LESSONS LEARNED
Acronyms and abbreviations
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Context leading to SEA
1.2 Objectives of SEA
2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEA
2.1Steps followed
2.2Analytical methods and techniques used in the SEA
2.2.1 Phase 1 – Screening and Scoping
2.2.2 Phase 2 – Situation Assessments
2.2.3 Phase 3 – Setting Environmental Priorities and development of Alternatives
2.3Stakeholder engagement
2.4Monitoring recommendations
3. RESULTS ACHIEVED
3.1Summary of key SEA findings and recommendations
3.2Influence of the SEA on policy dialogue
3.3Up-streaming environmental and social considerations in forestry reform
3.4Informing and influencing World Bank operations in Kenya
4. LESSONS LEARNT
4.1Linking SEA and institutional reform
4.2The SEA process and role of key stakeholders
4.3Distinguishing characteristics of the SEA in the Forest-Sector
4.4Recommendations for future institutions centred SEA
Acronyms and abbreviations
CBOCommunity Based Organisation
CFACommunityForest Association
CSOCivil Society Organisation
EIAEnvironmental Impact Assessment
EMCAEnvironmental Management and Co-ordination Act
ERSEconomic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation
FCCForest Conservancy Committee
FDForest department
GOKGovernment of Kenya
IGInterest Groups
I-SEAInstitution centred Strategic Environmental Assessment
KFMP Kenya Forestry Masterplan
KFSKenyaForestService
MENRMinistry of Environment Natural Resources
MPNDMinistry of Planning and National Development
NEAPNational Environmental Action Plan
NEMANational Environmental Management Authority
NGONon Governmental Organisation
PERPublic Expenditure Review
PEERPublic Environmental Expenditure Review
PPAParticipatory Poverty Assessment
PRAParticipatory Rural Appraisal
PRSPPoverty Reductions Strategy Paper
PSPPrivate Sector Participation
SEAStrategic Environmental Assessment
SLSustainable Livelihoods
SWGSector Working Group
1. BACKGROUND
The Institution Centred Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Forest Sector in Kenya began on March 14th 2006. This process culminated in a broad stakeholder workshop on the 15th of December 2006 where a policy action matrix that had been developed as part of the SEA process was formally endorsed by the wide range of stakeholders present. Whilst this consultancy formerly ended on the 31st of January 2007, the SEA is an ongoing process with the policy action matrix setting out a number of agreed action points for the future.
1.1 Context leading to SEA
For many years forest legislation and practice in Kenya has been criticized for failing to protect the country’s indigenous forests or ensure sustainable use of plantations and other areas of forest and woodland. Most forest communities have felt disadvantaged in being excluded from forest management and there has been a history of poor management and abuse of powers. In 2005, a new Act received parliamentary approval and endorsement from the President although it will only come into effect once it has been formally gazetted. The new Act contains many innovatory provisions to correct previous shortcomings, including strong emphasis on partnership working, the engagement of local communities and promotion of private investment. It also extends the concepts of timber management to farm forestry and dry land forests. These changes will be overseen by a new semi-autonomous body, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), which will face many challenges in delivering the full range of services.
The objective of this institution-centered strategic environmental assessment (I-SEA) was to inform and influence the process of implementing the new Forest Act, indirectly inform the policy dialogue regarding sustainable use of natural resources for national development and draw lessons to refine future I-SEAs.
1.2 Objectives of SEA
The adoption of new legislation and establishment of a semi-autonomous Kenya Forest Service opens up a major opportunity to address the inequalities of the past and to improve the quality and sustainability of Kenya’s forests, trees and woodland. The role of this SEA was to highlight areas where the reform process should concentrate its activities in order to achieve real and lasting social and environmental as well as economic benefits.
The SEA had two specific objectives:
- To inform and influence the process of implementing the Forests Act,
- To indirectly inform the policy dialogue regarding sustainable use of natural resources for national development.
The latter objective recognised the fact that other areas of reform are taking place simultaneously, including management of the water sector. Important characteristics of the SEA in Kenya have included:
- Reliance on rapid assessment of the political economy and analysis of existing publications to establish the background to implementation of the Act.
- Strong emphasis on the engagement of stakeholder groups to help identify priority areas of concern and key intersectoral environmental and social linkages. The opinions of all stakeholders were sought through open dialogue in workshops and one to one discussions in person or by telephone between individuals and members of the SEA team.
- Use of a case study and other site specific information to help identify potential winners and losers arising from implementation of the new Act and the extent to which the benefits of good forest management are likely to be shared throughout society.
- Development of a policy-action matrix which incorporates an accountability and transparency framework. Its purpose being to assist GOK chart out (beyond the road map) how to effectively implement the Forest Act in terms of prioritised issues.
2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEA
2.1Steps followed
The SEA has been undertaken by a team of international and local consultants that had a range of skills required for its effective implementation. The eight person team included an SEA specialist, environment and social specialists, EIA specialist, environmental economist, natural resource economist, environmental lawyer, forestry specialist and finance specialist.
The SEA followed elements of international good practice and the approach for institution-centred SEAs supported by the World Bank. It also responded to local circumstances in the light of the progress and timing of the forest sector reform process and the need to clarify baseline conditions through a rapid appraisal of the political economy and other situation assessments. A number of steps were carried out in parallel with each other.
The main sequence of activities included the four phases of the SEA which entail screening and scoping; situation assessments; setting environmental priorities and development of alternative courses of action (see Figure 1).
2.2Analytical methods and techniques used in the SEA
2.2.1 Phase 1 – Screening and Scoping
This initial phase entailed a rapid assessment of the political economy relating to the Forest sector in Kenya and stocktaking of completed and ongoing activities and studies. It also involved determining who should be approached as stakeholders and identifying the environmental and social considerations that would need to be taken into account in later phases of work.
Identifying Stakeholders
The process of identifying stakeholders entailed reviewing the data-bases of key organizations, including the Kenya Forests Working Group and the Forest Department and identifying and listing stakeholders who will be affected by the new Act as well as those with an interest in the new Act. The list of consultees was presented to both the Ministry of Environment and the Forest Department and confirmed to be fully representative of the wider stakeholder interests.
Rapid Assessment of the Political Economy
An initial appraisal was based on personal meetings with key players, the well informed insights of Kenyan members of the SEA team through previous engagement in the reform process, and literature reviews. A more systematic review of the role of different players was undertaken as part of the situation assessments.
Literature Review
Relevant publications were identified through personal knowledge of team members, discussions with informed stakeholders including the forestry profession and international community and a keyword search of the internet.
Inception and Scoping Reports
The Inception report was generated in consultation with the World Bank. A stakeholder analysis, rapid political economy review and literature review formed the basis of the scoping report.
2.2.2 Phase 2 – Situation Assessments
The aim in preparing situation assessment reports was to provide a baseline description of the governance and institutional, economic, financial, social and environmental factors that need to be taken into account in implementing the Forests Act. Each of the reports were researched by members of the SEA Team and were designed to provide the evidence base on which the findings and recommendations of the SEA are based. The specific methods used in the different situation assessments can be found in the main report annexes.
Governance and Institutions Analysis
The analysis included literature reviews which provided documented evidence of the roles and attitudes of different public bodies, and of historical failures in terms of transparency, accountability and corruption. These reviews were supported by interviews and discussions with key stakeholders.
Economic and Financial Assessment
Original data was collected and analysed to produce financial models of historic and projected performance. In addition to data on actual performance, estimates were made of the future expenditure and revenue streams for the Kenya Forest Service. This work has been supported by a public expenditure review on the environment. The national analysis has also drawn on findings from the HombeForest case study.
Environmental Analysis
Given the short timescale for the initial appraisal, the Environmental assessment concentrated on mapped information and published sources based principally on the literature review.
Social Analysis
The various interests of these groups, both overt and hidden, were examined in relation to the problems being addressed by the new law under the headings of Environment, Social, Economic & Governance/Institution). A separate exercise has involved assessing the likely impact of the new Forest Act on each of these interests (positive +, negative - , or unknown?). and indicating the relative priority which the implementation of the Act should give to each stakeholder interest on a scale from 1 = high priority; 4 = low priority.
Hombe Case Study and RumurutiForest Site Visit
Three members of the SEA team spent a total of 12 person/days on location interviewing local representatives of the community and the existing forest department, and collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. The SEA also held a community based workshop on the implications of the new forest act. The separate site visit to Rumuruti forest focused on the views of a local NGO (Tree is Life) and the Rumuruti Community Forest Association.
2.2.3 Phase 3 – Setting Environmental Priorities and development of Alternatives
A standard feature of SEAs is their focus on exploring alternative approaches to policies, plans or programmes. In the case of the Kenya forest reforms, the content of the new Forest Act, 2005, has largely defined the shape of the new administration, but great flexibility remains in terms of the ways in which specific clauses of the Act are put into effect. It is in relation to practical implementation that the SEA is able to explore different ways of achieving the overall aims. Preliminary findings from the Workshop, together with the outputs from a case study in HombeForest and a brief visit to RumurutiForest have also played a key role in shaping the SEA recommendations.
Workshops
A combination of presentations, exercises, working group sessions and plenary discussions have been used to gather the views of workshop participants.
At the first workshop in May, the broad concerns of stakeholders were explored in relation to the main themes of the SEA. In June 2006, the second SEA workshop considered a range of questions based on the analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the Forests Act. Participants were divided into four groups, each of which independently examined a list of 40 questions (see Annex 6) and prioritised these in terms of the ten most important topics that should be addressed in the short term in order to strengthen delivery of the Act’s objectives. The findings from these exercises are reported in section 4. At the second workshop in June, the situation assessment reports were presented together with the findings of the Hombe Forest Case Study, and an analysis of key questions arising from the May workshop and subsequent analysis by the SEA team. The final workshop in December provided a forum for sharing the policy action matrix and discussing the recommendations. Each action point was discussed, agreed/amended as appropriate and given approval/or not by the stakeholder group. From the outset of the SEA process an effort has been made to avoid drawing conclusions prematurely, before hearing the views of consultees and stakeholders.
Policy-Action Matrix
The final stages of the SEA involved the preparation of a policy action matrix which captured findings and recommendations and set these out with clear timetables and responsibilities for action.
2.3Stakeholder engagement
A stakeholder analysis was undertaken to ensure that appropriate stakeholders were identified and engaged in the SEA process. The Stakeholder analysis was able to clarify the interests of the different stakeholder groups who make up the affected population in Kenya (see Section 3.2).
The SEA team benefited greatly from the involvement of the Kenya Forests Working Group Network. This ensured that community association interests were effectively targeted. Interestingly the ‘private sector’ emerged as one of the weakest stakeholders perhaps due to the lack of opportunity for the private sector in recent years.
With the situation assessments and case study taking place before the second workshop, it was possible to use these outputs to inform the policy dialogue between the government and wider stakeholders. The findings from these assessments were used as the basis for discussion in this second workshop. They helped to provide a clear platform for policy dialogue based on realities obtained from the field. This greatly strengthened the position of stakeholders when discussing the findings with government.
The SEA also provided an important voice to weak and vulnerable stakeholders in the dialogue process. This was important as during the development of the new Act stakeholders had been widely engaged, however at this important stage of implementation there was a danger that stakeholders inputs would not be included. The SEA provided an important platform for this engagement. Whilst weak and vulnerable stakeholders were particularly targeted in the case study and invited to participate in the national workshops, greater inclusion of their concerns would have resulted if regional and local workshops had taken place. There were not budgetary resources available within the SEA to facilitate regional or local level workshops.
At the same time as the SEA was taking place, the new Forest Policy had been submitted to Parliament for approval. The SEA team were not aware that the SEA was used as a mechanism to discuss or receive feedback on this new Forest Policy.
2.4Monitoring recommendations
The findings and recommendations from the SEA were presented as a Policy Action Matrix in order to support the wider implementation of the new Forests Act 2005. The policy actions listed in this matrix have been identified and prioritised by a broad range of forest sector stakeholders in Kenya. Priority areas are broken down into issues identified by stakeholders together with the necessary actions required in order to ensure the issue(s) are addressed. Milestones together with an indicative list of stakeholders to be involved in the action have also been identified. This matrix is regarded as a living matrix. It is intended for use by the Forest Reform Secretariat and subsequently the Kenya Forest Service Board to ensure effective implementation of the new Forests Act.
The consultative process for agreeing the action points and the milestones in the policy action matrix have made this a transparent process. As the actions have been endorsed by all the different groups of stakeholders including the Government of Kenya, the matrix will be an important tool for stakeholders to monitor progress on implementation of the SEA and hold government to account.
The same wide group of stakeholders will be reconvened at appropriate intervals to review progress against this living matrix. These meetings will enable the matrix to be updated and adapted as appropriate, and importantly progress monitored. These meetings should be independently funded from Government in order to ensure they provide a platform for open and unbiased discussions. This will help to maintain the value and quality of the SEA.
3. RESULTS ACHIEVED
3.1Summary of key SEA findings and recommendations
The SEA highlights three areas where priority for action is needed. These are:
- Strategic management and planning of KFS
- Enabling community participation and benefit Sharing; and,
- Enabling investment in the forest sector
Strategic planning and management of the Kenya Forest Service embraces a number of subsidiary themes of which the most important identified were:
enabling proper governance (including transparency and accountability) of KFS,
ensuring proper strategic planning of the forest resources of Kenya,
realising of the economic value of these resources for the nation, and
achieving effective financial management and regulation of the forest sector.
Community participation and benefit sharing combined the following prioritised inter-linked themes:
ensuring that all forest communities, and communities adjacent to forest areas are properly involved in decision-making and implementation activities as per the new forest act,
equitably sharing the costs and benefits of the forest sector among communities, private sector and government,
protecting indigenous and customary access and use of forest resources by communities, and