Kenya - Tana River Primate National Reserve Project

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY The Republic of Kenya Tana River Primate National Reserve Project Document October 1 996 THE WORLD BANK  GEF Documentation The Global Environment Facility (GEF) assists developing countries to protect the glQbal environment in four areas: global warming, pollution of international waters, destruction of biodiversity', and depletion of the ozone layer. The GEF is jointly implemented bythe United Nations Development Pro6ramme, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Bank. GEF Project Documents - identified by a green band provide extended project- specific information. The implementing agency responsible for each project is identified by its logo on the cover of the document. Global Environment Coordination Di\1ision Environment Department World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: (202) 473-1816 Fax: (202) 522-3256  Report No. 15425-KE The Rebublic of Kenya Tana River Primate National Reserve Project Document October 1996 Agriculture and Environment Operations Division Country Department II Africa Region  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (As of September 10, 1995) Currency Unit = Kenya Shilling (Ksh) $1.00 = Ksh 55 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AD/CWS Assistant Director/Community Wildlife Service (KWS) CDS Community Development Specialist COBRA Conservation of Biodiversity Resource Areas CPAC Community Program Advisory Committee CWO Community Wildlife Officer CWP Community Wildlife Program DD/RP Deputy Director/Research and Planning (KWS) DRSRS Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing FAC Field Activities Coordinator GEF Global Environment Facility GOK Government of Kenya ICB International Competitive Bidding IUCN World Conservation Union JRMC Joint Reserve Management Committee KWS Kenya Wildlife Service LCB Local Competitive Bidding NMK National Museums of Kenya PA Protected Area PC Project Coordinator PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PSC Project Steering Committee SAC Scientific Advisory Committee TRNPR Tana River National Primate Reserve  PART I: Project Summary   REPUBLIC OF KENYA CONSERVATION OF THE TANA RIVER PRIMATE NATIONAL RESERVE Grant and Project Summary Recipient: Govemment of Kenya Beneficiaries Tana River Primate National Reserve and the people who rely on its resources, and the Kenya Wildlife Service and contracted implementing partners and collaborating agencies (National Museums of Kenya, Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Surveys, Kenya Forestry Research Institute). Poverty Category: Not targeted Amount: SDR 4.24 million (US$ 6.2 million equivalent) Terms: Grant Financing Plan: Local Foreign Total GEF 5.53 US$0.67 million US$6.20 KWS 0.85 -------- 0.85 Local Communities 0.09 Total 6.47 US$0.67 million US$7.14 IIn addition, a PPA of US$545,000 equivalent was provided to prepare the project. Economic Rate Not Applicable of Return: Project Identification Number: KE-GE-1217 Map: IBRD 27617   THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA TANA RIVER PRIMATE NATIONAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PROJECT Background 1 The Tana River Primate National Reserve covers 169 km2 and is situated along the lower reaches of the Tana River. Much of the Reserve area consists of semi-arid savanna, but it also contains scattered patches of riverine forest totaling about 11 km2. These represent most of the remaining intact patches of lower Tana riverine forest, unique in Kenya because they are remnants of continental forests which in many respects resemble western African, rather than typical eastern African, communities. They provide specialized habitats for many plants and animals, including most of the remaining habitat for two endangered primate subspecies, the Tana River Red Colobus (Colobus badius rufomitratus) and the Tana River Crested Mangabey (Cercocebus galeritus galeritus). In addition, the Reserve contains a range of habitats from wetlands to semi-arid bushland and supports five other primate species, diverse bird communities (262 species recorded, including several endemics), at least 57 species of mammals, several tree species which are endemics or affiliations with central African forests, and a large number and variety of other animals and plants. The TRPNR was established as a County Council Game Reserve in 1976, primarily to conserve the endangered colobus and mangabey monkeys and the remnants of riverine forest. This action followed large-scale clearing in the late 1960's that resulted in a loss of more than half of the existing forest cover and extensive forest fragmentation. 2. The Reserve's riverine forest ecosystem is highly dynamic, maintained by a balance between forest patches dying off and regenerating as a result of regular, natural shifts in the course of the river. This, together with its small size, means that it is highly vulnerable to perturbations and over- exploitation. A "Population Viability Assessment," carried out for the TRPNR Colobus and Mangabey populations by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in 1992, concluded that they are probably viable in the long term, but only if certain management actions are taken, including containment of the pressure of human activities on the Reserve ecosystem. The communities in the area consist of Pokomo agriculturists who practice slash-and-bum subsistence farming and grow mangos for sale, and Wardei, Orma and Somali pastoralists. The pastoralists largely obeyed the order to leave the Reserve when it was gazetted in 1976, but still sometimes bring their livestock in to graze and water, particularly during drought periods. A small number of Pokomos (about 115 households) currently live and cultivate inside the Reserve. A much larger number live outside the boundaries but cultivate fields and have planted mango trees inside. In total, about 10,000 people in nine villages live and/or cultivate land inside the reserve or harvest its resources on a regular basis, and another approximately 10,000 use it on a seasonal basis to graze and water livestock. About 16 percent of the riverine forest area (ca. 1.5 percent of the total TRPNR area) is now under cultivation. There is some debate concerning the total extent and current rate of human impacts on the Reserve, but the significant loss of indigenous forest area, particularly on the west bank of the Reserve, is well documented'. Shifting cultivation represents the most damaging form of human impact on the Reserve as it involves both destruction of healthy forest patches and elimination of sites along the river where new forest patches would normally regenerate. Facilitated by a GEF PPA of US$545,000, extensive consultation was undertaken with I The east bank has been virtually abandoned by farmers in recent years due to banditry and insecurity  2 representatives of all the affected communities on the design of the project. One outcome is that Community leaders, through the Joint Reserve Management Committee (JRMC), have agreed that there will be no further expansion of cultivation inside the Reserve, and KWS has increased its presence to help ensure adherence to this agreement. In addition, forest trees and plants are harvested for dug-out canoes, building and basketry materials, palm wine, etc. Poaching in the 1970's and 1980's has greatly reduced some wildlife populations, eliminating the elephant and rhinoceros. In addition to these direct human impacts, the course, flow and flooding cycles of the Tana River have been affected in recent years by the impacts of five hydro-electric dams that have been built upstream. The impact of these changes on the TRPNR are not yet well documented but are believed to be significant. 3. As a County Council Reserve, the TRPNR is intended to benefit local communities by providing environmental services and a source of income and valued products, as well as conserving the natural ecosystem and species. For the pastoralists, the Reserve ecosystem represents a vital source of forage and water during the dry season and drought periods. The extent and conditions under which they can continue to have access to these resources are their main concems with respect to reserve management. The Pokomo agriculturists make extensive use of many forest products, but their primary concem is a shortage of land and lack of land security, and there has been considerable illegal settlement and cultivation inside the reserve. Some community leaders have therefore been pressing for degazettement of the reserve and adjudication of the land to local inhabitants, but they have now recognized that this will not occur. A legacy of suspicion and hostility on the part of the local community to Kenya Wildlife Service' (KWS) predecessor has also led to considerable ambivalence and intemal divisions in their attitude both to the project and KWS in general. As a result, project appraisal was postponed repeatedly while KWS sought to gain the acceptance of community members and their agreement to participate in the project. Aside from the key issue of forest clearing and land use, other aspects of improved reserve management which could affect the Pokomo community directly include prohibitions or restrictions on use of timber and non-timber forest products, access to mango trees planted inside the reserve, fishing and water use. Strategic Framework 4. The Government of Kenya (GOK), through the KWS, has launched an ambitious program to rehabilitate and strengthen management of wildlife and protected areas nationwide and to increase the benefits from these national resources to local communities and to the national economy. This program is laid out in KWS' "Policy Framework and Development Program," and is receiving support from a consortium of donors, including the World Bank, under the "Protected Areas and Wildlife Services" (PAWS) project. While the program covers all Protected Areas (PAs) under the management of KWS, a high priority is placed on investment in rehabilitation and improved management of those PAs that are the major existing or potential revenue eamers, as it is these revenues that are largely expected to sustain the operations of the KWS in the long run. Similarly, the recently initiated "Community Wildlife Program" (CWP), which aims to improve rural Kenyans' tolerance and support for wildlife and Protected Areas (PAs) by reducing conflicts and increasing benefits, is focusing initially on areas surrounding these high priority national parks and reserves and on areas where there are good immediate prospects for promoting wildlife enterprises for local benefit. The USAID-funded project, COBRA, that provides most of the extemal support for the CWP specifically focuses on four "focal/priority" areas, and does not directly encompass the TRPNR, which has little immediate potential for earning through tourism or other sustainable use. With GEF assistance, it is now possible to apply this strategy to the TRPNR also.  3 Project Objectives 4. The proposed project will support the conservation of a unique and diverse biological community in Kenya. It represents an unusual opportunity to extend and draw upon an important body of ecological research (built up over the past two decades by numerous local and international researchers), to demonstrate how research can assist managers to preserve a complex and fragile ecosystem-one which very likely would not survive without active management interventions beyond simple protection. The project will strengthen KWS capacity to protect and manage the reserve in a traditional sense (e.g., through border demarcation, mobility and infrastructure for rangers), but will also promote greater involvement of local communities in conservation and management of an area which represents an important but deteriorating resource for them. Through its research component, the project will define and quantify the factors (abiotic, biotic, and human) which threaten the integrity of the reserve and its flora and fauna, and try to provide solutions through interventions including improved management, ecological restoration and rehabilitation, community awareness-building, benefit-sharing and development, etc. Close monitoring of trends in ecological indicators and species population dynamics will be an essential element of the program, with a flexible reserve management approach designed to take corrective action when problems are identified. Project Descrition 5. The project would be implemented over five years and has three inter-related components: Research and Monitoring, Reserve Management, and Community Conservation and Development (see detailed descriptions in Technical Annexes 2, 3 and 4). In each case, project funding would supplement and complement the resources KWS is currently investing in the TRPNR, enabling these activities to be strengthened and expanded and also allowing KWS to experiment with new approaches for which it would not be able to risk using its own limited resources. In particular, the integrated nature of the project will enable KWS to explore and develop ways to strengthen linkages among its research, park and reserve management, and community conservation activities. For example, while some forward planning and target-setting is essential, the dynamic nature of the TRPNR ecosystem dictates a reserve management approach that is flexible and responsive to timely information on changes in ecological conditions as indicated by tracking species' population levels and distribution, hydrological conditions, etc. The Scientific Advisory Committee, Senior Scientist and Data Analyst will be responsible for ensuring that the research program is guided by the reserve management's information needs, and that data collected by researchers are translated to timely and useful information to guide management decision making. Similarly, the research component includes explicit provisions for involving community members in both design and implementation of research activities, while incremental support for the Joint Reserve Management Committee and the Community Wildlife Officer (including two locally recruited Community Mobilizers) is intended to enhance community participation in Reserve management planning. 6. The Research and Monitoring Component will help to ensure the long-term survival of the reserve and its flora and fauna through a better understanding of the overall ecological system, the interactions between physical and biological (including human) elements, and of species population dynamics. The research program will therefore focus on five priority areas: (1) monitoring of primate populations, genetics and habitat parameters; (2) floral and faunal surveys (baseline and monitoring); (3) studies and monitoring of the Tana River hydrological system and its ecological effects; (4) human  4 resource utilization (with the aim of establishing sustainable use levels for some forest products); and (5) prospects and methods for promoting and facilitating community-based conservation of remaining forest patches outside the Reserve boundaries 7. The Reserve Manaeement Component will provide incremental support to enable KWS to develop an adaptive management system that can effectively address the challenges facing resource management of the TRPNR area. Since about 1992, KWS has re-established a presence in the TRPNR, currently spending Kshs 8 million (approximately US$145,000) per year, and has largely succeeded in controlling poaching and agricultural encroachment. In the first two years of the project, funds will be used to address urgent needs such as strengthening security inside and in the vicinity of the reserve, improving management facilities, supporting the proposed research and community development components, and, if conditions permit, a modest level of ecotourism development. During this period, KWS will develop a more comprehensive management plan that takes into consideration the findings and processes achieved through the first two years of project activities, particularly research and monitoring results and improved community dialogue. The plan is expected to incorporate the concerns of local people and be responsive to research priorities, while supporting the overall goal of conserving the Tana River Reserve. A sub-component of the Reserve Management component is the Community Conservation Program, which will support efforts to use reserve resources in a sustainable manner (e.g. agroforestry, building boats from altemative materials, etc.) 8. Research will be targeted to provide guidance for decision making on specific management issues. For example, existing floral and faunal surveys will be completed and updated to establish a baseline to enable KWS to identify management needs and appropriate interventions, and to evaluate their effectiveness by tracking changes in species compositions, population structures, distributions etc. Research on the demographic status of the two endangered primate populations may yield recommendations for establishing corridors between forest patches, translocations of individuals to increase genetic mixing, sustainable levels of utilization of selected forest species which are important to both humans and monkeys, etc. Research on forest ecology, human resource use, hydrology, etc. will provide the basis for a systems-oriented management approach, requiring the research component to extend beyond the Reserve boundaries to examine aspects such as land use and socio-cultural and economic patterns in the surrounding areas. KWS will develop the framework for the research and monitoring program and provide coordination and oversight, but it is expected that other institutions, particularly the National Museums of Kenya, will play a major role in carrying out specific research activities. 9. The Community Conservation and Development Component will enhance implementation of KWS' existing Community Wildlife Program (CWP) in the TRPNR area. The objectives of the CWP are to gain local support and cooperation for conservation by maintaining a positive dialogue and by improving the socio-economic position of the people who have traditionally depended on its resources. Initially this includes direct development assistance under a "revenue sharing" approach, but the longer-term objective is to assist communities to develop activities and enterprises that allow them to benefit directly from sustainable utilization of wildlife and other biodiversity resources. The CWP has been active in the TRPNR area over the past three years (assisted by a GEF project preparation grant funds during part of that period), establishing and maintaining a dialogue with the local communities, assisting them to organize themselves for this purpose (through the JRMC) and providing some funds for small assistance projects (see Technical Annex 5 for summary). The GEF funds will enable KWS to increase the level of activity and assistance in the project area and  5 experiment with innovative approaches, and help ensure that local communities are effectively involved in aspects of management that effect their livelihoods. The main aim of the community assistance (together with the community-oriented aspects of the Reserve Management component) will be to help community groups develop alternative sources of income and materials to decrease their dependence on (over-exploitation of) the reserve's resources. To the extent that conditions of security and access permit, a modest level of eco-tourism development may be supported. To a limited extent, the project will provide other types of community support, such as school bursaries aimed at increasing overall community welfare and employment opportunities. Community development microprojects (costing from about US$3,000 to US$15,000) and assistance will involve direct actions or agreements that provide a linkage between development and conservation. As an initial step, KWS' and the World Bank's agreement to support this project, with its substantial community benefits, is linked to a commitment by leaders that there will be no further residential or agricultural encroachment inside the Reserve. 10. In view of the continuing divisions within the communities surrounding the TRPNR (with some sub-groups in favor of the project and some still opposed on the grounds that the reserve should be degazetted and the land allocated to them), the implementation of the Community component will proceed at a pace set by the progress of KWS' dialogue with the community. While KWS will maintain outreach efforts and dialogue (including negotiation of use of the reserve's resources) with all segments of the community, development assistance will be targetted to sub-groups within the community who are willing to cooperate actively with KWS and support the conservation objectives of the project in concrete and effective ways,. Ultimately it is hoped that all the local people and the generations that follow will perceive the value of conservation and will be in an economic position that enables them to benefit from reserve resources in a sustainable manner. While there will be no involuntary resettlement of individuals currently residing and/or cultivating illegally inside the TRPNR, the project will provide funds to encourage and assist those willing to leave the reserve, primarily through legal, technical and financial assistance to identify and acquire altemative land and increase its productivity (e.g. through micro-irrigation). Project Implementation 11. The project will be implemented by KWS through its regular line management, with the collaboration of other govenmment agencies and NGOs on specific components. A few (extemally recruited) supplemental personnel will be provided to assist KWS' staff in view of the fact that implementation of the project represents a substantial increase in the level of KWS' regular activities in the TRPNR area. Policy and technical guidance will be provided by a Project Steering Committee and advisory committees for the Research and Monitoring and the Community Conservation and Development components and the Joint Reserve Management Committee (JRMC) for the Reserve Management component. NGOs will be represented on the steering and advisory committees and are also expected to be involved in implementation of the community program in the field. Oreanization and Manafement 12. The internal and external institutional framework for project implementation is described in Technical Annex 1, and details conceming implementation of the Research and Monitoring, Reserve Management, and Community Conservation and Development components are provided in Technical  6 Annexes 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Terms of Reference for steering and advisory committees are provided in Technical Annex 6, and TORs for all project-funded personnel are provided in Technical Annex 7. 13. In summary: (a) Overall project policy guidance. coordination and management: Overall policy guidance would be provided by a Project Steering Committee, chaired by the Director of KWS, with representatives from KWS Departments and other organizations involved in implementation. A Headquarters-based Project Coordinator (PC), reporting to the DDRP, would be responsible for ensuring coordination and integration among the three project components, each of which falls under the responsibility of a different KWS department. The PC will have administrative responsibility for the Senior Research Scientist (SRS), Community Development Specialist (CDS), Data Analyst (DA), Agroforester (AGF) and Forest Restoration Reserach Officer (FRO), but for technical aspects they will report to the appropriate KWS line managers, as shown in the diagram. The PC will be supported by Project Secretary, and also by a Project Accountant for at least the first two years, at which point KWS and the Bank will review whether KWS' financial management system is sufficiently developed to eliminate the need for this position. A Field Activities Coordinator (FAC) reporting to the PC will ensure coordination of logistics (e.g. use of vehicles and facilities, scheduling of evaluations) at the TRPNR. (b) Research and Monitoring component: This component will be executed under the authority of the KWS Deputy Director/Research and Planning (DD/RP). Policy guidance, including review of research priorities, technical approaches and budgets and regular evaluation of progress and impact, will be provided by a Scientific Advisory Committee. A Senior Research Scientist reporting to the DD/RP will have primary responsibility for developing, overseeing and evaluating the implementation and impacts of the research program. A Data Analyst recruited under the project for at least the first two years will be responsible for developing and operating a data base of the research results with outputs designed to be accessible and useful for management decision making. After the first two years, this function may be taken over by KWS' regular scientific and planning staff. The National Museums of Kenya will implement most of the research activities, under a Contractual Services Agreement with KWS which calls for NMK and KWS to agree on annual work plans that include the specific costs to be funded by the project and those to be covered by NMK. Other organizations (e.g.: the GOK Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Survey; Moi University) will carry out specific research projects based on contractual arrangements with KWS. The research program emphasizes collection and analysis of baseline data on species diversity and distribution, ecological functions and human use and impacts during the first two years. A workshop held early in year three of the project will review the status and impacts of the research program and develop a detailed research program for the remainder of the project. (c) Reserve Management component: The Reserve Management component will be implemented by KWS through the established line authority under the Assistant  7 Director for Parks and Reserves, with the TRPNR Senior Warden being responsible for on-ground implementation. An interim 5-year management plan for the TRPNR specifies objectives, investments and activities for the next two years (indicating aspects to be funded by the project and by KWS), and provides a general framework for the following three years. During the first two years of the project, KWS will, in consultation with the local community through the forum of Joint Reserve Management Committee (JRMC), develop this interim management plan into a comprehensive management plan. Community Conservation and Development component: The Community component will be implemented through the KWS Community Wildlife Program, under the authority of the Assistant Director, Community Wildlife Service. The project will contract a Community Development Specialist (CDS), who will be directly responsible for development and execution of this component, just as USAID's COBRA project supports a "Field Program Coordinator" to take charge of the community program in each of its three geographic "focal areas." A Communitv Wildlife Officer (CWO) on KWS' regular staff will be in charge of on-site implementation, assisted by two locally- recruited Community Mobilizers. Local village groups will be responsible for planning and implementing specific microprojects, within the general framework of a "Community Action Plan" developed through a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) to be carried out in each village adjacent to the TRPNR. Local NGOs will be encouraged to assist community groups in this regard. A Community Program Advisors Committee (CPAC) will review and advise on the community action plans, to ensure that they provide the necessary basis for maintaining a linkage between support for microprojects and conservation objectives. The rate of implementation of this component will be governed by the beneficiaries, with KWS working with cooperating villages and community groups to organize, identify and implement community action plans and micro-projects. In order to demonstrate its commitment and encourage community cooperation and participation following the prolonged project preparation period, KWS has worked with the JRMC to identify two priority development projects (one each for the Ndere and Gwano Locations) to be implemented during the first year of the project. Local authorities will be involved in project identification and implementation through the existing mechanism of District, Locational and Sub- locational Development Committees. Procurement Arranfements 14. All procurement of goods and works will be in accordance with World Bank Procurement Guidelines (January 1995). All consulting contracts will be awarded in accordance with Bank consultancy guidelines (August 1981). Bank's standard bidding documents for goods, works and consultants would be used. As there are expected to be no civil works contracts worth more than US$1 million, all procurement of works will be by NCB as foreign firms are unlikely to be interested and there is adequate local competition. However, KWS management can choose to carry out works up to an aggregate value of US$100,000 by Force Account. One contract for vehicles over US$100,000 will be procured on the basis of ICB. All goods contracts between US$100,000 and US$50,000 will be procured through NCB. Contracts for goods less than US$50,000 aggregated not more than US$150,000, will be procured by National Shopping Procedures (NSP). All bidding  8 packages for works, goods, and consulting contracts with firms, estimated to cost US$100,000 or more, and consultant contracts with individuals for US$50,000 or more, will be subject to IDA prior review. Other contracts will be subject to post reviews in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 1 of the Bank's procurement Guidelines. The Bank's standard contract documents would be used for consulting services. All procurement for the Reserve Management component and Research and Monitoring component would be carried out by the KWS Procurement Unit, based on instructions from the Project Coordinator, except insofar as the contractual agreement between KWS and NMK, subject to approval by the Bank, allows for some procurement to be carried out by NMK for the latter. Procurement under community microprojects will be carried out in accordance with para 3.15 of the Bank's procurement guidelines, which allow for an emphasis on use of local labor, materials and know-how. Specific procedures for procurement for microprojects are described in the Project Implementation Manual. Table 1 below shows procurement procedures to be adopted for the project: Table 1: Project Procurement: Procurement Methods (USS000) Item ICB NCB OTHER Total Civil Works 0.00 808.50 0.00 808.50 (IDA/GEF (735.00) (735.00) Contribution) Vehicles 115.00 103.00 0.00 218.00 (IDA/GEF) (115.00) (103.00) (218.00) Materials & 0.00 140.00 147.20 287.20 Equipment (IDA/GEF) (140.00) (135.00) (275.00) Consultancy 0.00 0.00 1448.00 1448.00 Services (IDA/GEF) (1448.00) (1448.00) Training 0.00 0.00 307.00 307.00 (IDA/GEF) (307.00) (307.00) Community 0.00 0.00 2659.00 2659.00 Microprojects (IDA/GEF) (2040.00) (2040.00) Incremental 0.00 0.00 1412.40 1412.40 Operating costs (IDA/GEF) (1177.00) (1177.00) Total 115.00 1051.50 5973.2 7139.70 (IDA/GEF) (115.00) (978.00) (5107.00) (6200.00) Note: Figures in parenthesis are estimated amounts to be financed under the GEF grant.  9 Disbursement 15. The grant is expected to be disbursed over five years, as shown in the disbursement schedule (Appendix B), with a project closing date of June 30, 2001. The proposed schedule is somewhat accelerated relative to the standard disbursement profile, based on the relatively'modest size of the project and because most procurement of goods and completion of civil works is expected to take place within the first three years of the project. The disbursement plan is indicated in Table 2 below: Table 2: Disbursement Plan ITEM Allocation DISBURSEMENT l (USS mill.) PERCENTAGE Consultants 1.50 100% Civil Works 0.75 100% of foreign costs; 90% of local costs Vehicles and Equipment 0.50 100% of foreign costs, 90% of local costs Community Microproject Grants 1.60 95% of total microproject cost Relocation Assistance 0.40 100% Incremental Operating Expenses 1.2 80% Training 0.25 100% 16. Disbursements would be made against standard IDA documentation with the following exceptions, for which certified Statements of Expenditures (SOEs) would be used: (i) contracts for goods and civil works, less than US$ 50,000 equivalent; (ii) consultant contracts, firms less than US$100,000, individuals less than US$50,000; (iii) all local training; (iv) operating costs; and (v) community development micro-project grants. SOE's would be subject to review by IDA supervision missions and interim and annual audits. 17. In order to facilitate the availability of funds for the Project when needed, a Special Account will be established in a commercial bank and operated and maintained on terms satisfactory to IDA. The authorized allocation is determined to be $600,000. The Special Account will be replenished on the basis of satisfactory documentary evidence, to be provided to IDA, of eligible payments made from the account for goods and services required for the project. No limit will be set on the size of the payments to be made from the Special Account other than that imposed by the balance remaining in the account. 18. Funds for incremental operating costs under the Reserve Management component will be disbursed through regular KWS procedures, by means of an increase in the TRPNR Senior Warden's "Authority to Incur Expenditure" (AIE), and accounted for by him through regular KWS procedures  10 (except for the additional involvement of the Project Accountant--see below). Funds for community microprojects will be disbursed following the procedures laid out for the KWS Community Wildlife Program's "Revenue Sharing/Wildlife Development Fund." Following approval of a project, including a detailed work plan, the appropriate amount will be provided through an ALE issued to the Community Wildlife Officer (CWO). The CWO will then be responsible for disbursing the funds to the implementing community group according to the agreed work plan and accounting for their use through KWS' standard accounting procedures. Audit and ReDortine Reauirements 19. The overall management and accounting of the project will be the responsibility of KWS, with direct responsibility on the part of the Project Accountant and oversight by the Project Coordinator and the KWS Financial Department. KWS will maintain accounts and records for project activities, including for the SOEs, in accordance with sound accounting practices satisfactory to the World Bank. Assurances will be sought at Negotiations that KWS will have the accounts for the project audited by its commercial auditors along with its other accounts. 20. KWS will submit semi-annual progress reports (following review by the PSC) to the World Bank for the first two years and annual reports thereafter. Preparation of these reports falls within the duties of the Project Coordinator. Supervision Plan 21. The project will be supervised by KWS and the World Bank approximately twice a year, with particular focus on the application of research results to reserve management problems, the status of relations between KWS and local communities, the coordination between participating KWS departments and between KWS and collaborating institutions, and the linkage between implementation of the community component and the achievement of KWS' conservation objectives in and around the TRPNR. During the first 2-3 years, supervision will focus on the establishment of systems, processes and institutional arrangements, and on progress on physical targets including procurement and civil works. After the mid-point, the emphasis will be on assessing impacts of the project and sustainability of project benefits. A monitoring and evaluation approach and guidelines for the community development program will be agreed prior to project effectiveness, and the results of this ongoing activity will represent an important input for supervision. A midterm review will be carried out during the third year of the project. At this time, the possibility of KWS' regular departments and personnel taking over some of the coordination and management functions (e.g. financial management and Headquarters-based coordination of the project's community component) will be considered. Appendix C provides a detailed supervision plan listing anticipated types and levels of supervision resources required. Projecd SustainabiW 22. The project should be seen in the context of KWS' overall program to establish Kenya's national PA system on a sustainable basis by increasing its revenue base and operational efficiency and by engendering the support of local communities through sharing of revenues and benefits and by helping them establish income-earning activities related to wildlife. A small unit will be established under the KWS Research and Planning Department to coordinate project activities across the three  I1 components and, initially, to administer project funds, but the project activities will be implemented largely by regular KWS and NMK staff. The project will provide the necessary incremental investment to establish effective research and monitoring, reserve management and community conservation programs, which KWS will carry on through its regular programs after the project is completed2. The community component will promote local community support for the TRPNR and reduce the pressures of agricultural encroachment and unsustainable exploitation of reserve resources, thus decreasing protection costs, and also help develop viable activities and enterprises that can continue to support community welfare and development over the longer term. While security conditions at present are an important constraint, the TRPNR used to enjoy modest tourism revenues, and it is expected that this will again be possible in the future, in which case the project will actively promote development of ecotourism enterprises (as the CWP does elsewhere in the country). During the first two years of project implementation, KWS and the Bank will explore the feasibility of placing a portion of the community component funds in an endowment fund to support community projects on a continuing basis. Project Costs and Financing 23. The project cost summaly and financing plan are presented in Tables 3 and 4 below (Table 3 covers only the GEF grant, while Table 4 includes KWS and community cash contributions). Project costs by year and detailed cost breakdowns are given in Appendix D. Physical and price contingencies have been added to selected project costs based on projected domestic and international inflation rates. All costs are net of duties and taxes. Table 3: Project Cost Summary % Total (Kshs millions) (US$ millions) % Foreign Base Exchange Costs local foreign Total local foreign Total Project Management 20.4 1.2 21.6 0.37 .02 0.39 5 7 Research & Monitoring 74.3 6.1 80.4 1.40 1.10 2.50 8 25 Conmmunity Cons. & Devel. 123.9 9.8 133.7 2.25 0.18 2.43 7 42 Reserve Management 55.5 25.4 80.9 1.00 0.46 1.46 31 26 Total Baseline Costs 274.0 42.5 316.5 5.00 0.77 5.75 13 100 Physical contingencies 3.6 1.0 4.6 0.07 0.02 0.09 21 1 Price Contingencies 18.9 1.0 19.9 0.34 0.02 0.36 5 6 Total Project Costs 296.5 44.4 340.9 5.41 0.81 6.20 108 2 e.g., the project will fund intensive floral and faunal surveys to establish baseline data and develop indicators for a long-term monitoring program which can be maintained at much lower cost.  12 Table 4: Project Financing Plan (Units = US$ millions) Project GEF KWS Community Total Component Contribution Proj. Coord & 0.42 0.05 0.00 0.47 Mgmt Res. & 1.63 0.03 0.00 1.66 Monitoring Reserve Mgmt. 1.66 0.73 2.39 Community 2.49 0.04 0.09 2.62 Dev. TOTAL 6.20 0.85 0.09 7.14 24. The Global Environmental Fund would finance US$6.2 million in investment and incremental operating costs. The KWS contribution to the project is estimated at Kshs 46.86 million (UJS$852,000), consisting of Kshs 8.94 million per year over five years for staff salaries and other regular operational costs of maintaining and managing the Reserve at current levels (including a substantial continued investment in the wildlife security forces based inthe area), and an estimatedKshs 2.15 million (US$39,100) worth of support from Headquarters staff and facilities. Community beneficiaries would contribute 25% of the total cost of each microproject in cash and in kind, with at least 5% of this in cash. USAID's support for the CWP represents a crucial indirect contribution to the project, as its $7 million COBRA3 project provides staff, training and operational support for the KWS Community Wildlife Service, which will be responsible for implementing the community component of the project. The project was prepared with the assistance of a GEF Project Preparation Advance of US$582,0004. Lessons Learned 25. One lesson that has already been applied to this project is that community participation and commitment cannot be hurried or forced to adhere to an extemally imposed timetable, but must proceed at the pace set by the community (in this case, three years). KWS has gained valuable experience in dealing with these difficult problems in the project area during the long period of project preparation, and the local communities have also gained exposure to the principles of the KWS CWP and experience in organizing themselves to articulate and defend their perspectives and needs. Previous experience from "community conservation" efforts worldwide is that community development assistance must be explicitly and systematically linked to actions and commitments on the part of community members that support and further the conservation objectives, and that "local communities" cannot be treated as homogeneous but recognized as heterogeneous collections of sub-groups, often 3 Conservation of Biodiversity Resource Areas. 4 Of which US$176,000 was returned unused.  13 with divergent perspectives and priorities. Under this project, KWS will assist each village to develop its own village action plan which will cover both KWS' and the community's responsibilities (with coordination provided through the Joint Reserve Management Committee, on which all the villages are represented). The provision of GEF funds for microprojects will be phased over the project period, subject to each village developing such plans and to beneficiary groups' continuing to fulfill their agreements and obligations (the option of developing written "community contracts" is being explored). Another important lesson has been the need to establish monitorable indicators of the project's ecological/conservation impact and its socio-economic impact. Baseline data on both aspects has been collected during project preparation, and the Research and Monitoring component will ensure that the necessary data continue to be collected and analyzed. Rationalefor GEF Involvement 26. The project strengthens conservation, management, and participation by local stakeholders in an area that is of ecological significance to Kenya and the rest of the world. It will demonstrate the use of applied research to help preserve and maintain a very complex and vulnerable ecosystem and two highly endangered-subspecies. This will include expanding and updating the database on baseline conditions and monitoring of population and ecological parameters to determine the effectiveness of management interventions. The project will contribute to human resource development by building capabilities of KWS and NMK staff and by providing community members with training, technical assistance and development assistance including educational and income-earning opportunities. Without GEF funding KWS would only be able to maintain a minimum level of reserve protection and management which would not be sufficient to realize the project's global environment benefits on a sustainable basis. Incremental Costs 27. During most of the 1980's, due to lack of resources, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (KWS' predecessor) virtually abandoned any management activities in the TRPNR, resulting in substantial deforestation and loss of fauna, including local extinction of elephants and rhinoceros and a precipitous decline in the populations of the colobus and mangabey monkeys. KWS re-established a presence in 1989 and is currently spending approximately US$145,000 per year on management of this reserve. This constitutes the baseline funding, equivalent to US$0.85 million over the life of the project. The current level of input has largely succeeded in halting encroachment and poaching, in improving the local security situation to the benefit of both the reserve and the local population, and in maintaining the Mchelo Research Camp as a functional base for a few national and international researchers. KWS will not be in a position to increase funding for the TRPNR substantially for at least the next 5-10 years, as its development plan emphasizes investment first in those parks and reserves with a strong potential for generating significant revenues in order to achieve a greater measure of financial viability. However, a "Population Viability Assessment" carried out during project preparation indicated that (using the colobus and mangabey populations as indicators) the TRPNR is unlikely to survive and maintain its ecological integrity in the long term with only this "maintenance" level of management. It called for active management interventions based on adaptive research (e.g. assisted regeneration, movement of individual monkeys to promote genetic mixing, etc.), an end to shifting cultivation inside the reserve and reduction of human exploitation of reserve resources to sustainable levels. The proposed project is designed to meet the investment and operating  14 costs of implementing these recommendations, the total cost of which is US$7.05 million. The resulting incremental cost, which the GEF will support, is therefore US$6.2 million (US$7.05 million minus the baseline of US$0.85 million). EnvironmentalAspects 28. The project falls into Environmental Assessment Category B of the World Bank's guidelines, with impact assessment to be undertaken prior to any infrastructure development, consistent with existing KWS policy and practice. The environmental impact is expected to be beneficial as the project will help to conserve a unique ecosystem including two endangered primate subspecies. The potential socio-economic impact on local communities has been one of the main aspects addressed in project preparation, leading for example to the decision not to undertake involuntary resettlement, and to the establishment of the Joint Reserve Management Committee. A large portion of project funds have been earmarked for community microprojects and development activities, with a view to facilitating the long-term sustainability of the reserve by addressing the socio-economic imperatives that threaten its existence. The use of these funds will be decided through a participatory process as outlined in KWS' Community Wildlife Program guidelines, which include consultation with with local government structures. (See Technical Annex 5 for description of the local community and socio-economic issues, and of the consultation process followed during project preparation). Monitoring and Evaluation 29. Monitoring and evaluation of ecological and biodiversity conservation impacts is an important element within the research program, which will incorporate KWS' overall ecological monitoring guidelines. Existing baseline data will be updated and expanded, followed by regular monitoring of ecological parameters, including population dynamics and dispersion of indicator plant and animal species. Evaluation of the impacts of the community component will be undertaken by the Community Wildlife Service, including both KWS' CWS staff and USAID-funded advisors, in the context of the CWP. Proposed M&E indicators for the community component are provided in Technical Annex 4. The Project Steering Committee, Scientific Advisory Committee and Community Program Advisory Committee will also review the implementation and impact of the project.in the course of their regular meetings. Participatory Approach 30. Kenya has been a leader in the community conservation concept, beginning with innovative programs for the Amboseli and Maasai Mara Reserves in the mid-1970's. This experience provided the basis for development of the community-related components of the KWS 5-year Development Program and the Bank-assisted PAWS project. The proposed project will in turn build upon nearly three years of experience implementing the PAWS project, in which similar activities are being undertaken in and around other parks and reserves in Kenya. It will also benefit from the growing body of Bank experience with community conservation projects in other countries in Africa and other regions. The project provides an excellent example of one of the most challenging and crucial aspects of biodiversity conservation worldwide that is, dealing with the pressures exerted by a local community characterized by great diversity, pressing land shortages, a high degree of dependence on forest resources and a complex and rapidly evolving social and political milieu.  15 Project Benefits 31. Based on the recent history of ecological deterioration and forest loss in the TRPNR, it is clear that in the absence of effective protection and management, these riverine forests (the last of their kind in Kenya) would soon disappear. KWS established a management presence in the TRPNR in 1992, which has largely curtailed encroachment and reduced illegal exploitation and poaching, but the situation remains tenuous due to security problems and growing pressures from local communities, both through direct exploitation and through political pressure on the County Council to degazette the Reserve. The project would greatly improve KWS' capability to protect the Reserve and to carry out critical research and try innovative management interventions. It would also enable KWS to undertake a substantial community assistance program, aimed at reducing utilization pressures by providing alternatives and reducing negative political pressures by building community support through improving welfare. Project Risks 32. The project should be seen as an experiment being undertaken in very difficult circumstances. The main risk is that the populations of the endangered primates, and perhaps even the entire riverine forest ecosystem, may already be too reduced to be viable. Full protection and scientifically-based management of the remaining habitat and the primate populations (including facilitation of genetic mixing among semi-isolated groups) is seen as the best way to address this risk, together with efforts to encourage community conservation of remaining forest patches outside the reserve. Even so, a large-scale shift in the course or flow of the Tana River (natural or as a result of further upstream developments) could destroy some or all of the remaining forest patches. A second risk is that, despite receiving project benefits, the conmmunity as a whole will fail to support the project's conservation objectives, but will continue to press demands for land and resources that will eventually overwhelm the government's political will and/or KWS' capacity to maintain and protect the Reserve. The main objective of the community component is to reduce this pressure and to build support for the Reserve among local communities and authorities. During project preparation it became clear that some sectors and sub-groups within the community have a positive attitude toward the project, while others remain opposed. Access to development assistance under the project will be directly linked to cooperation on the part of the beneficiaries, with the expectation that as some sub-groups begin to benefit from cooperation and participation, others will follow their lead. The pace of implementation of the Community component will therefore be set by the community groups, and not "tied" to a predetermined implementation schedule. A third risk is that KWS, faced with competing demands on its limited human resources, will be unable to maintain a sufficient level of management and oversight during the life of the project or to sustain project benefits thereafter. Funding for a Project Facilitator and several other staff directly involved in project implementation will help reduce the demands on KWS and ensure smooth project implementation, while the IDA- (and other donor) assisted project is simultaneously building KWS' capacity in relation to each of the three key project elements (research and monitoring, reserve management and community conservation).  16 Agreed Actions 33. At negotiation the folowing assurances were received: (a) enviromnental impact assessments will be carried out by KWS and reviewed by the World Bank prior to initiation of any project- supported activity involving significant physical development; (b) environmental and social impact assessments will be carried out by KWS and reviewed by the World Bank prior to any GOK allocation of land associated with project support to encourage outmigration of people residing inside the TRPNR; (c) KWS will continue to conserve and manage the TRPNR, including appropriate levels of investment in research and community progran activities, after the end of the project; and (d) GOK will carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment on any proposed development project upstrean on the Tana River (to assess whether such development project will have serious and irreversible impact on the ecology of the TRPNR) and, if need be, will develop and implement appropriate mitigation measures in consultation with the World Bank and other interested parties. 34. The following are agreed actions to be taken prior to effectiveness, and during project implementation: (a) the Subsidiary Grant Agreement has been executed on behalf of the Recipient and KWS; (b)KWS has furnished to the Bank a report, satisfactory to the Bank, comprising a census and land-use survey to communities within and adjacent to the Tana River Primate National Reserve; (c) KWS has furnished to the Bank monitoring and evaluation indicators for evaluating the impact of the community program under Part B of the Project; and (d) KWS has established the Project Steering Committee and the Community Program Advisory Committee, with membership and terms of reference satisfactory to the Bank.  Schedule A KENYA TANA RIVER PRIMATE NATIONAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PROJECT (GEF) Procurement Schedule and Implementation Plan Activity FY 95/96 FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 Project launch x Project supervision x x x x x x x x Midterm review x Research workshop x Recruit project staff xx xxx Purchase vehicles and xx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx equip. xx Constr. officer housing xxxxxx Constr. ranger housing xOoxxOCx x xxxxxxx XIO= xx Upgrade water supply xxxxxxxx xx Build office block )oDrrrnUCuX xxxxxxxx xx Rehabil. roads xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx 0C xx xx xx Construct firebreaks and xxxxxxxxxx CxxOxxKxxX xOxx3XXXXX boundaries xx xx xx Rehabilitate research xxxxxxx camp xxxxxx Community PRAs xxxxccxxx xx xx "Goodwill projects" xxxxxxxxxx xx xx Relocation assistance XXXXxxxxx Xxxxxx700W xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xx xx xxxx Microproject assistance xxxxxx xxxxxxxx x= xxxxDx X zXOO xxxxxxxx xx xx xx xx xxxx Establish endowment x fund  Schedule B KENYA TANA RIVER PRIMATE NATIONAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PROJECT (GEF) Schedule of Disbursements (US $ Millions) Grant Disbursement YEAR During Semester Cumulative Cumulative Total Disbursement (%) Profile (%)5 FY 95/966 Dec. 1995 0 0 0 0 June 1996 0.1 0.1 2% 3% FY 96/97 Dec. 1996 0.8 0.9 15% 10% June 1997 0.8 1.7 27% 22% FY 97/98 Dec. 1997 0.7 2.4 39% 30% June 1998 0.7 3.1 50% 38% FY 98/99 Dec. 1998 0.9 4.0 64% 46% June 1999 0.9 4.9 79% 58% FY 99/00 Dec. 1999 0.4 5.3 85% 62% June 2000 0.3 5.6 90% 74% FY 00/001 Dec. 2000 0.3 5.9 95% 82% June 2001 0.3 6.2 100% 94% Disbursement profile for all agriculture projects in Kenya. 6 Assuming project effective from May 1, 1996.  Schedule C Page 1 of2 KENYA TANA RIVER PRIMATE NATIONAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PROJECT (GEF) Supervision Plan Approx. Key Activities Expected Skills Input (Staff Dates Weeks) 6/96 Project Launch Mission Ecologist; Anthropologist/ (3 days) Community Particip. 2 Specialist; Procurement Specialist; Disbursement Specialist 11/96 Supervision Mission: review PRA Ecologist, activities, community extension AnthropologistlCommunity 8 and mobilization, functioning of Particip. Specialist; advisory and management Procurement Specialist committees, research mobilization, procurement progress, relocation support _ 5/97 Supervision Mission: review Research Ecologist; Protected 10 community mobilization/ Areas Specialist; Community microproject development, Development! Micro- research and reserve management enterprise Specialist; M&E progress including infrastructure, Specialist; Civil Engineer effectiveness of M&E 11/97 Supervision Mission: as above Ecologist; Protected Areas 8 plus review status of procurement specialist; Community including civil works Development Specialist; Procurement Specialist. 5/98 Supervision Mission: prepare for Research Ecologist; Protected 10 midterm review: assess Areas Specialist; Community community development progress Development Specialist; and potential for endowment fund, Financial Analyst review preparation for research/planning workshop, KWS capacity to absorb project management activities (e.g. financial) 11/98 Midterm Review: review status of Ecologist; Protected Areas 12 all major components with Specialist; Community emphasis o on impacts as indicated Development Specialist; by M&E results, application of Institutional Specialist;  recommendations of Financial Analyst (with research/planning workshop, Trust/Endowment fund progress on relocation support, experience) appropriateness of reducing project management staff thru KWS' line staff assuming responsibilities, feasibility of establishing community endowment fund 11/99 Supervision Mission: review Ecologist, Community 6 progress of major components and Development Specialist; project management, plans for Financial Analyst transition toward phase-out of project funding 11/00 Supervision Mission: impacts of Ecologist, Community 8 project components (based on Development Specialist, M&E indicators), progress on Institutions Specialist preparation for phase-out of project funding, plans for end-of- project evaluation 6/01 Project Closing, Completion Research Ecologist, Protected 8 Report Areas specialist, Community Development Specialist I Total Supervision Requirement _ 72  Schedule D Page 1 of 3 KENYA TANA RIVER PRIMATE NATIONAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PROJECT (GEF) Detailed Project Costs 1. Proiect Cost Summarv TuugwEiRo RilFe~ % %Tda R3*wRjctxamy(Vhpeu Fa mgFaBm --a Fa rTa- Lc- Faeig TR 8dmr t 1. Pod,dadvbibb 74,S5 6145D 8a432m 1 M70 110M 1,4240 8 25 2 e lt a3mO 1,1mCo 21,M 3m0 21C 3?1. 5 7 3 0 =8B7M M7C00 1=&7.7 Z2 MM 24M5 7 Q 4 FeMrgrt 54EGOm 2 8 1,8 Z 1,4fW 31 ,Z TdaBP fflECS 23si654 4UAN 77t- Ti l e 36443 M96 4API X 34 17.E 84.m 21 1 RieCrgis 184EW7Z 1,001.68 19O97 34a41 182 V. 5 6 Tcd aFC=XilM -30aw 44,4401 -3URN ,il.4am 6934 1 2. Project Components bv Year Kenwa Tana Rher Natical Pnmate Reserve GEF Project Components by Year - BaSe CoMs US$ -000) Bass Cost 96/97 97198 98/99 99/00 00/01 Total 1. Reseach and Moirtoring 664.10 310.00 170.70 156.70 160.90 1,462.4 2. Prgect Manag nt 96.00 80.00 65.00 70.00 80.00 391.0 3. CarTwriity Conseabonandi D"ent 335.70 410.20 1,116.20 296.20 272.20 2,430.5 4. Rssew Management 569.40 440.60 240.00 115.00 105.00 1,470.0 Total BASEUNE COSTS 1620 1 1591.9 ,. Physical Condngenaes 34.25 24.94 11.30 7.03 6.72 84.2 Puce Ccntngenc'es 37.97 73.01 76.23 78.14 96.27 361.6 Total PROJECT COSTS 1,737.4T 137i 7273 721.09 6,199.7 Tms Foreign Exchange 408.83 171.67 95.19 65.80 66.52 808.0  Schedule D Page 2 of 3 3. Expenditure Accounts by Year Kenya Tana River National Primate Reserve GEF Expenciture Accounts by Years - Base Costs (USS 000) Base Cost Foreign Exchange 96/97 97198 98/99 99/00 00101 Total % Amnount I. Investrnent Costs A. civil works 255.80 314.00 90.40 0.40 0.40 661.00 30.0 198.30 B. Endowment Fund - - 750.00 - - 750.00 - C. vehicles 236.10 - - - - 236.10 100.0 236.10 D. materials and equipment 212.70 19.60 0.60 5.20 0.20 238.30 - - E. technical assistance 93.40 31.00 20.00 4.50 2.00 150.90 - F. training 53.50 45.00 43.00 43.00 35.70 220.20 - G. sub-component budget 50.00 50.00 90.00 70.00 60.00 320.00 - H. Voluntary relocation fund 50.00 175.00 100.00 50.00 25.00 400.00 - - I. microprojects 200.00 150.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 890.00 20.0 178.00 J. monitoring and evaluation 10.00 40.00 10.00 10.00 35.00 105.00 - - Total lnvestment Costs 1,161.50 824.60 1,284.00 363.10 338.30 3,971.50 15.4 612.40 II. Recurrent Costs A. salaries 184.50 182.60 178.70 166.80 165.80 878.40 - - B. vehicle operation and maintenance 91.00 72.00 5200 52.00 52.00 319.00 50.0 159.50 C. operational allowances 156.30 113.50 37.20 16.00 16.00 339.00 - - D. office operations and maintenance 71.90 48.10 40.00 40.00 46.00 246.00 - - Total Recurrent Costs 503.70 416.20 307.90 274.80 279.80 1,782.40 8.9 159.50 Total BASELINE COSTS 1,665.20 1,240.80 1,591.90 637.90 618.10 5,753.90 13.4 771.90 Physical Contingencies 34.25 24.94 11.30 7.03 6.72 84.23 21.2 17.89 Price Contingencies 37.97 73.01 76.23 78.14 96.27 361.62 5.0 18.21 Total PROJECT COSTS 1,737.41 1,338.74 1,679.43 723.07 721.09 6,199.74 13.0 808.00 Taxes Foreign Exchange 408.83 171.67 95.19 65.80 66.52 808.00  Schedule D Page 3 of 3 4. Expenditure Accounts by Components enya ana River National Primate Reserve GEF Community xpenditure Accounts by Components - Totals I Research Conservation US$ '000) and Project and Reserve Monitoring Management Development Management Total I. Investment Costs A. civil works 7.74 - - 728.74 736.47 B. Endowment Fund - - 750.00 - 750.00 C. vehicles 67.91 21.25 - 149.78 238.93 D. materials and equipment 226.35 17.13 5.96 10.83 260.27 E. technical assistance 91.00 - - 69.87 160.87 F. training 90.90 - 144.87 26.72 262.49 G. sub-component budget - - - 368.62 368.62 H. Voluntary relocation fund - - 400.00 - 400.00 I. microprojects - - 890.00 - 890.00 J. monitoring and evaluation 50.00 55.00 - - 105.00 Total Investment Costs 533.90 93.38 2,190.83 1,354.55 4,172.66 II. Recurrent Costs A. salaries 591.13 286.26 125.39 - 1,002.78. B. vehicle operation and maintenance 96.34 - - 269.05 365.38 C. operational allowances 244.53 - 105.00 17.18 366.71 D. office operations and maintenance 158.69 60.12 73.40 - 292.21 Total Recurrent Costs 1,090.69 346.38 303.79 286.22 2,027.08 otal PROJECT COSTS 1,624.59 439.76 2,494.62 1,640.77 6,199.74 Taxes Foreign Exchange 116.89 21.25 178.00 491.86 808.00 5. Expenditure Accounts: Project Cost Summarv Kra Tanm Rhwr Ninal Prinxte Reserve GEF % %TotW Expenditure Acconts Project Cost Sunmnary (Ksh'000) (US$000) Foreign Base Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Tota Exchange Costs 1. Investment Costs A. cMilwok 25,44850 10,906.50 36,356.00 46270 19830 661.06 30 11 B. Endmert FuLd 41,250.00 - 41 250.00 750.00 - 750.00 - 13 C. vehicles - 12,985.50 12,965.50 - 236.10 236.10 100 4 D. materials and equipment 13,106.50 - 13,106.50 238.30 - 238.30 - 4 E. technical assistance 8,299.50 8,299.50 150.90 - 150.90 - 3 F. training 12,111.06 - 12,111.00 220.20 - 220.20 - 4 G. subcornt xb 17,6DM00 17,61M.0 320.0O - 320.0o - 6 H. Vourtay relocation fund 22,000.00 - 22,0OMOD 406060 - 40.oo - 7 1. nicroprqects 39,160.06 9,790.00 48,9&a00 71206 178.060 89.o0 20 15 J. mn*orirg and eWluation 5,775.00 - 5,775.00 1C6.0 - 105.00 - 2 Tota lnvesbmentCost 184,750.50 33,682.00 218,432.50 3,359.10 61240 3,971.50 15 69 11. Recurrent Costs A. salries 48,312.00 - 48,31206 878.40 - 878.40 - 15 B. ehici operabon and nairenance 8,772.5D 8,772.50 17,545.00 159.50 159.50 319.00 50 6 C. operatinalalism 18,645.0 - 18,645.06 33.00 339.00 - 6 D. crice opaAons and mainrtenance 13,530.00 - 13,530.0 246.06 - 246.00 - 4 Total Recurrent Costs 89,259.50 8ms2 98,032.00 1,622.90 159.50 1,782.40 9 31 Total BASELINE COSTS 274,010.00 42,454.50 31,464.50 4,982.06 771.90 5753.90 13 106 Ptpicai Contingencies 3,648.43 963.9 4,632.38 66.34 17.89 8423 21 1 PniceCiingencies 18,887.29 1,001.6B 19,88s 97 343.41 18.21 361.62 5 6 Tota PROJECT COSTS 296545.71 44,440.13 340,985.84 5,391.74 808.00 6,199.74 13 108   PART II: Technical Annexes   CONTENTS Annex 1. Project Coordination and Management Annex 2. Research and Monitoring Component Annex 3. Reserve Management Component Annex 4. Community Conservation and Development Component Annex 5. Summary of Community Participation in Project Preparation Annex 6. Terms of Reference: Steering and Advisory Committees Annex 7. Terms of Reference: Project Personnel   ANNEX 1 Project Coordination and Management Page 1 of 3 1. Overview 1. The project will be implemented by the Kenya Wildlife Service, coordinated by the Research and Planning Department. Each of the three components will be implemented by the appropriate KWS Department, primarily by regular KWS staff as an incremental activity through their regular programs, supplemented by a small number of extemally recruited, project-funded staff. Policy guidance and evaluation will be provided by three steering committees including representatives of other government agencies, universities and NGOs. Overall coordination and administration will be the responsibility of Headquarters-based staff and advisory committees, with most day-to-day implementation responsibility delegated to field staff based at the Tana River Primate National Reserve (TRPNR). While KWS as the implementing agency will bear overall responsibility for project coordination, administration and supervision, it will establish committees for policy guidance and KWS will also enter into partnerships and contractual arrangements with government agencies, research institutions and NGOs for implementation of specific components. II. Policy Guidance and Project Coordination and Administration 2. Overall policy guidance and evaluation will be provided by a Project Steering Committee, chaired by the Director, KWS, with other members including representatives from the National Museums of Kenya (NMK), the East Africa Wildlife Society (EAWLS), the African Centre for Conservation (ACC), and Tana and Athi River Development Authority (TARDA). The Deputy Director for Research and Planning (DDRP), Assistant Director for Community Wildlife, GEF Project Coordinator, Senior Research Scientist, TRPNR Senior Warden and the Tana River District Development Officer will be ex officio members. The Steering Committee will meet quarterly to approve staff appointments and contracts, review semi-annual project reports prepared by the project coordinator, review and approve annual workplans and budgets, and participate in periodic monitoring and evaluation of the project. Advisory Committees will also be established for the Research and Planning and the Community Conservation and Development components (see below). 3. A Project Coordinator (PC) and Secretary will be recruited to assist the DDRP in executing the project, including overall coordination, administration and supervision of project implementation, preparation of procurement packages (in collaboration with the KWS Purchasing Manager), liaison with cooperating agencies and institutions, production of annual workplans, preparation of semi-annual reports, and planning of supervision missions and the mid-term and final project reviews. A Project Accountant will be responsible for overall financial management of the project including preparation of contracts, maintaining procurement accounts, preparng disbursement requests, and semi-annual financial reports. The Accountant will report to the PC, but will liaise closely with the KWS Financial Department (after two years, the possibility of transferring financial management of the project to the KWS Financial Department will be reviewed, based on the implementation of an improved general financial management system currently under development). The PC will have administrative  ANNEX 1 Project Coordination and Management Page 2 of 3 responsibility for the Senior Research Scientist (SRS), Data Analyst, Community Development Specialist (CDS), Agroforester (AGF) and Forest Restoration Research Officer, but for technical aspects they will report to the appropriate KWS line managers, as shown in the diagram above. III. Implementation of Project Components (See Annexes 2-4 for details) 4. The three project components will be implemented as follows: (a) the Reserve Management component will be executed through the established line authority of KWS under the Deputy Director for Wildlife Services (Parks and Reserves Dept.), with the TRPNR Senior Warden responsible for on-site implementation; (b) the Community Conservation and Development component will be executed by the Community Wildlife Service, under the authority of the Assistant Director, Community Wildlife program, who will be assisted by a Community Development Specialist (CDS)7 and a Community Wildlife Officer (CWO). The CDS will be hired under the project and split time approximately equally between KWS Headquarters in Nairobi and the TRPNR. The CWO will be a member of KWS' existing Community Wildlife Service and will be posted at TRPNR full time. The CWO will be assisted by two locally-recruited Community Mobilizers, to be hired under the project. Microprojects will be planned and implemented by community groups with the assistance of local authorities and field staff of line ministries as appropriate; (c) the Research and Monitoring component will be implemented through the KWS Research and Planning Dept, in close collaboration with the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) (including the Institute for Primate Research), as outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding and a Contractual Agreement. Some specific studies for which niether NMK nor KWS has the apporpriate expertise will be contracted to other agencies, institutions an NGOs such as te Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), Moi Uniersity, the Forest Dept., etc. The Senior Research Scientist will be responsible for planning and coordinating the of the Research and Monitoring program, preparing semi-annual and annual summaries of the status of individual research studies financed under the component, scheduling meeting of the SAC, organizing annual review and planning workshops financed under this component, planning and organizing the mid- term symposium, and satisfying KWS and NMK reporting requirements. On-site logistic coordination primarily for research activities will be handled by a Field Activities Coordinator to be based at TRPNR. 7 This position will initially be for two years, after which the need for it will be reviewed.  ANNEX 1 Project Coordination and Management Page 3 of 3 IV. Monitoring and Evaluation 5. Monitoring the ecological impacts of the project will be a main focus of the Research and Monitoring component, which will also develop baseline data and indicators to the system to enable KWS to carry on an effective monitoring program after the project ends. Socio-economic impacts will be monitored by the KWS Community Wildlife Service, which is establishing a broad-based monitoring program, including development of indicators' questionnaires, etc., which will be applied to all areas where the Community Wildlife Program is operating, particularly areas where specific development projects are being funded, whether by this project or under the Revenue Sharing/Wildlife Development Fund. The Scientific and Advisory Committee and the Community Program Advisory Committee will review the progress and impact of those two components, on a regular basis at their meetings and, from time to time, through field visits. The Project Steering Committee will do the same with respect to the project as a whole. KWS and the Bank will supervise the project about two times a year, with a midterm review during the third year of project implementation. Specific modalities will be agreed by KWS and the Bank, including beneficiary participation and the use of outside evaluators for the midterm review. The midterm review will address, among other things: (i) development of the comprehensive TRPNR management plan; (ii) the status and priority of the research activities; (iii) status of KWS/community relations and the degree of linkage between community development assistance and conservation; (iv) progress on resolution of the land issues, including efforts to encourage and assist out-migration from the reserve; (v) the potential for transferring some project management/administrative functions fully to the relevant KWS Departments; (vi) deployment and use of vehicles and equipment provided by the project, etc. 8 (initial indicators will be submitted to the Bank for review prior to project effectiveness)  ANNEX 2 Research and Monitoring Component Page 1 of 5 I. Overview 1. This component will support the overall project objective to conserve biodiversity of the lower Tana River rivemine and floodplain forests, through improved ecosystem management within the Tana River Primate National Reserve (TRPNR) and in nearby forest patches. The small size and dynamic nature of the Reserve and the strong pressure on its resources require an active management approach as opposed to simple protection of its boundaries and fauna and flora. Therefore, the short-term goal of the research program is to provide information necessary for making informed management decisions and to establish a database on ecological and biodiversity parameters including key indicator species. The longer-term goal is to sustain the ecosystem and put in place a monitoring system to track changes and trends in ecosystem functions and viability and in biodiversity values. The component will be implemented by KWS in close partnership with the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) and the participation of other research organizations. KWS and NMK have signed a general Memorandum of Understanding outlining their collaboration for conservation of biodiversity in general (see Appendix A), and will sign a contractual agreement for implementation of this project. The research and monitoring program will also emphasize involvement of local communities, both through incorporation of traditional knowledge and through training and employment of individuals in the field work lI. Background 2. The TRPNR consists of scattered patches of riverine forest surrounded by semi-arnd savanna and floodplain. The riverine forest is an isolated remnant of a continuous rain forest belt that extended between the Congo Basin and the coast during a moister period of the Pleistocene. It is the last large stand of this type of riverine forest in eastern Africa. Forest vegetation along the Tana depends on ground water, and its lateral extent is therefore determined by the sharp decline in the water table with increasing distance from the river. A wide array of animal and plant species, many of them endemic, depend in turn on the forest. 3. Protection of the biological resources of the TRPNR depends on a clear understanding of the dynamics of change in the riverine landscape (including responses to regular changes in the river course), ecological change in forest community characteristics and the population dynamics of rare plant and animal species. The Reserve was initially established for preservation of two endemic and endangered subspecies of monkeys, the Tana River red colobus and the TR crested mangabey (estimated total population numbers currently ca. 1200 and 1400 individuals respectively-both showing declines of 10- 30 percent since 1975-approximately 40 percent of colobus and 60 percent of mangabeys currently found inside the TRPNR, with the remainder in nearby forest patches)9. 9 Source: T. Butinsky, May, 1995: Census of Kenya's Endangered Red Colobus and Crested Mangabey in: African Primates (newsletter of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group Africa Section). Census funded by the GEF Project Preparation Advance.  ANNEX 2 Research and Monitoring Component Page 2 of 5 However, it is now recognized as also having a broader global biodiversity significance. Basic research, which examnines spatial and temporal patterns of diversity and the mechanisms that influence these patterns, will contribute to the general understanding of the ecosystem. pplied research will determine the relationship between ecological dynamics, human activities, and reserve management. 4. The TRPNR has been a focal region for research in ecology and primate behavior for about two decades. Mcheleo Research Camp, established within the reserve in 1987, has provided accommodation and facilities for a large number of national and international researchers and also assisted in maintaining roads and trails within the Reserve. A 1985 primate census showed an approximate 80 percent decline for the red colobus and a 25 percent decline for the crested Mangabey populations, relative to numbers in the mid-1 960s. This decline was tentatively attributed to a corresponding decline in forest habitat (Marsh 1986)10. Subsequently, Hughes (1988) concluded that pioneer forest areas were absent in TRPNR and tree regeneration levels were low at all sampling plots-a possible consequence of upstream hydrological developments. These findings support the need for multidisciplinary research on the relationships between the primates and their forest habitat and ecological dynamics of the area. The proposed research and monitoring program seeks to build and expand on the existing research base with particular emphasis on ensuring that research results are directed toward management planning and community participation in conservation. 5. The overall goal of the Research and Monitoring component is to achieve a better understanding of the ecology and biodiversity of the riverine/floodplain forests in and around the TRPNR and to identify mitigation measures to improve its conservation and management, through collaboration among research scientists, KWS and local communities. It will aim to provide essential information for the development of management policy and planning and investment in community development and conservation activities. Specifically it will strive to achieve the following objectives: III. Objectives (a) document historical and current spatial patterns of biodiversity along the Tana River Floodplain and especially within the TRPNR; (b) monitor temporal change in the status of animal and plant populations and the general condition of the forest habitat for endangered species; (c) study mechanisms of ecosystem change through field observation and experimentation, including pilot trials of forest restoration; 10 The more extensive census by Butynski in 1995 included detailed surveys of forest patches outside the TRPNR and therefore indicated signficantly higher numbers than the March 1985 census.  ANNEX 2 Research and Monitoring Page 3 of 5 (d) identify important relationship among human activities, reserve management interventions, and ecological dynamics; (e) strengthen links between research activities, reserve management, and community development, capacity building, and participation in conservation. IV. Organizational Structure 6. A Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) has been established, chaired by KWS Deputy Director for Research and Planning with membership drawn from KWS and representatives of NMK, the Institute of Primate Research, the Department of Resource Survey and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), and at least one locally based conservation NGO (others may be co-opted as needed). The Senior Research Scientist, the GEF Project Coordinator and the KWS Forest and Wetlands Coordinators will be ex officio members. The SAC will advise on overall research program priorities, review and approve research proposals", review annual workplans for the research component, semi-annual and annual progress reports on research activities prepared by the Senior Scientist, the outcome of annual review and planning workshops, and the proceedings of a symposium on research findings and recommendations for management, to be held prior to the mid-term project review (in year three of the project). The SAC will also participate in the mid-term project review, in monitoring and evaluation of the research component, and liaise with Bank staff involved in technical supervision of the project. A Senior Research Scientist, reporting to the Deputy Director, Research and Planning at KWS, will be responsible for planning, design and coordination of individual studies which comprise this component and for preparing regular reports and organizing workshops. A Data Analyst will assist KWS' Research and Planning Department to establish and maintain appropriate databases incorporating data from all sub-projects and components, and analyze them to meet user's needs for information to guide management decisions. Individual projects will be developed and implemented largely by members of the NMK staff, or drawn from other research institutions for areas where NMK does not have the appropriate technical capacity. V. Component Description 7. The component will provide limited investments and incremental support to enable the research program to be implemented effectively. This includes purchase of computer equipment, software, and office supplies; three 4WD vehicles, and rehabilitation and maintenance of the Mcheleo Research Camp. Limited funds are targeted for training for participating individuals from KWS, collaborating 11 The SAC has already met to review the proposed research program outlined below  ANNEX 2 Research and Monitoring Component Page 4 of 5 institutions and local communities. Research staff from NMK will be provided with operational allowances. The Senior Scientist will be recruited nationally if a suitable candidate can be identified;otherwise recruitment will be international. Any further staff requirements for specific research projects will be recruited nationally. A small budget provides for workshops to review and guide the research program and for publication and dissemination of research results. 8. Thirteen individual research proposals have been identified, which taken together address priority needs for ecosystem studies, species inventory, information management, human utilization of forest resources, and population status of endangered species. These projects have been reviewed by the Scientific Technical Advisory Committee, with respect to priority, technical approach and budget: (a) Forest Restoration: The project will promote the production and planting of indigenous seedlings to restore forest cover in key areas, such as corridors for primates to move between forest patches. It will be carried out by a project-funded Forest Restoration Research Officer hired under the direction of the SRS and the KWS Forest Conservation Coordinator. (b) Land-use mapping and livestocklwildlife relationships: baseline spatial and temporal "snapshot" data will be derived from remote sensing and aerial photos covering an area immediately surrounding the reserve during wet and dry seasons. The project will be implemented in collaboration with the Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS). (c) Primate Genetics: to provide information for primate population management, including moving of individuals if needed to maximize genetic mixing within these small populations. (d) Primate survey, inventory and monitoring (e) Avifauna inventory and monitoring (f) Herpetofauna inventory and monitoring (g) Plant survey and inventories (h) Invertabrate survey and monitoring (i) Mammals and Vegetation Monitoring (j) Ethnobiology: Establishing a database on human use of forest resources (needs and ecological impacts), incorporating traditional knowledge.  ANNEX 2 Research and Monitoring Component Page 5 of 5 (k) Palynology: To improve knowledge of botanical and ecological history of the Reserve and vicinity. (1) Hydrological Trends: Particularly focused on impacts of changes in river course and flow. (m) Wetlands andfish ecology and resources: Assessment and utilization of the resources. In addition, US$50,000 are allocated to a rapid response research fund, in order to respond to requests from management for information needed to make urgent management decisions. Presently this constitutes the proposed research program for the five years of the project.  ANNEX 3 Reserve Management Component Page 1 of 5 I. Overview 1. The Reserve Management Component will provide incremental support to enable KWS to develop an adaptive management system that can effectively address the challenges facing sustainable management of the Tana River Primate National Reserve (TRPNR) area, including protection and administration. In the first two years of the project funds will be used to address urgent needs such as strengthening security, improving management facilities, supporting the proposed research and community development components, and, if conditions permit, a modest level of ecotourism development. During this period KWS will develop a more comprehensive management plan that takes into consideration the findings and processes achieved through the first two years of project activities, particularly research and community outreach. At least four members of the JRMC will participate in this planning. The plan is expected to incorporate the concerns of local people and be responsive to research priorities, while supporting the overall goal of conserving the Tana River Reserve. II. Background 2. The TRPNR covers 169 km2 of riverine forest intermixed with agricultural settlements and traditional pastoralist watering and grazing areas, situated along the east and west banks of the lower Tana River from the vicinity of Wenje in the north to the vicinity of Mnazini in the south. The reserve was originally gazetted as a County Council reserve to protect two endemic sub-species of monkey (Tana River red colobus and TR crested mangabey), but it has a far greater global biodiversity value of the area as the forest patches inside and near the reserve represent the only remnants in eastem Africa of a former (Pleistocene) extension of central African forests. Resident populations of elephants and rhinos were exterminated during the wave of poaching that swept through East Africa in the 1 980s, but several herds of buffalo remain. Recent research has indicated that some 40 percent of the colobus monkeys, and 60 percent of the managebey, live in the remaining forest patches along the Tana which are outside the Reserve boundaries. At the present time security in Tana River District is very poor, due to the presence of armed bandits in the area. Vehicles traveling between major centers must travel in convoy with armed guards. Security is therefore one of the main constraints to development in Tana River District of any sort, particularly tourism. III. Objectives 3. There are two aspects to KWS' broad perception of management of TRPNR: (a) Administration and protection of the Reserve: To this end the component would improve infrastructure including staff accommodation and roads, construct an office block and purchase vehicles. An ongoing dialogue with the Joint Reserve Management Committee over issues surrounding use of Reserve resources is expected to result in practical agreements between KWS and local communities, and enable community members to participate in management planning.  ANNEX 3 Reserve Management Page 2 of 5 (b) Managing the ecosystem: It is envisaged that management of the TRPNR will be the testing ground for an approach to management that aims to conserve and manage the entire ecosystem. The TRPNR presents a particular challenge in this respect, as it is a highly dynamic ecosystem with individual forest patches continually declining and regenerating due to shifts in the river course. Effective management will require significant amounts of research that will ultimately define the desired state of the Reserve (e.g. extent of forest versus arid habitats, the optimal numbers of monkeys) and how to maintain this state. It is anticipated that this information will result from activities financed under the Research and Monitoring Component and will be integrated into a comprehensive management plan that will be implemented from Year Three of the project. 4. Therefore the overall objective of the Reserve Management Component is to implement or enable the implementation of all activities concerned with the conservation of biodiversity of the Reserve and its surrounding area. These activities will focus on: (a) improving security, management capacity and facilities; (b) determining priorities for management-oriented research programmes, and implementing conservation and development recommendations arising from this research; (c) strengthening conservation of biodiversity by supporting local initiatives to conserve unprotected forest patches or other biologically diverse areas, and by supporting community conservation projects that will increase the supply of resources traditionally collected from the forest, or alternatives; (d) enhancing appreciation and understanding of wildlife conservation in the region by involving local people in ecological monitoring and ecotourism activities; (e) liasioning with national and district bodies whose activities impact the reserve ecosystem. IV. Organization 5. The Reserve Management Component will be executed through the established line authority of KWS under the department of the Deputy Director for Wildlife Services (DD/RP), Parks and Reserves Section. The KWS Senior Warden posted at the reserve will be responsible for on-site implementation. Security is provided by the Wildlife Protection Unit (WPU) under the DD/Security. The mandate of the WPU extends beyond the borders of the reserve, but within the Reserve the WPU is under the command of the Warden.  ANNEX 3 Reserve Management Component Page 3 of 5 6. Funding for field activities under the Reserve Management Component will be administered by the Project Coordinator, assisted by the Project Accountant reporting to him/her. Major procurement will be handled by the Headquarters-based procurement unit, while funds for incremental operational costs will be provided to the TRPNR Senior Warden (on the basis of the agreed work plan) as an addition to his regular AIE, and KWS' usual disbursement and accounting procedures will be followed. The Warden will liase closely with the Community Wildlife Officer (CWO), the Field Activities Coordinator, the Agroforester, the Forest Restoration Officer and the Joint Reserve Management Committee. The Warden will ensure coordination with other development activities in the area through his or her role on the District Development Committee. V. The Joint Reserve Management Committee 7. The Joint Reserve Management Committee (JRMC) is a body established to help resolve conflicts by advising KWS on management and resource-use issues and serving as a forum for discussion of community concerns (e.g. security, resource utilization, access to water and grazing). Ex-offcio and non- voting members of the JRMC include the Warden, District Warden, CWO, Clerk and Chairman of the Tana River County Council, District Commissioner, and Councilors and Chiefs of N'dera and Gwano locations. Voting members include twelve elected representatives from N'dera and Gwano locations (six from each location). The initial representatives have been appointed by the Chiefs, but there will be an evolution toward a more democratic selection process. Eventually representatives from pastoralist communities who rely on reserve resources within Garissa District (the east bank of the river) will also be included. Until then, KWS will consult with these groups in a separate forum. Community representatives should reside among groups who traditionally rely on reserve resources, and at least two from each location will be female. At least four of the JRMC community representatives will participate in the planning workshops scheduled to facilitate preparation of the management plan. Minutes documenting agreement between KWS and the community members of the JRMC on the committee's scope, Terms of Reference, composition and rules of operation were submitted to the World Bank prior to negotiations and found acceptable. VI. Detailed Activities Infrastructure 8. Infrastructure development is to be minimal, environmentally sensitive, and limited to that which is needed to support research, security, and, if conditions warrant, a modest level of ecotourism development. All new construction will undergo a rigorous environmental impact assessment, reviewed by the Project Steering Committee and the World Bank, prior to initiating work.  ANNEX 3 Reserve Management Component Page 4 of S 9. Within the first two years of the project improvements to infrastructure will include: (a) an upgraded water supply; (b) construction of housing for officers and rangers (three two bedroom units and 15 two room units); (c) construction and equipping of an office block and a vehicle maintenance workshop; (d) grading of 54 km of reserve roads and gravelling of 25 km of access roads; (e) clearing of 50 km of firebreaks and boundary lines; and (f) murraming of the airstrip to make it all-weather. A truck for the WPU and a 4WD station wagon for management use will be purchased, as well as a pick-up for shared use by the Agroforester and Forest Restoration Officer, and two stations wagons, one for the CWO and one for general project use. Conservation 10. Following studies to determine the number and types of users of reserve resources and sustainable offtake levels, regulated use of forest products (especially firewood, poles, branches, and logs) will be discussed with the community and put into place12. At the same time, a Forest Restoration Programme (under the Research and Monitoring Component) will encourage local communities to raise indigenous species for sale to KWS for planting in the Reserve, for example to establish corridors between forest patches. The Community Conservation Programme, managed by a project-funded Agroforester with assistance from the CWO, will support activities to minimize resource-use conflicts (e.g. woodlots, fuel efficient stoves, or canoe building from alternative materials, etc.). A nursery will be established to support both the Community Conservation Programme and the Forest Restoration Programme. Quarterly consultations with the Joint Reserve Management Committee will ensure a continuous process of dialogue over conservation issues. Development of an Adaptive Management System 11. During the first two years of the project, information generated from the Research and Monitoring Component will help identify specific objectives of ecosystem management (e.g. expansion of forest patches), and the constraints to achieving those objectives. From this information a comprehensive strategy and plan for managing the reserve will be developed, in consultation with the communities through the JRMC. The strategy is expected to include sustainable harvesting of some Reserve resources and identify stakeholders with use rights. Further activities and designation of actors to implement these activities will be finalized by the end of Year Two. At least two workshops will be held during Year One and Two to bring together input from all relevant actors, including representatives from the JRMC. 12 Replacing illegal but persistent, unregulated use now.  ANNEX 3 Reserve Management Component Page 5 of 5 VII. KWS's Contribution to the Reserve Management Component 12. KWS currently provides about US$145,000 per year for recurrent operational costs and development expenditures for TRPNR, and will continue to do so during the project period (and beyond). KWS' contribution to the project will include salaries and operational costs for Wardens, administrative personnel, the CWO and the WPU unit, and maintenance of buildings and roads. KWS will also provide Headquarters-based technical and operational support, estimated at $39,000. The WPU will provide security for all project personnel, researchers and visitors. KWS has covered the costs incurred in maintaining dialogue with the JRMC since the termination of the Project Preparation Advance in August 1994 under the PAWs project (Cr. 2334-YKE), and will continue to do so until project effectiveness.  ANNEX 4 Community Conservation and Development Component Page 1 of 6 I. Overview 1. The overall goal of the Community Conservation and Development Component is to conserve the ecology of the Tana River Reserve while improving the socio-economic position of the people who have traditionally depended on its resources. In the short term the goal is to ensure that local people are: (1) consulted on aspects of Reserve management that effect their livelihoods, and (2) involved in the planning and implementation of microprojects designed to support their development objectives, while promoting conservation of forest resources. To a limited extent, the project will provide other types of community support, such as school bursaries aimed at increasing employment opportunities. Direct assistance in the form of microprojects will be targetted to those sub-groups and sectors of the community which demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with KWS and support its objectives of conservation and sustainable management of the TRPNR. KWS will agree with recipients of microproject funds on specific ways that they can support conservation of the reserve and its flora and fauna, thereby providing the needed linkage between development assistance and the project's conservation objectives. Ultimately it is hoped that the local people and the generations that follow will perceive the value of conservation and will be in an economic position that enables them to benefit from reserve resources in a sustainable manner. At the same time, the project will provide technical, financial and other assistance to encourage outmigration of agriculturalists living or cultivating inside the Reserve. II Background 2. The Tana River Primate National Reserve (TRPNR) was originally gazetted in 1976 as a County Council Reserve, to stem the loss and decline of the riverine forest ecosystem and protect its unique flora and fauna. The area has long served as an important watering and grazing resource and as a source of animal and plant products for local people, including Wardei, Orma and Somali pastoralists and Pokomo agriculturists. The Tana River County Council (TRCC) expected that gazettement would result in benefits such as revenues from tourism, but tourism failed to flourish due to poor accessibility and increasing insecurity in the area. The Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WCMD) was responsible for managing the Reserve, but virtually abandoned it after the first few years, leaving it vulnerable to poaching and agricultural encroachment. 3. The proposal for a GEF project to help conserve the TRPNR and its threatened endemic wildlife was welcomed by conservationists and researchers, but faced considerable resistance within the local community, particularly from the Pokomo living or farming inside the Reserve, who saw the project as a threat to their livelihood and land security. This concern was aggravated as the project proposal initially included a resettlement component. The proposed resettlement stirred strong hostility because of the acute shortage of altemative arable land in the area, and because of the extremely poor experience of resettlement associated with previous development projects in the area, such as the Bura and Hola irrigation schemes. Because the project was widely represented solely and simplistically as an effort to save the two endangered primates from extinction, local people resentfully concluded that the Kenya Wildlife Service and the World Bank "considered monkeys more important than people." When KWS  ANNEX 4 Community Conservation and Development Component Page 2 of 6 resumed active management and protection of the Reserve in late 1992, this also inevitably upset people who had come to regard the area as effectively unprotected during the long years of neglect by WCMD. 4. While the resettlement element was dropped early in project preparation, the negative attitude on the part of the Pokomo community persisted. It is likely that many people did not know, or did not believe, that KWS had agreed not to evict them from the Reserve. In any case, the public stance of the local Pokomo made it impossible to carry out project preparation in a participatory way, as required by the World Bank. As a result, project appraisal was repeatedly postponed while KWS worked to gain broader community acceptance for the project. 5. While the fundamental issue of Pokomo claims and land security is still unresolved, most villages in the two locations bordering the Reserve (Gwano and N'dera) have agreed to work with KWS to resolve these issues and many people now seem enthusiastic about the GEF project. With the establishment of the Joint Reserve Management Committee, the process of dialogue can now continue and proceed from consultations to discussions and concrete agreements. The first such agreement already achieved is that there will be no further expansion of cultivation inside the Reserve. Most of the Pokomo villages indicated that they are well-represented through the JRMC and the Wardei village of Hara is poised to join. The World Bank has accepted the idea of a "phased" implementation of the project, such that the Reserve Management and Research Components can proceed immediately while implementation of the Community Component proceeds at a pace set by the progress of KWS' dialogue with the community. Assistance will be targeted to sub-groups within the community (e.g. ethnic groups, villages, households) who are willing to support the conservation objectives of the project in concrete and effective ways. III. Objectives 6. The Community Development component has the following objectives: (a) To build support among the local communities for conservation of the Reserve and its surrounding ecosystems through an ongoing process of dialogue and capacity building. (b) To reduce pressure on the reserve by encouraging local people who use reserve resources to employ realistic alternatives to those practices that threaten the viability of the forest ecosystems. (c) To enable the inhabitants of the nine villages inside or immediately adjacent to the Reserve to identify environmentally sound and economically sustainable responses to their development priorities and assist them in the formulation, application, and implementation of microprojects that address these priorities. (d) To promote income-generating activities, particularly those involving sustainable use of Reserve resources (e.g. tourism) or alternatives (e.g. improved marketing of mangoes grown outside the Reserve). (e) To encourage a gradual outmigration of people from inside the Reservem by addressing land tenure issues in a manner acceptable to all parties: local communities, GoK, and KWS.  ANNEX 4 Community Conservation and Development Page 3 of 6 IV. Project Description 7. The Community Component consists of the following main elements: (a) Small-scale community projects (microprojects). Villages immediately surrounding the reserve will identify their development priorities through a Participatory Rural Appraisal approach, and then plan and implement microprojects to which they also make a significant contribution (in cash and in kind). Working with KWS and the Community Program Advisory Committee, villagers will determine how to link their microproject back to conservation goals. KWS staff, NGOs and District Line Ministries may assist in microproject implementation. KWS proposes to establish an endowment fund of US$350,000 to finance microprojects beyond the life ofthe GEF project. The feasibility of this fund (and the proposed education endowment-see below), and modalities for its establishment and implementation, will be determined during the first two years of the project. (b) Capacity building: the component will provide for training to facilitate community implementation and maintenance of microprojects and for study tours to demonstrate community conservation activities. The Research and Monitoring component will also include training and employment of local community members. The project will support school bursaries on a limited basis, with recipients to be identified by the community, and expected to make a contribution to conservation efforts in exchange. KWS also proposes to establish an endowment fund of US$400,000 to continue this support for school fees beyond the life of the project. (c) Encouraging outmigration: KWS will work with the GoK, TRCC, and JRMC to help locate suitable alternative land for those who voluntarily opt to emigrate from the Reserve. The project will pay for overheads (e.g. surveyors, legal fees, transportation) incurred in willing-buyer/willing selling land transactions to facilitate this process. It will be a condition of the project that any allocation of landfacilitated by KWS through GoK undergo a thorough social and environmental impact assessment. 8. In addition, two "goodwill" projects (one for each location) will be implemented immediately following project effectiveness (i.e. prior to the PRA process). Based on the discussions with community leaders during project preparation, these projects will involve assistance for construction of two clinics and two schools. The Community Wildlife Officer and his or her staff will also assist relevant project staff (e.g. TRPNR Warden, Agroforester, and Forest Restoration Officer) in the implementation of community outreach activities under the Management and Research Components.  ANNEX 4 Community Conservation and Development Page 4 of 6 V. Scope 9. Project benefits will eventually be targeted to all populations who traditionally rely on reserve resources for their livelihood. KWS will carry out a census and land use survey prior to project effectiveness, aimed at identifying current inhabitants and users of the Reserve (to prevent an influx of new claimants) and to better define the target population. TORs for this survey were received prior to negotiations and the survey will be completed and the report submitted to the Bank for review prior to project effectiveness. Microprojects will initially be targeted to those communities most obviously impacted by the Reserve and posing the greatest threat to its sustainability-Pokomo and Wardei Villages neighboring the Reserve, although others may be included at a later date. 13 These groups will be eligible for limited training to implement or maintain their microprojects. Eligibility for bursaries will be limited to students living within 30 km of the Reserve. VI. Organizational Structure 10. Policy guidance will be provided by a Community Program Advisory Committee (CPAC), chaired by the KWS Assistant Director of Community Wildlife Service (AD/CWS) and including representatives from NGOs and relevant government agencies. A specific focus of this committee will be promoting the linkage between development and conservation objectives. They will help suggest appropriate "quid pro quo" arrangements between KWS and the local group in charge of a particular microproject, i.e. what input a group or the microproject itself can make to conservation goals. The group would take part in planning and launch workshops, and would meet quarterly (as often as possible in Tana District) to review and advise on microproject proposals. 11. The Community component will be executed as an incremental activity within the ongoing KWS Community Wildlife Program (CWP), which aims to reduce wildlife/PA-related conflicts and increase benefits of conservation for local communities. The AD/CWS will have overall responsibility, assisted by a project-funded Community Development Specialist (CDS) who will be posted primarily at Headquarters but spend about half his/her time at the project site. The CDS (who will be the equivalent of USAID-funded "Field Program Coordinators" assigned to oversee implementation of the CWP in KWS' three other "focal areas") will ensure coordination of this component with the overall CWP and with the rest of the project (in collaboration with the PC), including ensuring that Research and Reserve Management components also involve and provide benefits to local communities. The Community Wildlife Officer (CWO) posted by KWS at the TRPNR will take charge of on-site implementation, including management of funds disbursed for microprojects through his/her AIE, and will be supported by two locally-recruited Community Mobilizers (CM) funded by the project. The CMs will the assist the CWO in mobilizing and assisting community groups to propose microprojects and explaining KWS policies and microproject procedures. 13 These are Baumo, Wenje, Hara, Makere, Kitere, Mnazini, Vukoni, Maroni and Kipende villages. Kotilu and other Somali villages in Garsissa District will be excluded at first, but will be brought into the PRA-microproject process once the initial nine villages have been mobilized, as may other users of reserve resources.  ANNEX 4 Community Conservation and Development Page 5 of 6 VII. Implementation The Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Process: From Community Action Plan to Microproject Proposals 12. A workshop, lasting about one week, will be organized by the CWO and local Community Mobilizers in each village. PRA and other participatory methods will be used to ensure that everyone in the village contributes to the process of defining development objectives. The outcome of the PRA will be a Community Action Plan, a five year plan outlining development objectives and ways they might be met locally. This document will be discussed in Locational through District Development Committee meetings. Following approval of the plan by the DDC, high-priority microprojects will be earmarked for application to KWS. At least one microproject, costing up to US$15,000 (Ksh 850,000) will be implemented by each village. Microprojects may be managed and implemented by organized groups within the village (e.g. women's or men's groups, clan groups, etc.). Villages could jointly submit applications for microprojects up to US$100,000. 13. Microprojects are likely to fall into three categories: (a) Infrastructure or sustainable technology projects: examples include road improvements, handpumps, VIP latrines, production of fuel efficient stoves, provision of posho mills, etc. (b) Social projects such as health promotion, nutrition, literacy, school improvements, strengthening local cooperatives or other community groups. (c) Income generating projects: examples include marketing local products (mangoes, dried and fresh, handicrafts, livestock production (animal health). Porocessing Microprojects 14. A local-level Microproject Committee will formally apply for a given and take responsibility for its implementation. Membership of the committee will depend upon the nature of the project (e.g. technicians, women's group leaders, teachers), but will consist of five to nine community members, at least two of whom will be literate. The application should demonstrate that the microproject: (a) addresses needs identified in the Community Action Plan and brings benefits to the community, including the disadvantaged; (b) is technically feasible and environmentally and socially sustainable; (c) recognizes and builds upon traditional knowledge where appropriate; (d) provides for a community contribution of 25 percent of the total microproject costs (cash, labor and materials), of which at least 5 percent will be in cash;  ANNEX 4 Community Conservation and Development Page 6 of 6 (e) suggests how the microproject will be linked to overall conservation goals. Village-level agreements between KWS and the beneficiaries would be formalized through the Microproject Committee. 15. Microproject applications will be received and reviewed by the CWO. Projects costing up to Ksh 200,000 may be approved by the CWO and the TRPNR Warden, then forwarded to the CDS for confirmation and disbursement of funds. Applications for projects costing from Ksh 200,000 to Kshs 1 million must be approved by the CDS in consultation with the AA/CWS. Projects exceeding Ksh 1 million must be approved by the Project Steering Committee. The CPAC will serve as an advisory body, reviewing specific proposals to provide comments and as a basis for ensuring that the overall policy framework is appropriate and is being implemented. Implementing Microprojects 16. Technical assistance to implement microprojects may be provided by District Line Ministries or NGOs. Operational allowances are available through the project to cover their expenses. The Project Steering Committee would approve contracts for collaboration between KWS and specific NGOs, which would include the contributions to be made by each. NGOs will be selected based on their record in delivering community-based services, as well as their technical, organizational and management skills. For the most part, participating NGOs should already have a presence and programs ongoing in the project area.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page lof 11 I. Background 1. As in most cases, the proposal for a GEF project to help conserve the Tana River Primate National Reserve (TRPNR) did not originate with the local communities, but with conservationists intent on preserving this unique remnant ecosystem and its endangered flora and fauna. Nevertheless, community consultation and participation have been important elements in the preparation of this project, for several reasons. First, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) has an explicit policy of actively encouraging community consultation and partnership in the management of parks and reserves, and has established a Community Wildlife Service (CWS) and initiated a Community Wildlife Program (CWP), with support from USAID and the Bank, to achieve this objective. Second, agricultural encroachment and over-exploitation of some animal and plant species by local communities represents the most significant threat to the survival of the reserve, making relations with these communities one of the main management issues confronting the reserve. Third, initial hostility and resistance on the part of the local communities (for reasons discussed below), was recognized as the principle obstacle to approval and successful implementation of this project. Therefore, changing this prevailing negative community attitude was seen as a prerequisite to serious consideration of a proposal to support a conservation project for the TRPNR, and this could only be done through consultation and negotiation. 2. For reasons discussed below, achieving effective community participation was difficult and time- consuming, resulting in a very long preparation period for the project. While a GEF-funded project advance provided resources for specific supporting activities such as socio-econornic surveys, workshops, orientation visits and pilot-scale community assistance activities, KWS itself provided the bulk of the resources and effort by maintaining a Community Wildlife Officer at the TRPNR, by providing training and support for the TRPNR Senior Warden to adopt a community-oriented approach, and through frequent visits and meetings by Headquarters-based CWS staff and the Director. This demonstrated commitment on the part of KWS was essential for maintaining the momentum of project preparation, and justifying the Bank's and GEF Secretariat's continued support, through many setbacks and periods of apparent deadlock. II. Issues and Special Circumstances 3. No project is ever undertaken in a social or political vacuum, and of all aspects of preparation and implementation none is more affected by these factors than community participation. The following factors contributed to the difficulty of achieving participation in preparation of this project:  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 2 of 11 Community Profile and Local Politics 4. The social environment in and around the TRPNR is very complex, with different ethnic groups living side by side, not always harmoniously. The main division is between the Pokomo agriculturalists and the Wardei and Orma pastoralists. The Pokomo people have the most significant presence in the area, with two villages (Baomo and Nkanu-totaling about 115 households) inside the reserve and six others immediately adjacent to it on both the east and west banks of the river. People from all eight villages cultivate fields inside the reserve illegally, and practice shifting cultivation which requires regular clearing of new forest areas. They also make extensive use of a number of indigenous forest plant and animal species for food, building materials, canoes and medicines. The Wardei, with one main village (Hara) just north of the reserve, graze and water their livestock in the lower riverine areas. The Orma, a much smaller group in the area, are mainly associated with the nearby Idassa Godana group ranch. These pastoralists do not maintain a continuous presence in the reserve, but they are very dependent on the reserve in times of drought. Other pastoralist groups from the eastem and northeastem provinces also regularly make use of the reserve in the course of their north-south migrations. The pastoralist groups have generally been strongly supportive of the project from the beginning, as they are regard the TRPNR as a critical resource to be maintained as long as they can have continued access (per their traditional rights). The Pokomo, on the other hand, regard the TRPNR as their ancestral land which was alienated from them illegally, and which should be degazetted and retumed to their ownership for agricultural use (see next section). KWS' relationship with the Wardei and Orma has therefore been fairly positive, whereas its relationship with the Pokomo has often been confrontational. 5. As with agriculturalist and pastoralist groups all over the world, there are long-standing conflicts and suspicions between these two main groups. In the TRPNR area, these have been exacerbated in recent years by high levels of violent banditry perpetrated to a large extent by Somalis ('shiftas"), whom the Pokomo relate closely to the Wardei and Orma. Because the Pokomo community has the greatest direct impact on the reserve and presented the main obstacle to the project, they became the main focus of KWS' negotiation efforts. The Pokomos do not consider the pastoralists to be legitimate stakeholders in the project and regard them as interlopers with no rights to the area (a common agriculturalist view of pastoralists14.) 14 In some of their formal communications to KWS and the Bank, Pokomo spokespeople insist that they are the only true "indigenous" people in the area, whereas in fact the pastoralists almost certainly preceded them there.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 3 of 11 KWS and the Bank did not share this view, but had to work around it to ensure that the pastoralists' views and needs were addressed. For example, the Pokomo initially refused to have the pastoralists represented on the Joint Reserve Management Committee (JRMC), forcing KWS to meet and maintain the dialogue separately with the two groups15. The Pokomos also demanded (and eventually got) the replacement of the TRPNR Warden, an ethnic Somali, despite the fact that he was recognized to be doing a good job. 6. There are also strong divisions within the Pokomo community itself, both with respect to segregation into two tribal sub-groups (centered on Gwano and Ndera sublocations), and as a result of individuals working to build personal political power bases. This made it very difficult for KWS to negotiate with "the Pokomo community," as there was no unified community perspective or agenda, nor any set of agreed representatives for the entire group. Individual villages also frequently designated new representatives from one meeting to the next. At any one time, the stated positions of various community sub-groups towards the project ranged from enthusiastic endorsement to vehement opposition. While the situation has now stabilized to some extent, with the current representatives of all 9 villages having declared their support for the project, there is no doubt that the situation will continue to be fluid. (This was the reason for adopting a "phased" approach to implementation of the community development component, i.e. beginning to work directly with community sub-groups that demonstrate a firm and effective commitment to the project objectives, while maintaining dialogue with any not yet vwilling to do so). 7. Local politics, particularly in relation to the highly sensitive issue of land rights, created another major problem as individuals and institutions jockeyed for position and influence. Various community leaders used the reserve and the proposed project as a plafform to gain local political support, for example by publicly presenting a series of popular but unrealistic demands to KWS (e.g., that the ownership of the reserve should be transferred to the Ndera community, along with the Idassa Godana group ranch; and that the project should fund the paving of all roads in the area). The Tana River District Council created confusion, problems and delays by alternately supporting and opposing KWS and the project, by taking the position that project funds should go to the Council because it is the legal owner of the reserve, and by tying their cooperation to a demand that KWS honor a much earlier committment by WCMD to provide compensation for the conversion 5 Community leaders in Gwano and Ndera Sub-locations established respective "Reserve Management Committees" around 1991, to serve as a forum to present their demands to KWS (including the right to manage the reserve themselves). Since then, KWS has persuaded them to merge into one joint committee and to establish this JRMC as the Pokomo community's representative body for discussion and negotiation of reserve- and project-related issues. In November, 1995, the Pokomos agreed to allow a Wardei representative from the Hara village to sit on the committee.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 4 of 11 of the Kora National Reserve (also in Tana River District) to a National Park16. The District Administration (i.e., the local arm of the Office of the President), also presented an ambiguous position, possibly because some individuals may have a personal stake in the land issues. History of the TRPNR 8. The TRPNR was gazetted as a National Reserve in 1976 by the Tana River District Council, at the urging of KWS' predecessor, the Wildife Conservation and Management Department (WCMD). The WCMD's objective was to protect two endangered primates (the Tana River Mangabey and the T.R. Red Colobus). The District government's interest was in receiving various direct and indirect benefits, including a share of tourism revenues, which WCMD indicated would be forthcoming following the gazettement'7. Minutes of District Council meetings at the time indicate that the proposal was hotly debated, with a substantial part of the local community opposed, but (to a lay person) it seems that the final decision to gazette was made in accordance with the existing law. Nevertheless many people came to believe that the gazettement was illegal, and six members of the JRMC initiated a lawsuit against the District Council, the Attomey General and KWS, in an effort to have the gazettement revoked and the land revert to members of the local community' . They have been waiting for more than two years for the court to hear the case, however, and most of the plaintiffs have now indicated they would be willing to drop the suit if KWS would pay their accumulated legal fees. 9. Following the gazettement in 1976, the WCMD took over management of the TRPNR for several years, but then virtually abandoned it in the early 1980's. While habitation or cultivation inside a National Reserve is illegal (and the Wardei did move Hara village outside the reserve as required), many of the Pokomo did not vacate the area and were not forced to do so. In fact, during the 1980's a substantial portion of additional forest area was bumed and cleared for agriculture. KWS restored a management presence in 1990, greatly limiting further encroachment and raising the possibility that the Pokomos might be evicted from the reserve. While KWS' enforcement methods were recognized to be less harsh than WCMD's had been, and many people appreciated KWS' effectiveness in reducing banditry in the area, there was inevitably resentment and resistance to this intensified enforcement, which interfered with the virtually unlimited access to the reserve that they had come to enjoy. 16 There was debate as to whether such a committment had actually been made, but KWS finally settled the dispute in November, 1994, by giving the Council Kshs 1.6 million. 17 These benefits have not materialized, due in part to the high levels of insecurity which led to the closing of the small tourist lodge that was established. The proposed GEF project could be seen as the first real fulfillment of the anticipated benefits to the local community of establishing the reserve. s Note: it is not actually certain (and perhaps even unlikely) that, should the gazettement be reversed, the land would then revert to the local community either collectively or individually.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 5 of 11 10. This checkered history of the TRPNR accounts for much of the negative reception the proposed GEF project has received from much of the local Pokomo community. The attitude presented by community spokespeople can be summarized as: "we don't want the reserve, so we won't accept any project aimed at maintaining the reserve, and we certainly won't participate in discussions regarding management of the reserve." People willing to cooperate with KWS in any way (e.g. visiting potential relocation sites or accepting assistance for micro-projects) were regarded as traitors and pressured to stop. This resentment was stoked by the perception (frequently expounded upon by local political leaders) that the government (KWS) "cares more about monkeys than about the people." The promise of project funding for community development was not enough to alter this stance, at least on the part of community leaders and members who presumably expected to receive title to reserve land once it had been degazetted (others, who may not have shared that expectation, were more receptive in private, but were not willing or able to contradict these leaders publicly). One of KWS' objectives during project preparation was therefore to persuade community members that the TRPNR was here to stay, with or without the GEF project. Some PPA funds were therefore used to strengthen KWS' management capacity, to demonstrate the commitment to maintain and protect the reserve. A turning point in community attitude came when the plaintiffs in the lawsuit finally became convinced that their quest to have the reserve degazetted would not succeed. Following this, the substantial benefits that the project would bring to the impoverished community finally became the focus of attention. Resettlement 11. A "Project Viability Assessment" exercise, carried out by IUCN on behalf of KWS early in project preparation, concluded that the long-term prospects of the endangered primates and the TRPNR ecosystem would be greatly enhanced by removing the people living and/or cultivating inside the reserve. This conclusion was challenged by some critics of the project, although (at least in the view of those involved in project preparation), they failed to produce data or convincing arguments to support their position that this type of usage could be ecologically sustainable'9. Based on the PVA, the project proposal initially included a component for resettlement, to be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's Operation Directive on involuntary resettlement. 12. The results of this were two-fold. First, the fear of eviction greatly exacerbated local community hostility and resistance to KWS and to the project, as productive agricultural land in the area is very scarce and land security is the single greatest concern of the Pokomo community. (The fact that a number of people were returnees from the failed Bura irrigation scheme created even greater sensitivies and suspicions about resettlement). Furthermore, as explained above, they considered the reserve to be their ancestral land which had been illegally alienated from them. Second, the resettlement proposal triggered strong and well-publicised attacks against the project by some outside 19 See Annex 3 on Reserve Management.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 6 of 11 parties, including a few intemational and Kenyan NGOs, UTNDP and UNEP. These critics tended to present themselves as champions of (in some cases apparently as self-appointed spokesmen for) the "indigenous people," i.e. the Pokomos (usually ignoring the pastoralists). Some of these critics explicitly indicated that they were making the Tana River project a cause celebre within their broader agenda of demonstrating that the Bank is insensitive to the interests of indigenous peoples and unfit to administer the GEF. These attacks in tum fueled debate within the GOK, the Bank and the GEF as to whether the project was ill-advised, or at least too controversial. 13. In the face of this controversy the idea of forced relocation was soon dropped from the project, and KWS agreed not to evict people from the reserve, at least during the life of the GEF project. Instead, the project would address the problem of human impact in two ways: (1) by providing financial incentives and direct assistance to encourage people to relocate voluntarily, and (2) by supporting research to determine whether or not the PVA's conclusions were correct, i.e. that removal of all inhabitants was essential for the reserve's long-term survival. Initially, however, KWS reserved the right to evict people from the reserve after the project ended if the research indicated this was necessary to maintain its ecological integrity and biodiversity value. 14. For a variety of reasons (including general suspicion of the Bank and KWS and the continued possibility of future eviction), community members and the extemal critics apparently did not understand or believe that involuntary resettlement was no longer being considered under the project. The attacks in the national and intemational media continued (specifically citing involuntary resettlement), which served to strengthen local resolve to reject the proposed project. At a meeting with community representatives in November, 1994, the new KWS Director confirmed in writing that no one currently living or cultivating inside the TRPNR would ever be evicted. In exchange, the community leaders confirmed their understanding and agreement that no further expansion of the cultivated area would be allowed. This seems to have put the issue of involuntary resettlement to rest, at least from the perspective of the local community, although possibly not in the view of some extemal critics. NGO Capacity and Role 15. The World Bank and other large donor agencies usually rely heavily on local (or local branches of international) NGOs to liaise with local communities and coordinate community participation in project development and preparation. This is on the basis that these NGOs have comparative advantages, including a substantial local field presence (often over a period of many years), the ability to work effectively on a small scale, and the trust of community members. Unfortunately, there are very few NGOs with the necessary presence and capacity in the TRPNR area to undertake this role, and  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 7 of 11 this represented an important constraint to project preparation, particularly in view of the suspicion with which KWS was viewed by many community members. KWS did collaborate with the two organizations with active local field programs, i.e. CARE and YWCA (CARE carried out the main socio-economic survey, and YWCA served as a channel for PPA support to local women's groups). Several other national and international NGOs pressed for a role in project preparation, on the basis that they had an interest in the area, but (in the view of KWS and the Bank's Task Manager) failed to offer concrete proposals or to demonstrate that they had the relevant capacity or community support. KWS and the Bank maintained a dialogue with these groups and invited their input at an advisory and consultative level, but this failed to satisfy some of the parties, who felt that they should have had a more central role. This inevitably added to the antagonism directed toward the project by some of the NGO community. III. Actions to Promote Community Participation In Project Preparation20 16. Despite the suspicion and controversy described above, one of the main objectives of the proposed project has always been to help address the needs of the local communities in this very underdeveloped area, and enable them to benefit from the reserve as a long-term resource. Project preparation therefore included studies and surveys to identify patterns of community resource use and developmental needs, consultations with the community leaders and members, and a limited amount of immediate assistance for community development projects to demonstrate goodwill and to overcome the cynicism that people had understandably developed as a result of past promises which had never been fulfilled. 17. Over the past several years, KWS' objective has been to obtain the participation of the communities around the TRPNR in two areas: (1) preparation of the proposed GEF project, and (2) reserve management, particularly decisions relating to access to land and to plant, animal and water resources. In reserve management, the land issue has greatly dominated KWS' interactions with the Pokomo, whereas the pastoralists' main concern is maintaining watering and grazing rights (in this respect, they view the Pokomos as at least as much of a threat as they do KWS). KWS has tried to separate the two aspects on the grounds that the project may or may not come about, while its general policy is to involve ocal communities in management of all parks and reserves. For the Pokomo, however, the project and reserve management aspects were inseparable, as they insisted for a long time that issues of the management (in fact the very existence) of the reserve must be resolved before they were prepared to discuss the project. The pastoralists have unfortunately been the losers, in that they have wanted the project from the beginning but seen it delayed for years due to the Pokomos' resistance, while the Pokomos' concems over land security and direct utilization of reserve resources 20 For a discussion of measures to promote community participation in project implementation, see Annex 4.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 8 of II (e.g. harvesting mature forest trees for canoes) have also greatly overshadowed the pastoralists' concerns over water and grazing access. Socio-economic surveys 18. Two main surveys were carried out under the PPF: a general socio-economic survey by CARE/Kenya in December, 1991, and a survey of agricultural and livestock activity and holdings in the area, carried out by local District officers in January, 1993. There were also some targetted studies, such as one on mango marketing aimed at identifying ways to increase revenues from this main local cash crop (currently the producers earn very little because transporters charge high rates and flooding often prevents a large part of the harvest from reaching markets). These surveys provided important information on basic socio-economic indicators, womens' activities and needs, development needs and aspirations. They also provide some baseline for monitoring and evaluating project impacts, although the information will need to be updated. Community Consultations 19. Efforts at direct community consultation took five major forms: (1) posting of a Community Wildlife Officer at TRPNR21, and ensuring that the Warden treated community relations as an important part of his responsibilities; (2) encouraging the formation of a "Joint Reserve Management Committee (JRMC)22 to represent the community in negotiations with KWS, (3) a series of formal community meetings between with KWS, often including the Director and the Assistant Director/ Community Wildlife Service (minutes available on request inspection)23, (4) interviews with leaders and community members during several site visits by anthropologists associated with World Bank missions, and (5) organizing trips and site visits of various community leaders and members. In addition, a number of community sub-groups presented KWS with statements, proposed "Memoranda of Understanding," etc., at various times during the past few years, outlining their perspective and/or demands. 21 Community relations and the momentum of project preparation suffered significantly during a period when no CWO was present. 22 Initially named the Joint Consultative Committee at the insistence of community members, who rejected the idea of participating in the management of the reserve. 23 For example: an initiating workshop in July, 1992, a District/Sub-county meeting in October, 1992, the "Tana Action Planning Workshop" in November, 1992, and numerous JRMC meetings from 1993-1995.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 9 of I 1 20. As discussed above, these efforts at consultation were greatly complicated by the prevailing negative attitude to the reserve and the project. People were reluctant to participate in these consultative activities, or used them primarily as a forum to reiterate the position that the reserve should be degazetted and KWS should stop "harassing them" (i.e. arresting individuals for burning the forest or poaching) or to present lists of demands. At the same time, however, many community members did recognize that the project offered the prospect of a substantial inflow of development assistance which they were unlikely to get from any other source, and they were not entirely willing to dismiss that prospect on the hope that the reserve might be degazetted. In addition, while KWS' reserve enforcement actions were resented, KWS (assisted by donor funding under the Protected Areas and Wildlife Service project) was simultaneously providing much-needed and appreciated security services which the Administrative Police were unable to offer. 21. This ambivalence resulted in a long period during which the public position, as expressed at formal meetings by designated community leaders, was regularly contradicted by individuals or sub- groups in informal settings. For example, on one noteable occasion, a World Bank pre-appraisal mission was told by spokesmen at a community meeting to leave and not come back, but immediately afterward (during the on-site lunch provided by KWS), community elders approached mission members and told them not to take this position seriously. Similarly, Bank anthropologists who interviewed community members at regular intervals found great diversity of opinion, with many individuals and sub-groups interested in cooperating but unwilling or unable to contradict the leadership in public. In another example, one sub-group of about 170 people from Kitere village indicated that they were interested in relocating if KWS could assist them to get title to land outside the reserve and to develop it (e.g. housing and small-scale irrigation). KWS arranged for representatives of the group to visit several potential relocation sites, but the trip was cancelled at the last minute as the individuals involved apparently decided (or were persuaded by others) that this would amount to betraying the broader community by "buckling under" to KWS. 22. It is greatly to the credit of the KWS wardens and CWOs that they were able to navigate these treacherous waters and maintain an open channel of communication, which eventually bore fruit as the opposition to the project gradually eroded and a more positive attitude developed. Beginning in late 1994, the situation finally reached a point at which serious consultation could take place regarding the design of the project, particularly the Community Development and Reserve Management components, and community-based implementation mechanisms. While a great deal has been accomplished since that time, enabling the project to take shape, the problems of intra-community conflicts and individual interests and influence have not disappeared. For example, the establishment of the JRMC was undeniably an essential step in enabling project preparation to proceed, but there are still unresolved issues regarding how the members of the Committee are selected and what role it should play in project implementation.  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 10 of II Pilot Community Assistance Projects 23. One approach KWS took to reduce community suspicion and hostility, and to encourage those sub-groups willing to cooperate with project preparation, was to offer some funding for small community projects as a demonstration of commitment and goodwill and to identify mechanisms for implementing the proposed Community Development component. As with the community consultation efforts, this approach was to a considerable extent undermined by the prevailing antagonism and the local political situation. Several sub-groups, notably several women's groups, initially submitted proposals and even received small grants (e.g. for repair of a boat), but then in most cases withdrew from these activities, almost certainly due to local pressure or possibly even intimidation. The result, unfortunately, was that very little of the money budgeted for this purpose was used, and the balance of $176,000 was returned to the Global Environment Trust when the Project Preparation Grant was closed in 1994. IV. The "Catch-22" of Participatory Project Preparation 24. Finally, it is worth noting that KWS' efforts to encourage the community itself to identify specific projects and activities to be funded under the Community Development component were largely unsuccessful, despite extensive efforts on the part of the successive CWOs and the consultant appointed by KWS to prepare the component. In part because of the cynicism generated by too many empty promises in the past, and in part because they were simply not accustomed to this approach, community members largely refused to enter into this type of "open-ended" dsicussion. Their attitude may be summarized as: "first tell us what you're going to do for us, then show us you actually have the money ready to do it, and then we'll talk." Insistence on the part of the consultant and the CWO that they take the initiative by proposing projects was taken as evidence of a lack of seriousness on the part of KWS-i.e., why should we believe you're committed to doing something for us if you can't even tell us what it is? The problem was complicated by the fact that when some leaders did put proposals to KWS, these usually amounted to wishlists that were both unrealistic in scope and often seemed to reflect the priorities of those individuals rather than the broader community. KWS could not accept these, fueling the conviction that this "participatory approach" was a sham. From the perspective of project preparation, the situtation represented something of a "Catch-22": the Bank insisted the project could not be appraised unless KWS could demonstrate that the community had participated in its preparation, while the community declined to participate until KWS could confirm that the money was available (i.e. the project was already approved).  ANNEX 5 Community Participation in Project Preparation Page 11 of 11 25. An acceptable compromise was eventually reached, whereby KWS prepared a community component including illustrative micro-projects and activities, based on information from socio-economic surveys and general community consultations (drawing as much as possible on the "wish-lists" presented by various sub-groups). In fact, however, the actual projects to be funded will be determined through a process of "Participatory Rurual Appraisal" (PRA) workshops carried out during the first year of the project in each village. These will result in "Village Action Plans" which will serve as the framework for selecting and approving individual mnicro-projects proposed by community groups within the respective villages. A similar approach of putting in place appropriate processes was followed with respect to reserve management: it has not been possible to resolve the many issues involved (particularly access to land and to reserve resources) prior to approval of the project. What has been accomplished during the preparation phase has been to establish the JRMC and agree on its initial composition, terms of reference and operational modalities. On the surface, this seems a modest accomplishment, but in fact it is a major achievement in view of the difficulties involved in reaching this stage.  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 1 of 9 PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE The overall function of the Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be to advise on policy matters concerning the Tana GEF Project and to ensure effective and smooth implementation of the Project by KWS and other actors. MEMBERS 1. Director, KWS - Chairman 2. Deputy Director, Wildlife Service 3. Deputy Director, Community Wildlife Service 4. Assistant Director, Community Wildlife Service 5. Tana GEF Coordinator (Secretary) 6. Warden, Tana River Primate National Reserve 7. District Development Officer 8. Senior Research Scientist 9. Representative - National Museums of Kenya (NMK) 10. Representative - East African Wild Life Society (EAWLS)* 11. Representative - African Centre for Conservation* 12. Representative - Tana and Athi Development Authority (TARDA) 13. Representative - National Environment Secretariat Other members may be co-opted as and when needed *The conservation organizations represented on the PSC may change over time.  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 2 of 9 MEETINGS (1) The Committee shall meet at least (quarterly) every year during the project period and the Chairman may convene a special meeting at any time and place. (2) A simple majority of the members of the PSC shall constitute a quorum. (3) Procedure governing meetings and voting at the meeting shall be such as may be prescribed by the Director of KWS. (4) Minutes of the proceedings of every meeting shall be regularly entered and records kept by the secretary or appropriate officer of the committee. SUBCOMMITTEES The Committee may appoint such Sub-Committee(s) whether of its own members or otherwise, as may be necessary, but no decision of such Sub-Committee(s) may be effective unless approved by the PSC. TENURE OF OFFICE The tenure of office, disqualification, rotation and filling of vacancies of members of the PSC shall be done annually. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE TO: (1) Act as the executive board to oversee project management and provide guidance and supervision to all. (2) Ensure close collaboration between all agencies concerned for efficient execution of the Project. (3) Interview and recommend staff for appointment. (4) Review project progress and monitoring and evaluation. (5) Approve the proposed Annual Workplan from each component. (6) Resolve issues in project implementation. (7) Approve NGO and other source contracts  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 3 of 9 SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITrEE The Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) of the Tana Global Environment Facility (GEF) Project will advise on all aspects of the Research and Monitoring Component of the Tana River GEF project. It will offer guidance on the overall co-ordination of the project by: * reviewing and approving the overall research program and individual research proposals; * prioritsing and direct research projects within the overall project framework; * reviewing the research proposal budgets. Other duties include: * monitoring and evaluation of the programme through research direction, review workplans, progress reports and any other outputs; * identifying areas of consultancy. MEMBERS: 1. Deputy Director - Research and Planning - KWS Chairman 2. Senior Research Scientist - Secretary 3. Tana GEF Co-ordinator - KWS 4. Forest Co-ordinator 5. Wetland Co-ordinator 6 & 7. Two Representatives - National Museums of Kenya (NMK) 8. Representative - Institute of Primate Research (IPR) 9. Representative - Department of Resource Survey and Remote Sensing (DRSRS) * Other members will be co-opted if need be. The Chairman of the SAC will sit on the Project Steering Committee to ensure consistency and harmony with the overall project objectives.  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 4 of 9 MEETINGS (1) The subcommittee will meet at least quarterly every year during project period. (2) Minutes of the proceedings at every meeting will be recorded by the Secretary. (3) The SAC may appoint committees, constituted in a manner determined by it, for exercising and performing durites on its behalf  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 5 of 9 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE There shall be a CAC for the Tana GEF project, reporting to the Project Steering Commnittee. The overall function of the CAC is to advise on the implementation of community component of the GEF project. FUNCTIONS The broad TOR for the CAC include: 1. Advise on overall principles and approaches of the community development component, particularly the integration with other components and the microprojects aspects. 2. Advise on linkages of microprojects to conservation objectives. 3. Oversee and monitoring and evaluation of microprojects implementation and progress and impacts of the community development component. MEMBERS Assistant Director - Community Wildlife Service - Chairman Community Development Specialist (CDS) - Secretary Community Wildlife Officer Tana River Project Coordinator Representatives of up to three NGOs active in community conservation and/or community development in Kenya (with preference to those with active presence in the project area). MEETINGS 1. The Committee shall meet at least quarterly every year during project period and the Chairman may convene a special meeting at any time and place. 2. A simple majority of the members of the CAC shall constitute a quorum.  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 6 of 9 3. Procedure goveming meetings and voting at the meeting shall be such as may be prescribed by the Director of KWS. 4. Minutes of the proceedings of every meeting shall be regularly entered and records kept by the Secretary of appropriate office of the committee and made available to the Project Steering Committee. SUBCOMMITTEES 1 The Committee may appoint such sub-committee(s) whether of its own members or otherwise, as may be necessary, but no decision of such sub-committee(s) may be effective unless approved by the CAC. TENURE OF OFFICE The tenure of office, disqualifications, rotation and filing of vacancies of members of the CAC shall be done annually.  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 7 of 9 THE JOINT RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (JRMC) According to the provisions of the Wildlife Act Cap 376 (1989) and with approval of the Director of KWS, a Joint Reserve Management Committee (JRMC) has been established for the TRPNR. The functions of the JRMC is mainly advisory on matters pertaining to the management and conservation of TRPNR with a limited decision-making mandate. MEMBERS The Committee shall consist of: (a) KWS Representatives - Warden, TRPNR - District Warden - Community Wildlife Officer (CWO) (b) The District Commissioner (c) The Clerk to the Tana River County Council (d) The Chairman to TRCC (e) The Councilors of Ndera and Gwano Locations (f) Elected representatives of the beneficiary communities: ten each from Ndera and Gwano locations, of which at least two shall be women. (g) Chiefs of the two locations Only the twenty elected community representatives (f) will be voting members, while the remainder are ex-officio. CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY (1) The Chairman and Secretary of the JRMC shall be elected from among the members.  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 8 of 9 (2) The members shall elect annually a Deputy Chairman. (3) If the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman are absent from the meeting, the members present at the meeting shall elect one of themselves to preside at the meeting. TENURE OF OFFICE The tenure of office, disqualification, rotation and filing of vacancies of members of JRMC shall be done at least annually. MEETINGS (1) The Chairman of the JRMC shall convene a meeting once every three months or as necessary and the Committee shall meet in TRPNR or a place he or she directs. (2) Minutes of the proceedings at every meeting shall be entered in books and kept for the purpose by the Secretary or other appropriate officer of the Committee. (3) A simple majority of the voting members of the JRMC shall constitute a quorum. (4) The procedure governing meetings and voting at such meetings shall be formulated by JRMC and approved by KWS. (5) The JRMC may appoint committees, constituted in such manner as it may determine, for exercising and performing on behalf of the Committee all or any powers conferred upon the Committee. FUNCTIONS OF JRMC The functions JRMC shall be advisory with limited decision making powers over resource use issues. Its broad terms of reference include: 1. Conflict resolution especially pertaining to land and resource utilization and access. 2. Provide a forum for community participation in decision-making processes in the management of the Reserve. 3. Approve community agreements which impact the entire reserve area in order to create linkages between GEF Project benefits and to conservation goals.  ANNEX 6 Terms of Reference for Steering and Advisory Committees Page 9 of 9 4. At least 4 voting members to participate in KWS planning workshops and other fora concerning preparation of the TRNPR management plan. 5. Formulate by-laws to guarantee equitable representation of the local communities who traditionally rely on Reserve resources. 6. Participate in formulating a Memorandum of Understanding for conflict resolution.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 1 of 13 Terms Of Reference for Proiect Coordinator Reporting directly to Deputy Director Research and Planning, the Project Co-ordinator will head the project co-ordination unit (PCU) supported by an Accounts Officer and a Secretary. The Project Co-ordinator will plan, direct and co-ordinate project activities according to policies laid down by the Project Steering Committee of KWS, as well as against specific project targets and goals. His or her responsibilities include the following: * Co-ordinating, administering and supervising project implementation. Reviewing anual work plans and budgets from various components. * Liaising with collaborating agencies (e.g. NMK, TARDA, World Bank and Provincial Administration) and with other departments within KWS (Planning, Research, Community, Security, Parks and Reserves, Legal, Donor Liaison, Personnel, Finances) to ensure effective implementation. * Planning for mid-term and final project review. * Organizing Project Steering Commnittee and other meetings at Headquarters and in the field. * Co-ordinating production of various project documents. * Compiling the annual work-plan. * Preparing project progress reports. * Co-ordinating for World Bank supervision missions and visits by other individuals or institutions with the fields activities co-ordinator. * Serving as Secretary for the PSC meetings. * Motivating and monitoring other members of the GEF team, and providing administrative supervision for the other project staff. * Monitoring project input, budgetary trends and lessens learned. * Making recommendations for project modifications.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 2 of 13 Qualifications and Experience The candidate should possess an advanced degree from an accredited university in Social or Natural Resources Sciences, with excellent analytical and administrative skills and solid writing and communication abilities. He or she should have proven capability for intellectual and operational leadership and at least seven years experience in project management, supervising a budget of at least US$2 million and including experience in the financial and procurement procedures of bilateral or multilateral agencies, as well as familiarity with financial and procurement procedures of the GOK.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 3 of 13 Terms of Reference for Project Accountant Reporting to the Project Co-ordinator, the Accounts Officer is responsible for compiling expenditure returns and maintaining fixed-assets register for the GEF Accounts according to KWS and World Bank guidelines. Specific duties and responsibilities include: * Preparing monthly, quarterly and annual returns on expenditure, maintaining project accounts for auditing and handling related audit queries. * Maintaining payments and contractors registers and documents supporting disbursements under Statement of Expense modality. * Supervising the updating of vote sheets. * Checking for appropriateness of payment vouchers and documentation, preparation of disbursement and reimbursement requests, tracking status and replenishment of the Special Account Qualifications and Experience Minimum B. Comm degree (accounting option) of CPA II with four years relevant experience in donor funded projects within a GOK ministry.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 4 of 13 Terms of Reference for Senior Research Scientist Reporting directly to the Deputy Director, Research and Planning, the Senior Research Scientist will be recruited at intemational level if necessary, with preference given to Kenyan nationals of intemational reputation. The responsibilities include: * Co-ordination of research and monitoring, and implementation of programmes set by Project Steering Committee (PSC) and Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), and working with these committees to ensure the relevance of the research program to TRPNR management needs. * Prepare semi-annual and annual sumaries of the status of individual research studies for the PSC and STAC. * Integrate the research findings from all studies of biological, sociological and economical nature. Identify areas that require inquiry to complete a multiple perspectives approach to research. Direct, integrate and guide the research and results towards application in management. Supervise and guide any students undertaking studies, graduate and/or otherwise in the project. Organise and help in facilitating seminars, workshops and symposiums to disseminate research findings. Schedule meetings of the SAC for approval. Provide guidance, editorial and otherwise in publication of papers, thesis and dissertations emanating from the research and monitoring programme. Provide liaison between KWS, PSC and STAC with intemational and local researchers, and NGO's involved with research and monitoring. Participate and represent the STAC in the PSC. Other specific duties include: * Developing a plan of action to implement relevant research projects and analysing and interpreting the research data. * Supervising and training research scientists and technicians. * Representing and training research scientists and tenchnicians. * Representing the Research and Planning Department in meetings, seminars and workshops relating to this project. * Preparing annual work plans.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 5 of 13 Providing input on improving research and data management methodologies. Conduting performance appraisal and development review, identify training needs relating to implementation of this project component, and making appropriate recommendation and taking follow-up action. Qualitifactions and Experience The candidate will possess a PhD with: * A productive research record in Afro-tropical ecology. * Experience in working in a developing country within a local community setting. * Experience in working with funded projects, administration and working as a member of a team. The candidate should be a broad-based scientist familiar with biological, sociological administravtie, legal and economic research issues related to biodiversity and conservation. He or she should be able to work with multiple perspectives and direct, integrate and guide research findings towards application in management and community development to meet project objectives. The candidate should be a good communicator, teach and leader - interested first and foremost in the success of the project and in the development of the others. He or she should be skilleed in both quantitative as well as descriptive approaches towards research. Consequently, should be conversant and able to work with computers e.g. spreadsheets, statistics, GIS etc. Finally, he or she should be ready to spend extended periods of time in the field in TRPNR.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 6 of 13 Terms of Reference For Field Activities Co-ordinator Reporting to Project Co-ordinator, this is a demanding position requiring one to spend extensive time in the field to give the necessary logistical support and co-ordination with field personnel (Warden, WPU, Community Wildlife Officer, Researchers and personnel associated with project) and co-ordinate with HQ. His/her main responsibility is co-ordination of logistics. Responsibilities include: 1. Co-ordinate field logistics and all field research activities including: - Biodiversity surveys - Ethnobiological studies - Hydrological studies - Forest restoration and agroforestry 2. Responsible for logistical co-ordination on the ground including: - Camp running and management - Supervision and co-ordination of all field personnel - Vehicle maintenance and co-ordination - Recomend training needs for field based staff - Plan for and facilitate supervision missions and other visits, together with the Project Co-ordinator Qualifications and Experience A degree in natural science preferred with at least four (4) years experience field activities support, including supervisory and logistical experience and knowledge of procurement and budgetary procedures. Preference will be given to people with relevant experience in the TRNPR who are willing to live in the field.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 7 of 13 Terms of Reference for Data Analyst Reporting to the Project Co-ordinator and KWS Computer Manager, this person is expected to: * Set standards for the gathering, input, analysis and modelling of the data that will be generated by the GEF Project to ensure consistency in all studies within the project and with other biodivesity studies in the region in general and KWS in particular. * Design appropriate data structures for capturing all the data that will be generated by the GEF Project to esnure consistency in all studies within the project and with other biodiversity studies in the region in general and KWS in particular. * lHarmonise the data effort for the whole project. In particular ensure the compatibility of data gathered by all the many sub-projects. Further, ensure the compatibility of this data with other data sets at KWS and those of institutions that collaborate closely with KWS (e.g. NMK, DRSRS, Forestry Department and KEFRI). * Undertake standard and GIS analysis on the data generated. * Liaise with the many researchers gathering data and advice them on any statistical and other analysis that they might want to undertake on their own. Further, listen carefully to their data needs and use the information so gathered to enrich the whole data effort. * Document thoroughly all the data analysis work done. Further, document any work done that is of importance from a data perspective. * Publish tabular and map reports as required for purposes of publication and dissemination. * DContribute to development and implementation of the monitoring and evaluation program for the project, by ensuring identification and collection of appropriate data. * Address any other ad-hoc data request emanating from those involved in the project. Qualifications and Experience The ideal candidate should have a Bsc in Computer Science, Maths and Statistics or equivalent. In addition the candidate should have a minimum of five years active involvement in database design, statistical analysis, GIS and remote sensing work. This work should have been undertaken in the area of natural resources management. The Data Analyst's job is extremely demanding and calls for working long hours with dedication and determination.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 8 of 13 Terms of Reference For Community Development Specialist Stationed half time in Nairobi and half-time in Tana River, the CDS will report to the Assistant Direction, Community Wildlife Service. He or she will be responsible for overseeing the activities of the Community Wildlife Officer and community mobilizers, and will ensure that implementation of the Research and Management components take community concerns into account. Other responsibilities include: * to facilitate and monitor initial research activities concerning reserve use (ethnobiology, impact of domestic animals on ecosystem, etc.); * to hire, train and supervise community field staff; * to liase with communites, together with CWO; * to organize the launch workshop and community participation in other workshops (research, annual planning, etc.); * to oversee planning and implementation of PRA and other participatory exercises, ensuring that all relevant KWS HQ staff attend one each; * to plan and facilitate exchange visits of community members to other communities participating in the CWP programme; * to liase with NGOs and other development actors whose objectives complement the project; to oversee the various training programmes and microproj ects developed for the communities and approve of microproject proposals; * to supervise and monitor procurement and other administrative procedures; * to assist in the development of project and impact monitoring and in preparing evaluations; * to advise on the operation of the JRMC. Qualifications and Experience Degree from a recognized university and at least 5 years experience in community development work. Proven administrative and managerial skills including writing in English. Experience pastoralist or Pokomo communities and knowledge of local languages would be a plus.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 9 of 13 Terms Of Reference For Community Wildlife Officer 24 Stationed in Tana River and reporting to the Community Development Specialist under the Assistant Director of the Community Wildlife Program, the CWO shall oversee planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the community component in Tana River. Duties include: * identifying, training, supervising and assisting Community Mobilizers; * raising awareness among local communities of their own stake in conservation and effectively communicating KWS's policies and objectives; * organizing demonstration conservation projects and building support among community members for such activities; * overseeing the flow of funds involved in the implementation of microprojects, conservation projects, and training programmes at the district level. * promoting collaboration beween KWS, communities and the various development actors in the district (e.g. overseeing the contracting of NGOs in implementation, finding opportunities for collaboration). serving as a link between KWS and the Joint Reserve Management Committee; * mobilizing villages through the PRA process, organizing technical support required for microproject application and preparation, approving and supervising the implementation of a potentially large number of microprojects; * overseeing the implementation of other workshops or training programmes; * together with the CDS and other KWS officers, negotiate microproject agreements with community groups undertaking microprojects funded by the project * advising communities on how to link microprojects to the broader conservation goals of the GEF project; 24 This is a regular KWS staff position, but the project will provide supplementary allowances.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 10 of 13 Qualifications and Experience Minimum advanced degree in social or natural sciences and three years experience in community development. Excellent oral and written communication skills, experience with participatory training techniques and ability to establish rapport with diverse social groups. Demonstrated leadership abilities and high level or reliability and financial accountability. Knowledge of local languages would be an advantage.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 11 of 13 Terms Of Reference for Community Mobilizers (Two Positions) Reporting to the Community Widlife Officer, these individuals would work closely with local villages to facilitate the PRA and participatory microproject implementation. Their positions would be funded for at least the first two years of the project. Duties include: Informing villages of the project objectives and opportunities available to their members, including the application process for microprojects; Assisting with the organization of PRA and other local workshops; Assisting with the microprojects application, implementation and monitoring and evaluation activities; Facilitating agreements made between Microproject Committees and KWS to support conservation goals Serving as liaison and facilitating communication between KWS and communities. Qualifications and Experience These individuals would ideally be from the area and would speak two or more of the local languages between them. They would have at least 0 level education and possess good oral and written communications skills. A high degree of reliability, accountability and creativity would be required.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 12 of 13 Terms Of Reference for Aaroforestrv Extension Officer Stationed within the TRNPR, implement the Agroforestry and woodlot activities, as well as other community conservation activities, and ensure collaboration between participating institutions. Other responsibilities include: * to establish linkages with other project subcomponents; * to liaise with NGO's Forest Department, KEFRI and the District Agricultureal Officers to promote joint forest extension activities; * to development project reports including final project report; * to facilitate and collaborate in field research needs which are linked to management implementation. Qualifications and Experience A degree in agroforestry or related natural resource science with preference to a M. Sc. holder. He or she should have a minimum working experience of six years in the field of agroforestry extensive work with extensive experience in natural resource management and conservation.  ANNEX 7 Terms of Reference forProject Personnel Page 13 of 13 Terms of Reference for Forest Restoration Research Officer Stationed full time at Tana River, the Forest Restoration Research Officer shall report to the Forest Conservation Co-ordinator in close liaison with the Senior Research Scientist. He or she shall be responsible for overseeing all the research activities related to forest restoration inside the Reserve. Other responsibilities includes: * to facilitate and co-ordinate applied research on forest conservation and management inside the Reserve; * to design and implement a plan on forest restoration for the Reserve; * to liaise with the Senor Research Scientist and KEFRI on tree research and management; * to identify and carryout staff training for the project; * to establish and monitor field sites and develop a data base on restoration activities on a long term basis; * liaise with the overall project sub-components, other institutions and NGOs in areas of forestry research; * to higher and supervise staff labour; * to develop reports including final project report. Qualifications A degree in forest ecology with a preference to a M.Sc. holder. He or she should have a minimum working experience of six years with related experience in research planning and natural forest management.  IBRD 27614 400OA 0V 0 40-08 4010' 40-12' 4001 A4 - '6' Vukon- I - 6' TANZANIA 1J I-48 Kipon r--' | 1K48n 40 000 4002 O 0 1 2 3 A 5 Mar AS 0 1~~~~~~~~ KILOMETERS | w J -1-50 Kachi50' MAKEE# s \AS NOR7YF5YREAJ, A 2 LIT:UHk' \ 4rBoxana 1052 I 0M,.ACHELELO EAST MCH/LELO WEST, \ FF~~~~A WEST' J 11.s \ | 1054 I ~' l5 AA'OMO NORTH' EAST " - ~~~~~~~~~tL. Lni K E N Y A \)o Jao s15 TANA RIVER PRIMATE - W - 0% 1056 NATIONAL RESERVE , ~FORESTS NRH FARMSTS / v \ MNNOARZrlHNt ~tte _ - 7The boundaries, colors, FARMS / \ ., t <, denominations ond any ___ FLOODPLAIN I other information shown --RESERVE BOUNDARIES m My_ on thi paro d on MNA4jNl ~~~~~~~~TeWorld Bank Group RIVERS ) SOU\ . | / ) {-) \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~any judyrnent on thourZ.l 1.58' 1-58' 0 SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS otauns a any therrieor 15 or any endorsemnent 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL or =co of such --- INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES b fl boundaris. 40-000 4002' A0 A40-06' ' 80010 40-12' 40'14' JANUARY 1996   - -  IMAGING Report No: 15425 KE Type: PD @) Printed on recycled paper