Baseline Report Yala and Nzoia River Basins
|
|  Yüklə 6.57 Mb.
|
Socio economic baseline data summary
Average household size is 6.6 people with 90% of the households having 10 members or less (Table 6.7). Only two households have more than 15 members. Average farm size is 3.2 acres; however, 77% of the households have farm sizes of 4 acres or less. Less than 5% of the households have farm sizes larger than 10 acres (Table 6.8). Table 6.7. Household size (N=160)
Table 6.8 Farm size (N=160)
 Figure 6.3 Population densities in Lower Nzoia Block. The majority of the households were female headed (51%), while the rest (38%) were male headed. One household was headed by orphans and 18 households were polygamous.
All households surveyed rear livestock. Table 6.9 lists the percentage of households with different species of livestock. Only 11 households in the study area had pigs and no households had donkeys. Improved breeds are not raised in the area. Thus, the project should consider developing a strong livestock programme in this block to introduce improved breeds and increase productivity. This needs to be accompanied by the development of adequate fodder sources to support improved breeds. Table 6.9. Livestock ownership in percentage (N=160)
1Local indicates local breed, 2HB indicates improved breed The source of fodder is mainly grasses (59%) and crop residue (36%). Average acreage used for crop residue production is 1.4 acres and livestock grazes on around 1.4 acres, on average. Grazing on communal land is common (34%) and uncommon on government land (2 cases). Commercial feed is a source of fodder for only 7 households and only 25 households buy feed at the local market. However, 93% of the households are experiencing problems with their livestock. The major problem is livestock health, with respondents reporting problems with ticks and with disease incidence. Feed and fodder availability was the number two cause of problems and was reported by 15% of the households. However, 14% say they do not have adequate land for grazing their livestock, and 53% experience problems with free-grazing livestock from neighbours, which corresponds well with the fact that 50% of the households practice free-grazing. The most important constraints at farm level are problems with pests and diseases, lack of capital for investment and the inability to anticipate climate variability (Table 3.10). The high incidence of reported problems with flooding point to a lack of resilience in this region to climate related problems. Farmers also listed ill health and old age as a major constraint. Thus, the project needs to be aware of the demands on labour that proposed interventions require in this block. Soil constraints were down the list for farmers, but there is still a perception of significant soil related problems in the block. Input costs were not listed as a major constraint; however the frequency with which capital was cited indicated that farmers do not feel that they can adequately invest in their enterprise. Striga infestation was cited frequently as a major pest problem in the block. This problem is strongly associated with poor soil fertility, particularly N deficiency. Table 6.10. Major constrains at farm level listed by farmers
Soil erosion is being addressed by 90 of the households interviewed (59%) and the most common conservation measures are terraces (43%). Several farmers were practicing contour ploughing and are erecting trash line barriers. Of the 68 farmers using terracing as a conservation measure, 31 have constructed ‘Fanya chini’ terraces. In addition to these measures, 21 farmers are also harvesting rainwater, mainly from the roof, for domestic use. Thus, there seems to be a need to assess the soil and water conservation measures and assist the farmers in selected better measures and integrating trees and legumes in the control of runoff water and soil erosion. This would simultaneously address some of thete pest problems and the low soil fertility, that farmers are mentioning as one of the largest constraints at farm level.
The majority (98%) of the farmers are practicing agroforestry. All of the homesteads sampled have trees which are protected (Table 3.116.11) and 92 percent of the farmers interviewed are interested in planting more trees, which corresponds well with the farmers’ response to practicing agroforestry. Only 13 farmers out of 160 are not interested in planting more trees, which is mainly due to land size (7 farmers), age and ill healty (2 farmers), Approximately 24% of the farmers interviewed are planning to cut down trees on their farm. Two farmers from mentioned cultural practices as a hindrance to tree planting, as women are not allowed toot plant trees. Table 6.11. Tree species on-farm (N=161)
Reasons for growing trees include producing fruits, fuel wood, and timber (>75% for each). Forty-four percent of the respondents use trees grown on the farm for medicine and 54% grow trees for cash income. About 26% of the farmers use trees to address soil fertility and only 13% use trees as fodder. Therefore, the project should organize community training to raise awareness of opportunities offered by expanding the growing or trees and production of other tree products to facilitate better integration of trees into the farming system. Using farmer’s answers to rank the importance of agroforestry products the top 10 uses were:
The main sources of fuel for the families in this block are wood and paraffin (Table 6.12). About 86% of the households are not energy self sufficient, which might explain the high number of farmers interested in more tree planting as mentioned above. More than 90% of the interviewed farmers are interested in planting more trees. Table 6.12. Fuel use by source
The majority of the farmers interviewed have not received any training. Only 29 of the 161 farmers interviewed have received any type of training; most (19) were members of a group. Many farmers in this area (57%) are of members of groups. From the surveyWe found 106 groups during our surveywere found (examples in Table 6.13). Thus, the base upon which to build the training program in the block for these groups is weak and needs to be built in order for the project to achieve its objectives. Table 6.13. Selected community groups and their locations.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||