Approaches

Cash for Work [Kenya]

approaches_2360 - Kenya

Completeness: 81%

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:

Wamuyu Joseph

016120368

Diocese of Embu

Box 884

Kenya

SLM specialist:

Ireri Vincent

016120368

Diocese of Embu

Box 884

Kenya

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Embu Diocese - 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:

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Giving cash incentives to farmers for them to undertake soil and water conservation

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Overall purpose of reducing vulnerability to famine and recurrent drought in Mbeere district. Specific objectives were to increase access to cash to meet basic needs of some 2000 most vulnerable households for a period of 4 months and to increase adoption of improved drought tolerant crop varieties for some 2000 most vulnerable households for aperiod of 9 months.

Methods: Methods of delivery were cash for work in construction of SWC structures including rural access road improvement and provision of access to planting seeds, technical knowhow and drought tolerant crop varieties.

Stages of implementation: Stages of implementation were sensitization and awareness creation of key stake holders and land users, Recruitment of technical staff and their training , selection of the beneficiaries and formation of groups ( 10 groups each comprising 20 farmers ) per work site, Election of focal area committees and their training, actual implementation of the agreed activities and finally monitoring and evaluation.

Role of stakeholders: Role of the participants was to provide labour, undertake good crop husbandry practices on the conserved land and participate in meetings, field days and group activities.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Mbeere Distict In Eastern Province

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2000

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2002

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 (*Water harvesting for crop productioin *Access roads improvement *Fruit trees establishment *Increased adoption of improved drought tolerant crop varieties)

*Increase access to cash so as to meet basic needs of the most vulnerable households *Consruction of soil and water conservation measures including improvement of access roads in the focal area ( work site ). *Increased adoption of improved drought tolerant crop varieties.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: * low land productivity due to soil erosion and drought *Migration of farmers to look for work during drouht speells *Poor access roads * Lack of seeds for improved drought tolerant crop varieties

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

migration to look for off farm employment

Treatment through the SLM Approach: cash incentives to make the farmers remain in their farms and do conservation

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: Individual land ownership encouraged the farmers to invest on their through various conservation efforts

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of adquate technical staff to lay out soil and water conservation measures

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training work site (focal area) farmer commitees to do lay out work ie paraprofessionals.

other
  • hindering

inadequate family labour on the farms

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Organise farmers into conservation groups ie communal work

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Working land useres where work is equally divided between men and women

The programme targeted the resource poor land users ie those that were already receiving food relief from the World food Programme (WFP).

  • NGO

Diocese of Embu

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Ministry of agriculture

  • international organization

Catholic Relief Services (CRS)

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 passive public meetings; Series of work site meetings to explain the programme to the land users
planning interactive Mainly: public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars; Workshops for key staholders held and training of the programme staff conducted
implementation external support Mainly: casual labour; partly: responsibility for major steps; Wor site committees were responsible for organising the farmers day to day activities
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: public meetings, reporting; Focal area committees were assisting the technical staff in taking measurements compiling reports
Research interactive on-farm; The mother (16 varieties ) and baby (3 varieties) trials were managed by the farmers

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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Explain:

Consultative. Meetings were held with the land users where the activities to be undertaken were discussed and agreed on.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. Consultative. The method was chosen by the SWC specialists but discussed and adopted by the farmers

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • extensionists/trainers
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
Subjects covered:

Methods of soil conservation; Water harvesting for crop production; Lay out of soil conservation structures and tree planting

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: catchment (focal area) approach; Key elements: demonstrations, field days, trial plots and individual farm visits; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent 2) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: lay out work, agroforestry, individual tree nurseries establishment

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; proramme used the existing extension staff within the focal areas. These staff arec still in place continously delivering extension services

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
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
  • logistical surpport-transport

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored

economic / production aspects were regular monitored

area treated aspects were regular monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

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

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

adaptive onfarm trials carried out on new drought tolerant crop varieties

Research was carried out on-farm

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 non-government (Catholic relief services): 99.0%; local community / land user(s) (Depreciation of farm tools): 1.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

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

In addition to the cash the land users were given seeds and fruit tree seedlings

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery
tools
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed
  • infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
Community infrastructure
Comments:

In addition to the cash the land users were given seeds and fruit tree seedlings

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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

incorporation of water harvesting techniques in crop production and manure application

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach to spread to several other districts

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
training (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: more field days and farmer tours)
provision of seeds and seedlings (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: setting up of bulking plots and group tree nurseries)
cash provision (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: intensify production of cash generating enterprises especially fruit trees like mangoes and pawpaws)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
group approach (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: training of the committees, encourage more group activities and projects)
involvement and use of locally based extension staff

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?
lack of appropriate tools provision of suitable tools as the condition of the area dictate
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
use of cash as incentive should be phased out gradually
low land user involvement in the initial stages use of participatory methods

7. References and links

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Catchment planning- by E.Mwenda , MOA&RD-Nairobi

Mbeere district development plan 1997-2002

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules