1 / 21

Institutional Survey in the Upper Tana Catchment

Institutional Survey in the Upper Tana Catchment. Davies Onduru Fredrick Muchena. Contents. Objective of the Study Approach and Methodology Findings Conclusion. Objective.

anise
Download Presentation

Institutional Survey in the Upper Tana Catchment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

  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) • SongaMbele 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

More Related