• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Report of the FORMAS - PRESA stakeholder workshop - September 2011
 

Report of the FORMAS - PRESA stakeholder workshop - September 2011

on

  • 902 views

Report of the FORMAS - PRESA stakeholder workshop - September 2011

Report of the FORMAS - PRESA stakeholder workshop - September 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
902
Views on SlideShare
902
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Report of the FORMAS - PRESA stakeholder workshop - September 2011 Report of the FORMAS - PRESA stakeholder workshop - September 2011 Document Transcript

    • Report Stakeholder workshop on understanding relations betweenclimate variability, water scarcity and local adaptation strategies in Kapingazi Catchment 8 September, 2011 Embu, Kenya
    • ContentsList of abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................................... 3  PRESA  Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa................................ 3 1.  Background and workshop objectives ....................................................................... 4 2.  Opening session ......................................................................................................... 4 3.  Presentations during the workshop ............................................................................ 4  I. I. ............ Climate change, land use and water scarcity at the Kapingazi Basin by John Mwangi Gathenya ...................................................................................................... 4  II. II......... Field practices/strategies: Survey results (PRA and questionnaires) on climate variability/water scarcity adaptation strategies at the local level in Kapingazi catchment by Delia Catacutan and Alba Saray: ......................................................... 5  III. III.  Field practices/strategies: Botanic studies by Peter N. Mwangi .......................... 6  IV. IV.  A potential way forward: Institutional aspects of PES in Kenya: challenges and opportunities for catchment management and climate change adaptation by Sara Namirembe ................................................................................................................. 7 4.  Group discussions ...................................................................................................... 8 5.  Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 13 6.  Annexes.................................................................................................................... 14  V. I. .......................................................................................... Workshop agenda and program .................................................................................................................................. 14  VI. II............................................................................................................... List of participants .................................................................................................................................. 15  VII. III.  Photo album of the workshop ............................................................................ 17  2
    • List of abbreviations and acronymsCBO Community based organizationsFDA Focal Development AreasFORMAS The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial PlanningICRAF International Centre for Research in AgroforestryMKEPP Mt. Kenya East Pilot Project on Natural Resource ManagementPES Payments for Environmental ServicesPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPRESA Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in AfricaREDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and DegradationSLU Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesWRUA Water Resources Users’ AssociationWSTF Water Services Trust Fund 3
    • 1. Background and workshop objectivesThe Kapingazi River lies just east of Mount Kenya in Embu County. The World AgroforestryCentre (ICRAF), the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), andthe Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) conducted studies at the Kapingazicatchment on watershed management, climate variability and climate change adaptation. Thestudies were with support from the Swedish Research Council (FORMAS) and the Pro-poorRewards for Environmental Services in Africa (PRESA) programme of ICRAFThe objectives of the one-day workshop on 8 September 2011 were: i) To share findings from the studies with local level stakeholders. ii) To obtain stakeholders’ feedback on management options that could address the impacts of climate variability on farming practices and the availability of water in Kapingazi catchment, particularly from a policy perspective.The workshop was co-organized by ICRAF and SLU in cooperation with the Mt. Kenya EastPilot Project on Natural Resource Management (MKEPP).2. Opening sessionThe workshop was opened by Delia Catacutan from the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)and Ingrid Öborn from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU).3. Presentations during the workshopThe following presentations were made by scientists from various institutions involved in theKapingazi catchment. Dr John Mwangi Gathenya gave a presentation on climate change, landuse and water scarcity at the Kapingazi Basin while Dr Sara Namirembe discussed theinstitutional aspects of PES in Kenya. Findings on field practices/strategies were presented byDr Peter N. Mwangi. Dr Delia Catacutan talked about the PRA survey results. Followingeach presentation, participants provided feedback on the findings, methodology and proposedenvironmental management options. The study was focusing on two areas, one in the upper(Muthatari) and one in the lower (Kithunguriri) part of the catchment. I. Climate change, land use and water scarcity at the Kapingazi Basin by John Mwangi GathenyaAnecdotal evidence suggests that the Kapingazi River is drying. Many reasons have beengiven for this, including climate change and deforestation at the upper catchment area. Mostfarmers at the Kapingazi basin practice rain-fed farming. There are different land use typesacross the basin, from forest at the upper part, to tea, mixed tea and coffee farming, thencoffee and other crops such as maize at the lower areas. The Kapingazi basin has a highpopulation, which has doubled in the past 30 years. 4
    • River level data collected from 1976 to 1994 was used to calculate river flow using theGenriver model. The mean flow is 1.45 m3/s. The amount of rainfall in the area has notchanged during the study period. Therefore, the effects of climate change on rainfall areminimal. The model showed that changing the types of land use in the area would havemarginal changes on water yields. An interesting finding of this exercise is that abstraction ofwater has increased by ten times over the past 30 years and so has population. In dry years,the amount of water abstracted exceeds the available river flow. A survey in March 2011found many abstraction points. The water is abstracted for use by institutions, households andfor town supply. Kapingazi water is even supplied to areas that fall under other river basinswhere abstraction would be more expensive due to difficult topography.The evidence that there has been little climate change was contrary to the perceptions ofmany of the participants from Embu who described irregular rainfall patterns, and longer,drier periods. In particular, during the years 1984 and 2000, the Kapingazi River dried upcompletely though the population was lower back then. This means that there could be otherfactors contributing to the drying up the river, rather than abstraction as Dr Gathenyasuggested. Nevertheless, the issue of excessive abstraction cannot be ignored.What are the interactions between temperature, rainfall and land use? Data suggests that therate of evapotranspiration at the Kapingazi basin is higher than total annual rainfall. The highrate of evapotranspiration should be examined as a cause of the drying up of the Kapingazi.The type of crops grown can make a difference in evapotranspiration, for example, comparedto annual crops, tea and coffee do not shed their leaves and their roots adapt by penetratingfurther into the ground to obtain water. II. Field practices/strategies: Survey results (PRA and questionnaires) on climate variability/water scarcity adaptation strategies at the local level in Kapingazi catchment by Delia Catacutan and Alba Saray:Results from the survey done in April - May 2011 were discussed.Tea farmers appear to be economically better-off probably because of being involved incooperative societies. Livestock are an essential element of livelihoods strategy as theyprovide financial and food security. Financially well-endowed farmers are more likely tomake use of irrigation. Farmers have access to modern communication devices, such asmobile phones. 90% of farmers have radios. Most farmers seem to be aware of climatechange issues, and have access to climate change information, but they are not applying theknowledge. Local farmers adapt to changes they observe in the weather and climate bymodifying their agricultural practices, for example, by planting drought resistant crops,reducing water usage and diversifying their enterprises by growing tea and trees and raisinglivestock. The survey also looked at tree production strategies. In terms of terminology,workshop participants suggested that the term ‘vulnerable crops’ be replaced with ‘sensitive 5
    • crops.’On crop selection and diversification, 50% of farmers in Muthatari Focal Development Area(FDA) have no crop selection and diversification strategy. In the upper part of the watershed,this figure goes down to 33%. Farmers own scattered pieces of land at both upper and lowercatchments. Participants noted that it is possible that crop diversification is driven by marketforces. In Muthatari, the high level of off-farm employment improves income and foodsecurity despite climate change and may be a coping strategy to climate variability or simplydue to proximity to urban areas or reduced profits from farming. There was no agreementamong participants on whether reduced profits from farming were due to climate change ordue to smaller land sizes as a result of sub-division.There is social capital in the form of neighbourhood support, humanitarian assistance,community based organizations (CBO), churches and the water resource users’ association(WRUA). Coping strategies in form of soil management included riverbank protection on onehand and encroachment on wetlands on another.Participants suggested that the researchers improve on the methodology used to obtain dataon coping strategies by households. Climate change cannot be separated from social andwelfare issues. Some farmers may be unable to adapt due to lack of funds for alternatives, forexample, being unable to afford more productive breeds of cattle.It was noted that the survey had not adequately brought out coping strategies with regards toincome from livestock and dairy activities. The rearing of livestock could be due to marketforces, for example, at Muthatari, proximity to urban areas means better access to markets. Itcould also be due to geographical factors, for example, some farmers at the upper catchmentdo not have cows due to shortages in fodder. On the other hand, there are people who raisecattle for traditional reasons, rather than for income generation. High grade, highlyproductive grade cattle are labour intensive and, as youth move to urban areas leaving behindaging parents, there could be greater adoption of dairy goat farming.In summary, it was noted that the actions of farmers may not necessarily be linked to climatechange. Participants recommended focusing on the years described as extremely dry (1984,2000) to tease out coping strategies to climate variability.III. Field practices/strategies: Botanic studies by Peter N. MwangiThere was an assessment of agroforestry practices at the focal development areas (FDAs) inKapingazi. Grevillea and Avocado trees can be found in 90% of farms. Indigenous trees occurin few farms. Big farms have more trees but at lower densities. Bigger households tend to bepoorer and have lower density of trees on farm.Farmers must see a market for trees and tree products to be encouraged to plant trees in theirfarms. In some parts of the protected forests, the density of valuable tree species is lower than 6
    • that in farms due to illegal logging. Tree density increases deeper into the forest.Workshop participants suggested that both botanical and local names for tree species be usedin order to improve understanding of the research findings. Workers at tree nurseries canprovide information on seedlings that are popular in the area.To ensure sustainability, it might be better to support farmers to ensure establishment of theseedlings instead of having one-off tree planting activities where the survival rate isextremely low. Supporting farmers in tree planting is already happening in some areas, butfarmers must see benefits in the trees. Farmers should be encouraged to grow indigenoustrees instead of exotic trees that mature faster. However, there are challenges in askingfarmers to grow trees amidst dwindling land sizes. Farmers need to be sure that the tree will“pay”. This calls for honesty with farmers. Farmers will plant valuable trees where they cantake care of them, and they will put less valuable trees at the periphery of farms.Whether climate change can result in an increase of parasites attacking trees should beexplored. Exotic trees absorb carbon at a faster rate than indigenous trees because of fastergrowth. However, this could be at the expense of other ecosystem services.IV. A potential way forward: Institutional aspects of PES in Kenya: challenges and opportunities for catchment management and climate change adaptation by Sara NamirembeThe presentation was about water sector management in Kenya, with a case study of theSasumua water catchment in Kenya, and the roles of the Nairobi Water Company and theWater Services Trust Fund.PRESA has proposed payments for environmental services (PES) to reduce sedimentation ofthe Sasumua reservoir. If people change their land use practices, water treatment costs couldreduce, therefore, the environmental service at Sasumua is that of cleaner water. Savings inwater treatment costs could be used to reward farmers through PES. Unlike previousconservation approaches that were top-down in nature, PES is voluntary and conditional.PES in Kenya faces bureaucratic hurdles. These include the lack of mandate by the WaterService Trust Fund (WSTF), political considerations for fairness across the country, and thefact that the Nairobi Water Company is already paying numerous levies. Water ResourceUsers’ Associations can only take action on public land, not on private land, even though thesource of the problem is in private land.In terms of climate change, trees on farms help sequester carbon but growing trees has costsfor farmers. Most households make adaptation decisions based on their own needs, and someinterventions could be too costly to farmers. 7
    • Workshop participants agreed that there should be recognition of the role of farmers inlandscape management, especially where land use practices have a positive effect. A nationalpolicy is required where farmers receive some funds, similar to the manner in which forestauthorities receive funds from water abstractors and for pipeline wayleaves. Without such apolicy, it is unlikely that PES can happen. In the meantime, workshop participants felt thatthere was a lot of emphasis on REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation anddegradation), yet PES schemes can potentially generate more money from local rather thaninternational sources.4. Group discussionsParticipants split into four groups each with a particular set of questions to discuss. Thequestions included: 1. Kapingazi River is important for domestic uses and irrigation, in order to meet the need of the increased population. However, the river is drying. What are the most important causes and impacts of this river drying? What can be the solutions to mitigate/reduce the causes and impacts of water scarcity? 2. Currently it was found that farmers in both upstream and downstream prefer to plant exotic species. Why do we want to promote indigenous species when it grows slower than exotic spp and currently seem to provide less benefit than exotic spp? And how to promote those species? 3. What do we understand by climate variability? How does this affect us? farmers? How our strategy should be? (strategy for cc adaptation alone or should we mainstreaming CC into our land use planning and management? And how? (for example if we want to apply PES option how PES scheme should look like?) 4. Please suggest what would be the best potential development for land use in the catchment? How can the best land use development be promoted?Group 1:Reasons why the river is drying • Drought • Illegal abstraction for irrigation and domestic use • Encroachment on wetlands • Abstraction of water for use in other watersheds • Weaknesses in policy and governance regarding abstraction • Population pressure 8
    • • Planting of unfriendly trees in water sources and wetlands • QuarryingImpacts of the drying up of the river • Water borne diseases • Reduced household income • Water related conflictsSolutions to mitigate and reduce the causes and impacts of water scarcity • Awareness and capacity building • Law enforcement • Policy review • Rain water harvesting • Accurate meteorological predictions • Good farming practices, eg, agroforestry, soil conservation and planting perennial crops.Indigenous trees • They are water-friendly • Provide herbal medicine • Attract birdsHow to promote indigenous trees • Educate farmers • Reward farmers • Promote value-additionGroup 2:Reasons why the Kapingazi River is drying • Poor riparian vegetation cover and cultivation in wetlands • Lower rainfall • Over abstraction • Cutting down of indigenous, water-friendly trees • Exotic tree species • Poor farming practices • Poor enforcement of the Water Act.Impacts of the drying up of the river • Crop losses as yields decline, resulting in low income, food insecurity and increase in poverty • Conflicts over water use • Loss of time searching for water • Disease outbreaks • Increase in food prices • Decreased availability of fodder 9
    • • Increased household spending • Decline in education standards as children drop out of school due to poverty • Reduced tax revenue by government • Breakdown of familiesSolutions to mitigate and reduce the causes and impacts of water scarcity • Proper riparian management by planting trees and grass • Replace exotic tree species with indigenous species • Apply water harvesting technologies • Enforce environment and water policies • Enforce Ministry of Agriculture policies in land management • Capacity building and extension services • Plant water friendly trees, such as bamboo • Provide incentives for riparian management • Plant indigenous, drought-resistant crops, such as tubers and indigenous vegetables • Promote agroforestry • Diversification of crops • Storage facilities for crops and fodderIndigenous trees • Water friendly • Increase biodiversity • Promote pollination as they flower at different times • Provide herbal medicine • Friendly to food crops – less competitive • Promote aesthetics • Improve soil fertility • Diverse products, for example, fruits for people and animals • Drought resistantHow to promote indigenous trees • Educate farmers • Fundraising activities • Compensating/rewarding farmers • Provide planting material and options for propagation • Linkages to markets for indigenous tree products • Promote value addition • Review policy on the usage of indigenous tree species on farmsGroup 3:Effects of climatic variation on farmers, for example, variation in rainfall, temperature and the 10
    • onset of rains • Effects differ from enterprise to enterprise • Effects on production, hence, affecting incomes and food security • Affects livelihood strategies • Outbreak of diseases and pests affecting humans, crops and livestockStrategies to deal with climate change • Diversification in production, by adopting early maturing or late maturing crops • Adoption of technology: water harvesting for irrigation, farming with greenhouses, soil and water conservation measures. • Reverting to traditional crops to suit anticipated weather • Taking out crop insurance • Using meteorological information for planning • Off-farm income, eg, seeking employment in nearby towns • Mainstreaming climate change into land use planning and management • Changes in the policy environment to make it conducive • Capacity building • Incentive mechanisms, such as PES • Water harvesting and storage facilities • Land use change for riparian areas, for example, o shifting tuber crops away from wetlands and taking them closer to homesteads o at the upper part of the catchment, combining tea and dairy farming with agroforestry o at the lower catchment, combining agroforestry with fruit trees o mixed farming and agroforestry • capacity buildingFor PES to succeed as a strategy, it should include • Mitigation • Adaptation • Standards, that is, roles for determining performanceGroup 4:Effects of climatic variation on farmers, for example, variation in rainfall, temperature and theonset of rains • Climate variation makes planning difficult. Planning is important in sourcing inputs, labour, etc. • Decreased availability of fodder for livestockStrategies to deal with climate change • Diversification • Storage of animal feed (sillage) for those times of the year when natural fodder is unavailable • Raising livestock, as livestock are seen as a source of readily available income 11
    • • Flexibility in planning by farmers, as the extent of climate variability cannot be predicted. For example, will the rains come early or late? Will there be too much rain or too little? • Irrigation as a coping strategy. This means greater interest in the well-being of the river. • Improvements in ground coverFor PES to succeed as a strategy, it should include • Research, to guide extension works as they advise farmers on means of improving production • Research to produce more appropriate crops, for example, quick maturing maize that can also be used as animal feed • The interests of landowners in order to get greater participation • PES scheme could target rewarding landowners and farmers for improvements in ground coverMany of the participants believe that indigenous trees should be promoted because they arewater friendly, provide herbal medicine and attract birds (biodiversity). Promotion ofindigenous trees can happen through farmer education, providing planting material,rewarding farmers and enhancing the value addition of these trees. There should beappropriate policies on the use of indigenous trees on farms.In Kenya, the variability in rainfall seasons is the most important concern among farmers.Unpredictable rainfall has made planning difficult, as the timing and quantities of rain isuncertain. Nevertheless, farmers continue to till and prepare the land, but leave room forvariability. Climate variability reduces production, and hence, incomes. It has been blamedfor outbreak of diseases affecting people, crops and livestock.Individualistic motivation can drive adaptation strategies better than communal motivation,for example, public land is likely to be neglected compared to privately-owned land. PES hasbeen proposed as a solution in conserving environmental services, but it should appeal to theinterests of landowners. All land owners must benefit regardless of land size, if PES is toencourage farmers to maintain environmental services from the landscape. Among the PESinterventions proposed is improving ground cover. Capacity building is necessary for PES tosucceed.There should be a mainstreaming of climate change into sustainable land use planning andmanagement. This requires changes in policy and regulations, and necessitates capacitybuilding. PES should include mitigation and adaptation. 12
    • 5. Conclusions • Biodiversity in tree species emerged as a strong point in group discussions. Biodiversity is an environmental service that could be marketed under a PES scheme. • Scientific models have their limitations, and researchers were advised to make use of local knowledge in the community. For instance, local ecological knowledge has been captured by the Mount Kenya East Pilot Project (MKEPP) through participatory rural appraisals (PRAs). • It is necessary to explore further the sources of sedimentation. This could be done with the assistance of the soil health unit (GRP 4) at ICRAF. • Improve the knowledge of botanical tree species names among communities. Meanwhile, scientists should strive to know the local names used by communities to identify tree species. • Survey results should be shared with the communities where the survey was conducted. • There is a wide array of strategies that households use to respond quickly to changes in climate and markets. 13
    • 6. Annexes I. Workshop agenda and programTime  Content  Responsible 8.30 ‐ 9.00  Registration  Judith9.00 – 9.30  Welcome and introductions  1) Ingrid Oborn/Delia  Catacutan   2) MKEPP Representative 9.30 – 10.00   ‘THE CONFLICT’  John Mwangi Gathenya  Aspects of climate variability and water scarcity in  Kapingazi catchment    10.00 ‐10.15  Tea break  10.15 – 10.45   ‘FIELD PRACTICES/STRATEGIES’ Alba Saray & Delia Catacutan Survey results (PRA & Questionnaires) on climate  variability/water scarcity adaptation strategies at the local  level in Kapingazi catchment  10.45 – 11.15   ‘FIELD PRACTICES/STRATEGIES’ Peter N. Mwangi  Botanic studies 11.15 – 11. 45   ‘A POTENTIAL WAY FORWARD’ Sara Namirembe  Institutional aspects of PES in Kenya: CHALLENGES AND  OPPORTUNITIES FOR CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AND  CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION 11:45‐12:00  General Discussions 12.00‐ 13.00  Lunch 13.00 – 14.30  Group discussion/workshop Facilitators 14.30 – 15.15  Sharing of workshop results Representatives from the  discussion groups 15.15 – 15.30  Tea break 15.30 – 16.00  Way forward & Closing  Delia Catacutan & Minh Ha  Hoang  14
    • II. List of participants Name  Institution ‐ position  Contacts  Deputy District Agricultural Officer  daoembunorth@yahoo.com1. Jackson Nyaga  Embu North, Ministry of Agriculture  0721951163  dioembuwest@yahoo.com2. John M. Njeru  Irrigation Officer (DIO) Embu West  0711486693 3. Alice Muthoni Nyaga  Muthatari FDA leader  0726‐583020  Retired veterinary doctor ‐ Muthatari  dpkariuki@yahoo.com 4. D.P. Kariuki  FDA  0722‐384401 5. Daniel N. Gichuki  Kapingazi WRUA secretary  0723156026 6. Dominic Mwaniki  Kithunguriri FDA leader  0728‐284879  Muthatari FDA leader & Kamiu 7. Isaia Njeru Mbaka  0722‐939145  Kavanga C.B.O. project 8. James Mwaniki Njue  Muthatari FDA leader  0723‐147930  jnderitu53@yahoo.com 9. John Nderitu Muiga  Farm Manager ‐ Tujenge (K) Dairy Farm  0723631501 10. Sicily Njeri  Kithunguriri FDA leader  0715‐401555  Kangaru School (water extraction mbrasio@yahoo.com 11. Brasio Mugo  project)  0725821640  emkinyua@mugania.ktdateas.co Tea extension services assistant KTDA 12. Espedita Muthoni Kinyua  m  Mangania, Kithunguriri  0728‐683827  nestryndichu@yahoo.com 13. Nestry G. Ndichu  MKEPP ‐ (hydrologist)  0721‐842702  bmkikuvi@yahoo.com 14. Boniface Kivuvi  Agriculture Officer, MKEPP  0733854414  koomefs@yahoo.com 15. Francis Koome Simon  MKEPP‐ Water Resources Expert  0720804169  pnmwangi@yahoo.com 16. Peter Mwangi  Botany dept, JKUAT  0723412269  Muchuku09@gmail.com 17. John Kamau  Botany dept, JKUAT  0720670281  Julius.kamau@formin.fi 18. Julius Kamau  Forest Specialist, Embassy Finland  0710 607239  Joymwa86@yahoo.com 19. John Mwangi  JKUAT/ ICRAF  0721581318  mgathenya@yahoo.com / 20. John Mwangi Gathenya  Univ. of Reading  J.M.Gathenya@reading.ac.uk    D.C.Catacutan@cgiar.org 21. Delia Catacutan  ICRAF    s.namirembe@cgiar.org 22. Sara Namirembe  ICRAF    m.h.hoang@cgiar.org 23. Minh Ha  Hoang  ICRAF    Swedish University of Agricultural  Ingrid.Oborn@slu.se 24. Ingrid Öborn  Sciences (SLU)  +46703703705  C.Muthuri@cgiar.org 25. Catherine Muthuri  ICRAF  0710272109  15
    • G.mwaloma@cgiar.org 26. Godfrey Mwaloma  ICRAF  0734417139  J.nzyoka@cgiar.org 27. Judith Nzyoka  ICRAF      16
    • III. Photo album of the workshop Sharing of group discussions at the Izaak Walton Hotel, Embu, Kenya.    Participants during presentations at the Izaak Walton Hotel, Embu, Kenya.  17
    • Some of the participants to the workshop  18