Partnership with beneficiary communities in project implementation [Kenya]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Fredrick Ochieng
- Editors: Nicole Stolz, Boris Orlowsky
- Reviewers: Alexandra Gavilano, Boris Orlowsky, Renate Fleiner
N/A
approaches_597 - Kenya
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
Key resource person(s)
Fredrick Ochieng:
Kenya
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
CARITAS (Switzerland) - Switzerland1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
14/10/2016
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Yes
1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies
Rock catchment [Kenya]
A rock catchment system is a water harvesting structure comprising a bare sloping rock surface (impounded area), a constructed concrete wall at a strategic point (weir), pipeline from the weir to the storage tank(s), storage tanks and water kiosk(s) connected to the water tanks by pipelines.
- Compiler: Fredrick Ochieng
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
The approach focuses on community engagement on a partnership basis. The model is a departure from the traditional approaches where the community mostly is reduced to being a beneficiary of project services without substantive responsibility.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
The Approach is hinged on community empowerment and partnership. The model is a departure from the traditional approaches where the community is reduced to a mere beneficiary of project services without substantive responsibility.
The main purpose of the approach is to enhance ownership, while fostering needed capacity for management of project outcomes. Ultimately, it is estimated that sustainability of project results is achievable with good community empowerment and meaningful participation. The approach also aims at cost effectiveness as the community is required to substantially contribute locally available materials, labour and sometimes cash.
Community mobilisation and capacity building is central to ensure that the community is prepared to undertake their roles and responsibilities. Mobilisation happens through discussions, sometimes aided by applying participatory tools and methods. Capacity building is done through workshop-type and/or on-the-job training. It is noteworthy that the communities do have indigenous knowledge and skills which are useful in processes of development at the community level. These skills and knowledge inform the project design, planning and implementation of activities. To enhance local skills, selected community members are trained as they work alongside the hired skilled artisans during the construction of the rock catchment system. The aim is to prepare and equip the locals with basic skills for operations and maintenance of the rock catchment system. Others are trained to get equipped with skills on hygiene and sanitation promotion.
The project was designed based on pre-project assessment. The assessment, besides identifying water and hygiene needs, also identified three areas/communities which had rock catchment potential - Ndikir, Manyatta Lengima and Mpagas. Initial meetings were done with support from community leaders and the local government administrators (chiefs). During the meetings the project was explained and discussed in view of the community needs and the roles for all stakeholders - Caritas Switzerland (CACH), the community, government and leaders. Agreed roles and responsibilities were drafted and formed the main part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CACH and the community. The MOU was signed before the entire community for collective ownership and formalise the relationship between CACH and the project.
At the county and sub-county level, the stakeholders are provided with progress updates, engaging with government and other leaders. The local leaders were useful in helping in community mobilisation and addressing areas of concern wherever issues arose.
The approach left the community more motivated with a desire to manage the project benefits for posterity. The community has appreciated that the project ended with a number of community members having acquired basic skills for operations and maintenance. Above all, they were proud that they significantly contributed to the successful implementation of the project. Initially the community were opposed to the idea that they had to contribute so much, since before they had mostly received assistance without any requirement on their side to contribute.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
Media Gallery
2.4 Videos of the Approach
Comments, short description:
The video is taken on an early morning shower and shows how water is collected, dammed and channelled downstream to the masonry tanks.
Date:
08/12/2014
Location:
Ndikir village, Marsabit County, Kenya
Name of videographer:
Fredrick Ochieng
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Kenya
Region/ State/ Province:
Laisamis sub county, Marsabit County, Kenya
Further specification of location:
Implemented with three different communities in three locations, Ndikir, Manyatta Lengima and Mpagas
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
2013
Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):
2015
Comments:
The Rock catchment project was implemented from 2013 to 2015
2.7 Type of Approach
- project/ programme based
2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach
1. Community mobilisation
2. Active community participation and ownership of the project and outcomes
3. Sustainability of the project outcomes
4. Enhanced skills and capacity to manage the Technology
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- hindering
The community was accustomed to receiving food and non-food handouts. This culture was a major huddle in working with community where they were expected to make substantial contribution towards the project activities.
institutional setting
- enabling
The institutional setting, especially the traditional authority of elders, was supportive during implementation. Once the elders were convinced and persuaded to make certain decisions beneficial to the project, it was always easier for the rest of the community members to rally behind.
collaboration/ coordination of actors
- enabling
The Approach requires that stakeholders (other non-state actors and government) coordinate well so that approaches employed by all are complementary and all build into sustainable results. It is common however that there have been approaches that dis-empower communities. Good coordination and collaboration would enhance sharing and learning across the actors and minimise such programming pitfalls.
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- enabling
Land tenure in the northern Kenya is mostly communal. This was an enabling factor so that there were no complex and usual elaborate and expensive legal requirements to construct a rock catchment water system. Had land been adjudicated and subdivided for individual ownership, there would have been a need for negotiations and legal procedures to be done with those who own the land where the public asset is to be located.
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
The project was implemented with participation of the communities who are the local land users
Community's role was to ensure that locally available materials were delivered on the site of construction, hygiene and sanitation promotion, unskilled labour, record keeping of all construction materials, security of workers and construction materials on site
- SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
Caritas had a technical team of three staff who were based within the project location in the field. This team was supported through experts in the office in the capital city Nairobi.
The technical team implemented all project activities such as community organisation/mobilisation, construction of infrastructure as well as hygiene and sanitation promotion.
- local government
Chiefs, Members of County Assembly, Ward administrators
Opinion leaders were critical in the process of community mobilisation and following-up the commitments made by the community under the signed MoU.
- national government (planners, decision-makers)
County Steering Group (CSG), sub-County Steering Group (SCSG)
Coordination with other development agencies and government departments at the County level
- international organization
Caritas Switzerland
Overall leadership in project planning, implementation and supervision
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 | Planning for project activities was jointly planned between the community and the project staff specialists |
| planning | interactive | More technical planning was done as advised by the technical project team. Planning for day to day field activities during implementation was jointly done with the community |
| implementation | interactive | Community participation was more interactive in planning for specific project activities. However, there were specific tasks which required hired labour and by common agreement the community provided such labour for payment. |
| monitoring/ evaluation | interactive | Monitoring with community was mainly done during project reflection/review meetings. Monitoring in this respect was more limited to evaluation of project activities progress and timeliness with which the activities were being achieved. |
3.3 Flow chart (if available)
Description:
The flow chart summarises the Approach's key components, activities and steps for community mobilisation, capacity building and stakeholders engagement. The stakeholders include the relevant government departments - Water, Health, Environment, Drought Management - and non-state actors in the County. There is a monthly forum known as the County Steering Group (CSG) which brings together all the heads of government departments and NGO representatives at the county level. Similar forums also take place at the sub-county level.
Author:
Fredrick Ochieng
3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies
Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
- all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
Explain:
The project was designed initially without direct community involvement other than the pre-project information collected.
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
- evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
- research findings
- personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
- Government policies
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
- field staff/ advisers
Form of training:
- on-the-job
- demonstration areas
Subjects covered:
Basic construction skills, management of water system (rock catchment), hygiene and sanitation promotion
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Yes
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:
The community has (in theory) access to government advisory services. However, the nearest government offices are about 20-50 kilometres away without reliable means of transport. The technical staff of the county government is often unable to offer quality and effective extension work, mostly due to transport limitations but also due to low motivation. However, this gap is being bridged through the work of various NGOs operating in the region who provide advisory services in addition to other interventions such as in water, health, livelihoods, and education.
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
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
The Approach led to establishment of Water Management Committees. The committees have been trained and equipped to manage the systems.
Specify type of support:
- financial
- capacity building/ training
- equipment
Give further details:
One key lesson from this and other projects is that one-off trainings are rarely effective even if properly done. A continuous support/follow-up is necessary to maintain the skills and knowledge acquired.
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
No
4.5 Research
Was research part of the Approach?
No
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:
- 2,000-10,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
Internal organisational funding and external donors
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):
Caritas procured the bulk of construction materials whereas the community contributed locally available materials - sand and hardcore stones
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- voluntary
Comments:
The labour contribution was split between the organisation and the community. Caritas paid 3 USD per day whereas the standard amount per day is 5 USD. This was discussed and agreed at the inception of the project. The consideration was that those who work on site will not have any other time for other work for their household daily needs.
5.4 Credit
Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?
No
5.5 Other incentives or instruments
Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?
No
6. Impact analysis and concluding statements
6.1 Impacts of the Approach
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Community's participation was initially a new concept for the communities in this region. Through various meetings, persistency and flexibility the community participation improved and was achieved during the project period.
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Due to the nature of working with the community, it was always possible to review certain elements of project activities based on learning
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The Approach's aim was to build the required capacity of the community members to better manage the Technology well after the project ends.
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Community's contribution in labour and locally available materials (hardcore stones and sand) significantly reduced the cost of construction. These are materials that otherwise would have been procured from far off sources at a much higher cost.
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The SLM was implemented with funding support aimed for drought recovery. The country had just gone through a major drought. The Approach, however, focused more on mobilising communities towards meaningful participation by providing local available resources such as hardcore, sand, and unskilled labour.
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
A significant element of the Approach was capacity building which was achieved through on-the-job and workshop training for the selected community members
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The project was implemented with close involvement of county government officials and other development organisations. There have been requests by other development actors in the region wanting to know more about how Caritas Switzerland succeeded in working with the communities and achieving these impressive results.
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The project's mandate was limited to community institutions capacity building. Beyond community empowerment the Approach did not target to raise capacity of other stakeholders.
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The region within which the project was implemented in has resource based conflicts, mostly conflicts over water and pasture land. The Approach led to successful implementation of the Technology which reduces pressure on water resources. In addition, the management of the newly constructed water points ensures that community members benefits equally
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Women are the main beneficiaries of the Approach. They were more active than men in offering semi-voluntary labour. Their motivation was that they bear the greater burden than men as it is their responsibility to provide household water .
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Youth participation was minimal due cultural barriers. Young men do not participate in most of community activities. They are expected to have minimal contact with the rest, and especially women hence most of their time they are in the bush
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Land tenure system in the area where the Approach was implemented is communal.
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
It is expected that nutritional status will improve with increased access to better quality water. However, no survey was carried out to confirm this assumption.
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Community members who initially would spend substantial amount of time to search for water now have more time freed to engage in trade and other diversified sources of income
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
There is improved access to water. The three benefiting communities no longer need water supply emergency. However, impact on sanitation was less than satisfactory.
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The project's mandate under which the Approach was implemented was limited to water and sanitation
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Increased water supply has greatly increased community's resilience to droughts. With a prudent management of water harvested, they have successfully avoided negative drought impacts.
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
There is no direct employment except that the community members can now engage more in other rewarding businesses
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- reduced risk of disasters
Increased water supply has greatly decreased community's vulnerability to droughts.
- reduced workload
The community was highly motivated by the challenges of acute and perennial water shortages they have experienced for many years. They had a great desire to change and overcome this challenge.
- conflict mitigation
Reducing water scarcity likely leads to less conflict on water. However, no survey data is available to validate this assumption.
- improved water acess
6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
- yes
If yes, describe how:
The Approach greatly focused on capacity building, community empowerment and strengthened institutions. It is expected therefore that they will sustainably manage the Technologies that have been constructed.
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
| Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
|---|
| The Approach leads to greater ownership of the technology thus leading to better equipped community groups with skills for operations and maintenance. The Approach galvanises a community towards a common goal hence promotes cohesion and better organisation. |
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? |
|---|---|
| It takes time to achieve the community´s buy-in so that they can adequately fulfil their obligations. This is particularly the case in a region where varied development approaches have been implemented, most of which create dependency and discouraged self-initiative. | This can be changed through long terms engagement processes with all stakeholders such as county government and NGOs to advocate for approaches that foster community empowerment. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
Community elders, chiefs, water management committee members, and users
- interviews with land users
The water management committee
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
James Ndenga, staff of Caritas Switzerland
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
End of project report
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
A Handbook of gravity-flow water systems for small communities; Thomas D. Jordan Junior; 1980; 978 0 94668 850 0
Available from where? Costs?
Caritas Switzerland office, Nairobi
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
Rock catchment [Kenya]
A rock catchment system is a water harvesting structure comprising a bare sloping rock surface (impounded area), a constructed concrete wall at a strategic point (weir), pipeline from the weir to the storage tank(s), storage tanks and water kiosk(s) connected to the water tanks by pipelines.
- Compiler: Fredrick Ochieng
Modules
No modules