ASSESSMENT OF ADOPTION OF WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE
CONSTITUENCY DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECTS IN
FUNYULA CONSTITUENCY, KENYA
Daniel, Namenya Naburi (B.A)
N50/10001l2008
. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment for the Award of the Degree of Masters of
Environmental Studies in Community Development in the School of Environmental
Studies, Kenyatta University
March, 2013
NabUTJ, UallJel Namen a
Asses.sment of adoptiof
of watershed management
Sir-NY ITA U I ER~ITY If;;RARY
DECLARATION
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree or any other
award in any other university or any other institution.
Namenya Daniel Naburi
Department of Environmental Studies and Community Development
Signature ~._ Date 1..~.j .~;?.!~ {~
APPROVAL
This thesis has been submitted with approval as University supervisors.
Dr. Joseph K. Muriithi,
Department of Environmental Studies and Community Development
Kenyatta University
Signature ~~ Date ~~.~}l.~r.~ .
Dr. Anyango S. Obiero,
C~ntre for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASE LAP)
University of Nairobi
Signature ~ Date \~\o.3. \-':-~ .\'~ .
ii
DEDICATION
To my family for their unequalled love, support, encouragement and endurance.
iii
1\CKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was made possible by a number of individuals who contributed their time,
energy, resources and advice. I sincerely thank my supervisors, Dr. Anyango Obiero and
Dr. Joseph K. Muriithi of Kenyatta University for their advice throughout the study. I
highly appreciate the support I got from my family and the people ofNambuku Location.
The Samia District Agricultural Officer, Mr. James M. Mburu; Samia District Water
Officer, Mr. Simani Mukuzi; Funyula Constituency CDF manager, Mr. Amollo; Busibi
Child Fund Project Sponsor and Relations Officer, Mr. George Oliech; Nambuku
Location Chief Mr. Elisaphan Mangeni; Canon Eli Masiga, Mzee Ombunda and Mzee
Samuel Barasa provided vital information regarding Watershed Management and CDF in
Funyula Constituency.
I wish to thank my sponsor Mr. John Stewart for ensuring that I have attained education
up to this level, World Federation of Scientists (WFS) and Horn of Africa Regional
Environmental Network (HoA-REC/N Demand Driven Action Research) for their
financial support. Without the research grants from ICIPE IWFS Drip Scholarship and
(HoA-REC/N) this study could not have come to successful completion.
My gratitude goes to Dr. Daniel Masiga of ICIPE; Henry Machio, Head teacher Lugala
Primary School, and their families for their encouragement and support throughout my
education. I also want to thank Jimmy Naburi for organizing for research assistance and
my course mate Francis Kimeu, and Mary Maingi for their encouragement and support
during my studies, Mr. Peter Andai Maliatso for editing this thesis.
Lastly, my heartfelt gratitude goes to my mother, Maximilla Nangira, Father, Milton
Naburi Oundo, wife Rosline Muga and son Nicanoh Bryan Baraka and the entire family
for being a source of inspiration in my life. Above all, to God be the glory and power for
his immeasurable grace and mercies that enabled my dreams come true.
iv
Table of Contents
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF ABBREVIA nONS AND ACRONYMS xi
ABSTRAC·T xiii
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background to the study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 5
1.3 Justification of the Study 6
1.4 Research Objectives 7
1.5 Research Questions 7
1.6 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 8
1.6.1 Theoretical Framework 8
1.6.2 Conceptual Framework 11
1.7 Significance of the Study and Anticipated Outputs 12
1.8 Scope of the Study 13
1.9 Definition of Terms 13
1.10 Constraints to the Study 15
1.11 Organization of the Thesis 16
CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW 17
2.1 Overview 17
2.2 Allocation of Constituency Development Fund to Development Projects 17
2.3 Constituency Development Fund Projects and Sustainable Livelihoods 19
v
2.4 Constituency Development Fund Projects and Watershed Management 22
2.5 CDF and Community Participation in Watershed Management 24
2.6 Impacts of Constituency Development Fund in Environmental Management.. 28
2.7 Community Institutions and Watershed Management 30
2.8 Summary and Conclusion 31
CHAPTER THR.EE : METHODOLOGY 33
3.1 Study Area characteristics 33
3.1.1 Position, Population and Administrative Units 33
3.1.2. Socio Economic Activities 34
3.1.3 Climate and Hydrology 35
3.1.4 Topography and Geology 35
3.2 Research Design 36
3.3 Targeted Population 36
3.3.1 Inclusion Criteria 36
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure 37
3.4.1 Sampling Procedure :.; 37
3.4.2 Sample Size 38
3.5 Data Collection Methods 39
3.5.1 Pre-test of Data Collection Instruments. 39
3.5.2 Participatory Community Mapping 39
3.5.3 Transect Walk 40
3.5.4 Photography 41
3.5.5 Administration of Questionnaires : 41
3.5.6 Interview Guide 41
3.5.7 Observation checklist 42
3.6 Data Analysis Methods 42 -,
3.7 Research Ethics and Informed Consent 43
vi
CHAPTER FOUR : RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 44
4.] Overview 44
4.2 Socio -Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 44
4.3 Allocation ofCDF to Development Projects 46
4.3.1 Trends ofCDF Allocated to Funyula Constituency 46
4.3.2 Types of Development Projects Funded by CDF in Funyula Constituency 48
4.3.3 Factors Influencing the Allocation ofCDF to Community Projects 50
4.3.4 Contribution of Watersheds to Local Community Livelihoods 53
4.4 Effects ofCDF Projects on the Communities' Bio-physical Environment 55
4.4.1 Effects ofCDF Activities on the Highland Biophysical Environment 55
4.4.2 Effects ofCDF Projects on the Middle Land Biophysical Environment 59
4.4.3 Effects of CDF Projects Activities on Lowland Biophysical Environment.. 64
4.5 Community Institutions and Organizations 65
4.5.1 Community Involvement in Watershed Management Groups 65
4.5.2 Social Groups and Institutions to be involved in Watershed Management 67
4.6 Community Perceptions and Opportunities 70
4.6.1 Environmental Limitations to Watershed Management Activities 70
4.6.2 Socio -economic Limitations to Watershed Management Activities 72
4.6.3 Opportunities for Enhanced Watershed Management.. 77
4.6.4 Prioritized Watershed Management Activities 80
4.6.5 Community Perceptions towards CDF and Watershed Management 81
CHAPTER FIVE : SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA nONS 84
5.1 Summary of the Findings 84
5.2 Conclusions 87
5.3 Recommendations ,89
5.3.1 Recommendations for further research 91
REFERENCES 92
vii
APPENDICES 98
Appendix I: Map of Funyula Constituency 98
Appendix II: Community participatory map and transect walk route 100
Appendix III: Participatory Community mapping checklist.. 101
Appendix IV: Key Informant Checklist 104
Appendix V: Household Questionnaire : 106
Appendix VI: Letter of Research Authorization , 117
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Population Distribution by Locations in Funyula Constituency 33
Table 3.2: Funyula Constituency Rural Household by Main Source of Water 35
Table 4.1: Socio-economic and Demographic Characteristics of the Household Respondents 45
Table 4.2: CDF Allocated to Funyula Development Project from 2003/04-2009/1 0 47
Table 4.3: Type of Projects Funded in Funyula Constituency from 2003/04-2008/09 Financial
years 49
Table 4.4: Variables for Assessing Performance of Groups in Watershed Management.. 67
Table 4.5: Social Groups and Institutions to be utilized in Watershed Management 68
Table 4.6: Targeted Individuals in Watershed Management Activities 69
Table 4.7: Conflicts Related to Watershed Resource 73
Table 4.8: Pearson's Correlation Coefficient(r) values of selected variables 76
Table 4.9: Community Knowledge on the dos and don'ts in Watershed Systems 78
Table 4.10: Prioritized Watershed Management Activities 80
Table 4.11: Respondents Perception towards CDF and Watershed Management.. 82
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework showing relationship between Biophysical Environmental,
CDF Project, Watershed Management and Sustainable CDF Projects 11
Figure 4.1: Trends of CDF Allocated to Development Projects in Funyula Constituency 48
Figure 4.3: Types of Watershed Management Activities Practiced 79
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADF African Development Fund
AFLI Africa Leadership Institute
CBO Community Based Organization
CDF Constituency Development Fund
CDG Constituency Development Grant
CDFC Constituency Development Fund Committee
CPOC Constituency Project Oversight Committee
CPWF Challenge Program on Water and Food
DPC District Project Committee
EDF Electoral Development Funds
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMCA Environment Management and Coordination Act
ERS Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
HoA-RECIN Horn of Africa Regional Environmental Network
ICIPE African Insect Science for Food and Health
IEC Information, Education Communication
IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development
IIRR International Institute for Rural Reconstruction
IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management
KARl Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KHCR Kenya Human Rights Commission
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MPLADS Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme
xi
MP
NEMA
NGO
PCARRD
PMC
PRA
R.o.K
SOE
SPSS
UNDP
UNEP
UNICEF
U.S
WFS
Member of Parliament
National Environment Management Authority
Non Governmental Organization
Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources
Research and Development
Project Management Committee
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Republic of Kenya
State of Environment
Statistical Package for Social Sciences
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Children Fund
United States
World Federation of Scientist
xii
ABSTRACT
Management of the natural resource of a drainage basin primarily for the production and
protection is considered essential for soil and water conservation. Despite an increase in
CDF allocations, watershed management approaches are not integrated in local
development projects to realize sustainability. The study assessed the need and ways of
considering watershed management approaches in CDF projects. Key objectives included
to determine the relative importance of factors that influence the allocation of CDF for
community development projects; assess how the local bio-physical environment has
been affected by CDF projects activities; establish the relevant community institutions
and organizations to enhance watershed management activities; and determine the
community perceptions and opportunities for enhancing watershed management activities
in the CDF projects in Funyula Constituency. Three level multistage samples of 123
household heads and 8 purposively selected key informants were involved in the study.
Quantitative information was mainly obtained using a questionnaire, an observation
checklist and interview guide. Participatory mapping, transect walk and photography
were used to obtain the qualitative information. Quantitative data was subjected to
descriptive analysis mainly frequency distributions, and percentages presented in form of
tables and graphs. Perceptions were measured using as-point likert scale, while
participatory map and transect walk data were used in the analysis to complement
quantitative data. According to the findings, 91.1% of households in Funyula earned their
income from all farm activities which included both on-farm and off-farm activities with
66.9% earning less than Kshs. 1,500 per month. Poor roads network, health and
educational facilities, need for clean and safe water supplies were main local factors that
determine CDF allocations to various development projects utilizing a lot of CDF leaving
watershed management unattended to. Among the effects, the most common were graded
roads, rehabilitated dams, springs and dug fish ponds. Abandoned brick making sites and
quarries, silted streams and cleared vegetation along the graded road were most visible
effects of CDF activities on biophysical environment. Limited community participation
in CDF decision making process, lack of watershed management knowledge and
awareness on the need for undertaking Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the
CDF projects among the CDF committees and the public were the main limitations in
considering watershed management approaches. The major household limitation to
watershed management identified included, 82.1% limited credit and inputs, 50% lacked
watershed management capacities. However, there was a positive correlation between
lack of watershed management knowledge and community participation in watershed
management (FO.013, n=123, p< 0.05), more so, 43.1% of the respondents felt that high
start up costs were the main limitation, and 19.5% identified interference from their
neighbour. To conclude, CDF has undertaken projects which are bound to improve
livelihoods through providing social services such as education and health, but they are
not sustainable due to lack of watershed management approaches, therefore, the need to
urgently address the sustainability need. The study recommends the integration of
watershed management approaches such as undertaking EIA on CDF projects, capacity
building the public and CDF committees, provision of incentives, alternative livelihood
source, to enable community participate in watershed management activities.
xiii
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
Watershed management is the management of the natural resource of a drainage basin
primarily for the production and protection considered to be essential for soil and water
conservation, which in the long run will enhance the prospects of self-reliance of nations
in terms of food, fibre and energy, water supplies and water-based recourses, including
the control of erosion and floods, and the protection of esthetic values associated with
water (pCARRD, 1991). To achieve the goal of improving rural livelihoods and
sustainable utilization of existing resources, the roadmap chosen should be through
convergence of activities in the watersheds, such as agriculture, horticulture, livestock,
fisheries, poultry and small enterprises that bring value addition to rural produce.
Watersheds have been described as a drainage basin of natural unit draining run offs of
water to a common point (Singh, 1990). The smaller watersheds or mini watersheds can
therefore be the central planning units of managing watersheds. Small tributaries located
throughout the watershed contribute as much to ground and surface water availability as
the streams and rivers of the upper watershed (Knapp et al. 2000; Ashby et al. 1999).
World-wide there is mounting interest in the relationship between land use and water
resources. This has come about mainly because most developing and developed countries
are experiencing a degradation of land and water resources, whereas the need for these
resources is increasing, (Susswein at el, 2001). Watershed management is aimed at
1
maintaining and enhancing the potential of both the biotic and a biotic component of a
watershed to provide goods and services to society, (Mazvimavi, 2002).
Attention to watershed management is increasing across the developing world after
realizing the changes caused by unplanned and ad hoc activities where individual
activities that affect land use practises are generally small and incremental (Biswas,
1990). Watershed degradation is a major threat for land productivity and food production.
There is increasing evidence to show that investment in ecosystem conservation, such as
watershed management, results in increased income for the rural poor (UNEP, 2007). At
present, all levels of governments are increasingly attempting to address watersheds
management as integrated systems through Integrated Water Resource Management
(IWRM), comprehensive river basin management and other approaches. The adoption of
city and community-based management and restoration strategies is also growing (Sedell
et ai, 2002).
Watershed development requires cooperation among all the key stakeholders in a
watershed, and this may involve one or more entire communities (World Bank, 2008).
However, many watershed projects around the world have not performed well because of
the poor community participation (Johnson et ai, 2001). For the government, a measure
of decentralization of government institutions, policies, strategies and plans will ensure
sustainable watershed management. This is in order to bring decision making, technical
and managerial capacities closer to the rural populations (FAO, 1991c). Legislation,
policies and incentives are needed to foster cooperation among land-users and to promote
ecologically compatible development of natural resources (Rattan, 1995).
2
Like in other parts of developing world, watershed management in Kenya has been
promoted through IWRM. However, degradation of watershed areas in Kenya is on the
increase, resulting in diminished water resources. The main causes of watershed
degradation stems from the abuse and poor management of forests and soils, overgrazing,
extension of settlements into watershed areas, unsustainable felling of trees for fuel wood
(about 70% of rural population in Kenya depend entirely on fuel wood for energy
requirements) and other wood products (R.o.K, 2004). This loss has generally impacted
negatively on important watersheds. Another challenge has been that of ensuring
environmental considerations in all major national and sectoral policies, plans, and
decision making processes (R.o.K, 2002a). Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is
one of such strategies in Kenya.
After the enactment of the CDF Act of 2003, CDF has been instrumental in providing
services at local levels where for many years no development programmes had been
undertaken (UNDP, 2006). The building of schools and provision of school equipment,
building of health centres, provision of tap water, water tanks and dams, rural roads,
electricity, are just a few of such projects (Thomas and Mwabu, 2008). These
establishments of development projects through CDF have increased the exploitation of
rural biophysical environmental resources including forests, water and land, accelerated
by effects of climate change and distortion of traditional land and water management
practises. Although the projects are supplementary sources of livelihoods, investments in
rural infrastructure (electricity, roads) improve living standards through access to markets
3
and inputs little consideration is given to the associated environmental impacts and
involvement of communities in the managements of the natural resources.
The case of watershed management in CDF projects and by the farmers in Funyula
Constituency is an interesting one. This is because farmers who are beneficiaries of these
projects are required by law to fully participate in selection and management of these
projects, including monitoring the effects of the projects on the watersheds and their
livelihoods. However, like in many other parts of Kenya there is wide concern that CDF
does not address their needs (UNDP, 2006). The amended CDF Act of 2007 requires
consideration of environmental management as development projects provided that the
funds allocated in one financial year to such projects do not exceed two percent of the
total CDF allocated to that constituency (R.o.K, 2007a). Perhaps taping the financial
resources from CDF and considering watershed management in designing Funyula
Constituency CDF projects would contribute to sustainable community development
projects. Therefore, inadequate monitoring and impact assessment of watershed
programmes is a major concern. Globally, there are few comprehensive evaluation
studies of integrated watershed management (Kerr et al., 1996). Watershed development
projects affect social, economic and environmental activities and they are mutually
interrelated to ensure sustainability. Like in other parts of the world, research is required
to determine what access poor communities currently have to land and water
management, and how that is likely to change over time with changes in the demand
(CPWF,2002) and other factors such as increased CDF projects in Funyula Constituency,
Kenya.
4
1.2 Problem Statement
Although an integrated policy framework on environment and development exists, the
Sessional Paper No.1 (of 1999) on watershed management has not been considered in
most CDF projects to ensure sustainability including development projects in Funyula
Constituency (R.o.K, 1999a). This is in contrary to the Kenya Vision 2030 which also
acknowledges that the increase in development project is likely to impact negatively on
the environment if sustainable development measures are not put in place (R.o.K, 2008c).
In the Kenya National Development Plan (2002 to 2008), the Government of Kenya
acknowledged that Kenya is faced with the sustainable development challenge of
ensuring that environmental considerations are integrated in all major national and
sectoral policies, plans and decision making processes. This calls for an inclusion of the
necessary capacities and tools to assess and anticipate the impact of development
activities on environment (R.o.K, 2002a).
In the past decades, farmers in Funyula Constituency did not participate in watershed
management activities initiated by the government because farmers were suspicious of
the government interventions because they believed their lands would be confiscated
(R:o.K, 1989). In addition, Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA,
1999b) requirement of conducting Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) on all projects
that affect the environment is not observed in most CDF projects (R.o.K, 2008a).
Unsustainable exploitation of biophysical environmental resources such as building
stone, timber, sand, bricks making, siltation of streams along the bridges and building
sites has increased in the recent past as a result of CDF projects activities. This calls for
participation of all stakeholders in land-use planning since real participation implies that
5
land users are fully involved in the design of conservation packages and accept a major
responsibility for their implementation (IFAD, 1992). Therefore, the study was
necessitated on observations that despite an increase in CDF allocations, watershed
management approaches are not prioritized in local development projects to realize
sustainability and CDF does not enhance community participation in watershed
management activities.
1.3 Justification of the Study
The study was necessitated by observations that despite an increase in CDF allocations in
Funyula Constituency, watershed management approaches are not integrated in local
development projects to realize sustainability. Despite the increase in local development
projects such as graded roads, education and health facilities, poverty levels are very high
at 65.9% (R.o.K, 2007b). The area has numerous hills, streams, springs and wetlands
with most of them draining in to River Sio that drains into Lake Victoria forming a
common hydrological unit. Funyula Constituency is located in the wider Lake Victoria
basin, in the Lower Middle Agro-ecological zone, due the proximity to the lake;
evaporation varies between 1800mm to 2000mm per year rendering air humidity to be
relatively high. Farming is the main socio-economic activity where traditional farming
methods the production depend on the health of ecosystem , unsustainable farming
practises including cases whereby the farmers exploit fragile environment like hills,
riverbanks and road reserves without initiating appropriate conservation measures are
common (R.o.K, 2007b). Therefore, the community's activities are characterised by poor
waterched management activities.
6
1.4 Research Objectives
The overall objective of this study was to assess factors behind watershed management
approaches in CDF projects to ensure sustainable community development projects. The
specific objectives included;
1. To determine the relative importance of factors that influences the allocation of
Constituency Development Funds for community development projects.
11. To assess how the local bio-physical environment has been affected by
Constituency Development Fund projects activities in Funyula Constituency.
111. To establish the relevant community institutions and organizations to enhance
community participation in watershed management activities using CDF.
iv. To determine the community perceptions and opportunities for enhancing
watershed management activities in the CDF projects.
1.5 Research Questions.
The study was guided by the following research questions.
1. What are the relative importance of factors that influence the allocation of
Constituency Development Funds (CDF) for community development projects?
11. How has the local bio-physical environment been affected by Constituency
Development Fund projects activities in Funyula Constituency?
iii. What are the relevant community institutions and organizations that CDF can be
used to enhance community participation in watershed management?
7
IV. What are the community perceptions and opportunities for enhancing watershed
management in the CDP projects?
1.6 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
1.6.1 Theoretical Framework
Watershed management IS a very complex activity where many components and
pr.ocesses are involved. The way of identifying and organizing the elements can be
achieved through System Theory. General System Theory, which was developed by
Ludwig von Bertalanffy and others (Bertalanffy,1968), provides an analytical framework
which can be used to describe some of the many factors involved in watershed
management and community development. Some of the key concerns in community
development, such as accessing power and influence, understanding the dynamics of
inter-group relationships, and considering the changes involved in planning development
activities, can be understood and described using System Theory (Laszlo, 1996).
The systems design approach seeks to understand a situation as a system of
interconnected, interdependent, and interacting problems. Likewise, the solutions it seeks
to create emerge from a vision of the entity taken as a whole. Such an orientation permits
the design of the future through an informed understanding of the dynamics that govern
evolutionary systems. It implies that we take responsibility for the creation of our future
in co-evolutionary interdependence with our social and physical environment. This is
based on the belief that we can shape our future on the one hand through the power of
understanding the characteristics and requirements of the environment, and on the other
through our aspirations and expectations (Ibid).
8
Systems design is participatory by nature: significant social change can be brought about
only if those who are most likely to be affected by it participate in soliciting it, and
choose how it is to be implemented. Since in societal systems human beings are the
critical factor, change must necessarily both emanate from and incorporate them. Systems
design advocates for anticipatory democracy, where people actively apply their skills to
the analysis and design of socially and ecologically sustainable systems by becoming
active participants in shaping their future. Groups of people engaged in purposeful
systems design form an evolutionary learning community, and such communities make
for the emergence of a culture of evolutionary design (Laszlo and Krippner, 1998).
Evolutionary systems design leads to the creation of evolutionary pathways for the
sustainable development of life on earth. Given the theoretical constructs of general
evolution theory, and the methodological constructs of social systems design approaches,
evolutionary systems design confronts the challenges posed by purposeful stewardship of
the earth's life support systems (Ibid).
Evolutionary competence refers to the state of self-actualization (of individuals and
groups) that is marked by the mastery of the knowledge, the abilities, the attitudes, and
the values required for co evolutionary actions, and therefore, for the pursuit of
sustainable modes of being. Such modes of being concern both the products and the
processes of change in terms of the degree to which they are - socially desirable,
culturally acceptable,
technologically feasible,
generationally sensitive
psychologically
operationally
nurturing, economically
viable, environmentally
sustainable,
friendly, and
9
By monitoring all these aspects simultaneously, a process of CDF development project
(individual, societal, or global) can be said to be evolutionary if it involves an adaptive
strategy that ensures the continual maintenance of an increasingly robust and supportive
watershed development and environment in general. Evolutionary design seeks to
identify opportunities for increasing the dynamic stability and self-sufficiency of an
individual or group in interaction with it's the broader set of watershed components of its
particular time and place. It indicates areas of evolutionary potential to be developed to
the advantage of the complex dynamic systems involved in ecosystem interaction now
and into the future.
10
1.6.2 Conceptual Framework
Biophysical
Environmental
Funyula
Community
CDF
CDF Project
Sustainable
CDF Proiects
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework showing relationship between Biophysical
Environment, CDF Project, Watershed Management and Sustainable CDF
Projects.
Source: Author, 2010
Figure 1.1 above show how (CDF) financial, social (Funyula community) and
biophysical environmental components interact in a watershed system. The interaction
can be considered at either the household, solidarity group or community level. Its
premise is that financial, social and environmental systems are mutually supportive. The
triangle in the middle represents the way the sustainable CDF projects methodology links
the flows of these capitals into the household or group economy supported by CDF.
11
When working ideally as the flows of each provide goods and services and at the same
time the size of the triangles do not decrease but ideally increases. When environmental
capital is not protected, this triangle starts to diminish; the other two capitals will also •
eventually diminish. The loss of environmental capital can be the result of a number of
causes; poor governance, effects of climate change, increased population pressure,
inequitable utilisation among others. By enhancing all the three areas, community
development projects can be sustainable as these areas are inter- dependent. The result is
a virtuous cycle of increasing environmental, social and financial assets. Constituency
Development Fund projects are not effective in watershed management as a standalone
intervention in the absence of other conservation activities.
1.7 Significance of the Study and Anticipated Outputs
The study was conducted in time when there is a diminishing watershed resource as a
result of increased development activities on ecosystems, increased human and animal
pressure on the natural resources and a global threat of effects of climate change with
very little being done to ensure communities participate in natural resource conservation
and protection. This information could be used by communities, government and private
sector, in partnership with other stakeholders by CDF for sustainable community
development projects to ensure;
1. Sustainable utilization of biophysical environmental resources.
11. Communities participate in monitoring of CDF projects.
111. Improved community livelihoods and well-being.
12
1.8 Scope of the Study
The study covered the CDF projects and watershed systems lying in the Funyula
Constituency, Busia County, in Western Province, Kenya. The study assessed factors that
could enhance community participation in watershed management utilizing CDF to
ensure sustainable community development projects.
1.9 Definition of Terms
Allocation: refers to whether decentralized resources are allocated in conformity with the
national development priorities. It is presumed that local communities are best placed to
know the exact nature of their development needs than distant national political leaders.
Hence, what communities identify as priorities are compared to national sector priorities
and the proportion of funds allocated to each priority sector.
Community Awareness: The general enlighten of the people about CDF, access to CDF
guidelines, and inclusiveness as evidenced by inclusion in committee membership
selection and identification of community's pressing needs. Responsiveness to the
demands of the local community pressing needs vis-it-vis the projects identified, feedback
mechanism, and participation in tendering and procurement.
Community Participation: It includes community involvement in project selection, .
implementation, and in operation and maintenance.
Constituency Development Fund: Decentralised fund comprising of an annual
budgetary allocation equivalent to 2.5% of the government's ordinary revenue established
in Kenya in 2003 through the CDF Act. The fund aims to control imbalances in regional
13
development targeting all constituency-level development projects, particularly those
aiming to ending poverty at the grassroots.
Household: Any group of persons or a person generally raised together by ties of
kinship, usually reside together under a single roof or several roofs within a single
compound and share a common source of food.
Household Head: Could be male or female, responsible for decision making in a
household.
Sub location: Is an administrative unit m the Kenyan government administrative
structure headed by an Assistant chief.
Sustainable: The project being able to be economically viable, socially acceptable and
environmental friendly in order to take care of the present generations' needs without
compromising the ability of coming generation to meet their needs.
Sustainable CDF project: (Dependent variable in the study). The CDF funded project
that is economically viable, socially acceptable and environmental friendly in order to
take care of the present generations' needs without compromising the ability of coming
generation to meet their needs.
Watershed Management: Is the process of formulating and carrying out a course of
action involving the manipulation of resources in a watershed to provide goods and
services without adversely affecting the soil and water base. Usually, watershed
management must consider the social, economic and institutional factors operating within
and outside the watershed area.
14
Watershed Management Approach: (Independent variable in the study). Is effort to
establish a wider scale of reference to develop programs so that they address or remedy
not only a site-specific issue, but also consider the implications of these programs on the
a watershed. It is also used to more efficiently coordinate programs within a single
watershed so projects are implemented in concert to improve overall conditions. The
watershed management approach also considers cross-media implications within the
system.
1.10 Constraints to the Study
Constraints to this study included the following: First, the sample population was
homogeneous in terms of language, culture, ethnicity and occupation. To overcome this
constraint, the study used a complementary approach by combining participatory
community mapping, questionnaire and interview guide methods of data collection
administered to different respondents. Second, respondents may have given a response
because they thought that is what is expected of them or they would like to present CDF
service providers in a negative manner. For example, the question on whether the
households had received any assistance for watershed management from CDF may have
introduced errors. Third, sampling errors in this study were minimized by involving all
the households in each of the three locations covered in this study. Consequently, under
the simple random sampling technique used to draw the sampling unit, all the households
in the seven locations had an equal chance of being selected. However, it was made clear
to each participant that he or she was free to participate or refuse to do the respondents
were assured, that their participation would be confidential, and that any information
15
given would not be used in any way that could be used against the community. Finally,
there were problems in accessing CDF financial statements; records from CDF board
were used. By computing averages, the effects of missing financial year were minimized.
1.11 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is organized into five main chapters. The chapter that follows presents
relevant literature review. Chapter three describes the study area, methodology and
procedure used in data collection and analysis, while the fourth chapter presents research
findings. The findings are systematically discussed under each of the four objectives
sought. The fifth chapter on the other hand presents conclusion and recommendations for
the study. Lastly, there is a list of alphabetically organized references of literature cited
during the study and attached appendices.
16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview
This chapter reviews literature on various aspects of watershed management approaches
in CDF projects including effects, importance, challenges community experience and
opportunities documented by other authors. In order to address the study objectives, this
chapter was organized in the following sub-themes; Allocation of CDF to development
projects; CDF and sustainable livelihood; CDF and watershed management; CDF and
community participation in watershed management; impacts of CDF in environmental
management; and community institutions and watershed management. According to this
study, the three main components in watershed management approaches are land
management, water management and biomass management. Consequently, watershed
management is more a philosophy of comprehensive integrated approach to natural
resources management. It aims at integration of social resources management with
natural resource management. The approach is generally preventive, progressive,
corrective and curative. Watershed management involves the judicious use of natural
resource with active participation of institutions, organizations, in harmony with the
ecosystem.
2.2 Allocation of Constituency Development Fund to Development Projects
Globally, parliamentary involvement in grassroots projects and in community
development has been growing in a diverse set of countries, including Kenya (CDF),
Pakistan, India (Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme, MPLADS),
Uganda, Bhutan (Constituency Development Grant, CDG), Jamaica (CDF) and Papua
17
New Guinea (Electoral Development Funds), CDF resemble the venerable u.s.
congressional allocations generally called "pork barrel," "earmarks" or "member items"
in national and state-level policy making. Operations of CDFs have sometimes been
controversial because they raise fundamental questions about the efficacy of government
service delivery, the extent to which such service delivery can be made accountable, the
role of legislators in selecting development priorities, and how public participation in
policy making can be made more meaningful (Baskin et al, 2010).
The CDF Act of 2007 provides for the process of selection and allocation of CDF to the
community development projects as follows; CDF project selection begins at the
grassroots level with community groups identifying potential projects, prioritizing them
and presenting final recommendations to the Constituency Development Fund Committee
(CDFC). The CDFC prioritizes the final list of projects by places them in a 2nd and 3rd
schedule, and specifies the name of the constituency, year of funding and an
identification number for each project (similar projects may be lumped together). The 3rd
schedule serves as a more detailed snapshot of the project list than the one appearing in
the 2nd schedule. The 3rd schedule also provides a status report that is crucial when
assessing disbursement rates and amounts. The local community works in consultation
with the CDFC, which provides guidelines for applying for funding and assistance in
assessing project costs and particulars. Thereafter, the CDFC submits the fmalized list of
projects to the District Project Committee (DPC), which should meet annually to ensure
that there, is no duplication of projects. Thereafter, the CDFC then submits the list of
projects to the Constituency Development Fund Board along with the 2nd and 3rd
18
schedule and any other pertinent information, which includes minutes from the
community level project selection committee.
The Constituency Development Fund Board compiles a complete list of all proposed
projects from the constituencies, and then makes final recommendations from this list.
Any disputes over potential projects are referred to the Constituency Fund Committee,
which makes a final determination over disputed projects. Lastly, the Electoral
Commission of Kenya provides the Constituency Development Fund Board with
constituency codes through which all projects can be identified. The Board then disburses
money to constituency accounts. Ministers' approve disbursements from the constituency
bank accounts to specific projects. Each disbursement is minted and is subject to the
approval of three signatories.
2.3 Constituency Development Fund Projects and Sustainable Livelihoods
In Jamaica, the Government recognizes that the CDF is an important part of our social
safety net and the CDF enables Members of Parliament to be more responsive to
individual and community needs (Ministry of Finance and the Public Services, 2010). In
2008-2009 data on implementation of the CDF in Jamaica indicated that huge allocations
went to Human and Social Development projects, to economic enablement, to disaster
mitigation and to physical infrastructure projects (Jamaica Observer, 2009). Funded areas
included: road repairs, economic enablement, water projects, rural electrification, sports
development, education/scholarship grants, assistance in purchasing school books,
general upgrading of bridges and other facilities, construction of computer laboratories
19
and homework centers, as well as rehabilitation of community centers (Jamaica Labour
Party, 2008).
The CDF mechanism provides several opportunities to further strengthen the local
adaptive capacity possibly funded through the CDF in order to strengthen local
livelihoods assets (Mikko et al., 2009). In most cases CDF has been instrumental in
building of schools and provision of school equipments; building of health centres;
provision of tap water, water tanks and dams; rural roads; electricity, are just a few of
such projects, (Thomas and Mwabu, 2008) which have greatly affected the livelihoods of
the communities . These capital development projects have contributed to the
government's agenda to the fight against poverty, equitable distribution of resources and
improve communities' livelihoods. For instance, through the CDF, many schools have
been built and equipped. This has aided the government's policy of providing free
primary school education. In the health sector, many hospitals, dispensaries, maternity
wings within existing health facilities and clinics have been built in record time. This has
helped decongest larger district level hospitals. Additionally, the CDF has helped crime-
prone areas to construct police posts which the central government has been quick to
bring into operation to reaffirm its commitment to public safety (Obuya, 2008).
Improvement In local level social capital has been pursued by developing CDF.
Constituency Development Fund Committees (CDFCs) established within each
constituency with an MP who serves as the chairman and 14 additional members
appointed by the MP is mandated to review and approve project proposals and request for
20
funding, and determine appropriate allocation of funds, Project Management Committees
(PMC) made up of members of the public who manage, oversee and monitor ongoing
individual CDF project and stakeholder forum supports social relationships (social asset)
in the communities that can be also utilized in pursuit for other livelihood activities
including adapting watershed management approaches.
There are several elements in the project that contribute to human assets and enhanced
local skills, mechanism to finance water, health, nutrition, sanitation and hygiene
investments, and support communities in implementing these activities, including
reinvestment, and institutionalised capacity at zonal and regional levels (Mikko et al.,
2009). CDF can be an effective tool of poverty alleviation; is need for enhancing poverty
eradication efforts; could be used enhance a positive relationship between the MP and the
citizens through regular consultations and interactions (Africa Leadership Institute,
2007). However, CDF mechanism has not adopted watershed management approaches to
sustainable livelihoods. With initiatives of local organizations through trade exhibitions
in which local Members of Parliament (MPs) participate have been converted into forums
for policy dialogue. For instance, they have given farmers the opportunity to impress
upon their MPs the need to investing the CDF money in agricultural projects (World
Agro Forestry Centre, 2006). This has come as a result of communities realizing the
importance of CDF in improving their livelihoods. To achieve the goal of improving rural
livelihoods and sustainable utilization of existing resources, the roadmap chosen should
be through convergence of activities in the watersheds, such as agriculture, horticulture,
livestock, fisheries, poultry and small enterprises that bring value addition to rural
produce. For example, CDF committees are able to plan and implement such projects that
21
are ecological and biological friendly while providing them with alternative means of
income and subsistence. The challenge is to capture key community priorities within
formal district planning processes and to secure financial resources to support their
implementation. Funding available to local communities under the CDF do not
adequately support initiatives centred on sustainable environmental management and
livelihoods development (NEMA and UNDP, 2009).
Land and water degradation threaten food security for many of the poorest and most food
insecure living in South Asia, Africa and Latin America (Kaiser, 2004). It also
contributes to persistent poverty, and results in decreasing ecosystem resilience and
provision of environmental services (Costanza et 01., 1997). The major impetus for
establishing a CDF in Uganda is to address poverty at the grassroots level, where other
government poverty reduction policies have not been able to succeed more fully (Africa
Leadership Institute, 2009). An overview of funding to 9 rural and 2 urban sample
districts in the year 2004/05 highlighted that very few CDF committees prioritized
funding on the environmental conservation sectors (Ro.K, 2006).
2.4 Constituency Development Fund Projects and Watershed Management
Watershed development approaches in India are mainstreamed in the country's
development agenda. The argument for a watershed development approach is that it is a
natural hydrological unit (in technical terms) for soil and water conservation. Watershed
development now commonly include various development activities like alternate
22
livelihood options, credit facility, micro msurance, livestock management, capacity
building and afforestation (Joy et al., 2005).
Managing a watershed involves taking into consideration the interaction in time and
space not only of individual plots but also of the common pool resources such as forests,
wetlands, springs, gullies, roads and footpaths, and vegetative strips along rivers and
streams (Swallow et al., 2001). Despite the fact that CDF has been instrumental in
utilizing these resources and providing such services in Kenya, watershed management
approaches have not been integrated in CDF projects. Constituency Development Fund
projects decision making process is characterized by lack of professionals in several
fields; watershed management, limited community participation, and political dominance
(R.o.K, 2008a) this might be a major cause for non consideration of watershed
management approach in CDF projects.
Land development through the promotion of watershed development and its management
play an important role in the sustainable development of land and water resources. This
.
has the potential to create significant local benefits and enhance the capacity of
communities to deal effectively with conditions of drought. Hiwre Bazaar village in India
is an example of the realization of this potential (Sanjay and Sreeja, 2008). Constituency
Development Fund mechanism has been seen to have important role to play in combating
adverse effects of climate change. Since combating climate change is a high-investment
undertaking as depicted by the indicative costs in the Action Plan, there is need to include
the CDF in order to have great impact at the grassroots level especially in dealing with
23
climate-related emergencies that affect the watersheds (R.o.K, 201Ob). Therefore, CDF
has been identified as an opportunity to encounter adverse effects of climate change in
Kenya through financing climate adaptation and mitigation projects.
2.5 CDF and Community Participation in Watershed Management
Current devolution of resource management and financing like the CDF provide
opportunities for "real" community participation in planning and decision-making
(Thomas et al., 2007). In Jamaica, MPs were required to develop a five-year development
plan for their constituencies to be submitted by September 30, 2008. In doing so, they
must hold consultations with their Constituency Project Oversight Committee (CPOC),
which is comprised of representatives of community-based organizations, influential
individuals and non-governmental agencies, to determine priority projects appropriate for
their constituency. This community participation is essential to the selection of a project
with the Member of Parliament as the lead facilitator. The responsibility for selection and
prioritization of project ideas must be that of the constituents and not the MP (Jamaica
Gleaner, 2009).
Community participation in CDF projects IS an important factor for enhancing
community participation in watershed management. Constituency Development Fund is
not a political pork barrel. Rather, it is a fine example of democracy in action, people
participation in community development and good governance worthy of encouragement
and support (Jones, 2010).
24
However, despite efforts of the Kenyan government to adopt bottom-up approaches,
many critical watershed management decisions remain a preserve of the central
government. This double-standards approach has perpetuated unsustainable practices in
micro watersheds, especially in rural areas. It is important to understand the conditions
when people participate in watershed management approaches. These are: (i) making
people aware of potential benefits of collective action in conserving and managing
natural resources; (ii) including demand driven activities in the watershed program; (iii)
empowering people in planning, implementing and managing watershed programs; and
(iv) expecting high private economic benefits (Joshi et aZ., 2000). The major challenge is
to benefit the landless, the socially disadvantaged and resource-poor participants who
have low ability to pay for the different programmes. Like in other parts of the world, in
Kenya research is required to determine what access poor communities currently have to
land and water management, and how that is likely to change over time with changes in
the demand (CPWF,2002)
In the report by National Anti-corruption Campaign Steering Committee the government
of Kenya found that low public involvement or community participation in project
identification and prioritization may be responsible for the low project ownership that
characterizes many CDF projects in some constituencies (R.o.K, 2008a). Even though
the governing principle of the CDF is to encourage community participation, an
institutional framework for community involvement is missing. The overall characteristic
of the CDF therefore is that local councils as well as parliament retain control of
2S
resources while the local communities lack awareness about the objective, rules and
procedures governing their access to CDF, their roles and mandates.
Appropriate community participation tools and approaches such as Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) have not been adequately utilized for entrenching community
participation, and the use of Information, Education Communication (IEC) to channel
information to the general public is minimal. District Information offices at the district
are either nonexistent or ill equipped. As a result, districts do not have established
mechanisms to collect, process, store and disseminate information on local development
(ADF, 2007), including watershed management information. Constituency Development
Fund watershed projects will be more efficient and effective when users are given a role
in managing their own watershed resources. However, many watershed projects around
the world have not performed well because of poor community participation (Johnson et
al., 2001).
The key to the success of any watershed project and its sustainability depends on people's
participation. For achieving the desired participation of people, the roles of community
organizations, groups and other stakeholders are crucial. Local people must play an active
role starting from project design, moving to implementation and the project maintenance.
At central level, there are faint possibilities to implement the above measures unless they
are described and executed with the direct involvement of populations concerned
(Lundqvist, 1985).
26
In India, participatory approaches to watershed development have been found to be better
than technical approaches because they better succeed in addressing the disincentives for
household investments in soil and water conservation (Joy et al., 2005). Participatory
approaches not only subsidize the costs of investments, but also pay attention to wider
constraints for farm household production. This may involve investments in micro -
credit and agricultural extension (Farrington et al., 1999). CDF projects should ensure
participatory approaches including local awareness rising, institution building and
empowerment. Coordination mechanisms should be created to facilitate the cooperation
and collective decision making needed for long term sustainability of the efforts. The
Indian case is the best lesson the Kenyan government can learn, to use CDF to effectively
manage the micro watersheds. CDF Act (2007a) provides for active citizen participation
in development which enhances ownership, democratization and sustainability. However,
this participation is at the behest of the MP since the Act does not provide for recourse to
constituency should the MP fail to hold local consultation forums (KHCR, 2010).
Surrowiecki (2004) emphasizes the importance of community participation in
development programmes by demonstrating how the combined intelligence and input of
groups of people can create optimum conclusions about whatever they want to do. He
states that: Often crowds like markets or other forms of collective thought are smarter
than the individuals who participated in them. The community, like the markets, is made
up of diverse people with different levels of information and intelligence and yet when
you put all those people together, they come up with generally intelligent decisions.
27
Emphasizing the importance of community participation, Surowiecki (2004) argues that,
under the right circumstances, community groups are remarkably intelligent and often
smarter than the smartest people in them. According to this approach, it is believed that
masses may be wiser than the professional elites in making allocation and distribution
priorities based on local knowledge. Thus, central planners have neither the information
nor the incentives to make good decisions compared with the knowledge and incentives
of decentralized economic actors and the people at large. Therefore, this study finds out
that people participation in CDF projects is central towards ensuring resource efficiency
in integration of watershed management approaches in CDF projects.
2.6 Impacts of Constituency Development Fund in Environmental Management
Since its inception, CDF has played an important role in fighting poverty at the grassroots
level through the implementation of community based projects which have long term
effects of improving the peoples' economic well being. Constituency Development Fund
has been instrumental in providing services at local levels where for many years on
development programmes had been undertaken (UNDP, 2006). Biophysical
environmental resources such as land, forests, .and water have been exploited to an extent
that watershed management approaches should be mainstreamed in CDF to realize the
sustainability of the resources. This is to foster local governance, including good
environmental stewardship; improve service delivery; bring government and the people
closer together; and increase the response capacity of the elected representatives
(Munroe, 2010).
28
Constituency Development Fund Act (2007) provides 2% of CDF allocation each
financial year to be used in environmental conservation. However, most CDF projects
with negative environmental quality effects are found to be implemented in many
constituencies. Failure to undertake feasibility studies and on environmental impact
assessments, coupled with weak project implementation guidelines is likely to have
negative implications for projects sustainability (R.o.K, 2008a). At the same time, CDF
can be utilized to enhance community participation in the management of these
watersheds as Funyula watersheds. Finally, EMCA of 1999 provides legal instruments
for the protection and conservation of rivers, lakes, and wetlands, cultural sites of
significance, hilltops, hillsides, mountain areas and forests. The policy instruments
include environmental impact assessment, economic instruments such as fiscal
incentives, environmental quality standards, restoration orders, conservation orders and
environmental assessments.
Under EMCA (1999), developers and resource users are required to undertake
environmental audits or impact assessments. This provision supports the Physical
Planning Act, which requires developers to advertise and seek approval of change of use
of a particular land unit. Through restoration, conservation or assessments, the
community can effectively demand restoration, conservation or restrict the right, interest
and use of a burdened land with compensation as deemed appropriate. Most of other
resource based policies and legislation have been formulated based on the environmental
framework (Thomas et al., 2007). These legislative frameworks apply to the CDF
29
projects; however, it seems many are not followed due to lack of knowledge amongst
the fund managers and the community at large.
In the report by KARl and ICRAF (2006), the low impact of CDF and other
environmental development projects in Kitui District was due to wrong priority in project
funding. For example, previous work by Forestry Department and KEFRI led to a
forestation of Kitui municipality and its immediate environs (KARl and ICRAP, 2006).
This has led to significant improvement in the rainfall received yet there has been no
concerted effort to initiate such projects that are considered as long term to serve the
political aspirations of sitting MPs. Misunderstanding of the concept of environment and
development is a challenge such that a politician would rather put up a building to house
a dispensary for purposes of reducing child mortality without addressing the underlying
problems; lack of clean water being a major contribution to the increased child mortality.
2.7 Community Institutions and Watershed Management
Watershed development requires cooperation among all the key stakeholders in a
watershed to involve one or more entire communities (World Bank, 2008). Though
watersheds are physical units in nature, institutions evolved over time which are essential
for their management do not strictly follow their physical boundaries. These institutions
interact in diverse action arenas to facilitate or constrain actors involved in managing
watersheds. Again a number of factors; physical, social and cultural influence the arena,
but institutions constitute a crosscutting factor and a particular driving force in the
decision making process (Young, 1999). Agents interact with each other to take decisions
30
within and among diverse arenas. In each, institution integrates in diverse and complex
ways to facilitate and constrain decisions. Understanding the institutions involved in
watershed management will. improve understanding of the complexity and interactions
among institutions in various arenas. Three principal types of institutions interact in
watershed development arena and enable agents to take decisions: (i) policy, (ii) legal,
and (iii) administrative institutions (Ibid).
Diverse forces influence resource management in watersheds, but the institutional options
available invariably do not match with ground reality. External agencies (state
governments, donors, NGOs) impose different concepts and conditions (carried through
funding) by creating new institutions. Rarely do these funding agencies attempt to
examine and modify the institutional failures of existing distributive governance. The
poor who are caught between the macro (formal) and micro (informal) are being
increasingly marginalized in the process. Addressing them requires an effective role of
various institutions in addressing education, lack of income generating opportunities,
overcoming the constraints imposed by natural factors, and importantly, social forces that
have often led them to poverty (Sharma et al., 2005).
2.8 Summary and Conclusion
From the literature review, it has emerged that watersheds play important role in
sustainable livelihoods of many resource poor Kenyans. Constituency Development Fund
can play an important role in promoting sustainable livelihoods by enhancing watershed
management at the grassroots level through community participation. The Indian case
where watershed management approaches have been integrated in local decentralised
31
development strategies, serve as a good example for Kenya. However, CDF projects
decision making process is characterised by lack of enough watershed management
experts, limited community participation, and lack of awareness and non adherence to
CDF Act (2007a) and EMCA (1999) regulations of conducting environmental impact
assessment to establish the impacts of CDF projects on the watersheds and environment
in general. These components are important in ensuring sustainability of CDF projects
and integration of watershed management approaches in CDF projects.
In the' literature, the low impact of CDF in watershed management and other
environmental development projects in Kenya is due to wrong priority in project funding.
However, no study has been done on CDF and watershed management approaches in
Kenya.
In summary, literature reviewed established the gap where, research is required in Kenya
to determine what access poor communities currently have to land and water
management, and how that is likely to change over time with changes in the demand
(CPWF,2002); the allocation rationale and effects CDF has on the biophysical
environment; understanding the perception of the people on CDF and watershed
management activities and institutions in the community which CDF can utilize to
manage the biophysical environment, and it is hoped that the data gathered in this study
will bring into focus the significance of integrating watershed management approach in
CDF project to ensure poverty reduction and achievement of sustainable development.
32
CHAPTERTHREE:METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area characteristics
This study was conducted in Funyula Constituency. The rationale for the selection of this
constituency was that, first it had high poverty levels of 65.9% (R.o.K, 2007b) despite it
benefiting from CDF. Secondly, the area had numerous hills with numerous streams,
springs and wetlands most of them draining in to River Sio which drains in Lake Victoria
thus forming a common hydrological unit.
3.1.1 Position, Population and Administrative Units
Funyula Constituency in Busia County, Kenya borders Uganda and lies between latitude
0° 19'ON, longitude 34°7'OE. The average population density of the area is 265.1 persons
per kilometre square (R.o.K, 201Oa) as indicated in Table 3.1 and Appendix I;
Table 3.1: Population Distribution by Locations in Funyula Constituency
Location Household number Area in square km Density
Nambuku 2,453 32.7 364
Namboboto 3,418 37.3 436
Odiado 2,038 22.6 425
Nangosia 2,283 27.5 386
Ageng'a 2,902 44.5 313
Nanguba 2,368 36.3 315
Bwirl 3,933 64.3 308
Total 19,395 265.1 353
Source: Kenya Census Report (2009)
33
3.1.2. Socio Economic Activities
Farming is the main socio-economic activity in Funyula Constituency; cassava, sweet
potatoes, arrow roots, finger millet, sorghum, quill, chicken, ducks, termites, bananas,
groundnuts, cowpeas, green-grams, monkey nuts fish are the main subsistence food. Crop
production is majorly for subsistence purpose; therefore, the nature of farming is of low
input level, and local seed varieties are used by about 80% of the farmers (R.o.K, 2007b).
Further, very few farmers use mineral fertilizer and manure for crop production. This
means soil fertility replenishment is minimal. Yet the soils in some parts have inherent
low level nutrients capacity. Consequently, after 3 - 4 continuous cropping seasons the
yields drop drastically. The coping mechanisms by the farmers to have adequate produce
is opening new fields, thus reducing the vegetation cover. In some cases farmers exploit
ecologically fragile ecosystems like hills, riverbanks and road reserves without initiating
appropriate conservation measures.
Most labour in this area is supplied by women and youth who organize themselves in
working teams/clubs. The peak labour demand period is observed at planting, weeding
and harvesting of cereal and pulses crops. The peak period for demand for labour falls in
the months of April to July and October and November of every year. Despite the
scarcity of trees in Funyula Constituency, charcoal burning is still a booming business.
The irony of this is that although charcoal production and transportation is illegal, it is
very legal to buy and use charcoal, putting the forest remnants in danger from being
depleted.
34
3.1.3 Climate and Hydrology
Funyula Constituency is in the wider Lake Victoria basin, which is a lower middle agro-
ecological zone. Rainfall pattern in the region varies between 1020mm and 1270mm
mean annually. The long rains may start as early as mid February and last until May mid
with a peak in April. The short rains may last from mid November to January mid. It is
unreliable and drought is an ever expected phenomenon. The annual mean maximum
temperature ranges from 26° C to 30° C, while the annual mean minimum temperature
varies between 14°C to 18 °C. The evaporation in this region is between 1800mm to
2000mm per year (R.o.K, 2007b). The high evaporation is due to the proximity of the
area to Lake Victoria rendering humidity of the air to be relatively high. River Sio is the
main river flowing through this area, a few kilometres to Lake Victoria. Table 3.2
summarises the main source of water to residents of Funyula Constituency.
Table 3.2: Funyula Constituency Rural Household by Main Source of Water
Pond! Lake Stream Spring/well Piped into Piped Rain Vendo
Dam /Borehole dwellings water r
1,008 1,629 3,797 11,241 183 1,387 130 18
Source: Republic of Kenya, 2010; Kenya Census Report (2009)
3.1.4 Topography and Geology
The area has undulating topography that supports agriculture but constrains the
development of roads due to the large number of bridges (R.o.K, 1997). Along river Sio,
the area forms of wetlands which comprises of papyrus colony broken by irregular water
channels and occasional small lakes with grassy islands.
35
3.2 Research Design
This study utilized a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information solicited from
community and relevant district service providers whose services directly affect
watershed management and CDF in Funyula Constituency. A mixed method approach
was adopted in this study because of its importance in: triangulation and ensuring validity
of the data; provision of complementary information for clarification or elaboration of
given factors guided the collection of proceeding data.
3.3 Targeted Population
The study population target composed all households in Funyula Constituency where a
total of 123 household heads with the sample comprising both male and female residents
benefiting from CDF targeted to participate in watershed management. Only the research
subjects who met the criteria were interviewed during this study;
3.3.1 Inclusion Criteria
• Household head in the study area willing to participate in the study.
• Agencies providing or which had provided environmental or natural resource
management extension services in the study area.
• Provincial administration representatives in the study area.
• Representatives from community based watershed conservation and water user
groups.
36
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure
3.4.1 Sampling Procedure
The research sites for this study were selected through simple random sampling of the
seven locations in Funyula Constituency. Three out of the seven locations in Funyula
constituency namely; Nambuku, Namboboto and Odiado were selected for this study
using simple random sampling design. Thereafter, in each of the three locations, one sub-
location was randomly chosen resulting into the choice of Kabwodo, Nyakhobi and
Mango sub- locations in Odiado, Namboboto and Nambuku locations respectively
(Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). Thereafter, purposive sampling was used to select one
village from each sub-location that was found in each sub category in order to cover
different levels of hydrological unit. Bumwoni, Nang'ining'ini, and Sidonge villages
were selected from Kabwodo, Nyakhobi, and Mango sub-locations respectively.
Bumwoni, Nang'ining'ini and Sidonge are in highland, middle land and lowland sub
categories of the watershed respectively.
Sample frame obtained from the respective Chiefs indicated that Bumwoni,
Nang'ining'ini and Sidonge villages had 58, 60 and 62 number of households in each
village respectively. At least 41 households from each of the three villages were
randomly selected for household interviews taking into account the variances in sub-
populations (Israel, 1992) within the three villages as following sample size calculation
procedure in section, 3.4.2.
37
3.4.2 Sample Size
The appropriate sample size for this study was calculated from lists with the number of
all households in each location per village obtained at the respective chiefs offices
within the constituency. The lists gave a total of 180 households in the three villages
Bumwoni, Nang'ining'ini and Sidonge villages. Yamame (1967) simplified formula for
small population sample size calculation was adopted for the study. The formula states:
n = N
1 +N(e)2
Where:
n = the desired sample size
N= Population of households in the watershed 180
e = Margin of error 5 %
From the formula: n = 123
180
1 + 180 (0.05)2
This study further benefited on information solicited from eight purposively selected key
informants, who included; local leaders, the District Agricultural Officer and Water
Officer, CDF Office Manager, Provincial Administration, civil society leader within
Funyula Constituency. The information from the key informants was instrumental
particularly in triangulating information provided by the interviewed households.
38
3.5 Data Collection Methods
This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection to achieve .its
objectives: Participatory community mappmg, transect walk, photography,
questionnaires, interview guide, and observation checklist were tools used to gather
information.
3.5.1 Pre-test of Data Collection Instruments
The pre-test subjects comprised at least 10% of the total sample size. The pre-test was
carried out one week to the actual study period at Bukhwamba village, Namboboto
location. The instruments were then reviewed to capture changes emanated from the pre-
test. Issues such as the length of the tool, time to be spent on each tool and interpretation
of the tools to local language where applicable were addressed.
3.5.2 Participatory Community Mapping
This gave a visual representation of what the community perceives as their community
space in Nambuku location. The purpose of the participatory community mapping was to
locate watershed resources, activities, challenges, ecological information, as the water
status, general relief features and drainage features Plates lea) and l(b). The alternative
objective was to develop study area profile by mapping the CDF projects, watershed
resources, infrastructures, social services and land use system areas that the community
felt CDF was affecting the biophysical environment. Eight women community
representatives with four men and the researcher drew the sketch map on the mud wall of
a semi permanent material chosen by community members themselves, and then
transferred by the researcher onto paper with all the details provided by the community.
39
Community institutions necessary for watershed management were identified. The map
was also used to draw the transect route (Appendix IT).
Pltlte 1(4): Community representatives Plate 3(b): Watershed systems that the
drawing a PRA map on a mud wall. community drew on a PRA map
Comment: PRA mapping was used to help the community identify key issues in
watershed management.
3.5.3 Tl1IDSeCt Walk
The researcher was guided by two community representatives through the transect walk
from Nambuku shopping centre to Sidonge in Nambuku location. The target during the
transect walk was to cover the highland, middle land and lowland topography to identify
key issues on the study objectives. People encountered along the route were interviewed
to give meaning and context to issues already identified in the participatory community
map, and provide information on other observed conditions. Informal interviews were
conducted with people encountered along the route and focused on observed phenomena.
Field DOtes were compiled by the researcher and critical issues investigated using
technical data sources (Appendix IT).
40
3.5.4 Photography
This was extensively used in the study to capture visual images of relevant impacts of
CDF on the biophysical environment, how people benefited from the natural resources
and how human activities contributed to watershed degradation. These images
complemented observed information instrumental in ascertaining the necessity of
utilizing CDF in watershed management (Plates 1(a)-9(b».
3.5.5 Administration of Questionnaires
Questionnaires with both open-ended and closed-ended questions were administered to
the willing sampled household heads in the three sampled villages (Appendix V). A total
of 123 questionnaires were successfully administered and returned. Information on socio-
economic and demographic, effects of CDF activities on biophysical environment,
relevance of community institutions in watershed management, challenges, opportunities
and perception of community members on CDF projects and watershed management
were collected.
3.5.6 Interview Guide
An interview guide (Appendix IV) was used to collect data from the eight key
informants. Information on the amount of CDF allocated to the constituency, factors that
determine the allocations of CDF to various community development projects, the role of
CDF in watershed management, challenges of using CDF in watershed management were
collected.
41
3.5.7 Observation checklist
Observation checklist (Appendix III) was used to solicit on-site information on CDP
projects and watershed management activities. In addition, information on status of the
impact of CDP projects on the biophysical environment in Funyula Constituency was
collected.
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
The analysis of quantitative and qualitative data in form of verbal statements,
photographs, situation contexts and participatory mapping generated by this study was
done concurrently since the information solicited from the research subjects were
expected to complement each other. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet were used to analyse quantitative data. Descriptive statistics
such as percentages and frequencies were explored during analysis of the quantitative
data using SPSS. Correlations were also used in analysis of the factors influencing
watershed management activities in CDP projects. Coded perceptions of the community
towards CDP and watershed management were measured and presented in a five point
likert scale. Context analysis formed the basis, of analyzing qualitative data. Verbatim
information obtained from government officials and other key informants were
documented. The discussions were presented in form of ratios, tables, figures, and plates.
42
3.7 Research Ethics and Informed Consent
The permission to carry out the study in Funyula Constituency was granted by the
District Commissioner (Appendix VI) who authorised the District Officer, the respective
Chiefs, and the community and district line ministries officers including CDF officers to
provide the needed information. The researcher explained the objectives of the study,
how the study sought to contribute to the general welfare of the community, the roles of
each respondent, how confidentiality was to be observed by all respondents who
participated in the study. Each respondent was informed that participation in the study
was voluntary.
43
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Overview
This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the study on watershed management
for Sustainable Constituency Development Fund projects in Funyula Constituency. The
relative importance of factors that influence the allocation of CDF for community
development projects were determined; assesses how the local bio-physical environment
has been affected by Constituency Development Fund projects activities; establish the
relevant community institutions and organizations to enhance watershed management
activities in CDF projects and determines the community perceptions and opportunities
for enhancing watershed management activities in the CDF projects. Findings from a
sample of 123 households, PRAs and interviews from eight knowledgeable key
informants including service providers such as agricultural officer, district water officer,
chief, CDF manager, assistant chief, and elders from the constituency are presented.
Interviews fmdings with key government officials were also presented.
4.2 Socio -Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Although the sampling of the 123 household heads was done, all respondents voluntarily
participated in the study, by gender, 64.2% of the respondents were males while 35.8%
were females. Mixed farming with both on farm and off farm activities was the main
-form of occupation of the more than three quarters (93.5%) of total household heads in
Funyula Constituency. This percentage has increased from the previous study which
indicated that 78.7% of the households in Funyula were farmers (Aloo, 1993). Farmers
who earned salaries comprised only 4.9% of the total respondents while the remaining
44
were entrepreneurs as presented in Table 4.1. Crop production is majorly for subsistence
purpose, making the nature of farming be of low input level, where by local seed varieties
are used by about 80% of the farmers (R.o.K, 2007b).
Table 4.1: Socio-economic and Demographic Characteristics of the Household
Respondents n= 123
Characteristics Description n 0/0
Household head Male 79 64.2
Female 44 35.8
Watershed area High land 23 18.7
Middle land 68 55.3
Lowland 32 26.0
Main occupation Mixed farming 115 93.5
Salaried employees 6 4.9
Entrepreneurship 2 1.6
Income range < 1500 74 60.2
1500-2500
r••
29 23.5
2500-5000 7 5.7
5000> 13 10.6
Source: Author, 2010
Further analysis from the study indicated that 91.1 % of the respondents received their
monthly income from all farm activities, out of which 66.9% earned less than Kshs. 1,500
per month. While on average 3.6% of the respondents who earned their income from all
farm activities earned above Kshs.5, 000 per month. Further, 4.9% of the households
received their income from salaried employment; entrepreneurship was the source of
45
income to only 1.6% of the households while 2.4% pensions and remittances were their
main source of monthly income. Previous report from the government indicated that
agriculture contributed 35.4% to household income and employed 81.1% of the residents
of Funyula Constituency, 65.99% of the residents lived under one dollar per day
(absolute poverty) that contributes 2.43% to national poverty with an average household
income ofKshs. 1,239 (R.o.K, 2008d).
4.3 Allocation of CDF to Development Projects
The first objective was to determine the relative importance of factors that influence the
allocation of CDF for community development projects in Funyula Constituency. This
objective was based on previous studies having shown that after the inception of CDF
mechanism in Kenya as a strategy to eradicate poverty and ensure equitable distribution
of government resources there is still public outcry (UNDP, 2006) that CDF has not
helped communities reduce poverty. At the same time watershed management
approaches are not factored in decision making despite increasing evidence that
investment in ecosystem conservation, such as watershed management, results in
increased income for the rural poor (UNEP,2007)..
4.3.1 Trends of CDF Allocated to Funyula Constituency
Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1 findings of an analysis from the CDF board records indicated
that there was been an increase in the amount of taxpayers' money allocated to the CDF
in Funyula Constituency from Kshs. 6,000,000 in the financial year 2003-2004 to Kshs.
54,335,669 in the financial year 2009-2010. This increase was due to the need by the
government to meet Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and to attain development
46
targets as prioritized in Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment
Creation (ERS) 2003-2007. Priority programmes focussed on poverty reduction, social
and income inequality through employment and empowerment, improving access to basic
social services, inputs and opportunities to all, irrespective of gender and region (R.o.K,
2009). As a result, cnp projects have increased leading to increased utilization of
biophysical environmental resources such as water springs, dams, roads, quarries, trees
among others in the constituency.
Table 4.2: CDF Allocated to Funyula Development Project from 2003/04-2009/10
Year Number Finaneial Year CDF Amount Allocated
l. 2003/2004 6,000,000
2. 2004/2005 24,691,353
3. 2005/2006 31,933,383
4. 2006/2007 44,237,827
5. 2007/2008 44,511,064
6. 2008/2009 44,511,064
,
7. 2009/2010 I;) 54,335,669
Source: Author, 2010; Analysis from cnp Board records
47
FinancialYear
CDF Amount in
Kshs.
60,000,000 .-------------------
50,000,000 !========:::;~========:::::~:::==4 , ,
30,000,000 -t----~--==-------""-------------
20,000,000 -t---/~fC.---------------
10,000,000 +----7""'''------------------
o +---.---r--~--._-_.--_r-~
t:::::J~ t:::::J~<-'
~\V ~"V
"V~~ "V~<;;::j
Source: Author, 2010; Analysis from CDF Board records
Figure 4.1: Trends of CDF Allocated to Development Projects in Funyula
Constituency
At the national level, CDF allocations to respective constituencies are guided by the
formula: CDF Allocation = (0.75 by CDF) divide by 210) + (0.25 by CDF) by WCP)
where CDF is the total allocation less (3% administration costs + 5% for emergency)
WCP is the constituency contribution to national poverty (Gikonyo, 2008). The allocation
rationale is supposed to contribute to the long term development goals contained in
Kenya's Vision 2030 plan. As indicated in the formula, high poverty levels in Funyula
Constituency contributed to increase in the amount of CDF allocation.
4.3.2 Types of Development Projects Funded by CDF in Funyula Constituency
Table 4.3 presents the types of CDF projects that are likely to impact on the watershed
systems in Funyula Constituency in the fmancial years running form 2003/04 to 2008/09.
These projects mainly included construction type that utilized materials from the local
biophysical environment. Education sector had the highest number 55 projects. In all the
fmancial years, education sector was allocated the biggest portion of the CDF funds
48
available. In 2006/07 financial year, more than half (57.08%) of CDF was allocated to
education sector alone. Construction of classrooms and dormitories were the main
activities aimed at reducing students' congestion and increasing enrolment rates in the
schools in the constituency in support of Free Education Policy.
Table 4.3: Type of Projects Funded in Funyula Constituency from 2003/04-2008/09
Financial years.
Type of Project Number Financial Years and Percentage (%) Financial Allocation
.of 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
projects
Education 55 1.25 31.18 19.04 57.08 80.11 18.01
Health 7 1.67 18.46 9.19 21.32 8.41 3.14
Water 13 1.25 9.84 3.59 2.24 11.32 1.99
Roads and bridges 1 0.83 0.4 0.6 0 0 0
Energy 7 0 0 0 0 0 5.09
Sports 1 3.3 3.25 1.66 1.54 0 0
Law and security 1 0 3.39 7.99 4.5 0 0
Environment 1 , 0 0 0 0 0 1.99
Source: Author, 2010; Analysis from CDF Board records
Health sector had seven CDF funded projects which included construction of health
facilities to increase accessibility to health care. Water sector had thirteen projects which
included drilling of boreholes, rehabilitation of dams, springs and piped water. The
projects in water sector were aimed at providing safe and clean water. In the fmancial
years under review 2003/04 to 2008/09, there were no projects for water catchment areas
conservation and management. Grading of roads and construction of bridges had only
one project allocated finances, while energy sector had seven projects. Environmental
projects were allocated 1.99% of the CDF available in the 2008/09 financial year, but
during the time of the study, there was no project on the ground in the environmental
sector.
49
The amended CDF Act of 2007 requires that 'Environmental activities may be considered
as development projects for purposes of the Act provided that the allocation to such
activities does not exceed two per centum of the total allocation of the constituency in
that fmancial year. End Term Review of Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS) (2009),
recognises that economic development of Kenya largely depends on natural resources.
Hence, the effective management of natural resources is critical in fostering sustainable
development (R.o.K, 2009). However, the trends in allocation of CDF in Funyula
Constituency to environment sector seemed not to address the sustainable development
needs.
In addition, the inter-relationship between the sectors was not observed in the fund
allocation rationale. For example, for effective communities' participation in education
the students must get good nutrition which contributes to good health, more so time spent
to access water and fuel wood contributes to time spent on education especially in rural
communities.
4.3.3 Factors Influencing the Allocation of CDF to Community Projects
The spirit of CDF is that the community is supposed to utilize the money in development
projects basing on the provision in the CDF Act with community participation in projects
decision making process as per the guideline. However, according to Funyula
Constituency CDF manager during an interview held in May, 2010 at Funyula
Constituency CDF offices, it was evident that proposals as required by CDF Act of 2007
received at constituency level from location level, community forums allover the
constituency indicated that local socio-economic factors influenced how CDF was
50
allocated to various community development projects in Funyula Constituency. The most
important of these factors according to Funyula Constituency CDF manager included;
a) Poor Educational and Health Facilitiesl Infrastructure
Before inception of CDF projects, Funyula Constituency had poor educational and health
facilities/ infrastructure that influenced school performance, enrolment rate and access to
health care. Therefore, according to the Funyula Constituency CDF Manager, in CDF
committees at the location level, the communities requested CDF to finance education
and health facilities I infrastructure to improve service delivery in these two key sectors
to social development. These local priorities contributed to the overall national target as
outlined in the ERS of provision of Universal Primary Education (UPE) and reducing the
disparities in access and quality of education (R.o.K, 2009). These goals are in line with
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which calls for the attainment of Universal
Primary Education by the year 2015 as well as the promotion of gender equality and
empowerment of women. Prioritization of projects in Funyula Constituency health sector
using CDF was to enhance accessibility and affordability of quality basic health services
to people with special emphasis on the vulnerable and poor people. In the End Term
Review of ERS, it was reported that through the CDF, 1000 health facilities were
constructed to increase access especially in the underserved areas (Ibid).
51
b) Poor Road Networks
According to the Funyula Constituency CDF manager, rough terrain, rocky hills with
numerous streams running from the hill tops to the River Sio negatively affected the road
network in the constituency. Location CDF committees had submitted in previous years
proposals to either rehabilitate existing degraded roads or opening up other roads to make
the area accessible. This called for more financial resources for building bridges and
grading the roads. Each year after the rainy seasons roads were terribly damaged and the
only help available was to allocate CDF to rehabilitate the roads network.
c) Accessto Clean and Safe Water
According to Samia District Water Officer, access to clean and safe water for the
residents of Funyula Constituency was a challenge. Though the constituency had
numerous springs and dams, location committees requested CDFC to fund projects in
water sector. Constituency Development Funds were used to rehabilitate water sources
and ensure that the residents had access to clean and safe drinking water. This was in
response to community demand as proposed in the proposals from various locations. In
.
the End Term Review ofERS, it was reported that devolved funds such as the CDF could
be used to implement small-scale community projects such as spring protection, shallow
wells, and boreholes while ministry should concentrate on larger projects (R.o.K, 2009).
CDF projects have played important role in improving people's livelihoods by providing
essential services in education, health, water, roads, energy, sports, law and security.
Decision making on the allocation of CDF to community development project was
52
largely influenced by local socio-economic factors without the consideration of the
effects of increased unsustainable utilization of biophysical resources as well as the
contribution of watershed management activities to poverty reduction. According to
KARl and ICRA (2006), the low impact of CDF and other environmental development
projects in Kenya is due to wrong priority in project funding. Watershed degradation is a
major threat to land productivity and food production, investment in ecosystem
conservation, such as watershed management, results in increased income for the rural
poor (UNEP, 2007).
4.3.4 Contribution of Watersheds to Local Community Livelihoods
The study findings shows that majority of the people in Funyula Constituency depended
on watersheds services, 92.7% on fuel wood, 97.6% on farmland, 87.8% on timber,
posts, rafters, 87% on medicinal herbs, 87.8% on grazing field and fodder; 87% on soil
,
conservation, 94.3% on water provision; and 87.8% on biodiversity maintenance among
other services identified by the respondents. Forest in particular, provide consumable
products such as timber, poles, and posts, and fuel for the majority of Kenyans. Forests
also contribute to the preservation of the environment (R.o.K, 2009). The hills were
valued as a source of wood for making charcoal, building materials in form of grass,
poles, and stones as shown in Plate 2(a), 2(b), 3(a) and 3(b) that present contributions of a
healthy watershed to community livelihoods in Funyula Constituency.
53
PkIle 2(11): Women carrying fuel wood Plate l(b ):A woman harvesting cassava
Comment: Funyula Constituency depend onfuel wood and food from a watershed
Plate 3(b): A woman tethering small
PIIlIe 3(4): A woman harvesting vegetable ruminant in the homestead
from arm land
Cemment; Funyula Constituency depend biophysical environment for mixed farming
activities
During the interview one of the district service providers had the following to say,
"CDF is good at putting up visible structures. No activities in watershed management,
they build schools and hospitals, open up the roads. They should also plant trees and
engage in other watershed management activities to increase food production for the
people"
. Source: District Deputy Agricultural Officer, Samia District, 2010
·54
The poor entirely depend critically on fertile soils, clean water and healthy ecosystems
for their livelihoods and well-being. This reliance creates complex, dynamic interactions
between environmental conditions, communities' access to and control over
environmental resources, and poverty. Understanding the nature of these relationships is
a prerequisite for enduring success in the fight against poverty (Kimaru et aI, 2006).
4.4 Effects of CDF Projects on the Communities' Bio-physical Environment
The second objective in this study sought to assess how the communities' bio-physical
environment has been affected by CDF projects activities. In determining this objective,
biophysical environment was stratified into three subsections; the highland, the middle
lands and the lowlands sections of a hydrological unit. Photographs were taken in various
locations where CDF activities have directly impacted on Funyula Constituency bio-
physical environment.
4.4.1 Effects of CDF Activities on the Highland Biophysical Environment
The study found out that, 70% of the respondents had knowledge of CDF activities
having negative impacts on biophysical environment. These effects included;
a) Abandoned and New Quarries in the Highlands
Findings indicated that quarrying was the main activity that had intensified in the
higWand sections of the watershed due to increased CDF infrastructure development
projects. Quarries which are spread all over the hills provided building stone. A good
example is at Nambuku shopping centre near the dispensary; Nairobi and wide spread on
the hillsides as shown in Plate 4(a) and 4(b). The quarries were left open with
underground-stony soils unfit for farming activities. This led to dereliction on the
55
1.1 ." .• 4_ •.
watershed because the quarries were not rehabilitated after extraction of building stones.
Families with quarries in their farmlands found it difficult to cultivate crops thereby
affecting their livelihood. Such families mainly practiced quarrying to raise income in
short-term. Quarrying is not viable as a long term economic activity for the households.
Plate 4(1l): Quarry adjacent to Nambuku
Dis nsa CDP roject project under construction
Comment: Construction material such as building stones, timber, sand and water
obtained locally and construction space ve elation is cleared to give building space.
In Plate 4(a), quarrying was done 100 meters from the CDF project on the hillside. The
interview with the Funyula Constituency CDF Manager revealed that most of the quarries
and brick making holes were not rehabilitated after use. The manager said:
Source: CDF Office Manager, Funyula Constituency, 2010
"Quarrying, sand harvesting and brick making are done on private lands. Therefore, the
land owners cannot allow CDF to rehabilitate them. However, the brick making holes
and quarries can be useful in rain water harvesting and irrigation hence protecting the
catchment areas ...
This impacted negatively on the community, in some cases reptiles such as snakes and
wild animals inhabited the quarries and affect people movements during rainy seasons,
56
domestic animals and children could drown III abandoned quarry site which also
becoming mosquitoes breeding sites.
b) Cutting Down of Trees for Construction
The study also found out that intensified CDF projects activities in the area had greatly
negatively affected forest resources in the highland part of the watershed; this was mainly
through cutting down of trees to provide timber and poles for constructions. Local
suppliers tend to look for cheap locally available timber from the community to avoid
extra transportation costs and to provide locals with income. The problem is that
communities cut trees but they do not replant thereby affecting the watershed negatively.
The activity of cutting down trees without replacing is likely to expose the highlands
areas to wind. rain erosions and high evaporation rates. This was evidenced by silting at .
Ludacho and Mumbao streams. Brick making uses a lot of fuel wood, construction of
police posts, schools, roads, health centres among others leads to clearance of forest
ecosystems and other vegetation to create room for construction site.
c) Grading of Weathered Roads
Funyula Constituency has only one tarmac road that is from Bumala to Port Victoria.
Others roads are graded weathered roads that including; Matayos -Nangina, Nambuku-
Lugala- Buradi, Nambuku-Busibi-Sidonge-Buradi Busibi- Funyula roads, among others.
These roads have enormous negative effect on the watershed management. The roads are
graded without proper runoff management barriers exposing the soil to wind and water
erosions (plate 5(a) and 5(b). Murram used for levelling roads was dug on road sides and
in some places next to schools as shown in Plate 5(b) without considering the long term
impacts of the site such as drowning of schools children and animals during the rain
57
seasons. Poor management of runoff combined with poor soil management in farms
along the roads accelerated soil erosion leaving farms barren. In some road sections,
gullies were visible and streams siltation. For example, Ludacho and Mumbao bridges,
along Matayos- Nangina road. This has left most farms along the road more bare
reducing crop yields. When Punyula Constituency CDP manager was asked if any
feasibility study or environmental impact assessment was done for the roads project, the
response was that CDF did not carry out the study once the community had prioritized a
particular project it was enough that the project was viable to the environment and the
community. This meant that the requirements in EMCA (1999) were not being followed
To some extent the runoff was directed to individual farms, destroying farmland and
crops making farmers vulnerable to hunger. Land uses, especially roads and footpaths,
which occupy small areas of land, account for large percentages of total erosion (Ziegler
et al., 20(1). Thus proper watershed management and planning is needed to minimize the
negative effects of CDF TOadprojects on the biophysical environment.
58
During a personal interview with Funyula Constituency CDF Manager, the major
challenge to road grading in the area was private land ownership;
Source: CDF Office Manager, Funyula Constituency, 2010
"The main challenge CDF is facing is private owned lands, hills and water areas.
We plan to give our roads good drainage systems, but the problem is that farmers do
not allow drainage to pass through their farms".
4.4.2 Effects of CDF Projects on the Middle Land Biophysical Environment
a) Clearing of Vegetation for Electricity Line Construction
Clearing of vegetation to open space for electricity line construction along Matayos-
Nangina, Nambuku- Lugala- Buradi, and Nambuku-Busibi roads among other areas had a
lot of negative effects on the middle land biophysical environment. All tall trees were cut
down and other vegetation cover destroyed to open up for the erection of the electricity
line in Plate 5(a) and 5(b). Unfortunately, these trees were not replanted, thus enough
evidence that the community and the contractor had no information on the EMCA (1999)
requirement of carrying out environmental impact assessment of the project with such
effects on the environment before implementation. Trees which acted as wind breakers
and source of fruits such as mangoes trees especially during the drought seasons were cut
down. Homesteads were exposed to the effects of strong wind which threaten blowing
away roofs of the houses. The District Environment Officer was never consulted
according to the interviews with Funyula Constituency CDF Manager, an indication that
much was happening in the environmental sector without the approval of the District
Environmental Officer.
59
b) Abandoned and Active Brick Making Sites
Brick making was another activity that CDF projects had intensified in the middle land
area of the watershed. Bricks for building CDF projects such as schools and health
facilities were obtained locally in the area. Brick making was done along streams with
fertile clay soil near water sources. Wet land ecosystems were cleared to give room for
bricking making sites. Firewood used for baking bricks was locally available from the
hills or using thorny trees found in wetlands. Brick making holes were never
rehabilitated, leaving the soils unfit for farming activities. Good soils for crop production
were destroyed reducing crop yields in the area while reptiles including snakes inhabited
the holes thereby negatively affecting community's activities. However, the district water
officer observed that:
Source: District Water Officer, Samia District, 2010
"Most water catchments are in privately owned lands therefore using CDF would be
quite difficult unless it targets individuals. However, brick making holes and quarries
can be used for water harvesting which increases water retention thereby reducing soil
. "erosion.
Further, the district agricultural officer had the following to say;
Sources: District Agricultural Officer, Samia District, 2010
"Road runoff, brick making holes, quarries and sand harvesting on the scarce land
communities leads soil erosion since farmers do not have capacity and knowledge to
reclaim the land".
60
c) Rehabilitation of Dams
According to Funyula Constituency CDF Manager, CDF in partnership with UNICEF
had renovated dams in Funyula Constituency. Matinga and Ganga dams were completed
while Namboboto and Bwiri dams' completion was underway in Plates 6(a) and 6(b).
There were no environmental impact assessment reports for these activities during the
time of the study. The projects had increased water availability for both livestock and
human use in the constituency. However, there were no conservation efforts done to
reclaim hills which were the main catchment areas. He also noted that CDF projects had
only utilized the biophysical environment in the past, but there were plans to plant trees
in all the twenty nine springs in the constituency to ensure that the catchment areas were
protected.
t: Dam rehabilitated to conserving water source upstream not rehabilitated
Plate 6(a): Namboboto dam being Plate 6(b): Namboboto dam being
renovated using CDF in partnership with renovated using CDF in partnership with
UNICEF UNICEF
61
d) Fish Pond Project
Constituency Development Fund fish pond project was initiated in the constituency to
boost food security; the projects were set up along streams which were not previously
utilized, therefore fish ponds were spread allover the streams. Farmers were encouraged
to utilize the same water for irrigation. horticulture and vegetable gardens were practised
according to Funyula Constituency CDF Manager in Plates 7(a) and 7(b).
Plate 7(b): Wetland utilizedfor vegetable
growing
C t: Wetlands have been utilized to provide goods but not conserved by CDF.
Farm ponds are important in any watershed management programme. Ponds are useful in
storing water for irrigation and also retard sediment and flood flows to the downstream river
system, therefore farm ponds contribute to food security and environmental management
whereby the two are the main challenges facing humanity in the twenty-first century (Lal.
20(0) including people in Funyula Constituency. Therefore. protecting and strengthening
watershed ecosystems to provide services is one of the main strategies to address these
two issues. Land and water degradation threaten food security for many of the poorest
and most food insecure living in Africa (Kaiser. 2004). It also contributes to persistent
62
poverty, and results in decreasing ecosystem resilience and provision of environmental
services (Costanza et al., 1997).
e) Springs Protection and Drilling of Water Boreholes
Constituency Development Fund had been utilized in the construction of twenty nine
springs (water points) in Funyula Constituency. The projects had helped the community
access water. For example, construction of Murondo spring in Plate 8(a) and 8(b) at a
cost of Kshs. 500,000 from CDF and drilling of several boreholes such as Muhombe
borehole and Mundaya in the study area was a good example.
PIIlIe 8(a : Rehabilitated Murondo s rin Ptate 8(b : Namboboto borehole
Comment: CDF has been utilized to provide water services which further pressure on
bia h steal environment
However. in some places like Muhombe area where there were more than two boreholes
at a distance of less than 300 meters was not good for underground water management.
Environmental Impact Assessment was not done to all springs and borehole projects
showing that watershed management approaches were not considered when making
decisions dealing with CDF projects. This contributed to ERS objective of utilizing CDF
to finance small scale water projects throughout the country (R.o.K, 2009).
63
t) Rain Water Harvesting
The study showed that CDFC had recognized the importance of harvesting rain water in
schools. Thereby, allocating some money to rain water harvesting as the CDF manager
revealed;
Source: CDF Office Manager, Funyula Constituency, 2010
"CDF has donated water tanks with a capacity of 10,000 litres each, to all
institutions in Funyula constituency. This is aimed at harvesting rain water which
should be usedfor tree nurseries. The institutions are supposed to sell the seedlings to
the neighbourhoods therefore, increasing the supply of seedlings in the communities
at a low price. The water is also supposed to improve the hygiene in the schools
thereby cutting down on waterborne diseases".
This is a best practice in integration of watershed management approaches in CDF. Rain
water harvesting is an important aspect in the management of any watershed system. Soil
erosion is controlled.
4.4.3 Effects of CDF Projects Activities on Lowland Biophysical Environment
a) Sand Harvesting
During the transect walk, findings show that sand used in CDF construction projects, was
. drawn from River Sio at Sidonge. Inquiries from the youths involved in harvesting sand
at Sidonge revealed that CDF projects had impacted positively on their job creation
business and youth were happy that CDF projects provided them a steady market for
harvested sand with the returns improving their livelihoods. However, some youths the
researcher talked to indicated that, they are yet to see the fruits of CDF funds in
conserving watersheds and that they were not involved in any watershed management
decision making process. In addition, sand harvesting destroyed riparian biodiversity
64
such as fish and bird habitat compromising on the livelihoods of the community which
over the years during rainy season enjoyed plenty of fish as a result of floods. It is
difficult for the community to adopt the conservation effort proposed without proper
structures in place for community participation. To remedy the situation, a combination
of skills are necessary for watershed management that considers the interaction in time
and space not only of individual plots but also of the common pool resources such as
forests, springs, gullies, roads and footpaths, and vegetative strips along rivers and
streams (Swallow et al.. 2000).
4.5 Community Institutions and Organizations
The third objective in this study sought to establish relevant community institutions and
organizations to enhance watershed management activities in CDF projects. To ascertain
this; the households and the key informants provided information regarding their
involvement in watershed management activities through groups. They also ranked the
social groups that they felt could be useful in utilizing CDF in watershed management .
activities.
4.5.1 Community Involvement in Watershed Management Groups
Findings indicated that 40.7% of the respondents were members of watershed user
groups. Whereby 95.1% agreed that membership to watershed user groups enhanced their
skills in watershed management. In addition, 44.7% of members in groups had joined the
groups to gain access to water, 19.5% to gain access to credits, 17.8% to get training on
watershed management while, 4.1% to contribute to collective action by the community
in watershed management. From informal interviews. with elders, each clan in Funyula
65
Constituency had its own welfare association which had responsibilities to manage the
clan's socio-economic welfare such as funerals and education. Wekhonye and Busibi
Child Care Community based organizations were examples of watershed user groups in
the area. The study established that tree nursery management, tree planting techniques,
forest fire management, watershed activities monitoring and reporting, soil management
techniques were activities that the groups offered to their members.
Findings in Table 4.4 show that only 18.7% of the respondent members to watershed
management groups were not satisfied with services offered in groups. Inefficiency in
service provision was identified by 26.8% of the respondents as the reason, while l3.0%
indicated inactive members in groups. While 27.6% of the sampled household felt that
CDF can be helpful in watershed management by providing watershed management
trainings, 23.6% felt that introducing demonstration projects in groups using CDF could
be the best avenue for communities to learn. On average, 86.2% felt that the government
should lead other institutions in watershed management activities. CDF should be used to
provide watershed management trainings such as water and soil management geared
towards sustainably managing watershed systems.
66
Table 4.4: Variables for Assessing Performance of Groups in Watershed
Management
Variable Group Respondents Percenta~e(%)
Level of satisfaction Very satisfied 10 8.1
with the watershed Satisfied 19 15.4
nruanagennentservices Less satisfied 15 12.2
offered in groups Not satisfied 23 18.7
Reasons for not satisfied Inefficient service 33 26.8
with groups watershed prOVISIon 16 13.0
management activities Members not active 15 12.2
Not interested 6 4.9
Not sure of the benefits 6 4.9
No change from members
Watershed management Watershed management
activities the community Training 34 27.6
would like introduced in Credit facilities 27 21.9
groups by CDF Watershed research 12 9.8
Watershed extension 14 11.4
services
Denno projects 29 23.6
Tree planting on public
land 7 5.7
Community feelings on Government 106 86.2
which institution to lead NGOs 64 52.0
in watershed CBOs 38 30.9
management activities Church groups 17 13.8
Source:i\uthor,2010
4.5.2 SocialGroups and Institutions to be involved in Watershed Management
Table 4.5 indicates that the families at household level were the most ranked by 36.6% as
the institution to be targeted by CDF in watershed management activities. Schools, youth
groups and religious groups were ranked second, third and fourth by 13.0%, 19.5% and
8.9% of the sampled households respectively. Families are valued by respondents
because they are perceived as avenues for socialization and where everybody in society
67
can be reached in watershed management. At family levels small farm management
practised can be used to promote watershed management activities. Women groups were
the least ranked by only 4.8% of the respondents. Compared to other institutions and
organizations, 16.3% of the respondent ranked CBOslNGOs as the institutions to be used
in watershed management. Though a number of physical, social and cultural factors
influence the watershed management, institution understood as a patterned behaviour of
social group over a period of time constitute a crosscutting factor and a particular driving
force in the decision-making process (Young, 1999).
Table 4.5: Social Groups and Institutions to be utilized in Watershed Management
Institutions No. of respondents % of respondents
Family 45 36.6
Religious groups 11 8.9
Schools 16 13.0
CBOslNGOs 20 16.3
Youth group 24 19.5
Women groups 06 4.8
Source: Author, 2010
(Note: some respondents identified more than one institution)
Non-Governmental Organisations bridge the gap in community development and
. contribute to resource mobilization; capacity building, changing community attitudes and
saving lives in relief support. In addition, small groups function better and suffer from
fewer internal conflicts than village cooperatives (IIRR, 1998). Group extension services,
local savings and credits and participatory watershed management research are only but a
few of the benefits community can gain from CBOs and NGOs. The CDF manager
reported that, partnership with organizations was seen as an opportunity for effective
community development. The most successful watershed and catchment management
68
programmes involve multiple stakeholders - community groups, NGOs, government
agencies - a mix of new techniques and social organisation, and give balanced attention
to improving resource management and farmers' livelihoods (Kerr et al., 2002).
Findings in Table 4.6 indicate that 55.3% of the respondents are of the view that the
institutions using CDF in watershed management activities should target all members in
the community without discriminating against gender, age and position held in the
community. However, 29.3% felt that only community elders should be targeted, while
33.3% of the respondents felt that the youths should be targeted by the organizations that
utilize CDF in watershed management.
Table 4.6: Targeted Individuals in Watershed Management Activities
Targeted individuals No. of respondents Percentage (%)
Men 12 9.8
Women 32 26.0
Children 33 26.8
Youths 41 33.3
Community elders , 36 29.3
All members 'oj 68 55.3
Source: Author, 2010
(Note: some respondents identified more than one individual group)
The fact that each member in a household is affected or affects activities in watershed, it
is necessary that everyone is targeted to ensure sustainability of efforts in watershed
management. In the rural areas each person in a family provides labour in farming,
therefore, has a role play in watershed management activities. However, the population
according to Funyula Constituency CDF Manager did not understand EMCAI999.
69
4.6 Community Perceptions and Opportunities
The fourth objective sought to determine the community perceptions and opportunities
for enhancing watershed management activities in the CDF projects. To address this
objective, the study assessed the limiting factors for community's involvement in
watershed management, the best practises and capacity in watershed management that
CDF could be optimised and promoted with respondents' perceptions towards CDF
projects and watershed management approaches.
4.6.1 Environmental Limitations to Watershed Management Activities
a) Weather Related Shocks
Findings indicate that, 98% of the sampled households have experienced weather related
shocks in the past one year. Eighty four percent (84%) agreed to have experienced effects
of drought, 31% floods and 40% pest infestation. During these shocks, the respondents
were left with no alternative but to use unsustainable practises to survive, these included
49% ofthe respondent bought food, 12% opted to use irrigation to produce crops, and 6%
bought fuel while 16% applied pesticides on their farms during pest infestation. At the
same time, 12% of the respondents raised income from selling charcoal and fuel wood,
9% sold bricks, while 5% had no option but harvested and sold timber with 6% having to
wait for government assistance. During the same period, 4% of the respondents relied on
the watershed resources as a source of vegetable. Biodiversity in the marginal watershed
systems such as wetlands is lost and community dedicating much time to searching for
livelihood means other than engaging themselves in watershed management activities.
70
b) Community Watershed Management Capacity
Overall, 50% of the respondents have never received any training on sustainable
watershed management practises. Those who have received training during farmer's
field days were 24.4%, 12.2% from the farmers training centre, 4.9% from extension
agents, 8.1% from the media and 6.0% from the cooperative society. A majority, 50%
had only been trained once in their lifetime, 48.8% had applied the knowledge gained on
their farms and above 50% rating the training as important. However, only 27.6% were
satisfied with the training.
The study found out that, 86.1% of the community members accessed watershed
management information from public barazas, 63.1% through radio programmes while
the newspaper and forest department was the source of watershed management
information to 39.3% and 20.3% of the respondents respectively, with 7.4% of the
respondents accessing the information through the television. Public barazas are best
placed opportunity for CDF to mobilize people and build their capacity on various
watershed management approaches. Alternatively, radio, newspaper and Kenya forestry
department could be used to reach out to many people. During the interview with the area
Senior Chief the following was revealed:
Source: Senior Chief, Nambuku Location, 2010
"In early 1980s, there was an agreement between the Kenya government and the
community on conserving the soils which the community here referred to it as
('agrimiti ') meaning agreement. Communities were forced to build terraces
referred to as 'fanya juu and fanya chini '. Ditches were dug to control the rain
water flow in the shambas. However, this has become historical since farmers are
destroying them saying they are blocking runoff therefore, causing water logging in
theirfarms. Some of them say they do not have enough landfor such activities.
71
Note: [Fanya chini fanya juu are bunds in which the bank is above the ditch, promoting
natural terrace formation. They are called by their Swahili name, given where they were
first used in Kenya's Eastern province.]
This statement clearly reveals that the communities lacked enough land and knowledge
on the best way to conserve watershed, with growing scarcity in farm land that have
compelled communities to abandoned watershed management practices.
4.6.2 Socio -economic Limitations to Watershed Management Activities
a) Access to Credit Facilities and Inputs
Over 82.1% of sampled households across all the sub-catchment areas indicated that they
had no access to credit and inputs thus limiting their participation in watershed
management. However, fmdings showed that respondents practised farm activities related
to watershed management but for other reasons as later revealed. According to Aloo
(1993), it is difficult for land owners in Funyula Constituency hills to plant or rehabilitate
denuded hilly areas. This is as a result of lack of financial, labour and other resources
necessary for conservation in hilly area. In addition, it was established that many farmers
lived at subsistence level therefore; they fail to see the importance of watershed
conservation. Constituency Development Fund is the best option to enhance community
participation in watershed management by providing incentives such as credits and
inputs.
b) Watershed Related Conflict
Findings in Table 4.7 indicate that human-wildlife conflict is a problem to 55.9% of the
sampled households. However, interview with the Senior Chief Nambuku location
revealed that, the most common human- wildlife conflict in the area was from monkeys
72
destroying farm crops especially for those whose farms are in the hills and wetlands.
However, it was illegal for the community to kill monkeys according to the Wildlife Act.
Yet agriculture output drops when crops are destroyed by monkeys and during human
conflicts when farmers compete for agricultural land among themselves. Likewise, there
is competition for grazing land among the livestock-keepers which affected 67.8% of the
households that lowers livestock production. Conflict between irrigation agriculture and
wildlife conservation is currently considered critical point in watershed management
(Lemly et al., 2000) due to the impacts of irrigated agriculture on wetlands and wildlife.
Table 4.7: Conflicts Related to Watershed Resource
Type of Human- Competition for Competition for Competition for
conflict wildlife settlement space grazing land cultivating land
conflict
Yes 55.9% 54.2% 67.8% 71.2%
No 44.1% 45.8% 32.2% 28.8%
Source: Author, 2010
It is important to internalize the comparative strengths of the different stakeholders in
order to complement the overall development process by minimizing watershed related
conflicts. Similarly, watershed committees at village level, elected institutions at the local
level, government departments and NGOs as project implementing agencies, with
upstream and downstream inhabitants within the watershed habitats having diverse
perceptions and expectations from potential projects that can be a source of conflict. The
challenge to stakeholders in watershed management in Funyula Constituency and Kenyan
government is to ensure universal but flexible guidelines at higher levels of governance
and the necessary flexibility and adaptability at the grassroots level to manage inherent
73
contradictions and conflicts through adequately designed resolution mechanisms
(Sharma, 2001).
c) Limited Community Participation in CDF Projects decision making process
Findings indicated that 99% of the respondents have heard about or had seen a CDF
project. Only 1% of them had participated in project identification or implementation, 9%
were involved to the extent of receiving information on CDF projects during chiefs
barazas, while 1% attended CDF stakeholders meetings to discuss specific issues and 1%
felt that they were involved in decision-making. This was because the few either
belonged to the CDFCs and PMCs, the committees which overall manages the fund and
projects at the constituency level or the grassroots level. Therefore, limited community
participation in CDF projects decision making process is a limiting factor in the
consideration of watershed management approaches in CDF projects as supported by the
statement below;
Source: CDF Office Manager, Funyula Constituency, 2010
"CDF operates on a demand driven principle, we only allocate fonds for what the
community has requested for. Therefore, what we need to do first is to capacity build
our people on the different needs in the community and how they can write proposal
to demand for watershed management projects".
However, CDF projects are characterised by lack of professionals m several CDF
committees and limited community participation in many constituencies across the
country (R.o.I<, 2008a), therefore, limited involvement of all stakeholders decision
making process of CDF projects leads to lack of ownership. However, the CDF manager
assumed that once the two committees are appointed from the community, it was
sufficient to represent the community in decision making as evidenced by the statement
below;
74
Source: CDF Office Manager Funyula Constituency, 2010
"We have CDF committee representatives at the location level and sub-location
level. They are in charge of determining community needs andforward theproposals
to the constituency levelfor approval. Therefore, I believe that everybody in Funyula
is well represented. In addition, after the project has been approved, the Project
Management Committee (PMC) is selected from the community in which theprojects
belong. PMC is in charge of project implementation and monitoring, overall
management of allfinancial and nonfinancial resources. My only concern is that the
committees lack watershed management experts to guide lead them in proposals
development"
d) Neighbourhood Interference and Community Resistance
According to 19.5% of the respondents, interference from their neighbours was the major
challenge for their involvement in watershed management. Political interference was a
challenge to utilizing CDF in watershed management activities as pointed out by 7.3% of
the respondents. Earlier in 1969, the government encouraged the stakeholders working in
the area to plant trees, when the forest department negotiated for afforestation of Samia
Hills (R.o.K., 1989). At that time the department wanted to replace the indigenous
vegetation on the hills with eucalyptus, cypress, and pines trees. However, the people in
the area effectively prevented the government from acquiring their hilly lands. The
community burnt the trees the government had planted and eventually, the government
gave up. The community would have lost its traditional dry season grazing lands, fuel
wood sources and sources of medicinal herbs and other minor bush products. In addition,
farmers downhill now face runoff and soil erosion from sources over which they have no
longer control (Aloo, 1993). It seemed that the community was not involved in decision
making process:
75
"The Provincial Administration led by the Busia District Commission in 1995 came
and we planted trees all over the hills in this area. I and my people were involved.
However, at night, the owners of the hill uprooted all the trees. I did not know why?
But Ifeel they were not educated before and they felt that the government will take
away their land"
Source: Senior Chief, Nambuku location, 2010
The above comment is not surprising since it had happened previously, to ensure this is
not repeated. Decentralised strategies such as CDF can make people be aware of potential
benefits of collective action in conserving and managing natural resources, demand
driven activities in watershed programs, empowering people in planning, implementing
and managing watershed management programs and expecting high private economic
benefits (Joshi et al., 2000). The correlation analysis for variables identified was done
with the results presented in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Pearson's Correlation Coefficient(r) values of selected variables
Practised Lack of Lack of Land High Interference Political
watershed credit! knowledge constraint start up from interference
management inputs cost neighbours
Practised 1
watershed
management
Lack of -0.106 1
credit /
inputs -Lack of 0.013 0.107 1
knowledge
Land -0.026 0.322** 0.093 1
constraint
High start -0.32 -0.022 0.128 0.090 1
up cost
Interference -0.079 -0.038 -0.086 0.142 - 1
from 0.263**
neighbours
Political 0.064 -0.032 -0.149 0.097 -0.181* 0.019 1
interference
*- r values significant at p< 0.05 level (2- tailed)
**= r values significant at p< 0.01 level (2- tailed)
76
n=123
Source: Author, 2010
Findings in Table 4.8 reveal that there is a strong negative correlation between lack of
credit/inputs and households' participation in watershed management for last two years
(r=-0.106, n=123, p< 0.05). Therefore, lack of credit/inputs in Funyula Constituency did
not have any effect on the community watershed management activities. This is because
households practised related watershed management activities but for other benefits such
as food, shelter and cash. However, there is a positive correlation between lack of
watershed knowledge and participation in watershed management (r=0.013, n=123, p<
0.05). Thus, lack of watershed management knowledge was the major challenge to
effective community participation in watershed management in Funyula Constituency.
4.6.3 Opportunities for Enhanced Watershed Management
a) Community Knowledge on the dos and don'ts in a Watershed Systems
Findings indicated that 83.7% of the households in Funyula Constituency were aware that
it is prohibitive to cut down trees and burn charcoal but they still practised charcoal
burning. Eighty eight point six percent (88.6%) were not aware that bush burning was not
good! an illegal practise in watershed areas. Only 15.4% of the respondents knew that
cultivating on the slopes was wrong. Through informal interviews, respondents identified
lack of alternative source of livelihoods (income) as the driving force to charcoal burning.
In some households, primary school pupils practised charcoal burning in order to raise
income for the family (plate 9(a) and 9(b».
77
Comment: School children participate in charcoal burning and cutting down of trees
Plate 9(11): Charcoal burning a common Plate 9(b): Cutting down of trees without
practise in Funyula Constituency replantingfor charcoal burning
Generally, there was awareness among the people in Funyula Constituency about the dos
and don'ts in the watersheds as indicated in TabJe 4.9.
Table 4.9: Community Knowledge on the dos and don'ts in Watershed Systems
Logging! Bush Quarrying Cultivating Killing Planting
Charcoal burning on the wildlife eucalyptus
burning slopes
Know 83.7% 11.4% 4.1% 15.4% 3.3% 10.6%
Don'tknow 16.3% 88.6% 95.9% . 84.6% 96.7% 89.4%
Source: Author, 2010
b) Community watershed management best practises
Respondents' findings showed that communities were practising watershed management
activities on their farms. For instance, 80.0% of all the respondents distributed in the
sampled villages were practising. soil or stone bunds, 60.0% terraces, while 80.0%
reported to have been practising drainage ditches. From direct observation the study
established that boundary marking was done in the traditional way by digging small
furrows to separate the gardens. Consequently, 58.0% of the interviewed households have
78
live fences around their homesteads while 79.3% had planted trees in their farms and
homesteads as shown in Figure 4.3.
I
00.00%
80.00%+---
70.00%+---
60.00% t---
50.00% +---~f;§+---
0.00%-I--...L...--
1----1 I.:: I
SoIlor stone
builds
Terraces Dminage
ditches
Live fences Tree planting
Types of waterhed management activities practiced
Figure 4.3: Types of Watershed Managemeat Activities Practiced
Source: Author, 2010
Contrary to the view that there is limited access to credits/inputs as indicated earlier in
this study, the community practised the above activities for various reasons. This may be
as a result of the increased demand for watershed resources as well as demand to increase
productivity of the resources to cater for the growing human and livestock population.
However, the community may be practising live fences and tree planting for other
reasons other than watershed management. Aloo (1993) concluded that people in Funyula
Constituency were planting trees to satisfy two basic needs, the need for shelter and food.
In addition, they also planted trees for cash, since they sold some of the fruits.
Communities also recognized the need for fuel wood although it was not their priority for
planting trees. It was found out that the fence, not only formed a barrier against real
dangers to the homestead, but also contained "magical" plants that protected the
homestead and the inhabitants against sorcery and other supernatural powers.
79
Further, the study indicated that high value exotic tree species were planted in plenty.
51.3% had planted Grevillea robusta, 29.4% Eucalyptus saligna and 17.6% cypress none
of the respondents had planted local species. More so, because of their low economic
values, 34.5% had planted fruit species.
4.6.4 Prioritized Watershed Management Activities
Findings in Table 4.10 indicate that, collective watershed management training was
highly ranked activity at 80.5%, participatory watershed management research was
ranked second activity by 63.4% of the respondents. Third ranked activity was collective
collaterals and credit by 30.1%, the least ranked watershed management activity that
could involve the setting up of a resource centre to facilitate watershed education and
knowledge transfer to communities.
Table 4.10: Prioritized Watershed Management Activities n=123
Activities to utilize CDF No. of respondents Percentage
Participatory watershed management research 78 63.4
Collective watershed management training 99 80.5
Collective collaterall credits/ Funding 39 31.7
Watershed Monitoring and reporting 37 30.1
Providing equipment/materials/inputs 11 8.9
Watershed management information 26 21.1
Resource centre 4 3.3
Source: Author, 2010
(Note: some respondents identified more than one activity)
Findings showed that Funyula Constituency CDF has never funded any project in
watershed research, training, monitoring, and resource centre nor provided inputs
preferred in the community. Projects in participatory watershed research, trainings,
monitoring and reporting and provision of watershed management information are
80
essential to sustainable social and economic development of the community. It is evident
that community prefers CDF to provide watershed management trainings compared to
any other activities listed in Table 4.10. In correlation analysis, the findings show that
lack of knowledge and information is a major limitation to sustainable watershed
management practices in Funyula Constituency.
4.6.5 Community Perceptions towards CDF and Watershed Management
This study used seven items to measure perception of the respondents towards CDF
projects and watershed management approaches. These centred on whether the
respondents perceived present and future watershed management needs in Funyula
Constituency, whether they understand their role in CDF, community development and
watershed management as the key stakeholders in CDF projects.
Findings in Table 4.11 indicated that 32.5% of the respondents strongly agreed, while
39.8% agreed that CDF projects had impacts on watershed resources. Eight point one
percent (8.1%) strongly agreed that the impacts were positive while 9.8% of the
respondents were in agreement with the same statement, contrary to 45.5% of the
respondents whom strongly disagreed with this sentiment.
81
Table 4.11: Respondents Perception towards CDF and Watersbed Management
Statement Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
Agree (%) Disagree(% )
(%) (%) (%)
CDF projects impacts on watershed 32.5 39.8 5.7 11.4 10.6
resources
CDF projects have impacted positively 8.1 9.8 7.3 29.3 45.5
on watershed systems
CDF can be used to promote community 24.4 56.1 8.1 4.1 7.3
participation in watershed management
Communities depend largely on 37.4 51.2 8.1 2.4 0.8
watershed resources for their livelihoods
Watershed management should be 17.9 52.0 13.0 7.3 9.8
mainstreamed in all CDF projects
Community participation in watershed 29.3 64.2 3.3 0.0 3.3
management will reduce destruction of
watershed resources.
CDF Act should be revised to increase 33.3 59.3 3.3 0.8 3.3
allocations to watershed management
activities.
Source: Author, 2010
Findings from the transect walk identified some of the negative CDF projects impacts on
the watersheds as stamps of mango trees along the roads indicating that the mango trees
were cut in order to expand the road. Roads and bridges constructed using CDF did not
have systems to manage the run off as observed in Mumbao and Ludacho bridges among
others. From one of the interviews it was revealed that there is conflict zone between
CDF projects and the community on the management of the watershed resources;
82
Source: A woman, Lugala sub location, 2010
"We were happy when CDF projects were introduced We knew our needs will be
taken care of However, it is sad to see what CDF is doing to our environment. All
mango trees along the roads were cut down to expand the road which only one
vehicle uses. We had lived with the road and our mangoes for many years without
problems. In addition, roads directed the runoff into my 'shamba', all my crops
along the trench were washed away and the soils in that area are now barren I
cannot plant any crop. I decided to block the trench; neither CDF nor the road
provides food for myfamily".
This may be one of the reasons why the community perceived that CDF projects had
negative effects on the watershed resources.
Further, findings indicated that, 56.0% agreed that CDF projects can be utilized in
enhancing community participation in watershed management activities. This was
important because, 50.0% of the respondents felt that their livelihoods latgely depended
on the wellbeing of watershed ecosystems. Therefore, 50.0% of the respondents felt that
it is important to mainstream watershed management activities in CDF projects to reduce
the destruction of the watersheds. To effectively integrate watershed management into
CDF projects, more than 60.0% of the respondents felt that the CDF Act should be
revised to increase the amount allocated in environmental services to accommodate
watershed management activities.
83
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of the Findings
The findings of the study on the assessment of adoption of watershed management for
sustainable CDF projects in Funyula Constituency revealed that:
At least 91.1% of people in Funyula Constituency received their monthly income from all
farm activities. The farming activities were characterised by low input level and mainly
for subsistence purposes while poverty levels were reported to be at 65.99% in the
constituency.
There has been progressive increasing trend in the amount of CDF allocated to Funyula
Constituency since its inception in the financial year 2003/2004. This is due to high
poverty levels which is important factor to determining the CDF allocated.
Constituency Development Fund has been utilized in the provision of social services with
the biggest portion allocated to construction type projects in education, health, water,
roads and bridges, energy, sports and law and security sectors.
Education sector was allocated the largest portion ofCDF in the financial years reviewed
over half (57.08%), and (80.11 %) in fmancial years 2006/07 and 2007/08 respectively,
with the biggest number of 55 projects, while environment sector had no project on the
ground although it was allocated a minimal allocation of CDF.
Socio-economic factors such as poor educational facilities, poor road network and need
to access to safe and clean drinking water are some of the local factors that influenced the
allocation of CDF to various community development projects utilizing all CDF available
84
leaving no allocation to watershed management activities. However, watershed goods and
services contributed to livelihoods of Funyula Constituency directly by providing; fuel
wood to 92.7%, farmland to 97.6%, building timber, posts and rafters to 87.8%,
medicinal herbs to 87%, grazing field and fodder to 87.8%; soil conservation to 87%,
provision of water to 94.3% and biodiversity maintenance to 87.8% to households among
other services identified by the respondents.
CDF projects activities affected the biophysical environment activities; in the highlands,
quarrying, felling of trees, grading of weathered roads were the main activities that
affected the watershed; in the middle land, clearing for vegetation for electricity line,
brick making sites, rehabilitated dams, fish ponds, protected springs and drilled
boreholes, and rain harvesting were the main CDF activities that affected the watershed.
Tn the lowland, sand harvesting was the only major activity identified which has
intensified as a result of CDF projects. In most cases EIA studies were not done to
mitigate the negative impacts of CDF projects.
About 40.7% of the respondents were members of watershed user groups. Whereby
95.1% agreed that membership to watershed user groups enhanced their skills in
watershed management. The study established that tree nursery. management, tree
planting techniques, forest fire management, watershed activities monitoring and
reporting, and soil management techniques were activities that the groups offered to their
members. 86.2% believe that the government should lead other institutions in watershed
management activities. While 38.2% felt that CBOs and NGOs should be targeted by
CDF in enhancing watershed management activities in the area. While, 55.3% felt that all
85
members in the community regardless of gender, age and position held in the community
should be targeted by CDF when considering watershed management activities in the
community.
The respondents identified several limiting factors for their participation in watershed
management activities, that include; environmental limitations; weather related shocks
and limited watershed management capacity. Socio-economic limitations include; limited
access to credit facilities/inputs, watershed related conflicts, limited participation in CDF
projects and interference from the neighbourhood. However, there were opportunities for
enhanced CDF projects in watershed management activities, these include; the existing
community knowledge on the dos and don'ts in the watershed, community best
watershed management practises such as soil and stone bunds, terraces, live fences,
ditches and tree planting activities. The respondents prioritized participatory watershed
research, collective training and information, watershed management monitoring and
reporting, provision of inputs and a resource centre as watershed management activities
to be prioritized by CDF.
Ultimately, the study has also demonstrated how important watershed management
activities are for sustainable livelihoods and poverty eradication in Funyula Constituency.
The health watershed ecosystem will ensure improved agricultural productivity.
Constituency Development Fund can be utilized to ensure sustainable watershed
management practises in the area.
86
5.2 Conclusions
It is evident from the study findings that socio-economic wellbeing of the communities in
Funyula Constituency depends largely on agricultural productivity which relies on the
watershed health. From the CDF allocation formula, the study concludes that high
poverty levels in Funyula Constituency have been contributing to the raise in government
allocation to CDF in Funyula Constituency. Studies done elsewhere indicate that
investing in watershed management is key to eradicating poverty in agricultural based
society (UNEP, 2007). Funyula Constituency CDF projects do not consider watershed
management activities compromising the sustainability of the projects and livelihoods.
Even though, the financial, social and environmental capitals in a watershed system are
mutually supportive to ensure sustainability.
1. The study identified the main factors that influence the allocation of CDF to the
various community development projects to be socio-economic factors such as poor
education facilities and infrastructure, poor road network and need to access to safe
and clean drinking water. Increased investment in education sector contributes to
improved social development. However, local watershed management factors were
not considered in determining CDF projects. This implies that CDF projects only
utilized biophysical environment to provide utility to the people without
considering watershed management activities.
u. The intensified utilization of biophysical resources as a result of increased CDF
projects activities in Funyula Constituency has adversely affected the quality of the
87
watershed. Constituency Development Fund has not so far been used to rehabilitate
any of the negatively affected biophysical environmental resources.
iii. Ultimately, the study findings demonstrated that social institutions and
organizations can be used in enhancing watershed management activities using
CDF. However, from the discussions, there are several limiting factors that have
hindered community participation in watershed management activities which form
the entry point for future CDF interventions in watershed management activities in
Funyula Constituency.
IV. Community perceives that limited watershed management knowledge to be a major
challenge in watershed management and majority of people in Funyula
Constituency feel that the government should take the lead role in watershed
management activities.
Finally, in order to fight poverty, improve livelihoods in Funyula Constituency, mitigate
the adverse effects of climate change and increased competition for watershed resources
by human populations, the abundance and well-being of watershed resources plays an
important and critical role. Therefore, to ensure sustainability of CDF projects in Funyula
Constituency and other constituencies in Kenya, there is an urgent need to consider
watershed management activities ill sustainable socio-economic development
programmes. Financial, environmental and social capitals are supportive in local
community development projects funded by CDF to ensure sustainability.
88
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the study findings the following interventions are recommended to ensure
future sustainable CDP projects by considering watershed management activities in
Funyula Constituency:
a) The government and people of Funyula Constituency should ensure equity in
sector CDP allocation to various community development projects. Watershed
management CDP projects at the local level should be integrated with all
stakeholders' interests and strategies. This calls for restructuring the CDP
committees to allow joint planning, budgeting, supervision, monitoring and
evaluation of the development projects by experts from other sectors including
roads, water, and agriculture and research institutions.
b) Institutional and legal framework where amendments in CDP Act of 2007 are
required to integrate watershed management approaches with those of CDP and
within broader community development planning framework which should
increase community participation, transparency and accountability in CDP
performance and other government sector performance on prioritization of
projects and decisions that have impacts on watersheds systems.
c) Utilize CDP to provide incentives and alternative source of livelihoods to regulate
the use of watershed ecosystem goods and services. CDP should introduce high
value crops and businesses to reduce over dependency on watershed systems
resources.
89
d) With the growing demand of watershed goods and services that exert pressure on
watershed ecosystems leading to degradation, encouragement to enhance the best
practises and the development of technologies designed to increase the efficiency
of resource use or reduce the impacts of degradation of ecosystems is needed in
CDF projects. Indigenous watershed management knowledge should factor in
cultural and traditional practices to ensure that both men and women have
practical equal rights in the watershed management project cycle.
e) Increase community participation in CDF project identification, monitoring and
reporting forums where people at the grassroots level should be enlightened on
the roles and objectives of CDF Act and CDF projects in watershed management.
There is need to mainstream watershed management activities in poverty
eradication efforts since fighting or reducing poverty does not only mean coming
up with infrastructure but also protecting the biophysical environment upon which
the people generates their livelihoods.
f) Continuous capacity building for community based institutions, groups and other
members through public education, empowerment of communities especially the
CDFCs and PMC members on planning and priority setting, budgeting,
administration and effective supervision, monitoring and evaluation: should be set
up at the community levels to equip the community institutions and groups with
watershed management knowledge and information necessary to ensure
sustainability of CDF projects through continuous participatory research and
collective training communities in sourcing for funds from other donors to
supplement government budgets for watershed management activities.
90
Finally, the study identifies the need for further investigation into the dynamics of
decentralized development agendas in order to accommodate the changing environmental
needs and reforms in Kenya. Most importantly to what extent these funds succeed or fail
in ensuring sustainability of the livelihoods of the poor during these dynamic processes.
5.3.1 Recommendations for further research
Future research that could add more value in such an environmental management
problem could focus on, among others, the following themes;
• The long term effects of decentralization development planning on environmental
management in Kenya.
• Modalities of community involvement in watershed management as well as
measures to increase benefits communities enjoy from watershed resources in a
sustainable manner.
• Implications of climate change on poverty in relation to the declining watershed
services and goods.
91
REFERENCES
African Development Fund (ADF). (2007). Community Empowerment and Institutional
Support Project Appraisal Report October, 2007. Nairobi.
Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI). (2009). Monitoring the Constituency Development
Fund (CDF). Available from: http://www.atlia.org/work/story.php?id=19.
Retreated on August 7, 2010.
Africa Leadership Institute (AFLI). (2007). Development or Politics of Patronage? A
study report of the Constituency Parliamentary Debate on the Constituency
Development Fund and the Parliamentary Score Card as piloted in Nyabushozi,
Makindye, Aruu and Bukedea Constituencies in Uganda. Available from:
http//www.aflia.org/uploads/publications/cdfreport.pdf. Retreated on August 5,
2010.
Aloo T. C. (1993). Fuel wood and tree planting: a case study from Funyula Division in
WesternKenya. (PhD Thesis) The University of British Columbia.
Ashby, J. A., J.A. Sanz, E. B. Knapp, and A. Imbach. (1999). CIAT's research on hillside
Environments in Central America, Mountain Research and Development, (19) 3, 2-18
Baskin M., Haibo L., Samrat B., and Ryan A. (2010). Constituency Development Funds
(CDFs) as a Tool of Decentralized Development; Workshop E: The Role of
Parliamentarians in Facilitating Grassroots Projects, 56th Commonwealth
Parliamentary Conference; Nairobi, Kenya 10-19 September 2010; State
University of New York Center for International Development (SUNY/CID).
Biswas A.K. (1990). Environmentally- Sound Water Management. Bombay, Oxford
University Press.
Campbell, B., J. Sayer, P. Frost, S. Vermeulen, M. Ruiz Perez, A. Cunningham, R
Prabhu, S. Waddington, and E. Chuma. (2000). Evaluating the impacts of
integrated natural resource management (INRM) research, paper presented at the
international workshop on INRM: Integrated Natural Resource Management in
the CGIAR:Approaches and Lessons, 21-25 August 2000, Penang, Malaysia
Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF). (2002). Full Proposal. Submitted to the
CGIAR by the CPWF Secretariat, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Constanza R, Darge R, De Groot R, Farberparallel, S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K,
Naeem S, O'Neill RV, Pamelo J, Raskin R G, Sutton P, Belt M.V( (1997). The
value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.
Critchley, W.; Cooke, R; Jallow, T.; Njoroge, J.; Nyagah, V.; Saint-Firmin, E. (1999).
Promoting farmer innovation: Harnessing local environmental knowledge in East
Africa. Workshop Report No.2. UNDP Office to Combat Desertification and
Drought and RELMA, Nairobi
Crow B., and Farhana S. (2002). Gender, Class, and Access to Water: Three Cases in a Poor
and Crowed Delta. Society and Natural Resources 15: 709-724.
Easter, K.W.,Dixon, J.A, and Hufschmidt,M.M., eds, (1991) Watershed resources
management, studies from Asia and the Pacific. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, East-
West Center, Environment and Policy Institute.
FAO. (1991c). Social and Institutional Aspects of sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Development. Background document No. 5 FAO /Netherlands conference on
92
Agriculture and Environment, S-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands 15-19 April.
FAORome.
Farrington, J., Turton, C. and James A.J. (Eds.) (1999). Participatory Watershed
Development: Challenges for the 21st Century, New Delhi, India
Gikonyo, W (2008). The CDF Social Audit Guide; A handbookfor Communities. OSIEA.
IFAD. (1992). Soil and Water conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Towards sustainable
production by the rural poor. IFAD, Rome Italy
IIRR. (1998). Sustainable Agriculture Extension Manual for Eastern and Southern
Africa. Nairobi. International Institute for Rural Reconstruction.
Inter-American Development Bank. (1995). Concepts and issues in watershed
management. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank, Evaluation
Office, EVO.
Israel G, D. (1992). Sampling the Evidence of Extension Program Impact. Program
Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University of Florida.
PEOD-5. October.
Jamaica Gleaner, (2009). No political pork barrel. Available from: http://www.jamaica-
gleaner.com/gleaner/20090414/letter/letters6.html. Retreated on July 26.2010.
Jamaica Labour Party. (2008). See Work Commences On Projects Under CDF. Available
from http://www.jamaicalabourparty.comlbase/contentlwork -commences-
projects-under-cdf. Retreated on July 25, 2010
Jamaica Observer. (2009). MPs make full use of constituency funds. Available from:
http://jam.live.mediaspanonline.com/news/150652 MPs-make-full-use-
ofconstituency-funds . Retreated on July 25,2010.
Johnson, N, Ravnborg, H.M, Westerman, 0, and Probst, K. (2001) "User participation in
Watershed management and research", working paper no.19, CAPRi, IFPRI,
Washington, D.C.,
Jones K.,(2010). CDF - no political pork barrel. Available from: http://www.jamaica-
gleaner.com/gleaner/20090414/letters/letters6.html . Retreated on July 25,2010.
Joshi, P.K., Tewari, L., Jha, A.K. and Shiyani, R.L. (2000). Meta analysis to assess
impact of watershed. Proceedings Workshop on Institutions for Greater Impact of
Technologies, National Centre for Agriculture Economics and Policy Research
(lCAR), New Delhi, India.
Joy, K.J., Pamjpe, Suhas, Shah, Amita, Badigar, Shrinivas and Sharachchandra, L.
(2005). Scaling up of watershed development projects in India: Learning from 1st
generation projects. Fourth IWMI-Tata Annual Partners Meet, International
Water Management Institute, Anand, Indiapp. 133-134.
Kaiser, J. (2004). Wounding earth 'sfragile skin. Science 304: 1616-1618.
KARl and ICRAF (2006). Water For The Thirsty: A Case Study of Katulani Location
Water Situation, Kitui District, Kenya. KARl. Nairobi
Kenya Human Rights Commision (KHRC), (2010). Harmonization of Decentralized
Development in Kenya: Towards Alignment, Citizen Engagement and
Accountability; Nairobi, Social and Public Accountability Network (SPAN)
Kerr, J.M., N.K. Sanghi, G. and Sriramappa. (1996). Subsidies in watershed development
projects in India: Distortions and opportunities. lIED Gatekeeper Series 61.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
93
Kerr, J., Pangare, G. & Pangare, L. (2002). Watershed development projects in India: an
evaluation. IFPRI Research Report No. 127. Washington, DC, International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Kimaru G. and Jama B. (2006). Improving land management in Eastern and Southern
Africa: A review of practises and policies. ICRAF Working Paper no. 18.Nairobi,
Kenya.World Agroforestry Centre.
Knapp, E.B., J. Ashby, H. Ravnborg, and B. Bell. (2000). A landscape that unites:
community led management of watershed resources in the Andean hillside
watersheds. In Integrated Watershed Management in the Global Ecosystem, ed.
Lal, R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Lal, R., ed. (2000). Integrated watershed management in the global ecosystem. Florida,
USA, CRC Press
Laszlo, A. (1996). Evolutionary systems design: Way beyond the two cultures.
Proceedings of the Eighth International Systems Institute Conversation at
Asilomar. Pacific Grove, California.
Laszlo, A and Krippner, S. (1998). Systems Theories: Their Origin, Foundation, and
Development. In J.S. Jordan (Ed.), Systems Theories and A Priori Aspects of
Perception. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1998. Ch. 3, pp. 47-74.
Lemly, D.A, Kingsford, R.T. and Thompson, J.R. (2000). Irrigated agriculture and
wildlife conservation: Conflict on a global scale. Environmental Management 25:
485-512.
Lundqvist, J. (1985). Strategies of River Basin Management; Environmental Integration
of Land and Water in a River Basin. Dordrecht Holland, D. Reidel Publishing
Company.
Mapesa, B.M., and Kibua T.N. (2006). An Assessment of the Management and
Utilization of the CDF in Kenya. IPAR Discussion paper, No.76 .Nairobi, IPAR
Masundire, H. and Mackay, H. (2002) 'The role and importance if aquatic ecosystems in
water resources management' In Hirji, R., Johnson, P., Maro, P. and Chiuta, T.
(eds).Defining and Mainstreaming Environmental Sustainability in Water
Resources Management in Southern Africa.SADC, IUCN,SARDC, World Bank:
Maseru/Harare/Washington DC.
Mazvimavi, D. (2002). 'Watershed degradation and management' In Hirji, R., Johnson,
P., Maro, P. and Chiuta, T. (eds).Defining and Mainstreaming Environmental
Sustainability in Water Resources Management in Southern Africa.SADC,
IUCN,SARDC, World Bank: Maseru/Harare/Washington DC.
Mbaria, J. (2006). Linking research to extensionfor watershed management: the Nyando
experience. ICRAF Technical Manual no. 1. Nairobi, Kenya: The World Agro
forestry Centre (ICRAF), 61pp.
Ministry of Finance and the Public Services. (2010). Opening Budget Presentation to
Parliament. Honourable Audley Shaw, MP
Minister of Finance and the Public Service (2010). Available from:
http://www.jis.gov.jmlfmance planning/html/20 100408t1600000500 23532 jis
opening budget presentation to parliament honourable audley shaw mp min
ister of fmance and the publicservice_.asp. Retreated on July 25, 2010.
94
Mugenda. M.O &Mugenda A.G. (1999). Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches .African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Nairobi
Mikko H., Jussi N., Alina P.,and Pasi R., (2009). Ethiopia Adapting to Climate Change
Climate Screening Assessment Final Report, Gaia Consulting Oy; Climate Risk
Management in Finnish Development Cooperation.
Munroe M., (2010). Work Commences On Projects Under CDF. Available from
http://www.jamaicalabourparty.comlbase/contentlwork-commences-projects-
under-cdf. Retreated on July 25,2010.
Nega H and PM Kimeu. (2002). Low-cost methods of rainwater storage: results from
field trials in Ethiopia and Kenya. RELMA Technical Report No.28. Nairobi,
Kenya: RELMA, 68pp.
NEMA (2004) State of Environment Report 2003. NEMA Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya.
NEMA and UNDP (2009). Fourth National Report to the Conference of Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. NEMA, Nairobi
Ngigi, A. & Macharia, D (2006) Kenya Water Sector Policy Overview Paper May 2006.
ITS Power East Africa, Nairobi
Obuya B. (2008). Fiscal Decentralization in Kenya: The Constituency Development Fund and the
Growth of Government. Department of Political Science Division of Public
Administration Northern Illinois University.
Penning de Vries, F.W.T. (2001). Food security? We are losing ground fast. In Crop
Science: Progress and Prospects (Noesberger, J., Geiger, H.H., Struik, P.C.,
Eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and
Development (PCARRD). (1991). The Philippines recommends for watershed
management. Los Banos, Laguna. PCARRD and the Rainfed Resources Resource
Development Project (USAID). Phils Recommends Ser. No. 72, 1991. 88p.
Pretty, J. and P. Shah. (1999). Soil and water conservation: A brief history of coercion
and control. In Fertile Ground: The Impacts of Participatory Watershed
Management, ed. F. Hinchcliffe, J.
Rattan, L. (1995). Sustainable Management of soil resources in the Humid Tropics.
Tokyo. The United Nations University Press
Republic of Kenya (1989). Busia District Development Plan 1989-1993.Nairobi;
Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (1997). Busia District Development Plan 1997-2001.Nairobi;
Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (1999a). Environment and Development: Sessional Paper No. 1 of
1999 .Nairobi; Government Printers
Republic of Kenya (1999b). Kenya Environmental Management and Coordination Act
.Nairobi; Government Printers
Republic of Kenya (1999c). Kenya National Waterpolicy .Nairobi; Government Printers
Republic of Kenya (2001a). Kenya Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2001-
2004.Nairobi;Government Printers
Republic of Kenya (2001a). Population and Housing Census 1999. Nairobi; Government
Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2002a). National Development Plan 2002-2008. Nairobi;
Government Printers.
9S
Republic of Kenya (2002b). WaterAct 2002.Nairobi; Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2003). Constituency Development Fund Act 2003. Nairobi;
Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2004). Forest Bill, 2004.Nairobi;Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2006). Making the Connection: Economic Growth, Poverty and the
Environment. Nairobi; Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2007a). Revised Constituency Development Fund Act 2007. Nairobi;
Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2007b). Samia District Development Plan Nairobi; Government
Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2008a). The Constituency Development Fund: An Examination of
Legal, Structural, Management and Corruption Issues in Kenya. Report by
National Anti-Corruption Campaign Steering Committee June 2008 Enhancing
Integrity. Nairobi; Government Printers
Republic of Kenya (2008b). Well-Being: A Socio- Economic profile. Nairobi;
Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2008c). Kenya Vision 2030. Nairobi; Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2008d). Samia District Development Plan 2008-2012. Nairobi;
Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (2009). End Term Review: Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth
and Employment Creation (ERS) 2003-2007. Nairobi; Government Printers.
Republic of Kenya (201Oa). Kenya Census Report of 2009. Nairobi; Government
Printers.
Republic of Kenya (201Ob).April 2010 National Climate Change Response Strategy.
Nairobi; Government Printers.
Sanjay T. and Sreeja N. (2008) Adaptive Policies Community Case Study: Participatory
Watershed Management in Maharashtra, India; International Development
Research Centre
Sedell, J. R, Bennett, K., Steedman, R~ Foster, N., Ortuno, V., Campbell, S. and
Achouri, M. (2002). Integrated WatershedManagement Issues in North America.
In 21st Session of the North American Forestry Commission, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 22-26 October, Kona, Hawaii
www.fs.fed.us/global/nafc/2002/meeting_info/technicalyapers/watershed.doc
(last accessed 1 June 2007).
Sharma,P.N., Mishra, B., Dent, F.J, Achet,S.H., Escano,J., Gamage, H., and
Gunawardhana, E.RN (1997). Key elements of participatory processes for
integrated watershed management. In P.N. Sharma, ed. Participatory process for
integrated watershed management. Field Doc. No.7, PMWTAIFAO. Kathmandu,
FAO.
Sharma, B.R (2001). Availability, status of development and opportunities for
augmentation of groundwater resources in India. Proceedings ICAR-IWMI
Ground Water Policy Initiative- 2001. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute,
Kamal, India. 1-17 pp
Singh E.D. (1990):Manual of Soil and Water Conservation Practices. New Delhi, India
96
Susswein P.M, Noordwijk M van and B Verbist. (2001). Forest watershedfunctions and
tropical land use change; Towards integrated natural resource management in
forest margins of the humid tropics: local action and global concerns. ASB
Lecture Note 7, 28pp.
Surrowiecki J, (2004). "The wisdom of Crowds". In Kibua N. T and Mwabu, G., ed.
(2008), Decentralization and Devolution in Kenya New Approaches, UON press
Nairobi. Chapter 8.
Swallow B., D. Garrity, and M. V. Noordwijk, M.V. (2000). The effects of scales, flows,
and filters on property rights and collective action in catchment management.
CAPRi Working Paper, No. 18, Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Thomas Y., Awiti A., Nyukuri E., Mutua J., Kyalo A., Tanui J., and Catacutan D.
(2007). Policy and institutional context for NRM in Kenya Challenges and
opportunitiesfor Landcare. Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre
Thomas. N.K, Mwabu (2008). (Ed) Decentralization and Devolution in Kenya: New
Approaches. Nairobi, University of Nairobi Press Thompson, J. N. Pretty, I. Guijt.
and P. Shah. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd., 1-12
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Essays on its foundation and
development, rev. ed. New York: George Braziller.
UNDP (2006) Kenya National Human Development Report; Human Security and Human
Development; a deliberate choice. Nairobi UNDP.
UNEP (2007). Global Environment Outlook; environment for development. Nairobi,
UNEP.
World Agroforestry Centre, (2006). Improved land management in the Lake Victoria
Basin; Final Report on the Tras Vie Project. Nairobi, World Agro forestry Centre.
World Bank, (2008). World development report, agriculture for development,
Washington ,DC, World Bank.
Wood, S., Sebastian, K., Scherr, S.J. (2000). Soil resource condition: In Pilot Analysis of
Global Ecosystems (PAGE), 45-54 pp. IFPRI and World Resources Institute,
Washington, USA.
Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed, New York: Harper and
Row
Young, O.R. (1999). Institutional Dimensions of Global Environment Change.
International Human Dimensions Program Report 9, Bonn, Germany
Ziegler A.D., Sutherland R.A., and Giambelluca T.W (2001). Acceleration of Horton
overland flow and erosion by footpaths in an upland agricultural watershed in
northern Thailand. Geomorphology, 41(4): 249-262.
97
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Map of Funyula Constituency
Legend
_Funyula
D KenyaProvinces
LOCATION MAP
FUNVUlA CONSTITUENCY
RiftVallry
o 0_5 1 2 3 4-
_-r:::::JI-ICJ__ -=====-__ Kilometers
Source: Author, 2012
98
FUNYULA CONSTITUENCY
N
E
s
SVSEMBE
r:
Legend
• Villages
MajOr Centres
-- RIvers
Roads
c=J SUb_locabOnS
CJDivisions
Funyula Constrtuency
00.0151.03 0.06 0.09 0.12M_ kl.1
Source: Author, 2012
99
Appendix ll: Community participatory map and transect walk route
100
Appendix m: Participatory Community mapping checklist
The table was filled and attached to the documentation sheet for PRA area workshop.
PRAA ksh fit . f tirea wor op pro I e m orma on
Country: KENYA
District Constituency
Location Sub location
Date of interview Duration of
workshop
Venue for the Language of
workshop workshop
Number of Number of
participants (female participants (Male)
Name of the facilitator
Name of the Note Take
Special conditions (weather, local
activities, etc)
Community Resource Mapping
The checklist below guided the discussion with community members.
Where are the locations of the most important area landmarks surrounding your
community (give example of landmark - external boundaries)?
Which watershed resources are available in the area, which are considered to have an
impact on people's livelihoods (e. g., crop fields, rangelands, grazing reserves, rivers,
degraded areas, forests, and hills)?
Map the area infrastructure and those developed by CDF (e. g., settlement patterns,
roads/bridges, power supply, network access, different types of water points/sources,
community buildings, shops, commodity markets, sources of stock feeds)
What social services including those funded by CDF (e. g., health clinics, schools,
dwelling places of area authorities, community meeting place, or other important
facilities) exist in the area?
What are the main watershed management systems in the area (e. g., land , allocation of
cropping, communal rangelands, grazing reserves (browse and fodder plant species),
seasonal herd movement, and mechanisms for resource allocation to different uses)?
Interviewing the diagram (Questions asked or observations made during the Mapping
. process)
101
1. Which watershed resources are plentiful? Which are scarce or lacking?
2. How do community members make resolve conflicts and make decisions with regards
to problems associated with access to and use of watershed resources?
3. Where are observable unsustainable land practices?
4. What is the watershed management activities practiced? And why are they practiced?
5. What are the general effects ofCDF on land, water and forest resources in this area?
6. At the community and household level, who makes decisions on the use of watershed
resources? Water? Forest products? Land use?
7. What are some of the challenges of community participation in watershed management
in the area (e.g. seasonal migration to grazing areas, disease, climate, and seasonal
migration for labor, lack of finances, lack of skills, and other challenges)?
8. How can CDF be utilized in watershed management in the area? Who should be
targeted?
9. What are the institutions used in watershed management?
102
Template for analysis - Mapping
Mappin~ issues Detailed information
Natural resources
Water catchments
Crop fields
Rangelands
Gardens
Forests
Others (specify)
Infrastructure
Roads/bridges
Settlements
Commodity markets
Stock feed sources
Others (specify)
Social services
Health
Schools
Church
Local administration
Traditional authorities
Extension offices
NGO/CBO offices
Others (specify)
Watershed resource use system
Croplands and use of crop
residues ..
Communal rangelands
Cir.azUngreserves -""
Water use
Agro forestry practices
Brick making
Charcoal burning
Quarrying
Sand harvesting
Others (specify)
103
Appendix IV: Key Informant Checklist
This checklist targeted government extension agents, NGOs and CBOs representatives,
and opinion leaders in the community.
Key Informant profile information
Country: KENYA
District Constituency
Location Sub location
Date of interview Duration of
interview
Key informant Nameofthe
interviewed:
Organization
Title of the
(Government Informant
official, NGO or
CBO
representative,
Member of farmers
organization,
Opinion leader etc.
\)
Name of the Interviewer .
Name of the Note Take
-.,.-
104
Key informant interview guide
During the research Key informants were asked the following questions;
1) Do CDF encourage community participation in watershed management?
2) Do you involve local community when making decisions on CDF project that
affect watersheds?
3) Name some of the areas where CDF projects have affected biophysical
environment?
4) How can community use CDF in watershed management?
5) Are you aware of the contents in EMCA 1999? Is the public aware of the Act?
6) Do you think that CDF projects help reduce watershed related conflicts in this
community?
7) Are aware of the content in the CDF Act 2007? Is the community aware of the
Act?
8) What are the likely impacts of utilizing CDF in watershed management?
9) Which institutions in this community can use CDF in watershed management?
10) Do CDF projects committees carry out environmental impact assessment study
on the proposed projects? Show the reports.
11) Name some of professional experts you know make up CDF projects committees?
12) What are the factors that determined how CDF is allocated to development
projects?
13) What are the watershed resource management practices in this area?
14) What are the challenges in community participation in watershed management?
15) What are the likely opportunities for using CDF community participation in
watershed management?
16) How much has CDF allocated on watershed management activities in this area
since 2003 to 2009
17) What are some of the reasons for integration of watershed management
approaches in CDF projects?
105
Appendix V: Household Questionnaire
Only the household head or spouse was interviewed. Randomly replaced the
Household if none was present.
Are you interviewing the household head or spouse ~ = YES ~ = NO
(Tick)
Respondent's name _
Respondent's position in the household [ 1 (code) 1 = Head 2 = Spouse
Type of watershed adjacent to (Forest, Water, Land resources) _
SECTION: A Household main socio- economic attributes
1. A. Provide the following details about the household head
SEX [CODE: 1 = MALE, 2 = FEMALE .••..) ---r..[----ll
Main occupation /activity ~
Years of performing the activity (years) ~
Religion [ )
Activity codes 7= Retired with pension Religion (code)
o = None 8 = Retired without 1= Catholic
pension
1 = Farm management/fanner 9 = Religious leader 2 = Muslim
2 = Civil servant 10 = In school/college 3 = Hindu
3 = Employee in private enterprise 11 = Pre-school age 4 = Seventh Day Adventist
4 = Businessman 12=Other(specify)_ 5=Protestant (all except
SDA
5= Laborer on farm 6=Traditional African
Religion
6=Laborer ofIfann 7= Other(specify)
1. B In which of the following categories do you estimate your total monthly household
income, (1) from all fann activities~, (2) working members~, (3) business
income~, (4) pensions and remittances from elsewhere ~ (tick).
Ksh per month Tick Ksh per month Tick Ksh per month Tick
<1,500 5,000 - 10,000 > 30,000
1,500 - 2,500 10,000 - 20,000
2,500 - 5,000 20,000 - 30,000
106
SECTION B: Establishing socio-economic and environmental factors of using CDF
for community participation in watershed management
B.5 Has the household taken any watershed management measures during the last two
years? L..J = Yes L..J = No
B.5.1 If yes, please indicate the type conservation you have undertaken:
Type conservation [Code] Unit (acres or m2) Estimated area/length under the
structure
Type conservation 4. = Fences
1= Soil or stone bunds 5= Trees
2= Terraces 6= Others: specify:
3= Drainage ditches
B.5.2 If planted trees which species did you plant?
B.5.3 how has CDF helped you the conservation activities above?
B.6 Does the household experience shocks (either weather related or any other)?
Yes LJNo LJ
B.6.1 If yes, which shocks do you experience? 1=Drought 2= Floods 3=Pest
infestation
4=other (specify)
B.7 How do you deal with the shocks above?
B.8 How do watershed resources help you deal with the shocks above?
B.9 How can CDF help you deal with the shocks above?
107
B.IO Please ask about the CDF Act and EMCA legislations
Have you ever heard of the CDF Act? l=Yes
2=No
What do you understand in the CDF Act?
Have you ever participated at any level in CDF I=Yes
project?
2=No
If yes, what was your role?
Where did you get information about the CDF
project?
What are some of the effects of CDF projects on the
biophysical environment?
Have you ever heard or read about EMCA 1999? I=Yes
2=No
If yes, what are the requirements ofEMCA 1999?
Do you think watershed management approaches
are integrated in the CDF projects?
B.ll How can CDF promote your participation watersheds management? (List them)
108
B.l2 This section looks at benefits, costs and impact of watershed destruction
What are the main benefits that you get from 1= Firewood l l=Water
watershed systems? 2=Charcoal 12=Maintenance
3=Farmland of biodiversity
4=Timber/posts 13=Hunting and
5=Medicinal gathering
herbs and 14=Seedlings
aromatic plants
15=Quarrying
6=Fodder 16=Recreation
7=Grazing
17=Rafters
8=Poles 18=Other(Specify )
9=Soil
conservation
What challenges do you incur during 1=lack of credit From
implementation of practices? and
neighbours
inputs
6=political
2=lack of proper interference
knowledge on 7=other (specify)
management ( list in order of
3=land constraint Importance)
4=high start-up
cost
5=interference
Are there costs related to conserving the 1=yes
watersheds?
2=No
If yes, what are the costs associated with 1=More labour 3=High
conservation of the watershed resources? time establishment
2=High costs for
maintenance initiatives
Costs 4=other (specify)
109
In your opinion, what has been the general l=declined 3=not changed
trend in watershed resources in this area in the
last 10 years? 2=increased 4=don't know
If declined, how has it impacted on your l=no impact 4=lack of
livelihood? medicinal herbs
2=lack of fuel
wood 5=lack of timber
3=lack of fodder 6=other( specify)
What are the coping strategies taken by the 1= stop using fuel 7= more labour 8=
households for impact? wood planting trees
2= use less fuel
9=buy herbal
medicine
wood
3= use paraffin
10= other (specify
4= use energy
saving
stoves/jikos
5= buy fuel wood
6= more time to
collection
B.13 Apart from the benefits identified above, how else would you like to benefit from
the watersheds? --------
B.14 Do you experience problems with the watershed management authorities? Yes
L-J NoL-J
B.14.1 If yes above, please list the cause of the problems
110
B.l4.2 Watershed related conflicts
Do you experience other l=Yes
sources of conflicts apart
2=Nofrom the ones mentioned
above?
Which are these conflicts? 1=Human-wildlife
2=Competition for grazing land
3=Competition for settlement space
4=Competition for agricultural land
5=Other (specify)
( list according to importance)
How do you solve each of
these problems? ( list)
B.lS What activities are presently not allowed in the watersheds?
B.l6 What is your opinion on the number of people using the watershed resources in the
last five years?
Increased LJ Stayed the same LJ Decreased LJ Don't know L-J
B.l7 How can CDF help to reduce watershed related conflicts?
111
SECTION C: Identifying community institutions and structures used in watershed
management
C.I Which institutions in this community should CDF used for watershed management?
Family LJ Religious group LJ School LJ CBOINGOs LJ Youth groups LJ
Women groups LJ other (specify) [ 1
C.2 Who should be targeted in watershed management activities by CDF in the
community?
Men LJ Women LJ Children LJ Youths LJ community elders LJ All members
LJ other (specify) [ 1
C.3 What watershed management activities should CDF offer to the group?
Participatory Research LJ Training LJ Collective saving plans LJ Collective
collateral/credit LJ Equipment! materials LJ Watershed management information LJ
Resource center LJ
Other (specify) [ 1
C.4 This section addresses the issue of membership to community based organizations
(CBOs)
Do you agree that membership to group promote watershed 1=Yes~2=No
management in this area? Ll
Does any member of this household belong to a group involved l=Yes
in watershed management related activities?
2=No
If yes, name the group(s) you belong to
What watershed management activities are you taught in this 1= Tree nursery..
managementgroups.
2= Tree planting
3=Forest fire
management
4= Monitoring!
Reporting
5= Soil or stone bunds
6= Terraces
112
7= Drainage ditches
8. = Fences
9=Other(Specify )
In your opinion, are the CBOs making useful contribution to 1=Strongly agree
watershed management and conservation?
2=agree
3=neutral
4=disagree
5=strongly disagree
If the response in column 1is no What are the reasons for not l=not aware
getting involved?
2=aware but not
interested
3=Other (specify)
Do you support the watershed management activities in the 1=yes
groups?
2=no
If no, what are the reasons for not supporting the activities? 1=no benefits
2=few benefits
3=no reason
What sources of watershed management information does this 1= Radio
household have access to?
2=Newspaper
3=Bill boards
4=Television
5=Public baraza
6=Forestry
Department
7=Other (Specify)
113
C.5 This section assesses the level of skills on use of recommended watershed
management practices
Have you received training on sustainable watershed 1= Yes
Management practices? 2=No
If Yes, from where? 1=Extension agent
2=farmer
Training centre
3=farmer :fielddays
4=Media
5=cooperative
society
6=Other (specify)
For how long have you received the training? .
How often do you receive this training? l=Weekly
2=Monthly
3=Every 3 months
4=Half yearly
5=Yearly
Have you applied the knowledge from training on your farm? l=Yes
2=No
How would you rate the training gained for helping you in 1=Very important
Sustainable watershed management practices?
2=Important
3=Less important
4=Not important
What is your level of satisfaction with the knowledge gained l=Very satisfied
from these trainings?
2=Satis:fied
114
3=Less satisfied
4=Not satisfied
Will a possible increase in extension provision improve farmers I=Yes []
Awareness and implementation of watershed management? 2=No []
C.6 Are you a member of a watershed user group? Yes LlNo Ll (if no, skip to 5.8) If
yes, how long have you been a member? [ 1
C.7 How many members are there in total in your group? [ ]
C.8 Why did you become a member? To gain access to water L.-J To gain access to
credit L.-J To get training on watershed management practices Contribute to collective
actions by the community L.-J other (specify) L.-J
C.9 what services does the group offer? Training LlCollective saving plans Ll
Collective collateral/credit Ll Collective purchase LlWater provision LlOther
(specify) [ ]
C.I0 What is your level of satisfaction with the services being provided? Very satisfied
Ll Satisfied L.-J less satisfied L.-J not satisfied L.-J
C.l1.1 If not satisfied, what are the reasons? Inefficient service provision LlMembers
not active LlMismanagement by officials LlHigh group fees LlNo consultative
approach Ll other (specify) [ ]
C.l1.2 If no to 5.1, what are the reasons? Never heard of one LlMembership too
costly LlNot interested LlNot sure of the benefits LlNo change from those who
are members L.-J other (specify) [ ]
C.13What activities would you like CDP introduce in this area to assist you in
watershed resource conservation?
C.14Who should offer a lead role in implementing the activities stated above?
Government LlNGOs L.-J CBOs LlChurch groups Ll other (specify)
[ ]
115
SECTION D: Probing perceptions and attitude towards CDF and watershed
management
D.I To what extent do you agree with the following statements about CDF and watershed
management? 5. Strongly Agree, 4. Agree, 3. Undecided, 2. Disagree, 1. Strongly
Disagree
Statement Level of
importance
I 2 3 4 5
a CDF activities impacts on watershed resources
b CDF activities have impacted positively on watershed systems
c CDF can be used to promote community participation in watershed
management
d Communities depend largely on watershed resources for their
livelihoods
e Watershed management should be mainstreamed in all CDF
f Community participation in watershed management will reduce
destruction of watershed resources.
g CDF Act should be revised to increase allocation on watershed
activities.
116
Appendix VI: Letter of Research Authorization
KENYATIA UNIVERSITY
School of Environmental Studies
Department of Environmental Studies and Community Development
P.O. Box 43844-00100, GPO Nairobi
Tel: +254-020-810901-19, ext 220; Email: chairman-ccd@ku.ac.kc
Date: 501 rviay20JO
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: REQUEST FOR RESEARCH FACILlTATIO
This is to confirm that Mr. amenya Daniel Naburi of Registration umber 50/1000112008is
a postgraduate student in this department currently in his research and final year.
As part of the requirements for successful completion of tile course, the student is currently
working on a research project entitled:
The Relationship betv een Constituency Development Fund and Community Participation
in Watershed Management in Funyula, KtlIIya.
Ikindly request you to accord him any assistance possible in terms of access to relevant
premises, acquisition of data, information, literature and privilege of expert consultations; on
production of a valid university student identification card.
FW/gww
117