€33 .

.. -
Jute ..
W;

 

{"3135}
1....
. 3,

.5...

Rafi?
A».

$3 an a V
n Y, $.13 .I-tJ

‘ walk‘I
A léga 54”.: .: A
‘ u." d {if 4 J" 1 E!
fiasffliQQYfln ‘ . .
s. .vaqummfl “33......
4% .

an...) . Ammfitl .
. : . v3 ,.
. , . it”

,.
1

£3
““45... 15.3.

a! .
vi - . .I
« Iii?
. .13.;
Li

u ,
{xfifvvzv’ .3 .
4qut’fw" 1‘s

.4 ‘

@525:sz .. ,
fiafifinxw
a gig...- I111

{utixd ‘I.

5.0!».

‘ a.
1.. 5!..(5 3-2!!!-
. .3. 1:51;}...-

31 1......
,islii f); . 104.1.
;?.¢‘D\.Ae,(r.u. 7y... .9..-
livlttu. 5...... .1?! .

 

 

 

 

0p
o I”:
Fr

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION ADOPTION IN TWO SUBWATERSHEDS OF
THE NZOIA BASIN, KENYA

presented by

Heather Elisabeth Patt

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Fisheries and Wildlife
Science

 

 

 

(410(qu

(Major Professor’s Signature
7/ 31/ 06

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

- --I----o-I-I-u-n-a—.- _

—.—.— -.-.- -

----.---.-.--.— — ..

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
ADOPTION IN TWO SUBWATERSHEDS OF THE NZOIA BASIN, KENYA

By

Heather Elisabeth Patt

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

2006

ABSTRACT

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
ADOPTION IN TWO SUBWATERSHEDS OF THE NZOIA BASIN, KENYA

By

Heather Elisabeth Patt
In western Kenya, land use activities in two subwatersheds of the Nzoia Basin typify
maize production potential and its cultural significance. Conditions in the upper
watershed contributed to soil erosion and reduced soil fertility, which affected local
livelihood conditions and water quality conditions in Lake Victoria. Research objectives
included: (1) identification of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices, (2)
determinants to SWC adoption, and (3) livelihood vulnerability conditions that encourage
SWC adoption in the Kapolet and Moiben subwatersheds. Data were acquired through
participatory rural appraisal activities (n=4), key informant interviews (n= 8), household
questionnaires (n=172), and personal observation. Household respondents indicated that
59% apply organic fertilizer, 56% plant grass strips, 29% build terraces, and 29% leave
land fallow. Determinants to SWC adoption included perception of soil conditions,
knowledge, agricultural extension services, and accumulation of wealth assets (e. g.,
livestock, title, acreage). Cattle thefi was a major risk identified in the Kapolet region,
which affected grass strip usage. Water shortage was a major risk in the Moiben region,
which contributed to low SWC adoption because assets were invested in securing water.
If implemented, specific SWC methods may act to prevent erosion and subsequent loss of
soil fertility. Identifying opportunities to increase farmers’ capacity to adopt
conservation practices may contribute to meeting high maize production demands from

this region, while also improving local and regional soil and water quality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Mucai Muchiri of Moi University, Vi
Agroforestry personnel in Kitale and the Ministry of Agriculture extension officers for
their guidance and assistance. I also want to thank Jacob Cheruiyot Ngetich, Scholastica
Wekhuyi and Wycliffe Wanambisi Wesakania for their dedication to the project,
enduring long field days and maintaining a sense of humor through the whole process.
Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the people of Munyaka, Sengwere,
Meibeki, and Barsombe for participating and welcoming the research team into their
communities.

I would also like to acknowledge my graduate committee members Dr. Geoffrey
Habron, Tracy Dobson JD and Dr. Jennifer Olson for their guidance. Thank you to my
fiiends and family who shared in my excitement of being able to return to Kenya to work

on a watershed project.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................ viii
THESIS PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION ix

CHAPTER I: Biophysical and Social Characteristics of Kapolet and Moiben
Subwatersheds in the Nzoia Basin, Kenya

Introduction .................................................................................... 1
Historical Development of Land Use Management .............................. 2
Poverty Reduction Strategies ....................................................... 3
Watershed Scale ...................................................................... 5

Nzoia Basin Characteristics .................................................................. 6

Subwatershed Study Sites .................................................................... 8

Data Collection ................................................................................ 12

Results .......................................................................................... 14
Household Characteristics .......................................................... l4
Wealth Characteristics ............................................................... 16
Agricultural Systems ................................................................. 17
Environmental Conditions and Land Use Changes .............................. 20
Land Use and Agricultural Problems .............................................. 23
Agriculture Extension Services ..................................................... 26

Summary Statement ........................................................................... 27

CHAPTER II: Current Soil and Water Conditions and Conservation Practices
in Two Subwatersheds of the Nzoia River, Kenya

Abstract ........................................................................................... 28
Introduction .................................................................................... 29
Objectives ...................................................................................... 3 1
Data Collection and Analyses ............................................................... 32
Current Soil and Water Conditions and Practices ......................................... 33
Inorganic Fertilizer Use .............................................................. 36
SWC Adoption Influencing Variables ...................................................... 37
Regional Relationships .............................................................. 37
Factors Contributing to Manure Use39
Factors Contributing to Grass Strips Use .......................................... 40
Factors Contributing to Terrace Use .............................................. 42
Factors Contributing to Fallow Use ............................................... 43
SWC Summary ....................................................................... 44
Characteristics of SWC Adopters ........................................................... 44
SWC Education Sources ............................................................ 45
Discussion ...................................................................................... 48
Information Access .................................................................. 49

iv

Land Assets ........................................................................... 50

Livestock .............................................................................. 52
Topography ........................................................................... 52
Perception of Land Conditions ..................................................... 53
SWC Adoption Summary ........................................................... 55
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER 111: Risk and Asset Assessment of TWo Subwatersheds of the
Nzoia Basin, Kenya

Abstract ......................................................................................... 59
Introduction .................................................................................... 60
Objectives ...................................................................................... 63
Methods ........................................................................................ 63
Data Collection ....................................................................... 63
Data Analysis ......................................................................... 65
Results .......................................................................................... 66
Risks ..................................................................................... 66
Village/Location Risks .............................................................. 68
Regional Risk Trends ................................................................ 7O
Gendered Risks ....................................................................... 72
Assets .................................................................................. 74
Resource Access and Control ...................................................... 76
Discussion ...................................................................................... 79
Risks and Assets ..................................................................... 79
Risk Response ........................................................................ 82
Community Capacity ................................................................ 83
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 86

CHAPTER IV: Livelihood Vulnerability Influences on Land Use Management
Strategies in Two Subwatersheds of the Nzoia River

Abstract ......................................................................................... 88

Introduction .................................................................................... 89

Western Kenya Agricultural Livelihood Conditions ............................ 9O

Objectives ...................................................................................... 92

Methods ........................................................................................ 92

Results .......................................................................................... 93

Munyaka ...................................................................... 93

Sengwere ..................................................................... 95

Meibeki ....................................................................... 98

Barsombe ..................................................................... 99
Discussion ...................................................................................... 102
Social Capital ......................................................................... 102
Vulnerability Heterogeneity ........................................................ 103
Vulnerability in Munyaka ........................................................... 104
Vulnerability in Sengwere .......................................................... 105
Vulnerability in Meibeki and Barsombe ........................................... 106

Conclusion. . . . . . . . .. 106

Knowledge Acquisition .............................................................. 106
Extension Upgrade .................................................................... 107
SWC Potential in Kapolet ........................................................... 108
SWC Potential in Moiben ............................................................ 109
Land Use Management ............................................................... 110
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. i ........................................ 1 13
FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................................... 116
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS ................................................................ 117
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Household Interview Questions ............................................. 118
Appendix B: Key Informant Interview Questions ........................................ 123
Appendix C: Oral Consent Script ........................................................... 125
Appendix D: UCRIHS Approval Letters .................................................. 127
WORKS CITED ............................................................................... 131

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Subwatershed Characteristics ............................................ 11
Table 2. Household Respondent Characteristics and Demographics. . . . . 15
Table 3. WealthIndicators................... ....................................... 17
Table 4. Agricultural Systems ...................................................... 19

Table 5. Environmental Condition521

Table 6. Agricultural Constraints and Solutions ................................. 25
Table 7. Regional Soil Conditions .................................................. 34
Table 8. Soil and Water Management .............................................. 35
Table 9. Regional Livestock Differences .......................................... 38
Table 10. Significant SWC Variables .............................................. 44
Table 11. SWC Adopter Characteristics ........................................... 45
Table 12. SWC Education Sources ................................................. 46
Table 13. Participant Numbers ..................................................... 66
Table 14. Risk Identification ........................................................ 68
Table 15. Significant Risks ......................................................... 72
Table 16. Regional Resource Access .............................................. 76
Table 17. Resource Access Limitations ........................................... 77
Table 18. Resource Deficiency ..................................................... 78
Table 19. Solutions to Insufficient Resources .................................... 79

Table 20. Community Risk and Household Respondent SWC Summary. . . .93
Table 21. Kapolet Region Household Summary of Assets and Strategies ..... 98

Table 22. Moiben Region Household Summary of Assets and Strategies ..... 102

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Lake Victoria Map ........................................................ 7
Figure 2. Nzoia Basin ................................................................ 8
Figure 3. Kapolet and Moiben Study Site Map .................................. 10
Figure 4. Risks Index Values 2 0.50 ............................................... 71

viii

THESIS PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION

This thesis examined the elements of livelihood vulnerability within the context
of soil and water conservation activities in two subwatersheds in the upper highlands of
the Nzoia River, Kenya. Data collected represented one aspect of a multi-institutional
Aquaculture Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) project titled “Hydraulic,
Water Quality and Social Assessment of the Nzoia Basin, Kenya Fishery.” The purpose
of the project was to study the physical, biological and social conditions that contributed
to deteriorating water quality conditions in Lake Victoria. Funding for this project was
from the United States Agency for International Development (U SAID) Grant No. LAG-
G-00-96-90015-00, and by participating institutions (Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI, USA, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA, and Moi University,
Eldoret, Kenya).

Information in chapter 1 includes a brief overview of agricultural constraints in
Kenya, a description of the Nzoia basin, research site descriptions, and the results of data
collected on economic and land use activities within the study sites. Chapter 2 includes
household level analyses of soil and water conservation activities and adopter constraints.
Chapter 3 includes information on community-wide risks and assets. Chapter 4
summarizes information from the previous chapters in the context of livelihood
vulnerability and soil and water management options. This thesis does not include in-
depth analyses of economic conditions, government policies and cultural preferences for
agricultural activities, all of which can add further understanding to livelihood

vulnerability and land use practices.

ix

CHAPTER I

BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF KAPOLET AND MOIBEN
SUBWATERSHEDS OF THE NZOIA RIVER, KENYA

INTRODUCTION

Land use activities within the Nzoia Basin, Kenya affect peoples’ livelihoods
throughout the watershed. Conditions in the upper watershed contribute to soil erosion,
gully formation, flooding, and a loss of soil fertility in agricultural fields. Nutrients
bound to soil particles contribute to the eutrophication of Lake Victoria as they move
downstream. Management of the Lake Victoria watershed involves understanding the
relationships between physical, biological, social and land use activities in addition to
stakeholder’ capabilities and motivations for participating in soil and water conservation
(SWC) practices. Targeting appropriate areas within a watershed for conservation
activities is critical to the success of the watershed plan. The ability of watershed
stakeholders to adopt conservation activities depends on trust, knowledge, and the
potential for SWC to sustain or improve their livelihood.

The predominant land use activity in the Nzoia basin is subsistence and cash crop
agriculture. Farming is the main occupation and is the foundation to livelihood
conditions for Kenyans in this region. The adoption of SWC practices reflects the
diversity of rural households’ needs and constraints to both internal and external
influences (Place et a1. 2001). Identifying and studying the reasons why people adopt
SWC activities is important for the evolving process of policymaking, development of
appropriate technologies, assessing the impacts of these technologies on user groups, and

identifying marginalized people who may not be able to implement these activities (Place

et a1. 2001).

Historical Development of Land Use Management

Throughout the world, land tenure systems, class, gender and ethnicity play
significant roles in access to and control of resources that sustain livelihoods (Thomas-
Slayter and Rocheleau 1995). The current management of natural resources in Kenya
originates from the colonial policies enforced during British colonial era of 1897-1960
(Odhiarnbo 1999). These policies supported colonial agriculture entrepreneurship by
privatizing land and control over natural resources while simultaneously disrupting
traditional tribal land use practices (Odhiarnbo 1999). The colonial government
supported the claiming of land for large cash crop plantations in order to supply export
markets and resulted in loss of forest and grazing land (Olson et a1. 2004). In Kenya, the
shift to private and state land ownership resulted in household livelihoods changing as
access to resources once found within communal land (e.g., food, fodder, fuel, water) was
privatized (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995). The loss of shared access to common
lands also cut ties in traditional social networks and affects household gender roles
(Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995; Odhiarnbo 1999). An establishment of settlement
schemes for displaced Kenyans was enacted by the colonial government and continued
after independence in 1963 favoring tribes affiliated with the ruling governmental party
(Olson et a1. 2004). As a result, land became and continues to be fragmented with
intensification of and dependence on rainfed crop production and the expansion of crop
production to riparian areas for irrigation purposes (Olson et a1. 2004). Semi-arid
landscapes have been transformed as agricultural intensification results in a decrease in
available grazing land due to agriculture expansion into marginal semi-arid landscapes

while agro-pastoral tribes become sedentary (Olson et a1. 2004).

With the change in land use towards privatization there is a growing disparity of
wealth between communities, regions, ethnicities and gender. Access to resources, labor,
and power are altered by privatization (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995).
Privatization has widened the gap between the rich and poor and stimulated the migration
of men out of communities while leaving women as the head of the household (Thomas-
Slayter and Rocheleau 1995). Land privatization in Kenya also enables owner eligibility
for credit and cooperative memberships (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995).
Government and outside donors target regions of potentially high agricultural
productivity for infrastructure intensification to support these agricultural systems, while
also providing water systems, roads, and schools for the community (Thomas-Slayter and
Rocheleau 1995). Agriculture in Western Kenya is the major industry providing cereal
grains for domestic and export markets. Infrastructure around major towns supports
intensified agricultural productivity; however, this infrastructure does not extend into
rural communities.

Poverty Reduction Strategies

The Kenyan Government defines poverty as an “inadequacy of income and
deprivation of basic needs and rights, and lack of access to productive assets as well as to
social infrastructure and markets” (RoKMoF P 2001 :13). Eighty percent of Kenya’s
population lives in rural settings and derive their livelihood from agriculture (Kilambya
2004). Of Kenya’s population classified as impoverished, 53% live in rural settings
(RoKMoFP 2001). Agriculture contributes to 26% of Kenya’s gross domestic product,
accounting for 80% of the country’s employment and making up 60% of the national

income (Kilambya 2004; RoKMoFP 2001).

Rural and agriculture development rank as top priorities for poverty reduction and
intervention (RoKMoFP 2001). The goal of Kenya’s national poverty reduction strategy
is to reduce extreme poverty by 50% by the year 2015 through the inclusion of the poor
in policy planning and the promotion of sustainable economic growth (RoKMoF P 2001).
Reducing the number of people who live in poverty through development of the
agricultural sector involves addressing issues of limited financial capital, access to credit,
ineffective extension services, high farm input prices, low produce prices, inappropriate
technologies, inadequate markets and infrastructure, unclear land policies, dependency on
rainfed crops, insecurity, and increases in health risks (Kilambya 2004).

Although the Kenyan Government recognizes the need for development within
the agricultural sector, funding for agriculture extension services have significantly
declined within the past two decades to about 1.7% of the govemment’s 2003-2004
annual budget (Kilambya 2004). Of the 1.7% budgeted for agriculture extension
services, 43% was for research and 49% was for salaries, which left only 8% for
operational extension services (Muyanga and Jayne 2006). Extension services are
important to combat rural poverty, as they are the connection between research, education
and implementation. The development of Kenya’s agricultural extension system has
included information on crop intensification, crop marketing, seed varieties, fertilizer
choices, land use management strategies, and new technologies (Muyanga and Jayne
2006). Dissemination of this information has taken the form of extension
demonstrations, model plots, training and visit sessions, farmer field schools, farmer
cooperatives, individual consultations and group meetings organized by government

ministry extension services, private companies, and non-govemmental development

organizations (Muyanga and Jayne 2006). Restructuring of the current extension services
requires a “system that is cost effective, responsive to farmer’s needs, broad-based in
service delivery, accountable and with in-built sustainability mechanisms,” while
expanding services beyond crop production advice to site specific rural development
needs (Muyanga and Jayne 200625).

Watershed Scale

Natural resource management on a watershed scale is an attempt to identify and
understand causal relationships between people, their actions, resources and ecological
processes. This management approach represents a more holistic paradigm than
traditional specific resource management techniques. Wangila and Swallow (2001 :9)
state there is value in working within a watershed framework because, “watershed
hydrology is one of the great integrators of human activity, ecological processes and
global environmental conditions.” Kenya’s participatory watershed management
catchment policy, introduced in the 19803, targeted soil erosion in the Lake Victoria
basin and has shown considerable socio~economic benefits in areas targeted for extension
activities (Hansen 2000). However, overall environmental conditions on the land and in
the lake continue to decline justifying further research and understanding of unique
livelihood strategies that may encourage SWC adoption (Hansen 2000).

Individual household characteristics offer some explanations for SWC adoption;
yet identifying adoption capabilities on a larger scale can be useful for predicting
adoption rates at a household level (Place et a1. 2001). Analysis on a watershed scale
may identify regional factors not identified in household level analysis (e. g., road

conditions) that affect household decisions (Place et a1. 2001). Place et a1. (2001:9)

suggests that a possible understanding of the cluster pattern of SWC ad0ption can be
explained by studying the “macro and meso-level issues related to input and output
market access, financial systems, social capital, the political economy of public services
delivery and project siting, etc. ...”
NZOIA BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

Lake Victoria (Figure 1) suffers from eutrophication and a resulting loss of
endemic fish species. Eutrophication is caused by inputs from increased levels in
phosphorous, nitrogen and sedimentation from basin land use practices. Significant land
use changes in agriculture results in the loss of wetlands, forested areas, and shrub lands,
which leads to the loss of vegetative cover and an increase in erosion (Hansen 2000).
The loss of vegetative cover increases erosion, sedimentation, gully formation, and
induces flood conditions. The Nzoia River Basin is the largest Kenyan basin draining

into Lake Victoria.

 

Africa and
the Lake Victoria Basin

 

 

 

 

 

 

“’ x.“ .. ...u. l‘./V ( .-. n \
W ......... ~ I
an .

 

 

 

Figure 1. Lake Victoria Map Source: http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/images/lakevicmap.jpg

The Nzoia watershed spans the Western, Nyanza, and Rift Valley Provinces
covering 12,984 km2 (Figure 2). The basin can be divided into three sections to include
lowlands, upper plateau region and highlands. Kakamega (population 86,500) and
Webuye (population 45,100) are the major towns in the lowlands where land cover
consists of irrigated and rain fed herbaceous crops, tree and shrub crops and permanently
flooded lands (ILRI 2002). Eldoret (population 234,000) and Kitale (population 88,100)
are large towns found in the upper plateau where land cover consists of plantation and
natural forests, rain fed crops, shrub savannah, and permanently flooded areas (ILRI
2002). The highlands are characterized by Mt. Elgon and the Cherangani (Cherangany)
Hills where the land cover is dominated by several stages of forest cover. Two rainy

seasons support major maize and sugarcane agriculture industries along with subsistence

farming. This region provides 30% of Kenya’s maize and sugar output (Osano et a1.
2002). The headwaters of the Nzoia River are located in the montane rainforests of Mt.
Elgon and the Cherangani Hills and flow through protected forest, agricultural, urban and
industrial landscapes covering 252 km to Lake Victoria (Osano et al. 2002). Agriculture
runoff, urban effluent, paper pulp mill, textile factories, coffee and sugarcane processing

efiluents are major sources of water pollution to the Nzoia River (Osano et a1 2002).

 

'.».
lllll
. v-

   
  

/\/ Nzoia River
13:15:. Forest

[:1 Kapolet Region
- Moiben Region

  

 

Lake
Victoria

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Nzoia Basin Map
SUBWATERSHED STUDY SITES .

The Kapolet subwatershed and Moiben subwatershed were the study locations
chosen by principal investigators of the larger project titled “Hydraulic, Water Quality

and Social Assessment of the Nzoia Basin, Kenya Fishery” based on funding,

accessibility, time constraints, and previous research in the lower Nzoia basin.
Specifically for this research, two study sites within these subwatersheds were chosen
based on accessibility, presence of a Ministry of Agriculture extension officer and the
contrasting history of SWC activities. However, the latter could not be validated.

Four villages in the upper reaches of the Nzoia basin were chosen as study sites
representing two distinct tributaries to the Nzoia River shown in Figure 3. Headwaters
from both Kapolet (Kabolet, Ainomaget, Upper Nzoia) River and Moiben River originate
in native forest of the Cherangani Hills and then flow through remnant forest patches to
cultivated areas and eventually combine to form the Nzoia River. Munyaka and
Sengwere were two targeted villages in the Kapolet river watershed, which represented
areas of intensive agriculture on steep slopes directly bordering the forest. Meibeki and
Barsombe were two targeted locations in the Moiben river watershed that represented

areas with intensive agriculture on gentler slopes further from the headwater forest.

 

Munyaka
Sengwere
Barsombe
Meibeki
Forest
Nzoia River
Kapolet

- ." - Moiben

 

 

0 10 20 Kilometers

 

 

 

Figure 3. Kapolet and Moiben Study Site Map

The Kapolet River and Moiben River collectively form the Nzoia River
originating in the Cherangani Hills. Each of these rivers represent a distinct agro-
ecological zone based on topography and rainfall. The study sites along the Kapolet
River are found in sub-humid and semi-humid area of the lower highlands of the
Cherangani Hills where mean air temperatures range between 14-1 8C with average
annual rainfall is 1200mm-1600mm (ILRI 2002). The villages in the Kapolet
subwatershed are situated in hilly to mountainous terrain occupied by closed multistory
forest cover or rain-fed shrub cropland (ILRI 2002). The Moiben region sites are
characterized by a transitional semi-humid to semi-arid zone of the lower highlands in the

Cherangani foothills (ILRI 2002). Euphorbia and acacia trees are common vegetation in

 

what is otherwise rain-fed herbaceous cropland. Mean air temperatures range between

15-18C and average rainfall is 800-1200mm per year (ILRI 2002). Characteristics of

each greater subwatershed are described in Table 1, study site characteristics are in bold

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ILRI 2002).
Table 1. Subwatershed Characteristics
Kapolet Watershed Moiben Watershed
Marakwet, Marakwet,
Government . .
Districts Trans-Nzora, Trans-Nzora,
West Pokot Uasin Gishu
Average 50-70F, (57-64F) 36-75F, (59-64F)
Temperature
Average 1200-1600mm/yr (47-63in/yr) 800-1200mm/yr (31-47in/yr)
Rainfall
Upp_er Highland (occasional Tropical Alpine (36-50F)
night frost) (50-59F) Upmr Highland (occasional night
-Humid frost) (50-59F)
Sub-humid -Humid
Lower Highland- (no frost), -Sub-humid
(59-65F) Lower Highland- (no frost), (59-
. -Humid 65F)
igfcgfi' stub-puma -Hurnid .
Zones -Semr-humrd -Sub-hurmd
-Transrtronal -Serru-hurmd
Upp_er Midland (64-70F) -Transitional
-Semi-humid Upmr Midland (64-70F)
-Transitional -Semi-humid
-Transitional
Man—(100451”)
-Arid
Agriculture Agriculture
-rainfed herbaceous crops -rainfed herbaceous crops
-rainfed shrub crops Forest
Forest Woodlands
-open trees Bush
Land use -closed trees -shrub savannah
Woodlands Plantation
Bush
-thicket
Plantation
Wetlands

 

 

 

 

* Study site characteristics in bold

ll

 

DATA COLLECTION

Data collection occurred from August 2005 to October 2005. Assisted by three
local Kenyan research assistants, data were acquired through personal observation, key
informant interviews (n=8), household questionnaires (n=172) and participatory rural
appraisal activities (n=4). Assistants had prior university or development organization
training in natural resource based participatory rural appraisal activities. One assistant, a
recent graduate, was recommended by a professor who teaches participatory rural
appraisal techniques from Egerton University and the two other assistants were former
employees of Vi Agroforestry. They were specifically hired to help administer the
household interviews and to facilitate community group discussions. Community
meetings and household interviews were held in a mix of Kiswahili, Kalenjin and Luhya
languages and notes were transcribed into English by the assistants. Initial contact with
villagers was coordinated through the location chief (local government representative)
and/or a Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) extension officer. In each study site, the
representative MoA officer was asked for a combined list of approximately 25 names of
people who he felt represented the following categories: poor, average class, wealthy,
women headed households, and farms adjacent to a waterbody. This list provided a
household from which each interview day started and was an attempt to capture a broad
representation of people from different family groups, economic classes and villages
within the greater site area. After the initial names were used to disperse the areas in
which each assistant completed interviews, household selections were random, although
influenced by accessibility and whether an adult household member was home and

willing to participate. The “Guide to Field Methods for Comparative Site Analysis for

12

the Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics Project” prepared as part of the LUCID
2001 project of the International Livestock Research Institute was used to help develop
household survey questions (Appendix A) (Maitirna and Olson 2001).

Approximately two weeks were spent in each site. During the first week
household interviews were completed while also publicizing the community meetings
that were held the following week. Community data were collected using modified
participatory rural appraisal methodology and included a local time-line of events in the
past ten years, a resource sketch map, transect walks and risk identification and ranking
by gender. A general community meeting to complete a time-line and resource sketch
map was held on the first day of the second week and was open to the entire community.
The following two days gender specific meetings were held to identify specific
community risks, problems or concerns and to discuss the root causes and potential
solutions to these risks.

I conducted key informant interviews with representatives of each study area
(Appendix B). In the Kapolet region , interviews were held with the Vi Agroforestry
extension officer and the location chief of the Munyaka and Sengwere areas, and with
two MoA extension officers who each represented a study site (n=4). In the Moiben
region, two interviews were held with local chief representatives for the Meibeki and
Barsombe locations and two MoA extension representatives (nfl). Permission was
acquired for all interviews and community meetings based on the oral consent script
approved by Michigan State University’s University Committee on Research Involving

Human Subjects (Appendix C).

13

RESULTS
Household Characteristics
Data encompassing demographics, household characteristics, household
agricultural practices, and opinions about local land use activities were collected during
household interviews. The results from household questionnaires in each study location,

Kapolet (n=91) and Moiben (n= 81) regions, are represented in Table 2.

14

Table 2 . Household Respondent Characteristics and Demographics

 

Kapolet

Moiben

 

. Village Study Sites

Munyaka (n= 49)

Meibeki (n=36)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sengwere (n=42) Barsombe (n=45)

#(n=91) % #(n=8l) %
“5:333” Male 60 65.9 48 59.3
Female 31 34.1 33 40.7

# (n=89) % # (n=81) °/o
20-29 7 7.9 10 12.3
Age 30-39 16 18.0 16 19.8
40-49 23 25.8 22 27.2
50-59 13 14.6 13 16.0
60+ 30 33.7 20 24.7

# (n=91) % # (n=81) %

Farming 80 88.0 68 84
Laborer 1 1 .0 1 1 .25
Occupation Business 2 2.2 1 1.25
Soldier 0 0 4 4.9

Teacher 3 3.3 3 3.7

Other 5 5.5 4 4.9

# (n=90) % # (n=81) %
None 20 22.2 19 23.5
. Prim 46 51.1 29 35.8
Educat‘o“ Secoiildyary 21 23.3 23 28.4
Post-secondary 3 3.3 9 1 1.1

Adult education 0 0 l 1.2

# (n=89) °/o # (n=81) °/o
Wealth Poor 34 38.2 22 27.2
Status Average 45 50.6 39 48. 1
Wealthy 10 1 1 .2 20 24.7

# (n=91) % # (n=81) %
H032?” Male 67 73.6 65 80.2
Female 24 26.4 16 19.8

# (n=91) % # (n=81) %
#of 1-3 17 18.6 10 12.3
Household 4-6 30 33 28 34.6
Occupants 7-9 22 24.2 29 35.8
10+ 22 24.2 14 17.3

# (n=89) % # (n=76) %
Keiyo 0 0 26 34.2

Tribe Kikuyu 48 54 1 1.3
Affiliations Luhya 6 6.7 1 1.3
Nandi 0 0 32 42.1

Sengwer 31 34.8 0 0

Other 4 4.5 16 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

 

Wealth Status

Wealth status is a demographic trait that encompasses and is influenced by other
traits such as gender, education, and property title, acreage and livestock ownership.
Defining wealth is a result of cultural importance of resources. National poverty
identification studies indicated approximately 46% of the people in the Kapolet region
and 49% in the Moiben region live in poverty (Ndeng’e et a1. 2003). In each region
household respondents specifically described characteristics of being poor, average or
wealthy. The field assistants then used these indicators to appropriately categorize each
of the household interviewees into a wealth class (Table 2). Education level, house
structure, livestock numbers, and acreage size were the dominant descriptive categories
people used to classify wealth levels. A collective summary of descriptions of wealth

class characteristics are reported in Table 3.

16

Table 3. Wealth Indicators- Household Questionnaire Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben
POOR often unemployed and have to live day by day as laborers, are
borrow from others malnourished and poorly dressed
Education primary school children do not go to school
House grass thatched grass matchergpoorly maintained
Livestock no cows no cows
Acreage < 1 acre < 2 acres ofjroorly utilized land
AVERAGE may borrow from others but well dressed for special occasions,
feel obligated to repay nutritional needs are usually met,
considered eager to try new practices
that may improve their livelihoods,
ofien attend community meetings
Education finish primary school children finish primary and may go to
secondary school
House semi-permanent semi-permanent or permanent
Livestock 1-2 cows < 10 cows
Acreage 2-5 acres < 10 acres
WEALTHY well developed farm plan, often own tractors or machinery,
income generating employee others, manage their
investments resources well to ensure a profit, do not
attend community meetings
secondary school education, well educated, children go to boarding
Education children go to boarding schools and university
schools
House permanent permanent house with furnishings
Livestock 10+ cows 20+ cows
Acreag 5+ acres 20+ acres
Agriculture Systems

Through personal observation, key informant interviews, and household

questionnaires animal and crop agriculture emerged as the predominant land use activity

in these regions. Maize was grown mainly for household consumption by almost all

households; the remaining maize harvest was then sold to purchase inputs for the next

year. After the maize is dried and harvested, the kernels are ground in a posho mill to

create maize flour. This maize flour is cooked with water to make the staple foundation

food, ugali, which is typically eaten at least once a day. The amount of acreage a family

needs for subsistence maize crop depends on the ability of the land to produce.

17

 

According to farmers interviewed in the Kapolet region, one acre produced
approximately 30 bags of maize, with the input of one bag of fertilizer per acre. Farmers
in the Moiben area reported that one acre produced approximately 20 bags of maize with
an input of 2 bags of fertilizer per acre. Approximately two bags of maize were needed
per person to support yearly subsistence. In the Kapolet region 67% of respondents,
indicated that they produced enough food to feed their families and 76.5% in Moiben.
Information collected through household questionnaires regarding the regions’
agricultural systems are reported in Table 4. Results of household questionnaires
indicated that the size of farms in Kapolet (x= 4.6 ac, median = 2.5 ac) are smaller than in
Moiben (x= 15.3 ac, median = 8 ac). In the Kapolet area, one large (220 ac) land-holding
farmer was excluded in these figures because his land was subdivided and managed
independently by several sons. MoA officers in the Moiben region reported farms being
larger (3 0-50 acres) than what was indicated by individuals (14% Z 30 acres). These
results suggest that either several families cultivated on one larger farm or extension
officers had the most contact with farms over 30 acres. The majority of the farmers in the
Kapolet region did not have the title to the land they farmed, whereas in the Moiben
region the majority of respondents had titles to their land (Kapolet = 46.2%, Moiben =
64.2%). Steep slopes in Kapolet forced farmers to use hand hoes (71.4%) as their
cultivation tool, while gentle slopes in Moiben supported the use of tractors (96.2%).

Both regions hired labor because maize is only harvested by hand.

18

Table 4. Agriculture Systems- Household Respondent Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben
main crops maize/beans/vegetables maize
total # acres 380 1 182
farmed (600)0ne outlier w/ 220 acres
acre mean 4.6 (7.1) 15.3
acre median 2.5 (2.5) 8
. acre mode 2.5 (2.5) 6
Agchltlgfal acre range .25 - 31 (220) .1 - 100
y # #lhouse #/acre # #lhouse #/acre
# cows 140 1.5 .37 (.23) 1123 13.9 .95
# goats 18 .2 .05 (.03) 599 7.4 .51
# sheep 156 1.7 .41 (.26) 766 9.5 .65
# donkeys 23 .25 .06 (.04) 6O .74 .05
# poultry 730 8 1.9 (1.2) 1117 13.8 .95
Food Self yes 67 % 76.5 %
Sufficiency no 33 % 23.5 %
. yes 46.2 % 64.2 %
Land me no 53.8 % 35.8 %
yes 41.8 % 37 %
Rem Land no 58.2 % 63 %
. yes 44 % 54.3 %
Hue Labor no 56 % 45.7 %
. . hand hoe 71.4% 3.8%
Cultrvatron 0
Tools ox plow 1.1 /o 0
tractor 27.5 % 96.2 %

 

 

 

 

Rainfall in the Kapolet region allowed continuous cultivation of agricultural

crops. Maize was grown as the main food crop and often intercropped with beans and

vegetables. Cash crop production included surplus maize, vegetables, fruit, agroforestry

produce, tobacco, sugar cane, tea and coffee. Rainfall in the Moiben region limited the

diversification of crops. Most farmers only produced maize, wheat, millet, or sorghum.

Maize was grown for both household consumption and as a cash crop. Vegetables were

grown along accessible waterways for household use and were supplemented by limited

subsistence consumption of beans, fruit, and grains. Animals were also important to the

regions’ agricultural system. The Moiben area had a higher density of cows, goats and

19

 

sheep per acre than the Kapolet area, whereas Kapolet’s density of poultry per acre
doubled that of Moiben.
Environmental Conditions and Land Use Changes

In the Kapolet subwatershed, Munyaka and Sengwere both occur in mountainous
terrain with reliable biannual rainfall as described by residents. Water is supplied to
these communities by rain fed mountain springs and streams. However, water quality
was poor because of erosion and poor sanitation facilities. The reliable rainfall stimulates
a constant herbaceous ground cover, but the steep slopes on which residents cultivated
are considered a major influence on erosion. Forty percent of household questionnaire
respondents lived in mid-hill slope conditions, followed by 27% at the foothills, and 21%
on the hilltop near the edge of Kapolet forest reserve. Environmental conditions for the

Kapolet region are listed in Table 5.

20

Table 5. Environmental Conditions- Household Respondent Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben
high soil fertility good soil fertility
Soil and high erosion potential high erosion potential
water steep slopes gentle slopes
conditions reliable rainfall unreliable rainfall
adequate water limited water
% (n=85) % (n=77)
hilltop 21.2 5.2
Topography shoulder 7 l .3
mld-hlll 40 35.1
foothill 27.1 26
valley 4.7 5.2
flat 0 27.2
river 8.8 % 87.7 %
Water spring/stream 46.2 % 7.4 %
Source” rainwater 11 % 3.7 %
well 6.6 % 3.7 %
Water clean 27.5 % 49.4 %
Quality* dirty 12.1 % 51.9 %
form/bus” 72.5 % 69.1 %
Prior land uncultrvated
con di tions* cultrvated 13.2 % 38.3 %
fertrle 37.4 % 18.5 %
infertile 9.9 % 1.2 %

 

 

 

 

* multiple responses, percents may not equal 100

 

Land use change information was collected through key informant interviews and
a participatory rural appraisal time-line activity in each village. Notable changes in land
conditions in the Kapolet region revolved around changing market demands, weather
conditions and land allocation. The area known as Munyaka was primarily allocated
during the 1960’s to people of the Kikuyu tribe, who are traditional agriculturalists. At
that time, the land was settled by several families and has since been subdivided into
smaller family plots. Respondents (72.5%) indicated prior to their cultivation, their land
was uncultivated forest or bush. The people of Munyaka noted a change in forest
resources with an increase in usage of the forest for cattle grazing, charcoal production

and timber sales. The increased use of forest resources corresponded to limited non-

21

forest resources, such as the increase in agricultural input cost or the decrease in
agricultural produce prices.

Since 1997, members of the traditional hunter/gatherer Sengwer (Cherangany)
tribe have been resettled onto their native lands in the area known as Sengwere (Lynch
2006). Previously, this area was converted fi'om indigenous forest to cypress, pine and
blue gum tree plantation. The area was protected as an official government forest and
logged. The recent settlement of the Sengwer people caused a shift from the residual
government forest to small 2.5-acre agricultural plots. Areas previously designated as
water catchments protected from cultivation are now being cultivated because of land
shortages for resettlement.

In the Moiben region, Meibeki and Barsombe are located in the Moiben River
valley at the base of the Cherangani Hills. The semi-arid landscape conditions limit the
growth of ground cover and result in deep gullies formed by scouring during heavy rains.
As described by residents, torrential downpours during the rainy season often created
flashflood-like conditions where water rushed off the land quickly, carrying off soil,
crops and loose material. Significant erosion and gully formation along the dirt roads
were observed. During the driest time of the year, many people and cattle walked over
10 km to the Moiben River for water, resulting in high traffic areas and subsequent
erosion. The Moiben River served as the primary water source for 87.7% of the
respondents with 51.9% believing the water was of poor quality (Table 5). A high
sediment load was apparent in the Moiben River from personal observations, while
residents stated that water quality was poor during the rainy season and good during the

dry season. Water was transported from the river to homes with tractors and donkeys and

22

carried by individuals of families who could not afford other transport methods. Several
residents described past drought conditions when people and animals became frantic in
pursuit of water and where livestock died in the river bottom creating further concern for
quality of the remaining water. Ironically, the headwaters of the Moiben river are in the
Cherangani Hills; the same catchment which supplies the city of Eldoret with ample
clean water. Water is piped from the Chebara dam over 70 km to Eldoret.

Land in the Moiben area was recognized by the British government for potential
cereal crop production and thus large colonial plantations were formed. Many of the
families that live in the Moiben region today once worked on the colonial farms or were
considered squatters. Land redistribution, registration, and granting of individual titles to
Kenyans began in the 1950’s and continued post 1963 independence. Notable land use
changes in the Moiben subwatershed resulted from the conversion of these large colonial
farms into smaller subdivided plots predominately by the Keiyo and Nandi tribes, two
sub-tribes of the Kalenjin group who are considered to be agro-pastoralists. Household
respondents indicated a majority (69.1%) of the land was not cultivated prior to their
settlement of it. An overall loss of vegetation was indicated by the lack of fuelwood and
the use of maize stalks for fuel. Thirty-five percent of the household respondents lived
on mid-hill slope conditions, while 27% lived on flat terrain and 26% lived at the
foothills (Table 5).

Land Use and Agricultural Problems

In both regions, household questionnaire respondents answered an open-ended

question about the causes of land use problems. Thirty-six percent responded that

insufficient financial capital for investment in fertilizer, certified seeds, labor and SWC

23

practices contributes to restrictions on land use. Thirty-six percent responded that land
mismanagement due to the lack of knowledge, and training and extension services were
root causes of land use problems. The following reasons in descending order all had a
fiequency rate of less than 7% soil infertility and erosion, negligence, slope or size of
fields, weather, land tenure, and poor cooperation amongst community members.

When specifically asked about agricultural problems or constraints, similar issues
arose as with land use, but also included market availability, insecurity, pests and animal
diseases, and the limited supply of resources. Table 6 lists the frequency and rank of the
agricultural constraints depicted by household respondents in each region. In both the
Kapolet and Moiben regions financial capital and market resources are the first and

second ranked agricultural constraints, respectively.

24

Table 6. Agricultural Constraints and Solutions- Household Questionnaire Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben
% rank % rank
education 27.5 3 23.5 4
insecurity 2.2 10 1.2 8
market 33.0 2 39.5 2
. money 68.1 1 61.7 1
33:; 3:11:13] ownership 6.6 7 13.6 5
pests/diseases 5.5 8 8.6 6
resource limitations 15.4 4 7.4 7
soil fertility / erosion 9.9 5 13.6 5
topography / acreage 3.3 9 0 0
weather (droghts & floods) 8.8 6 28.4 3
% rank % rank
alternative income 12. l 2 14.8 2
change farm strategy / 11 3 9.9 4
diversrfy
community organization 3.3 7 1.2 8
Solutions to cope 60.4 1 54.3 1
agricultural credrt/borrow l . l 8 9.9 4
constraints“ famrly labor 5.5 5 2.5 7
fertilizer, certified seeds,
. . 4.4 6 8.6 5
pestrcrdes
hire labor 3.3 7 2.5 7
lease land 3.3 7 4.9 6
seek outside assistance 1.1 8 1.2 8
SWC adoption 8.8 4 11.1 3

 

 

 

 

* multiple responses % may not equal 100

Overall strategies for addressing agricultural problems in descending frequency
order included coping, seeking alternative income, diversifying farming strategies,
adopting SWC methods, using fertilizer, buying certified seeds and pesticides, borrowing
money, using family labor, leasing land, hiring labor, working with community based
organizations, and seeking outside assistance. Specific ranked solution strategies for
each region are listed in Table 6.

In both regions respondents indicated that coping was the most common strategy
for dealing with agricultural problems (Kapolet = 60.4%, Moiben = 54.3%).

Respondents that indicated coping was a solution explained a feeling of helplessness

25

because they had no control over factors that inhibit their agricultural production. Coping
was explained by respondents as a “wait and see” process where they continue to use
traditional methods because employing a new strategy was too risky. Other people had
sought out alternative income sources and could afford agriculture input costs associated
with purchasing fertilizer and certified seeds, and hiring tractors, land, labor and produce
transportation. Diversification of farm production was also a method with increased use
for combating agriculture constraints. Farmers with the ability to diversify reduced their
risks of failure, marketing constraints and low prices for specific crops. Diversifying was
viewed as a method to ensure that there was a subsistence or cash crop available if
another crop failed. According to opinions expressed in household interviews, farms that
lacked agricultural diversity were also associated with the uneducated and poor.
Agriculture Extension Services

One main difference I observed between the Kapolet and Moiben region in terms
of access to resources was the representation and activity of local governmental
resources. Kapolet was served by very knowledgeable and active MoA extension
officers who contributed to the communities’ asset base. However, the governmental
representative, chief or assistant chief, was not perceived by residents to be a revered
person because he failed to address the needs of the community. In Moiben, the opposite
situation occurred. The chief and assistant chiefs were active and respected by
community members, whereas the MoA extension officers were not well-integrated
members of their respective communities. These observations were based on informal

dialogue with community members, household respondent questionnaires and

26

participants’ reactions to the presence of both the MoA officers and Chief representation
at the community meetings.
SUMMARY STATEMENT

The Kapolet and Moiben regions represented two areas in which different agro-
ecological zones influenced farming strategies. The commonalities in agricultural
constraints and strategies and the differences in farming techniques within the regions
reflected farmers’ attempts to maximize agricultural production given their topographic,

climatic and development conditions in their respective regions.

27

CHAPTER 11

CURRENT SOIL AND WATER CONDITIONS AND CONSERVATION PRACTICES
IN TWO SUBWATERSHEDS OF THE NZOIA RIVER, KENYA

ABSTRACT: Identification of current soil and water conditions and conservation
practices is an initial step toward development of appropriate technologies for land use
management plans. In Western Kenya, land use activities for two villages along the
Kapolet River and two locations along the Moiben River typify maize production
potential and its cultural significance. Research objectives include identification of the:
1) kinds of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices in use, 2) factors that influence
the adoption of SWC practices, and 3) characteristics of those who adopt SWC practices.
Data were acquired in each location through participatory rural appraisal activities (n=4),
informant interviews (n= 8), household questionnaires (n=172), and personal observation.
Household respondents indicated that 59% apply organic fertilizer, 56% plant grass
strips, 29% build terraces, and 29% leave land fallow. Significant relationships existed
between the use of SWC methods and region-specific household characteristics (e.g.,
wealth, number and type of livestock, acreage and land ownership, and perception of soil
conditions). People who adopted SWC practices had an interest and knowledge of SWC
purpose and implementation. Steep slope conditions and financial resources also
influenced adoption of SWC practices. If implemented, specific SWC methods act to
prevent erosion and subsequent loss of soil fertility. Identifying opportunities to increase
farmer’s capacity to adopt conservation practices will contribute to meeting the demands
for high maize production from this region, while also improving local and regional soil

and water quality.

28

INTRODUCTION

Soil and water conservation (SWC) adoption often reflects individuals’ access to
and use of resources. In Kenya, concerns with soil fertility and soil retention and water
quality and availability have been documented with changing political regimes, shifting
agricultural demands, and environmental degradation. SWC studies in Sub-Saharan
Africa suggest that adoption is influenced by knowledge and perceptions of soil fertility
and erosion, access to extension services, land security, education level, wealth status,
gender, topographic conditions and the individuals’ cost/benefit analysis of
implementation (Bandre and Batta 1999; Bewket and Sterk 2002; Boyd et a1. 2000;
Hanson 2000; Kerr and Sanghi 1997; Ovuka 2000, A; Ovuka 2000, B; Place et a1. 2003;
Shepherd et al. 2000). Individual livelihood strategies determine whether farmers
implement SWC practices and this is influenced by individuals’ social, physical, and
demographic position (Boyd et al. 2000). The difference in these variables and the
interactions among them creates heterogeneous land use strategies and the available
assets to promote SWC adoption (Place et a1. 2001).

The poverty-environment cycle infers that as poverty increases environmental
degradation increases. These conditions build off each other and escalate. Poverty can
be defined as the amount of assets people have and utilize to maintain their livelihoods
(Reardon and Vosti 1995). Reardon and Vosti (1995) make the distinction between
welfare poverty and investment poverty to indicate that households, which meet their
minimum nutritional consumption levels, may exceed welfare poverty conditions yet lack

enough assets to invest in SWC practices and therefore meet the conditions of investment

29

poverty. Investment poverty tends to be site-specific depending on needs of the
environmental problem and costs of investment solution (Reardon and Vosti 1995).

The “recognition that rural households have different reasons and incentives to
engage in agricultural production as a part of their livelihood strategy naturally gives rise
to greater attention to the heterogeneous needs of distinct rural subpopulations” (Place et
al. 2001 :5). These heterogeneous needs make it difficult to determine whether to focus
SWC extension activities in areas that are most likely to adopt practices, in areas where
there is higher erosion potential, or to disseminate as much technology as possible (Place
et a1. 2001). Incentives are low when the benefits of SWC adoption (e.g., off-site erosion
control or in areas of insecure land tenure) are not received by the landowner investing in
the practice (Kerr and Sanghi 1997). All the factors farmers consider when adopting
SWC practices cannot be predicted; therefore, presenting a variety of options increases
adoption rates as landowners can weigh the costs and benefits of each practice (Place et
al. 2001).

Intensified agricultural production during the British colonial administration
promoted land privatization with the subsequent loss of common land. With intensified
crop production, SWC practices were required and often forcibly implemented (Ovuka
2000 B). After Kenya received its independence in 1963, the focus on SWC activities
declined and many physical practices were destroyed because they were viewed as a
result of the oppressive colonial regime (Ovuka 2000 B). In 1974, the UN Conference on
the Human Environment declared soil degradation to be Kenya’s major environmental
problem and this facilitated the development of the Kenyan National Soil Conservation

Project (Ovuka 2000 B). This project targeted soil erosion by helping farmers construct

30

terraces and cut-off drains on their land (Ovuka 2000 B). Participatory watershed
management activities began in 1988 with the implementation of a “catchment approach”
by the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development’s National Soil and Water
Conservation Programme (Hansen 2000). This approach involved working with
communities to identify problems and solutions to soil erosion (Hansen 2000). Extension
officers taught farmers about SWC practices, but actual implementation was left up to the
individual farmer (Ovuka 2000, B). Today, SWC education is often disseminated
through Ministry of Agriculture extension services and other non-govemmental
development agencies. Kenya’s most recent SWC strategy involves clarifying previous
land use acts for the purpose of riparian buffer protection included in the 2002 Water Act.

Hansen (2000:6) identified several factors influencing the adoption of soil and
water conservation in Western Kenya, including the “magnitude of the problem as
perceived by the farmers, the farmers’ knowledge/earlier exposure to SWC, land
ownership, available human and natural resources, proximity to ethnic clashes,
personality and the appropriateness/feasibility of the recommendations.” Previous SWC
practices encouraged through extension activities in Kenya included construction of
terraces and hedgerows with native plants; planting native grasses, trees and shrubs;
improved fallows; retaining crop residue after harvest; establishing a compost system for
manure and crop residue; and confining large animals for manure collection (Aboud et al.
1996; Place et al. 2003).
OBJECTIVES

The Kapolet and Moiben regions represent two unique farming systems as

described in chapter 1. Given the agriculture and land use activities in the two study

31

subwatersheds, the research objectives included further evaluation of the: 1) kinds of
SWC practices used (e.g., soil quality and soil retention), 2) factors that influenced the
adoption of SWC practices, and 3) characteristics of those individuals/groups that used
SWC practices in the Kapolet and Moiben regions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES

Data analyses included a review of quantitative and qualitative data collected
through personal observations, household questionnaires (n=172) and key informant
interviews (n=8) as describe in chapter 1. A collective summary of landscape conditions
is described from household questionnaires representing the Kapolet and Moiben regions.
Quantitative analyses included percentages and ranks of SWC use in each region. The
influence of household characteristics and physical traits on the percent adoption of
manure, terraces, grass strips and fallows was determined by chi-square test of
independence and evaluated at a=0.05 level. All statistical data analyses were performed
using SPSS version 12.0 (SPSS 2003). Cramer’s V, a measure of association, was used
to detect relationships between multiple categorical variables to include education levels
and wealth status levels. Differences in sample means for acreage and livestock numbers
were established through independent samples t-test and analysis of variance for multiple
variables to determine if relationships existed between the dependent variable of SWC
adoption and independent variables such as demographic and site descriptive
characteristics. To understand SWC adoption benefits, constraints, and education
resources, qualitative information was coded allowing for frequency and ranks of

conditions across the study sites.

32

CURRENT SOIL AND WATER CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES

Household respondents considered their soil fertility to be good in the Kapolet
region. However, there was considerable concern about the loss of fertility as erosion
was becoming a more visible problem and crop yields have decreased. Medium soil
fertility was reported by 74.7% of the respondents, only 3.3% reported to have poor soil
fertility, and 22% said their fields had very fertile soils. Of those respondents, 62.6%
said their soil fertility had decreased and 29.7% stated it had increased. Respondents’
explanations for soil fertility changes listed in declining frequency order, included past
land use activities (whether the land was forested, under cultivation or left fallow),
continuous cultivation and field rotation, lack of SWC measures, organic and inorganic
fertilizer use, slope conditions and soil type. Erosion was noted by 39.6% of the
respondents as a problem on their land and of those respondents, lack of SWC use and
topography were the leading causes for erosion. The majority (60.4%) of respondents
attributed SWC usage to be the reason erosion was not a problem for them. Kapolet soil

conditions are listed in Table 7.

33

Table 7. Regional Soil Conditions- Household Questionnaire Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben
high 22 % 4.9 %
Soil fertility medium 74.7 % 93.8 %
low 3.3 % 1.2 %
. . . decrease 62.6 % 66.7 %
3011:?" same 5.5 % 11.1 %
increase 29.7 % 21 %
Yes 39.6 % 43.2 %
no SWC use 35.9 % 45.2 %
topography 25.6 % 26.2%
Is Erosion a top soil loss 23.1 % 11.9 %
Problem? weather 12.8 % 11.9 %
Why? knowledge 2.6 % 4.8 %
No 60.4 % 56.8 %
SWC use 82.5 % 62 %
topography 17.5% 36 %
weather 0 % 2 %

 

 

In the Kapolet region, soil and water conservation practices in use according to
the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) extension officer and Vi Agroforestry (a non-
governmental organization) extension personnel, included grass strips, terracing, erosion
trenches, strip cropping, alley farming or agroforestry, road water diversion, trash lines
(crop residues), non-tillage, fallow lands and the use of animal manure as fertilizer.
Household questionnaire respondents indicated that 63.7% used grass strips, 51.6% used
animal manure as fertilizer, 31.9% used terraces, and 22% used fallowing (Table 8).
Native plant use, intercropping and composting were also important soil and water

management activities indicated by household respondents.

34

Table 8. Soil and Water Management- Household Questionnaire Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet (n=91) Moiben (n=81)
% %
SW manure 51.6 66.7
management grass strips 63.7 46.9
activities terraces 3 1 .9 24.7
fallow 22.0 37.0
inorgnic fertilizer 68.1 90.1
SW decisions % usage change - same + - same +
and manure 6.6 5.5 39.6 2.5 16.0 46.9
management“ grass strips 4.4 18.7 39.6 1.2 25.9 17.3
terraces 1.1 12.1 19.8 0 9.9 14.8
increase + fallow 7.7 11.0 3.3 7.4 18.5 11.1
decrease - inorganic fertilizer 19.8 12.1 36.3 13.6 27.2 49.4

 

 

 

 

 

In the Moiben region, medium soil fertility was reported by 93.8% of the
respondents, whereas only 1.2% noted their soil fertility as poor and 4.9% said their
fields had very fertile soils. Of those respondents, 66.7% said their soil fertility had
decreased and 21% noted an increase. Erosion was considered a problem by 43.2% of
the respondents. Erosion was mainly attributed to topography, lack of SWC practices on
their land or adjacent land and road runoff. For the 56.8% of the respondents who did not
believe erosion was a problem the use of SWC practices was attributed to erosion
prevention. Moiben soil conditions are reported in Table 7.

Soil and water conservation practices in use as noted by the MoA extension
officer, household questionnaires, and personal observations, included grass strips,
erosion trenches, fallow lands, hedgerows with native plants, road water diversion, and
reforestation attempts. Household questionnaire respondents indicated that 66.7% used
animal manure as fertilizer, 46.9% used grass strips, 37% used fallowing, and 24.7% used
terraces (Table 8). Native plant use, hedgerows, and drainage ditches were also
important soil and water management activities indicated by household respondents in

the Moiben region.

35

Chi-square test indicated there a difference in perceived soil fertility conditions
between the two regions (x2=1 1.6, p=0.003). Of the people in Kapolet region, 22% said
they had very fertile soils, whereas only 4.9% of the people in the Moiben claimed to
have very fertile soils (Table 7).

Inorganic Fertilizer Use

Inorganic fertilizer use was observed in each region and was usually associated
with the use of hybrid seeds. A difference between the regions and the percentage of
farmers using inorganic fertilizer was detected (x2 =12.75, p<0.001). Sixty-eight percent
of the farmers in the Kapolet region used fertilizer and 90% of the farmers in Moiben
region used fertilizer. Both physical and social factors influenced the difference in
fertilizer use between the regions. Wealth status was an indicator of chemical fertilizer
use (Cramer’s V= 0.438, p=0.000), with at least an 89% use by people of average to
wealthy status level, whereas only 54% of the poor farmers were able to use fertilizer.
An association between education level and use of fertilizer was detected (Cramer’s
V=0.28 1 , p=0.009). F ifty-nine percent of the people with no formal education used
fertilizer. Eighty-one percent of the farmers with a primary education used fertilizer,
84% with secondary education used fertilizer and all of the farmers’ interviewed that had
specialized training (n=13) used fertilizer. Current soil conditions were associated with
fertilizer input. A significant difference was detected between low, medium and high soil
fertility conditions and percent use of fertilizer (Cramer’s V= 0.240, p=0.007). F iffy-four
percent of the people who farmed on very fertile soils used fertilizer. Fertilizer was used
by 75% of the farmers with low soil quality and by 83% of the people who had medium

soil fertility conditions. A difference also occurred between mean farm acreage size and

36

the use of fertilizers (t=-2.5, p=0.015). Farms larger than five acres had at least 94%
usage of fertilizer compared to farms less than five acres in size which had 67% usage.
Larger farms were typically owned by more affluent farmers capable of purchasing
fertilizer. These large farms were also inherently dependent on chemical fertilizer for
short-term soil fertility improvements because livestock husbandry practices did not
enable organic manure to be collected and transported to large land holdings.
SWC ADOPTION INFLUENCING VARIABLES

Household questionnaire respondents indicated SWC adoption was influenced by
access to information and outside assistance, land ownership, land size, limited financial
and physical implementation resources, livestock numbers, negligence, perceptions of
sustainability and/or effectiveness, and topography.

Regional Relationships

Data collected on household characteristics were found to have a significant
relationship with the adoption of manure, terraces, grass strips and fallowing, across the
regions. Household characteristics (Table 2) and the cultural indicators of wealth (Table
3) are described in chapter 1. The agricultural systems and physical conditions (Table 4)
for each region are also described in chapter 1. Differences between livestock, acreage
and title ownership among the regions accounted for some of the significant differences
influencing SWC adoption.

Except for poultry, the Moiben region had a larger percentage of livestock
ownership per acre and household than farmers did in the Kapolet region (Table 4).
Analysis of variance indicated a difference occurred in mean cattle numbers between the

villages (F=2.7, p=0.044). Farmers in the Moiben region had more livestock per

37

household than farmers in the Kapolet region. In Sengwere 59.5% of the respondents did
not own cattle, compared to the highest percentage of non-ownership among the other
study sites was 26.5% in Munyaka. Regional livestock numbers and associated
significant differences between regions are described in Table 9.

Table 9. Regional Livestock Differences- Household Respondent Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Kapolet Moiben Independent samples t-test
Livestock # #/house # #/house t df sig.
cattle 140 1.5 1123 13.9 -2.1 170 0.036
goats/sheep 174 1.9 1365 16.9 -4.5 170 0.000
donkeys 23 .25 60 .74 -4.2 170 0.000
poultry 730 8 1117 13.8 -3.2 168 0.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The average farm acreage size in Moiben was approximately 3.3 times the size of
farms in the Kapolet region (Table 4). This difference in mean acreage size between the
two regions was indicated by t-test values of t=-4.6, p=0.000.

A majority (64%) of farmers had a property title in the Moiben region, whereas
less than half (46%) of the farmers in the Kapolet region had a title to their land (x2=5.6,
p=0.018). Land ownership in the Kapolet region was influenced by the recent
resettlement of Sengwere as most people (93%) had yet to be given a title to the land they
were settled on.

Topographic conditions differed between the two regions. The Kapolet farms
were on steep mountainous terrain and the Moiben farms were on hilly terrain with less
of a slope grade (Table 5). Even though respondents indicated certain SWC practices,

(e. g., grass strips, terraces) were needed for farms on steep slopes; the topographic data
collected during household interviews did not have a statistically significant relationship

with SWC adoption. Chi-square values indicated no difference in farm slope (hilltop,

38

 

shoulder, mid-hill, foothill, valley, or flat) and SWC use (manure p=0.079, grass strips
p=0.886, terraces p=0.536, fallows p=0.316).
Factors Contributing to Manure Use

A collective summary of favorable responses to the use of organic manure on
cropland included increased soil fertility and crop yields, low cost, and general
availability. Constraints noted by household questionnaire respondents included limited
availability, possible weed seed content, scorching effect, and application labor. Factors
that had influenced whether people had decreased or increased their usage included a
change in livestock numbers and land size, and cost of inorganic fertilizer.

The use of manure as a fertilizer in Kapolet region was 51.6% and 66.7% in the
Moiben region with an increase in overall usage of 39.6% and 46.9%, respectively (Table
8). The significant difference between the two regions (x2=3.98, p=0.046) was further
explained by chi-square values indicating a difference between manure use across the
four study sites (x2=17.9, p=0.000). The difference may be explained by the low use of
manure in Sengwere; 31% of respondents used manure, whereas the other sites had at
least 64% manure use. Sengwere represented the study site with the lowest number of
livestock and smallest plot acreage size.

The number of farmers who had property titles was different between the regions
(Table 4) and may explain the difference between people with and without property titles
and their use of manure (x2 =21.2, p=0.000). Of the people who had their property titles
75% of them applied manure to their fields, whereas 40% of the farmers without a title
used manure. Owning land likely indicates a farmer’s ability to also keep livestock, and

may lead to the relationship between having their property title and manure use. Farmers

39

who owned their land may also have felt more value in reinvesting into their soil fertility
with manure fertilizer.

In both regions, owning livestock was an attribute of wealth status. The ability to
keep livestock meant that manure may be managed for composting and application.
Measure of association analysis indicated a positive relationship between wealth status
levels and manure use (Cramer’s V= 0.329, p=0.000). Evaluation showed that once
farmers reached an average wealth level they were likely to use manure; at least 70% of
the average and wealthy farmers used manure on their crops and only 36% of poor
farmers used manure. Wealthier people tended to have more livestock and therefore
more manure to use.

In both regions, education was also an attribute of wealth status. A significant
relationship between levels of education (no education, primary school, secondary
school, post-secondary school, and adult education) and manure use was detected by chi-
square values of x2 = 13.58, p=0.009. Measure of association values (Cramer’s V=
0.282, p=0.009) indicated as education increases the use of manure increases.

Factors Contributing to Grass Strips Use

Grass strips were planted across slopes and often used in combination with
terraces. In the Kapolet region 63.7% of respondents, used grass strips and 46.9% of
Moiben region respondents used grass strips with an overall increase in adoption of
39.6% and 14.8%, respectively (Table 8). Grass strips are a traditional method of erosion
control using various grass types depending on soil conditions and climate. The
predominant grass grown on grass strips was napier (Pennisetum purpureum), which

helps control nmoff, prevents erosion, increases water soil percolation and provides

40

fodder. Notable disadvantages of grass strips included labor and maintenance costs,
occupation of tillable cropland, and the potential to become habitat for rodents and other
crop destroying pests. A difference in grass strips usage and the percentage of people
that viewed erosion as a problem was detected (x2=4.3, p=0.039). Half of the people who
did not use grass strips viewed erosion as a problem, whereas 34% of the people who
used grass strips on their property thought erosion was a problem.

Chi-square analysis indicated a difference in grass strip adoption between Kapolet
and Moiben regions. Grass strips were used by 63.7% of Kapolet respondents and only
46.9% of Moiben used grass strips (x2=4.9, p=0.027). However, there was no difference
between cow ownership and use of grass strips (x2= 2.25, p=0.133). Yet, of the
respondents who used grass strips, 75% owned cows and there was a significant
difference detected between mean cow numbers between the regions. Therefore, the
examination of cattle ownership and grass strip adoption in each region was necessary for
further clarification of which farmers used grass strips.

When cattle were subdivided between native and crossbreeds a relationship was
detected between crossbred cattle ownership and grass strip adoption (x2= 5.14 p=0.024).
Specifically, in the Kapolet region, a t-test analysis indicated there was a difference
between the number of crossbred cattle and use of grass strips (t=-2, p=0.047), as 65% of
the people who used grass strips owned cattle. Adoption rates increased as farmers’ herd
size increased but overall herd sizes were small in the Kapolet region and the highest
adoption rates were with farmers who had 1-2 cows. Crossbred cows were utilized
specifically for increasing dairy production. Grass strip adoption in Kapolet may be a

result of steeper topography and/or grass strips used as a source for fodder for dairy

41

cattle. Several respondents indicated that they specifically plant and manage their grass
strips for livestock feed because grazing land was limited. Other respondents indicated

their grass strips were cut and fed to their neighbors’ cows if they did not use the fodder
themselves.

Further analysis of grass strip adoption in the Kapolet region showed a difference
between wealth levels of poor, average and wealthy and the use of grass strips (Cramer’s
V= 0.281, p=0.029). Grass strip usage increased when an average wealth level was
reached; at least 73% of respondents in the Kapolet region with an average wealth level
used grass strips.

Factors Contributing to Terrace Use

Terraces were used by 31.9% of the Kapolet region respondents with an increase
in adoption by 19.8% (Table 8). In Moiben, many terraces were installed during colonial
times and have been maintained or ploughed under by new property owners. At the time
of data collection, use of terraces was 24.7% with a 14.8% adoption increase by
households in Moiben region (Table 8). Terraces were used specifically to control
runoff, prevent erosion and to promote water retention. The predominant disadvantages
of terraces were land utilization, labor required to build them and overall investment in
maintaining them.

Terraces were only used by 28.5% of all respondents. People with a property title
were more likely to build terraces on their land (x2=6, p=0.014). Of those people who
used terraces, farmers who had a property title more than doubled those who did not have

a title. Many people indicated that they did not have the title to their land because the

42

land was inherited from their father and the title remained in his name, or they were
simply waiting for the lengthy process of receiving their titles from the government.

As described by interview respondents, one negative attribute associated with
terracing and grass strip implementation was terraces and grass strips utilized land that
could be otherwise farmed. A t-test indicated that those who adopted terraces possessed
larger mean acreage than those who did not adopt terraces (F38, p=0.000). The
average acreage size of non-terrace users was 7ac, while users had a mean acreage of
21 .5ac. In contrast, grass strips were used by people with smaller average farm plots (9
ac) plots than non-users (13.6 ac), although no significant difference was detected by a t-
test, in average acreage size and using grass strips (t=l .3, p=0.212).

Factors Contributing to Fallow Use

Leaving land fallow was an important soil fertility restoration action, however it
was dependent on the ability of the farmer to allow some land to remain uncultivated.
Twenty-two percent of the Kapolet respondents said they were able to maintain fallow
land along with their crop producing land, with a 3.3% increase in land set aside as fallow
(Table 8). The rotation of pasture/fallow land with crop land was also considered
advantageous in the Moiben region for improvement of soil fertility, with a 37% use of
fallowing and an 11.1% increase in land set aside as fallow (Table 8). There was a
difference detected by chi-square between Kapolet (22%) and Moiben (3 7%) regions in
leaving land fallow (x2=4.71, p=0.03). This was likely associated with farmers in the
Moiben region having larger land acreage (Table 4), which would allow them to leave a
portion of their land fallow while cultivating the remainder. However, no significant

difference was detected between mean acreage size and adoption (t=0.308, p=0.759).

43

The use of fallow land for livestock pasture was the main reason fallowing was favorable
as this also allowed for the opportunity to restore soil fertility. Others felt that leaving
land fallow was wasteful and had an overall low productivity.

The use of SWC practices was the main reason people believed erosion was not a
problem for them and where erosion did occur the lack of SWC activities was also
considered the main cause (Table 8). There was a difference between fallow use and
perceived erosion conditions (x2=6.8, p=0.009), as only 26% of those that practice
fallowing thought erosion was a problem, whereas 48% of those that did not leave land
fallow thought erosion was a problem.

SWC Summary

A smnmary of significant relationships between the targeted land use activities
and household and physical variables are listed in Table 10. M/K indicates the area with
the higher percentage of statistically significant difference.

Table 10. Significant SWC Variables- Household Respondent Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region Manure Grass strips Terraces Fallow Fertilizer

Region M K M x
Acreage M x x
Cows M x x (Kapolet)

Education x x
Erosion x x

Soil fertility K x x
Title M x x x
Topography x
Wealth Status x X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M=Moiben, K= Kapolet, x= significant relationship at p S 0.05
Characteristics of SWC Adopters
Data collected through individual household interviews enabled the analysis of
associations between SWC adoption and specific traits of individual farmers and/or their

farming conditions. In all four study sites, personal interest and having knowledge of

44

SWC practices were the top two ranked characteristics of SWC users as described by
household respondents (Table 11). Slope conditions lent to the need for SWC
implementation and having frnancial resources for implementation were the next ranked
traits of SWC adopters. Household respondents described characteristics of other people
that did not adopt SWC practices as those people who lacked understanding and
implementation knowledge, had no personal interest because they believed their land did
not need SWC, and demonstrated negligence (those capable with the knowledge and
need, yet still not implementing SWC). Table 11 lists the characteristics of people who
are either adopters or non-adopters.

Table 11. SWC Adopter Characteristics- Household Questionnaire Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SWC Users % SWC Non-Users %
personal interest 36. 1 l3 .9
knowledge 33.8 43.6
negligence 0 12.1
land ownership 0.7 3.6
land size 2.2 7.3
topography l 3 .2 6. 1
financial 10.3 6.1
physical constraints 2.2 1.2
cooperation between land users 0 1.2
maintains previous SWC 1.5 4.8
SWC Education Sources

The adoption of SWC methods also depended on where people learned about

 

these activities. People sought information from people they trusted, from those with
whom they had proven past relationships, and fiom those whom have demonstrated
success. Sources for learning about SWC in both regions included MoA extension
trainings, information acquired in primary and secondary schools, farmer training

schools, information from friends, family, and neighbors, repeated methods used on

45

colonial farms and self-taught trial and error. SWC education source frequencies, ranks,
and extension services for each region are listed in Table 12.

Table 12. SWC Education Sources- Household & Key Informant Interview Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben
% rank % rank
friends, family,
neighbors 25.3 2 45.7 1
extension 37.4 1 24.7 3
e dISJZZthon school 9.9 4 25.9 2
source 5* self-taught 11 3 18.5 4
copy prevrous
SWC method 8.8 5 3.7 6
fa‘me‘m‘mng 1.1 6 9.9 5
schools
MoA extension MoA extension
& Vi Agroforestry/LIFE -individual farm
-community education consultations
SWC -organic farming -fertilizer/seed
extension -marketing cooperatives recommendations
services -money management groups
-agroforestry
-fertilizer/seed
recommendations
-SWC demonstrations

 

 

* multiple responses, percentages may not equal 100

The Kapolet region was represented by two very active and educated MoA
extension officers, who were visibly working with farmers, coordinating meetings,
enabling farmers to go to training sessions and promoting SWC activities. These officers
worked to educate the community on methods for improving agricultural activities (e. g.,
forming community based support groups, SWC demonstrations, and marketing of
produce). Extension officers with the Swedish based development organization, Vi
Agroforestry, also worked with these communities on natural resource management and
sustainable livelihood strategies. These extension officers often coordinated trainings

and programs together to maximize community outreach and participation. Emphasis in

46

these communities focused on general natural resource sensitization for conservation.
Weekly education classes presented topics requested by the community members and
have included catchment protection groups, cooperative formation, agroforestry, organic
farming, composting, maintaining fallow land along streams, terracing, and growing
napier grass for both fodder and erosion control. Respondents indicated their information
gained fi'om both MoA extension and Vi Agroforestry extension agents represented
37.4% of their SWC education and 25.3% of their SWC information came from friends,
family and neighbors (Table 12).

The Moiben region was also represented by MoA extension officers and had
received assistance from World Vision (an aid organization) for health, education, and
water development. SWC practices in this region tended to be a result from those
implemented during colonial settlement. Many farmers maintained grass strips or
terraces that existed prior to their settlement. Extension services in this region were on an
individual basis versus community-wide SWC education classes. In these cases, the
extension officer helped individual farmers demarcate areas that would benefit from
SWC activities. MoA personnel also supported reforestation activities and youth nursery
projects. MoA personnel expressed difficulty in having responsibility for such large
areas and in assisting farmers with quite different farming strategies. Both MoA officers
and household interviewees noted that wealthier and more educated farmers did not
attend community meetings because these farmers had the knowledge and financial
capital to make farming decisions independently. In the Moiben region, learning from

fiiends, family and neighbors represented 45.7% of the SWC information disseminated,

47

followed by a 25.9% that learned of SWC information in primary and secondary schools,
and 24.7% from extension agents (Table 12).
DISCUSSION

Studies in Sub-Saharan Africa have examined land use activities and the
influences of SWC adoption in regards to changes in political regimes, demographics,
agricultural systems, and land degradation conditions to conclude that farming strategies
often reflect individuals’ access to and use of these resources. The variables that enable
or constrain SWC adoption are ofien a result of circumstances that individuals have little
control. These variables include individuals’ social, physical, and demographic position
in addition to political and community allegiances (Boyd et al. 2000). The relationship
between these variables and their influence creates heterogeneity in the land use
strategies of rural communities (Place et al. 2001). Dominant soil and water activities in
the Kapolet and Moiben study subwatersheds included use of organic and inorganic
fertilizer, grass strips, terraces, and fallowing.

The conditions that influenced SWC adoption in the Kapolet and Moiben regions
corresponded to assessments previously conducted in Western Kenya (Hanson 2000;
Place et al. 2003; Shepherd et al. 2000), Burkina F aso (Bandre and Batta 1999), Ethiopia
(Bewket and Sterk 2002) Tanzania and Uganda (Boyd et al. 2000). The principal
variables in this study that acted independently or in combination to influence SWC
adoption included, personal interest, access to information, wealth variables
(e.g.,livestock, land security), slope conditions, and perceptions and/or effectiveness of

the practice.

48

Information Access

Access to information was a major influence of SWC adoption in the Kapolet and
Moiben study sites (Table 11). Participants stated that land mismanagement was caused
from the lack of knowledge, training and extension services. Limited SWC knowledge
was a common determinant across sub-Saharan Africa, (i.e., Tanzania, Uganda, and
Burkina F aso) (Boyd et al. 2000; Bandre and Batta 1999). Previous studies in the
Nyando basin in Western Kenya found that farmers received information regarding
specific SWC methods from different sources including extension personnel, fiiends and
other farmers (Shepherd et al. 2000). Respondents in the Kapolet region indicated their
main source of SWC information was from natural resource extension services, whereas
in Moiben information was obtained from family, fiiends and neighbors (Table 12). The
differences between the regions may be reflections of the social structure within the
communities and the activity of MoA extension personnel.

Boyd et al. (2000) found participants with a primary level education were the
most likely to invest in SWC practices. This indicated that some education was
necessary, but those with higher levels of education may have had alternative livelihood
strategies that made them less dependent on agricultural activities. In the rural
subsistence agricultural communities’, of both the Kapolet and Moiben regions, access to
schooling was limited by availability, distance and school fees. High illiteracy rates were
observed in both the Kapolet and Moiben regions and were likely the result of limited
access to education resources (Table 2). Results for the Kapolet and Moiben regions
indicate there was only a positive relationship with advancing education and fertilizer use

030th organic and inorganic) (Table 10). In contrast, Bewket and Sterk (2002) detected

49

no significant relationship between adoption of SWC practices and respondents’
education level.
Land Assets

Investment in SWC practices is often linked with farmers who have secure land
tenure. Land ownership reflected relationships with manure application and terrace
implementation in the Kapolet and Moiben regions. This may reflect the status of the
farmer within the region in regards to both wealth (e. g., livestock numbers, education and
farm size) and recent provisioning of the land (e. g., inheritance or resettlement). Both
manure fertilizer application and terracing represent long-term SWC investments because
the soil and water quality returns from these strategies are delayed, and, therefore having
a property title is ofien necessary for security in these SWC investments. New farmers
and recent immigrants found land security was a concern and this influenced their
adoption of SWC in Tanzania study sites (Boyd et al. 2000). General SWC adoption and
land security did not develop as a significant relationship in an Ethiopian case study
(Bewket and Sterk 2002). Hansen (2000) reported that low adoption rates in Western
Kenya were influenced by the availability of free grazing land and insecure land tenure.
Land tenure insecurity had a direct effect on SWC adoption as areas considered common
reflected lower adoption rates, whereas privatized land allowed farmers to invest. Areas
of high adoption rates were found to be cash crop operations that continued with SWC
practices enforced by colonization policies, whereas subsistence farmers had abandoned
the enforced practices post-independence (Hansen 2000).

Changes in agricultural systems have reduced the size of individual farm holdings

and the amount of available fallow land (Ovuka 2000, B). As described by household

50

respondents, leaving land fallow once allowed the soil to regain its fertility. The trend
towards smaller farm plots reduced the amount of land lefi fallow and left farmers with
the need to implement other soil fertility management strategies. Farmers in Kenya’s
Murang’a District indicated their land was unproductive without the use of inorganic
fertilizer because of limited rotation of fallow land (Ovuka 2000, B). These farms were
also found to be too small to support a family and forced them to seek alternative income
which led to a reduction in farm labor and inability to maintain SWC practices (Ovuka
2000, B). No significant relationship was found between farm acreage and fallowing in
the Kapolet and Moiben region. This may be explained by the overall low adoption of
fallowing, the limited availability of free grazing land and the subsistence agricultural
system where limited land is continually cultivated.

A case study in Tanzania revealed that farm size had a positive influence on the
adoption of SWC practices (Boyd et al. 2000) and a case study in Western Kenya found a
significant positive relationship between terrace use and acreage size (Shepherd et al.
2000). The adoption of terraces was the only SWC practice that showed a positive
relationship with acreage size in the Kapolet and Moiben regions. Many of the terraces
in the Moiben region were built on colonial farms and have since been ploughed under
because of the subdivision of larger farms, new property boundaries and maintenance
requirements. Labor investment requirements for terraces often mean that land used for
subsistence or low profit crops were not terraced because these labor costs reduced the
assets in which investment in SWC was possible (Ovuka 2000 A; Reardon and Vosti
1995). This change was also observed in the Kapolet and Moiben regions where farms

were being subdivided into smaller plots. This creates situations where more families

51

need to subsist from smaller landholdings and subsequently makes SWC investment
difficult.
Livestock

Shepherd et al. (2000) found that in the Nyando basin, there was a positive
relationship between cattle numbers and grass strip adoption, as grass strips provided
both fodder and acted as a SWC tool. A significant relationship was also found between
cattle ownership and grass strips within the Kapolet and Moiben regions. However, a
positive relationship between dairy cattle numbers and grass strips was only found within
the Kapolet region. For these farmers, owning dairy cattle coincides with maintaining
grass strips, each acting as an asset that influences the growth of the other.

Topography

Steep slopes are especially difficult to manage for agricultural use, since forest
and bush cover once protected the slopes from erosion; intensive agriculture on steep
slopes now require more SWC structures (Hansen 2000; Ovuka 2000, A). The Soil and
Water Conservation Manual of Kenya recommends strip cropping and contour bunds on
gentle slopes of 5-20%, land with slopes over 20% should be terraced and slopes over
56% should not be cultivated (Thomas 1997). Although, no significant relationships
existed between farmers’ topographic setting and adoption of SWC practices in the
Kapolet and Moiben regions, one major reason respondents indicated for SWC adoption
was because of slope conditions. A case study in the Nyando basin in Western Kenya
linked high SWC adoption with areas of steep slope conditions (Hansen 2000).
Respondents in the Kapolet and Moiben regions reflected similar attitudes as the Boyd et

al. (2000) study where SWC implementation was considered important for farms in the

52

highlands but those on the gentle slopes in the lowlands did not perceive erosion to be a
problem.
Perception of Land Conditions

One major characteristic of SWC adopters was their perception of current land
conditions. Several studies found that a farmer’s perception and understanding of land
degradation determined whether SWC techniques were viewed as solutions that
prevented and resolved soil fertility and erosion issues (Hansen 2000; Bandre and Batta
1999; Boyd et al. 2000). Perception of erosion in the Kapolet and Moiben regions
contributed to the adoption of grass strips and fallows.

In the Kapolet and Moiben regions, people believed their use of SWC practices
caused their soil fertility conditions to improve and/or their land management techniques
prevented erosion (Table 7). In Tanzanian and Ugandan case studies, erosion was
considered a problem by people who all implemented SWC practices (Boyd et al. 2000).
SWC adoption also occurred within the group of people who thought erosion was not a
problem, and may indicate that they felt SWC adoption prevented erosion problems
(Boyd et al. 2000). In contrast, Bewket and Sterk (2002) found awareness of declining
soil and water conditions did not influence adoption of SWC practices in Ethiopia.

In the Kapolet and Moiben regions, soil fertility was also linked to grass strip
adoption where farmers with medium to high soil fertility conditions were more likely to
use grass strips. This relationship may indicate that grass strip adoption was more
prevalent in the Kapolet region where soil fertility conditions were better or that soil
quality contributed to assets which enabled people to invest in grass strips for further

protection of soil fertility. In both regions, respondents’ explanations for soil fertility

53

changes included past land use activities, continuous cultivation, field rotation, lack of
SWC measures, organic and inorganic fertilizer use, topography, and soil type.

Land use problems also revolved around limited resource access, changes in
weather conditions, and poor cooperation amongst community members (Table 6).
Respondents indicated their fi'ustration with managing their fields as water uncontrollably
ran off their neighbor’s field and caused erosion on their own fields. These conditions
led some to suggest that SWC practices would only work if all land users on the slope
implemented them. Changing weather, steep slopes and activity upslope were also
considered by respondents to cause erosion in the Chemoga basin, Ethiopia GBeWket and
Sterk 2002). Chemoga basin farmers noted an increasing trend in erosion and a decline
in soil fertility; however, the relationship between land overuse and decline in soil
fertility was not established. Conversely, a common answer for loss of soil fertility in the
Kapolet and Moiben region was continuous cultivation.

Both manure and chemical fertilizer inputs are needed to supplement declining
soil fertility caused by erosion and intensive agriculture (Ovuka 2000 B). In both
Kapolet and Moiben, land use activities were focused on ensuring soil fertility to generate
plentiful and profitable crops. Using organic and/or inorganic fertilizer was the most
common strategy in use to manage soil fertility. Fertilizer application was perceived as
the easiest and the most attainable solution to declining soil fertility levels. In a SWC
study in Kenya’s Nyeri District, this view was also noted by farmers who felt that
increased soil fertility was due to the proper use of organic and inorganic fertilizer
(Ovuka 2000 A). In Burkina Faso, experiences applying manure and previous results

have encouraged farmers to use this as a soil fertility conservation measure (Bandre and

54

Batta 1999). Application of fertilizer reflects the ability of farmers to gain short-terrn
cost-benefit returns, whereas SWC technologies that offer both on-farm and off-site
benefits may not present short-term benefits (Kerr and Sanghi 1997).

SWC Adoption Summary

This study looked specifically at the adoption of organic and inorganic fertilizer,
grass strips, terraces, and fallowing practices and their relationships to influencing
variables (Table 10). Differences between percent use of manure, grass strips and
fallows occurred between the regions, although no difference was detected for use of
terraces. Manure was associated with indicators of wealth. Terraces were associated
with land security. Grass strips were more likely used by people who were diversifying
their farming strategy with dairy cows. The benefits and constraints of these SWC
practices were site and activity specific, which influenced adoption rates as described by
household respondents. Grass strips were associated with farmers who believed their soil
fertility increased and erosion was controlled through their use. F allowing was also
associated with people who did not think erosion was a problem because they felt their
land use practices prevented erosion.

The differences between regions and the types of SWC implemented reflected
available assets and contributed to farm strategy heterogeneity. The inclusion of SWC in
farm strategies was attributed to individual limitations (e. g., land, labor, financial capital)
and personal interest given their assets, land conditions, and knowledge of SWC
implementation and management. Outreach capabilities and the willingness of
community participants to accept new information were unique to each region and

therefore influenced the adoption of SWC practices. Both regions indicated SWC

55

knowledge was a limitation to adoption; however, each region had different sources for
receiving this information.

SWC adoption rates reflected how interactions among the influencing variables
influenced adoption in each region. Characteristics of wealth had the most influence on
adoption, both directly and indirectly. Some practices were not directly linked to wealth
status but were influenced by characteristics of wealth (e. g., education, title ownership,
livestock ownership, acreage) (Table 3). SWC activities are long-term investments that
require an initial investment of time, labor, and money. These requirements make asset
deficient farmers less capable of adopting SWC because of the delayed benefit returns.
Manure, grass strip and terrace use were all linked to at least one asset-attributing
variable that increased SWC adoption rates (Table 10). Exceeding investment poverty
levels by accumulating assets which enable SWC adoption (Reardon and Vosti 1995) is
often site specific and this was demonstrated by the interrelationships of the variables
contributing to grass strip adoption in the Kapolet region.

CONCLUSION

Management within these subwatersheds involves understanding how
stakeholders’ perceive SWC technologies and stakeholders’ incentives to adopt them
given the relationships between physical, biological, social and land use activities.
Farmers in the Kapolet and Moiben region understood the causes of erosion and the
ramifications of soil fertility loss; however, most farmers lacked the ability to change
land use practices due to variables that out of their control. Individual farmers had little
control over governmental policies that dictated processing land titles, where and how

agricultural extension services were deployed, market conditions, and governmental

56

investments in physical infrastructure (e. g., schools, roads). Farmers also had little
choice in the plot of land they worked, as they were often inherited, and farmed the land
despite high slope gradient. Farmers in the Kapolet and Moiben regions had similar
circumstances for adopting SWC practices, many of these overlapped with findings in
other SWC adoption studies. The connections between influencing variables makes for a
difiicult challenge in terms of targeting one variable, versus another, as a major controller
of SWC adoption.

Influencing variables that affect SWC adoption of one farmer and not another,
suggests the need for providing a variety of SWC technology options (Place et al. 2001).
Higher adoption rates of grass strips and manure use in the Kapolet and Moiben regions
reflect the multiple purposes of successful SWC practices. Grass strip and manure use
provide dual benefits and act as assets that promoted accumulation of other assets and
may improve overall livelihood conditions. Grass strips represent an erosion control
method with minimal investment in seed costs that could be used in all topographic
conditions, while simultaneously providing feed for livestock by their maintenance.
Manure use contributes to long-term soil fertility improvements by incorporating organic
manure into the soil which reduces the need for chemical fertilizer whose nutrient value
is likely to be lost with erosion and heavy rains. Widespread manure use is limited by
supply and application labor. However, most households have livestock fiom which
manure compost could be made and applied to household compound gardens.

Providing a range of SWC opportunities with visible short-term benefits for both
small and large landholdings may increase adoption rates. The subsistence farming

communities within the Kapolet and Moiben regions reflect a trend in decreasing farm

.57

plot size. The smaller farming plots need SWC practices that are beneficial to a
landholder that is likely to be less educated and less affluent than larger landholders. The
development of appropriate SWC technologies that reach a greater percentage of
stakeholders may show that SWC is not an activity reserved only for the wealthy
landholders. Reaching a larger number of stakeholders with viable SWC adoptions may
have a greater impact on overall soil and water conditions because land management
schemes in these areas were based on small subsistence farms.

The influence of demographic and physical conditions on SWC adoption is likely
to remain unchanged. A farmer’s wealth status is a result of the interaction of multiple
variables and may require intensive extension services to gradually increase wealth
accumulating assets. Therefore, there is a need to encourage SWC adoption that takes
into consideration the present wealth and physical circumstances of each farmer.
Dissemination of SWC information must account for the method by which farmers
receive information. In the Kapolet region, extension officers successfully disseminated
information. However, in the Moiben region, information was more likely to be
disseminated through friends and family members. Further evaluation of the most
effective way to disseminate SWC information in each of these communities may help to
develop land use management plans. Improved extension services that work within a
community’s cultural communication system may improve SWC adoption rates by
providing knowledge about different types of SWC practices, their purposes, and the

tools needed for implementation.

58

CHAPTER III

RISK AND ASSET ASSESSMENT IN TWO SUBWATERSHEDS OF THE NZOIA
RIVER, KENYA

ABSTRACT: Assessing risks and assets aids in understanding how livelihood strategies
reflect changes in vulnerability. Mitigating risks is dependent on people’s ability to pool
and accumulate assets on either an individual basis or community-wide level. In Western
Kenya, livelihood strategies along the Kapolet River and Moiben River reflect the role of
financial, human, natural, physical, and social capital. Research objectives include
identification of: 1) risks and assets and 2) the strategies used to manage and enhance the
capital resources in the Kapolet and Moiben regions. Data were acquired in each location
through participatory rural appraisal activities (n=4), informant interviews (n= 8),
household questionnaires (n=172), and personal observation. Participatory risk ranking
activities identified health issues, communication infrastructure, insecurity, water,
markets, unemployment, and leadership as major concerns. Notable identified assets
included local natural resources, churches, police posts, governmental extension services
or representatives, non-govemmental organizations and community-based organizations.
Involvement in community self-help groups, altering farming strategies, and seeking
outside assistance were strategies people used to help reduce risks and strengthen assets.
Assisting commrmities in identifying opportunities for risk reduction and asset
enhancement may contribute to more effective land management and poverty alleviation

strategies.

59

INTRODUCTION
Livelihood vulnerability is an emerging concept in the development sector and

may assist in understanding livelihood management for mitigating risks and accumulating
assets. At individual, household, or community scale, measuring livelihood vulnerability
involves an assessment of actual and perceived risks and assets. “Livelihood comprises
the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities
required for a means of living” (DF ID 2001:1). Assessing human vulnerabilities involves
social capital, livelihood resilience, social protection, self-protection, and well-being in
order to identify resilience, resistance and exposure to risk (Cannon 2000; Few 2003).
Risks include physical, biological, economic, and political variables that result in
unfavorable livelihood conditions. Assets include the same variables as risks, but are
viewed as favorable livelihood conditions. The International Livestock Research
Institute (2004) is one development organization that identifies livelihood assets to
include: financial, human, natural, physical, and social capital (Kristjanson et al. 2004).
Financial capital consists of the availability of cash, credit, and savings (Kristjanson et a1.
2004). Human capital consists of knowledge, skills, labor, and health (Kristjanson et a1.
2004). Natural capital includes resources found in land, air, water, wildlife, forests, and
other natural resources (Kristjanson et al. 2004). Physical capital incorporates
infrastructure features such as housing, water source, energy and commmrication
(Kristjanson et al. 2004). Social capital comprises memberships, networks, institutions
and access to influential people (Kristjanson et al. 2004). Financial, human, natural,
physical, and social capital combine with the biophysical assets of location to assist in the

development of household and community strategies for addressing livelihood risks.

60

In Kenya, research has explored economic, hmnan, natural, physical and social
capital to understand the relationships between livelihood strategies and vulnerability. As
research seeks to understand what determines peoples’ land use strategies, the
relationships between culture and the environment have emerged as key elements for
understanding land use activities (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1994). Previous
research relied on biophysical models for predicting land use activities (Thomas-Slayter
and Rocheleau 1994). This livelihood approach to development research focuses on
assets and household strategies, whereas vulnerability analysis emphasizes negative
characteristics and focuses on risks (Cannon 2000; Few 2003). “The ways that people
divide and share knowledge, access, use, and control in rural resource management
reflects the social, political and economic context at the local and national level”
(Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1994:6). “These factors influence the character and
condition of the physical landscape as well as the roles of men and women as resource
users, owners, managers and caretakers” (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1994:6). Using
the analysis of the relationship among gender, resources, and sustainable development
there is now a focus on the resource users, their resiliency and flexibility to deal with
risks (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1994).

The concept of resilience within vulnerability analysis originates from ecological
research where it defines a system’s ability to recover after a disturbance and the
system’s ability to function, tolerate or adapt to disturbances (Turner et al. 2003). Human
vulnerability assessment also includes an assessment of a social system’s resiliency to
vulnerabilities in their ever-changing environments. Identifying people’s ability to

prepare for and recover from a disturbance, the extent of social networks and the choices

61

people have about their exposure to risks help determine resiliency which contribute to
their overall livelihood vulnerability (Montz and Evans, 2001).

Social capital is viewed as an important asset enabling people to share
information and is an inherent livelihood necessity for many cultures. Participation in
formal and non-formal network activities by both men and women encourages
cooperation, reciprocity, and exchange to increase an individuals and households’ ability
to access public and private resources and to enhance decision-making capabilities
(Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995). Networks help determine individual and
household strategies for survival, accumulation and mobility (Thomas-Slayter and
Rocheleau 1995). More formalized networks take the form of organizations and
associations through which people have means to negotiate with political systems
(Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1995). Through these support systems people are able to
reduce their uncertainty and risks regarding environmental degradation, decline in
resource productivity and loss of income (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1994).

The prevalence of HIV /AIDS and the subsequent increase in livelihood
vulnerability is being felt in the agriculture sector in Kenya. HIV /AIDS and associated
illnesses are examples of risks that draw upon households’ assets making their lives more
vulnerable to reduced agriculture production, nutritional deficits and poverty conditions.
Gillespie (2006) identifies how HIV/AIDS risk contributes negatively to the cycle of
livelihood vulnerability.

“After HIV has entered a community, the type and severity of its impacts on
assets and institutions is then governed by the vulnerability of the system. These
impacts will in turn determine the responses that households and communities
adopt to deal with this threat- responses that lead to certain outcomes (nutrition

and food security being among them) that themselves condition future
susceptibility and vulnerability.” (Gillespie 2006:7).

62

HIV/AIDS often results in a loss of important agricultural sustaining livelihood assets
including human capital (e. g., labor, knowledge), financial capital, livestock, and crop
production (Jayne et al. 2005). Severe risks can increase socioeconomic and gender
inequalities as poor households sell their assets (e. g., land, livestock, labor) to mitigate
risks making them even more vulnerable to additional risks.
OBJECTIVE

This research assessed livelihood risks and assets to understand how personal and
community strategies reflected changes in vulnerability. The objectives were to 1)
identify the variables that depict livelihood vulnerability in terms of risks and assets and
2) understand the strategies people use to manage and/or enhance their resources in the
Kapolet and Moiben regions. Of particular interest were possible differences in risks,
assets, and livelihood strategies between gender, family and village.
METHODS

Data Collection

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methodology enables communities to
identify their own strengths and weaknesses and has the capability to empower them to
engage in activities to reduce their known risks. PRA risk analysis was found to detect
within-group heterogeneity of both exposure and severity of risks by Smith et al. (2000).
This method has also proven useful to identify underrepresented issues (Smith et al.
2000). Holloway and Lindsey (1996) found PRA assessment useful in analyzing
community vulnerability to risk, which actively allows the community to identify their

perceived risks and capacity to cope with or prevent risks.

63

PRA assessments were carried out in two village/locations within each
subwatershed (Moiben and Kapolet Rivers) in the upper highlands of the Nzoia basin.
Data were collected through personal observation, key informant interviews, and PRA
events including: transect walks (n=8), problem rankings, resource ranking/mapping, and
asset identification. Data on assets, resource limitations and livelihood strategies were
also captured through household interviews (n=172), key informant interviews (n=8) and
personal observations.

Community PRA activities spanned four days in each location. The initial day
covered a time-line of significant events in the last ten years and sketching a resource
map; these activities were open to all community members. Separate meetings for men
and women took place over the next two days. These meetings were used to complete
risk identification and ranking activities. The final day involved resource and land use
activity identification through transect walks of the community. To promote broader
participation locally influential people were identified by the research assistants and were
given only a brief period to talk while encouraging other community members to speak.
Demographic characteristics of the community meeting participants were unknown.
During the gender-based community meetings, the participants as a group identified their
risks. People were asked about their problems or issues of greatest concern to their
livelihood, these risks were not asked in the context of agricultural production. Risks
were assessed to determine the extent of each risk in terms of its affect on the entire
community and then were ranked in descending order from most to least severe. During

this process, ten individuals (note: only nine individuals were available in Munyaka’s

64

women’s group) were chosen by random selection to individually rank the severity of
each listed risk/problem by how it affected them personally.
Data Analysis

PRA methodology allows researchers to gain information through active
community participation, letting the community members express their assets, risks and
vulnerabilities to certain circrunstances. Risk and asset analysis incorporated with PRA
techniques allowed people to prioritize their risks and assets. Founded on PRA
methodology, risks were assessed through a series of risk identification and ranking
activities as reported in Smith et al. (2000) and replicated by Quinn et al. (2003). Smith
et al. (2000) created an index system for severity and incidence for each identified risk.
The severity index assigned a value of 1 to severe risks and 2 to less severe risks etc.
(Smith et al. 2000). To normalize the degree of risk severity, the rankings were
converted to an index scale where 1 had the highest degree, two had the lowest degree,
and all other degrees were integers between (Smith et al. 2000). To calculate incidence,
an index was made by proportion of respondents who identified the risk factor as, 0-no
one was affected and l-everyone was affected. This proportional incidence measurement
captured how widespread the issue was within the community (Smith et al. 2000). To
combine these indexes the following formula was used for each identified risk Sj =1 +(r-
1)/(n-1), where Sj was the severity index value for each risk, r was the rank, n was the
total number of risks identified and j was each specific respondent (Smith et al. 2000).
The means of each risk identified were used to calculate the sample severity index (Smith
et al. 2000). The risk index was calculated using Rj=Ij/Sj, where Ij was the incidence

index value per respondent (Quinn et al. 2003). This process of risk identification and

65

assigning weighted values for severity and incidence for each risk allowed risks to be
more realistically weighted compared to regular ranking activities that occurred in the
larger group activity.

Individual risk index values were also calculated for each person selected which
used the risk index method of weighting risk incidence and rank. The means of the risk
index values were then compared using independent samples Mann-Whitney test to
detect for a significant difference at a=.05 level for gender, region and gender differences
within each village. All statistical data analyses were performed using SPSS version 12.0
(SPSS 2003).

Qualitative data collected during household interviews added to the understanding
of the identified risks. These were coded to obtain frequency percentages.

RESULTS
The ntunbers of participants at each meeting site are indicated in table 13.

Table 13. Participant Numbers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Community Meeting Men’s Meeting Women’s Meeting
Munyaka 69 38 14
Sengwere 106 24 47
Meibeki 53 22 50
Barsombe 37 26 45

Risks

The process of weighing risk severity and incidence helped distinguish
heterogeneity within a community, especially since individual concerns can be
suppressed in a larger community meeting. The risks identified during community
meetings by all study sites included: disease and health issues, insecurity and illegal

activities, poor communication resources, insufficient markets, limited farming

66

knowledge and poor education (Table 14). Disease (malaria, upper respiratory tract
infections and diarrheal infections) and waterborne illnesses were common health
concerns along with the inability to access adequate health facilities. Insecurity and
illegal activities were concerns for all locations although each site had unique concerns
such as cattle theft, burglaries, logging, charcoal production and breweries. Poor
communication infrastructure was a problem in each site regardless of remoteness.
Roads remained impassible during the rainy season, which limited access to markets,
medical facilities and sources of communication (e.g., telephones, bus stops, post
offices). Concerns with markets included sales of produce to intermediary buyers and the
impact of national and international economic conditions on produce prices. Poor
education was also considered a problem in all of the sites because of the quality and
quantity of the education opportunities available to the participants. Despite recent free
primary education initiatives, the expenses associated with educational enrollment (i.e.,
uniforms, books, supplies, transportation) limited participation in this opportunity.
People identified poor education, lack of technology development for site-specific
agricultural needs and poor agriculture information dissemination as impediments to
farming knowledge.

The sample risk index Rj mean values and their subsequent ranking for each
village/location for problems that were present in at least two sites are listed in Table 14.
The top ranked problem and community strategy for each location are described
according to information collected during community meetings. However, risk index
values were based on an integration of both community-level risks and individual-level

rankings. It is important to note that risk index values and ranks did not correlate across

67

the locations. For example, both Sengwere and Meibeki identified health issues as the
top ranked risk; however, their index values ranged from 0.72 to 0.84. This means that
while health issues were similarly important, more residents in Meibeki ranked health

issues as a concern than Sengwere as they both felt the issue was a problem for 100% of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the population.
Table 14. Risk Identification- Community Meeting Summary
Identified Risks/Problems Mun aka Sen were Meibeki Barsombe
Water Shortage 0. 00 0 0. 00 0 0. 78 2 0.8 I 1
Health Issues 0.59 2 0. 72 l 0.84 l 0.39 4
gflfrfifnflf‘ca‘m 0.58 3 0. 72 1 0.56 4 0.48 2
Insecurity & Illegal activities 0.88 1 0. 69 2 0.29 l l 0.20 10
Unsafe Water 0.48 6 0.55 5 0.36 8 0.00 0
Market Constraints 0. 5 7 4 0. 62 3 0. 34 9 0.25 7
Poor Education 0. 09 13 0. 55 5 0. 5] 5 0. 42 3
Poor Leadership 024 10 0. 60 4 0. 00 0 0.30 6
School Shortage 0. 00 0 0. 50 7 0.22 13 0. 00 0
Insufficient Farming Knowledge 0. 54 5 0.19 10 0.43 7 0. 2 5 7
Unemployment 0. I 4 12 0. 2 7 9 0. 6] 3 0. 00 0
Land Shortage 0. 00 O 0.52 6 0.22 13 0.24 8
Soil Infertility & Erosion 0.45 7 0. 00 0 0.20 14 0. 00 0
Environmental Degradation 0.26 9 0.30 8 0.23 12 0. 00 0
Financial Resources 0.32 8 0. 00 0 0.06 16 0.34 5
Food Shortage 0. 00 O 0.07 l l 0.44 6 0.15 l 1
Weather Conditions 0. I 9 l l 0. 00 0 0. 30 10 0.12 12
Energy Resources & Supply 0.19 l 1 0. 00 0 0. I 6 l5 0. 05 13
Household Disputes 0. 00 0 0. 04 12 0.03 17 0.21 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iii values: 1.00 = high risk incidence & severity, 0. 00= low risk incidence & severity
Village/Location Risks
In Munyaka, the issue of largest concern for the community was insecurity. At
the time of data collection, cattle theft by neighboring tribes was an immediate threat
with ensuing violence, burglaries and deaths occurring. Just prior to data collection the

government sent a police force into the area to collect weapons; and, throughout the data

68

collection period police patrolled the area as a cattle theft deterrent. Cattle thefts resulted
in the reduction of farmers’ cattle herds or caused some farmers to sell their cows to
prevent losing a major source of wealth. Munyaka and Sengwere are both located on the
edge of the Kapolet forest reserve where cattle theft occurs. The forest was not only used
as a hideout for the cattle thieves but was also used for logging and charcoal production,
which are all illegal activities. To address these issues the community had contacted
government authorities to establish new police posts in the area. In Munyaka, where
insecurity had the highest risk index and rank residents/respondents noted risk was higher
for those who lived in closer proximity to the forest than those who lived nearer to the
village center where security is higher.

Health issues and poor communication infrastructure comprised the highest risk
rankings across all sites and were the top ranked risk in Sengwere. Malaria and
waterborne diseases were common in Sengwere. Lack of medical facilities and limited
sanitation facilities also contributed towards health risks. Along with common tropical
diseases, the people of Sengwere indicated that unwanted pregnancies and the difficulties
of transporting pregnant women to medical facilities were problems for their community.
The mountainous topography made road passage and maintenance difficult. No public
transportation vehicles passed through the upper regions of Sengwere, limiting access to
medical facilities, communication, markets, and government representation. Attempts to
address inadequate medical resources included contacting government and non-
governmental organizations for assistance in building medical facilities, sensitization of
the community to preventative actions, collection of funds to help build facilities, and

general coping with traveling long distances to reach facilities.

69

In Meibeki, health issues were the largest problem according to community
meeting participants. People in Meibeki suffered from common tropical diseases (i.e.,
malaria, upper respiratory tract infections, and diarrheal infections related to poor
sanitation facilities and unsafe water sources). Although clinics and dispensaries were
located in the village center, the facilities lacked water and electricity needed to
refiigerate medicine. According to community participants, the use of local herbal
medication was a common remedy for illnesses. Assistance from World Vision (an aid
agency) provided limited disease prevention firnding and education. Community
members felt that health sensitization would encourage people to change their behavior in
regards to sexual practices, mosquito net use, boiling water, better household hygiene.
In the Moiben area, water shortage provided a serious concern. In Barsombe, it
was the issue of greatest concern to the community. During the dry season, people
expended significant energy to obtain water and resulted in a reduction of time for other
activities. Large numbers of cattle were often slaughtered in the dry period due to water
and food shortages. Cattle were considered a significant wealth indicator and acted as
financial capital. The water shortage and subsequent reduction in cattle numbers may
alter social and financial networks within the community. Opportunities suggested by
community participants to combat water issues (i.e., shortages and quality) included
borehole drilling, building roof water catchments, pooling money to pipe in water, and
implementing reforestation activities.
Regional Risk Trends
Figure 4 shows the categories of village risks where at least one village had an

index value greater than or equal to 0.50 on a scale where 1.00 is the most severe. Using

70

a risk index value of 0.50 as the cutoff helps to illustrate trends between sites of incidence
and severity. Sengwere had the highest number of highly ranked risks (n=9) that were
considered to affect a larger percentage of the population between the four study sites.
The higher number of identified risks above 0.50 in Sengwere may be a result of recent
resettlement in Sengwere, resulting in lack of infrastructure that may reduce risks. The
Moiben region study sites, Meibeki (n=5) and Barsombe (n=1), had fewer risks that

affected a larger proportion of the population or risks that did not have high rankings.

 

 
        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Munyaka
’ i I Sengwere
fl "—7 El Meibeki
7 7 El Barsombe
3
a _ L,
u :3- ’i‘ . ’ ’ ’ ’ a
B 9; if
x I“ 5 7 7 7 7 7
.9 r1 .g '. ‘
K g; . . . .
r} 3 . if 7
n-{ 7: '
E a- 2'
e} ;- :-.
i an. . 7
a: z: 1
.g .s ‘
059° 45‘ we? ‘9 ’ ° 6° {59° {$9 «95“ '9 G899
90 g 9‘? ($0 $0 96° $96 9‘0 {9‘9 699* 00°25 Q6:“
0
"\59 $93 0° 00‘ Qoé V9 9&6) °¢° 0‘ $69
6?? ' *6 ((0
or? , 00‘
ldontlflod Problems (,9
0 9°
e \°

 

Figure 4. Risks Index Values 2 0.50

Munyaka and Sengwere in the Kapolet region represented areas with a greater
number of risks with high severity and incidence rates. The Moiben region sites, Meibeki
and Barsombe, collectively had a greater number of identified risks, though not as severe.
Risks with statistically significant different mean values between the regions are reported

in Table 15, a value of 1 indicates Kapolet had a greater mean index value and a value of

71

2 indicates Moiben had a greater mean index value as generated from independent
samples’ Mann-Whitney test and evaluated at a £0.05. Risks that were not significantly
different among the regions included health issues, insufficient farming knowledge,
unemployment, land shortage, limited energy resources and inadequate frnancial
resources.

Table 15. Significant Risks p< 0.05
Identified Risks/Problems Region Sex MK SG

Water Shortage 2

Health Issues

Poor Communication Infrastructure

Insecurity & Illegal activities

Unsafe Water

Market Constraints

Poor Education

Poor Leadership

School Shortage

Insufficient F arming Knowledge

Unemployment F

Land Shortage

Soil Infertility & Erosion 1

Environmental Degradation (deforestation)

Financial Resources

 

BS

 

3%

 

 

 

'TJ'TJ

 

 

Emu-1'11

 

mgr-run

 

 

#HNHp—Ap—au—a

 

Z ZZZ

 

 

3'11
was: Zed

 

 

Km
'11:
'11

 

 

Food Shortage
Weather Conditions (droughts & floods)

 

 

v-‘NN

Energy Resources & Supply M
Household Disputes 2 F
MK=Munyaka, SG= Sengwere, MB=Meibeki, BS=Barsombe
1 = Kapolet region (Munyaka and Sengwere villages)

2 = Moiben region (Meibeki and Barsombe locations)

M = Men, F = Women

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3'11

~11: z

m: zzzzz
'11:me

 

Gendered Risks
Men’s and women’s meetings were held in each location to identify specific risks
and assets of importance. Risks evaluated on a gender basis allowed risks to be weighted
appropriately, as men and women had different problems or felt risks were more or less

severe to them and their community. Individual risk index values (n=10 per village) were

72

 

calculated to allow for independent samples Mann-Whitney test analyses to compare risk
index means by gender. Table 15 lists the risks where M indicates a statistically higher
mean risk index value for men and F indicates a statistically higher mean risk index value
for women.

Risks were uniquely generated in each meeting allowing some risks to be
identified by only one gender. Several risks developed as being gender related problems
as they had higher significant mean risk index values across all the study sites. Energy
resources and supply was a risk only identified by men causing the statistical significance
between genders. The concern about energy sources and supply may be a result of
decline in forest resources and access to them. In the Kapolet region, the Kapolet forest
reserve remained as an important source for charcoal production, which was an income
generating albeit illegal activity for men. Charcoal production was observed during
transect walks and household interviews. In the Moiben region, energy source concerns
were more focused on fuel for tractors and electricity. Household disputes were only a
concern with women as shown in three of the four study sites. Household disputes
encompassed domestic violence, confrontation with neighbors, illegal home breweries
and was associated with lack of employment opportunities. Women were often involved
in home brewing of alcohol because they felt it was an important income generating
activity. However, men were the main consumers of this alcohol and this often resulted
in a reduction of their homestead financial resources and contributed to domestic
violence. Agricultural production was predominately a concern with men, as reflected in
the men having a statistically higher mean index values for market constraints,

insufficient farming knowledge and concerns with soil fertility and erosion. Many of

73

these concerns were specifically focused on the production and marketing of maize as
described in the community meetings. Men were typically responsible for securing
financial resources to purchase farm inputs (e.g., certified seeds, fertilizer, labor and
tractor hire).

Assets

Livelihood vulnerability consists of risks and assets. These assets are not only
natural resource assets and basic needs but also consist of human, social, economic and
cultural capital (Bebbington 1999). Bebbington (1999) described assets as capital that
gives meaning to a person’s life and gives them the capability to improve their quality of
life. An attempt was made to generate a list of assets during the meetings with each
gender, but this list did not go beyond basic needs. During the community meeting
setting, it was difficult to get participants to talk about what comprised community
strength, what resources were unique or particularly useful, and their strategies used for
eliminating risks. Specific assets for each community were summarized from key
informant interviews, personal observations, and household questionnaires.

Notable assets in Munyaka included church groups, merry-go-round groups, and
extension services. An active Ministry of Agriculture extension officer, a Swedish non-
governmental organization Vi Agroforestry extension person, church associations, and
community-based organizations were actively developing workshops, securing funding,
finding sponsors and providing trainings in Munyaka. The use of merry-go-round groups
was suggested by key informant interviews and household respondents as an important
local method of saving money and securing labor. Merry-go-rounds functioned as a

group of people who pool a collected resource to give to one participating individual.

74

This collection and distribution is cycled through all the participants until all individuals
have been compensated for their original investment. However, a few people suggested
they did not trust other community members enough to participate in merry-go-rounds.
Assets in Sengwere included fertile soils, community revitalization activities, and
services provided by a Ministry of Agriculture extension ofiicer. A unique asset found in
Sengwere was the establishment of a cultural center that promoted preservation of tribal
customs and provided education opportunities. In Sengwere, an active and
knowledgeable Ministry of Agriculture officer provided community education classes
ranging in topics from HIV/AIDS awareness, beekeeping, and soil and water
conservation. The Ministry of Agriculture officer felt that the people of Sengwere were
open and receptive to instruction on new methods to manage their resources that would
potentially improve their livelihoods. Household respondents indicated that they did not
participate in merry-go-round groups because they were new to the area and did not know
their neighbors well enough or that they did not have capital for the original investment.
The people in Meibeki felt they lived in a welcoming and peaceful community.
Crime was low because of local citizens that were vigilant and police monitoring. The
assistant chief was active and held weekly court sessions that held people accountable for
wrongdoings. Also, during data collection, the assistant chief held several meetings to
assist with voter registration for the upcoming constitution referendum vote. Women’s
groups helped mobilize funds for its members and a youth group was participating in
reforestation activities. The aid organization World Vision had funded education and

general health sensitization.

75

One notable asset in Barsombe was the formation and registration of a women’s
group as a local community-based organization, which was eligible to apply for funding
of local activities. Other women’s groups, youth groups, and church activities were all
indicated in household questionnaires as resources for community members. Out of the
four study sites, Barsombe had the best access to markets on a tarmac road.

Resource Access and Control

Resource access is critical in achieving sustainable livelihoods, as access itself is
a resource that may be limited by gender, political, economic, and social conditions
(Bebbington 1999). Many risks were a result of limited access to resources, while many
assets could be generated with access to resources. Table 16 lists the percentages of
respondents that had access to physical and social resources in their community.

Table 16. Regional Resource Access- Household Questionnaire Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet % Moiben %

cattle dip 5.5 16

machinery / posho mill 2.2 9.9

market 5 1 .6 46.9

Physical medical facility 37.4 55.6
Resources police post 2.2 0
roads 30.8 58

school 78 70.4

water structure 4.4 2.5

church 68 54.3

Social community based organization 45.1 22.2
Resources government extension 12 1 6 2
(agriculture & health) ' °

non-govemmental organization 5.5 12.3

 

 

Respondents indicated that many of their physical and social resources were
limited by accessibility (Table 17). Travel distance to access resources was the greatest
limitation in both regions. Resource supply and ownership ranked as the next biggest

limitation. Access limitations because of age, time commitment, poor roads and

76

topography constituted the fourth ranked category. Financial restrictions, government
policies and resource quality were also indicated as limitations to their natural, physical
and social resources.

Table 17. Resource Access Limitations- Household Questionnaire Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben

% rank % rank
distance 70.3 1 76.5 1
financial 17.6 5 3 .7 5
government policy 1.1 7 0 6
other 20.9 4 13.6 4
ownership 33 3 34.6 2
supply/quantity 41 .8 2 29.6 3
quality 7.7 6 3.7 5

 

 

 

Table 18 lists the five asset categories and the frequency percentages of
insufficient resources as indicated by respondents in each region. When questioned about
what resources they lacked, household respondents in the Kapolet region indicated
financial resources or the lack of credit opportunities to support agricultural investments
where major concerns. However, limited financial resources were identified as a medium
ranked (8th) problem during the community meeting (Table 14). Natural resources (land
and forest) and physical resources (schools, medical clinics, and roads) were also major
resources that were deemed insufficient. Respondents also considered human and social
resources to be inadequate in their community.

Respondents in the Moiben region indicated natural resources, mainly water, as
the resource most limited to them (Table 18). Water shortage also received the highest
rank of risks generated in the community meetings in the Moiben region (Table 14).
Physical (roads, markets) and financial (credit) resources were also lacking to the people
in Meibeki and Barsombe locations. Human (labor) resources were noted by a few

respondents and no respondents indicated a lack of social resources in their community.

77

However, a few women explained the lack of cultural interaction with people outside
their community as reason for their stagnant state of development.

Table 18. Resource Deficiency- Household Questionnaire Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet % Moiben %
financial 48.4 23.5
human 5.5 4.9
natural 45. 1 66.7
physical 3 8.5 32.1
social 2.2 0

 

 

 

Table 19 lists solutions suggested by respondents to improve assets thought to be
insufficient. When household respondents were asked what they did about insufficient
resources, the two most frequent responses from both regions were traveling long
distances to reach resources and coping. Using alternative resources was the next most
frequent strategy for dealing with unavailable resources. Examples of alternative
resources included borrowing from neighbors and/or farrrily when financial and/or credit
institutions were not available and the use of seeds stored from previous seasons for
planting instead of buying certified seeds. Other solutions included altering farming
methods, seeking assistance from outside organizations for financial support, formation
of community-based organizations, seeking additional education, and/or participating in
illegal activities to compensate for lack of essential resources. These answers reflected

livelihood strategies that were in use to best manage their existing vulnerabilities.

78

 

Table 19. Solutions to Insufficient Resources- Household Respondent Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kapolet Moiben
% rank % rank
alter farming strategy 18.7 3 8.6 5
community-based organization 2.2 6 0 8
cope 33 1 40.7 2
participate in illegal activity 1.1 7 1.2 7
seek education 3.3 5 2.5 6
seek outside funding 13.2 4 13.7 4
use alternative resource 18.7 3 19.6 3
travel far 30.7 2 43.2 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

This research attempts to understand the kinds of risks and assets and the effect
vulnerability fluctuations have on livelihood strategies. Recent poverty reduction
research has focused on understanding livelihood strategies that resulted from changing
risks and assets. “Poverty relates itself to lack of basic material needs, it also signifies
lack or deficiency of social, economic, cultural and human rights, which an individual
household or community hold as important or vital for their existence, survival or well
being” (RoKMoFP 2001 :16). The livelihood approach focuses on how people use and
manage their assets with the acknowledgement that differences occur between gender,
tribal, and social groups (Bebbington 1999). People deficient in assets were likely
limited in building resilience and preventing risk exposure. Risk prevention may require
individuals to draw upon other assets making them even more vulnerable to remaining
poor (Mukui 2005).

Risks and Assets

The identification of assets and risks along with needs and access to resources is

one step in determining strategies that reduce individuals’ livelihood vulnerabilities.

Assets identified from household questionnaires included local natural resources,

79

churches, police posts, governmental extension services or representatives, non-
governmental organizations, and community-based organizations (Table 16). The risks
identified during community meetings by all study sites included: disease and health
issues, insecurity and illegal activities, poor commtmication resources, insufficient
markets, limited farming knowledge, and poor education (Table 14). Risks that did not
have a significant mean risk index difference among the regions (health issues,
insufficient farming knowledge, unemployment, land shortage, environmental
degradation and limited financial resources) may indicate that these are problems
occurring on a larger scale and are a result of changing resource use, resource user and
political conditions nation-wide (Thomas-Slayter and Rocheleau 1994). One risk of
growing concern to agricultural communities is HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS infection is
highest in people between ages 15-45, who are the most productive work force members
(RoKMoF P 2001). The World Health Organization (2004) reported a 6.7% HIV/AIDS
infection rate in Kenya with over 30% HIV/AIDS infection in some urban areas,
including western Kenya. Although HIV/AIDS did not emerge as an explicit risk in the
study sites (note: HIV/AIDS is a sensitive subject not frequently discussed because of the
associated negative stigma), participants were concerned about their vulnerability to
disease. However, poor infrastructure and remoteness of study site communities limits
peoples’ movement to urban areas with higher infection rates and may actually help slow
transmission of the virus to rural commmrities.

The risk index method developed by Smith et al. (2000) showed heterogeneity
within and between their research sites in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia and

noted differences between gender and wealth status. Risks indicated by participants in

80

the Kapolet and Moiben region community meetings (human disease, insecurity, water
shortage, food shortage, land shortage education limitations, and market constraints) were
similar to those found by Smith et al. (2000). Heterogeneity occurred between the
Kapolet and Moiben regions and between genders as unique risks and assets created
varying vulnerability levels (Table 15). Gendered risks reflected men’s concerns with
agricultural production and women’s concerns reflected household well-being and
sustainability. A similar trend was also found within pastoral communities studied by
Smith et al. (2000).

Social capital is an important asset; involvement in community groups provides
security that increases individuals’ resilience (Cannon 2000, Montz and Evans 2001).
Both Kapolet and Moiben regions have social capital that increase individuals’ resilience.
Examples included women’s participation in gardening groups which increased food
security and groups for labor exchange. Church memberships assisted with funeral
expenses, provided basic needs for destitute families, and contributed to household
harmony by teaching family values.

It is difficult to label one region as having a greater livelihood vulnerability than
another because vulnerability is subjective. Assessing both actual and perceived risks
and assets is important because people’s perception of vulnerability or resilience greatly
affects their behavior and motivation. Risk identification and analysis results indicated
that the Kapolet region had risks with a high risk severity and incidence and results in the
Moiben indicated a greater number of identified risks but lower risk severity and
incidence. Smith et al. (2000) indicated only two of 15 risks had a high risk incidence

and a majority of risks had a low risk severity and incidence. The type, severity and

81

incidence of regional risks demonstrates heterogeneity within the watershed but also
identifies risks that are likely to be watershed-vvide poverty or development issues.
Risk Response

Responses to risk differ in effectiveness and sustainability and “are also context-
specific, differing by community and by household in type and degree and they depend
on the range of demographic, economic, and sociocultural factors and processes”
(Gillespie 2006:7). The Kapolet and Moiben regions had unique problems which caused
concern in each community and thus demanded unique solutions to each regions’
problems. In Munyaka, participants expressed concerns with cattle theft and insecurity.
The community’s response to cattle theft and insecurity risk has involved increasing
vigilance within the community and governmental police force. However, the political,
socioeconomic, and physical conditions continue to place the Munyaka community at
risk to cattle theft.

In Sengwere, the community indicated that poor leadership was a particularly
important problem. The Sengwer recently received governmental recognition as a tribe
and were resettled on their native lands that encompassed much of the area referred to as
Sengwere. However, they have returned to settle land with people they did not know.
This situation led to mistrust and unclear leadership. Attempts to reestablish a sense of
community had begun with the development of a cultural center that teaches Sengwer
traditional culture (i.e., language and dance). However, the Sengwer felt as though they
still had no representation in the government to assist with their commmrity’s

development.

82

In Meibeki, participants indicated unemployment conditions caused men to have
too much idle time and resulted in alcoholism and illegal activities. Unemployment
problems occurred in Meibeki due to seasonal labor requirements of the agriculturally
based economy. Labor was in high demand during the maize harvest, but during the rest
of the year, people had limited employment opportunities. Unemployment was
considered a problem by both men and women in Meibeki and was their 3rd top ranked
risk (Table 14). However, the consequences of unemployment were viewed differently
by each gender. Women related the lack of employment opportunities as a cause of
household disputes and domestic violence. This risk was only identified by women and
therefore was not considered a community-wide threat. Home breweries were one source
of alternative income generation in the Moiben region. Repercussions for drunken
behavior outside the homestead were sought through a community court led by the local
chief.

In Barsombe water shortage surfaced as the most severe and widespread risk
(Table 14). No specific community response was identified to resolve their water
shortage but rather individual responses used to cope with water shortage included early
crop harvest, slaughtering of cattle and installment of roof water catchments. Solutions
to meeting water transport problems included using tractors, donkeys and paying others
for water transport.

Community Capacity

How a community responds to risk is influenced by the socioeconomic and

biophysical context, the perceived severity of the risk among community members and

the local collaborative capacity of the community members to solve problems (Flint and

83

Luloff 2005). Communities with a high degree of collaboration are more likely to act on
perceived risks whereas communities with low levels of interactivity are less likely to
respond to risks, even if those risks are severe and widespread (Flint and Luloff 2005).
The cormnunity where one lives influences individuals’ livelihood strategies with impacts
on resource availability, educational sources, social networks and governmental
representation.

Activities in Munyaka suggest the potential to increase community collaboration
for addressing individual and community-wide risks. Insecurity was the top ranked risk
in Munyaka and was being addressed through the utilization of available police
enforcement. Due to the physical and socioeconomic context of cattle theft (i.e., cattle
thieves were from a different tribe and different geographic locations, and loss of cattle
resulted in loss of wealth), people in Munyaka were able to view cattle theft as a
community-wide threat. Activities demonstrated by both men’s and women’s groups,
merry-go-round groups, and active extension personnel have set positive examples for
further collaboration that may assist in reducing the severity of other risks. The low
number of gender-differentiated risks indicate that the majority of risks identified may be
viewed as community-wide and non-gendered discriminatory risks.

High risk severity and incidence in Sengwere can be attributed to the resettlement
process of forming a new community. Their limited access to resources is also a
consequence of resettlement. Most resettled families were given 2.5-acre plots on steep
slopes. Even though the land was considered very fertile, most families struggle to meet
their subsistence needs. However, the community’s ability to try to strengthen broken

tribal customs with the formation of a community cultural center, identification of the

84

need for a strong community leader and high attendance at sensitization activities provide
strong support for the notion that over time more collaborative activities may develop to
assist in reducing risks.

In both Meibeki and Barsombe, water shortage was a major community-wide risk.
Water shortage stimulates other identified risks such as health issues, food shortages and
crop production limitations. Water shortage in the Moiben region is attributed to
unpredictable weather conditions that can severely alter the water quality and quantity.
Livelihood conditions are dependent on water supply as time and energy is spent on
water collection. Water management is often an important unifying factor in a
community (Cook et al. 2003). However, this research did not find a strong community
mobilization focused on resolving their water issues. Some of the notable assets that
assisted with the water shortage were donkeys and tractors; those people without
transport often bought water. Water is a commodity which could justify why community
mobilization had not centered on resolving the water shortage. Individual strategies
reflected coping, helplessness and a dependency on external assistance to deal with the
water shortage problem. With the assistance of a local aid agency establishment of a
piped water system and storage tanks were being discussed. However, for individual
households to participate a water pipe fee is required. This potentially continues the
cycle of those people who are the most vulnerable to water shortage (lack of transport
resources) to remain vulnerable because they likely lack sufficient financial capital for

pipe fee investment.

85

CONCLUSION

The risks and assets identified in the Kapolet and Moiben regions most likely
represent a small number of the actual risks and assets in each community, as individual
vulnerability is based on how they manage their risks and assets to create resilience and
reduce exposure. The risks that individuals and the community have not successfully
addressed are likely the top ranked risks in each community. This could also justify why
generating a list of assets was so difficult for community participants, as capital resources
may seem important or unimportant depending on their current actual and perceived
risks. Unique strategies are likely to have already alleviated past risks by drawing upon
the assets that were available.

Few (2003152) states, “it is increasingly accepted that people do not simply draw
on their assets but possess sophisticated skills in managing them to cope with adversity
and take advantage of opportunities.” People in the Kapolet and Moiben region do take
advantage of their assets in a manner that mitigates risks. On an individual level,
management of specific assets contributes to increasing other assets, such as human,
financial and social capital. Examples included farmers in the Kapolet region using
available financial assets to diversify crop production to avoid risk of crop failure and
market constraints, and women in the Moiben region comrrritting time and labor to
women’s gardening groups to reduce risk of food insecurity and strengthen social
networks. In the Kapolet region, on a community level, social assets are strengthening
with the assistance of MoA extension and Vi Agroforestry services that encourage the
formation of and participation in community groups to further their educational

opportunities and improve their natural resource base. Within the Kapolet region, the

86

growing social networks allowed communities to overcome some resource deficiencies
(poor communication and governmental representation) to seek assistance with their
insecurity risks. Prior community group experiences may have enabled the community to
adjust and activate existing social networks to increase community awareness and
vigilance to the risk of cattle theft. In the Moiben region, community response to their
largest risk, water shortage, was dependent on their association with aid agencies,
governmental representatives and their subsequent ties with influential people.

The evolving process of building resilience, mitigating risks and accumulating
assets makes identifying individual and community vulnerabilities difficult to manage.
Improving current deficiencies in physical assets, such as communication infrastructure
would begin to mitigate risks by improving access to health facilities, markets, credit
institutions and government offices that are all limited in the study locations by distance.
With increased access to these resources, people may employ new livelihood strategies to
build resilience and accumulate assets to help alleviate risks. However, improving
physical assets is highly dependent on political policies and the current political interest
in the area. This then suggests that local management policies need to target risks that
individuals and the community have successfully mitigated or build on assets that are

attainable within the community.

87

CHAPTER IV

LIVELIHOOD VULNERABILITY INFLUENCES ON LAND USE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES IN TWO SUBWATERSHEDS OF THE NZOIA RIVER

ABSTRACT: The intent of this research was to identify and understand livelihood
strategies that determine adoption of soil and water conservation (SWC) along the
Kapolet and Moiben rivers. This research used the sustainable livelihood framework as a
guide to help identify relationships between livelihood vulnerabilities and SWC practices.
If household or community level conditions lead to high livelihood vulnerability then
SWC adoption will be limited. Results indicated heterogeneity across study sites
regarding the vulnerability of households and communities to the impacts of available
assets and potential risks on land use strategies. Livelihood vulnerability conditions in
the Kapolet region reflected temporary resilience to their cattle theft risk by using social
networks and altering farming strategies to avoid financial asset loss. Strategies in the
Kapolet region included SWC techniques and agricultural intensification to reduce
livelihood vulnerabilities. Livelihood vulnerability conditions in the Moiben region
reflected resources being allocated to secure water and promote crop production, as water
shortage was their greatest risk, which left few assets to buffer against other livelihood
risks. Short-term agricultural investment strategies ensured crop production, while SWC
methods were not viewed as cost effective strategies to protect their farming systems.
These unique risks each influenced SWC adoption because the consequences of risks and
the process of risk mitigation drew upon assets that could otherwise be used to help
implement SWC practices. Linking land use practices with identified risks and
associated community assets may help determine the best management strategies to

rrritigate risks and improve SWC adoption.

88

INTRODUCTION

It is widely acknowledged that environmental degradation results fiom the
relationships between social, political, economic, physical, and biological conditions.
Livelihood vulnerability analysis attempts to identify these relationships, while providing
a method to understand the capability and/or motivation to implement SWC practices.

To understand how livelihood vulnerability is applicable to natural resource management,
concepts were drawn from risk, asset, livelihood, gender, resilience and poverty analysis
literature.

This research used the sustainable livelihood framework to help evaluate and
understand the connections between livelihood vulnerabilities and the adoption of SWC
methods. “A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses
and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the firture,
while not undermining the natural resource base.” (DGID 2001:1). The sustainable
livelihoods framework uses an analysis of financial, human, natural, physical, and social
capital to understand how livelihood strategies are formed to build resilience, resistance
and reduce exposure to further risks (Boyd et al. 2000; Turner et al. 2003). Moser
(199823) makes the connection between vulnerability and assets stating, “the more assets
people have, the less vulnerable they are, and the greater the erosion of people’s assets, 0
the greater their insecurity.” Livelihood vulnerability conditions are reflected in
strategies people employ and thus the choices they make to adopt SWC practices (Adato
and Meinzen-Dick 2002).

Investment poverty reflects an accmnulation of assets that brings a family above

welfare poverty but not enough of the correct combination of assets to invest in SWC

89

practices (Reardon and Vosti 1995). Basing land use management on poverty analysis of
welfare criteria may not reflect the actual ability of people to adopt SWC practices
because their livelihood strategy may not reflect a level above investment poverty.
Reardon and Vosti (1995:1502) state,

“The movement of a household from the category of being poor in an asset (such

as land) to being “investment poor” in general (not being able to make specific

investments required for natural resource maintenance or enhancement), depends

on the level of risk (from price and rainfall instability, or from insecurity of land

tenure hence risk of appropriation of capital), on the nature of markets, and on

whether these translate into lack of sufficient liquidity (to buy labor or materials

for certain land improvements), and on the willingness to use the liquidity for the

investment in question.”
Adoption rates also reflect the short-term cost-benefit analysis by each landowner often
seen with on-site implementation and benefits (Kerr and Sanghi 1997). Landowners that
fall below their livelihood threshold are not able to adopt SWC practices or accumulate
productive capital often resulting in relocating to marginalized land or leaving the
agriculture industry (Muhia et al. 2001).

Western Kenya Agricultural Livelihood Conditions

Potential risks and assets available to households in the agriculture sector in
Western Kenya contribute to poverty conditions. The lack of extension services, need for
expensive farm inputs, insufficient credit facilities, poor market conditions, tenuous land
tenure, deforestation, insufficient water management and the collapse of government
agriculture institutes are among the issues contributing to poverty within the agriculture
sector (RoKMoF P 2001). Agricultural intensification, livelihood diversification and

migration are livelihood improvement strategies that are commonly pursued in

combination or succession due to the lack of assets (Boyd et al. 2000; Scoones 1998).

90

Land use activities in Western Kenya reflect changes in livelihood strategies with
an increased use of agriculture inputs, intensified crop production per acre, expanded
cultivation areas, and increased environmental degradation (Conelly and Chaiken 2000).
Changes in the types of produce marketed, non-farm income generating activities, diet
quality, socioeconorrric equality, and gender roles are also reflected in land use activities
(Conelly and Chaiken 2000). These activities result from shifting resource access and
balancing of livelihood risks and assets that are unique at individual and community wide
scales.

The use of SWC is known to reduce the impacts of weather related risks, while
improving soil water retention and improving soil fertility (Boyd et al. 2000). Benefits of
SWC adoption to achieving sustainable livelihoods include higher crop yields and thus
income generation, improved food security, and associated health benefits (Boyd et al.
2000). Social and human capital have improved in areas where SWC adoption involved
collective action, which potentially improves individuals’ overall well-being (Boyd et al.
2000). Proper natural resource use provides both on-site and off-site benefits easing
environmental degradation (Boyd et al. 2000). Limited awareness, technical
implementation knowledge, management conception, and potential benefits were all
identified in western Kenya as reasons for low SWC adoption rates (Muyekho et al.
2003)

For many people throughout the world, the management of their natural resources
is an innate process of weighing risks and assets. SWC adoption and livelihood
vulnerability levels rest on the dynamics between risks and assets. The makeup of the

vulnerability status indicates whether households or communities have the correct

91

combination of assets to mitigate risks. Household characteristics and regional risks and
assets combine to indicate vulnerability conditions that dictate whether SWC efforts are
feasible. Individual and community strategies used to mitigate vulnerability often have
impacts on local land use activities and cumulatively affect the greater watershed.
OBJECTIVES ’

This research integrated the concepts of vulnerability and resilience with an
assessment of risks and assets for the purpose of understanding what livelihood strategies
affect the adoption of SWC practices. The objectives were to 1) identify relationships
between livelihood vulnerability and adoption of SWC practices and 2) relate livelihood
vulnerability conditions for improving SWC implementation in the Kapolet and Moiben
subwatersheds.

The incorporation of the livelihood vulnerability data may identify areas
unsuitable for the implementation of SWC practices despite their physical suitability.
Identifying areas with high vulnerability may reveal other issues that require resolution
before emphasizing SWC implementation.

METHODS

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) consists of activities and questions to identify
factors of community vulnerability to include natural events, location of these events,
land use, land tenure, resource management techniques, gender roles, occupation,
education, wealth, community networks, and health issues. Problem and resource
ranking are PRA activities that aid in extracting what issues influence peoples’ capability
and/or motivation to adopt SWC practices. The combined data set from personal

observation, key informant interviews (n=8), household questionnaires (n=172) and

92

participatory rural appraisal activities (n=4) described in the previous chapters is used to
understand how vulnerability influences SWC activities.

RESULTS

Table 20 shows the total mean risk index value (1.0 = high risk, 0.0= low risk) and the
cumulative SWC percentage and frequency percentage of SWC practices in each study
site. Data from chapter 3 are summarized in Table 21 for the Kapolet Region and in
Table 22 for the Moiben region.

Table 20 Community Risk and Household Respondent SWC Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Munyaka Sengwere Meibeki Barsombe
Total Risk Index Mean 0.39 0.45 0.37 0.30
mean SWC use 50 % 33 % 46 % 42 %
manure 69 % 31 % 69 % 64 %
terraces 41 % 21 % 22 % 27 %
grass strips 69 % 57 % 47 % 47 %
fallow 20 % 24 % 44 % 31 %

Munyaka

Munyaka had the greatest total SWC adoption rate (50%) and the highest
percentage for manure, terrace and grass strip adoption among the study sites (Table 20).
Use of manure and grass strips were the most commonly used practices, at 69%. Data
collected and analyzed in chapter 2 showed that both manure and grass strips were soil
and water management strategies adopted by people who had cattle assets. Manure use
was linked with people who had accumulated wealth assets, often including cattle. Cattle
provided an easily accessible source of manure and were a source of protein for human
consumption in addition to acting as a financial investment. Grass-strips were associated
with people who owned crossbred cattle, as owning cattle and managing grass strips are
mutually beneficial. The livelihood strategy of cattle and grass strip management was

threatened by insecurity, the community’s largest concern (Table 14). Risk data from

93

chapter 3 described insecurity as a risk that affected cattle owners because conflicts with
neighboring tribes and subsequent cattle theft resulted in the loss of cattle in the Kapolet
region. The loss of cattle assets resulted in an increase in livelihood vulnerability
because cattle provided food and financial security to their owners. The increase in
livelihood vulnerability with cattle loss, consequently threatened the use and future
adoption of both manure and grass strips. Individuals have altered their farming
strategies to reduce the risk of losing financial investments by selling their cattle, while
the community has sought governmental assistance to increase policing and vigilance to
mitigate the insecurity risk. Personal and community actions to mitigate insecurity risks
and their other risks are described in Table 21.

The construction of terraces requires a livelihood vulnerability level that can
initially allocate human and financial assets for a long-term soil protection investment.
Terrace use in Munyaka had the highest adoption rate among the study sites at 41%. The
higher adoption rate of terraces in Munyaka was associated with grass strips use as many
terraces were planted with napier grass. The steep slope conditions make terracing
necessary as farming without them resulted in landslides and erosion. Lands farmed in
Munyaka were above the 20% slope grade, which is recommended for terracing by The
Soil and Water Conservation Manual of Kenya (Thomas 1997). Along with the
topographical need for terracing, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) extension support was
available to help people gain knowledge about the benefits of SWC implementation. The
interaction of wealth assets, social capital and agricultural intensification all contributed

to the overall higher adoption rate of SWC practices in Munyaka.

94

In Munyaka, poor communication and loss of soil fertility were two problems
debated by participants during the community meetings. People who lived near roads
believed communication was not a problem, but they had more concerns for soil fertility
loss, stating their farming success depended on maintaining soil fertility. Conversely, a
majority of people selected poor communication as a problem over soil fertility because
poor communication facilitated other problems (e. g., insecurity, health issues, marketing
produce, accessing resources). These differences of concern, when presented in a public
forum, exemplify the heterogeneity within a community.

Sengwere

The risks and assets that occurred in Sengwere are likely the result of Sengwere
being a relatively new settlement. Livelihood vulnerabilities levels in Sengwere were
high because of limited assets and the large number of risks with high severity and
incidence. Sengwere had the highest total mean risk index Rj value 0.45 among the four
study sites (Table 20). Sengwere also had the lowest cumulative adoption rate of SWC
practices among the four study sites (Table 20). The high risk index 0.45 and the low
SWC adoption rate 33% would suggest that adoption was limited by their high
vulnerability level as a result of being a relatively new settlement. Grass strips had the
highest adoption rate in Sengwere at 57%. This may be due to the steep slopes where the
settlement was located, although no significant relationship was detected between
topographic conditions and SWC adoption as described in chapter 2.

Insecurity was the second ranked concern in Sengwere (Table 14). Cattle theft in
Sengwere resulted in the loss of one of the few financial assets the people in Sengwere

had. This threat can influence SWC adoption when financial assets are required to

95

implement or buffer the delayed benefits of the practice. Cattle theft unlikely influenced
grass strip adoption as it does in Munyaka, because there was not a significant
relationship between cattle ownership and grass strip adoption in Sengwere. Livelihood
conditions in Sengwere reflected cattle ownership to be low and therefore livelihood
strategies of linking cattle, grass strips and fodder had not been exploited.

The overall limited SWC adoption can be associated with the compounding
wealth status factors such as low education levels, lack of land titles, small acreage, and
low cattle numbers as described in chapter 2. Although, slope conditions in Sengwere
required terraces, only 21% of the household respondents indicated terrace use. The
statistically significant variables described in chapter 2 explained the low adoption rate of
terracing as a likely a result of people in Sengwere not having a property title (93% no
title) and a majority of farmers owning less than 7 acres (87.5% < 7 ac). The poverty
conditions in Sengwere as reflected in their stated risks also revealed that resources were
not available for terrace construction and maintenance. Small plots (risk rank 6'“) and
low livestock numbers in Sengwere also reflected why fallowing is not a common
practice. Ultimately, the limited SWC adoption in Sengwere can be linked to
compounding factors associated with their recent resettlement onto their native lands.

Natural resource assets in Sengwere that contributed to their agricultural based
livelihoods included fertile soils and remnant trees from the previous government forest
plantation. However, these resources will be limited over time given that regeneration
activities were not a priority. Prominent assets included the ability of community
members to recognize the need for strong leadership and participating in educational

opportunities offered by government extension services and non-govemmental

96

organization extension services. Community members were also eager to learn and try
new fanning techniques.

Heterogeneity within the Kapolet region for both SWC adoption and vulnerability
was attributed to the recent settlement of Sengwere. The people in Munyaka had
acquired assets to build resilience to their risksthrough social networks and were taking
advantage of government and non-government extension services while the people in
Sengwere had yet to capitalize on or build up these assets. Similar risks and assets
occurred in both communities; however, the differences in risks related to the relative
importance of meeting daily subsistence needs. The difference in SWC adoption rates
reflected the assets each community had, while their risks were potential limitations to

future adoption.

97

Table 21. Kapolet Region Household Respondent Summ

of Assets and Strate ies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Munyaka (n=49) Sflwere (n=42)
Physical Resources frequency % frequency %
cattle clip 10 0
machinery / posho mill 8 5
market 65 36
medical facility 49 24
police post 2 2
roads 10 55
school 80 76
water structure 8 0
Social Resources
church 80 55
community based organization 49 40
government extension 1 6 7
(agriculture & health)
non-govemmental organization 8 2
Insufficient Resource Strategies Individual Community Individual Community
alter farming strategy 16 % 2 % 21 % 0 %
community-based organization 4 % 10 % 0 % 0 %
cope 29 % 6 % 38 % 2 %
seek education 6 % 33 % 0 % 14 %
seek outside funding 16 % 27 % 9 % 38 %
use alternative resource 20 % 6 % 16 % 12 %
travel far 37 % 8 % 24 % 7 %
seek government assistance 0 % 61 % 0 % 36 %
sell produce locally 0 % 6 % 0 % 0 %
prevention activities 0 % 6 % 0 % 10 %
collect funds locally 0 % 6 % 0 % 14 %
Meibeki

Manure was the predorrrinant SWC practice in use in Meibeki and high inorganic

fertilizer use indicated farmer’s needs to supplement their existing soil fertility conditions

(Tables 8 and 20). As described in chapter 2 manure use was associated with at least an

average wealth status, as use increased with increasing education levels and having a

property title. Along with having a higher education level and a property title, the

application of manure needs time, labor, and a manure source for farmers who used

manure compost to maintain or increase soil fertility. Livelihood strategies were geared

towards securing financial capital (e.g., money, cattle, labor) to ensure soil fertility

98

through manure use or inorganic fertilizer use. Soil fertility loss and erosion were
problems in Meibeki, but were ranked 14th of 18 total identified risks (Table 14).

Livelihood vulnerability conditions reflected that certain assets (e.g., financial)
were invested in preventing agricultural risks that supported households’ daily
subsistence. Due to assets being drawn upon to sustain agricultural production other risks
became more significant as livelihood strategies were not focused on them. The top
ranked risk in Meibeki was disease and health issues (Table 14). Table 22 indicates the
percentage of strategies used on individual and community wide basis as described by
household interview respondents. On an individual basis people tended to cope, travel
long distances and used alternative resources to mitigate their risks. Specific community
responses to health problems included seeking outside assistance to assist with
prevention, sensitization activities and acquiring funds to improve existing medical
facilities. The risks and assets that formed Meibeki’s vulnerability level may not be
directly linked to SWC adoption, but these risks and limited assets contributed to the
collective livelihood strategy each household employed that in turn helped determine the
choices people made regarding their land use practices.

Barsombe

Conditions in Barsombe were very similar to Meibeki in terms of the agricultural
system and water shortage conditions. Water shortage was the overriding risk in
Meibeki, whereas the other 13 risks identified by community participants and reported in
Table 14 did not represent high severity or incidence within the community. Barsombe
represented the study site with the lowest total mean risk index Rj value and the second

lowest cumulative SWC rate (Table 20). Agricultural systems in Barsombe reflected

99

intensive maize production based on hybrid seed and fertilizer use. SWC activities were
only employed if they were perceived as cost effective means of improving immediate
crop production. Manure represented a soil fertility management practice with the
highest use, while inorganic fertilizer was primarily used to enhance short-term soil
fertility conditions. Households with sufficient wealth assets were likely to invest in
longer-term SWC activities that were perceived to improve crop production and profits.
Manure, grass strips, terracing and leaving the land fallow were all practices that either
improved soil fertility or reduced soil loss. However, these benefits were delayed after
initial implementation costs were spent making adoption less feasible for farmers with
limited buffering assets.

Despite similarities between the two locations, differences occurred with
livelihood vulnerability levels, as risks and assets weighed differently between the
locations. Poor communication infrastructure was the second ranked risk in Barsombe,
although the risk index value was 0.48 because it was not considered a risk that affected a
large percent of the community (Table 14). Out of the four study sites, Barsombe was
located closest to tarmac roads and a large market at Tuigoin Center. Barsombe was also
the only location to have serrri-reliable mobile phone reception, which is becoming an
important communication tool for farmers to monitor market conditions and arrange crop
transportation making the importance of communication access even more apparent. The
people in Barsombe utilized their current communication resources but communication
was especially limited during the rainy seasons when roads were impassable. Increased
communication efficiency assisted farmers with produce marketing and securing

financial assets by having easier access to alternative employment opportunities, credit

100

institutions and information on improved agricultural techniques. Increased
communication can allow farmers to acquire assets from outside of the community to
improve their financial risk resilience. Although, risk index values were not high for a
majority of the identified risks, limited assets increased households’ and community’s
vulnerability level, as resources were not available to mitigate and build resilience for
some risks.

In Barsombe, household interviews and personal observations indicated a
shortage of social capital, specifically governmental services. The number of
community-based organizations ranked lowest among the four study sites as a resource
available to them, and no one indicated government extension or non-govemmental
organization extension services as an available resource (Table 22). Community
participants indicated that they have never been recipients of development projects or
development extension services. The lack of social capital increased the community’s
vulnerability level as compared to the other study sites that were able to use social
networks to help mitigate their risks that indirectly influenced SWC adoption such as
community self-help groups that acted as money saving and labor resource pools. The
social capital deficit in Barsombe impacted SWC adoption as MoA extension services
were not deemed a resource. The lack of social capital prevented building community
resilience to risks concurrently the ineffective extension services were not facilitating
growth of social networks. The limited social capital prevented people from using these
networks to mitigate their risks and improve their asset base that could have alleviated

some of the constraints to SWC adoption. Households in Barsombe were likely to

101

employ strategies to lessen their livelihood vulnerability on an individual basis instead of
relying on community services to moderate them.

In the Moiben region, water shortage was a major risk to peoples’ livelihoods.
Water shortage directly and indirectly affected households’ farming strategies, daily
subsistence needs, individuals’ health and the accumulation of wealth assets. This then

resulted in allocation of resources away from SWC practices and towards securing water.

Table 22. Moiben Region Household Respondent Summary of Assets and Strategies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meibeki (n=3 6) Barsombe (n=45)
Physical Resources frequency % frequency %
cattle dip 14 18
machinery / posho mill 22 0
market 42 51
medical facility 56 56
roads 69 49
school 81 62
water structure 5.6 0
Social Resources
church 56 53
community based organization 31 16
government extension 14 0
(agriculture & health)
non-govemmental organization 28 0
Insufficient Resource Strategies Individual Community Individual Community
alter farming strategy 6 % 6 % 11 % 7 %
cope 42 % ll % 40 % 20 %
participate in illegal activity 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
seek education 0 % 22 % 2 % 7 %
seek outside funding 8 % 22 % 18 % 7 %
use alternative resource 22 % 28 % 18 % 60 %
travel far 36 % 6 % 49 % 7 %
seek government assistance 3 % ll % 0 % 0 %
prevention activities 0 % l6 % 0 % 4 %
collect funds locally 0 % l4 % 0 % 16 %
DISCUSSION
Social Capital

Social networks are important for the process of SWC practice information

dissemination as demonstrated by both regions relying on SWC information exchange

102

 

through family, friends and neighbors (Table 12). The level of participation in networks
may result from other social conditions and therefore social capital does not stand alone
in determining one’s vulnerability. Place et al. (2001:9) notes the positive relationship
between the adoption of natural resource conservation activities and “communities’
capacity to organize cooperatives and rates of acquisition of new information and
investment in improved practices.” The exchange of goods, services, and information
through social networks maintains relationships that provide households with access to
resources, economic incentives and may encourage resource conservation (Thomas-
Slayter and Rocheleau 1995).
Vulnerability Heterogeneity

Vulnerability heterogeneity exists within and across study sites. Some
households struggle to meet their basic needs, others have yet to accumulate the correct
combination of assets to reach a SWC investment level and others have built enough
resilience and gained enough knowledge about SWC practices to implement them. SWC
practices are usually investments for long-term soil fertility enhancement or soil
retention, which require an initial cost in time, labor, land, and money. The benefits of
these practices accumulate over time and may not result in immediate crop production
profits. For farmers whose vulnerability levels were high, adoption may be limited
because of the unknown cost/benefit value of the SWC implementation or because their
risk resilience was not strong enough to draw upon assets to implement SWC practices
(Kerr and Sanghi 1997). Low vulnerability levels could be implied with wealthier
farmers who have enough assets to invest in SWC and have established resilience to cope

with potential risks (Reardon and Vosti 1995). Risks and assets contribute differently to

103

livelihood vulnerability depending on the location. The assets that are required in one
site to move people beyond investment poverty levels may not be the same in another
site, just as risks may not be equally mitigated between sites.

Low crop production is often a result of low soil fertility and soil fertility is often
managed by inputs of organic and inorganic fertilizers. However, manure availability
and financial limitations of purchasing inorganic fertilizer makes soil fertility
management difficult. Agricultural intensification incorporating SWC measures can
improve soil fertility by using SWC practices that offer multiple benefits. Napier grass
strips can improve soil fertility by erosion control and providing nutritional fodder to
livestock for greater manure production (Muyekho et al. 2003). In Western Kenya,
Connelly and Chaiken (2000) found agro-diversity to be a strategy for coping with land
scarcity which utilizes limited resources in multiple ways to maximize and secure
production. In the three study sites that identified land shortage as a problem in their area
(Sengwere, Meibeki and Barsombe), none of them emphasized diversifying crop
production as a method of improving their livelihood vulnerability.

Vulnerability in Munyaka

Adoption of SWC is often a strategy employed by households to intensify and
improve the resilience of their farming system (Boyd et al. 2000). In Munyaka, farmers’
adoption of grass strips and manure represented their attempt to intensify their farming
system. However, the recent cattle theft insecurity disrupted this farming strategy,
resulting in a loss of financial capital. In Uganda, Boyd et al. (2000) found that conflict
with neighboring tribes and cattle theft were also problems where there was a noted

impact on people’s livelihoods with the loss of cattle assets. This loss of assets reflected

104

a livelihood vulnerability level that negatively affected the capacity at which families
could invest in their farming system since loss of cattle leads to the inability to implement
or maintain SWC practices to increase soil fertility and reduce erosion (Boyd et al. 2000).
Conditions in Munyaka showed a temporary resilience to the cattle theft risk because of
their use of social networks and diversifying their farming strategies. However, the
continual threat of cattle theft will likely reduce their livelihood vulnerability because of
the strain upon their assets and eventually will reduce their ability to implement SWC
practices.
Vulnerability in Sengwere

The natural, physical and social conditions in Sengwere contributed to their high
livelihood vulnerability made SWC adoption difficult. However, because of their
demonstrated interest in improving their livelihoods based on their lack of resources,
SWC adoption may be viewed as a method to reduce vulnerability if initial assistance
(e. g., knowledge and implementation tools) is gained through extension services. SWC
practices may be incorporated as a farming strategy necessary to improve their resilience
and overall livelihood conditions. Knowledge from extension outreach activities may
enable households to participate in new activities that may result in higher agricultural
returns, and thus higher returns in assets (Barrett and Swallow 2004). As community
leadership and trust grows in Sengwere the development of social capital may also help
overcome wealth limitations. With time, people develop new strategies to cope with risk
and natural resource management often by “mitigating its effects on their livelihoods or

by rehabilitating degraded resources” (Scherr 2000:482).

105

Vulnerability in Meibeki and Barsombe

“It is often assumed that SWC is undertaken as a risk-reducing investment in the
context of vulnerability, but case studies from Tanzania and Uganda both suggest
investment is reduced as perceived vulnerability increases” (Boyd et al. 2000:1). The soil
fertility management activities in Meibeki and Barsombe were implemented to boost crop
production and reduce risk of crop failure with application of organic and inorganic
fertilizer. Changing weather conditions in the Moiben region was also considered a risk
to farmers’ livelihoods (i.e., farmers’ feared droughts would result in the loss of both crop
and livestock assets). Weather uncertainties causing droughts and floods were a major
factor in vulnerability context of both the Ugandan and Tanzanian case studies (Boyd et
al. 2000). Variable yields caused by weather fluctuations were one reason preventing
SWC adoption in a case study in Uganda and likely limit adoption in the Moiben region
because droughts cause low yields resulting in a loss of assets. (Boyd et al. 2000). The
individual’s perception in how SWC practices reduces or increases risk to their overall
livelihood is reflected in adoption rates (Boyd et al. 2000).

CONCLUSION
Knowledge Acquisition

It is important to know what assets the community draws upon to build livelihood
strategies when determining where to invest to improve conditions (Bebbington 1999).
Knowledge about SWC techniques and implementation methods is an asset that can be
enhanced and utilized more effectively in all of the study sites. Nevertheless, where
people receive their knowledge from and the quality of this education resource varies and
this can limit participation and the acceptance of new information. Based on the data

gathered from the two regions, it may be more effective to contribute towards improving

106

 

the MoA offrcers’ capacity to assist the Kapolet communities’ members with managing
their vulnerabilities than in investing in the Chiefs resources. Recommendations for the
Kapolet region include a continuation of the current governmental and non-govemmental
extension services and improving their ability to promote community education events
and farmer field days. The pre-established networks formed during these educational
workshops may help strengthen community ties and build the communities’ resilience to
risk. In Moiben, assisting the Chiefs with their community service would be more
beneficial than investing in the MoA officers. However, increasing the number of MoA
extension personnel and improving their ability facilitate SWC education through
individual farmer interactions and workshops may increase the knowledge base at which
information is disseminated through networks of family and fiiends.
Extension Upgrade

Extension services need to account for livelihood conditions in their management
area on both a community scale and on a household scale when determining appropriate
agricultural services and development needs. The varied risk to agriculture production
and sustainable livelihoods often creates a deficit in natural, human, and financial capital.
To reduce poverty in the agricultural sector extension officers must include multiple
socioeconomic groups in their services, while recognizing that not all people have the
assets to implement new technologies or adopt new farming strategies. Working with
asset limited households may help develop new methods of intensifying agriculture and
environmental conservation based on the available assets. Information disseminated by
extension must be applicable given the potential risks and available assets in the target

community. Extension investment could also be focused on strengthening and increasing

107

participation in community-based organizations. In both regions, community-based self-
help groups acted as assets that mitigate tangible risks given the collective individual
assets each member contributes.

SWC Potential in Kapolet

In the Kapolet region, Munyaka and Sengwere had severe risks that limited SWC.
Livelihood conditions in Munyaka allowed farmers to use their assets to mitigate these
risks, therefore their overall vulnerability levels were not high enough to prevent SWC
adoption but also not low enough to guard against risks affecting their farming strategies.
The social capital (e.g., MoA extension, Vi Agroforestry organization and community-
based groups) present provided support for reducing vulnerability levels and encouraging
the adoption of SWC practices. Even though Sengwere had the lowest SWC adoption
rate and the highest risk index value, their livelihood vulnerability level reflected assets,
specifically community mobilization and MoA extension services, which may support
future SWC adoption as vulnerability reducing strategies. The community mobilization
for governmental representation may assist in obtaining physical infrastructure along with
individual title deeds that will give the Sengwer a sense of land security. The situation in
Sengwere showed strong support for a continual growth in social capital and willingness
to try new farming strategies as a method to improve livelihoods.

Soil erosion potential was high in the Kapolet region because of the agricultural
activities on steep slopes, which contributed to poor water quality conditions.
Vulnerability levels in the Kapolet region indicated SWC efforts are likely to be well
received and adopted as farmers move towards agricultural intensification to secure their

assets. Specifically, in Munyaka intensified farming and diversification were enabling

108

farmers to gain assets to adopt SWC measures. Extension efforts in Munyaka should
continue supporting community groups and farmer trainings while also working with
individual farms to help them determine the best strategy to enhance their assets. Similar
intensification processes that were occurring in Munyaka could be encouraged by
extension personnel working in Sengwere. However, high investment practices (e. g.,
terraces) are not likely to be adopted because of their small farm plots, limited financial
assets and government policy induced land insecurity in Sengwere. Extension services in
Sengwere should offer knowledge-based, low asset, investment options. This type of
extension service may give people more options to meet their household consumption
needs while potentially providing agricultural profits.
SWC Potential in Moiben

Conditions in the Moiben region reflected a high vulnerability level that limited
SWC adoption, as assets did not exist to mitigate their major risks. Available assets were
spent on reducing immediate risks such as water collection and soil fertility maintenance
with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Investing assets into longer-term SWC strategies
were tenuous because of the unknown weather risks and the continual demand for
immediate risk reduction. Agriculture and development extension services were not
assets used to reduce vulnerability and encourage SWC adoption. Reorganization,
training and prioritization of extension activities within MoA may increase the capacity
of extension officers to offer services to their respective communities. With the help of
knowledgeable MoA officers, farmers may understand how their land use activities

contributed to their water shortage risk while learning about water conservation activities.

109

Soil erosion potential was high in the Moiben region because of high livestock
traffic to water sources and the lack of vegetation. Vulnerability levels in the Moiben
region indicated low receptivity to SWC efforts because of the low regard for extension
services and past enforcement of SWC practices. Development efforts need to focus on
working with each community to determine the best method to decrease excessive travel
for securing water by people and livestock and to improve water quality. Water stations
may help alleviate some of the most visible soil erosion caused by high livestock traffic
along roadsides to the Moiben River. Land use management activities in the Moiben
region should focus on reducing livelihood vulnerability on a community level. Working
with local Chiefs to improve social networks within the community may help build risk
resilience and free assets for allocation to SWC adoption. Mobilization of community
members to address the water shortage problem as a community risk instead of coping
with the problem on an individual basis may help reduce the overall risk on individuals’
livelihoods.

Land Use Management

Farming systems reflected distinct agro-ecological zones, historical land
allocations and land use activities in each region. Biophysical, political and social
conditions all contributed to the varying vulnerabilities and the relationship with SWC
adoption within the regions. Site-specific vulnerability analysis showed how risks and
available assets in each study site influenced the strategies farmers’ used to best manage
their livelihoods. The types of strategies people utilized to deal with unavailable essential
resources and the management of available resources are key factors in the potential

adoption of new land use practices. Land use management plans need to incorporate the

110

individual and collective strategies that improve livelihood conditions that subsequently
enable SWC adoption. Where coping strategies dominate, outside assistance through
development programs, extension services and funding sources may be needed to offset
limited assets. The potential success or failure of extension services and new
technologies are attributed to available assets and the strategies people use to best
manage them (Barrett and Swallow 2004). Given the changing strategies and fluctuating
assets, extension services should focus on knowledge-intensive techniques that
incorporate local knowledge and resources that will not dissipate when people draw upon
their assets to mitigate risks (Barrett and Swallow 2004).

Identification of factors that inhibit and promote the adoption of SWC practices
enables advancement of research, development and policies (Place et al. 2001). Previous
policies have treated communities and geographic regions as homogeneous and have
resulted in a continuation of the poverty-environment cycle. The recognition of
heterogeneity within commrurities may make policy development more difficult, but it
accounts for the existence of varying levels of vulnerability that will potentially lead to
more sustainable and socially appropriate SWC implementation policies and education
efforts. In the Kapolet and Moiben regions, the difference in risk types (e. g., insecurity
vs. water shortage) and severity of risks demonstrates how vulnerability varies by
location. Assets also contribute to this vulnerability with differences in government
support staff (MoA extension vs. Chiefs) between the regions. SWC adoption is
influenced by livelihood vulnerability, as risks draw upon individuals’ assets and
consequently reducing the assets available for SWC investment. The severe risks likely

impact poorer households more by drawing down on their limited assets, while wealthier

lll

households address the same risks with more assets to buffer their livelihood
vulnerability status. Common risks found within all four study sites represent issues that
likely result from external political and economic conditions. Understanding the
heterogeneity within communities allows watershed managers to focus on a community’s
ability to act collectively and/or focus on individual users and their role in soil and water

conservation.

112

RECOMMENDATIONS

SWC activities in the Kapolet and Moiben regions should develop approaches
that incorporate regional risks and assets in order to withstand variations in vulnerability.
Livelihood vulnerability conditions change continuously and encouraging use of SWC
practices with multiple benefits may reduce susceptibility to fluctuating conditions.
Continual use of participatory research, education and action methods can build on local
knowledge to create site-specific SWC practices. These practices should provide benefits
that strengthen farmers’ assets while contributing to conservation needs. Small acreage
size farms require appropriate and practical SWC options. Improving watershed water
quality and quantity requires more viable conservation options for a large number of
households. SWC efforts need to address the roles of both men and women and their
distinct concerns regarding their livelihood sustainability. SWC methods that address
agriculture production problems may be more favorable among men, while women might
support SWC methods that save time and provide household benefits.

Grass strips represent one SWC practice that can meet site-specific needs, while
providing multiple benefits to the adopter. Since almost every farmer has access to some
type of manure, training on improved methods of composting and application to
household gardens would increase vegetable production and provide nutritional and
health benefits to families. Conservation methods that improve soil fertility on a small
scale may help reduce risks and allow reallocation of other assets for larger scale SWC
adoption. Topographic conditions in the Kapolet region demand for the use of terracing,
but limited assets preclude their widespread use. Encouraging cooperation between

farmers to use terraces as plot delineations for property lines may help resolve the

113

adoption constraint of limited acreage. In addition, encouraging combined use of grass
strips and terracing will help farmers realize the benefits of implementation. The
intensity of agriculture in both regions limits the opportunity for land to lay fallow.
However, enforcement by local chiefs of the recent riparian buffer protection regulation
will aid in achieving improved water quality protection by leaving riparian areas fallow.
Agroforestry and reforestation activities will provide both regions key resources (e.g.,
windbreaks, fuel, building materials) while aiding in SWC.

Results fi'om both regions indicate the role knowledge has for both understanding
the purpose and implementation of SWC practices. Increasing peoples’ access to SWC
education may influence perceptions about SWC purpose and enable people with the
essential assets to adopt. Knowledge is a resource that cannot be lost from impending
risks, but knowledge resources do fluctuate with changing government systems. The
MoA needs to train and place extension officers in culturally appropriate locations where
they can form relationships with community members for a long-term commitment.
MoA extension officers should be recognized and rewarded for effective service. A
system of community-wide incentives may also help encourage farmers to persuade
others to adopt SWC measures, especially when direct benefits are difficult to detect on
an individual basis.

Risks with high severity and incidence should be addressed through government
and development agency support (e. g., investments in physical infrastructure,
communication, and education improvements). Mitigation of other risks should be
encouraged at a local level using existing community resources. Local level leadership

requires consistent support by regional governing agencies. As community groups

114

attempt to resolve local issues, facilitation by a person from outside the community may
help establish the importance of peoples’ participation in community efforts. It is
important for this facilitator to demonstrate fairness, dependability and comnritrnent to a

long-term involvement to help promote local leadership.

115

FUTURE RESEARCH

The sustainable livelihood framework was used to help understand how the
interactions between risk and assets influence SWC adoption. Further research may
explore cultural preferences for farming strategies and how these strategies are adapted to
fit local conditions after tribes have been relocated to different agro-ecological regions.

A review of government policies and market conditions would also add clarification for
why certain farming strategies are employed.

Participatory rural appraisal activities are a common tool used in rural Kenyan
settings and are expected and accepted by rural residents. Further research should
continue to build on participatory approaches and might include evaluation of specific
indigenous SWC methods. Research based on participatory local knowledge will help
create SWC practices that reflect site-specific needs combined with proven conservation
technologies. Further evaluation of the enforcement of the riparian buffer regulation and
its impact on local users will aid in determining how new SWC strategies are perceived.

Continued research could evaluate the role of community-based groups and how
these groups specifically function in relation to livelihood vulnerability. This study may
identify whether community-based groups serve as a resource for conservation initiatives.
Research involving incentive-based conservation adoption will aid in recognizing what

incentives are appropriate without creating dependence on outside financial aid.

116

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS

Several limitations became apparent during the data collection and analysis of the
regions risks and assets. Due to methodology and time constraints, data collection did
not include more in-depth understanding of specific coping strategies for each risk.
Gender risks and assets access could have focused specifically on understanding gender-
specific responses to risk. Time was also not allocated to understanding the intricacies of
the community-based groups in each community (e. g., how they function, who is
involved, who is not involved, what obstacles they face, and why they formed). Data
were collected during a politically charged environment, as campaigns for a new
constitution were underway; so no data were collected around sensitive political topics
under current dispute.

Community meetings may or may not have represented a cross-section of the
community population and likely consisted of people who live closer to the village
center. The use of translators prevented spontaneous evaluation or discussion of a topic
during community meetings. I found that the research assistants often simplified
situations and failed to record unique stories, which would have added to the value of the
dataset. Time was also not allocated to check my data interpretations with the people the

data represent.

117

APPENDIX A

HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

118

Vulnerability Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Adoption: Nzoia Basin, Kenya
Household Questionnaire"
1) Interviewer
2) Date:
3) Time:
4) Where is the interview taking place?
5) Geography: l=hilltop, 2=shoulder, 3=mid-hill, 4=foothill, 5=valley, 6= flat
6) Living Conditions: (Poor Average Wealthy)
7) Tribe:
8) Male / Female
9) VILLAGE:
10) LOCATION/SUB-LOCATION:
11) Who is the head of household?
12) Age?
13) Level of education: 0=none, 1=primary, 2=secondary, 3=post-secondary, 4=adult
14) Number of children?
15) Number of people living in the household?
16) Part-time occupants?
17) Primary employment?
18) (Besides farming) What other ways do you earn money or goods?
19) Why do you live here (besides buying or inheriting the land), what is special about
this place?

20) In this community, how do people determine wealth status?
List characteristics of: Poor, Average, Wealthy

119

21) What specific resources does your family have?
21a) Natural?
21b) Physical?
21c) Social?
21d) What kind of organizations, church groups, NGOs, extension etc.
21e) How do these organizations function?
21f) What makes them important to this community?
21 g) Who has access to these resources?
21h) How are these resources limited to you? (distance, supply, owner etc.)
22) Does your household have enough resources?
23) If not, what resources do you lack?
24) What do you do about them?
25) Does your household suffer from natural disasters?
26) What problems does the village face as a whole?
27) What has been done to address these problems?
28) What do you think are the causes of land use problems?
29) What and where is your water source? Clean water?
30) Do you farm on other plots of land? Why? What crops?
31) What crops bring in the most money?
32) In a normal year, do you produce enough food for your family?
33) How did you acquire this land?
34) What year did you acquire this land?

35) What did the land look like when you acquired it?

120

36) Do you have a property title to this land?

37) Do you hire people to work on your farm?

38) How many # Temporary, Permanent or Groups?

 

39)Animal Type

How fed? (zero-grazed, tied up, grazed on own or neighbor’s
pasture, on fallow plots, on common land, fed cut grass, etc.)

 

Native Cattle

 

Cross-bred cattle

 

Goats

 

Sheep

 

Donkeys

 

Pigs

 

 

 

Chickens/Ducks

 

 

40) What are your agricultural related problems?

41) What do you do about them?

42) What soil and water conservation practices do you use?

 

43) Do you use any Why? What benefits Used on Have you increased or
of the following and disadvantages do what cro s? decreased usage?
techniques? they have? p ' Why?

 

Household residues-

 

Animal manure-

 

Stone bunds-

 

Fanya juu terraces-

 

Erosion trench-

 

Grass lines-

 

Fallow periods-

 

Native plants-

 

Chemical fertilizers-

 

Pesticides-

 

Other-

 

 

 

 

 

44) How did you learn about the techniques?

45) How fertile is the soil on your fields? l= low, 2= medium, 3= high

46) Has soil fertility increased or decreased?

47) Why do you think so?

48) How many months do you have crops on your fields?

121

 

 

49) What do you use to cultivate your fields? 1= ox plough, 2= tractor, 3= hoe

50) Is erosion a problem, why?

51) Have there been any NGO or government Soil and Water Conservation programs?
51a) Who participated and why?

52) Do some farmers use Soil and Water Conservation practices and others do not?
52a) Why do some use SWC & others do not?

53) Are there land use or farming practices that are culturally prohibited (taboo) in this

area or to your tribe?

* Maitirna, J. M. and J. Olson 2001. Guide to Field Methods for Comparative Site
Analysis for the Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics Project. LUCID
Working Paper Series Number: 1 5 International Livestock Research Institute,
Nairobi, Kenya.

122

APPENDIX B

KEY INF ORMANT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

123

Key Informant Interview Questions

1) What hardships do communities face?

2) What organizations help or provide support for these hardships?

3) What strengths do communities have?

4) How and why are communities’ chosen for extension services?

5) What is the biggest struggle in working with communities?

6) What SWC extension services have been disseminated in the communities?
7) What aids or hinders people from implementing SWC activities?

8) What other sources do communities have for obtaining information on SWC practices?

124

APPENDIX C

ORAL CONSENT SCRIPT

125

Vulnerability Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Adoption: Nzoia Basin, Kenya
Oral Consent Script

I am conducting research about people’s capabilities and motivations to implement soil
and water conservation practices within the Nzoia basin. I am a student at Michigan
State University, with interest in agriculture and watershed management. The
information I will collect and the process of collection is part of my educational training
and Master’s thesis work and is in collaboration with Moi University. The purpose of
this research is to be able to identify areas within the Nzoia basin where SWC activities
can be implemented based on livelihood conditions.

As a resident of this local community you are invited to participate in community
interview activities and/or household interviews. The community activities will take
several hours while the personal interviews may take up to an hour. Your participation in
this study is voluntary and you may decide to not participate at any time. If you agree to
participate, all the information you provide is confidential and your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your name, audio recordings and
any other information you provide will not be connected to your identity in any written
reports about this study. If you agree to allow the interviews to be audio recorded your
name will not be recorded on the tape, these tapes will be kept secured until transcribed
and destroyed.

The investigators will be the only persons with access to the information provided during
these interviews. Your participation in this study is expected to have minimal risk as
your identity will only be known by the investigators. Possible benefits from
participating in this research include identifying community strengths and weaknesses
and collectively identifying solutions to problems, while stimulating community
discussions. This process is an initial step in creating sustainable solutions to be included
in a future watershed management plan.

If you have any concerns or questions about your participation or about the study, please
contact me:

Heather Patt, Safaricom # 0723113965 or email pattheat@msu.edu

or Dr. Geoffrey Habron (habrong@msu.edu). 517-432-8086

Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA..
If you have any have any questions about your rights or role as a participant in this study,
you may contact Dr. Peter Vasilenko, University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCHRIS) at 517-355-2180, UCHRIS@msu.edu or 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824 USA.

Your oral consent indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Consent (marked by investigator) Date

126

APPENDIX D

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
APPROVAL LETTERS

127

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
202 Olds Hail

East Lansing. MI

48824

517/355-2180
FAX. 517/432-4503

Web:
www humanresearchmsuedu
E-Mail. ucrihs@msu.edu

MSU rs an affirmative-action.
equal-opportunity rhSlrfuf/M

MICHIGAN STATE Initial IRB
U N I V E R S l T Y Application

Approval

 

June 8, 2005

T01 Geoffrey HABRON
13 Natural Resources

Re: IRB if 05-481 Category: EXPEDITED 2-6. 2-7
Approval Date: June 7, 2005
Expiration Date: June 6, 2006

Title: SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NZOIA WATERSHED, KENYA

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) has completed their review of
your project. I am pleased to advise you that your project has been approved.

The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design. protects the rights and welfare
of human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the Federal
Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a partnership
between the IRS and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our
responsibilities.

Renewals: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project,
you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project
is completed. please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: UCRIHS must review any changes in the project. prior to initiation of the change. Please submit
an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the time of renewal,
please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems.
adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify UCRIHS promptly.
Forms are available to report these issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on any
correspondence with UCRIHS.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via
email at UCRIHS@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.

WALK

Peter Vasilenko, PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

Ci Heather Patt
16 Natural Resources

128

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
202 Olds Hall

East Lansing, MI

48824

517/355-2180
FAX 517/432-4503

Web"
wwwhumanresearcnmsuedu
E-Mail ucrihs@msu edu

MSU rs an arr/mur/ie-acrron.
equal-opportunity rnstrlulron

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

Revision
Application
Approval

 

September 19, 2005

TO: Geoffrey HABRON
13 Natural Resources

Category: EXPEDITED 2-6. 2-7
September 17. 2005
June 6. 2006

Re: IRB # 05-481
Revision Approval Date:
Project Expiration Date:

Title: SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NZOIA WATERSHED. KENYA

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) has completed their review of
your project. I am pleased to advise you that the revision has been approved.

Revision to Include changes In the Instrumentls).

The review by the committee has found that your revision is consistent with the continued protection of the
rights and welfare of human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the
Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CF R Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a
partnership between the IRS and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our
responsibilities.

Renewals: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project.
you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project is
completed. please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: UCRIHS must review any changes in the project. prior to initiation of the change. Please submit an
Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. lf changes are made at the time of renewal. please
include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research. such as unanticipated problems. adverse
events. or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects. notify UCRIHS promptly. Forms are
available to report these issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any
correspondence with UCRIHS.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email
at U9RlHS@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.

@845

Peter Vasilenko, PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

c: Heather Patt
16 Natural Resources

129

'7'

OFFICE OF
REGULATORY
AFFAIRS

Human Research
Protection Programs

BIOMEDICAL & HEALTH
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
BOARD (BIRB)

COMMUNITY RESEARCH
NSTITUTTONAL REVIEW
BOARD (CRIRB)

SOCIAL SCIENCE!
BEHAVIORAL I EDUCATION
NSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
BOARD (SIRB)

202 Olds Hall

East Lansing. Michigan
48824-1046
517-355-2180

Fax 517432-4503

wwwhumanresearchmsu edu
SIRB & BIRB: IRBGmsu edu
CRIRB; crirmesu edu

 

MSU it an aflirmalrvc-actron
equal—opportunin' institution

MICHIGAN STATE

Renewal

 

UNIVERSITY

 

Application
Approval

May 23. 2006

T01 Geoffrey HABRON
13 Natural Resources r

Category: EXPEDITED 2—6. 2-7
May 23, 2006
May 22. 2007

Re: lRB # 05-481
Renewal Approval Date:
Project Expiration Date:

Title: SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NZOIA WATERSHED. KENYA

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise you that the
renewal has been approved.

This project has been approved for data analysis only.

The review by the committee has found that your renewal is consistent with the continued protection of the
rights and welfare of human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the
Federal Guidelines (45 CF R 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a
partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our
responsibilities.

Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project. you
must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project is
completed. please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: The IRB must review any changes in the project. prior to initiation of the change. Please submit an
Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. if changes are made at the time of renewal. please
include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research. such as unanticipated problems. adverse
events. or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects. notify the IRB office promptly. Forms
are available to report these issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any
correspondence with the IRB office.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email
at lRB@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely.
. 'l/ ,/7
fl//\ bl

Peter Vasilenko. PhD.
SIRB Chair

\2/ Heather Patt

16 Natural Resources

130

WORKS CITED

Aboud, A., A]. Sofranko and S. Ndiaye 1996. The Effect of Gender on Adoption of
Conservation Practices by Heads of Farm Households in Kenya. Society &
Natural Resources. 9:447-463.

Adato, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2002. “Assessing the Impact of Agriculture Research
on Poverty using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framewor ” Food Consumption
and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 128. Environment and Production

Technology Division Discussion Paper 89. International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington DC.

Bandre, P. and F. Batta 1999. Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) in Burkina Faso.
Overseas Development Institute. Voisins Mondiaux National Programme for
Burkina F aso.

Barrett, C. and B.M. Swallow. 2004. Dynamic Poverty Traps and Rural Livelihoods, Ch
2 in Ellis, F. and HA. Freeman, eds. Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction
Policies. Routledge, London

Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant
Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development. 27: 2021-2044.

Bewket, W. and G. Sterk 2002. Farmers’ Participation in Soil and Water Conservation
Activities in the Chemoga Watershed, Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Land
Degradation & Development. 13:189-200.

Boyd, C., C. Turton, N. Hatibu, H.F. Mahoo, E. Lazaro, F .B. Rwehumbiza, P. Okubal
and M. Makurnbi. 2000. The Contribution of Soil and Water Conservation to
Sustainable Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Overseas
Development Institute Agriculture Research & Extension Network Paper 102.

Cannon, T. 2000. Vulnerability Analysis and Disasters in Parker, D.J., eds. Floods.
Routledge.

Conelly, WT. and MS. Chaiken. 2000. Intensive Farming, Agro-Diversity, and Food
Security Under Conditions of Extreme Population Pressure in Western Kenya.
Human Ecology. 28: 19-5 1.

Cook 8., N. Johnson, B. Swallow, H. Ravnburg, N. Beaulieu, M. Mulligan, H. Schreier,
C. Valentin, S.P. Wani, F. Penning-deVries, N. Sanz, V. Gottiet and O.
Westermann. 2003. Multiple Use of Upper Catchments: Toward a Research
Agenda for Subtheme Two of the Challenge Program on Water and Food.
Challenge Program on Water and Food Background Paper 2.

131

Department for International Development (DFID) 2001 Sustainable Livelihood
Guidance Sheets. http://www.livelihoods.org Assessed 2006 July 12.

Few, R. 2003. Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global
threat. Progress in Development Studies. 3(1):43-58.

Flint, C.G., A.E. Luloff. 2005. Natural Resource-Based Communities, Risk and
Disaster: An Intersection of Theories, Society and Natural Resources. 18:399-412.

Gillespie, S. 2006 Agriculture and HIV/AIDS Brief 7 in C. Hawkes and M. T. Ruel
2020 Focus No. 13 Understanding the Links between Agriculture and Health
International Food Policy Research Institute. May 2006
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focusl3/focusl3_07.pdf Accessed 2006 July 12

Hansen, TS. 2000. Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Participatory Soil and Water
Conservation at the Watershed Level in Nyando Watershed, Western Kenya.
Proceedings fi'om the KL-ZOOO Symposium Forest-Water-People in the Humid
Tropics Past, Present and Future Hydrological Research for Integrated Land and
Water Management, University of Kebangsaan, Malaysia.

Holloway A. and D. Lindsey 1996. PRA for risk reduction: lessons from Mozambique.
PLA Notes IIED London. 25:6-8.

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) 2002. G18 database.
http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/gis/default.asp Accessed 2005 May 12.

Jayne, T.S., M. Villarreal, P. Pingali, G. Hemrich. 2005. HIV /AIDS and the Agricultural
Sector: Implications for Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of
Agricultural and Development Economics. 2 (2): 158-181.

Kerr, J. and N.K. Sanghi 1997. Researchable Questions in Soil and Water Conservation
Ch 15 in Kerr, J. M., D. Marothia, K. Singh, C. Ramasarny, and W. Bentley, eds.
Natural Resource Economics: Concepts and Applications to India. New Delhi:
Oxford and IBH.

Kristjanson, P., M. Radeny, I. Baltenweck, J. Ogutu, T. de Wolff, A. Notenbaert, T.
Ouna, M. Arunga, A. Omolo and V. Oduor. International Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI) 2004. Better Understanding Livelihood Strategies and Poverty
through the Mapping of Livelihood Assets. in Inter-Agency Working Group on
Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems Newsletter.
Vol 6 No 2.

Kilambya, D.W. 2004. Review of the current Agricultural Research Challenges and

Opportunities in Kenya and high Priority Areas for Research, Commodities and
Thematic Areas. ASARECA Strategic Planning Paper No. 4.

132

Lynch, G. 2006. Negotiating Ethnicity: Identify Politics in Contemporary Kenya. Review
of African Political Economy. 107:49-65.

Maitima, J .M. and J. Olson. 2001. Guide to Field Methods for Comparative Site Analysis
for the Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics Project. LUCID Working Paper
Series Number: 15 Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute.

Montz, BE. and TA. Evans 2001. G18 and Social Vulnerability Analysis. pp.37-48 in
E. Gruntfest, and J. Handmer, eds. Coping with Flash Floods. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Netherlands.

Moser, GO. 1998. Reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies: The asset
vulnerability framework. World Development 26(1):1-19.

Muhia, N., D. Nyantika and W. Nindo 2001. Socio-Economic and Cultural Constraints
and Opportunities to Institutions for Watershed Management: A Study of the
Katuk-Odeyo/Kapsitii-Chebitet Catchment. in Design principles for land and
watershed management in Western Kenya Proceedings of a workshop. Natural

Resource Problems, Priorities and Policies Programme Discussion Paper 2001-1.
Kisumu, Kenya April 9, 2001.

Muyanga, M. and TS. Jayne. 2006. Agricultural Extension in Kenya: Practice and Policy
Lessons. Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development. Draft for
Review- Working Paper.

Muyekho, F.N., L. Mose, D.T. Cheruiyot. 2003. Development and transfer of forage
production technologies for smallholder dairying: case studies of participatory
evaluation of species and methods of establishment in western Kenya. Tropical
Grasslands. 37:251-256.

Mukui, J .T. 2005. Poverty Analysis in Kenya: Ten Years On. Central Bureau of
Statistics, Society for International Development and Swedish International
Development Agency.

Ndeng’e, G., C. Opiyo, J. Mistiaen and P. Kristjanson. 2003. Geographic Dimensions of
Well-Being in Kenya. Where are the poor? From Districts to Locations. The
Regal Press Kenya Ltd. Nairobi, Kenya.

Odhiambo, MO. 1999. The Policy and Legal Framework for the Management of
Natural Resources Conflicts in Kenya: an overview, pp 13-28 in Natural
Resource-based Conflict Management Proceedings. Forest Action Network.
Nairobi, Kenya.

133

Olson, J.M., S. Misana, D]. Campbell, M. Mbonile, and S. Mugisha. 2004. The Spatial
Patterns and Root Causes of Land Use Change in East Africa. LUCID Working
Paper Series Numberz47 Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research
Institute.

Osano, 0., D. Nzyuko, M. Tole and W. Admiraal 2002. The Fate of Chloroacetanilide
Hervbicides and Their Degradation Products in the Nzoia Basin, Kenya. Ambio:A
Journal of the Human Environment: 32(6):424-427.

Ovuka, M. 2000, A. Land use changes in Central Kenya from the 1950’s- A possibility to
generalize? GeoJournal. 51:203-209.

Ovuka, M. 2000, B. More People, More Erosion? Land Use, Soil Erosion and Soil
Productivity in Murang’a District, Kenya. Land Degradation & Development.
11:111-124.

Place, E, B.M. Swallow, J. Wangila and CB. Barrett, 2001. Lessons from Natural
Resource Management, Technology Adoption and Research. Natural Resource
Problems, Priorities and Policies Programme Discussion Paper 2001-6.
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.

Place, E, M. Adato, P. Hebinck and M. Omosa, 2003. The Impact of Agroforestry-Based
Soil Fertility Replenishment Practices on the Poor in Western Kenya. Food
Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper No. 160. International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.

Quinn, C.H., M. Huby, H. Kiwasila and J .C. Lovett 2003. Local perceptions of risk to
livelihood in semi-arid Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Management. 68:111-
119.

Reardon, T. and SA. Vosti 1995. Links Between Rural Poverty and the Environment in
Developing Countries: Asset Categories and Investment Poverty. World
Development. 23(9): 1495-1 506.

Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Finance and Planning (RoKMoFP) 2001. Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper for the Period 2001-2004.

Scherr, SJ. 2000. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between
poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy. 25:479-498.

Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working
Paper No 72. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

134

Shepherd, K., M. Walsh, F. Mugo, C. Ong, T.S. Hansen, B. Swallow, A. Awiti, M. Hai,
D. Nyantika, D. Ombalo, M. Grunder, F. Mbote and D. Mungai. “Linking Land
and Lake Research and Extension, Catchment and Lake Basin” Improved land
management in the Lake Victoria basin. Final Technical Report Startup Phase
July 1999 to June 2000. Natural Resource Problems, Priorities, and Policies
Programme Working Paper Series. International Centre for Research in
Agroforesz and Kenya Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Soil and
Water Conservation Branch, National Soil and Water Conservation Programme
Working Paper 2000-2.

Smith, K., C.B. Barrett and P.W. Box 2000. Participatory Risk Mapping for Targeting
Research and Assistance: With an Example from East African Pastoralists. World
Development 28(1 l):l945-1959.

SPSS Inc. 2003. SPSS 12.0 for Windows. SPSS, Inc. Chicago, IL. USA

Thomas DB. 1997. Soil and Water Conservation Manual for Kenya. Soil and Water
Conservation Branch, Livestock Development and Marketing, Ministry of
Agriculture, Nairobi.

Thomas-Slayter, B. and D. Rocheleau 1994. Essential Connections: Linking Gender to
Effective Natural Resource Management and Sustainable Development. Working
Paper #242 Women in International Development. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI.

Thomas-Slayter, B. and D. Rocheleau 1995. Gender, Resources, and Local Institutions:
New Identities for Kenya’s Rural Women, pp 7-22 in B. Thomas-Slayter and D.
Rocheleau, eds Gender, Environment & Development in Kenya: A Grassroots
Perspective. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Boulder, CO.

Turner, B.L., R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J .J . McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen,
N. Eckley, J .X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polisky, A. Pulsipher and
A. Schiller 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science.
PNAS 100(14):8074-8079.

United States Geological Survey. Africa and the Lake Victoria Map
http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/imagcs/lakevicmap.jpg Accessed 2006 Feb 4.

Wangila, J. and B.M. Swallow 2001. Design principles for land and watershed
management in Western Kenya Proceedings of a workshop. Natural Resource
Problems, Priorities and Policies Programme Discussion Paper 2001-1. Kisumu,
Kenya April 9, 2001.

The World Health Organization. UNAIDS. 2004 update Epidemiological Fact Sheets on

HIV/AIDS and infectious diseases.
http://globa]atlas.who.int/g1obalatlas/predefinedReports/ Accessed 2006 July 12.

135

   

IIIIIIIIIIIii