Forest Taskforce report

Republic of Kenya
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY
A report on
FOREST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
AND LOGGING ACTIVITIES IN KENYA
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TASKFORCE TO INQUIRE INTO FOREST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
AND LOGGING ACTIVITIES IN KENYA
April 2018

Taskforce to inquire into Forest Resources Management and Logging Activities in Kenya 1
TASKFORCE TO INQUIRE INTO FOREST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND
LOGGING ACTIVITIES IN KENYA
The Cabinet Secretary
Ministry of Environment and Forestry
NIHF Building
12th Floor
NAIROBI
30th April 2018
Cabinet Secretary,
This Taskforce was appointed through Gazette Notice No. 28 dated 26 February 2018
to look into the Forest Resources Management and Logging Activities in Kenya. We
were launched on 5th March 2018 by His Excellency the Deputy President, whereupon
we embarked on our work immediately.
We have now completed our work and have the honour to present to you our Report,
which contains our findings and recommendations on Sustainable Management of
Forest Resources in Kenya.
We take this opportunity to thank you for the honour and trust you placed on us. We
also wish to express our continued loyalty and highest esteem to the people and the
Government of Kenya.
Yours

NAME POSITION SIGNATURE
1. Mrs Marion Wakanyi Kamau Chairperson
2. Ms Linda Chepkorir Ruto Munyao Member
3. Ms. Phyllis Wakiaga Member
4. Mr Christian Lambrecht Member
5. Dr Isaac P. Kalua, CBS Member
6. Mr Duncan M. Kimani Member
7. Mr Ernest Nakenya Nadome Member
8. Mr Adil Arshed Khawaja Member
9. Mr Gideon Solonka Kilakoi Member
10. Ms Faith Waguthi Waigwa Member
11. Mr Bernard M. Karicho Member
12. Mr Peter Kiria Mbugi Member
13. Mr Augustine K. Masinde, EBS Member
14. Mr David Tambo Member
15. Mr Julius Kamau Co-opted Member
16. Mr Robert Njue Co-opted Member
17. Ms Anne Cheruto Tek Co-opted Member
18. Mr Stephen M. King’uyu Joint Secretary
19. Ms Irene Kamunge Joint Secretary

TERMS OF REFERENCE
a) To determine the scale of illegal logging, destruction, degradation and
encroachment of public and community forests, water towers and other
catchment areas, as well as the associated impacts.
b) To review the procedures, qualification and conditions for licensing of saw
millers to determine their adequacy, fairness and appropriateness.
c) To review and determine the effectiveness of the monitoring and verification
procedures to ensure compliance with the license conditions.
d) To review the chain-of-custody system established by the Kenya Forest Service
through which forest products from public, community and private forests are
distributed, tracked and monitored from their origin in the forest to their end-
use, and determine their adequacy and effectiveness.
e) To review felling plans, and the associated programmes, including planting and
replanting, to determine their adequacy and effectiveness.
f) To determine the institutional and technical capacity of the Kenya Forest
Service and other agencies involved in the management of forests to enforce
compliance with forest laws and regulations.
g) To determine the effectiveness and efficiency of inter and intra-agency
collaboration amongst all agencies involved in the management of forests.
h) To review and determine the effectiveness of participatory forest management
programmes, including the operational and governance structures of
Community Forest Associations.
i) Review and analyse the valuation procedures and methods for forest stocks.
j) Audit revenue generation from forests against the investment and operational
costs.
k) To review the Forest Act (No. 34 of 2016) and other related acts to enhance
penalties for breach of the applicable laws and regulations.
l) To review the laws and regulations governing charcoal burning and trade, and
make recommendations on the need, or otherwise, to ban charcoal burning,
trade and use.
m) To make recommendations on short-term, medium-term, and long-term
actions to ensure sustainable management, restoration and protection of
forests and water catchment areas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Forest Sector is key to Kenya’s social and economic wellbeing as most of the
country’s economic sectors rely on environmental based resources for their
sustenance. The Sector contributes about Kenya Shillings 7 billion to the economy and
employs over 50,000 people directly and another 300,000 indirectly. Forest
ecosystems also enhance landscape resilience to climate change. In the country’s
water towers, forests provide environmental services that include water quality and
quantity, reduction of soil erosion, and creation of micro-climatic conditions that
maintain or improve productivity. Forests are also known to be among the most
effective sinks of greenhouse gases, which cause climate change, and hence they are
important in contributing to climate change mitigation.
Kenya’s forest cover is estimated to be about 7.4% of the total land area, which is a far
cry from the recommended global minimum of 10%. On the other hand, Kenya’s
closed canopy forest cover currently stands at about 2% of the total land area,
compared to the African average of 9.3% and a world average of 21.4 per cent. Most
of the closed canopy forests in Kenya are montane forests that are also the nation’s
water towers.
In recent years, Kenya’s forests have been depleted at an alarming rate of about 5,000
hectares per annum. This is estimated to lead to an annual reduction in water
availability of approximately 62 million cubic metres, translating to an economic loss
to the economy of over USD 19 million. The depletion has the potential to rollback
strides towards the attainment of Vision 2030 and the Government’s Big Four Agenda
of food and nutritional security, affordable and decent housing, universal healthcare
and manufacturing, if it is not urgently addressed.
It is against this background that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Forestry,
constituted a Taskforce to inquire into forest resources management and illegal
logging in the country, through Kenya Gazette Notice No. 28 dated 26th February 2018.
The Taskforce was launched by the Deputy President on 5 March 2018, and
immediately embarked on its work. The term of the Taskforce was initially thirty days,
which was later extended to 30th April 2018.
The Taskforce used different methods to collect information. It collected information
from primary and secondary sources. The Taskforce conducted desk review of
documents and reports relevant to its terms of reference. In addition, the Taskforce
conducted a series of in-depth interviews and group discussions, where appropriate,
with selected key informants and stakeholders. These included Kenya Forest Service
(KFS), saw millers, community groups, government agencies, development partners,
private sector and other civil society organisations. The Taskforce conducted several
public hearings in different parts of the country where it received representations,
memoranda and petitions from the public. In addition, the Taskforce undertook field
visits, aerial and ground-based surveys and investigations to confirm and ascertain

various stakeholders’ submissions. The data was then analysed and synthesized to
deduce findings and recommendations.
Some of the key findings of the Taskforce are summarized as follows:
 The Board and Management of the Kenya Forest Service has been unable to stem
and in some instances have directly participated in, abated, and systemized
rampant corruption and abuse of office. By so doing they have overseen wanton
destruction of our forests, have systematically executed plunder and pillaging of
our water towers and bear the responsibility for the bringing our environment
to the precipice.
 The Kenya Forest Service has institutionalized corruption and the system is
replete with deep-rooted corruptive practices, lack of accountability and
unethical behaviour. However, the Taskforce found some instances of dedicated
officers who have selflessly served the country in the face of the difficult
environment they found themselves in. It was noted with concern that some of
these diligent officers have borne the brunt of corruptive cartels through alleged
victimization.
 Illegal logging of indigenous trees is a major threat to forests and is rampant in
key forest areas. Cedar was found to be the most targeted tree species.
 Destruction of indigenous forest was observed in many critical forest areas due
to illegal squatters, the changing lifestyle of forest dwelling communities, the
abuse of PELIS, unclear forest zonation, the introduction of irregular settlements
and large-scale public infrastructure developments.
 The limited capacity of Enforcement and Compliance Division of KFS and the
lack of clear separation in the forest protection and forest exploitation functions
of KFS have made law enforcement in the protection of forest resources
ineffective.
 Commercial Forest Plantations managed by Kenya Forest Service are
characterised by poor quality planting materials, delayed re-planting, poor
silvicultural and management regime, inefficient harvesting operations,
inaccurate forest stocks valuation and disposal process.
 KFS has contravened the law by not issuing a timber license to the selected saw
millers as required by The Act. It instead issues an award letter/ letter of
authority, which does not clearly stipulate any terms or condition as provided
for.
 From 2017, the Kenya Forest Service has been using a direct allocation process
to award forest materials to saw millers. Prior to that there was an open
tendering process to select, award and grant saw millers timber-logging rights.
The direct allocation procedure being practiced by KFS is unfair, inadequate, and
inappropriate; and the Taskforce uncovered incidences of its abuse.

 Inadequate coordination among the various agencies in the environment and
forest sector has resulted in duplication of roles and inefficient management of
forest resources.
 In spite of the prominence accorded to County Governments in assignment of
the forest sector functions by the Constitution, it is noted that most Counties
have NOT signed or operationalized the Transition Implementation Plans (TIPs)
to facilitate the transfer of this function. There have been inadequate efforts to
build capacity and allocate adequate resources to undertake this devolved
mandate. It is also noted that there is lack of a clear framework for coordination
between the 2 levels of government in management of this resource.
The key recommendations of the Taskforce are:
 The Cabinet Secretary for Forestry should expedite the process of constituting a
new KFS Board. This will enable an immediate commencement of the
administrative investigation process for the sixteen suspended officers of KFS,
among other urgent matters.
 Urgent Constitution of an independent caretaker management team with special
authority, and comprising of competent persons (who meet the criteria under
Article 6 of the Constitution of Kenya) with mandate to manage the operations of
the Service in the interim and assist the Government in carrying out the
necessary institutional and other structural reforms of the Service during the
transition phase.
 The Cabinet Secretary in charge of Forestry should establish an organ with
powers to undertake:
a. Public vetting of serving KFS personnel with the aim of determining the
suitability and culpability of officers of the service. This will help to eliminate
malpractice by officers, instil an ethical culture within the service and restore
public confidence in the Institution
b. Investigation and prosecution of any officers of the Kenya Forest Service
against whom evidence of malpractices has been identified during the vetting
 The immediate commencement of investigations and possible prosecution of all
criminal-related findings of the Taskforce that touch on former board members
and staff of the Kenya Forest Service implicated in malpractices.
 The logging of cedar trees in all forests and the use of cedar products, such as
fencing posts, must be banned.
 Forest zonation must be reviewed to establish a core conservation zone,
surrounded by a multiple-uses buffer zone, the width of which should not exceed
500 metres. All forest plantations located inside the core conservation zone
should be converted back to indigenous forest.

 Illegal squatters must be removed from the forests, through consultative
processes involving key stakeholders. Forest dwelling communities must be
resettled next to the forest.
 PELIS needs to be phased out progressively, to be replaced with the
concessioning of forest plantations, with provision of a role for the community
forest associations.
 Large-scale infrastructural developments must adhere to Kenyan policies and
statutes, including the National Spatial Plan.
 Establish a clear coordination framework for the agencies working in the
environmental and forestry sector to ensure that they (NEMA and the Kenya
Water Towers Agency (KWTA) effectively deliver their mandate.
 Undertake a complete overhaul and paradigm shift in the way the commercial
forest plantations are managed by KFS from plantations establishment,
management, harvesting, valuation and disposal for optimal productivity and
increased revenue generation.
 KFS should discontinue the ‘Procedure for disposal of forest plantation material’
that provides for direct allocation of forest stocks. In the meantime, KFS should
strictly adhere to the current Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest
Management) Rules 2009 with respect to issuance of timber licenses.
 KFS should issue timber license as per the Act, clearly communicate the timber
license terms and conditions to all saw millers upon issuance, and forest officers
must be made aware of the same. KFS to further establish an elaborate
framework and procedure to monitor, verify and audit the compliance with the
licensing conditions by the saw millers.
 KFS is to effectively engage with the private landowners and state corporations
with vast acreage of land to increase investment in private forest plantations to
complement public plantations in meeting the ever-increasing wood demand in
Kenya.
 County Governments should urgently in collaboration with the Ministry and KFS
fast track the signing and operationalization of Transition Implementation Plans
(TIPs), capacity building and resourcing for the efficient transfer and
implementation of the devolved function. Further, a clear framework for
collaboration in forestry functions between the National Government and
County Government should be put in place.
The findings and recommendations of the Taskforce are elaborated in chapters 3, 4,
and 5 of the reported.
Some of the findings were of criminal nature and were submitted as a separate annex
to the main report.

LIST OF ACRONYMS
BTC Bamboo Trading Company
CBO Community Based Organization
CCF Chief Conservator of Forests
CFA Community Forest Association
CIFR Centre for International Forestry Research
COG Council of Governors
CSO Community Society Organisation
DRSRS Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing
EC Ecosystems Conservator
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMCA Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999
ENCOM Enforcement and Compliance Division
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FCMA Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016
GBM Green Belt Movement
HR Human Resource
ISL Initiative for Sustainable Landscape
KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KFS Kenya Forest Service
KTDA Kenya Tea Development Authority
KTMA Kenya Timber Manufacturers Association
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
KWTA Kenya Water Towers Agency
LAPSSET Lamu Port and Lamu-Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport Corridor
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
LPO Local Purchase Order
MEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry
MEICDP Mount Elgon Integrated Conservation and Development Project
MENR Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
NECC National Environmental Complaints Committee
NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NLC National Land Commission
NMK National Museums of Kenya
PELIS Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme
PFM Participatory Forest Management
TIPs Transition Implementation Plans
TMA Timber Manufacturers Association
ToR Term of Reference
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
WRA Water Resources Authority

LIST OF STATUTES
Agriculture Food and Fisheries Act, 2013.
Climate Change Act, 2016.
Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
County Government Act, 2012.
Energy Act, 2006.
Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999.
Forest Act, 2005 (repealed)
Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016.
Land Act, 2012.
Land Registration Act, 2012.
Mining Act, 2016.
Physical Planning Act, Cap, 286.
Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act, 2015.
Science, Technology and Innovation Act, 2013.
Survey Act Cap, 295.
Water Act, 2016.
Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2016
National Land Commission Act, 2012.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................5
LIST OF ACRONYMS..................................................................................................9
LIST OF STATUTES ................................................................................................. 11
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... 17
LIST OF ANNEXES ................................................................................................... 17
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 19
1.1 Background.................................................................................................................................................. 19
1.2 Taskforce members.................................................................................................................................. 20
1.3 Mandate of Taskforce.............................................................................................................................. 20
1.4 Public participation.................................................................................................................................. 20
1.5 Challenges .................................................................................................................................................... 21
1.6 Outline of the Report ............................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter Two: METHODOLOGY................................................................................. 23
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 23
2.2 Information gathering............................................................................................................................. 24
Chapter Three: FOREST CONSERVATION............................................................... 27
3.1 Preamble....................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Scale of Illegal logging, destruction, degradation and encroachment................................. 27
3.2.1 Summary of key findings............................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1.1 Definitions and Monitoring of Forest...................................................................................... 28
3.2.1.2 Illegal Logging................................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.1.3 Forest plantations vs. Indigenous forests .............................................................................. 32
3.2.1.4 Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme................................. 35
3.2.1.5 Destruction, Degradation, and Encroachment.................................................................... 36
3.2.1.6 Impact of illegal logging, destruction and degradation on forest resources............ 42
3.2.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 43
3.2.2.1 Short-term recommendations.................................................................................................... 43

3.2.2.2 Medium-term recommendations.............................................................................................. 44
3.2.2.3 Long-term recommendations .................................................................................................... 46
3.3 Institutional and technical capacity of Kenya Forest Service................................................. 46
3.3.1 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................................. 47
3.4 Institutional and technical capacity of other forest management agencies ..................... 50
3.5 Inter-agency and intra-agency collaboration of forest management agencies............... 52
Chapter 4: COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS ................................................................. 55
4.1 Preamble....................................................................................................................................................... 55
4.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference....................................................................................... 57
4.2.1 Procedures, qualification and conditions for licensing of saw millers....................... 57
4.2.2 Effectiveness of the monitoring and verification procedures for compliance with
license conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 58
4.2.3 Adequacy and effectiveness of the Chain-of-Custody System........................................ 58
4.2.4 Adequacy and effectiveness of Felling plans and associated programmes.............. 58
4.2.5 Valuation and analysis of procedures and methods for forest stocks........................ 59
4.3 Key Findings................................................................................................................................................ 59
4.3.1 Procedures, qualification and conditions for licensing of saw millers....................... 59
4.3.2 Effectiveness of the monitoring and verification procedures to ensure compliance
with license conditions.................................................................................................................................. 61
4.3.3 Adequacy and effectiveness of the Chain-of-Custody System........................................ 62
4.3.4 Felling plans and associated programmes............................................................................. 63
4.3.5 Valuation procedures and methods for forest stocks........................................................ 65
4.1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 67
4.4.1 Adequacy, fairness and appropriateness of procedures, qualification and
conditions for licensing of saw millers ................................................................................................... 67
4.4.2 Effectiveness of the monitoring and verification procedures for compliance with
licensing conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 68
4.4.3 Adequacy and effectiveness of the Chain-of-Custody system........................................ 68

4.4.4 Adequacy and effectiveness of felling plans and associated programmes............... 69
4.4.5 Valuation procedures and methods for forest stocks........................................................ 69
4.4.6 General Recommendations........................................................................................................... 70
Chapter Five: GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE........................................................... 71
5.1 Preamble....................................................................................................................................................... 71
5.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference....................................................................................... 74
5.2.1. Effectiveness of participatory forest management programmes including CFA
operational and governance structures...................................................................................................... 74
5.2.2. Revenue generation from forests against the investment and operational costs ..... 74
5.2.3. Penalties under the Forest Conservation & Management Act, 2016 & related laws 74
5.2.4. Statutory and regulatory regime governing charcoal burning and trade..................... 75
5.2.5. Effectiveness of participatory forest management programmes and CFA operational
and governance structures............................................................................................................................... 76
5.3 Effectiveness of participatory forest management programmes.......................................... 77
5.3.1. Findings and Situational Analysis.................................................................................................. 77
5.3.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 82
5.4 Forest revenue against investment and operational costs...................................................... 83
5.4.1 Key Findings............................................................................................................................................ 86
5.4.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 88
5.5 Penalties in the Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 and other related
written laws............................................................................................................................................................ 89
5.5.1 Key Findings............................................................................................................................................ 89
5.6 Statutory and regulatory regime governing charcoal burning and trade ......................... 94
5.6.1 Findings..................................................................................................................................................... 94
5.6.1.1 Charcoal............................................................................................................................................. 94
5.6.1.2 Fuel wood .......................................................................................................................................... 95
5.7 Governance structures and their performance in management of the forestry sector in
Kenya......................................................................................................................................................................... 96
5.7.1 Ministry of Environment and Forestry......................................................................................... 96
5.7.2 County Governments ........................................................................................................................... 97
5.7.3 Kenya Forest Research Institute..................................................................................................... 98

5.7.4 Forest Conservation and Management Trust Fund................................................................. 98
5.7.5 Kenya Forest Service............................................................................................................................ 98
5.7.6 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................100
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................... 104
ANNEXES................................................................................................................. 107

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Terms of Reference examined by the three Committees ........................................................ 23
Table 2: KFS Revenue for the last five years .................................................................................................. 84
Table 3: KFS Total recurrent Revenue against the Funds needed........................................................ 84
Table 4: KFS Total recurrent Revenue against Expenditure ................................................................... 85
Table 6: Penalties in the Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 compared to those in
the Forest Act, 2005........................................................................................................................................ 90
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1: Kenya Gazette Note stipulating Terms of Reference of the Taskforce to inquire into
Forest Resources Management and Logging Activities in Kenya ..............................................107
Annex 2: Route of aerial Reconnaissance of 10 March 2018 ...............................................................109
Annex 3: Route of aerial Reconnaissance of 11 March 2018 ...............................................................110
Annex 4: Pictures showing widespread forest destruction..................................................................111
Annex 5: Review of The Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016....................................116
Annex 6: Review of Legislation governing the Forestry and Water Industries............................124

Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Kenya is endowed with a wide range of forest ecosystems ranging from montane
rainforests, savannah woodlands, dry forests, coastal forests and mangroves1. Forests
play critical ecological, social, cultural, and economic functions. They are crucial in
providing basic human needs and habitat for wildlife, biodiversity and soil
conservation, regulating water flows and sequestering carbon dioxide2.
Sustainable forest management is at the very core of Kenya’s social and economic
wellbeing as most of the country’s economic sectors rely on environment based
resources for their sustenance. Further, the forest sector is estimated to contribute
about 7 billion Kenya Shillings to the economy and employ over 50,000 people
directly and another 300,000 indirectly3. Forest ecosystems also enhance landscape
resilience to climate change. In the country’s water towers, for example, forests and
trees provide environmental services that include water quality and quantity,
reduction of soil erosion, and creation of micro-climatic conditions that maintain
and/or improve productivity. From a climate change perspective, forests are known
to be among the most effective sinks of greenhouse gases that cause climate change.
In addition, sustainable forest management promotes social resilience through
diversification of revenue sources and product supplies, and capacity building of the
relevant institutions. Forests are also known to play a key role as wind arresters,
thereby cushioning both built and natural infrastructure, including agricultural crops,
from any related damage.
The continued depletion of the country’s forests will, in the medium to longer terms,
exacerbate the country’s water insecurity, which will impact adversely on national
productivity. In the 10-year period of 2000-2010, for example, deforestation in
country’s water towers was estimated at 50,000 hectares, translating to a depletion
rate of about 5,000 hectares per annum4. This translates to a reduction in water
availability of approximately 62 million cubic metres per year, with a consequent
yearly loss to the economy of over USD 19 million. This has the potential to rollback
steps towards the attainment of Vision 2030 and the Government’s Big Four Agenda
of food and nutritional security, affordable and decent housing, universal healthcare
and manufacturing. The problem is further exacerbated by the population explosion
1KFS: http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/
2 Smith et al (2011). Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship
[https://www.fs.fed.us/]
4UN-Environment (2012). Deforestation Costing Kenyan Economy Millions of Dollars Each Year
[https://www.unenvironment.org/]

and the need to convert more forestland into agricultural and human settlement
areas.
Kenya’s forest cover is estimated to be about 7.4% of the total land area, a far cry from
the recommended global minimum of 10%. On the other hand, Kenya’s closed canopy
forest cover currently stands at about 2% of the total land area, compared to the African
average of 9.3% and a world average of 21.4 per cent. Most of the closed canopy forests
in Kenya are montane forests that are also the nation’s water towers5. Further, the
Constitution of Kenya requires a minimum tree cover of 10% of the total land area, a
vision that is not likely to be attained if wanton illegal forest destruction is not
urgently addressed.
To address this problem, the Government declared a moratorium on harvesting of
timber on all public and community forests for 90 days with effect from 24 February
2018. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow for reassessment and
rationalization of the entire forest sector in the country.
It is against this background that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Forestry
constituted a Taskforce to propose recommendations to enhance sustainable forest
resources management in the country, and address challenges besetting the sector.
The Taskforce was established through the Kenya Gazette Notice No. 28 dated 26
February 2018 for a term of thirty days, and launched by the Deputy President on 5
March 2018. The term of the Taskforce was extended to 30 April 2018.
1.2 Taskforce members
The Cabinet Secretary appointed a Taskforce comprising of fifteen (15) members
drawn from Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies and Non-State Actors;
and two Joint Secretaries. The Taskforce was further enhanced through the co-option
of three additional members, who were identified based on their individual and
institutional expertise.
1.3 Mandate of Taskforce
The core mandate of the Taskforce was to inquire into forest resources management
and logging activities in Kenya. The Taskforce, consequently, inquired into, among
others, illegal logging; destruction, degradation and encroachment of public and
community forests, water towers and other catchment areas; governance and finance;
and issues of integrity. The Gazette Notice with the Terms of Reference of the
Taskforce is appended to this report as Annex 1.
1.4 Public participation
Members of the public were given different options of making their submissions,
including, face-to-face oral and written submissions, written representations,

memoranda and petitions, and by email. The Taskforce also conducted several
hearings in different parts of the country, where members of the public provided their
views. The Taskforce publicised these hearings through advertisers’ announcements
in dailies with a wide circulations.
1.5 Challenges
One of the main challenges encountered by the Taskforce was the very short term
within which to deliver on its mandate. The Taskforce is, therefore, grateful to the
Appointing Authority for extending its term by about a month. Another challenge was
the reliability of some of the information provided through different submissions. To
address this challenge, institutions or persons in possession, custody or control of any
relevant documents and information were summoned and/or invited to make
submissions to the Taskforce.
1.6 Outline of the Report
This report comprises an Executive Summary, five main chapters, and concluding
remarks. Chapter 1 presents the background information; approach and
methodology employed to deliver on the mandate of the Taskforce, and uncertainties
and challenges encountered in the work of the Taskforce.
Chapter Two discusses the approaches and methodologies employed by the Taskforce
to deliver on its mandate.
Chapters Three, Four, and Five each contains a chapter preamble; interpretation of
the relevant Terms of Reference; Methodology; Key Findings and Recommendations
with respect to Forest Conservation; Commercial operations; and Governance and
Finance. Some of the findings were of criminal nature and were submitted as a
separate annex to the main report.
The Report also contains annexes with information considered complimentary to the
main report.

Chapter Two
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
In order to effectively deliver on its mandate as per the Terms of Reference (TORs),
the Taskforce divided itself into three committees; namely, Forest Conservation;
Commercial Operations; and Governance and Finance. Each committee was allocated
a cluster of related TORs to guide its operations, as summarised in Table 1. The three
committees inquired into matters within the scope of the relevant cluster of the TORs,
and made recommendations related to the respective cluster of the TORs. The
outcomes of the work of the three committees are the basis of chapters 3-5 of this
Report.
Table 1: Terms of Reference examined by the three Committees
Committee Terms of Reference
Forest
Conservation
a): Determine the scale of illegal logging, destruction,
degradation and encroachment of public and community forest,
water towers and other catchment area, as well as the
associated impacts.
f): Determine the institutional and technical capacity of KFS and
other agencies involved in the management of the forest to
enforce compliance with forest laws and regulations.
g): Determine the effectiveness and efficiency of inter-agency
and intra-agency collaboration of agencies involved in the
management of forests
Commercial
Operations
b): Review the procedures, qualification and conditions for
licensing of saw millers to determine their adequacy, fairness
and appropriateness.
c): Review and determine the effectiveness of the monitoring
and verification procedures to ensure compliance with license
conditions.
d): Review the chain of custody system established by the KFS
through which forest products and public, community and
private forests are distributed, tracked and monitored from
their origin in the forest to their end use, and determine their
adequacy and effectiveness.
e): Review felling plans and associated programs including

Committee Terms of Reference
planting and replanting to determine their adequacy and
effectiveness.
i): Review and analyse the valuation procedures of methods for
forest stocks
Governance
and Finance
h: Review and determine the effectiveness of participatory
forest management programmes including the operational and
governance structures of community forest association (CFA).
j: Audit revenue generation from forests against the investment
and operational costs.
k: Review the Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016
and other related written laws to enhance penalties for
contravening the provision of the Act and related written laws.
l: Review the statutory and regulatory regime governing
charcoal burning and trade, and make recommendations on the
need, or otherwise, to ban charcoal burning, trade or use.
2.2 Information gathering
The Taskforce used different methods to collect information, including literature
review; summoning and receiving of representations, memoranda and petitions from
the public; public hearings in different parts of the country; and requests and
summons to different institutions and individuals to provide specified information of
interest to the work of the Taskforce; among others.
Confidential sessions were arranged for members whose submissions were viewed as
sensitive or in cases where providing such information in public could compromise
the individual’s security. In all such cases, the informants were also required to
submit a written report for record. In addition, the Taskforce undertook aerial and
ground-based surveys to verify some of the information received through
submissions. This was achieved through sessions of the whole Taskforce or through
Taskforce committees.
Aerial surveys and field visits were undertaken to several forests, including Maasai Mau,
Transmara, South Western Mau, Northern Tinderet, Tinderet, Maji Mazuri, Mount
Londiani, Eastern Mau, Ol-Pusimoru, Kakamega, Bunyala, Mt Elgon, Kitalale, Turbo, Mount
Kenya, Aberdare, Marmanet, Ol-Arabel, Leroghi, Mathews Range, Chyullu, Loitokitok,
Narok, Kericho, Nakuru, Maralal, Makueni, Marsabit and Mukogodo. The maps illustrating
the route for the aerial surveys are contained in the Appendices 2 and 3 to this report.

There were also reviews of technical reports by members, which focused on illegal
logging, the definition of forest, commercial operations, governance, finance, and forests
and climate change. The reports are Annexures to this Report.
The key agencies and stakeholders interviewed included the Ministry of Environment and
Forestry, Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, Ministry of Interior and Coordination
of National Government, National Land Commission, NEMA, KFS, KWS, Kenya Water
Towers Agency (KWTA), Kenya Forestry Research Institute, National Environmental
Complaints Committee (NECC), Council of Governors, Embassy of Finland, United Nations
Development Programme, Centre for International Forestry Research, Initiative for
Sustainable Landscape, Kenya Association of Manufacturers, Kenya Private Sector
Alliance, Timber Manufacturers Association, Tea Sector representatives, and individual
saw millers, Bamboo Trading Company, Woodfuel Suppliers Association, community
groups, Government agencies, development partners, private sector, civil society
organisations, Green Belt Movement, Kenya Forests Working Group, Green Africa
Foundation, Kenya Climate Change Working Group, and Environment Institute of Kenya,
among others.
Public hearings and submission of representations, memoranda and petitions were
undertaken in Eldoret, Isiolo, Kisumu, Mombasa, Nairobi, Nyeri, Nakuru, Kericho, Maralal,
Kakamega, Marsabit and Makueni. Honourable Yussuf Hajji, Senator for Garissa County,
made a presentation during the public hearings in Nairobi. In addition, field visits were
undertaken to Kilifi and Lamu counties to inquire on the status of Arabuko Sokoke Forest
Reserve and mangrove forests; and Loita Hills in Narok to assess the status of the Loita
Community Forest, and learn how the cultural practices of Maasai Laibons have over the
years conserved forests for the general good of the community. Various cultural groups
also made presentations to the Taskforce, among them, the Kaya Council of Elders,
Urumwe Cultural Group from Kiambu, and the Ogiek Community.
The team also conducted aerial surveys and field visits to Chyullu, Loitokitok, Narok,
Kericho, Nakuru, Maralal, Makueni and Marsabit to confirm and ascertain the various
stakeholders’ submissions. In addition the team also collated relevant data and
information from the public hearing (verbal and written submissions) organised in Isiolo,
Nyeri, Uasin Gishu, Mombasa, Kericho, Nairobi, Kisumu, Nakuru and Samburu counties
which served as catchment for the surrounding counties.
The data was then analysed and synthesized to deduce findings and recommendations.

Chapter Three
FOREST CONSERVATION
3.1 Preamble
Over the years, the forest resources, including wildlife and water, in public and
community forests (the “Forests”) have faced numerous threats arising from human
activities, including charcoal burning, illegal logging, overgrazing and encroachment
of forests. These activities are a major threat to water resources, biological diversity,
and livelihoods of forest dependent communities, leading to conflicts over resources
and land. They are attributed to political interference, inadequate governance
systems, and weak law enforcement and management capacities of mandated
institutions, coupled with a high dependence on the forest resources by the adjacent
communities.
In order to stop any further degradation in the Forests, the Taskforce was mandated
to determine the scale of the destruction, degradation, and encroachment of public
and community forests. The key findings and recommendations of the Taskforce are
presented below. They are based on the broad range of expertise existing among the
members of the Taskforce, literature review, field visits, analysis of the legal
framework, interviews with stakeholders including County Governments and several
public hearings (Appendices 4 and 5).
Aerial reconnaissance flights were carried out over the Forests to identify the status of
the destruction, degradation, and encroachment on the ground (Appendices 2 and 3).
3.2 Scale of Illegal logging, destruction, degradation and
encroachment
The interpretation of this ToR by the Taskforce was that the ToR requires undertaking
an extensive review of recent illegal logging activities, their location and targeted tree
species in order to make relevant recommendations to address these issues. As no
comprehensive assessment of the state of forests and forest resources has yet been
undertaken as provided under section 6 (4) (a) of the Forest Conservation and
Management Act, 2016 (FCMA), the Taskforce was then to collect relevant reports
from KFS, other government agencies and stakeholders to build an necessary
understanding of the current illegal logging activities in the country. The same
applies for the assessment of the scale of destruction, degradation and encroachment
of public and community forests.
3.2.1 Summary of key findings
The key findings are organized along the following main subject areas:

a) Definitions and monitoring of forest;
b) Illegal logging;
c) Forest plantations versus indigenous forests;
d) Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS);
e) Destruction, degradation and encroachment in public and community forests;
and,
f) Associated impact of illegal logging, destruction and degradation on forest
resources.
As forest conservation achievements are usually measured in terms of the forest
cover, it is important to understand what constitutes a forest, i.e., the criteria for
determining that an area is a forest. The definition of forest in Kenya was therefore
reviewed.
3.2.1.1 Definitions and Monitoring of Forest
The Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 (FCMA) defines a forest as land
which is declared or registered as a forest, or woody vegetation growing in close
proximity in an area of over 0.5 of a hectares including a forest in the process of
establishment, woodlands, thickets.6 This definition is vague, and subject to various
interpretations. This definition has enabled the KFS to further define forest as land
with trees capable of occupying a minimum area of 0.5 hectares and trees likely to
grow over 2 metres and with a minimum of 15% of canopy cover.7 The revision of the
definition was undertaken to help the country prepare for the REDD+ initiative.
This definition differs significantly from previously used definition in the country, in
particular, the definition of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) which is the lead
United Nations agency in forestry matters, which defines forest as land spanning more
than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10
per cent8.
As a consequence of changing the minimum height threshold value from 5 metres to 2
metres under the definition adopted by KFS, closed thicket for example in Ijara,
Garissa County, are now placed in the same category as the closed canopy forest in
Mount Kenya.
In the late 1990s, the forest cover of Kenya was reported to be 1.7%. This was based
on a forest definition with a minimum canopy cover of 40% used by the United
6Forest Conservation and Management Act, Cap 34 of 2016, Section 2
7Forest degradation status, Interview with J. Ndambiri, Head of Forest Information System, KFS, March
2018
8Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180, FAO, December 2012

Nations Environment Programme9. Later, the forest definition of the FAO with a
minimum canopy cover of 10% was largely used, leading to an upward revision of the
forest cover to 6.2%10. With the new definition adopted by KFS, the forest cover in the
country was further revised upwards to 7.4%. In the meanwhile, there have been
numerous reports of forest destruction in the country.
Section 69 (1) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, sets the target to achieve and
maintain a tree cover of at least ten per cent of the land area of Kenya. KFS assesses
forest cover and not tree cover, while NEMA relies on KFS data to prepare its State of
the Environment Report. There is, therefore, no systemic data collection to assess the
tree cover in the country and monitor the country’s performance towards achieving
the target set by the Constitution.
It must be noted that the lack of clear definition in the current legislation affects other
key terms, such as rational utilisation, forest resources or sustainable management.
These definitions are necessary in guiding forest conservation. As a consequence, this
gap has created ambiguity in enforcement and has contributed to the failure in placing
restrictions on the use of forest resources. Accordingly, the principle of sustainable
management and rational utilization of forest resources cannot be effectively enforced
unless they are defined.
Monitoring of forests
Currently KFS is the lead agency in the assessment and monitoring the state of forests
and forest resources in Kenya. As KFS is also the lead agency in the management of
protected forests, this situation is prone to conflict of interest.
To avoid such conflicts of interest, the assessment of monitoring of the state of forests
and forest resources in Kenya should be carried out by an institution that is not
directly involved in the management of forests. This is the practice in other countries,
such as Brazil and India. In Brazil, forests are managed by the Brazilian Forest
Service, but monitored by the Ministry of Science and Technology. In India, forests are
managed by state departments, but monitored at federal level by the Forest Survey of
India.
In 2008, the Director-General of the Forest Survey of India undertook a scoping
mission in Kenya at the request of the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) to advise on the preparation of a comprehensive State of Forests Report in
Kenya. In his report, the Director-General recommended that the Department of
Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS) be the lead agency in the preparation
of such report, in light of the expertise of that department and the fact that it is not
directly involved in the management of forest.
9An Assessment of the Status of the World’s Remaining Closed Forests, United Nations Environment
Programme, 1995
10 Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, FAO Forestry Paper 147, 2005

It must be noted that the preparation of the state of the forests and forest resources is
a requirement under section 6 (4) (b) of the FCMA.
3.2.1.2 Illegal Logging
The key findings of the Taskforce regarding the scale of illegal logging are:
a) Past and recent past: Although exploitation of indigenous tree species was
banned in 1986, illegal harvesting of these tree species continues, affecting
most forests, particularly the mountain forests that are the Water Towers of
Kenya. In this regard, it is worth noting the outcome of four aerial surveys
conducted above two of the largest mountain forests of Kenya, namely Mt
Kenya and the Aberdares in 1999 and 2003 respectively, Leroghi Forest
Reserve in 2005 and Maasai Mau forest in 2005:
(i) An aerial survey of Mt Kenya forests11 conducted in 1999 showed that
13,513 indigenous trees had been freshly illegally logged. In addition,
8042 hectares of indigenous forest were so heavily impacted by logging
that the count of individual logged trees was not possible;
(ii) An aerial survey of the Aberdare forests12 conducted in 2003 showed
that 9,425 indigenous trees had been freshly illegally logged;
(iii) An aerial survey of Leroghi Forest Reserve13 conducted in 2005
identified 318 freshly logged indigenous trees, most of them being cedar
trees; and,
(iv) An aerial survey of the Maasai Mau forest14 conducted in 2005 counted
2,343 recently logged indigenous trees, in addition there were 578
hectares where heavy logging made it impractical to count felled trees
individually. Most of the trees felled were cedar trees.
b) Currently: the indigenous forests are over-exploited by selective logging of
important timber trees, which has greatly reduced the canopy cover, modified
the forest composition, and undermined the regenerative capacity of the
forests. Cedar (Juniperus procera) appears to be the single most targeted tree
species, mostly for making fencing posts, but also for construction:
11 Aerial Survey of the Destruction of Mt Kenya, Imenti and Ngare Ndare Forest Reserves, Report by the
KWS, 1999.
12 Aerial Survey of the Destruction of the Aberdare Range Forests, Report by the United Nations
Environment Programme, KWS, Rhino Ark Kenya Charitable Trust, Kenya Forest Working Group, April
2003
13 Aerial Survey of the Threats to Leroghi Forest Reserve, Survey carried out by the United Nations
Environment Programme and KWS with support from the Wilderness Foundation UK and the Kenya
Forests Working Group, March 2005
14Maasai Mau Forest Status Report, Report by Ewaso Ngiro South Development Authority, United Nations
Environment Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, Kenya Forest Working Group and KWS,
2005

(i) A recent elephant census and forest health survey conducted in 2016
across the entire Mau Forest Complex showed a high level of illegal
logging of indigenous trees of which 79% were cedar (Juniperus procera).
Logging was by far most intense in Maasai Mau forest followed by Ol
Pusimoru Forest Reserve, Lembus FR, Mount Londiani FR, South Western
Mau FR, Western Mau FR and Tinderet FR.15 (Annex 4);
(ii) Periodic surveillance flights conducted since 2013 above the Aberdare
Range and Mt Kenya by the Rhino Ark Kenya Charitable Trust, KFS, KWS
and other partners, including the Mount Kenya Trust, also indicate that
cedar (Juniperus Procera) is the most targeted tree species in the
Aberdare forests and one of the most targeted tree species in Mt Kenya
forests16;
(iii) During the reconnaissance flights conducted by the Taskforce on 10th and
11th March 2018, it was noted that illegal logging of cedar trees was also
prevalent in Marmanet Forest Reserve (Laikipia County), Ol Arabel Forest
Reserve (Laikipia County) and Leroghi Forest Reserve (Samburu County);
(iv) A 2018 elephant census and forest health survey conducted across the
entire Loita Hills showed illegal logging of indigenous trees of which 67%
were cedar (Juniperus procera)17; and,
(v) A report submitted to the Taskforce by KFS on illegal logging hotspot
areas highlights that the logging of cedar as the most prevalent illegal
logging activity.
c) Illegal logging of Sandalwood is prevalent in the Mathews Range (Samburu
County), Marsabit (Marsabit County), Chyullu Hills (Makueni/Kajiado County),
and Loita Hills (Narok County) ecosystems, based on submissions by
stakeholders.
d) The high dependency on the biomass energy is exerting high pressure on the
remaining indigenous forests. A study by Info Track indicated that as at
January 2017, 57% of Kenyans had no access to electricity and 81% use
biomass (wood and charcoal) for cooking.18
15 Elephant Survey, Mau Forests Complex, Report by Wildlife Conservation Society, KWS, Rhino Ark
Kenya Charitable Trust, December 2016
16 Surveillance flights conducted above the Aberdare forests on 18 November 2013, 24 March 2014, 8
August 2014, 17 October 2014, 23 April 2015, 14 July 2016, 9 September 2016, 21 November 2016
and 5 September 2017; Surveillance flights conducted above Mt Kenya forest on 03 July 2013, 15
October 2013, 8 July 2014, 14 October 2014, 14 January 2015, 19 August 2015, 17 September 2015,
19 January 2016, 13 August 2016 and 11 May 2017
17 Elephant Survey, Loita Hills, Report by Wildlife Conservation Society, Report in print
18Brief Report on the Current State of our Forests and Recommendations, Save Mt Kenya campaign and
SaveOurForestKE, March 2018, Page 7

3.2.1.3 Forest plantations vs. Indigenous forests
The key findings of the Taskforce in regard to the forest plantations in the gazetted
forests are as follows.
a) Plantations
There is currently approximately 135,567 hectares19 of forest plantation areas in the
gazetted forest reserves of Kenya. Most of the forest plantations are located in the five
major Water Towers of Kenya: Mount Kenya, Aberdares, Mau Forest Complex,
Cherangani Hills and Mount Elgon.
The observations made by the Taskforce during two reconnaissance flights (Annexes
2 and 3), are as follows:
a) Most forest plantation areas are located in critical water catchment areas;
b) Some forest plantations are located deep inside the indigenous forests in high
altitude areas;
c) The zonation between the indigenous forests and forest plantation areas is not
clear;
d) Many forest plantation compartments are not planted with trees; it was
reported that some of the harvested compartments have not been replanted
with trees for the last 20 years; and,
e) There is residential cultivation with semi-permanent settlements in some
plantation areas.
The 400 km long fence in the Aberdare ecosystem completed in 2009 was aligned in
such a way as to create a zonation separating the conservation area to be comprised of
indigenous forests from the multiple-uses buffer zone to include all the forest
plantations. The understanding was that any isolated forest plantation remaining
inside the fence would then be converted to indigenous forest, once harvested.
However, this understanding is not followed by KFS and harvested plantations inside
the fence are replaced with exotic trees.
In a 2018 study20 on the valuation of ecosystem services in the Mau Forests Complex,
Cherangani Hills and Mt Elgon, the annual contribution of the plantations to the
national economy were estimated at KES 10.7 billion against a total economic value of
the three water tower ecosystems estimated to be KES 339 billion. In another study
conducted in 2011 in the Aberdare forest, the annual contribution to the national
19 Meeting the wood supply challenge: The need for commercial forestry in Kenya, Discussion Paper,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, May 2014
20The Value of Ecosystem Services of Mau Forest Complex, Cherangany Hills, and Mt Elgon Ecosystems,
Report by the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), United States Forest Service, International
Programs-USFS, IP, 2018

economy of the ecosystem services provided by that mountain forest ecosystem was
estimated at KES 59 billion.21
Sixty-eight (68) Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) tea factories utilise
approximately one million cubic metres of well-seasoned firewood per year
equivalent to 5,700,000 number of eucalyptus trees or 3,600 hectares of high quality
commercial tree plantations. Approximately 50% of this wood is sourced from
government commercial plantations, mainly through third parties licensed by KFS.
The balance of 50% is sourced from own factory plantations, community plantations
and farmers smallholder trees/forests.
It must, however, be noted that the Wood fuel Suppliers Association of Kenya,
indicated that some of the community suppliers are sourcing the fuel wood from
indigenous forests.
Recent studies on levels of demand and supply establishes that Kenya currently faces
an annual sustainable wood supply deficit of approximately 16 million m3. This is
projected to rise to approximately 34.4 million m3 by 203022. This deficit is exerting
high pressure on the remaining indigenous forests.
However, Kenya has the potential to expand its commercial forestry sector, not only to
address its wood supply deficit, but also to contribute significantly to the realization of
Kenya’s Green Growth Objectives by 203023 by:
i) Doubling the contribution of the sector to the GDP;
ii) Doubling the number of jobs in the sector to over 2 million people;
iii) Tripling the rural income from the sector;
iv) Increasing by 50% the direct tax revenue from the sector; and
v) Reducing by 50% Kenya’s national carbon emissions.
This expansion should be delivered by the private sector on private land due to the
limited geographical area of the existing gazetted plantation forests.
During the public participation hearings organised by the Taskforce, it was reported
that:
a) The government, communities and the general public must now accept the fact
that the few gazetted forests and national parks in this country can no longer
21 Environmental, social and economic assessment of the fencing of the Aberdare Conservation Area,
KWS, KFS, Kenya Forests Working Group, United Nations Environment Programme and Rhino Ark
Kenya Charitable Trust, September 2011
22 The Potential of Public Private Partnerships for Sustainable Forest Management, Memorandum by
Tree Biotechnology Programme Trust (TBPT) Submission to the Taskforce on Forest Management in
Kenya, March 2018, Page 1
23 Meeting the wood supply challenge: The need for commercial forestry in Kenya – Discussion paper
by Gatsby and PricewaterhouseCoopers, May 2014

carry the burden of sustainable supply of wood products through cutting and
other extraction methods.24
b) The only Forest Management Plans available are “Participatory Forest
Management Plans” prepared by CFAs through support by development
partners and civil society organisations (CSOs). These plans are not detailed and
do not have clear management actions for sustainable management of particular
forest blocks. This results in KFS relying on short term felling programs with no
clear replanting and management of young plantations.
c) Data available on forest resource management is not reliable for holistic
determination of current stocks and annual allowable harvesting.
d) KFS irregularly allocates trees to certain saw millers. For example, Buffalok
Limited and Mawaka Limited receive allocations from KFS on a regular basis. At
block 1B in Malagat, Buffalok Limited was allocated over 2,600 trees in
September 2017 against 80 trees for small millers. In November, hardly two
months after, Buffalok Limited was allocated again over 3,000 trees in block 13F
in Makutano.
e) Poor record keeping and allocation of forest blocks in certain cases resulting in
double allocation of trees by KFS. For example, in block 5A in Kuresoi, one can
easily be allocated trees, which are non-existent as they have already been
allocated to someone else.
f) There is undervaluing of trees in Kinale area (Aberdares) such that the
government does not get the true value from the plantations. It was also
reported that saw millers harvest more trees than what has been allocated to
them by KFS.
g) This was also reported in Elgeyo Forest Station where KFS staff colluded with saw
millers as follows:
i) Compartment 4C: 221 trees declared at KES 6,090 per tree for total value of
KES 1,345,890. However, the actual number was 1400 trees valued at KES
8,526,000. This represents a loss in revenue for the Government of KES
7,180,110;
ii) Compartment 10A: 3,000 trees declared at KES 10,017 per tree, for total value
of KES 30,051,000. However, the actual number was 9,475 trees valued at
KES 94,911,075. This represents a loss in revenue for the Government of
64,860,075;
iii) Compartment 10H: 7,800 trees declared at KES 8,500 per tree, for total value
24 Memorandum on Better Forest Conservation and management in Kenya submitted by the National
Alliance of Community Forest Association (NACOFA) on 17 March 2018, page 2.

KES 124,950,000. This represents a loss in revenue for the Government of
KES 58,650,000;
iv) Compartment 5A: 2,200 trees declared at KES 13,485 per tree, for total value
KES 70,122,000. This represents a loss in revenue for the Government of KES
67,155,300. This amounts to a total loss of KES 197,845,485 in four forest
plantation compartments alone.
(i) Felling plans are not availed to the public for scrutiny, accordingly there
is lack of transparency and accountability. For example, in Kisumu there
were reports of biased allocation of plantations for harvesting – some
millers were allocated parcels with less or without trees during the
bidding process. In other instances, trees were harvested without felling
plans or without adherence to the felling plans; and,
(ii) There is a lack of an effective monitoring and verification procedure to
ensure compliance with licence conditions for saw millers.
3.2.1.4 Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme
The Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) is a
system in which KFS allows forest adjacent communities, through CFAs the right to
cultivate agricultural crops during the early stages of forest plantation establishment.
Cultivation is allowed to continue for 3 years until tree canopy closes. The PELIS
scheme was meant to improve economic gains of participating farmers while ensuring
success of planted trees. The PELIS scheme has, instead, led to considerable abuse and
loss of forestland. Many other illegal practices are camouflaged under its umbrella,
including agricultural encroachment into the indigenous forest via plantations.
PELIS mostly leads to the establishment of low standard forest plantations compared
to best practices.
PELIS provides access to land, leading to illegal conversion of indigenous forests into
plantations. During the reconnaissance flight, the Taskforce landed in two areas on
Mount Kenya and the Aberdares where indigenous vegetation has been recently
destroyed to pave way to the PELIS system.
Some of the PELIS areas are located deep inside the forest, creating resident farmers
who are entirely dependent on forest resources. The PELIS also leads to the depletion
of wildlife and human-wildlife conflict in cases where plantations are bordered by
indigenous forests. There is encroachment of indigenous forests through the PELIS
system.

In a 2018 study25 on the valuation of ecosystem services in the Mau Forests Complex,
Cherangani Hills and Mt Elgon, the contribution of the PELIS to the national economy
were estimated at KES 0.635 billion against a total economic value of the three water
tower ecosystems estimated to be KES 339 billion.
During the public participation hearings organised by the Taskforce, it was alleged
that:
i) Mount Elgon Integrated Conservation and Development Project (MEICDP)
established that the shamba-system in Mount Elgon Sub-County and Trans Nzoia
County has resulted in the wanton destruction of the Mount Elgon ecosystem.
Areas such as Kopsiro, Kaboywo, Chesito, Kipsagam, Teldet, Kiborowo and Suam
were still forested as late as 1972 but as of 2018 they are entirely stripped of the
indigenous trees;
ii) PELIS is abused especially in Cheptais Division and specifically in Chebombai. In
areas adjacent to Chepyuk division, in Panantega and Sosapleel, in contravention
of the law, KFS personnel have allocated themselves farms in forests. In
Sosapleel, the farms were introduced by forest guards in Kipsikrok and they
invited those adjacent to the forest to extend their farms 200 metres into the
forest and keep paying them a fee;
iii) Politicians are also to blame in Mt Elgon as they encourage citizens to clear
indigenous forests so that the said areas can be converted into farms for their
own benefit;
iv) PELIS was observed to be abused in areas like Loitokitok Forest (Kajiado
County) and Mt Elgon Forest, where CFA members were subletting their
allocated plots to non-citizens from neighbouring states; and,
v) In the Aberdares, KFS staff has misused PELIS by allowing the CFA leaders to
demarcate plots in the sloped areas, natural forest, firebreaks and at the
riverbanks and water sources. These plots are ‘sold’ to individuals at KES 15,000
–20,000. In one portion of Ragia forest compartment 5F, they demarcated 307
plots, which they shared between the CFA leaders and the KFS staff without
giving the CFA members a portion. They also offered bribes to those who wanted
to blow the whistle.
3.2.1.5 Destruction, Degradation, and Encroachment
The key findings of the Taskforce with regard to the destruction, degradation, and
encroachment of the public and community forests, water towers and other
catchment areas as well as associated areas are presented below.
25The Value of Ecosystem Services of Mau Forest Complex, Cherangany Hills, and Mt Elgon Ecosystems,
Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), United States Forest Service, International Programs-USFS,
IP, 2018

a) Destruction, degradation and encroachment of public forests (gazetted forests)
Over the past 25 years there has been massive destruction of forests due to excision,
settlements established without following due process, encroachment, illegal logging
and unsustainable grazing. The Mau Forests Complex has been particularly hard hit
by forest excisions, illegal settlements, and intense illegal abstraction of forests
resources26:
i) Forest excisions in 2001 alone amounted to 61,587 hectares, affecting in
particular Eastern Mau Forest Reserve (35,301 hectares), South Western Mau
Forest Reserve (23,296 hectares), Molo Forest Reserve (901 hectares);
ii) At least 2,436 hectares was illegally allocated to public utilities, such as
schools and police stations, as well as for private development like churches.
The land allocated for these public utilities and private developments is still
gazetted as forest reserve. Allocations were often being decided upon by
leaders or Government officers who have no authority on such matters, in
violation of the applicable laws, and/or for supporting private interests. In
addition, the size of the land requested for public facilities is too often well in
excess of what is actually required, providing opportunities for land grabbing.
For example, the forestland allocated to Arama Secondary School in Lembus
Forest Reserve is as large as 80 football pitches. Large allocations were made
for private development, such as Kiptagich Tea Estate (937 hectares) and
Sambut Tea Ltd (202 hectares).
iii) In addition, 20,155 hectares of Ol Pusimoru Forest Reserve was adjudicated;
and
iv) The main illegal activities that are carried out in the Mau Forests Complex are
logging, targeting mostly cedar trees, charcoal production, and unauthorised
livestock grazing.
Mount Elgon has been heavily impacted by the creation of settlements, the expansion
and failure of the PELIS system, the permitted logging of hardwood indigenous tree
species and the presence of forest-dwelling communities of which many of their
livelihood activities are not compatible with forest conservation:
i) The poorly planned Chebyuk excision with an original extent of 3,686 hectares
more than doubled to 8,700 hectares due to encroachment that were
subsequently formalized as Chebyuk II and Chebyuk III settlements. Further
encroachments are now forcing the Government to create Chebyuk IV
settlement;
ii) The poor planning of the Chebyuk excision has led to continued insecurity and
conflicts in the settlements and the surrounding areas;
26Report of the Government Taskforce on the conservation of the Mau Forests Complex, March 2009

iii) From 1960s to 1999 indigenous forest cover declined by a third from 53,281
hectares (49% of the protected area) to 35,140 hectares (33% of the protected
area). In the same period, the forest area under the shamba-system (now
PELIS) increased from 0 to 9,582 hectares27;
iv) Despite the presidential ban on felling or logging of indigenous trees decreed in
1986, the Forestry Department issued licenses to RaiPly to log hardwood tree
species in Kaberwa Forest Station. The company had been active in Mount
Elgon since the beginning of the 1980s but major activities started in 1994. The
main targeted tree species was Elgon teak (Olea capensis welwitschii) to make
plywood and veneer. Other logged tree species included Red stinkwood
(Prunus africana) and Muna (Pouteria adolfi-friedericii); and,
v) Ogiek, a traditional forest dwelling community, and Sabaot are residing in the
protected area where they grow food crops, keep livestock, hunt for wild
animals, and build temporary shelters. The impact, in terms of degradation, is
felt not only in the forest belt but also in the moorland area (Chepkitale), which
is an important vegetation zone from a conservation perspective.
Kakamega Forest is impacted by encroachments, irregular excisions, and to a lesser
extent by illegal logging and charcoal making:
i) There are two major irregular excisions with settlements covering a total of
approximately 573 hectares. The larger of the two areas covered 443 hectares
for Shikuza Prison, comprising of small built-up areas surrounded by extensive
cultivation of crops. The other area, located in the southern part of the forest,
covered an estimated 130 hectares. It appeared to coincide with the proposed
Ishiru excision (Boundary Plan 180/215) that has never been formalized;
ii) Small settlements encroaching into the forest were found in six locations28;
and,
iii) Some of the harvested plantation areas have not been replanted.
In the northern forest reserves, pastoral communities have established bomas and
manyattas and settled inside the forest:
i) In Leroghi Forest Reserve (Samburu County), over 600 households have
established manyattas and settled in the forest, leading to extensive forest
degradation and soil erosion. From presentations made during the public
hearing held on 13 April 2018, it appeared that the local elected leaders have
encouraged the squatters to stay inside the forest
27 Based on an aerial photography of the 215,570 hectares of the Mount Elgon Integrated Conservation
and Development Project (MEICDP) commissioned by the MEICDP in March 1999
28 Aerial Monitoring of Forest Boundaries, A joint KFS and KWS Programme supported by the United
Nations Environment Programme, Volume 1, July 2007

ii) In the Ndotos Forest Reserve (Samburu County), pastoralists have also settled
near the top of the mountain forests, leading to forest degradation and soil
erosion; and,
iii) The same applies to Mt Nyiru Forest Reserve (Samburu County) and Mt Kulal
Forest (Marsabit County), which is not gazetted but managed as a UNESCO Man
and Biosphere Reserve.
Although Arabuko Sokoke covers only 7,621.8 hectares, it ranks as the second most
important for threatened bird conservation in sub-Saharan Africa. The forest holds a
very high diversity in terms of habitats, fauna and flora. However, the forest is
threatened by:
i) Illegal logging of indigenous trees through collusion with KFS officers; and
ii) Illegal logging for charcoal making and wood carving by the neighbouring
communities.
Mangrove forests in Kenya face a number of threats mainly arising from
unsustainable exploitation, tourism development and large-scale infrastructure:
i) Mangrove harvesting is controlled by KFS through licensing procedures and
recommendation of mangrove poles to be harvested. However, these
recommendations are based on wood demand rather than the actual resource
base29;
ii) Between 1985 and 2009, the country lost about 20% of its mangrove cover,
translating to about 450 ha of mangrove area per year;
iii) In addition, at least 40% of mangroves across the coast are degraded;
iv) Losses of mangroves are disproportionately higher in urban centres than in
rural areas. In Mombasa County, for instance, the loss of mangroves is reported
to exceed 80% in the last decade30; and
v) In Lamu County, where a significant proportion of the mangroves is found, it
was found that the local communities are sustainably managing the mangroves
as a key source of livelihood. However, the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia-
Transport (LAPSSET) project threatens the mangrove ecosystem.
Some forests exist only on paper, like the case of:
i) Kitalale Forest (1,860 hectares) which is still gazetted as Forest Reserve but is
entirely settled31;
29Abuodha, P. and Kairo, J. G. (2001), Human-induced stresses on mangrove swamps along Kenya coast.
Hydrobiologia. 458: 255-265.
30 National Mangrove Ecosystem Management Plan, Summary for Policy Makers, 2017-2027
31 Aerial Monitoring of Forest Boundaries, A joint KFS and KWS Programme supported by the United
Nations Environment Programme, Volume 1, July 2007

ii) The same apply to the Manzoni and Mautuma blocks (totalling 2,862 hectares)
of the Turbo Forest Reserve32;
iii) In Ol Pusimoru Forest Reserve, approximately 20,155 hectares have been
adjudicated, settled and title deeds issued33.
There are traditional forest-dwelling communities in three of the five main water
towers of Kenya. There are: Ogiek (Mt Elgon and Mau Forests Complex) and the
Sengwer (Cherangani Hills). Over time, their traditional way of life has changed. Their
livelihood activities now include livestock grazing and food crop production that are
not compatible with forest conservation. These livelihood activities have
compromised the integrity of ecosystems and the services they provide, such as water,
to the communities in the lower catchment. However, some of their livelihoods
activities are still dependent on forest, such as bee keeping.
During the public participation hearings organised by the Taskforce, it was also
reported that:
i) Enosupukia Forest was 7,941 hectares in the 1980s and has lost 98% of forest
cover due to encroachment and agricultural expansion. The current forest
cover stands at 183 hectares34;
ii) Marmanet forest was 30,488 hectares in 1990. By 2010, the forest had lost
12,459 hectares of its cover35.
Based on information submitted by the “Laikipia County Forum”, the forest loss
is mainly as a result of encroachment, excisions and settlements. In early 2000,
part of the forest was excised without being degazetted, to form Uaso-Narok
Scheme and 900 families were to be settled. The provincial administration then
hived off an extra part of the forest and sold parcels of 2.5 acres of lands to
business people while some senior civil servants were allocated huge chunks of
forestland. The said provincial administration officers, public servants and
political operatives have made it difficult for the demarcation of boundaries
between degazetted parts of the forest, settlement area and encroached
sections. In 2009, KFS attempted on several occasions to evict illegal settlers
but the security team was always faced by hostile groups some armed. Part of
Marmanet Forest and Ol Arabel Forest were hived off to create Mochongoi
settlement and the area transferred administratively to Baringo County. The
“Laikipia County Forum” further reported of large-scale mechanised farming in
Marmanet Forest by individuals under the guise of PELIS.
32Ibid
34 Submissions by Kenya Water Towers Agency to the Taskforce on the inquiry into Forest Resources
Management and Logging Activities in Kenya – Forest Conservation Sub-Committee
35Ibid

iii) Kiambu: Destruction of Kiambu Forest was observed from Githaraini River to
Tharaini River. It was alleged that an organization called Agropack Limited
intends to subdivide the Kiambu Forest into 100 by 100 plots without NEMA
approval; and
iv) Nyangweta: Kisii County Government is in the process of alienating part of
Nyangweta Forest, which accounts for almost half (104 hectares) of the total
forest cover (228 hectares) in Kisii County in order to construct a sugar factory
contrary to the National Environment Policy of 201436.
b) Destruction, degradation and encroachment of community forests
Maasai Mau (Narok County) and Mt Kulal (Marsabit County) are two large community
forests. They cover approximately 45,800 hectares and 45,763 hectares, respectively,
based on surveys conducted by KFS.
Maasai Mau is one of the 22 forest blocks forming the Mau Forests Complex. The
forest has been extensively impacted by illegal settlements, deriving from the
ballooning of five adjacent group ranches during the sub-division of their land. Based
on the interpretation of satellite images, it is estimated that 13,281 hectares have
been destroyed between 1973 and 2014 for illegal settlements in the Maasai Mau
forest. In a detailed report produced by the Interim Coordination Secretariat in
201137, it is indicated that:
a) 7,864 families have settled inside the Maasai Mau forest;
b) Of these families, only 421 have title deeds; and,
c) During the subdivision and ballooning of the five adjacent group ranches, 4,242
hectares were allocated to 13 companies and business names, and that among
the beneficiary companies, five have no record in the Registrar of Companies.
In addition, massive illegal logging of cedar trees was observed during the
reconnaissance flight undertaken by the Taskforce on 10th March 2018 over the
Maasai Mau in the unsettled area of the forest, as well as large herds of livestock.
Mt Kulal was designated as a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve in 1978. The
montane and sub-montane forests of Mt Kulal are subject to logging by pastoralists for
fuel wood, building materials and for the construction of livestock enclosures. Forest
regeneration is being reduced by the removal of the understorey in several areas.
Grass fires, lit by pastoralists, erode the forest edge38.
36 Presentation on the Proposed Construction of a Sugar Factory on Nyangweta Forest, Statos
Enterprises Limited, March 2018
37 Analysis of Land Ownership in the Extension of Five Group Ranches beyond their Adjudicated
Boundaries into the Maasai Mau Forest, Interim Coordinating Secretariat, Office of the Prime Minister,
June 2011
38www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=KEN+02, 21 April 2018

3.2.1.6 Impact of illegal logging, destruction and degradation on forest
resources
There is a wide range of adverse impacts ranging from loss of wildlife, reduction of
forest cover, degradation of water catchment and depletion of water resources.
a) Impact on wildlife
In the Mau Forest Complex, a 2016 intensive ground survey revealed that there is no
sign of large mammals in 17 of 22 forest blocks. With regard to the critically
endangered mountain bongo antelope, of which there are less than 100 individuals
in the world and all of them in Kenya, of the six remaining groups, two have
disappeared over the past two years.
The wrong citing of forest plantation inside the forest have impacted wildlife
corridors and movement, for example the Muchene corridor linking Mount Kenya
and the Imenti forest is now under PELIS which has forced the elephants to exit the
forest, thereby increasing human wildlife conflict around the forest. Over the past two
years, 10 farmers have been killed by elephants around the Imenti forest.
b) Impact on water resources
An adverse impact is the drying up of rivers and streams. The flow of the Sondu River,
for example, has become more irregular making the Sondu-Miriu hydro power plant
running at lower capacity in the dry season. Another example is the Mara River of
which the level is very low in the dry season threatening the river dependent wildlife
as well as the associated tourism in the Maasai Mara and Serengeti ecosystems. In
other cases, streams have dried up during most parts of the year such as in the Njoro
area, where 13 of the 32 streams have dried up signalling a major threat to the Njoro
River they feed39.
Other major impacts are flooding and flash floods as the degraded upper catchment
areas have less capacity to absorb rainwater. Soil erosion and siltation of water
bodies are also major consequences. It has been estimated that the Masinga Dam has
lost 23% of its capacity over a 25 years period due to siltation40.
The role of wetlands in retaining water has been interfered with and ground and
surface water resources are being depleted.
c) Impact on security
Proceeds from illegal logging have been used to fund illegal activities such as in Boni
Forest where the proceeds have been used to fund terrorism activities. Terrorists use
proceeds from charcoal burning to buy food, water and other basic goods for the
militants.
40 Rehabilitation / Upgrading of Hydro Power Stations, Tana Catchment Rehabilitation Report,
KENGEN, May 2005

Illegal logging and forest destruction contribute to the drying of rivers, escalating to
conflicts over scare water resources. The destruction of forests impacts on the
microclimate conditions that in turn affect food security. It also increases the
vulnerability of the livelihoods of many Kenyans to climate change.
3.2.2 Recommendations
Below are the recommendations of the Taskforce in regard to illegal logging,
destruction, degradation and encroachment of public and community forests:
3.2.2.1 Short-term recommendations
Definitions and monitoring of forests
1. The definition of forest should be reviewed to capture the various types of forest
in Kenya and avoid amalgamating together very contrasting types of forest, such as
closed-canopy mountain forest with dense lowland bush land, as it is the case
currently. The definitions of forests using multiple classes developed by the Forest
Survey of India may be a good example to follow. Their definition uses a minimum
area of 0.5 hectare, a minimum tree height of 5 metres and several classes of
forests based on their canopy cover as follows:
a) Open forest: 10-40 per cent of canopy cover;
b) Moderately dense forest: 40-70 per cent of canopy cover;
c) Very dense forest: more than 70 per cent of canopy cover.
2. The concepts of ‘rational utilisation’ and ‘sustainable management’ of forest
resources need to be defined in the Forest Policy, based on international best
practices.
3. The assessment of state of forests and forest resources in Kenya should be carried
out by an institution that is not directly involved in the management of forests to
avoid conflict of interest. The Department of Resources Surveys and Remote
Sensing should be mandated to undertake the assessment of state of forests and
forest resources every two years.
Logging activities
4. A total ban on the logging of cedar trees on public, private and community lands
and a total ban on cedar products should be imposed immediately. A multi-
agencies approach, including County Governments, should be applied to ensure
total enforcement of the ban.
5. KFS, KWS, National Security agencies, County Governments, and the relevant
conservancies should develop and implement a joint law enforcement approach to
combat the illegal logging of sandalwood.

6. Tariffs and duties on imported timber and timber products should temporarily be
lowered to reduce the pressure on the forest cover, while the local wood supply
deficit is being addressed.
Forest degradation
7. The PELIS should be progressively phased out over a four-year period. No further
PELIS area should be opened. In parallel to the phase out of the PELIS, concessions
of forest plantations should be established that provide a role for the CFA
members in the establishment of plantations.
8. All harvested forest plantations located inside the electric fence of the Aberdare
ecosystem should be reverted to indigenous forest.
9. Illegal settlers in all public and community forests should be evicted through a
process that involves all key stakeholders, in particular the local leaders and the
various relevant arms of Government; and the forestland secured.
10. The Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, National Land Commission, and KFS
should resolve conflicts over boundaries, such as conflicts in Leroghi Forest
Reserve and Mt Marsabit Forest Reserve, through a process that involves all key
stakeholders, in particular local leaders and the various relevant arms of
Government.
11. The Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, National Land Commission, and KFS
should undertake surveys, inventory, document, and issue titles for all public and
community forestland.
12. The Ministry in charge of Forestry should develop regulations on Mangrove
harvesting.
Promoting tree growing outside protected areas
13. The requirement for all farmland to have a 10% tree cover should be enforced as
per the existing law.
14. A mandatory requirement should be made for all national and county government
bodies to participate in the national tree-planting week provided in section 55 of
the FCMA, with a particular target to be met. All corporations and Kenyans should
be encouraged to participate in the same.
Management of forest plantations
15. Forest management plans should be developed in line with the existing Guidelines
and the Law; and review the existing plans to ensure compliance with the
Guidelines and Law.
3.2.2.2 Medium-term recommendations
Logging activities
1. The penalties established under the FCMA should be enhanced.

2. The Government should subsidise and lower the cost of LPG to ease pressure on
forests.
Forest degradation
3. Forest zonation should be reviewed to establish a multiple-uses buffer zone inside
the forest along the forest boundary. The width of the buffer zone should not
exceed 500 metres. All forest plantations located outside the buffer zone should be
converted back to indigenous forest.
4. The Cabinet Secretary should engage the relevant county governments to declare
threatened community or private forests, in particular the Maasai Mau and Mt
Kulal, as provisional forests.
5. No forest plantations should be established on riparian reserves. Existing
plantations along riparian reserves should be reverted to indigenous forests.
6. Where a forest is under dual gazettement, a multi-agency committee, comprising
of Ministries responsible for forestry, wildlife, water and lands; and the National
Land Commission, should be established to interrogate the matter of due
gazettement and make remedial recommendations.
7. Indigenous forest areas that host critically endangered species, such as the
mountain bongo, should be properly demarcated and gazetted as nature reserves.
8. Any community residing in the forest or carrying out activities that do not align
with forest conservation should be evacuated from the forest. In case of forest-
dwelling communities who have traditionally lived in the forest, they should be
resettled in areas adjacent to the forest.
9. Valuation of ecosystem goods and services provided by forests should be carried
out to guide the budgetary allocations as provided for under the Law. Whereas
financial support can be secured from development partners, private sector and
civil society organizations, the Government should take the lead as an investor in
the conservation of the Forests. Adequate budgetary allocations should be made
for forest management, commensurate with the contributions of forests - currently
grossly undervalued – to the national economy.
10. The obligation of the conservation agencies to fund their conservation activities
from commercial operations should be minimized.
Promoting tree growing outside protected areas
11. KFS should establish a division to promote the establishment of professional
commercial forests on private and public land. Critical barriers currently holding
back the development of the forestry sector from a grower’s perspective should be
addressed by this new division. These barriers include41:
41 Meeting the wood supply challenge: The need for commercial forestry in Kenya – Discussion paper
by Gatsby and PricewaterhouseCoopers, May 2014

(i) Lack of guidelines on best practice silviculture and environmental
safeguards;
(ii) Lack of organization and capacity of growers to understand and access
markets effectively;
(iii) Lack of access to high quality inputs which can improve the economic
returns of tree growing;
(iv) Lack of incentives to encourage development of forests and woodlots on
private land; and
(v) Lack of effective forest extension services. These should be upgraded to
the same level as crop-agriculture and livestock extension services.
12. The Ministry responsible for Forestry should develop policies and programmes for
the diversification of fast growing tree species and bamboo.
3.2.2.3 Long-term recommendations
1. The Government should identify, map out and restore critical catchment areas,
including hilltops, wetlands, riparian areas along rivers, lakes and other water bodies,
steep slopes, and natural springs.
2. WRA should audit and rationalize water intakes in water sources to eliminate over-
abstraction of water.
3. The incentives established in the FCMA for individuals or entities that grow forest on
private land should be operationalized.
3.3 Institutional and technical capacity of Kenya Forest Service
The interpretation of this ToR by the Taskforce was that it requires undertaking an in-
depth assessment and critical analysis of the forest protection and security setup of
KFS in terms of structure, number and deployment of personnel and equipment,
including vehicles, to protect effectively all gazetted forests in Kenya.
The forest protection and security functions of KFS are vested in its Enforcement and
Compliance Division (ENCOM), which has the following mandate:
a) Forest protection and security;
b) Enforcement and compliance of the FCMA;
c) Investigations and prosecution;
d) Intelligence;
e) Security operations;
f) Fire/disaster preparedness and suppression;
g) Staff welfare and capacity building of ENCOM staff; and

h) Inter-agency collaborations with other state security agencies.
3.3.1 Summary of Key Findings
The key findings of the Taskforce regarding the institutional and technical capacity of
the KFS in the management of forests to enforce compliance with forest laws are:
1. KFS organisational structure heavily relies on the trustworthiness of the forest
manager, who may have a conflict as his role involves protection and conservation
of forests, as well as extraction of forest resources.
2. There are inadequate modalities to monitor the actions and effectiveness of forest
officers. Forest rangers are under the command of the forest managers and
therefore cannot freely monitor what is happening within the forest station.
Forest rangers are also under-equipped, with most resources controlled by the
forest managers or their senior technical officers.
3. KFS is understaffed. The internationally recommended ratio is 1 ranger per 400
hectares (where rangers have access to a vehicle). However, each ranger at KFS
covers 972 hectares (often on foot). Consequently, KFS is overburdened with
enforcement of conservation measures and are struggling to tackle forest crimes,
such as illegal logging of cedar trees and the illegal production of charcoal.
4. In addition, KFS rangers are unequally distributed. KFS rangers are mostly
concentrated on the areas that generate the most income, namely the forest
plantation areas. This means that large tracts of land with indigenous forest cover
are un-manned:
i) In the Aberdares, for example, there are 12 forest stations in the southern
half of the ecosystem where all the forest plantations are located, against 3
in the northern half of the ecosystem which is under indigenous cover; and
ii) In the northern forest reserves, KFS rangers are low in number and ill
equipped to deal with pastoralists who have weapons and are many in
number. For example, in Leroghi Forest Reserve (approx. 91,400 hectares)
KFS has only 9 personnel, and in the Mathews Range Forest Reserve
(approx. 93,700 hectares), KFS has only 7 personnel. For these two areas
combined, KFS has only one vehicle.
5. The ENCOM has only 30 vehicles, which are far below the required number of
237.
6. KFS has insufficient equipment to deal with forest fires. It has only one aircraft to
help combat forest fires but has no pilot with training in fighting forest fires.
7. KFS receives insufficient financial resources from the Government to adequately
protect forests.

8. During the public participation hearings organised by the Taskforce, it was
reported that:
i) KFS is established more as an extractive-focused entity in forestry with
little focus on conservation and management;
ii) The institutional and technical capacity of KFS is limited;
iii) KFS has yet to submit the forest status and forest resource report required
under FCMA42;
iv) KFS has not effected its mandate under the FCMA to approve the provision
of credit facilities and technical training for community-based forest
industries and provide incentives to persons for sustainable utilisation of
wood and non-wood forest products;43
v) The KFS Strategic Plan of 2018 - 2022 shows a shortfall of 56.4% (156,000)
of 350,000 hectares in restoring degraded forest areas in the water
towers44;
vi) There is conflict of interest between KFS, saw millers and the CFAs on the
ground;
vii) KFS as the sole regulator of the National Forest Programme, a major
producer of forest products, and the sole authority to determine quantity
and prices of products has abused its authority in deliberately
underestimating the quantity and quality of plantation stock earmarked for
sale, resulting in loss and theft of revenue. The undisclosed revenue which
can be more than 50%, is then shared between by KFS staff and other
parties45;
viii) KFS and the Baringo County Government has allegedly failed to comply
with and implement the orders issued by Case no. 273 of 2013 and the
requests by the Lembus Advocacy and Welfare, and Lembus Council of
Elders to dissolve all eight CFAs since they are corrupt46;
ix) There is a need to review and determine the efficiency of the chain of
custody system established by KFS through which forests products from
public, community and private forests are distributed from their point of
origin to their end-use due to the following reasons:
 The documents provided along the chain of custody are not verifiable;
42Forest Resource Management and Conservation challenges, R. Rutto, March 2018
43Ibid
44 Brief Report on the Current state of our forests and recommendations, Save Mt Kenya campaign and
SaveOurForestKE, March 2018, Page 5
45 Memorandum on the Status of Forest Valuation and Sale of Forest Plantations in Kenya, M. N.
Muchiri, March 2018, Page 4,
46 Memorandum on Lembus Forest (Baringo County), Lembus Advocacy and Welfare, March 2018

 There is limited capacity for verification before movement permits are
issued; and
 The mandatory requirement to provide a certificate of origin is not paid
attention to;47
x) KFS has failed to comply with harvesting rules and procedures, instead it is
alleged they rely on nepotism and tribalism in allocating plantations for
harvesting;
xi) KFS has not established a national nursery programme. As a result, the
management of tree seedling is not regulated and it is alleged KFS officials
sell seedlings separately and pocket the money earned;
xii) It is alleged that KFS management colludes internally to fraudulently
under-declare the service's revenue either from field activities allocations
or through sale of plantation trees to saw miller cartels. The Forestry
Inventory Department who value or do sales inventory sell a proportion of
the allocated plantation for KFS and then sell another proportion for their
personal benefit. This is usually at a ratio of 6:4; and
xiii) It is alleged that the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF), the former Chair of
the Human Resources Committee of the Board and the former Head of
Eastern Conservancy, have been colluding in the allocation of trees to a
sawmilling company belonging to the CCF of KFS and in allocating a tourist
site to a relative of the Chair of the HR Committee of the Board.
The recommendations of the Taskforce are:
1. KFS internal structure should be re-organized to separate the dual roles of
conservation and commercial plantations management. The management of the
two should be independent of each other, with their heads reporting directly to
the KFS Board.
2. The capacity of ENCOM should be strengthened in terms of number of rangers
and equipment.
3. No KFS staff should remain in the same duty station for more than 3 years.
4. An investigation should be instituted into the compliance of harvesting rules and
procedures by KFS and non-compliant officers should be prosecuted and
surcharged for failing to conserve and protect forests.
47 Brief on the forestry challenges and recommendations, C. Muchiri, March 2018, Page 2

3.4 Institutional and technical capacity of other forest
management agencies
The key findings of the Taskforce regarding the institutional and technical capacity of
other agencies involved in the management of forests to enforce compliance with
forest laws and regulations are:
3.4.1.1 Kenya Water Towers Agency
1. The mandate of KWTA is “to coordinate and oversee the protection,
rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable management of all the critical water
towers48”.
2. Whilst the KWTA’s core mandate is to coordinate and oversee the conservation
of the water towers and the forests therein, it has not:
i) Conducted systematic field investigation to oversee the status of the water
towers and the forest therein;
ii) Worked with the other agencies in order to identify points of collaboration;
and
iii) Implemented efforts towards fulfilling their role as coordinators.
3.4.1.2 National Environment Management Authority
1. NEMA does not conduct systematic field visits on the ground to ensure that
environmental laws are complied with as part of its compliance mechanism
and is unable to do continuous monitoring due to its limited workforce. For
example, NEMA does not inspect forest plantation areas to confirm that their
management is in line with the conditions of the environmental impact
assessment (EIA) license.
2. Whilst public participation occurred as part of the EIA process, it is too often
not to the expected level. For example, the Forest Manager and the forest-
adjacent communities reported that they were not consulted during the EIA
process for the proposed Marania Dam on Ruguthu River inside Marania Forest
Station, Mt Kenya Forest Reserve.
3. NEMA issues EIA licences for developments that does not conform to the
National Environment Policy, the National Land Use Policy, the National Spatial
Plan or the principles of good environmental stewardship. For example:
48 Submission to the Taskforce on the role of Kenya Water Towers Agency on management of water
towers and forest resources, KWTA, March 2018, Page 2

(i) NEMA issued a EIA license in September 2017 to the National Water
Conservation and Pipeline Corporation for the construction of Bosto Dam
inside the South Western Mau Forest Reserve, despite the fact that this forest
is part of the Mau Forests Complex water tower; the National Spatial Plan
clearly stipulates that “development is not permitted in these areas [water
towers] except for the purpose of eco-tourism and research”; the forest is a
critical catchment area; and the forest is habitat to threatened wildlife
species, such as the critically endangered mountain bongo antelope and the
vulnerable African elephant.
(ii) NEMA also issued a license for the construction of a sugar factory in the
County of Kisii that will amount to the destruction of 104 hectares of
Nyangweta Forest.
4. NEMA has a broad mandate, posing the danger of NEMA overstepping or
clashing with other lead agencies. At the same time, it creates high expectations
on NEMA.
5. NEMA is grossly under-funded, rendering the institution unable to undertake
its mandate effectively.
6. NEMA is understaffed and has approximately 400 personnel. The workload
analysis shows a need for 1200 personnel.
7. NEMA does not conduct field studies to assess or confirm reports submitted
with respect to environmental impact assessment reports regarding the
management of forest plantations.
8. NEMA does not conduct environmental inspections after it issues EIA licences.
In consideration of these findings, the Taskforce recommendations include:
a) KWTA should:
i) Be established by an Act of Parliament;
ii) Be enabled with the necessary financial and technical capacities;
iii) Be enabled with the requisite institutional capacity;
iv) Facilitate ecosystem-level water tower conservation committees to enhance
collaboration and accountability; and
v) Facilitate joint ecosystem-level surveillance flights to monitor the status of
the forests in the water towers.
b) NEMA:
i) NEMA should conduct physical inspections and environmental audits on
licences it has issued. EIA licence renewals should be tied to compliance.

ii) There should be an intra-agency accountability mechanism introduced,
with respect to environmental audits by KFS. NEMA should verify the
environmental audits by KFS.
3.5 Inter-agency and intra-agency collaboration of forest
management agencies
The interpretation of this ToR by the Taskforce was that the ToR requires undertaking
an in-depth assessment and critical analysis of the collaboration between KFS and
other conservation agencies in the protection of forests, as well as internal
collaboration among the different sections of KFS.
The key findings of the Taskforce with regard to the effectiveness and efficiency of
inter-agency and intra-agency collaboration of agencies involved in the management
of forests include:
1. Coordination with other agencies is a challenge, as there is no framework for
collaboration between KFS and other conservation agencies and key
stakeholders at forest station level and county level. As a consequence, activities
undertaken by various conservation agencies and stakeholders are not
streamlined and in cases may negate each other. For examples:
i) CFAs are obtaining permits from KFS to graze in forest areas that are
habitats to endangered wildlife, such as the critical endangered mountain
bongo antelope, which are protected by KWS.
ii) The licensing of water intake inside protected areas by WRA is done
without consultation with KFS or KWS.
2. The mandate of the agencies involved in the management of natural resources is
not adequately communicated to the public, creating confusion on who is in
charge of what, in particular with regard to NEMA and KWTA.
3. During the public participation hearings organised by the Taskforce, it was
reported that:
i) There is lack of co-operation between KFS and CFAs. This leads to
victimization for reporting on the destruction of the forest and as a result
compromises the transparency and accountability of forest resources and
the safety of CFAs.
ii) There is a perceived overlap between the roles of coordination and
oversight roles of KWTA and NEMA. Each body’s mandate should be clearly
defined to avoid overlap.

iii) NEMA does not conduct field studies to assess or confirm reports
submitted by KFS with respect to environmental impact assessment
regarding the management of forest plantations.
In consideration of these findings, the recommendations of the Taskforce are:
1. Conservation and sound management of the forests cannot be achieved by one
agency alone. All forest conservation agencies (including NEMA, KFS, KWS,
KWTA), the Kenya Police Service and the Ministries of Interior must come
together to formulate an interagency plan of action to enhance synergy, and
highlight areas of collaboration and coordination.
2. A County Forest Conservation and Management Committee should be
established in each county, comprising of the respective county government,
conservation agencies and key stakeholders to enhance coordination and
accountability in the conservation and management of forests in the county.
3. Each forest station should have a “Forest Conservation and Management
Committee” which comprises of the Forest Manager and representatives from
the key conservation agencies and stakeholders, including the forest
dependent communities and marginalised groups.
4. The coordination and oversight roles of KWTA and NEMA should be clearly
defined to avoid overlap and communicated.

Chapter 4
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
4.1 Preamble
Kenya is endowed with a wide range of forest ecosystems ranging from montane
rainforest, savannah woodlands, dry land forests, coastal forests and mangroves.
According to the latest wall-to-wall mapping undertaken through the land restoration
programme in 2016, forests cover in Kenya has improved from 6.99% in 2013 to 7.4%
by 2016. Of the total 2.3 million ha managed by KFS commercial forest plantations
only constitute 135,000 ha (KFS Strategic Plan). Additional 95,000 ha of forest
plantations are privately owned especially by the large tea companies.
According to the Green Economy Strategy and Implementation Plan 2015 (GoK,
2015a), the natural resource-related sectors contribute about 42% of Kenya’s GDP
and 70% of overall employment. These natural resources related sectors includes;
agriculture, mining, forestry, fishing, tourism, water supply and energy. FAO’s State of
the World’s Forest report (2014), estimates that Kenya’s forestry sector contributes
3.6% of the GDP but this estimate excludes forestry’s contribution to household wood
energy, non-timber products and the vast value of ecosystem services.
Commercial forest plantations are critical in contributing to economic growth, supply
of forest products that also support forest industries and job creation as envisaged by
the vision 2030. For instance, among manufacturing industries in Kenya, the forest
industry is a significant employer. According to the KNBS Statistical Abstract (KNBS,
2014), the total wage employment includes; 26,371 persons in the sawmilling
industry; 10,188 persons in furniture manufacturing and 56, 980 persons in the pulp
and paper industry. It is estimated that the formal forest sector employs 18,000–
50,000 people directly and 300,000–600,000 indirectly, particularly in the rural areas
(FAO, 2014; KFS, 2015b). The potential to increase jobs through enhancing
commercial forestry value chains is substantial.
With population growth, urbanization and economic development, consumption of
forest products will continue to increase considerably; thus demand for all timber
products continues to rise, resulting in significant increase in timber prices. One
beneficial side effect has been the stimulation of farm forestry (World Bank, 2006).
Projections by the then Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR, 1994)
indicate a growth in timber demand. Under this projection, the population growth is
projected at 52 million people in 2020. Fuel wood demand was projected to grow
from 20.1 million m3 (1995) to 40.1 million m3 in 2020. Under the same period,
demand for industrial round wood and poles was projected to grow from 2.3 million
m3 to 4.7 million m3, sawn wood demand from 212,000 m3 to 539 m3, plywood and

other wood panels from 50,000 to 134,000 m3, and paper and paper boards from 143
000 tonnes to 389,000 tonnes.
The 135,000 ha managed by KFS only produce approximately 1 million m3 of sawn
wood, which is far much below the country demand. As such commercial forest
plantations from the public forests, community forests and private farms will continue
to play a critical role in meeting this demand including supporting the government
development agenda with regards to manufacturing and housing. This would require
innovative, modern, efficient and effective methods of forest plantations
establishment, management, harvesting and valuation of the KFS plantations and
those in community forests. However, the greatest opportunity to increase land under
forest plantations lies in enhancing forest investment in private farms supported by
an appropriate enabling environment by the government including but not limited to
policy, legal and institutional framework, financing, technical support and incentives.
Commercial forest plantations are faced with many challenges that have compromised
their sustainability and subsequently the critical social-economic role they are
supposed to play. These challenges range from poor germplasm; poor land
preparation; delayed re-establishment; inadequate and/or absence of silvicultural
operations (beating up, thinning, and pruning); under stocking; absence of routine
mensuration and inventory necessary for making appropriate management decisions
and objective valuation; inadequate surveillance leading to major losses through
illegal cutting, grazing, fires and inefficient harvesting operations.
The 13-year logging ban instituted between 1999 and 2012 and which was meant to
be a total ban to address these challenges compounded the issue as it was selective
and allowed some large companies to continue harvesting of the plantations without
commensurate silvicultural regime and re-planting leading to a huge un-stocked land
and poor quality forest stands.
Commercial forest plantations are high value resource as such its management and
utilisation have not been without corruption, patronage and political influence, which
has in a great way compromised its sustainable management.
However, during the period of the logging ban the forest policy and regulatory
framework was improved to enable sustainable forest management in Kenya. This
ranged from the formulation of the Forest Act, 2005, which provided for institutional
reforms from the highly centralized forest department to KFS improved forest
governance, framework for enhanced public participation and private sector
engagement.
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 highly profiles the Forest Sector by making a
provision of 10% tree cover but the devolved governance system presents both
opportunities and challenges to the sector. The Forest Act, 2005 has since been
repealed by Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 (FCMA) to align the
sector with the provisions of the Constitution.

In deed Kenya is among few countries in the world that have developed a National
Forest Programme (2016-2030) which is a cross sectoral and multi-stakeholder
national framework for developing and coordinating forest development aimed at
meeting the needs of Kenyans in the next 15 years. The ministry of Environment and
Forestry is in fact in the process of developing an Action Plan to implement the
programme. This programme aims at sustainable forest management and its goal is to
develop and sustainably manage, conserve, restore and utilise forests and allied
resources for social economic growth and climate resilience. One of its strategic
objective is to enhance forest-based economic, social and environmental benefits.
FCMA needs review, and development of subsidiary regulations to operationalize it,
supported by political goodwill; institutional culture change; good governance;
adequate financing; enhanced technical capacity and more importantly strict
compliance with and enforcement of the law.
As such there is need for a strategic rethink and paradigm shift on how commercial
plantations forests are managed and utilised in Kenya for optimal social-economic and
ecological benefits. Therefore the findings and recommendations of this chapter
provide a pathway for this paradigm shift in managing the commercial forest
plantations in public, community and private lands.
4.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference
4.2.1 Procedures, qualification and conditions for licensing of saw
millers
The interpretation of this ToR by the Taskforce was that it required an in depth
assessment and critical analysis of procedures, qualifications and conditions put in
place by KFS in licensing of the saw millers. In particular this required an assessment
and interrogation of the procurement and disposal process used by KFS in
prequalifying of saw millers and subsequent award of the forest stocks. It also called
for the assessment of the compliance of such licensing procedures with the policy and
legal framework that governs forest management and conservation in Kenya,
especially FCMA, Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act, 2015, The Forests
(Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules, 2009, and The Forests
(Harvesting) Rules, 2009 among others. Based on the aforementioned assessment,
the Taskforce made a determination as to whether or not the saw millers licensing
procedures are adequate, fair and appropriate; and consequently made appropriate
recommendations.

4.2.2 Effectiveness of the monitoring and verification procedures for
compliance with license conditions
The interpretation of this ToR by the Taskforce was that the TOR required a critical
review of the procedures put in place by both the KFS and saw millers for monitoring
and verifying compliance with the terms and conditions of licenses for the movement
of timber and wood products. This required an in depth investigation of the nature of
the license, the license terms and conditions and their compliance with the FCMA and
regulations governing the licensing of saw millers.
Based on the aforementioned assessment, the Taskforce determined the effectiveness
of the monitoring and verification procedures and level of compliance; and
subsequently deduced appropriate recommendations.
4.2.3 Adequacy and effectiveness of the Chain-of-Custody System
The ToR was interpreted to mean critically reviewing the chain-of-custody system
established by KFS on how forest products are moved, tracked and monitored from
their various origins (community, public and private forest/farms) to end use. This
would entail seeking a full understanding of the various forest product chain-of-
custody including sawn wood logs mainly from pine and cypress, transmission poles
and posts mainly from eucalyptus, and firewood from the aforementioned tree species
from public, community and private forests.
This TOR also required a review of all the documentation and permits that are issued
and the person issuing, to govern the movement and tracking of the various forest
products from the forest to end-use.
It further required the assessment of the level of compliance to the FCMA, 2016 and
the laid out procedures and systems by the KFS, County government and other
Agencies.
Based on this assessment, the Taskforce determined the adequacy and effectiveness of
the chain of custody system, and made the necessary recommendation to address any
identified inadequacy or inefficacy.
4.2.4 Adequacy and effectiveness of Felling plans and associated
programmes
This was interpreted to mean critically reviewing felling plans and the planting
programmes developed by KFS, including their development process, approval and
execution; and an assessment of the monitoring and evaluation systems put in place to
ensure that any non-compliance in their implementation is detected and responded
to.

It also required an in-depth review of what informs the felling plan, the types of the
felling plans, their duration and procedures put in place by KFS to ensure that they
meet the principles of sustainable forest plantation management and are adhered to.
On planting and re-planting programmes, the TOR required a critical analysis of what
informed the re-planting programmes, duration, development, approval and
execution. It also required an assessment of the monitoring and evaluation system put
in place by KFS to ensure that the replanting programme meets the principles of
sustainable forest plantation management and are adhered to. It also entailed
analysing the role of other players such as saw millers and CFAs in the re-planting of
harvested blocks and the framework of engagement used.
Based on the aforementioned assessment, the Taskforce made a determination as to
whether or not the felling and re-planting programmes are adequate and effective;
and consequently, make the appropriate recommendations.
4.2.5 Valuation and analysis of procedures and methods for forest
stocks
This TOR was interpreted to entail a review and analyses of the methods and
procedures used by KFS to value forest stocks (logs, poles and firewood) before
disposal. This required seeking an in-depth understanding of the sale inventory
process from methods used for data collection in the field, data transmission, and data
entry to volume computation for different tree species.
It also entailed the assessment of the adherence to the volume computation methods
stipulated in the Technical Orders, accuracy and safeguards put in place by KFS to
ensure that the process is not compromised or manipulated.
The TOR further required a review of the process KFS use in forest stock price
determination and its effectiveness in determining the stumpage price for the
standing forest stocks before sale.
Based on the review, the Taskforce made a determination on the accuracy and
effectiveness of the valuation procedures and methods; and made the necessary
recommendations.
4.3 Key Findings
4.3.1 Procedures, qualification and conditions for licensing of saw
millers
Prior to 2015/2016, KFS used open tendering process as per the bidding procedures
prescribed in the Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules,
2009 to select, award and grant saw millers “timber logging licenses”.

This process involved development of the prequalification criteria by the plantations
department, which was then sent to the procurement and supply chain department
for advertisement in the daily press. This prequalification was also complemented by
due diligence to verify that the sawmills had the necessary financial, human and
technological capacity to harvest and process the logs. All prequalified saw millers
paid a license fee of KES 30,000- 80,000 depending on their sawmill category upon
receiving a notification of prequalification by KFS.
This processes resulted to the prequalification of 850 saw millers who were then
clustered per county. Based on the availability of forest stock ready for harvesting a
request for quotation was sent to a specific county prequalified saw millers to bid. The
county team composed of Ecosystems Conservator (EC), Procurement and Accounts
personnel would evaluate all the bids, rank and make recommendations to the Tender
Committee based at the KFS headquarters for the final award.
In 2017, this disposal process was changed through a communication by the KFS
Board of Management titled ‘Procedure for disposal of forest plantation material’,
dated 13th March 2017. KFS indicated that this decision was made after consultation
with the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, however this was not supported
by any documentary evidence. These procedures prescribe direct allocation of the
forest stocks, in which case the Ecosystem Conservator (EC) issues a notice to pre-
qualified saw millers, of the intention for sale at the County level and then channels
his/her recommendation on who to be allocated to the CCF through the Head of
Conservancy. The valuation of the forest stocks on the stand earmarked for felling was
done and then allocated to the recommended saw miller. The CCF has the prerogative
of adopting the recommendations of the EC or making alterations. Incidentally, the
procurement and supply chain department of KFS is not involved in this direct
allocation process.
The direct allocation process is prone to abuse and several ‘saw millers’ have already
been brought on board or added into the prequalification list without following any
due diligence to ensure that they have adequate legal, technical, technological,
financial and human capacity. By July 2016, the prequalified saw millers were 850
(731 small scale, 116 medium scale and 3 large scale) after due diligence. This
number has since increased to the current 898 saw millers (34 large scale, 171
medium and 693 small scale). Kenya Timber Manufacturers Association (KTMA)
raised concern that due diligence was not followed before ‘saw millers’ were
administratively added into the prequalified list. This addition with no due diligence
have resulted to allocation of forest stocks to saw millers using wasteful technologies
such as circular saw bench and tractor driven bench saws.
Furthermore, the letters issued by KFS to saw millers who did not qualify for
prequalification, indicated that they can be reconsidered if they demonstrated to have
invested in enhancing the technological capacity of their saw mills to the required

standards. This provision could have been exploited unfairly to bring on board
additional saw millers.
With over 1,000 sawmills in Kenya mainly competing for approximately 1 million
cubic metres from KFS plantations every year, this competition for prequalification
will continue unless something is done. KTMA was of the view that its recognition by
the FCMA as the umbrella body for all saw millers in Kenya would strengthen
governance and self-regulation of the saw-milling sector. Indeed, KTMA proposes that
KTMA membership or clearance letter should be made a mandatory requirement for
any saw miller to be prequalified by KFS.
The administrative inclusion of additional saw millers in to the prequalified list does
not create fairness as the previously approved saw millers were subjected to a more
rigorous and due diligence process. Therefore the direct allocation procedure being
practiced by KFS is unfair, inadequate and inappropriate and incidences of its abuse
are evident.
This review also established that KFS does not issue a timber license or permit to the
selected saw millers as required by The Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest
Management) Rules, 2009 under the Forest Act 2005 (repealed) or FCMA, but instead
issues an award letter/ letter of authority. This is in contravention of the Act.
It is instructive to note that notwithstanding the repeal of the Forest Act 2005,
pursuant to section 77(e) of the FCMA, the Forest Rules 2009 shall remain in force
until they are revoked in accordance with the provisions of FCMA.
4.3.2 Effectiveness of the monitoring and verification procedures to
ensure compliance with license conditions
Allocation of plantations for felling is done at the KFS Headquarters, and then
communicated to the Forest Manager in charge of a forest station. The Forest Manager
then identifies the plantation, apportions it and set the boundaries for clear fell. For
thinning allocations the Forest Manager identifies the trees to be thinned, mark them
accompanied by a Forest Ranger, who then supervises to ensure that the right
hammer marking is done and the right materials are removed. For fire wood removal,
the Forest Ranger uses the receipt for movement controls.
The Forest (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules 2009 prescribes
the terms and conditions to be complied with by the saw millers who are allocated
forest stands for harvesting. KFS issues a letter of authority granting the saw miller
access to forest stocks. KFS does not give the saw millers timber harvesting license
nor terms and conditions to govern their operations as required by law.
The Taskforce established that the Forest Rangers who are supposed to check
compliance do not seem to be aware of such terms and conditions. This lacuna makes

it difficult for the Forest Rangers to enforce the terms and conditions and for the saw
millers themselves to develop their internal capacity to ensure compliance.
Even though the Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules,
2009, contains a timber license template and prescribes the terms and conditions
thereof, KFS on the contrary issues a letter of authority to the selected saw millers and
do not have a framework, procedures or system in place to monitor or verify the
compliance of the license terms by the saw millers.
Saw millers, on the other hand, do not have any mechanisms in place nor procedures
to monitor and verify their compliance with the license conditions, perhaps due to the
fact that they are never issued with a timber license and terms and conditions thereof.
4.3.3 Adequacy and effectiveness of the Chain-of-Custody System
With regards to the commercial forest plantations, KFS has a chain-of-custody for
clear fell and thinning. These include logs, poles and firewood. According to KFS, for
clear fell logs, a hammer mark is made on all logs to ensure identification and tracking
of the movement of the logs from the forest to the saw mill. The hammer mark is
specific to each forest station as prescribed in the Harvesting Rules 2009 and General
Orders.
The thinnings are also stamped with a revenue hammer mark to ensure tracking of
their movement from the forest station to the sawmill. However, a visit to sawmills in
Nakuru confirmed that not all logs from the public forest plantations bear the hammer
mark as required.
However, firewood and poles bear no identification mark and the only proof for their
exit from the forest station is the receipt.
The movement of sawn timber or forest products from the sawmill to their end use is
governed by a movement permit even though the permit is not anchored on the
General Orders but only instituted by a circular.
The movement of forest products from the private farms is governed by a certificate
of origin generated by the Forester at the Forest Station based on which the
Ecosystem Conservator issues a movement permit. It was established that no hammer
mark is being made on forest products from the private farms and therefore there is a
loophole where illegally sourced forest products from the public plantations or
indigenous forest can be camouflaged to be from private farms and subsequently
issued with a certificate of origin and movement permit. The Forest (Harvesting)
Rules, 2009 under Rule 10 on Timber Marking provides for all logs from private farms
to bear an identification mark assigned by the Director (now Chief Conservator of
Forests) for such forest. For instance, it was observed that harvesting of indigenous
trees specifically within Kaberwa forest are being transported without the legal
required hammer mark.

As per Schedule 4 of the Constitution and as per the TIPS, the role of tracking and
monitoring movement of all forest products from the community forests and private
farms is vested in the County Government. However, many County Governments have
not developed regulatory framework nor do they have adequate capacity to manage
this process and in some instances KFS is still doing it, creating room for exploitation
that could facilitates illegal movement of forest product thus making tracking and
traceability impossible.
Additionally, Kenya Police and KWS are involved in enforcement and monitoring the
movement of forest products from source to the end use. However, the effectiveness
of the aforementioned agencies is wanting due to collusions between themselves,
corruption and lack of an integrated approach, supported by a legal framework
4.3.4 Felling plans and associated programmes
4.3.4.1 Felling plans
KFS has two types of felling plans, 5 years and one (1) year. The felling plans are
derived from the 10 years forest plantations management plans and indicate the
annual allowable cut. In principle, the felling plan is used as a tool to ensure that in
every particular year there is forest stock available having attained its rotational age
to be felled, a key indicator of sustainable forest management.
However, it was noted that whereas the one year felling plan should strictly be
adhered to, there are many instances where KFS fell more forest stocks than provided
for in the plan, which compromises the principle of sustainable forest management
and contribute to increased acreage of un-stocked areas. The deviation from the
felling plan was noted to be from increased pressure from saw millers to fell more, in
some cases driven by political interests.
An effective felling plan is informed by routine or annual inventory as is the forest
management practice. However, KFS last inventory was in 2010 supported by donor
funding and therefore the data that is supposed to inform the felling planning process
is not there or is out-dated thus compromising the integrity of the felling plan. The
annual forest plantation mensuration and inventory monitors the survival, stem
population and growth which are important in informing management decisions
including determining the optimal rotation age. KFS cited lack of funding to support
annual forest plantation mensuration and inventory a key plantations growth
monitoring and management tool.
Some of the forest plantations are situated in critical water catchment or biodiversity
hotspot areas such as the Aberdares. KFS carried out a zoning process to identify such
plantation in some areas such Muranga and Kirinyaga.
KFS also conducts environmental and social impact assessments of the various forest
ecosystems, which covers the felling operations and instituted a process of conducting

annual environment audit as per the Environmental Management and Coordination
Act (EMCA). However, the follow up to ensure implementation of the environmental
management plan is inadequate perhaps due to the fact that there is no environmental
unit in KFS.
4.3.4.2 Planting programmes
Just like the felling plans, KFS prepares two (2) planting programs; 5 years and one
(1) year. These programmes are derived from the 10 years forest plantations
management plans. Planting program prescribes the areas that will be established, the
number and the species of tree seedlings needed. The one-year planting programme is
also used to inform the budgetary process for its implementation.
According to KFS, the current un-stocked forest plantation area is estimated at 13,000
ha part of which is the backlog arising from the 13 years logging ban, even though
there was no documentation in support of the same. Annually, KFS targets to plant
8,000 ha, but the limited budget provision only allows for 2,000 ha and the rest is
expected to be done by the CFAs through PELIS or by the saw millers. It costs KFS
approximately KES 50,000 to establish one hectare, but through PELIS it costs
approximately KES 15, 000.
Delayed planting also result from cases where the saw millers delay in harvesting and
removing logs at the stipulated time, with some saw millers holding on to the forest
stocks for as long as 4 year, for instance in Loitokitok forest and Kabaru Forest. There
are also other incidences where, the Forest Manager delays in opening up the cleared
stand for replanting by CFAs via PELIS and saw millers. For instance, for Muileshi CFA,
PELIS operations have registered success in three regions, namely, Kakamega, Ileo
and Shinyalu. The CFA has a management plan and an agreement with KFS to guide
their operations. The CFA has so far planted 490 acres of trees with a success growth
rate of 80%. They also engage in maintaining the firebreaks to control fire outbreak
and spread of the indigenous forest into the plantation forest. Sixty scouts have been
trained to support conserve Kakamega Forest a tropical rain forest which is 90%
indigenous and 10% plantations.
In areas where the forest adjacent community has small pieces of land, the PELIS has
succeeded e.g. in Nyeri and Kiambu. While in areas where the communities have
adequate land the system have not worked. PELIS have also been mismanaged
resulting to under-stocked stands, delayed replanting and poor quality plantation
establishment. Moreover, in places like Loitokitok Forest, it was observed that non-
suitable/non-recommended crops such as maize have been planted alongside tree
seedlings hampering their growth. The KFS Board has confirmed that maize is not
suitable under PELIS.
The re-planting by the saw millers is voluntary and there is no formal framework of
engagement between the KFS and saw millers. In 2017, KTMA gave 2.5 million
seedlings to KFS, leading to replanting of 2,000 ha and the establishment of one of the

largest tree nursery in Kericho. KTMA expect to produce over 5 million seedlings to
hand over to KFS in 2018 for planting but on visiting the nursery they can only
manage to supply 2.6 million seedlings to KFS. Some Saw millers indicated that they
make a follow up to ensure that the seedlings they plant are maintained up to a
sapling stage.
The involvement of saw millers in planting in the absence of a well thought out
engagement regime may result to conflict of interest, based on the view that they have
invested in replanting, and hence they should get preferential treatment in the
allocation of the forest stocks. In some instances, Nakuru saw millers (small and
medium) confirmed that they contribute money to KFS through KTMA in the range of
KES 15,000 in cash, per ha to support replanting but it is not clear how such money is
accounted for by KFS. Some saw millers who are not comfortable paying the KES
15,000 opted to plant directly.
KFS collect royalties to a level of KES 3.2 billion (KFS 2017/2018 Budget) in a year but
this amount goes toward recurrent expenditure instead of a portion of it going
towards the support of the planting operations.
One of the main inadequacies is that KFS does not have an elaborate monitoring
regime to ensure that the seedlings planted by the CFAs and saw millers or by
themselves survive leading to low quality plantation establishment.
4.3.5 Valuation procedures and methods for forest stocks
KFS conducts two (2) types of inventory procedures, namely, management inventory
and sales inventory. Management inventory is done via sampling to inform
management decisions, while the sale inventory is done to estimate the stumpage
volume, which is a key parameter for the valuation of the forest stock and
determination of the stumpage price.
Unlike the management inventory, which is through sampling, sale inventory entail
measurement of all trees diameter and the height of every tenth tree. This data is then
transmitted to the Head of Inventory, supported by two other inventory staff at KFS
Head Office, who then keys in the data. Different computation formulae are the
applied, based on the tree species, to generate the standing volume of a specific forest
plantation areas earmarked for felling as per the felling plan.
The inventory is conducted by an inventory team composed of one Forester and two
enumerators. Currently, KFS have 11 field inventory teams, which are deployed, on
different plantations earmarked for felling on need basis. Due to limited number of
permanent KFS staff, casuals are often hired to undertake inventory, thus high
potential of compromising the integrity of the process. The inventory is done too close
to the allocation of the plantations to the saw millers for felling and as such in all cases
the inventory team is under pressure and this denies them time to undertake
verification or quality assurance. As such, there is a possibility for the saw millers to

collude with the field inventory staff to compromise the inventory process in favour of
the saw miller. There is also likelihood to manipulate the raw inventory data collated
in the field during data entry and volume computation at the KFS Headquarters.
Observations made across the field visits included undervaluation of the trees for
harvesting as a common practice between KFS officers and saw millers. Public
submissions on Githaka Forest, Ragia Forest, and Sasumua Dam provide clear
evidence of indigenous tree felling and illegal logging activities.
The inventory is conducted to establish the standing volume for tree species poised
for sawn timber whether from clear fell or thinning, which is pine and cypress. For the
trees intended for transmission poles and posts, the pricing is based on individual
pieces, a system prone to subjectivity hence potential loss of revenue.
Every three years, KFS undertakes a stumpage appraisal through market analysis
using the residual pricing method to establish the market price for both the sawn
wood and poles. This involves, assessing the total cost incurred by the saw millers or
transmission pole plants in processing their products, makes a provision of 10% profit
margin and then deduct this cost from the market timber price to arrive at the unit
price per cubic metre. It is this unit price that is multiplied by the stumpage volume to
arrive at the stumpage price.
This price schedule is then submitted to the KFS Board for approval and then to the
Cabinet Secretary responsible for Forestry for gazettement.
The current KFS forest plantation stocks disposal is based on standing volume
meaning that the saw miller or transmission poles dealers buy the tree while standing
and go ahead and fell themselves. In this system, the value of the forest stock is only
dependent on the quantity and thus it’s not optimal since it does not capitalize on the
quality of the products. KFS is aware of this challenge and piloted the grading system
but faced resistance from the saw millers who were in favour of the standing volume
method, perhaps fearing that they may have to pay more if the grading system is
adopted. The KFS method of selling sawn timber is based on merchantable height,
which is wasteful and out-dated.
The KFS Technical Orders that stipulates the rotation age (currently at 30 years) for
pine and cypress is out-dated and needs to be reviewed in light of recent scientific
knowledge. For instance, the current rotation is biological and ignores optimal
economic considerations. In good soils according to current KFS data, a pine
plantation at 22 years would have reached optimal economic value, but now have to
wait until its 30 years as per the Technical Orders.
A visit to James Finlay, a private entity in Kericho, demonstrated that forest
plantations in Kenya can be established, managed and harvested professionally,
efficiently and effectively and present a good case study for learning. Indeed Finlays
has invested heavily on automated modern machinery such as the Eco-log forest
harvester, Eco-log forestry forwarder and the Pallari stump harvester used for

harvesting of logs and establishing the standing volumes of forest stocks in an
automated way which enhances accuracy, accountability and transparency.
4.1 Recommendations
4.4.1 Adequacy, fairness and appropriateness of procedures,
qualification and conditions for licensing of saw millers
Short-Term
1. KFS should discontinue the ‘Procedure for disposal of forest plantation material’
that provides for direct allocation of forest stocks.
2. In the meantime, KFS should strictly adhere to the current Forests (Participation
in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules 2009 with respect to issuance of
timber licenses and permits.
3. No administrative additions of saw millers to the prequalification list should be
done before an appropriate forest stocks disposal procedure has been
developed.
4. KFS should undertake an independent due diligence of all the prequalified
sawmills.
5. Ministry of Environment and Forestry should undertake an independent audit of
all saw millers who have been granted access to forest stocks by KFS through the
allocation letters.
6. The criteria used by KFS to classify saw millers into small, medium and large
categories should be reviewed to enhance its transparency.
7. Clear modalities for disclosure and management of conflict of interest where a
CFA or its members are also saw millers should developed.
Medium-Term
8. KFS should undertake an external audit of the wood conversion efficiency,
human resources and technological capacity of the sawmill before
prequalification to ensure that sawmills using wasteful technology such as
circular bench saws and tractor saws are not prequalified.
9. The Cabinet Secretary responsible for Forestry should formulate regulations,
through a participatory process in accordance with the procedures laid down in
the FCMA and the Constitution, to govern the disposal of forest stocks from
community and Public Forests. The formulation process should, among others,
address the following:
a) Geographical area of operation of the saw miller; and
b) Affirmative action for local small-scale saw millers, and communities
neighbouring forest areas.

4.4.2 Effectiveness of the monitoring and verification procedures for
compliance with licensing conditions
Short-term
1. KFS should clearly communicate the timber license terms and conditions to all saw
millers upon issuance of the licenses and for the Forest Rangers to be made aware
of the same.
Medium-term
2. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Forestry should, on recommendation
by KFS, make Regulations on harvesting to operationalize FCMA.
3. KFS should establish an elaborate framework and procedures to monitor, verify
and audit the compliance with the licensing conditions by the saw millers.
4. The Cabinet Secretary responsible for Forestry should provide oversight to
routinely audit and enforce compliance to saw millers’ license conditions.
4.4.3 Adequacy and effectiveness of the Chain-of-Custody system
Short-Term
1. KFS should review and implement the procedure for removal of forest produce
from public forest to enable tracking and monitoring to ease traceability.
2. County Governments, in consultation with KFS, should review and implement the
procedure for removal of forest produce from private and community forests to
enable, tracking, and monitoring to ease traceability.
3. KFS should establish clear framework for tracking and identifying imported
timber to seal illegal logging loopholes on origin.
4. KFS should develop a protocol that governs the use, safe custody, administration
of the revenue hammer mark and tracking of imported timber.
Medium-term
5. KFS should review technical and general orders to include tracking and
monitoring the movement of forest products from forest industries to the end use.
6. KFS should develop an elaborate mechanism for tracking and monitoring the
movement of poles and firewood from the public forests.
7. The Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury should establish regulations for
the identification, tracking monitoring and verification of imported wood and
wood products, in conjunction with the Ministry responsible for Forests, that will
in the interim ease the pressure on our forest resources, and in the long run, make
them competitive.

4.4.4 Adequacy and effectiveness of felling plans and associated
programmes
Short-Term
1. KFS should develop an elaborate control mechanism to ensure that felling plans
are strictly adhered to by having the annual felling plan approved by the KFS
Board and that any alteration to the plan can only be reviewed and approved by
the same Board.
2. KFS should improve transparency on the felling plan once approved by the Board
and share across relevant stakeholders and have digital platform available for
public access to felling plans.
Medium-Term
3. KFS should develop a full rotation-felling plan to ensure sustainable and long term
planning and budgeting.
4. KFS should commission an independent assessment and evaluation to identify the
most effective and efficient forest plantation establishment strategies and
approaches, and make the necessary recommendations.
5. The Treasury should make provision for adequate financial resources to KFS
through the Ministry responsible for Forestry to enable full execution of the
planting programmes.
6. KFS should ensure strict adherence to the rules governing PELIS to stick to the
pre-determined appropriate crop species.
7. CFAs should enhance their governance and develop a National self-regulatory
entity enshrined in the Forest Sector statutes.
Long-Term
8. KFS should create an Environmental unit under the CCF to act as a liaison office
with NEMA and to ensure environmental compliance in all KFS forestry
operations.
9. Operationalize the Forest Sector Trust Fund to allow KFS to use a portion of
royalties and taxes generated for replanting, reforestation and other silvicultural
practices.
4.4.5 Valuation procedures and methods for forest stocks
Short-Term
1. KFS should put in place an internal and external control system to ensure quality
assurance of the sale inventory process.
2. KFS should institute an internal and external control system to ensure quality
assurance of the stumpage price determination process.

3. KFS should conduct sale inventory at least one year before the felling date of the
forest stocks.
Medium- Term
4. KFS should ensure that management mensuration and inventory is conducted on
all the forest plantations annually and put in place control mechanism to ensure
that the process is objective.
5. KFS should pilot and test grading system for the disposal of the forest stocks to
ensure optimal value and based on the outcome make necessary
recommendations.
6. KFS should review Technical Orders to allow for the adoption of modern
technologies for management, harvesting and disposal of forest stocks.
7. KFS should review the Technical Orders to ensure that the most economical
rotation age regime is determined and applied.
8. KFS should review their current merchantable height method of the sawn timber
to total volume valuation.
4.4.6 General Recommendations (Medium-Term)
1. Ministry responsible for Forestry should develop guidelines on cost and benefit
sharing mechanism for the forest sector.
2. KFS should develop subsidiary legislations and guidelines to implement section 44
of FCMA 2016 on concession management.
3. The Auditor General Office, the National Treasury and the Ministry responsible for
Forestry should adopt National Taxation, valuation, and auditing regime to suit
forestry sectors.
4. The saw-milling subsector should enhance their governance and establish a self-
regulatory entity recognised within the forest sector statues.

Chapter Five
GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
5.1 Preamble
The mandate and functions of the forest sector are enunciated by the FCMA as well as
in the Executive Order No. 1 of 2016. Further, under the provisions of the Constitution
in the Fourth Schedule, the function of forestry and environment is a concurrent
function assigned to both National and County Governments. Specifically, the National
Government is responsible for the residual function of policy formulation and
protection of the environment and natural resources with a view to establishing a
durable and sustainable system of development. On the other hand, County
Governments are responsible for implementation of specific national government
policies on natural resources and environmental conservation including forestry.
According to the Executive Order No. 1 of 2016, the function of forestry is assigned to
the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources with the following specific
mandate; Forestry development policy management, development of forests, re-
afforestation and agro-forestry, restoration of strategic water towers and Kenya
forestry services. Other than the Ministry itself, the other institutional structures that
have been created some of these functions are KFS, KEFRI and KWTA. It is noted that
this function is now being performed by the current Ministry of Environment and
Forestry.
Other Ministries, Department and Agencies that are involved in forest management
and conservation include the Ministry of Water; Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries;
Lands and Physical Planning; the National Land Commission (NLC), Kenya Wildlife
Service (KWS), the National Museums of Kenya (NMK), Water Resources Authority
(WRA) and the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
FCMA establishes various governance and institutional structures responsible for the
management of respective functional areas as provided for in the Constitution and the
Act. The key governance and institutional structures are:
a) Cabinet Secretary
The Cabinet Secretary in consultation with County Governments and relevant
stakeholders is required to develop a national forest policy for the sustainable use of
forest and forest resources which policy should at least once in every five years be
reviewed. Further, the Cabinet Secretary is required within one year of
commencement of the Act and every five years thereafter, following public
participation, formulate a public forest strategy. The Cabinet Secretary is also
responsible for resource mobilization for the sector as well as playing an oversight
role on the performance of the other institutional structures in the sector.

b) Kenya Forest Service
FCMA establishes a body corporate known as KFS, whose functions include, among
others:
Conservation, protection and management of all public forests,
Preparation and implementation of management plans for public forests, and
assistance with the same for community and private forests
Permitting /licensing activities relating to forest resources
Assisting counties to build capacity in forestry and forest management
Through collaboration, identifying research needs and the application of such
research
Management of water catchments to enhance ecosystem services
Implementation and enforcement of rules and regulations governing importation,
exportation and trade in forest produce.
KFS is managed by a Board of Directors whose primary responsibility is to ensure
proper performance of the various functions assigned to the Service under the Act.
Under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, the position of CCF is established with
the principle function of being responsible for the direction of the affairs and
transactions of the Service as well as performance of its objectives, functions and
duties. The CCF is also the accounting officer and is responsible for the day-to-day
running of the Service. In addition, the Board has responsibility for appointment of
such other officers and staff of the Service as is necessary to carry out the functions of
the Service.
Amongst the staff of the Service, the Board has the power, on recommendation of the
Cabinet Secretary responsible for matters related to internal security, to establish and
designate the specific cadre of staff of the Service to be uniformed and disciplined
force.
According to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, the Board has the leeway to
establish committees for the better carrying out of its functions. Currently, the Board
has four committees, which include; Audit and Governance, Human Resource and
Administration, Finance and General Purposes as well as the Technical, Planning and
Development committees.
c) County Governments
Under the provision of Section 21 of the Act, County Governments are assigned the
following functions:
a) Implementation of national policies on forest management and conservation;
b) Management of all forests on public land defined under Article 62(2) of the
Constitution;

c) Preparation of an annual report, with the approval of the County Assembly, for
the Service on the activities of the county government in relation to this Act
and any national policies on forest management and conservation;
d) Promotion of afforestation activities in the county;
e) Advising and assisting communities and individuals in the management of
community forests or private forests; and
f) Enter into joint management agreements with communities or individuals for
the management of community forests or private forests.
A County Assembly may enact legislation for the better carrying into effect of the
provisions of this section.
KFS may, if requested, collaborate, partner or offer assistance to the County
Government
d) Kenya Forestry College
Section 17 of the Act establishes the Kenya Forestry College mandated to provide
forestry education, provide vocational and technical training courses in forest
conservation and the management and sustainable utilization of forests, and provide
training in the protection of forests and allied natural resources.
The College is required to develop training programmes in forest management and
utilization design training programmes to support apprenticeship and vocational
training in the forest sector including short courses for communities, private forest
owners and forest industries.
e) Kenya Forest Research Institute (KEFRI)
The Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) is established under the Science,
Technology and Innovation Act, 2013 with the mandated of forestry research and
development.
The Institute is required to develop research and development programmes to
provide information and technologies for sustainable development of forestry and
allied natural resources. In addition, KEFRI is required to consult with relevant
organizations to:
a) Prepare forestry research and development strategies for the country;
b) Conduct expert training courses in forestry and allied natural resources;
c) Disseminate research findings to support forestry development in the country
and counties; and
d) Participate in the development and monitoring of national forest standards.
The Institute shall, on a regular basis, compile and submit a report for the Cabinet
Secretary relating to forestry research and development.

f) Forest Conservation and Management Trust Fund
The objective of the Forest Conservation and Management Trust Fund is to nurture,
promote and support innovations and best practices in forest conservation and
development including the support of community forestry programmes; reforestation
and afforestation programmes; forestry extension programmes; apprenticeships and
vocational training; and programmes for payment for ecosystem services.
5.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference
The following subsections present the interpretation of the terms of reference
pertaining to Governance and Finance by the Taskforce.
5.2.1. Effectiveness of participatory forest management programmes
including CFA operational and governance structures
The Taskforce was required to:
Identify all participatory forest management programmes that are spelt out in the
FCMA;
Undertake an assessment of how each of these programmes work;
Determine the governance structures that are in place for each of these
programmes and how effective they are in meeting their objectives;
Undertake a specific review of CFAs operational and governance structures.
5.2.2. Revenue generation from forests against the investment and
operational costs
The Taskforce was required to:
Undertake a determination of all revenue generated from the forest sector
through KFS.
Assess investments undertaken towards the forestry sector by KFS.
Assess or determine the operational costs in KFS.
Compare the revenue generation of KFS vis-a-vis its investment and operational
costs.
5.2.3. Penalties under the Forest Conservation and Management Act,
2016 and related laws
The Taskforce was required to undertake a review of the relevant Acts that touch on
or have an impact on forestry management, with the aim of harmonizing and or
enhancing the penalties therein. These include:
Constitution of Kenya 2010

Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016
Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2016
Energy Act, 2006
Agriculture Food and Fisheries Act, 2013
Water Act, 2016
Water rules, 2007
Land Act, 2012
Land (Amendments), 2016
Survey Act Cap. 295
Physical Planning Act Cap. 286
County Government Act, 2012
Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999
Ministry of Environment and Forestry Strategic Plan
Forest (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules, 2009
Forest (Charcoal) Rules, 2009
Draft National Forest Policy, 2015
Sessional paper no 3 of 2009 on National Land Policy
Sessional Paper 1 of 2017 on National Land Use Policy (NLUP)
National Spatial Plan (2015-2045)
Devolution Policy, 2016
Catchment Management Advice of KEFRI, 2009
Kenya Water Towers Status Report 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2018
KWTA Strategic Plan 2016-2020
KWS Strategic Plan
5.2.4. Statutory and regulatory regime governing charcoal burning and
trade
The Taskforce was required to review the FCMA and the Charcoal regulations 2009
and any other regulatory mechanisms at (including the County level) to identify the
gaps in legislation and the institutional weaknesses that face the Charcoal sector and
therefore determine whether the production, trade and consumption of charcoal can
be better regulated.
Additionally, the Taskforce was to determine whether it is practical, feasible and
possible to ban the production and use of charcoal in the country.

5.2.5. Effectiveness of participatory forest management programmes
and CFA operational and governance structures
5.2.5.1 Participatory Forest Management
The Taskforce was required to review the strategies employed in sustainable forest
management through the involvement of communities living in the neighbourhood of
forests. In Kenya, this is done through CFAs, individuals, institutions and government
agencies that are granted permission to undertake some economic activities while
protecting and conserving the forests. There are three main participatory forest
management tools used by KFS, which include; the community participation, forest
concession and joint management agreements.
5.2.5.2 Community Participation
Provision in the Law
Section 48 of the FCMA establishes CFAs, whose membership comprises of members
of a forest community resident in the same area coming together and being registered
as a society. The CFA may then apply to KFS for permission to participate in
conservation and management of a public forest. Where KFS grants permission, the
CFA in conjunction with KFS develops a forest management plan and signs a
management agreement with KFS in order to participate in the management and
conservation of the forest.
Obligation of the CFAs
A registered CFA would be under obligation to protect, conserve and manage the
public forest in accordance with the approved management plan, formulate and
implement sustainable forest programmes, protect sacred groves and protected trees,
assist KFS in enforcing the provision of the FCMA, help in fire-fighting, inform KFS of
any developments, changes and occurrences which are critical for conservation of
biodiversity and lastly with the permission of KFS, enter into partnerships with other
persons to ensure efficient and sustainable management of the forest.
CFAs User Rights
The CFAs user rights comprise of collection of medicinal herbs, harvesting of honey,
harvesting of timber or fuel wood, grass harvesting and grazing, collection of forest
produce for community based industries, ecotourism and recreational activities,
scientific and educational activities, plantation establishments, development of
community wood and non-wood forest based industries and contacts to assist in
carrying out specified forest operations.
Rationale of Participatory Forest Management

The objective of Participatory Forest Management is to inculcate a sense of ownership
in communities living within the vicinity of the forest, and enable them to conserve
and manage the forest.
Structure of the CFAs
The typical organizational structure of a CFA comprises of the executive committee,
which is the highest organ in decision-making, management committee and the
members who would comprise of community based organizations (CBOs). The CBOs
consist of specific user rights groups like honey harvesters and grazers, among others.
The CFA is intended to be an all-inclusive body that encompasses all forest user-
groups within the communities adjacent to the forest.
Role of KFS in managing PFM operations
KFS through its Participatory Forest Management Guidelines, 2015 facilitates the
formation and strengthening of CFAs in the following manner; identifies community
structures, provides technical and management advice to community, conduct
elections and capacity building.
5.3 Effectiveness of participatory forest management
programmes
5.3.1. Findings and Situational Analysis
5.3.1.1 Status of Registration of CFAs
Information obtained from KFS49 indicates that a total of 325 CFAs have been
registered across the ten conservancies in the country. The ten conservancies are
Nairobi, North Eastern, Nyanza, Western, Eastern, Ewaso North, North Rift, Mau, Coast
and Central Highlands. Out of the 325 CFAs, 156 have forest management plans and
only 99 have signed management agreements with KFS. What this means is that, the
participatory forest management system through the CFAs vehicle is not entirely
encompassing since only about 30% of the registered associations have met the legal
requirements. It can only be concluded that the remaining 70% of the associations are
not making the requisite contributions to sustainable management and conservation
of the forests and therefore call to question the effectiveness of KFS and entire forest
sector in exploitation of this very important window in efficient management of the
forest resources. What raises even more concern is that many of these associations,
which have not met the legal requirements, are in active operation without being
obligated to comply with the law.
According to the investigations and inquiries carried out by the Taskforce, there are
many instances of CFAs that are in active operation in various conservancies that have
49 KFS. Community Forest Association Register, Kenya 9 Mar 2018

not been registered by the registrar of societies. It is obvious that such CFAs are
operating completely outside the law but with complicity of KFS.
Whereas the law requires that the membership of CFAs should comprise of members
of communities resident in the same area around the forest, in some instances, there
are CFAs whose membership comprises of people who are not resident in the same
area, people driven by common business interest to the exclusion of other community
members (e.g. saw milling), people of the same family and people who are allegedly
proxies of KFS officers. In addition, it was found that KFS in some instances influences
the membership of CFAs and its governance.
5.3.1.2 Role of KFS in Effective Operation of CFAs
According to the provision of the FCMA and the Forest (Participation in Sustainable
Forest Management) Rules, 2009, KFS is under obligation to perform the following
functions with respect to operation of CFAs:
a) Grant permission for a CFA to participate in the conservation of a public forest;
b) Impose conditions necessary for effective participation;
c) Provide technical assistance and capacity building to empower CFAs to
perform their functions;
d) Maintain an up to date records of all association that have been granted
permission;
e) In liaison with the CFAs develop forest management plans;
f) Administer the forest management agreements signed by the CFAs; and
g) Assist CFAs in carrying out periodic elections.
Whereas the above specific roles of KFS are well spelt out both in the law and the
attendant regulations it has been observed that:
a) There are many CFAs operating in the various conservancies that have not
been granted the necessary permission by KFS by way of an agreement as
provided for in the law. Indeed, there are 226 CFAs that are operating without
the signed agreements50.
b) KFS has not been strict in imposing and enforcing the conditions laid down in
the laws and regulations in the operations of the CFAs. For instance, close to
50% of the CFAs were found to be operating without the requisite Forest
Management Plans.
c) KFS has not developed a system to monitor or audit the activities of the CFAs
within the forests with regard to determining compliance with the set
conditions in the agreements.
50KFS 2018; Community Forest Association Register, Kenya

d) Many of the CFAs are operating without the requisite capacity for effective
implementation for the management plans, organization and management of
their own affairs as well as efficient utilization of their forest user rights. This is
on account of both the internal inadequate capacity and poor governance
practices on the part of KFS.
e) Many of the CFAs are plagued with governance problems; a number of these
CFAs have not held elections. For example, in Makueni County all the CFAs have
not held elections since their formation despite repeated calls to KFS to assist
in conducting elections. In some instances, CFAs reported a direct interference
by KFS officers in their electoral processes.
f) A number of the PFMPs across the various conservancies were found to be out-
dated and therefore ineffective as instruments for management and
conservation of the forests.
5.3.1.3 Plantation Enhancement and Livelihood Improvement Scheme
The Concept of PELIS System
PELIS is an administrative arrangement that is administered by the KFS through the
CFAs that allows members of the community resident within the vicinity of the forest
to be allocated portions of land that are earmarked for replanting. They are allowed to
use such land for growing of food crops on subsistence basis while participating in
replanting and nurturing of tree seedlings for a given period of time before the trees
reach the canopy stage of their growth.
Rationale of PELIS
The purpose of this Scheme is to tap the goodwill of the communities in enhancing the
forest cover through replanting while at the same time enabling them to sustain their
livelihoods for the defined period of time. It therefore creates a positive symbiotic
relationship between KFS and the communities that allows the forests to be managed
and conserved on sustainable basis.
Role of KFS in the PELIS System
KFS is supposed work with CFAs to carry out an objective and fair system of allocation
of the portions of land to members of the CFAs. KFS is required to issue operational
guidelines for the implementation of the non-resident cultivation and issue a
cultivation permit. Additionally, it must monitor and supervise the planting of crops
and the replanting of the tree seedlings to ensure that the seedlings are not interfered
with. In addition, KFS is supposed to ensure that after the period of three years the
planting of crops is discontinued to allow the tree seedlings to thrive.
Implementation of PELIS

Proper implementation of this Scheme is supposed to first ensure that there are no
backlogs in the replanting programme and secondly, the communities participating in
the implementation of this Scheme are expected to own and protect the replanted
forests as the foremost stakeholders in this process.
Challenges of the PELIS System
In spite of the noble intentions for the PELIS Scheme, the Taskforce established that
its implementation has had mixed fortunes. A few successes have also been reported
and in many instances the following challenges were observed:
a. The process and practice of allocating plots to participants in this Scheme is
fraught with corruption, nepotism and poor governance. It has been observed
that in a lot of situations, plots are allocated unfairly to persons who are
associated with KFS officers and others who are not ordinarily residents within
the areas adjacent to the respective forests or non-CFA members.
b. In some instances and especially in Ontulili, Marmanet and Sorget forest
stations, there are huge tracts of forestland that have been turned into large-
scale commercial farms in total abuse of the PELIS system. This information is
well documented in some of the reports that have come to the attention of the
Taskforce from KFS as well as the verifiable presentations received from the
stakeholders.
c. The supervision and management of the PELIS system in some of the forest
areas is weak translating to low survival rates of replanted sites. This has led to
in some instances, PELIS participants deliberately compromising the survival of
tree seedlings in order to continue cultivating their crops even beyond the three-
year limit. Besides this, some farmers have engaged in the growing of crops that
are in direct competition with the young tree seedlings further compromising
their ability to establish. Despite this, KFS has continued to allow such farmers to
access and enjoy the benefits to the detriment of the forest.
d. KFS does not have an accountable system to monitor and determine the proper
payment accrued from the allocation of plots under PELIS. This has allowed
corruptive practices perpetrated by KFS officers and CFA officials who abuse the
system for personal gain.
e. In spite of the apparent full implementation of the PELIS system across all the
conservancies, KFS still faces a serious backlog in their forest-replanting
programme.
f. It was found that KFS has not adequately performed its role in the support of the
CFAs by supplying quality seed for tree planting. Many of the seedlings that were
planted in the various CFA nurseries could not be traced to a certified source.
g. CFAs in many areas have employed community-based scouts who assist KFS in
monitoring the situation in these forests. However, there isn’t an established

arrangement for compensation of these scouts for their time and efforts. It was
reported that CFAs had to generate their own funds to compensate them. This is
not a sustainable practise.
h. KFS has not established a standard plot size for allocation to CFA member under
the PELIS program. It was found that the size allocations varied in size across the
various forest stations.
i. The duration of non-resident cultivation under the PELIS system varied widely
across the various forest stations. In some areas, the duration was 2 years while
in others it was as long as 6 years.
j. Some of the user rights include livestock grazing and grass harvesting (cut &
carry). Livestock grazing was found to have a destructive impact on young tree
seedlings and soil erosion mostly due to trampling and browsing on seedling.
The fee charged for grazing is KES 100 per cow per month, while the fee charged
for cut and carry is KES 50 per gunny bag (a cow requires approximately 10
gunny bags per month, translating to KES 500 per cow per month). This means
that it is much cheaper for a CFA to keep livestock in the forest (which is a more
destructive practise) than to harvest grass through cut and carry (which is a less
destructive practise). This kind of arrangement does not provide an adequate
impetus for CFA members to keep livestock out of the forest.
k. Although CFAs are recognized as a very important vehicle for operationalization
of the participatory forest management system, it was noted that many of these
associations are poorly organized and lack the necessary institutional and
management capacity to effectively run their affairs. In many instances, it was
found that CFAs have not carried out their periodic elections and operate in a
manner that lacks transparency and accountability.
5.3.1.4 Forest Concession
The FCMA allows for management of the forest through a concession agreement,
which gives a right of use to an individual or organization in respect to a specific area
in a national or county forest by means of a long-term contract for the purpose of
commercial forest management and utilization. KFS has entered into two concession
agreements in Kibwezi and Ngare Ndare forests, both of which are for ecotourism
activities.
5.3.1.5 Joint Management Agreements
The FCMA empowers KFS to enter into a joint management agreement for the
management of any indigenous forests with any person, institution, and government
agency or forest association.

5.3.2. Recommendations
1. PELIS should be progressively phased out in the next four years. No further
PELIS area should be opened. In parallel to the phase out of the PELIS,
concessions of forest plantations should be established that provide a role for
the CFA members in the establishment of the plantations.
2. Establish a multi-agency forestry and conservation committee in all forest
stations drawing membership from national administration, county government,
local community elders, youth and women association, People Living with
Disabilities (PLWD) groups, KFS, KWTA and KWS. The purpose of this multi-
agency structure will be to:
a. Pending the Phase out of PELIS:
i. Review and rationalize the existing PELIS system arrangements in the
various ecosystems;
ii. Vet and approve applications for allocation of plots under PELIS; and
iii. Monitor and report on the performance of CFAs, implementation of the
agreements, management plans and the integrity of PELIS system.
b. Verify and register CFAs.
c. Vet CFA members.
3. The multi-agency forestry and conservation committee should audit the existing
CFA in terms of membership, implementation of the management plans,
compliance with the forest management agreements, capacity to tap into their
forest user rights as well as their management practices with regard to PELIS
system. The purpose of the audit will be to provide the basis for determination
of those CFAs that need to be deregistered, strengthened and regularized as per
the law. The existing arrangement under the PELIS system should be reviewed
accordingly to provide the basis for determination and rationalization as
appropriate.
4. There is need for KFS to mount a deliberate capacity building programme for
CFAs and collaborate with the Forest Conservation and Management Trust Fund
to provide the requisite financial support to enhance their performance. Further,
KFS should work closely with the Registrar of Societies in enforcing the
regulations pertaining to elections and conduct of office bearers for the CFAs.
5. Harvesting of timber should not be one of the forest user rights assigned to a
CFA because it creates a conflict of interest in conservation and management of
forests. Further, any member of the CFA who desires to become a saw miller
should cease from being a member of CFA.

6. For purposes of avoiding the current challenges associated with dualism in
registration and operation of the CFAs, it is recommended that the registration
and operation of the CFAs should be solely under the law governing the
administration of forests.
7. The law should be amended to provide for specific financial benefits to the
communities adjacent to the forests through the CFAs. This may be through a
fund that would support, among others, the development of social amenities,
and capacity building for the communities around the forest.
8. In order to create enhanced motivation among the community members in
participating in forest management activities it is recommended that KFS should
hire and deploy some of the lower cadre staff (rangers) from amongst the
communities adjacent to the forests. The community-identified scouts should be
put in a structure for payment of a stipend as a way of motivating them to
participate more effectively in the management of the forests.
9. Promote the use of indigenous knowledge in forest management. For example,
the traditional knowledge of the Mijikenda people has helped in the preservation
of the Kaya forests in the coast as well as in the mangrove forests.
10. The Forest Conservation Management Trust fund needs to be operationalized to,
among other things, provide funds to CFAs to support their conservation and
forest management activities as well payment of stipends to the community
forest scouts.
5.4 Forest revenue against investment and operational costs
The funds of the Service as provided in law consist of monies appropriated by
Parliament, monies as may accrue or vest in the Service in the course of the exercise of
their powers, monies as may be payable to the Service pursuant to the FCMA or any
other law, gifts and donations given to the service.
In practice, the main streams of income for the Service are; internally generated
revenues from fees and charges, levies and cost sharing initiatives; Government
grants; monies from development partners and other incomes.
Over the past 5 years, the Service has received revenue from the various sources as
shown in Table 2. The revenue figures in Table 2 can be compared to the funds
needed in the last 3 years as summarised in Table 3.

Table 2: KFS Revenue for the last five years
2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017
KES Millions Millions Millions Millions Millions
Internally generated revenue
from fees, charges, levies,
cost sharing etc.
2,023 2,720 3,258 3,617 4,305
Government Grants 1,847 1,627 2,169 1,547 2,319
Development partners 1,091 492 451 19 194
Other Incomes 135 97 67 143 112
Total Recurrent Revenue 5,096 4,936 5,945 5,326 6,930
*Source – KFS Audited Accounts (2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017
Table 3: KFS Total recurrent Revenue against the Funds needed
2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017
Funds Needed** (KES) 9,600 14,500 15,100
Total Recurrent Revenue 5,945 5,326 6,930
Deficit (3,654) (9,174) (8,170)
**Source – KFS: Funding for the 2014 – 2017 Strategic plan
Investment and Operational Costs***

Table 4: KFS Total recurrent Revenue against Expenditure
Expenditure 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017
KES Millions Millions Millions Millions Millions
Recurrent Personal
Emoluments
3,011 3,430 3,574 3,972 4,302
Boards Expenses 21 7 8 30 31
Operating/Adminis
trative Expenses
1,126 1,323 1,275 1,314 1,465
Repairs and
Maintenance
113 316 286 276 321
Total 4,271 5,076 5,143 5,592 6,119
Development Percentage of
Recurrent
79.61% 86.17% 97.41% 98.11% 97.58%
Acquisition of
Assets
1,094 815 137 108 152
Percentage of
Development
20.39% 13.83% 2.59% 1.89% 2.42%
Total Operating
Expenses
5,365 5,891 5,280 5,700 6,271
Operating Surplus
/(Deficit)
-269 -955 665 -374 659
***KFS Audited Accounts (2012/2013, 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017

5.4.1 Key Findings
1. There has been a steady increase in internally generated revenue due to improved
control systems, revised royalties on timber and enhancement in other revenue
streams like hire of aircraft51. Over the past five years, this revenue stream has
recorded an increase of 112.8%.
Whereas the Taskforce has not found any reason to cast doubt on the apparent
improvement in the revenue generated, it is still calls for further inquiries to
determine the veracity of the explanation given by the Service.
In spite of this increase there is evidence that the Service could have collected
more monies if it had ensured the following:
i) That all the monies due to it for sale of forest materials was collected
efficiently.
ii) The existence of an effective accounting and monitoring system for
payment of PELIS.
iii) A more transparent and realistic method of valuation of trees.
iv) Collection of revenues due to the Service on account of easement, way
leaves and installations in forests including construction of dams. This has
attracted a qualified audit opinion from the Auditor General. According to
the report from the Auditor General the outstanding receivable in this
regard is KES 496,370,179 for financial year ending June 30th, 2016.
2. Over the past five years, revenue from Government grants has increased by 26%,
which is a very slight increment and does not compare well with the recorded
increase on internally generated revenue. This means that in spite of the enhanced
mandate of the Service, which necessitates implementation of broader strategic
activities, the available capacity and resources are not sufficient.
3. It is evident from a review of the KFS finances that a third of its expenditure is
classified as operating/administrative expenses. However, the Service was not
able to demonstrate the exact allocation directed to establishment/ regeneration
of new forests as it was lumped under operating/administrative expenses.
Without such information, the Service was not able to justify its performance (or
lack thereof) in ensuring the sustainability of forest plantations.
4. It was noted that the KFS financial management system is not linked to the
licensing and material allocation systems. As a result, the Service is not able to
accurately account for the materials allocated and paid for at Station level.
5. The financial report submitted by KFS does not give the exact amount committed
to the achievement of its strategic objectives.
51KFS Audited accounts

6. The funding received by KFS is not sufficient to expand its institutional and human
resources requirements to effectively execute its mandate.
7. In terms of asset base, the Service has not secured its asset including land,
property, plant and equipment and consequently the accuracy of the reported
status of the asset base is in doubt. This is one of the reasons repeatedly cited by
the Auditor General in qualifying KFS Audit Reports.
8. The Auditor General has also issued qualified opinion in relation to the following
matters:
i) Outstanding temporary imprest issued to officers of the Service;
ii) Unsupported payments to casuals;
iii) Unsupported expenditures;
iv) Failure by the Service to achieve its approved budget.
9. A review of the 2016 financial report by the Auditor General revealed the
following malpractices by the Service in handling its accounts.
i). Analysis of data maintained under the accounts receivable including customer
master data and invoices issued revealed that 52 customer identities were
created more than once in the IT system. Further, 94 customers had accounts
that did not have adequate details including customer number, address and
status. Additionally, 8,176 customer invoices and serial numbers could not be
traced in the IT system.
ii). Analysis of data and accounts payable including vendors master data and
LPOs revealed that 17 vendors had multiple accounts in the system. There
were inconsistencies in suppliers codes and 69 codes were found missing in
addition to 5 missing LPOs.
iii).Analysis of HR bio-data and payroll revealed that 12 officers were sharing
bank account without the required authorization, among other HR related
inconsistencies.
10. An analysis of the expenditure indicated that the Service has registered a decline
year on year in the amount expended in development dropping from 20% in F/Y
1012/13 to a paltry 1% in F/Y 2016/17. This means that the Service cannot
engage in development and improvement of its infrastructure and capital
formation programmes. This has undermined the capacity of the Service to achieve
its strategic objectives. It is however noted that the recurrent expenditure has
increased.

1. Based on the figures outlined above, it is obvious that the Service is severely
underfunded and therefore requires a radical funding program if it has to achieve
the objective for which it was established. It has to be appreciated that the forest
sector contributes 3.6% of the GDP in addition to many other un-quantified
benefits that the economy derives from the forest ecosystem.
2. The Government should identify the forest sector as a key enabler of the economy,
which requires radical funding programmes beyond the current allocations. This is
because the sector has a lot of implications on supply of adequate water both for
domestic and industrial use, is a major factor in sustenance of the rural economy, a
key determinant for sustaining biodiversity and a significant contributor to
minimizing the harsh impacts of climate change.
3. In addition, the forest sector is a major contributor to the success of the BIG FOUR
targets in terms of manufacturing and housing development
4. Introduce a forest levy fund that will derive funding from the following already
existing developments:
a. Dams for supply of water and generation of electric power;
b. Installation of communication masts and other infrastructure;
c. Railways and highways constructed through the forests;
d. High tension power lines passing through the forest land;
e. Any other strategic installations within the forest land.
It is critical that the government should comply with the National Spatial Plan,
Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2017 on National Land Use Policy as well as the Land Use
Guidelines issued under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act,
1999 that strictly discourages the development of large-scale infrastructure in
forests and other fragile ecosystems. The Government should also operationalize
the Forest Conservation and Management Trust Fund. This fund will be specifically
used for the establishment, rehabilitation and enhancement of the forests,
purchase of the required equipment and infrastructure necessary for the sector,
installation of the requisite technology for monitoring and protection of forests, as
well as funding of research necessary for development of the sector.
5. Government should provide adequate funding to the service to facilitate radical
enhancement of its institutional and human resource capacity to ensure effective
implementation of the strategic objectives related to establishment and protection
of the forest resources.
6. Integration of financial management system with all the licensing and material
allocation system.

5.5 Penalties in the Forest Conservation and Management Act,
2016 and other related written laws
5.5.1 Key Findings
5.5.1.1 Legal, Institutional and Policy Framework
1. The management of the forest sector in this country is beset by weak and inappropriate
legal, institutional and policy framework. It has been noted that the FCMA has glaring
weaknesses and does not make adequate provisions for effective, sustainable and
efficient management of the sector. Furthermore, it is observed that to date the country
has not formulated a current national policy to provide legal and administrative
framework for the sector.
2. It is a fact that in addition to the FCMA, there are other sectoral laws and policy
framework, which have not been synchronized with this particular Act. This scenario
presents a perfect recipe for duplication, conflict as well as institutional overlaps in
performance of functions related to the management of the forest functions. Indeed this
is a major weakness that has to be addressed as a matter of urgency for the country to
find the right policy and legal regime that responds not only to the constitutional
requirements but also to the aspiration of the people of Kenya.
3. The enforcement and compliance unit that comprises the uniformed and non-uniformed
staff of the KFS does not have a solid anchorage under the FCMA. This is because its
creation and designation is left to the whims of the Board and the Cabinet Secretary
responsible for matters related to internal security.
5.5.1.2 Offences
4. Compared to the Forest Act, 2005, the FCMA has shifted from minimum sentences
and fines to maximum sentences and fines. The Taskforce found out that the
present Act apparently provides more lenient sentences and fines compared to
the old Act, in all circumstances except one, namely, wilful or malicious setting of
fire. Table 5 provides a quick comparison of some of the fines and penalties in the
Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 and the Forest Act, 2005.
5. The prescribed sentences and fines are not commensurate to the serious offences
committed. For example, the penalties under the Forest (Harvest) Rules, 2009
and Forest (Charcoal) Rules, 2009 are minimum fine of KES 10,000 which
compared to the commercial value of such produce may not be much. One may
indeed take a risk of committing a crime in the knowledge that the profits attained
can very well offset any fines imposed. The same goes for illegal harvesting of
timber.
6. Violation of the FCMA constitutes a threat to the environment and indirectly the
lives of individuals. Environmental crimes need to be treated as serious offences.
For example, the Wildlife Management and Conservation Act, 2013, deals with
offences relating to endangered species, the penalty being a fine of KES 20 Million
or life imprisonment or both. Illegal logging under the FCMA (including of
endangered species) attracts lenient fines and imprisonment.

Table 5: Penalties in the Forest Conservation and Management Act, 2016 compared to those in the Forest Act, 2005
OFFENCE
PENALTIES
2005 Act 2016 Act
Offenses in relation to mining, quarrying and re-vegetation activities Section 44
term of Not less than 6 months or
to a fine of not less than KES
100,000/= or to both
Section 66
(excludes mining)
A fine not exceeding one million shillings or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Except under a licence or permit or a management agreement issued or entered
into under this Act, no person shall, in a public or provisional forest –
(a)f ell, cut, take, burn, injure or remove any forest produce;
(b) be or remain therein between the hours of 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless using a
recognised road or footpath, or is taking part in cultural, scientific or recreational
activities;
(c) erect any building or livestock enclosure, except where the same is allowed for a
prescribed fee;
(d) smoke, where smoking is by notice prohibited, or kindle, carry or throw down
any fire, match or other lighted material;
(e) de-pasture or allow any livestock to be therein;
(f) clear, cultivate or break up land for cultivation or for any other purpose;
(g) enter any part thereof which may be closed to any person;
(h) collect any honey or beeswax, or hang on any tree or elsewhere any honey
barrel or other receptacle for the purpose of collecting any honey or beeswax, or
enter therein for the purpose of collecting honey and beeswax, or be therein with
any equipment designed for the purpose of collecting honey or beeswax;
(i) construct any road or path;
(j) set fire to, or assist any person to set fire to, any grass or undergrowth or any
forest produce;
(k) possess, bring or introduce any chain saw or logging tools or equipment;
(1) damage, alter, shift, remove or interfere in any way whatsoever with any
Section 52 (1)
Fine not less than KES 50,000 or
imprisonment for a term not less
than 6 months or to both
Section 64 (2)
Fine not exceeding KES 100,000/=
or an imprisonment term not exceeding 6
months, or to both fine and imprisonment

OFFENCE
PENALTIES
2005 Act 2016 Act
beacon, boundary mark, fence notice or notice board.
Counterfeiting or unlawfully affixing marks under Section 53
Provided for a fine of not less than
KES 200,000/= or imprisonment
of not less than 3 years, or to both
such fine and imprisonment.
Section 65
provides for fine not exceeding KES 500,000/=
or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3
years or to both.
maliciously sets fire to any public, provisional, community or private forest commits Section 54 (3)
Fine not less than KES 200,000/-
or to imprisonment for a term of
not less than one year, or to both
such fine and imprisonment
Section 67(2)
Fine not exceeding one hundred thousand
shillings or to imprisonment for a term not less
than one year, or to both such fine and
imprisonment.
Operating a sawmill illegally Section 54 (3) Attracted a fine of
at least KES 500,000/= or a jail
term of at least 3 years or both;
Section 67(3)
Attracted a fine of at not Exceeding KES 1
million or a jail term not exceeding 3 years or
both;
8)Any person who, in any forest area—
(a)introduces any exotic genetic material or invasive plants without authority from
the forest manager;
(b)dumps any solid, liquid, toxic or other wastes in a forest without authority of the
forest manager ;
(c)grows any plant from which
narcotic drugs can be extracted; or
(d)extracts, removes, or causes to be removed, any tree, shrub or part thereof for
export;
Section 54 (8)
a fine not less than KES 3 million
shillings or to imprisonment for a
term of not less than 10 years, or
to both such fine and
imprisonment.
Section 67 (8)
commits an offence and is liable on conviction to
a fine not exceeding KES 3 million shillings or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years,
or to both such fine and imprisonment.

OFFENCE
PENALTIES
2005 Act 2016 Act
General Penalty
offences against the
provisions of this Act for which no specific penalty is provided
Section 57
a fine not less than KES 10,000
term not exceeding three months,
or to both such fine and
imprisonment.
Section 69
fine not exceeding ten thousand shillings or to
imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three months, or to both

7. The FCMA in some instances refers to non-existent regulations e.g. penalty for
illegal quarrying refers to regulations, which are yet to be made. Similarly Section
61 prohibits trade in restricted forest produce although no such notice of gazette
has been published.
8. The current law does not provide for disciplinary code and regulations targeted
towards officers of the Service and which applies to the uniformed and disciplined
officers unlike the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013 which
provides the same.
1. Review of the FCMA to take care of the following limitations among others:
i) Weaknesses observed in the penalties and fines provided for in the Act;
ii) Inconsistencies and apparent contradictions in the various provisions
relating to establishment of the institutional structures;
iii) Weakness in establishment of the enforcement and compliance unit;
iv) Administration and management of the participatory forest management
system;
v) Inconsistencies and disharmony with other laws in the Environment
Sector; and
vi) Lack of the relevant subsidiary regulations to operationalize the Act.
2. For effective management of the sector, the FCMA should be reviewed alongside
existing legislations to align it to the following:
i) Survey Act, Cap 299;
ii) Environmental Management and Coordination, 1999;
iii) Water Act, 2016;
iv) Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013;
v) Climate Change Act, 2016;
vi) Physical Planning Act Cap 286;
vii) Land Act, 2012;
viii) Land Registration Act, 2012;
ix) National Land Commission Act, 2012;
x) County Governments Act, 2012;
xi) Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Act, 2013; and
xii) Mining Act, 2016.

5.6 Statutory and regulatory regime governing charcoal
burning and trade
5.6.1 Findings
5.6.1.1 Charcoal
The national study on charcoal in Kenya by Energy for Sustainable Development
Africa (ESDA, 2005) estimated that annual production was 1.6 million tons.
Production has since risen to 2.5 million tons, an increase of 156% within eight years
(or almost 20% growth per annum). The economic value of charcoal production over
the same period grew from KES 32 billion to KES 135 billion, representing a 422%
growth.
Charcoal is the dominant fuel in urban households. It provides domestic energy for
82% of urban and 34% of rural households. The charcoal sector has acquired
considerable economic importance because of increasing urbanisation (Githiomi,
2012).
The charcoal industry is also part of the informal sector and is by far the largest
contributor to job creation, employing approximately 700,000 people, who in turn are
believed to be supporting 2.3–2.5 million dependants (MEWNR, 2013a).
The most extensive sources of charcoal are in what are considered dry lands of Kenya,
which coincidentally are the most fragile ecosystems in Kenya (Kitui, Makueni, Tana
River, Kwale, Narok, Baringo, Kajiado Garissa, Kwale, Tana River, Narok, Baringo
among others)
Regulation of charcoal although a function of the KFS (as the Agency that issues
charcoal production and movement permits) is prone to “regulation” by other
authorities including police, KWS, Administration Police, county askari, etc.
Under the law, the business of charcoal production and transportation is supposed to
be regulated by the county governments. However, most counties in Kenya are not in
a position to regulate this business because they have not signed the Transition
Implementation Plans (TIPs) that will give them the necessary power to do this. The
Taskforce has noted that out of the 47 counties, 17 have signed the TIPs with KFS. On
this account, it is unfortunate that the charcoal business remains almost unregulated
in spite of the existence of the FCMA.
Charcoal production and transportation goes on unabated despite the many attempts
by the Counties to “BAN” it. In addition, this business is fuelled by corruptive practices
and is controlled by powerful cartels operating allegedly in cohort with rogue KWS
and KFS rangers.
There is a general public perception that charcoal production and transportation is
illegal; yet its use is legitimized mostly in urban areas, despite efforts by government

and in particular KFS to develop a legal and institutional framework such as Charcoal
Producers Association to manage and regulate charcoal production and movement.
This has resulted to more attention being granted to transportation of charcoal rather
than on sustainable production.
Several Charcoal Producers Associations exist, but their capacity for self-regulation
and self-governance is inadequate.
Indeed, there is no regime (working cycle) by KFS to guide sustainable management of
forest plantations/woodlots for charcoal production nor certification system. This
makes it difficult to ensure sustainable charcoal production.
5.6.1.2 Fuel wood
Fuel wood harvesting has on late been on the upward trajectory due to the
commercial significance that this practice has assumed. KFS has fuelled this business
awarding licenses to producers without putting in place the necessary monitoring and
regulatory mechanisms. Producers of fuel wood have abused the rights given to them
under this and unfortunately, have been converting prime timber to fuel wood. This is
mainly attributed to the fact that there is a lot of laxity on the side of the manager at
the forest station level.
Stakeholders submitted that this business is proving to be detrimental to the
management of forests in Kenya.
1. Establish National Framework anchored in law to deter illegal sourcing,
production and transportation of charcoal from the gazetted forests.
2. Review the Forest (Charcoal) Rules, 2009 to bring them in tandem with the FCMA
and to enable the formalization of the charcoal sector.
3. KFS to develop national sustainable management standards and guidelines for
charcoal working cycle.
4. KFS to develop a national charcoal certification system to ensure that charcoal is
being produced from sustainable sources and through efficient conversion
methods.
5. County Government, in collaboration with KFS, should develop charcoal regulation
framework to operationalize the national charcoal management standard and
certification.
6. Government should establish clear administrative mechanisms to legitimize
operations of the charcoal business including investment targeted towards the
promotion of efficient charcoal production technologies.

7. The government should aggressively promote the up scaling of already researched
alternative sources of energy to increase accessibility and availability of these
alternatives to the larger population of the country.
8. Identify and promote fast growing tree varieties for charcoal production as
researched by KEFRI and other knowledge institutions to ease pressure on
indigenous forests especially in dry land ecosystem.
9. The National and County Governments should make deliberate efforts to promote,
facilitate and enhance the proliferation of farm forestry for charcoal production all
over the country to discourage illegal charcoal production from the indigenous
forests.
10. For purposes of ensuring County Governments play their role in the management
of forests resources within their jurisdiction, the National Government should
work closely with the respective County Governments to complete the signing and
operationalization of the Transition Implementation Plans (TIPs).
11. Forest Conservation and Management Committee should strengthen the capacity
of the Charcoal Producers Association to ensure governance and self-regulation
and enable sustainable charcoal production and trade.
5.7 Governance structures and their performance in
management of the forestry sector in Kenya
5.7.1 Ministry of Environment and Forestry
1. The Ministry has not developed a National Forest Policy for the sustainable use of
forests and forest resources. The last policy formulated for the Sector is the 1968
version, which is not only out-dated, but is also completely out of step with the
current realities in the Sector in view of the constitutional policy guidelines as well
as the attendant governance structures. It is appreciated that there was an
initiative to formulate a fresh sector policy, which culminated in the Draft National
Forest Policy, 2014. This Draft Policy was submitted to Parliament for debate and
approval in 2015. However, for unknown reasons the draft policy has never been
considered by parliament and therefore the sector remains without a guiding
policy framework. It is a matter of concern that the FCMA was formulated and
enacted without being based on a proper Sector policy framework.
2. The FCMA requires that such a policy should be reviewed at least once in every
five years. Without an up-to-date policy that is reviewed periodically, it is evident
that the management of the forest sector cannot be undertaken in a sustainable
manner taking into account emerging issues and challenges in the sector.
3. Since the FCMA came into force, the Ministry has not been able to formulate the
required regulations and rules to operationalize the Act. The various Forest Rules

of 2009 remain in place despite the various changes that have since taken place
rendering them difficult to enforce.
4. It has also become apparent that the forest sector is critically underfunded. The
Ministry has not been able to adequately mobilize resources to ensure that this
most important sector is given adequate prominence in terms of budgetary
allocation of national resources as well as from other sources such as development
partners. With such deficits, the forest sector continues to struggle in its attempt to
sustainably manage the country’s forests.
5. The Ministry maintains the oversight role of forest resource management in the
country. It is noted that the Ministry has not been able to effectively undertake this
role as evidenced by the significant challenges that currently bedevil the forest
sector and which have resulted in moratoria being put in place from time to time
with seemingly no firm direction on finding a permanent and long term solution.
6. Green Schools Programme: This initiative was started by the Government for the
purpose of inculcating the value of conservation and tree planting among school
going children. The programme was based on a fund that was allocated to the
Ministry of Environment and Forestry to facilitate tree planting, sensitization and
provision of the requisite equipment to all primary schools in the country. The
initial amount allocated to this fund was about KES 500 million. However, its
implementation has remained hazy because it is not clear how this money has
been used from 2013 to date. It is noted that in as much as the implementing
agency of this program was KFS, the indication to the Taskforce is that the
Ministry did not release the funds in their entirety for the intended purpose.
5.7.2 County Governments
1. In spite of the prominence accorded to County Governments in assignment of the
forest sector function by the Constitution, it is noted that Counties have not done
enough to demonstrate their readiness to undertake this very critical mandate. It
was envisaged that County Governments in consultation with KFS would sign the
TIPs to facilitate the transfer of the forest functions related to the management of
Community and Private Forests. To-date, only 17 Counties have signed the TIPs.
This is indeed a drawback in the sense that only these few counties are legally
empowered to undertake this responsibility.
2. Additionally, the counties that have signed the TIPs have not yet developed the
necessary institutional, technical and human resource capacity to manage the
sector.
3. It was also observed that most of the counties are yet to formulate the requisite
policy and legislative frameworks to guide the management of the forest sector at
their level.

5.7.3 Kenya Forest Research Institute
1. Research is a key component in sustainability. The Kenya Forest Research Institute
(KEFRI) needs to be enhanced to ensure that the most effective, efficient and up-
to-date methods of forestry management are deployed within the forestry sector
in Kenya.
2. It has been found that KFS continues to apply out-dated methods in its operations
despite the fact that KEFRI exists to look into the development of this sector
through research to provide for a more efficient, effective and sustainable sector.
Indeed some well-established private sector players have been noted to be
undertaking effective forest management using modern technology.
3. Private farm forestry has also not been adequately facilitated to fully realize the
country’s potential of forestry. KEFRI has yet to effectively disseminate the various
research findings to enable the expansion of this sector. The potential for
enhancement of forestry in the arid and semi-arid lands is yet to be fully
actualized, although KEFRI has undertaken research in suitable varieties for the
climatic zones in the Country.
5.7.4 Forest Conservation and Management Trust Fund
The process of operationalizing the Forest Conservation and Management Fund is on
going. Innovations and best practice in forest management have yet to be seen to
work, forestry extension programmes are no longer undertaken across the country
and no programmes for payment for ecosystem services through this fund are in
place.
5.7.5 Kenya Forest Service
1. KFS is managed by a Board of Directors whose main responsibility is to provide
strategic policy leadership to the service. In the review of the performance of the
Board by the Taskforce, it has been found that:
2. On appointment of the previous Board in 2015, there was a very good initiative to
formulate a Strategic Plan to guide the operations of the Service. The Strategic Plan
identified the key strategic objectives and result areas that the Service was
expected to pursue in the process of transforming the sector. However, what
comes through is that the so called Strategic Objectives that were identified by the
Board were not transformative enough to the extent that whatever was achieved
after the initial 3-year implementation period did not make much difference in
terms of the critical strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that the
sector faced.
3. A review by the Taskforce of the 2015-2017 Strategic Plan revealed that the
Service rated its performance at 100% on most of the strategic targets identified.

This kind of performance rating was found to be doubtful and misleading for the
reason that the sector still faces the same endemic challenges that were there
before the Board took over.
4. The Board as the overseer of the Service has not done enough to stem the
corruptive and unethical practices that are experienced in the sector such as but
not limited to the obvious flouting of the procedures for valuation of forest
products, allocation of materials to saw millers, administration of the PELIS
system and non-adherence to the procedure and prescribed instruments for
licensing.
5. The Taskforce has also received allegations from Stakeholders in the sector about
the rampant collusion between some members of the Board and a few wayward
officers in senior management in perpetuating malpractices in valuation and
inventory of the forest materials for their personal benefit.
6. The senior management members with the full knowledge of the Board have
colluded with some influential members of society to allocate forestland under the
guise of the PELIS practice for use as commercial farmlands. The Taskforce
verified that one private company was allocated 100 acres of land in Ontulili forest
allegedly for re-afforestation but the same was later found to have been used for
commercial growing of food crops.
7. The Board of Directors sanctioned management to deviate from the open
tendering system of allocation of forest materials as provided by law to a system of
direct allocation to saw millers purportedly on consultation with the Public
Procurement Oversight Authority. In spite of the fact that this was an outright
breach of the law, neither management nor the Board has presented any evidence
of such consultation having taken place.
8. The Taskforce has noted that according to the analysis done on the human
resource requirements of KFS, there was a total establishment of 3,195 officers in
the core cadres of conservators, foresters, ENCOM and survey, mapping, GIS and
remote sensing. This figure compares very poorly with the required number of
6,630. This means that the Service faces a shortfall of 3,435 officers in these core
cadres. For instance, in the ENCOM cadres, the service has 2,542 rangers against
the total requirement of 5,000.
9. The Service has not done enough to build the capacity of the County Governments
to prepare them to take up the transferred forest functions.
10. It was noted that the Service has yet to develop National Forest Standards, which
is a core, mandate assigned to it. Without this, the Service has been unable to
develop a proper framework for quality assurance in its entire operations.

11. It is a matter of serious concern that 16 officers were sent on compulsory leave,
and there is currently no Board in place to commission administrative
investigations into the matter.
The following interventions are recommended in the Short Term:
2. The Cabinet Secretary for Forestry should expedite the process of constituting a
new KFS Board. This will enable an immediate commencement of the
administrative investigation process for the sixteen suspended officers of KFS,
among other urgent matters.
3. Investigation of any member of the immediate former Board of Directors of KFS
against whom allegations of malpractices have been made, and the necessary
action taken by the relevant agencies.
4. Investigation of any Officers of KFS against whom allegations of malpractices
have been made, and the necessary action taken by the relevant agencies.
5. The Cabinet Secretary for Forestry should establish an organ with powers to
undertake:
a. Public vetting of serving KFS personnel with the aim of determining the
suitability and culpability of officers of the service. This will help to
eliminate malpractice by officers, instil an ethical culture within the service
and restore public confidence in the Institution
b. Investigation of any Officers of KFS against whom evidence of malpractices
has been identified during the vetting.
6. The Auditor General should conduct a forensic audit into the following:
a. The Green Schools Programme of the Ministry of Environment and
Forestry;
b. The revenue collection and transmission systems under KFS, including the
PELIS system;
c. Expenditure and accounting systems under KFS; and
d. Inventory, valuation and sale system of forest stocks from thinning and
clear fell.
7. Constitution of a caretaker management team with special authority, and
comprising of competent persons (who meet the criteria under Article 6 of the
Constitution of Kenya) with mandate to manage the operations of the Service in
the interim and assist the Government in carrying out the necessary institutional
and other structural reforms of the Service during the transition phase

8. Review the existing Private Sector Participation Programme activities outlined
in the Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules, 2009
including all permits, licences, bids, contracts, joint management agreements
and concession agreements. This is aimed at streamlining of the operational
systems. In the interim there should be a freeze on further expansion of PELIS in
new areas.
9. Review and audit all Community Forest Management Plans, agreements,
allocations, permits, licences, and any other authorizations outlined in the
Forests (Participation in Sustainable Forest Management) Rules, 2009 with the
aim of streamlining the processes and regulation of the same. In the interim
there should be a freeze on the signing of any new authorizations.
10. Review and audit of all permits, licenses, contracts, agreements or any other
authorizations issued with respect to logging, allocation of felling rights,
sawmilling, timber and charcoal business under the FCMA.
11. Authorize and deploy the use of effective, innovative and suitable technology to
aid in effective monitoring, surveillance, tracking and other interventions for
efficient and sustainable forest management. This includes but not limited to
remote sensing, aerial surveillance, drones, community based intelligence
systems, forest fire alert and response systems, and technological applications
(apps).
12. Empower and deploy the administrative arms of Government to control the
activities currently undertaken within riparian areas all over the country for
immediate reclamation, restoration and sustained protection of water
catchment areas, watersheds, springs, riparian land along river courses, water
bodies and wetlands as well as undertake community awareness and
involvement in the protection of water sources and riparian lands.
13. Immediate implementation of soil erosion prevention measures all over the
country to be coordinated by an institution tasked with this responsibility and
supported by all relevant Government agencies.
The following interventions are recommended in the Medium Term:
14. Develop the capacity of KFS, including through secondment of officers from
other disciplined services to assist in development of appropriate operating
systems and command structure.
15. Increase the establishment of forest rangers within the forests of Kenya and
undertake a force modernisation process.
16. A review of all internal administrative and technical operating structures of the
Service with a view to identifying rectifying and closing
loopholes/gaps/ambiguities within the system.

17. Sensitization of the judicial system on environmental and land use planning
matters with a view to creating a detailed appreciation of the concept of
environmental crime and its impact on the society for sustainable development.
18. Commission a situational analysis of KFS Systems (workload, staff
establishment, resource requirement) with a view to proposing the necessary
reform and transformation package.
19. County Governments should urgently in collaboration with the Ministry and KFS
fast track the signing and operationalization of Transition Implementation Plans
(TIPs), capacity building and resourcing for the efficient transfer and
implementation of the devolved function. Further, a clear framework for
collaboration in forestry functions between the National Government and
County Government should be put in place
20. Develop Sustainable Forest Management Standards as provided for in the FCMA;
and guided by best practices including the FAO Principles of Responsible
Management of Planted Forests.
21. Development of an all-inclusive National Environment Policy and National
Forest Policy as well as the implementation of the related policy frameworks
that have a bearing on the sector.
The following interventions are recommended in the Long-Term:
22. Review the FCMA and all sectoral laws, rules and regulation relating to the
management of forests and allied natural resources in Kenya with a view to
harmonizing these legislations to remove ambiguity, conflict, duplications and
enhancement of penalties.
23. Organise training on environmental matters for the members of the court user
committees in all counties.
24. All public institutions should include in their performance contracts an
obligation and duty to protect the environment.
25. Sustain judicious implementation of the 2009 Report of the Mau Taskforce by
the KWTA and other relevant agencies.
26. Review of the relevant Policy frameworks: Prioritize the formulation of a
Forest Policy and review the other existing policies to make them more
amendable to efficient and effective management of the forest sector. It is
therefore recommended as follows:
i) Revision and completion of the Draft National Forest Policy 2015
ii) Implementation of the recommendations of the Sessional Paper No. 1 of
2017 on National Land Use Policy ( NLUP)
iii) Implementation of Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2009 on National Land Policy

iv) Implementation of the strategies and policies of the National Spatial Plan
relating to conservation and management of forests and other ecosystems.
v) Review the Agriculture Food and Fisheries Policy with a view to
mainstreaming it into the National Forest Policy.
vi) Implementation of the Devolution Policy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reports and other Publications
1. Aerial Monitoring of Forest Boundaries, A joint KFS and KWS Programme
supported by the United Nations Environment Programme, Volume 1, July 2007
2. Aerial Survey of the Destruction of Mt Kenya, Imenti and Ngare Ndare Forest
Reserves, KWS, 1999.
3. Aerial Survey of the Destruction of the Aberdare Range Forests, United Nations
Environment programme, Rhino Ark Kenya Charitable Trust, Kenya Forest
Working Group, April 2003
4. An Assessment of the Status of the World’s Remaining Closed Forests, United
Nations Environment Programme, 1995
5. Elephant Survey, Aberdares Conservation Area (ACA), March 2017
6. Elephant Survey, Mau Forest Complex, Wildlife Conservation Society, KWS, Rhino
Ark Kenya Charitable Trust, December 2016
7. Elephant Survey, Mount Kenya, March 2016
8. Environmental, social and economic assessment of the fencing of the Aberdare
Conservation Area, Report by the KWS, KFS, Kenya Forests Working Group, United
Nations Environment Programme, Rhino Ark Kenya Charitable Trust, September
2011
9. FAO (2014). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2014.
State of the World Report. Enhancing Socioeconomic Benefits from Forests. FAO,
Rome
10. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180, FAO, December 2012
11. GoK (2005). Government of Kenya, 2005. Forest Act 2005.
12. GoK (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2007.
13. GoK (2009). Report of the Government Taskforce on the conservation of the Mau
Forests Complex, March 2009
14. GoK (2010). Government of Kenya, 2010. Constitution of Kenya 2010.
15. GoK (2015a). Environmental Management and Coordination Act 2015; CAP 387
16. GoK (2015b). Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2015.
17. GoK (2015c). Green Economy Strategy and Implementation Plan 2016-2030. A
Low Carbon Resource Efficient, Equitable and Inclusive Socioeconomic
Transformation.
18. GoK (2016). Government of Kenya. Forest Conservation and Management Act
2016.

19. KENGEN (2005). Rehabilitation / Upgrading of Hydro Power Stations, Tana
Catchment Rehabilitation Report, KENGEN, May 2005
20. Kenya Water Tower Climate Change Resilience Program, Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment, Synthesis & Summary, IGAD Climate Prediction and
Applications Centre –ICPAC, United States Forest Service, International Programs-
USFS, IP, February 2018
21. Maasai Mau Forest Status Report, Report by Ewaso Ngiro- South Development
Authority, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Environment
Programme, Kenya Forest Working Group and KWS, 2005
22. Meeting the wood supply challenge: The need for commercial forestry in Kenya –
Discussion paper by Gatsby and PricewaterhouseCoopers, May 2014
23. MENR (2016). Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. National Forest
Program of Kenya. MENR, Nairobi, Kenya.
24. National Mangrove Ecosystem Management Plan, Summary for Policy Makers,
2017-2027
25. Report of the High-Level National Dialogue on Kenya Water Towers, Forests and
Green Economy, November 2012
26. The Value of Ecosystem Service of Mau Forest, Cherangany Hills, and Mt Elgon
Ecosystems, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), United States Forest
Service, International Programs-USFS, IP, 2018, January 2018
Presentations and Submissions
27. An overview of law enforcement in KFS, Alex Lemarkoko (KFS), March 2018
28. Forest degradation status in terms of degradation, J. Ndambiri (KFS), March 2018
29. Forestry in Kenya, Sustainable Management, Liam O’Meare (Bamboo Trading
Company), March 2018
30. Submission to the taskforce on the role of KWTA on management of water towers
and forest resources(KWTA), March 2018
31. Presentation to the Taskforce on forest resources management and logging
activities in Kenya (TMA), March 2018.
32. Brief on NEMA (NEMA), March 2018
33. GBM presentation to the Taskforce, March 2018
34. Representation on Forest Resource Management and Logging Activities in Kenya
(KWS), March 2018
35. Presentation on REDD+ & proposed REDD+ readiness in Kenya to Taskforce to
enquire into forest resources management and logging activities in Kenya
(UNDP), March 2018

36. Contributions of the Embassy of Finland to the Taskforce of logging moratorium
(Embassy of Finland), March 2018
37. The Potential of Public Private Partnerships for Sustainable Forest Management,
Memorandum by Tree Biotechnology Programme Trust (TBPT) Submission to the
Taskforce on Forest Management in Kenya, March 2018
38. Presentation on the Proposed Construction of a Sugar Factory on Nyangweta
Forest, Statos Enterprises Limited, March 2018
39. Memorandum on the Status of Forest Valuation and Sale of Forest Plantations in
Kenya, M. N. Muchiri, March 2018
40. Submission by the saw millers of Elgeyo Marakwet County, 2018
41. Submissions to the Taskforce at Eldoret County Consultations, PAC Hall, Eldoret,
March 2018
42. Memorandum from KTDA on behalf of Managed Smallholder Tea Factory
Companies to the Taskforce, March 2018
43. Memorandum on Better Forest Conservation and management in Kenya submitted
by the National Alliance of CFA (NACOFA) on 17 March 2018, pages 1 and 2
44. Memorandum on Lembus Forest (Baringo County), Lembus Advocacy and
Welfare, March 2018
45. Brief on the forestry challenges and recommendations, C. Muchiri, March 2018,
Page 2
46. Forest Resource Management and Conservation challenges, R. Rutto, March 2018
47. Brief Report on the Current state of our forests and recommendations, Save Mt
Kenya campaign and SaveOurForestKE, March 2018, Page 5
Case law
a) Illegal logging
48. Joseph Leboo & 2 others v Director Kenya Forest Services & another [2013] eKLR
49. Manase Guyo & 260 others v Kenya Forest Services [2016] eKLR
b) Forest dwelling communities
50. Joseph Letuya& 21 Others vs Attorney General & 5 Others (2014) eKLR

ANNEXES
Annex 1: Kenya Gazette Note stipulating Terms of Reference of the Taskforce to inquire
into Forest Resources Management and Logging Activities in Kenya

Annex 2: Route of aerial Reconnaissance of 10 March 2018

Annex 3: Route of aerial Reconnaissance of 11 March 2018

Annex 4: Pictures showing widespread forest destruction
In September/October 2016, an extensive elephant census / forest health survey was undertaken
across the Mau Forests Complex. The survey recorded widespread forest destruction, in particular
illegal logging of Cedar trees. The photographs below were taken during the survey.
Figure 1: Illegal logging in Maasai Mau forest (September/October 2016)

Figure 2: Illegal logging in Maasai Mau forest (September/October 2016)
Figure 3: Bushmeat in Maasai Mau forest (September/October 2016)

Figure 4: Logging in Ol Pusimoru Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)

Figure 5: Charcoal making in Ol Pusimoru Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)
Figure 6: Poaching in Transmara Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)
Figure 7: Logging in South Western Mau Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)
Figure 8: Charcoal making in South Western Mau Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)

Figure 9: Illegal structures in South Western Mau Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)
Figure 10: Charcoal making and clear-felling in Mt. Londiani Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)
Figure 11: Illegal shelters and littering in Mt. Londiani Forest Reserve (September/October 2016)

Annex 5: Review of The Forest Conservation and Management Act, Cap 34 of 2016 (FCMA)
SECTION SECTION CONTENT COMMENT AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT RATIONALE
DEFINITION
OF FORESTS
Section 2: Definition of Forest
“forest" means land which is
declared or registered as a forest, or
woody vegetation growing in close
proximity in an area of over 0.5 of a
hectares
including a forest in the process of
establishment, woodlands, thickets.
Article 69 of the Constitution of
Kenya
The Constitution of Kenya does not
define the term “forests” but refers
to the term “tree cover” under
Article 69. Article 69 states:
(1)The State shall—
(a) ensure sustainable exploitation,
utilisation, management and
conservation of the environment
and natural resources, and ensure
the equitable sharing of the accruing
benefits,
Comment
The Constitution of Kenya (the Constitution) refers to
“tree cover” while FCMA refers to “forest”. As a result,
there is no clarity on what FCMA has been mandated
to conserve and manage. As it would be difficult to
amend the Constitution to include the definition of
forests, we recommend that the FCMA be amended to
include a clear definition of the term “forests” as
follows:
Proposed Amendment
We propose the definition of forests in FCMA be
amended by replacing it with the following definition:
“forest” means land with trees that have a capacity of
reaching a minimum height of 5 meters and growing
in close proximity in an area of over 0.5 hectares.
Forest include:
a) woodlands, thickets and any other woody
vegetation with a capacity of reaching a minimum
height of 5 meters and growing in close proximity
in an area of over 0.5 hectares;
b) land which is declared, gazetted or registered as a
forest under this Act; and
c) young natural stands and all plantations
a) From the current definitions, it is unclear
whether forests refer to any form of tree cover
or whether forests include only tree plantations
with the primary purpose of producing wood or
wood-derived products. A wrong definition of
forests results in collation of wrong statistics on
the current forest cover in Kenya and
consequently misleads Kenyans and non-
Kenyans alike on the state of forestation in
Kenya.
b) The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations (FAO) provides a definition for
forests that gives clarity on what part of a
country constitutes a forest and what part does
not. FAO defines forests as:
“Land with tree crown cover (or equivalent
stocking level) of more than 10 percent and area
of more than 0.5 hectares (ha). The trees should
be able to reach a minimum height of 5 meters
(m) at maturity in situ. May consist either of
closed forest formations where trees of various
storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion
of the ground; or open forest formations with a
continuous vegetation cover in which tree crown
cover exceeds 10 percent. Young natural stands

52 http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad665e/ad665e06.htm
(b) work to achieve and maintain a
tree cover of at least ten per cent of
the land area of Kenya
established for forestry purposes which have yet to
reach a crown density of 10 percent or tree height
of 5 meters in areas normally forming part of the
forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a
result of human intervention or natural causes but
which are expected to revert to forest.”
and all plantations established for forestry
purposes which have yet to reach a crown
density of 10 percent or tree height of 5 m are
included under forest, as are areas normally
forming part of the forest area which are
temporarily unstocked as a result of human
intervention or natural causes but which are
expected to revert to forest.
Includes: forest nurseries and seed orchards that
constitute an integral part of the forest; forest
roads, cleared tracts, firebreaks and other small
open areas; forest in national parks, nature
reserves and other protected areas such as those
of specific scientific, historical, cultural or
spiritual interest; windbreaks and shelterbelts of
trees with an area of more than 0.5 ha and width
of more than 20 m; plantations primarily used
for forestry purposes, including rubberwood
plantations and cork oak stands.
Excludes: Land predominantly used for
agricultural practices”.52
Section 30: Classification of forests
(1) Forests may be classified as
public, community or private forests.
Comment
Under section 30 (2) (b), public forests are defined as
land between the high and low water marks classified
a) The reference to section 62(1)(1) instead of
62(1)(L) appears to have been erroneous;
and
b) Failure to provide correct definitions and

(2) Public forests include—
(a) public forests classified under
Article 62 (1)(g) of the
Constitution; and
(b) forests on land between the
high and low water marks
classified under Article 62 (1)
(1) of the Constitution.
under Article 62 (1) (1) of the Constitution. There is no
Article 62 (1) (1) of the Constitution of Kenya.
From the reading of the section, section 30(2) (b)
appears to refer to Section 62 (1) (L).
correct references in the Act may lead to
improper identification on the forests that
the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) is mandated
to protect, conserve and manage.
PUBLIC
FOREST
STRATEGY
Section 6: Public Forest Strategy
(1) The Cabinet Secretary shall,
within one year of the
commencement of this
Act and every five years thereafter,
following public participation,
formulate a public forest strategy.
Comment
The date for commencement of FCMA was 31st March
2017. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment and
Forests is required to have formulated a forest
strategy within one year from this commencement
date that is by 31st
March 2018.
A forest strategy should be developed if it has not yet
been developed by the KFS to avoid its officers being
held liable for contravening provisions on FCMA.
a) The object of the public forest strategy is to
provide the Government's plans and
programs for the protection, conservation
and management of forests and forest
resources. Without such strategy, there is a
higher likelihood that the protection,
conservation and management of forests in
Kenya will be compromised; and
b) According to section 69 of the FCMA, failure
to develop the forest strategy amounts to
contravention of the Act and any such
contravention is an offence that is
punishable by a fine of KES 10,000 or
imprisonment for 3 months or both upon
conviction by a court of law.
SPECIFIC
PENALTIES
Section 64: Prohibited activities in
forests
Comments:
Section 64 (2) prescribes a punishment of a maximum
a) Low penalties have failed to deter activities
that lead to deforestation in Kenya;

53 file:///C:/Users/Rnjeri/Downloads/eutr-lacey_act-ilpa-clean_wood_act_comparison_table351938.pdf
54 https://www.illegal-logging.info/regions/uk
(2) Any person who contravenes the
provisions of subsection (1) of this
section commits an offence and is
liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding one hundred thousand
term not exceeding six months, or to
both such fine and imprisonment.
of KES 100,000 or six months of imprisonment for any
person who carries out any prohibited activity listed
under section 64 (1) of FCMA.
When compared with penalties from other
jurisdictions, this penalty would be considered to be
lenient and one that would not deter future activities
that degrade Kenya’s forests. For example, the
penalties in various jurisdictions are as follows:
United States of America - $500,000 (approx. Kshs.
50,605,500);
Australia - AUD$425,000 (approx. Kshs.
33,102,803);
Japan - ¥300,000 (approx. Kshs. 286,630) for
companies and ¥500,000 (approx. Kshs. 477,716)
for individuals53
; and
Europe - £5,000 (approx. Kshs. 706,947) for
companies54
.
Proposed Amendment to section 64 (2)
Any person who contravenes the provisions of
subsection (1) of this section commits an offence and
is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one
million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years, or to both such fine and
b) The penalty prescribed under section 52(2)
of the repealed Forest Act 2005 was higher
than the current penalty, that is, a minimum
fine of KES 50,000 or six months of
imprisonment. Lowering the penalty under
the FCMA has not served to increase
protection of the forests in Kenya. On the
contrary, protection of the forests has been
on a steady decline; and
c) Rangers and officers from the KFS have
registered complaints stating that the low
penalties provided under FCMA do not deter
people from engaging in activities that lead
to deforestation in Kenya.

imprisonment.
Proposed Amendment to section 69
Any person found guilty of an offence against the
provisions of this Act for which no specific penalty is
provided shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding three years, or to both such fine
and imprisonment.
Section 64 (3): Prohibited activities
in forests
provisions of section 61 shall be
guilty of an offence and is liable on
conviction to a fine not exceeding
one million or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years, or
to both such fine and imprisonment.
Comments:
Section 64 (3) provides a penalty of a maximum of
Kshs.1,000,000 or 3 years of imprisonment for
offences described in Section 61.
Section 61 however does not mention any offence.
Section 61 states “The Cabinet Secretary may declare
by Notice in the Gazette any forest produce that may
not be exported or imported.”
From the reading of the section, section 64(3) appears
to erroneously refer to section 61 instead of referring
to Section 60 (1) that states: “(1) No person shall
import, export, re-export or introduce any forest
products into or from Kenya without a permit issued
by the Service under this Act.”
Proposed amendment:
(3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of
a) The reference to section 61 instead of 60(1)
appears to have been erroneous; and
b) Such error may render the penalty provision
64 (3) defective preventing enforcement
against any person who contravenes the Act
by importing and exporting forest products
without a permit issued by KFS.

section 60(1) shall be guilty of an offence and is liable
on conviction to a fine not exceeding one million or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or
If the drafters of section 64 (3) did not intend to refer
to section 60 (1) as set out above, we recommend
that section 64 (30 be amended to refer to the correct
section.
Section 64 (4): Prohibited activities
in forests
provisions of section 59 shall be
guilty of an offence and shall be
liable upon conviction to a fine not
exceeding five million shillings or to
imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years, or to both
Comments:
Section 64 (4) provides for a penalty of a maximum of
Kshs. 5,000,000 or 3 years of imprisonment for
offences described in Section 59.
Section 59 however does not mention any offence.
Section 59 states “(1) The Cabinet Secretary in
consultation with the relevant stakeholders shall
prescribe Regulations for the grading and valuation of
timber and other forest products. (2) On the advice of
the registered association of professional foresters,
the Cabinet Secretary may, by notice in a Gazette,
authorize any person to be a timber grader or valuer
for the purposes of this Act.”
From the reading of section 64(4), it is unclear what
activity the drafters of this section intended to
penalise.
a) The reference to section 59 appears to have been
erroneous; and
b) Such error may render the penalty provision 64 (4)
defective preventing enforcement against any
person who contravenes this provision.

GENERAL
PENALTIES
Comments:
The general penalties under section 67 and 69 should
also be increased to improve compliance to FCMA and
consequently reduce deforestation in Kenya.
Proposed Amendment to sections 67 and 69
We propose that sections 67 and 69 be amended to
replace the fines and imprisonment terms with “five
hundred thousand shillings” and “one (1) year” as and
where they so appear.
67. Other offences
(1) Any person who—
(a) commits a breach of, or fails to comply with the
provisions of this Act;
(b) commits a breach of, or fails to comply with any
of the terms or conditions of a licence issued to
him or her under this Act;
(c) fails to comply with a lawful requirement or
demand made or given by a forest officer;
(d) obstructs a person in the execution of his or her
powers or duties under this Act;
(e) makes or is found in possession of charcoal in a
national, county or provisional forest; or in
community forest, private forest or farmlands
Failure to prescribe high penalties would not deter
activities that lead to deforestation in Kenya.

without a licence or permit of the owner as the
case may be:
commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a
fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or
(2) Any person who wilfully or maliciously sets fire to
any public, provisional, community or private forest
commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a
fine not exceeding one hundred thousand shillings or
to imprisonment for a term not less than one year, or
Section 69: General penalty
Any person found guilty of an offence against the
provisions of this Act for which no specific penalty is
provided shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding ten thousand shillings or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding three months, or to both

Annex 6: Review of Legislation governing the Forestry and Water Industries
55 NEMA
56 http://www.environment.go.ke/?page_id=2 ; Semi- autonomous means acting as independent entities to some degree
Section Title Section Content Comment and Proposed Amendment Rationale
A. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CO-ORDINATION ACT, 1999 (EMCA)
1
.
MANDATE OF
NEMA VIS- A-
VIS KFS
9. Objects and functions of
the Authority55
(1) The object and purpose for
which the Authority is
established is to exercise
general supervision and co-
ordination over all matters
relating to the environment
and to be the principal
instrument of Government in
the implementation of all
policies relating to the
environment.
(2) (l) monitor and assess
activities, including activities
being carried out
by relevant lead agencies, in
order to ensure that the
environment is not degraded
Comment:
The Ministry of Environment and Forestry has 5 semi-autonomous
agencies56
as follows:
1. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
2. Kenya Water Towers Agency (KWTA)
3. Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS)
4. Kenya Forest Service (KFS)
5. Kenya Forest Research Institute (KEFRI)
Supervisory Role of NEMA
Section 9 of EMCA provides that the function of NEMA is to:
a) supervise and co-ordinate all matters relating to the environment,
b) monitor activities by the lead agencies in order to ensure that the
environment is not degraded, and
c) work with the lead agencies to achieve 10% tree cover in Kenya.
On the other hand, the function of KFS is to ensure the conservation,
management and protection of forests in Kenya.
Inter-agency role of NEMA
Under EMCA, NEMA has been given the following mandate as relates
a) If NEMA does not
exercise its supervisory
role and fails to monitor
KFS’s activities, there will
be reduced
accountability on the
lead agencies that are to
ensure that a 10% tree
cover in Kenya is
achieved;
b) Where
deforestation becomes
prevalent, NEMA should
(in consultation with KFS)
develop and issue
regulations, procedures,
guidelines and measures
for the sustainable use of
forests.

57 EMCA, section 43(1)
58 EMCA, section 43(2)
59 EMCA, section 44
60 EMCA, section 48 (1)
61 EMCA, section 48 (4)
by such activities,
environmental management
objectives are adhered to and
adequate early warning on
impending environmental
emergencies is given,
(r) work with other lead
agencies to issue guidelines
and prescribe measures to
achieve and maintain a tree
cover of at least ten per cent
of the land area of Kenya.
to conservation of forests in Kenya:
a)declare traditional interest of local communities customarily
resident around forests to be protected interests57
;
b)(in consultation with KFS) issue guidelines and prescribe measures
for co-management of critical habitats within forest zones58
;
c) (in consultation with KFS) develop and issue regulations,
procedures, guidelines and measures for the sustainable use of
forests and shall control the harvesting of forests located in hill and
mountain areas59
;
d)(Through the Country Environment Committee) take measures to
plant trees or other vegetation in an area targeted for
afforestation or reforestation by encouraging voluntary self-help
activities in the county’s respective local community60
;
e)(In consultation with the Chief Conservator of Forests), enter into a
contractual arrangements for registration of land as forest land61
.
Section 48 of EMCA provides that any person who contravenes any
conservation measure prescribed by NEMA, or fails to comply with a
lawful conservation directive issued by NEMA or its Environment
Committee at the counties commits an offence.
According to section 144 of the EMCA, any contravention of EMCA is
an offence that is punishable by a fine of not less than Kshs.
2,000,000 but not more than Kshs. 4,000,000, or imprisonment for a

term of not less than 1 year but not more than 4 years, or both, upon
conviction by a court of law.
Proposed Amendments
a) NEMA should issue measures for the sustainable use of
forests on an annual basis to ensure that forests are being used
sustainably. The penalty for failing to comply with such conservation
measure should be retained. Section 44 should be amended to
include the following subsection after subsection 44(1):
“44(2) The Authority shall issue measures for the sustainable use of
forests on an annual basis and such measures shall be adhered to by
the relevant lead agencies.”
b) Under section 44 of EMCA, NEMA has the mandate to
monitor KFS and prescribe regulations, procedures, guidelines and
measures to ensure a 10% tree cover is achieved in Kenya. NEMA is
not active in issuing such measures and should take up its supervisory
role and do so.
c) Under section 9 (2) (r) of EMCA, NEMA has the power to issue
guidelines to ensure 10% tree cover is achieved. NEMA should issue
guidelines and in these guidelines promote an inter-agency model
that would help achieve 10% tree cover in Kenya.
WATER ACT, 2002
a. D
f
3
e
4
ROLE OF
WATER
RESOURCES
MANAGEME
NT
8. Powers and functions of
the Water Resources
Management Authority (the
Authority)
Comment:
The Authority has been given the mandate to regulate and protect the
quality of water resources from adverse impacts. Activities that
promote deforestation should be noted as examples of activities that
Officers of the Water
Resources Management
Authority have an
important role to play in
ensuring that

f
3
4
2
2
.
.
2
.
2
.
AUTHORITY
IN REDUCING
DEFORESTATI
ON
(1) The Authority shall have
the following powers and
functions—
(e) to regulate and protect
water resources.
have a diverse impact on the quality of water resources. deforestation in Kenya is
reduced as this would
protect the quality of
water resources from
adverse impacts. If they
appreciate that
deforestation is linked to
Kenya’s water sources,
this will be a step
towards reducing the
impacts of drought in
Kenya.

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT, 2013.
3
.
ROLE OF KWS
IN REDUCING
DEFORESTATI
ON
110. Powers of authorized
officers
An authorized officer may –
(a) demand from any person
the production of an
authority, license or permit
for any act done or
committed by that person in
relation to wildlife resources
for which an authority, permit
or license is required under
this Act or under any rules
made thereunder;
“authorized officer” includes a
member of, the Service, a
forest officer, a fisheries
officer, a police officer, a
customs officer, an
administrative officer, or any
person so designated under
this Act;
Comment:
A forest officer has the responsibility to ensure that wildlife resources
are protected. They should not ignore this responsibility as and when
he is required to exercise it.
Officers of KWS have not been given the responsibility to protect
forests under the Wildlife Conversation and Management Act. This
gap in law should be filled to improve inter agency efforts aimed at
reducing deforestation in Kenya.
KWS has an important
role to play in ensuring
that deforestation in
Kenya is reduced.

COUNTY GOVERNMENTS ACT, 2012
4
.
ROLE OF
COUNTY
GOVERNMENTS
IN REDUCING
DEFORESTATION
102. Objectives of county
planning
The objectives of county
planning shall be to—
work towards the
achievement and
maintenance of a tree
cover of at least ten per
cent of the land area of
Kenya as provided in
Article 69 of the
Constitution;
Comment:
The County Government, in its planning, development and issuance of
approvals for planning and development by other parties, should
work towards ensuring a tree cover of 10% of the land area in Kenya
is achieved.
The County Government
has an important role to
play in ensuring that
deforestation in Kenya is
reduced.
PHYSICAL PLANNING ACT, 1996
1. ROLE OF
PHYSICAL
PLANNING
AUTHORITY IN
REDUCING
DEFORESTATION
29. Powers of local
authorities
Subject to the provisions of
this Act, each local
authority shall have the
power - to reserve and
maintain all the land
planned for open spaces,
parks, urban forests and
green belts in accordance
with the approved physical
development plan.
Comment:
The County Government, in its consideration and approval of
development plans, should ensure that developments:
(a) do not interfere with land planned for urban forests and green
belts; and
(b) are consistent with the constitutional objective of achieving a 10%
tree cover of the land area in Kenya.
The County Government
has an important role to
play in ensuring that
deforestation in Kenya is
reduced.

Forest Taskforce report

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Forest Taskforce report (20)

More from The Star Newspaper (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Forest Taskforce report