Institutional Survey in the Upper Tana Catchment

1
Institutional Survey in the Upper Tana Catchment
Davies Onduru Fredrick Muchena
2
Contents

• Objective of the Study
• Approach and Methodology
• Findings
• Conclusion

3
Objective

• To conduct an inventory of institutions that can
  support farmers and farmers groups to implement
  green water management practices (soil and water
  conservation measures)

4
Approach and Methodology

• Participatory process through one-to-one
  interviews and discussions or focused group
  discussions with emphasis on SWOT (strengths,
  weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis.
• Data collected

Type of organisation. Mandate of the organisation and main roles/responsibilities (interests). Include also area of operation and duration. What is the comparative advantage (strengths) of the organization in relation to GWC activities? What are the main challenges (weaknesses) of the organisation? What is the potential role the organisation can play in the implementation of GW management measures in Upper Tana project area? Which type of institution should be included in the implementation arrangements for GWC?
5
Findings

• There are many players/stakeholders involved in
  development activities in Upper Tana area
• Farmers and Related Natural Resource Users
  (farmers, agro-pastoralists, Water Resource Users
  Associations (WRUAs)
• Public Institutions -Government Departments and
  Ministries and Projects (Water Resources
  Management Authority-WRMA Mount Kenya East Pilot
  Project-MKEPP National Agriculture and Livestock
  Extension Project-NALEP Ministry of
  Agriculture-MoA, Ministry of Livestock
  Development-MoLD, Ministry of Water and
  Irrigation-MoWI)
• Civil Society Organisations (NGOs, FBOs and
  CBOs)
• Private Sector (including agro-chemical firms-
  Sygenta, Monsanto, Kakuzi, Delmonte Kenya
  National Federation of Agriculture Producers-
  KENFAP)
• Development Partners (Equity Bank Foundation
  International Fertilizer Development Centre-IFDC
  International Fund for Agriculture Development
  -IFAD)

6
Overview of institutions

• Resource Users and Conservation Groups
• Example Water Resource Users Associations
  (WRUAs)
• Strengths
• Legal support (Registered).
• Indigenous technical knowledge of the catchment
• Have confidence of communities
• Trained committees
• Challenges (Weaknesses)
• Encroachment of public resources
• Slow process of understanding of concept of
  conservation by communities
• Inadequate funds to implement all activities, in
  particular for SWC
• Climate change (droughts) Illegal water
  abstraction
• Ignorance of the community
• Over use of springs

7
WRUAs Contd
WRUAs

• Potential Role
• Implementation of GWC activities such as soil and
  water conservation
• Community mobilisation and sensitisation
• Monitoring and evaluation of SWC activities
• However, the WRUAs would need more support on
  capacity building to enhance their effectiveness.
  

8
Public Institutions

• Include Government Ministries, Parastatals,
  Departments and Projects
• Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MoWI)
• Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
• Ministry of Livestock Development (MoLD)
• Local Authorities (County Councils)
• Provincial administration (particularly the
  Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs)
• Kenya Forest Service (KFS)
• WRMA
• National Environmental Management Authority
  (NEMA)
• Mount Kenya East Pilot Project for Natural
  Resources Management (MKEPP)
• National Agriculture and Livestock Extension
  Project (NALEP)
• Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI-NARL,
  KSS)
• The Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF)
• Songa Mbele Community Development Initiative
  (SoMCODI)

9
Public Institutions Contd

• Strengths
• Financial and policy support by GoK
• Good network-Staff up to community level (MoA and
  MoLD)
• Qualified and experienced technical staff
• Good collaboration with farmers
• Uses Community approach (MKEPP)
• Integrated approach to conservation
• Use of participatory approaches (MKEPP and NALEP)
• Have technical skills
• Have biophysical information to act as a baseline
  (Data base on soils and land use-KARI-NARL and
  KSS)
• Challenges
• Inadequate staff for service provision and
  scientists
• Inadequate facilitation (transport, equipment,
  funding etc)
• Enforcement of rules/policies
• Overload of farmers demand for services
• Weak response to uptake of some technologies by
  farmers

10
Public Institutions Contd
Potential Role Can play different roles in GWC in
terms of policy support implementation
mobilisation and sensitisation of communities
provision of technical advisory services and
capacity building
11
Civil Society Organisations

• Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)-Local and
  International
• Faith-Based Organisations (FBOs)
• Community-Based Organisations (CBOs)
• Focal Area Development Committees (FADCs)
• Community Forest Associations (CFAs)
• Self Help Groups
• Other Societies

12
Civil Society Organisations
13
Private Sector

• Strengths
• Legal mandate
• Financial Support/resources
• Technical knowhow
• Products for marketing
• Well known products
• Farmer trust
• Challenges
• Limited manpower
• Profit-orientation may hinder collaboration
• Small number of farmers reached vis a vis target
• Potential Role
• Sources of inputs (e.g. Syngenta and Monsanto)
• Capacity building of farmers on conservation
  agriculture
• Partnership in implementation of SWC activities
• Policy advocacy and mobilisation of farmers
• Financial Mechanism (Equity Bank )

14
Development Partners

• Strengths
• Financial Resource endowment
• International fund raising (IFAD and IFDC)
• Networking with input suppliers for efficient use
  of inputs (IFDC)
• Capacity building of farmers on proper use of
  agro-chemicals (IFDC)
• Challenges
• Availability of inputs
• Limited access to credit by farmers
• Limited knowledge of inputs by farmers
• Limited information on sources of agro-inputs and
  their prices
•  
• Potential Role
• Funding the activities of GWC
• Partnership in implementation

15
Institutional Arrangements

• Respondents perceptions on elements
• Facilitating/coordinating body
• WRMA (Basin level)
• WRUAs (Sub-catchment level)
• Technical service provision
• Public Institutions (MoA, MWI, MoLD, KFS,
  Ministry of Roads , WRMA)
• Service providers from Private sector
• Financial Service Provision
• Enhancing access to specified inputs directly
  linked to conservation activities
• Credit facility for income generation linked to
  Conservation activities
• Risk-Sharing and Guarantee Institution
• Client organisations (community groups)

16
Institutional Arrangements Proposal 1
17
Institutional Arrangements Proposal 1
18
Institutional Arrangements Proposal 2
19
Discussion points

• How to develop institutional linkages within the
  Upper Tana for operationalisation of GWC
  Proposals for Institutional Framework

20
Conclusion

• It is proposed to have an institutional
  arrangement involving the Water Resources
  Management Authority (WRMA) as a lead agency with
  dedicated ties to the Ministry of Water and
  Irrigation and
• Ministry of Agriculture MoA extension services,
  NALEP and KARI
• Civil society technical service providers
• Financial service provider capable of reaching
  one hundred thousands of small-holders
• Community groups and associations.
• Operating the structures will require
• Formalised partnerships with assigned
  responsibilities

21
Thank you for your attention