E974

PROJECT REPORT FOR THE WESTERN KENYA INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT

(WKIEMP)(Draft Environmental Assessment)

ProponentKenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)

P.O. Box 57811, 00200, City SquareNairobi, Kenya.

Tel. 254-(0)20-583301/20Fax: 254-(0)20-583344

EIA Consultants

1. Prof. David N. Mungai, Ph.D. Department of GeographyUniversity of Nairobi,P.O. Box 30197Nairobi, Kenya.Tel.: 254-2-334244; 0722 389 348Fax: 254-2-336885E-mail: d.mungai@cpkenya.org; d.mungai@cgiar.org

2. Ms. Jane B. Nyakang’o, M. Sc. Kenya National Cleaner Production CentreP.O. Box 1360-00200 City Square, Nairobi, KenyaTel.254-20-604870/1; mob.: 0733 629824Fax: 254-20-604871E-mail: jnyakang’o@cpkenya.org

February 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes the 5 five year multi-focal Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem

Management Project (WKIEMP) which is being executed by the Kenya Agricultural

Research Institute (KARI, the National Lead Institution) and the World Agroforestry

Centre (ICRAF). The World Bank implements the project, funded by the Global

Environment Facility (GEF), under OP 12 Integrated Ecosystem Management.

The major aim of the project is to address the worsening poverty levels due to

agricultural and environmental degradation prevalent in Western Kenya. It aims to scale

upwards the successful technologies that have been developed in Western Kenya by

KARI and ICRAF, and their collaborators. The project also has room for testing new and

innovative ways of reversing land and environmental degradation. The key development

goals of the project are to reverse land degradation and promote income-generating

activities for rural farmers in Western Kenya, and to contribute to improved rural water

quality. The global objectives of the project are to create opportunities to sequester

carbon, conserve biodiversity and to improve the quality of international waters. The

geographic focus of the project is the Nyando, Yala and Nzoia River basins. The project

will initially focus on the Nyando River Basin, as it is the best characterized river basin in

W. Kenya and, the most degraded. The project area will consist of twelve 1010 km

blocks distributed across the three watersheds. Because of the wide geographic dispersion

and large area coverage within the region, a phased approach in implementing project

activities will be adopted.

To fulfill the above objectives, a number of activities have been proposed. The major

project activities include: reforestation and afforestation, utilization of appropriate

farming technologies, controlled grazing, introduction of improved fallows, improvement

of soil fertility through agroforestry and chemical fertilizers, introduction of high value

trees and fodder, promotion of livestock, flood control measures, various water

2

management options, introduction of grazing enclosures, de-stocking, re-seeding of

pasture and enterprise development.

The potential environmental impacts of these activities were assessed. Most of the

predicted impacts were positive and could lead to improvements in environmental health,

food security and a lower incidence of diseases. However, certain project activities were

identified as being likely to lead to significant negative environmental impacts. It is

probable that a massive afforestation/reforeststion of the landscape could negatively

affect both surface and groundwater supplies if sufficient care is not taken regarding

selection of tree species, their placement on the landscape and management. Use of

chemical fertilizers could cumulatively make worse the eutrophication problems of the

Lake Victoria ecosystem. The project could also lead to social disparities due to

differences amongst communities or social groups in access to project resources and

information. An environmental management plan (EMP) will be required to address the

predicted negative impacts at the planning and implementation stages of the project.

The project is expected to cost US$ 5.125 million over the 5-year period.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study team wishes to thank the Director, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

(KARI), for appointing us to carry out this project study. We also wish to acknowledge

the logistical support provided by Dr. Jane Wamuongo, Assistant Director (Land &

Water Management). Our thanks to Dr. Lou Verchot of ICRAF for providing the Project

Proposal and other related documentation, which form the basis of this report. We thank

Dr. Patrick Gicheru (Head, Kenya Soil Survey) for providing transport to Western

Kenya, providing some project documents, organizing meetings with KARI/ICRAF staff

in Kisumu and, together with Mr. Wilson Aore, for accompanying the team to the field.

We want to appreciate the contributions of the ICRAF/KARI team in Kisumu and in

particular Dr. Markus Walsh, Noordin Qureshi, Alex Awiti, Eva Gacheru, P. Ruigu and

S. Mureithi for their valuable contributions regarding the WKIEM Project in general and

some aspects of the proposed interventions.

4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

GEF Global Environment Facility

GHG Greenhouse Gases

ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

ISRIC International Soil Reference and Information Center

KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute

MOARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NPA Net Project Area

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

WKIEMP Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS 6

1.0 INTRODUCTION 7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9

2.1 Location of the project 9

2.2 Background information 9

2.3 Nyando Basin 10

2.3.1 Socio-Economic Information 10

2.3.2 Biophysical information 12

3.0 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 17

4.0 PROJECT DESIGN 18

5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

AND MITIGATION MEASURES 20

REFERENCES 24

APPENDIX 1 26

6

1. INTRODUCTION

The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI, who are the national lead institution)

and the World Agro-Forestry Centre (ICRAF), as the lead agencies in partnership with

specific NGOs, local community organizations, and Kenya Forestry Research Institute

(KEFRI) are in the process of implementing the Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem

Management Project (WKIEMP). The principal donor for the project is the Global

Environment Facility (GEF) while the World Bank is the Implementing Agency. KARI

and ICRAF are the executing agencies. The five-year multi-focal project aims to address

the worsening poverty levels due to agricultural and environmental degradation prevalent

in Western Kenya. In addition to solving these local problems, better farming practices

including agro-forestry are expected to also provide global environmental benefits. The

key development goals of the project are to reverse land degradation and promote

income-generating activities for rural farmers in Western Kenya, and to contribute to

improving rural water quality. The global objectives of the project relate to creating

opportunities to sequester carbon, conservation of biodiversity and quality of

international waters. The specific objectives are to:

Promote agro-forestry and other improved land management activities in

upland areas to rehabilitate degraded lands, reduce soil erosion and sediment

control, and reduce nutrient delivery to Lake Victoria from agricultural

activities;

Improve on-farm and off-farm biodiversity through agro-biodiversity and

decreased pressure on “natural habitats” (remnant forests, riparian areas,

wetlands, etc.);

Reduce rural poverty and improve food security by introducing new land

management technologies to increase yields, and new and improved value-

added cropping systems.

Improve capacity for local communities, farmer associations, national, and

international institutions to identify opportunities, and formulate and

7

implement policies in support of integrated ecosystem management (IEM)

approaches, combining local and global benefits;

Examine the synergy between sustainable agricultural development and global

environmental benefits such as mitigation of green house gases (GHG)

accumulation in the atmosphere, forestry, biodiversity loss, and degradation of

international waters;

Enhance potential to sequester additional above- and below-ground carbon in

the project area;

Section 58 of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, 1999 requires that

all policies, plans, programmes and projects related to the undertakings specified in the

Second Schedule to the Act be subjected to environmental impact assessment (EIA). The

section also requires project proponents to obtain an EIA License from the National

Environment Authority (NEMA) before the implementation of a project. The Act as well

as the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003, Kenya Gazette

Supplement No. 56 of 13th June 2003, requires that the project proponent submit a Project

Report to the National Environment Management Authority. The World Bank also

requires an environmental assessment in accordance with its relevant safeguard policies

(particularly OP/BP GP 4.01 Environmental Assessment; OP 4.04 Natural Habitats;

OP/BP 4.12 Involuntary Settlement and OP 7.50 International Waters.

The purpose of this study therefore was to assess the potential environmental and social

impacts of the various activities associated with the implementation of the Western

Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project (WKIEMP) objectives outlined above.

The assessment was carried out taking into account both the World Bank’s safeguard

policies and Kenya’s environmental policy and laws. The outcome of the assessment was

this Project Report, which was prepared on behalf of the Kenya Agricultural Research

Institute.

8

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

2.1 Location of the project

The geographic focus of the project is the Kenyan portion of the Lake Victoria

Watershed. The project is located in Western Kenya and covers the Nyando, Yala and

Nzoia river basins (see Appendix 1 - Figs. 1-3).

2.2 Background information

The Lake Victoria basin covers 184,400 km2 of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and

Burundi, and is home to an estimated 25 million people with an average population

density of 135 persons/ km2. The Lake Basin is comprised of 11 major river basins –

Nzoia, Yala, Nyando, Sondu Miriu, Gucha, Mara, Gurumeti, Mbalageti, Duma, Simiyu,

Magoga, Isonga, and Kagera - and a large lake edge area that drains directly into the lake.

Two of these river basins, the Kagera and Mara - span national boundaries (ICRAF and

MOARD 2002). The Lake Victoria covers a surface area of 68,000 km2 and adding its

catchment (covering 184,400 km2) together gives an area of 252,400 square kilometers.

The Kenyan portion of the Lake Victoria basin covers about 42,000 km2 and is home to

about 7.9 million people. The average population density is about 190-persons/ km2.

Seven major rivers - Nzoia, Yala, Nyando, Sondu-Miriu, Gucha and Mara, drain this

area. The first three river basins will be involved in the Western Kenya Integrated

Ecosystem Management Project. The Nyando River, which drains parts of Nandi,

Kericho and Nyando districts, has a catchment area of about 3,600 km 2. The Yala on the

other hand drains an area of approximately 3,400 km2 while the Nzioa drains an area of

about 13,000 km2.

The lake Victoria drainage area includes lands with high agricultural potential and high

rates of environmental deterioration. The Nyando, Yala and Nzoia river basins have all

experienced high rates of deforestation and loss of topsoil (ISRIC, 1997).

Changes in the lake basin are linked to a number of interrelated problems such as rapid

population growth, poverty, land degradation, declining agricultural productivity and

9

deteriorating water quality, which must be addressed concurrently to achieve sustainable

development.

The Nyando River basin has been intensively studied by the World Agroforestry Centre,

the Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development, the Kenya Agricultural Research

Institute and their associates and other organizations, in the last five years, compared to

the other two watersheds. As a result, there is more scientific information for this basin

and work on the implementation of the WKIEMP is more advanced for Nyando. In this

report therefore, Nyando River basin is described in more detail than the other two

watersheds.

2.3 Nyando Basin

2.3.1 Socio-Economic Information

(a) Population

The Nyando river basin occupies 3,600 square kilometres and according to the 1999

census data, the population in the basin was 746,515. The average population density is

214 persons km-2, with some areas of the basin having over 1,200 people/km-2.

Administratively, the basin is divided into districts: Nyando, Nandi, Kericho, Buret,

Bomet and Uasin Gishu. Nyando District is in Nyanza Province while the rest are in Rift

Valley Province. None of the administrative districts lies wholly within the Nyando

Basin.

(b) Poverty Levels

The Lake Basin supports one of the densest and poorest rural populations in the world.

Western Kenya as a whole is characterized by comparatively lower household incomes

from the farm. In addition, Western Kenya is also characterized by high levels of disease

and destitution. Recent studies in the area indicate a high prevalence of malaria,

HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and water-associated diseases.

Studies done in the Nyando basin (Brent, 2004) reveal linkages between:

10

Poverty and land investments. Poor households invest very little in

agricultural inputs. Additionally, availability of information is an

important determinant of investments in soil and water conservation.

Agriculture, ill-health, and poverty.

Irrigation and land degradation. The conversion of 6500 ha of wetlands to

irrigation in the Nyando basin since 1980 has reduced the filtering effects

of wetlands thereby contributing to the major sediment plume in Winam

Gulf and eutrophication of Lake Victoria. The high sediment load in

Nyando increases maintenance costs of irrigation schemes (200 m3 of

sediment removed per week from Gem-Rae in 1997)

Community water management and farm investments: Participatory Rural

Appraisal (PRA) results for Nyando District Focal Areas indicate priority

problems to be: Lack of water, lack of tools, soil erosion, poor roads, lack

of technical advice; and low soil fertility.

(c) Land use

The watershed can roughly be divided into 5 different land use zones. Small-scale

subsistence maize and sorghum characterize the lower part of the watershed, the lake

plain between 1100- 1300 m. Large-scale sugar plantations and smaller sugar schemes

are located between 1300 m and 1700 m. Gradually, the sugar plantations are replaced by

coffee in a zone ranging between 1600 m – 2000 m. Small-scale tea farmers and large

tea estates are located between 1900 m – 2100 m. Relatively large-scale maize and

horticulture (potatoes, cabbages, etc.) farming characterize the areas above 2100 metres.

Soil degradation and soil nutrient mining characterize many land-use types. The most

degraded parts of the landscape, both in terms of nutrient deficiencies and soil physical

degradation, are areas currently used for open grazing and extraction of fuel wood. Areas

currently used for subsistence agriculture are characterized by both types of degradation,

but with lower prevalence rates than in grazing areas. In part, the lower prevalence may

11

be due to abandonment of severely degraded cropland. Proximal causes of degradation on

croplands include low investments in physical or biological methods of soil conservation

and low use of external sources of mineral fertilizers.

The main livelihood strategy in Nyando basin is farming with 48% of the households

directly depending on agriculture. The major subsistence crops grown include maize

(52.5%) sorghum (42.3%) beans (13.1%), groundnuts (8.8%), green grams (1.45%) and

cowpeas (2.9%). The yields are very low but the area has potential for improvement.

Production, particularly of cash crops like sugar cane and cotton, has been on the decline

owing to lack of markets, irregular payments, poor road infrastructure and low soil

fertility. Other crop production problems in the basin include drought, erratic rainfall and

striga weed.

Most of the watershed is continuously cropped except in the two remaining forest areas

of Tinderet and Mau, which are getting heavily deforested.

(e) Ethnic Composition

The main ethnic groups in Nyando basin are the Luo, Kipsigis and Nandi who inhabit

Nyando, Kericho and Nandi districts respectively. Local cultural norms and groupings

are crucial to the success of externally assisted development and conservation initiatives.

2.3.2

Biophysical Information

(a) Hydrology

The Nyando River has four major tributaries, namely; the Ainabngetuny and Mbogo,

which originate from Nandi District, and the Nyando and Awach which originate from

Kericho district. The river originates from areas of high rainfall (Kericho and Nandi

districts). It therefore has high stream discharge and floods are experienced in the lower

course of the river, covering approximately 50% of Nyando district and parts of Kisumu

District. The flooding is an annual phenomenon, which has adverse effects on the

community.

12

(b) Climatic Variability

A number of paleoclimatic studies have shown that long-term variability in the basin is

periodic and tends to track events occurring over time periods that are characteristic of

cyclic changes in orbital insolation and forcing (e.g. Kroll-Milankovitich cycles), and

global ocean and atmospheric circulation (e.g. El Nino/La Nina cycles). Some of these

studies (e.g. Stager et al., 1996) suggest that the post-1960 ecological shift in Lake

Victoria may have had climate driven analogues over the last 10,000 years. This implies

that although human impacts on the lake basin environment may now eclipse events

taking place, climate change could be reinforcing environmental degradation in the lake

basin.

The more recent historical records show the occurrence of an extraordinarily pluvial

period from 1961-1964 in the eastern portion of the lake basin. During this time, the

water level of Lake Victoria rose by approximately 2.5 meters, and discharges from

rivers Nyando and Sondu Miriu, for example, were 10-20 times higher than their

respective 35-year decadal averages. For the Nyando River Basin, interviews with local

people suggest that many of the major soil erosion problems either started or were

dramatically accelerated in their development during the early 1960’s. It is speculated

that rapid land use changes, deforestation, infrastructure development and over-grazing

structurally altered the landscape during the first half of the 20th century. Prevailing

conditions during the early 1960’s may then have been such that the basin was essentially

primed for massive erosion/sedimentation during a period of extraordinarily heavy

rainfall in the region. The Nyando basin is particularly vulnerable to the return of large

rainfall events, such as occurred in the early 60’s. The return of such an event could

result in unprecedented mass soil movement from the lake plain into the lake.

(c) Eutrophication

The water quality of Lake Victoria is affected by sedimentation and nutrient run-off,

urban and industrial point source pollution and biomass burning. The Nyando River and

its associated drainage network is the major source of sediment and phosphorus flow into

13

the lake. Phosphorus levels have increased 2-3 times over the last 40-50 years (Hecky,

1993, 2000). Measurements of phosphorus (the main nutrient causing lake

eutrophication) in River Sondu indicated that the concentrations were lower than those in

the lake but concentrations in the River Nyando were five times higher than those

measured in Sondu river. Algal concentrations are three to five times higher now than

during the 1960’s, and much of the lake bottom currently experiences periods of

prolonged anoxia that were uncommon 40 years ago (Johnson et al. 2000). Ambient

conditions in Lake Victoria now favor the dominance of nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria

and the spread of the aquatic weeds such as the water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes).

(d) Biodiversity

The biodiversity focus of the project will be the agricultural landscape and will seek to

increase functional biodiversity and so-called non-functional biodiversity. The effects of

management on below ground biodiversity will be investigated, and the importance of

this to long-term sustainability will be determined, particularly with respect to carbon and

nutrient cycling. Biodiversity in protected reserves in the project area is under intense

pressure and strategies to actively protect these resources are urgently needed. Some of

the activities of this project should help to reduce this pressure on these reserves, but this

impact will be context specific (depending on proximity of project interventions to

protected areas). Also, the impact will be tenuous as project activities will only partially

satisfy wood demands of rural populations and may not provide sufficient replacement

for all of the products that are withdrawn from reserves.

This project will address biodiversity conservation through on-farm biodiversity

conservation (i.e., agro-biodiversity), biodiversity enhancement off-farm and, to a lesser

extent, critical ecosystems/habitats (e.g., wetlands). Soil fertility replenishment is

expected to enhance both belowground and above-ground biodiversity through the

creation of more niches for different types of species.

(e) Soils & Land use

Various soil types are found in the basin. The soils of the mountains, hills, plateaus and

foot slopes are excessively drained to well drained, very shallow to shallow, dark reddish

14

brown, stony and rocky, sandy clay loam to clay, in places with an acid humic topsoil

and/or moderately deep to deep, (Phaeozems, Lithosols, Regosols Cambisols). Most

parts of the government protected natural forest (conservation forestry) falls under these

areas and acts as stabilizers of the thin soil layers and also for protecting the water

catchments.

The soils of the uplands are well drained, deep to very deep and in some places shallow

to moderately deep, dark reddish brown to dark brown, friable to firm clay, with a thick

acid humic topsoil (Acrisols, Nitosols, Cambisols, Ferralsols). The dominant land use

is tea growing (both estate and small scale). Tea is a deep-rooted crop that requires a lot

of rainfall and well-drained acidic soils. Other crops found in this unit and also requiring

well-drained soils are maize, potatoes, pyrethrum, wheat and cabbages. The government

protected planted forests (production forestry) falls under these areas. Most of the

planted tree species are exotic and require deep soils, which are well drained.

The soils of the plains are moderately well to imperfectly drained, deep to very deep,

brown to black, in places saline and sodic sandy clay loam to cracking clay (Vertisols,

Planosols, Gleysols, Fluvisols). The dominant land use in this unit is sugarcane growing

(both estate and small scale).

The soils found in swamps are very poorly drained, deep to very deep, dark grey to black,

half ripe clay; in many places peaty (Gleysols, Histosols). Rice growing (irrigated) is

practiced here. During the dry seasons crops like maize, tomatoes onions and kales are

grown. Other major activity is harvesting of papyrus and other species for making mats,

seats, fish traps and thatching material.

(g) Soil quality

There has been decrease in soil quality relative to undisturbed areas, as indicated by a

number of indicators, in areas where sheet, rill, and gully erosion have occurred. The

15

loss in soil quality is related to the degree of erosion. For example, sheet erosion has

decreased exchangeable bases by 39-47 % and soil organic carbon stocks by 17-25 %

compared with intact sites. Where gully erosion has occurred the impacts are more

dramatic. The majority of the soils in the Nyando river basin are deficient in plant

available phosphorus. It is estimated that between 63 – 73 % of the Nyando River Basin

is deficient in plant available phosphorus (defined as <8.5 mg kg –1 P-Olsen). However,

soil phosphorus levels are high enough to be of environmental concern in parts of the

lake plain, where erosion risk is also high. Table 1 shows the major soils, current land

uses, major limitations and recommended land uses.

Table 1: Major Soils - Their Limitations, Current Land Uses and Recommended Land Uses for Nyando Catchment Area

PHYSIOGRAPHY MAJOR SOIL TYPE (S) –(PROVISIONAL

CLASSFICATION)

CURRENT LAND USES MAJOR SOIL LIMITATIONS & RECOMMENDED LAND USE(S)

Mountains and major scarps

Leptosols, Nitisols & Regosols

- Forestry- Grazing- Cultivation of maize,

sugarcane, sorghum, bean etc.

- Soil depth and steep slopes.- Soils suitable for natural and

cultivated forests and for tourism.

Hills, minor scarps, volcanic foot ridges and foot slopes.

Leptosols, Regosols, Nitisols and Phoezems

- Grazing- Cultivation

(Sugarcane, maize, beans, potatoes, cabbages etc.)

- Forestry (natural and cultivated).

- Soil depth & sleep slopes.- Suitable for natural and cultivated

forests.- Suitable for grazing.- Cultivate some good soils and

maintain proper land management.

Uplands Nitisols, Phaeozems, and Leptosols

- Grazing (dairy)- Cultivation of tea,

coffee, potatoes, maize, beans, pyrethrum, fruits etc.

- Grazing (range)- Forest.

- Current land uses to be maintained but under proper land management.

- Shallow and sloping soils to be left under grass and natural vegetation for grazing.

Plateaus, piedmont and erosional plains

Nitisols, Vertisols, Leptosols, Arenosols, Planosols and Adosols

- Sugarcane growing- Cultivation for food

crops (maize, beans, cassava, sorghum, potatoes).

- Grazing- Wheat growing.- Dairying

- Soils depth, poor soil, workability and low physical fertility for some soils.

- Poor drainage- Suitable for growing of sugarcane,

cotton, wheat food crops (maize, beans, sorghum, potatoes and fruits.

- Shallow soils to be left under grass for grazing.

16

(h) Tree Resources

Research evidence shows that there is an acute shortage of seeds and seedlings for most

of the preferred species such as Grevillea, Melia, Casuarinas, and Kei apple among

others. The region is a net importer of wood products (charcoal, wood, poles, firewood,

timber) and this greatly contributes to deforestation. Improved fruit tree species such as

mangoes, bananas and pawpaw are also lacking. There is an acute shortage of fuelwood,

timber and poles due to deforestation and communal grazing that hinders establishment

of tree seedlings. Women go as far as Sigowet hills in Kericho district to fetch fuelwood.

As a result, the steep hills have been de-vegetated. Accelerated degradation is being

experienced in the hill areas. Huge gullies are threatening lives and are a major

hindrance to transportation. It is therefore necessary to establish tree nurseries to satisfy

the demand for trees and there tree products.

3. PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The proposed project activities include the following:

Tree planting for woodlots, in boundaries or as scattered trees in farms for poles, fuel

wood and charcoal

Planting of high-value trees such as fruit tree orchards, timber trees, medicinal trees

Introduction of improved soil and water management

Management of natural forest patches for poles, timber and fodder;

Establishment of fenced pastures to restore the natural vegetation

Establishment of tree nurseries

Agroforestry for soil fertility replenishment and improved crop production

Introduction of improved fallows, biomass transfer, mixed cropping

Proper management of residues on the farm

Introduction of non-wood products (honey, crafts, oils, medicine

Adding value to primary products

Improved marketing and trading of forest products

Improved technologies for energy saving and production (e.g. charcoal, stoves)

Proper handling and storage of farmyard/cattle manure

17

These options are expected to contribute to improved crop and animal production,

water capture and conservation, and to an increase in on- farm and off-farm

biodiversity thus improving local livelihoods and natural resource management.

Additionally, they are estimated to improve the level of carbon sequestration.

In the highlands (>1890 m), the major intervention will be to increase vegetation

cover. The activities proposed include reforestation and afforestation, utilization of

appropriate farming technologies such as intercropping, controlled grazing in the

rangelands and restoration of degraded grazing areas. Water collection structures and

spring protection will be encouraged as possible communal activities which can be

used as entry points to the communities.

In the midland (1440-1890 m) areas, the major interventions will be introduction of

improved fallows, improvement of soil fertility through agroforestry and chemical

fertilizers, introduction of high value trees and fodder, afforestation, promotion of

livestock and support for a wetland policy.

In the lowlands (1134-1440 m), the major interventions include: introduction of flood

control measures, afforestation, agroforestry including introduction of high value

trees, livestock improvement, water management options, introducing grazing

enclosures, de-stocking and re-seeding of pasture.

4. PROJECT DESIGN

(a) Selection of intervention areas

The project will initially focus on the Nyando River Basin, as it is the best characterized

river basin in W. Kenya and it is the most degraded. The project area will consist of

twelve 1010 km blocks distributed across the three watersheds. Because of the wide

geographic dispersion and large area coverage within the region, a phased approach in

implementing project activities will be adopted. The table below shows the timing for

inclusion of blocks in years 2004-2006.

18

No. 100 km2 Blocks

Watershed Area (km2) 2004 2005

Nyando 3,550 3

Yala 3,364 3

Nzoia 12,984 6

Allocation of blocks within basins will be stratified by roughly regionally equal area

(~1.3106 ha) elevation zones including: Lowlands, 1134-1440 m, Midlands, 1440-1890

m and Highlands 1890 m a.s.l. Block center locations will be selected randomly, nested

within basins and elevation zones and subject to the condition that no part of any focal

area impinges on 1990 baseline “forested lands”. Further exclusions will include: large-

scale commercial agricultural areas (e.g., rice irrigation schemes, tea estates, and sugar

cane plantations), government lands such as protected areas and game parks, as well as

wetlands, and urban areas.

(b) CDM activities

The project defines project eligible reforestation, afforestation and agroforestry activities

to consist of areas with a minimum contiguous spatial extent of 0.065 ha, and subject to

the stocking guidelines presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Tree Stocking Guidelines for WKIEMP

Minimum stocking level

(trees ha-1)

Stand age Total Indigenous

Initial planting 1600 800

3 months 1120 560

1 year 800 400

3 years 700 350

19

Other qualifying activities will focus on improving soil condition through various

agronomic and range management measures (e.g. cover cropping with (tree) legumes or

green manures, grazing deferment and rangeland reseeding), and conservation tillage

(e.g. vegetated contours and/or minimum till practices).

(c) Selection of communities

The communities will be selected from the project areas representing the different types

of degradation problems and different land productivity potentials. A total of 200 villages

or village clusters (2 or more villages together) will be implementing land-use/IEM plans

at the end of the project.

5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS & MITIGATION

MEASURES

The activities proposed for the WKIEMP have the potential to lead to a number of

environmental impacts, both positive as well as negative. The impacts may affect the

natural or human environments. They may be short term or long term. The impacts can

also extend well beyond the national borders. All these aspects and many more are

relevant to the current project. The significance of the predicted impacts will depend on a

number of factors including: size of impacted area, number of people that are likely to be

affected, whether or not the impacted environment is degraded, probability of occurrence

of the impact etc.

The participatory manner in which this project is being implemented means that the

actual interventions and their mix, selection of participating communities, the geographic

scope and timing of the interventions, are not known. Thus, at the time of preparing this

report, the potential environmental impacts could only be predicted at a very general

level.

The potential environmental impacts of the activities proposed for the WKIEMP are

summarized in Table 3.

20

Table 3: Proposed project interventions, impacts & proposed mitigation measures

PROBLEM DOMAINS

PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS

POTENTIAL IMPACTS PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

(1) Highlands 1890 m 1. Deforestation2. Soil quality

decline3. Global

warming4. Poverty5. Pollution

1. Afforestation (with both exotic and indigenous tree spp.)

2. Agroforestry 3. Improved

fallows 4. Composting 5. High value trees

1. Reduction of surface runoff, soil erosion & flooding of lower areas (+ve)

2. Reduction of surface & ground water availability (-ve)

3. Reduction of gully formation (+ve)

4. Reduction in siltation of water pans (+ve)

5. Reduction of pollution into lake Victoria (+ve)

6. Habitat restoration & increase in biodiversity (+ve)

7. Improved water quality (+ve)8. Improved food security &

incomes (+ve)9. Improved health of the

participating communities10. Improved soil productivity

(+ve)11. Reduced pests & diseases

(+ve)12. Creation of social disparities (-

ve)13. Creation of social capital

(+ve)14. Increased rural employment

opportunities (+ve)15. Reduced incidence of diseases

& pests (+ve)16. Reduced atmospheric CO2 &

Global warming (+ve)

1. Reduction of surface & ground water availability

(a) Select intervention sites, tree species, tree management, and placement on the landscape carefully to avoid water source areas

2. Creation of social disparities

(a) Select carefully the participating communities taking into account wealth ranking, ethnicity, clans, etc

(2) Midlands, 1440-1890 m 1. Soil fertility

decline2. Wetland

conversion3. Deforestation4. Pollution5. Small land

parcels6. Government

policy7. High

population pressure

8. HIVAIDS

1. Improved fallows

2. Chemical fertilizers (rock phosphate, TSP)

3. High value trees4. Dairy goats5. Fodder trees6. Poultry7. Policy

interventions with respect to wetlands

8. Afforestation

1. Reduced incidence of diseases & pests (+ve)

2. Eutrophication of water bodies (due to use of chemical fertilizers + human & animal wastes (-ve))

3. Reduction of surface runoff, soil erosion & flooding of lower areas (+ve)

4. Reduction of surface & ground water availability (-ve)

5. Reduction of gully formation (+ve)

6. Reduction of siltation of water

1. Pollution of water bodies leading to eutrophication of water bodies (due to use of chemical fertilizers & animal wastes (-ve))

(a) Apply the correct types of fertilizers. The amount & timing of application should also be done correctly

2. Reduction of surface & ground water availability

21

9. Soil acidity (heavy fertilizer application by large scale farmers – Sugar belt areas)

10. Global warming

11. Poverty

9. Liming pans (+ve)7. Reduction of pollution into

lake Victoria (+ve)8. Habitat restoration & increase

in biodiversity (+ve)9. Improved water quality (+ve)10. Improved food security &

incomes (+ve)11. Improved health of the

participating communities12. Improved soil productivity

(+ve)13. Reduced pests & diseases

(+ve)14. Creation of social disparities (-

ve)15. Creation of social capital

(+ve)16. Increased rural employment

opportunities (+ve)17. Reduced atmospheric CO2 &

Global warming (+ve)

(a) Select intervention sites, tree species, tree management, and placement on the landscape carefully to avoid water source areas

3. Creation of social disparities

(a) Select carefully the participating communities taking into account wealth ranking, ethnicity, clans, etc

(3) Lowlands, 1134-1440 m1. Overgrazing 2. Pollution3. Soil erosion 4. Low soil

fertility 5. Low land

productivity 6. Lack of fuel

wood7. Low income

levels 8. Grazing

conflicts 9. Small land

parcels 10. Flooding &

droughts11. HIVAIDS12. Absent

landlords (Nyando – Katuk Odeyo)

13. Global warming

14. Poverty

1. Flood control through dams

2. Afforestation3. High value trees4. Agroforestry5. De-silting of

water pans6. Water

management options

7. Grazing enclosures

8. Re-seeding of pasture

9. De-stocking10. Dairy goats11. Promote roof

catchments as a water harvesting technique

1. Reduced incidence of diseases & pests

2. Reduction of surface runoff, soil erosion & flooding of lower areas (+ve)

3. Reduction of surface & ground water availability (-ve)

4. Reduction of gully formation (+ve)5. Reduction in siltation of water

pans (+ve)6. Reduction of pollution into lake

Victoria (+ve)7. Habitat restoration & increase in

biodiversity (+ve)8. Improved water quality (+ve)9. Improved food security & incomes

(+ve)10. Improved health of the

participating communities11. Improved soil productivity (+ve)12. Reduced pests & diseases (+ve)13. Creation of social disparities (-ve)14. Creation of social capital (+ve)15. Increased Rural Employment

Opportunities (+ve)16. Reduced atmospheric CO2 &

Global warming (+ve)

1. Reduction of surface & ground water availability

(a) Select intervention sites, tree species, tree management, and placement on the landscape carefully to avoid water source areas

2. Creation of social disparities

(a) Select carefully the participating communities taking into account wealth ranking, ethnicity, clans, etc

Most of the potential environmental and social impacts at both the local and international

levels are positive (Table 3). Overall, the various interventions, if carefully implemented,

22

are expected to lead to less natural resource and environmental degradation, which in turn

will lead to better environments and sustainable livelihoods. Among the major negative

potential environmental impacts include: (a) Reduction of surface & ground water

availability due to afforestation/reforestation (b) Pollution of water bodies leading to

eutrophication mainly due to use of chemical fertilizers (c) Creation of social disparities

due to differences in access to project information and resources.

(a) Reduction of surface & ground water availability

One of the major interventions to reduce run-off, soil erosion and green house gases

is afforestation and reforestation of the landscape using both exotic and indigenous

tree species. The project recommends retention of 60% permanent vegetation cover in

the project watersheds. There also will be agroforestry interventions using a wide

range of tree species including high value trees. Trees use water and therefore

massive re-vegetation of the landscape can be expected to lead to changes in the

hydrology of the project area. The numerous springs along the escarpments could for

instance disappear following the planting of trees in stream-source areas. To avoid

undesirable impacts, the following considerations will need to be taken into account:

i) Appropriate tree species should be selected for different elements of the

landscape and farmer preference

ii) The various agroforestry interventions need to be placed in appropriate

locations in the landscape to maximize their hydrologic and soil benefits.

iii) Consideration should be given to the optimum layout of the agroforestry

interventions to maximize their benefits.

(b) Pollution of water bodies leading to eutrophication due to cumulative use of

chemical fertilizers

To improve soil fertility, application of chemical fertilizers e.g. TSP and rock

phosphate are proposed. Depending on the amount, timing and mode of application,

some of the fertilizers will find their way into the aquatic ecosystems, including Lake

Victoria, through surface run-off. This would lead to further nutrient enrichment of

the waters in which aquatic weeds such as algae and water hyacinth will proliferate in

23

an already overburdened lake. Appropriate application of the fertilizers, use of more

environmentally friendly soil re-capitalization alternatives and reduction of flood

incidences would help to minimize the predicted negative environmental impacts.

Lake Victoria is a shared ecosystem and therefore any interventions affecting its

water quality and/or quantity is of interest to the other Riparian countries. Therefore,

any project activities, which are likely to affect these parameters negatively, are likely

sources of inter-state conflicts over the water resources of Lake Victoria and the

hydrological system that sustains it.

(c) Creation of social disparities due to differences in access to project resources

Intervention areas will be selected on the basis of the degree of land degradation and

socio-economic indicators. Exactly how the two aspects will be matched and still be

representative of the socio-cultural and socio-economic groupings in the project

watersheds is not clear. It is therefore conceivable that the selection of communities

and individuals might be biased and therefore lead to social disparities contrary to the

spirit of sound environmental governance.

An environmental management plan (EMP) will be required to address these predicted

negative environmental impacts at the planning and implementation stages of the project.

The EMP will be expected to contain detailed action plans for each mitigation measure,

cost of implementation of the mitigation measures, responsible party, implementation

time-table, monitoring etc.

REFERENCES

ICRAF and MOARD (2000): “ Improved land management in the lake Victoria basin: Final Technical Report, Startup Phase, July 1999 to June 2000.” ICRAF and MOARD, Nairobi, Kenya.

ISRIC (1997): “Impact of soil erosion on maize production in Kenya”. International Reference and Information Centre. Wageningen, The Netherlands.

24

KARI & ICRAF (2003): “Global Environment Facility Project Proposal for a Full Sized Project: “Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project”

KARI & ICRAF (2003): Baseline and project Monitoring Plan for the western Kenya

integrated ecosystem Management Project (WKIEMP).

Stager, J.C. (1997). A high resolution 11,400-yr. Diatom record from Lake Victoria,

East Africa. Quat. Res. 47: 81-89

Hecky, R. (1993): The eutrophication of Lake Victoria. Proc. Int. Ass. Theor. Appl.

Limnol. 25: 39-48

Johnson, T.C., K. Kelts and E. Odada. (2000): The Holocence history of Lake

Victoctoria. Ambio 29: 2-11

25

APPENDIX 1. NYANDO, YALA AND NZOIA BASIN MAPS.

Fig.1. Nyando River Basin showing the relative locations of the intervention blocks

26

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

Mtetei

Londiani

Ainamoi

Ahero

Sondu

Chemase

Muhoroni

PaponditiSosiot

Chepsoen

Kipkelion

KedowaFort Tenan

Songhor

Chemilil

Kaptumo

NYANDO RIVER BASIN

N

Elevation1134-1440 Lowland1440-1890 Midland>1890 Highland

Intervention area#Y Town

Road

Fig. 2. Yala River Basin showing the relative locations of the intervention blocks

27

#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

#Y #Y #Y

#Y#Y #Y

#Y

#Y

#Y

YalaSiaya

Arwos

Luanda

Nabkoi

Lessos

Majengo

SabatiaKaimosi

Kapsabet

Chavakali

Kapkangani

Yala

YALA RIVER BASIN

Yala river basin#Y Town

RiverRoad

6 0 6 12 KilometersN

Intervention area

Fig. 3. Nzoia River Basin showing the relative locations of the intervention blocks

28

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Soy

Sega

Iten

Lunza

Ng'iya

Chwele

Lugari

VihigaShianda

Kimilili

ButsotsoChepterit

Cheborowa

Chepkoilel

Moi's Bridge

Burnt ForestPort Victoria

NZOIA RIVER BASIN

Nzoia river basinRoad

# TownRiver

8 0 8 16 Kilometers

N

Intervention area