World Bank Document
[pic]
Republic of Kenya
IPP377 v2
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK (Ogiek and Sengwer)
For
KENYA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND AGRIBUSINESS PROJECT (KAPAP)
AND
KENYA ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN ARID AND SEMI-ARID LANDS PROJECT (KACCAL)
May, 2009
Revised October 2012
Table of contents
Table 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 14
KACCAL 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 23
3.1.1 History 24
3.1.2 Livelihood 24
3.1.3 Social organization 27
3.2 Sengwer 28
3.2.1 History 28
3.2.2 Livelihood 29
3.2.3 Social organization 31
3.3 Hunter-Gatherers: Development visions and key issues 31
3.4 Summary 32
5 Framework for free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC) 37
5.1 Indigenous Peoples Orientation and Mobilization 37
5.2 Consultations with Indigenous Peoples 38
5.3 Mapping of community resources critical to IP 38
5.4 Development of strategies for participation of IP and mitigation measures 39
5.5 Capacity Building 42
5.6 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) 45
ANNEX 2: Peoples and organizations directly consulted 47
ANNEX 3: OP. 4.10: Indigenous Peoples 49
Annex A: Social Assessment 56
Annex B Indigenous Peoples Plans 56
ANNEX 4: Proceedings and Participants of the KAPAP Disclosure 58
Workshops 58
1.5 Attendance list 60
2. Stakeholders Meeting held at Embu, East College 61
2.3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 65
3 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) 74
A. Sengwer participation in Kapolet – Trans Nzoia East District (Day 1 – 27/4/2011) 77
B. Sengwer participation in Kapolet – Trans Nzoia East District (Day 2 – 28/4/2011) 80
C. Ogiek participation in Nessuit – Njoro District, Nakuru (Day 1 – 29/4/2011) 85
D. Ogiek participation in Nessuit – Njoro District, Nakuru (Day 2 – 30/4/2011) 87
E. Workshop Timetable 91
LIST OF TABLES
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 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
ACRONYMNS
ADC – Agricultural Development Corporation
ASAL – Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
ASDS – Agriculture Sector Development Strategy
ASPSC – Agriculture Sector Programs Steering Committee
CAC – Catchment Area Coordinator
CAPs – Community Action Plans
CBO – Community –Based Organization
CCC – Climate Change Coordinator
CDD – Community Driven-Development
CIG – Common Interest Group
GoK – Government of Kenya
ICC – Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee
IDA – International Development Association
ILO – International Labour Organization
IP – Indigenous Peoples
IPO – Indigenous Peoples’ Organization
IPPF – Indigenous Peoples’ Plan Framework
KACCAL – Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
KAPAP – Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project
KAPSLMP – Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management Project
KARI – Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KENFAP – Kenya Federation of Agricultural Producers
KFS – Kenya Forest Service
KIFCON – Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project
KWS – Kenya Wildlife Service
ME – Monitoring and Evaluation
MTP – Medium Term Plan
NARS – National Agricultural Research Systems
NASEP – National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy
NGO – Non- Governmental Organization
NRM – Natural Resource Management
NRMP – Natural Resource Management Project
OP – Operational Policy
PDO – Project Development Objective
PES – Payment for Environmental Services
PME – Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
PRA – Participatory Rural Appraisal
RASPSC – Regional Agriculture Sector Programs Steering Committee
RSU – Regional Service Unit
SLM – Sustainable Land Management
UN – United Nations
WRMA – Water Resource Management Authority
Executive Summary
Reasons for Updating the IPPF
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 land management practices, climate change mitigation measures and alternative livelihood strategies 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.
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 Indigenous Peoples and that the two projects: 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 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 |PROJECT(S) |
| | |O.P. 4.10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLE | |
|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 |KAPAP; KACCAL |
| | |screening during implementation | |
| | |(TBD) | |
|Gucha |Gucha, Gucha South |No presence indigenous People |KAPAP |
|Homa Bay |Homa Bay, Ndhiwa |No presence indigenous People |KAPAP |
|Kakamega |Kakamega North, Kakamega Central,|No presence indigenous People |KAPAP |
| |Kakamega South, Kakamega East | | |
|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, |No presence indigenous People |KAPAP |
| |Buuri, Imenti South | | |
|Nakuru |Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru North, |Ogiek |KAPAP |
| |Naivasha, Njoro | | |
|Nyandarua |Nyandarua North, Nyandarua |No presence indigenous People |KAPAP |
| |Central, Nyandarua South, | | |
| |Kipipiri, Kinangop | | |
|Nyeri |Nyeri South, Nyeri North, Nyeri |No presence indigenous People |KAPAP |
| |Central, Nyeri East | | |
|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 |Sengwer, Ogiek |KAPAP |
| |East, Kwanza | | |
|Wajir |Wajir East, Wajir South, Wajir |TBD |KAPAP |
| |North, Wajir West | | |
|West Pokot |West Pokot, Central Pokot, North |Sengwer |KAPAP; KACCAL |
| |Pokot, | | |
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, |Garissa, Tana River, West Pokot, Kilifi |
| |Nyeri, Homa Bay, Gucha, Siaya, Taita Taveta, | |
| |Kilifi, Tana River, Kwale, Garissa, Wajir, Meru | |
| |Central, Makueni, Embu, Kakameg, Busia, | |
| |Butere-Mumias | |
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-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.
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, and
g) 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, Water Resources Management Authority, Lands, National Environment Management Authority, Kenya Forest Srvice, Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands, Home Affairs, Cooperative Development and Marketing, 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 IPPF
b) Conduct Indigenous Peoples Orientation and Mobilization
c) Hold free and informed consultations with Indigenous Peoples (IP)
d) Facilitate mapping of community resources critical to IP
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 organs
h) 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.
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 agricultural[2] 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 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 projects[3] 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 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 Systems
6. 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 Development
8. 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 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 advocacy
9. 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 level
10. 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) 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 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 Peoples[4]
“There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous people” (UN Human Right and Indigenous Issues: 92). But for the operational 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 region[5].”
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.
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).
Table 3: Projects’ Operational Areas
|County/District |Districts/ Areas |Project(s) active in|County/ District |Districts/ Areas | Project(s) |
| | |District | | |active in |
| | | | | |District |
|West Pokot |West Pokot, Central Pokot, |KAPAP; KACCAL |Tana River |Tana River, Tana Delta |KAPAP; KACCAL |
| |North P. | | | | |
|Nakuru |Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru North |KAPAP |Kwale |Kwale, Kinango, |KAPAP |
| |Naivasha, Njoro | | |Msambweni | |
|Trans Nzoia |Trans Nzoia West, Trans |KAPAP |Garissa |Garissa, Fafi, Lagdera |KAPAP; KACCAL |
| |Nzoia East, Kwanza | | | | |
|Nyandarua |Nyandarua North, |KAPAP |Wajir |Wajir East, Wajir South, |KAPAP |
| |Nyandarua Central, | | |Wajir North, Wajir West | |
| |Nyandarua South, Kipipiri | | | | |
|Nyeri |Nyeri South, Nyeri North, |KAPAP |Meru Central |Meru Central, Imenti; |KAPAP |
| |Nyeri Central, Nyeri East | | |North, | |
| | | | |Buuri; Imenti South | |
|Homa Bay |Homa Bay, Ndhiwa |KAPAP |Makueni |Makueni, Mbooni, Kibwezi, |KAPAP |
| | | | |Nzani | |
|Gucha |Gucha, Gucha South |KAPAP |Embu |Embu |KAPAP |
|Siaya |Siaya, Ugenya |KAPAP |Kakamega |Kakamega North, K. |KAPAP |
| | | | |Central, Kakamega South, | |
| | | | |Kakamega East | |
|Taita - |Taita, Taveta |KAPAP |Busia |Busia, Samia, Bunyala |KAPAP |
|Taveta | | | | | |
|Kilifi |Kilifi, Kaloleni; Malindi |KAPAP; KACCAL |Butere- |Butere, Mumias |KAPAP |
| | | |Mumias | | |
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 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.
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 Ogiek
29. 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 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 ().
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 Livelihood
31. 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 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 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 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. Missions 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 organization
42. 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 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 Sengwer
43. 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 History
45. 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 etc[6].
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 became 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 Livelihood
49. 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 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 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. As a result, many Sengwer feel marginalized by the government.
3.2.3 Social organization
57. 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 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 issues
59. 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 access to traditional sources of livelihood: 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 Summary
60. It became clear that the Indigenous Peoples face similar problems 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;
• 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, 2012
ii. The National Land Commission Act, 2012
iii. The Land Act, 2012
iv. Appropriation Act, 2012
v. The National Cohesion and Integration (Amendment) Bill, 2012
vi. 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 Commision
ii. 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; 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 IPPF
ii. Conduct Indigenous Peoples Orientation and Mobilization
iii. Hold free, prior and informed consultations with Indigenous Peoples leading to broad community support for the project
iv. Facilitate mapping of community resources critical to IP
v. Develop strategies for participation of IP and institute mitigation measures for potential adverse impact
vi. Build the capacity of Indigenous Peoples in Sustainable Natural Resource
vii. Management and Social Mapping
viii. Ensure equitable representation of IP in decision making organs
ix. Conduct participatory M&E with IPPF
Table 4: Possible Impacts of KAPAP and KACCAL on Indigenous Peoples
|PROJECT ACTIVITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE |POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON IP[7] |
|PAD/PROJECT | |
|KAPAP |
|Component 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 |☺☺ Project structures that will include the IP |
|structures |organizations 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 Information |☺☺ General positive impact for all players |
|System (MIS) | |
|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 Systems |
|Support to NARS |
|Competitive collaborative research |☺☺ If IP issues are addressed in research for value chains that include their products |
|tilted towards matching grants for | |
|value chain development | |
|Establishment of a reference resource |☺☺ There are IP resources that can be deposited in this centre that can serve to create awareness on |
|centre |IP issues |
|Laying the legal and financial |☺☺ General positive impact for all players |
|framework needed for a sustainable | |
|funding mechanism for the entire NARS | |
|Publication of Eastern African |☺☺ IP issues will be reported in journal papers |
|Agricultural and Forestry Journal | |
|Capacity building of the scientific |☺☺ General positive impact as researchers cover IP concerns |
|community | |
|Establishment of innovative mechanisms|☺☺ General positive impact for all players |
|aimed at achieving sustainable funding| |
|for agricultural research | |
|Support to KARI |
|Adoption of the Agricultural Product |☺/ Economic impact on IP if they are value chain players; otherwise if the projects and value chains |
|Value Chains (APVC) approach in |identified do not involve IP due to lack of legal access to land and that other groups of people take|
|conducting research with strong |up the activities on land owned by IP |
|emphasis on value addition and market |// The identified priority Value Chains do not include IP products such as Non Timber Forest Products|
|development |(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,|☺☺ If specific measures are taken to include IP in adaptive and outreach programs and make them key |
|outreach and partnership department to|players in value chains that are appropriate to them culturally and socio-economically |
|strengthen linkages with partners in | |
|the value chain | |
|Need to strengthen ICT capabilities |☺☺ General positive impact |
|Need to strengthen PME for |☺☺ If IP issues are articulated in PME systems |
|effectiveness, efficiency and impact | |
|for research | |
|Strengthen research in arid areas by |.. No direct Impact as no IP in Garissa |
|developing research facilities in | |
|Garissa | |
|Strengthen NRM research |// May result in potential restriction on access by IP to natural resources in project sites in view |
|especially on impacts of climate |of climate change issues |
|change and bio-fuels |☺☺ |
|Strengthen strategies for sustainable |☺☺ General positive impact |
|funding | |
|Refocus the research planning and |☺☺ General positive impact |
|implementation to nationally | |
|coordinated program | |
|Component 3: Agricultural extension and farmer and other stakeholders empowerment |
|Agricultural Extension |☺☺ The project will build capacity to cater for diverse |
| |needs 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 |☺/ Participatory needs assessment, prioritization and development of intervention strategies that |
|empowerment |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 organizations should have positive impact on IP |
| |in project areas |
|Component 4: Agribusiness and market development |
|Create network of Agribusiness |Support the creation of four Agro Food Parks (AFPs) in four regions |
|development centers (ABCs) Foster |Pilot the linking of rural agro- processing activities to off-grid energy sources |
|creation of Agro- Industry Funding | |
|instruments | |
|Enhance training in agribusiness |// IP enterprises and areas where IP live not be included in the selected grain, fruits & vegetables |
|management and food technologies to |value chains that exclude NTFP for example |
|meet market demands | |
| |// 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 |
|KACCAL |
|Component 1: Climate Information products, policy and advocacy |
|Development of climate-related |☺/ where possible apply FPIC in order to tap the optimum from the communities |
|knowledge products to inform climate | |
|risk management | |
|Integration of climate action into |☺/ comprehensive inclusion of all targeted beneficiaries |
|national ASAL development plans and | |
|programs | |
|Component 2: Climate Risk Management at the County level |
|Capacity building to integrate climate|☺/ If not handled properly the IP community could be excluded |
|risk management into location Planning| |
|process | |
|Support to enhancement of the |☺☺Total participation and involvement of all communities is cardinal in order to achieve the set |
|technical capacity of mobile extension|objectives |
|teams to access and use | |
|climate-related information and | |
|knowledge | |
|Support for climate-smart public and |☺/Through FPIC approach the IP would be capacity build to participate in this venture |
|private investments | |
|Component 3: Community –Driven initiatives for climate resilience |
|Support for community capacity |☺☺Undertake social analysis in case of IP and community resource assessment in case of other target |
|building |beneficiaries |
|Support for community-based |☺☺ Undertake social analysis in case of IP and community resource assessment in case of other target |
|micro-projects |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):
• 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 Mobilization
68. 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 Peoples
69. 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 that was undertaken by KAPAP within the three Counties referred to above (item 89) 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 IPs as identified in each KACCAL District/County.
5.3 Mapping of community resources critical to IP
70. 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, and
h) Lose their cultural and social identity.
72. Since the exact sub-projects and activities will be identified at a later 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.
Table 3: Format for Social Assessment
SOCIAL SCREENING FOR KAPAP AND KACCAL ACTIVITIES
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A 1. Type/description/justification of proposed activity
A 2. Location of activity
A3. Duration of activity
A 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 beneficiaries
B4. Total Number of expected Indigenous
Peoples beneficiaries
B5. Ratio of B4 and B3; Are benefits distributed equitably?
YES NO
If NO state remedial measures
C. POTENTIAL ADVERSE SOCIAL IMPACTS
C1. Will activity entail restriction of access of IP to lands and related natural resources
C2. Will activity entail commercial development of natural and cultural resources critical to IP
C3. 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 project
D. 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 give
broad support for project
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
Prepared by: Verified by:
KAPAP RSU Coordinator IP representative
Date:
Date:
Note: Attach sketch maps, PRA/RRA results and other relevant documents.
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
• Environmental sustainability ensuring that detrimental environmental impacts such as depletion of biodiversity are avoided or mitigated
• Low cost and financial feasibility ensuring that proposed activities can be sustained with their own resources and system after completion of KAPAP and KACCAL
• Consistency with national policies 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 projects
78. 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 Indigenous Peoples) are able to guarantee that the two projects are 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.
Table 4: KAPAP and KACCAL - Indigenous People’s Planning Framework for the Sengwer and Ogiek
|Issue |Activity |Indigenous People’s |By When |Cost in USD|Indicators |
| | |Responsibility | | | |
|Capacity Building for |Orientation and |Projects Implementing|08/2009 |30,000 |Training of staff from Community |
|implementation of IPPF |Mobilization |Organizations | | |meetings |
|Indigenous Peoples Orientation |Reconnaissance survey |Projects Indigenous |09/2009 |20,000 |Population and dynamics of IP in |
|and Mobilization |Community meetings |Peoples Organizations/| | |the two projects Counties/ |
| | |elders | | |Districts well understood by key |
| | | | | |players |
|Consultations with Indigenous |Participatory Rural |Projects |12/2009 |15,000 |IP in all the two projects |
|Peoples: |Appraisals/ | | | |operation Districts give broad |
| |Rapid Rural Appraisals | | | |support for the project |
|Mapping of community resources |Baseline Surveys |Projects |03/2010 |30,000 |Information from consultations |
|critical to IP |Community transect |IPO s | | |verified by IP and IPOs as |
| |reports | | | |correct and a true representation|
| | | | | |of natural, cultural and social, |
| | | | | |technical resources critical to |
| | | | | |their survival |
|Development of strategies for |Social Screening do not |Projects |Annual |40,000 |Active participation of IP in |
|participation of IP and |leave the IP worse off | | | |forums |
|mitigation measures |than they were | | | |IP and M&E indicate that |
| | | | | |representation is satisfactory to|
| | | | | |the IP |
|Capacity Building |Trainings for IP and IPO |Two projects |Three |100,000 |IP and IPO use training to |
| | | |project[8] | |advance their cause |
|Equitable representation of IP |Election of |Two projects Project | |50,000 |Active participation of IP in |
|in decision making organs |representatives Annual |Inception, Bi-annual | | |forums |
| |Steering Committee |Annual | | |IP and M&E indicate that |
| |meetings Bi-annual | | | |representation is satisfactory to|
| |District Level meetings | | | |the IP |
|Participatory M&E with IP |Internal M&E External M&E|Projects IPO |Annual |M&E |M&E reports accessible to IP and |
| | | |Project | |implementing agencies |
| | | | | |Mechanism for feedback into IPPF |
| | | | | |in place and implemented |
7 Institutional and Communication Arrangements
81. 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 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.
[pic]
8 Grievance processes
85. There will be two levels of dispute resolution under the two projects; the County andDistrict 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. Communication
Communication 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 tours
B. 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’ 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.
Key:
Direct interaction only when necessary
Direct interaction between actors
9 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
86. 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; and
vii. 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 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
| | | |Responsible | |
|Issue |Indicator |Data Source |Agency |Schedule |
|Framework Indicators: Effectiveness of the IPPF |
|1. Capacity Building for |Number of |Training |Projects’ Secretariat|First year of |
|implementation of IPPF |individuals & |workshops reports | |each project |
| |institutions trained | | |implementation |
|2. Indigenous Peoples Orientation|Number of IP |Reconnaissance |Projects’ |Baseline |
|and Mobilization |meetings; Number of IP |survey reports Community |Secretariat, | |
| |sensitised |meeting reports |IPO | |
|3. Consultations with |Number of |RRA reports PRA |projects’ Secretariat|Baseline |
|Indigenous Peoples |PRA/RRA Attendance of PRA/RRA |reports |IPO | |
| |PRA reports | | | |
| |acceptable to IP | | | |
|4. Mapping of community resources|Level of IP |Baseline survey |projects’ Secretariat|Baseline |
|critical to IP |participation |reports Community transect |IPO | |
| |Reports verified and accepted |reports | | |
| |by IP | | | |
|5. Development of strategies for |Number of projects |Projects’ reports; |projects’ Secretariat|Annual |
|participation of IP and mitigation |passed by social |Implementing agencies reports | | |
|measures |screening | | | |
| |Number of projects implemented | | | |
|6. Capacity Building |Types of training |Training reports |projects’ Secretariat|Annual |
| |Attendance by IP | | | |
|7. Equitable representation of IP|Number of meetings |County/District Level and |projects’ Secretariat|Annual, |
|in decision making organs |attended by IP representatives |National Steering Committee |IPO |Bi- annual |
| |Number and types of IP issues |reports IPO reports | | |
| |articulated | | | |
|Livelihood Indicators: Livelihood Status of Indigenous Peoples |
|8. Socio-economic |Change in |projects’ M&E |projects’ Secretariat|Annual |
|status of IP |Livelihood activities of IP |reports |IPO | |
| |households, disaggregated by |Survey reports | | |
| |gender | | | |
| |Change income |projects’ M&E |projects’ Secretariat|Annual |
| |levels of IP |reports |IPO | |
| |households |Survey reports | | |
|9. Land and natural |Change in type and |IPO reports |projects’ Secretariat| |
|resources use and access |location in natural resource |Social Assessment | | |
| |use |Reports | | |
41
Bibliography
Anderson, 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. . 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, 1986
Huntingford, 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 2006
Kailerr (2001): Participatory Learing Approach; Village Development Plan.
Kamau, John (2000) The Ogiek: The Ongoing Destruction of a Minority Tribe in Kenya:
.
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.
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.
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. .
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.
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 University
McPeak, 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. 88-104
Ministry of Finance and Planning: Baringo District Development Plan 2002-2008.
Ministry of Lands (2005). National Land Policy Formulation Process. (landpolicy.or.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, 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.
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.
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).
ANNEXES
ANNEX 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; and
c) 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 |Activity |
|1 |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 Task |
| | | |Team. |
|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 |
| | | |Programme. |
|6 |13/12/05 |Tugen Hills |Consultation with local stakeholders: District Department |
| | | |of 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 and |
| | | |Environmental Service; District office of Ministry of |
| | | |Livestock (Laman Labatt) Consultation with IP: Meeting with Ilchamus on Ol |
| | | |Kokwai. |
|8 |15/12/05 |Tugen Hills |Consultations with local stakeholders: Tugen Populations |
| | | |in and near Lake Kamnarok |
|9 |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 |
| | | |Nyangota) |
|10 |17/12/05 |Cherangany |Consultant with IP: Meeting with Sengwer in Kapolet |
| | | |Forest and Talau Location |
|11 |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 Kipkurere |
| | | |Forest |
|13 |20/12/05 |Nakuru |Consultant with IP: Meeting with Ogiek in Enoosupukia |
| | | |Forest |
|14 |21/12/05 |Nairobi |Feedback session with KARI; Discussion with Julian Bauer |
| | | |on 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 IPPF |
|17 |24/12/05 |Yaoundé |Elaboration of draft IPP |
|18 |25/12/05 |Yaoundé |Elaboration of draft IPP |
|19 |26/12/05 |Yaoundé |Elaboration of draft IPP |
|20 |7/1/06 |Y’dé-Nairobi |Transport |
|21-28 |8- |Nairobi |Discussions with KARI |
| |15/1/06 | | |
|29 |16/1/06 |Nairobi |Preparation of IPP workshop |
|30 |17/1/06 |Kapanguera |Travel |
|31 |18/1/06 |Kapanguera |IPP workshop |
|32 |19/1/06 |Kap’era -Y’dé |Travel |
|33 |20/1/06 |Yaoundé |Finalisation of IPP |
45
ANNEX 2: Peoples and organizations directly consulted
Ogiek
Charles Sena; Ogiek Peoples National Assembly; (info@orip.or.ke)
Joseph Towett; Ogiek Peoples National Assembly & Ogiek Welfare Council
(ogieknet@).; Sarone ole Sena (sarone_ole_sena@); Daniel Kobei ; Ogiek Peoples Development Programme (dkobei@;
opdp2001@).
Village Meeting Enoosupukia Forest: 19/12/05 Simon Ngayami (SimonSeleyian@;
0721-976794); Kuyiato Nashur; Simana Kereto; Mayiani Ole Mebaron; Timothy
Ole 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.
Sengwer
David Kiptum Yator; Sengwer Indigenous Development Project; Sengwer Education Bursary Fund; Hunter-Gatherer Forum; (ykiptumsengwer@; yat.or@; sengwer.idp@).
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
Ilchamus
Orlando Loweri; Lake Baringo Self-Help Group (0723-990652 & 0725-860187; c/o
Baringo 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 Organisations
Naomi Kipuri, African Union Sub-commission on Indigenous People; (kipuri3000@)
Fisherpeoples Network: Mr. Mhuswala (0733-423706) Indigenous Information Network: Lucy Mulenkei.
Centre for Minority Rights Development: Korrir Singoeie
(Korir.singoei@; 722-776994)
Experts
Peter Little; University of Kentucky; (pdlitt1@uky.edu; 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@; Email 10/12/05) Josephat Cheng'ole Mulindo; KARI Marigat, Baringo District
(cjmulindo@); Email 10/12/05)
Johnson Changeiywo; Egerton University; (jchangeiywo@). 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@)
Scott Matter; McGill University (scott.matter@mail.mcgill.ca) Jacqueline Klopp: Columbia University (jk2002@columbia.edu) Julian Bauer; EcoTerra (0733-633000; pjb@)
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;
(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]
(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 Preparation
6. 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.
Screening
8. 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, 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.
Social Assessment
9. 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 implementation, monitoring, and evaluation; and
(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 Framework
12. 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]
Disclosure
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 Considerations
Lands and Related Natural Resources
16. 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.
Commercial Development of Natural and Cultural Resources
18. If the project involves the commercial development of natural resources (such as minerals, hydrocarbon resources, forests, water, or hunting/fishing grounds) on lands
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 Peoples
20. 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 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
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 Development
22. 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.
Notes
1. 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 (OP
4.37).
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.
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,
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 Assessment
1. 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 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).
(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 paragraph
10 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.
ANNEX 4: Proceedings and Participants of the KAPAP Disclosure
Workshops
PROCEEDINGS OF THE KAPAP ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS DISCLOSURE WORKSHOPS 16 April 2009
1 Stakeholders Meeting Held at Georgias Hotel, Mtwapa
The 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 workshop
To 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 Overview
KAPP 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 December
2013.
The major components of KAPAP are:
1. Policy/institutional and project implementation
2. Agricultural research system
3. Agricultural extension and farmer and other stakeholders empowerment
4. 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 policy
2. Pest management policy
3. Indigenous Peoples policy
1.4 Discussions
Participants 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
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 practices
2. Awareness creation on land use policy
3. Awareness creation and promotion of alternative livelihood methods that would reduce pressure and attachment to land
4. 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 resource
Table 6: Community contribution during disclosure forum
|Issue |Mitigation measures |
|a) Environmental issues | |
|Will have effect on soil flora and fauna (will interfere |Appropriate use of crop husbandry e.g. crop |
|with soil microorganisms) |rotation |
|Will lead to deforestation |Agro-forestry |
|Will reduce various types of crop production i.e. abandon other |Government/community to conserve germplasm of the affected crops |
|crops in favour of the anchor value | |
|Chains | |
|b) socioeconomic issues | |
|can increase settlement/overpopulation |Redistribute sub projects in various locations |
|can lead to abuse and misuse of drugs |Counselling and guidance centres, Introduce social events e.g. games |
|can 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 |
| |duties |
| |Family life education programmes |
|c) natural habitats | |
|can increase human- human conflicts e.g. increased |Government to put in place good land use policies |
|land disputes/conflicts | |
| | |
|d) land acquisition and access to resources | |
|can lead to increased cost of land beyond the reach of |Reformed policies on land ownership |
|locals | |
|can lead to restriction on access to resources e.g. |Licensing of communities to access the resources |
|forest by the local people |formation of community forest associations forest services |
| | |
|GROUP 3 | |
| | |
|Crop pests (caterpillars, aphids) |Use of IPM approach |
| |Train on safe use of chemicals and their disposal |
| |Scouting |
| |Repellents |
| |Use of high quality plant materials |
| |Off season cropping- use of resistant varieties, crop rotation |
|Animal borne vectors- ticks, mites and fleas |Hand picking |
| |Spraying using registered chemicals |
| |Quarantines |
| |Surveillance on occurrences |
|Insect borne vectors |Smoke from neem tree |
|Mosquitoes |Drainage system improvement Traditional storage facilities Use of |
|Tsetse fly, blackflies |registered chemicals |
|Water borne vectors (snails) |Fencing |
| |Proper hygiene |
|Wildlife menace (hippo, baboons, warthogs, |Fencing out |
|elephants) |Coexistence training |
| |Eco-tourism |
Overall group 3 was satisfied with the IPMF but added that the local communities have a lot of
knowledge 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 education
management 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 are
IP’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 communities
2. Use of terms that are understood by all
3. all documents are available online at kapp.go.ke
Closing remarks
Closing 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 list
Table 7: KARI Mtwapa - Attendance list
|N |Name |Organisation/ District|Address |Telephone |email |
|o | | | | | |
|1 |Selestina |Taita Taveta |22 Maungu |0721458907 | |
| |Mwandembo | | | | |
|2 |Isaac Bahola |Tana River |10 Hola |0735359747 | |
|3 |Timothy Mwamuye |Tana River |11 garsen |0726346541 |mwananjet@ |
|4 |Francis Macharia M |Tana River |40 Witu |0714808121 | |
|5 |Samuel Kimani |Tana Delta |9 Witu |0729473395 | |
|6 |Milton S Munialo |Tana River |109 Hola |0734785479 |munialoms@ |
|7 |Briston Mvoi M |Taita Taveta |1 Mgambonyi |0735895148 | |
|8 |Salim A Wako |Tana River |54 Bura Tana |0738067047 | |
|9 |Mohamed H |Tana River |54 Bura Tana |0737830864 | |
| |Mnyeto | | | | |
|10 |Thomas Haro |Taita Taveta |1035 |0710641872 |harotg90@ |
| | | |Wundanyi | | |
|11 |Rashid C Katana |Kaloleni |150 Kaloleni |0723351585 | |
|12 |Christine Mwalugo |Sokoke |14 Vitengeni | | |
|13 |Muktar A Hassan |Wajir |431 Wajir |0722606033 |muahh05@ |
|14 |Sabdow K Omar |Wajir |433 Wajir |0729507811 |skasal@ |
|15 |Natha A Hassan |Wajir |431 Wajir |0722873743 | |
|16 |Idris A Hassan |Wajir |431 Wajir |0733264389 | |
|17 |Chibudu A N |Kilifi |175 Kilifi |0734734164 |nyirochibudu@yahoo.co.u |
| | | | | |k |
|18 |C S Omondi |Kilifi |19 Kilifi |0728339371 |omondical@ |
|19 |Oscar Charo |KenFAP Kilifi |175 Kilifi |0723448135 |oscarklf@ |
|20 |Pamela Mwangangi |Msambweni |296 Ukunda |0725156481 | |
|21 |Bahati M Baya |Kilifi |1225 Kilifi |0714832002 | |
|22 |P M Bakari |Kilifi |553 Kilifi |0720972684 |pangammahamed@yahoo. com |
|23 |Bakari Omar Ngala |Msambweni |69 |0737042904 | |
| | | |Msambweni | | |
|24 |Ngei Kyove |Kwale |48 Lukore | | |
|25 |Henry Manyonyi |Coop Devt & Mkt |33 Kilifi |0721332710 | |
|26 |John Mwongela |Taveta |74 Taveta |0712839063 | |
|27 |Evan W Mbinga |Taita |1239 |0722275821 |evanmbinga@ |
| | | |Wundanyi | | |
|28 |Alexander Kubende |Tana River |10 Hola |0721143388 |akubende@ |
|29 |Kadenge Lewa |KARI |16 Mtwapa |0722284640 |lewakk@ |
|30 |Rahab Muinga |KARI |16 Mtwapa |0722798102 |karimtw@ |
|31 |Thomas Mwangemi |Taita |1165 |0729977027 | |
| | | |Wundanyi | | |
|32 |Adel Ali |Wajir |33 Wajir |0727235081 | |
|33 |E M Sanga |Kilifi |553 Kilifi |0722329738 | |
|34 |A Nyanje |Kilifi |19 Kilifi |0727170526 | |
|35 |Samuel Maiko |Kwale |219 Kwale |0738111253 |samuelmaiko@ |
|36 |Andrew Dibo |KS |57811 |0722800455 |andrewdibo@ |
| | | |Nairobi | | |
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.
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 Support
Support 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 Systems
This 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); and
Support for the East African Agricultural Productivity Program (EAAPP).
Component 3: Agricultural Extension, Farmer and Service Providers Empowerment
The 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 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 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 Development
A 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 340651
E-mail: gilbertmuthee@
Safe guard Area IPM : Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals
Question :Why are food additives and preservatives not captured amongst agricultural chemicals
Answer : 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: 0733549164
E-mail: ewmueni@
Safe guard Area ESMF: Environmental Issues
Question : Are the sub-projects implemented during phase I going to be subjected to Environmental
Assessment 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, 0725551558
E-mail: slnjue@
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.
Name Symon C.J. Mburia Address: P.O Box 45-60100 Embu Cell-phone: 07217429
E-mail: symonmburia@
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 subproject
Suggestion 2. Need to consider religious diversity in the selection and location of subprojects : Example given on pig enterprise and the Muslim adherents.
Name Kamau Muniu
Address: P.O Box 408-60100 Embu
Cell-phone: 0710858083
E-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: 0721229731
E-mail: juekireg@yahoo.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 Gateri
Address: P.O Box 2420-60100 Embu
Cell-phone: 0722581034
E-mail: kappdsuembu@
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
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-mail |
|1 |Anthony M. |DSU-EMBU |P.O Box 2420- |068-31179 |Kappdsuembu@yahoo. |
| |Gateri | |60100 Embu | |com |
|2 |Patrick M. |Makueni/Farmer |P.O Box 1 |0736334814 | |
| |Mwanthi | |Kalawa | | |
|3 |Peter N. Mbuvi |Makueni/Farmer |P.O Box 124 |0735988039 | |
| | | |Makueni | | |
|4 |Gilbert M. Mwoga |Dsu meru Central |Po Box 619 meru |0722340651 |Gilbertmuthee@ |
|5 |Symon C.J. Mburia |DCO Embu |P.O Box 45 Embu |0721743259 |symonmburia@ |
|6. |Naomi Nthenya Njoya |Othaya /Famer |P.o Box 692 |O724318288 | |
| | | |Othaya | | |
|7. |Kamau Muniu |Embu Farmer |P.O Box 408 |0710858083 | |
| | | |Embu | | |
|8. |Rober Gikaria |Nyeri Farmer |P.O Box 532 |0726809677 | |
| | | |Nyeri | | |
|9. |Bernard K. Wanjohi |DAO Embu |P.O Box 32 Embu |0721229731 |jvekireg@yahoo.co.uk |
|10. |Festus Mwobia |Meru Farmer |P.O Box 196 |0713097777 | |
| | | |Mitunguu | | |
|11. |Zakary Muriithi |Meru /Farmer |P.O Box 1503 |0710114077 | |
| | | |Meru | | |
|12. |Joseph Githung’a |Nyandarua Farmer |P.O Box 50 |0720908832 | |
| | | |Endarasha | | |
|13. |Esther m Wambua |DSU Makueni |P.O Box 394- |0733549164 |ewmueni@ |
| | | |90300 Makueni | | |
|14 |J.N. Murage |DLPO Embu |P.O Box 672 |0722580664 | |
| | | |Embu | | |
|15. |Richard M Ndegwa |DEO- NEMA Embu |P.o Box 748- |0726464692 | |
| | | |60100 embu | | |
|17. |Burnice Ireri |Nema Embu |P.O Box 748 |0721308373 |Burnicek2000@yahoo. com |
| | | |Embu | | |
|18. |Rosemary Wanjiru |Farmer Nyandarua |P.o Box 440 |0735768645 | |
| | | |Oljooroorok | | |
|19. |Hannah Kimethu |Farmer Nyandarua |P.O Box 392 |0710646652 | |
| | | |Oljoroorok | | |
|20. |Francis M Wachira |Farmer Nyandarua |P.O Box |0724968106 | |
| | | |341Oljoroorok | | |
|21 |Samuel Njue Nyaga |Farmer Embu - |P.O Box 1012 |0733684416 |slnjue@ |
| | |PESP |Embu | | |
|22. |Floren K. Imathiu |Farmer Meru |P.O Box 2245 |0727947937 | |
| | | |Meru | | |
|23. |F. M. Baiya |KAPP Secretariat |P.O Box 57811 Nairobi |0723219620 |fubaiya@ |
|24 |S.G Muigai |KAPP Coordinator |P.O Box 57811 |0722969484 |sgmuigai@ |
| | | |Nairobi | | |
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 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.
3.3 Questions and Answer Session
The 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 Wasonga |Environmental & |How will these policy |Kenya has 77 Laws detailing various |
|Box 773, Homa |Social Management |frameworks be implemented |environmental conservation measures. The enforcement of|
|Bay |Framework |given that the |these measures has been the problem. However, with the |
|Tel. 0725955868 | |politicians/MPs are not |enactment of environmental management and coordinating |
| | |keen on having them |act (EMCA, 1999) which created National |
| | |implemented |Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) which has the |
| | | |overall mandate of enforcing environmental Law. The |
| | | |only challenge is staff capacity. |
|Francis M. |Environmental & |Pollution – To the |There is more generality in the safeguard |
|Mutsotso Box 474, Kakamega |Social Management |ecosystem should be |frameworks as presented but once specific sub-project are|
| |Framework |specific to |developed, a rising issues will be more specific and it |
| | |situation/place where the |will then be possible develop more specific guidelines |
| | |sub-project is being | |
| | |implemented | |
| | | | |
| | |Natural Habitats for each |“ |
| | |sub-project specific | |
| | |issues related to habitat | |
| | |should be raised and NEMA| |
| | |or its agent should do the| |
| | |assessment and make | |
| | |recommendation. | |
|Aggrey Musabi |Environmental & |The structure of |The essences of monitoring is to assess |
|Box 86, Busia(Kenya) |Social Management |Monitoring |whether or not the safeguards put in place are effective |
|Tel O721262214 |Framework |and Riverview Mechanisms |and if not, it should inform the next cause of action |
|aggreymusabi@yah | |are not sufficient to | |
| | |mitigate any risks arising| |
|Cornelius Sankale |Indigenous Peoples |Considering the Mau |KAPAP has prepared the IPPF which |
|Box 424-20115, Nakuru |plan |habitat and its |will guide the implementation of the project and will |
| | |degradation of the forest,|also protect the interests |
| | |What will | |
|Tel 0724506328/ | |KAPAP do to safeguard the |of the Ogieks and the Sengwers |
|0722433757 sancobi@yahoo.co m | |interest 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 | |
|Samson Wasonga |General Questions |Extension Service Providers |During KAPP Phase I, a pilot was |
|Box 773, Homa | |are few in the districts, how will KAPAP |conducted to determine whether or not both the GoK |
|Bay | |achieve its objectives given the scenario |officers and private sector (private individuals, NGOs,|
|Tel 0725955868 | | |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. Mburu |General question |What will KAPAP do to |KAPP is closely working with Kenya |
|P. O. Igare, Via | |save Kenyanya Banana farmers from |National Federation of Agricultural Producers and |
|Kisii | |‘brokers’ who are seriously exploiting |various Commodity Associations to among other things |
|Tel 0724750823 | |them |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. The |
| | | |Kenyanya Banana growers through their district farmers’|
| | | |forum need to affiliate to the Highridge Banana Growers|
| | | |Association |
|Aggrey Musabi |General Question |What will happen to the |The proposal is to transform them into |
|Box 86, Busia Tel O721262214 | |DSU now that KAPP is changed to KAPAP. |Regional Service Units (RSUs) |
|aggreymusabi@yah | | | |
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 Mburu
2. Phoebe. Q. Muchele
3. Charles.N. Ng’ang’a
4. Cornelius Sankale
5. Anne Kerubo Mose
6. Francis M. Mutsotso
7. Gideon N. Ondara
8. David N. Mbuthia
9. Aggrey Musabi
10. Samson Wasonga
11. Wango Nassiuma
12. Kibos S. J.
Issues/Observations/Inputs
1. 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 undertake
Where/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 name
Capture No. or size of group
Capture 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. Gakunga
2. Mary A. Ojumbo
3. Isaac Saitoti
4. Simon S. Ngayam
5. Dominic N. Mburu
6. Ben Wata
7. Fredrick O Agoi
8. S.M. Karanja
9. Zilpa Adede
10. Dick Otieno Wanga
11. Joseph Rotich
12. Richard K. Lagat
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 activity
Table 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 – Addition
IP 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 – Indicators
Addition: 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 Okongo
2. Alex Okumu
3. Tobias Mangiti
4. Reuben Wairicu
5. Dominic Maturi
6. Stephen Mukuna
7. Philip Mwalati
8. Jackson Mangoli
9. 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 movement
Human health affected hence increased cost on health management
8.2 Implication of control measures
Risks (addition)
1. Incorrect usage of pesticides especially to encourage resistance- trimming
2. Ethical consideration in use of pesticides/Disease surveillance system
3. 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 Nakuru
|NO |NAME |ORGANISATIO/DIS TRICT |ADDRESS |TELE |E-MAIL |
|1 |Isaac M. Gakunga |Nakuru |Box 26 Subukia |0725277687 | |
|2 |Tobia O. Mangiti |Homa-Bay |Box 152 Homabay |0725689883 | |
|3 |Samson Wasonga |Homa-Bay |Box 173, Homabay |0725955868 | |
|4 |Aggrey Musambi |Busia |86 – 50400 Busia |0721262214 |aggreymusabi@yahoo.co |
| | | | | |m |
|5 |Mary A. Ojumbo |Busia |200, Butula |0720921782 | |
|6 |Alex M. Obwana |Busia |115, Mubwago |0725317113 | |
|7 |Isaac Saitoti |KENFAP – Nakuru |478, Nakuru |0723993790 |kenfapnakuruab@yahoo.c |
| | | | | |om |
|8 |Simon S Ngayam |Narok |43, N/Enkale |0721976794 |simonseleylan@yahoo.co m |
|9 |Dominic N. Mburu |Gucha |P. O.Igare, ia Kisii |0724750823 | |
|10 |Peter N. Mburu |Nakuru Lanet div. |3829 Nakuru |0721546917 | |
|11 |Ben Wata |Kitale |1672, Kitale |0722760110 |Bsimwala@ |
|12 |Ann Mose |Trans-nzoia |4347, Kitau |0724412613 | |
|13 |Francis M. |Kakamega East |474, Kakamega |0722250912 | |
| |Mutsotso | | | | |
|14 |Fredrick O Agoi |Kakamega South |75, Khayega |0724227465 | |
|15 |Cornelius Sankale|Ogiek people Dev. |424- 20115 Egerton |0724506328 |samcpbo@ |
| | |Prog. | | | |
|16 |S.M. Karanja |MAO – Nakuru |1544, Nakuru |072563502 | |
|17 |C.N.Ng’ang’a |DAC – Nakuru |2576, Nakuru |0722338714 |charlsnganga@faidaseeds |
| | | | | |.com |
|18 |P. Q. Muchele |DSU - Siaya |777, Siaya |07216948 08 |pagmuchale@ |
|19 |P. M. Kimani |DSU – Nakuru |3799, Nakuru |0733854129 |kappdsunakwu@yahoo.co |
| | | | | |m |
|20 |Zilpa Adede |Ndhiwa |160, Ndhiwa |40145466 39 | |
|21 |Dick Otieno Wanga|Siaya |99, Uranga |07213432 32 | |
|22 |Joseph Mackio |Siaya JCCM |63, Sega |07124853 44 | |
|23 |David N. buthia |Nakuru – MOCD |1609, Nakuru | | |
|24 |Paul Okong’o |TATRO/Siaya |34, Yala | | |
|25 |Zebedee Mark |Gyaucha Nyamarambe |3240, Kisii |07224555 47 |Ombathia @ |
| |Obara | | | | |
|26 |Gideon N. Ondara |Gucha Kenyinya |3567, Kisii |07335248630 |Paulokaong2003@yahoo. |
| | | | | |com |
|27 |Reuben Wairicu |Transnzoia |1573, Kitale |0724705537 | |
|28 |Dick O. Wanga |Siaya |99, Uranga |07288930 90 | |
|29 |Jackson Mang’ori |KAPP – T/Nzoia |1354, Kitale |0727523460 |dsutransnzoia@yahoo.co |
| | | | | |m |
|30 |Philip M. Malati |Kakamega |247, Kakamega |0721343232 | |
|31 |Joseph Rotich |Wareng |104, B/Forest |0727523460 | |
|32 |Richard K. Lagat |Wareng |104, B/Forest |0733446736 | |
|33 |Dr. Patrick |KARI Nairobi |14733-00800 Nairobi |0722465642 |cdnarl@iconnect.co.ke |
| |Gicheru | | | | |
|34 |Philip O. Owiti |DLPOS’ Office |44-20100 Nakuru |0721263417 |Powiti2008@ |
| | |Nakuru | | | |
|35 |Wanga Nassiuma |KARI Njoro |Private Bag Njoro |O721435126 |ewnassium@ |
|36 |Mukuna Stephen |DLPO Naivasha |Box 13, Naivasha |0733898662 |dlponaivasha@yahoo.co |
| | | | | |m |
|37 |Kibos S. J. |NEMA |13599,Nakuru |0724923679 |sulbosuse@ |
|38 |Louis Gachimbi |KARI Nairobi |14733, Nairobi |0722795884 |loisegachibi@ |
|40. |Florence Odweso |KAPP Nairobi |Box 57811 Nairobi |0722347481 |fodweso@ |
Annex 5
KAPAP IP CONSULTATIONS
Sengwer participation in Talau – West Pokot (Day 1 – 25/4/2011)
The four zones attended the meeting as follows;-
1. Talau Talau
2. Chorok zone
3. Kapsurum zone
4. Chepkoti
Members
1. Abraham Kiprop Kiptum - Bee keeping/poultry -0725223678
2. Albert Bengi - KS -0722352123
3. Albert Koiyo - Bee keeping -0713908553
4. Andrew Malakwen - Bee keeping -
5. Andrew Mochi - Bee keeping -
6. Beatrice Powon - Poultry -0725025771
7. Benson K. Katon - Poultry -0717219585
8. Boniface P. O. Dimba -KAPAP RSU -0722658015
9. Charles K. Andiema - Poultry -0710597785
10. Charles Kimrwa - Poultry/Bee keeping -0717108116
11. Christine Moses - Poultry/Bee keeping -
12. David K. Biwott - Poultry -0751457985
13. Dr. C. Ikitoo -KS -0711936237
14. Emmanuel Ngeiywa - Bee keeping -0725349629
15. Esther C. Katon - Poultry -0724554285
16. Esther Obiero Ogamba - MOLD -0727625063
17. Eva Keter - Poultry & Bee keeping -0720901060
18. Evans C. Kibet - Bee keeping -0729161841
19. Everlyn Koskei - MOA -0721988579
20. Ezekiel Tanui Krop - Poultry -0716153015
21. Faith Chelee - Poultry -
22. Florence Odweso - KAPAP Secretariat -0722347481
23. Francis Baiya -KS -0723219620
24. Francis Lumumba - KAPAP RSU WP -0727144914
25. Gladys Tanui - Poultry -0728144939
26. Grace Cheptoo Kipkoech - Soot Youth Group -0729525379
27. Hellen C. Lawrence - Bee keeping & Poultry -0719841309
28. Hellen Sigilai - Poultry -0728819604
29. Jackson Kiprop Chui - Poultry keeping -0714791751
30. Jackson Kubwai Kimboi - Bee keeping -0278989
31. Jackson Tanui - Poultry -0728068696
32. Jacob Kitiyo - Bee keeping -0278474
33. Jacob Korir - Poultry -
34. Jacob M. Pchana - Bee keeping -0714304369
35. Jacqueline Kurgat - KAPAP RSU WP -0725658399
36. Jairus Rumon - Bee keeping -0712851725
37. James Kaptipin - Bee keeping -0710326008
38. Jane Ngugi -KS -0720277888
39. Jane Sirma - KENFAP -0723783001
40. John Kamarwy Kitiyo - Bee keeping/Poultry -07331153
41. Johnson Powon - Bee keeping -0725025771
42. Joseph Rotich - Bee keeping/poultry -0716898955
43. Julius Muchemi - World Bank -0720703606
44. Kenneth Kipkeiyo - Poultry -0703312780
45. Kimagut Kumukony - Bee keeping -
46. Kithome Kilaka - KS -0735884900
47. Lawrence K. Katon - Bee keeping -3473882
48. Lidya Ndege - Poultry -027890
49. Loice Kamen Pkeme - Poultry -
50. Lydia C. Koech - Soot Youth Group -
51. Manases Cheruiyot - Bee keeping -0714126230
52. Martha C. Solomon - Poultry -0715565510
53. Michael Kiptoo - Improved Sheep -0724047813
54. Monica Chelee - Poultry -
55. Moses Kinuthia -KS -0733748520
56. Moses Kirop - Bee keeping -0729976185
57. Moses Leleu Laima - Bee keeping -0737803171
58. Peter K. Mongot - Bee keeping -0278912
59. Pius Rotich Kukwai - Bee keeping -0729783784
60. Priscilla C. Kipketer - Bee keeping -0713838860
61. Restone Aoya - Bee keeping -0721441680
62. Richard Charito - KAPAP RSU WP -0732406011
63. Richard Simatwa - Poultry -6599419
64. Robert Korir - Poultry -0701768912
65. Rose Francis - Poultry -
66. Rotich K. Peter - KENFAP – ADCO -0724248720
67. Samwel Kaptipin - Poultry/Bee keeping -0726218726
68. Simon Peter Kiyodo - Poultry -0716403737
69. Solomon Kurgat - Poultry -0729706649
70. Stephen W. Mukuna - KAPAP RSU WP -0733898662
71. Tabitha Reuben -MOLD -0721342302
72. Thomas Kipgetunyo - Soot Youth group -0711123233
73. Timothy Korir - Soot Youth Group -0717156007
74. Veronica Chebet - Poultry -
75. Viola Chepngetich - Soot Youth Group/Poultry -0724864732
76. Wakwabubi R.J. - MOLD -0733666538
77. William J. Odhiambo - MOLD -0723641727
78. Willy B, Kipkeiyo - Bee keeping -0711112149
79. Wilson Matelong - KAPAP RSU WP -0721898659
80. Wycliffe Amariati - KAPAP RSU WP -0721915804
A. Sengwer participation in Talau – West Pokot (Day 2 – 26/4/2011)
1. Abraham Kiprop Kiptum - Bee keeping/poultry -0725223678
2. Albert Bengi - KS -0722352123
3. Albert Koiyo - Bee keeping -0713908553
4. Alfred K. Kibet -Poultry -072631302
5. Andrew Malakwen - Bee keeping -
6. Andrew Mochi - Bee keeping -
7. Beatrice C. Johnson -Poultry -
8. Beatrice Powon - Poultry -0725025771
9. Benson K. Katon - Poultry -0717219585
10. Boniface P. O. Dimba -KAPAP RSU -0722658015
11. Charles K. Andiema - Poultry -0710597785
12. Charles Kimrwa - Poultry/Bee keeping -0717108116
13. Christine Moses - Poultry/Bee keeping -
14. Cllr William Cheparko -Beekeeping -0728688509
15. Daniel Aker -Beekeeping -0717919047
16. David K. Biwott - Poultry -0751457985
17. David Kipkodor -Poultry -
18. Dickson K. Rotich -Poultry -0714406315
19. Dr. C. Ikitoo -KS -0711936237
20. Eliud K. Cheruiyot -Poulrty -0727625033
21. Emily Chepkoech -Poulrty -
22. Emmanuel Ngeiywa - Bee keeping -0725349629
23. Esther C. Katon - Poultry -0724554285
24. Esther Obiero Ogamba - MOLD -0727625063
25. Eva Keter - Poultry & Bee keeping -0720901060
26. Evans C. Kibet - Bee keeping -0729161841
27. Everline Kisa -Poultry -
28. Everlyn Koskei - MOA -0721988579
29. Ezekiel Tanui Krop - Poultry -0716153015
30. Faith Chelee - Poultry -
31. Flomena Chepkemei -Poultry -
32. Florence Odweso - KAPAP Secretariat -0722347481
33. Francis Baiya -KS -0723219620
34. Francis Lumumba - KAPAP RSU WP -0727144914
35. Gladys Tanui - Poultry -0728144939
36. Grace Cheptoo Kipkoech - Soot Youth Group -0729525379
37. Hellen C. Lawrence - Bee keeping & Poultry -0719841309
38. Hellen C. Nathan -Poultry -16087368
39. Hellen Sigilai - Poultry -0728819604
40. Jackson K. Kimira -Beekeeping -
41. Jackson Kiprop Chui - Poultry keeping -0714791751
42. Jackson Kubwai Kimboi - Bee keeping -0278989
43. Jackson Tanui - Poultry -0728068696
44. Jacob Kitiyo - Bee keeping -0278474
45. Jacob K. Kipkech -Poultry/Beekeeping -
46. Jacob Korir - Poultry -
47. Jacob M. Pchana - Bee keeping -0714304369
48. Jackline Kirui -KAPAP RSU -0725658399
49. Jackline Rotich -Poultry -
50. Jacqueline Kurgat - KAPAP RSU WP -0725658399
51. Jairus Rumon - Bee keeping -0712851725
52. James Kaptipin - Bee keeping -0710326008
53. Jane Ngugi -KS -0720277888
54. Jane Sirma - KENFAP -0723783001
55. John Kamarwy Kitiyo - Bee keeping/Poultry -07331153
56. Johnson Powon - Bee keeping -0725025771
57. Joseph Mwetich -Poultry -0728174129
58. Joseph Rotich - Bee keeping/poultry -0716898955
59. Julius Muchemi - World Bank -0720703606
60. Julius K. Yator -Poultry -0711513770
61. J. P. Cheruiyot -MOLD -0727640686
62. Kenneth Kipkeiyo - Poultry -0703312780
63. Kimagut Kumukony - Bee keeping -0279114
64. Kithome Kilaka - KS -0735884900
65. Kipkeiyo Kipterer -Poultry/Beekeeping -0703312780/0735784709
66. Lawrence K. Katon - Bee keeping -3473882
67. Lidya Ndege - Poultry -027890
68. Lilian Chepkorir -Poultry -
69. Loice Kamene Pkeme - Poultry -0710326008
70. Lydia C. Koech - Soot Youth Group -
71. L. Wepukhulu -MOLD -0725338222
72. Manases Cheruiyot - Bee keeping -0714126230
73. Margaret Jacob -Poultry -
74. Martha C. Solomon - Poultry -0715565510
75. Maurice K. Tanui -Beekeeping -0278941
76. Michael Kiptoo - Improved Sheep -0724047813
77. Monica Chelee - Poultry -
78. Monica Pseswa -Poultry -
79. Moses Kinuthia -KS -0733748520
80. Moses Kirop - Bee keeping -0729976185
81. Moses Leleu Laima - Bee keeping -0737803171
82. Muse S. Alfred -MOCD&M -0726296127
83. Nicholas Pkemei -Poultry -0752771013
84. Peter K. Mongot - Bee keeping -0278912
85. Pius Rotich Kukwai - Bee keeping -0729783784
86. Priscilla C. Kipketer - Bee keeping -0713838860
87. Restone Aoya - Bee keeping -0721441680
88. Richard Charito - KAPAP RSU WP -0732406011
89. Richard Simatwa - Poultry -6599419
90. Robert K. Kiplangat -Poultry -0701768912
91. Robert Korir - Poultry -0701768912
92. Rose Francis - Poultry -
93. Rotich K. Peter - KENFAP – ADCO -0724248720
94. Samwel Kaptipin - Poultry/Bee keeping -0726218726
95. Simon Peter Kiyodo - Poultry -0716403737
96. Solomon Kurgat - Poultry -0729706649
97. Stephen W. Mukuna - KAPAP RSU WP -0733898662
98. Tabitha Reuben -MOLD -0721342302
99. Tecla Chepatipin -Poultry -
100. Thomas Kipgetunyo - Soot Youth group -0711123233
101. Timothy Korir - Soot Youth Group -0717156007
102. Titus Kuto -Beekeeping -23774093
103. Veronica Chebet - Poultry -
104. Viola Chepngetich - Soot Youth Group/Poultry -0724864732
105. Vincent Ajeluma -Poultry -0724336812
106. Wakwabubi R.J. - MOLD -0733666538
107. William J. Odhiambo - MOLD -0723641727
108. Willy B, Kipkeiyo - Bee keeping -0711112149
109. Wilson Matelong - KAPAP RSU WP -0721898659
110. Wycliffe Amariati - KAPAP RSU WP -0721915804
111. 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 Ranking
1. Poverty
2. Poor leadership
3. Discrimination
4. Inadequate market channels
5. Insecurity
6. Assimilation
7. Lack of electricity
8. Unemployment
9. Gender inequality
10. Information and communication
11. Insufficient capital
12. Insufficient water
13. Insufficient unity
14. Inadequate expertise
15. Environmental degradation
16. Illiteracy
17. Human diseases
18. Infrastructure (Barabara)
19. High infestation of livestock diseases
PRIORITY ENTERPRISES
Local poultry
Bee Keeping
Note: But the communities still have a chance to refine their choice.
WAY FORWARD
Elect 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 Ranking
1. Poverty
2. Inadequate education amongst community members
3. Lack of Title Deeds
4. Poor farming practices
5. Lack of health facilities
6. Insecurity
7. Lack of recognition
8. Unemployment
9. Lack of credit facilities
10. Lack of planning
11. Insufficient technical knowledge
12. Poor leadership
13. Discrimination
14. Environmental degradation
15. Lack of market and market information for farm produce
16. Poor infrastructure
17. Lack of appropriate communication technologies
18. Lack of unity amongst community members
19. Greedness (tamaa)
20. Laziness
PRIORITY 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 FORWARD
Conduct elections to get interim contact committee
Continue 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 |
|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 |RSUs |
|9.00-9.30am |Introduction |RSU - Coordinator |
|9.30-10.00am |Workshop Objectives/ Participants’ Expectations |KS – Environmental Specialist |
|10.00-10.30am |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 Discussions | |
|2.20-3.00pm |Gender Issues in Agricultural Development and Agribusiness |KS-Social & Gender Specialist |
|3.00-4.00pm |SWOT/C/L Analysis – Group tasks |KS – Environmental Specialist |
|4.00-4.30pm |Group presentations |KS – Environmental Specialist |
|4.30-5.00pm |Listing of community constraints/Ranking – Group tasks |WB Safeguards Consultant /KS –Environmental |
| | |Specialist |
|5.00-5.15pm |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 |RSU-Accountant/RSU Coordinator |
| |projects | |
|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 Specialist |
|3.00-3.30pm |Grievance Resolution Mechanism (GRM) |KS-Information / Communication Specialist / |
| | |WB Safeguards Consultant |
|3.30-4.00pm |Conclusions/Evaluation/Way forward |RSU Coordinator |
|4.30-5.00pm |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; IPMF |
|3RD October 2008 |Kilifi | |32 |“ |
|6th October 2008 |Nyeri | |13 |“ |
|7th October 2008 |Meru Central | |32 |“ |
|9th October 2008 |Nakuru |St. Mary’s Pastoral |25 |“ |
| | |Institute | | |
|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 Mtwapa |36 |“ |
|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 |“ |
-----------------------
[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.
[2] The term ‘agricultural’ covers all aspects relating to crops, livestock and fisheries.
[3] Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) and Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid and Semi-arid Lands (KACCAL)
[4] See also Table1; pp viii)
[5] See World Bank Operational Policy (O.P.) 4.10 Indigenous Peoples
[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 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 (Kluence 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)
[7] ☺☺ -Positive impact / / Negative impact ☺/ Both positive and negative .. No direct impact
[8] KAPAP; KACCAL
-----------------------
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Figure 1: Projects’ institutional and IP Representation Flow Chart
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 2: GHCM Model for KAPAP/KACCAL
National level Implementing Agencies
National Level Farmer Fora(Include Reps -IP CIGs)
World Bank
Countyl Administration
Community Interim Committee
Service Providers’ Firms
Individual CIG Member
CIGs
RSU
KAPAP Secretariat
Regional level Implementing Agencies
Regional Farmer Fora(Include Reps -IP CIGs)
Divisional Farmer Fora (Include Reps -IP CIGs)
Locational Farmer Fora (Include Reps -IP CIGs)
Figure 3: KAPAP Communication, Complaints and Grievance Handling Mechanism Model
|Old district |New districts |Old district |New districts |
|West Pokot |West Pokot, Central Pokot, |Tana River |Tana River, Tana Delta |
| |North P. | | |
|Nakuru |Nakuru, Molo, Nakuru North |Kwale |Kwale, Kinango, |
| |Naivasha, Njoro | |Msambweni |
|Trans |Trans Nzoia West, Trans |Garissa |Garissa, Fafi, Lagdera |
|Nzoia |Nzoia East, Kwanza | | |
|Nyandarua |Nyandarua North, Nyandarua |Wajir |Wajir East, Wajir South, |
| |Central, Nyandarua South, Kipipiri | |Wajir North, Wajir West |
|Nyeri |NyeriSouth, NyeriNorth, |Meru Central |Meru Central, Imenti |
| |NyeriCentral, Nyeri East | |North, Buuri Imenti South |
|Homa Bay |Homa Bay, Ndhiwa |Makueni |Makueni, Mbooni, |
| | | |Kibwezi, Nzani |
|Gucha |Gucha, Gucha South |Embu |Embu |
|Siaya |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 |
-----------------------
52
44
49
90
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- world bank unesco education
- world bank financial inclusion
- world bank poverty line 2019
- world bank financial inclusion 2020
- world bank business environment index
- world bank doing business 2020
- world bank ease of doing business 2019
- world bank doing business rankings
- world bank retiree portal
- world bank pension log in
- world bank retiree website
- world bank staff retirement plan