Report of the FORMAS - PRESA stakeholder workshop - September 2011

1. Report
Stakeholder workshop on understanding relations between
climate variability, water scarcity and local adaptation strategies
in Kapingazi Catchment
8 September, 2011
Embu, Kenya

2. Contents
List 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

3. List of abbreviations and acronyms
CBO Community based organizations
FDA Focal Development Areas
FORMAS The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences
and Spatial Planning
ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
MKEPP Mt. Kenya East Pilot Project on Natural Resource Management
PES Payments for Environmental Services
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRESA Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
WRUA Water Resources Users’ Association
WSTF Water Services Trust Fund
3

4. 1. Background and workshop objectives
The Kapingazi River lies just east of Mount Kenya in Embu County. The World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF), the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), and
the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) conducted studies at the Kapingazi
catchment on watershed management, climate variability and climate change adaptation. The
studies were with support from the Swedish Research Council (FORMAS) and the Pro-poor
Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa (PRESA) programme of ICRAF
The 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 East
Pilot Project on Natural Resource Management (MKEPP).
2. Opening session
The 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 workshop
The following presentations were made by scientists from various institutions involved in the
Kapingazi catchment. Dr John Mwangi Gathenya gave a presentation on climate change, land
use and water scarcity at the Kapingazi Basin while Dr Sara Namirembe discussed the
institutional aspects of PES in Kenya. Findings on field practices/strategies were presented by
Dr Peter N. Mwangi. Dr Delia Catacutan talked about the PRA survey results. Following
each presentation, participants provided feedback on the findings, methodology and proposed
environmental 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 Gathenya
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Kapingazi River is drying. Many reasons have been
given for this, including climate change and deforestation at the upper catchment area. Most
farmers at the Kapingazi basin practice rain-fed farming. There are different land use types
across the basin, from forest at the upper part, to tea, mixed tea and coffee farming, then
coffee and other crops such as maize at the lower areas. The Kapingazi basin has a high
population, which has doubled in the past 30 years.
4

5. River level data collected from 1976 to 1994 was used to calculate river flow using the
Genriver model. The mean flow is 1.45 m3/s. The amount of rainfall in the area has not
changed during the study period. Therefore, the effects of climate change on rainfall are
minimal. The model showed that changing the types of land use in the area would have
marginal changes on water yields. An interesting finding of this exercise is that abstraction of
water 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 2011
found many abstraction points. The water is abstracted for use by institutions, households and
for town supply. Kapingazi water is even supplied to areas that fall under other river basins
where abstraction would be more expensive due to difficult topography.
The evidence that there has been little climate change was contrary to the perceptions of
many 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 up
completely though the population was lower back then. This means that there could be other
factors contributing to the drying up the river, rather than abstraction as Dr Gathenya
suggested. Nevertheless, the issue of excessive abstraction cannot be ignored.
What are the interactions between temperature, rainfall and land use? Data suggests that the
rate of evapotranspiration at the Kapingazi basin is higher than total annual rainfall. The high
rate 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, compared
to annual crops, tea and coffee do not shed their leaves and their roots adapt by penetrating
further 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 in
cooperative societies. Livestock are an essential element of livelihoods strategy as they
provide financial and food security. Financially well-endowed farmers are more likely to
make use of irrigation. Farmers have access to modern communication devices, such as
mobile phones. 90% of farmers have radios. Most farmers seem to be aware of climate
change issues, and have access to climate change information, but they are not applying the
knowledge. Local farmers adapt to changes they observe in the weather and climate by
modifying their agricultural practices, for example, by planting drought resistant crops,
reducing water usage and diversifying their enterprises by growing tea and trees and raising
livestock. 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

6. 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 lower
catchments. Participants noted that it is possible that crop diversification is driven by market
forces. In Muthatari, the high level of off-farm employment improves income and food
security despite climate change and may be a coping strategy to climate variability or simply
due to proximity to urban areas or reduced profits from farming. There was no agreement
among participants on whether reduced profits from farming were due to climate change or
due 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 one
hand and encroachment on wetlands on another.
Participants suggested that the researchers improve on the methodology used to obtain data
on coping strategies by households. Climate change cannot be separated from social and
welfare issues. Some farmers may be unable to adapt due to lack of funds for alternatives, for
example, being unable to afford more productive breeds of cattle.
It was noted that the survey had not adequately brought out coping strategies with regards to
income from livestock and dairy activities. The rearing of livestock could be due to market
forces, for example, at Muthatari, proximity to urban areas means better access to markets. It
could also be due to geographical factors, for example, some farmers at the upper catchment
do not have cows due to shortages in fodder. On the other hand, there are people who raise
cattle for traditional reasons, rather than for income generation. High grade, highly
productive grade cattle are labour intensive and, as youth move to urban areas leaving behind
aging 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 climate
change. 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. Mwangi
There was an assessment of agroforestry practices at the focal development areas (FDAs) in
Kapingazi. Grevillea and Avocado trees can be found in 90% of farms. Indigenous trees occur
in few farms. Big farms have more trees but at lower densities. Bigger households tend to be
poorer 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 their
farms. In some parts of the protected forests, the density of valuable tree species is lower than
6

7. 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 used
in order to improve understanding of the research findings. Workers at tree nurseries can
provide information on seedlings that are popular in the area.
To ensure sustainability, it might be better to support farmers to ensure establishment of the
seedlings instead of having one-off tree planting activities where the survival rate is
extremely low. Supporting farmers in tree planting is already happening in some areas, but
farmers must see benefits in the trees. Farmers should be encouraged to grow indigenous
trees instead of exotic trees that mature faster. However, there are challenges in asking
farmers 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 can
take 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 be
explored. Exotic trees absorb carbon at a faster rate than indigenous trees because of faster
growth. 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
Namirembe
The presentation was about water sector management in Kenya, with a case study of the
Sasumua water catchment in Kenya, and the roles of the Nairobi Water Company and the
Water Services Trust Fund.
PRESA has proposed payments for environmental services (PES) to reduce sedimentation of
the Sasumua reservoir. If people change their land use practices, water treatment costs could
reduce, therefore, the environmental service at Sasumua is that of cleaner water. Savings in
water treatment costs could be used to reward farmers through PES. Unlike previous
conservation 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 Water
Service Trust Fund (WSTF), political considerations for fairness across the country, and the
fact that the Nairobi Water Company is already paying numerous levies. Water Resource
Users’ Associations can only take action on public land, not on private land, even though the
source of the problem is in private land.
In terms of climate change, trees on farms help sequester carbon but growing trees has costs
for farmers. Most households make adaptation decisions based on their own needs, and some
interventions could be too costly to farmers.
7

8. Workshop participants agreed that there should be recognition of the role of farmers in
landscape management, especially where land use practices have a positive effect. A national
policy is required where farmers receive some funds, similar to the manner in which forest
authorities receive funds from water abstractors and for pipeline wayleaves. Without such a
policy, it is unlikely that PES can happen. In the meantime, workshop participants felt that
there was a lot of emphasis on REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and
degradation), yet PES schemes can potentially generate more money from local rather than
international sources.
4. Group discussions
Participants split into four groups each with a particular set of questions to discuss. The
questions 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

9. • Planting of unfriendly trees in water sources and wetlands
• Quarrying
Impacts of the drying up of the river
• Water borne diseases
• Reduced household income
• Water related conflicts
Solutions 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 birds
How to promote indigenous trees
• Educate farmers
• Reward farmers
• Promote value-addition
Group 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

10. • Increased household spending
• Decline in education standards as children drop out of school due to poverty
• Reduced tax revenue by government
• Breakdown of families
Solutions 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 fodder
Indigenous 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 resistant
How 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 farms
Group 3:
Effects of climatic variation on farmers, for example, variation in rainfall, temperature and the
10

11. 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 livestock
Strategies 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 building
For PES to succeed as a strategy, it should include
• Mitigation
• Adaptation
• Standards, that is, roles for determining performance
Group 4:
Effects of climatic variation on farmers, for example, variation in rainfall, temperature and the
onset of rains
• Climate variation makes planning difficult. Planning is important in sourcing inputs, labour,
etc.
• Decreased availability of fodder for livestock
Strategies 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

12. • 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 cover
For 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
cover
Many of the participants believe that indigenous trees should be promoted because they are
water friendly, provide herbal medicine and attract birds (biodiversity). Promotion of
indigenous trees can happen through farmer education, providing planting material,
rewarding farmers and enhancing the value addition of these trees. There should be
appropriate 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 is
uncertain. Nevertheless, farmers continue to till and prepare the land, but leave room for
variability. Climate variability reduces production, and hence, incomes. It has been blamed
for 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 has
been proposed as a solution in conserving environmental services, but it should appeal to the
interests of landowners. All land owners must benefit regardless of land size, if PES is to
encourage farmers to maintain environmental services from the landscape. Among the PES
interventions proposed is improving ground cover. Capacity building is necessary for PES to
succeed.
There should be a mainstreaming of climate change into sustainable land use planning and
management. This requires changes in policy and regulations, and necessitates capacity
building. PES should include mitigation and adaptation.
12

13. 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

14. 6. Annexes
I. Workshop agenda and program
Time Content Responsible
8.30 ‐ 9.00 Registration Judith
9.00 – 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

15. II. List of participants
Name Institution ‐ position Contacts
Deputy District Agricultural Officer daoembunorth@yahoo.com
1. Jackson Nyaga
Embu North, Ministry of Agriculture 0721951163
dioembuwest@yahoo.com
2. 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

16. G.mwaloma@cgiar.org
26. Godfrey Mwaloma ICRAF
0734417139
J.nzyoka@cgiar.org
27. Judith Nzyoka ICRAF
16

17. 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

18. Some of the participants to the workshop
18