1. Collaborative Forest Management Experiences under The Kenya Forest Act 2005 S.W. Kahunyo Assistant Director Kenya Forest Service skahunyo_2009@yahoo.com +254 722 432 098 skahunyo_2009@yahoo.com

2. Introduction  Kenya Forest Service has embraced wider stakeholder participation in forest management and conservation in accordance with the Forests Act 2005.  Forest adjacent communities have been encouraged to form Community Forest Associations (CFAs), as required by law.  For the new institutions to function, it requires capacity building.  Both the government and the civil society have supported formation and capacity building of CFAs to ensure that they deliver their statutory mandates.  They both sustainable for support sustainable forest management and community livelihood options.

3. Sustainable forest management and livelihood improvement  The pull factor for community participation in forest management is the benefits accruing to them.  It therefore goes without saying that the more the benefits from a forest the more the interest in PFM.  In view of this, it is highly encouraged for stakeholders to seriously consider enhancing benefits in all forest areas where community participation approach.  The benefits need not necessarily be from consumptive use, but can be non-consumptive such as eco-tourism.  Enhancing benefits sometimes call for capital investment and in this respect the Civil Society has been much far ahead of the government. 3

4. CFAs Capacity Development  CFAs have been formed as new outfits to participate in forest management; capacity building of these community institutions is inevitable.  In areas where there has been deliberate effort to build capacity of CFAs, positive results have been recorded  Community trainings combined with exchange visits are highly encouraged as they result in better adoption of inclusiveness.  Continuous capacity building for CFAs is necessary as membership continues to expand  Good governance and organization capacity development is still needed among the CFAs.

5. CFAs Capacity Development cont  In some areas there have been deliberate move to build capacity of CFAs without carrying along Forest Managers resulting in unpleasant situation wrought with conflicts.  The question that arises is whether civil society organizations should also build capacity of state officers? 5

6. Collaborative forest management in non- state forest areas  Collaborative forest management is not only applicable to gazetted forests but it can be applied to all types of forests as long as there is mutual agreement by forest management and the adjacent communities.  In Kenya, we have both privately owned ranches and community woodlands where there is unsustainable exploitation by the adjacent communities and thus are candidates for collaborative forest management.  Community forests in neighbouring countries such as in Tanzania, are classical examples of successful collaborative forest management with local communities. 6

7. Conflicting policies for the development of collaborative forest management  Different ministries have different mandates in the forests being conserved  At times their polices and legislation conflict with one another  CFA membership is drawn from the communities adjacent to the forest where other community institutions also draw their membership.  As a result of this the membership of these institution are more or less the same e.g. the water resources users associations are mainly people who have stake in water resources that more often emanate from the same forests that are managed by the CFAs.  Is it necessary that these communities should have one institutional arrangement for management of natural resources in their midst? In other words, do we need different community institutions to manage a particular natural resource just because they have to report to different authorities? 7

8. Access to information  Good forest governance calls for, among other things, free access to information.  Lack of effective information flow mechanism to all stakeholders can slow the process of developing collaborative forest management  This has eluded key stakeholders in collaborative forest management. How can we enhance information sharing?  Must some stakeholders have unlimited access to information from all institutions regardless of the intended use of such information? 8

9. Access to Info contd  Research on collaborative forest management has been done by Kenya Forestry Research Institute and many other tertiary institutions, but how accessible are the results of these studies?  How do we enhance access to research information?  Kenya Forest Service is strengthening its Forest Information System (FIS) to cater for all citizens including the County Governments. 9

10. Collaborative forest management monitoring  The development and implementation of the management plans and agreements by the communities and other stakeholders has provided a platform for effective monitoring of Collaborative forest management.  This is because the key stakeholders have access to the management plans and agreements.  Stakeholder provide resources to implement and monitor the management plans  This has assisted the community to partner with other stakeholders in implementation, hence monitoring is participatory as provided for in the plans. 10

11. Collaborative forest management monitoring contd  Development of a joint participatory monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework for collaborative forest management is yet to be done. This is a challenge to all stakeholders for consideration.  Currently, monitoring is uncoordinated and highly depends on the stakeholder who is facilitating the process. Most civil societies only report to their donors without involving the government 11

12. Lessons Learnt  On forest protection, community involvement has greatly improved the security of the forests as information flow is enhanced and detection is timely.  Communities can greatly benefit from use of forest resources to improve their livelihood without compromising the integrity of the forest when allowed to organize and regulate them.  Sustainability of collaborative forest management can be achieved if communities are empowered to take up responsibility in the management of the forest. 12

13. Lessons Learnt Contd  The cost benefit sharing framework has to be developed, informed by the actual costs incurred by each actor and the real benefits (revenue minus real costs incurred minus estimated replacement costs) accruing.  Further, there is a need for clear understanding of equitable benefit sharing by all parties in collaborative forest management 13

14. Lessons Learnt  Although PFM envisages near total community participation, not all community members adjacent to the forest are involved hence inclusivity is not adequately achieved.  Other stakeholders especially Government of Kenya line ministries have a lot to contribute in the preparation of management plans.  Community forest associations practicing good governance with clear cost benefit sharing system have thrived well.  Collaborative forest management is a costly venture and ways have to be devised for resource mobilization to implement the plans. 14

15. Asante Sana 15