Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Republic of Kenya

IPP377 v2

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK (Ogiek and

Sengwer)

For

KENYA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND AGRIBUSINESS PROJECT (KAPAP)

ANDKENYA ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN ARID AND SEMI-ARID LANDS PROJECT

(KACCAL)May, 2009

Revised October 2012

Table of contentsTABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................. 2

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................................... 3

LIST OF PHOTOS.......................................................................................................................................... 3

ACRONYMNS................................................................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 5

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 13

The KAPAP project components.......................................................................................................................14KACCAL Components.......................................................................................................................................16

NORTH P.................................................................................................................................................... 20

3 GROUPS THAT MEET THE O.P. 4.10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AFFECTED BY THE TWO PROJECTS........................................................................................................................................ 21

3.1 OGIEK......................................................................................................................................................233.1.1 History...........................................................................................................................................243.1.2 Livelihood.....................................................................................................................................243.1.3 Social organization....................................................................................................................27

3.2 SENGWER................................................................................................................................................283.2.1 History............................................................................................................................................283.2.2 Livelihood......................................................................................................................................293.2.3 Social organization....................................................................................................................31

3.3 HUNTER-GATHERERS: DEVELOPMENT VISIONS AND KEY ISSUES.........................................................313.4 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................32

5 FRAMEWORK FOR FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSULTATION (FPIC).............37

5.1 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ORIENTATION AND MOBILIZATION....................................................................375.2 CONSULTATIONS WITH INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.......................................................................................385.3 MAPPING OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES CRITICAL TO IP.........................................................................385.4 DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR PARTICIPATION OF IP AND MITIGATION MEASURES.....................395.5 CAPACITY BUILDING................................................................................................................................425.6 ESTABLISH EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION OF IP IN DECISION MAKING ORGANS WITHIN THE TWO PROJECTS.............................................................................................................................................................42

6 THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK OF THE TWO PROJECTS. . .42

7 INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNICATION ARRANGEMENTS...........................................45

8 GRIEVANCE PROCESSES.............................................................................................................. 48

9 MONITORING AND EVALUATION MECHANISMS................................................................51

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................................ 42

ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................................... 45

ANNEX 1: PROCESS AND ITINERARY FOR CONSULTATION WITH IP (KAPSLMP)..........................................45ANNEX 2: PEOPLES AND ORGANIZATIONS DIRECTLY CONSULTED.................................................................47

2

ANNEX 3: OP. 4.10: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.................................................................................................49ANNEX A: SOCIAL ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................56ANNEX B INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANS............................................................................................................56ANNEX 4: PROCEEDINGS AND PARTICIPANTS OF THE KAPAP DISCLOSURE.....................................................58WORKSHOPS.........................................................................................................................................................581.5 ATTENDANCE LIST...................................................................................................................................602. STAKEHOLDERS MEETING HELD AT EMBU, EAST COLLEGE.............................................................................612.3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS.....................................................................................................................653 WORKSHOP FOR DISCLOSURE OF DRAFT SAFEGUARD DOCUMENTS HELD AT ST MARYS PASTORAL INSTITUTE NAKURU..............................................................................................................................................65

ANNEX 5.......................................................................................................................................................... 72

KAPAP IP CONSULTATIONS.............................................................................................................................. 72

A. SENGWER PARTICIPATION IN TALAU – WEST POKOT (DAY 1 – 25/4/2011)...............................................72

B. SENGWER PARTICIPATION IN TALAU – WEST POKOT (DAY 2 – 26/4/2011)............................................................74A. SENGWER PARTICIPATION IN KAPOLET – TRANS NZOIA EAST DISTRICT (DAY 1 – 27/4/2011).......................................77B. SENGWER PARTICIPATION IN KAPOLET – TRANS NZOIA EAST DISTRICT (DAY 2 – 28/4/2011).......................................80C. OGIEK PARTICIPATION IN NESSUIT – NJORO DISTRICT, NAKURU (DAY 1 – 29/4/2011)...............................................85D. OGIEK PARTICIPATION IN NESSUIT – NJORO DISTRICT, NAKURU (DAY 2 – 30/4/2011)...............................................87E. Workshop Timetable...................................................................................................................................91

LIST OF TABLESTABLE 1: A MATRIX SHOWING LOCALITY OF MARGINALIZED GROUPS THAT MEET THE WORLD BANK’S OP 4.10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WITHIN THE TWO PROJECTS’ OPERATIONAL AREAS...................................................................7

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF WHAT THE TWO PROJECTS REFLECT IN THEIR DOCUMENTATION............................................9

TABLE 3: PROJECTS’ OPERATIONAL AREAS................................................................................................................20

TABLE 4: POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF KAPAP AND KACCAL ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES................................................35

TABLE 5: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FOR KAPAP AND KACCAL IPPF..........................................................53

TABLE 6: COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION DURING DISCLOSURE FORUM.........................................................................59

TABLE 7: KARI MTWAPA - ATTENDANCE LIST..........................................................................................................60

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF PHOTOS

3

ACRONYMNS ADC – Agricultural Development CorporationASAL – Arid and Semi-Arid LandsASDS – Agriculture Sector Development StrategyASPSC – Agriculture Sector Programs Steering CommitteeCAC – Catchment Area CoordinatorCAPs – Community Action PlansCBO – Community –Based OrganizationCCC – Climate Change CoordinatorCDD – Community Driven-DevelopmentCIG – Common Interest GroupGoK – Government of KenyaICC – Inter-Ministerial Coordinating CommitteeIDA – International Development AssociationILO – International Labour OrganizationIP – Indigenous PeoplesIPO – Indigenous Peoples’ OrganizationIPPF – Indigenous Peoples’ Plan FrameworkKACCAL – Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-Arid LandsKAPAP – Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness ProjectKAPSLMP – Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management ProjectKARI – Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteKENFAP – Kenya Federation of Agricultural ProducersKFS – Kenya Forest ServiceKIFCON – Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation ProjectKWS – Kenya Wildlife ServiceME – Monitoring and EvaluationMTP – Medium Term PlanNARS – National Agricultural Research SystemsNASEP – National Agricultural Sector Extension PolicyNGO – Non- Governmental OrganizationNRM – Natural Resource ManagementNRMP – Natural Resource Management ProjectOP – Operational PolicyPDO – Project Development ObjectivePES – Payment for Environmental ServicesPME – Participatory Monitoring and EvaluationPRA – Participatory Rural AppraisalRASPSC – Regional Agriculture Sector Programs Steering CommitteeRSU – Regional Service UnitSLM – Sustainable Land Management UN – United NationsWRMA – Water Resource Management Authority

Executive SummaryReasons for Updating the IPPF

4

1. The Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (KACCAL) Project – a project funded under the Global Environment Fund (GEF) was originally linked to the Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP II), which closed in December 31, 2010. As a result, KACCAL needs to be linked to a new parent project. This IPPF is being revised as part of a Level 2 restructuring encompassing changes to the institutional arrangements, components, financial management, procurement, reallocation of proceeds, and extension of closing date for KACCAL.

2. KACCAL was approved by the Board of the World Bank on June 10, 2010. However, project effectiveness is still pending, since (i) project activities of the original parent project ALRMP II were halted in July 2010. The ALRMP II closed on schedule on December 31, 2010; and (ii) the effectiveness condition of revising the ALRMP Project Implementation Plan (including a freestanding Financial Management Manual) was not met.

3. Given commonalities with respect to objectives, scope and implementation arrangements, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and the Bank agreed to link KACCAL to the Kenya Agriculture Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) as the new parent project and therefore transfer the GEF Grant to the MoA as the new implementing entity. As a result of making KAPAP the parent project for the GEF grant, the IPPF for KAPAP has been revised to cover KACCAL project. The IPPF for KAPAP was and discussed with IPs in district-level workshops and disclosed in May 2009.

KAPAP and KACCAL Objectives

4. The two projects are funded by the World Bank and GoK and will contribute to the revitalization of agriculture by:

i. Making resources available and strengthening the capacity of agricultural producers and other resource users to: (i) adopt good practices and technologies to mitigate land degradation, climate change and achieve greater productivity of crops, trees and livestock; and (ii) adopt sustainable alternative livelihood options to diversify and increase income, and reduce pressure on the natural resources.

ii. Enhancing the institutional capacity of all relevant stakeholders to promotesustainable l and mana gemen t p r ac t i ces , climate change mitigation measures and a l t e rna t ive l ive l ihood s t ra t eg i e s based on participatory and demand-driven approaches.

iii. Evaluating the impact of existing policies affecting the management of natural resources and contribute to the removal of barriers hindering the widespread adoption of SLM practices and technologies.

iv. Facilitating the exchange of information on best practices in sustainable land Management among farmers, communities, extension agents, service provider consortia, researchers, development partners, and policy makers.

5. The two projects are in line with the fundamental features of the Government’s strategies for development and poverty alleviation as specified in the Kenya Vision 2030 and in the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) which has specifically identified five critical areas requiring public action in the modernization process of the sector. The projects were designed to fund agricultural policy processes and activities including small-scale, community-based sub-projects that were identified and planned by the communities, with the support of project-financed extension teams.

5

6. During the projects’ preparation, it became clear that the projects might be carried out in areas that are home to vulnerable and marginalized groups that meet the criteria of the World Bank’s Operational Policy (O.P.) 4.10 Indigenous Peoples. The World Bank Operational Policy (O.P.) 4.10 Indigenous Peoples does not define who are “Indigenous Peoples,” but refers to distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural groups with the following characteristics:

a) Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;

b) Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;

c) Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

d) Indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

7. To qualify for funding from the World Bank and following best practice documented in the World Bank’s policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10), the Government of Kenya has commissioned the elaboration of this Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) to ensure that the development processes fully respect the dignity, human rights, economies, and culture of I ndigenous P eoples and that the t w o p r o j e c t s : KAPAP and KACCAL and the IPPF have broad community support from the affected groups.

8. The purpose of the IPPF is to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and culture of Indigenous Peoples, and that the projects are able to gain the broad community support of affected indigenous populations through free, prior, and informed consultations. To that end, the IPPF presents guidelines which will avert any potentially adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples' communities: or if avoidance proves not to be feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such negative impacts.

9. An additional goal of the IPPF is to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, and inclusive in both gender & intergeneration terms. Under OP 4.10, an IPPF is for community-driven development projects, social funds. Sector investments, financial intermediary loans and other projects which involve the preparation and implementation of annual investment programs. The IPPF is thus essential to the compliance of the KACCAL and KAPAP with international standards.

10. An Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) is prepared for projects with several sub-projects or those which involve preparation of annual investment programs that are not known at the time of appraisal (e.g. community-driven development projects, social funds, sector investment operations, and financial intermediary loans). The IPPF usually contains: a social assessment; free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad community support, and procedures for preparation and disclosure of an IPP (see OP 4.10, paragraph 13 and 14).

11. The IPPF is based on free, prior and informed consultations with Indigenous Peoples in the the KAPAP and KACCAL projects areas: Activities included a) in-depth consultations with two representative Indigenous Peoples’ communities, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and other NGOs; b) elaboration of a draft IPPF on the basis of this information; c) distribution of the draft IPPF to Indigenous Peoples’ communities and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations d) internal discussion of the draft IPPF among the Indigenous Peoples; and e) feedback workshop to discuss

6

and finalize the IPPF of the two projects: KAPAP and KACCAL.1 The KAPAP IPPF was disclosed in May 2009 and revalidated in April 2011 in a series of community and stakeholder meetings. (See Annex 4).

Indigenous Peoples in the (KAPAP and KACCAL) Operational Areas

12. The African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations & Communities (ACHPR and IWGIA 2005) outlines that “almost all African states host a rich variety of different ethnic groups. All of these groups are indigenous to Africa. However, some are in a structural subordinate position to the dominating groups and the state, leading to marginalization and discrimination. It is this situation that the indigenous concept, in its modern analytical form, and the international legal framework attached to it, addresses”.

a) KAPAP will become active in fifty nine operational districts. Of these, the groups that meet the OP 4.10 Criteria for Indigenous Peoples are found in the former:

i. West Pokot, Nakuru and Trans-Nzoia Districts which now include the following: West Pokot: West Pokot, Central Pokot, North Pokot.

ii. Nakuru: Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru, North Naivasha, Njoro;

iii. Trans Nzoia: Trans Nzoia West, Trans Nzoia East, Kwanza(see annex 5).

b) KACCAL will be implemented in: Garissa; Tana River; Kilifi and West Pokot.

Table 1: A Matrix showing locality of Marginalized Groups that meet the World Bank’s OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples within the two projects’ operational areas

COUNTY DISTRICTS GROUPS THAT MEET THE WORLD BANK O.P. 4.10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

PROJECT(S)

Busia Busia, Samia, Bunyala No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Butere-Mumias Butere, Mumias No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Embu Embu No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Garissa Garissa, Fafi, Lagdera To be determined through screening during implementation (TBD)

KAPAP; KACCAL

Gucha Gucha, Gucha South No presence KAPAP

1 The KAPAP IPPF was informed by data gathered from screening, baseline survey and consultations that were held for the KAPSLMP IPPF in 2005. These are in project file and also sumamrized in Annx 1.

7

COUNTY DISTRICTS GROUPS THAT MEET THE WORLD BANK O.P. 4.10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

PROJECT(S)

indigenous People

Homa Bay Homa Bay, Ndhiwa No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Kakamega Kakamega North, Kakamega Central, Kakamega South, Kakamega East

No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Kilifi Kilifi, Kaloleni, Malindi TBD KAPAP; KACCAL

Kwale Kwale, Kinango, Msambweni

TBD KAPAP

Makueni Makueni, Mbooni, Kibwezi, Nzaui

No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Meru Central Meru Central, Imenti North, Buuri, Imenti South

No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Nakuru Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru North, Naivasha, Njoro

Ogiek KAPAP

Nyandarua Nyandarua North, Nyandarua Central, Nyandarua South, Kipipiri, Kinangop

No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Nyeri Nyeri South, Nyeri North, Nyeri Central, Nyeri East

No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Siaya Siaya, Ugenya No presence indigenous People

KAPAP

Taita Taveta Taita, Taveta TBD KAPAP

Tana River Tana River, Tana Delta TBD KAPAP; KACCAL

Trans Nzoia Trans Nzoia West, Trans Nzoia East,

Sengwer, Ogiek KAPAP

8

COUNTY DISTRICTS GROUPS THAT MEET THE WORLD BANK O.P. 4.10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

PROJECT(S)

Kwanza

Wajir Wajir East, Wajir South, Wajir North, Wajir West

TBD KAPAP

West Pokot West Pokot, Central Pokot, North Pokot,

Sengwer KAPAP; KACCAL

Note: TBD – To be determined

13. The matrix above depicted the marginalized and socially discriminated peoples of those particular regions where KAPAP and KACCAL operate. The projects should undertake further screening for IP communities in the Counties/Districts with potential for IP existence (Counties indicated TBD – ‘to be determined’); during community mobilization process in order to ensure complete inclusion of all persons who deserve.

Table 2: Summary of what the two projects reflect in their documentation

Project: KAPAP KACCAL

EA Category: B B

Safeguards Policies: OP 4.01, 4.09, 4.10 OP 4.01, 4.09, 4.10

Safeguards documents: ESMF, IPMF, IPPF IPPF; ESMF; IPMF

Districts covered: West Pokot, Nakuru, Trans Nzoia, Nyandarua, Nyeri, Homa Bay, Gucha, Siaya, Taita Taveta, Kilifi, Tana River, Kwale, Garissa, Wajir, Meru Central, Makueni, Embu, Kakameg, Busia, Butere-Mumias

Garissa, Tana River, West Pokot, Kilifi

14. The African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations & Communities (ACHPR and IWGIA 2005) documents in detail that Indigenous Peoples face similar problems whether they are hunter-

9

gatherers or semi-pastoralists. Literature and field consultations indicated that the Ogiek and Sengwer neither have the same access to land, resources and protection against land grabbers and cattle rustlers as other people, nor the same influence, legal status, organizational, technical or economic capacities as other citizens of Kenya. The Ogiek and Sengwer, who formerly ranged over broad areas of uninterrupted forests as full-time foragers, have increasingly been restricted to areas with home ‘bases’ involving agriculture and livestock rearing and outlying areas where some honey gathering is still practiced. The constant taking of land and constantly increased restrictions of the access to natural resources have further increased the sedentarisation, marginalization, social discrimination and impoverishment of the Ogiek and Sengwer. The Ogiek and Sengwer, who are more dependent on forests than others, were – in spite of their legal rights to utilize certain forests and lands - forced out of the forest with little or no compensation and with little or no land to go to or resources to live on. They are less represented in county councils etc. and decision making processes and less often recognized as chiefs or assistant chiefs. On the contrary, they are forced to accept representation of their groups by their neighbors and to be administered by dominant ethnic groups in the local and central administration.

15. Rough estimates of cash income indicate that Indigenous Peoples’ households may earn about one third of average rural incomes in the country; most of them are landless and without legal access to natural resources or any other source of income. They have no way to participate in the benefits of the reform process in the domain of sustainable land and natural resource management as they lack the capacities to voice their needs and concerns. They are not able to defend their possession of the remnants of their ‘homelands’ from outside interests and further encroachment on their land and their resources.

16. The key development vision of the Indigenous Peoples is quite simple: They want to live in peace with their neighbors, on land large enough to carry out agriculture and graze some livestock, have access to forests to gather honey for consumption and commercial use, practice their culture, have equal access to social infrastructure and technical services and be equally represented in all decision making bodies at local, regional and national level. In short, they do not request special treatment, but equal opportunities.

The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework of the KAPAP and KACCAL Projects

17. It is unlikely that anybody will invest in or accept reduced short term benefits as long as they are not sure that they will benefit from the long term benefits, that is, the secured ownership of land and access to resources for all stakeholders is a key requirement for sustainable land and natural resource management. This key problem for the Indigenous Peoples’ communities has to be addressed in a timely and comprehensive manner to allow Indigenous Peoples to become beneficiaries of the two projects: KAPAP and KACCAL where applicable.

10

18. The report African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations & Communities (ACHPR and IWGIA 2005) documents in detail that the two projects: KAPAP and KACCAL embodies, in a scenario without an IPPF, several major risks for the Indigenous Peoples, which have to be mitigated to ensure that the Ogiek and Sengwer do not -

a) face further physical and economic displacements from land and forests traditionally utilized by them as source of livelihood and basis for their cultural and social system,

b) lose all legal access to natural resources, which are an important source of livelihood and basis for their cultural and social system,

c) continue to be affected by land grabbers and cattle rustlers,d) become even more marginalized in the society and disintegrate

from the nation, • receive less assistance from governmental services,

e) have less capacities to defend their legal rights,f) become or remain as dependent of other ethnic groups, andg) lose their cultural and social identity.

19. Discussions with all stakeholders indicate that all parties involved are prepared to assist the Indigenous Peoples to face these risks. The main actors of the IPPF of the KAPAP and KACCAL are, the Ministries of Agriculture, Livestock Development, Fisheries, Environment and Natural Resources, Water and Irrigation, W ate r Resou rces Manage ment Au tho r i t y , Lands, National Environment Management Authority, Kenya Forest Srvice, Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands, Home Affairs, C oope ra t i ve De ve lopme nt and Marke t i ng , Planning and National Development, Education, Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services, Special Programmes, Tourism and Wildlife, Justice, the Office of the President, KARI, the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights, Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers (KENFAP), the Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, and the Ogiek and Sengwer themselves.

20. To realize the potential positive impacts and to mitigate the potential negative impacts, to guarantee that the indigenous populations have equal opportunities to participate in the benefits offered by the KAPAP and KACCAL and that these benefits are culturally appropriate, to ensure that the rights, livelihoods, dignity and culture of the indigenous forest are respected, to guarantee that the KAPAP, and KACCAL fulfils international standards as outlined in the OP 4.10 of the World Bank and to enable the two projects fulfil their objectives, the Government of Kenya will carry out, through KAPAP and KACCAL the following mitigation measures for the Sengwer and Ogiek in the operational area of the two projects:

a) Build required capacities necessary for implementation of the IPPFb) Conduct Indigenous Peoples Orientation and Mobilizationc) Hold free and informed consultations with Indigenous Peoples (IP)d) Facilitate mapping of community resources critical to IP

11

e) Develop strategies for participation of IP and institute mitigation measures for potential adverse impact

f) Build the capacity of Indigenous Peoples in Sustainable Natural ResourceManagement and Social Mapping

g) Ensure equitable representation of IP in decision making organsh) Conduct participatory M&E with IPPF

21. It is assumed that these activities of the IPPF of the KAPAP and KACCAL enables the two projects to satisfy international requirements in general and the OP 4.10 of the World Bank in particular, and that:

a) the KAPAP/KACCAL reduces poverty for all ethnic groups of project beneficiaries and lowers the dependence on and degradation of natural resources;

b) the KAPAP/KACCAL promotes an effective management system of lands and natural resources within the project area, which offers positive impacts to the entire population and the biodiversity;

c) the KAPAP/KACCAL respects the dignity, rights and culture of the Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups;

d) the KAPAP/KACCAL assures, within the project context,that the Ogiek and Sengwer receive culturally appropriate benefits equal to any other ethnic groups.

22. The GoK has undertaken a number of steps to promote the principles of this IPPF, since its preparation. In addition, recognition of marginalized communities was affirmed in the new Constitution in 2010. These steps are an indication of the government’s readiness to learn from past experiences and to address the past plights suffered by marginalized communities in the country. The update to the IPPF was prepared under the new Constitution dispensation, which serves as additional support to its implementation. Further, numerous consultations were held with the Sengwer and Ogiek in different locations since start of KAPAP implementation to: (i) receive feedback on project implementation; and (ii) further develop menchanisms to ensure IP participation and avoid negative impacts on these groups. No negative issues were reported during those consultations and no resolution of issues were required.

12

1 Introduction

1. The Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) and Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-arid Lands (KACCAL) will contribute to the revitalization of the agricultural sector through:

Improved linkages of agricultural2 research and extension systems to national, local and regional sector priorities though the implementation of Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS), National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy (NASEP) and National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) policies, including improved planning, coordination, funding and implementation;

Empowerment of producer and other public and private stakeholders and their organizations to plan, design and deliver extension and agribusiness services, aimed at sector transformation/growth, including production and value- addition and linking farmers to input and output markets; and

Setting-up of appropriate funding and risk mitigation systems which would lead to the development of on- and off- farm diversification and promote private investment in the sector.

2.The project development objectives are as follows: a) The KAPAP Project Development Objective (PDO) is to ‘increase

agricultural productivity and incomes of participating smallholder farmers in the projects area’ through empowerment of stakeholders. The Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-arid Lands (KACCAL) Project Development Objective (PDO) is ‘to improve the ability of participating districts and communities in the arid and semi-arid lands to plan and implement climate change adaptation measures’.

3.The Government of Kenya (GoK) recognizes the need to raise rural incomes and to improve the sustainability of land and natural resource utilization. It has elaborated various strategies to address these issues, in line with Vision 2030, MTP, and the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) which emphasized the importance of sustainable land management as a critical element in poverty reduction. The ASDS stressed the need for a coherent land policy and forest policy as condition sine qua non for the sustainable utilization of land and natural resources and as key to poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. Comprehensive forest and land policies covering the use, administration, tenure, and delivery systems of land and forest have been initiated. The forest policy has been adopted in 2005, while the land policy is still under preparation. These policies have far reaching implications on: (i) existing legislation and the institutions mandated with the management of land and natural resources; (ii) land and natural resource management; and (iii) the extent to which

2 The term ‘agricultural’ covers all aspects relating to crops, livestock and fisheries.13

local communities can participate in these activities. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan recognizes encroachment for agriculture and grazing and the resulting loss of vegetation as a major threat to biodiversity and notes the link between soil erosion resulting from hillside and dry land cultivation and monoculture. The National Action Programme addresses these issues in the context of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. In a participatory process the following priorities were identified:

a) An environment that enables communities to access and manage local resources;

b) Development of ecologically sound land use policies, plans and techniques;

c) Information and knowledge base for addressing land degradation;

d) Implementation of a targeted awareness to foster cooperation and a common understanding on sustainable land management;

e) Capacity building for stakeholders;f) Support to local community initiatives to develop long-

term financial mechanisms.4.The two projects3 have been elaborated to address these national and

international key objectives. The development objectives of the projects is that “agricultural producers and other natural resource users increasingly adopt profitable and environmentally- sound land management practices and alternative livelihood strategies in the targeted operational areas.” Specifically, the projects will focus on four principal areas: (i) Results orientation; (ii) Accountability; (iii) Transparency; and (iv) Participation. The results orientation activities include areas such as targeting and monitoring and evaluation against socio-economic indicators reflecting production, sales, employment, investments, etc. For accountability, the project will include capacity building in institutional risk management, financial engineering and procurement monitoring. For transparency, it will address information dissemination and communication about Projects’ targeting and objectives, documentation, such as comprehensive operational manuals, complaints mechanisms, and supervision and quality control of projects’ activities. For participation, it will support the consultation processes with the communities, decision-making processes, and social accountability.

KAPAP Project Components

Component 1: Policy/Institutional and Project Implementation Support

5.This component will support activities that will lead to better coordination of the sector with an aim of creating the necessary impetus for sector-wide approach. These activities will be undertaken both at the

3 Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) and Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-arid Lands (KACCAL)

14

national and lower levels. At the national level, the Project will support the development of the ASDS investment plan, its implementation, activities that will facilitate harmonization of both Government and donor supported programs, and activities to align them with ASDS.

Component 2: Agricultural Research Systems6.Support will be given to National Agricultural Research System (NARS)

institutions with the objective of operationalizing the NARS policy towards increased productivity and value addition through pluralism, decentralization, efficiency, cost effectiveness and impact. This will enhance the interplay of research, extension, education, agricultural and livestock producers and clients in all aspects of research problem identification, research agenda setting, planning, and research service delivery. Further investment will be made to the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) in order to continue implementing strategic research programs of Institute, in order to support the implementation of its Investment Plan. The support to KARI under the Project will focus on promoting an agricultural innovation approach, which is a clear shift from previous paradigms which focused more on capacity building and institutional strengthening. The research will address client market needs, and focus more on value addition, and impact, as articulated in the NARS framework. Research on Natural Resource Management (NRM) issues will also be supported with a special focus on climate change.

Component 3: Agricultural Extension, Farmer and Service Providers Empowerment

7.The overall objective of this component is to support the Government to implement the National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy (NASEP), focusing on empowering the extension clientele through sharing of information, imparting knowledge, skills and changing attitudes, so that they can efficiently manage their resources for increased productivity, improved incomes and standard of living. In line with the ASDS, KAPAP will strengthen and scale-up its support to extension on the base of the implementation framework of the NASEP, developed by the agricultural sector line Ministries. This reform agenda forms a conducive environment for strengthened Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the sector to fill the gap created by the reduced presence of public sector extension service providers, but also to cater better for diverse needs of extension clientele. Key NASEP elements target the implementation of a pluralistic, participatory, demand driven and market oriented, professional, and decentralized national extension and innovation system.

Component 4: Agribusiness and Market Development8.The objective of this component is, therefore, to empower all public and

private stakeholders along commodity chains to plan, design and deliver agribusiness services aimed at value-addition, and linking producers to input and output markets. Building on existing experiences, the Project will promote further coordination within the sub-sector with the

15

relevant ministries, the private sector, and involve development partners to enhance synergies with on-going agribusiness activities.

KACCAL Project Components

Component 1: Climate information products, policy and advocacy9.This component will strengthen capacities among national institutions to

better assess and respond to current and future climate risks. It will generate and disseminate climate related knowledge and strengthen institutional coordination among currently fragmented agencies managing disaster and climate risk. National stakeholders will be trained to further disseminate the knowledge that is generated to the County and community levels. Sub component 1.1 will involve development of climate-related knowledge products to inform climate-risk management. Sub-component 1.2 on the other hand will support integration of climate action into national ASAL development plans and programs.

Component 2: Climate risk management at district /County level10. This component will promote the integration of a climate risk

management perspective into district/County planning process and programs. Sub component 2.1 is about capacity building to integrate climate risk management into district/County planning process – strengthen the district level capacity on climate change. Sob component 2.2 is about support for climate-smart public and private investments. It will also support feasibility studies and preparation of public and private investments, including operation costs.

Component 3: Community-driven initiatives for climate resilience 11. This component will help communities to adopt climate change

adaptation strategies and investments. It has two sub components 3.1 which support community capacity building. This sub component will help build awareness and capacity at community level to assess climate risk and plan and invest for climate resilience while sub component 3.2 supports community-based micro-projects identified in the ‘climate-resilient CAPs. It supports grants to communities to implement micro-projects.

12. During project preparation it became clear that the projects might impact on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, lands, livelihoods and culture. To qualify for funding from the World Bank and following best practice documented in the World Bank’s policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10), the Government of Kenya (GoK) has commissioned through the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute the elaboration of this Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures of Indigenous Peoples and that the two projects and the IPPF have a broad community support from the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities. To achieve this, this IPPF develops measures to (a) avoid potentially adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples' communities; or (b)

16

when avoidance is not feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects. c) The IPPF also aims at ensuring that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate and gender and inter-generationally inclusive. This IPPF retains the key findings from previous consultations that were undertaken during the preparation of the KAPAP IPPF which was developed in April 2009. Consultations were held with key stakeholder groups at a number of venues including Mtwapa (16 April 2009), Embu East College, (8th October 2008) and St Mary’s Pastoral Institute Nakuru (9th October 2008). Consultations were held with specific IP groups at:

Sengwer community in Talau-West Pokot (April 25, 2011) with about 80 IPs

Sengwer community in Kapolet Trans Nzoia East District – about 170 IPs (April 27&28, 2011)

Ogiek community in Nessuit - Njoro District, Nakuru, April 29, 2011 with about 97 people

The minutes of all meetings for KAPAP are in Annex 4. As there are no substantive changes in the approach, focus and proposd actions in the IPPF, consultations will be held with key stakeholders to revalidate the IPPF focusing on the adaptations amde to accommodate KACAL. This will be done before the project becomes effective.

13. The Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (KACCAL) Project – a project funded under the Global Environment Fund (GEF) was originally linked to the Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP II), which closed in December 31, 2010. As a result, KACCAL needs to be linked to a new parent project. This IPPF is being revised as part of a Level 2 restructuring encompassing changes to the institutional arrangements, components, financial management, and procurement, reallocation of proceeds, and extension of closing date for KACCAL.

14. KACCAL was approved by the Board of the World Bank on June 10, 2010. However, project effectiveness is still pending, since (i) project activities of the original parent project ALRMP II were halted in July 2010. The ALRMP II closed on schedule on December 31, 2010; and (ii) the effectiveness condition of revising the ALRMP Project Implementation Plan (including a freestanding Financial Management Manual) was not met.

15. Given commonalities between the two projects with respect to objectives, scope and implementation arrangements, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and the Bank agreed to link KACCAL to the Kenya Agriculture Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) as the new parent project and therefore transfer the GEF Grant to the MoA as the new implementing entity. As a result of making KAPAP the parent project for the GEF grant, the IPPF for KAPAP is being revised to cover the KACCAL project. (An IPPF for the KACCAL project was completed in August 2009. An IPPF for KAPAP was discussed with IPs in district-level workshops and disclosed in May 2009). A safeguards sensitization

17

workshop was held by KAPAP secretariat in April 2011. The GoK will ensure that the revised IPPF is accessed to all stakeholders through the KAPAP Website and the World Bank Infoshop before KACCAL is effective.

16. Two IPs groups that meet OP 4.10 criteria and are covered under KAPAP (Ogiek and Sengwer) are also covered under KACCAL

17. The IPPF for the two projects thus embodies the following elements:a. A summary of the legal and institutional framework, the

demographic, social, cultural, and political characteristics of the affected indigenous peoples’ communities, the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied, and the natural resources on which they depend;

b. A summary of results of the free, prior, and informed consultations with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities (from KAPAP) which informed decision making this APAP/ KACCAL IPPF);

c. A summary of project activities and their possible impacts;d. An action plan of measures to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples

receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity of the project implementing agencies;

e. When potential adverse effects on Indigenous Peoples are identified under b, an appropriate action plan of measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for these adverse effects;

f. The cost estimates and financing plan for the IPPF;g. A framework for ensuring free, prior, and informed

consultations with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities during project implementation;

h. Accessible procedures appropriate to the project to address grievances by the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities arising from project implementation taking into account the availability of judicial recourse and customary dispute settlement mechanisms among the Indigenous Peoples; and

i. Mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the implementation of the IPPF. The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms will include arrangements for the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities.

2 KAPAP and KACCAL Districts with Groups that meet the World Bank O.P. 4.10 Indigenous Peoples4

“There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous people” (UN Human Right and Indigenous Issues: 92). But for the operational

4 See also Table1; pp 7)

18

purposes and in line with other international organizations, such as the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the International Labor Organization (ILO), the OP 4.10 of the World Bank suggests “to use the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’ in a generic sense to refer to a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees:

a) Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;

b) Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;

c) Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

d) An indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region5.”

18. The African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations & Communities outlines the problems related to the use of the term “indigenous peoples” in Africa: “There is no question that all Africans are indigenous to Africa in the sense that they were there before the European colonialists arrived and that they have been subject to sub-ordination during colonialism. We thus in no way question the identity of other groups. When some particular marginalized groups use the term indigenous to describe their situation, they use the modern analytical form of the concept (which does not merely focus on aboriginality) in an attempt to draw attention to and alleviate the particular form of discrimination they suffer from. They do not use the term in order to deny other Africans their legitimate claim to belong to Africa and identity as such” (ACHPR 2005: 88). “Almost all African states host a rich variety of different ethnic groups. All of these groups are indigenous to Africa. However, some are in a structural subordinate position to the dominating groups and the state, leading to marginalization and discrimination. It is this situation that the indigenous concept, in its modern analytical form, and the international legal framework attached to it, addresses” (ACHPR 2005: 114).

19. In that logic it becomes clear that the indigenous concept is nothing fixed once and forever, but that it is possible that certain groups, which are marginalized and discriminated at national level, might at a local level be in a dominant position or at least able to defend their rights, interest and to voice their needs in local fora. Social discrimination might also change with time. It is possible that a group, which at a certain period had been in a dominant or equal position to others becomes marginalized and socially discriminated. Nevertheless, it seems as in most cases Indigenous Peoples remain for structural reasons (for example because they are employing different livelihood patterns) throughout history in a marginalized and discriminated position.

5 See World Bank Operational Policy (O.P.) 4.10 Indigenous Peoples19

20. Cummulatively the two projects will become active in 59 operational districts. Of these, the Indigenous Peoples are found in the former West Pokot, Nakuru and Trans-Nzoia Districts which now include the following: West Pokot: West Pokot, Central Pokot, North Pokot. Nakuru: Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru, North Naivasha, Njoro Trans Nzoia: Trans Nzoia West, Trans Nzoia East, Kwanza. The Sengwer in Trans Nzoia District, West Pokot while Ogiek in the Nakuru District catchments are the marginalised and socially discriminated peoples of those particular regions (Table 2).

20

Table 3: Projects’ Operational Areas

County/District Districts/ Areas Project(s) active in District

County/ District

Districts/ Areas Project(s) active in District

West Pokot West Pokot, Central Pokot,

North P.

KAPAP; KACCAL

Tana River Tana River, Tana Delta

KAPAP; KACCAL

Nakuru Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru NorthNaivasha, Njoro

KAPAP Kwale Kwale, Kinango,Msambweni

KAPAP

Trans Nzoia Trans Nzoia West, TransNzoia East, Kwanza

KAPAP Garissa Garissa, Fafi, Lagdera

KAPAP; KACCAL

Nyandarua Nyandarua North,Nyandarua Central, Nyandarua South, Kipipiri

KAPAP Wajir Wajir East, Wajir South,Wajir North, Wajir West

KAPAP

Nyeri Nyeri South, Nyeri North, Nyeri Central, Nyeri East

KAPAP Meru Central

Meru Central, Imenti; North, Buuri; Imenti South

KAPAP

Homa Bay Homa Bay, Ndhiwa

KAPAP Makueni Makueni, Mbooni, Kibwezi,Nzani

KAPAP

Gucha Gucha, Gucha South

KAPAP Embu Embu KAPAP

Siaya Siaya, Ugenya KAPAP Kakamega Kakamega North, K.Central, Kakamega South, Kakamega East

KAPAP

Taita -Taveta

Taita, Taveta KAPAP Busia Busia, Samia, Bunyala

KAPAP

Kilifi Kilifi, Kaloleni; Malindi

KAPAP; KACCAL

Butere-Mumias

Butere, Mumias KAPAP

21

21. All of the districts are inhabited by many ethnic groups. Some of them consider themselves as being the Indigenous Peoples of the area and fulfil the general criteria of Indigenous Peoples of the UN, the ILO and the World Bank. Following the outlined modern indigenous concept one has to ask whether all ethnic groups have the same chance to benefit from the project and voice their concern if their rights, interests, needs, livelihoods, culture or desires are affected by the project. This question will be answered in a case by case assessment. It will show that the Sengwer and the Ogiek are groups that meet the O.P. 4.10 Indigenous Peoples in the two projects’ operational areas.

3 Groups that meet the OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples affected by the two projects

22. Hunter-gatherers are in Kenya often addressed as Torobbo, Dorobo, Ndorobo, or Wandorobo, which are all swahili-izations deriving from "Il Torobbo," the Maa- term for people without cattle i.e. in the Maasai understanding “poor people”. In the coastal areas hunter-gather are mostly addressed by the Somali term “Boni”, which refers to someone without any possessions, and/or “Sanye”, which means in Somali “to gather together to use for a general purpose”. Assimilation policies and lack of recognition of separate and distinct identities of hunter-gatherers started under the colonial government, when the stated policy was “wherever possible the Dorobo should become members of and be absorbed into the larger tribe with which they have most affinity” (Adams, 1932). The post-colonial government has followed a similar approach by classifying all hunter-gatherer groups under “Other” or forcing them to be counted and grouped along with their dominant neighbors.

23. They are further marginalized through their way of living and their livelihood patterns, as in Kenya all hunting is illegal since the 1970s and all policies, sector strategies and projects solemnly address the needs and interests of agriculturalists and/or pastoralists. From a national perspective, this makes perfect sense as more than 95% of the population depends on these two sources of livelihood and origin from cultures which are closely associated with one of the two. If one considers that most people depend on agriculture and cattle grazing, the ban of all hunting also seems not that much of a problem as game meat has for most ethnic groups only a cultural meaning (rite of passage etc.), but no economic importance. The problem for them is not that they are unable to hunt, but that the compensation schemes for human-wildlife conflicts are either hardly ever paid (crop destruction) or very low (KSH 30,000 = USD 400 for a human killed by a wild animal). Nevertheless, there are people in Kenya who traditionally depended entirely on non-agricultural and non- pastoral use of forests: Among others the Ogiek and the Sengwer.

24. Another form of marginalization resulted from the limited understanding of hunter- gatherer livelihood strategies by the colonial powers. Huge parts of the land used before the advent of the colonialists by hunter-gatherers, teeming with wildlife, were allocated to European settlers, who considered these landscapes terra nullius (empty land) as the

22

traditional lifestyle of hunter-gatherers does not leave obvious signs of settlement or caretaker-ship. Even where hunter-gatherer habitation or “ownership” was obvious, people were moved off the land to make way for the settlers, who preferred the healthier highlands to the malaria-infested plains. During this time much of the wildlife was decimated by game hunters - long before the post-colonial government came into power. With independence, productive hunter-gatherer land was grabbed by the more dominant groups, scattering the people and forcing them to seek refuge deeper in the forests, higher up the mountains or to move to marginal areas where tsetse flies and mosquitoes are rife. During the same time, the government unilaterally gazetted the local forests as protected areas, forest reserves or forest areas. Other areas, especially in the coastal region, have been set aside for large agricultural projects. Hunter-gatherer communities were evicted from the forests, which had been the source of their livelihoods for thousands of years. Several hunter-gatherer communities have lodged court cases against the government, but till date no decision has been taken.

25. The Government of Kenya has realized some of the problems created by not properly addressing the rights, needs and cultures of hunter-gatherer communities. The 2005 Forest Policy and Forest Bill define as one of its policy objectives: “promote the participation of the private sector, communities and other stakeholders in forest management to conserve water catchment areas, create employment reduce poverty and ensure the sustainability of the forestry sector” (Forest Policy: Introduction). To do that, forests and wildlife should no longer be either used or protected, but sustainably managed (FP: 1.1.). A key strategy is outlined as policy statement 1.1.3.: “Empower local communities to manage forests through community forest associations”. It makes clear that “sustainable managed indigenous forests can supply goods and services to meet the demand of the growing population. These forests will be put under efficient and sustainable multipurpose management, which combines biodiversity conservation and water-catchment functions together with the production of tangible benefits for forest adjacent communities.” The two projects should consider this bill as an opportunity to address IP issues. It can and should build on the lessons learned of the ODA/DFID funded Kenya's Indigenous Forests Conservation Project (KIFCON), which has worked intensively with hunter- gatherers in the establishment of sustainable management systems for indigenous forests.

23

26. The Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP – IDA supported), which is a sister-project to KAPAP and KACCAL is expected among others to establish the regulatory and institutional framework for implementing the forest bill. It is foreseen that it provides the legal, organizational and technical framework to adjust the forest policy to international standards. One of the issues to be solved by the project in accordance with international standards such as the social safeguards (here especially OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples & OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement) is the existence of large group of people living in indigenous and gazetted forests. The NRM project team will address all forest related issues relating to the IPPFs of earlier IDA-financed projects.

27. The Ministry of Lands has initiated the formulation of a comprehensive policy for the administration and management of Kenya's land. The overall objective is to provide for sustainable growth and investment and the reduction of poverty in line with the Government's overall development objectives. The policy is expected to guide the development of laws that provide all citizens, particularly the poor, with equal opportunities to access and beneficially occupy and use land and guarantee the economic, equitable and environmentally sustainable allocation and use of land. It will also establish appropriate regulatory arrangements for the productive, sustainable use and equitable distribution of land. Technical reports to various aspects have been developed and are presently incorporated into a first draft (MLH2005).

28. Following is an introduction to the Indigenous Peoples addressed in this IPPF, to their history, their livelihood strategies, their social organization, and - in general - to the marginalization and social discrimination, they are facing and its underlying courses.

3.1 Ogiek29. The Ogiek (Ogiot - sing.) ethnic group consists of 20-30 groups of

former hunters and honey-gatherers, mostly living in forested highlands in west and central Kenya. Local groups have more specific names, e.g., Kaplelach, Kipsang'any, Kapchepkendi etc. Okiek, a Kalenjin language of the Southern Nilotic group, is the mother tongue of most Ogiek people, but several groups now speak Maasai as their first language. Their main area of living is around the Mau forest, which is not part of the KAPAP or KACCAL. Nevertheless, at least four Ogiek groups are found in the project region: Five groups in the extreme west of the Yala river catchments near the villages Serengoni, Senghalo and in the Kipkurere forest south-west of Burnt Forest (the last one has been visited) and one group in the Enoosupukia forest southwest of Maiella in the Kinale- Kikuyu catchments (this one has also been consulted) (see areas circled in red in the maps). In the discussions it was made clear - supported by historical evidences - that traditionally the Ogiek had occupied most of the forests of the upper Yala catchments and the higher areas of the eastern rift valley escarpment. Precise demographic figures are not available as the government did not consider the Ogiek as an independent group within

24

the last national census. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights estimated their total population to be between 15,000 and 20,000 individuals (ACHPR 2005:15) which is in line with scientific data (Heine and Möhlig 1980:32), while the Ogiek themselves estimate their total number to be between 20,000 (Kobei 2002:60) and 60,000 (Ogiek.org).

3.1.1 History

30. Knowledge of Ogiek history before 1900 is limited. Oral history traces back the origin to the Kiplombe hills near Siswek. It is said that all Ogiek have lived there before a famine forced some of them to migrate to the Mau and Tindiret forests. Before the advent of the colonialists, they were already involved in the local and regional trading networks, bartering honey and meat for agricultural products. Colonial administration affected Ogiek groups in different ways. Between the 1920s and 1940s, many Ogiek were displaced from their lands by European farmers, while others – especially deeper in the forests – received at least full usufructuary rights for their lands, which were transformed into forest reserves. Initially they had limited direct government interaction, but felt colonial policies through the ever increasing encroachment of their neighbours, who were forced into the forests by the government to create space for the farms in the plains. Due to the reduction of land and increasing hunting pressure, the Ogiek gradually diversified their economy, adding agriculture and/or herding to the traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

3.1.2 Livelihood31. Traditionally the Ogiek divided land into lineage-owned tracts

stretching along the escarpment slope. Tracts transected four or five ecological zones, giving families access to honey and game during each season. Residence groups were small extended families, patrilineal cores that might be joined by affine and matrilineal relatives. Six to ten adjacent lineages constituted a named local group, i.e. a significant unit of cultural identity and history.

32. Unlike many other hunter-gatherers, beside honey, Ogiek collect hardly any plants, fruits or non-timber-forest-products from the forest. Honey is eaten, stored for future use, brewed into beer and traded. It is said to have been the main product for the barter with their agricultural and/or pastoralist neighbours. Traditionally, the Ogiek hunt with dogs, bows and arrows, spears, clubs and poison. Traditionally they were going for buffalos, elephants, duikers, hyraxes, bongos, and giant forest hogs. Now that hunting is illegal, they only hunt with small traps around their garden farms resulting in some meat from monkeys and other smaller game.

33. Starting in the 1920s, the Ogiek stated to cultivate small millet and maize gardens due to reduced production from the forest. This led to a

25

more sedentary lifestyle in mid-altitude forest and - in turn - a further increase of agriculture and/or pastoralism. Today, agriculture is the main source of subsistence and income, which is supported through some livestock rearing, hunting (which is illegal) and bee- keeping. Honey gathering is still a key activity and carried out the traditional way, with few Ogiek using modern bee-hives and/or processing the honey for regional markets. Blackburn concludes: "without honey and condition of getting it, Ogiek life would be entirely different. This explains why the Ogiek live in the forest" (Blackburn 1974:151).

34. The economic activities are organised by gender groups: Men traditionally make beehives; collect honey, hunt and these days herd cattle and/or clear land to plant maize and beans. Women's work traditionally included building the houses under thick canopies (Sanet) and the making of leather bags, straps and clothing. Today they concentrate on the planting and harvesting of crops, the processing and cooking of food, the maintaining of firewood and water supplies and the childcare.

35. Their access to land varies very much from village to village. Before independence most Ogiek lived on state or trust land (i.e. in the forests) with all usufructuary rights, but no letters of allotment. Following independence, the land reform and the general land demarcation in 1969 usufructurary rights were out-ruled. Legal access to land is now channelled through individual land titles and - in the Maasai- dominated districts - group-ranches. Group-ranch demarcation began in the 1970s, crossing lineage land boundaries, incorporating non-Ogiek into some groups, and registering significant parts of Ogiek land to non-Ogiek. During the same time, the Ogiek were evicted from the forest reserves. As they were not provided with any land or compensation most had to go back and live illegally in the forests until they were evicted. The regular evictions, arrests and loss of property, crops and even lives further increased the poverty of the Ogiek, underlined their social discrimination and cemented their marginalisation.

36. Those Ogiek that managed to obtain group-ranch titles, started in the 1980s and 1990s to divide the land into individual plots following the example of their neighbours and supported by governmental services. Settlement patterns shifted again as people moved to live on their own land, but it also attracted many Ogiek to lease or sell their lands to other ethnic groups. Many of these land sales were technically illegal as they were made before group-ranches were legally divided and many sales were undertaken before Ogiek learned about the market value of their land and had sold it at low prices. Today the majority of the Ogiek have still no legal access to land or any source of livelihood and depend for their livelihoods on their non-Ogiek neighbours and local and national governments in which they are not represented (Huntingford 1929, 1954; Blackburn 1976, 1982; Kratz 1981, 1994; Marshall 1994; Tuweit 2004).

37. If one takes the two sites visited during earlier baseline surveys one 26

even gets a better understanding of the marginalisation and social discrimination of Ogiek communities and their vulnerability to all interventions in the area of land management:

38. In the Kipkurere forest, the indigenous forests are protected as forest reserve (i.e. not considered to inhabit humans), while the lowlands were in the early 1970s transformed by non-Ogiek into Shambas, leaving little land and sources of income for the Ogiek. They mostly settled at the forest fringes and established small gardens and lived from honey gathering and subsistence agriculture. In the context of the ethnic clashes in the early 1990s, most non-Ogiek were driven out and did not return as the Shamba system, which regulated farming in forest areas, was banned during that period. They left a vast area of potential agricultural land behind, but this land was not given to the Ogiek. Instead it was taken by their dominant neighbours. The Ogiek of this region, about 1,500 individuals, have neither a legal access to land nor to any source of livelihood. Some of them were resettled in 1995 to a settlement scheme near Senhalo, where they were provided with individual land titles, but the settlement scheme was much too small to absorb all the Ogiek of the area without land. Those who remained behind report constant conflicts with their neighbours and the local administration as they have no legal access to land and resources and depend on others for their livelihoods. In 2001 the local administration prohibited Ogiek children from attending the local primary school and in 2005, they told the Ogiek that they would burn down any larger farms. As a result, Ogiek farmers are unable to generate any cash income (Focus group discussion & Tuweit 2004).

39. The living conditions of the Ogiek in the Enoosupukia forest, which is situated at the southern end of the Mau escarpment, are even worse. The transformation of Enoosupukia from thick forest to an agricultural enclave occurred within the living memory of many of the elders. Prior to independence the Ogiek had almost exclusive use of the area. After independence some Purko-Maasai families arrived and were accepted into the community. Official demarcation of land began in 1977, but numerous small development projects were initiated up to a decade earlier and were inclusive of, or even initiated by the Ogiek. Agricultural groups started entering the areas in the late 1960s. Coming at first to stay in the forest, they began to clear small areas and to cultivate. A gradually growing population of farmers began to invite their relatives and friends, leading to the nearly complete deforestation and the social and political marginalization of Ogiek and Maasai residents. In the context of the ethnic clashes in the early 90ies they were violently expulsed from Enoosupukia – legalised with the need for water catchment protection.

40. Most parts of Enoosupukia remained Trust Land and are till date under the legal jurisdiction of the Narok county council, while some of the land, which has been earlier transformed, was gazetted as a settlement

27

scheme (Moi Ndabi) and hosts today 21 of the 64 Ogiek families of Enoosupukia. Stability was maintained until 2002 when the government called for the eviction of all residents from the water catchment area. Local community members opposed the eviction, supported by the Catholic Church, the Ogiek Welfare Council and Survival International – a US- based human rights organisation. Due to external pressure the eviction was not carried out that year, but in February 2005, residents of the trust land were notified of an impending eviction order, which has since been effected. Approximately 1,200 people were evicted from their homes, where houses were burnt or destroyed. People dispersed to various locations, with the majority taking refuge on the land of their Ogiek relatives. The Ogiek continued to protest that they had been unlawfully evicted from their land and victimized by police brutality. M issions from the UNHCHR and the ILO have visited the affected communities, but the only result was the return of county council rangers in June 2005. The rangers proceeded to target specific homes, destroying the temporary shelters erected by victims of the first eviction. In the wake of this second eviction, those community members whose homes had been destroyed either fled again or took refuge with those whose homes survived the attacks.

41. When the consultant visited the Ogiek of Enoosupukia in December 2005 tenuous stability ruled the place. While the county council claims the need to enforce depopulated water catchment areas, long-term residents, both displaced and remaining at Enoosupukia, began legal proceedings against those institutions. Meanwhile, the Maasai have moved their herds back onto the lush, highland pastures around the former homes and shambas of displaced residents, while the Ogiek have nearly given up all hope to survive the next several years without external assistance.

3.1.3 Social organization42. Ogiek live in local groups dispersed throughout the highlands,

typically near one or more other Ogiek groups and adjacent to more populous ethnic groups. In quite a good number of cases Ogiek speak their neighbors' language better than their own. Ogiek groups thus have distinctive histories of interaction with one another, with their neighbors, and with local government administration. Modes of social organization vary among Ogiek groups, but in general one can say that patrilineages are central in land holding and residence, legal matters, inheritance, and marriage arrangement, while matrilineal and affine relations are important for ceremonial occasions, in some residential and work groups, and in emotional terms. Further units are the age-sets, which create relationships among members, crosscutting relations defined by lineage and clan. Women have no separate age-sets, but become associated with male age-sets through relatives. Political and legal matters are discussed in meetings of men. Depending on the issue, gatherings involve men from one lineage, several lineages, or a large neighborhood. All adult men

28

have the right to attend and speak at meetings, though older men often speak more extensively. This changes of course in meetings with officials as most elders don’t speak Swahili or English. Women were traditionally excluded from formal councils, but this traditional setting is no longer ruling as government officials and external visitors demand and invite the presence of all gender groups (Huntingford 1929, 1954; Blackburn 1976, 1982; Kratz 1981, 1994; Marshall 1994). While in their majority still organized in the traditional way, most Ogiek have benefited from efforts by some educated Ogiek, who have established several Community Based Organizations and NGOs. These efforts are spearheaded by Charles Sena (the first Ogiek lawyer) and Joseph Towett from the Ogiek Peoples National Assembly (they also represent the Ogiek Rural Integral Projects and the Ogiek Welfare Council), Daniel Kobei from the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program and Sarone ole Sene, who holds a PhD in anthropology from McGill and runs the research department of World Vision Kenya.

3.2 Sengwer43. The Sengwer (also referred to as Cherangany, a nickname given to

them by the Maasai) are former hunter-gatherers, who live in the Trans-Nzoia, Marakwet and West Pokot Districts in and around the Cherangany Hills. In a letter to the Review Commission of the Constitution of Kenya, they outlined in detail the boundaries of their ancestral land, which covered most of the Cherangany hills and the lowland of the region. The majority of them live in the Cherangany hill catchment area.

44. The published data of the 1999 census does not provide information on the ethnographic distribution. The Sengwer themselves claim to have between 40,000 (Tiampati 2002:63) and 60,000 (Kiptum 2001) members. No scientific material could be located to judge on this claim.

3.2.1 History45. Oral history traces the history of the Sengwer back to a man called

Sengwer, who is considered to be the mythical first inhabitant of the Cherangany hills. It is said that he had two sons named Sirikwa (elder) and Mitia, whose children formed the clans: Kapchepororwo, Kapchepar (Kaptoyoi), Kapumpo, Kaptogom, Kapcherop, Kaki- sango, Kimarich (Kamosus), Kapsormei (Kapseto), Kapteteke, Kipsirat, Kamengetiony (Kopoch & Kapkotet), Kaplema and Kamesieu. Each patrilineage is said to have had their portion of land running from the highlands to the plains. The elders said that before the advent of the colonialists, the Sengwer lived during the rainy season in the vast plains of what is today Trans-Nzoia and during the dry season in the forest on the mountain slopes of the Cherangany hills. It is said that the Sengwer lived peacefully with their neighbors as they were not competing for the same resources, but barter honey and dry meat for food crops and/or milk etc6.

6 “Ancestral Land of the Sengwer: Commences from Kiporoom River in Uasin Gishu District. It extends along Kapsumbeywet river through Ziwa (Sirikwa) centre, Moiben Posta and Kose hills in Uasin Gishu. From Kose hills it goes down to join Moiben river. The boundary goes up river Moiben to the confluence of Ko'ngipsebe and Kimowo

29

46. It is believed that the first Arab slave and ivory hunters came to the area around 1600 and oral history claims that the Sengwer b e c a m e quite involved into the trade. In exchange for the ivory they were provided with Millet and Sorghum seedlings. During the Maasai immigration they acquired their first cattle, but it is a common belief that hunting and gathering remained the main source of livelihood for all Sengwer until the mid of the last century.

47. As with so many other ethnic minorities, the Sengwer were considered by the British to be served best if they were forced to assimilate with their dominant neighbors. Due to this, their traditional structure was not recognized and integrated as an independent ethnic group in the system of indirect rule, but as a sub-structure of their neighbors. As their land in the plains of Trans Nzoia turned out to be the best area for agricultural production in Kenya, they were displaced entirely from there to make way for European settlers. A minority stayed behind as farm workers, but the majority went up into the forests of the Cherangany hills. When the government started to protect the water-catchments and forests in the 1920s and 1930s as forest reserves, they acknowledged the presence of the Sengwer and provided them with all usufructuary rights for this area as well as the right to farm on the openings in the forest. They enjoyed these rights until the 1970s, when a new fashion of conservation recommended that all hunting should be prohibited and people removed from forest areas.

48. As the Sengwer were not considered as an independent group, they were also not invited to join the settlement schemes in which the independent Kenya redistributed the settlers’ farms to the farm workers and the dominant ethnic groups of the area. While most Sengwer are officially landless, some few Sengwer especially in the northern parts of the Cherangany hills received some land, but even this land is contested.

3.2.2 Livelihood49. Before the colonial time, Sengwer used to be hunters and honey-gatherers.

Following their contacts with the Arabs and the Maasai some adopted small scale agriculture (shifting cultivation) and/or livestock rearing, but it is said that hunting remained their main source of livelihood until the 1920s. The elders reported collective as well as individual hunting techniques. During the Sakas (collective hunt) a group of people would try to circle large animals such as elephants and buffalos on the plains and spear or arrow them down. In contrast, the Kwo (individual hunt) is carried out by a nuclear family and mostly based on the use of poisoned baits and/or traps.

50. Gathering of fruits and other non-timber-forest-products is mostly done by women, while honey collection from beehives as well as from

streams. It turns eastwards to cover areas of Maron sub-location in Emboput location in Marakwet District. Turning to the west it then goes to Kamolokon along Marakwet/West Pokot and Marakwet boundary. From here it drops to Sebit, Somor, then to Kongelai and up along Swom river. From Swom river to the confluence of Swom and Cheptenden river. From Cheptenden river to the confluence of Cheptenden river and Moiben river where these two rivers confluence with Kiboorom” (Kiptum 2002)

30

natural places such as holes in trees etc. is traditionally a male activity. It has - beside being eaten - a variety of uses:

i. Honey is mixed with water as a daily drink (breakfast), and used to brew beer; Honey plays a major role in marriages and other ceremonies. Before marriage, honey is given to the mother of the bride as part of the dowry. The night before the marriage, wife and husband had to smear honey on their future house, each starting in a different direction until they meet and unite.

ii. Honey has also medical use. People apply it to their body to drive away mosquitoes and against muscle pains. Another smelly mixture is spread around the compounds to keep wildlife at distance.

51. Millet and Sorghum are the “traditional” crops, which were inherited from the Arab traders and mostly planted in the lowlands. These days, maize, potatoes, beans and a variety of vegetable are grown. Before land became scarce, the Sengwer used shifting cultivation patterns and changed their farms every three years. Transplanting, harvesting transforming, marketing and preparing of crops is considered beside of gathering, the provision of water and the education of the children as core female activities.

52. The Sengwer learned to keep animals, especially cattle, from the Maasai, when these arrived in the area in the context of their expansion from the north. The herds of the Sengwer are - also due to the common cattle rustling - very small and milk and livestock is mostly used for auto-consumption.

53. Most of the ancestral land of the Sengwer is occupied either by other ethnic groups or demarcated as forests, which prohibit legal settlements or agriculture. It is said that around 20% of the Sengwer have legal access to land, but that these plots are on average only 2.5 acres per household, i.e. very small. The majority of the community members are landless. Significant parts of the ancestral lands have been demarcated as forests: Kapkanyar 70,000 acres; Kipteber 57,000 acres; Kapolet 10,800 acres; Chemurgoi 9,800 acres; Sogotio 8,800 acres; Kerer 5,340 acres; Kaisingor 2,680 acres and Embobut 8,000 acres. The problem of the Sengwer to access land and/or resources legally might best be described best through an assessment of the three communities visited:

54. The Embobut forest in the Marakwet district contains, according to local sources, approximately 5,000 Sengwer, who claim to have arrived in the area in the 1930s when they were displaced from the plains of Trans-Nzoia. The settlements are located right on top of the highest lines of the Cherangany hills, with a view into the Rift Valley and the plains of Trans-Nzoia on either side, but without roads, schools, health infrastructure as it is officially considered as forest. The people who took refuge there, report of ongoing conflicts with forest officials and neighboring communities. In the meantime, the Sengwer report that armed cattle rustlers would come time and again to take crops and cattle and shoot those who resisted. The Sengwer of the Embobut forest have complained that the local and central

31

administration did not respond to any complaints against the evictions, as they have argued that the Sengwer are illegally in the area and not entitled to any protection from the state and county council. Their average annual cash income is said to be around KSh 3,000 (USD 40) per household as significant parts of their production are taken away before they can market it.

55. The situation of the Sengwer of the Kapolet forest is also difficult. Presently there are 487 Sengwer households living in this half-legal settlement, which had been given to them after they invaded a state lodge. The history of these people is closely linked to the quest of the Sengwer for land and recognition: In result of years of broken promises from side of the government approximately 2,000 Sengwer invaded on March, 22, 1997 a state owned farm in the plains (ADC Milimani) and stayed there even when their elders and leaders were arrested. After a month of conflicts, the government offered them a new settlement scheme in the Kapolet forest (in total over 3,000 acres) in exchange for a peaceful end to the conflict. The Sengwer accepted, and in a first phase 1,000 acres were demarcated for nearly 500 households, who moved in the same month. But, the promised letters of allotment were not even issued by December 2005 with the official reason that the land is officially a forest and thus not suitable for a settlement scheme. For the same reason, the second and third phase of the settlement scheme, which supposed to provide the entire 3,000 acres to Sengwer, have not yet started. The community members stated that they have witnessed significant encroachments from non- Sengwer on the entire Kapolet forest, especially logging activities and the establishment of new farms on the land of phase 2 & 3.

56. In view of legal access to land, the Sengwer of the Talau Location have done relatively well. All 755 households have letters of allotment and they are satisfied with the quality and size of their lands, but they also have significant problems: In 2005, about 20 Sengwer of this small location with a total population of around 4,000 people having been killed by cattle rustlers over the years. The total loss of cattle is reported to be around 400 and the non-economic losses might be even higher as most families have to be on alert each night. The Sengwer complained bitterly that even those cattle which have been identified to be theirs, were not returned and that no support was coming from the government. In contrast, some rifles, which had been organized by the only Sengwer councilor to protect the lives and property of the Sengwer, have been confiscated by the police, leaving the Sengwer unarmed to stand well equipped intruders. A s a r e s u l t , many Sengwer feel marginalized by the government.

3.2.3 Social organization57. Patrilineages led by the elders are the traditional form of self-

organization. In contrast to other hunter-gatherer societies, the influence of the elders seems to be quite strong among the Sengwer and have also survived the advent of modern forms of self-organization. In their

32

struggle for land and recognition the Sengwer-elites have created a good number of Community Based Organizations and NGOs (see contact list), which are spearheaded by David Kiptum Yator, chairman of among others the Sengwer Indigenous Development Project and the Hunter-Gatherer Forum of Kenya, Jacob Tekeroi, the chairman of the Sengwer land allocation committee, and Josilah Cheruiyot, who is an assistant director in the Ministry of Livestock & Fisheries. All are assembled and coordinated through the Sengwer Cultural Centre in the Kapolet forest.

58. Those Sengwer who have managed to obtain legal access to land also received some form of representation at local and regional level. The Sengwer of the Talau location have a Sengwer sub-chief and also an elected councilor (who presently serves as assistant mayor) in the county council since 1971, while those Sengwer who remain in illegal (Embobut forest) or partly legal settlements (Kapolet forest), are not represented by one of their people, but by members of other ethnic groups in the area.

3.3 Hunter-Gatherers: Development visions and key issues59. The key development vision of the hunter-gatherers –

documented in their numerous publications and in the discussion during the elaboration of the IPPF of the KAPSLMP now updated to cover the two projects – is quite simple: They want to live in peace with their neighbors, on a piece of land big enough to carry out agriculture and graze some livestock, have access to forests to gather honey for consumption and commercial use, practice their culture, have equal access to social infrastructure and technical services and be equally represented in all decision making bodies at local, regional and national level. They are not asking for special treatment, but equal opportunities. To achieve this, a good number of key issues have to be addressed:

Equal access to land: To have equal opportunities for a self-determined development, the Ogiek and Sengwer need land to settle, to farm and to graze their small herds on.

Equal access to security: As a result of their social discrimination, their legal titles are often not respected by their neighbours. To have equal opportunities, the Ogiek and Sengwer need the support of the security forces to protect their properties and lives.

Equal acc e ss to traditional sources of livel ih ood: To have equal opportunities, the Ogiek and Sengwer need more than any other people in Kenya legal access to forests and forest products (honey etc.), as these two are their traditional sources of livelihood.

Equal access to decision making processes: To participate fully in the development process, to voice their concerns and needs and to be able to guarantee that the rights, livelihoods and culture of the Ogiek and Sengwer are not negatively affected, they need to be represented in all relevant decision making bodies (county councils, local consultative meetings, and KAPAP and structures).

3.4 Summary60. It became clear that the Indigenous Peoples face similar problems

33

whether they are hunter-gatherers or semi-pastoralists. From the legal point of view, the Ogiek and Sengwer are citizens equal to all other people born in Kenya, but they had neither the same access to land and resources, and protection against land grabbing and cattle rustlers as other groups, nor the same influence, legal status, organizational, technical or economic capacity as other citizens of Kenya. The Ogiek and Sengwer, who formerly ranged over broad areas of uninterrupted forests as full-time foragers, had increasingly been constricted to areas with home ‘bases’ involving agriculture and livestock rearing and outlying areas where some honey gathering is still practiced. The constant taking of land and constantly increased restrictions of the access to natural resources had further increased the sedentarisation, marginalisation, social discrimination and impoverishment of the Ogiek and Sengwer. The Indigenous Peoples who are more dependent on forests than others were often - in disrespect of their legally guaranteed utilisation rights – were forced out of the forest with little or no compensation and with little or no land to go to or resources to live on.

61. They are less represented in county councils and the decision making process and less often recognised as chiefs or sub-chiefs. On the contrary, they are forced to accept being represented by their neighbours and to be administered by dominant ethnic groups in the local and central administration. Rough estimates of cash income indicate that Indigenous Peoples’ households may earn about one third of average rural incomes in the country, most of them are landless and without legal access to natural resources or any other source of income. They had no way to acquire rights to participate in the benefits of the reform process in the domain of sustainable land and natural resource management as they lack legal recognition as independent ethnic groups and/or the capacities to voice their needs and concerns. They are not able to defend their possession of the remnants of their ‘homelands’ from outside interests and further encroachment on their land and their resources.

62. Since the inception of the original IPPF in 2009, the GoK has undertaken a number of steps to promote the principles of this IPPF. In addition, recognition of marginalized communities was affirmed in the new Constitution in 2010 (which indicates the Governments general future approach to IPs and goes beyond the explicit scope of KAPAP/KACCAL activities):

a) In the new Constitution, the government affirms its:i. Recognition of marginalized communities, with the

following criteria: Relatively Small population; Relatively lagged behind in an integrated socio-

economic participation compared to other communities;

Traditional community desires to preserve its unique culture and identity from assimilation;

34

A community that has retained and maintained a traditional lifestyle and livelihood base on hunter or gatherer economy;

Communities that are geographically isolated and have experienced marginal participation in the integrated social and economic life of Kenya as whole

ii. Adoption of international treaties and conventions to which Kenya is signatory;

iii. Readiness to initiate investigations, on its own initiative or on a complaint, into present and historical land injustices, and recommend appropriate redress (Chapter 5 Article 67(e));

iv. Readiness to put affirmative actions programmes designed to ensure that mirority and margainalised groups (e.g. representation in the governance, special educational and economic opportunities, development of cultural values, reasonable access to infrastructure and health services).

b) Enacted critical laws to support the implementation of this provision of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. These include:

i. The Land Registration Act, 2012ii. The National Land Commission Act, 2012 iii. The Land Act, 2012 iv. Appropriation Act, 2012v. The National Cohesion and Integration (Amendment) Bill,

2012vi. The Evictions and Resettlement Procedures Bill, 2012 vii. The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation (Amendment) Bill,

2012

c) Commenced the establishment of institutions that will, among other issues address the issues affirmed by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010:

i. National Land Commisionii. Environment and Land Court

63. These steps are an indication of the government’s readiness to learn from the past experiences and to address the plights suffered by marginalized communities in the country. The update to this Framework was prepared under the new Constitution dispensation.

64. Further, numerous consultations were held with the Sengwer and Ogiek in different locations since start of KAPAP implementation, e.g. in Nakuru, Meru Central, Kilifi, Embu, Trans Nzoia, and West Pokot. The main objectives were to: (i) receive feedback on project implementation;

35

and (ii) further develop menchanisms to ensure IP participation and avoid negative impacts on these groups. No negative issues were reported during these consultations and no resolution of issues was required.

65. The two projects envision ensuring fair participation and equal access to social, economic and culturally appropriate benefits from the KAPAP/KACCAL. To achieve these goals, KAPAP/KACCAL will need to continue to undertake the following for the Ogiek and the Sengwer in the project areas:

i. Build required capacities necessary for implementation of the IPPFii. Conduct Indigenous Peoples Orientation and Mobilizationiii. Hold free, prior and informed consultations with Indigenous Peoples

leading to broad community support for the projectiv. Facilitate mapping of community resources critical to IPv. Develop strategies for participation of IP and institute mitigation

measures for potential adverse impactvi. Build the capacity of Indigenous Peoples in Sustainable Natural

Resourcevii. Management and Social Mappingviii. Ensure equitable representation of IP in decision making organsix. Conduct participatory M&E with IPPF

36

Table 4: Possible Impacts of KAPAP and KACCAL on Indigenous PeoplesPROJECT ACTIVITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE PAD/PROJECT

POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON IP7

1. KAPAPComponent 1: Policy/Institutional and project implementation

Support of sector-wide approaches

☺☺No direct impact but at lower levels the IP could be represented in the joint programming to articulate their needs

Policy/Institutional Support

☺☺ If policy addresses issues like legal access to land and other natural resources that are of particular concern to the IP// Some policies e.g. environmental, forest impact negatively on IP who for instance rely on forests for their economic, social and cultural survival

Gender mainstreaming ☺☺ Positive impact as IP are to receive gender- inclusive benefits, such as through an affirmative action to ensure no gender exceeds two thirds (2/3) within the IPs CIGs executive committee or any other community committee.

Support to Project implementation structures

☺☺ Project structures that will include the IPorganizations represented in project areas

M&E and impact assessment

☺☺ M&E frameworks take into account the presence of IP in project areas and specific impacts of the project on this group

Management InformationSystem (MIS)

☺☺ General positive impact for all players

Communication strategy

☺☺ IP needs to be included in communications strategy and benefit from increased access to information

Networks ☺☺ Existing IP networks (See Annex) and farmer networks if included will be strengthened and will articulate IP issues

Component 2: Agricultural Research SystemsSupport to NARS

Competitive collaborative research tilted towards matching grants for value chain development

☺☺ If IP issues are addressed in research for value chains that include their products

Establishment of a reference resource centre

☺☺ There are IP resources that can be deposited in this centre that can serve to create awareness on IP issues

Laying the legal and financial framework needed for a sustainable funding mechanism for the entire NARS

☺☺ General positive impact for all players

Publication of Eastern African Agricultural and Forestry Journal

☺☺ IP issues will be reported in journal papers

Capacity building of the scientific community

☺☺ General positive impact as researchers cover IP concerns

Establishment of innovative mechanisms aimed at achieving sustainable funding for agricultural research

☺☺ General positive impact for all players

Support to KARI

7 ☺☺ -Positive impact / / Negative impact ☺/ Both positive and negative .. No direct impact37

PROJECT ACTIVITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE PAD/PROJECT

POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON IP

Adoption of the Agricultural Product Value Chains (APVC) approach in conducting research with strong emphasis on value addition and market development

☺/ Economic impact on IP if they are value chain players; otherwise if the projects and value chains identified do not involve IP due to lack of legal access to land and that other groups of people take up the activities on land owned by IP// The identified priority Value Chains do not include IP products such as Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) that may be deemed illegal and so IP will not benefit from this component rather will be marginalized further☺☺ Socio-Economic studies will include social assessments of the appropriateness and impacts of sub-projects on IP

Establishment of an Adaptive Research, outreach and partnership department to strengthen linkages with partners in the value chain

☺☺ If specific measures are taken to include IP in adaptive and outreach programs and make them key players in value chains that are appropriate to them culturally and socio-economically

Need to strengthen ICT capabilities

☺☺ General positive impactNeed to strengthen PME for effectiveness, efficiency and impact for research

☺☺ If IP issues are articulated in PME systems

Strengthen research in arid areas by developing research facilities in Garissa

.. No direct Impact as no IP in Garissa

Strengthen NRM researchespecially on impacts of climatechange and bio-fuels

// May result in potential restriction on access by IP to natural resources in project sites in view of climate change issues☺☺

Strengthen strategies for sustainable funding

☺☺ General positive impact

Refocus the research planning and implementation to nationally coordinated program

☺☺ General positive impact

Component 3: Agricultural extension and farmer and other stakeholders empowerment

Agricultural Extension ☺☺ The project will build capacity to cater for diverseneeds of the extension clientele, who should include IP as a vulnerable group// Empowering extension to focus commercial agriculture may make the IP lose out on the cultural aspects of their farming that are not necessarily commercial// Extension may not cover areas where the IP live such as forests as it is considered illegal to undertake any activities in such areas and this may exclude needs of the IP☺☺ Special attention will be given to capacity building to empower poor farmers, especially youth, women and other vulnerable groups who should include IP

Farmer and other stakeholders empowerment

☺/ Participatory needs assessment, prioritization and development of intervention strategies that include IP will benefit them but if they are not their needs will be left out as some do not reside within the rest of the communities ☺/ Gender balanced and regular consultative meetings that include IP and negative if they do not, as needs will not be articulated☺☺Training sessions for interest groups and producer

38

PROJECT ACTIVITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE PAD/PROJECT

POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON IP

organizations should have positive impact on IP in project areasComponent 4: Agribusiness and market development

Create network of Agribusiness development centers (ABCs) Foster creation of Agro- Industry Funding instruments

Support the creation of four Agro Food Parks (AFPs) in four regionsPilot the linking of rural agro- processing activities to off-grid energy sources

Enhance training in agribusiness management and food technologies to meet market demands

// IP enterprises and areas where IP live not be included in the selected grain, fruits & vegetables value chains that exclude NTFP for example

// Policies, rules and regulations to foster trust amongst value chain actors will not favor IP who live in areas and undertake activities perceived as illegal☺/ If ABCs and AFPs are set up at central/ local areas accessible to IP there will be positive impact but if not their produce will miss out on the VCs and be marginalized further☺☺ IP may benefit from training once its included in curricula if specific measures are taken to include their students in training

2. KACCALComponent 1: Climate Information products, policy and advocacy

Development of climate-related knowledge products to inform climate risk management

☺/ where possible apply FPIC in order to tap the optimum from the communities

Integration of climate action into national ASAL development plans and programs

☺/ comprehensive inclusion of all targeted beneficiaries

Component 2: Climate Risk Management at the County levelCapacity building to integrate climate risk management into location Planning process

☺/ If not handled properly the IP community could be excluded

Support to enhancement of the technical capacity of mobile extension teams to access and use climate-related information and knowledge

☺☺Total participation and involvement of all communities is cardinal in order to achieve the set objectives

Support for climate-smart public and private investments

☺/Through FPIC approach the IP would be capacity build to participate in this venture

Component 3: Community –Driven initiatives for climate resilienceSupport for community capacity building

☺☺Undertake social analysis in case of IP and community resource assessment in case of other target beneficiaries

Support for community-based micro-projects

☺☺ Undertake social analysis in case of IP and community resource assessment in case of other target beneficiaries

5 Framework for free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC)66. The OP 4.10 states 3 areas of special consideration when dealing with

groups that meet criteria for OP 4.10. (see Annex 3, Paragraphs 16-21):39

Lands and Related Natural resources Commercial Development of Natural and Cultural Resources Physical Relocation of Indigenous Peoples

67. It is highly unlikely that the proposed activities will result in any significant adverse impacts for Indigenous Peoples. Some adverse impacts may arise from potential restriction of access by IP to natural resources e.g. forests. Key steps to constitute free, prior, informed consent will include the following:

5.1 Indigenous Peoples Orientation and Mobilization68. Given that the IP were consulted in May 2009 for KAPAP, it

will be necessary to bring them and staff in project areas up to speed with project objectives, activities and desired outcomes. Consequently, in April 2011, KAPAP undertook a comprehensive consultative activity in Nakuru (Nesuiit-Ogiek), Trans Nzoia (Kapolet - Ogiek, Sengwer) and West Pokot (Talau – Sengwer). The findings from the consultations undertaken by KAPAP have been applied to inform this KAPAP/KACCAL IPPF. In addition, future orientation meetings under KAPAP and KACCAL would seek to identify, update and map the perceptions of the IP and other stakeholders regarding the KAPAP and KACCAL projects components, and how they may have any positive or adverse impacts on the IP. This stage will identify key representatives of the IP for participation in subsequent consultations and decision making organs.

5.2 Consultations with Indigenous Peoples69. A PRA and baseline survey had been undertaken in 2006 for one

group of the Sengwer in Cherangani Hills. In view of this, rapid appraisals will suffice in such cases to update the information collected during KAPAP and KACCAL Projects. In Nakuru District, where the Ogiek are based, it would be prudent to undertake both socio-economic baseline and PRA surveys if these have not been previously done by other programs. The PRA/Social assessment process t h a t w a s u n d e r t a k e n b y K A P A P w i t h i n t h e t h r e e C o u n t i e s r e f e r r e d t o a b o v e ( i t e m 8 9 ) helped identify the locations and key concerns of the IPs: Numbers and details of IPs that will be affected, Ways in which they will be affected; Activities that will be undertaken in each specific IP areas; and alternatives to counteract the impacts likely to result from a sub-project and mitigation measures acceptable to the IP and the World Bank. After the PRA/Social Assessment exercise, the community planning team will present their compiled report to the rest of the community for a consensus building on the issues agreed upon. This will also lead to better community understanding of the need for any changes in use or management, and the project in general. Agreements both within the community or with secondary users should be drawn up and signed by the community representatives in the presence of the local and national project staff as well as the community who should be witnesses to the agreement.This is the same process KACCAL is to follow in order to engage with the

40

IPs as identified in each KACCAL District/County.

5.3 Mapping of community resources critical to IP70. Mapping of community resources in areas where the IP live and their

utilization will be necessary to identify their access to and/or control of these. The IP representatives will play a key role in mapping. These will include the following: Land and natural resources and Social infrastructure and technical services. It will draw upon the PRA exercise and constitute an input into the planning of activities that impact on the Indigenous Peoples and will establish the baseline for subsequent monitoring. It will provide information on a) scale of natural resource utilization, b) condition of lands and potential threats for IP, c) existing unsustainable commercial development of natural and cultural resources critical to IP d) customary rights and overlapping or conflicts in resource use from within and outside IP areas, e) condition of infrastructure. Regarding customary rights of IP to use of common resources, the mapping will build upon the consultations held with the IP in 2005 and would provide information on (i) location and size of the area and condition of resource, (ii) primary users, including those that belong to IP that currently use or depend on these common resources, (iii) secondary users and the types of uses they make, (iv) the effects of these uses on the IP, and (vi mitigation measures of adverse impacts if any. So far mapping of community resources under KAPAP was done in April 2011. Further screening will be done during implementation of KACCAL.

5.4 Development of strategies for participation of IP and mitigation measures

71. Meetings will be held with the different groups of IP to review results of the resource mapping and agree on its implications regarding KAPAP and KACCAL activities, resource access restrictions, mitigation/compensatory measures and IP participation arrangements for project activities. Activities selected should ensure that the IP do not:

a) Face further physical and economic displacements from land and forests traditionally utilized by them as source of livelihood and basis for their cultural and social system,

b) Lose further legal access to natural resources, which are an important source of livelihood and basis for their cultural and social system,

c) Continue to be affected by land grabbers and cattle rustlers,d) become even more marginalized in the society and disintegrate

from the nation,e) Receive less assistance from governmental services,f) Have less capacities to defend their legal rights,g) Become or remain as dependent of other ethnic groups, andh) Lose their cultural and social identity.

72. Since the exact sub-projects and activities will be identified at a later

41

stage, activity will be subjected to social screening before it’s taken up for implementation. The project does not intend to undertake any activity that will involve involuntary resettlement of the IP or any other groups of people for that matter. Any activity that will require physical relocation of indigenous people or acquisition of private or community land currently used by the IP should be excluded. The social assessment will also identify if the proposed project activity will involve change in use or management of commonly held properties in the community as well as involving the commercial development of natural and cultural resources on lands or territories that Indigenous Peoples traditionally owned, or customarily used or occupied. The social assessment will ensure free, prior and informed consultation with the IP during project planning and implementation. It will ensure that mitigation of potential adverse impacts, deriving from project activities, will be based on a participatory and consultative process acceptable to the World Bank and the IP themselves. Annual project work plans will include the social screening. The social screening may follow the format shown on Table 3:

73. In addition to the social screening, project activities should comply with the following:

• Conserve and sustainably use land and other natural resources that impact on IP and other communities

• Provide equitable share of benefits to IP and mitigate any possible adverse impacts

• Be socially and culturally acceptable to the IP and economically feasible so that the IP are not further discriminated/marginalized

• Be institutionally feasible: Local institutionally capacity should be adequate to take up activities

• Be environmentally sustainable and avoid detrimental impacts from those activities that cannot be mitigated

• Be elected and owned by the IP and other communities through participatory consultation

• Be supported by training and capacity building to enhance IP and community development

74. The Secretariat for the two projects will generally be responsible for such screening together with the implementing institutions; however, decisions will be made by mutual consent of the Indigenous Peoples and with the endorsement of the national level management of the two projects: KAPAP and KACCAL.

42

Table 3: Format for Social Assessment

SOCIAL SCREENING FOR KAPAP AND KACCAL ACTIVITIES

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATIONA 1. Type/description/justification of proposed activityA 2. Location of activityA3. Duration of activityA 4. Focal point and person for activity

B1. Benefits for local people

B. EXPECTED BENEFITS

B2. Benefits to Indigenous Peoples (IP) B3. Total Number of expected beneficiariesB4. Total Number of expected IndigenousPeoples beneficiariesB5. Ratio of B4 and B3; Are benefits distributed equitably?

YES

NO

If NO state remedial

measuresC. POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOCIAL IMPACTS

C1. Will activity entail restriction of access of IP to lands and related natural resourcesC2. Will activity entail commercial development of natural and cultural resources critical to IPC3. Will activity entail physical relocation of Indigenous Peoples

YES NO

If yes exclude from project YES NO

If yes exclude from project YES NO

If yes exclude from projectD. CONSULTATION WITH IP

D1. Has IP orientation to project been done for this group?D2. Has PRA/RRA been done in this area?D3. Did the indigenous peoples givebroad support for project

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

Prepared by: Verified by: KAPAP RSU Coordinator IP representativeDate: Date: Note: Attach sketch maps, PRA/RRA results and other relevant documents.

43

5.5 Capacity Building

75. During the IP orientation and mobilization process, the interest, capacity and skills of the IP and their institutions, CBOs and NGOs for natural resource management, including social screening, will be assessed. The project will provide training for them in resource mapping, natural resource management evaluation, planning, record keeping, basic account keeping and monitoring and evaluation.

76. In addition, for social impact management, training will be needed for KAPAP and KACCAL and implementing agencies key staff on the implementation of the IPPF with special attention to developing their knowledge on IPPF background, history and areas of concern as well as their skills for community orientation, free, prior and informed consultative planning, PRA tools and techniques

5.6 Establish equitable representation of IP in decision making organs within the two projects

77. The two projects will ensure that IP are well represented in the national, county and district steering committees to articulate issues important to them. They will help make decisions on their needs and priorities with facilitation and guidance from the two projects and the implementing organizations. In so doing, IP representatives will take the following into account:

• Conservation of natural resources by adopting specific, tangible actions that demonstrate sustainable use and management, linked with improving their livelihoods while upholding their rights, culture and dignity.

• Social sustainability ensuring that their livelihoods and way of life are not adversely impacted but rather improved and that there is equitable share of benefits with IP and that measures to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts, if any, on them are adequate

• Environm e n tal sustainability ensuring that detrimental environmental impacts such as depletion of biodiversity are avoided or mitigated

• Low cost and finan c ial feasibility ensuring that proposed activities can be sustained with their own resources and system after completion of KAPAP and KACCAL

• Consistency with nat i onal p olic i es and objectives as far as is possible given that some policies such as the Forest Bill are not supportive of the IP.

6 The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework of the two projects78. The following Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) of the

two projects develops measures to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples (Ogiek and Sengwer) receive social and economic benefits that are

culturally appropriate, including measures to enhance the capacity of the project implementing agencies and other stakeholders. The IPPF embodies a pilot phase in which the IPPF will be presented and discussed in all Indigenous Peoples’ settlements in the two projects’ operational areas, to enhance the broad support from Indigenous Peoples for the two projects, to provide detailed baseline data for the planning and the M&E and to integrate additional and/or specific problems to be addressed into the IPPF. The results of these consultations will be used to redefine the IPPF during the course of its implementation. Such an open and well facilitated discussion process, which goes along with the formation of the IPPF implementing bodies, will further enhance the communication and cooperation between the Indigenous Peoples in the operational areas and the two projects. To monitor and evaluate the impacts of the IPPF, draft impact indicators are elaborated, which should be redefined as one of the first activities of the proposed participatory impact monitoring on the base of the baseline data established during the pilot-phase.

79. Due to the fact that no detailed demographic data on the Ogiek and Sengwer exists, it is difficult to estimate how many indigenous people will be affected by the two projects. The Ogiek inhabit Nakuru District while the Sengwer inhabit Trans Nzoia and West Pokot Districts, the three of which are KAPAP while the last County alongside others is KACCAL operation area. It is estimated that there are approximately 20,000 Ogiek in East Africa and majority of those live in Nakuru, (Kimaiyo 2004) and an estimated 15,000 and 10,000 Sengwer in Trans Nzoia and West Pokot districts, respectively.

80. During the planning phase, the main focus will be on the establishment of the institutional framework, the sensitization of all stakeholders in general and the affected populations in particular, and the gathering of baseline data. As this will involve all Ogiek and Sengwer settlements in the operational areas, the IPPF should be further discussed in detail and - in case the need arises - amendments suggested to the steering committee.

In general, it is assumed that the activities of the IPPF of the two projects (see ) are able to guarantee that the t w o p r o j e c t s a r e able to satisfy international requirements in general and the OP 4.10 of the World Bank in particular, and that :

a) the two projects reduce poverty for all ethnic groups and lowers the dependence on and degradation of natural resources;

b) the two projects promote an effective management system of lands and natural resources, which offers positive impacts to the entire population and the biodiversity;

c) the two projects respect the dignity, rights and culture of the Indigenous Peoples; and

d) the two projects assure that the Ogiek and Sengwer receive culturally appropriate benefits equal to other ethnic groups.

46

Table 4: KAPAP and KACCAL - Indigenous People’s Planning Framework for the Sengwer and Ogiek

Issue Activity Indigenous People’sResponsibility

By When

Cost in USD

Indicators

1. Capacity Building for implementation of IPPF

Orientation and Mobilization

Projects Implementing Organizations

08/2009

30,000

Training of staff from Community meetings

2. Indigenous Peoples Orientation and Mobilization

Reconnaissance survey Community meetings

Projects Indigenous Peoples Organizations/ elders

09/2009

20,000

Population and dynamics of IP in the two projects Counties/ Districts well understood by key players

3. Consultations with Indigenous Peoples:

Participatory RuralAppraisals/Rapid Rural Appraisals

Projects 12/2009

15,000

IP in all the two projects operation Districts give broad support for the project

4. Mapping of community resources critical to IP

Baseline Surveys Community transect reports

Projects IPO s

03/2010

30,000

Information from consultations verified by IP and IPOs as correct and a true representation of natural, cultural and social, technical resources critical to their survival

5. Development of strategies for participation of IP and mitigation measures

Social Screening do not leave the IP worse off than they were

P r o j e c t s Annual 40,000

Active participation of IP in forums

IP and M&E indicate that representation is satisfactory to the IP

6. Capacity Building

Trainings for IP and IPO

Two projects Three project8

100,000

IP and IPO use training to advance their cause

7. Equitable representation of IP in decision making organs

Election of representatives Annual Steering Committee meetings Bi-annual District

Two projects Project Inception, Bi-annual Annual

50,000

Active participation of IP in forums IP and M&E indicate that representation is satisfactory to the IP

8 KAPAP; KACCAL

47

Level meetings8. Participatory

M&E with IPInternal M&E External M&E

Projects IPO Annual Project

M&E M&E reports accessible to IP and implementing agencies

Mechanism for feedback into IPPF in place and implemented

7 Institutional and Communication Arrangements81. According to the Project Appraisal Documents, the two projects will

be implemented by six agencies: the Ministries of Agriculture, Livestock Development, Fisheries Development, and Cooperative Development, KARI, and KENFAP. Other implementing agencies include: Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources; Kenya Forest Service (KFS); Ministry of Water and Irrigation; National Environment Management Authority (NEMA); Ministry on National Planning and Vision 2030; Ministry of Lands and Settlement; Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA); Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS); TerrAfrica; and Universities. Representatives from these institutions will form the National Steering Committee, together with the players in the implementation of the IPPF, in addition to sector ministries Environment and Natural Resources, Lands, Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Affairs. Other key members will include a representative from the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights and one representative from each of the 12 districts in which the two projects interact with Indigenous Peoples (= 12 in total), 2 representatives from the IPOs (one for each group [Ogiek and Sengwer]) and 2 elected representatives of the two communities.

82. AtCounty Level a County IPPF-committee should consist of a representative each from: the two projects (RSU Coordinator/CAC/CCC), District Officer (Governor’s Office? County Commissioner?), Agricultural department, Livestock department, Forest department, Lands department, Security department, District Development Office, Department of Social Affairs and 12 representatives from the indigenous peoples’ communities. It will provide a linkage between the two projects, the Indigenous Peoples and the district administration. It should meet twice a year and work as focal point for all IPPF related issues at district level. It should be informed about the two projects activities and communicate relevant information through the Indigenous Peoples’ representatives to the Indigenous Peoples’ communities. It should also gather information and feedback from the Indigenous Peoples’ communities to channel them to the relevant governmental structures, the national steering committee, or the Secretariat of the two projects.

83. The Officers in the Regional Service Units will chair both committees and facilitate communication between the National Steering Committee, the Secretariat of the two projects and the IP. The

48

elected representatives from the community will facilitate the communication between the Indigenous Peoples’ communities in their area and the district IPPF committee, the national steering committee and the projects. They should be elected during the pilot phase of the IPPF after a further introduction and general discussion on the IPPF, the communication channels, etc., to ensure that the elected representatives have broad community support and are elected on the basis of free, prior and informed consultations.

84. To harmonize IPPF work between the different levels, the Indigenous Peoples representatives in each of the ten districts in the operational area with Indigenous Peoples should elect among them two coordinators to represent the Indigenous Peoples of the district in the national steering committee, and to coordinate communication and work among the Indigenous Peoples of the district.

49

ICC

ASPSC

KAPAP SECRETARIAT

RASPSC

IP Reps (National Farmer For a)

IP Reps (County level)

IP Reps (District level)

IP Reps (Locational level)

IP CIG

RSUs/CACs/CCCs

Figure 1: Projects’ institutional and IP Representation Flow Chart

50

8 Grievance processes85. There will be two levels of dispute resolution under t h e t w o

p r o j e c t s ; the C o u n t y a n d District Level Committee and the National Steering Committee elaborated above. In addition, the IP will take into account their cultural and customary dispute resolution mechanisms and seek to integrate these with the project structures, as will be deemed appropriate depending on the circumstances. In the event that all of these options are exhausted, then judicial recourse should be considered as a last option. Grievances from the communities on the implementation of the project should follow a similar course. Room should be given for revision of this process to incorporate the input of the IPPF during community orientation and mobilization. In April 2011, KAPAP undertook community consultation on the GCHM and the three regions visited Nakuru (Nesuiit – Ogiek); Trans Nzoia (Kapolet – Sengwer) and West Pokot (Talau- Sengwer) agreed on a workable model (see Figure 2). This model needs to be re-disclosed for both KAPAP and KACCAL.

A. CommunicationCommunication at the community Level will be handled as follows: Each Common Interest Group (CIG) formed (ordinary or IP–based) at the community level will democratically elect a committee to help the group in fulfilling some of its obligations including channelling of communication, grievances and conflicts. The committee will have a chairman, vice chairman, secretary and treasurer. The committees will on behalf of the CIG send and receive communication from the various structures of KAPAPand KACCAL and shall use the following channels of communication: CIG Committee and CIG Members - Letter , E-mail, Telephone/cell-phone, Interpersonal communication/face to face, Meeting/baraza, Posters; CIG and CIG members - Interpersonal /face to face/Farmer to farmer; CIG Committee and Farmers Forum – Letter, Meeting, E-mail, Telephone/cell-phone; CIG and Service Provider Firm – Letter, Meeting, E-mail, Telephone/cell-phone, Workshop; demonstrations, exhibitions, field days, farmer toursB. Complaint Handling Mechanisms At The Community Level

Receiving feedback/complaints from intended beneficiaries is important in determining the progress of a project as it enhances transparency and accountability. Mechanisms agreed upon to be used for complaint handling at the community level include: CIG Committee - Members report their complaints to the democratically elected CIC Committee through word of mouth, telephone, and letter. Committee validates the complaint and arbitrates accordingly; Divisional Farmers’ Forum - Cases that are too complex for the CIG Committee are referred to the Divisional Farmers’

51

Forum by the CIG committee in writing for arbitration and feedback relayed to the concerned members through the CIG Committee also in writing. Members not willing to be identified; can drop their suggestions/complaints in suggestion boxes that will be made available and accessible in the location. Complaints will be addressed by a special committee of the Divisional Farmers’ Forum for complaints touching on CIGs, CIG Committee Officials, and Service Provider Firms. Complaints touching on the Regional Service Units/CACs/CCCs will be sent to the National Coordinator KAPAP/KACCAL through any of the following avenues:

Email: info@kapp.go.ke Telephone No. 020 2715466 Letter through box number 8073-00200, Nairobi.

52

National level Implementing Agencies

KAPAP Secretariat

World Bank

National Level Farmer Fora(Include Reps -IP CIGs)

RSURegional level Implementing Agencies

CIGs

Individual CIG Member

Service Providers’ Firms Community

Interim Committee

Locational Farmer Fora (Include Reps -IP CIGs)

Divisional Farmer Fora (Include Reps -IP CIGs)

Regional Farmer Fora(Include Reps -IP CIGs)

Countyl Administration

Figure 3: KAPAP Communication, Complaints and Grievance Handling Mechanism Model

Figure 2: GHCM Model for KAPAP/KACCAL

53

Key: Direct interaction only when necessary

Direct interaction between actors

9 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms86. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are fundamental

components of projects involving affected individuals, households and communities. Monitoring should be participatory and include the monitoring of beneficial and adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples within project impact areas. M&E should be based on free, prior and informed consultation with the IP who should play an integral role in its implementation. All monitoring activities are ultimately the responsibility of the Secretariat of the two projects. Implementing agencies will be responsible for compiling the data and auditing for completeness of the records, and they will be responsible for providing compiled M&E information to the two projects.

87. The overall goal of the M&E process for the Indigenous Peoples Plan is to: Ensure effective communication and consultation takes place; Report any grievances that require resolution; Document the performance of the two projects as regards the Indigenous Peoples; and Allow program managers and participants to evaluate whether the Sengwer and Ogiek have maintained their rights, culture and dignity and that they are not worse off than they were before the project.

The objectives of evaluation include:

i. An assessment of the compliance of activities undertaken in relation to the objectives and methods identified in the IPPF;

ii. An assessment of the consultation procedures that have taken place at the community and individual level;

iii. An assessment on whether the affected communities have had access to

iv. mitigation activities;v. The occurrence of grievances and extent of

resolution of disputes;vi. An evaluation of the impact of the Projects on income and

standard of living within the communities; andvii. Identification of actions that can improve the positive impact of

the Projects and mitigate potential negative impacts.88. The PM&E reports at district level should be produced before June 30th

of each year and then be returned to all Indigenous Peoples’ communities for feedback etc., before being handed over to the IPPF-committees at district level before August 31st . In September of each year (from 2010 on) the IPPF district committees will meet to discuss among other issues the PM&E reports, elaborate an evaluation at district level and prepare recommendations on how to fine-tune the

54

IPPF and the two projects further.89. The district PM&E-reports, the district IPPF evaluation and the

recommendation should be communicated to the national steering committee before October 31st. The IPPF coordinator of the Projects Secretariat will publish the district PIM reports, the district IPPF evaluations and recommendation through the KAPAP webpage, communicate them to the steering committee members, the World Bank task team and the interested public. They will be the basis for the annual evaluation of the IPPF implementation carried out by the national steering committee in view of the performance indicators outlined in the IPPF and the overarching principles of this IPPF. The outcomes of this process will be further crosschecked in 2012 and 2014 by an external IPPF evaluation and the World Bank task team in view to enhance the quality further, and to guarantee that the indigenous peoples’ dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures are respected by the two projects, that all decisions which affect any of these are based on the free, prior, and informed consultation with the Indigenous Peoples, that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate and gender and inter-generationally inclusive, that adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples' communities are, as much as possible, avoided, and if this was according to the IPPF district-committees not feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate in a culturally appropriate manner, based on broad support by the Indigenous Peoples’ communities.

90. The following indicator groups (Table 5) are suggested as a basis to measure the success and weakness of activities related to Indigenous Peoples.

Table 5: Monitoring and evaluation for KAPAP and KACCAL IPPF

Issue Indicator Data Source Responsible Schedul

eFramework Indicators: Effectiveness of the IPPF1. Capacity

Building for implementation of IPPF

Number ofindividuals &institutions trained

Trainingworkshops reports

Projects’ Secretariat

First year of each project implementation2. Indigenous

Peoples Orientation and Mobilization

Number of IPmeetings; Number of IP sensitised

Reconnaissancesurvey reports Community meeting reports

Projects’ Secretariat,IPO

Baseline

3. Consultations with

Indigenous Peoples

Number ofPRA/RRA Attendance of PRA/RRA PRA reportsacceptable to IP

RRA reports PRAreports

projects’ Secretariat IPO

Baseline

4. Mapping of community resources critical to IP

Level of IPparticipationReports verified and accepted by IP

Baseline surveyreports Community transect reports

projects’ Secretariat IPO

Baseline

5. Development of strategies for participation of IP and mitigation measures

Number of projectspassed by socialscreeningNumber of projects

Projects’ reports;Implementing agencies reports

projects’ Secretariat

Annual

6. Capacity Building Types of trainingAttendance by IP

Training reports projects’ Secretariat

Annual

7. Equitable representation of IP in decision making organs

Number of meetingsattended by IP representatives Number and types of IP issues

County/District Level andNational Steering Committee reports IPO reports

projects’ Secretariat IPO

Annual,Bi- annual

Livelihood Indicators: Livelihood Status of Indigenous Peoples8. Socio-economicstatus of

IP

Change inLivelihood activities of IP households, disaggregated by gender

projects’ M&EreportsSurvey reports

projects’ Secretariat IPO

Annual

Change incomelevels of IPhouseholds

projects’ M&EreportsSurvey reports

projects’ Secretariat IPO

Annual

9. Land and natural

resources use and access

Change in type andlocation in natural resource

IPO reportsSocial AssessmentReports

projects’ Secretariat

41

42

BibliographyAnderson, Dave (2002) Eroding the Commons: The Politics of Ecology in Baringo, Kenya,

1890-1963; James Currey.Anonymous (2001). Ogiek: Evicted and displaced. Nomadic News 2001(1):17. Anonymous (n.J.) The Okiek of Kenya. h ttp://www.ogiek.org / indepth/Okiek. p df. Blackburn, R. (1974) The Okiek and their History, Azania vol 9:132-153.Blackburn, R. (1976) Okiek history. In B. A. Ogot (ed.), Kenya before 1900. Nairobi: East African

Publishing House.Blackburn, R. (1982) In the land of milk and honey. In E. B. Leacock and R. B. Lee (eds.),

Politics and history in band societies, pp. 283-305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coldham, S. 1978. The effect of registration of title upon customary land rights in Kenya, J. African

Law, 22(2): 91 - 111.Francis, Paul & Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, Mary (2005) Bitter harvest: The social costs of

state failure in rural Kenya. Paper presented at the workshop “New Frontiers of Social Policy: Development in a Globalizing World” Arusha/Tanzania 12th - 15th of December, 2005.

Gloor, Rolf (1986) Il Chamus - Njemps; Zetzwil, Switzerland: Schüch-Verlag, 1986Huntingford, G. W. B. (1929) . Modern hunters: some account of the Kamelilo-Kapchepkendi Dorobo

(Okiek) of Kenya colony. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 59:333-76.Huntingford, G. W. B. (1954). The political organization of the Dorobo. Anthropos 49:123-48.

Kai Schmidt-Soltau 2006 Indigenous Peoples Plan of the Kenya Agricultural Productivity – Sustainable Land Management Project Final Report December 2006Kailerr (2001): Participatory Learing Approach; Village Development Plan.Kamau, John (2000) The Ogiek: The Ongoing Destruction of a Minority Tribe in Kenya:

www.ogiek.org.KARI (2004) Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project - Sectoral Environmental and Social Assessment

(Draft Final Report)KARI (2004) Social Analysis of the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II (Final Report).KARI (2005) GEF Kenya Agricultural Productivity – Sustainable Land Management Project Proposal

(April 28th, 2005).KARI (2005) Participatory Rural Appraisal Report for Talau Location (West Pokot

District/Cherangany Hill Catchment Area).Kenny, M. (1981) Mirror in the forest: the Dorobo hunter-gatherers as an image of the

other. Africa 51 (1):477-96.Kenya, Government (1980), District Development Plan, Baringo District, 1979–

1983. Nairobi: Government Printers.

43

Kimaiyo. T. J. (2004) Ogiek Land Cases and Historical Injustices 1902-2004. Your resources, our relations.

Kiptum, David Yator (2001). The Sengwer indigenous peoples of Kenya. http://www.membrers.ly c os.fr / Seng we r

Kiptum, David Yator (2002). Memorandum from the Sengwer of Kenya presented to the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission: New Constitution is the only hope for ethnic minorities. http://www.ogiek.org/ m emo-seng-1_htm#1_0.ht m .

Klopp, Jacqueline M (2001) 'Ethnic Clashes' and Winning Elections: The Case of Kenya's Electoral

Despotism, Canadian Journal of African Studies, 35 (2): 473-517.

44

Klumpp, D. and C. Kratz (1993) Aesthetics, expertise, and ethnicity: Okiek and Maasai perspectives on personal ornament. In T. Spear and R. Waller (eds.), Being Maasai. London: James Currey.

Kobei, Daniel M. (2002) Ogiek: The last hunter-gatherers. Nomadic News 2002 (2) 60-62.Kratz, C. A. (1981) Are the Okiek really Maasai? or Kipsigis? or Kikuyu? Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines

79(20):355-68.Kratz, C. A. (1994) Affecting performance: meaning, movement, and experience in Okiek

women's initiation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Little, (P.D. (1996) Pastoralism, biodiversity, and the shaping of savanna landscapes in

East Africa; Acrica 66(1) 37-50.Little, P.D. & Brokensha, D.W. 1987. Local institutions, tenure and resource

management in East Africa. In D. Anderson & R. Grove, eds. Conservation in Africa. p. 193-209. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Little, P.D. (1985) Social Differentiation and Pastoralist Sedentarization in Northern Kenya.’ Africa 55 (3): 243–261.

Little, P.D. (1992) The Elusive Granary: Herder, Farmer, and State in Northern Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Little, P.D. (1997) Income and Assets as Impact Indicators. Washington, DC: Management Systems

International.Little, P.D.(1998), Maasai Identity on the Periphery. American Anthropologist 100 (2): 444-468.Little, P.D., K. Smith, B.A. Cellarius, D.L. Coppock, and C.B. Barrett, (2001),

Avoiding Disaster: Diversification and risk management among East African herders. Development and Change 32 (3):401–433.

Longewan (2002): Participatory Learing Approach; Village Development Plan.Makoloo, Maurice Odhiambo; (2005). Kenya: Minorities, Indigenous Peoples and ethnic diversity.

Minority Right Group.Marshall, E (1994) Food sharing and body part representation in Okiek faunal assemblages. Journal of

Archaeological Science 21 (1) :65-77.Matter, Scott (forthcoming) Imperfect State: The Complexity of Power, Politics, and Land Rights at

Enoosupukia, Kenya.Matter, Scott, 2004. 'We have this land as our right': ethnicity, politics, and land rights at

Enoosupukia, Kenya' MA Thesis, McGill UniversityMcPeak, John & Little, Peter D. (2004) Cursed If You Do,Cursed If You Don’t: The Contradictory

Processes of Pastoral Sedentarization in Northern Kenya in: XXXX p. 88-104Ministry of Finance and Planning: Baringo District Development Plan 2002-2008.Ministry of Lands (2005). National Land Policy Formulation Process. (www .l andpo l icy. o r . ke). Niamir, Maryam (2004) Traditional African Range management techniques: Implication

for rangeland development; In: Community Forestry: Herders’ Decision-making in Natural Resource Management in Arid and Semi-Arid Africa. FAO.

Nkonya1, Ephraim; Gicheru, Patrick; Woelcke, Johannes; Okoba, Barrack; Kilambya,

45

Daniel; Gachimbi, Louis, Lutta, Mohammed (2005): Economic and financial analysis of the agricultural productivity and sustainable land management project in Kenya. Progress Report.

Nomi, Ron (2004). The Ogiek: The Guardians of the forest. Nomadic News 2004 (9): 57-61. Onotto, Jillo (2003) The Waata. Nomadic News 2003(1):59.Ostberg, W.1988. We eat trees: tree planting and land rehabilitation in West Pokot

District, Kenya. A baseline study, p. 640. Working Paper No. 82. Uppsala, Sweden, International Rural Development Centre, Swedish Univ. Agric. Sciences.

46

Rottland, E and R. Vossen (1977) . Grundlagen für eine Klärung des Dorobo-Problems. In W. J. G.

Mohlig, E Rottland, and B. Heine (eds.), Zur Sprachgeschichte und Ethnohistorie in Afrika. Berlin:Dietrich Verlag.

Sang, Joseph .K. (2002). The Ogiek Land Question. http: / /w w w.cpsu. o rg.uk / do w nl o a ds / Joesph % 20Sa n g. pd f

Sena, Charles & Towett, Joseph (2003). The Ogiek. Nomadic News 2003(1):19-20.Swallow, Brent & Bromley, Daniel (1992) Institutions, governance and incentives in

common property regimes for African rangelands.Tiampati, Michael (2002) Sengwer: A people in identity crisis. Nomadic News 2002 (2) 63-64.Tokida, Kunihiro (2002) Rural Development Planning with Community Involved-Verification

Projects: Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Tokyo, Japan.Tuweit, Joseph (2004). The Ogiek of North-Tindiret. Burnt Forest: Ogiek Consortium.World Bank (2005) Project appraisal document on a proposed grant from the Global

Environmental Facility Trust Fund for an Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project (Draft August 29, 2005).

ANNEXESANNEX 1: Process and Itinerary for consultation with IP (KAPSLMP)

1. Summary of the process and findings from the KAPSLMP IPPF which infroemd the KAPAP IPPF. The KAPLSM relied on:

a) a gender and inter-generationally inclusive framework that provided opportunities for consultation at each stage among (i) the project, (ii) the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities, (iii) the Indigenous Peoples organizations, and (iv) other local civil society organizations identified by the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities;b) consultation methods appropriate to the social and cultural values of the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities and their local conditions and, in designing these methods, gives special attention to the concerns of indigenous women, youth, and children; andc) the provision of all relevant information about the project (including an assessment of potential adverse effects of the project on the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities – see chapter 3) in a culturally appropriate manner.

2. The free, prior and informed consultations with indigenous peoples under KAPSLMP were undertaken in 5 phases: a) baseline survey and in-depth consultations in 7 representative Indigenous Peoples’ settlements and some Indigenous Peoples’ organizations; b) elaboration of a draft IPPF on the basis of this information; c) distribution of the draft IPPF to all stakeholders (relevant governmental structures and Indigenous Peoples’ communities in the operational area of the project); d) internal discussion of the draft IPPF among the stakeholders without external influence; d) workshop to discuss and finalize the IPPF of the KAPSLMP (see annex 4).

Itinerary for consultations with IPs under KAPSLM

Day Date Place

Activity1 8/12/05 Y’dé-Nairobi Review of PAD and other literature, Transport.

2 9/12/05 Nairobi Transport. Discussion with KARI. Planning of fieldtrips,etc. Team building with other consultants and relevant KARI staff. Discussion with Centre for Minority Rights Development (Korrir Singoeie) and Indigenous Information Network (Lucy Mulenkie).3 10/12/05 Nairobi Review of documents. Discussion with World Bank TaskTeam.4 11/12/05 Nairobi Review of documents.

5 12/12/05 Nakuru Transport. Discussion with stakeholders in Nakuru:Sengwer Indigenous Development Project; Sengwer Education Bursary Fund; Hunter-Gatherer Forum; Ogiek Welfare Council; Ogiek Peoples Development

6 13/12/05 Tugen Hills Consultation with local stakeholders: District Departmentof Social Services (Jane Obiero); Consultation with IP: Village Meeting with Ilchamus in Kailerr.7 14/12/05 Tugen Hills Consultation with local stakeholders: District Forest andEnvironmental Service; District office of Ministry ofLivestock (Laman Labatt) Consultation with IP: 8 15/12/05 Tugen Hills Consultations with local stakeholders: Tugen Populationsin and near Lake Kamnarok9 16/12/05 Cherangany Consultant with local stakeholders: SCC-Vi Agroforestry(Bjorn Horuath); District Development Office (Gladys Kinuah); District Department of Lands and Land Settlement (Tom Chepkwesi & Isaac Kavue); Catholic Church Land & Peace Programme (Mathew Bole); District Department of Social Services (Jane 10 17/12/05 Cherangany Consultant with IP: Meeting with Sengwer in KapoletForest and Talau Location11 18/12/05 Cherangany Consultant with IP: Meeting with Sengwer in Kamologon(Embobut forest)12 19/12/05 Nakuru Consultant with IP: Meeting with Ogiek in KipkurereForest

13 20/12/05 Nakuru Consultant with IP: Meeting with Ogiek in EnoosupukiaForest14 21/12/05 Nairobi Feedback session with KARI; Discussion with Julian Baueron Watha in the Taita Hills project site.15 22/12/05 Nairobi-Y’dé Elaboration of draft IPPF

16 23/12/05 Yaoundé Elaboration of draft IPPF17 24/12/05 Yaoundé Elaboration of draft IPP18 25/12/05 Yaoundé Elaboration of draft IPP19 26/12/05 Yaoundé Elaboration of draft IPP20 7/1/06 Y’dé-Nairobi Transport21-28

8-15/1/06

Nairobi Discussions with KARI

29 16/1/06 Nairobi Preparation of IPP workshop30 17/1/06 Kapanguera Travel31 18/1/06 Kapanguera IPP workshop32 19/1/06 Kap’era -Y’dé Travel33 20/1/06 Yaoundé Finalisation of IPP

45

47

ANNEX 2: Peoples and organizations directly consulted

OgiekCharles Sena; Ogiek Peoples National Assembly; (info@orip.or.k e ) Joseph Towett; Ogiek Peoples National Assembly & Ogiek Welfare Council

(ogieknet@cratornet.co m ). ; Sarone ole Sena (sarone_ole_sena@wvi.org); Daniel Kobei ; Ogiek Peoples Development Programme (dkobei@yahoo.com ; opdp2001@yahoo.com ).

Village Meeting Enoosupukia Forest: 19/12/05 Simon Ngayami (SimonSeleyian@y a h o o.co m ;

0721-976794); Kuyiato Nashur; Simana Kereto; Mayiani Ole Mebaron; TimothyOle Mebaron; Naguoi Omerae; Nurran Kereto; Lepapa Omerae; Eunice Ngayami.

Village Meeting Kipkurere Forest: 20/12/05 Joseph Tuwei (0720-808130); Kipkoech Sang (0724-554315); Kiprotich Koringo (0723-753440); William K. Tuwgi (0721-735330); William K. Katam (0720-385919); Mercy Jepkosgei (0725-943949); Samuel K. Songok; William K. Koech; Kepkendot Mutai; Johana Bett; Benjamin Maiyo; Kibkerege Koech; Richard K. Langat; David K. Sitienei.

SengwerDavid Kiptum Yator; Sengwer Indigenous Development Project; Sengwer

Education Bursary Fund; Hunter-Gatherer Forum; (ykiptumsengwer@hotmail.com ; yat.or@ly c os.com ; sengwer.idp@multitechweb.co m ).

Moses Leleu Laima (Sengwer Cerangany Cultural Group; P.O. Box 94-30215; Kesogon via Kitale; 0734-683050)

Paul Kebet; Cherangany Hills Forest Conservation; (0721-353944)Village Meeting Talau Location: 16/12/0520 male and 10 female.Village Meeting Kamologon (Embobut forest): 18/12/05Thomas; Paul Kip Kenoi; Sammy Kip Chemeri; Toroitich; William; Chehimo Kip Koo; Paulina; Josephine; Elisabeth; Selly.Village Meeting Kapolet Forest: 17/12/05 Jacob K. Chehol (Sengwer

Land Allocation Committee; 0735-493161); Josilah J. Cheruiyot (Livestock & Fisheries); Charles Kiberen (Sengwer Land Allocation Committee); Barnabas Ng’esenwo (Public Officer Marakwet District); Joseph Cheruiyot (Senwer Community Health Centre); Jacob K.Roi (Sengwer Water, Sanitation and Environment Committee); Viola Chepngetich (Sengwer Youth Committee 0722-428781); Frida Chepkoech (Sengwer Youth Committee); William Kiptoo (Village Elder); Kiptoo Keleke (Sengwer

IlchamusOrlando Loweri; Lake Baringo Self-Help Group (0723-990652 & 0725-

48

860187; c/oBaringo Island Camp P.O. Box 1141; Nakuru)

Francis L. Olekeis; Kailer Village Development Committee; (P.O. Box 80 Marigat; Tel: 0735-870161)

Samson Kakimon, Kailer Village Development Committee; (P.O. Box 56 Marigat; Tel:

0736-444359)Village Meeting on Ol Kokwa: 8 male, 4 female (13/12/05)).Village Meeting Kailer: 14/12/05 Francis Lekingidia; Jackson Naremo;

Veronica Tikinya; Esther Tenges; Mariku-Nkera Likimariki; Christine Lekesio; Rosemany Naremo; Nolkoronkaya Lekaitalin; Jane Sululia; Mary Suluka; Maria Lekituli; Jane Nareno; Eunice Lenonoi; Leviah Lesange; Salinaah Kenei; Lepooya James; Lekae Samuel; Valychiffe Pilinah; Tom Sekege; Lekchike Peter; Samson Lenonor; Godama Sayroki; Nicholas Lekinaniki; Lenaguienyi Wilson; Lokuda Lekesio; Kinozol Moiben and Keiz Francis.

Indigenous Peoples OrganisationsNaomi Kipuri, African Union Sub-commission on Indigenous

People; (kipuri3000@yahoo.com ) Fisherpeoples Network: Mr. Mhuswala (0733-423706) Indigenous Information Network: Lucy Mulenkei.Centre for Minority Rights Development: Korrir Singoeie

(Korir.singoei@cemiride.inf o ; 722-776994)ExpertsPeter Little; University of Kentucky; (pdlitt1@uky.ed u ; Email 7&10/12/05)Abdillahi Aboud; Egerton University; (Eu-crsp@africaonline.co.ke ; Email 10/12/05).

Meeting 13/12/05.Clement Lenachuru; Egerton University; (olenashuru@yahoo.com ; Email 10/12/05) Josephat Cheng'ole Mulindo; KARI Marigat, Baringo District

(cjmulindo@yahoo.com ); Email 10/12/05)Johnson Changeiywo; Egerton University; (jchangeiy w o@yah o o.co m ). Maina Josephat; Ministry of Livestock Marigat (0735-170951)Laban Labatt; Ministry of Livestock Marigat (0735-115117 & 0722-364449) Bjorn Horvath; VA-Life Project Kibale (bjorn.viafpk@mac.co m )

49

Scott Matter; McGill University (scott.matter@mail.mcgill.ca ) Jacqueline Klopp: Columbia University (jk2002@columbia.ed u ) Julian Bauer; EcoTerra (0733-633000; pjb@ecoterra.ne t )

50

ANNEX 3: OP. 4.10: Indigenous Peoples

Note: OP and BP 4.10 together replace OD 4.20, Indigenous Peoples, dated September 1991. These OP and BP apply to all projects for which a Project Concept Review takes place on or after July 1, 2005. Questions may be addressed to the Director, Social Development Department (SDV).1. This policy [1] contributes to the Bank’s [2] mission of poverty reduction and sustainable development by ensuring that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures of Indigenous Peoples. For all projects that are proposed for Bank financing and affect Indigenous Peoples,[3] the Bank requires the borrower to engage in a process of free, prior, and informed consultation.[4] The Bank provides project financing only where free, prior, and informed consultation results in broad community support to the project by the affected Indigenous Peoples.[5] Such Bank-financed projects include measures to (a) avoid potentially adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples' communities; or (b) when avoidance is not feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects. Bank- financed projects are also designed to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate and gender and intergenerationally inclusive.

2. The Bank recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources on which they depend. These distinct circumstances expose Indigenous Peoples to different types of risks and levels of impacts from development projects, including loss of identity, culture, and customary livelihoods, as well as exposure to disease. Gender and intergenerational issues among Indigenous Peoples also are complex. As social groups with identities that are often distinct from dominant groups in their national societies, Indigenous Peoples are frequently among the most marginalized and vulnerable segments of the population. As a result, their economic, social, and legal status often limits their capacity to defend their interests in and rights to lands, territories, and other productive resources, and/or restricts their ability to participate in and benefit from development. At the same time, the Bank recognizes that Indigenous Peoples play a vital role in sustainable development and that their rights are increasingly being addressed under both domestic and international law.

3. Identification. Because of the varied and changing contexts in which Indigenous Peoples live, and because there is no universally accepted definition of "Indigenous Peoples," this policy does not define the term. Indigenous Peoples may be referred to in different countries by such terms as "indigenous ethnic minorities," "aboriginals," "hill tribes," "minority nationalities," "scheduled tribes," or "tribal groups."4. For purposes of this policy, the term "Indigenous Peoples" is used in a generic sense to refer to a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group[6] possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees:

(a) self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;

51

(b) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;[7]

49

(c) customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

(d) an indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

A group that has lost "collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area" (paragraph 4 (b)) because of forced severance remains eligible for coverage under this policy.[8] Ascertaining whether a particular group is considered as "Indigenous Peoples" for the purpose of this policy may require a technical judgment (see paragraph 8).

5. Use of Country Systems. The Bank may decide to use a country's systems to address environmental and social safeguard issues in a Bank-financed project that affects Indigenous Peoples. This decision is made in accordance with the requirements of the applicable Bank policy on country systems. [9]

Project Preparation6. A project proposed for Bank financing that affects Indigenous Peoples requires:(a) screening by the Bank to identify whether Indigenous Peoples are

present in, or have collective attachment to, the project area (see paragraph 8);

(b) a social assessment by the borrower (see paragraph 9 and Annex A);(c) a process of free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected

Indigenous Peoples' communities at each stage of the project, and particularly during project preparation, to fully identify their views and ascertain their broad community support for the project (see paragraphs 10 and 11);

(d) the preparation of an Indigenous Peoples Plan (see paragraph 12 and Annex B) or an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (see paragraph 13 and Annex C); and

(e) disclosure of the Indigenous Peoples Plan or Indigenous Peoples Planning

Framework (see paragraph 15).7. The level of detail necessary to meet the requirements specified in paragraph 6 (b), (c), and (d) is proportional to the complexity of the proposed project and commensurate with the nature and scale of the proposed project's potential effects on the Indigenous Peoples, whether adverse or positive.Screening8. Early in project preparation, the Bank undertakes a screening to determine whether Indigenous Peoples (see paragraph 4) are present in, or have collective attachment to, the project area.[10] In conducting this screening,

50

the Bank seeks the technical judgment of qualified social scientists with expertise on the social and cultural groups in the project area.

The Bank also consults the Indigenous Peoples concerned and the borrower. The Bank may follow the borrower's framework for identification of Indigenous Peoples during project screening, when that framework is consistent with this policy.

51

Social Assessment9. Analysis. If, based on the screening, the Bank concludes that Indigenous Peoples are present in, or have collective attachment to, the project area, the borrower undertakes a social assessment to evaluate the project's potential positive and adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples, and to examine project alternatives where adverse effects may be significant. The breadth, depth, and type of analysis in the social assessment are proportional to the nature and scale of the proposed project's potential effects on the Indigenous Peoples, whether such effects are positive or adverse (see Annex A for details). To carry out the social assessment, the borrower engages social scientists whose qualifications, experience, and terms of reference are acceptable to the Bank.

10. Consultation and Participation. Where the project affects Indigenous Peoples, the borrower engages in free, prior, and informed consultation with them. To ensure such consultation, the borrower:

(a) establishes an appropriate gender and inter-generationally inclusive framework that provides opportunities for consultation at each stage of project preparation and implementation among the borrower, the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities, the Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs) if any, and other local civil society organizations (CSOs) identified by the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities;

(b) uses consultation methods[11] appropriate to the social and cultural values of the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities and their local conditions and, in designing these methods, gives special attention to the concerns of Indigenous women, youth, and children and their access to development opportunities and benefits; and

(c) provides the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities with all relevant information about the project (including an assessment of potential adverse effects of the project on the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities) in a culturally appropriate manner at each stage of project preparation and implementation.

11. In deciding whether to proceed with the project, the borrower ascertains, on the basis of the social assessment (see paragraph 9) and the free, prior, and informed consultation (see paragraph 10), whether the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities provide their broad support to the project. Where there is such support, the borrower prepares a detailed report that documents:(a) the findings of the social assessment;(b) the process of free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous

Peoples' communities;(c) additional measures, including project design modification, that may be

required to address adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples and to provide them with culturally appropriate project benefits;

(d) recommendations for free, prior, and informed consultation with and participation by Indigenous Peoples' communities during project

52

implementation, monitoring, and evaluation; and

53

(e) any formal agreements reached with Indigenous Peoples' communities and/or the

IPOs.The Bank reviews the process and the outcome of the consultation carried out by the borrower to satisfy itself that the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities have provided their broad support to the project. The Bank pays particular attention to the social assessment and to the record and outcome of the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities as a basis for ascertaining whether there is such support. The Bank does not proceed further with project processing if it is unable to ascertain that such support exists.

Indigenous Peoples Plan/Planning Framework12. Indigenous Peoples Plan. On the basis of the social assessment and in consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities, the borrower prepares an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) that sets out the measures through which the borrower will ensure that (a) Indigenous Peoples affected by the project receive culturally appropriate social and economic benefits; and (b) when potential adverse effects on Indigenous Peoples are identified, those adverse effects are avoided, minimized, mitigated, or compensated for (see Annex B for details). The IPP is prepared in a flexible and pragmatic manner, [12] and its level of detail varies depending on the specific project and the nature of effects to be addressed. The borrower integrates the IPP into the project design. When Indigenous Peoples are the sole or the overwhelming majority of direct project beneficiaries, the elements of an IPP should be included in the overall project design, and a separate IPP is not required. In such cases, the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) includes a brief summary of how the project complies with the policy, in particular the IPP requirements.13. Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework. Some projects involve the preparation and implementation of annual investment programs or multiple subprojects.[13] In such cases, and when the Bank's screening indicates that Indigenous Peoples are likely to be present in, or have collective attachment to, the project area, but their presence or collective attachment cannot be determined until the programs or subprojects are identified, the borrower prepares an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF).

The IPPF provides for the screening and review of these programs or subprojects in a manner consistent with this policy (see Annex C for details). The borrower integrates the IPPF into the project design.

14. Preparation of Program and Subproject IPPs. If the screening of an individual program or subproject identified in the IPPF indicates that Indigenous Peoples are present in, or have collective attachment to, the area of the program or subproject, the borrower ensures that, before the individual program or subproject is implemented, a social assessment is carried out and an IPP is prepared in accordance with the requirements of this policy. The borrower provides each IPP to the Bank for review before the respective program or subproject is considered eligible for Bank financing. [14]

54

Disclosure

55

15. The borrower makes the social assessment report and draft IPP/IPPF available to the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities in an appropriate form, manner, and language.[15] Before project appraisal, the borrower sends the social assessment and final IPP/IPPF to the Bank for review. [16] Once the Bank accepts the documents as providing an adequate basis for project appraisal, the Bank makes them available to the public in accordance with The World Bank Access to Information Policy, and the borrower makes them available to the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities in the same manner as the earlier draft documents.

Special ConsiderationsLands and Related Natural Resources16. Indigenous Peoples are closely tied to land, forests, water, wildlife, and other natural resources, and therefore special considerations apply if the project affects such ties. In this situation, when carrying out the social assessment and preparing the IPP/IPPF, the borrower pays particular attention to:(a) the customary rights[17] of the Indigenous Peoples, both individual and

collective, pertaining to lands or territories that they traditionally owned, or customarily used or occupied, and where access to natural resources is vital to the sustainability of their cultures and livelihoods;

(b) the need to protect such lands and resources against illegal intrusion or encroachment;

(c) the cultural and spiritual values that the Indigenous Peoples attribute to such lands and resources; and

(d) Indigenous Peoples' natural resources management practices and the long-term sustainability of such practices.

17. If the project involves (a) activities that are contingent on establishing legally recognized rights to lands and territories that Indigenous Peoples have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied (such as land titling projects), or (b) the acquisition of such lands, the IPP sets forth an action plan for the legal recognition of such ownership, occupation, or usage. Normally, the action plan is carried out before project implementation; in some cases, however, the action plan may need to be carried out concurrently with the project itself. Such legal recognition may take the following forms:

(a) full legal recognition of existing customary land tenure systems of Indigenous

Peoples; or(b) conversion of customary usage rights to communal and/or individual

ownership rights.If neither option is possible under domestic law, the IPP includes measures for legal recognition of perpetual or long-term renewable custodial or use rights.

56

Commercial Development of Natural and Cultural Resources18. If the project involves the commercial development of natural resources (such as minerals, hydrocarbon resources, forests, water, or hunting/fishing grounds) on lands

57

or territories that Indigenous Peoples traditionally owned, or customarily used or occupied, the borrower ensures that as part of the free, prior, and informed consultation process the affected communities are informed of (a) their rights to such resources under statutory and customary law; (b) the scope and nature of the proposed commercial development and the parties interested or involved in such development; and (c) the potential effects of such development on the Indigenous Peoples' livelihoods, environments, and use of such resources. The borrower includes in the IPP arrangements to enable the Indigenous Peoples to share equitably in the benefits [18] to be derived from such commercial development; at a minimum, the IPP arrangements must ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive, in a culturally appropriate manner, benefits, compensation, and rights to due process at least equivalent to that to which any landowner with full legal title to the land would be entitled in the case of commercial development on their land.

19. If the project involves the commercial development of Indigenous Peoples' cultural resources and knowledge (for example, pharmacological or artistic), the borrower ensures that as part of the free, prior, and informed consultation process, the affected communities are informed of (a) their rights to such resources under statutory and customary law; (b) the scope and nature of the proposed commercial development and the parties interested or involved in such development; and (c) the potential effects of such development on Indigenous Peoples' livelihoods, environments, and use of such resources. Commercial development of the cultural resources and knowledge of these Indigenous Peoples is conditional upon their prior agreement to such development. The IPP reflects the nature and content of such agreements and includes arrangements to enable Indigenous Peoples to receive benefits in a culturally appropriate way and share equitably in the benefits to be derived from such commercial development.

Physical Relocation of Indigenous Peoples20. Because physical relocation of Indigenous Peoples is particularly complex and may have significant adverse impacts on their identity, culture, and customary livelihoods, the Bank requires the borrower to explore alternative project designs to avoid physical relocation of Indigenous Peoples. In exceptional circumstances, when it is not feasible to avoid relocation, the borrower will not carry out such relocation without obtaining broad support for it from the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities as part of the free, prior, and informed consultation process. In such cases, the borrower prepares a resettlement plan in accordance with the requirements of OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement, that is compatible with the Indigenous Peoples' cultural preferences, and includes a land-based resettlement strategy. As part of the resettlement plan, the borrower documents the results of the consultation process. Where possible, the resettlement plan should allow the affected Indigenous Peoples to return to the lands and territories they traditionally owned, or customarily used or occupied, if the reasons for their relocation cease to exist.

21. In many countries, the lands set aside as legally designated parks and protected areas may overlap with lands and territories that Indigenous

58

Peoples traditionally owned, or customarily used or occupied. The Bank recognizes the significance of these rights of ownership, occupation, or usage, as well as the need for long-term sustainable management of critical ecosystems. Therefore, involuntary restrictions on Indigenous

59

Peoples' access to legally designated parks and protected areas, in particular access to their sacred sites, should be avoided. In exceptional circumstances, where it is not feasible to avoid restricting access, the borrower prepares, with the free, prior, and informed consultation of the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities, a process framework in accordance with the provisions of OP 4.12. The process framework provides guidelines for preparation, during project implementation, of an individual parks and protected areas' management plan, and ensures that the Indigenous Peoples participate in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the management plan, and share equitably in the benefits of the parks and protected areas. The management plan should give priority to collaborative arrangements that enable the Indigenous Peoples, as the custodians of the resources, to continue to use them in an ecologically sustainable manner.Indigenous Peoples and Development22. In furtherance of the objectives of this policy, the Bank may, at a member country's request, support the country in its development planning and poverty reduction strategies by providing financial assistance for a variety of initiatives designed to:

(a) strengthen local legislation, as needed, to establish legal recognition of the customary or traditional land tenure systems of Indigenous Peoples;

(b) make the development process more inclusive of Indigenous Peoples by incorporating their perspectives in the design of development programs and poverty reduction strategies, and providing them with opportunities to benefit more fully from development programs through policy and legal reforms, capacity building, and free, prior, and informed consultation and participation;

(c) support the development priorities of Indigenous Peoples through programs (such as community-driven development programs and locally managed social funds) developed by governments in cooperation with Indigenous Peoples;

(d) address the gender [19] and intergenerational issues that exist among many Indigenous Peoples, including the special needs of indigenous women, youth, and children;

(e) prepare participatory profiles of Indigenous Peoples to document their culture, demographic structure, gender and intergenerational relations and social organization, institutions, production systems, religious beliefs, and resource use patterns;

(f) strengthen the capacity of Indigenous Peoples' communities and IPOs to prepare, implement, monitor, and evaluate development programs;

(g) strengthen the capacity of government agencies responsible for providing development services to Indigenous Peoples;

(h) protect indigenous knowledge, including by strengthening intellectual property rights; and

(i) facilitate partnerships among the government, IPOs, CSOs, and the private sector to promote Indigenous Peoples' development programs.

60

Notes1. This policy should be read together with other relevant Bank policies, including

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP 4.04), Pest Management (OP 4.09), Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11, forthcoming), Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12), Forests (OP 4.36), and Safety of Dams (OP4.37).

2. "Bank" includes IBRD and IDA; "loans" includes IBRD loans, IDA credits, IDA grants, IBRD and IDA guarantees, and Project Preparation Facility (PPF) advances, but does not include development policy loans, credits, or grants. For social aspects of development policy operations, see OP 8.60, Development Policy Lending, paragraph 10. The term "borrower" includes, wherever the context requires, the recipient of an IDA grant, the guarantor of an IBRD loan, and the project implementing agency, if it is different from the borrower.

3. This policy applies to all components of the project that affect Indigenous Peoples, regardless of the source of financing.

4. "Free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities" refers to a culturally appropriate and collective decision-making process subsequent to meaningful and good faith consultation and informed participation regarding the preparation and implementation of the project. It does not constitute a veto right for individuals or groups (see paragraph 10).

5. For details on "broad community support to the project by the affected Indigenous Peoples," see paragraph 11 .

6. The policy does not set an a priori minimum numerical threshold since groups of Indigenous Peoples may be very small in number and their size may make them more vulnerable.

7. "Collective attachment" means that for generations there has been a physical presence in and economic ties to lands and territories traditionally owned, or customarily used or occupied, by the group concerned, including areas that hold special significance for it, such as sacred sites. "Collective attachment" also refers to the attachment of transhumant/nomadic groups to the territory they use on a seasonal or cyclical basis.

8. "Forced severance" refers to loss of collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories occurring within the concerned group members' lifetime because of conflict, government resettlement programs, dispossession from their lands, natural calamities, or incorporation of such territories into an urban area. For purposes of this policy, "urban area" normally means a city or a large town, and takes into account all of the following characteristics, no single one of which is definitive: (a) the legal designation of the area as urban under domestic law; (b) high population density; and (c) high proportion of non-agricultural economic activities relative to agricultural activities.

9. The currently applicable Bank policy is OP/BP 4.00, Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects. Applicable only to pilot projects using borrower systems, the policy includes requirements that such systems be designed to meet the policy objectives and adhere to the operational principles related to Indigenous Peoples identified in OP 4.00 (see Table A1.E).

10. The screening may be carried out independently or as part of a project environmental assessment (see

OP 4.01, Environmental Assessment, paragraphs 3, 8).

11. Such consultation methods (including using indigenous languages, allowing time for consensus building, and selecting appropriate venues) facilitate the articulation by Indigenous Peoples of their views and preferences. The "Indigenous Peoples Guidebook" (forthcoming) will provide good practice guidance on this and other matters.

12. When non-Indigenous Peoples live in the same area with Indigenous Peoples, the IPP should attempt to avoid creating unnecessary inequities for other poor and marginal social groups.

61

13. Such projects include community-driven development projects, social funds, sector investment operations, and financial intermediary loans.

14. If the Bank considers the IPPF to be adequate for the purpose, however, the Bank may agree with the borrower that prior Bank review of the IPP is not needed. In such case, the Bank reviews the IPP and its implementation as part of supervision (see OP 13.05, Project Supervision).

15. The social assessment and IPP require wide dissemination among the affected Indigenous Peoples'

communities using culturally appropriate methods and locations. In the case of an IPPF, the document is disseminated using IPOs at the appropriate national, regional, or local levels to reach Indigenous Peoples who are likely to be affected by the project. Where IPOs do not exist, the document may be disseminated using other CSOs as appropriate.

16. An exception to the requirement that the IPP (or IPPF) be prepared as a condition of appraisal may be made with the approval of Bank management for projects meeting the requirements of OP 8.50,

62

Emergency Recovery Assistance. In such cases, management's approval stipulates a timetable and budget for preparation of the social assessment and IPP or of the IPPF.

17. "Customary rights" to lands and resources refers to patterns of long-standing community land and resource usage in accordance with Indigenous Peoples' customary laws, values, customs, and traditions, including seasonal or cyclical use, rather than formal legal title to land and resources issued by the State.

18. The "Indigenous Peoples Guidebook" (forthcoming) will provide good practice guidance on this matter.

19. See OP/BP 4.20, Gender and Development.

Annex A: Social Assessment1. The breadth, depth, and type of analysis required for the social assessment are proportional to the nature and scale of the proposed project’s potential effects on the Indigenous Peoples.

2. The social assessment includes the following elements, as needed:

(a) A review, on a scale appropriate to the project, of the legal and institutional framework applicable to Indigenous Peoples.

(b) Gathering of baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, and political characteristics of the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied, and the natural resources on which they depend.

(c) Taking the review and baseline information into account, the identification of key project stakeholders and the elaboration of a culturally appropriate process for consulting with the Indigenous Peoples at each stage of project preparation and implementation (see paragraph 9 of this policy).

(d) An assessment, based on free, prior, and informed consultation, with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, of the potential adverse and positive effects of the project. Critical to the determination of potential adverse impacts is an analysis of the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities given their distinct circumstances and close ties to land and natural resources, as well as their lack of access to opportunities relative to other social groups in the communities, regions, or national societies in which they live.

(e) The identification and evaluation, based on free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, of measures necessary to avoid adverse effects, or if such measures are not feasible, the identification of measures to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects, and to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive culturally appropriate benefits under the project.

Annex B Indigenous Peoples Plans

1. The Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) is prepared in a flexible and pragmatic manner, and its level of detail varies depending on the specific project

63

and the nature of effects to be addressed.2. The IPP includes the following elements, as needed:(a) A summary of the information referred to in Annex A, paragraph 2, (a) and (b).

64

(b) A summary of the social assessment.(c) A summary of results of the free, prior, and informed consultation

with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities that was carried out during project preparation (Annex A) and that led to broad community support for the project.

(d) A framework for ensuring free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected

Indigenous Peoples’ communities during project implementation (see paragraph10 of this policy).

(e) An action plan of measures to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity of the project implementing agencies.

(f) When potential adverse effects on Indigenous Peoples are identified, an appropriate action plan of measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for these adverse effects.

(g) The cost estimates and financing plan for the IPP.(h) Accessible procedures appropriate to the project to address

grievances by the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities arising from project implementation. When designing the grievance procedures, the borrower takes into account the availability of judicial recourse and customary dispute settlement mechanisms among the Indigenous Peoples.

(i) Mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the implementation of the IPP. The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should include arrangements for the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities.

65

ANNEX 4: Proceedings and Participants of the KAPAP Disclosure

WorkshopsPROCEEDINGS OF THE KAPAP ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS DISCLOSURE WORKSHOPS 16 April 2009

1 Stakeholders Meeting Held at Georgias Hotel, MtwapaThe meeting was called to order at 9.30am. One participant gave a word of prayer. This was followed by self-introduction for all participants.Mr. Andrew Dibo from KAPP Secretariat thanked members for their attendance despite the short notice given for the meeting. He gave on outline of the day’s programme. He asked participants to keep their mobile phones on silent mode.Mr Dibo advised participants to concentrate on the deliberations as other logistical problems would be addressed later in the day.

1.1 Objective of the workshopTo have consultations with stakeholders with a view to integrate their ideas so that KAPAP can be implemented while taking into consideration all the necessary safeguard policies.

1.2 OverviewKAPP had been operating in all provinces except Nairobi. KAPP phase 1 was operating in 20 districts but phase 2 will cover 59 districts. Phase 2 will have an additional component on agribusiness, hence it will be renamed KAPAP. KAPAP will maintain the same structures i.e. will use the existing DSUs but upgrade them to Regional Service Units. KAPAP will run for 5 years from September 09 to December2013.The major components of KAPAP are:

1. Policy/institutional and project implementation2. Agricultural research system3. Agricultural extension and farmer and other stakeholders empowerment4. Agribusiness and market development: four anchor value chains will be considered: milk, fruits

and vegetables, cereals and meats.1.3 Triggered Safeguard Policies

1. Environmental assessment policy2. Pest management policy3. Indigenous Peoples policy

1.4 DiscussionsParticipants broke into three teams to consider more in-depth discussions on the Safeguard Policies.

Breakout Team 1: Environmental and Social safeguards

Breakout Team 2: Indigenous Peoples Plan

Breakout Team 3: Pest Management

Group 1: Environmental & Social Management Framework

66

The group went through the checklist and indicated that overall the ESMF had considered most of the issues they could raise but indicated some areas that the ESMF needs to put more emphasis on:

1. Promotion of Agroforestry practices2. Awareness creation on land use policy3. Awareness creation and promotion of alternative livelihood methods that would reduce pressure

and attachment to land4. The need to control the cost of land so that people do not keep land idle and use it for speculative

purposes and make it out of reach for people who want to utilize the resourceTable 6: Community contribution during disclosure forum

Issue Mitigation measuresa) Environmental issuesWill have effect on soil flora and fauna (will interferewith soil microorganisms)

Appropriate use of crop husbandry e.g. croprotation

Will lead to deforestation Agro-forestryWill reduce various types of crop production i.e. abandon other crops in favour of the anchor valueChains

Government/community to conserve germplasm of the affected crops

b) socioeconomic issuescan increase settlement/overpopulation Redistribute sub projects in various locationscan lead to abuse and misuse of drugs Counselling and guidance centres,

Introduce social events e.g. gamescan adversely affect the customs and traditions of the locals

Set up cultural centres to preserve culture and customs

can increase family conflicts e.g. divorce, polygamy Formation of market groups to relieve women from the tedious dutiesFamily life education programmes

c) natural habitatscan increase human- human conflicts e.g. increasedland disputes/conflicts

Government to put in place good land use policies

d) land acquisition and access to resourcescan lead to increased cost of land beyond the reach oflocals

Reformed policies on land ownership

can lead to restriction on access to resources e.g.forest by the local people

Licensing of communities to access the resourcesformation of community forest associations forest services

GROUP 3

Crop pests (caterpillars, aphids) Use of IPM approachTrain on safe use of chemicals and their disposalScoutingRepellentsUse of high quality plant materialsOff season cropping- use of resistant varieties, crop rotation

Animal borne vectors- ticks, mites and fleas Hand pickingSpraying using registered chemicalsQuarantinesSurveillance on occurrences

Insect borne vectorsMosquitoesTsetse fly, blackflies

Smoke from neem treeDrainage system improvement Traditional storage facilities Use of registered chemicals

Water borne vectors (snails) Fencing

67

Proper hygieneWildlife menace (hippo, baboons, warthogs,elephants)

Fencing outCoexistence trainingEco-tourism

Overall group 3 was satisfied with the IPMF but added that the local communities have a lot ofknowledge on traditional pest control methods that should be researched on, documented and recommended for wider use as they are more environmentally friendly. In additional, the banned or restricted chemicals should widely be circulated to the users through all communication channels. The information is not always readily available to users.

GROUP 2

Are there indigenous people living within the boundaries of, or near the project? = YES• Instead of the document stating clearly that IP-Sengwer & Ogiek the document should just leave

this broad because the IP are as many & varied all through the nation.• Boundaries review commission should be able to demarcate and map out this boundary issue for

the indigenous persons.• Indigenous people have their own culture which dictates their ceremonies and ITK this need to be

tapped.• Trainings need to be broken down or subdivided into sub topics that can be easily understood

instead of the blocking as has been done.

Possible Impact of KAPAP on Indigenous People

Access to formal educationmanagement information systems is stated to be having a general positive impact this was found to be unclear.On component 2; agricultural research systems (support to NARS)need to clearly state where this centre shall be established & how it shall be utilized.Strengthen research in arid areas by developing research station in Garissa; it was found that there areIP’s in Garissa contrary to the stated position-malakote & monyoyaya.

General Comments:1. Participants were encouraged to ensure that the project should capitalise on the rich indigenous

knowledge that exists in the communities2. Use of terms that are understood by all3. all documents are available online at www.kapp.go.ke

Closing remarksClosing remarks were made by the DAO Kilifi, Mr. Caleb Omondi. He thanked the organisers of the workshop for giving stakeholders the opportunity to contribute towards this document that will be used during KAPAP implementation.

1.5 Attendance listTable 7: KARI Mtwapa - Attendance list

No

Name Organisation/ District

Address Telephone email

1 SelestinaMwandembo

Taita Taveta 22 Maungu 0721458907

2 Isaac Bahola Tana River 10 Hola 07353597473 Timothy Mwamuye Tana River 11 garsen 0726346541 m wananjet @y ahoo.com 4 Francis Macharia M Tana River 40 Witu 07148081215 Samuel Kimani Tana Delta 9 Witu 07294733956 Milton S Munialo Tana River 109 Hola 0734785479 m unialoms @y a h oo.com 7 Briston Mvoi M Taita Taveta 1 Mgambonyi 0735895148

68

8 Salim A Wako Tana River 54 Bura Tana 07380670479 Mohamed H

MnyetoTana River 54 Bura Tana 0737830864

10 Thomas Haro Taita Taveta 1035Wundanyi

0710641872 harotg9 0@ y ahoo.com

11 Rashid C Katana Kaloleni 150 Kaloleni 072335158512 Christine Mwalugo Sokoke 14 Vitengeni13 Muktar A Hassan Wajir 431 Wajir 0722606033 m u ahh05 @ yahoo.com 14 Sabdow K Omar Wajir 433 Wajir 0729507811 skasal@ y ahoo.com 15 Natha A Hassan Wajir 431 Wajir 072287374316 Idris A Hassan Wajir 431 Wajir 073326438917 Chibudu A N Kilifi 175 Kilifi 0734734164 n y irochi b ud u@ y ahoo.co . u

k18 C S Omondi Kilifi 19 Kilifi 0728339371 o m ondical @y a h oo.com 19 Oscar Charo KenFAP Kilifi 175 Kilifi 0723448135 oscarklf@ y a hoo.com 20 Pamela Mwangangi Msambweni 296 Ukunda 072515648121 Bahati M Baya Kilifi 1225 Kilifi 071483200222 P M Bakari Kilifi 553 Kilifi 0720972684 pangammahamed@ y ah o o.

c o m 23 Bakari Omar Ngala Msambweni 69

Msambweni0737042904

24 Ngei Kyove Kwale 48 Lukore25 Henry Manyonyi Coop Devt &

Mkt33 Kilifi 0721332710 Sandaji042yahoo.com

26 John Mwongela Taveta 74 Taveta 071283906327 Evan W Mbinga Taita 1239

Wundanyi0722275821 eva n m b inga @ y ahoo.com

28 Alexander Kubende Tana River 10 Hola 0721143388 akubende @ y ahoo.com 29 Kadenge Lewa KARI 16 Mtwapa 0722284640 lewakk@ y a h oo.com 30 Rahab Muinga KARI 16 Mtwapa 0722798102 kari m tw@kari.org 31 Thomas Mwangemi Taita 1165

Wundanyi0729977027

32 Adel Ali Wajir 33 Wajir 072723508133 E M Sanga Kilifi 553 Kilifi 072232973834 A Nyanje Kilifi 19 Kilifi 072717052635 Samuel Maiko Kwale 219 Kwale 0738111253 sa m u elmaik o @ y ahoo.com 36 Andrew Dibo KS 57811

Nairobi0722800455 andrewdib o @g m ail.c o m

2. Stakeholders Meeting held at Embu, East College

2.1 Morning Session

The participants introduced themselves and the respective organizations and districts they represent. The participants comprised of the farmers, agricultural technicians, researchers and the other interested stakeholders experts.

The facilitator went through the workshop objective before presenting the KAPAP objectives. The project is funded by the World Bank in partnership with the GOK and will be implemented by six agencies: the Ministries of Agriculture, Livestock Development, Fisheries Development, and Cooperative Development, KARI, and KENFAP, who will be responsible for implementing activities within their respective areas of responsibility.

69

He advised everybody to brainstorm on the Agenda of the workshop so that everybody is clear with what is to be discussed during the workshop.The components of the KAPAP were presented to the participants:

Component 1: Policy/Institutional and Project Implementation SupportSupport for sector wide-approaches: This component will support activities that will lead to better coordination of the sector with an aim of creating the necessary impetus for sector-wide approach.

Component 2: Agricultural Research SystemsThis component will focus on supporting the research system in the country and in the East African region4. It will have three sub-components, namely:

Support to the National Agricultural Research System (NARS); Support to Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI); andSupport for the East African Agricultural Productivity Program (EAAPP).

Component 3: Agricultural Extension, Farmer and Service Providers EmpowermentThe overall objective of this component is to support the Government to implement the NASEP, focusing on empowering the extension clientele through sharing of information, imparting knowledge, skills andchanging attitudes, so that they can efficiently manage their resources for increased productivity,improved incomes and standard of living. In line with the ASDS, KAPAP will strengthen and scale-up its support to extension on the base of the implementation framework of the NASEP, developed by the agricultural sector line Ministries. This reform agenda forms a conducive environment for strengthened PPPs in the sector to fill the gap created by the reduced presence of public sector extension service providers, but also to cater better for diverse needs of extension clientele.

Component 4: Agribusiness and Market DevelopmentA dynamic agribusiness sector that links producers and consumers and involves small and medium enterprises is vital for agricultural growth. Agribusiness development requires the involvement of all actors in the agricultural products value chain so as to enable sharing of information, knowledge and technology. The objective of this component is, therefore, to empower all public and private stakeholders along commodity chains to plan, design and deliver agribusiness services aimed at value-addition, and linking producers to input and output markets.

Project area: Support to agricultural extension, farmer and service providers’ empowerment; and Agribusiness and market development component for the first two years will be implemented in 59 districts. This number includes the original 20 KAPP pilot districts.The participants were then taken through the safeguard document and in particular what is contained in the1) Environmental & Social Management Framework (ESMF)2) Indigenous Peoples Framework (IPPF) 3) The Integrated Pest Management Framework

2.2 Afternoon Session:

Discussions and clarifications of the presentation issues:

The participants acknowledged the need for the project and the expectation that it will bring down the level of poverty in Kenya. They also commended the role of KAPP phase one in improving the contribution of the sector to the National income.The following issues were in particular raised by individual participants during the Question and answer session:

Name: Gilbert M Mwoga Address: P.O Box 619 Meru Cell-phone: 0722 340651E-mail: gilbert m uthee@ y ahoo.com

70

Safe guard Area IPM : Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals

Question :Why are food additives and preservatives not captured amongst agricultural chemicalsAnswer : They should be included as well. They are major ingredients in value addition industries

Safe guard Area : IPM Suggested additions

1. In the enviromental Assessment checklist, there is need to include the cultural methods in the control of pests and diseases eg crop rotation, mulching, flooding and smoking.

2. How the wastes created in various stages of the value chains will cause polution. There will be need to consider mitigation measures for management of wastes from crop residues, containers etc

Name Esther Wambua Address: P.O Box 394 Makueni Cell-phone: 0733549164E-mail: ew m u eni@ y ahoo.com

Safe guard Area ESMF: Environmental Issues

Question : Are the sub-projects implemented during phase I going to be subjected to EnvironmentalAssessment Screening ?

Answer : The EA will be carried in all sub-projects planned for implementation under KAPAP. If a project was started during KAPP1, it will certainly be required to be screened anew .

Name Samuel Njue Nyaga Address: P.O Box 0600 1012 Embu Cell-phone: 0733684426, 0725551558E-mail: slnjue@y ahoo .com

Safe guard Area ESMF: Environmental Issues

Question : What should be done if the costs of mitigation outweighs the expected returns from the subprojects ?

Answer : First it should be appreciated that mitigation measures will be undertaken at individual farms thus – spreading/sharing the costs among the benefitiaries..

Secondly, communities will be expected to approach other funding agencies like CDF, LATIF for implementation of costly mitigations

3. Suggestion on the IPM area : The forum noted that the list of the banned and restricted chemicals in the draft document is too short and requires to be updated. Also care should be taken to ensure the focus is put on the active ingredients rather than the trade name.

4. Lot of capacity building in the area of pesticides and agricultural chemicals was carried out by ‘ Safe-Use’ project and KAPAP should activate and involve the various trainers who worked for that project.

5. There is widespread Application of local pest control and soil fertility concoctions. There is need for these initiatives to be researched so that the findings are documented for upscaling.

71

Name Symon C.J. Mburia Address: P.O Box 45-60100 Embu Cell-phone: 07217429E-mail: s y m o n m buria@ y ahoo.com

Safe guard Area ESMF: socio-economic Issues

Suggestions : 1.Felt the screening checklist should include an item on general public as possible targets to be affected by the subprojectSuggestion 2. Need to consider religious diversity in the selection and location of subprojects : Example given on pig enterprise and the Muslim adherents.

Name Kamau MuniuAddress: P.O Box 408-60100 EmbuCell-phone: 0710858083E-mail: -

Safe guard Area ESMF: Environmental Issues

Observation : Coffee pulping factories drain their water effluents back to the rivers.

Mitigation measures to curb this should be addressed at community level and not necessarily at the sub- project level because it affects wider populations.

Name Bernard Wanjohi Address: P.O Box 32-60100 Embu Cell-phone: 0721229731E-mail: juekireg@y ahoo.co.ke

Safe guard Area ESMF: Environmental Issues

Question : Queries the rational of investing in project if the costs of managing the environmental risk are higher than the cost of the project.

Name Anthony M GateriAddress: P.O Box 2420-60100 EmbuCell-phone: 0722581034E-mail: kappdsue m bu@ y ahoo.com

Safe guard Area ESMF: Environmental Issues

Suggestion : In the screening checklist format 6.1 last indicator to be modified to include crops Thus should read : ‘reduce various types of livestock and crop production.

Suggestion : To include ‘Acidity’ in indicator 2 to read : affect soil salinity, alkalinity and acidity.

Observed : that the IPM manual quotes observations from the lake region. Section 8.2 paragraph 2 last sentence should read : ‘For example the rapid identification of early stages of attacks in the lowlands is critically important to minimize the damage in the neighboring higher grounds’

Suggestion : That amongst the migitation measures in the pest and chemical disposal is the awareness creation on the high costs of disposal of the expired drugs so that such costs are avoided.

2.2 CLOSING REMARKS FROM DR. S.G MUIGAI

The National KAPP Coordinator thanked all the participants and promised to incorporate all the feedback in the main reports. He thanked the participants for accepting to come to the meeting and promised the

72

participants that KAPAP just like KAPP will work with beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the sector to improve the livelihoods of Kenyans and contribute to the realization of Vision 2030.

2.3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. Name Organization/Dist rict

Address Telephone e-mail1 Anthony M.

GateriDSU-EMBU P.O Box 2420-

60100 Embu068-31179 Kappdsue m bu @ y aho o .

c o m 2 Patrick M.Mwanthi

Makueni/Farmer P.O Box 1Kalawa

07363348143 Peter N. Mbuvi Makueni/Farmer P.O Box 124

Makueni0735988039

4 Gilbert M. Mwoga Dsu meru Central Po Box 619 meru 0722340651 Gilbert m uthee@ y ah o o. c o m 5 Symon C.J. Mburia DCO Embu P.O Box 45 Embu 0721743259 s y m o n m buria @ y ahoo.c om 6. Naomi Nthenya

NjoyaOthaya /Famer P.o Box 692

OthayaO724318288

7. Kamau Muniu Embu Farmer P.O Box 408Embu

07108580838. Rober Gikaria Nyeri Farmer P.O Box 532

Nyeri0726809677

9. Bernard K. Wanjohi DAO Embu P.O Box 32 Embu 0721229731 jvekireg@ y ahoo.co.uk 10. Festus Mwobia Meru Farmer P.O Box 196

Mitunguu0713097777

11. Zakary Muriithi Meru /Farmer P.O Box 1503Meru

071011407712. Joseph Githung’a Nyandarua Farmer P.O Box 50

Endarasha0720908832

13. Esther m Wambua DSU Makueni P.O Box 394-90300 Makueni

0733549164 ew m u eni@ y ahoo.com 14 J.N. Murage DLPO Embu P.O Box 672

Embu0722580664

15. Richard M Ndegwa

DEO- NEMA

P.o Box 748-60100 embu

072646469217. Burnice Ireri Nema Embu P.O Box 748

Embu0721308373 Burnicek20 0 0 @ y aho o. com

18. Rosemary Wanjiru Farmer Nyandarua P.o Box 440Oljooroorok

073576864519. Hannah Kimethu Farmer Nyandarua P.O Box 392

Oljoroorok0710646652

20. Francis M Wachira Farmer Nyandarua P.O Box341Oljoroorok

072496810621 Samuel Njue Nyaga Farmer Embu -

PESPP.O Box 1012Embu

0733684416 slnjue @ y ah o o .com 22. Floren K. Imathiu Farmer Meru P.O Box 2245

Meru0727947937

23. F. M. Baiya KAPP Secretariat P.O Box 57811 Nairobi

0723219620 fuba i y a@kari.org 24 S.G Muigai KAPP Coordinator P.O Box 57811

Nairobi0722969484 s g m u igai@kari.org

3 Workshop For Disclosure Of Draft Safeguard Documents Held At St Marys Pastoral Institute Nakuru

The meeting opened with a word of prayer by one of the participants. The participants then introduced themselves and indicated the districts and/ or institutions they represented.

3.1 Workshop Objective

The lead facilitator then went ahead to highlight the objective of the workshop and the essence of the three safeguard documents namely; Environmental & Social Management Framework (ESMF), the Indigenous Peoples Framework (IPPF), and the integrated Pest Management Framework which needed to be disclosed to the general public both locally and internationally. This would elicit feedback from stakeholders from respective district and regions across Kenya. It was noted that KAPAP is expected to provide significant environmental and social benefits in the project areas. The facilitator indicated to members the progress that had been made so far in preparation of the Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) which is a Government of Kenya project supported by the World Bank.

The project development objective which is “to transform and improve the performance of

Old district New districts Old district New districtsWest Pokot West Pokot, Central Pokot,

North P.Tana River Tana River, Tana Delta

Nakuru Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru NorthNaivasha, Njoro

Kwale Kwale, Kinango,Msambweni

TransNzoia

Trans Nzoia West, TransNzoia East, Kwanza

Garissa Garissa, Fafi, Lagdera

Nyandarua Nyandarua North, NyandaruaCentral, Nyandarua South, Kipipiri

Wajir Wajir East, Wajir South,Wajir North, Wajir West

Nyeri NyeriSouth, NyeriNorth,NyeriCentral, Nyeri East

Meru Central Meru Central, ImentiNorth, Buuri Imenti South

Homa Bay Homa Bay, Ndhiwa Makueni Makueni, Mbooni,Kibwezi, Nzani

Gucha Gucha, Gucha South Embu EmbuSiaya Siaya, Ugenya Kakamega Kakamega North, K.

Central, K. South,Kakamega East

Taita - Taveta

Taita, Taveta Busia Busia, Samia, Bunyala

Kilifi Kilifi, Kaloleni Butere- Mumias

Butere, Mumias

73

the agricultural technology supply and demand systems, stakeholder empowerment, and agribusiness development for increased productivity and income of men and women in the project area” was also emphasised. It was noted that the design of KAPAP had benefited a lot from the lessons drawn from the piloting phase of KAPP and the design had taken into consideration most of the suggestions and contribution of stakeholders.

Project area:- it was indicated that the project will be implemented in 59 districts across Kenya. These include :

3.2 Project Components:A summary of the four components; namely:i) Policy/Institutional and Project Implementation; (ii) Agricultural Research Systems; and (iii) Agricultural Extension and Farmer and other Stakeholders Empowerment and (iV) Agribusiness and Market Development was presented to members.Also highlighted were the following agreed Phase III triggers:

The Government has approved the ASDS by year 1, prepared an ASDS implementation framework and investment plan in year 2 and its implementation has started by year 3 of KAPAP;

The Government has rolled out the implementation of the National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy (NASEP) and has set out the institutional framework for regulation and financing of commercial extension/advisory services by year 3; and,The institutional mechanisms for implementation of the National Agricultural Research System (NARS)policy are in place by year 2 and KARI re-structuring is completed by year 3 of KAPAP.

The facilitator noted that the achievement of these triggers was not going to be easy and it would take the effort of every stakeholder to ensure that this commitment is met.

74

3.3 Questions and Answer SessionThe participants were then given a chance to make observations, ask questions and give input into the deliberations. The following issues were noted

NAME FRAMEWORK QUESTION ANSWER(S)Samson WasongaBox 773, HomaBayTel. 0725955868

Environmental &Social ManagementFramework

How will these policyframeworks be implemented given that the politicians/MPs are not keen on having them implemented

Kenya has 77 Laws detailing variousenvironmental conservation measures. The enforcement of these measures has been the problem. However, with the enactment of environmental management and coordinating act (EMCA, 1999) which created National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) which has the overall mandate of enforcing environmental Law. The only challenge is staff capacity.

Francis M.Mutsotso Box 474, Kakamega

Environmental &Social ManagementFramework

Pollution – To theecosystem should be specific to situation/place where the sub-project is being implemented

Natural Habitats for each sub-project specific issues related to

There is more generality in the safeguardframeworks as presented but once specific sub-project are developed, a rising issues will be more specific and it will then be possible develop more specific guidelines

“

Aggrey MusabiBox 86, Busia(Kenya)Tel O721262214 aggre y m u sabi@ y ah oo.com

Environmental &Social ManagementFramework

The structure of Monitoringand Riverview Mechanisms are not sufficient to mitigate any risks arising

The essences of monitoring is to assesswhether or not the safeguards put in place are effective and if not, it should inform the next cause of action

Cornelius SankaleBox 424-20115, Nakuru

Indigenous Peoplesplan

Considering the Mauhabitat and its degradation of the forest, What will

KAPAP has prepared the IPPF whichwill guide the implementation of the project and will also protect the interests

75

Tel 0724506328/0722433757 sancobi @ y ahoo.co m

KAPAP do to safeguard theinterest of indigenous Ogiek in regard to the interests, Socio-economic rights and Environmental rights yet they have to install development Projects related to the environmental safety e.g Bee-keeping

of the Ogieks and the Sengwers

Samson WasongaBox 773, HomaBayTel 0725955868

General Questions Extension Service Providersare few in the districts, how will KAPAP achieve its objectives given the scenario

During KAPP Phase I, a pilot wasconducted to determine whether or not both the GoK officers and private sector (private individuals, NGOs, companies) can effectively provide extension services. The results of the pilot were positive and consequently a National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy (NASEP) has been prepared to guide service delivery by both the public and the private Sector.

Dominic N. MburuP. O. Igare, ViaKisiiTel 0724750823

General question What will KAPAP do tosave Kenyanya Banana farmers from ‘brokers’ who are seriously exploiting them

KAPP is closely working with KenyaNational Federation of Agricultural Producers and various Commodity Associations to among other things rescue framers from brokers. For instance, Highridge Banana Growers’ Association was given support under KAPP I in order to strengthen its role in serving the interests of banana growers. TheKenyanya Banana growers through their district farmers’ forum need to affiliate to the Highridge Banana Growers Association

Aggrey MusabiBox 86, Busia Tel O721262214 aggre y m u sabi@ y ah oo.com

General Question What will happen to theDSU now that KAPP is changed to KAPAP.

The proposal is to transform them intoRegional Service Units (RSUs)

In order to give participants ample time to review the safeguard documents, they formed three breakout teams. The teams were expected to carefully consider the contents of the respective safeguard documents and capture issues and points that they felt needed clarification or a re-look into.

3.4 Comments From Breakout Teams

Group 1: Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) Members:

1. Peter Njoroge Mburu2. Phoebe. Q. Muchele3. Charles.N. Ng’ang’a4. Cornelius Sankale5. Anne Kerubo Mose

76

6. Francis M. Mutsotso7. Gideon N. Ondara8. David N. Mbuthia9. Aggrey Musabi10. Samson Wasonga11. Wango Nassiuma12. Kibos S. J.

Issues/Observations/Inputs1. Pages 2,3,6,7 and in other documents note:

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and not Environment Audit (EA), should be carried out. EA is undertaken after project implementation to audit efficacy of mitigation measures while EIA prescribes mitigation measures and Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

Environmental and Social Management Framework – Sub Project – a project which a community has decide to undertakeWhere/when the project starts(i) Where KAPP starts for the first time , is there need for capacity building from relevant various

service provider(ii) In order to promote and strengthen individual initiative in groups, common interest groups

assisted by service providers(iii) Community/C.I.Gs(iv) Pollution – To the ecosystem should be specific to situation/place where the sub-project is being

carried out/undertaken(v) Socio –Economic issues not taken care by KAPAP should be handled by other dev. Partners. (vi) -Entry must be ascertained.

Sub Project nameCapture No. or size of groupCapture the average of the Land –Holding

(vii) Baseline information- State the geographical location- Topography- Soil type/sample- Rainfall regime- Environmental issues need to be reviewed e.g.- There should be a check-list to control the sub-project.- NEMA should do thorough sensitization and zoning be done: Proper environment assessment

should be done before a project is done.- Collaboration in assessment should be encouraged. Involvement

Group 2: Indigenous People Framework

Members:1. Isaac M. Gakunga2. Mary A. Ojumbo3. Isaac Saitoti4. Simon S. Ngayam5. Dominic N. Mburu6. Ben Wata7. Fredrick O Agoi8. S.M. Karanja9. Zilpa Adede10. Dick Otieno Wanga11. Joseph Rotich12. Richard K. Lagat

77

13. Philip O. Owiti

Issues/observations/inputs

Table 1. Clause A4 – This needs to be separated into two i.e. (i) Focal Point and (ii) Person for activityTable 2:Issue (1) Activity should include:-

- Training needs assessment for the IP and the most qualified person on the needs of the IP- The local administration officials should be involved right at every stage of the project. This will

safeguard the project from sabotage by the influence of the demonstration officers

Issue 2 (Activity) we can add Literature review – People will be able to study and get to know more about Indigenous People IP

Issue 6 Activity(i) Training on Identification of IP needs and(ii) Training for IP and IPO

Indicators – AdditionIP and IPU should be able to include list of attendance and training time tables and IP and IPU should be awarded certificates.

Issue 7 Indicators addition- IP and IPU

Issue 7 – IndicatorsAddition: IP and M& E Indicates that representation is sales factory to the IP keeping gender equality consideration.

Group 3: Integrated Pest Management Framework

Members:1. Paul Okongo2. Alex Okumu3. Tobias Mangiti4. Reuben Wairicu

5. Dominic Maturi6. Stephen Mukuna7. Philip Mwalati8. Jackson Mangoli9. Zilpa Adede

Issues/Observations/Inputs

8.1 Population movement and siting of homes may no longer hold as in the past as population pressure hinders anybody moving out permanently

Action

Social activities; patent strategy of pest management to lessen impacts and stem population movementHuman health affected hence increased cost on health management

8.2 Implication of control measures

Risks (addition)

78

1. Incorrect usage of pesticides especially to encourage resistance- trimming2. Ethical consideration in use of pesticides/Disease surveillance system3. Need to strengthen laboratory diagnostic support at district levels.4. Capacity building, community Animal Health Management teams.5. AHA’S Capacities strengthening.

8.3 Impacts of Empirical Plant and Animal Pests and disease control methods

Need for emphasis to farmers’ leaders to reach to farmers to sensitize them on banned substances.

3.5 Closing Remarks from Dr. Patrick Gicheru

The Centre Director NARL, thanked all the participants for their very active participation and great input. He assured members that their views had been captured and would greatly assist in the finalization of the safeguard documents. He emphasised the need for collaboration and the building of partnerships with all stakeholders in the sector to realize the aspirations of KAPAP. He also requested participants to make conscious efforts in safeguarding the environment as this was the only solution to the threatening global warming and climate change effects in the world.

3.6 Participants of Environmental Safeguards Disclosure Workshop Held in NakuruNO NAME ORGANISATIO/ ADDRESS TELE E-MAIL1 Isaac M. Nakuru Box 26 Subukia 07252776872 Tobia O. Homa-Bay Box 152 Homabay 07256898833 Samson Homa-Bay Box 173, Homabay 07259558684 Aggrey Busia 86 – 50400 Busia 0721262214 aggre y m u sabi @ y ahoo.co 5 Mary A. Busia 200, Butula 07209217826 Alex M. Busia 115, Mubwago 07253171137 Isaac Saitoti KENFAP – Nakuru 478, Nakuru 0723993790 kenfapnakur u ab@ y a h oo.c 8 Simon S Narok 43, N/Enkale 0721976794 o m9 Dominic N. Gucha P. O.Igare, ia 072475082310 Peter N. Nakuru Lanet div. 3829 Nakuru 072154691711 Ben Wata Kitale 1672, Kitale 0722760110 Bsimwala@ y ahoo.com 12 Ann Mose Trans-nzoia 4347, Kitau 072441261313 Francis M. Kakamega East 474, Kakamega 072225091214 Fredrick O Kakamega South 75, Khayega 072422746515 Cornelius Ogiek people Dev. 424- 20115 Egerton 0724506328 samcpbo @ y ahoo.com 16 S.M. Karanja MAO – Nakuru 1544, Nakuru 07256350217 C.N.Ng’ang’a DAC – Nakuru 2576, Nakuru 0722338714 charlsnganga@faidaseeds18 P. Q. Muchele DSU - Siaya 777, Siaya 07216948 08 pag m uchale @ y ahoo.com 19 P. M. Kimani DSU – Nakuru 3799, Nakuru 0733854129 kappdsunak w u @ y aho o .co 20 Zilpa Adede Ndhiwa 160, Ndhiwa 40145466 3921 Dick Otieno Siaya 99, Uranga 07213432 3222 Joseph Siaya JCCM 63, Sega 07124853 4423 David N. Nakuru – MOCD 1609, Nakuru24 Paul Okong’o TATRO/Siaya 34, Yala25 Zebedee Mark Gyaucha Nyamarambe 3240, Kisii 07224555 47 Ombathia @y a h oo.com 26 Gideon N. Gucha Kenyinya 3567, Kisii 07335248630 Paulokaon g2 003 @ y a h oo. 27 Reuben Transnzoia 1573, Kitale 072470553728 Dick O. Siaya 99, Uranga 07288930 9029 Jackson KAPP – T/Nzoia 1354, Kitale 0727523460 dsutransnzoia @ y ahoo.co 30 Philip M. Kakamega 247, Kakamega 072134323231 Joseph Rotich Wareng 104, B/Forest 072752346032 Richard K. Wareng 104, B/Forest 073344673633 Dr. Patrick KARI Nairobi 14733-00800 Nairobi 0722465642 cdnarl@iconnect.co.ke34 Philip O. DLPOS’ Office 44-20100 Nakuru 0721263417 Powiti20 0 8 @ gmail.c o m 35 Wanga KARI Njoro Private Bag Njoro O721435126 ewnassi u m @y ahoo.com 36 Mukuna DLPO Naivasha Box 13, Naivasha 0733898662 dlponaivash a@ y ahoo.co 37 Kibos S. J. NEMA 13599,Nakuru 0724923679 sulbosuse @ yahoo.com

79

38 Louis Gachimbi

KARI Nairobi 14733, Nairobi 0722795884 loisegachibi @ y ahoo.com

40. Florence KAPP Nairobi Box 57811 Nairobi 0722347481 fodweso@ho t m ail.c o m

Annex 5

KAPAP IP CONSULTATIONS

A. Sengwer participation in Talau – West Pokot (Day 1 – 25/4/2011)

The four zones attended the meeting as follows;-

1. Talau Talau 2. Chorok zone3. Kapsurum zone4. Chepkoti

Members1. Abraham Kiprop Kiptum - Bee keeping/poultry -07252236782. Albert Bengi - KS -07223521233. Albert Koiyo - Bee keeping -07139085534. Andrew Malakwen - Bee keeping -5. Andrew Mochi - Bee keeping -6. Beatrice Powon - Poultry -07250257717. Benson K. Katon - Poultry -07172195858. Boniface P. O. Dimba -KAPAP RSU -07226580159. Charles K. Andiema - Poultry -071059778510. Charles Kimrwa - Poultry/Bee keeping -0717108116 11. Christine Moses - Poultry/Bee keeping -12. David K. Biwott - Poultry -075145798513. Dr. C. Ikitoo -KS -071193623714. Emmanuel Ngeiywa - Bee keeping -072534962915. Esther C. Katon - Poultry -072455428516. Esther Obiero Ogamba - MOLD -

072762506317. Eva Keter - Poultry & Bee keeping -072090106018. Evans C. Kibet - Bee keeping -072916184119. Everlyn Koskei - MOA -072198857920. Ezekiel Tanui Krop - Poultry -071615301521. Faith Chelee - Poultry -22. Florence Odweso - KAPAP Secretariat -072234748123. Francis Baiya -KS -072321962024. Francis Lumumba - KAPAP RSU WP -072714491425. Gladys Tanui - Poultry -072814493926. Grace Cheptoo Kipkoech - Soot Youth Group -072952537927. Hellen C. Lawrence - Bee keeping & Poultry -071984130928. Hellen Sigilai - Poultry -072881960429. Jackson Kiprop Chui - Poultry keeping -071479175130. Jackson Kubwai Kimboi - Bee keeping -0278989

80

31. Jackson Tanui - Poultry -072806869632. Jacob Kitiyo - Bee keeping -027847433. Jacob Korir - Poultry -34. Jacob M. Pchana - Bee keeping -071430436935. Jacqueline Kurgat - KAPAP RSU WP -072565839936. Jairus Rumon - Bee keeping -071285172537. James Kaptipin - Bee keeping -071032600838. Jane Ngugi -KS -072027788839. Jane Sirma - KENFAP -072378300140. John Kamarwy Kitiyo - Bee keeping/Poultry -0733115341. Johnson Powon - Bee keeping -072502577142. Joseph Rotich - Bee keeping/poultry -071689895543. Julius Muchemi - World Bank -072070360644. Kenneth Kipkeiyo - Poultry -070331278045. Kimagut Kumukony - Bee keeping -46. Kithome Kilaka - KS -073588490047. Lawrence K. Katon - Bee keeping -347388248. Lidya Ndege - Poultry -02789049. Loice Kamen Pkeme - Poultry -50. Lydia C. Koech - Soot Youth Group -51. Manases Cheruiyot - Bee keeping -071412623052. Martha C. Solomon - Poultry -071556551053. Michael Kiptoo - Improved Sheep -072404781354. Monica Chelee - Poultry -55. Moses Kinuthia -KS -073374852056. Moses Kirop - Bee keeping -072997618557. Moses Leleu Laima - Bee keeping -073780317158. Peter K. Mongot - Bee keeping -027891259. Pius Rotich Kukwai - Bee keeping -072978378460. Priscilla C. Kipketer - Bee keeping -071383886061. Restone Aoya - Bee keeping -072144168062. Richard Charito - KAPAP RSU WP -073240601163. Richard Simatwa - Poultry -659941964. Robert Korir - Poultry -070176891265. Rose Francis - Poultry -66. Rotich K. Peter - KENFAP – ADCO -072424872067. Samwel Kaptipin - Poultry/Bee keeping -072621872668. Simon Peter Kiyodo - Poultry -071640373769. Solomon Kurgat - Poultry -072970664970. Stephen W. Mukuna - KAPAP RSU WP -073389866271. Tabitha Reuben -MOLD -072134230272. Thomas Kipgetunyo - Soot Youth group -071112323373. Timothy Korir - Soot Youth Group -071715600774. Veronica Chebet - Poultry -75. Viola Chepngetich - Soot Youth Group/Poultry -072486473276. Wakwabubi R.J. - MOLD -073366653877. William J. Odhiambo - MOLD -072364172778. Willy B, Kipkeiyo - Bee keeping -071111214979. Wilson Matelong - KAPAP RSU WP -072189865980. Wycliffe Amariati - KAPAP RSU WP -0721915804

81

B. Sengwer participation in Talau – West Pokot (Day 2 – 26/4/2011)

1. Abraham Kiprop Kiptum - Bee keeping/poultry -07252236782. Albert Bengi - KS -07223521233. Albert Koiyo - Bee keeping -07139085534. Alfred K. Kibet -Poultry -

0726313025. Andrew Malakwen - Bee keeping -6. Andrew Mochi - Bee keeping -7. Beatrice C. Johnson -Poultry -8. Beatrice Powon - Poultry -07250257719. Benson K. Katon - Poultry -071721958510. Boniface P. O. Dimba -KAPAP RSU -072265801511. Charles K. Andiema - Poultry -071059778512. Charles Kimrwa - Poultry/Bee keeping -0717108116 13. Christine Moses - Poultry/Bee keeping -14. Cllr William Cheparko -Beekeeping -072868850915. Daniel Aker -Beekeeping -071791904716. David K. Biwott - Poultry -075145798517. David Kipkodor -Poultry -18. Dickson K. Rotich -Poultry -071440631519. Dr. C. Ikitoo -KS -071193623720. Eliud K. Cheruiyot -Poulrty -072762503321. Emily Chepkoech -Poulrty -22. Emmanuel Ngeiywa - Bee keeping -072534962923. Esther C. Katon - Poultry -072455428524. Esther Obiero Ogamba - MOLD -

072762506325. Eva Keter - Poultry & Bee keeping -072090106026. Evans C. Kibet - Bee keeping -072916184127. Everline Kisa -Poultry -28. Everlyn Koskei - MOA -072198857929. Ezekiel Tanui Krop - Poultry -071615301530. Faith Chelee - Poultry -31. Flomena Chepkemei -Poultry - 32. Florence Odweso - KAPAP Secretariat -072234748133. Francis Baiya -KS -072321962034. Francis Lumumba - KAPAP RSU WP -072714491435. Gladys Tanui - Poultry -072814493936. Grace Cheptoo Kipkoech - Soot Youth Group -072952537937. Hellen C. Lawrence - Bee keeping & Poultry -071984130938. Hellen C. Nathan -Poultry -1608736839. Hellen Sigilai - Poultry -072881960440. Jackson K. Kimira -Beekeeping -41. Jackson Kiprop Chui - Poultry keeping -071479175142. Jackson Kubwai Kimboi - Bee keeping -027898943. Jackson Tanui - Poultry -072806869644. Jacob Kitiyo - Bee keeping -027847445. Jacob K. Kipkech -Poultry/Beekeeping -

82

46. Jacob Korir - Poultry -47. Jacob M. Pchana - Bee keeping -071430436948. Jackline Kirui -KAPAP RSU -072565839949. Jackline Rotich -Poultry -50. Jacqueline Kurgat - KAPAP RSU WP -072565839951. Jairus Rumon - Bee keeping -071285172552. James Kaptipin - Bee keeping -071032600853. Jane Ngugi -KS -072027788854. Jane Sirma - KENFAP -072378300155. John Kamarwy Kitiyo - Bee keeping/Poultry -0733115356. Johnson Powon - Bee keeping -072502577157. Joseph Mwetich -Poultry -072817412958. Joseph Rotich - Bee keeping/poultry -071689895559. Julius Muchemi - World Bank -072070360660. Julius K. Yator -Poultry -

071151377061. J. P. Cheruiyot -MOLD -

072764068662. Kenneth Kipkeiyo - Poultry -070331278063. Kimagut Kumukony - Bee keeping -027911464. Kithome Kilaka - KS -073588490065. Kipkeiyo Kipterer -Poultry/Beekeeping -0703312780/073578470966. Lawrence K. Katon - Bee keeping -347388267. Lidya Ndege - Poultry -02789068. Lilian Chepkorir -Poultry -69. Loice Kamene Pkeme - Poultry -071032600870. Lydia C. Koech - Soot Youth Group -71. L. Wepukhulu -MOLD -072533822272. Manases Cheruiyot - Bee keeping -071412623073. Margaret Jacob -Poultry -74. Martha C. Solomon - Poultry -071556551075. Maurice K. Tanui -Beekeeping -027894176. Michael Kiptoo - Improved Sheep -072404781377. Monica Chelee - Poultry -78. Monica Pseswa -Poultry -79. Moses Kinuthia -KS -073374852080. Moses Kirop - Bee keeping -072997618581. Moses Leleu Laima - Bee keeping -073780317182. Muse S. Alfred -MOCD&M -072629612783. Nicholas Pkemei -Poultry -075277101384. Peter K. Mongot - Bee keeping -027891285. Pius Rotich Kukwai - Bee keeping -072978378486. Priscilla C. Kipketer - Bee keeping -071383886087. Restone Aoya - Bee keeping -072144168088. Richard Charito - KAPAP RSU WP -073240601189. Richard Simatwa - Poultry -659941990. Robert K. Kiplangat -Poultry -070176891291. Robert Korir - Poultry -070176891292. Rose Francis - Poultry -93. Rotich K. Peter - KENFAP – ADCO -0724248720

83

94. Samwel Kaptipin - Poultry/Bee keeping -072621872695. Simon Peter Kiyodo - Poultry -071640373796. Solomon Kurgat - Poultry -072970664997. Stephen W. Mukuna - KAPAP RSU WP -073389866298. Tabitha Reuben -MOLD -

072134230299. Tecla Chepatipin -Poultry -100. Thomas Kipgetunyo - Soot Youth group -0711123233101. Timothy Korir - Soot Youth Group -0717156007102. Titus Kuto -Beekeeping -23774093103. Veronica Chebet - Poultry -104. Viola Chepngetich - Soot Youth Group/Poultry -0724864732105. Vincent Ajeluma -Poultry -0724336812106. Wakwabubi R.J. - MOLD -

0733666538107. William J. Odhiambo - MOLD -

0723641727108. Willy B, Kipkeiyo - Bee keeping -0711112149109. Wilson Matelong - KAPAP RSU WP -0721898659110. Wycliffe Amariati - KAPAP RSU WP -0721915804111. Yator Kiptum -Sengwer VMPCC -0726806100

Zipporah Mose -Poultry -0713075453Minutes for the meeting at TALAU – SENGWER SENSITIZATION WORKSHOP (25-26/4/2011)ATTENDANCE: Day 1: 75 Persons (25 women; 49 men)Day 2: 95 persons (30 women, 65 men)Community problem Ranking1. Poverty2. Poor leadership3. Discrimination4. Inadequate market channels5. Insecurity6. Assimilation7. Lack of electricity 8. Unemployment9. Gender inequality10. Information and communication11. Insufficient capital12. Insufficient water13. Insufficient unity14. Inadequate expertise15. Environmental degradation16. Illiteracy17. Human diseases18. Infrastructure (Barabara)19. High infestation of livestock diseasesPRIORITY ENTERPRISESLocal poultryBee KeepingNote: But the communities still have a chance to refine their choice.

84

WAY FORWARDElect contact committee Continue screening for the VMGs (Sengwer in West Pokot County)Areas where the V MGs are must be presented to the District Development Committee for approval and inclusion as KAPAP project areas. Undertake social mapping and analysis then undertake an Enterprise Development Plan an equivalent of IPP with the communities for funding[b] KAPOLET – SENGWER SENSITIZATION WORKSHOP (27-28/4/2011)ATTENDANCE: Day 1: 100 Persons (40 women;60 men)Day 2: 105 persons (45 women,60 men)Community problem Ranking1. Poverty2. Inadequate education amongst community members3. Lack of Title Deeds4. Poor farming practices5. Lack of health facilities6. Insecurity7. Lack of recognition 8. Unemployment9. Lack of credit facilities10. Lack of planning11. Insufficient technical knowledge12. Poor leadership13. Discrimination14. Environmental degradation15. Lack of market and market information for farm produce16. Poor infrastructure17. Lack of appropriate communication technologies18. Lack of unity amongst community members19. Greedness (tamaa)20. LazinessPRIORITY ENTERPRISES The community still has a chance to refine their choice and go for two options amongst these value chains: Meats, Dairy, Aquaculture, Vegetables, Fruits, Cereals and NRM.WAY FORWARDConduct elections to get interim contact committeeContinue screening for the VMGs (Sengwer and Ogieks of Trans Nzoia)Areas where the V MGs are must be presented to the District Development Committee for approval and inclusion as KAPAP project areas. Undertake social mapping and analysis then undertake an Enterprise Development Plan an equivalent of IPP with the communities for funding

A. Sengwer participation in Kapolet – Trans Nzoia East District (Day 1 – 27/4/2011)

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone Email:

1. Agnes Chebet 128155292. Alice Kemoi3. Andrew Chepyano4. Andrew Kuto

Rotich4090384

5. Annah Cheriot6. Ansent Rono 11757205

85

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone Email:

7. Barnabas Mengich 02783358. Barnabas

Ngesemwo0245197

9. Benjamin Ruto 1128032710. Benson Kipkorir 26740794 075046889311. Charles Abok12. Charles K. Kiberen 353193113. Charles K. Kiprotich14. Charles Kiptoo15. Chepochemosoi

Lokoutome16. Chepokasaniak

Kiptoo26350318

17. Christine Chebet18. Christine

Chepkaitany19. Daniel K. Kiptarit 409075120. Daniel K. Mengich 2540588521. Daniel Kasikar 409304022. David Abokho 2380721823. David Kibet

Kipsagona24. David Sirma 2436263225. David Teber 66977826. Dickson K. Korir 2588818727. Difine Chemtai28. Elizabeth Chematui29. Elizabeth Cheruiyot 2026445530. Elizabeth Jepkemoi 1332439331. Emily Koroeny32. Eunice Chepkoskei33. Everline Lokamuria34. Francis Katoma 113056135. Francis Wamalwa 19358005236. Geoffrey Kiptalam

Rutto24482896 0712495668

37. Gladys Mengich38. Haron Kipchumba

Krop39. Immanuel Amon 058866540. Isaac Kisangwilliam

Kiprono Kiptoo3530606

41. Jackson Parchur42. Jacob Kibet 2050306443. James Chebii44. James Sitienei45. Jane Kiplimo46. Janet Cherutich47. John Chelal 1106257048. John K. Kibor 2120634049. John K. Kiptanui 2026091850. Joseph Cheruiyot 409066951. Joseph K.

Kipchumba7373438

52. Joseph Kibor53. Joseph Kipkorir 1267867654. Joseph Lekenei 201633133

86

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone Email:

55. Julia Cherop56. Julius K. Kitai57. Julius Korir58. Julius Lokaumuria59. Julius Sabatia 834545660. Kapchero

Ngurianyony4092779

61. Kimaiyo Komukony62. Limalu63. Limasia Chumarite64. Loice Chepkemoi 832072565. Mary Chepking66. Mary Daniel Kiptoo67. Maurine

Chepkemei68. Milka Chepkorir69. Mongot Mochi 027862670. Monica Kipchumba71. Nancy

ChesangDafine Chemtai

72. Ngolekou Lonyangiro

27066239

73. Nicholas Kiprotich 2667734874. Paul Churi 829898375. Paul K. Sondet 836653476. Peter Kimutai

Kiplangat77. Peter Kipyatich78. Peter Tanui79. Phamice Chemtai80. Phelistar Nakhanu81. Philip Kiprop82. Philip Mongot 916861383. Rabecah Sikuku84. Richard Kemoi

Sawe23316957

85. Richard Koech 2116776186. Robert R. Rotich 2501550687. Ronald K. Kibowen 111059588. Rose C. Yego 976287289. Rosemary Cherono

Kimengich3534235

90. Salome Ambros91. Sarah Kemboi92. Serah Jelangat93. Shadrack K. Korir 744403794. Simoni Pukomoe95. Sitienei Kipsoi

Stephen9762929

96. Stela Nyaris97. Stephen Sitienei 553087198. Susan

Chemeshalong99. Susan Njeri100. Tereza Chepkemoi101. Thomas Kimaiyo

87

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone Email:

102. Thomas Kimtai 26389106103. Vincent Kitiyo 0715344074104. Vincet Kiptoo

Kipketer7061378

105. William K. Kimibo 11280337106. William P. Nyaris 7705947107. Wilson Cheruyot 3531552108. Wilson Kipyego109. Yator Kiptum 8299896

B. Sengwer participation in Kapolet – Trans Nzoia East District (Day 2 – 28/4/2011)

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

1. Agira E.O MoA Box 1433 Kitale 0726022674 agirae@yahoo.com

2. Agnes Chebet 12815529 Sengwer Box 98 Kapsara 07150501943. Alice

ChepkemoiSengwer Box 98 Kapasara

4. Alice Kemoi5. Andrew

Chepyano6. Andrew Kuto

Rotich4090384

7. Andrew Yano8. Aneflus Kibet9. Annah Cheriyot10. Ansent Rono 11757205 070039183511. Barnabas

Kapkundos8737625 0711152540

12. Barnabas Mengich

0278335 Sengwer DPC Member

Box 98 Kapsara 0725429508 mengich@yahoo.com

13. Barnabas Ngesemwo

0245197 Sengwer PSC Member

Box 98 Kapsara 0751799022; 0722217482

ngesemwo@yahoo.com

14. Benjamin Ruto 11280327 SCM Box 98 Kapsara 071626780415. Benson Kipkorir 26740794 075046569316. Benson Mgut

Chui23738626

17. Charles Abok18. Charles K.

Kiberen3531931 Sengwer DPC

MemberBox 98 Kapsara 0721977818 Kiberenc@yahoo

.com 19. Charles K.

KiprotichSengwer DPC Member

Box 98 Kapsara 0701510524

20. Charles Kiptoo21. Charles Koiwa 9763521 Sengwer22. Chepochemosoi

Lokoutome23. Chepokasaniak

Kiptoo26350318

24. Chesire Anadeta25. Christine

Chebet26. Christine

ChepkaitanySCM Box 98 Kapsara

27. Clementine Cherono

88

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

28. Dafine Chemtai29. Daniel K.

Kiptarit4090751

30. Daniel K. Mengich

25405885 SCM Box 98 Kapsara 0710732106

31. Daniel Kasikar 4093040 Box 98 Kapsara32. Daniel Kiptarit 409075133. David Abokho 2380721834. David Kibet

Kipsagona35. David Sirma 2436263236. David Teber 669778 072881419837. Dickson K. Korir 2588818738. Difine Chemtai39. Dinas Chelagat 40. Elizabeth

Chematui12815541

41. Elizabeth Cheruiyot

20264455

42. Elizabeth Jepkemoi

13324393

43. Emas Remoi44. Emily C. Saisi 2087161445. Emily Koroeny 027900746. Emmanuel

AmonSengwer CM Box 98 Kapsara 07036900179

47. Emmanuel Kipkorir

48. Emmanuel Kiptoo

26674840

49. Eunice Chepkoskei

11757350

50. Evaline Chebowen

20717535

51. Evans Kemoi 071826052752. Everline

Lokamuria53. Everlyne Kimtai 710328554. Francis Katoma 113056155. Francis

Wamalwa193580052

56. Geoffrey Chebipen

57. Geoffrey Kiptalam Rutto

24482896 0712495668

58. George Yator59. Gladys

C.MengichSengwer DPC Member

Box 98 Kapsara 0731529353

60. Grace Kosgei Sengwer Box 98 Kapsara61. Haron

Kipchumba Krop62. Hellen Kimtai 071676407963. Immanuel

Amon0588665

64. Irene Cheroti65. Isaac A. Lubwa DC’s Rep. Box 943 Kitale 072153784666. Isaac Kisang 3530606

89

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

67. Isaac Komen 071509514268. Jackson

Parchuro69. Jacob Kibet 2050306470. Jacob Kiken 070203244471. Jacob Luice 832072572. James Chebii73. James Sitienei 4638179 072540979074. Jane Kiplimo 20582583575. Janet Cherutich 070120973176. Jeniffer Kadogo 28681155 Sengwer Box 98 Kapasara 071965894877. John Chelal 1106257078. John K. Kibor 21206340 SCM Box 98 Kapsara 072944454679. John K. Kiptanui 2026091880. John Kemboi 12678939 071085136381. John Kibiy 353192382. John Sawe83. Johnstone

Loywopa0710185900

84. Joseph Cheruiyot

4090669

85. Joseph K. Kipchumba

7373438 Sengwer Village Elder

0718870154

86. Joseph Kibachenje

87. Joseph Kibor88. Joseph Kipkorir 1267867689. Joseph Lekenei 20163313390. Julia Cherop 353089891. Julius K. Kitai92. Julius Korir Sengwer DPC

MemberBox 98 Kapsara 072300620

93. Julius Lokaumuria

94. Julius Sabatia 8345456 PA95. Kapchero

Ngurianyony4092779

96. Kelvin Korir Yator

26724286 0714725175

97. Kimaiyo Komukony

98. Kiplimo Rotich SCC99. Limalu100. Limasia

Chumarite101. Loice

Chepkemoi8320725

102. Lucy Kibet Sengwer 0718644018103. Maiywa

Kimkony4494851

104. Margaret Lomerisia

Sengwer Box 98 Kapasara

105. Mary Chepketem

3531350

106. Mary Chepkigen107. Mary Daniel

Kiptoo

90

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

108. Mary Kapoiyo Sengwer109. Maurine

Chepkemei226153564 Sengwer Box 98 Kapsara

110. Milka Chepkorir Sengwer Box 98 Kapsara 0710189139111. Mongot Mochi 0278626112. Monica

Kipchumba113. Nairesha

EverlineSengwer CC

114. Nancy Chesang115. Ngolekou

Lonyangiro27066239

116. Nicholas Kiprotich

26677348 Sengwer YL Box 98 Kapsara 0710274064

117. Paul Churi 8298983 Sengwer118. Paul K. Sondet 8366534119. Peter Kimutai

Kiplangat120. Peter Kipyatich 26777820 0702513084121. Peter Tanui122. Phamice

Chemtai123. Phelistar

Nakhanu Kipyengo

Sengwer

124. Philip Chepkondus

125. Philip Kiprop126. Philip Mongot 9168613127. Pius K. Kiplagat 22850985128. Pius Lagat 0726040739129. Porit Lokamuria 5202443130. Rabecah Sikuku 16098129131. Ralz Tirop132. Richard Kemoi

Sawe23316957

133. Richard Koech 21167761134. Richard Ndiwa MoLD Box 6 Kitale 0711606634 Ndiwa.richard@y

ahoo.com 135. Robert R. Rotich 25015506 Sengwer DPC

MemberBox 98 Kapsara 0713951961 rotio@yahoo.co

m 136. Ronald K.

Kibowen1110595

137. Rose C. Yego 9762872138. Rosemary

Cherono Kimengich

3534235

139. S. N. Wawi MoCD&M Box 4419 Kitale 0722379137 wisam@yahoo.com

140. Salome Ambros141. Salome Chepita142. SamuelKibet 07103113143. Sarah Jelangat144. Sarah Kemboi145. Sarah Kiprotich 26717400 0710274064146. Shadrack K.

Korir7444037 SCM Box 98 Kapsara

91

No Name ID No. Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

147. Shapon Kakuko148. Simoni

Pukomoe149. SitieneyKipsoi

Stephen9762929 0725728391

150. Stella Chepkemoi

455364

151. Stella Nyaris152. Stephen Sitienei 5530871153. Susan

Chemesheluk154. Susan Njeri155. Tereza

Chepkemoi16073189

156. Thomas Kimaiyo 3530367 Sengwer CM Box 98 Kapsara157. Thomas Kimtai 26389106158. Vincent Kitiyo 0276548 SCM Box 98 Kapsara 0715344074159. Vincet Kiptoo

Kipketer7061378 Sengwer Box 98 Kapsara

160. William Kiprono Kiptoo

3530606

161. William Chesoo162. William Ebei163. William K.

Kimobo11280337

164. William Kauyan165. William Kiprono166. William P.

Nyaris7705947 Sengwer CM Box 98 Kapsara 0717675325

167. Wilson Cheruyot

3531552

168. Wilson Kipyego 0710729169169. Yator Kiptum 8299896 Sengwer

VMPCC3894-30200 Kitale 0726806100 Yat.orr@gmail.co

m 170. Zipporah Simiyu MoA Box 1781 Kitale 0727831238 Khaoma2000@y

ahoo.com

Miinutes for Sengwer Consultations : Kapolet (Trans Nzoia) – 27-28/4/2011

The community requested for a further interaction and a CBA presentation on the Value Chains so they can make right decisions.

4.384 Way forward

1. Conduct elections to get interim contact committee,

2. Continue screening for the VMGs (Sengwer and Ogieks of Trans Nzoia),

3. Undertake social mapping and analysis,

4. Areas where the VMGs are must be presented to the District Development Committee (DDC) for approval and inclusion as KAPAP project areas, and

5. Then undertake an Enterprise Development Plan an equivalent of IPP with the communities for funding.

92

C. Ogiek participation in Nessuit – Njoro District, Nakuru (Day 1 – 29/4/2011)

No Name Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

1 Agnes C. Chilili Nessuit Box 752 Njoro 07165353162 Alice C. Togom -do- 07290843213 Alice Kenywa Nessuit -do-4 Benard Leshoe -do- 07288343205 Benard Samita Ngiria 07272271796 Benjamin Segi Box 786 Njoro 07219717497 Benson Kiprono 07242491148 Boniface Murenokasoi OWC Box 784 Njoro 07131335129 Clarkson Luswaget CHW -do- 072244561910 Cllr Paul Leswagei Nessuit Ward Box 752 Njoro 072616711611 Cornelius Sankale Indigenous

Youth Develepment Group

0724506328 Indigenousyouth2010@gmail.com or sancobi@yahoo.com

12 Daniel S. Kwendo -do-13 David Cheriro Box 752 Njoro 072588467714 David Cheruiyot Box 752 Njoro 075228958715 David Kipkorir Lesingo Box 752 Njoro 071801321516 Easther Nareyu17 Easther Totonia18 Emmanuel Lemu Ogiek People

Development Program

Box 424 Egerton

0726573713 Lemis.emmanuel@yahoo.com

19 Esther Towett Nessuit20 Florence C. Lesingo -do- 072658279921 Florence Odweso KAPAP

SecreariatBox 8073-00200 Nairobi

0722347481 fodweso@hotmail.com

22 Florence Wanjala MoA Box 560 Njoro 071039437023 Francis Baiya KAPAP

SecretariatBox 8073 Nairobi

0723219620

24 Francis Kakwetin Lesingo

Ogiek Cultural Centre

Box 689 Njoro 0728347240 Ogiek.cc22@gmail.com

25 Francis L. Ngonino RWUA CHLM -do- 071018832226 Francis Segi27 George Kipkemoi 072738931328 Hellena Retete Nessuit Box 752 Njoro29 Hillary K. Ng’eno MoA 560 Njoro 072580581030 Hilton Kipkemei Nderitu WRUA Box 786 Njoro 072309557531 Isaac Saitoti KENFAP

NakuruBox 478 Nakuru

0723993790 saitotik@yahoo.com

32 Ismael K. Lenduse 072425264033 James Rana Box 75 Njoro 072477452934 Jane Cheruto Korir35 Jane Ngugi KAPAP

SecretariatBox 8073 Nairobi

0720277888 ngugijane19@yahoo.com

36 Jedidah C. Sigilai Nessuit 071855678737 Johana Zakayo38 John Kimaiywa Box 786 Njoro39 John L. Sironga OWC 92 Njoro 071256554140 John Logoita Box 752 Njoro41 John Mburuo42 John W. Sayaya -do- 072515870143 Johnson Mucharagi 20292535

93

44 Jonathan Pere Box 752 Njoro 071028949245 Joseph K. Sang ERMIS Africa Box 17342

Nakuru0722646043 sang@ermisafrica.org

46 Joseph Kongo Mutai Box 526 Njoro 071035035947 Joseph Lesingo Box 526, Njoro 072290408748 Joseph Miritu Miringa Ogiek Tree

NurseryBox 752 Njoro 0725692181

49 Joseph Osendi Box 560 Njoro 072055266050 Joseph S. Ngiria 072955900751 Joseph Wenduse52 Julius Bidii Lenzuna 071442531253 Julius M. Kinuthia KARI Box 752 Njoro 072990835654 Julius Muchemi World Bank

Group ConsultantSafeguard Policies Expert

P.O. Box 11349, 0010, Nairobi, Kenya

Mobile: +254 (0) 720703 606; 734-703 606; Tel: +254 –(0) –020-2680567

julius@safeguardpolicies.org

55 Karia Lembigas56 Kimaru K. Kapsoo MoA Box 560 Njoro 072170610357 Kithome Kilaka KAPAP

SecretariatBox 8073 -00200 Nairobi

0735884900 k.kilaka@gmail.com

58 Leah Chemalega59 Lebiror Lengupe60 Leonard K. Mindore -do- Box 752 Njoro 0724977439 imindore@yahoo.com61 Lilian Chekorir Nessuit -do- 072997582562 Loice Cheruto -do- 071251338163 Mary Chemans64 Mary Cheplimo65 Mchembere David KAPAP RSU Box 3799

Nakuru0724659115 davidmchembere@yahoo

.com 66 Musa K. Mburuo67 Mysow Lempere

MburuoBox 752 Njoro 0728651411

68 Naisuru Cleovas Njala 071481225069 Naivando Fredrick 18038 Nakuru 0720004001 naivando@yahoo.com70 Obigi N. Benson Business/

FarmingBox 752 Njoro 0722414750

71 Peter Kimani KAPAP RSC Box 3799 Nakuru

0733854929

72 Peter Kiprotich Nessuit73 Peter ndegwa MoLD Box 560 Njoro 0723211006 alponjoro@yahoo.com74 Prengei Victor Indigenous

Development Initiative

Box 14808 0721700272 pmgvictor@yahoo.com

75 Purity Kaburu KAPAP RSU Box 3799 Nakuru

0722432506 pkkaburu@yahoo.com

76 Ranoi Kilonyati77 Raphael Kioko KAPAP RSU 072120994378 Richard Saibala Nessuit Box 752 Njoro 075014369179 Richard Tele Box 526 Njoro 072547835080 Robiston Mtarakia81 Roseline Chepkoech Nessuit Box 752 Njoro82 Samuel K. Kimisoi 071499220283 Sarah Osas -do- 071712521784 Simon Chewu Keith 071578325185 Simon K. Konirs OWC -do- 071527030286 Simon Muchura OWC Box 14808 071626946787 Sinyok Leseo88 Sitienei David 0702212752

94

89 Stephen Siandoi Ngiria 070181197390 Susan T. Kipsambu Nessuit -do- 070122168591 Taputkoy Kausa92 Tegeret Kuka93 Wesley Towett Nessuit 072454082494 William Sobukie95 Zakayo Chelule WRUA -do- 072934293996 Zakayo K. Lesingo GAA

BOROWO- BKG

Box 784 Njoro 0728616801

97 Zilpher Nyakwara KARI Private Bag 0722745466 zilphernyakwara@yahoo.com

D. Ogiek participation in Nessuit – Njoro District, Nakuru (Day 2 – 30/4/2011)

No Name Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

1 Agnes C. Chilili Nessuit Box 752 Njoro 07165353162 Alice C. Togom -do- 07290843213 Alice Kenywa Nessuit -do-4 Alice Ngichia5 Ann Sigira 6 Benard K. Leshebe OWS Box 752 Njoro7 Benard Leshoe -do- 07288343208 Benard Samita Ngiria 07272271799 Benjamin Nadumunye10 Benjamin Segi Box 786 Njoro 072197174911 Benson Kiprono 072424911412 Boniface Mureno OWC Box 784 Njoro 071313351213 Boniface Murenokasoi OWC Box 784 Njoro 071313351214 Cheres Victor OGO Box 27070835 071313359915 Clarkson Luswaget CHW -do- 072244561916 Clarkson Rutto Box 752 Njoro 072244565917 Cllr Paul Leswagei Nessuit Ward Box 752 Njoro 072616711618 Cornelius Sankale Indigenous

Youth Develepment Group

0724506328 Indigenousyouth2010@gmail.com or sancobi@yahoo.com

19 Daniel S. Kinade Box 75220 Daniel S. Kwendo -do-21 David Cheriro Box 752 Njoro 072588467722 David Cheruiyot Box 752 Njoro 075228958723 David Kipkorir Lesingo Box 752 Njoro 071801321524 David Salag 078228958725 Easther Nareyu26 Easther Totonia27 Emmanuel Lemu Ogiek People

Development Program

Box 424 Egerton

0726573713 Lemis.emmanuel@yahoo.com

28 Esther Towett Nessuit29 Eunice Chepkemoi30 Eunice Langat31 Florence C. Lesingo -do- 072658279932 Florence Odweso KAPAP

SecreariatBox 8073-00200 Nairobi

0722347481 fodweso@hotmail.com

33 Florence Wanjala MoA Box 560 Njoro 071039437034 Francis Baiya KAPAP Box 8073 0723219620

95

No Name Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

Secretariat Nairobi35 Francis Kakwetin

LesingoOgiek Cultural Centre

Box 689 Njoro 0728347240 Ogiek.cc22@gmail.com

36 Francis L. Ngonino RWUA CHLM -do- 071018832237 Francis Segi38 Francis Osonga OWC39 Fredrick Naivando Box 18038

Nakuru0720064001

40 George Kipkemoi 072738931341 Hellena Leteni42 Hellena Retete Nessuit Box 752 Njoro43 Hillary K. Ng’eno MoA 560 Njoro 072580581044 Hilton Kipkemei Nderitu WRUA Box 786 Njoro 072309557545 Isaac Saitoti KENFAP

NakuruBox 478 Nakuru

0723993790 saitotik@yahoo.com

46 Ismael K. Lenduse 072425264047 James Rana Box 75 Njoro 072477452948 Jane Chepkoech49 Jane Cheruto Korir50 Jane Ngugi KAPAP

SecretariatBox 8073 Nairobi

0720277888 ngugijane19@yahoo.com

51 Jedidah C. Sigilai Nessuit 071855678752 Johanna Bilati Ekenjo53 Johana Longoita54 Johana Zakayo55 John Kimaiywa Box 786 Njoro56 John Koina WRUA Box 756 072177006657 John L. Sironga OWC 92 Njoro 071256554158 John Logoita Box 752 Njoro59 John Mburuo60 John W. Sayaya Elders’

ChairmanBox 752 Njoro 0725158701

61 Johnson Mucharagi 2029253562 Jonathan Pere Box 752 Njoro 071028949263 Joseph K. Sang ERMIS Africa Box 17342

Nakuru0722646043 sang@ermisafrica.org

64 Joseph Kongo Mutai Box 526 Njoro 071035035965 Joseph Lenduse Box 752 Njoro 072599074866 Joseph Lesingo Box 526, Njoro 072290408767 J. M. Kobei 072243375768 Joseph Miritu Miringa Ogiek Tree

NurseryBox 752 Njoro 0725692181

69 Joseph Osendi Box 560 Njoro 072055266070 Joseph S. Ngiria 072955900771 Joseph K. Sang 072264604372 Joseph Siandoi Box 752 Njoro73 Joseph R. Kipkones PA Box 500 Njoro 072290408774 Joseph Wenduse75 Julius Bidii Leleshwa 071442531276 Julius M. Kinuthia KARI Box 752 Njoro 072990835677 Julius Muchemi World Bank

Group ConsultantSafeguard Policies Expert

P.O. Box 11349, 0010, Nairobi, Kenya

Mobile: +254 (0) 720703 606; 734-703 606; Tel: +254 –(0) –020-2680567

julius@safeguardpolicies.org

78 Julius Mwangi KARI, Njoro 072990835679 Karia Lembigas

96

No Name Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

80 Kenneth Mwangi MoA Box 585 Njoro 072227700281 Kimaru K. Kapsoo MoA Box 560 Njoro 072170610382 Kithome Kilaka KAPAP

SecretariatBox 8073 -00200 Nairobi

0735884900 k.kilaka@gmail.com

83 Leah Chemalega84 Leah Chemolel Kawawa85 Lebilo Lenguloe M. 86 Lebiror Lengupe87 Leonard K. Mindore Indigenous

Development Initiative

Box 14808 Nakuru

0724977439 imindore@yahoo.com

88 Lilian Chekorir Nessuit -do- 072997582589 Lilian Chepkurui90 Loice Cheruto -do- 071251338191 Margaret Kausa92 Mary Chemans93 Mary Chemarus 94 Mary Chepkemoi95 Mary Cheplimo96 Mchembere David KAPAP RSU Box 3799

Nakuru0724659115 davidmchembere@yahoo

.com 97 Musa K. Mburuo98 Mysow Lempere

MburuoBox 752 Njoro 0728651411

99 Nabisto Daniel Box 836 Njoro 0720891314100 Naisuru Cleovas Njala 0714812250101 Naivando Fredrick 18038 Nakuru 0720004001 naivando@yahoo.com102 Obigi N. Benson Business/

FarmingBox 752 Njoro 0722414750

103 Penina Chemeli104 Peter Kimani KAPAP RSC Box 3799

Nakuru0733854929

105 Peter Kiprotich Nessuit 0715181791106 Peter ndawara MoLD Box 560 Njoro 0723211006 alponjoro@yahoo.com107 Prengei Victor Indigenous

Development Initiative

Box 14808 0721700272 pmgvictor@yahoo.com

108 Purity Kaburu KAPAP RSU Box 3799 Nakuru

0722432506 pkkaburu@yahoo.com

109 Ranoi Kilonyati110 Raphael Kioko KAPAP RSU 0721209943111 Richard Saibala Nessuit Box 752 Njoro 0750143691112 Richard Tele Box 526 Njoro 0725478350113 Robiston Mtarakia114 Roseline Chepkoech Nessuit Box 752 Njoro115 Sankale Cornelius IYDO 0724506328;

0722221782116 Samson R. Mutarakwa117 Samson Ranoi118 Samuel K. Kimisoi 0714992202119 Sarah Osasi -do- 0717125217120 Simon Chewu Koita 0715783251121 Simon K. Kimando122 Simon Konana Konin Ogiek Welfare

CouncilBox 14808 Nakuru

0715270302

123 Simon K. Konirs OWC -do- 0715270302124 Simon K. Muchura OWC Box 14808 0716269467

97

No Name Name of Institution

Address Telephone/Cellphone

Email:

125 Sinyok Leseo126 Sitienei David 0702212752127 Stephen Siandoi Ngiria 0701811973128 Susan Chemto129 Susan T. Kipsambu Nessuit -do- 0701221685130 Tapletkoi Kausa131 Taprandich Leseyo132 Taputkoy Kausa133 Tegeret Kuka134 Wesley Towett Nessuit 0724540824135 William Sobukie136 Zakayo Chelule WRUA -do- 0729342939137 Zakayo K. Lesingo GAA

BOROWO- BKG

Box 784 Njoro 0728616801

138 Zilpher Nyakwara KARI Private Bag 0722745466 zilphernyakwara@yahoo.com

Minutes for Nessuit (Nakuru) Ogiek Consultations – 29-30/4/2011

The community expressed the desire to be trained on cost benefit analysis of all the value chain themes to be able to make an informed decision.

4.386 Way forward

1. Conduct elections to get interim contact committee,2. Continue screening for the VMGs (Ogieks of Nakuru),3. Undertake social mapping and analysis,4. Areas where the VMGs are must be presented to the District Development Committee (DDC)

for approval and inclusion as KAPAP project areas, and 5. Then undertake an Enterprise Development Plan (EDP) an equivalent of IPP with the

communities for funding.

E. Workshop Timetable

Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP)Social and Environmental Safeguards Awareness Creation and Sensitization Fora to VMGs: West Pokot, Trans Nzoia

and Nakuru Regions – 25-29/04/2011 (2 days each)PROGRAM

Day 1: April 25th (West Pokot); 27th (Trans Nzoia); 29th (Nakuru)DAY 1: CHAIRPERSON: DAO; Rapporteur: KENFAP

8.30-9.00am Arrival/Registration of participants RSUs9.00-9.30am Introduction RSU - Coordinator9.30-10.00am Workshop Objectives/ Participants’ Expectations KS – Environmental Specialist10.00-10.30am

Official Opening District Heads/(Provincial Heads- Agric. ,Livestock, Cooperatives, Fisheries)

10.30-11.00am

Health Break

11.00-11.30am

Introduction to KAPAP and Implementation Process RSU-Coordinator

11.30-12.00 Noon

Group Tasks KS – Environmental Specialist

12.00-12.30pm

Group presentations KS – Environmental Specialist

12.30-1.00pm

KAPAP Safeguards KS – Environmental Specialist

1.00pm-2.00pm

Lunch Break

2.00-2.20pm Plenary Discussions2.20-3.00pm Gender Issues in Agricultural Development and Agribusiness KS-Social & Gender Specialist3.00-4.00pm SWOT/C/L Analysis – Group tasks KS – Environmental Specialist4.00-4.30pm Group presentations KS – Environmental Specialist4.30-5.00pm Listing of community constraints/Ranking – Group tasks WB Safeguards Consultant /KS –

Environmental Specialist5.00-5.15pm Conclusions/Wrap up/Closing day 1 RSUs

Day 2: April 26th (West Pokot); 28th (Trans Noia); 30th (Nakuru)DAY 2: CHAIRPERSON: DLPO; Rapporteur: DCO

8.30-9.00am Group presentations/Pair-wise ranking WB Safeguards Consultant /KS –Environmental Specialist

9.00-9.30am Community issues analyzed - Problem Tree WB Safeguards Consultant /KS –Environmental Specialist

9.30-10.00am Integrating Gender concerns in KAPAP Operational procedures

KS-Social & Gender Specialist

10.00-10.30am

KAPAP Area CIP Vs SWOT Analysis RSU – M&E O/KS-Environmental Specialist

10.30-11.00am

Health Break

11.00-11.30am

KAPAP Financial and Procurement Guidelines in relation to Community sub projects

RSU-Accountant/RSU Coordinator

11.30-12.00 Noon

Communication Dissemination Mechanism (CDM) KS-Information / Communication Specialist / WB Safeguards Consultant

12.00-12.30pm

Conflict Handling Mechanism (CHM) WB Safeguards Consultant /KS –Environmental Specialist

12.30-1.00pm

ESM Screening Demo. RSU M&E O/KS- Environmental Specialist

1.00pm-2.00pm

Lunch Break

2.00-3.00pm Community Planning Log Frame link with EDP Development KS – M&E Specialist3.00-3.30pm Grievance Resolution Mechanism (GRM) KS-Information / Communication

Specialist / WB Safeguards Consultant 3.30-4.00pm Conclusions/Evaluation/Way forward RSU Coordinator4.30-5.00pm Official Closing District Heads/(Provincial Heads-

Agric. ,Livestock, Cooperatives, Fisheries)

DISCLOSURE CONSULTATION Platforms: KAPAP FRAMEWORKS

Date County Venue No. of participants

Frameworks

2nd October 2008 Taita Taveta 20 ESMF; IPPF; IPMF3RD October 2008 Kilifi 32 “6th October 2008 Nyeri 13 “7th October 2008 Meru Central 32 “9th October 2008 Nakuru St. Mary’s

Pastoral Institute25 “

8th October 2008 Embu East College 15 “13th October 2008 Homa Bay 71 “14th October 2008 Kakamega 13 “17th October 2008 Makueni DANIDA HALL 19 “16TH April 2009 Kilifi Georgias Hotel

Mtwapa36 “

25-26/4/2011 West Pokot Talau 80; 112 “27-28/4/2011 Trans Nzoia Kapolet 109; 170 “29-30/4/2011 Nakuru Nessuit 97; 138 “