Landscape Restoration in Kenya

Is it worth restoring degraded

landscapes?
 2. The economic analysis of Forest 2.1. Highlights from the economic analysis of
Landscape Restoration (FLR) options FLR9 options in Kenya
in Kenya 1. All proposed restoration transitions have shown positive NPV (7%).
The most viable restoration transition is achieved by integrating Melia
Economic analysis was undertaken in the study by applying ‘Restoration trees in a traditional cowpeas farming in the drylands (NPV of KES 1.9
million). This is followed by transition from poorly managed woodlots to
Economic Modelling and Valuation’ analytical tool of the Restoration improved eucalyptus woodlots at KES 1.6 million and the Silvo-pastoral
Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM)7. The economic analysis system at KES 1.2 million. The transition from treeless roads to roads
relied on seven broad categories of forest landscape restoration opportunities with planted trees has the lowest NPV at about KES 100,000 over the
identified in the National Assessment of Forest and Landscape Restoration 30-year period. The transition from degraded natural forest to improved
natural forest through enrichment planting yielded the second lowest
Opportunities Technical Report8 namely: Afforestation or reforestation NPV (KES 320,000).
of degraded natural forests, Rehabilitation of degraded natural forests,
2. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) of the restoration transition ranged from
Agroforestry in cropland, Commercial tree and bamboo growing on potentially
as low as 2.35 (Degraded riparian zones to bamboo and grass strip
marginal cropland and un-stocked forest plantation forests, Tree-based buffer grass buffer) to highest of 29.2 (Transition from degraded grasslands to
zones along water bodies and wetlands, Tree-based buffer zones along roads reseeded grassland). In situation of resource scarcity, actions should be
and restoration of degraded rangelands. Based on these broad categories of guided by BCR, and interventions with highest BCR are recommended.
From this analysis, grass reseeding in degraded rangelands will yield
restoration opportunities twelve specific interventions/options were identified
higher benefits (29.2), followed by intensive agroforestry (Grevillea
and subjected to economic analysis (Fig.1). spp, Maize and Fruit trees) (25.64) in high potential areas, investing in
commercial Gmelina arborea in marginal areas (24.99) and integrating
The costs and benefits for each restoration transitions were identified from Melia trees in traditional Cowpeas Farming (22.82). Since all, restoration
transitions are viable, prioritization should be guided by the availability of
expert discussions, activity restoration budgets and extensive review of
financial resources.
various land use literature. The costs and benefits from each restoration
3. The cost of forest restoration using the restoration options selected
transition were modelled using various assumptions over 30-year period.
ranged from KES 30,000/ha to KES 600,000/ha (current values for
1. Background The benefits and costs were valued using market prices, avoided cost/ 2018) depending on the restoration option adopted. Restoration of
replacement cost and benefit transfer approaches. The viability per hectare degraded landscapes (5.1 million hectares) will require KES 1.8 trillion
(ha) of these restoration transitions were assessed using: Net Present Value for 30-year period.
Forest and land degradation is a serious problem particularly in developing There is concern that continued landscape degradation will have long term
countries with high population growth and unemployment rates. It is estimated (NPV and Benefit Cost ratio (BCR). The result of the analysis is shown in the 9 Note: due to shortage of time and resources, these were not included in the present assessment,
impacts on the overall human wellbeing and some initiatives have been
bar chart below (Fig. 1) and the highlights are summarized below. but methodological guidance for a comprehensive assessment to be conducted is available in:
that between 1 to over 6 billion ha of mosaic forest and agricultural landscapes are mooted to address and minimize impacts of degradation. One of these KING-OKUMU, C. 2015. A framework to assess returns on investments in the dryland systems of
Northern Kenya. IIED. KING-OKUMU, C., MYINT, M., WESTERBERG, V., DIOP, D., COULIBALY,
degraded worldwide. The monetary value of global ecosystem services loss due initiatives at the global level is the ‘‘Bonn Challenge’’ where many countries 7 IUCN, W. (2014). A guide to the restoration opportunities assessment methodology (ROAM): B., NDAO, M. T., NDIAYE, D. & TEAM, D. P. 2017. Évaluation économique des bénéfices tirés des
assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level. Working
to land use change was estimated at USD 4.3 to 20.2 trillion yr-1 between 1997 have pledged their commitment to restore a total of 150 million ha by 2020 paper (road-test edition), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
investissements dans l’adaptation - Note méthodologique sur l’évaluation économique des retours sur
les investissements dans l’adaptation aux extrêmes et aux catastrophes climatiques déterminés au
and 20111. The cost of land degradation in Kenya due to land use and land cover and 350 million ha by 20305. As part of its contribution to the global effort 8 MENR (2016). Assessment of Forest and Landscape Restoration Opportunities for Kenya niveau local dans la région de Kaffrine au Sénégal. Syracuse, New York, USA: Near East Foundation.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Nairobi, Kenya. KING-OKUMU, C. & TEPO, M. 2018 unpublished Assessing returns on locally determined
changes was estimated at 1.3 billion USD annually for 2001 and 2009 period2. to mitigate climate change, the Africa Continent through AFR100 pledged investments in drought preparedness in Sub-Saharan Africa (draft under review). And Okumu and
Landscape degradation has resulted in declining flows of ecosystem services 100 million hectares. The Kenyan government has made a national target Elhadi (forthcoming) in Wasonga Ed. Healthy Rangelands Book, IUCN

such as water, food, medicine, fuel wood, fodder, timber, biodiversity, watershed to restore a total of 5.1 million ha of its degraded landscapes by 2030 as a
protection, soil protection, and mitigation of global change and thus increases contribution to the global effort to mitigate climate change.
the risks of natural calamities such as drought especially in dryland ecosystems.
The impacts of forest and land degradation are substantial if indirect benefits Forest landscape restoration (FLR) involves investments and the costs and
are included. The immediate cost of the 2009 to2011 droughts in Kenya was benefits associated with these ventures are yet to be defined in monetary terms Roadside planting BENEFITS
estimated at over 12 billion USD, not including its subsequent destructive effects for Kenya’s forests, croplands and rangelands6. This kind of information (on
on the economy3. A rapid assessment of returns on rangeland management by likely costs and benefits of restoration efforts) is crucial to inform all stakeholders COSTS
rangeland users during 2014 indicated a possible return of 90:1 in the event of a
Grass reseeding in rangelands
(including the government, private sector, individual farmers, etc.) on the best
drought and 24:1 under non-drought conditions4. bet for achieving restoration goals. The analysis in this briefing paper is derived Un-stocked plantations fully stocked Cypress plantations

Restoration Interventions
1 Gibbs, H.K and Salmon, J.M. Mapping the World’s degraded lands. Applied Geography from a study carried out on behalf of Kenya Forest Service to support the
57(2015):12-21(Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.024)
2 Mulinge, W., Gicheru, P., Murithi, F., Maingi, P., Kihiu, E., Kirui, O. K., & Mirzabaev, A. (2016). development of National Forest and Landscape Restoration Strategy process. Enrichment planting in degraded natural forests
Economics of land degradation and improvement in Kenya. In Economics of Land Degradation and resilience. Angle Journal. KING-OKUMU, C. & TEPO, M. 2018 unpublished Assessing returns on
locally determined investments in drought preparedness in Sub-Saharan Africa (draft under review).
Improvement–A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development (pp. 471-498). Springer, Cham.
3 PDNA 2012. Kenya Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) for the 2008-2011 Drought. Republic 5 www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge
Commercial Gmelina arborea plantations
of Kenya with technical support from the European Union, United Nations, and World Bank and 6 See Kenya’s national communication on water and ecosystems to the UNFCCC
financial support from the European Union and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Nairobi Work Programme http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/Lists/OSPSubmissionUplo
4 King-Okumu (2015) Rapid assessment of investments in natural resource stewardship in ad/257_267_131301063961586743-Kenya%20submission%20NWP_%20ecosystems%20and%20 Silvo-pastoral systemgrass reseeding and Acacia spp
comparison to the value of returns. Ada Working Paper http://www.adaconsortium.org/index. water%20resources.pdf and methodological guidance in King-Okumu and Elhadi (forthcoming) in
php/component/k2/item/316-rapid-assessment-of-returns-on-investments-in-natural-resource- Wasonga Ed. Healthy Rangelands Book, IUCN
stewardship TARI, D., KING-OKUMU, C. & JARSO, I. 2015. Strengthening Local Customary also see: KING-OKUMU, C. 2015. A framework to assess returns on investments in the dryland Improved Natural regeneration
Institutions: A Case Study in Isiolo County, Northern Kenya Nairobi: Ada Consortiumj. TOULMIN, C., systems of Northern Kenya. IIED. & KING-OKUMU, C., WASONGA, O. V., JARSO, I. & SALAH, Y. M.
S. 2016. Direct use values of climate-dependent ecosystem services in Isiolo County, Kenya. IIED.
HESSE, C., TARI, D. & KING-OKUMU, C. 2015. Investing in institutional ‘software’ to build climate
Intensive Agroforestry of Grevillea, Maize and fruit trees

Riparian zones - bamboo and grass strips

The key questions
Commercial bamboo plantation
1. What are the costs and benefits of landscape restoration? Eucaliptus woodlot

2. What restoration interventions are more viable in Kenya? Intensive Agroforestry of Melia with Cowpeas

3. Are landscape restoration interventions viable to individual 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
Benefits/Costs (KES)
farmers and society at large?
Figure 1: Discounted benefits and costs of restoration (KES)/ha at 7%
4. Restoration of 5.1million hectares of degraded landscapes also a need to analyze which segments of society will benefit and whether
will yield KES 7.6trillion in net material benefits to various or not the benefits will reach the most vulnerable people in drought-
stakeholders, providing, direct additional income opportunities for affected regions in order to build the resilience of the society as a whole.
rural communities besides societal benefits over 30-year period.
Every shilling invested will yield KES 4.00. 2. Implement mechanisms that incentivize restoration by land
owners
5. Restoration of degraded landscapes will increase the supply of Restoration of degraded landscapes at private and public levels will yield
water for domestic, industrial and irrigated agriculture, conserve many societal and global benefits, where beneficiaries do not incur costs of
biodiversity and minimize natural calamities7. restoration directly. The government should motivate restoration activities
6. In addition to considering the financial viability for farmers, there is by developing a mechanism for support e.g. through tax incentives or
a need to consider the social returns on the investments and the subsidize the costs of inputs, such as seeds and tree seedling production,
relevance of some interventions to ending drought emergencies and facilitation of cross-border dialogue between resource user groups. In
in Kenya. large restoration efforts with high public benefits, it would be desirable to
design and implement a payment scheme to motivate and incentivize the
Note: All potential benefits from restoration activities were not institutions or investors.
estimated, and if all direct and indirect impacts are considered the
overall benefits of restoration are massive. 3. Build capacity for large scale restoration
It is important to recognize the critical role of good governance in the
overall restoration strategy. There is need to have a coordinated approach
2.2 Recommendations from the economic analysis of FLR that minimize institutional conflicts and risks. Another barrier which needs
options in Kenya to be surmounted is the paucity of data for decision making. During the
course of this study, we experienced challenges on data and there is need
1. Establish national coordinated strategy for FLR to develop both the rapid assessment approach10 and also the long-term
The FLR is multi-agency, multi-stakeholder undertaking across different framework for collecting costs and benefits of restoration11 so that we can
landscapes, tenures and likely to impact different land use sectors predict outcomes with certainty. We also need to develop capacity in the
hence this requires coordination. In addition, the government in use ecosystem modelling tools to support investments in forest landscape
consultation with stakeholders should define priority areas where these restoration.
interventions/options will be implemented at so as to maximize on
environmental and social benefits and minimize conflicts with other land
uses such as agriculture. This criterion should be based on maximum
restoration benefits to society with the lowest costs. For this process to 10 E.g. as in King (2015) and other references above
have higher societal benefits, all agencies (environment, agriculture and 11 Described in KING-OKUMU, C. 2015. A framework to assess returns on investments in the
dryland systems of Northern Kenya. IIED. And King-Okumu and Elhadi (forthcoming) in Wasonga
livestock) should harmonize their plans and minimize conflict. There is Ed. Healthy Rangelands Book, IUCN

For more information, please, contact:

Mr. Alfred N. Gichu,

Head: Climate Change Response Program,
Kenya Forest Service,
National REDD+ Coordinator & Focal Point,
Ministry of Environment & Forestry ,
P.O. Box 30126-00100
NAIROBI, Kenya.
Tel: +254- 020-2219622,
Mobile: +254-7227874033,

Email: alfredgichu@yahoo.com; alfredgichu@kenyaforestservice.org