Approaches

SASOL community approach - for sand dams in Kitui [Kenya]

approaches_2358 - Kenya

Completeness: 83%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Mutiso Sam

sasol@kenyaweb.com

SASOL Foundation

PO Box 85 Kitui Kenya

Kenya

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Sahelian Solutions Foundation (SASOL) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Kitui Sand dams
technologies

Kitui Sand dams [Kenya]

Masonry dam in seasonal watercourse or river that stores water in the sand which accumulates above it.

  • Compiler: Unknown User

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Community based water resource development

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Purpose is to harness the available water resource for common interests. Objective is to make water more accesible especially in the dry season.

Methods: Communities are mobilised through participation process. Local artisans are trained on the job wherease the community provide local materials and free labour voluntarily. Supporting NGOs facilitate the training and provide inputs eg cement, reinforcing bars, skilled labour. Community mobilisation is basic to SASOL's programme for water resource development. SASOL take advantage of existing structures and conforms to the government policy refferred to as District focus for Rural Development. Before communities can be mobilised, people, must be trained and SASOL has found that training can best be done at the local level. The role of the community is as follows: 1. To provide secondary data/information 2. Identify problems, resources and propose possible interventions or community action plan. 3. Election of a committee to take charge - custodial of all purchased materials. 4. Collection of local materials and provide labour. 5. Carry out impact assessment periodically

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Eastern

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1995

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (tree nursery establishment, health and hygiene concerns of the community. (Community Trainings))

to build sand dams in all streams in a 200km2 part of Central Division of Kitui District.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of water especially in dry seasonPoor water hygiene and general public health.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Lack of funds for cement

Treatment through the SLM Approach: SASOL raises the funds

institutional setting
  • hindering

Lack of community organization to address the prevailing problems

Treatment through the SLM Approach: participatory process to identify problems & solutions

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of trained artisans

Treatment through the SLM Approach: training of artisans

other
  • hindering

roads and access to river valleys

Treatment through the SLM Approach: improvement of roads

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Community village group (water users' group). Working land users were mainly women (most of the men are working outside the district.) Existing groups of land users; Working land users were mainly women (most of the men are working outside the district.)

More men working outside the district.
More women engaged in the daily activities as they are availanle. Sub-locational development committees and self help groups are mobilised for a community training that follows the approach of a PRA. The community selects from 25 to 50 trainnees, both men and women.

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
  • international organization

Kenyan political scientist in collaboration with a Netherland hydrogeologist and an environmental planner

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation interactive Mainly:rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: workshops/seminars; PRA was carried out with the assistance of world neighbours
planning interactive Mainly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: public meetings; participatory planning exercise
implementation interactive responsibility for major steps; collection of local materials labour water etc
monitoring/ evaluation interactive measurements/observations; community observation and comments
Research none water hygiene analysis

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
Explain:

Consultative through participatory approaches.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. consultative

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • teachers, school children/students
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered:

through PRA and on the job

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Workshop trainning; Key elements: non residential workshops, Educational tours and visits; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents 2) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: specifically hired project employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: SWC, Tree planting, water management

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; community resource persons trained to make it sustainable.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, moderately
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
  • cooperative activity to solve water problem

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored

technical aspects were regular monitored

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: construction of dam in one single phase as opposed to several phase due to difficulties In comminity mobilisation for subsequent phases. Commencement of construction from wing walls instead of the main structure. This is psycologically attractive to land users as they remain motivated to realise completion of the dam across the river/stream bed.

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 100,000-1,000,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (-): 50.0%; international non-government (-): 10.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 40.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Provision of purchased inputs like cement.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools fully financed
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
Cement and reinforced bars fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

Provision of purchased inputs like cement.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

more tree nurseries, more vegetable growing, more time for terracing etc instead of treking for water

N/A

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

other groups using water as an entry point for development e.g. catholic diocese

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • uncertain
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Still need help for purchase of inputs especially cement and reinforced bars

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
avail labour readily for demanding activities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: engage groups in self help farm activities)
laggards are pulled along by innovators
communal identification of available resources and strngths
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Participatory PRA creates awareness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: through trainings)
empowers community (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: start income generating activities)
costs minimized through voluntary labour
self reliance strengthened
community empowered

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
materials are too expensive for them to afford local fund raising initiatives
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
impact on river flow needs to be studied

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Thomas, D.B. 1999'where there is no water.' A story of community water development & dand dams in Kitui District, Kenya

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules