Baseline Report Yala and Nzoia River Basins
|
|  Yüklə 6.57 Mb.
|
Socio economic baseline data summary
Average household size is seven people with 93% of the household having 10 members or less (Table 4.7; Figure 4.4). A few households have more than fifteen members (3 homes). Average farm size is 1.9 acres; however, more than 45% of the households have farm sizes of less than one acre. Only 16% of the farms have farm sizes larger than 4 acres (Table 4.8). The majority of the households are male headed (83%) where 14% is female headed. Only one household is headed by orphans where 3 households are polygamous. Table 4.7. Household size (N=160)
Figure 4.4. Population density in the Middle Yala Block Table 4.8. Farm size (N=160)
In this block eight households in the sample did not keep livestock, hence 152 household reared livestock. Table 4.9 presents a breakdown of livestock by type. Only one household in the study area has pigs. In general farmers are keeping local cows, bulls and chicken. Only a few farmers keep improved breeds: cows 30 households, bulls 7 households and chicken 2 households. Table 4.9. Livestock ownership in percentage (N=160)
1Local indicates local breed, 2HB indicates improved breed The source of fodder is mainly grasses (74%) and crop residue (66%). Average acreage used for production of crop residue for fodder is 1 acre, whereas livestock is grazed on 0.4 acres, on the average. Few farmers leave their livestock to graze on communal (16 cases) and government land (19 cases). Commercial feed is an additional source of fodder for 14 households, and 16 households also buy feed at the local market (dairy meal and cattle salt). Approximately half of the households (53%) are experiencing problems with their livestock and a similar amount does not have adequate land for feeding their livestock (48%). Free-grazing livestock from neighbors’ farms is a problem to 53% of the households, which corresponds well with the fact that 52% of the households practice free-grazing. Therefore, establishment of fodder banks and promotion of trees such as Albizia coriaria, Calliandra calothyrsus, Cordia abyssinica, Croton spp., Grevillea robusta, Gliricidia sepium and Leucena spp., which are also palatable for livestock, should be one of the key activities for the project.
Farmers identified numerous constraints at farm level (Table 4.10), the most prevalent of which are: lack of income, farm size and low soil fertility. Erratic rainfall was also listed by many farmers. Other problems cited included pests and diseases and soil erosion. .
Soil erosion is being addressed by 121 of the households interviewed (76%) and the most common conservation measures are terraces (93 farms) and strips of grass and shrubs (80 farms). Of the 93 farms using terracing, 10 farmers say they have constructed Fanya chini terraces, which most studies show increase soil erosion. Reporting by farmers does not correspond to what wewas observed during the biophysical baseline survey. Thus, the project should look carefully at these landscapes and evaluate the adequacy of soil conservation measures. Farmers also make use of crop residue, Napier grass and bananas to control soil erosion, whereas few farmers use shrubs and trees in association with conservation measures. Only two farmers also mentioned Sesbania sesban and Calliandra spp. when asked about species used to control soil erosion. Many farmers also harvest rain water for domestic use and mention lack of storage facilities as a major constraint to fully benefit from this initiative.
The majority of the farmers are practicing agroforestry (Table 4.11). More than 95% of the homesteads have trees that are protected (see table below) and more than 80% of the interviewed farmers are interested in planting more trees, which corresponds well with the farmers’ response to practicing agroforestry. Here more than 99% of the farmers say they practice agroforestry. Only 30 farmers out of 160 are not interested in planting more trees, which was mainly due to land size (37%) and the fact that the husband makes such decisions (10%). Other reasons mentioned are theft, being a squatter and having enough trees on the compound. A fairly high percentage mentioned cultural practices as a hindrance to tree planting (51%). There is no clear pattern to this belief with regards to the clusters. The project, therefore, needs to look into this in more detail before planning any activities in relation to tree planting. Agroforestry products were rated as follows with regards to the usage:
Table 4.11. Tree species on-farm (N=160)
The fact that 50% of the households do not have adequate fodder for their livestock and the low rating of fodder on the usage of agroforestry products should be one of the key interest points in this area for the project. In addition, the low rating of agroforestry for soil and water conservation and soil fertility needs to be addressed as wellin this area. Here the project should capitalize on the fact that 76% of the farmers practice soil and water conservation and the relatively high interest in tree planting.
The main sources of fuel are wood, paraffin and charcoal (Table 4.12). More than 90% of the households are not self sufficient with fuel, which might explain the high number of farmers interested in more tree planting as mentioned above. More than 80% of the interviewed farmers are interested in planting more trees. The fact that almost one third of the households interviewed use plant residue as a source of fuel should be addressed. Crop residue should be returned to the soil to improve the nutrient balance and not be exported out of the system. Trainings on nutrient cycling and crop rotation should be given to the communities with special emphasis on leguminous trees, shrubs and grasses. Table 4.12. Fuel source
The majority of the farmers have not received any form of training. Only 37 of the 160 farmers interviewed had received training and of these 22 farmers are members of a group. Hence, a farmer is more likely to receive training if he/she is a member of a group. Only 15 farmers who are currently not a member of any groups have received training. Therefore, there seems to be a need to assist the communities in establishing groups and to train these groups in the topics mentioned above. However, special focus should be on the importance of trees and functions of trees in terms of products and uses. Secondly, soil and water conservation measures should be another topic in association with fodder production. There are groups in the area which are already focusing on tree planting, intensification of agricultural practices, horticulture and livestock. Table 4.13 lists some of these groups. Table 4.13. Groups and main activity undertaken
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||