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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 3

ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 10

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 11

1.1Project Proponent ....................................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 11

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

2.3.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) ........................................................................................... 14

2.3.3 Quantitative Household Survey ................................................................................................ 14

2.3.4 Participant observation and photographic records ..................................................................... 14

2.3.5 Semi-structured interviews ...................................................................................................... 14

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

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 18

4.2 Project Activities ......................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Crop Management ................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.2 Restoration/ Rehabilitation of degraded lands ........................................................................... 18

4.2.3 Livestock management ............................................................................................................ 19

5.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Agro-ecological Areas Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 20

5.1.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1.2 Topography and soils ............................................................................................................... 25

5.1.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 25

5.2 Biological Environment .............................................................................................................................. 25

5.2.1 Fauna ..................................................................................................................................... 25

6

5.2.2 Flora ....................................................................................................................................... 25

5.3 Socio-Economic Environment .................................................................................................................... 26

5.3.1 Population and Demography .................................................................................................... 26

5.3.2 Land Tenure and Land Uses ...................................................................................................... 26

5.3.3 Livelihood ............................................................................................................................... 27

5.3.4 Ethnicity ................................................................................................................................. 30

5.3.5 Health ..................................................................................................................................... 30

5.4 Sensitive Ecosystem ................................................................................................................................... 30

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

6.3.1.3 Forest Operational Policy 4.36 ................................................................................................... 35

6.3.1.4 Pest Management Operational Policy 4.09 ................................................................................ 36

6.3.1.5 Projects on International Waterways Operational Policy 7.50: ................................................. 37

6.3.1.8 Safeguarding Cultural Property Operations Directive 11.03z .................................................... 37

6.3.1.9 Involuntary Resettlement Operational Policy 4.12 .................................................................... 37

6.4.2 International Conventions ........................................................................................................ 39

7

6.4.2.1 Kyoto Protocol ............................................................................................................................ 39

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

7.1 Stakeholder Mapping ................................................................................................................................. 42

7.2 Stakeholder Identification .......................................................................................................................... 42

7.3 Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................................................................... 42

7.3.1 Focus Group Meetings ............................................................................................................. 42

7.3.2 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) ........................................................................................... 42

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS OF CARBON FINANCE PROJECT .................. 44

8.1 Positive Impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 44

8.1.1 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 44

8.1.1.1 Reducing Green House Gases / Carbon Sequestration .............................................................. 44

8.1.1.2 Improved Soil Condition ............................................................................................................. 44

8.1.1.3 Water Conservation ................................................................................................................... 44

8.1.2 Biological Environmental .......................................................................................................... 44

8.1.2.1 Increase in Biological Diversity ................................................................................................... 44

8.1.2.2 Restoration of Degraded Areas .................................................................................................. 44

8.1.2.3 Establishment of Tree Nurseries ................................................................................................ 45

8.1.3 Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................................... 45

8.1.3.1 Macro Economy.......................................................................................................................... 45

8.1.3.2 Micro Economy........................................................................................................................... 45

8.1.3.3 Climate Change Adaptation ........................................................................................................ 45

8.1.3.4 Increased Food Productivity ....................................................................................................... 45

8.1.3.5 Firewood Supply ......................................................................................................................... 45

8.1.3.6 Community Capacity Building and Institutional Development .................................................. 46

8.1.3.7 Community Awareness Creation on Climate Change ................................................................. 46

8.1.3.8 Poverty Alleviation ..................................................................................................................... 46

8.1.3.9 Improved Health/ Nutrition ....................................................................................................... 46

8.1.3.10 Gender Mainstreaming in Rural Economy ............................................................................... 46

8.1.3.11 Carbon Revenue ....................................................................................................................... 46

8.2 Potential Adverse Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 46

8

8.2.1 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................... 46

8.2.1.1 Increased Use of Pesticides ........................................................................................................ 46

8.2.2 Biological Environment ............................................................................................................ 47

8.2.2.2 Emergence of Pest and Diseases ................................................................................................ 47

8.2.3 Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................................... 48

8.2.3.1 Raised Expectations .................................................................................................................... 48

8.3 Without-Project Scenario ........................................................................................................................... 47

9.0 PROJECT ENVIRONMETAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................. 50

9.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 50

9.2 ESMP Implementation................................................................................................................................ 50

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

9.4 Monitoring Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 54

9.5 Environmental and Social Management Plan Budget ................................................................................ 55

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 56

REFERENCE .................................................................................................................................................... 57

ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 58

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

BUMULA

MALAKISI

SIRISIA

CENTRAL

KANDUYI

WEBUYE

NDIVISI

TONGAREN

KIMILILI

DivisionsBUMULACENTRALCHWELEKANDUYIKIMILILIMALAKISINDIVISISIRISIATONGARENWEBUYE

0 30 60 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Bungoma District

24

Figure 4. Nyanza Province project areas location

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

Chwele 192 Sirisia 203 Lwandanyi 153 Mayanja 122 Malakisi 32 Tulienge 27 Machakha 21 Wamono 23 Namwela 225

Total 966

32

6.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

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.

6.3.1.9 Involuntary Resettlement Operational Policy 4.12

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.

38

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

Phillip Oketch Livestock Box No.529 Siaya Tel:0721 236960

Odembo Samwel Provincial Administration Box No.37 Sawalemo Tel:0724 278921

Livingstone Sitati Butunde tents 0728 560838

Wycliffe Wotia Butunde tents 0721 1114990

Johnstone Makhaso Butunde tents

Mantine Wanjala Butunde tents

Peter Saita Butunde tents 0713 050351

Janiffer Masafu Butunde tents

Everlyne Nabiswa Butende tents 0713 199327

Marriam Wotia Butende tents

Agnes Makhaso Butende tents

Florence Wotia Butende tents 0738 016456

Edward Sindoni Butende tents 0711 621361

Esther Makhaso Butende tents

Andrew Wekhanya Butende tents 0726 365494

Stephen Wotia Butende tents

Phillip manyonge Butende tents

Alice Manyonge Butende tents

Peter Matumbo

Fresia Wanjala

Robert Barasa Moa 0733 600228

Rosalyne N. Chemuku Moa 0736 38 9582

William Makhaso Villager Elder 0734 384392

Roderick Kusienya Sub-Chief

Peter Masumbo Non member

Sally Kareithi SCC- VIA/F 0734 221 546

Wamalwa Mrefu SCC - VIA/F

Eliud Ndole SCC- VIA/F

Timothy Walufa SCC- VIA/F

Enock mati SCC- VIA/F

Amos Mati SCC- VIA/F

Cleophas Oparah SCC- VIA/F

Martin W.Walicho Mukoba Family Self Help Group 0735 219901

Josephine Muchele Sasimana 0733 556682

Gabriel Khaoya Sasimana

62

George Kadima Mama Jikoni

Joseph Muchele Sasimana

Samuel Masoso Liaf Brothers

Alice Sifuma Mama Jikoni

Christine Wamalwa KenFap

Ezebela Barasa Mama Jikoni

Enes Nyongesa Mama Jikoni

Jentrax Nyongesa Mama Jikoni

Beatrice wekesa Mama Jikoni

Felsta Sisenda Sinani

Rose Sifuna Mama Jiko

Mila Wabwile St.Monica

Mary Barasa st. Monica

Margrate Okumu St. Monica

John Kundu St Monica

David Okumu St.Monica

Beneah Wanyonyi Masuno Drainage /I.S

Hellen simba Mama Jikoni

Judith Muchere St.Monica

Juliana Wangila Mama Jikoni

Vincent Kikai Wakasiaka Mama Jikoni

Ann Wanjala St.Monica

Emily juma St.Monica

Gaudencia walubewgo St.Monica

Violet Lukhale St.Monica

Susan Kundu Wakasiaka

Mary Sifuma wakasiaka

Mary wanyonyi Tembelesia

Betty Nyongesa Sasimana

Margret Simiyu Mutambo

Bridgid Wabwile Mama Jikoni

Rose Kikai Mama Jikoni

Zaituna Ismail Wakasiaka

Selpha wabile Mama Jikoni

Rose Wamalwa Mutambo

Miriam Wafula Mama Jikoni

Elizabeth Masika Wakasiaka

Christine Mang`eni Wakasiaka

James Okello SCC-Viagroforesty jaongolo@yahoo.com 0720 462268

Wilson O.Nyaniro SCC-Viagroforesty wilson.nyanwo@viagrofersty.org 0733 915476

Melcedek Arima SCC-Viagroforesty 0728 203066

Ernest Okowa Oduol SCC-Viagroforesty 0720 85 29 38

Mary Anyang`o Odera Kanyira Group

Dickson Odera Kanyira Group 0727 058590

63

Paul Opeya Kanyira Group 0723 71 36 99

64

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.

Dr. Z.M. Kinyua

Crop Health Specialist

P.O. Box 14733-00800

Nairobi, Kenya

Cell phone No: +254-733 999444

Email: kinyuazm@gmail.com

ii

Table of contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ i

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iii

1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Terms of reference ................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Approach and Methodology ................................................................................................... 3

2.1. Understanding pest and pest-management issues in target areas ................................................. 3

2.2. Understanding pesticide usage and management in target areas ................................................. 3

2.3. Consideration of policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity .................................. 3

2.4. Developing monitoring and evaluation tools for use in assessing pest management practices ... 4

2.5. Presentation and consultations on the PMP report ...................................................................... 4

3.0 Findings and opinions ..................................................................................................... 5

3.1. Crop and livestock enterprises in project areas ............................................................................ 5

3.2. Pest issues in project areas ......................................................................................................... 10

3.2.1. Priority pests in crop and livestock enterprises ................................................................... 10

3.2.2. Invasive plant species ......................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Pest management strategies in target areas ................................................................................ 13

3.4. Pesticide management practices in target areas ......................................................................... 14

3.5. Policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity ........................................................... 18

3.5.1. SCC-Vi Agroforestry .......................................................................................................... 18

3.5.2. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Livestock Development ...................................... 19

3.5.3. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) .................................................................. 20

3.6. Monitoring and evaluation of pest management practices......................................................... 20

3.7. Considerations in budgeting for implementation of the pest management plan ........................ 21

3.8. Consultations and disclosure on the PMP .................................................................................. 21

4.0 The Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project Pest Management Plan (PMP)....................... 22

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 26

iii

Executive Summary

The overall goal of the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project (KACP) is carbon sequestration through the

adoption of sustainable agricultural land management (SALM) practices for improved agricultural

production and concomitant reduction of vulnerability to climate change. The envisaged practices are

ideally geared towards increasing yields/productivity and provision of additional income sources to farmers

and others involved in various agricultural product value chains.

In order to realize the desired benefits, all the key players must engage themselves with intensification and

diversification of farm enterprises. However, such engagements commonly experience the setbacks brought

about by organisms that associate with and prevent the realization of the genetic potential of crops and

livestock. These are generally referred to as pests and may be in the form of arthropods (mainly insects and

mites), disease causing agents (pathogens – bacteria, fungi, viruses, nematodes) or competing plants

(noxious weeds, parasitic plants and invasive species). Their existence forces farmers to administer control

measures, some of which negate the gains obtainable from the KACP efforts. In some instances, mitigation

measures against some pests are non-existent or are unknown to farmers or are uneconomical. For this

reason, particular attention should be paid to the acquisition and utilization of knowledge, information and

technologies that would effectively and sustainably manage crop and livestock health-related constraints

whilst ensuring that the necessary environmental safeguards are consciously respected.

This demands that a pest management plan (PMP) be developed and applied alongside other undertakings

of the project. Noting that the KACP is being implemented in Bumula, Malakisi and Sirisia Divisions in

Kitale project mandate area and in Madiany, Wagai and Kombewa Divisions in Kisumu project mandate

area, this document provides information in the following aspects, all of which are critical in any effective

PMP:

Agricultural activities in target areas.

Pest issues in target areas.

Pest management practices in target areas.

Pesticide management practices in target areas.

Policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity

Capacity for pest and pesticide management.

Guidance on the choice and application of appropriate pest management practices.

Monitoring and evaluation of instituted pest and pesticide management strategies.

Each aspect is briefly outlined as follows:

Agricultural activities in target areas: Farmers in the project areas, just like farmers elsewhere, have

wide-ranging interests that are manifested in the form of diverse agricultural engagements. Depending on

the area in consideration, various mixes of crop enterprises include kale, maize, tomato, beans, coffee,

banana, sorghum, groundnuts, green grams, and cassava, among others. The main livestock enterprises are

composed of cattle (dairy and local breeds), poultry (mainly chicken) and goats. The priorities given to the

growing of each of these crops or the keeping of the various types of livestock vary from place to place

depending on factors such as agroecology (climate and soil type considerations), economic benefits (mainly

yields and marketing considerations) and socio-cultural attachments (family food source and traditional

practices). It is worth noting that farmers hardly consider trees or even fodder resources that they plant as

crops, yet they are vital in terms of the project objectives and also for their own livelihoods.

iv

Pest issues in target areas: For each of the various crops or livestock enterprises, a myriad of pests are

experienced, albeit some with more serious effects than others. Ranking/prioritization of pest challenges

faced by farmers varies from place to place for each crop or livestock type. This underlines the importance

of focusing on area- and enterprise-specific constraints if farmers are to reap the benefits of the KACP’s

efforts that are aimed at making the various enterprises more competitive. In particular, more attention

needs be directed, and strategically so, towards solving the most conspicuous pest problems in order to

produce the desired impact. For instance, cases of farmers abandoning tomato production due to bacterial

wilt disease were noted, making this a constraint to focus on in areas where tomatoes are a major crop.

Similarly, encouraging farmers to embrace enterprises with higher income potential would help achieve the

project objectives more comfortably. For example, novel approaches such as micro-financing coupled with

deliberate education to promote commercial orientation would be an indirect long-range pest management

strategy to benefit farmers who opt for low-productivity local cattle breeds instead of keeping upgraded

cattle due to their susceptibility to diseases, which essentially increases production costs. In this case, the

high income potential should be the overriding factor and not the investment costs, which can be overcome

through micro-financing and associated training. These examples point to the need for tailor-made

interventions with beneficial options instead of generalized approaches to pest issues that may not

necessarily work everywhere.

Although the initial environmental audit report for the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project in Kisumu and

Kitale regions highlighted Leuceana leucocephala as having the potential to become invasive, this shrub

was never recognized to pose any invasive-species concern during interactions with farmers, SCC-Vi staff

and other stakeholders in the course of the PMP development work. In any case, SCC-Vi staff reported that

measures had been put in place to ensure that it does not become invasive. Nevertheless, a proposed

approach of using farmer-learning sites and continuous monitoring and evaluation during PMP

implementation should be able to establish the true status of the shrub and other plants in the project areas.

Pest management strategies in target areas: Farmers easily recognize the existence of pest conditions in

their crop or livestock enterprises. Additionally, they can also identify most of the pests. However, there are

occasionally some mistaken identities; this potentially leads to wrong choices of control measures or

desperation in the face of perceived lack of control measures. Regular interactions between farmers and

trained/experienced agricultural extension workers would resolve this situation.

Among the pest management measures applied in the project areas, use of chemical pesticides has almost

always been the first line of thought among farmers. Farmers easily stated the names of pesticides they had

been using, a strong indication of how much they value them. However, the names of pesticides were

wrongly pronounced in some cases and frequently not correctly spelt by farmers. To a larger extent,

insecticides are the most commonly used type of chemical pesticides on crops in the project areas. In

livestock enterprises, farmers commonly seek the help of veterinarians whilst some experienced farmers

treat some livestock pest cases themselves. Acaricides to control ticks and dewormers are easily brought

and administered by farmers.

Other measures applied to control pests included removal/uprooting/rogueing of affected plant parts.

However, farmers confessed that they hardly practised this strategy on time or appropriately. Information

on how to make on-farm local concoctions (plant extract pesticides) for use by farmers was generally

available among the farmers although they hardly quoted this strategy even in areas where training on their

preparation had been provided. Some of the reasons given for lack of

v

enthusiasm in on-farm pesticide preparations were their time-consuming engagements, lack of raw

materials and, though rarely mentioned, the low efficacy of such preparations.

Pesticide management practices in target areas: Some farmers appeared to have very good knowledge

of the kind of pesticides to use for particular pests and strongly indicated that they know what ought to be

done to ensure safe use of pesticides. However, upon careful probing, it became apparent that there was a

huge divergence between the theory and practice of application and storage of pesticides. Cases of lack of

appropriate pesticide application equipment and gear were witnessed upon spot-check farm visits; in some

instances, unusable gear such as goggles with no screen (only the frame) and torn gloves or old clothes

were displayed upon request. Most farmers hardly practice appropriate safe application, storage and

disposal of pesticides or their empty containers. Some of the practices involving empty containers include

burying in purposefully dug pits, discarding in pit latrines, burning (sometimes in kitchen refuse dump

sites) and washing and re-use for kerosene, water, salt or for sale depending on the type/size of container.

This underscores the need to train farmers in judicious utilization of chemical pesticides and the disposal

thereof, an aspect that majority of them put a request for.

Capacity for pest and pesticide management: The ability of farmers to identify pest problems correctly

ranged from fair to good levels; this was highly dependent on the area (perhaps reflecting differences in

enthusiasm, attitude, education/experience among other aspects). Farmers commonly felt unable to solve

pest problems when use of pesticides was not an option or when available pesticides were not effective.

Most farmers said they had not received appropriate training in pest identification/diagnosis and

management practices.

SCC-Vi Agroforestry has fairly good linkages with stakeholders such as ministries. The linkages can be

strengthened to provide an opportunity that can be exploited to improve pest and pesticide management in

the project areas. A common observation was made pointing to the need of providing specialized training to

SCC-Vi Agroforestry field staff in pest identification and appropriate targeting of pest control measures. Of

course, the staff have many more undertakings when they meet the farmers that they backstop, implying

that they required additional technical support to effectively impart the necessary knowledge and skills to

farmers. It is notable that a one-week training on integrated pest management for about 40 Vi Agroforestry

staff was provided by a team of crop health scientists in June 2010. However, actual pest identification

requires practical exposure in real farming situations in order to gain the necessary skills. This is expected

to be achieved through implementation of the PMP.

Choice and application of appropriate pest management practices: This is the subject of specificity to

particular pest, pest situation and availability of economically feasible and ecologically sound choices.

Training and experience to acquire appropriate skills are vital to successful pest management strategies.

Consideration should be given to prioritized pest and pest management issues. In order to remove the

common mentality where the first line of thought has commonly been the use of chemical pesticides,

deliberate effort needs to be put on the principles and practices of integrated pest management (IPM),

which is basically the use of 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. This concept is applicable to all pest categories (insects, mites, bacteria, fungi, nematodes,

viruses, weeds, etc). It includes the deployment of host plant resistance, biological control, use of

pesticides, physical control, cultural control and regulatory control in combinations that best suit a

particular pest situation. It is important to note that some components of integrated pest management

strategies are applicable on some pests whilst they may not be applicable on others. For instance, one may

vi

combine the use of crop rotation, rogueing and resistant varieties for a particular pest but the component of

host resistance may not be applicable where resistant materials are non-existent. It is necessary to arrange

for a short course on IPM for the staff involved in regular contact with farmers in order to appreciate what

IPM entails and how to formulate and deploy IPM strategies. Subsequently, the trained staff should develop

a schedule of how they would pass on the knowledge and skills to the farmers. The implementation of such

a schedule requires backstopping by external specialists during on-farm training sessions or, as an

alternative, in-depth training of some of the SCC-Vi Agroforestry staff to undertake such a role. The

approach to be taken is contained in the pest management plan which forms part of this report.

Monitoring and evaluation The success of any pest and pesticide management strategy should be determined on the basis of a starting

point (baseline) and monitoring over time. This requires that data collection tools be available and fine-

tuned. The pesticide screening questionnaire that had been developed previously has been modified for

clarity. A pest and pest management record form for use in field monitoring has also been designed for use

in the implementation of the pest management plan.

Sharing of PMP report and implementation schedule

The report based on field visits, interactions with farmers, SCC-Vi Agroforestry staff and their

stakeholders, along with the resulting pest management plan schedule, has been presented, extensively

discussed and finalized. This final version is therefore, ready for wider circulation and application by

intended users.

1

1.0 Introduction

Kenya’s agricultural sector is expected to make a significant contribution in the march towards Vision 2030

and the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals given its critical role in national development

and social welfare, among other benefits of a stable economy. This anticipation has elicited intensification

of activities geared towards increased productivity as farmers embrace the ideals of vibrant commercially

oriented agriculture. Some of the intensification practices involve ensuring that farmers lose less to pests,

which are simply defined as those organisms that associate with and prevent the realization of the genetic

potential of crop plants and livestock. There are several categories of pests, including arthropods (mainly

insects & mites), pathogens (mainly fungi, bacteria, viruses & nematodes), weeds (parasitic plants, invasive

plants, etc) and even vertebrate pests (e.g. rodents) that cause pre- and post-harvest losses. In crop

commodities worldwide, losses due to pests range from 31 to 42%, with 14.1% loss attributed to diseases,

10.2% loss due to insects and weeds causing 12.2% loss.

In order to mitigate the effects of pests, one or a combination of several management measures becomes a

necessity. Use of two or more pest management measures constitutes integrated pest management (IPM),

which is applicable to all pest categories (insects, mites, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, viruses, weeds, etc). A

working definition of integrated pest management (IPM) is the use of 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 which are applicable on some pests whilst they may not be

applicable on others. For instance, one may combine the use of crop rotation, rogueing and resistance

varieties for a particular pest but the component of host resistance may not be applicable where resistant

materials are non-existent.

In many instances, and unfortunately so, many farmers and their advisors commonly rush for the use of

chemical pesticides, sometimes with inappropriate choice of products and with no regard for other pest

management options. Consequently, side effects of indiscriminate application of pesticides to the

environment, human health, livestock and other non-target life forms, and the resultant lowering of

competitiveness of agricultural engagements through increased costs of production go unnoticed until

irreparable damage starts self-manifests. As a major intervention point to enhance carbon sequestration,

which is the main thrust of Vi Agroforestry’s Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project (KACP), there is need to

embrace and apply IPM strategies that are technically effective, economically feasible and

environmentally sustainable. This calls for a comprehensive action plan for integrated management of key

pests of the major crop and livestock commodities as well as any potential invasive plant species in the

target area. Particular attention should be given to ensuring that any pesticide application is as judicious as

possible and that environment and life form protection against pesticides is enhanced, all for the purpose of

increasing the generation of carbon credits.

2

1.1 Terms of reference

On the basis of the identified need to have a comprehensive guide to mitigate on pest and pesticide usage

issues in the KACP’s area of operation, a consultancy was designed for the preparation of a pest

management plan (PMP) addressing the following aspects, which were expounded in the complete terms of

reference (TORs) document:

(a) Pest management issues and approaches presently used by farmers

(b) Pesticide use and management

(c) Policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity

(d) Monitoring and evaluation

(e) Budget

In order to specifically address the above issues as contained in the TORs, the activities and associated

tasks outlined in the table below were devised and agreed upon in finalizing the contract. The detailed work

plan is provided in appendix 1.

Table 1. Activities and tasks in the development of a pest management plan for the Kenya

Agricultural Carbon Project

Specific activities Associated tasks

Desk review of relevant project

documents

Study, extraction & analysis of pest and pesticide

management issues

Field site assessments in relation to

identified pest and pesticide

management issues

Verification of facts and beefing up information in

relation to identified pest and pesticide management

issues

Assessment of technical needs with relevant

stakeholders

Synthesis on key pest and pesticide

management issues

Prioritization of vegetable and livestock pests and

potential invasive weed species and their

management options

Discussion of prioritized vegetable and livestock

pests and potential invasive weed species

management options with key stakeholders

Analysis of pesticide usage and

management

Reviewing the prevailing rationale, safety and

technical handling capacity of pesticide users

Outlining recommended actions for judicious and

reduced-risk pesticide usage

Analysis of policy, regulatory

framework and institutional capacity on

pest and pesticide management

Assessing and recommending the integration of

existing pesticide use policy guidelines in the project

Development of the Pest Management

Plan

Constituting a document with key activities in

prioritized pest and pesticide management strategies,

stating the actors, roles and cost estimates

Preparing a pest and pesticide management

monitoring and reporting plan

Presentation of a complete PMP to stakeholders

3

2.0 Approach and Methodology

2.1. Understanding pest and pest-management issues in target areas

In order to obtain information on the pest management issues and the approaches used by farmers field

visits were undertaken in Bumula, Malakisi & Sirisia Divisions in Kitale project mandate area, and

Madiany, Wagai & Kombewa Divisions in Kisumu project mandate area. During the visits, interactions

were made with SCC-Vi Agroforestry staff/officers, farmers/farmer groups participating in SCC Vi

Agroforestry activities and stakeholders in activities undertaken by Vi Agroforestry. The stakeholders

included the following:

– Ministries/Civil service: Agriculture, Livestock Development, Environment & Natural

Resources, Provincial administration

– agrochemical companies,

– agro-input stockists,

– private animal health practitioners

In each of the settings, the interactions with farmers mainly involved the introduction, explanation and

administration of a questionnaire to individual participants (see questionnaire in Appendix 2). This was

then followed by discussions and interviews with entire farmer groups in search of consensus on some

issues. In each area, farmers either had been prompted by SCC Vi Agroforestry staff to assemble in one of

their member’s homestead for purposes of the interactions related to the pest management plan

development or had coincidentally met for other previously planned group activities

A questionnaire was also administered to some staff of SCC Vi Agroforestry to beef up the responses

obtained from individual farmers and group discussions (see questionnaire in Appendix 3). Information

from other stakeholders was obtained through discussions on the basis of some lead questions, which

varied depending on the type of stakeholder and the level of engagement in the discussions.

Appendix 4 provides the lists of the persons who participated in discussions in various areas.

2.2. Understanding pesticide usage and management in target areas

The forums used were the same as those used in understanding pest and pest-management issues in target

areas i.e. the questionnaires in Appendices 2 and 3. Additionally, farmers whose homesteads were used to

host the groups discussions were requested to display the pesticides they had in stock as well as the

pesticide application tools, clothing and/or equipment. In most of the targeted areas, a few homesteads were

also visited to view similar materials.

2.3. Consideration of policy, regulatory framework and institutional capacity

Information was obtained from institutions such as the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), the

Pest Control Products Board (PCPB), the Ministry of Agriculture (Extension division) as well as

discussions with SCC Vi Agroforestry staff. The information was synthesized to have an understanding of

the institutional frameworks related to pest management procedures.

4

2.4. Developing monitoring and evaluation tools for use in assessing pest management practices

A pesticide screening questionnaire availed from SCC-Vi Agroforestry was assessed for clarity and ability

to gather the necessary information in relation to pest and pesticide management practices by farmers. The

same questionnaire was discussed with staff of SCC-Vi Agroforestry in a meeting during which

improvements were suggested.

In order to the appropriateness of pest management practices in the areas where SCC-Vi Agroforestry

undertakes project activities, a technical data capture form was developed. This was partly derived from the

pesticide screening questionnaire and expanded for regular use in the course of field activities.

2.5. Presentation and consultations on the PMP report

Further consultations were made before and after the field interactions in order to fine-tune the PMP report.

These consultations took the form of formal presentation of the findings. The first presentation was made to

SCC-Vi Agroforestry staff in Kisumu on 17th

February 2012; staff from both Kisumu and Kitale project

areas participated. The complete PMP report was later launched through presentations to farmers, SCC-Vi

Agroforestry staff and other invited stakeholders on 27th

March 2012 for the Kisumu project area and on

28th

March 2012 for the Kitale project area.

5

3.0 Findings and opinions

3.1. Crop and livestock enterprises in project areas

The number of individual farmers who completed the questionnaire presented to them in each target area is

shown in Table 2. The range of enterprises captured through the questionnaires demonstrated that each

farmer is an entrepreneur with diverse agricultural engagements and, therefore, requires holistic support

that respects this diversity.

Table 2. Number of questionnaires completed and farm enterprises recorded in six target areas

Area visited Number of questionnaires

completed (excluding

consensus)

Number of enterprises

captured

Bumula 12 21

Malakisi 13 20

Sirisia 11 15

Madiany 6 14

Wagai 10 18

Kombewa 20 21

TOTALS 71

In Bumula area, the main crops/plants reported were kale, maize, tomato, beans, potatoes, onions, cassava

and banana while there was a rare mention of trees, millet, sorghum, fruits, arrow roots, yams, napier grass,

local vegetables, sugarcane, and cow peas. Livestock enterprises were mainly cattle and poultry, and a

remote mention of fish. The priority ranking of the enterprises in Bumula is shown in Table 3. Similarly,

each of the other target areas was noted to have dominant crop or livestock enterprises as well as some that

appeared to be of minor importance as can be deduced from Tables 4 (Malakisi), 5 (Sirisia), 6 (Madiany), 7

(Wagai) and 8 (Kombewa). The ranking was arrived at by considering each crop’s or livestock’s

importance based on its contribution to food security, income generation, and environmental conservation

(all aspects considered together).

6

Table 3. Priority-ranked farm enterprises in Bumula area

Table

4. Priority-ranked farm enterprises in Malakisi area

Enterprises Aggregate

score Frequency Frequency

ranks Weighted

scores Weighted

ranks Consensus ranks Maize 18 13 1 1.38 1 1 Dairy cattle 44 12 2 3.97 2 2 Poultry 46 10 3 5.98 4 3 Beans 27 8 5 5.48 3 4 Banana 40 9 4 6.42 5 5 Trees 25 4 9 20.31 9 6 Potatoes 31 6 6 11.19 6 Goats 36 6 7 13.00 7 Kale 26 5 8 13.52 8 Tomato 7 2 10 22.75 10 Groundnuts 8 2 11 26.00 11 Melon 9 2 12 29.25 12 Tobacco 9 2 12 29.25 12 Fruits 9 2 12 29.25 12 Millet 10 2 13 32.50 13 Cassava 13 2 14 42.25 14 Sheep 14 2 15 45.50 15 Cotton 2 1 Cow peas 5 1

Enterprises Aggregate

score Frequency Frequency

ranks Weighted

score Weighted

ranks Consensus

ranks Kale 32 11 2 3.17 2 1 Maize 26 11 1 2.58 1 2 Dairy cattle 37 9 5 5.48 4 3 Tomato 46 10 3 5.52 5 4 Poultry 42 8 6 7.88 6 5 Beans 35 9 4 5.19 3 6 Potatoes 39 6 7 13.00 7 Onions 10 3 9 13.33 8 Fish 10 3 9 13.33 8 Cassava 31 5 8 14.88 9 Banana 13 3 11 17.33 10 Trees 18 3 12 24.00 11 Millet 8 1 Sorghum 7 1 Fruits 7 1 Arrow roots 7 1 Yams 7 1 Napier grass 7 1 Local vegetables 6 1 Sugarcane 3 1 Cow peas 1 1

7

Table 5. Priority-ranked farm enterprises in Sirisia area

Table 6. Priority-ranked farm enterprises in Madiany area

Enterprises Aggregate

score Frequency Frequency

ranks Weighted

score Weighted

ranks Consensus

ranks Maize 13 10 2 1.43 1 1 Dairy cattle 22 8 5 3.78 3 2 Beans 40 11 1 3.64 2 3 Coffee 30 7 7 6.73 7 4 Poultry 50 10 3 5.50 5 5 Tomato 38 9 4 5.16 4 6 Onions 39 8 6 6.70 6 Kale 18 3 8 22.00 8 Goats 19 3 9 23.22 9 Sheep 10 2 11 27.50 10 Banana 23 3 10 28.11 11 Fish 4 1 12 44.00 12 Oxen 6 1 13 66.00 13 Trees 8 1 14 88.00 14 Groundnuts 8 1 15 88.00 15

Enterprises Aggregate

score Frequency Frequency

ranks Weighted

score Weighted

ranks Consensus

ranks Dairy cattle 7 5 2 1.68 1 1 Maize 14 6 1 2.33 2 2 Beans 14 5 3 3.36 3 3 Poultry 17 4 4 6.38 5 4 Kale 13 2 8 19.50 8 5 Tomato 7 3 5 4.67 4 6 Sorghum 16 3 6 10.67 6 7 Goats 19 3 7 12.67 7 8 Trees 5 1 9 30.00 9 Pumpkin 5 1 10 30.00 10 Cow peas 6 1 11 36.00 11 Green grams 6 1 12 36.00 12 Groundnuts 7 1 13 42.00 13 Garden peas 8 1 14 48.00 14

8

Table 7. Priority-ranked farm enterprises in Wagai area

Table 8. Priority-ranked farm enterprises in Kombewa area

*During scrutiny of

the PMP document

Enterprises Aggregate

score

Frequency Frequency

ranks

Weighted

score

Weighted

ranks

Consensus

ranks

Maize 25 10 1 2.50 1 1

Tomato 12 5 5 4.80 4 2

Cattle 23 8 3 3.59 2 3

Poultry 25 7 4 5.10 5 4

Beans 34 9 2 4.20 3 5

Kale 8 3 7 8.89 6

Goats 24 4 6 15.00 7

Millet/sorghum 17 3 8 18.89 8

Groundnuts 8 2 9 20.00 9

Sheep 13 2 11 32.50 10

Oxen 8 1 10 20.00

Passion fruit 1 1 12 10.00

Trees 4 1 13 40.00

Cow peas 4 1 14 40.00

Banana 5 1 15 50.00

Crotalaria 5 1 16 50.00

Cassava 6 1 17 60.00

Soy beans 7 1 18 70.00

Enterprises Aggregate

score Frequency Frequency

ranks Weighted

score Weighted

ranks Consensus

ranks Millet/sorghum 55 16 4 4.08 4 1 Groundnuts 47 10 7 8.93 5 2 Green grams 50 10 8 9.50 7 3 Cassava 63 11 6 9.89 8 4 Poultry 59 18 3 3.46 3 5 Goats 57 11 5 8.95 6 6 Cattle 48 18 2 2.81 1 Maize 63 19 1 3.32 2 Trees 20 4 9 23.75 9 Kale 14 3 10 29.56 10 Sheep 17 3 11 35.89 11 Beans 12 2 12 57.00 12 Cow peas 2 1 38.00 Fish 2 1 38.00 Soy beans 5 1 95.00 Donkey 5 1 95.00 Tomato 8 1 152.00 Pumpkin 6 1 114.00 Mangoes 6 1 114.00 Potatoes 7 1 133.00 Simsim 8 1 152.00

9

at divisional level in Kombewa, priorities of crop enterprises were separated from priorities of livestock enterprises; this needs to be revisited

during PMP implementation.

10

From the comparative priority ranking, it can be deduced that the importance of the crop and livestock

enterprises across the various areas is in the following order: maize, cattle, beans, kale tomato,

millet/sorghum, poultry, goats, sweet potatoes, trees, groundnuts, green grams, coffee, sheep and fish.

However, each area has its own priority list of enterprises as shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9. Comparison of farm enterprise priority ranking across six project areas

Priority

rank

Bumula Malakisi Sirisia Madiany Wagai Kombewa

1 Kale Maize Maize Dairy cattle Maize Millet/sorghum

2 Maize Dairy cattle Dairy cattle Maize Cattle Groundnuts

3 Dairy cattle Poultry Beans Beans Tomato Green grams

4 Tomato Beans Coffee Poultry Poultry Cassava

5 Poultry Banana Poultry Kale Beans Poultry

6 Beans Trees Tomato Tomato Kale Goats

7 Sweet potatoes Sweet potatoes Onions Sorghum Goats Cattle

8 Onions Goats Kale Goats Millet/sorghum Maize

9 Fish Kale Goats Groundnuts Trees

10 Cassava Tomato Sheep Sheep Kale

11 Banana Groundnuts Banana Sheep

12 Trees Melon Beans

13 Tobacco

14 Fruits

15 Millet

16 Cassava

17 Sheep

3.2. Pest issues in project areas

3.2.1. Priority pests in crop and livestock enterprises

By considering the priority crop and livestock enterprises in the various areas (last section), it was

envisaged that great impact of any pest management strategy would only be realized by targeting to solve

the most dominant pest problem. This requires that the pests themselves be prioritized in order to have a

workable starting point. This involved an aggregate assessment of each pest in terms of the losses it can

cause or it causes to yields/production, difficulties of controlling it and the costs involved (all aspects

considered together).

The ranked priority pests for selected top crop enterprises are shown for maize (Table 10), kales (Table 11),

tomato (Table 12), and beans (Table 13). Similarly, the ranked priority pests for the most important

livestock enterprises are shown in Tables 14 (cattle) and 15 (poultry).

11

Table 10. Prioritized ranking of pests affecting maize in various target areas

Name of pest Bumula Malakisi Sirisia Madiany Wagai Kombewa Weighted

scores

Weighted

rank

Striga 3 1 1 1 1 1.68 1

Stalk borers 2 3 1 4 4 2 2.67 2

Weevils 1 2 2 3 3.00 3

Large grain borer 2 2 6.00 4

Couch grass/weeds 4 3 3 6.67 5 Maize streak

disease

4 5 13.50 6

Termites 5 4 13.50 7 Vertebrates (e.g.

monkeys, squirrels)

5 5 15.00 8

Smut 3 18.00 9 Aflatoxins/moulds 4 24.00 10

Table 11. Prioritized ranking of pests affecting kales in various target areas Name of pest Bumula Malakisi Sirisia Madiany Wagai Kombewa* Weighted

scores

Weighted

rank

Aphids 1 3 2 5 1 4.13 1

Stem rot 1 2 4 4.50 2 Cutworms 2 1 2 4.50 3

Leaf spots 1 6.00 4 Caterpillars 4 2 3 9.00 5

Soft rot 3 4 10.50 6

Diamondback moth 5 3 12.00 7 Powdery mildew 3 18.00 8 Downy mildew 4 24.00 9 Black rot 5 30.00 10

*Prioritization of kale pests in Kombewa was done during scrutiny of the PMP document at divisional level.

Table 12. Prioritized ranking of pests affecting tomato in various target areas Name of pest Bumula Malakisi Sirisia Madiany Wagai Kombewa* Weighted

scores

Weighted

rank

Blights 1 2 1 1 2 1 1.68 1 Bacterial wilt 1 4 1 2 4.00 2 American bollworm 3 3 3 4 3 4.88 3 Red spider mites 5 2 4 10.50 4 "Blossom-end rot" 2 5 10.50 5 Cutworms 4 6 6 10.67 6 Aphids 2

12.00 7 Weeds 6 5 16.50 8 Mosaic 3 18.00 9 "Leaf rust" 3 18.00 10 Bacterial spot 4 24.00 11 *Prioritization of tomato pests in Kombewa was done during scrutiny of the PMP document at divisional level.

12

Table 13. Prioritized ranking of pests affecting beans in various target areas Name of pest Bumula Malakisi Sirisia Madiany Wagai Kombewa* Weighted

scores

Weighted

rank

Blight 1 2 1 2 2 2.25 1 Aphids 2 3 2 2 1 1 2.40 2 Bean fly 1 4 6.00 3 Root rots 4 1 7.50 4

Bruchid 3 3 9.00 5 Caterpillars

(bollworms)

3 4 3 10.50 6

Rust 5 3 6 12.00 7 Leaf spots 4 24.00 8

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

scores

Weighted

rank

New castle disease 1 1 1 1 2 1 (1) 1.17 1 Coccidiosis 4 3 2 3 3 (3) 3.60 2 Fowl typhoid 3 2 4 2 4.13 3 Fleas 4 5 2 6 5 (5) 5.28 4

Gumboro 3 1 4 (7) 5.33 5 Fowl pox 2 5 7 (4) 9.33 6 Worms 6 3 6 (2) 10.00 7 Mites 5 (6) 30.00 8 *Priority ranking of poultry pests in Kombewa as shown in brackets was done during scrutiny of the PMP document at divisional

level.

13

3.2.2. Invasive plant species

The initial environmental audit report for the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project in Kisumu and Kitale

regions states that “Leuceana leucocephala has turned out to be invasive”. However, the same reports also

states that “the Leuceana leucocephala which was introduced is still young and has not reached flowering

stage” and that “measures have been put in place to ensure that it does not invade ….. through enlightening

the farmers on its management practices”. This shrub was never recognized to pose any invasive-species

concern during interactions with farmers, SCC-Vi Agroforestry staff and other stakeholders in the course of

the PMP development work.

Subsequent consultations with key SCC-Vi Agroforestry staff have revealed that the following actions are

undertaken to reduce the likelihood the shrub becoming a menace:

supplying optimal quantities of seed and keeping records of the seed supplied

training farmers on tree management

campaigning on removal of the shrub if found to be excessive.

Additionally, it is proposed that continuous monitoring and evaluation through farmer-learning sites be

done during PMP implementation to be able to establish the true status of Leuceana leucocephala in the

project areas.

The project staff and farmers are reported to be vigilant for other plants that might have an invasive

potential; if noticed, such plants should be recorded and reported to authorities that can deal with their

management or eradication.

3.3. Pest management strategies in target areas

Effective management of a pest firstly depends on accurate and timely identification of the pest in question.

A general consideration on recognition of the existence of pest conditions in crop or livestock enterprises

would rate farmers’ level of awareness and capacity as fair-to-good in the visited project areas. Farmers

were also able to identify most of the pests that they commonly encountered. However, there are

occasionally some mistaken identities; this potentially leads to wrong choices of control measures For

instance, there was a common reference to ‘barafu” (meaning cold or frost) as a disease which was

controlled by spraying of pesticides or by draining water. This appeared to be a gross misconception or a

mix-up of foliar diseases in tomatoes, beans and/or kales. Such a situation calls for deliberate explanation

of some basic principles of disease development in an attempt to understand the causes, and consequently

how to control specific diseases or why particular control measures as seen to produce desirable effects.

Once such efforts are put, cases of desperation in the face of perceived lack of control measures, as was

noted in many instances, would be reduced or completely prevented.

Depending on the crop or livestock in question, varying strategies are applied to combat the pest problem at

hand. For some of the commonly known pest problems, farmers either use chemical pesticides or other

control measures whenever practical.

3.3.1. Chemical pesticide usage

Among the pest management measures applied in the project areas, use of chemical pesticides has almost

always been the first line of thought among farmers. Farmers easily stated the names of pesticides they had

been using, a strong indication of how much they value them. However, the

14

names of pesticides were wrongly pronounced in some cases and frequently not correctly spelt by farmers.

To a larger extent, insecticides are the most commonly used type of chemical pesticides on crops in the

project areas.

Examples of pesticides used in crop enterprises included the following: Ridomil for blight control in tomato

crops, Karate against bollworms in tomatoes, Diazol 60EC for aphid, cutworm and bollworm control,

Ambush for cutworms, Actellic Super Dust for control of weevils, Albaz 10EC and Danadim 40EC for

stalk borers and cutworms. It is noteworthy that the names reported here were a collection of responses

from across the completed questionnaires. Cases of citing a pesticide for a pest problem that it can hardly

solve were noted; for instance, Tata Master for control of smut in maize – this fungicide is registered for

control of blight, downy mildew and other similar diseases. In many instances the respondents only stated

that spraying was done to control various pests without naming the pesticides used.

In livestock enterprises, pesticides examples included Nilzan Plus for deworming, Triatix for tick control,

Grenade 5%EC to control tsetse fly, etc. In most of the instances where livestock diseases were reported,

the respondents commonly cited vaccination without stating the names of vaccines used. This is quite

understandable since farmers mostly engage veterinary/animal health staff and pay for treatment of their

livestock, making it unnecessary for them to take note of the products used. However, some experienced

farmers treat some livestock pest cases themselves; for instance, acaricides to control ticks and dewormers

are easily brought and administered by farmers.

3.3.2. Non-pesticide pest management measures Non-chemical pest control measures recorded included weeding/uprooting striga and other weeds, spraying

plant extracts such as those derived from Mexican marigold for control of aphids, proper drying of maize to

control aflatoxins, push-pull technology for stalk borer management, crop rotation, smearing cow dung for

tsetse fly control, etc.

As was the case with the listing of chemical pesticides for various pest problems, the above examples of

non-chemical pest control measures were as a result of consolidating information form a wide array of

completed questionnaires, most of which had no mention of these alternatives. Upon discussing further

with the various groups, majority of the farmers confessed that they hardly practised these pest control

measures. For example on-farm local concoctions (plant extract pesticides) were hardly quoted even in

areas where training on their preparation had been provided. Some of the reasons given for lack of

enthusiasm in on-farm pesticide preparations were their time-consuming engagements, lack of raw

materials and, though rarely mentioned, the low efficacy of such preparations. Some of these reasons can

also be extrapolated as applicable for other non-chemical pest control measures. This actually opens a

window of opportunity to train farmers of the use of appropriate, effective cultural, biological and physical

pest control measures in the project areas.

3.4. Pesticide management practices in target areas

Good pesticide management practices are supposed to encompass the following key aspects: Correct choice

of pesticides for target pests, safe handling and storage of pesticides during and after intended farm

operations, and proper disposal of pesticide containers. The findings on each of these aspects in the visited

areas are outlined here below:

15

3.4.1. Choice of chemical pesticides

A wide range of pesticides was captured through the questionnaires and subsequent group discussions in

various areas. These were mainly included insecticides, fungicides, acaricides, antibiotics and

antihelminths, with only rare mentions of herbicides and other forms of pesticides. Some farmers appeared

to have very good knowledge of the kind of pesticides to use for particular pests and the names of

pesticides were easily mentioned or correctly written by the farmers. This was particularly the case with

pesticides used for tick and worm control in livestock and also crop insect control chemicals (insecticides).

However, some of the farmers only referred to the general term of ‘chemicals’ or ‘spraying’ or wrote down

pesticide names that could only be determined by pronunciation and not from the spellings, e.g. ‘dry ticks’,

‘diasonal’, ‘savin’ ectomic’ ‘miralax, etc. This scenario is a fertile opportunity for farmers to purchase

pesticides that are not appropriate for the pest problems they have on their farm enterprises; under such

circumstances, agro-input stockists can easily propose and sell alternatives that may not work.

3.4.2. Handling and storage of pesticides

Farmers strongly indicated that they know what ought to be done to ensure safe use of pesticides. Listing of

tools/equipment and a wide range of protective clothings/wear was easily done on the questionnaires and

through group discussions. However, upon careful probing, it became apparent that there was a huge

divergence between the theory and practice of application and storage of pesticides. Cases of lack of

appropriate pesticide application equipment and gear were witnessed upon spot-check farm visits. In some

instances, unusable gear such as goggles with no screen (only the frame) and torn gloves or old clothes

were displayed upon request. Although knapsack sprayers were easily mentioned by farmers as an

important pesticide application equipment, a quick inquiry on the number of farmers who actually owner

such sprayers returned an alarming response; majority of them relied on borrowing or hiring sprayers. In

the event this was not an option, some farmers had resulted to application of pesticides using plant twigs

that were formed into hand brooms. Of course, these scenarios lead to serious issues of late/untimely

application, wastage of chemical pesticides through missed targets and environmental (falling to the ground

instead of on plant foliage), and health hazard exposure to the applicators. This underscores the need to

train farmers in judicious utilization of chemical pesticides.

Sample visits to some homesteads led to a common observation of inappropriate storage of pesticides even

when respondents expressed that they knew of requirements such as keeping pesticides away from children.

However, some of the farmers had fairly good safety precautions in the storage of pesticides. Table 16

summarizes the storage practices in the visited homesteads.

Table 16. Storage of chemical pesticides by farmers in visited sites

Storage practice Scenario/comments

1 In a cupboard or box in the house Most common although mostly not lockable

2 In a store separate from the house or

in a room set aside in the house

Rare and only practised by financially endowed

farmers

3 In polythene bags in the house Mainly for liquid formulations and goes together

with storage in cupboards/boxes

4 Free lance in the house Not much care about the risks involved

5 At the cow shed (livestock pesticides) Meant for easy access when needed and also

perceived as a safe storage place

16

3.4.3. Disposal of pesticide containers

In order to protect and safeguard human health, that of other life forms and the environment at large, use of

chemical pesticides must not only be judicious but the containers of such pesticides must also be disposed

of carefully and logically. It is noted that the latter is a major challenge in many settings, with some

practices being highly unsafe. In the areas visited, interactions with farmers revealed that most of them

dispose of their containers, and to some extent, the expired pesticides in the following ways:

1. Burying in purposefully dug pits.

2. Discarding in pit latrines.

3. Burning, sometimes in kitchen refuse dump sites.

4. Washing and re-using for kerosene, water, salt or for sale depending on the type/size of container.

The above scenario strongly demands that more awareness be made, practical solutions to safe disposal of

pesticides and containers be demonstrated and deliberate campaigns be launched to sensitize farmers, other

pesticide users, stockists and other stakeholders on the health hazards and environmental degradation that

comes with inappropriate use, handling and disposal of chemical pesticides and their containers. Of course

this should be accompanied with information on effective alternatives that can help in reducing the use of

chemical pesticides.

3.4.4. Knowledge and training needs in use of chemical pesticides

Farmers in the groups that were interviewed expressed varying levels of knowledge and capacity to handle

pesticides. Depending on the area sources of such knowledge and capacity included the Ministry of

Agriculture (extension officers), SCC VI Agroforestry staff, agrochemical companies, agro-input stockists,

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

10-Jan 11-Jan 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 8-Feb 9-Feb 10-Feb 13-Feb 15-Feb

Study, extraction & analysis of pest and

pesticide management issues

X

Verification of facts and beefing up

information in relation to identified pest and

pesticide management issues

X X X X

Assessment of technical needs with relevant

stakeholders

X X X

Prioritization of vegetable and livestock pests

and potential invasive weed species and their

management options

X X

Discussion of prioritized vegetable and

livestock pests and potential invasive weed

species management options with key

stakeholders

X X X

Reviewing the prevailing rationale, safety and

technical handling capacity of pesticide users

X X X X X

Outlining recommended actions for judicious

and reduced-risk pesticide usage

X

Assessing and recommending the integration of

existing pesticide use policy guidelines in the

project

X

Constituting a document with key activities in

prioritized pest and pesticide management

strategies, stating the actors, roles and cost

estimates

X X X

Preparing a pest and pesticide management

monitoring and reporting plan

X X

Presentation of a complete PMP to stakeholders X

Finalizing, formatting and submitting the PMP

(electronic version & hard copy)

X

27

Appendix 2. Collation of information on pest and pesticide management in project areas

(Farmers/farmer group interviews)

Project area: ___________________________ Division ____________________________

Respondent’s group name ____________________Respondent’s name: _____________

1. Please state the crops grown or the livestock kept in your area or on your farm and their uses; then rank

them in order of their importance based on their contribution to food security, income generation, and

environmental conservation (all aspects considered together).

Crop or livestock Uses Rank (combination of food

security, income generation,

environmental conservation)

2. For the 4 most important crop or livestock enterprises listed above, please state the pests, diseases and

weeds experienced and also the measures that you take to control/manage each of them; then rank them

in order of their seriousness based on the losses they cause to yields/production, difficulties of

controlling them and costs involved (all considered together).

Crop/livestock 1 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease/weed

problem

Main effect

(why is it of

concern?)

Control/Management measures applied Rank (yield

losses caused,

difficulties of

controlling and

costs involved)

28

Crop/livestock 2 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease/weed

problem

Main effect

(why is it of

concern?)

Control/Management measures applied Rank (yield

losses caused,

difficulties of

controlling and

costs involved)

Crop/livestock 3 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease/weed

problem

Main effect

(why is it of

concern?)

Control/Management measures applied Rank (yield

losses caused,

difficulties of

controlling and

costs involved)

29

Crop/livestock 4 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease/weed

problem

Main effect

(why is it of

concern?)

Control/Management measures applied Rank (yield

losses caused,

difficulties of

controlling and

costs involved)

3. State where you get information and knowledge that you use for the control of pests, diseases and

weeds in your crop and livestock enterprises.

Source of

information/knowledge

When obtained or frequency

of contact

Recommendations for improvement

4. State the names of chemical pesticides that are used in your area or on your farm and what they are

used for. Also state what you do with the chemical pesticides that remain after use. Also state what you

do with empty containers of the chemical pesticides.

Name of chemical

pesticide

What it is used for What is done with

remaining pesticide

What is done with empty

containers

30

5. State the type of equipment, tools or protective clothings that are utilized during the application of

chemical pesticides in your area or on your farm.

i) …………………………………………………………………

ii) ………………………………………………………………….

iii) ………………………………………………………………….

iv) ………………………………………………………………….

v) ………………………………………………………………….

vi) ………………………………………………………………….

vii) ………………………………………………………………….

6. Have you ever been trained on the use of chemical pesticides? Yes______ / No______

7. If yes, who trained you and when was that? …………………………….………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

8. If you have ever received any training on the use of chemical pesticides, please state the main topics or

the types of skills you gained

a) …………………………………………………………………

b) ………………………………………………………………….

c) ………………………………………………………………….

d) ………………………………………………………………….

e) ………………………………………………………………….

9. Please provide any other information in relation to pests, diseases, weeds, use of chemical pesticides

and general opinions on your involvement with Vi Agroforestry project operations

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

31

Appendix 3. Collation of information on pest and pesticide management in project areas (Staff

interviews)

Respondent’s name: _________________________ Phone contact: _________________

Area of operation _____________________________________________

Position/title in SCC Vi Agroforestry _________________________________________

1. Please list the crops grown and the livestock kept commonly in the area where you have been working

as a staff of SCC Vi Agroforestry.

Crops Livestock

2. For the 2 most important crops and 2 most important livestock enterprises listed above, please state the

pests, diseases (and weeds) experienced and also the measures that are taken by farmers to

control/manage each of them.

Crop 1 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease/weed problem (name) Control/Management measures applied by farmers

32

Crop 2 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease problem (name) Control/Management measures applied by farmers

Livestock 1 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease/weed problem (name) Control/Management measures applied by farmers

33

Livestock 2 (name) _____________________________________

Pest/disease problem (name) Control/Management measures applied by farmers

3. State the names of chemical pesticides that are used by farmers in your area of operation and what they

are used for.

Name of chemical pesticide What it is used for

4. Have you ever been trained on the use of chemical pesticides? Yes______ / No______

5. If yes, who trained you and when was that? …………………………….……………

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

6. If you have ever received any training on the use of chemical pesticides, please state the main topics or

the types of skills you gained

a) …………………………………………………………………

b) ………………………………………………………………….

c) ………………………………………………………………….

d) ………………………………………………………………….

34

e) ………………………………………………………………….

7. Please provide any other information in relation to pests, diseases, weeds, use of chemical pesticides

and general opinions on your involvement with farmers in your area of operation

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

35

Appendix 4: Lists of persons participating in interactions for pest management plan development for

SCC Vi Agroforestry’s Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project

Interviews/discussions in Bumula area - Masuno Irrigation Scheme Self Help Group (12th

January

2012)

a) Farmers

No. Name Position/Title Contact

1. Benson Nyongesa Chairperson 0787-822802

2. Patrick Kuloba Marketing Manager 0719-630530

3. Justus Wekesa Organizing Secretary 0736-950140

4. Nelson Kwoba Member

5. Paulyne Nabangi Member

6. Mary Wekesa Treasurer 0736-950140

7. Janex Muyoka Member

8. Lilian Wepukhulu Member 0728-024995

9. Emily Khabala Member

10. Metrine Sifuna Member 0787-514260

11. George Simiyu (Mama Jikoni Group) Member 0734-205085

12. Lameck Nyongesa Member 0736-950140

13. Vincent Nyongesa Member 0736-950140

b) Staff

No. Name Position/Title Contact

1. Emmanuel Wachiye M&E Head 0733-296614

2. Joshua Wasike Ass. M&E Officer 0707-070766

3. Rombosia John F.O. Mabusi Location 0734-921107

4. Martha Kapukha ASCC office 0728-501932

5. Martin Barasa ZOCO 0733-546588

6. Festus Wanyonyi SCC Driver 0714-927558

36

Interviews/discussions in Malakisi area (13th

January 2012)

a) Farmers

No. Name Group Name Position/Title Contact

1. Ahmed Namundenyi Pampana FFS Farm manager 0712-587117

2. John Wepukhulu Pampana FFS Secretary 0719380621

3. Moses Wafula Pampana FFS Member 0736892345

4. Doreen Juma Lurare Afya W. Group Member 0728407261

5. Sophy N. Ernest Lurare Afya W. Group Member 0715260341

6. Eunice Makokha Pampana FFS Member 0702546449

7. Joshua Wokute Wokette Mwalie Health CBO Chairman 0714409243

8. Pamella N. Nyongesa Lurare Afya W. Group Member 0700313724

9. Carolyne N. Juma Mwalie Health CBO Member 0719564400

10. Jane Wamono Mwalie CBO Member 0710139135

11. Mary N. Wafula Mwalie CBO Treasurer 0710674124

12. Sellah N. Munyanya Lurare Afya W. Group Secretary 0724622661

13. Amutai Elizabeth Pampana FFS Member 0717492604

b) Staff

No. Name Position/Title Contact

1. Martha Kapukha SCC-VI Agroforestry 0728-501932

2. Moses Buloa SCC-VI Agroforestry 0729-378285

3. Eliud Ndole SCC-VI Agroforestry 0723-704951

Interviews/discussions in Sirisia area (14th

January 2012)

a) Farmers

No. Name CBO Name CIG Name Position/Title Contact

1. Leonidah Machuma Tomena Binyenya SHG Chairlady 0719742145

2. Joan Matingi Tomena Tumaini SHG Member 0719807275

3. Susan K. Wanyonyi Tomena Tumaini SHG Chairlady 0719188787

4. Stephen Wanyonyi Tomena Binyenya SHG Secretary 0701729189

5. George Nyongesa Tomena Binyenya SHG Block Secretary 0715714517

6. Maurice Sikuku Tomena Binyenya SHG Member 0711851887

7. Nelson Simiyu Tomena Binyenya SHG Member 0726339551

8. Edward Wafula Tomena Tumaini SHG Org. Sec 0729912394

9. Philemon Juma Tomena Tumaini SHG V/Secretary 0719804478

10. Moses Chemiabi Tomena Khasinjo SHG Treasurer 0711189236

11. Evans Maranda Tomena Khasinjo SHG Chairman 0710447721

b) Staff

No. Name Position/Title Contact

1. Eliud Ndole Zone Coordinator 0723704951

2. Martha Kapukha Agroforestry, SALM and CC officer 0728501932

3. Japhrice Chepkemei Zone Coordinator 0722685263

4. Joshua Wasike M&E 0707070766

37

Interviews/discussions in Madiany area - (16th

January 2012)

a) Farmers

No. Name CBO Name Name of

Group

Contact

1. John A. Ouma RAFDIP Nyokech SHG 0716911708

2. William Konditi RAFDIP Nyokech SHG 0715824596

3. Alfred Ochieng RAFDIP Nyokech SHG 0701235805

4. Teresa Oluoch RAFDIP Nyokech SHG 0715338818

5. Edward Achola RAFDIP Nyokech SHG 0737322670

6. Baraza Boniface RAFDIP Nyokech SHG 0726946217

7. Daniel Ashali RAFDIP Nyokech SHG

8. Eunice Kondili RAFDIP Nyokech SHG 0734499167

9. Wilson O. Okundo RAFDIP Nyokech SHG

b) Staff

No. Name Position/Title in SCC-VI Contact

1. Wilson O. Nyariwo DPM/ECC 0733915476

2. Dinah Wakora Seed/Sustainable Energy 0726037001

Interviews/discussions in Wagai area (17th

January 2012)

a) Farmers

No. Name Group Name Contact

1. Jacob O. Oyuga Ochuna S.H.G 0714-687684

2. David Otieno Wagai S.H.G 0726-133770

3. Mary Atieno Muga SEFA G. 0725-534028

4. Michael O. Otieno SEFA G. 0715-875181

5. John Omiya ADC P.E. GEM 0724-498156

6. Susan Adhiambo Nyikwa 0722-954151

7. Chrispine Oduor Umoja Youth Group 0724-041502

8. Mary Awuor Otieno Swam Youth Group 0714-918638

9. Josephine O. Andero WIFAP 0725-077700

10. Samson Opondo Oyuga KAWIDI SHG 0727-575042

b) Staff

No. Name Position/Title in SCC-VI Contact

1. Arimba Melzedeck Zone Coordinator 0728203066

2. Wilson Odongo Nyariwo DPM/AF/SALM 0733915476

3. Dinah Wakora Seed/Sustainable Energy 0726037001

4. Carl Benchel Volunteer 0733-483764

5. Kayima John Paul Intern 0729-536140

38

c) Stakeholders

No. Name Organization/Institution Position/Title Contact

1. Fredrick Oduor Otieno Provincial Administration C.O. 0727-384516

2. Joseph Odhiambo Oumah GEM CDF Ass. Project

Coordinator

0723-672370

3. Dorice Achieng Onyango Ministry of Youth Affairs Intern 0724-694667

4. Nahashon O. Ahawo K.F.S Forestry

Assistant

0722-237455

5. Ouma Benard M.O.A DIVELDO 0738-480347

6. Paul Abwonji Ajuoga Sawa Agrovet Animal Health

Practioner

0714-952401

7. Priscilla A. Robert MoA DIVADO/DIV.

HOMEC

0722-141610

8. Caroline Majuma MoA Agribusiness

Officer

0726-567249

Interviews/discussions in Kombewa area (18th

January 2012)

a) Farmers

No. Name Group Name Contact (Phone)

1. Bergita Awundo Tiga mixed (A)

2. Zachary Oguda Tiga Mixed Group 0711-500497

3. Paul Otondi Tiga B 0713-351258

4. Agneta A. Okumu GICA (A) 0701-638850

5. Monica Okech TIGA A 0719-461041

6. Apollo O. TIGA C 071269789

7. Alice Okumu TIGA A 0720-753149

8. Margreta Owiti TIGA A 0713-552654

9. Mary W. Otieno TIGA 0720-434705

10. Charles O. Odondo TIGA A 0716-337176

11. Henry Ochieng TIGA C 0787-340753

12. Nereah Ombioi TIGA A 0714-496976

13. Kefa Ojwang TIGA B 0711-577624

14. Samuel Kungu TIGA A 0710-781532

15. Mary Ogunde TIGA A 0716-153019

16. Jackton O. Ogada TIGA C 0724-534663

17. Zephania Odero TIGA 0722-334407

18. Janet A. Omondi TIGAB 0715-636597

19. Jerusha Otieno TIGA B 0705-173063

b) Staff

No. Name Position/Title in SCC-VI Contact

1. Ellah Guzami Financial Officer 0724-976955

2. Lordvicus J. Okwach Zone Coordinator (KOMBEWA) 0728-000706

3. Wilson O. Nyariwo DPM/ECC 0733-915476

4. Dinah Wakora Seed Sustainable Energy 0726-067001

39

c) Stakeholders

No. Name Organisation Contact

1. Charles D. Obala Ministry of Agriculture 0702-340122

2. Alois A. Migot Kenya Forest Service 0729-621061

3. Benedict O. Oguti Ministry of Livestock Development 0735-190481

Presentation of fieldwork report on the development of a pest management plan (19th

January 2012)

No. Name Project Area Position/Title Contact

1. Martha Kapukha Kitale Agroforestry/SALM/CC

Officer

0728-501932

2. Joshua Wasike Kitale M&E Officer 0707070766

3. Japhrice Chepkona Kitale ZOCO Sirisia 0722685263

4. Eliud Ndole Kitale ZOCO Malakisi 0723704951

5. Melzedeck Arimba Kisumu ZOCO WAGAI 0728203066

6. Stina Johansson Kisumu Student

7. Wilson Nyariwo Kisumu ECC/AF/SALM-DPM 0733915478

8. Lordvicus Okwach Kisumu ZOCO KOMBEWA 0728000706

9 Carolyne Musee Kisumu M&E Officer 0720336146

10 Dinah Wakera Kisumu Seed Sustainable Energy 0726037001

11 Jeniffer Wambua Kisumu Field Operations

Coordinator

0720869304

12 Wangu Mutua Kisumu Project Manager 0722288940

13 Fred Marani Kitale Project Manager 0733837154

14. Martin Barasa Kitale ZOCO Coordinator

Bumula

0733546558

40

Appendix 5. PEST AND PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE

Interviewer: Date:

General information for the farmer

Name: Age Occupation:

GPS Coordinates: Cluster ID Group name:

District: Division: Location:

Sub-Location: Village: Phone No.

1) Given that pests can be insects, disease-causing organisms (such as a bacteria, fungi, viruses and

nematodes) or weeds and even other organisms, state the types of measures that you apply to control

pests in your farm (tick from the list below or give details):

Chemical pesticides Home made plant extracts

Biological control agents Weeding/uprooting

Removal/pruning/isolation Weeding/uprooting

Other control measures (specify which ones)……………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..……………………. ………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

2) From the above question, if you do not use or you have never used chemical pesticides, please give your

reasons:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..……………………. ………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..……………………. ………

3) If you use or you have ever used chemical pesticides, please provide information in the following table:

41

Please complete the table below (for question No. 3)

PESTICIDE USED (Common, trade or chemical names)

PESTS TARGETED (give the name or names)

NAME OF CROP OR LIVESTOCK AFFECTED BY THE NAMED PEST

No. OF TIMES THE PESTICIDE WAS USED (during the last

season for crop pests or during the last one year for livestock pests)

PERSON WHO APPLIED THE PESTICIDE (self, farm

worker, neighbour, service provider, etc)

QUANTITY OF THE PESTICIDE BOUGHT OR OBTAINED

SOURCE OF THE PESTICIDE

42

4) From your experience, have you ever come across pesticides which were not effective at all after

application? Yes No

If yes, name the pesticide(s):

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

5) For the pesticides that you use or you have ever used, state the types of records that you keep (tick from

the list below or give details):

Application area / crop / animal Pesticide product trade name

The pest targeted in the application The dose or rate or quantity applied

Name of person who applied a pesticide Date of application

Other types of records kept (specify which ones)…………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..……………………. ……… In case you do not keep any records, please give your reason(s)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

6) When do you decide to use pesticides? (tick all that apply)

Use pesticides at regular intervals throughout the season (calendar)

Use pesticides when pests are seen in the field/on livestock (control)

Use pesticides after field sampling and finding a certain number of pests or a certainlevel of

damage (scouting)

Use pesticides when told by someone to apply (state who?)

In case there are other circumstances lead to your decision to use pesticides, please state them

……………………………………………………………………………………….……………………… ……

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..………………… ………..

7) When you decide to use, please state the tools/equipment that are used in the application

43

8) of pesticides on your farm (tick all that apply):

Knapsack sprayer Hand sprayer Plant twigs/branches/broom

In case there are other tools/equipments that are used for pesticide application on your farm, please

state them

……………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………… ……

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..………………… ………..

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..………………… ………..

9) If you use a knapsack sprayer, please tick the situation(s) that applies to you:

I own a knapsack sprayer

I rent/hire a knapsack sprayer

I borrow a knapsack sprayer

10) From your experience, are there any negative effects of using pesticides on humans or to the

environment? Yes No

If you know of any negative effects of using pesticides, please list them below:

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES ON HUMAN BEINGS

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES TO THE ENVIRONMENT

44

11) Do you use any kind of protective clothing while applying or handling pesticides?

Yes No

If NO, give reason(s ……………………………………………..……………………….……………………… ……

……………………..………………….……………………………………….………………………..………………… ………..

If YES, name the types of protective clothings that are used on your farm

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

12) Please answer the following questions in relation to handling and storage of pesticides in your farm:

a) Do you read labels on the pesticide container before using? Yes No

b) If you read labels on pesticide containers, what kind of information do you look for?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) How often do you wear protective clothing and other accessories like nasal mask, hand gloves, eye

goggles and boots while applying pesticides?

Never Sometimes Always

c) Do you mix pesticides with your bare hands? Never Sometimes Always

d) Where do you mix pesticides? …………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

e) Where do you wash or rinse your sprayer and mixing equipments? ………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

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? ………………………

.......................................................................................................................... …………………

.......................................................................................................................... …………………

11) What do you do with the pesticide containers after the pesticide is finished? (tick all options that

apply)

Burn Bury Dispose in a latrine Wash and use e.g. for drinking water,

storing salt Use to make tin lamps (‘Koroboi’) Sell to interested persons

Comments:

46

Appendix 6. Pest and pest management field monitoring record form

Crop or livestock being

considered

Pests/diseases affecting the

crop/livestock

Control measures practised

against the pest/disease

Area under this

practice (acres)

or number of

plants/animals

under the

practice

Name of

product/m

aterial

used, if

available

Units of

material/p

roduct

used

Total Cost

(KES)

Who was responsible

for this activity?

01 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

02 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

03 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

04 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

05 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

06 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

07 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

08 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

09 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________

10 ________________________ ________________________ ______________________ __________ ________ _______ _______ ___________________