale adaptation in agriculture, horticulture and agroforestry • Waste to recyclables – remaining fractions like plastics and metals can be old to generate added

revenues The cost to GEF of this proposed project is1.5 million USD. Contributions (co-financing) expected from City Council as well as Youth employment agencies 2. Intelligent Power Dispatch control centre for Kenya and East Africa Power Tool Programme: Clean Energy Objectives of project Facilitate use of the available renewable power resources in the country, thus limiting the use of imported fossil fuel and reducing CO2 emissions. Brief Description of the Project Project components would include

• Development of a tailor made intelligent dispatch software that will allow making of optimal decisions with regard to the instantaneous preferred power mix, all times • Proper network design and system operation to decrease technical transmission losses an ensure a stable distribution network • Capacity building and network operating companies through comprehensive training

Amount in USD 1.5 million Potential GEF Agency; UNEP

3. Upscaling conservation agriculture and agro-biodiversity conservation in arid and semi arid lands of Kenya

Programme: Food Security Objectives of the project

• Development of national conservation agriculture strategy • Support to agro-biodiversity policy for indigenous crop varieties and livestock breeds • Upscaling of conservation agriculture and agro-biodiversity conservation in selected counties of

ASALS

49

Short description of the project The project objective is to mainstream sustainable land management practices in ASALS through conservation agriculture (CA) and preservation of agro-biodiversity. CA is a way for managing farming systems to achieve multiple benefits of sustained productivity and enhancement of natural biological processes above and below the ground with minimal application of inorganic fertilizers and agrochemicals. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): USD 3 Million The ongoing initiatives that the project could be linked to include; The National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP) that facilitates sustainable agriculture and livestock husbandry practices; the Arid lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP) that promotes natural resource management and food security in ASALs; the German funded FAO project on Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Project (CA SARD) which aims to facilitate and accelerating the adoption of profitable conservation agriculture practices by small farmers in Kenya and Tanzania among others Potential GEF Agency (ies): Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 4. Enhancing Wildlife Conservation in the Productive Southern Kenya Rangelands: Institutional

Capacity, Ecological Viability and Economic Diversification Programme: Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project 1: Policy and Institutional Capacity to Support Mainstreaming of Biodiversity Conservation into the existing production system and strategies enhanced; 2: Skills and knowledge based planning applied to increase the ecological viability of the Amboseli (to safeguard biodiversity and livelihoods; 3: Financial incentives for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in the southern rangelands enhanced (such as biodiversity friendly income generating activities that improve local economic development and livelihoods). Project Budget (STAR): USD 5 million over 5 years (2012-2016) (including agency fee of 10%) Baseline – KWS and other investments amounting to over USD 10 million (2011 – 2016); GEF Agency – UNDP 5. Kenya Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resources Management Project (TaNRMP) Programme: Food Security and Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project: The main objectives of the project will be to improve the flow of agro-ecosystem services and to increase biodiversity to sustain livelihoods of local communities. Short description of the project: The main focus of the project will be the LD and BD FAs. The project will use a landscape approach in working towards the improvement of the flow of agro-ecosystem services to sustain local livelihoods. The project will target key ecosystem services (water, land and biodiversity in key production landscapes in the Upper Tana Catchment area).

Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): Total of $ 6 million (excluding agency fees) to be allocated from LD (3.5 million) and BD (2.5 million) A high co-financing ratio could be secured – early estimations indicated that the project could mobilize at least $ 25 million in co-financing (mainly from the TaNRMP initiative). Potential GEF Agency (ies): International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

6. Scaling up the Environmental and Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Land Management interventions through a GEF-AGRA partnership – East, West and Southern Africa

Programme: Food security and Sustainable landscapes Objectives of the project 1. Preparatory activities over the first 3-4 months:

50

a) Conduct an ex-ante analysis that helps identify the magnitude of impact of the expected multiple benefits (e.g., increased agricultural productivity, reduced land degradation, increased carbon sequestration, improved household incomes and welfare). The results of the analysis will inform the SLM activities in Objective 2 below;

b) Develop appropriate baselines and a monitoring system for global environmental benefits;

2. Scale up integrating agroforestry, conservation agriculture (CA) and other appropriate SLM practices into productive landscapes;

3. Strengthening capacity for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and integrating additional SLM practices; and

4. Strengthening policy and advocacy processes for the relevant issues (e.g. the interface between agroforestry and land tenure) among key stakeholders.

Short description of the project The proposed project will build on existing AGRA Soil Health interventions in Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) practices and incorporating grain legumes into cropping systems (including market development). These interventions are in the Western and Central Kenya regions Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): US$ 2 million What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? AGRA’s Soil Health Program (SHP) has existing and planned investments (as indicated above) in Kenya totaling $3 million. Additional funding will be sought from the incentive financing under the GEF Land Degradation focal area and the Adaptation Fund. Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNEP 7. Strengthening Capacity of Local Communities and Relevant Institutions for Integrated Land

Use Planning in the Lake Naivasha Watershed (Kenya) Programme: Food Security and Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project The principal objective of this project is to sustain land and water resources management within Lake Naivasha Watershed through capacity building mechanisms among the communities/ stakeholders and improved institutional frameworks. Brief description of the project The Project will address four major challenges to sustainable land/environmental management within the lake Naivasha watershed i.e. inadequate knowledge base, lack of capacity and awareness on the part of the local population, poverty and poor environmental governance as well as the absence of an integrated management framework and collaborative structures among the major stakeholders. The project will seek to deepen the understanding of stakeholders, especially the rural and urban poor and about the link between their livelihoods and the sustainability of the land and natural resources within the watershed. It would also create opportunities and incentives for sustainable land/environmental governance within the existing policies, legal and institutional frameworks. In the process, the project shall mobilize the stakeholders towards a collaborative framework for sustainable management of the Lake Naivasha watershed. The Project will restore the resource base of the ecosystem which plays a critical role of securing livelihoods among the communities and also constitute the foundation for economic development of the country. It will also support and restore the social and cultural values of the landscape. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations); 2 million US dollars What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing?

51

• The Ramsar Convention Strategic Plan (2009-2004) and will generate and disseminate key knowledge in support of wise use of wetlands in Africa; Africa Community Outreach Programme for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Resources (World Bank) and other on-going initiatives sponsored by the government, private sector, NGOs, civil society groups and the local community groups

Envisaged co-financing 2.75 million US dollars Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNEP in collaboration with IUCN 8. Support to Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD +) Implementation

in Kenya Programme: Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project 1. Preparing Kenya’s participation in REDD+ process 2. Developing capacities for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) 3. Contributing to the development of a National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) Brief Description of the Project The government of Kenya through the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) in collaboration with FAO and other stakeholders are developing the national strategy for participating in an evolving international mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conserving and enhancing stocks and sustainably managing forests. The purpose of setting up the national readiness management framework is to facilitate management and co-ordination of REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation + Carbon enhancement) activities and mainstreaming REDD plus into broader strategies such as the national low carbon strategies and national development plans. This will be achieved through developing institutional mechanisms and technical capacities that will facilitate calculations of the carbon losses and establishment of pilot field demonstration projects for the operationalization of the REDD+ process in Kenya. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): USD 4 Million What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? Kenya has developed the National Climate Change Response Strategy to mainstream mitigation and adaptation programmes into the national development plans. Kenya also is among 12 African countries selected for the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) with commitment amounting to USD 3.4 million. The Government of Finland is currently supporting implementation of forest sector reforms while African Development Bank is currently implementing Green Zones project There are a number of bilateral and NGOs in the forest sector that could support the project. Potential GEF Agency (ies): Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 9. Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management in communal and non-state forests Programme: Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project

1. National baseline survey of significant communal and non-state forests 2. National strategy for management of communal and non-state forests 3. Capacity building of county governments and CFAs in SFM 4. Participatory development and implementation of management plans for selected communal

forests Short description of the project: The broad objective of the proposed project is to develop a national strategy for management of communal and non-state forests. The specific activities will involve capacity building of county governments and Community Forest Associations (CFAs) in line with the new constitution dispensation. The project will support participatory development and implementation of management plans with the application of sustainable forest management (SFM) practices. The outcomes of the project will generate

52

multiple environmental and social benefits including climate change mitigation and securing of forest based livelihoods especially of the indigenous people. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): USD 3 million What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? Kenya Forest Service in collaboration with FAO has been supporting capacity building of CFAs in line with the Forest Act 2005. NETFUND established under EMCA 1999 Act has been supporting community based forest projects to alleviate food insecurity and poverty. There are a also number of community based natural resource management projects been supported by a number of bilateral agencies and NGOs including Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) of EC, IUCN, WWF, Nature Kenya, Forest Action Network (FAN) and Kenya Forest Working Group. The proposed project could also leverage resources from the county government budgets as stipulated in the new constitution Potential GEF Agency: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 10. Conservation of Kenya Mangrove FORESTS and associated ecosystems Programme: Food Security and Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project 1. To put in place and implement a Long term management plan of Kenyan mangrove forests (and

integrates this plan with the rest of coastal zone management) 2. To institute climate change preparedness for Kenya mangrove forests and associated ecosystems- i.e

have vulnerability assessed, adaptation plans made and implemented. 3. To establish the economic importance (Valuation) of Kenyan mangroves and to revise and implement

conservation policy and legislation in line with global standards for mangroves. 4. To undertake Community alternative livelihoods initiatives to address food security and rehabilitation

of degraded mangroves in selected sites (based on scientific information attained through mapping and Vulnerability assessments)

5. Institute a long term monitoring system of Kenyan Mangroves. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The goal of this project is to achieve well managed and monitored mangrove forests ecosystems in the Kenya coast. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): US$ 2,500,000 ($2,000,000 million from BD and $500,000 from LD What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing?

a) Academic research done: The Kenya Marine Research institute (KEMFRI) has and is still undertaken extensive academic research on mangroves which forms the basis for this project-

b) Isolated Rehabilitation of degraded mangroves is being done at Gazi bay and Mida creek. The work of UNEP-GEF: c) Through the IW focal area has participated either as lead GEF Agency or as a partner agency in

the development of SAPs for the 3 major LMEs GEF projects namely Guinea, Benguela, and Agulhas currents which articulate actions required for coastal zones through the SAPs – including work on Mangrove ecosystems. The canary current LME project was recently started and UNEP is the main GEF agency.

d) A UNEP supported GEF project involving Fiji, Cameroon, and Tanzania entitled “Coastal Resilience to Climate Change: Developing a Generalizable Method for Assessing Vulnerability and Adaptation of Mangroves and Associated Ecosystems”.

e) Mangroves for the Future project (MFF) (non -GEF): This is an initiative led by IUCN, UNDP and UNEP for restoration of coastal ecosystems for Indian Ocean Countries.

Co financing envisaged: US$ 3,500,000 Potential GEF Agency (ies) UNEP

53

11. Market Transformation for Highly Efficient Biomass Cookstoves for Institutional, Small and Medium Scale Enterpries and Households in the East Africa Region

Brief Description The project will contribute to the removal of these barriers among households, Small and Medium Enterprises and institutions in East Africa. In addition to promoting quality and standards of improved stoves, the project will ensure that appropriate legislative and institution framework for adoption of renewable energy products are instituted by each of the five East African states. It will increase production of improved stoves in the region by training new stoves producers and enhancing the capacities of existing ones. It is envisaged the project generate benefits and business potential of improved stoves is communicated to policy makers, financial institutions, investors and end users. It will help put in place favourable financing instruments for the development and adoption of improved biomass stoves. The implementation of the project in the five countries will have greater impact on climate change mitigation. Further, the project will contribute to and promote investment in renewable energy technologies, through both the avoidance and sequestration of CO2e emissions and enhancing energy efficiency, access and security of the most vulnerable groups in the region while contributing to sustainable development. Further the initiative will promote financial instruments for providing financial services (loans) to renewable energy products producers. The proposed project is also unique in that it will strengthen regional integration by sharing experience and best practices, developing cross-border co-operation, and foster capacity building at the national and regional level; promote harmonized policy and institutional frameworks (e.g. MDG monitoring frameworks), and integration of access to energy services to foster human development and achieving the MDGs and also develop, energy investment programmes, based on proven technology and sustainable business models that focus on poverty reduction in rural and peri-urban areas. GEF5 Focal Area: Climate Change Mitigation: To support developing countries and economies in transition towards a low carbon development path and as outlined I objectives 1-5 of the goal. Proposed Executing Agency: Ministries responsible for Energy and Climate Change Proposed Implementing Agency: UNDP Baseline: Baseline – Investments of Renewable Energy Technologies Programme, RTE, Governments of about USD 104 million (2011 – 202016) Project GEF Incremental Cost (Proposed Project Budget) (STAR): USD 26 million over 5 years (2012-2016) (including agency fee of 10%) 12. Enhancing the ecological integrity of the Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem through

sustainable management and utilization of the natural resources for improved livelihoods and poverty reduction

Programme: Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project

1. To maximize ecological and economic benefits from Maasai communal lands in the Tsavo-Chyulu – Amboseli ecosystem.

2. To ensure the long term ecological viability of the Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem by maintaining wildlife dispersal areas and migration corridors and enhancing connectivity through community conservancies on the Maasai Group Ranches.

3. To prevent land degradation in the Maasai Group Ranches by developing sustainable ecologically sensitive land use practices and conservation compatible alternative livelihoods ensuring conservation and sustainable use of the natural resources directly benefit the local Maasai communities.

4. To prevent adverse land use changes in Maasai Group Ranches and to ensure the community is better able to adapt to and mitigate impacts from climate change through the conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks.

54

5. To ensure the local communities are better able to use, manage and monitor their natural resources sustainably by strengthening the capacity of local communities and institutions.

Brief Description of the Project Initial stages are underway in developing a carbon credit project from the Chyulu forest involving Group Ranch and national stakeholders, as well as a PES assessment for the community’s role in protecting the watershed and critical water sources. The project will engage with national partners through the Chyulu National Park and Kibwezi Forest Reserve as well as the adjacent Kamba communities to the East, to ensure the protection of these valuable forests. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations) US $6 million and US 2 million from SFM (total US$ 8 million) over 5 years across three GEF5 focal areas - biodiversity (BD- 1& 2), climate change (CCM-5) and land degradation (LD-1 & 2). This project will be linked to the activities of MWCT. MWCT envisages providing co-finance as well as bringing non-financial assets including technical expertise and capacity. MWCT has a demonstrated capability of raising funds of over $1 million/year to support core programme activities including overall operating costs and specific programmatic funding for conservation, health and education programmes. This project will also benefit from the current finances from KWS and other stakeholders within the ecosystem. Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNEP 13. Sustainable Forest management in the transboundary Mara River Basin (Kenya Tanzania) Programme: Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project The principal objective of this project is to reverse degradation of land and forest resources and to restore ecosystem integrity and functioning in the Mara River Basin through implementation of sustainable land (SLM) and forest (SFM) management practices Short description of the project: Bad governance, illegal excisions and unsustainable land management practices, in particular deforestation, have wreaked havoc over the last decade on native forests. If the present trend continues, the worse case scenario is that the Mara River and all the other rivers that originate from the Mau escarpment will become seasonal. The proposed project will remove these threats to the ecosystem and lift the barriers to sustainable land and forest management in the Mara River Basin. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): US$ 1.5 million What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing?

• UNEP/DEPI project on Community-based integrated forest resource conservation and management project for the Maasai Mau Forest (COMIFORM) in Kenya. COMIFORM is a Spanish Government funded Programme that focuses on restoration of degraded forest, alternative community livelihoods as well as the development of a management plan for the Maasai Mau Forest.

• The proposed project for Kenya and Tanzania will also build on assessment work undertaken on the Mau forest complex by UNEP/DEWA using results from aerial surveys, assessment reports and proposed measures for policy making.

• The project will directly benefit from the WWF Mau Forest Conservation Programme and the Mara River Basin Management Initiative (MRBMI) (Kenya/Tanzania) implemented by WWF-EARPO and funded by NORAD and WWF Norway, which is contributing towards a cooperation framework for the sustainable management of the transboundary Mara-Serengeti Ecosystem.

Envisaged co-financing 2.5 million Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNEP in collaboration with WWF 14. Restoration, measurement and commercialization of commodities and ecosystem services in

deforested Mau tropical forest

55

Programme: Sustainable Landscapes Objectives of the project • To regenerate degraded and deforested areas of the Mau forest and improve ecosystem functions. • To enhance sustainable production of ecosystem services and marketing through creation of new

opportunities for local populations, dedicated productions and marketing opportunities and payment for Ecosystem services

• To improve awareness of stakeholders on necessity to produce EGS and pay for them for sustainable environments

Short description of the project In Kenya the project targets the Mau forest complex which is the largest of the five water towers. Results from Satellite image and aerial photography analysis reveal that more than 61,586 hectares of forestland within the Mau Forest Complex has been lost and what is left is highly degraded resulting in rivers and springs drying up hence massive biodiversity loss over the years particularly macro-invertebrate, fish species and other aquatic organisms in the Lakes serviced by these rivers. This project, as part of the Rainforest project, aims at enhancing tropical forest conservation by rehabilitating the Mau Forest to prevent further deforestation and restore sustainable use of the natural resource base. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations) Project – US$ 14 million Co-Financing – US$ 6 million What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? Other projects that are in the Mau Forest that we will collaborate include; (1) Natural Environmental Management Program: is funded by JICA and implemented by MCN, NAWASCO and KWS, (2) DFID Funded Conflict and Natural Resource management around Mau Forest Complex, (3) UNEP/KFWG/NCC/GBM: The partnership is implementing a COMIFORM project (Community-based integrated forest resource conservation and management project) - Maasai Mail Forest in the Southern part of Mau Forest Complex,(4) Mau Spatial Data and Information Clearinghouse (MauSDI,(5) KENGEN Geothermal Project: Kenya Power Generation Company is implementing three Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in Projects within Mau Forest Complex Olkaria II Geothermal Expansion Project, Eburru Geothermal Project and Sondu Miriu Hydropower Project through the assistance of World Bank, and ,(6) COMEG/CDTF: The Community –Based Conservation & Management of Mau East Group Project (COMEG) is one of the 25 projects funded under the Community Environment Facility (CEF) or CDTF. The project brings together a total of 56 community-based organization including WRUA’s, CFA and CBO’s operating in Eastern Mau Forest Complex. Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNEP through TSBF-CIAT (Tropical soil fertility Program) 15. UNEP/GEF WISP 2020: Support to Sustainable Land Management and livelihood in Pastoral

Drylands. Programme: Food Security and Sustainable landscape Objectives of the project (i) multi-stakeholder participatory natural resource management planning and improved rangeland

governance (incl. legal, policy and regulatory frameworks); (ii) up-scaled use at national, regional and global level of knowledge (scientific, technical and

indigenous) of good SLM practices; (iii) The creation and facilitation of sustainable benefit flows and enhanced livelihoods from the

marketing of natural resources and ecosystem services. Short description of the project The project proposed herein would address and reverse current processes of land degradation, biodiversity loss and land use change in the pastoral drylands of participating countries from Africa, South America, Europe and Australasia. The project will be a 4-year initiative covering the pastoral rangelands of Pakistan, Jordon, Egypt, South America (1 country tbc), Australia, Spain, Ethiopia, Kenya,

56

Tanzania, Mali and Burkina Faso. It will respond to the key issues driving poverty and environmental change in these regions through the following components: (i) Improved policy, legal and regulatory frameworks for SLM in pastoral rangelands; (ii) Up-scaled use of good knowledge practice for SLM in pastoral rangelands at regional, national and global level; (iii) Livelihood diversification and sustainable NR marketing. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): US$ 1 million per participating country. Contribution (co-finance) is expected from IUCN, Governments of Australia, Spain, FAO, Ford foundation What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing?

• IUCN WISP Project • IUCN Dry lands programme • IUCN/FAO project in support of pastoralism • IUCN/Ford Foundation project in support of pasloralism • North south cooperation envisaged between African countries and Australia and Spain

Envisaged co-financing: Contribution (co-finance) is expected from IUCN, Governments of Australia, Spain, FAO, Ford foundation Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNEP in collaboration with IUCN Regional Office and National Offices in participating countries. 16. Renewable Energy from Waste for Industrial Use in Kenya Programme: Clean energy and Waste-to Energy Objectives of the project The project aims to demonstrate Clean Energy derived from waste organic matter that would otherwise be an environmental hazard. Short description of the project The proposed project will join forces in addressing the above barriers by creating favorable conditions to enhance a wide uptake of renewable energy projects in Kenya, specifically by promoting the development of bio-energy projects from organic waste of up to 1MW. The major activities of the proposed project include: (a) Assessment of the available potential for bioenergy technologies from organic waste (b) Capacity building at institutional and human level in the area of renewable energy by supporting the formation of a Regional Center for Renewable Energy in conjunction with local research institutions, to enhance the human capacity in the field of Renewable Energy. (c) Strengthening of supporting policy and regulations in the area of renewable energy development by engaging with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), the energy regulator. (d) Installing demonstration biogas units for electricity generation in rural communities (using locally available organic wastes) for small and medium scale industrial applications (abattoirs, large farms). Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations); US$ 3,000,000 What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? Currently, there are pilot projects that convert waste to energy and the aim is to upscale these with co-financing from partners that include Private Sector, UN organizations like UNDP, UNEP, UN-Habitat. Government Ministries of Environment, Energy, Industry, Livestock and Government affiliated institutions like REA, NEMA, and KIRDI. The co-financing amounting to US$ 8,300,000 is envisaged to be provided by all of the above Partners with the Ministry of Environment being the key player. Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNIDO

57

17. Sustainable Charcoal Production and Bio-energy Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas

(GHG) Emissions and promote Income Generating Activities for livelihood improvement in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya.

Programme: Food Security and Sustainable landscape Note: This proposed project idea is an evolution from the GEF IV MSP PIF entitled Kenya: SIP-Promoting Private Public Partnerships in Sustainable Management of Natural Resources for Sustainable Energy Production and Poverty Alleviation in the Arid Lands of Kenya which was approved by GEFSec in April 2008. Project type: Multi-focal area with a proposed SFM component GEF-5 Strategic program(S): SFM SO2, LD SO 1&2, CCM SO1&5 Proposed funding from GEF V STAR allocations Kenya Focal

Area Project amount (a)

Agency Fee (b)2 Total c=a+b

LD 910,000 91,000 1,001,000

CC 1,810,000 181,000 1,991,000 SFM 906,576 90,658 997,234 Total 3,626,576 362,658 3,989,234

Project Description The working hypotheses of this project is that sustainable charcoal production offers an opportunity to improve existing charcoal production and consumption, reducing the pressure on natural forests and reducing GHG emissions while simultaneously increasing energy access and incomes to drive local economic development. The objective of the project will be to create an enabling environment (adequate governance, and institutional capacity) coupled with the development of appropriate financial incentives (including a carbon finance component) and technology platforms (improved kilns) for the adoption of sustainable charcoal production practices and technologies to increase energy access for low-income rural households in targeted areas. The proposed project will complement the development of similar projects under discussion in neighboring countries. Proposed executing agency: Kenya Forestry Service and others (TBD) Baseline: Kenya Forest Service, and other investments amounting to over US$ 7,768,694.20 Proposed implementing agency: UNDP 18. Frameworks for prevention, and management of biological invasions in East and Southern

Africa GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Biodiversity, Land Degradation PROPOSING EXECUTING PARTNER(S): EXECUTING PARTNERS IN KENYA, MALAWI, MOZAMBIQUE, TANZANIA, ZIMBABWE (TO BE DECIDED): CABI-AFRICA, IUCN- INVASIVE SPECIES PROJECT DURATION (months): 48 COUNTRY (IES): Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Brief Description The project aims to address these barriers by strengthening policy, improving national and regional coordination, developing and implementing management strategies in important ecosystems, and enhancing prevention of introduction and spread of new species. Capacity development runs through all the results, of individuals, organizations and systems. Total Project Cost - 13.0m USD PROPOSED GEF BUDGET: 6.0M USD Co-financing; CABI/IUCN/others - 1.0million USD

58

ANNEX 4: RESULTS FRAMEWORK OF THE FOCAL AREAS

Biodiversity Results Framework Goal: Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecosystem goods and services. Impacts: Biodiversity conserved and habitat maintained in national protected area systems. Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity integrated into production landscapes and seascapes. Indicators: Intact vegetative cover and degree of fragmentation in national protected area systems measured in hectares as recorded by remote sensing. Coastal zone habitat (coral reef, mangroves, etc) intact in marine protected areas and productive seascapes measured in hectares as recorded by remote sensing and, where possible, supported by visual or other verification methods.

Objectives

Expected Outcomes and Indicators

Outcome targets for $4.2 billion Target

Core Outputs

Total Focal Area Allocation

$1.15 billion

Sustainable Forest Management/REDD-plus

$80 million

Objective 1: Improve Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Outcome 1.1: Improved management effectiveness of existing and new protected areas. Indicator 1.1: Protected area management effectiveness score as recorded by Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool.

Outcome 1.2: Increased revenue for protected area systems to meet total expenditures required for management. Indicator1.2: Funding gap for management of protected area systems as recorded by protected area financing scorecards.

$ 700 million

Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their protected area management effectiveness targets covering 170 million hectares of existing or new protected areas.

Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for reducing the protected area management funding gap in protected area systems that develop and implement sustainable financing plans.

Output 1. New protected areas (number) and coverage (hectares) of unprotected ecosystems.

Output 2. New protected areas (number) and coverage (hectares) of unprotected threatened species (number).

Output 3. Sustainable financing plans (number).

Objectives Expected Outcomes and Indicators

Outcome targets for $4.2 billion Target

Core Outputs

Objective 2: Mainstream Biodiversity

Outcome 2.1: Increase in sustainably managed landscapes and seascapes that integrate biodiversity

$250 million

Sustainable

Output 1. Policies and regulatory frameworks

59

Conservation and Sustainable Use into Production Landscapes, Seascapes and Sectors

conservation. Indicator 2.1: Landscapes and seascapes certified by internationally or nationally recognized environmental standards that incorporate biodiversity considerations (e.g. FSC, MSC) measured in hectares and recorded by GEF tracking tool. Outcome 2.2: Measures to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity incorporated in policy and regulatory frameworks. Indicator 2.2: Polices and regulations governing sectoral activities that integrate biodiversity conservation as recorded by the GEF tracking tool as a score.

Outcome 2.3: Improved management frameworks to prevent, control and manage invasive alien species Indicator 2.3: IAS management framework operational score as recorded by the GEF tracking tool.

use and management of biodiversity in 60 million hectares of production landscapes and seascapes.

Fifty-percent (50%) of projects achieve a score of six (6) (i.e., biodiversity conservation and sustainable use is mentioned in sector policy through specific legislation, regulations are in place to implement the legislation, regulations are under implementation, implementation of regulations is enforced, and enforcement of regulations is monitored)

Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for a fully operational and effective IAS management framework.

(number) for production sectors.

Output 2. National and sub-national land-use plans (number) that incorporate biodiversity and ecosystem services valuation.

Output 3. Certified production landscapes and seascapes (hectares).

60

Objective 3: Build Capacity for the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB)

Outcome 3.1 Potential risks of living modified organisms to biodiversity are identified and evaluated in a scientifically sound and transparent manner Indicator 3.1: National biosafety decision-making systems operational score as recorded by the GEF tracking tool

$40 million

Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for a fully operational and effective biosafety framework.

All remaining eligible countries (about 60-70 depending on programming for rest of GEF-4) have national biosafety Decision-making systems in place.

Objective 4: Build Capacity on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing

Outcome 4.1: Legal and regulatory frameworks, and administrative procedures established that enable access to genetic resources and benefit sharing in accordance with the CBD provisions Indicator 4.1: National ABS frameworks operational score as recorded by the GEF tracking tool (to be developed)

Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for a fully operational and effective ABS framework.

Access and benefit-sharing agreements (Number) that recognize the core ABS principles of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits.

Objective Five: Integrate CBD Obligations into National Planning Processes through Enabling Activities

Outcome 5.1 Development and sectoral planning frameworks at country level integrate measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets. Indicator 5.1: Percentage of development and sectoral frameworks that integrate measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets.

$ 40 million

50% of parties that revise NBSAPs successfully integrate measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets into development and sectoral planning frameworks.

Number and type of development and sectoral planning frameworks that include measurable biodiversity conservation and sustainable use targets.

Climate Change Mitigation Results Framework Goal: To support developing countries and economies in transition toward a low-carbon development path Impacts: Slower growth in GHG emissions and contribution to the stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere Key Indicator: Tons of CO2 equivalent avoided (both direct and indirect) over the investment or impact period of the projects Key Target: 500 million tons under the $4.2 billion scenario Objectives Key Expected Outcomes Key Targets for $4.2

billion Replenishment

Core Outputs


\ $1.4 billion

Objective 1: Promote the demonstration, deployment, and transfer of innovative

• Technologies successfully

demonstrated, deployed, and transferred

Indicator: Percentage of technology demonstrations

$300 million • Demonstration and

deployment of 3-4 innovative technologies in 10-15 countries

• 80% of the projects

• Innovative low-carbon technologies

demonstrated and deployed on the ground • National

61

low-carbon technologies

reaching its planned goals • Enabling policy environment and mechanisms created for technology transfer Indicator: Extent to which policies and mechanisms are adopted for technology transfer (score of 0 to 4) • GHG emissions avoided Indicator: Tons of CO2 equivalent

reaching the planned goals on the ground

strategies for the deployment and commercialization of innovative low-carbon technologies adopted

Objective 2: Promote market transformation for energy efficiency in industry and the building

• Appropriate policy, legal and regulatory frameworks adopted and enforced Indicator: Extent to which EE policies and regulations are adopted and enforced (score of 0 to 4)

urban systems Indicator: Volume of investment mobilized • GHG emissions avoided Indicator: Tons of CO2 equivalent

$250 million • 20-30 countries adopting EE

policies and initiatives • $1.2 billion investment mobilized for EE

• Energy efficiency policy and regulation in

place • Investment mobilized • Energy savings achieved

Objective 5: Promote conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks through sustainable management of land use, land-use change, and forestry

• Good management practices in LULUCF adopted both within the forest land and in the wider landscape

Indicator: Number of countries adopting good management practices in LULUCF

• Restoration and enhancement of

carbon stocks in forests and non-forest lands, including peatland

Indicator: Hectares restored • GHG emissions avoided and

carbon sequestered Indicator: Tons of CO2 equivalent

$50 million (plus $150 million to SFM) 10-15 countries adopting good management practices and implementing projects

• Carbon stock monitoring systems established

• Forests and non-forest lands under good management practices

Objective 6: Support enabling activities and capacity building under the Convention

• Adequate resources allocated to support enabling activities under the Convention

Indicator: Percentage of eligible countries receiving GEF funding

• Human and institutional capacity

of recipient countries strengthened

Indicator: Countries and institutions supported by the GEF

$80 million • 100% of eligible countries

receiving GEF funding in accordance with COP guidance

• Countries receiving GEF support for national

communication, etc. • National

communications, etc. completed and submitted to the UNFCCC as appropriate

62

Land Degradation Results Framework Goal: To contribute to arresting and reversing current global trends in land degradation, specifically desertification and deforestation. Impacts: •Sustained productivity of agro-ecosystems and forest landscapes in support of livelihoods Indicators: •Change in land productivity (greenness measure as proxy – Net Primary Productivity, Rain-Use Efficiency adjusted NDVI) •Improved livelihoods in rural areas (Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age as proxy) •Value of investment in SLM ($ generated from diverse sources, co-financing in projects)

Objectives Expected Outcomes Outcome Targets - $4.2 Billion Replenishment

Core Outputs


$400 million

1. Maintain or improve flow of agro-ecosystem services to sustaining the livelihoods of local communities

Outcome 1.1: An enhanced enabling environment within the agricultural sector.

Indicator 1.1 Agricultural policy, legal and regulatory frameworks functioning to support SLM (Score)

Outcome 1.2: Improved agricultural management. Indicator 1.2 Land area under effective agricultural, land and water management practices (Hectares by management practice)

Outcome 1.3: Functionality and cover of agro-ecosystems maintained Indicator 1.3 Land area under effective management in production systems with improved vegetative cover

$200 million Allocation

Sustainable management of 150 million hectares of crop, livestock and silvo-pastoral landscapes, including in drylands and transboundary areas

Country level policy, legal and regulatory frameworks that integrate SLM principles developed

Diverse sources of investment for SLM interventions at multiple scales (e.g. PES)

Hectares of tree cover in agro-ecosystems

2. Generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services in drylands, including sustaining livelihoods of forest dependant people

2.1: An enhanced enabling environment within the forest sector in drylands. Indicator 2.1 Forestry policy, legal and regulatory frameworks functioning to support SFM

2.2: Improved forest management in drylands. Indicator 2.2 Land area under effective forest management practices

2.3: Functionality and cover of forest ecosystems in drylands maintained. Indicator 2.3 Land area with increased tree cover, increased biomass, and reduced GHG emissions


Sustainable management of 300,000 hectares of forest production landscapes, including in drylands and transboundary areas

Country level policy, legal and regulatory frameworks that integrate SFM principles developed Diverse sources of investment for SFM interventions (e.g. PES, small credit schemes, voluntary carbon market) Hectares of forest cover in production landscapes

3. Reduce pressures on natural resources from competing land uses in the wider landscape

Outcome 3.1: Enhanced enabling environments between sectors in support of SLM. Indicator 3.1 Demonstration results strengthening enabling environment between sectors (incl. agriculture, forestry)

Outcome 3.2: Good management practices in the wider landscape demonstrated and adopted by


Demonstration results support integrated management of 200 million hectares of production systems and natural habitats,

Government agencies collaborating on SLM initiatives across sectors and at multiple scales

Number and types of investment sources in SLM from successfully tested sustainable finance reflow schemes

63

relevant economic sectors. Indicator 3.2 Area under effective land use management with vegetative cover maintained or increased

including in drylands and transboundary areas

Information on SLM (wider landscape) technology and good practices disseminated

4. Increase capacity to apply adaptive management tools in SLM

Outcome 4.1Increased capacities of countries to fulfill their obligations in accordance with the provisions provided in the UNCCD. Indicator 4.1Improved quality and timeliness of reporting compliance by countries

Outcome 4.2 Improved project performance using new and adapting existing tools and methodologies Indicator 4.2 GEF-6 LD focal area strategy reflects lessons learned, and results of targeted research portfolio and implementation results from earlier replenishment periods (Qualitative score)


25% of GEF projects financed under Objective 1, Objective 2, and Objective 3 address priorities identified in UNCCD 10-year Strategy and national reporting process

50% of GEF projects financed through the LD FA that take up emerging knowledge from targeted research projects or projects with targeted research component

Number of countries reporting onUNCCD activities and with improved monitoring of impacts at national level

Number of GEF projects financed under LD Objectives 1-3 addressing priorities identified in UNCCD action programs and national reporting process

Number of GEF-financed projects reflecting knowledge from targeted research projects or Number of projects with targeted research component

Number of GEF-financed projects that contribute lessons learned and results of targeted research

Contribution to SFM $20 million Chemicals Results Framework Goal: To promote the sound management of chemicals throughout their life-cycle in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the global environment Impacts: Expected Impact: Reduction in the exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants and other Persistent Toxic Substances of humans and wildlife Indicator: Levels of POPs in the environment as determined by the Global Monitoring Program under the Stockholm Convention

Objectives Expected Outcomes Outcome Targets* $4.2 billion Replenishment

Core Outputs

Total Allocation $420 million Objective 1 Phase out POPs and reduce POPs releases

Outcome 1.1 Production and use of controlled POPs chemicals phased out. Indicator 1.1 Amount of POPs not produced or used following demonstration of alternative; measured in tons per year against baseline as recorded through the POPs tracking tool.

Outcome 1.2 Exempted POPs chemicals used in an environmentally sound manner. Indicator 1.2 Number of countries managing the use of exempted POPs in an environmentally sound manner.

Outcome 1.3 POPs releases to the environment reduced. Indicator 1.3 Amount of un-intentionally produced POPs releases avoided or reduced from industrial and non-industrial sectors; measured in grams TEQ against baseline as recorded through the POPs tracking tool.

$375 million

At least 7 countries implement pilot ―new POPs� reduction activities.

Dioxin reduction plans under

―New POPs� reduction action plans under implementation.

Dioxin action plans under

64

implementation in at least 21 country sectors.

implementation.

Outcome 1.4 POPs waste prevented, managed, and disposed of, and POPs contaminated sites managed in an environmentally sound manner. Indicator 1.4.1 Amount of PCBs and PCB-related wastes disposed of, or decontaminated; measured in tons as recorded in the POPs tracking tool. Indicator 1.4.2 Amount of obsolete pesticides, including POPs, disposed of in an environmentally sound manner; measured in tons.

Outcome 1.5 Country capacity built to effectively phase out and reduce releases of POPs. Indicator 1.5.1 Progress in development or update of NIPs as recorded through the POPs tracking tool. Indicator 1.5.2 Progress in developing and implementing a legislative and regulatory framework for environmentally sound management of POPs, and for the sound management of chemicals in general, as recorded in the POPs tracking tool.

23,000 tons of PCBs and PCB- related wastes disposed of, or decontaminated.

10,000 tons of obsolete pesticides, including POPs, disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

At least 45 countries receive support for NIP update.

PCB management plans under implementation.

NIPs prepared or updated or national implications of new POPs assessed.

Objective 2 Phase out ODS and reduce ODS releases

Outcome 2.1 Country capacity built to meet Montreal protocol obligations and effectively phase out and reduce releases of ODS. Indicator 2.1 GEF-supported countries meet their reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol, as recorded by the Ozone Secretariat.

Outcome 2.2 ODS phased out and their releases reduced in a sustainable manner. Indicator 2.2 Amount of HCFCs phased out from consumption or production, measured as ODP tons against baseline.

$25 million

80 % of GEF supported countries meet their reporting obligations under the Montreal Protocol.

Country annual reports to the Ozone secretariat.

HCFCs phase out plans under implementation.

Objective 3

Pilot sound chemicals management and mercury reduction

Outcome 3.1 Country capacity built to effectively manage mercury in priority sectors. Indicator 3.1 Countries implement pilot mercury management and reduction activities.

Outcome 3.2 Contribute to the overall objective of the SAICM of achieving the sound management of chemicals throughout their life-cycle in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. Indicator 3.2 Countries implement SAICM relevant activities that generate global environmental benefits and report to the International Conference on Chemicals Management

$20 million

Mercury ―country case studies in at least 12 countries.

Around 10 GEF projects receive support for enhanced sound chemicals management.

Development and implementation of management plans for persistent toxic substances and other chemicals of global concern, in particular with respect to mercury, on a pilot basis.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOLLOW UP GEF NPFE MEETING HELD AT MINISTRY OF WORKS, SOUTH C,

NAIROBI

MOW CONFERENCE ROOM

31ST MARCH, 2011

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOLLOW UP MEETING FOR THE GEF NPFE WORKSHOP HELD AT MINISTRY OF WORKS, SOUTH C, NAIROBI CONFERENCE ROOM ON

31ST MARCH, 2011

The meeting was brought to order by Wilson Busienei and a word of prayer from Mr. John Maina. Thereafter, introductions were done by each member. The chair apologized to the members for starting late and made clarifications concerning the meeting as sought by the members in attendance.

RECAP OF GEF NPFE WORKSHOP HELD IN NAIVASHA ON 22ND – 25TH MARCH 2011

An overview of the Global Environment Facility National Portfolio Formulation Exercise Programme held in Naivasha:

• Introduction

• NPFE objectives

• Global overview of GEF

• GEF in Kenya

• Implementing Agencies Presentations

• Criteria/ Guiding Principles for prioritization

• GEF Programmatic approach

• Group Work- Areas of focus for the country

• Plenary presentations on the screening of concepts

• Way forward

Table of the Concepts Received with proposed budgets

NO. Title Amount (US$) 000,000

Focal Area

1 Intelligent Power Dispatch Control Center For Kenya & East Africa Power Pool

1.5 Clean Energy

2

Frameworks for prevention, and management of biological invasions in East and Southern Africa

6 Biodiversity, Land Degradation

3

Renewable Energy from Waste for Industrial Use in Kenya 3 Clean energy & Waste-Energy

4

Market Transformation for Highly Efficient Biomass Cookstoves for Institutional, Small and Medium Scale Enterpries and Households in the East Africa Region

26 Clean energy & Waste-Energy

5 Upscaling conservation agriculture and agro-biodiversity conservation in arid and semi arid lands of Kenya

3 Food Security

6

Kenya Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resources Management Project (TaNRMP)


7

Scaling up the Environmental and Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Land Management interventions through a GEF-AGRA partnership – East, West and Southern Africa


8

Conservation of Kenya Mangrove FORESTS and associated ecosystems


9



10

UNEP/GEF WISP 2020: Support to Sustainable Land Management and livelihood in Pastoral Drylands.


11



12

Sustainable Charcoal Production and Bio-energy Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and promote Income Generating Activities for livelihood improvement in arid and Semi-Arid lands of Kenya


13 Restoration, measurement and commercialization of commodities and ecosystem services in deforested Mau tropical forest

14


14 Support to Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD + Implementation in Kenya


15



16 Sustainable Forest management in the transboundary Mara River Basin (Kenya Tanzania)


17 Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management in communal and non-state forests


18 Work on Waste for Climate Change in Urban Kenya 1.6 Waste-Energy TOTAL 92.089

PROGRAMMATIC AREAS

Following the above list of concepts members had identified two programmatic areas of focus in line with the GEF STAR as follows:

• Energy • SLM/SFM REDD+

The Focal area available budget was again reminded to the members as shown below: STAR GEF-5 Allocation and Utilization (All amounts in US$) by Kenya Focal areas STAR GEF-5

Indicative allocation

Allocation utilized

PIFs cleared by CEO awaiting approval

Allocations remaining to be programmed

BD 8,950,000 0 1,944,000 7,006,000 CC 5,000,000 0 1,512,000 3,488,000 LD 4,260,000 0 1,944,000 2,316,000 TOTAL 18,210,000 0 5,400,000 12,810,000 AGREED WAY FORWARD

Following the workshop that was held the way forward was:

• Regional projects to be deferred since members were not aware if the counterparts had already set aside some of their funds for the mentioned projects (regional)

• Refinement of the two programmatic areas with appropriate titles to be in line with the GEF focal areas so as not to miss out in the funding allocation for the projects

• Exploration of non-STAR projects (International Waters and Persistent Organic Pollutants)

• Further cluster consultations to be held among members

• Adoption of workshop proceedings as forwarded to the members via email

• Follow up meeting (31st March, 2011) to be held and organized by the OFP (NEMA) to finalize the discussion on the concepts programmatic areas and budgeting for the same.

Tasks to perform

The tasks outlined for the members to perform during the follow up meeting were;

• Harmonization of the components within the two programmatic areas

• Geographical focal areas

• Budget Rationalization / Capture of Programmatic Areas incentive funds

• Identification of Implementing Agencies/Executing Agencies for the various concepts within the programmatic areas

• Development of Project Identification Forms(PIFs)

Questions and Suggestions

It was suggested that projects can get funding from more than one focal area especially concerning the projects that cut across the various focal areas within the STAR allocation.

Members were informed that the programmatic areas (Energy and SLM/SFM REDD+) to be discussed were to follow the tasks identified in the presentations as noted above and each of the components should contain the subcomponents so as to avoid leaving out the approved concepts within these programmatic areas. It was also highlighted that the groups should also take into consideration the different geographical areas in order to diversify the project concept areas of coverage.

The last two tasks about the identification of the Implementing agencies and Executing Agencies would be left for the plenary session. It was also reiterated that members should adhere to the available budget as per the STAR allocations. This was stressed upon by Dr. M. Sessay because the amount requested was 92 million USD and the amount allocated was only 18.2million USD.

Members were informed by the chair that the SLM/SFM concepts developed would benefit from the Sustainable Forest Management Fund at the ratio of 3:1depending on the resources that would be budgeted for these concepts. The members then went into groups to finalize on the tasks.

PLENARY SESSION/ GROUP PRESAENTATIONS

A. ENERGY GROUP Mr. JOHN MAINA – MINISTRY OF ENERGY

1.0 HARMONIZATION OF THE COMPONENTS

PROGRAM: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONVERSION AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES (SECEUR) PROJECTS

a) Efficient Conversion of waste resources b) Energy Conservation and Efficiency

Project1: Efficient Conversion of waste resources PIF 1

Component 1: Work on waste for climate change in urban Kenya (UNEP) Component 2: Renewable energy from waste for industrial use in Kenya (UNIDO)

Project 2: Energy Conservation and Efficiency PIF 2

Component: Sustainable charcoal production and bio-energy technologies to reduce GHG emissions and promote income generating activities for livelihood improvement in ASALS of Kenya

Note: Despite the limited finances the group felt that the project on Intelligent Power Dispatch Control Centre is crucial for the long-term sustainability of power distribution achieved through project 1. 2.0 GEOGRAPHICAL FOCAL AREA

Project 1 would cover Kisumu, Nairobi, Mombasa and Naivasha Project 2 would cover Baringo, Kwale & Tana River which are the ASAL areas and

presents no problems

3.0 BUDGET RATIONALIZATION Efficient Conversion of waste resources -3.0 million USD Energy efficiency - 1.5 million USD N/B: Climate Change total allocations under STAR is 3.488M USD therefore 1M USD will be sourced from LD

4.0 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Project 1 -UNEP & UNIDO Project 2 –UNDP

5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF PIFs

Merge UNEP and UNIDO PIFs and refine further UNDP to refine the PIFs.

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS The team proposed that the term ‘charcoal production’ as used in the title for project 2 to be replaced by a better term. Members suggested the use of the term ‘sustainable biotechnologies’. It was also duly noted that the Forest Act 2005 and the Energy policy talks of sustainable charcoal production. There was also a suggestion that the project should be done as a stand alone. It was also proposed that project 1 should have a component on water hyacinth as a source to generate energy since it covers Kisumu. Dr. Sessay proposed that the energy team should include policy component and work up public–private partnerships with other institutions. This would be through developing a framework that would enable the other investments to follow especially on the project on Intelligent Power Dispatch Centre which was a regional project concept. It was noted that the main focus for GEF was to create a sustainable environment and thus members should seek ways on how to integrate the components that take into account Climate Change. The PIFs should have policies that advice the government for future replication of these projects in the country. However, it was noted that the country should also focus on projects whose impacts will be felt among the communities who are the beneficiaries of these projects.

B. INTEGRATED & SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES PROGRAMME

Presented by Mrs. NJERI GAKONYO - AGRA

Sub-theme outcomes

I. Enhancing protected areas networks management: Agreed to work together to harmonize but further consultation needed as the team agreed to have another meeting on Wednesday 6th April at UNEP to harmonise the concepts. This would give time for detailed reading of the concepts and better understanding to be able to provide a consolidated project concept. It was also agreed that the team would report back to NEMA on the agreed budget. The rationale being that the team needs to consult with the other members in order to harmonize legitimately. o Geographical area: Southern Rangelands

II. Forests: SFM, REDD+ and mangroves:

Agreed on three separate projects and narrowed down from 6 objectives to 2 objectives for the mangrove concept. It was felt that the implementing agency should be FAO; as it was started with UNEP as the implementing agency so we will need a tradeoff, determined by the impacts. For the mangrove concept UNEP will remain the implementing agency. o Geographical Area: Different Areas

III. SLM agro-ecosystems:

Agreed on common objectives (harmonised objectives) 1. Conduct ex-ante analyses that facilitate the development of appropriate baselines for

monitoring impacts on SLM and livelihoods (AGRA 1) 2. Interventions that upscale CA and appropriate SLM practices to improve livelihoods

across the landscape transect (combined FAO 3and AGRA 2) 3. Facilitate the development and implementation of strategies and policies that enhance

(a) on-farm tree intensification,(b) SLM and (c) agro-biodiversity(combined FAO 1&2 with AGRA 4) o Note: Opportunities exist in farm forestry which the new Constitution supports

4. Strengthening capacity for (a) integrating additional SLM practices and (b) monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (AGRA 3)

o Geographical focus changed from Mt. Kenya to Western Kenya

BUDGET PROPOSALS Programmatic Areas

Budget 1 Budget 2 Budget 3

Southern rangelands (wildlife)

4 3

Livelihood and SLM in western Kenya

2.5 2

Mangroves 1.5 1 SFM and REDD+ 2.5 3.8 Energy 3 3 TOTAL 13.5 12.8

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Dr. Sessay noted that members should not go beyond the Kenya allocation because for instance for every 3 dollars one can get from the incentive window if the projects are covering three focal area as this would increase the amount for Kenya thus the need to be strategic.

Lucy Ng,ang’a also observed that there are no two ways as the team have to decide 1, 2 or 3 projects that will move forward and keep others for GEF 6 or other sources for funding. NEMA should also be very firm and give members leadership and guidance on this matter.

Emphasis was that the members needed a national point of view on the four areas: food security, energy, etc.; the projects taking too much money should re-assess and there is need to check which area has too many projects. Members were reminded that it was not the final exercise because GEF Secretariat has to look at projects.

It was reiterated that this is the only opportunity where mangroves have been recognized as forests. The government has not been able to come up with a management plan – this is the first opportunity. It was narrowed down to do the management plan and climate preparedness; and even reduced the geographical areas. Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute and KFS were urged to work together due to the fact that the concept covers all three GEF focal areas.

Members suggested that budget ceilings were needed to guide and thus the activities can be tailored to the budget the rationale being that no project should be thrown out and thus trade offs. The members were urged to be clear because GEF wants global environmental benefits and the criteria developed in Naivasha Workshop should guide the members.

Dr. Sessay’s budget proposal was that assuming that energy will take up all the climate change allocation; following the total Kenya allocations there are four major areas:

o Southern rangelands (wildlife): 4m – huge area. Can get extra 1+m from incentive

o Livelihood SLM in western Kenya: 2.5m o Mangroves: 1.5 m – concentrate on the management plan as a test case and then in

the next cycle have mangrove as a concept o SFM and REDD+: 2.5m – REDD is an area of focus at GEF. It may be a standalone

in the next GEF cycle (GEF 6) so we have to invest now. The total is 10.5m, leaving energy with CC 3.5m

The objective is that the team comes up with a budget and OFP can make a decision and get back to members.

An alternative proposal from Peter was that:

o Southern rangelands: 3m o Agro-ecosystems: 2 m o SFM, REDD and mangrove: 4.8 m (out of which mangrove gets 1m) o Energy: 3 million Total: 12.8m

Peter’s rationale: the experience from the field is that the wildlife landscapes as currently conceptualized is too large. This is a learning platform so it needs to be more focused otherwise members risk spreading the available resources too thin thus wildlife should rethink their strategy because we can have a range that is representative of other systems.

Reactions to these budget proposals It was observed that Kenya’s economy relies heavily on tourism and the country is reaching a tipping point in the parks. At the same time there are conservancies between the parks. Therefore, People’s livelihoods have to be integrated into wildlife conservation.

It was noted that Food security is becoming a big problem. With rising sea levels; government is investing in aquaculture and there has always been interest in coming up with a management plan.

It was highlighted that the importance of mangrove forests can not be underestimated because there are various ambitious projects at the coast which covers many areas e.g. coral reefs, sea grass. Maybe for the mangroves members need to constitute a national taskforce which will develop a national action plan and mobilize resources. Then some GEF resources can be saved for another activity. That way, mangroves will probably attract even more attention. It was noted that initially the mangroves idea was an Africa-wide proposal which was passed at AMCEN.

WAY FORWARD

Members were urged to look at the core of the concepts and give the UN implementing agency with corresponding comparative advantage and this requires consensus from those receiving the concepts. The OFP can look at the comparative advantage of the different agencies, but if members have suggestions we can also take them on.

It was reiterated that the executing agency to decide which implementing agency to work with. The executing agencies should be the national institutions with the mandate for each area to decide which implementing agency to work with. NEMA will juggle between rangelands and SFM which have the largest allocations.

Members were informed that the National Steering Committee will meet on 8th April to approve the PIFs and therefore concepts should be sent to the OFP by 7th April. This will allow for circulation to the NCS. For PIFs, they should be at GEF by July for discussions at the November GEF Council.

Members were applauded for there participation during this exercise and for the good job done; and also applauded the Naivasha participants for all they had accomplished.

Many Thanks to the Coordinator Busienei and OFP, then the meeting was then officially concluded by the chair.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS DURING THE GEF NATIONAL RETREAT TO FINALIZE ON THE REPORT ON 31ST MARCH 2011 AT MINISTRY OF WORKS ,SOUTH C,

NAIROBI

NO NAME ORGANIZATION E-MAIL CELLPHONE

1 David Githaiga UNDP [email protected] 0723785123

2 Paul Njuguna UNIDO [email protected] 0722486879

3 John K. Maina Min. of Energy [email protected]

4 Jan Willem De Hoop UNEP [email protected]

5 Mohammed Sessay UNEP [email protected] +254207624294

6 Alfred N. Gichu KFS [email protected] 0722787403

7 Charles Mahinda NEMA

8 Rachel Ratemo NEMA 0721310489

9 Reuben Sinange NETFUND [email protected] 0722749668

10 Charles Musyoki KWS [email protected] 0722826911

11 Lucy Ng’ang’a MoA lucyng’ang’[email protected] 0721884693

12 Philip Kisoyan FAO [email protected]

13 Bashir Jama AGRA [email protected]

14 Njeri Gakonyo AGRA [email protected]

15 Victor Gathogo KNCPC [email protected] 0725899898

16 James Mwang’ombe KFS [email protected]

0722266449

17 Mathenge Gitonga KFS [email protected] 0721289883

18 Paul Omondi NEMA [email protected] 0720765445

19 Salome Machua NEMA [email protected] 0722212644

20 Julia Magambo NEMA [email protected] 0722233263

21 Benard Kirui KMFRI [email protected] 0722985542

22 Kairo, J.G. KMFRI 0722798468

23 Peter Okoth CIAT-TSBF 0722768537

24 Sheila Okoth UON [email protected] 0733559250

25 Stanley Owuor NEMA 0723482487

26 Samuel Munene NEMA [email protected] 0722714487

27 Abiud A. Oluteyo NEMA 0721861611

28 James Kanyi NEMA 0721806420

29 James Otindo NEMA 0718767213

30 Joseph Masinde NEMA [email protected] 0722756863

31 Wilson Busienei NEMA [email protected] 0722232034

PROCEEDINGS OF THE GLOBAL

ENVIRONMENT FACILITY NATIONAL

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD AT MINISTRY OF WORKS, SOUTH C

ON 20TH APRIL 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The meeting was brought to order by the Chair Mr. Wilson Busienei at 10.30am and opened by a word of prayer from Mr. John Maina. The agenda of the meeting as highlighted by the chair was as follows:

• Recap of the first NPFE meeting at Naivasha • Deliberation of the second NPFE meeting at MOW • Implementing Agency comparative advantages • Current Status of the Concepts • Approval of the Concepts • Way forward

2.0 RECAP OF THE FIRST NPFE MEETING AT NAIVASHA

The issues discussed and covered

• NPFE objectives • Global overview of GEF • GEF in Kenya • Implementing Agencies Presentations • Criteria/ Guiding Principles for prioritization • GEF Programmatic approach • Group Work- Areas of focus for the country • Plenary presentations on the screening of concepts • Way forward

Programmatic areas of approach as decided upon in Naivasha were on Energy and SFM /SLM REDD+.

The available budget as highlighted under the STAR allocation

Focal Area Amount USD SGP allocation Balance Land Degradation 4,260,000 1,944,000 2,316,000 Climate Change 5,000,000 1,512,000 3,488,000 Biodiversity 8,950,000 1,944,000 7,006,000 TOTAL 18,210,000 5,400,000 12,810,000 Agreed Way forward

• Regional projects deferred • Refinement of the two programmatic areas with appropriate titles • Exploration of non-STAR projects (IW and POPS) • Further cluster consultations • Adoption of workshop proceedings • Follow up meeting (31st March)

3.0 DELIBERATION OF THE SECOND NPFE MEETING AT MOW

Tasks for the follow up meeting held on 31st March, 2011 at MOW, South C

• Harmonization of the components within the two programmatic areas • Geographical focal areas • Budget Rationalization / Capture of incentive funds • Identification of IAs/EAs • Development of PIFs

Recommendations after Discussions Group 1: Agreed title program: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CONVERSION AND EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES (SECEUR) PROJECTS

a) Efficient Conversion of waste resources b) Energy Conservation and Efficiency

Project1: Efficient Conversion of waste resources PIF 1

Component 1: Work on waste for climate change in urban Kenya (UNEP) Component 2: Renewable energy from waste for industrial use in Kenya (UNIDO)

Project 2: Energy Conservation and Efficiency PIF 2

Component: Sustainable charcoal production and bio-energy technologies to reduce GHG emissions and promote income generating activities for livelihood improvement in ASALS of Kenya

GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE

Project 1 would cover Kisumu, Nairobi, Mombasa and Naivasha Project 2 would cover Baringo, Kwale & Tana River which are the ASAL areas and

presents no problems

BUDGET RATIONALIZATION Efficient Conversion of waste resources -3.0 million USD Energy efficiency - 1.5 million USD N/B: Climate Change total allocations under STAR is 3.488M USD therefore 1M USD will be sourced from LD IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

Project 1 -UNEP & UNIDO

Project 2 –UNDP DEVELOPMENT OF PIFs

Merge UNEP and UNIDO PIFs and refine further UNDP to refine the PIFs.

Group 2: INTEGRATED & SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES PROGRAMME Sub-theme outcomes

I. Enhancing protected areas networks management: Agreed to work together to harmonize but further consultation needed as the team agreed to have another meeting on Wednesday 6th April at UNEP to harmonise the concepts. This would give time for detailed reading of the concepts and better understanding to be able to provide a consolidated project concept. It was also agreed that the team would report back to NEMA on the agreed budget. The rationale being that the team needs to consult with the other members in order to harmonize legitimately. o Geographical area: Southern Rangelands

II. Forests: SFM, REDD+ and mangroves:

Agreed on three separate projects and narrowed down from 6 objectives to 2 objectives for the mangrove concept. It was felt that the implementing agency should be FAO; as it was started with UNEP as the implementing agency so we will need a tradeoff, determined by the impacts. For the mangrove concept UNEP will remain the implementing agency. o Geographical Area: Different Areas

III. SLM agro-ecosystems:

Agreed on common objectives (harmonised objectives) 1. Conduct ex-ante analyses that facilitate the development of appropriate baselines for

monitoring impacts on SLM and livelihoods (AGRA 1) 2. Interventions that upscale CA and appropriate SLM practices to improve livelihoods

across the landscape transect (combined FAO 3and AGRA 2) 3. Facilitate the development and implementation of strategies and policies that enhance

(a) on-farm tree intensification,(b) SLM and (c) agro-biodiversity(combined FAO 1&2 with AGRA 4) o Note: Opportunities exist in farm forestry which the new Constitution supports

4. Strengthening capacity for (a) integrating additional SLM practices and (b) monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (AGRA 3)

o Geographical focus changed from Mt. Kenya to Western Kenya

BUDGET PROPOSALS Programmatic Areas Budget (USD Millions)

Southern rangelands (wildlife) 4 Livelihood and SLM in western Kenya 2.5 Mangroves 1.5 SFM and REDD+ 2.5 Energy 3 TOTAL 13.5

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

• Noted ratio of 3:1 dollars if the projects are covering three focal areas - this would increase the amount for Kenya thus the need to be strategic.

• It was reiterated that this is the only opportunity where mangroves have been recognized as forests. It was narrowed down to do the management plan and climate preparedness; and even reduced the geographical areas. Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute and KFS were urged to work together due to the fact that the concept covers all three GEF focal areas.

• The following were suggested for budget proposal - assuming that energy will take up all the climate change allocation; following the total Kenya allocations there are four major areas:

o Southern rangelands (wildlife): 4m – huge area. Can get extra 1+m from incentive o Livelihood SLM in western Kenya: 2.5m o Mangroves: 1.5 m – concentrate on the management plan as a test case and then in

the next cycle have mangrove as a concept o SFM and REDD+: 2.5m – REDD is an area of focus at GEF. It may be a standalone

in the next GEF cycle (GEF 6) so we have to invest now. The total is 10.5m, leaving energy with CC 3.5m

Having had internal meetings at NEMA, it was agreed that the budget above was relatively reasonable. Over budgeting by US $ 2,000,000 could be tolerated as this was at the level of concepts and this could be reviewed with time.

WAY FORWARD

Members were urged to further refine the concepts and give the UN implementing agency with corresponding comparative advantage.

The OFP can look at the comparative advantage of the different agencies, but if members have suggestions it could be taken on board. However, it was reiterated that the executing agencies were free to decide which implementing agencies to work with. The executing agencies should be the national institutions with the mandate for each area.

Members were informed that the National Steering Committee will meet on 8th April to approve the concepts and therefore concepts should be sent to the OFP by 7th April. This will allow for circulation to the National Steering Committee. For PIFs, they should be at GEF by July for discussions at the November GEF Council.

However, the concepts did not reach the OFP by 7th as agreed and this called for postponement of the meeting to 15th April 2011. The purpose was to approve the concepts after which the OFP could endorse them.

4.0 IMPLEMENTING AGENCY COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES

Overall, the specific comparative advantage for each agency was by the chairman. He noted that there were 7 implementing agencies in Kenya as follows:

1) African Development Bank (AfDB)

AfDB’s comparative advantage for the GEF lies in its capacity as a regional development bank. The AfDB is, however, in the initial stages of tackling global environmental issues. Its environmental policy has only recently been approved and is in the process of being integrated into operations. The AfDB will focus on establishing a track record for environmental projects related to the GEF focal areas of Climate Change (adaptation, renewable energy and energy efficiency), Land Degradation (deforestation, desertification) and International Waters (water management and fisheries).

2) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

FAO’s comparative advantage for the GEF is its technical capacity and experience in fisheries, forestry, agriculture, and natural resources management. The FAO has strong experience in sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, bioenergy, biosafety, sustainable development in production landscapes, and integrated pest and pesticides management.

3) International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

IFAD’s comparative advantage for the GEF lies in its work related to land degradation, rural sustainable development, integrated land management, and its role in the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. IFAD has been working intensively in marginal lands, degraded ecosystems and in post-conflict situations.

4) United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

UNDP’s comparative advantage for the GEF lies in its global network of country offices, its experience in integrated policy development, human resources development, institutional strengthening, and non-governmental and community participation. UNDP assists countries in promoting, designing and implementing activities consistent with both the GEF mandate and national sustainable development plans. UNDP also has extensive inter-country programming experience.

5) United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)

UNEP’s comparative advantage for the GEF is related to its being the only United Nations organization with a mandate derived from the General Assembly to co-ordinate the work of the United Nations in the area of environment and whose core business is the environment. UNEP’s comparative strength is in providing the GEF with a range of relevant experiences, proof of concept, testing of ideas, and the best available science and knowledge upon which it can base its investments. It also serves as the Secretariat to three of the MEAs, for which GEF is the/a

financial mechanism. UNEP’s comparative advantage also includes its ability to serve as a broker in multi-stakeholder consultations.

6) United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

UNIDO’s comparative advantage for the GEF is that it can involve the industrial sector in GEF projects in the following areas: industrial energy efficiency, renewable energy services, water management, chemicals management (including POP and ODS), and biotechnology. UNIDO also has extensive knowledge of small and medium enterprises (SME’s) in developing and transition economy countries.

7) World Bank

The World Bank’s comparative advantage for the GEF is as a leading international financial institution at the global scale in a number of sectors, similar to the comparative advantage of the regional development banks. The World Bank has strong experience in investment lending focusing on institution building, infrastructure development and policy reform, across all the focal areas of the GEF.

5.0 CURRENT STATUS AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTS

Project Title: Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management to enhance payment of ecosystem services and support for REDD + Readiness activities in Kenya Comments and Suggestions It was noted that the component of REDD+ retained in the concept to act as a pilot area so that in the next GEF cycle (GEF 6) it would be a standalone project and SFM while being important for the country will help in leveraging for the incentive funds.

Members noted that there was need to give a strong statistical background in the short description of the project and the language and body should be restructured to show some technical rigor and clarity. It was highlighted that each component should be drafted within a framework where output/outcomes can be seen.

The quality of work presented should be improved upon and the background of the concepts should be linked to the various policies in the forest sector.

Members proposed that one or more forest areas should cited in order to avoid losing out in the funding given the political environment in the Mau.

The concept was approved but the above comments should be incorporated.

Project Title: Conservation of Kenya Mangrove Forests and associated ecosystems

Comments and Suggestions

Members noted that there was need to give a strong statistical background for the short description of the project. It was noted that the mangrove concept should be linked with other concepts within its programmatic area hence achieve feasibility since this is a challenge if left as a standalone project.

Members reiterated that the aspect of replanting should be highlighted in the objective (2) as part of carbon offset projects thus it can be justified at the end of the project of an increase in the area covered by the mangroves.

It was noted that there is need to justify how mangrove rehabilitation will curb Climate Change.

Members noted that the PIFs should define the two objectives to avoid rejection by the GEFSEC by elaborating on the tangible areas or benefits (outputs) by this particular project.

The concept was approved but the above comments should be incorporated.

Project Title: Sustainable Charcoal Production and Bio-energy Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and promote Income Generating Activities for livelihood improvement in arid and Semi-Arid lands of Kenya.

Comments and Suggestions Members noted that there was need to give more statistical background for the short description of the project. It was highlighted that the component should be drafted within a framework where output/outcomes can be seen.

Project Title: Scaling up the Environmental and Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Land Management practices in Western Kenya


Members noted that there was need to give a strong statistical background for the short description of the project and address all the objectives in the short description. It was highlighted that each component should be drafted within a framework where output/outcomes can be seen.

It was noted that objectives 2, 3, 4 are solid outcomes and there was need to replace the word ‘conduct’ in objective 1 with ‘develop’.

Members proposed that objective 2 could be used as the project title as it highlighted more on the project areas of focus and the last sentence in the short description should replace objective 2.

Project Title: Sustainable Conversion of Waste into clean Energy and other Resources


Members noted that there was need to give a strong statistical background for the short description of the project and address all the objectives in the short description in order to improve the justification of the actions to be undertaken. It was highlighted that each component should be drafted within a framework where output/outcomes can be seen.

Members proposed that this being a pilot (experimental) project there was need to reduce the funding to 2.5M USD and some amount be allocated to Sustainable charcoal production concept since it was a massive project.

Members reiterated that the PIFs when they will be done capture all the areas of focus in the project and should also explain or show how to generate power from these wastes at a massive scale. It was not that the project title should have highlighted the fact that the technologies are available and that there was need to Upscale.

It was noted that the concept should also focus on what is to be benefited from the project vis-à-vis the problems experienced in the waste sector. There should be an articulation on the transfer of technologies from a different region and its going to remove the barriers thus acts as a background to the project. This can be done by including examples to what this particular project is building on.

Project Title: Enhancing Wildlife Conservation in the Productive Southern Kenya Rangelands: Institutional Capacity, Ecological Viability and Economic Diversification

AND

Project Title: Enhancing the ecological integrity of the Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem through sustainable management and utilization of the natural resources for improved livelihoods and poverty reduction


Members reiterated that they stand by the decision made on 31st March, 2011 that implementing agencies should work together, while respecting the fact that one agency had presented its concept earlier before the other to the OFP.

WAYFORWARD

Members noted that more time was needed to improve on the concepts submitted and this could be done through engaging technical consultants by looking at the existing PIFs to understand the level of detail and clarity needed. Members also proposed that the EAs should look at the previous concepts developed to make reference where necessary.

Members noted concepts should be made clear to avoid rejection. However, improvements could still be done at PIFs stage.

Members noted that some of the project can also go regional for instance the waste to energy concept.

Note: Deadline for PIFs submission is July, 2011

There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 4.00pm by the Chair.

ANNEX

Brief Project Concepts (one page)

Project Title: Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management to enhance payment of ecosystem services and support for REDD + Readiness activities in Kenya Programme

Clean energy Waste-to Energy Food Security Sustainable Landscapes

What are the objectives of the project? Overall objective is to develop enabling framework, tools, capacities and processes for mainstreaming SFM in Kenya Specific Objectives:

1. Participatory development of sustainable forest management (SFM) strategy 2. Support to the REDD+ RPP implementation in Kenya 3. Development of PES framework and piloting in Mau-Narok ecosystem

Short description of the project: Over the years Kenya’s protected and non-protected forests have continued to be degraded and reduced due to a combination of excisions and conversion to other competing uses. This has led to loss of biodiversity and other ecosystem goods and services in the affected areas. The promulgation of the new Kenyan constitution offers a new opportunity to involve county governments in SFM programmes that will result in multiple environmental and social benefits. The proposed interventions will contribute to the objectives of Kenya’s Vision 2030 of attaining 10% forest cover by 2030. Specifically, the project seeks to support the implementation of REDD + strategy through development of the Reference Emission level (REL) and an MRV system. These three key outputs are mandatory requirements for developing countries wishing to participate in REDD+ as a climate change mitigation process under the UNFCCC. The project will also provide a framework that will support payment for environmental and ecosystem services including carbon. The proposal is premised on the fact that community and private sector involvement in environmental conservation initiatives need to be adequately incentivized for them to be sustainable. Apart from developing the framework and the tools the proposed project will also build capacities of the county governments and Community Forest Associations (CFA) in SFM to enhance environmental and socio-economic benefits. The overall outcomes of the project will contribute multiple global environmental benefits of biodiversity conservation, reversing land degradation and mitigation on climate change. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): USD 2.5 million (LD – 1M, BD 1M, CC 0.5M) What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? Kenya has developed the National Climate Change Response Strategy to mainstream mitigation and adaptation programmes into the national development plans. KFS mandate is to conserve, develop and sustainably manage forestry resources and has a number of running programmes financed by the government and other developing partners. Kenya also is among countries selected by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) with commitment amounting to USD 3.4 million to start developing REDD readiness activities. The Government of Finland is currently supporting

X

implementation of forest sector reforms in Kenya Forest Service while African Development Bank is currently implementing Green Zones Development project, an initiative that seeks to secure all protected forest reserves. FAO has had long term partnership with KFS with support of policy and institutional restructuring and conservation of Mau forest complex. KFS and partners have a number of ongoing collaborative programmes that promotes Sustainable Forest Management which could be linked to the proposed project to secure co-financing. Potential GEF Agency: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Executing Agencies: International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), University of Nairobi, Kenya Forestry Service, NETFUND

Project Title: Conservation of Kenya Mangrove Forests and associated ecosystems Programme: Clean energy □ Waste –to Energy □ Food security x Sustainable Landscapes x What are the objectives of the project?

1) Sustain the supply of mangrove goods and services through development and implementation of site specific mangrove management plan ( and integrate this plan with the rest of the coastal zone management)

2) Institute climate change preparedness for Kenya mangrove forests and associated ecosystem- through vulnerability assessment, adaptation planning, and development of carbon offset projects

Short Description Of The Project Kenya mangroves occupy protected shorelines, lagoons, creeks and estuarine distributed all along the 600km coastline. The total mangrove area in Kenya is estimated at 610 km2 (61,000 ha); representing only 3% of natural forests or 1% of the country’s area. Mangrove forest provides an immense array of ecosystem goods and services that are of ecological, environmental and economic importance to the coastal communities as well as the national economy. It support fishery- which is vital food security issue in the region, contribute to sequestration of carbon, protect the coastline from erosion and shields the adjacent infrastructure from adverse weather phenomena, including the tsunami. Degradation has occurred with great losses, for example over 20-30% of the mangroves have been lost in the past 25 years. By developing operational plans, the project aims at reducing loss and degradation of mangrove forests. This would in turn result in an increased availability of mangrove forest resources and in the maintenance of biodiversity, and ultimately, would contribute to the well-being of the coastal communities. Thus, contributing to the poverty alleviation and to the promotion of sustainable coastal development - the ultimate goal of the Kenya Vision 2030 and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The project activities are in line with defined targets of COP 10 and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; that seek to promote biodiversity conservation at landscape levels. The project underscores the important role mangrove play in mitigating climate change; and would thus promote offset activities as spelt out in Cancun Agreements (2011) on REDD+. According to Kenya’s National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS), climate variations have had adverse effects on mangrove forests through siltation and rising sea levels. This project will conduct vulnerability mapping that will be used

to develop mitigation and adaptation plans for mangroves. The project will cover the entire Kenya coastline. The executing agency of the project will be the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI). Other partners in the project includes; Kenya Forest Service (KFS), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), National Environment Management Authority, and the local communities. Amount In Dollars Of The Project (From STAR Allocations) US$1,500,000 What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing?

a) Academic research done: Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) has and still is undertaking extensive research on mangroves which forms the basis of this project

b) Isolated rehabilitation of degraded mangroves has been carried out at Gazi bay and Mida creek

c) This project will also seek to complement the activities of Biodiversity and Natural resource component of the GEF/WB Kenya Coastal Development Project

The work of UNEP GEF: d) Through the IW focal area, UNEP has participated either as lead GEF agency or as

partner agency in the development of SAPs for 3 major Large marine ecosystems (LMEs) i.e. Guinea, Benguela and Agulhas currents which articulate actions required for coastal zones through SAPs- including work on mangrove ecosystems. The Canary current LME project was recently started and UNEP is the main GEF agency

e) Mangroves for the future project (MFF) (non-GEF): This is an initiative led by IUCN, UNDP and UNEP for restoration of coastal ecosystems for Indian Ocean Countries.

Co- financing envisaged: US$ 3,500,000 Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNEP

Project Title: Sustainable Charcoal Production and Bio-energy Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and promote Income Generating Activities for livelihood improvement in arid and Semi-Arid lands of Kenya. Note: This proposed project idea is an evolution from the GEF IV MSP PIF entitled Kenya: SIP-Promoting Private Public Partnerships in Sustainable Management of Natural Resources for Sustainable Energy Production and Poverty Alleviation in the Arid Lands of Kenya which was approved by GEFSEC in April 2008. In April 2009 the GoK decided that the funding proposed under the MSP was inadequate to comprehensively address the issues involved and decided to cancel the project and upgrade the project to a FSP under GEF V. Hence the development of the proposed new project drawing on some of the preparatory work done under the PPG phase of the MSP project mentioned above. Programme Sustainable Landscapes What are the objectives of the project?

The objective of the project will be to create an enabling environment (adequate governance and institutional capacity) coupled with the development of appropriate financial incentives (including a carbon finance component) and technology platforms (improved kilns) for the adoption of sustainable charcoal and SLM practices and technologies to reduce GHG emissions

x

and increase incomes for low-income rural households in targeted areas. Proposed individual components are still in the process of being elaborated with relevant stakeholders.

Short description of the project

Charcoal provides domestic energy for 82% of urban and 34% of rural households in Kenya. Meanwhile of Kenya’s total land area of 57.6 million hectares, 84% is arid and semi arid (ASAL). Given the low national forest cover of about 6%, it is estimated that over 75% of the 1.6 to 2.4 million tons of charcoal used in the country annually is unsustainably harvested from these arid and semi-arid lands. The working hypotheses of this project is that sustainable charcoal practices offer an opportunity to improve existing charcoal production and consumption, reducing the pressure on carbon stocks and reducing GHG emissions while simultaneously increasing energy access and incomes to drive local economic development. The proposed project will complement the development of similar projects under discussion in neighboring countries.

Project Budget (STAR): $ 2.0 million over 4 years (drawing from both CCM and LD allocations, as well as SFM; includes agency fees)

Baseline – Kenya Forest Service, and other investments amounting to over US$8 million GEF Agency - UNDP

Project Title: Scaling up the Environmental and Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Land Management practices in Western Kenya Programme: Clean energy Waste-to Energy Food Security Sustainable Landscapes

What are the objectives of the project?

1. Conduct an ex-ante analysis that facilitates the development of appropriate baselines for monitoring impacts on SLM and livelihoods;

2. Upscale conservation agriculture (CA) and appropriate SLM practices to control land degradation, promote sustainable use of agro-biodiversity and improve livelihoods across the landscape transect;

3. Facilitate the development and implementation of strategies and policies that enhance on-farm tree intensification, SLM and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity;

4. Strengthening the capacity of local communities for monitoring, evaluation and integrating SLM practices to enhance resilience to effects of climate change.

Short description of the project The population pressure in western Kenya is exerting a lot of pressure on the limited land resources. This has led to subdivision of land into smaller and uneconomical units. The unsustainable land use practices has in many areas led to land degradation, loss of indigenous agro-biodiversity and increased vulnerability to livelihoods. . The project objective is to mainstream sustainable land management practices across the productive landscapes in western Kenya through

scaled up integrated interventions that improve soil fertility and productivity, conservation agriculture (CA) and the sustainable production and utilization of agro-biodiversity in smallholder farms. Promotion of CA and agro-biodiversity conservation in combination with traditional knowledge systems will build the resilience of vulnerable communities against the effects of climate change that is often manifested in within season long dry spells. This increase the production risks but provides opportunities for intensifying agrobiodiversity within the system. The project will support measures that recognize and protects farmers’ traditional agricultural knowledge and genetic resources such as crop varieties and livestock breeds. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): US$ 2.5 million (BD $1.5 million; CC $0.75 million, LD $0.75million) over 4 years across three GEF5 focal areas - biodiversity (BD- 2), climate change (CCM-5) and land degradation (LD-1 & 3). What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? The proposed project will build on two existing Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) projects in Western Kenya, each targeting 30,000 farmers with Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) practices that incorporate grain legumes into cropping systems and strengthen links to markets. The proposed project will scale up these activities and incorporate additional interventions, including greater nutrient cycling through the legumes and their biological nitrogen fixation, quality compost production, conservation agriculture (CA), agroforestry and water management. Altogether, the expected impact of the project will be sizable multiple environmental benefits – as well as increasing smallholder resiliency to climate change – food security and income improvements. AGRA’s Soil Health Program has existing and planned investments (as indicated above) in Kenya totaling $3 million. Other ongoing initiatives that the project could be linked to include; The National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP) that facilitates sustainable agriculture and livestock husbandry practices; the Arid lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP) that promotes natural resource management and food security in ASALs; the German funded FAO project on Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Project (CA SARD) which aims to facilitate and accelerating the adoption of profitable conservation agriculture practices by small farmers in Kenya and Tanzania; Supporting Food Security and Reducing Poverty in Kenya and Tanzania Through Dynamic Conservation of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) also funded by the German government and implemented by FAO. Potential GEF Agency(ies): UNEP and FAO (in collaboration with Ministry of Agriculture and AGRA)

Project Title: Sustainable Conversion of Waste into clean Energy and other Resources. Programme: Clean energy Waste-to Energy Food Security Sustainable Landscapes What are the objectives of the project? The project aims demonstrate how clean energy can be derived from effective management of waste that would otherwise be an environmental hazard. This will be done by collection, sorting and processing of waste and converting it to energy. Other fractions will be composted, while recyclables will be collected and recycled allowing cost recovery in waste management that aims to achieving social and environmental benefits. Short description of the project Management of waste in Kenya presents many challenges and most of the time the waste is disposed in a way that pollutes the environment and contribute to increase in GHGs.

At the same time a large percentage of people lack access to basic energy for domestic use and for industrial processing.

Conversion of this waste into clean energy is one of the ways this problem can be addressed. This by adopting state of the art waste management techniques that achieve maximum (environmental and social-economic) benefits through appropriate solutions regarding waste collection and processing.

However, high upfront costs of investment in modern waste management techniques and renewable energy technologies (RETs); inadequate legal & institutional framework; limited technical & institutional capacity in both the public and private sector to implement and manage these investments; lack of appropriate financing mechanisms; among others are the barriers that hinder the development of these technologies.

In the proposed project, UNIDO and UNEP will join forces in addressing the above barriers by working on a joint program that develops and clearly demonstrates models on how waste can be converted to clean energy as a way of its effective management.

The major components of the proposed project include:

• Installing demonstration waste to energy units that generate electricity from waste using various technologies using Urban, industrial, farm and institutional waste.

• Capacity building at institutional and human level in the area of renewable energy. This by supporting the formation of a Regional Center for Renewable Energy in conjunction with local research institutions, to enhance the human capacity in the field of Renewable Energy and Waste management.

• Strengthening of supporting enforcement policy, standards and regulations in the area of waste management and renewable energy development

Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations): US$ 2,500,000

What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? Currently, there are pilot projects (one which UNIDO and UNEP Collaborated in setting up) that

convert waste to energy and the aim is to upscale these with co-financing from partners that include. Private Sector, UN organizations, Government Ministries of Environment, Energy, Industry, Livestock and Government affiliated institutions like REA, KIRDI. KenGen (Kenya's national power utility), is currently undertaking a feasibility study to see how waste can be used as a source of energy and are willing project partners

The co-financing amounting to US$ 20,000,000 is envisaged to be provided by all of the above Partners with the Ministry of Environment being the key player. Potential GEF Agency (ies): UNIDO, UNEP

Project Title: Enhancing Wildlife Conservation in the Productive Southern Kenya Rangelands: Institutional Capacity, Ecological Viability and Economic Diversification Programme: Sustainable Landscapes

What are the objectives of the project? Component 1: Policy and Institutional Capacity to Support Mainstreaming of Biodiversity Conservation into the existing production system and strategies enhanced;

Component 2: Skills and knowledge based planning applied to increase the ecological viability of the Amboseli (to safeguard biodiversity and livelihoods;

Component 3: Financial incentives for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in the southern rangelands enhanced (such as biodiversity friendly income generating activities that improve local economic development and livelihoods).

Kenya’s network of protected areas is concentrated in the Southern Maasai rangelands which harbor the highest densities of large mammals in the country, with particularly high abundance of migratory large mammals. These rangelands are also host to the world renowned migratory routes including Serengeti-Mara and other lesser known routes through Amboseli into Kilimanjaro. The rangelnads are also home to the Maasai pastoralists, who have inhabited southern Kenya for roughly over three hundred years. The community developed a nomadic pastoral lifestyle that allowed them to co-exist with the wildlife, with many traditional range management practices aimed at maximizing human wellbeing while protecting the integrity of the ecosystem. Seasonal migration and the ololili, (dry season refugia) are particularly well suited to sustainable exploitation of the rangelands by both wildlife and people. However this traditional land use system has been weakened by inappropriate development interventions over time and, as practiced today, has lost its effectiveness in promoting conservation objectives. Today, the livelihoods of the Maasai pastoralists and biodiversity of the southern rangelands ecosystem are threatened by declining ecological integrity resulting from land fragmentation driven by changes in land use, inadequate knowledge based planning and growing poverty among local communities, in the face of a high return tourism industry. The project will tackle the interconnected threats of ecosystem fragmentation, biodiversity loss, increasing levels of vulnerability and economic decline amongst Maasai pastoralists through improving the viability of the ecosystem by restoring the interconnectedness between the various parts of the ecosystem. This will allow free seasonal movement of both wildlife and livestock. The project will support the relevant stakeholders to use the existing governance structures of Maasai pastoral community, combined with the reality in the current national governance to find a solution that allows free

movement of wildlife and livestock. Free movement of wildlife and livestock will be promoted by creating connectivity between PAs, group ranches and private lands, particularly the Kaputei south, Lengesim, Lolarashi, Mbirikani, Endonet and linking to the PAs of such as Amboseli National Park as well as Chyulu West conservation area.

It will contribute to BD Objective 2: Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into production landscapes and sectors. It will ensure that measures to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity are incorporated in policy and regulatory frameworks, create institutional and individual capacity for biodiversity friendly management practices and directly increase the hectarage of sustainably managed landscapes that that integrate biodiversity conservation in the country.

Project Budget (STAR): USD 4 million over 5 years (2012-2016) (including agency fee of 10%)

Baseline – KWS and other investments amounting to over USD 10 million (2011 – 202016); GEF Agency - UNDP

Project Title: Enhancing the ecological integrity of the Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem through sustainable management and utilization of the natural resources for improved livelihoods and poverty reduction Programme: Clean energy Waste-to Energy Food Security Sustainable Landscapes What are the objectives of the project? 1. To maximize ecological and economic benefits from Maasai communal lands in the Tsavo-Chyulu

– Amboseli ecosystem. 2. To ensure the long term ecological viability of the Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem by

maintaining wildlife dispersal areas and migration corridors and enhancing connectivity through community conservancies on the Maasai Group Ranches.

3. To prevent land degradation in the Maasai Group Ranches by developing sustainable ecologically sensitive land use practices and conservation compatible alternative livelihoods ensuring conservation and sustainable use of the natural resources directly benefit the local Maasai communities.

4. To prevent adverse land use changes in Maasai Group Ranches and to ensure the community is better able to adapt to and mitigate impacts from climate change through the conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks.

5. To ensure the local communities are better able to use, manage and monitor their natural resources sustainably by strengthening the capacity of local communities and institutions.

The Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem is recognized for its high biodiversity, importance to the national economy through its tourism revenues and vital watershed providing water to around 7 million Kenyans. The National Parks lie within a human dominated landscape and the overall health of this ecosystem is reliant on the 6000km2 of Maasai owned land, with the majority of the wildlife spending at least part of the year on the community land. Historically, conservation efforts have focused on the National Parks with community conservation initiatives being a bi-product of protected area management. Successful conservation impacts across this ecosystem have been limited due to the difficulty of working within the Maasai communities, the lack of authentic community-based implementing partners and the lack of good governance structures and transparency within the communities.

The Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust (MWCT) has developed an innovative and unique approach to conservation issues within Maasai communally owned land and provides a valuable opportunity to successfully leverage conservation benefits in the Maasai Group Ranches of the Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem. MWCT is a grass roots community conservation trust established by the Maasai community of Kuku Group Ranch, Maasai communally owned land, bordering Tsavo West and Chyulu National Park covering 1133km2. MWCT has been working within the Maasai communities for over 10 years with demonstrated capabilities of implementing effective conservation programmes. Employing 200 people, the vast majority from the local community, MWCT is led by a Maasai president and supported by professional conservation practitioners anchored in the community to ensure that the well being of the community is achieved through the sustainable management of their natural resources. MWCT works to promote direct benefits from wildlife and sustainable natural resource management and prevent unsustainable land use change from pastoral to sub-lease subsistence agriculture which reduces the long term viability of the ecosystem, lowers water availability and impacts community livelihoods. These have been addressed through biodiversity conservation (wildlife security, monitoring and mitigating human-wildlife conflict), sustainable economic development and land use (conservancy lease deals), climate change adaptation and mitigation (carbon credit projects and alternative fuel sources) and local capacity building. We are proposing a GEF multi-focal area grant addressing biodiversity (BD- 1 & 2), climate change (CCM-5) and land degradation (LD-1 & 2 as well as Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The Tsavo-Chyulu-Amboseli ecosystem has national biodiversity importance protecting key wildlife populations alongside threatened species of global value, five mammals listed on the IUCN red list of threatened species including the critically endangered Black Rhino. The project will ensure long term persistence of these and other species within the ecosystem through wildlife security measures and securing ecosystem functionality at a landscape level through connectivity maintenance and enhancement. MWCT is the first organization to successfully negotiate a conservancy deal on a Maasai Group Ranch within the critical Amboseli-Chyulu migration corridor, demonstrating the possibilities of extending the wildlife conservation network across communal land. Grassland reserves, wildlife habitat, migration corridors and wetland areas have been identified to be included within a conservancy model demonstrating an effective collaboration between conservation and development goals. The conservancies provide economically viable land use alternatives to unsustainable land use practices such as water intensive farming. We have demonstrated to the community that land protection and conservancy leases are viable options supporting community development and now need to be taken to scale, extended as a set of ecosystem style solutions to protect the animal dispersal areas and wildlife corridors between Amboseli, Tsavo and Chyulu National Park. Rigorous, transparent mechanisms to ensure broad based individual benefit sharing are being developed. To further improve economic returns to the community, the possibility of creating a community black rhino sanctuary within these conservancies is being discussed with KWS. Developing sustainable land management practices across the Group Ranches supporting biodiversity conservation, human wellbeing and economic development is critical. The project will address the issues of competing land uses and the development of unsustainable land use practices by directly addressing land degradation issues in terms of prevention, control and rehabilitation. Land degradation in arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) can have huge social impacts on the communities as well as devastating consequences for biodiversity and natural resources. By recognizing the real

economic values of ecosystems at a local and national level, combined with the social and economic costs to the communities of losing their natural resources, the project will develop land use and management plans to address protection of critical ecosystem services, community development and sustainable use of natural resources. This will endeavor to support both climate change adaptation and mitigation, reducing the vulnerability of the community to the impacts of climate change such as increased frequency and prolonged droughts. This will take into account the need to achieve poverty reduction in these areas directly addressing the long term consequences of continued rangeland degradation to pastoralist communities, poor access to water and poor management of limited water supply. MWCT is presently developing a multitude of direct community benefits from sustainable natural resource use and good land use planning, promoting conservation. These include revenue from ecotourism activities on the Group Ranch, conservancy lease deals, local employment, health and education. In addition, it is developing funding mechanisms from Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). PES of biodiversity has been running for over 3 years through the Wildlife Pays programme, reducing the cost of living with wildlife by implementing a livestock compensation scheme paid by tourists coming to see the wildlife. The proposed project will upscale these best practices across the ecosystem through sustainable funding mechanisms, working with tourism operators in the National Parks and on the Group Ranches. The Chyulu Hills is a vital water catchment feeding into Mzima Springs and providing the only permanent source of water into the Tsavo West National Park. The Mzima pipeline provides water to an estimated 7 million people. This watershed is vital for Kenya yet the Chyulu forest is currently under serious threat. Falling under the Chyulu National Park and on two Maasai owned Group Ranches, protecting the forest requires a multi-stakeholder approach. Initial stages are underway in developing a carbon credit project from the Chyulu forest involving Group Ranch and national stakeholders, as well as a PES assessment for the community’s role in protecting the watershed and critical water sources. The project will engage with national partners through the Chyulu National Park and Kibwezi Forest Reserve as well as the adjacent Kamba communities to the East, to ensure the protection of these valuable forests. The need to decrease pressure on natural habitats in ASALs in particular wetlands and water sources, and provide viable, sustainable and long term solutions to the community is essential for the long term protection of this ecosystem. Support in identifying and promoting conservation compatible livelihoods and enterprise will be part of the solution. Ultimately, the viability of this ecosystem is reliant on the local communities and the need to increase local capacity is crucial. Empowering local communities and building capacity is a critical element ensuring they are able to manage their natural resources more wisely. Amount in dollars of the project (from the STAR allocations) US $6 million and US 2 million from SFM (total US$ 8 million) over 5 years across three GEF5 focal areas - biodiversity (BD- 1& 2), climate change (CCM-5) and land degradation (LD-1 & 2). What existing investments will this project be linked to? In other words, are there any ongoing projects that this will be linked to and what is the envisaged co-financing? This project will be linked to the activities of MWCT. MWCT envisages providing co-finance as well as bringing non-financial assets including technical expertise and capacity. MWCT has a demonstrated capability of raising funds of over $1 million/year to support core programme

activities including overall operating costs and specific programmatic funding for conservation, health and education programmes. MWCT has demonstrated strong success in public relations and grass roots funding campaigns through platforms such as crowdrise (www.crowdrise.com/maasaiwilderness) including the highly publicized Maasai-NY marathon which raised over $1.2 million. This project will also benefit from the current finances from KWS and other stakeholders within the ecosystem. The partnership with the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) will support the species specific research, monitoring and conservation activities. ZSL have been working in Kenya for over 20 years with strong partnership with KWS, in particular in their endangered species work with black rhino, and in the development of national species management strategies. Conservation International has been working with MWCT on developing Payment for Ecosystem Services in particular on a carbon project around the Chyulu forest and Maasai Group Ranches and watershed protection and water services. Pavan Sukhdev, author of the UN report TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) and Board member of MWCT will provide technical expertise on calculating the real value of ecosystem services and biodiversity for local communities and incorporating the value of nature into decision-making. Google Earth Outreach has chosen MWCT as one of their focal charities and provides technical expertise and capabilities in Google analytic tools. Texas A&M University is partnering with MWCT in the monitoring and management of rangelands. AECOM, a Fortune 500 company with enormous capabilities in environmental research and planning are providing pro-bono support including the development of work materials. MWCT partners closely with the Maasailand Preservation Trust, a Maasai community trust working on a neighbouring group ranch. MWCT works closely with KWS and is in the process of developing a formal MOU between the two organizations to strengthen this collaboration. Potential GEF Agency (ies) UNEP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

NAME INSTITUTION EMAIL PHONE NO. Shamsi Mohamud KMUNON [email protected]

om 0722865873

John K. Maina Ministry of Energy [email protected] 0722655161 Lucy W. Ng’ang’a Ministry of Agriculture [email protected] 0721884693 Nancy Chege GEF SGP [email protected] 762-4473 Stanley Atsali KIPI [email protected] 0717269813 Winnie Cheruiyot NEMA [email protected] 0721517911 Stanley Owuor NEMA [email protected] 0723482487 Joseph Masinde NEMA [email protected] 0722756863 Muitungi Mwai NEMA [email protected] 0722760292 Paul Matiku Nature Kenya [email protected] 0722800394 Jane Kibwage Ministry of Fisheries [email protected] 0722715517 Mercy M. Munyoki KMUNON [email protected] 0718010177 Paul Omondi NEMA [email protected] 0720765445 Wilson Busienei NEMA [email protected] 0722232034

proceedings of the gef national portfolio

Documents