1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

28/02/201

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The Chyulu Hills REDD+ project combines two government agencies, three local NGOs and four communities together under a unified banner, the Chyulu Hills Conservation Trust (CHCT). The objective is to set-up a 30-year ‘payment for ecosystem service’ scheme in the landscape. A main goal of the project is to improve grazing and livestock management to prevent further degradation of the rangeland and forest resources.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Chyulu Hills, in southern Kenya, are a volcanic mountain range approximately 100 km long, and form a central pillar of the much larger Tsavo-Amboseli ecosystem which constitutes several national parks, forest reserves and community-owned pastoral land. The emission reduction project established in 2011 under the REDD+ umbrella (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) covers 410,000 hectares of both community and public land around the hills. REDD+ offers financial incentives to developing countries to manage and use their forests responsibly. Payments are channelled through the Trust to support land users for quantifiably reducing emissions.
REDD+ creates financial value for the carbon stored in forests by offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. REDD+ goes beyond simply stopping further deforestation and forest degradation by including sustainable management and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
This area is home to 140,000 people including Maasai pastoralists to the west, and Kamba farming communities to the east. This land is widely used for livestock production; must of it under communal tenure. Recent pressures, notably increasing populations and changes in land tenure, have led to unsustainable uses of natural resources, threatening the functioning of the ecosystem, through the degradation of the rangeland and over-exploitation of forest resources. This includes cutting of trees for firewood, charcoal, uncontrolled fires, and weakening of traditional grazing management systems.
The Chyulu Hills REDD+ project aims to protect its rangeland and forest landscapes by creating an alternative income opportunity, and improving both livestock and rangeland management, while preventing the emission of over 18 million tons of carbon dioxide over the project’s 30-year lifetime.
This is the first REDD+ project in Kenya that is fully owned and managed by the local community, a vital factor in ensuring sustained impact. Through the project, land users receive financial support per hectare for maintaining or improving carbon stocks above and below ground. Previous REDD+ projects have often been criticised for not properly engaging local communities or addressing their needs.
To achieve this, the Chyulu Hills Conservation Trust (CHCT) was formed in 2015 to act as the project governing body. The Trust represents multiple stakeholders from the community, government, and local NGOs including the Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust (MMWCT), Big Life Foundation (BLF), and the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust (DSWT). The government is also represented through the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Kenya Forest Service (KFS), whose mandates include the Chyulu Hills National Park and the Kibwezi Forest Reserve. The national park is used on an informal basis by the communities for dry season grazing, although access is severely limited by water, and also by disease.
The communities are represented by four Maasai group ranches, who manage the land and its resources. These group ranches are areas of communally titled land. The three NGOs have the technical capacity to advise, provide strategic guidance and assist in implementation of the project activities. They are already involved in helping communities to develop and manage conservation areas, and to improve sustainable use of natural resources.
Proceeds from the sale of Voluntary Emission Reductions (VERs) flow through the CHCT to initiatives/projects which benefit the community and environment. Early in 2017 the first verification was completed, and shortly afterwards the first marketable carbon credits went on sale, providing income to the CHCT for protecting and improving their carbon stock.
To ensure equitable and transparent sharing of proceeds from carbon sales, a revenue allocation model was implemented to fund (i) office and project costs, (ii) discretionary sub-projects, and (iii) to provide strategic investments to counter drivers of deforestation and land degradation.
The proposed investments into the CHCT area to improve rangeland condition comprise several components. The first component is to support grazing management plans to help restore governance over resources, and ensure sustainable use. This should encourage the recovery of perennial grasses, increase grass cover, and create a heterogeneous forage base. The second focus is value addition to beef marketing through collaborative partnerships. This should encourage pastoralists to focus on management of the rangelands to support the production of higher quality cattle. In the long run this will increase revenue generation for livestock farmers, and stimulate the communities to manage their rangeland better.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Provide carbon based funding to a local community trust to protect and improve the management of the Chyulu Hills and the surrounding ecosystem.
This project aims to:
- Deliver community benefits (such as health care, school bursaries, and income generating activities).
- Enhance forest protection (through protection, management and monitoring).
- Protect biodiversity.
- Restore degraded rangelands (improved livestock management and marketing).
- Enhance local governance.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	interactive	Initial conversations were motivated by two international NGOs (Conservation International and the African Wildlife Foundation). The project partners then held a large number of community meetings under the principle of free prior and informed consent (FPIC) to develop a unified platform to begin the process of investigating a mechanism in order to create an inclusive and fair REDD+ project (mainly lead by KWF).
planning	interactive	Planning of the project activities to be carried out under the REDD+ project was undertaken through a wide consultative process led by Conservation International, via community meetings and key information interviews. These are all captured in the Project Development Document (PDD) freely available online.
implementation	interactive	Implementation of the project was spearheaded by the project partners with technical and strategic guidance from Conservation International, including the validation, verification and initial sales of carbon credits. Local communities were closely involved in the development of the revenue allocation plan, the Trust structure, and development of the project activities and work plan.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	M&E is conducted by all involved NGOs and government agencies, and coordinated by one NGO currently holding the Project Office. Community members are integral to the collection and interpretation of data during this process.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

Activities under this plan are implemented through both SLM experts and communities. The grazing management and livestock production activities originate from conversations between the communities, NGO partners and experts on rangeland management and livestock marketing and sale. These technologies are still in the early stages of development.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

A significant number of training has taken place so far. One example is training local women on grass seed bank management and farming, as well as building capacity of local scouts in wildlife data collection.

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

No

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local
• regional

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The Chyulu Hills Conservation Trust was established through this approach to bring together the two government agencies, the three local NGOs, and four community groups. The organisation is continually being strengthened with direct funding provided to the project office.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

One of the local NGOs has been appointed as in-charge of the Project Office, holding the responsibility for oversight and coordination across all partners, as well as management of the verification and audit events.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

The REDD + carbon scheme documents forest, woody cover, and soil carbon, and is the main monitoring mechanism. Monitoring of rangeland condition, such as species composition, grass quality and quantity and ground cover is undertaken to evaluate the effect of changes in grazing management and livestock marketing.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• economics / marketing
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was conducted to establish the potential of the landscape for carbon sequestration for the REDD+ scheme.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

The initial implementation of the project cost more than 1 million USD over the course of six years. This was used to build community consensus, establish trust, measure carbon stocks within the areas and obtain validation and verification under two internationally acknowledged standards (the Verified Carbon Standard, and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Implementation of the project was supported through funding by two international NGOs, and enhanced by project partners.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

The collaborative nature of the project, and the establishment of the Trust allows the community to sustain the approach due to the ongoing support of local NGOs and government. If the CHCT cannot sell Carbon Credits via the REDD+ scheme, then there will be severe limitations on the ability of the project to implement activities.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Communities are directly represented in the implementation of activities through representatives
There are clear potential financial benefits derived from the project through internal granting, community projects, and employment.
The approach will help improve the production of the rangeland and value of beef based products.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Collaborative approach to Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) which includes all the stakeholders required for successful implementation, including local representation, technical expertise, and national government agencies.
The approach tackles a range of drivers that have led to resource over exploitation and degradation, and has a clear plan and revenue allocation strategy to ensure an effective and equitable implementation of technologies to tackle these drivers.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Perceived imposition of grazing and rangeland management from NGOs, community leaders and the Trust Collaborative	Development of technologies to be implemented under this approach through the Group Ranch committees and local consultation with landowners.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Dependency on the REDD+ funding channels may lead to financial constraints if carbon credit sales do not happen.	Develop alternative financing mechanism beyond the sale of carbon credit.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information