ADOPTION AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN KATHEKAKAI SETTLEMENT SCHEME, MACHAKOS DISTRICT

Transcription

1 ADOPTION AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN KATHEKAKAI SETTLEMENT SCHEME, MACHAKOS DISTRICT 1 Violet N. G., C. K. K. Gachene 2, J. N. Ngugi 1, E. G. Thuranira 1 and M.W. Baaru 3 1 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute- Kabete, P.O. Box , Nairobi, Kenya 2 Department of Soil Science,University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053, Nairobi, Kenya 3 Department of Soil Science University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053, Nairobi, Kenya Abstract Kathekakai settlement scheme in Kathekakai location in Central division in Machakos district was a cooperative society ranch until 1990s when the members subdivided it into individual holdings for settlement. During the process of settlement bush clearing for cultivation, cutting down of trees for building material, firewood and charcoal burning took place. This study identified existing soil and water conservation (SWC) practices, constraints and opportunities with the view of improving and up-scaling appropriate soil and water conservation technologies. Sixty-two households (36% men and 64 % women) participated in the study. The results indicated that 86% of the farmers have adopted soil and water conservation technologies while 73 % are still experience soil and water erosion on the farms with 61% having serious cases. As identified by 34% and 17% of the farmers, fanya-juu terraces and fanya-chini terraces were identified as the most widely adopted technologies respectively. Using the pair-wise ranking, the farmers identified fanya-juu terraces with Napier grass strips on the embankment and ploughing along the contour as the most effective soil and water conservation practices. Apart from controlling soil and water erosion, the farmers perceive these technologies to have more benefits as source of livestock feed. Majority of the farmers (45%) identified lack of adoption of appropriate soil and water conservation practices, lack of run-off and roof water harvesting measures was identified by 32%, and 6.3% respectively. In addition, 5.3% and 4.2 % reported clearing of land for cultivation and over grazing respectively. The farmers were also aware that the causes of soil and water erosion also contribute climate change. Capacity building for farmers on appropriate soil and water conservation practices and mitigation strategies to climate change will contribute to improved soil and water erosion and climate change. Key words: Soil and water conservation, technologies, adaptation, climate change, mitigation. Introduction Soil and water erosion which has affected 80% of the country s arable land was echoed in the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 (Gachene et al., 2004). Soil and water erosion was first identified in Kenya as a major environmental problem in 1935 and in the 1940 s, the colonial government introduced the first soil and water conservation techniques in the country (Gachene et al., 2004 and Khisa et al., 2002). However, although some of the techniques developed during this period were effective, the fact that the practices were based on forced communal work, soil conservation developed into a bad name and the practices were bitterly resented by the people. Little happened immediately after independence (1963) until in 1970, when the Kenya government initiated the National Soil and Water Conservation Campaigns under the National Soil Conservation Project (NSCP) (Gachene et al., 2004 and Khisa et al., 2002). Population pressure has led to settlement and cultivation in the marginal and semi-arid areas, which are highly vulnerable to soil and water erosion. Intensive cultivation of highly steep slopes with annual crops and over grazing without effective conservation measures contributes to increased soil erosion. In certain cases, land may be so badly degraded that it is abandoned by farmers (Thomas, 2000 and Barber and Moore 1980). Past and current cultural agricultural practices continue to reduce the natural protection provided by vegetation cover subjecting land to severe soil erosion losses (Khisa et al. 2002). Smallholder farmers in Kathekakai settlement scheme usually leave the soil bare after cultivation, exposing the soils to severe inter-rill, rill and gully erosion at the onset of the rains. The farmers have been slow in adopting appropriate soil conservation measures, which they consider to be high labour and capital requiring during construction and maintenance and also as a waste of land (Khisa et al., 2002). Even where the farmers have adopted the practices, they are poorly constructed and maintained (personal observations). Kathekakai settlement scheme in Kathekakai location in Central division in Machakos District was for many years a Co-operative Society Ranch until 1990 s when the members subdivided it into individual holdings for settlement. According to the locals, the name Kathekakai barely means land that has harsh environment and 1124

2 may be the reason why the area was initially set aside for ranching (personal communication). The scheme lies between meters above sea level (ASL), at the dry end of agro-ecological zone (AEZ)-4) (Gachene, et al., 2004). As per the 2009 population estimates, the location had a population of 15,682 persons with 2,600 needy households (MoA, 2009). During the settlement process, through bush clearing for cultivation, cutting down of trees for building materials, firewood and charcoal burning, together with frequent drought spells experienced in the area, has continuously exposed the land to soil and water erosion (Gachene et al., 2004 and Khisa et al., 2002). In a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) by the Ministry of Agriculture, although farmers in Kathekakai settlement scheme are aware of the importance of soil and water conservation, they lack adequate knowledge and limited technical know-how on various agricultural technologies including soil and water conservation, low crop and livestock production, low incomes and limited capital. The schemes also have a shortage of extension agents and most of the farmers use their own indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) in agriculture and construction and, maintenance of soil and water conservation structures (unpublished MoA, 2008). Kathekakai settlement scheme covers most of the Kathekakai location, which is divided into four sub-locations; Kathekakai, Kitanga, Katelembo and Mikuyu sub-locations. The sub-locations are further divided into village and sub-villages. Kathekakai settlement scheme. Farmers in the scheme are mainly smallholders, practising mixed cropping and livestock farming systems on an average of 2.5 hectares of land (Mutuoki et al and MoA, 2008). The objective of the study were to identify existing soil and water conservation (SWC) practices among the smallholder farmers, constraints, opportunities and possibilities of improving and up-scaling of the most effective soil and water conservation practices in the area. Materials and Methods The study was conducted in Vota village in Mikuyu sub-location, as a representative of the Kathekakai settlement scheme. Data was collected from secondary and primary sources. The secondary data was compiled from literature review and personal observations, while primary data was collected using various participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools including; transect drive, village meetings, focus group discussions (FDG), gender analysis, key informant and individual household interviews using a checklist and semi-structures questionnaires. During the transect drive general observations on the farms, vegetation cover, soil and water erosion and conservation practices were recorded. Village meetings were organized to inform the community about the study as stakeholders in the study. The check list and the questionnaire were developed partly based on the observations made during the transect drive and village meeting discussions. The households were randomly selected by the interviewer by entering every second homestead on either side of the feeder roads in identified sub-villages. Prior to conducting the survey, pre-testing of the questionnaire was carried out in the study area to ensure that all the important information will be captured during the actual data collection. The key informants included village elders and church leaders from the 5 sub-villages. The focus group discussion was attended by selected farmers from the 5 sub-villages in Vota village. The purpose was to gather more information from the community on their knowledge, existing soil and water conservation technologies, causes and effects of climate change, soil and water adoption, gender issues in relation to soil and water conservation and mitigation strategies. The tools to gather information during the group discussion included; drawing of resource maps, indicating the former and current resources in the study area, pair-wise ranking where the farmers identified the various causes and mitigation strategies for soil and water conservation and climate change and ranked them. Researchers and extension officers facilitated the meetings/ discussions and the interviews. Data entry and cleaning was done in MS Excel. Descriptive statistics such as averages, minimum, maximum, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Ver. 18). Results Household characteristics A total of 92 farmers participated in the village and the focus group discussions while 62 (36% men and 64 % women) households participated in the household survey and 10 key informants were interviewed. Majority of the households (68%) were male-headed households while 25% were male-headed but female managed and 7% were female-headed households. The average age of the respondents was 49 years for men and 39 years for women. Most of the respondents (53%) had primary education while 36% have secondary education, 6.8% had tertiary education and 5.1% with no education (Table 1). 1125

3 Table 1: Respondents description by gender, age and education Gender % by gender Average Level of education (%) age (years) None Primary Secondary Tertiary Male Female Total Most (68%) of the households were male-headed household; 25% and 7% male-headed but female managed and female-headed households respectively. Most of the respondents (91.7%) were farmers with 64.6% being women, 37% work as casual labourers, 25% were involved in business while 18% and 11% were in formal employment and sale of grain grocers respectively. Most of the households (27%) depend on purchased piped water while 21% have individual piped and borehole water respectively and 18% have harvested rain water from the roof for domestic water. Land ownership is mainly male-dominate with majority of the men (71%) owning the land, while 18% was under family ownership and 8% was owned by widows. The average land size in the area is 2.5 hectare per household. Most farmers perceive their soils to be very fertile (46%), moderately fertile (45%), poor (5%) and very poor (1%) respectively. Only (23%) of the farmers use farm yard manure on their farms, (7%) plant leguminous crops and (6%) plant cover crops The Social capital Status of the Households in Settlement Scheme Both men and women are members of social groups. Majority (74%) of the respondents (27%) were members of self-help and women groups. The members of the self-help groups have both men and women while the women groups had only women. Financial investment/savings was the main activity for these groups with women groups in the lead (63%). The main savings have through the merry-go-round and others were done through K- Rep bank and Kenya Women Trust Fund (KWTF). Other activities included; farming, welfare and community development and financial investment/savings (Table 2). Table 2: Social- group/associations in Kathekakai settlement scheme Social group/ Group/Association's Activity Association Farming Welfare Community Development Self-Help Group 16% 24% 20% 40% Women's Group 18% 8% 8% 63% Financial investment/savings Farming Systems in the Settlement Scheme Crop and livestock production were the main farming practices in the settlement scheme. Crop production is main occupying 43% of the land, while livestock production (grazing/pasture takes 30% while 14%, 6% and 4% is used for woodlot, kitchen garden and cattle boma with the rest 3% being used for the homestead and other household needs (Figure 1). 1126

4 Percent (%) Crop production Grazing/ Pasture land Woodlot Kitchen garden Land use Fig. 1: Land distribution and use within the Settlement Scheme Cattle boma Other Maize is the major cereal crop grown on approximately 0.7 ha per household, with an average yield of 1.8 t/ ha in a good season. Farmers were also growing leguminous and traditional crops including; Dolichos lablab, beans (Phaseolus spp), butter beans (Phaseolus spp), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), green grams (Vigna radiate) sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), sorghum (Sorghum bicolour) and millet (Eleusire jageri) but on very small units of land. Other crops included fruits (citrus and mangoes) and vegetables (Kales and tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) (Table 3). Table 3: Crop production patterns in the settlement scheme Type of crop Average area under crop (ha) Farmers Average Yields (t/ha) % of farmers growing the crop Maize Sorghum Millet Dolichos lablab Beans *** Butter Beans *** Cow Peas *** Pigeon Peas Green Grams Sweet Potatoes 0.05 ** 81 Cassava 0.02 ** 84 Kale Tomatoes *** Citrus fruits *** Mangoes * ** 99 Key: * Area not quantified **Yield not available *** Figure not available According to the farmers most of the crops were grown mainly for household consumption with excess being sold for income generation. 1127

5 Livestock forms an integral part of the farming system. According to the results, each household has at least three milk cows (local and exotic breeds), 14 chicken (local and exotic breeds), eight local sheep and six goats and one donkey (Table 4). Table 4: Type of livestock within the farming systems in Kathekakai Settlement Scheme Type of livestock No. of livestock Minimum Mean Maximum Std. Deviation Milk Cow Bull Oxen Poultry Sheep Goats Donkeys Sheep/Goats Others e.g. geese Total More than 40.7% of the livestock (cows, goats and sheep) feed on open grazing land while 33.9 % are semigrazed, 15 % feed under communal grazing land and 19% are under zero grazing. During the dry period, 30% of the animals are fed with stored dry maize stover while 25% are fed with other crop residues collected either from own and/or neighbours farms. The different types of livestock have different benefits to the households including; food, income, manure, labour, transport, breeding and others e.g. prestige (Table 5). Table 5: Livestock contribution to household livelihood (%) Outputs Milk cow Bull Oxen Poultry Goats Sheep Food Income Manure Labour Transport Breeding Other reason (prestige) Total The results also indicate that 64.3% and 25.2% of the households use firewood and charcoal respectively for cooking. Majority of the farmers (64%) have planted some agro-forestry (both indigenous and exotic), legumes and different types of fruit trees. Thirty four percent of the farmers have planted grevillea (Grevillea banksii R. Br.) while 4.9% have mangoes (Mangifera indica L) trees and 2.4% have planted leucaena (an agro-forestry shrub). The results indicate that 12% and 10% of the farmers have plant the trees as wind breaker, and for shade and firewood respectively. Resource Mapping and Modeling Using the resource mapping tool, the farmers drew two sketch maps, the first showing the type and kind of resources that were in the scheme before 1995 and the second after 2000 (Figures 2 and 3). According to the farmers, before the settlement, the area was covered with natural grasses, indigenous trees and shrubs. Rivers existed in the area while man-made structures such as earth dams, water storage tanks, wind-vanes for pumping the water from the dams to the storage tanks and watering troughs were well distributed within the ranch. After settlement, most of the natural vegetation, including grasses, trees and shrubs have disappeared, leaving the land exposed to the effects of soil and water erosion. Some of the dams have also been filled up through siltation emanating from soil and water erosion (Figure 3). 1128

6 Fig. 2: Resource Map for Kathekakai settlement Scheme (before1999) Fig. 3: Resource Map for Katheakakai Settlement scheme (After 2000) Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Majority of the farmers (86%) in the settlement scheme had adopted different types of soil and water conservation technologies in their farms. However, 73% of these farmer s experience soil and water erosion with 61% having serious cases. Absence of appropriate soil and water conservation measures was identified by majority of the farmers (45%) as one of the causes of soil and water erosion. Others causes include; lack of water (road run- off and roof) harvesting measures as identified by 38.3% of the farmers while 5.3% and 4.2% reported of clearing of land for cultivation and over grazing (among others. Some of the most adopted practices include; fanya-juu terraces, use of farmyard manure and fanya-chini terraces/cut-off drains among other technologies (Figure 4). 1129

7 Percent (%) Fig. 4: Soil and water technologies as adapted by farmers Key: 1.Fanya-juu terraces 2. Use of farmyard manure 3.Fanya-chini terraces/ cut-off drains 4.Planting of leguminous crops 5. Planting of cover crops 6. Grass strips 7. Agro forestry on the terrace surface/ embankment 8. Trash lines 9. Fertilizers 10. Check dams 11. Gully reclamation According to pair-wise ranking, the farmers ranked fanya-juu, fanya-juu terrace with Napier grass on the embankment and ploughing along the contour, in that order as the most effective soil and water conservation technologies (Table 6). Effects and Impact of Climate Change Majority (98%) of the farmers agreed that climate has changed over the years. Over 29% of the farmers identified decrease in rainfall, while 14.9% and 9.9% mentioned drought and high temperature/ increased temperature among others as some of the impacts of climate change respectively. The farmers were aware that the effects/impacts of climate change are similar to those of soil and water erosion (Table 7). Table 6: Pair-wise Ranking of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies Tally Rank 1 Fanya juu Fanya chini Planting trees Grass strips De-stocking Fanya juu terrace and Napier grass on the embankment 7 Planting cover crops 8 Ploughing along the contour 9 Planting cover crops

8 Table 7: Effects/Impact of climate change Results of Climate change Frequency % of frequency Decreased rainfall Drought High temperature/ Increased temperature Long dry spells between seasons Erratic/ Variable rainfall Reduced yields/harvest 9 6 Drying of rivers 6 4 Late rainfall 6 4 Dry cold Reduced animal productivity High winds Decrease in water resources/ availability 3 2 Drying up of crops No harvest Increase in diseases Pests Death of animals Low temperatures Total The farmers identified some of the climate change mitigation strategies including, planting of drought resistant crops as identified by 24.5% while 17%, 14.2% and 9.4% reported of planting of early maturing crops, water harvesting and de-stocking among other practices. (Table 8). Table 8: Climate Change and Mitigation Strategies Mitigation/coping strategies frequency % of frequency Planting of drought resistant crops Planting of early maturing crops Water harvesting De-stocking Application of conservation agriculture Use of irrigation Change of livestock breeds Seek off-farm employment Discussions The findings of the study indicate that before the settlement of Kathekakai settlement scheme, the area was adorned with both natural and physical resources. Clearing of the bushes and cutting down of trees to open up land for settlement, building materials, firewood and charcoal burning has greatly contributed to increased soil and water erosion and loss of valuable biodiversity and other resources such as earth dams through siltation. Although majority of the farmers have adopted different types of soil and water conservation technologies including terracing, tree planting, use of farm yard manure, planting of leguminous and cover crops, many farmers were still experiencing soil and water erosion with some being adversely affected. The soil and water conservation practices were not adequately applied resulting in undesirable effects. The farmer acknowledged that use their own indigenous knowledge especially in the laying out and constructing of the terraces, due to lack of appropriate technical advice in laying, constructing and maintaining the terraces, ending up with inappropriate structures. Not achieving the intended benefits, these efforts were too expensive for the farmers, in terms labour, energy (cost and time) and the eventual loss of food. This has contributed to land degradation which could be the result of low crop yields in the area. As reported elsewhere, soil and water erosion leads to 1131

9 land degradation resulting in poor crop performance (Critchley, 2004). Hence adoption of appropriate of soil and water conservation practices is importance for maintain soil fertility for improved crop and livestock production. Similar reports on the importance of maintaining soil fertility and water conservation has also been emphasised (Mati, 2005 and 2007). According to the study, most farmers are growing traditional crops, but on very small land sizes. These crops (dolichos lablab and sweet potato), apart from being drought tolerant and adaptable to the dry areas area, they also act as cover crops, protecting soil from wind and water erosion. Farmers choose to plant and manage specific cover/ leguminous crops, based on their needs and goals. But it these crops are primarily help to mange soil fertility, soil quality, water, weeds, bio-diversity in an agro-ecosystem (Wikipedia). The farmers are in pursuit of modern high value crops like maize and horticultural crops, which have lead to opening of more land under irrigation. This although is more beneficial to the farmer, in the absence of appropriate soil and water management technologies can lead to serious soil and water erosion issues. Crop and livestock farming, which most farmers practise in Kathekakai settlement scheme has its own challenges especially in dry areas where livestock feed is a major problem. According to Djoko and Sukristiyonubowo, 1994, sustainable farming of crop and livestock farming is difficult to maintain but introducing leguminous crops with livestock farming is expected to increase farmers' incomes and improve sustainability. But in Kathekakai settlement scheme, although livestock farming, forms a major component of the farming system and contributes quite significantly to the household livelihood, but has its own effects on soil and water erosion. The open grazing system practised by most farmers has contributed to soil and water erosion. The livestock usually graze and/or trampling on fields with very low vegetative cover, exposing the soil to water as well as wind erosion. Removal of the remaining natural vegetation and crop residues after harvesting to feed the livestock also leaves the soil bare, with no cover, aggravating the problem. The farmers in Kathekakai settlement scheme were members of self-help and women groups. This is an indication that the farmers in scheme have activities which bring them together including farming, community welfare, development and income generating activities. The importance of social groups cannot be over emphasised. In Kenya, most of the very successful development projects including those in soil and water conservation have been achieved through community development work. According to Kamar (1999), most successful soil and water conservation activities in Machakos district have been achieved through women groups. Conclusion Soil and water erosion continues to be major problem in Kathekakai settlement scheme, despite the efforts that farmers have made in adopting some of the soil and water conservation technologies. This indicates that the farmers highly recognise the value and benefits of soil conservation practices. Farmers are also quite aware of the causes, mitigation strategies of soil and water erosion and effects of climate change. Unfortunately, they lack adequate knowledge and technical skills on how to on apply and use appropriate soil and water conservation practices. The farmers in the scheme were also member of social groups with some of them being involved in farming activities an opportunity that can be explored for increased adoption of the soil and water conservation and climate change mitigation strategies. This in view of the fact that previously, soil and water conservation achievements had been made social groups, especially the women groups (Kamar, 1999), who are also the majority in the farming activities. Although most farmers perceive their soils as being fertile, this was not reflected in the crop yields. There is need therefore for further investigation on soil fertility in order to help the farmers achieve expected crop and livestock yields as per their locality. Recommendations Farmers will still continue to cultivate, building and seek for alternatives for generating income such as charcoal burning and needing energy for cooking. Capacity building for the farmers on appropriate soil and water conservation practices/technologies will therefore enhance farmers knowledge and skills for improved soil and water conservation and climate change management for improved soil productivity (Kato et al., 2000). Some of the technologies that the farmers identified such as fanya juu and fanya juu terrace with napier grass planted along the terrace embankments should be improved for up-scaling. The technologies which should include packages on soil and water conservation and climate change mitigation strategies. The technologies should also have multiple uses and benefits for the farmer and also effectively control soil and water erosion and, replenish soil fertility, provide wood for construction, fuel and high quality fodder for the livestock for improved crop and livestock performance. Micro contour lines which includes; a woody tree, a creeping legume, a grass strip and a leguminous tree shrub would be appropriate (Pfeffer, 1990). Soil analysis should also be undertaken to come up with specific recommendations on fertilizer and manure use in the settlement scheme. 1132

10 Acknowledgement The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), is highly acknowledged for providing the funds to undertake this study, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and University of Nairobi (UoN) for the facilitation and support to carry out the survey. References Critchley W (1991). Looking after our land: Soil and Water Conservation in Dryland Africa. Ed. Olivia Graham. Oxfam Publisher. Djoko and Sukristiyonubowo (1994). Soil and Crop Management for Sustainable Slopeland Farming in Indonesia. cited 30th September, Gachene K.K. and Mureithi J.G. (2004). Lost and reclaimed: A case of study of gully rehabilitation in Central Kenya highlands using low-cost measures. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress on New directions for a diverse planet: Brisbane, Australia, 26th Sept - 1st Oct (Ed.) Fischer I. et al ISBN Kato E., Ringler C., Yesuf M and Bryan E. (2009). Soil and water conservation technologies: A buffer against production risk in the face of climate change: Insights from the Nile Basin in Ethiopia. Environment and Production Technologies Division. IFRI Discussion paper June Kwena K.M. Okalebo J.R., Othieno C.O. and Okwach G.E. (1994). Effects of Cultivation on the Productivity and Resilience of Soils of a Semi-Arid Settlement Scheme in Eastern Kenya. Kamar M. J. (1999). The role of women in soil and water conservation: A case study. A paper presented at the 10th International Soil and Water Conservation Organisation Meeting, held May 24-29, 1999 at Purdue University and USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. Khisa P, Gachene C.K.K., Karanja N.K. and Mureithi J.G. (2002). The effect of post harvest crop cover on soil erosion in a maize-legume based cropping system in Gatanga, Kenya. Journal of Agriculture in the Tropics and Subtropics 103: Mati B. M. (2005). Overview of Water and Soil Nutrient Management under Smallholder Rain-fed Agriculture in East Africa. ISBN Mati B. M. (2007). 10 Ways to Manage Water for Smallholder Agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa. SWMnet Working paper 13. A Compendium of technologies and practices. SWMnet-ICRISAT, Regional Office for East and Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. MoA (2009). Unpublished Report. Participatory Rural Appraisal Report. Kathekakai location, Central division, Machakos district. Pfeffer, R. (1990). Sustainable Agriculture in Macro-Contour lines in the Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. Thomas D.B., Barber R.G. and Moore T.R. (1980). Terracing of Cropland in Low Rainfall Areas of Machakos District, Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. Volume 25, Issue 1, March 1980, Pp Wikipedia: Cover Crops. cited 30th September,