Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

REDD+-related activities in Kenya: actors’ views on biodiversity and monitoring in a broader policy context

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Activities related to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+) bear potential benefits for, and also pose risks to, the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES). Next to ecological, socioeconomic and technical factors, the priorities of key actors in REDD+ implementation shape the integration of biodiversity concerns. This study aimed to identify the views of key actors in the REDD+ implementation process in Kenya with regard to biodiversity conservation and monitoring in order to evaluate the degree to which biodiversity is likely to be considered in the (sub-) national REDD+ context. In Kenya, avoided deforestation in dry forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in different forest types are major REDD+ activities. Interviews with 34 (sub-) national and project level actors showed that the solving of socioeconomic issues was paramount for REDD+ implementation in general and for achieving additional conservation benefits. In REDD+ initiatives in dry forests, conservation objectives were primarily related to wildlife; actors stressed the importance of specific management measures to minimize human-wildlife conflicts. In initiatives to enhance forest carbon stocks, the sustained provision of timber, fuel wood and hydrological ES was regarded as a conservation priority and a prerequisite for project viability. The biodiversity indicators and monitoring schemes considered to be available by the actors were mostly related to particular species. In conclusion, integration of biodiversity concerns into REDD+ depends heavily on the resolution of socioeconomic and political issues. Increased collaboration between Kenyan actors can contribute to the development of monitoring schemes for detecting REDD+ impacts on biodiversity and ES on a landscape scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term REDD+-related project refers to all projects that implement actions, which contribute to the aims of the five eligible REDD+ activities (UNFCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, para. 70). This includes afforestation/reforestation (A/R) projects, although A/R projects have emerged under the Clean Development Mechanism (Olander et al. 2012). As planting trees is a valid management action under REDD+ to enhance forest carbon stocks, A/R projects were included in this study.

  2. In this study, socioeconomic issues are the non-material (social) and material (economic) dimensions of the relationship between people and forests (McDermott et al. 2012). Governance refers to the norms and institutional arrangements that shape the use and the management of forest resources (governance) (e.g., Thompson et al. 2011).

  3. Actors are individuals in organizations that work with REDD+ implementation at the national or sub-national level. These actors had therefore influence on the development of REDD+ strategy at the respective scales.

  4. Areas with a size of at least 0.05–1.00 ha and tree crown cover of more than 10–30 % with trees that can reach at least 2–5 m in situ (UNFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, Annex, para.1a).

References

  • Alexander S, Nelson CR, Aronson J, Lamb D, Cliquet A, Erwin KL, Finlayson CM, de Groot RS, Harris JA, Higgs ES, Hobbs RJ, Robin Lewis RR, Martinez D, Murcia C (2011) Opportunities and challenges for ecological restoration within REDD+. Restor Ecol 19(6):683–689. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00822.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atela JO, Quinn CH, Minang PA (2014) Are REDD projects pro-poor in their spatial targeting? Evidence from Kenya. Appl Geogr 52:14–24. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AWF (2011a) Mbirikani carbon, community and biodiversity project. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and protecting a critical landscape for Kenya’s wildlife and communities. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Nairobi

  • AWF (2011b) Planet Action progress report: carbon and conservation in Imbirikani Group Ranch, Kenya. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Planet Action, Nairobi

  • Bagine R, Gikungu M, Muhangani JM, Ruthiiri JM (1992a) Kakamega forest invertebrate survey. National Museums of Kenya, KIFCON, Nairbobi

  • Bagine R, Gikungu M, Muhangani JM, Ruthiiri JM (1992b) Mau Forest invertebrate survey. National Museums of Kenya, KIFCON, Nairbobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow E, Mogaka H (2007) Kenya’s drylands—wastelands or an undervalued national economic resource?. IUCN, Gland

  • Bennun L, Waiyaki E (1992) Mau forest complex ornithological survey. National Museums of Kenya, KIFCON, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard F, Minang PA, Adkins B, Freud J (2014) REDD+ projects and national-level Readiness processes: a case study from Kenya. Clim Policy. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.905440

    Google Scholar 

  • Beymer-Farris BA, Bassett TJ (2012) The REDD menace: resurgent protectionism in Tanzania’s mangrove forests. Glob Environ Change 22(2):332–341. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIOTA (2012) BIOTA East Africa. http://www.biota-africa.org. Accessed 2012.12.18

  • Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26(10):541–549. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bulte EH, Boone RB, Stringer R, Thornton PK (2008) Elephants or onions? Paying for nature in Amboseli, Kenya. Environ Dev Econ 13(3):395–414. doi:10.1017/S1355770X08004312

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess ND, Mwakalila S, Munishi P, Pfeifer M, Willcock S, Shirima D, Hamidu S, Bulenga GB, Rubens J, Machano H, Marchant R (2013) REDD herrings or REDD menace: response to Beymer-Farris and Bassett. Glob Environ Change 23(5):1349–1354. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAAC (2011) Monitoring report for TIST Programme in Kenya (P-DD for VCS-001). Clean Air Action Corporation (CAAC), Tulsa

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DJ, Gichohi H, Mwangi A, Chege L (2000) Land use conflict in Kajiado District, Kenya. Land Use Policy 17(4):337–348. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00038-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplow S, Jagger P, Lawlor K, Sills E (2011) Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: lessons for learning about REDD+. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):152–167. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrere R (2010) A critical vision of REDD. In: Cabello J, Gilbertson T (eds) No REDD! REDD Monitor, Global Justice Ecology Project, Diego Alejandro Cardona, Tatiana Roa Avendaño, Honduran Garifuna Organization, World Rainforest Movement, Carbon Trade Watch, Brihannala organ, ETC Group, Indigenous Environmental Network, no city, pp 50–55

  • CCBA (2013) Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards, 3rd edn. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Arlington

  • CCBA (2014) The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance: CCBA projects. http://www.climate-standards.org/category/projects/. Accessed 2014.01.21

  • Chhatre A, Lakhanpal S, Larson AM, Nelson F, Ojha H, Rao J (2012) Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):654–660. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz D, Hamilton K, Johnson E (2011) State of the forest carbon markets 2011: from canopy to currency. Forest Trends, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson B, Kapos V (2012) Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):717–725. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinerstein E, Varma K, Wikramanayake E, Lumpkin S, Seidensticker J, Shrestha RK, Powell G, Poor E, Lovejoy T, Kushlin A, Kiess J (2010) Wildlife Premium Market + REDD: creating a financial incentive for conservation and recovery of endangered species and habitats. WWF, no city

  • Dinerstein E, Varma K, Wikramanayake E, Powell G, Lumpkin S, Naidoo R, Korchinsky M, Del Valle C, Lohani S, Seidensticker J, Joldersma D, Lovejoy T, Kushlin A (2013) Enhancing conservation, ecosystem services, and local livelihoods through a wildlife premium mechanism. Conserv Biol 27(1):14–23. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01959.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eco2 (2010) Forest again. Kakamega forest (P-DD for CCBS). Eco2librium, Idaho

  • Edwards DP, Fisher B, Boyd E (2010) Protecting degraded rainforests: enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD+. Conserv Lett 3(5):313–316. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00143.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmqvist T, Maltby E, Barker T, Mortimer M, Perrings C, Aronson J, de Groot R, Fitter A, Mace G, Norberg J, Sousa Pinto I, Ring I (2010) Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, pp 41–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerton L (1991) A report on livestock entry into Kakamega forest reserve. KIFCON, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerton L (1994) Summary of the current value of use of Kakamega forest. Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Entenmann S, Schmitt CB (2013) Actors’ perceptions of forest biodiversity values and policy issues related to REDD+ implementation in Peru. Biodivers Conserv 22(5):1229–1254. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0477-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entenmann SK, Kaphegyi TA, Schmitt CB (2014) Forest biodiversity monitoring for REDD+: a case study of actors’ views in Peru. Environ Manag 53(2):300–317. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0191-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ES (2012) Verified Carbon Standard Project Verification Report TIST Program in Kenya VCS-001-006. Environmental Services, INC. (ES), Jacksonville

  • FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment. FAO forestry paper No 163. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome

  • FCPF (2011) FAQs: common approach to environmental and social safeguards for multiple delivery partners. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Washington

  • FCPF (2013) REDD readiness progress fact sheet of Kenya, October 2013. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • FONAFIFO, CONAFOR, Ministry of Environment (2012) Lessons learned for REDD+ from PES and conservation incentive programs. Examples from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador. World Bank, Washington

  • Forsyth T (2009) Multilevel, multiactor governance in REDD+: participation, integration and coordination. In: Angelsen A (ed) Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 113–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner T (2010) Monitoring forest biodiversity. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner TA, Burgess ND, Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Barlow J, Berenguer E, Clements T, Danielsen F, Ferreira J, Foden W, Kapos V, Khan SM, Lees AC, Parry L, Roman-Cuesta RM, Schmitt CB, Strange N, Theilade I, Vieira ICG (2012) A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biol Conserv 154:61–71. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Githinji P (2011) Let your fingers do the walking, and plant trees. The Standard, Nairobi, 2011.06.02

  • GoK (2005) Arid and semi arid lands (ASAL) national vision and strategy 2005–2015. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • GoK (2007) Kenya Vision 2030. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • GoK (2009) Rehabilitation of the Mau forest ecosystem. Interim Coordinating Secretariat, Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • GoK (2010a) National climate change response strategy. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • GoK (2010b) REDD readiness preparation proposal: Kenya. Annexes to R-PP. Version June 2010. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • GoK (2010c) REDD readiness preparation proposal: Kenya. Version August 2010. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • GoK (2012a) Adaptation Technical Report 7. Civil society organisation activities in climate change. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • GoK (2012b) National climate change action plan for 2013–2017. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

  • Grussu G, Attorre F, Mollicone D, Dargusch P, Guillet A, Marchetti M (2014) Implementing REDD+ in Papua New Guinea: can biodiversity indicators be effectively integrated in PNG’s National Forest Inventory? Plant Biosyst 148(3):519–528. doi:10.1080/11263504.2014.900131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison ME, Boonman A, Cheyne SM, Husson SJ, Marchant NC, Struebig MJ (2012) Biodiversity monitoring protocols for REDD+: can a one-size-fits-all approach really work? Trop Conserv Sci 5(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey CA, Dickson B, Kormos C (2009) Opportunities for achieving biodiversity conservation through REDD. Conserv Lett 3(1):53–61. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00086.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein L, van der Meer PJ (2012) REDD+ in the context of ecosystem management. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):604–611. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IISD (2013) Summary of the Warsaw Climate Change Conference: 11–23 November 2013. Earth Negot Bull 12(594):1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagger P, Lawlor K, Brockhaus M, Gebara MF, Sonwa DJ, Pradnja IA (2012) REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot L (eds) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 301–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagger P, Brockhaus M, Duchelle A, Gebara MF, Lawlor K, Pradnja IA, Sunderlin WD (2014) Multi-level policy dialogues, processes, and actions: challenges and opportunities for national REDD+ safeguards measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV). Forests 5(9):2136–2162. doi:10.3390/f5092136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanowski PJ, McDermott CL, Cashore BW (2011) Implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):111–117. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapos V, Kurz WA, Gardner T, Ferreira J, Guariguata MR, Koh LP, Mansourian S, Parrotta A, Sasaki H, Schmitt CB (2012) Impacts of forest and land management on biodiversity and carbon. In: Parrotta A, Wildburger C, Mansourian S (eds) Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: the key to achieving REDD+ objectives. IUFRO World Series Vol. 31. IUFRO, Vienna, pp 53–73

  • Keenan RJ, Van Dijk AIJM (2010) Planted forests and water. In: Bauhus J, Van der Meer PJ, Kanninen M (eds) Ecosystem goods and services from plantation forests, 1st edn. Earthscan, London, pp 77–95

    Google Scholar 

  • KIFCON (1993a) KIFCON: past, present and future. What future for Kenya’s forests?. Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme (KIFCON), Nairobi

  • KIFCON (1993b) The role of natural forests in the Kenyan national economy. Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme (KIFCON), Nairobi

  • KIFCON (1994) Management guidelines for natural forests. Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Programme (KIFCON), Nairobi

  • Kinyanjui MJ, Latva-Käyra P, Bhuwneshwar PS, Kariuki P, Gichu A, Wamwiche K (2014a) An inventory of the above ground biomass in the Mau Forest ecosystem, Kenya. Open J Ecol 4:619–627. doi:10.4236/oje.2014.410052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinyanjui MJ, Shisanya CA, Nyabuti OK, Waqo WP, Ojwala MA (2014b) Assessing tree species dominance along an agro ecological gradient in the Mau Forest Complex, Kenya. Open J Ecol 4:662–670. doi:10.4236/oje.2014.411056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korchinsky M, Freund J, Cowan L, Dodson R (2011) The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase II. The community Ranches (P-DD for CCBS). Wildife Works, Rukinga Ranching Co Ltd, no city

  • Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Duchelle AE, Atmadja S, Thuy PT (2012) Multiple levels and multiple challenges for REDD+. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot L (eds) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 91–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Merenlender AM, Murphy DD (1994) Ecological monitoring - a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the Tropics. Conserv Biol 8(2):388–397. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020388.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krhoda GO (1992) The impact of deforestation on the hydrology of watersheds in Kenya. KIFCON, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrechts C, Woodley B, Church C, Gachanja M (2003) Aerial survey of the destruction of the Aberdare Range Forests. UNEP, KWS, Rhino Ark, KFWG, Nairobi

  • Lambrechts C, Woodley D, Litoroh M, Kamwara P (2007) Aerial monitoring of forest boundaries. UNEP, KWS, KFWG, Nairobi

  • Larson A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD (2012) Tenure matters in REDD+. Lessons from the field. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot L (eds) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 153–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazdinis M, Angelstam P, Lazdinis I (2007) Maintenance of forest biodiversity in a post-Soviet governance model: perceptions by local actors in Lithuania. Environ Manag 40(1):20–33. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0387-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin L, Sills E, Cheshire H (2014) Targeting areas for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) projects in Tanzania. Glob Environ Change 24(2014):277–286. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.003

  • Lindenmayer DB, Gibbons P, Bourke MAX, Burgman M, Dickman CR, Ferrier S, Fitzsimons J, Freudenberger D, Garnett ST, Groves C, Hobbs RJ, Kingsford RT, Krebs C, Legge S, Lowe AJ, McLean ROB, Montambault J, Possingham H, Radford JIM, Robinson D, Smallbone L, Thomas D, Varcoe T, Vardon M, Wardle G, Woinarski J, Zerger A (2012) Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecol 37(3):285–294. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyster R (2011) REDD+, transparency, participation and resource rights: the role of law. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):118–126. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall K, White R, Fischer A (2007) Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management. Biodivers Conserv 16(11):3129–3146. doi:10.1007/s10531-007-9167-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring P (2007) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative content analysis), 9th edn. Beltz, Weinheim

  • McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H (2012) Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ Sci Policy 21:63–72. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Ecosystem and human well being: biodiversity synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). WRI, Washington

  • Miles L, Dickson B (2010) REDD-plus and biodiversity: opportunities and challenges. Unasylva 236(61):56–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugo F, Ong C (2010) Lessons from eastern Africa’s unsustainable charcoal trade. Working paper No 20. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi

  • Mwinami T, Basara F, Ngari A, Matiku P, Ng’weno F, Musina J, Mwang’ombe J, Kanga E (2010) Kenya’s important bird areas: status and trends 2009. Nature Kenya, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Nhamo G (2011) REDD+ and the global climate policy negotiating regimes: challenges and opportunities for Africa. S Afr J Int Aff 18(3):385–406. doi:10.1080/10220461.2011.622954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okello MM (2012) The contraction of wildlife dispersal areas by human structures and activities in Mbirikani Group Ranch in the Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya. Int J Biodivers Conserv 4(6):243–259. doi:10.5897/IJBC11.153

    Google Scholar 

  • Olander LP, Galik CS, Kissinger GA (2012) Operationalizing REDD+: scope of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):661–669. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olang L, Kundu P (2011) Land degradation of the Mau forest complex in Eastern Africa. In: Ekundayo E (ed) Environmental monitoring, 1st edn. InTech, Rijeka, pp 245–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltorinne P (2004) The forest types of Kenya. Expedition reports of the Department of Geography, University of Helsinki 40:8–13

  • Peters-Stanley M, Yin D (2013) Maneuvering the mosaic. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2013. Ecosystem Marketplace, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Washington

  • Peters-Stanley M, Hamilton K, Yin D (2012) Leveraging the landscape. State of the forest carbon markets 2012. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington

  • Phelps J, Friess DA, Webb EL (2012a) Win–win REDD+ approaches belie carbon–biodiversity trade-offs. Biol Conserv 154(2012):53–60. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps J, Webb EL, Adams WM (2012b) Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nat Clim Change 2(7):497–503. doi:10.1038/Nclimate1462

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts MD, Kelley LC, Doll HM (2013) Maximizing biodiversity co-benefits under REDD+: a decoupled approach. Environ Res Lett 8(2):024019. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putz FE, Romero C (2012) Helping curb tropical forest degradation by linking REDD+ with other conservation interventions: a view from the forest. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):670–677. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt CB (2011) A tough choice: approaches towards the setting of global conservation priorities. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC (eds) Biodiversity Hotspots. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt CB (2013) Global tropical forest types as support for the consideration of biodiversity under REDD+. Carbon Manag 4(5):501–517. doi:10.4155/cmt.13.51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schüttler E, Rozzi R, Jax K (2011) Towards a societal discourse on invasive species management: a case study of public perceptions of mink and beavers in Cape Horn. J Nat Conserv 19(3):175–184. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2010.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharife K (2011) Colonizing Africa’s atmospheric commons. Cap Nat Social 22(4):74–92. doi:10.1080/10455752.2011.619317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sills E, Myers Madeira E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (2009) The evolving landscape of REDD+ projects. In: Angelsen A (ed) Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 265–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Skutsch MM, Ba L (2010) Crediting carbon in dry forests: the potential for community forest management in West Africa. For Policy Econ 12(4):264–270. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skutsch M, McCall MK, Lovett JC (2009) Carbon emissions: dry forests may be easier to manage. Nature 462(7273):567. doi:10.1038/462567b

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Standing A, Gachanja M (2014) The political economy of REDD+ in Kenya: Identifying and responding to corruption challenges. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Bergen

  • Strassburg BBN, Vira B, Mahanty S, Mansourian S, Martin A (2012) Social and economic considerations relevant to REDD+. In: Parrotta A, Wildburger C, Mansourian S (eds) Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: the key to achieving REDD+ objectives. IUFRO World Series Vol. 31. IUFRO, Vienna, pp 115–138

  • Straton A (2006) A complex systems approach to the value of ecological resources. Ecol Econ 56(3):402–411. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Thomas AD, Spracklen DV, Chesterman S, Speranza CI, Rueff H, Riddell M, Williams M, Beedy T, Abson DJ, Klintenberg P, Syampungani S, Powell P, Palmer AR, Seely MK, Mkwambisi DD, Falcao M, Sitoe A, Ross S, Kopolo G (2012) Challenges and opportunities in linking carbon sequestration, livelihoods and ecosystem service provision in drylands. Environ Sci Policy 19–20(2012):121–135. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderlin WD, Larson AM, Duchelle AE, Resosudarmo IAP, Huynh TB, Awono A, Dokken T (2013) How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Dev. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.013

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson MC, Baruah M, Carr ER (2011) Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):100–110. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson I, Okabe K, Parrotta J, Brockerhoff E, Jactel H, Forrester D, Taki H (2014) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: lessons from nature to improve management of planted forests for REDD-plus. Biodivers Conserv 23(10):2613–2635. doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0736-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TIST (2010) TIST program in Kenya (P-DD for CCBS). The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST), Tulsa

  • UNEP (2009) Kenya. Atlas of our changing environment. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Division of Early Warning and Assessment, Nairobi

  • UNFCCC (2014) Warsaw Framework for REDD-plus. http://unfccc.int/methods/redd/items/8180.php. Accessed 2014.09.22

  • UN-REDD (2011) UN-REDD programme social & environmental principles and criteria. UN-REDD Programme, Asunción

    Google Scholar 

  • Unruh JD (2008) Carbon sequestration in Africa: the land tenure problem. Glob Environ Change 18(4):700–707. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VCS (2013) The VCS project database. http://www.vcsprojectdatabase.org/. Accessed 2013.01.25

  • Venter O (2014) REDD+ policy: corridors of carbon and biodiversity. Nature Clim Change 4(2):91–92. doi:10.1038/nclimate2115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venter O, Laurance WF, Iwamura T, Wilson KA, Fuller RA, Possingham HP (2009) Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 326(5958):1368. doi:10.1126/science.1180289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbist B, Muys B (2010) Dryland areas, forgotten by REDD? KLIMOS Policy brief 2:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Veronesi M, Schloendorn T, Zabel A, Engel S (2012) Designing REDD+ schemes to address permanence concerns: empirical evidence from Kenya. Working Paper Series No 15. University of Verona, Department of Economics, Verona

  • Wass P (1995) Kenya’s indigenous forests. Status, management and conservation. IUCN Forest Conservation Programe. IUCN, Nairobi

  • Western D, Russell S, Cuthill I (2009) The status of wildlife in protected areas compared to non-protected areas of Kenya. PLoS One 4(7):e6140. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006140

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilder M, Chapman S, Maguire R, Gichu A, Doshi M, Dooley E, Engbring G, Kago CW, Kamunde-Aquino, Nelly KL, Idun YNA (2014) Creating an enabling legal framework for REDD+ investments in Kenya. Ministry of the Environment Sweden, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2011) Restructuring paper on a proposed project restructuring of the natural resource management project approved on March 27, 2007 to the Republic of Kenya. Report No 62490-KE. World Bank, Washington

  • WRI (2007) Nature’s benefits in Kenya: an atlas of ecosystems and human well-being. GIS data. http://www.wri.org/publication/content/9291. Accessed 2013.06.04

  • WRI, DRSRS, MENR, CBS, MPND, ILRI (2007) Nature’s benefits in Kenya. An atlas of ecosystems and human well-being. World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Gerald Kapp, as well as all individuals and organizations that supported this research by providing information during data collection in Kenya. This study was carried out within the research project “The Protection of Forests under Global Biodiversity and Climate Policy,” hosted by the Chair for Landscape Management and the Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy at Freiburg University, Germany. The project received financial support from the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation with funds from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. The paper reflects solely the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the supporting organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair for Landscape Management, Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

    Steffen Karl Entenmann, Christine Brigitte Schmitt & Werner Konold

Authors
  1. Steffen Karl Entenmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Brigitte Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Werner Konold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Karl Entenmann.

Additional information

Communicated by Georg Winkel.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 416 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Entenmann, S.K., Schmitt, C.B. & Konold, W. REDD+-related activities in Kenya: actors’ views on biodiversity and monitoring in a broader policy context. Biodivers Conserv 23, 3561–3586 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0821-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0821-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation