1 Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project Environmental and Social Assessment January, 2010 E2358 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
124
Embed
Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project - World Bank...The study Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project Environment and Social Assessment was undertaken by ESF Consultants Ltd. We wish to record
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project
Environmental and Social Assessment
January, 2010
E2358 P
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
ed
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The study Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project Environment and Social Assessment was undertaken by ESF Consultants Ltd. We wish to record our profound gratitude to Johannes Woelcke, Nyambura Githagui, Opara, Wilson Nyariwo, James Akelo, Amos Wekesa of VI Agroforestry who took time out of their busy schedule to accompany us for the field visits. We would also like to extend our gratitude to Bo Lager, Fred Marani, Rachel Wangu, and Timm Tennigkeit and the many institutions and individuals who contributed their knowledge and insight in making this study a success. We are also indebted to the many community members in Sirisia, Bumula, Wangai and Kombewa who participated and contributed their local knowledge and experience to the study. We thank these together with others who have not been mentioned here.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA) Report of the proposed Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project. The report covers the environmental and social assessment, quantitative household survey, public consultation process and Environmental and Social Management Plan. It’s also worth noting that an Indigenous People Screening Survey (IPSS) was carried out within and around the project area to explore and determine possible impact of the project on Indigenous people. From the screening process, it was evident that there exist no IP within the project boundaries consequently they will not be affected by the project. The objectives of this study were to ensure that environmental impacts by the project are explicitly addressed and incorporated into the development decision making, describe project components and activities anticipated during all project phases, analyze the alternatives for the project in terms of environmental and social impacts, anticipate and avoid, minimize or offset the adverse significant biophysical, social and other relevant negative effects of the programme, ensure that the most significant environmental impacts of the target group (the farmers and their organisations) are addressed in a satisfactory and adequate manner and ensure that the productivity and capacity of natural systems is protected and that ecosystems services are maintained by the methods used by project. Vi Agroforestry will be the lead agency in implementing the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and will cover the costs of its implementation and the monitoring activities through their project budget. The tool uses a combination of methodologies and models to achieve effective impact identification. In the case of this project, the methods that were applied to assess, qualify and quantify impacts included the literature review, focus group meetings, participatory rural appraisal, quantitative household survey, participant observation and photographic records, semi-structured interviews and stakeholder identification and consultation and expert opinion. Through this means, impacts were identified in terms of their character, magnitude, extent, significance, disturbance and duration. The impact assessment is in essence occasioned to examine the effect of implementing the carbon finance project. In order to achieve this, the study examined four districts that the project will be implemented and represents three agroecological zones in Kenya. This included Sirisia (UM1 & 2), Malakisi (UM3), Kombewa (LM1, UM2 and LM3)) and Wangai (LM1, UM1, UM2 LM3). It was therefore possible to examine the various activities of farmers and the potential impacts of the project in the different agro ecological zones. Based on the assessment of this study, its anticipated that the project will achieve its objectives and at the same time have additional beneficial impacts including carbon sequestration, improved soil condition, water conservation, increase in biological diversity at the farm level, restoration of degraded areas, improvement to rural economy/micro economy, climate change adaptation by small scale farmers, increased food productivity in western Kenya, firewood supply, community capacity building and institutional development, community awareness on climate change, poverty alleviation, improved nutrition and gender mainstreaming in rural economy Although the overall objective of the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project (KACP) is to increase farm production, contribute to climate change mitigation, generate carbon revenues, enhance biodiversity and reduce vulnerability to climate change, there are adverse potential impacts that could emanate from the project activities. These are
1. Risk of invasive tree species 2. Spread of pest and diseases
Based on the findings of this study, an environmental and social management has been developed to avoid, minimize, mitigate potential project impacts as well as enhance the beneficial impacts. Some of the mitigations are given below:
4
The project beneficiaries should be trained in good farming husbandry and pest management especially in the area of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and fertilizer application. This training should be a hands-on that can be introduced through the farmer’s field school (FFS). KAPAP (Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project) resources will be made available to KARI to train Vi Agroforestry technical staff on Integrated Pest Management who in turn will train farmers. In assisting borrowers or implementing agencies to manage pests that affect either agriculture or public health, the World Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. In Bank-supported projects, the borrower/project implementer addresses pest management issues in the context of the project's environmental assessment. This ESA includes a screening checklist that will be applied to screen project activities/sub-projects for potential pest management issues (procuring and usage of pesticides) and negative environmental impacts. When any project activity/sub-project with significant pest management issues are identified, the project implementer Swedish Cooperative Center-ViAgroforestry (SCC-ViA) will prepare a sub-project specific Pest Management Plan, obtain approval and disclose the document before implementation of the sub-project. The ESA includes the following: Annex D contains a pest management screening framework as a guide in relation to the Bank's pest management policy safeguard; and Annex E contains the questionnaire that will be used to screen sub-projects. The KACP considered in this study is environmentally feasible due to the fact that it proposes measure to mitigate climate change among small scale farmers while at the same time improving farm productivity using sustainable technologies that not only safeguard the environment but also have incremental benefits of carbon revenue generation.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 STUDY SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Study Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 12
2.2 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Focus Group Meetings ............................................................................................................. 13
2.3.6 Stakeholder Identification and Consultation .............................................................................. 15
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Alternative Project Site .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Alternative Technology .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.3 No Project Option ....................................................................................................................................... 16
5.5 Environmental and Social Trends ............................................................................................................... 31
5.6 Land Issue ................................................................................................................................................... 31
6.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 32
6.1 National Legal Framework ......................................................................................................................... 32
6.1.1 Environment Management and Coordination Act 1999 .............................................................. 32
6.1.2 The Agriculture Act .................................................................................................................. 32
6.1.3 The Water Act 2002 ................................................................................................................. 32
6.1.4 The Forest Act of 2005 ............................................................................................................. 33
6.1.5 Public Health Act Cap 242......................................................................................................... 33
6.1.6 Irrigation Act Cap 347) ............................................................................................................. 33
6.1.7 Pest Control Products Cap 346 .................................................................................................. 33
6.1.8 Plant Protection Act Cap 324 .................................................................................................... 34
6.1.9 Suppression of Noxious Weeds Cap 325 .................................................................................... 34
6.1.10 Seeds and Plants Variety Act Cap 326 ...................................................................................... 34
6.2 International Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 34
6.2.1 World Bank Safeguard Policies .................................................................................................. 34
6.3.1.1 Environmental Assessment (OP4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) ............................................................. 34
6.3.1.2 Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) ............................................................................. 35
6.4.2.2 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ...................................... 39
6.4.2.1 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity .................................................................... 40
6.4.2.2 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ............................................................................................... 40
6.4.2.3 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes ....................................................................................................................................................... 40
6.4.2.4 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species.............................................................. 41
6.4.2.5 EAC Protocol on Environment .................................................................................................... 41
7.0 PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION.............................................................................................. 42
9.2.1 Vi Agroforestry ........................................................................................................................ 50
9.2.2 Kenya Agriculture Research Institute ......................................................................................... 50
9.2.3.1 Training on IPM .......................................................................................................................... 50
9.2.3.2 Training in Fertilizer and Pesticides Application ......................................................................... 51
9.3 Monitoring Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 53
Annex A. Agroforestry tree species to be promoted ....................................................................................... 58
Annex B. List of Stakeholders Consulted .......................................................................................................... 60
Annex C. Quantitative Household Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................ 64
Annex D. Pest Management Safegurads Policy Screening Framework .......................................................... 648
Annex E. Pest Management Questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 71
Annex F. Pest Management Plan………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….72
9
Figures Figure 1. Villages sampled .................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2. Project area agro ecological zones ........................................................................................................ 21 Figure 3. Map of the two project areas in Western Kenya ................................................................................... 23 Figure 4. Nyanza Province project areas location................................................................................................. 24 Figure 5. Respondent’s feedback on rainfall reliability ........................................................................................ 25 Figure 6. Household sizes in the area ................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7. Land uses in the project areas ............................................................................................................... 26 Figure 8. Land use estimation within one sample plot circle ............................................................................... 27 Figure 9. Reason for land use and crop allocation ................................................................................................ 27 Figure 10. Livelihood means in the area ............................................................................................................... 28 Figure 11. Crops grown in the project areas......................................................................................................... 28 Figure 12. Use of inorganic fertilizer in the project areas .................................................................................... 29 Figure 13. Use of pesticides in project area.......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 14. Mode of cultivation in the project areas ............................................................................................. 30 Figure 15. Summary of the operational policies that will be triggered by CFP projects ...................................... 39
10
ABBREVIATIONS
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change SALM Sustainable Agricultural Land Management GHGs Greenhouse Gases AEZ Agro-ecological Zone UM Upper Middle Land LM Lower Middle Land I&APs Interested and Affected Parties NEMA Environment Management Authority ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal IKS Indigenous Knowledge Systems WB World Bank MoA Ministry of Agriculture OP Operational Policy BP Bank Procedures WHO World Health Organization EMCA Environment Management and Coordination Act FFS Farmer Field Schools EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SCC Swedish Cooperative Centre ViA Vi Agroforestry GDP Gross Domestic Product KACP Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project
Measures
CO2 Carbon dioxide Ha Hectares m3 Cubic Metres tons
11
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project is a World Bank supported project targeting small scale farmers to improve their yields and productivity while at the same time generating carbon assets through payment for environmental services. The overall goal of this project is to increase production of staple food by improving land productivity while at the same time sequestrating carbon through adoption of sustainable agricultural land management (SALM) practices in parts Nyanza and Western Kenya. SALM practices to be promoted within the frame of this project will include cropland management, restoration of degraded lands, bioenergy and livestock management in order of importance.
1.1Project Proponent
The project proponent Swedish Cooperative Center-Vi Agroforestry (SCC-ViA) will promote the adoption of SALM practices on approximately 45,000 ha of land in parts of Nyanza and Western Provinces. VI Agroforestry has been working in East Africa for the last 25 years in agroforestry advisory services to farmers. VI Agroforestry which was founded by the Swedish Consumers Cooperative Movement in 1983, started on a pilot basis in 1983 in West Pokot district in Kenya’s Rift Valley Province. Successful fundraising and positive evaluation resulted in the program being expanded. In 1992, the program became regional. The focus of activities has concentrated around the Lake Victoria Basin divided into seven projects: Kisumu and Kitale (Kenya), Mwanza, Mara and Bukoba (Tanzania), Masaka (Uganda) and Rwanda.
1.2 Project Objectives
With its mission being, “To integrate sustainable agricultural land management practices into smallholdings and make it an engine of economic growth and a means to reduce poverty”, the project has narrowed its objectives to: 1. Increasing & diversifying farmer’s food supply through application SALM practices and technologies. 2. Increasing & diversifying farmer’s production of marketable agricultural and agroforestry products. 3. Helping farmers adapting to climate change. 4. Improve farmer’s capacity in accessing markets, information & developing markets. 5. Strengthened democratic farmer based organizations 6. Help individual farm households earn carbon revenue 7. Increasing farm tree cover for firewood & wood products
SCC-ViA aims at selling emission reductions (ERs) generated through the project to the BioCarbon Fund of the World Bank. Regarding aggregation and selling of ERs to the World Bank, SCC-ViA will act as a third party intermediary on behalf of the farmers. The project developer also has to ensure that the carbon revenues are channeled back to the farmer group level. The farmer groups will decide on the usage of the carbon revenues received. This institutional structure is similar to the BioCarbon Fund project with the Green Belt Movement (GBM), where GBM acts as an aggregator of the ERs on behalf of participating communities.
12
2.0 STUDY SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to assess the environmental and social assessment (ESA) of the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project. The overall objective of the study is to measure whether the project has any conceivable consequences on the environment, negative or positive. The study will help planning, monitoring and follow up of programmes performance. Specific objectives of the study are to:
1. Ensure that environmental impacts by the project are explicitly addressed and incorporated into the development decision making,
2. Describe project components and activities anticipated during all project phases, 3. Analyze the alternatives for the project in terms of environmental and social impacts. 4. Anticipate and avoid, minimize or offset the adverse significant biophysical, social and other relevant
negative effects of the programme, 5. Ensure that the most significant environmental impacts of the target group (the farmers and their
organisations) are addressed in a satisfactory and adequate manner, 6. Ensure that the productivity and capacity of natural systems is protected and that ecosystems services
are improved by the methods used by project
2.1 Study Scope
A scoping study was undertaken at the beginning of the study process. This exercise involved literature review of the project documents, consulting with the KACP in Nairobi and Kitale and consulting with the project staff, NEMA staff among others. Through the scoping study, which entailed an initial and broad assessment of the project, policies, regulations and baseline data, a scope for the study was generated including geographical coverage, stakeholders (interested and affected parties), significant impacts (areas of study) and the levels of detail in each particular impact study. The spatial scope of the project was determined largely by adopting agroecological approach which considered the project areas as part of agroecological zone. Therefore the spatial
scope of the study sampled all the targeted agroecological zones of Upper Midland and Lower Midland in Bungoma, Siaya and Kisumu. The following scoping techniques were used to determine the scope study of the environmental assessment and the public consultation
Literature review
Stakeholders’ consultative meetings.
Questionnaire.
Checklists. The scope of the study was determined by the project location and the secondary data review of the project areas, the influence of the potential impacts and stakeholders input. The terms of reference also helped in shaping the scope as well as the methodology to be applied in assessing the impacts.
2.2 Literature Review
Before commencement of the study, a detailed literature and desk top review of the existing baseline information /materials and research undertaken in the project area was collected and reviewed. The review of available data helped to describe the environmental and social setup of the area. The literature review included qualitative descriptions and quantitative indicators of development trends relevant to this project such as significant agro ecological zones, social-cultural set up, demography, livelihoods, economic activities, land tenure and land use, among other socioeconomic indicators.
13
As part of the literature review relevant to this study, a review of Kenya legislations and regulations, World Bank safeguard policies and International conventions that Kenya has ratified and those that are relevant to the project including the broader policy and reform framework context within which the project takes place was undertaken. During the review, particular attention was paid to the laws and regulations governing the project’s implementation as well as access by the poor and vulnerable groups to goods, services and opportunities provided by the project.
2.3 Field Survey
Upon the completion of a comprehensive literature review, a field survey was undertaken with the aim of conducting interviews with the communities and stakeholders identified and to undertake a ground truthing of the information collected from secondary literature.
2.3.1 Focus Group Meetings
Focus group meetings were convened for community members, various ministries and project staff in Western Kenya and at the immediate area and especially in the villages of the project area to explain the proposed project and environmental and social assessment process to stakeholders living there, and to obtain their local knowledge, available information and comment. These meetings were in Swahili, Luo, Luhya, Kikuyu and English. The first FGM was held in Sirisia division (LM1, LM2 and UM3) which involved the Butande self help group, Vi agroforestry field staff, local administration and ministry of agriculture extension officers. The second meeting was held in Bumula. The third meeting was held in Wangai and the final meeting in western region was held in Kombewa.
14
2.3.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
Participatory Rural Appraisal was conducted in the project beneficiary members farms which involved walking with community members in the farm and drawing the description of the farms.
2.3.3 Quantitative Household Survey
The objective of the quantitative household survey was to generate a baseline description of pertinent demographic and social characteristics of the project area. The results of the survey were triangulated with information obtained by other means, including secondary data, interviews, focus group meetings and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). The interviewees for the quantitative household survey were selected randomly in the villages (figure 1) of Sirisia, Bumula, Wangai and Kombewa, but ensuring that both men and women were selected. In order to obtain a representative sample of households in the project area, 60 households were selected and interviewed using a pre conceived questionnaire (See Annex C).
Figure 1. Villages sampled
Basic descriptive statistics were generated for all variables assessed in the survey. In each case, data was disaggregated according to village.
2.3.4 Participant observation and photographic records
During the field visits to the project area, information obtained through other means (the household survey, interviews and focus group meetings) was corroborated through direct observation by the study team members. Observation was specifically aimed at assessing the physical assets of the resident, living conditions, settlement patterns and construction materials, households’ capacity to diversify income, social and economic networks. Where possible observations were backed up by means of photographic records.
2.3.5 Semi-structured interviews
The key informant survey was used to collect data from population units of intermediate size, such as communities and villages within a larger community environmental and social milieu. This technique was used to gather information from subjects who are in a position to know key facts or able to interpret key characteristics about the population of interest, and subsequently conducting an individual, in-depth interview with this person. These included provincial administration (Chief, Ministry of Agriculture extension staff, Vi agroforestry field coordinators, community based leaders and members. The key informants were asked to characterise information about the community rather than to provide their own personal viewpoints or characteristics.
0 5 10 15 20
Butunde
Kanyilaji
Kodiera
Koto
Masuno
Materetuo
Nyanga Lumboka
Wanjoya
Villages Sampled
Number of Farmers
15
Interviews were also conducted with community members in the project areas to obtain information on socio-economic characteristics of the area.
2.3.6 Stakeholder Identification and Consultation
Consultation with key stakeholders is a continuous process that was carried out all through the ESIA process. During the study, a stakeholder mapping exercise was undertaken to identify Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) to the project. The exercise identified all the stakeholders in the area including the communities members, local administration, ministry of agriculture extension staff, community based organization and officials among others (Annex D). Public consultation was critical in assisting the team understand the local conditions and use of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) existing and inherent within the local communities and institutions in the project area. The stakeholders’ consultation also helped in highlighting the socio-economic and environmental concerns and impacts that could arise from the project and was instrumental in helping to come up with feasible mitigation measures.
16
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
3.1 Alternative Project Site
The project target areas have been identified based on three criteria. The criteria are;
1. The areas are experiencing environmental degradation which have a regional effect on the Lake Victoria ecosystem
2. The areas are Lake Victoria catchment which is undergoing environmental pressure so the need to act and reverse the trend while at the same time improving the livelihood of the many small scale farmers within the lake catchment
3. The areas are hot spots of Lake Victoria
Based on the fact that Lake Victoria ecosystem is an important wetland which supports many people in the region, the project site is appropriate for this project. Therefore the project will not only achieve its objectives of climate change mitigation, and increase farm productivity but also restore degraded areas of Lake Victoria catchment.
3.2 Alternative Technology
To achieve climate change mitigation, there are a number of strategies proposed as per the Kyoto protocol. Kyoto includes defined "flexible mechanisms" such as Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation to allow Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies, from other Annex I countries, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances. While agricultural activities are not part of the Kyoto protocol (section 5.4.2.1), sustainable land based management strategies have enormous potential for mitigating climate change as shown in section 6.1.1.1of this report. The project also have additional benefit of increasing productivity at farm level enabling farmers adopt to climate change while reducing input costs and using of sustainable agricultural practices such as use of manure in place of inorganic fertilizer, intercropping, agroforestry for nutrients incorporation, cover crops among many more.
3.3 No Project Option
The No project Option looks at the scenario without the project and the forgone costs and benefits. The most likely scenario in the absence of the project will be driven by two dependent issues: The traditional fallowing or shifting cultivation system which is heavily based on nutrient and carbon cycling has declined and will further decline due to rapid depletion of per capita arable land (population density in the project region: approx. 400 pers./km2). As a consequence of this, the soils will further degrade leading to a decline in yield production and critical food insecurities respectively. Besides the decline in crop production, the carbon and nutrient depletion will have other consequences such as less fodder for cattle and hence less manure, less crop and other plant residues to restitute and less fuel wood for cooking. This shortage of farm wood and wood products will on the other hand increase the pressure on existing forests and other natural woodland vegetations which serves as the traditional carbon sinks (Nandwa 2001).
In comparison to the baseline scenario, the proposed SALM activities should serve the following functions:
Provision of ground cover year-round
soil protection from desiccation and erosion
Increased output per unit area with low levels of external inputs
Steady provision of food supply over the year and lower production risks
Prophylactic plant protection
Improved water balance
17
Improved nutrient cycling
Improved microclimate
Contribution to the farm household economies
Carbon sequestration
18
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The KACP is a carbon sequestration and conservation project through Sustainable Agricultural Land Use Management (SALM) practices that mitigate land degradation and green house gas emissions and facilitate household’s adaptation to climate change in parts of Western Kenya. The project targets small scale farmers and aims at promoting them to use SALM practices to improve their yields, productivity while at the same time enabling them adapt to climate change and generating carbon assets through payment for environmental services. The project will enable both small scale farmers in parts of Nyanza and Western Kenya to access carbon market and receive additional carbon revenue streams through adoption of production enhancing practices and technologies. The project targets small scale farmers and aims at promoting them to use SALM practices to improve their yields and productivity while at the same time generating carbon assets through payment for environmental services. The project will enable both small scale farmers in parts of Western Kenya to access carbon market and receive additional carbon revenue streams through adoption of production enhancing practices and technologies.
4.2 Project Activities
SALM practices to be promoted within the frame of this project will include cropland management, restoration of degraded lands and livestock management in order of importance.
4.2.1 Crop Management
Under crop management component the project will promote agronomic practices including Crop rotation, use of improved crop varieties such as hybrid maize, Lab lab beans, mosaic resistance cassava, ground nuts, tissue culture banana and the integration of cover crops such as fodder banks (Napier grass, Calliandra, Sesbania).another crop management practices to be promoted will be agroforestry. This will be the major intervention in the project sites where trees for carbon will be integrated into the existing farming system of intensive cropping of both annual and perennial crops. Agroforestry increases the total number of trees which contribute to increased soil carbon storage as well as total carbon sequestration. More specifically, the following agroforestry -sub-practices will be employed:
1. Trees in agricultural systems (agro-silviculture) will include scattered trees (fruit and/or firewood), border tree plantings, contour tree plantings, windbreaks, hedges (Jatropha)
2. Tree Gardens: This includes multi-storey combinations of various tree and annual crops in a system with higher tree densities
3. Trees and perennial agricultural tree crops: Trees to provide shade to the crops. 4. Agroforests will involve converting some site into such multi-storey combinations of various tree crops,
with predominance of a few species of high local economic value. In an extensive system these sites resemble a forest.
5. Trees and pasture (silvopasture) 6. Nutrient management. Nutrient management activities will include mulch (weed) management (cow pea,
beans, sweet potato), improved fallow, green manure undersowing, manure, compost management, replacing inorganic with organic fertilizer, targeted application of fertilizer
7. Tillage/residue management. This will include practices such as minimum soil disturbance (spot preparation, sub-soilers, jab planters), maize residue management in trash lines, drainage channels, contour lines, ridging and improved fallows
8. Water management will include water harvesting for agriculture (small dams, ponds, half moons), double dug beds, terracing, erosion control, tie-ridges
4.2.2 Restoration/ Rehabilitation of degraded lands
Activities under restoration/rehabilitation of degraded lands will focus on partly restoring soil productivity through organic amendments such as green manuring, composts, and most of the previously mentioned activities. Additional to this, area enclosure, riverbank tree planting, gully control, and various types of fallows (grass planting, natural bush vegetation) will be implemented.
19
4.2.3 Livestock management
Livestock management practices will include upgrading of indigenous livestock breeds, promotion of short term trees as fodder and zero-grazing. The expected outcomes of the project include increased and diversified food supply through application of sustainable agricultural land management practices technologies, farmers adapting to climate change, increased and diversified production of marketable agricultural and agroforestry products, improved capacity of farmers in accessing market information and developing markets, democratic farmer member based organization, strengthened and functional, contribution from the carbon revenues to the economy of the individual farm household (direct and indirect), increased on farm tree cover for firewood and wood products through application of agroforestry technologies (alternatively, with a “collective/group benefit”) and contribution from carbon revenues to extension services and marketing assistance An important co-benefit will be enhanced resilience to climate variability and change. As an outcome indicator, it is estimated that the project will generate annually an average of 100,000 tones of CO2.
20
5.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will be implemented in Western Kenya targeting Bungoma, Kisumu and Siaya districts. The project divisions are Bumula, Malakisi, Sirisia, Wangai, Kombewa and Madiany (figure 2). The total project area is 116,000 ha and covers mainly agricultural land (86,000 ha), dense vegetation/forest (20,000 ha), houses and compounds (7,500 ha), rivers (2000 ha) and infrastructure/roads (1,300 ha). Its anticipated that SLAM practices which increase carbon stocks will be adopted on approximately 45,000 hectare
5.1 Agro-ecological Areas Characteristics
The project will be implemented in two agro ecological zones (AEZ) including Upper Midland and Lower Midland (figure 2).
21
Figure 2. Project area agro ecological zones
These agro ecological zones support sugarcane production (Bumula) and Sirisia that supports maize, beans, potatoes among other crops.
5.1.1 Climate
In general, agro-ecological conditions in western Kenya area are favourable to agricultural production. The ecological zones range from upper midland zone to low midland zone with mean annual temperatures of 18-21 degrees Celsius and 21-24 degrees Celsius respectively. Mean annual temperature varies from 21-24°C in the Kisumu locations to 18-21°C around Bungoma. The average annual rainfall is generally varying between 1200-1600 mm in all selected areas with slightly lower
22
values for Kombewa Division close to the lake (800-1200 mm). Most rainfall in area comes in two seasons (March - August, long-rain season and October - December, short-rain season) Climatic hazards like flooding and drought have been aggravated by climate change in the area,
23
Figure 3. Map of the two project areas in Western Kenya
Rainfall amounts of 1,200-1,600 mm per year in all selected areas with slightly lower values for Madiany Division close to the lake (800-1200 mm). Most rainfall in area comes in two seasons (March - August, long-rain season and October - December, short-rain season) Loamy and clayey soils are predominant.
25
According to the survey, 93 % of the respondents, said rainfall is not reliable in the project areas as shown on the figure 5 below.
Figure 5. Respondent’s feedback on rainfall reliability
5.1.2 Topography and soils
The project area topography varies and the altitude ranges from 1100 m above sea level in the south (Kisumu) to around 2000 m in the northern areas bordering Mt Elgon. Soils range from sandy, loamy, clay, of which a high level is degraded due to erosion and soil fertility depletion caused by over-cultivation, monocropping, use of chemicals and deforestation.
5.1.3 Hydrology
The project area has several watershed resources including big rivers and Lake Victoria, the second largest fresh water lake in the world. Rivers (Nyando, Sondu Miriu, Yala, Nzoia, Kagera, Mara, Malakisi etc) Lakes (include Lake Victoria) wetlands (Yala) springs, dams, ponds)-water quality is impaired by soil erosion, agricultural chemicals and urban wastes-catchment areas are deforested.
5.2 Biological Environment
5.2.1 Fauna
The project area has a unique flora and fauna including monkeys, birds, plants and others. However due to excessive human interference through agriculture, grazing, building and harvesting of fuel wood wildlife is scarce. The common wildlife found in the area includes snakes, rodents, fish, hippos, crocodiles, monkeys and antelopes. Wildlife loss and migration in the area is heavily affected by deforestation and unsustainable agricultural technologies. Removal of bushes have displaced monkeys and birds
5.2.2 Flora
The vegetation of the study area varies but some of the Greenway (1973) and Pratt & Gwyne (1977) categorization of East African vegetation types could still be traced in form of patches of woodland, wooded grasslands and even some permanent swamp vegetation. Some of the common grasses included Cymbopogon, Echinochloa, Cynodon and Hyparrhenia which were also reported in the past (Evans, 1948) description. However owing to settlement, most of the indigenous trees e.g. Spathodea nilotica, Vitex keniensis, Combretum sp., Bauhinia sp, Kigelia africana, Euphorbia spp are very few and scattered. The more common species include Balanites aegyptiaca, Acacia seyal, A. fistula, A. polycantha, Senna siamea, Albizia coriara, Markhamia lutea and exotic Grevillea robusta. Herbs include Echinops, Leonotis, and the invasive Tithonia among others. Exotic plants in the area include Cypress sp., eucalyptus
9%
91%
Rainfall Reliability
Reliable
Not Reliable
26
5.3 Socio-Economic Environment
5.3.1 Population and Demography
The population of Sirisia is estimated at 60,775 while Bumula population is about 200,732. The project area estimated population growth rate is 4.3 % per annum. The average household size is 7 people as evidenced by figure 6 below.
Figure 6. Household sizes in the area
5.3.2 Land Tenure and Land Uses
The main land tenure type in the project areas is freehold, adjacent is some Government land. The average farm size is 0.6ha. Twenty five percent (25.58%) of the farms depend on rainfall to cultivate their crops as shown on figure 7 below.
Figure 7. Land uses in the project areas
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fre
qu
en
cy
Family Sizes (Number of people)
Household Sizes
27%
24% 16%
21%
12%
Analysis of Land/Plot Sizes
< or = to 1
1.1 - 2.0
2.1 - 3.0
3.1 - 4.0
over 4
Sizes of Land (in acrees)
27
Figure 8. Land use estimation within one sample plot circle
Allocation of Land and Crops
Mode Count Percentage
Cyclic Crop Rotation 18 20.93
Soil fertility 1 1.16
Soil type 5 5.81
Nearness to water 3 3.48
Rain Seasons 22 25.58
Other 37 43.02
Total 86 100
Figure 9. Reason for land use and crop allocation
5.3.3 Livelihood
The primary livelihood strategy is subsistence farming (figure 10). However in Bumula, sugar cane farming is grown as cash crop. Maize and beans are the dominant crops grown in the areas sampled (figure 10).
28
Figure 10. Livelihood means in the area
Twenty nine percent (29%) of the respondents grow maize which is normally for the household sustenance with the remaining being sold (figure 11).
Figure 11. Crops grown in the project areas
There are some definite pockets of poor people in the area. The pockets are to be found in the Bumula and Malakisi areas. In the tobacco and cotton growing divisions of Malakisi and parts of Sirisia, the cotton industry collapsed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Farmer Trader Labourer Business Employed Other
Nu
mb
er
of
Peo
ple
Livelihood/Employment
Employment/Livelihood
Primary
Secondary
Maize
29%
Beans
22%
Millet
5%
Sugarcane
7% Potatoes
2%
Sweat Potatoes
4% Groung
Nuts
1%
Tomatoes
2%
Cassava
5%
Wheat
1%
Banana
7%
Cabbage
1% Coffee
8%
Green Grams
1%
Kales
3% Soya
Beans
1%
Sorghum
2%
Irish Potatoes
0%
Crops Cultivated
29
High population density (of 150 to more than 350 persons per square kilometre) is putting pressure on natural resources. Severe land degradation is contributing to declining soil fertility and land productivity. This combination of factors leads to cultivation of marginal lands and degradation of the remaining natural forests. Majority (64%) of the subsistence farmers sampled in the project area do not apply inorganic fertilizer (figure 13). The reason being the high cost of agricultural inputs and low farm products prices in the markets especially sugar cane. In Bumula where sugar cane is grown and supplied to Mumias Sugar Company use of inorganic fertilizer is rampant. The implication of sugar cane farming is that there has to be intensive application of fertilizer and other agro chemicals to increase production. On average, 120 kg of nitrogen per hectare is required during the plant’s lifecycle. For second planting, 250 kg / ha of CAN is applied one month after cutting and 150 kg/ha of urea applied when the crop is 7-10 months old.
Figure 12. Use of inorganic fertilizer in the project areas
Herbicides for weed control are also heavily used. Efficacy trials are carried out before adoption. The popular herbicides are Glyphosate, sencor 480sc and velpa. In most cases the herbicides are applied as a combination for improved efficacy without due regard to environmental consequences. Though, these activities are not part of the project under discussion.
Figure 13. Use of pesticides in project area
62%
30%
8%
Use of Fertilizer
Manure
Chemical fertilizer
None
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Yes No
Nu
mb
er
of
farm
ers
Use of Chemical Pestcides
Use of Chemical
Pestcides Count
30
The most common mode of ploughing is by hand held hoe which represents 25% of the sampled population. Ox plough is also common (18%) in western Kenya where zebu cattle are reared. Tractor is normally used in areas where sugar cane is grown and the land is a little bigger (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Mode of cultivation in the project areas
5.3.4 Ethnicity
Four major ethnic groups inhabit the project area in western Kenya including Luo, Luhya, Teso, Sabaot, and the Marakwet. Indigenous peoples such as Dorobo, Ogieks and Senwger are also found in Mount Elgon which borders Sirisia but do not fall within the project boundaries. Local cultural norms and groupings affect livelihood strategies and access to resources. Such differences, in combination with agro-ecological circumstances, affect the mix of agriculture, livestock, petty business and other non farm activities households rely on for income. Enterprise management and crop production is also gender specific in many cases.
5.3.5 Health
Malaria is the dominant disease in the region. HIV/AIDS is also a major problem especially in Luo Nyanza which is ranked among the highest in the country and has left a growing number of rural households widowed or orphaned. Cultural, economic and other factors are responsible for the widespread HIV/AIDS province pandemic. Women headed households represent up to 35 percent of households in some project areas.
5.4 Sensitive Ecosystem
The projects sites in western Kenya (Bungoma) borders Mt. Elgon National Park and Siaya the project borders Ndere National Reserve in Nyanza. The major rivers in the project area are: Nzoia River, Sio River, Yala River, and Seme Awach. Western Kenya is also part of the larger Lake Victoria Basin, whose products and services support some 25 million people in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
Hand hoe 25%
Ox Plough 18%
Ox plough & Hands hoe
37%
Tractor 3%
Tractor & Ox Plough
10%
Tractor, Ox & Hoe 7%
Mode of Ploughing
31
5.5 Environmental and Social Trends
In western Kenya environmental degradation in the uplands inevitably affects Lake Victoria, resulting in declining fisheries and increased infestation by the exotic aquatic weed, water hyacinth. The environment is degraded due to erosion and soil fertility depletion caused by over-cultivation, monocropping, use of chemicals and deforestation.
5.6 Land Issue
Land is one of the most contentious issues in Kenya today and has been so since colonial days. Land is of particular interest to Kenyans because of a number of factors, including the fact that 80% of Kenyans are rural peasants who eke their livelihood out of land. For such people land is life and any threat to their land resources causes fear and panic. In Mount Elgon which borders Sirisia, there has been fighting over land ownership which erupted in December 2006 and led to loss of life and destruction of property as well as displacement of population until the government and Red Cress intervened. According to Red Cross preliminary appeal report, there were a total of 966 displace/affected families in Bungoma district only.
Bungoma District Affected/Displaced Place Affected/Displaced
This section of the report outlines and reviews the existing legislations, policies and institutions and identifies requirements as well as gaps and conflicts of the relevant legal and institutional arrangements that would hinder or guide the development of the project in line with the national and international laws applicable to KACP. Kenya being a signatory to various international conventions and laws, it’s important that national projects are in line with these laws and as such some of the relevant international conventions are reviewed in this chapter.
6.1 National Legal Framework
6.1.1 Environment Management and Coordination Act 1999
For sustainability of the program to be realized, the project proponents understand the importance of integrating environmental sustenance into the project. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is therefore a core component and demand of one of the projects objective as an administrative measure of ensuring that the project is positive towards environmental interests. Furthermore, the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act 1999 of Kenya require that projects of such nature undergo environmental impact assessments as a measure of safeguarding the environment against degradation and negative impacts. This study was undertaken under the framework of Environment Management and Coordination Act of 1999 (EMCA). Environment Management and Coordination Act stipulate that any new project should undergo environmental impact assessment to ascertain the possible impacts the proposed project might have on the environment. The Act categorises the types of projects that require ESA and this project falls under the category.
6.1.2 The Agriculture Act
The Agriculture Act Cap 318 of the Laws of Kenya seeks to promote and maintain a stable and sustainable agriculture, to provide for the conservation of the soil and its fertility and to stimulate the development of agricultural land in accordance with the accepted practices of good land management and good husbandry. This Act primarily guides and regulates farming practices especially in relation to the proximity of farming within the riparian section. The Act specifies that no agricultural activity is allowed and or permitted within the riparian area of a wetland, river or Lake. The Agriculture Act is the principal land use statute covering, inter- alia, soil conservation, and agricultural land use in general.
The Act is relevant to this project due to the orientation of the project towards sustainable management of land as well as mitigating land based carbon emissions. This act provides legislative control over soil conservation and land management. According to the agricultural land-use rules, which are enforceable under Cap 318, any activities that may destabilize river beds are prohibited and the Ministry of Agriculture can impose land conservation orders to control cultivation, grazing and clearing of vegetation. Many of the activities of this project will trigger the implementation of the legislation as they are concerned with promoting agricultural development and use of chemicals.
6.1.3 The Water Act 2002
The Water Act (2002) of the laws of Kenya seeks to make better provision for the conservation, control of pollution, apportionment and use of the water resources in Kenya, and for purposes they are incidental thereto and connected therewith. The Act vests ownership and control of water in the government subject to any rights of user. Under this provision the responsibility to regulate access, use and control of water resources is vested in the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA). The Water Act protects water bodies and sources from pollution and controls their use by the Company. This Act therefore will govern the activities of the company on terms of water use and disposal to guard against the potential pollution of water from the companies’ activities.
33
The Act also gives provisions for protecting catchments from deforestation. The Minister may designate protected catchment areas, within which activities may be regulated as nearly. However, the water act does not provide for control of other land uses that may degrade the catchment through soil erosion. The Agriculture Act, on the other hand, does provide a framework for dealing with these problems, although these provisions seem rarely to be implemented. Control of water pollution is covered in a general sense by the Water Act. The legislation is deficient, since it does not lay down water quality and discharge standards or provide powers for these to be defined. It also does not provide for water quality monitoring. The Public Health and Pest Control Products Acts also touch directly or indirectly on water pollution, but there is little institutional capacity to implement their provisions.
6.1.4 The Forest Act of 2005
The Forests Act, Cap 385 of the Laws of Kenya addresses reservation, protection, management, enforcement and utilisation of forests and forest resources on government land and provides for the establishment, control and regulation of Central Forests, forests and forest areas and on un-alienated Government land in Kenya. The Act, therefore, applies not only to state plantations and land controlled and managed by the Forestry Department for research purposes or for establishment of commercial timber plantations, but also areas which have been set aside for the conservation of fauna and flora, for the management of water catchment area, for the prevention of soil erosion or for the protection and management of indigenous forests on alienated Government land. This Act therefore is of extreme relevance to the project. The western and Nyanza provinces where the project is implemented supports diverse forest areas that are important banks of biodiversity as well as water catchment.
6.1.5 Public Health Act Cap 242
The Act protects human health. Prevent and guard against introduction of infectious diseases into Kenya from outside, to promote public health and the prevention, limitation or suppression of infectious, communicable or preventable diseases within Kenya, to advice and direct local authorities in regard to matters affecting the public health to promote or carry out researches and investigations in connection with the prevention or treatment of human diseases. This Act provides the impetus for a healthy environment and gives regulations to waste management, pollution and human health. This Act controls the activities of the project with regard to human health and ensures that the health of the surrounding community is not jeopardized by the activities of the project such as water development.
6.1.6 Irrigation Act Cap 347)
The existing Irrigation Act Cap. 347 of 1966, which established the National Irrigation Board, does not give clear provisions for the management and coordination of irrigation activities nor provide for beneficiary participation in the planning and implementation of irrigation projects. In addition, it does not create a conducive environment for sustainable irrigation and drainage development. The Act is of limited scope as it was formulated specifically for tenant-based irrigation settlement schemes, which are no longer tenable in their current form in a liberalised environment.
6.1.7 Pest Control Products Cap 346
This Act is relevant to this project as the Act covers the use, application, importation and trade in pest products. It includes regulation on prescribing for the purposes of this Act the nomenclature of pests, pest control products and classes and kinds of pests and pest control products; prescribing the form in which applications for registration shall be made and the information to be furnished therewith; respecting the registration of pest control products and establishments in which any pest control products are and led by manufacturers or dealers and prescribing the fees therefore, and respecting the procedures to be followed for the review of cases involving the refusal, suspension or cancellation of the registration of any such product or establishment; prescribing the form, composition, and all other standards relating to the safe use of pest control products, including toxic residue effects; respecting the manufacture or treatment of any pest control product to facilitate its recognition by change in colouration or other means; respecting the standards for efficacy and safety of any pest control product; respecting the manufacture, storage, distribution, display and use of any pest control product; respecting the packaging, labeling and advertising of pest control products; respecting the taking of samples and the making of analyses for the purposes and provisions of this Act and prescribing the information to be supplied
34
and the form of such information in respect of any pest control product that is to be imported into Kenya; prescribing the circumstances and conditions under which pest control products that have met the requirements of the Cattle Cleansing Act may be deemed to be registered as prescribed under this Act. KACP is in essence promoting sustainable agricultural practices that avoid use of pesticide.
6.1.8 Plant Protection Act Cap 324
This Act makes a provision for the prevention of the introduction and spread of diseases destructive to plants. The most applicable parts of this Act to Integrated Pest Management are specified in Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The act creates specific rules to support plant protection in various crops.
6.1.9 Suppression of Noxious Weeds Cap 325
The act regulates declaration of plants as noxious weed and to eradicate it. The Local Authorities have powers under Cap. 265 to eradicate any noxious weed from land within its area and for compelling owners or occupiers of land to cause any such weed to be eradicated from their land, and for such purposes by-laws may appoint or provide for the appointment of inspectors.
6.1.10 Seeds and Plants Variety Act Cap 326
This Act regulates transactions in seeds, including provision for the testing and certification of seeds; for the establishment of an index of names of plant varieties; to empower the imposition of restriction on the introduction of new varieties; to control the importation of seeds; to authorize measures to prevent injurious cross-pollination; to provide for the grant of proprietary rights to persons breeding or discovering new varieties. The act includes subsidiary legislation on seeds and plant varieties (seeds) regulations, registration of seed growers, seed certification and seed importation and exportation.
6.2 International Regulations
Kenya is a signatory to a number of conventions on sustainable development and is a member of various bilateral and multilateral organizations. Some of the relevant development partners in this project are the World Bank and a number of United Nations agencies.
6.2.1 World Bank Safeguard Policies
World Bank Operational Policies (OP) and Bank Procedures (BP) Environmental Assessment - BP4.01 and OP 4.01 (January 1999 all of which require environmental assessment of projects proposed that are deemed to have potential adverse impacts to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable. Environmental Assessment is one of the 10 environmental, social, and legal Safeguard Policies of the World Bank. World Bank Environment and Social Safeguard Policy aims at improving decision making, to ensure that project options under consideration are sound and sustainable, and that potentially affected people have been properly consulted. The World Bank's environmental assessment policy and recommended processing are described in Operational Policy (OP)/Bank Procedure (BP) 4.01.
6.3.1.1 Environmental Assessment (OP4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01)
This policy requires environmental assessment (EA) of projects proposed for Bank financing to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable, and thus to improve decision making. The EA is a process whose breadth, depth, and type of analysis depend on the nature, scale, and potential environmental impact of the proposed activities of WKCFP. The EA process takes into account the natural environment (air, water, and land); human health and safety; social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property) and transboundary and global environmental aspects. Operational Policy 4.01 further requires that the ESIA report must be disclosed as a separate and stand alone document by the World Bank as a condition for bank appraisal of the project. The disclosure should be both in Kenya where it can be accessed by the general public and local communities and at the Infoshop of the World
35
Bank and the date for disclosure must precede the date for appraisal of the program. The World Bank system assigns a project to one of three project categories, as defined below: Category “A” Projects An EIA is always required for projects that are in this category. Impacts are expected to be ‘adverse, sensitive, irreversible and diverse with attributes such as pollutant discharges large enough to cause degradation of air, water, or soil; large-scale physical disturbance of the site or surroundings; extraction, consumption or conversion of substantial amounts of forests and other natural resources; measurable modification of hydrological cycles; use of hazardous materials in more than incidental quantities; and involuntary displacement of people and other significant social disturbances. Category “B” Projects Although an EIA is not always required, some environmental analysis is necessary. Category B projects have impacts that are ‘less significant, not as sensitive, numerous, major or diverse. Few, if any, impacts are irreversible, and remedial measures can be more easily designed. Typical projects include rehabilitation, maintenance, or upgrades, rather than new construction. Category “C” Projects No EIA or other analysis is required. Category C projects result in negligible or minimal direct disturbance of the physical environment. Typical projects include education, family planning, health, and human resource development. The KACP has thus been screened and assigned an EA Category B. This category of projects are defined as projects likely to have potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas including wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats and are less adverse than those of category A projects. These impacts are site specific, few if any of them are irreversible, and in most cases mitigation measures can be designed more readily than for category A projects. The EA process for category B projects examines the potential negative and positive environmental impacts and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance.
6.3.1.2 Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04)
This policy aims at the conservation of natural habitats, like other measures that protect and enhance the environment. The policy is essential for long term sustainable development. The Bank therefore supports the protection, maintenance, and rehabilitation of natural habitats. Natural Habitats are land and water areas where the ecosystems biological communities are formed largely by native plant and animal species, and human activity has not essentially modified the areas primary ecological functions. The policy recognises the important role of biological, social, economic, and existence value of natural habitats. Natural habitat policy covers habitats in the tropical humid, dry, and cloud forest; temperate and boreal forest; Mediterranean-type shrub lands; natural arid and semi-arid lands, mangrove swamps, coastal marshes, and other wetlands; estuaries, sea grass beds, coral reefs, freshwater lakes and rivers; alpine and sub alpine environments, including herb fields, grasslands, and paramos; and tropical and temperate grasslands. The Natural Habitats policy will not be triggered in this case.
6.3.1.3 Forest Operational Policy 4.36
This operational policy aims to reduce deforestation, enhance the environmental contribution of forested areas, promote afforestation, reduce poverty, and encourage economic development. The policy recognizes the role forests play in poverty alleviation, economic development, and for providing local as well as global environmental services. Success in establishing sustainable forest conservation and management practices depends not only on changing the behavior of all critical stakeholders, but also on a wide range of partnerships to accomplish what no country, government agency, donor, or interest group can do alone.
36
The forest strategy suggests three equally important and interdependent pillars to guide future Bank involvement with forests including harnessing the potential of forests to reduce poverty, integrating forests in sustainable economic development, and protecting vital local and global environmental services and forest values. This policy applies to the World Bank-financed investment projects that have or may have impacts on the health and quality of forests, projects that affect the rights and welfare of people and their level of dependence upon or interaction with forests and projects that aim to bring about changes in the management, protection, or utilization of natural forests or plantations, whether they are publicly, privately, or communally owned. There is a very remote possibility of KACP triggering this policy as there are no demarcated forests in the project area however, in Bungoma district, the area borders mount Elgon which is a protected area. The project also promotes agroforestry which will consequent to reduced pressure on natural forests in terms of firewood source.
6.3.1.4 Pest Management Operational Policy 4.09
The policy supports safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management. It promotes the use of biological and environmental control methods. An assessment is made of the capacity of the country’s regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management. The project will trigger this policy especially during the operational phase of the project that will focus on agriculture related interventions. Rural development and health sector projects have to avoid using harmful pesticides. A preferred solution is to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques and encourage their use in the whole of the sectors concerned. This policy aims at assisting borrowers to manage pests that affect either agriculture or public health. The Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. In appraising a project that will involve pest management, the Bank assesses the capacity of the country’s regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management. As necessary, the Bank and the borrower incorporate in the project components to strengthen such capacity. The Bank uses various means to assess pest management in the country and advocates for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and the safe use of agricultural pesticides where necessary. In most of its agricultural funded projects, pest populations are normally controlled through IPM approaches, such as biological control, cultural practices, and the development and use of crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to the pest. The Bank may only allow the use of pesticides when their use is justified under an IPM approach. The KACP activities must therefore adopt IPM approaches and only use pesticides as a last resort after due considerations The policy supports use of environmental methods for public health projects in controlling pests where environmental methods alone are not effective. The policy calls for assessment of the nature and degree of associated risks, taking into account the proposed use and the intended users of any pesticide in any World Bank-financed projects. The policy sets criteria to apply for the selection and use of pesticides in World Bank-financed projects including must have negligible adverse human health effects, must be shown to be effective against the target species, and must have minimal effect on non target species and the natural environment. The methods, timing, and frequency of pesticide application are aimed to minimize damage to natural enemies. Pesticides used in public health programs must be demonstrated to be safe for inhabitants and domestic animals in the treated areas, as well as for personnel applying them and the use must take into account the need to prevent the development of resistance in pests. The policy requires that any pesticides to be used should be well packed, labeled, handled, stored, disposed of, and applied according to standards acceptable to the Bank. The Bank does not finance formulated products that
37
fall in WHO classes IA and IB, or formulations of products in Class II1, if the country lacks restrictions on their distribution and use; they are likely to be used by, or be accessible to, lay personnel, farmers, or others without training, equipment, and facilities to handle, store, and apply these products properly. This ESA includes a screening checklist that will be applied to screen project activities/sub-projects for potential pest management issues (procuring and usage of pesticides) and negative environmental impacts. When any project activity/sub-project with significant pest management issues are identified, the project implementer Swedish Cooperative Center-ViAgroforestry (SCC-ViA) will prepare a sub-project specific Pest Management Plan, obtain approval and disclose the document before implementation of the sub-project. The ESA includes the following: Annex D contains a pest management screening framework as a guide in relation to the Bank's pest management policy safeguard; and Annex E contains the questionnaire that will be used to screen sub-projects.
6.3.1.5 Projects on International Waterways Operational Policy 7.50:
This policy recognizes the importance of cooperation and good will of riparians as essential for the efficient utilization and protection of international waterways and attaches great importance to riparians making appropriate agreements or arrangement for the entire waterway or any part thereof. Projects that trigger this policy include hydroelectric, irrigation, flood control, navigation, drainage, water and sewerage, industrial, and similar projects that involve the use or potential pollution of international waterways. This policy relates to the relations between the riparian states. In the absence of such agreements or arrangements, the Bank requires, as a general rule, that the prospective borrower notifies the other riparian of the project. The policy lays down detailed procedures for the notification requirement, including the role of the Bank in affecting the notification, period of reply and the procedures in case there is an objection by one of the riparian to the project. The policy applies to any river, canal, lake, or similar body of water that forms a boundary between, or any river or body of surface water that flows through, two or more states, whether World Bankhttp://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/58aa50b14b6bc071852565a30061beb6/14f8e95499c0ce2285256763006252c0?OpenDocument members or not. It also includes any tributary or other body of surface water any bay, gulf, strait, or channel bounded by two or more states or, if within one state, recognized as a necessary channel of communication between the open sea and other states and any river flowing into such waters.
6.3.1.8 Safeguarding Cultural Property Operations Directive 11.03z
The bank operational policy on safeguarding cultural properties aims protecting cultural assets and knowledge of communities in bank financed project areas. Safeguarding cultural property policy requires the determination of what is known about the cultural aspects of the proposed project site. The policy calls for consultation involving all parties including scientific institutions and NGOs as part of this process. The policy defines cultural property as sites having archaeological, palaeontological, historical, religious and unique natural value.
This policy covers direct economic and social impacts that both result from Bank-assisted investment projects, and are caused by; involuntary taking of land resulting in relocation or loss of shelter; loss of assets or access to assets, or loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons.
1 Copies of the classification, which is updated annually, are available in the Sectoral Library. A draft Standard Bidding Document for Procurement of Pesticides is available from OPCPR.
The policy is triggered in situations involving involuntary taking of land and involuntary restrictions of access to legally designated parks and protected areas. The policy aims to avoid involuntary resettlement to the extent feasible, or to minimize and mitigate its adverse social and economic impacts. The objective of this policy to avoid where feasible, or minimize, exploring all viable alternative project designs, to avoid resettlement. The policy calls for sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share project benefits and to improve their livelihoods. The standards of living should be restored, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher. This policy covers direct economic and social impacts that both result from Bank-assisted investment projects, and are caused by the involuntary taking of land resulting in relocation or loss of shelter, lost of assets or access to assets, or loss of income sources or means of livelihood. This applies whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. To address the impacts covered under this policy, a resettlement plan or a resettlement policy framework is needed to mitigate against effects of displacement. This framework should cover the development of a resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework which must include measures to ensure that the displaced persons are informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement. The displaced persons are consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives and provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets attributable directly to the project. If the impacts include physical relocation, the resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework includes:
Measures to ensure that the displaced persons are provided assistance (such as moving allowances) during relocation;
Provided with residential housing, or housing sites, or, as required, agricultural sites for which a combination of productive potential, locational advantages, and other factors is at least equivalent to the advantages of the old site.
Where necessary to achieve the objectives of the policy, the resettlement plan or resettlement policy framework should also include:
Measures to ensure that displaced persons are offered support after displacement, for a transition period, based on a reasonable estimate of the time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and standards of living
Provided with development assistance in addition to compensation measures described in paragraph 6(a) (iii), such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities.
A summary of safeguard operational policies to be triggered by the project are as described in the table 15 below
39
Figure 15. Summary of the operational policies that will be triggered by CFP projects
Operational Policy Trigger Comments
Natural Habitat X The project areas are already developed some partly
Environmental Assessment The project falls under partial EA category Forest Operational X None of the subprojects is in forested areas Pest Management X The project entity will screen for pesticide use
Projects on International Waterways X None of the project area is in international waters Dam Safety X There is no dam construction Cultural Property X None of the project activities is located in cultural sensitive area Indigenous Peoples X Indigenous people are not found within the project boundaries Involuntary Resettlement X The project will not trigger involuntary resettlement Disputed Areas X None of the project area is in disputed areas
6.4.2 International Conventions
Kenya being a signatory to some of the international conventions that are relevant to the project its imperative that we review some of the conventions within which the study and the project is carried out.
6.4.2.1 Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on treaty is intended to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for the reduction of four greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride), and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by industrialized nations, as well as general commitments for all member countries. As of January 2009, 183 parties had ratified the protocol, which was initially adopted for use on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and which entered into force on 16 February 2005. Under Kyoto, industrialized countries agreed to reduce their collective GHG emissions by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the United States, 6% for Japan, and 0% for Russia. The treaty permitted GHG emission increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland. Kyoto includes defined "flexible mechanisms" such as Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation to allow c to meet their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non industrialized economies, other industrialized economies, or from industrialized countries with excess allowances. In practice this means that Non- industrialized economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG emission reduction projects to receive "carbon credits" that can then be sold to industrialized nations buyers, encouraging sustainable development. In addition, the flexible mechanisms allow industrialized nations with efficient, low GHG-emitting industries, and high prevailing environmental standards to purchase carbon credits on the world market instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically. Industrialized nations will want to acquire carbon credits as cheaply as possible, while Non- industrialized economies would want to maximize the value of carbon credits generated from their domestic Greenhouse Gas Projects.
Kenya being a party to the protocol having ratified it in 25th
February 2005. However, the project does not qualify under the protocol as agricultural activities is not part of the Kyoto protocol
6.4.2.2 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides a framework for the implementation of the Kenya Carbon Project as a basis for global action "to protect the climate system for present and future generations".
The Convention on Climate Change sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. It recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability
40
can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Convention enjoys near universal membership, with 189 countries having ratified. The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. Under the Convention, governments:
Gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best practices.
Launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries.
Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Kenya ratified the UNFCCC in 1994. The proposed project responds to the implementation of the specific requirements of the convention through carbon sequestration by means of sustainable land management.
6.4.2.1 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
The three goals of the CBD are to promote the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. Kenya being a signatory of this convention it’s supposed to work towards the achievement of the three goals. The convention calls for the adoption of national strategies, plans and programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into their relevant sectoral and cross-sectional plans, programmes and policies. One of the tools that are prescribed for the management of biodiversity is environmental assessment. Article 14 of the convention deals with impact assessment and minimizing of adverse impacts of activities that are likely to cause significant adverse effects on biological diversity (Glowka, L, et al, 1992). The project will trigger this convention due to the promotion of agroforetry at the farm level and improved seeds varieties which in essence could have effects on genetic and biological diversity at the farm levels
6.4.2.2 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
The Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 146 Contracting Parties to the Convention, with 1508 wetland sites. The Convention calls for governments to provide framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.
6.4.2.3 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and
International Lakes
The Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) is intended to strengthen national measures for the protection and ecologically sound management of transboundary surface waters and groundwaters. The Convention obliges Parties to prevent, control and reduce water pollution from point and non-point sources. The Convention also includes provisions for monitoring, research and development, consultations, warning and alarm systems, mutual assistance, institutional arrangements, and the exchange and protection of information, as well as public access to information. The Convention obliges Parties to prevent, control and reduce water pollution from point and non-point sources. The Convention also includes provisions for monitoring, research and development, consultations, warning and alarm systems, mutual assistance, institutional arrangements, and the exchange and protection of information, as well as public access to information. Article 3 of the convention calls for the application of environmental
41
impact assessment and other means of assessment for the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary watercourses and international lakes.
6.4.2.4 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
The convention on migratory species (CMS) was adopted to conserve migratory species of wild animals given that migratory species are seen as an international resource. Such species may be terrestrial or marine. The conventions agreement on the conservation of African-Eurasian migratory water birds is specific on the need to protect the feeding, breeding and wintering habitats, the main ones being wetlands and open water bodies.
6.4.2.5 EAC Protocol on Environment
The protocol was signed by the Partner States of the East African Community on 29th November 2003. It has relevant provisions for environmental and social management for the project; Article 5: Paragraph 4 provides that Partners States should promote sustainable utilization of water resources while taking into consideration factors such as ecology, geographic, climatic, hydrologic factors among others; the social and economic needs of each Partner States; the population dependent on the water resources; existing & potential uses of the water resources. Article 6: Paragraph 1 identifies the protection and conservation of the basin and its ecosystem with emphasis on improving water quality and quantity; preventing the introduction of invasive species; conservation of biological diversity and forest resources; protection and conservation of wetlands and fisheries resources conservation. Part 2 of the article provides for the harmonization of laws and policies for stakeholder participation in protection, conservation and rehabilitation. Sustainable agriculture and land use practices to achieve food security and rational agricultural production is provided for in Article 9. Article 12 of the Protocol urges Partner States to develop national laws and regulations requiring project proponents to undertake EIA and review of EIA reports to be done by all the Partner States if the potential impacts are likely to be trans-boundary and the same to apply for Environmental Audits in Article 13. Partner states should ensure control of pollution from non-point sources through legal, economic and social measures. This is provided for in Article 20 which further states that pollution control measures should promote sustainable forestry practices, appropriate agricultural land use methods, sanitation and hygiene within the basin. Public participation is provided for in Article 22 which should be enhanced to influence government decisions on project formulation and implementation. Article 23 of the Protocol provides that partner states should promote Community involvement and mainstreaming gender concerns at all levels of socio-economic development especially in decision making, policy formulation and implementation of projects and programmes.
42
7.0 PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Public consultation and disclosure of information about Carbon Finance Project took place through interviews, focused group meetings and quantitative interviews. During the scoping process, a stakeholder mapping exercises was undertaken to identify Interested and Affected Parties (I&AP) to the project. The mapping exercise was conducted simultaneously with the scoping exercise. The exercise identified all the stakeholders of the projects within and without the area including the communities around the area, administration, civil societies, government ministries and agencies and private sector among other stakeholders.
7.1 Stakeholder Mapping
At the start of the process, stakeholders were grouped based on the following categories.
Relevant Governmental Ministries including Ministry of Agriculture, National Environment Management Authority at the district level among others
Civil Organisations
Local community
Community Based Organizations
7.2 Stakeholder Identification
The first step in the process of public participation process was stakeholder identification, determining the project stakeholders, their key groupings and sub-groupings. Stakeholder identification was to determine all organizations and individuals who may be directly or indirectly (positively or negatively) impacted by the developments proposed. To identify the stakeholders of the project, a list of relevant stakeholders was compiled based on the project documents. Particular emphasis was also placed on gender considerations. The list of persons and institutions contacted and consulted is appended on this report
7.3 Stakeholder Consultation
Stakeholder consultation was in form of focused group meetings, participatory rural appraisal, quantitative household survey and one on one discussion in projects areas.
7.3.1 Focus Group Meetings
Focus group meetings were convene for community members, various ministries and project staff in Western Kenya and at the immediate area and especially in the villages of the project area to explain the proposed project and environmental and social assessment process to stakeholders living there, and to obtain their local knowledge, available information and comment. These meetings were in Swahili, Luo, Luhya, Kikuyu and English. The first FGM was held in Sirisia division (Plate 3) which involved the Monica Women Group, Vi agrforestry field staff, local administration and ministry of agriculture extension officers. The second meeting was held in Bumula (Plate 4) involving members of Lutoba Self Help group Wakasiaka Women Group, Jusimana Self Help Group, Mama Jikoni Women Group, Masuno Irrigation Scheme, Timbirisa Women Group, Mtumbo Women Group, Sio Self help Group.
7.3.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
Participatory Rural Appraisal was conducted in the project beneficiary member’s farms which involved walking with community members in the farm and drawing the description of the farms. 7.3.3 Quantitative household survey
43
The objective of the quantitative household survey was to generate a baseline description of pertinent demographic and social characteristics of the project area. The results of the survey were triangulated with information obtained by other means, including secondary data, interviews, focus group meetings and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). The interviewees for the quantitative household survey were selected randomly in the villages of Sirisia, Bumula, and Kombewa, but ensuring that both men and women were selected. In order to obtain a representative sample of households in the project area, 60 households were selected and interviewed using a pre conceived questionnaire (See Annex K). Basic descriptive statistics were generated for all variables assessed in the survey. In each case, data was disaggregated according to village.
44
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS OF
CARBON FINANCE PROJECT
8.1 Positive Impacts
The KACP aim is to increase and diversified food supply through application of sustainable agricultural land management practices and technologies, adaption to climate change, increased and diversify production of marketable agricultural and agroforestry products, improve capacity of farmers in accessing market information and developing markets, democraticsize farmer member based organization contribute from the carbon revenues to the economy of the individual farm household (direct and indirect), increase farm level tree cover for firewood and wood products through application of agroforestry technologies and use carbon revenues to extension services and marketing assistance. Some of the beneficial impacts of the project are as described below
8.1.1 Physical Environment
8.1.1.1 Reducing Green House Gases / Carbon Sequestration
Green house gases targeted in this project include mainly Carbon dioxide. First estimates indicate that the total carbon sequestration potential of the project based by means of soil and tree amounts to a potential 100,000 tCO2 annually. Most of the SALM practices to be promoted directly and predominantly affect changes in the soil organic matter and nutrient dynamics within the soils contributing to green house gases reduction and carbon sequestration.
8.1.1.2 Improved Soil Condition
Mulching, residual management, reduced tillage, riverbank tree planting, manuring, composting, soil erosion control among other land management practices being implemented will improve soil texture and fertility. These activities increase micro-organism and microbial action that enhance soil formation and regeneration. Increased vegetation cover will equally lead to accumulation of humans, increased micro organism presence, improved aeration among other attributes, as such, degraded soils will be rehabilitated and the general soil condition will be improved especial in western Kenya where soils have been degraded by improper application of inorganic fertilizer.
8.1.1.3 Water Conservation
Vegetation shelter wet lands from encroachment by man. They reduce the velocity of ground water flow there by give the water enough time to infiltrate and recharge underground water reserves. In addition, they hold the soils together and shelter them from direct abrasion effect of rain drops that would otherwise accelerate the rate of soil transport into water bodies causing siltation. Besides, the sheltering effects, umbrella’s the wetlands from the scorching sun reducing water loss through evaporation. Other land management activities like terraces, ridges, trenches will help in upstream water management and minimize chances of floods occurring.
8.1.2 Biological Environmental
8.1.2.1 Increase in Biological Diversity
The project will promote the adoption of agroforestry practices by farmers as a means of improving soil condition. The tree species being promoted are a variety which not only diversify the biological diversity at the farm level, but also promotes in-situ conservation of indigenous trees such as Markhamia lutea in western province. These tree species are not only good agroforestry trees but also a good source of timber and fodder. This impact will be wide spread in all the agro-ecological zones of the project area as these areas have been deforested over time to create room for farms resulting to disappearance of some tree species; which are going to be reintroduced.
8.1.2.2 Restoration of Degraded Areas
The project areas in Western and Nyanza are either Lake Victoria catchment hotspots or important catchment. Malakisi and Sirisia are important catchment for Lake Victoria while Kombewa and Wangai form part of the
45
degraded areas near the lake. The adoption of agroforestry farming by the small scale farmers will have beneficial impact on the environment through microclimate enhancement. The project activities will vegetated erosion susceptible areas thereby protecting the soils from agents or erosion and improving its nutrient retention. The increased forest cover will on the other hand create new habitats and ecosystems. Agroforestry trees take a shorter time to mature as compared to other trees which mature after 5-30 or even more years. This impact is therefore medium to long term depending on the tree species. But because many of the trees that were grown during the phase one were agroforestry tree species, a term of less than three years is expected for this impact.
8.1.2.3 Establishment of Tree Nurseries
New tree nurseries will be established in the area. Them being a source of tree seedlings in rural areas, will result into ready access of seedlings to farmers for restoration of degraded areas in the Lake Victoria catchment.
8.1.3 Socioeconomic Environment
8.1.3.1 Macro Economy
Kenya is an agricultural based economy with majority of the farmers having small hold farms which support the rural economy which in turn have effect on the entire country’s economy
8.1.3.2 Micro Economy
One of the objective of the project is to increase and diversify the production of marketable agricultural and agroforestry products. The project would contribute to rural economy where most of the poor populations live through increased income from increased productivity among the small scale farmers in western Kenya. This is a long term impact that will affect the rural population in western Kenya
Impact Enhancement
The project should be replicated in other areas where agricultural productivity has gone down considerably. This will improve the micro economy of the rural areas.
8.1.3.3 Climate Change Adaptation
The project promotes the adaptation of sustainable farming practices to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Some of these adaptation strategies include soil and water conservation activities, reduced tillage, use of improved seeds and plant varieties, agroforestry, and cultivation of drought resistant crops among others. Through this climate change adaptation strategies, farmers will be able to produce food in the changed climate and will be mitigate effects of climate change on food security. This is an immediate impact that will be felt in all the project areas. Impact Enhancement
The project should promote other climate change adaptation strategies including irrigation and use of improved seeds varieties among other climate change coping strategies.
8.1.3.4 Increased Food Productivity
The project advocates or promotes Sustainable Agricultural Land Management (SALM) practices; this will increase food productivity and ensure food security in Western Kenya where food insecurity has been a problem for a long time.
8.1.3.5 Firewood Supply
Agroforestry trees promoted by the project will also be a source of firewood for the households in the project areas. In areas of Malakisi, Wangai and Kombewa, firewood is a major problem for households. The trees will thus offer a source of energy for households and address the problems faced by women and children who walk long distances in search of firewood. Moreover, the project promotes the use of renewable energies: solar, bio fuels etc and discourages the use of crop residues and charcoal which will also reduce the burden for women.
46
8.1.3.6 Community Capacity Building and Institutional Development
One of the projects objectives is to build capacity of the small scale farmers in soil and water conservation methods, agronomy, IPM among other areas of rural economy. The project beneficiary will also benefit in terms of training in capacity building on agricultural production, marketing, village savings agribusiness development and loans, soil and water conservation, tree establishment among other sustainable farming. This project impact will have effect on rural life especially in agricultural sector.
8.1.3.7 Community Awareness Creation on Climate Change
The project will create awareness on the issue of climate change to the small scale farmers who are or will be adversely impact by climate change. The project will also develop small scale farmers (men and women) capacity on how to adapt and mitigate some of the impacts of climate change through sustainable agriculture management practices as provided in the project.
8.1.3.8 Poverty Alleviation
Agriculture contributes more that 25% of the Kenya’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employs more than 75% of the population while supporting more than 500,000 of small scale producers in rural population (Holmberg, J.2007). The project will complement other projects in poverty reduction through adoption of SALM practices and at the same time the farmers will be able to earn an income from carbon trade.
8.1.3.9 Improved Health/ Nutrition
Improved community nutrition will be an indirect impact of the livestock management practices promoted by the project which will lead to increase in milk production and a source of nutrition at the household level particularly the children will benefit from this impact. Other sources of nutrition will be from fruits and vegetables promoted by the project. Some of the fruit trees being promoted are Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis), Avocado (Persea Americana), Mango (Mangifera indica) and Pawpaw (Carica papaya). Introduction of medicinal trees such as Moringa Oleifera, Azadirachta indica, Cordia Africana, Croton Macrostachyus and Markhamia Albizia spp will provide alternative source of medicine as well as potential income opportunities from these species.
8.1.3.10 Gender Mainstreaming in Rural Economy
The carbon finance project will promote involvement of women in its activities as beneficiaries. Based on the number of community based groups sampled, 5 out of 9 were women groups. The rest of the groups were mixed but still the number of women in these mixed groups was high. This will ensure that all members of the community benefit from the project irrespective of gender imbalances or cultural orientation in property ownership.
8.1.3.11 Carbon Revenue
Farmers in the project area will not only benefit from increase productivity but also benefit from carbon Revenues generated by the SLAM practices. First estimates indicate that the project contributes to a sequestration of about 100,000 tones of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. Assuming a price of 4US$ per tone, the total revenues would amount to US$ 400,000 annually. The payments received by the project implementer will be partly used to cover extension costs and partly the revenues will flow directly to the communities and/or farmers.
8.2 Potential Adverse Impacts
8.2.1 Physical Environment
8.2.1.1 Increased Use of Pesticides
The project may pose potential for increase in pesticides in the project areas as a result of increased focus on profitable agricultural enterprises like horticulture as enterprise development is a key component of the project activities. Increase in pesticides could result having adverse effects on non target organisms some of which have socioeconomic benefits. However, the project does not support the purchase or direct promotion of increased
47
pesticide use. At this point it is not clear whether farmers will increase pesticide use at all, particular since the project implementer focuses on the promotion of sustainable agricultural land management practices. Mitigation
This ESA includes a screening checklist that will be applied to screen project activities/sub-projects for potential pest management issues (procuring and usage of pesticides) and negative environmental impacts. When any project activity/sub-project with significant pest management issues are identified, the project implementer Swedish Cooperative Center-ViAgroforestry (SCC-ViA) will prepare a sub-project specific Pest Management Plan, obtain approval and disclose the document before implementation of the sub-project. The ESA includes the following: Annex D contains a pest management screening framework as a guide in relation to the Bank's pest management policy safeguard; and Annex E contains the questionnaire that will be used to screen sub-projects. The targeted farmers should also be trained on IPM through the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) model adopted by the Vi agroforestry. Resources from the Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project (KAPAP) will be made available to train SCC-ViA staff in IPM.
8.2.2 Biological Environment
8.2.2.1 Risk of Competition and Introduction of Invasive Plant Species.
Some of the agroforestry tree species if not well spaced and managed will compete with crops for water and nutrients thereby negating all the efforts invested towards increasing farm productivity. Moreover, some of the agroforestry tree species promoted by the project have potential for being invasive in areas where there is no control over them being eaten by livestock. The tree with this potential characteristic is the Leucaena leucocephala. This impact could be more in western Kenya where agroforestry practices is the core of the project by Vi agroforestry. Kenya has experience with invasive species. These include water hyacinth and Prosopis julifora in western Kenya and the northern Kenya respectively. The project should learn from these experiences and prevent the promotion of species with characteristic colonizing the area and becoming a nuisance. Mitigation
This species should be promoted in areas where there are livestock that will consume the leaves as fodder. This way the wide spread of the species will be managed. Vi agroforestry should also consult Kenya Agricultural Research Institute on the tree species that have potential of being invasive and avoid these. The project should give priority to indigenous tree species that are also good agroforestry tree species. Species such as Markhamia lutea is a good timber tree as well as a good agroforestry tree but has been overused in western Kenya. Due to its long maturity period, it’s impossible to come across a mature Markhamia lutea in the area.
8.2.2.2 Emergence of Pest and Diseases
Mass adoption of some tree species could lead to a scenario that is similar to mono-cropping which is a good host for pests and diseases. One of the farmers in Kombewa informed the consultants that the tree species Sesbania sesban attracted beetles which feed on the vegetation of Napier grass and other vegetations. Although this was not confirmed by the field officers of Vi agroforestry, its worth investigating this allegation. This impact could be as a result of starter seeds given to farmers or monocroping. Mitigation
To mitigate against emergence of pests and diseases an incorporation of IPM approaches should be adopted. These measures should involve rotational/mixed cropping practices which preserve greater diversity in habitat thus reducing impact of pest and diseases. At the farm level, the agronomist should discourage monocropping.
48
8.2.3 Socioeconomic Environment
8.2.3.1 Raised Expectations
The small scale farmers have clear land title deeds and are therefore the absolute beneficiary of the carbon revenue. This is clearly stipulated under the emission purchase agreement to be signed between the World Bank and Vi Agroforestry. This agreement is meant to ensure that the farmers and communities are the major beneficiaries from the generated carbon revenues. The above agreement and the confidence level of farmers in Vi Agroforestry attributed to its approach in implementing previous community projects together with its many years of operation in the project area; farmers and local leaders manipulation of the expected carbon revenue returns are anticipated to raise farmers expectation on the amounts of payment they will receive. However based on the survey done, majority of the farmers were not interested in the carbon revenue. Their first priority, according to the farmers interviewed was increased farm productivity. Mitigation
The Project proponent including VI agroforestry field extension officers should be open and clarify to farmers more on the carbon revenues. Local leaders and farmers should also be sensitized from using carbon revenues a marketing incentive of wooing other farmers to join the initiative.
8.3 Without-Project Scenario
It should be highlighted that without the project the positive and negative impacts outlined above would not occur. As outlined above the project is expected to contribute to significant benefits for the farming community and the environment, which cannot be realized if the project would not be implemented (see also section 3.3).
49
Figure 16. Project Impacts characteristics
Impacts Nature Extent Duration Probability Timing Reversibility Reference Beneficial Impacts
Carbon sequestration Positive Global Long term High Immediate Reversible 8.1.1.1 Improved Soil
condition Positive Site specific Long term High Immediate Reversible 8.1.1.2
Water conservation Positive Regional Long term Medium Immediate Reversible 8.1.1.3 Increase in biological
diversity Positive Site specific Long term Medium Immediate Reversible 8.1.2.1
Restoration of
degraded areas Positive Site specific Long term Low Delayed Reversible 8.1.2.2
Micro economy Positive Regional Long term Medium Delayed Reversible 8.1.3.2 Climate change
adaptation Positive Global Long term Medium Delayed Reversible 8.1.3.3
Increased food
productivity Positive Regional Long term Medium Delayed Reversible 8.1.3.4
Firewood supply Positive Regional Long term High Delayed Reversible 8.1.3.5 Community capacity
building and
institutional
development
Positive Regional Long term Medium Immediate Irreversible 8.1.3.6
Community
awareness on climate
change
Positive Regional Long term Medium Immediate Irreversible 8.1.3.5
Poverty alleviation Positive Regional Long term Low Delayed Reversible 8.1.3.6 Improved nutrition Positive Regional Long term Low Delayed Reversible 8.1.3.7
Potential Adverse Impacts Increased use of
pesticides Negative Regional Long term Medium Immediate Reversible 8.2.1.3
Invasive species Negative Regional Long term Low Delayed Reversible 8.2.2.1 Emergence of Pest
and Diseases Negative Regional Long term Low Delayed Reversible 8.2.2.2
50
9.0 PROJECT ENVIRONMETAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
This ESMP is a detailed program of work which defines what mitigation measures and monitoring activities will take place, when and by whom. The plan includes estimates of costs of implementation. The persons and institutions responsible for implementing the plan will include community based organizations, Vi Agroforestry, NEMA, Ministry of Agriculture among other local stakeholders.
9.1 Objectives
The objectives of the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) are: To establish clear procedures and methodologies for environmental and social planning, review, approval and implementation of subprojects to be financed under the project. Specifically:
1. To describe practical means to ensure effective implementation of the mitigating measures recommended for the potential environmental and social impacts identified;
2. To describe project arrangements for the preparation and implementation of project activities/subprojects in order to adequately address World Bank safeguard issues and national environmental policies and regulations;
3. To assess the potential environmental and social impacts of envisaged subprojects/project activities; 4. To propose mitigation measures which will effectively address identified negative impacts; 5. To specify appropriate roles and responsibilities, and outline the necessary reporting procedures for
managing and monitoring environmental and social 6. concerns related to subprojects; 7. To determine the training, capacity building and technical assistance needed for various stakeholders to
successfully implement the provisions of the ESMP; and 8. To establish the project funding required to implement the ESMF requirements
9.2 ESMP Implementation
This ESMP will be implemented by several institutions which are directly or indirectly involved in this project. These institutions are the Vi Agroforestry as the project leader in implementation or borrower, collaborating government ministries at the district level, community based organizations and the project beneficiaries (community members).
9.2.1 Vi Agroforestry
Vi Agroforestry is the lead agency in the implementation of this ESMP and will cover the costs of its implementation through their project budget. The role of the proponent will be to implement mitigation measures, coordination and monitoring activities, maintenance of monitoring information, building the capacity of other stakeholders including collection and analysis of monitoring data. The climate change and environment officer of the two proponents will be the focal point for the ESMP and will liaise with other stakeholders to executive the plan.
9.2.2 Kenya Agriculture Research Institute
The KARI through KAPAP will provide technical support in training farmers in IPM, fertilizer and pesticide management. The agronomist will be the focal point for training in IPM and agrochemical application and will liaise with the ministry of agriculture for technical support. It should be noted that all the capacity building activities should be hands-on through the FFS approach. The project should use the demonstrations farms in one of the project areas which will act as the field school for training.
9.2.3.1 Training on IPM
An intensive training on IPM will be carried out by KARI. The training will target Vi extension officers who will then go out and train promoter farmers and the process continues down the ladder. Resources for this training will be provided by KAPAP. The training program will cover amounts of fertilizer to be applied per hectare of land and
51
during what conditions, what should be undertaken before commissioning of the project. The types and mode of application of pesticides among others. The training should be a hands-on that can be introduced through the FFS model.
9.2.3.2 Training in Fertilizer and Pesticides Application
The training objective is to ensure beneficiary farmers in the project area do not pollute water resources through unsustainable application of inorganic fertilizers. This capacity building activity can undertake by Vi agroforestry with technical support from Ministry of Agriculture.
52
ESMP Schedule
Activity Adverse Impacts
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation
Schedule Reference
Responsibility Budget
(US$)
Physical Environment
Introduction of new
tree species Increased use of pesticides
Community Training and
adoption of IPM Continuous
6.2.1.3 Vi agroforestry,
KARI, MoA 15,000
Biological Environment
Introduction of new
tree species Potential competition for
water and nutrients with
crops
Community Training on tree
management Give priority to indigenous
plant species
Project design
phase
6.2.2.1
Vi agroforestry 9,000
Spread of pest and diseases Adopt Integrated Pest
Management including
rotational cropping, mixed
cropping among others
Design and
implementation
phase
6.2.2.2
Vi agroforestry 9,000
Socioeconomic Environment
Introduction of new
tree species Competition for nutrients
and space. Promote land use planning
and adoption of SLAM
practices on the existing
crop farms for community
Continuous
6.2.3.3
Vi agroforestry No cost
53
9.3 Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan defines and identifies monitoring activities that will take place, when and by whom and identifies the indicators and data collection methods and identifies training and capacity building needs of the institutions and persons to implement the plan. As indicated on the monitoring schedule below, monitoring will be done by numerous institutions and persons but coordinated by climate change and environment division of Vi Agroforestry. To ensure effective and reliable data collection, the key persons from the institutions to be involved in the monitoring will be trained on the indicators to be monitored, sampling methods, and data collection techniques to be used. The climate change and environment division of Vi Agroforestry will organize a 2 day training program in one of the project sites and train the participants. The key resource persons for this training will be the energy and climate change and energy and environment officer. Participants for this training will be from the institutions involved in implementation of the monitoring plan which is Vi Agroforestry, community members, Ministry of Agriculture. .
54
9.4 Monitoring Schedule
Impact Parameter Indicator Method Frequency of
Measurement Responsibility
Costs
Estimates
Physical Environment
Increased use of
pesticides Log of pesticide
application Amounts and types of
pesticides used Pesticide Screening Seasonally (if
promoted
technologies
increase likelihood
of increased
pesticide use)
Vi agroforestry
& MoA officials 12,000
Biological Environment
Potential/risk of
emergence of
invasive species
Rate of growth,
colonization, impacts
and dominance over
other species existing
species
Growth rate Colonization rates
Observation Mapping of the plant
species
Yearly Vi agroforestry
extension
officers and
farmers
16,000
Emergence of pest
and diseases Report of new pest
and diseases to the
SMS, Government
Signs of pests and
diseases in crops/
Incidence and spread
of pests and diseases
Incidence and spread
of pests and diseases
through Crop field
assessment
Seasonally Farmers, Vi
extension
officers
12,000
55
9.5 Environmental and Social Management Plan Budget
The cost of implementing the ESMP for the project is estimated at US$ 73,000. The cost has been kept to a minimal through using of already established structures, plans and programs as well as manpower. Most of the costs of the plan are in the monitoring activities. Capacity building activities are also part of the project budget and this will not add any additional cost to the project apart from IPM training for farmers. Its important to highlight that Vi Agroforestry will cover the costs for the implementation and monitoring of the ESMP through their project budget and will additional play the leading role in coordinating all activities there on.
56
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
The project is considered environmentally feasible due to the fact that it proposes measure to mitigate climate change among small scale farmers while at the same time improving farm productivity using sustainable technologies that not only safeguard the environment but also have incremental benefits of carbon revenue generation. However to achieve the project objectives without compromising the integrity of the environment, the following should be implemented.
1. The project should give priority to indigenous tree species that are also good agroforestry species. Species such as Markhamia lutea is a good timber tree as well as a good agroforestry tree that should be promoted in the project area as its been logged clear in western Kenya.
2. The project beneficiaries should be trained in good farming husbandry and pest management especially in
the area of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
3. A training program that covers all the project areas on the amounts of fertilizer to be applied per hectare of land and during what conditions should be undertaken before commissioning of the project. The types and amounts of pesticides should also be part of this training.
4. Its important to note that In regard to IPM, KAPAP resources will be made available to KARI to train Vi Agroforestry technical staff on Integrated Pest Management who in turn will train farmers.
5. Vi Agroforestry to be the lead agency in implementing the ESMP and to cover the costs of its
implementation and the monitoring activities through their project budget.
57
REFERENCE
Holmber, J. 2007. Natural Resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: Assets and vulnerabilities – A contribution to the Swedish Government White Paper on Africa commissioned by the Nordic Africa Institute.
GoK, 2005. Geographic Dimensions of Well-Being in Kenya. Central Bureau of Statistics
58
ANNEXES
Annex A. Agroforestry tree species to be promoted
No SPECIES Common names
1 Acacia melifera Acacia
2 Acacia polycantha Acacia
3 Acacia xanthophloea Acacia
4 Albizia corriara Albizia
5 Albizia lebbeck Albizia
6 Anona senegalensis Anona
7 Azaderachta indica Neem
8 Caecalpinia decapetala Matata
9 Cajanus cajan Pigeon pea
10 Callandra callothyrsus Calliandra
11 Carica papaya Pawpaw
12 Cassimiroa edulis White sapota
13 Casuarina equisitifolia Wispering pine
14 Cederala odorata Cederela
15 Cordia africana Cordia
16 Croton macrostachyus Macrostachyus
17 Croton megalocarpus Megalocarpus
18 Eryobotria japonica Loquats
19 Faidherbia albida Acacia
20 Gliricidia sepium Grilicidia
21 Grevillea robusta Grevillea
22 Leucaena leucocephala Leucaena
23 Maesopsis eminii Muzizi, Mutere
24 Mangifera indica Mango
25 Markhamia lutea Markhamia
26 Milicia excelsa Mvule
27 Moringa oleifera Moringa
28 Moringa stenopetala Moringa
29 Passiflora edulis Passion fruit
30 Persea americana Avocado
31 Phycomandra biteacea Tomato tree
32 Prunus africana Iron Wood
33 Psidium guajava Guava
59
34 Sesbania sesban Sesbania
35 Syzigium cuminii Java plum, Zambarawe
37 Tephrosia candida Fallow species
38 Tephrosia vogelli Fallow species
39 Terminalia brownii Terminalia
40 Terminalia superba Terminalia
60
Annex B. List of Stakeholders Consulted
Name Organization Contact
61
Jafeth Kopany Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Festa Achieng Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Caroline Auma Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Lucas Adundo Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Mathlida Anyango Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Benta Kiriare Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Emily Ogona Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Joel O.Ondijo Tauzi Farmers Mixed Group
Ken O.Owuor Agriculture ministry Box No.3 Siaya Tel :0710 977104
Annex C. Quantitative Household Survey Questionnaire
WESTERN KENYA SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTURAL CARBON FINANCE
PROJECT: SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY
Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project is a project of Vi agroforestry. The project aims at sequestrating carbon through adoption of sustainable agricultural land management practices (SALM) in parts of Western Kenya. As part of this project preparation, ESF Consultants Limited has been commissioned to undertake Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the proposed project in the area. The fieldworkers visiting you now will ask you a number of questions about your household. We respectfully request that you answer their questions to the best of your ability. All information will be treated as confidential.
Interview details:
Interviewer name
Date of interview
GPS Location of household
Agro ecological zone
Village name
Details of household head:
Name of the household head
Are you a member of Vi group
If no, would like to join?
Sex
Age
Education
Primary employment status
Details of other household members:
Total number of people living in the household
Number of children
Children going to school
Others
Livelihood:
Employed
Farmer
Fisherman
Trader
Casual Labourer
Others (specify)
Skills
65
Area Ever worked Tick the
appropriate blocks
Acquired any skills Tick the
appropriate blocks
Name of the person in the household who is skilled in this
area
Driving
Operation of equipment of any kind
Mechanical skills
Electrical skills
Electronic skills
Plumbing
Masonry
Carpentry
Teacher
Administrative/clerical skills
Any agricultural experience
Land
Does your homestead currently have access to arable land that you use, or have used, for cultivation? Yes=1, no=2
What is the land tenure system of the land?
If yes, how big is the land?
Agriculture:
What method of ploughing do you use?
What crops do you cultivate on this land?
Is the rain reliable?
If no, how do you cope?
Do you irrigate your farm?
If you irrigate your farm, which crops and when do you do that
Where do you get water for irrigation?
How do you allocate which crops to be grown and on what acreage of land. (How do you divide your land in terms of intercropping?)
Were the fields cultivated this year?
If fields are not cultivated this year, why not?
Do you use fertilizer when growing crops? If yes, indicate what kind:
Manure = 1
Chemical fertilizer = 2
Do you use pesticides when growing crops? If yes, indicate what kind:
66
What do you use the agricultural products for?
For use within the household = 1
Selling on the market = 2
If you indicated “2” in the previous question, what is the distance of the market from the homestead? (in metres)
Agro Forestry Do you plant trees? If yes which species of trees do you plant?
If yes on what acreage of land
What do you use the trees for?
For use within the household = 1
Selling = 2
Livestock: How many of the following livestock does the homestead have?
Cattle
Goats
Donkeys
Sheep
Pigs
Rabbits
Chickens
Ducks
Other Poultry
Where does the homestead mostly graze their livestock?
Other (give approximate description )
Services and resources:
Nutrition:
Did any members of your household go to bed hungry last night? yes=1, no=2
Was there a shortage of food in the household at any time last year? yes=1, no=2
If yes, during which month(s) of the year did the household go hungry.
Income and assets:
Income from wages/ salaries: How much money, if any, was received by your homestead from each of the following sources in the last month?
Wages/ salaries for farm labour
Wages/ salaries for work on roads
Wages/ salaries from employment
Selling trees
67
Wages/ salaries for other types of work (specify)
Other income sources: How much money, if any, was received by your homestead from each of the following sources in the last month?
Social grants (pension, disability grant, etc.)
Profits from own business
Livestock sales
Crop vegetable, fruit and nuts
Animal product sales
Tenants
Other (specify)
Total cash income for the household for the last month
Perceived challenges and needs:
What are the biggest challenges with which you as a household has to cope?
What are your most important needs as a household?
Knowledge of the project:
Do you know about the proposed Carbon Finance Project
If so, what do you know about the project?
Where did you obtain this information?
If the project is implemented, what positive effects do you expect it to have on you and your community?
If the project is implemented, what negative effects do you expect it to have on you and your community?
68
Annex D. Pest Management Safeguard Policy
Screening framework
Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project (KACP) is a World Bank supported project targeting small scale farmers to improve their yields and productivity while at the same time generating carbon assets through payment for environmental services. The overall goal of this Carbon Finance project is carbon sequestration through the adoption of sustainable agricultural land management (SALM) practices in parts Nyanza and Western Kenya. SALM practices to be promoted within the frame of this project will include cropland management, restoration of degraded lands, and livestock management in order of importance. The purpose of this document is to provide a strategic framework for the integration of environmental and pest management considerations in the planning and implementation of the activities to be implemented within the KACP. This document has been prepared as a guide for initial screening of the activities of the project for negative impacts which would require attention and mitigation prior to their implementation. 1. In assisting borrowers to manage pests that affect either agriculture or public health, the Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. In Bank-financed projects, the borrower addresses pest management issues in the context of the project's environmental assessment
Does the project assist the borrower in any form pest management? e.g.:
What type of assistance is provided?
Strengthening of extension systems which cover pest management
Strengthening of vector control
Funding of pest management related research
Direct pesticide purchasing
Strengthening of pest management policy issues
Will the implementation of the project have an indirect effect on (or influence) pest management? e.g.:
Promotion of agricultural intensification
Promotion of credit systems that may result in increased pesticide use
Promotion of agricultural irrigation with impact on public health issues
Which level of EA is required for the project?
Has an EA been made?
See World Bank BP 4.01 Annex C for more specific assessment issues on the need for a comprehensive Pest Management Plan and the Screening of Pest Control Products.
Does the project support / promote the use of biological or environmental control and reduce the reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides?
See under 4 for more specific questions.
2. In appraising a project that will involve pest management, the Bank assesses the capacity of the country's regulatory framework and institutions to promote and support safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management. As necessary, the Bank and the borrower incorporate in the project components to strengthen such capacity.
69
Has an assessment been made (in the PAD or other official project appraisal document) of the country’s capacity to regulate pest management?
What pest management legislation is in force in the country?
What related legislation is in force that influences pest (and pesticide) management? (e.g. environmental, economic, health, ….)
Is legislation operational and effectively being enforced?
Is legislation effective?
What are the gaps in legislation and enforcement compromising provision 2 of OP 4.09?
In case gaps have been identified, what activities have been included in the project to improve pest management legislation and enforcement?
What is the timeline of these activities in comparison with the pest management activities in the project (e.g. does it allow large scale pesticide use before legislation is effective?)
3. The Bank uses various means to assess pest management in the country and support integrated pest management (IPM) and the safe use of agricultural pesticides: economic and sector work, sectoral or project-specific environmental assessments, participatory IPM assessments, and adjustment or investment projects and components aimed specifically at supporting the adoption and use of IPM.
Which means have been used, in preparing the project, to assess pest management issues in the country?
Which means have been proposed or used, in preparing and executing the project, to support IPM and safe use of pesticides.
What data were assessed before project implementation, and have been collected during project execution, on :
Agricultural productivity of the crops covered by the project?
Crop losses due to agricultural pests?
Use of pest management practices, including pesticides?
Impact of project activities on agricultural productivity?
Impact of project activities on crop losses?
Impact of project activities on pesticide use or other pest management practices?
Impact of project activities on farmer revenues?
Environmental and health impact of pest management practices?
4. In Bank- financed agriculture operations, pest populations are normally controlled through IPM approaches, such as biological control, cultural practices, and the development and use of crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to the pest. The Bank may finance the purchase of pesticides when their use is justified under an IPM approach.
Which pest management approaches will be developed, promoted or used in the project?
What technical recommendations and/or extension packages will be developed in the project? What is their (potential) impact on pest management (practices).
Have any surveys carried out by the project to assess farmer needs and requirements? What type of pest management problems do they encounter?
What farmer (demonstration) field trials have been or will be carried out? Were pest management techniques involved?
70
What research has been or will be carried out within the framework of the project? What is its (potential) impact on pest management (practices)?
Will pesticides be financed (directly or indirectly) by the project?
Is the proposed financing/procurement of pesticides or other pest control products justified under an IPM approach?
See Annex 2 – Questionnaire on Pesticides and IPM for more detailed screening
71
Annex E. Questionnaire on Pest Management
72
Annex F. Pest Management Plan (PMP)
for the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project
Final report and implementation schedule prepared for SCC-Vi Agroforestry
Programme
Z.M. Kinyua (PhD)
Crop Health Specialist 15
th June 2012
i
Acknowledgements
The report and the plan presented in this document was as a result of the kind cooperation and support of
farmers, staff of SCC-Vi Agroforestry and other stakeholders whom the consultant interacted with during
the desktop/office and subsequent field assessments and discussions. The high level cooperation cannot be
taken for granted and it is gratefully appreciated. The following persons are specially singled out for the
important roles and responsibilities that they took:
Mr. Bo Lager - The Programme Director: deeply involved in planning and ensuring the contract
was executed.
Mr. Amos Wekesa programme – Environment and Climate Change advisor: for planning and
continued monitoring of the contract execution process.
Ms. Wangu Mutua - The Project Manager, Kisumu project area.
Mr. Wilson Nyariwo – The Deputy Project Manager, Kisumu project area.
Mr. Fred Marani - The Project Manager, Kitale project area.
Mr. Robert Musikoyo - The Deputy Project Manager, Kitale project area.
All the Zonal coordinators and field officers for Bumula, Malakisi, Sirisia, Madiany, Wagai and
Kombewa Divisions.
Various members of staff who were involved in various office and logistical responsibilities
related to data collection, sharing and discussions of findings and the development of the pest
management plan.
I also take this opportunity to sincerely recognize the work done by my team in processing the information
and data contained in the data questionnaires. Such support could not have been displayed better.
Table of contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ i
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iii
Weeds 5 30.00 9 Foliage beetles 5 5 30.00 10 *Prioritization of bean pests in Kombewa was done during scrutiny of the PMP document at divisional level.
Table 14. Prioritized ranking of pests affecting cattle in various target areas Name of pest Bumula Malakisi Sirisia Madiany Wagai Kombewa* Weighted
scores
Weighted
rank
Ticks 1 1 1 1 1 1 (1) 1.00 1
Worms 2 3 4 4 2 (2) 3.60 2
East coast fever 2 2 4 5.33 3 Foot and mouth
disease
3 2 7.50 4
Mastitis 3 5 4 8.00 5 Black quarter 4 2 9.00 6 Lump and skin
disease
5 3 12.00 7
Tsetse fly 4 5 (3) 13.50 8 Bloat 3 18.00 9
Anthrax 3 18.00 9
Liver fluke 5 30.00 10 *Priority ranking of cattle pests in Kombewa as shown in brackets was done during scrutiny of the PMP document at divisional level. A
separate ranking of diseases was as follows: Helminthiasis, Anaplasmosis, Babesiosis, Trypanosomiasis, Heart water, East coast fever, Foot
and mouth disease, and Lumpy skin disease.
Table 15. Prioritized ranking of pests affecting poultry (chicken) in various target areas Name of pest Bumula Malakisi Sirisia Madiany Wagai Kombewa* Weighted
labels on pesticide containers, field days and neighbouring farmers. Table 17 outlines the sources in each
area as stated by the farmers.
17
Table 17. Sources of information and skills in handling of pesticides
Area Source of
information or skills
Type of information or skills Remarks
Bumula SCC Vi Agroforestry Making and using plant
extracts as pesticides;
necessary tools and equipment;
use of integrated pest
management
Out of the 14 farmers involved
in the discussions, none of them
had gone through organized
training on how to use/handle
chemical pesticides
Labels on containers Rates/dosage to use
Agro-input stockists Pesticides to use after
describing the pest problem
Neighbours/fellow
farmers
Pesticides used on particular
pest problems
Malakisi SCC Vi Agroforestry Out of the 13 farmers who were
in group discussions, 4 owned
gumboots, 8 owned hand
gloves, and only 3 said they
always use gloves whilst only 4
said they had ever used nose
masks.
Ministry of
Agriculture
Ministry of livestock
development
Agrochemical
companies e.g. Bayer
CropScience
Pesticides to use after
describing or displaying a pest
problem
Sirisia SCC Vi Agroforestry Use and maintenance of
equipment; mixing of
pesticides, types and uses of
particular pesticides, disposal
A forum for the training was
said to have been organized in
the area.
Field day Assessing the performance of
pesticides
Field days are organized by the
Ministry of Agriculture;
recruitment of more extension
officers would improve access
to extension services.
Madiany Ministry of
Agriculture
Measuring chemical
quantities/dosage, protective
clothing usage
1 out of 5 persons had been
trained 3 years before
SCC Vi Agroforestry Safe use of pesticides 1 out of 5 persons had this
knowledge
Agrochemical
companies e.g. Osho
Chemicals
Compatibility of chemicals 1 out of 5 persons got this
information through a road
show
Wagai None Not applicable Out of 10 respondents in group
discussions, none had received
any training
Kombewa Ministry of Livestock
development
- 1 out of 20 persons had had an
interaction with livestock
extension officer in 1989.
Ministry of
Agriculture
- 1 out of 20 persons had
received theoretical training.
18
From the above table, it became clear that training in matters related to use of pesticides is necessary. Some
of the topics that the farmers would like to receive training on included the following:
1. Safety and handling of chemical pesticides.
2. Use/application of pesticides, including dosages/rates.
3. Alternatives to chemical pesticides.
4. Alternatives to substitute pesticides that are not effective.
Practical training through on-farm demonstrations were considered to be critical in imparting the necessary
knowledge and ensuring continued application of the skills gained.
3.5. Policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity
By considering a holistic approach to the management of pests, and in the spirit of contributing to the
endeavours of the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project of increasing production of staple food by improving
land productivity while at the same time sequestrating carbon through adoption of sustainable agricultural
land management (SALM) practices and concomitant reduction of vulnerability to climate change, an
effective pest management plan should be anchored on promotion of integrated pest management (IPM)
strategies. These are strategies that combine a variety of management methods to prevent pathogens,
insects, and weeds from causing economic crop losses whilst ensuring cost-effectiveness and the least
damage to the environment. The key components of integrated pest management strategies include host
plant resistance, biological control, use of pesticides, physical control, cultural control and regulatory
control. Some of these components are applicable to both crop and livestock pests while some may only be
applicable to some selected enterprises.
Against this background, various institutions and policy frameworks are in existence. The following
sections highlight the relevant aspects of the various institutions that are seen to play a role in promoting
IPM principles and ideals.
3.5.1. SCC-Vi Agroforestry
From the outset, SCC Vi Agroforestry had included the aspect of capacity building in pest and pesticide
management in the KACP, thereby underlining the organization’s commitment to achieve a reduction in the
use of chemical pesticides and embracement of more environment-friendly pest management measures.
This led to the implementation of a requirement to train the organization’s staff in integrated pest
management. This was achieved through the engagement of a team of crop health scientists to provide pest
diagnostics training for Vi Agroforestry staff in June 2010.
The principal topics covered were as follows:
Spectrum and economic importance of pests.
Crop-pest case studies: arthropod pests and diseases of staple/food crops and vegetable, weeds in
crop production.
Invasive species - ecosystem changes and effects.
Principles, practices and components of integrated pest management.
Pesticides: handling, safety and disposal.
Pesticide application: formulations, measurement, mixing and calibration of equipment calculations
and measurements.
Pesticide registration.
19
Agronomy: choice of seed, varieties and planting.
Soil fertility and plant nutrition: principles, deficiencies and toxicities.
Further, SCC-Vi Agroforestry has also engaged expertise in the development of a pest management plan
that is provided in this report. As has been found out through field assessment and interactions with farmers
and other stakeholders, including field and technical staff of SCC-Vi Agroforestry, there is need for a more
practical on-farm-based approach to training on integrated pest management, with a strong component of
judicious use and safe handling of pesticides from a human and environmental protection perspective.
In the course of field assessments and interactions, the capacity of the SCC-Vi Agroforestry in terms of
field staff was noted to be substantial. In particular, the farmer groups that were met expressed strong
linkages with the staff and appeared to know them very closely. Additionally, the ability of the field staff to
make regular interactions with the farmers in the course of their activities was seen as a very important
aspect when it comes to delivery of technical advice and backstopping or follow-up for various activities on
the ground. Without drawing any parallels, transport through motorbikes was seen as an important
ingredient of networking.
3.5.2. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Livestock Development
As the overall government entity entrusted with ensuring economical and safe agricultural production for
adequate food and raw materials for agriculture-based industries, the Ministry of Agriculture and its sister
Ministry of Livestock Development share a common ground in having extension arms. The extension
officers in these and other ministries in the agriculture sector are strategically in place as a government
policy to ensure that information and technologies are available to farmers, part of this being what can
assist in pest and pesticide management. In the cause of their operations, the agriculture-sector ministries
and their affiliate parastatals operate within the following policy frameworks and other guidelines derived
from them:
1. The Agriculture Act (CAP 318, Laws of Kenya): This act provides guidance on good agricultural
practices (land management and husbandry practices) that include care for the environment, which
also extrapolates to use pesticides and other pest control measures that may have a bearing on land
sustainability.
2. The Pest Control Products Act (Cap 346, Laws of Kenya): This act established the Pest Control
Products Board (PCPB), which is a statutory organization of the Kenya Government. The Board
regulates the importation, exportation, manufacture, distribution and use of pesticides. As one of its
mandate functions, PCPB registers pest control products for use in public health, livestock and
agriculture. All registered pest control products are listed in a document that is regularly updated to
include new products and to remove those that have been deregistered for various reasons. The
listing of the products enables farmers, extension staff, pesticide stockists, exporters, manufacturers,
government institutions and the general public to easily identify pesticides that have been evaluated
by the Board for safety, efficacy, quality and economic value. The safety and handling aspects are
very critical in the implementation of IPM strategies and in promoting the objectives of the Kenya
Agricultural Carbon Project.
3. The Plant Protection Act (Cap 324, Laws of Kenya): As plant protection from attack or invasion
by pests is one of the components of IPM, this legislation can enhance the success of KACP’s
efforts of enabling farmers manage pest situations, especially in terms of prevention the
introduction and spread of crop pests. The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate
20
Service (KEPHIS), which is a statutory agency of the Government of Kenya with mandate to
protect Kenya's agriculture from pests and diseases, ensures that this part of the Act is adhered to by
making all travellers declare plants/ plant products or other regulated articles carried as part of their
baggage. Confiscation and/or destruction of plant materials may be done if the appropriate
documentation is not in place.
4. The Suppression of Noxious Weeds Act (Cap 325, Laws of Kenya): Instances of plant species
that turn into noxious weeds have been reported over time. The enforcement of the provisions of
this act would prevent such situations. In this case, players in the KACP would be encouraged to
seek the indulgence of the relevant institutions when a plant species is perceived as having a
potential to become a serious weed.
5. The Science and Technology Act (Cap 250, Laws of Kenya): This Act establishes the machinery
for making available to Government advice upon all matters relating to the scientific and
technological activities and research necessary for the proper development of the Republic, the co-
ordination of research and experimental development, and related matters.
3.5.3. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)
This is a government parastatal body with the core mandate of undertaking research in a wide range of
areas including food crops, horticultural and industrial crops, livestock and range management, land and
water management, and socio-economics. It aims to promote sound agricultural research, technology
generation and dissemination to ensure food security through improved productivity and environmental
conservation. The institution also provides various research-related services to the public. The services that
may be of relevance to the pest management and KACP in general include the following:
advisory services, technical back-stopping and capacity building to the agricultural sector
ministries, farmers and other agencies dealing with agricultural research for development.
capacity development for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based
organizations (CBOs).
quality assurance of technologies developed and disseminated through uptake pathways.
identification and prioritisation of research agenda together with partners.
laboratory and consultancy services
3.6. Monitoring and evaluation of pest management practices
It is obvious that farmers are able to recognize pest situations in their crop and livestock enterprises and,
subsequently, deploy pest management strategies either directly or indirectly through service providers. If
the impact of any intervention involving the use of instituted pest management strategies is to be
determined, there must a starting point (baseline) and subsequent monitoring over time. Under the KACP’s
pest and pesticide management component, the need for a baseline data capture tool was realized and a
pesticide screening questionnaire developed. This has subsequently been modified for clarity of questions
and focusing the type of information that is desired. The modified questionnaire, which is referred to as
‘pest and pesticide management baseline questionnaire’ is in Appendix 5.
A pest and pest management record form for use in field monitoring (Appendix 6) has also been designed
for use in the implementation of the pest management plan in this report.
21
3.7. Considerations in budgeting for implementation of the pest management plan
Cost estimates for the implementation of the pest management plan have been made. However, the costs
are highly dynamic and dependent on various factors. For instance, costs of commodities and services are
known to change with time. Similarly, the number of people to engage in activities such as meetings, along
with their respective travel and accommodation costs, can only be determined while providing for some
degree of adjustment. Therefore, the cost indications are a general guide that should be viewed with an
element of flexibility.
3.8. Consultations and disclosure on the PMP
Following the sharing of a draft report and PMP schedule with staff of SCC-Vi Agroforestry and
subsequent presentation to farmers and other stakeholders, the final report and the pest management plan
schedule was largely endorsed. The stakeholders concurred with the sections of the report relating to the
various project target areas. The only exception was the ranking of crops and livestock in Kombewa. This
has since been addressed through divisional level assessments where the ranking of crops was separated
from the ranking of livestock priorities. For this same division, the prioritization of pest constraints was
also done for crops that had not featured prominently during the field visits but were considered important
during the divisional level assessments. This particular case indicated that there might be need to confirm
the crop and livestock priorities in the various areas given that the field interactions were made with
selected farmer groups that were considered representative.
On the basis of the consultations and the resultant adjustments made on the report, there is confidence that
the pest management plan can be implemented effectively and that the desired impact can be produced to
contribute to the expected outputs of the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project.
22
4.0 The Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project Pest Management Plan (PMP)2
Pest-related issue Envisaged activity Approach to activity
implementation
Time frame Parties to be
involved
Responsible
party
Cost (KShs)3
1 Formal start of PMP
implementation
Launch of the PMP
document
Availability of PMP
document – presentation
of the document to lead
implementers in project
areas at Kitale and
Kisumu
Already done (27
March 2012 in
Kisumu & 28
March 2012 in
Kitale)
SCC-Vi,
Ministries of
Agriculture,
Livestock
Development &
Fisheries,
Provincial
Administration,
farmer group
representatives,
NEMA, KFS,
KEFRI, KARI,
KEPHIS, CRF,
Agrochemical
companies, BAT,
Mastermind,
Seed companies,
Coffee Board of
Kenya,
CREADIS
SCC-Vi
(Programme
Director,
Project
Managers/Depu
ties, ZOCOs,
Head of Field
Operations)
180,000
2 Crop and livestock
enterprises and
respective pests in
project areas
Confirmation of priorities in
specific project areas
Scrutinizing the PMP
document and making
any necessary
adjustments – meetings
of SCC-Vi staff, relevant
ministry staff and farmer
group leaders
Within 1 week
from circulation
of the final PMP
document
SCC-Vi (Project
Managers/Deputi
es, ZOCOs,
Agroforestry/SA
LM officers,
Agroforestry
Training
SCC-Vi
(Project
Managers/Depu
ties, ZOCOs,
Agroforestry/S
ALM officers
240,000
2 The pest management plan (PMP) was discussed with SCC-Vi Agroforestry staff from both Kisumu and Kitale project areas during a report presentation meeting on 17
th
February 2012 in Kisumu office. Report launch presentations were also made in Kisumu project area on 27th
March and in Kitale project area on 28th
March 2012, with subsequent
discussions and endorsements of the PMP. 3 The cost column shows estimates that are prone to adjustment in the light of changing costs of goods and services and dynamic quantities of required inputs.
23
Pest-related issue Envisaged activity Approach to activity
implementation
Time frame Parties to be
involved
Responsible
party
Cost (KShs)3
Centres),
Ministries of
Agriculture &
Livestock
Development,
farmer group
leaders,
Provincial
Administration.
3 Feasibility of pest
management options
Collating of detailed
information on all practical
pest mitigation measures,
including setting a baseline
on pest and pesticide
management
Capturing specific details
of pest management
practices (e.g. name of a
crop variety that is
resistant to a particular
pest, names of rotation
crops that help in
management of a
particular pest, etc)
through field work,
reference materials, etc
Within 4 weeks
from the formal
circulation of
final PMP
document
SCC-Vi (Project
Managers/Deputi
es, ZOCOs,
M&E, Field
staff), Ministries
of Agriculture &
Livestock
Development,
seed companies,
agrochemical
companies.
SCC-Vi
(Agroforestry
& SALM
officers)
840,000
4 Integrated Pest
Management (IPM)
strategies for priority
pests along selected
crop/livestock value
chains
Experiential training on
designing of practical IPM
strategies for on-farm
demonstration and validation
A 1-week training
workshop based on
identified practical pest
mitigation measures,
including judicious use
and management of
pesticides
Within 3 weeks
after final
submission of
information on
feasibility of pest
management
options
SCC-Vi staff (at
least 3 selected
staff members per
division)
SCC-Vi
(Agroforestry/S
ALM &
Capacity
Building
officers)
1,200,000
5 Practice and
incorporation of
designed IPM strategies
Setting up on-farm
demonstrations on designed
IPM strategies at farmer-
Superimposing designed
IPM strategies on
farmer-led crop/livestock
Continuous and
synchronized
with
SCC-Vi (Project
Managers/Deputi
es, ZOCOs,
SCC-Vi
(Project
Managers/Depu
2,880,0004
4This is the cost estimate for one complete production cycle (equivalent to 2 seasons per year for crop enterprises or a one-year period for livestock enterprises). Provision has been
made for one SCC-Vi Agroforestry officer per division who has been trained in IPM and evaluation schedules; such an officer should implement the formulated IPM strategies in
close consultation with an IPM specialist.
24
Pest-related issue Envisaged activity Approach to activity
implementation
Time frame Parties to be
involved
Responsible
party
Cost (KShs)3
into farming systems learning sites/centres) enterprises, including
regular/timed data
collection.
crop/livestock
production
cycles, with bi-
annual review
meetings and
report
compilation
M&E, Field staff,
Head of Field
Operations),
Ministries of
Agriculture &
Livestock
Development,
seed companies,
agrochemical
companies.
farmer groups,
Agricultural
Training Centres
ties, ZOCOs,
Head of Field
Operations)
6 Assessment and
adjustment of pest and
pesticide management
strategies
Monitoring and Evaluation
Regular or occasional
administration of process
evaluation questionnaires
and other data collection
tools
Continuous or
predetermined
and synchronized
with PMP
implementation
activities, with bi-
annual review
meetings and
reports
SCC-Vi (Project
Managers/Deputi
es, ZOCOs,
M&E, Field staff,
Head of Field
Operations),
farmer grps,
Agroforestry
Training Centre
officers
SCC-Vi
(Project
Managers/Depu
ties, ZOCOs,
M&E officers,
Head of Field
Operations)
360,0005
7 Pest diagnosis and
management
Capacity building/training of
SCC-Vi staff on pest
diagnosis and management
Carry out a training
needs assessment
(TNA)
Once per year
SCC-Vi staff
SCC-Vi
(Agroforestry/S
ALM &
Capacity
Building
officers)
240,0006
Design and conduct
priority training
As per the
identified
SCC-Vi staff
SCC-Vi
(Agroforestry/S
Variable
5 This cost may easily be absorbed by integrating monitoring and evaluation activities in the farmer-learning sites activities.
6 This is the cost estimate for one training needs assessment, which may be repeated after every two years.
25
Pest-related issue Envisaged activity Approach to activity
implementation
Time frame Parties to be
involved
Responsible
party
Cost (KShs)3
courses training needs ALM &
Capacity
Building
officers)
(determined
after TNA)
26
Appendices Appendix 1. Workplan for Preparation of a Pest Management Plan (PMP) for the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project
by Z.M. Kinyua (lead consultant) - implementation in January 2012 Task narrative Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Day 12 Day 13 Day 14 Day 15
f) Do you wash your hands after applying pesticides? Yes No g) If you wash your hands after applying pesticides, how do you do it? / use soap / use soil
using water only using water and soap using soil
Other (please specify) ……………………………………………………………………………………..
h) Do you observe pre-harvest intervals and pre-entry intervals (i.e. waiting periods after
45
applying pesticides)? Yes No
If yes, how do you determine how long the waiting period should be? ………………………