Each donor agency or NGO or government unit identifies an opportunity and decides to implement a program to address it based on their own experience. They also consider experience of their partners, amount of funding available, amount of time available, and other criteria. As noted, these opportunities are presented not to any institution in particular but as ideas that were captured during interviews and research for this broad assessment.
Using the "relative severity of threat" ranking presented in section 5.7 above for ecosystem degradation, it is clear that in the planned strategic objective for environment in USAID/Kenya, an "extremely severe" and "critical" threat to wildlife and biodiversity loss is being addressed directly. Significant threats to land/soils, forests, and aquatic systems are not as directly or as deeply addressed, however they are considered in the planned community/land use NRM planning processes. But as noted, these threats are constrained more severely by systemic problems, such as inadequate national legal frameworks and/or economic mismanagement. Thus with its limited budget and wildlife-focused experience in the past, these areas do not entirely represent the "best opportunities" USAID/Kenya should consider. Mission programs need only to expand on their current ability to "touch on" these issues, through field-level dissemination of best practices, use of lessons learned at the national level to illustrate the power of these practices and to influence decision-making, and making use of synergies between existing programs. More specific ideas are presented in Annex 6 of this assessment. Whether those types of suitable opportunities are found in the current strategy or incorporated from this list into activity-level mission planning during the five year strategy period, is not to be determined in this assessment.
Kara PagePage 3410/23/2006