CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

1
 INTRODUCTION
The achievement of the Millennium Development Goals is at the centre of sustainable

development. Sustainable rural developmentis vital to the economic, social and

environmental viability of nations. It is essential for poverty eradication since global poverty

is overwhelmingly rural. The manifestation of poverty goes beyond the urban-rural divide, it

has subregional and regional contexts. It is therefore critical, and there is great value to be

gained, by coordinating rural development initiatives that contribute to sustainable

livelihoods through efforts at the global, regional, national and local levels, as appropriate.

Strategies to deal with rural development should take into consideration the remoteness and

potentials in rural areas and provide targeted differentiated approaches.

8. A healthy and dynamic agricultural sector is an important foundation of rural

development, generating strong linkages to other economic sectors. Rural livelihoods are

enhanced through effective participation of rural people and rural communities in the

management of their own social, economic and environmental objectives by empowering

people in rural areas, particularly women and youth, including through organizations such as

local cooperatives and by applying the bottom-up approach. Close economic integration of

rural areas with neighbouring urban areas and the creation of rural off-farm employment can

narrow rural-urban disparities, expand opportunities and encourage the retention of skilled

2
people, including youth, in rural areas. There is considerable potential for rural job creation

not only in farming, agro processing and rural industry but also in building rural

infrastructure, in the sustainable management of natural resources, waste and residues. Rural

communities in developing countries are still faced with challenges related to access to basic

services, economic opportunities and some degree of incoherence with regard to planning

related to rural-urban divide. Investments in environmental protection, rural infrastructure

and in rural health and education are critical to sustainable rural development and can

enhance national well-being. Beyond meeting basic needs, investments must be linked to the

potential to raise productivity and income. The vulnerabilities of the rural poor to the

economic and financial crisis and to climate change and water shortage must be addressed.

The success of sustainable rural development depends on, inter alia, developing and

implementing comprehensive strategies for dealing with climate change, drought,

desertification and natural disaster. Related actions include:

(a) Promoting poverty eradication in rural areas;

(b) Promoting pro-poor planning and budgeting at the national and local levels;

(c) Addressing basic needs and enhancing provision of and access to services as a precursor

to improve livelihoods and as an enabling factor of people?s engagement in productive

activities;

(d) Providing social protection programmes to benefit, inter alia, the vulnerable households,

in particular the aged, persons with disabilities and unemployed many of whom are in rural

areas. Actions are needed to:

(a) Build social capital and resilience in rural communities. In that context:

(i) Empower women and small-scale farmers, and indigenous peoples, including through

securing equitable land tenure supported by appropriate legal frameworks;

(ii) Promote equitable access to land, water, financial resources and technologies by women,

indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups;

(iii) Support and promote efforts to harmonize modern technologies with traditional and

indigenous knowledge for sustainable rural development;

3
It is important to consider capacity of target beneficiaries and sustainability of rural

development during formulation of a master plan. In such a plan formulation, community

participation is also considered vital. There has, however, been no real consensus as to what

community participation is and how to carry out such an approach. JICA conducted a

“Development Study” to formulate a Master Plan that centers on improving the living

standard of the target beneficiaries in Arid and Semi-Arid Land Area (ASAL) with

“Verification Projects” in Kenya from 1999 to 2001 offering a chance to try out various

participation approaches.
The study integrated three participatory tools, 1) Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) to work “for

the people,” 2) Project Cycle Management (PCM) workshop to plan projects “with the

people”, and 3) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) for development “by the people.”

Considering different local conditions, especially its vulnerability and risk-proneness in

ASAL, a “Basket of Choices,” once presented by Chambers, was proposed as the

development approach together with “inter-village monitoring tour.” The tour so motivated

the participants that each side became willing to try the other’s activities from the basket

with various project components that could meet the different local conditions. Improved

Jiko (stove), rainwater harvesting and buck (breeding goat) scheme were evaluated high
performance among several Verification Project components.

The Verification Projects, selected from the basket, provided the procedure and constraints,

so-called “How and Limit,” in their implementation. The inter-village monitoring tour

played a great role of extending a project to other areas through people-to-people extension.

These outputs were utilized in refining the master plan. Throughout the Verification

Projects, ownership of the community in project implementation was nurtured. It is

concluded that a people-centered approach in project planning with the Verification Projects,

could be the core of remedial measures for improving rural living standards.
Most poor people live in rural areas of developing countries and are dependent on

agriculture for their livelihood. The pressures such as population growth, modernization,

4
ethnic conflicts and environmental degradation of the environment, are factors that are

forcing local inhabitants to change their way of life. Under such circumstances, what do

local people want? What can they do by themselves to realize their dreams? What can the

government and foreign donors do for them? This paper attempts to answer some of those

questions.

The eradication of poverty is an international commitment made originally in 1995 at the

World Summit for Social Development and reflected in the Millennium Declaration adopted

by the United Nation General Assembly in September 2000. Japan International

Cooperation Agency (JICA) has also committed itself to poverty reduction. JICA introduced

a new strategy for rural development in late 1990s. JICA has a cooperation scheme so called
development study that conducts master plan formulation or feasibility study. Verification

Projects have been conducted during master plan study to come up with a more feasible plan

for rural communities. JICA has 45 study projects in agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector

in JFY2001. So far 5 studies with Verification Projects have been completed and 13 more

studies are ongoing as of October 2002, and 10 studies are located in Sub-Sahara Africa out

of 18 projects.

A case of Development Study given in this paper is “The Integrated Rural Development
Project in the Baringo Semi Arid Land Area in Kenya” (hereinafter as referred to as the

Study) that shows how a Master Plan Study with Verification Projects worked. The overall

objective of the Study is to raise the standard of living of the local communities in the

Marigat and Mukutani Divisions in Baringo district, Kenya by encouraging local activities

through the formulation of a Master Plan. The plan is characterized by the fact that the local

communities actively participate in its preparation. In addition, before the master plan is

finalized, several of the most important hypotheses of the provisionaldraft plan were verified

by the actual implementation of certain pilot projects called Verification Projects.

Implementation of the Study commenced in August 1999 and completed in December 2001.

The Study has a title of “integrated rural development” but the concept is totally different

5
from the integrated rural development project in 1970s. The movement of development

cooperation has been changed from a technology-based approach to a people centered

participatory approach. It was a challenge to prepare a Master Plan in close partnership with

the local communities and the governments, as well as with other stakeholders. A special

attention is given to ‘capacity building of the local communities in meeting their basic needs

through self-help’, ‘strengthening of the local government and NGOs in assisting the local

communities’ and ‘technology transfer and exchange between the Studyteam and its

counterparts.’ We observed tangible benefits from the Verification Projects with people’s

participation during Master Plan formulation. In addition, the lessons learned from the Study

are discussed in this paper.

The guiding principles surroundingunderlying the development of the rural sector in Kenya

is going to be the Kenya Rural Development StrategyKRDS, which is being finalizeized by

the Government. As far as its first draft is concerned, it is a bold step forward,

furtherpushing further the political, administrative, fiscal and market decentralizaization.

The allocation of resources from the national level shallis to be made to the local authority,

and the implementing officers shallare to be accountable to the local authority. In addition

to the measures being contemplated, a people-centercentered, participatory approach would

be at the core of all necessary measures taken toin raise the level ofing rural people’s

livelihoods and thereby reduceing rural poverty.

6
NEED OF THE STUDY
The area around Lake Baringo Lake was once a granary in the 19th century, and the Baringo

basin became the scene of important pastoral migrations seekingin search of fodder,

thereby, even at that time, initiating population congestion already at that time. In the early

20th century, European settlers established ranching areas at Nakuru and Laikipia plateau

forcing the people to move towards north into the SStudy aArea. Irrigation schemes such as

Sandai and Perkerra also exacerbated the congestion. The population has increased from a

population density of 4.4/km2 in 1948 to 44/km2 in 1999. The total population in 1999 was

estimated at 54,200, of which Tugens numbered about 24,000 and Il Chamus about 22,000

followed by Turukanas and Pokots. In the Study area, there are 178 villages where 9,850

households in total are estimated to live.

In addition to population increases increases, a factor contributing to the degradational

condition is the vegetation, which has been changing increasingly towards bushlands,

suppressing the growth of grasses, particularly perennials. Grazing Rangeland occupies as

much as 85% of the total area, followed by lake area (11.4%%), irrigated land (1.6%%),

forest (1.1%%), and rain-fed land (0.5%%). Although pastoralism once dominated the

Study area, farming activities have been gaining momentum as a supplement or as the

mainstay, particularly in irrigated areas. The majority of the people in the Study area,

therefore, can be called “Agro-Pastoralists”.

7
 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The physical features in the SStudy aArea vary a great deal depending on the location. The

central and the lowest parts are formed ofis a very flat land, called the Floor of the Rift

Valley, and haves relatively fertile soils, while the western and eastern sides slopare gently

sloping up to the steep escarpment which defines the valley clearly. Rainfall is littlescarce

and also erratic, as expected in an ASAL area, ranging from 1,000 mm to as low as a

meagerer 270 mm per annum. Large number of cattle died of drought in 1984, the severest

drought in decades. Also, noticeable is the fact that recent drought tends to stay over a

couple of years as in 1992, 1993, and 1994. The area was stricken by yet another drought in

1999 to 2000, during which time villagers in the Rugus and Upper Mukutani sub-locations

lost over 70% of their cattle.

8
 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The definition of “rural” differs by country, though it is usually used in contrast to “urban”. For

instance, this word is defined based on population density in Japan, indicating an area other than “an

area with over 5,000 people, which consists of each district with a population density of over 4,000

per square kilometer”. However, we cannot simply apply this definition to other countries. Moreover,

due to the fact that the concept of “rural” varies from Asia to Africa, it is difficult to define it

uniformly. Therefore, the use of “rural” (including fishing and mountain villages) as a relative

concept to “urban”, based on social, economical, and natural conditions in each country may

be most adequate. The term could also be used to describe areas where a majority of the residents are

engaged in agriculture in a broad sense (including livestock farming, forestry, and fisheries).

The final beneficiaries of development assistance are local people in both rural and urban areas.

However, their livelihoods are based on significantly different social, economic, and natural

environments. Most rural residents in many developing countries (especially in the least developed

countries, or LLDC) are engaged in and depend on local agriculture, forestry, and fishery resources to

make a living. If the local people are final beneficiaries of development assistance, the aim of rural

development can be defined as the improvement of sustainable livelihoods (especially

impoverished groups),

9
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

Rural development aims to improve livelihoods by implementing comprehensive

development for rural areas where a majority of people in poverty live. Rural
development can also contribute to reduce poverty in urban areas by reducing excessive
population influxes from rural areas.

Effective Approaches for Rural Development

Although the trickle-down theory was based on the belief that an expanded macro economy
could improve the living standards of impoverished people, its effectiveness has been
questionable. However its failure does not necessarily mean that efforts should be
concentrated at the grass-roots level only. This is because the development of rural areas
cannot be achieved without attention to urban areas, which are the main consumers of
agricultural products. If conventional development projects were effective, rural poverty
would have improved more significantly. Therefore, it is clear that the traditional rural

development approach needs to be improved8.

Hitherto, rural development depended on external assistance from foreign countries.

However external inputs have been restrained due to donors’ current poor financial
conditions. As a result, the promotion of rural development requires effective external
inputs to generate sufficient results and is capable of engendering further improvements.
Development issues must therefore be comprehensively and cross-sectionally understood
for this to be realized. Maximum use of human and material resources in rural areas is
also necessary. Some potential approaches are described as followsbelow.

10
 CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

11
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Development constraints are the shortage of water shortage, overgrazing and poor breeding

stock management, low agricultural productivity, poor market conditions, unhygienic living

conditions and diseases, a low level of education level, and the aid dependency syndrome.

The local peopley always try to increase their herds just as we try to increase our savings in

the bank. This, however, results in severe overgrazing. An average yield for maize is just

1.7 ton/ha, and this sometimes becomes nildisappears altogether when hit by drought

strikes. The people are very often dependent on food relief, which often invites the

dependency syndrome. Diseases found in the SStudy aArea are malaria, dysentery, and

typhoid. The pPrimary school enrollment rateio is only 46%%. The 1989 census gives a

very low literacyte figure for theof Baringo District, a mere 37%%.

Present Resource Assessment and the Prospects

Development potential is seen in the abundant stocks of acacia (suitable for bee-keeping),

livestock, fertile soil (agriculture), the wildlife of Lake Baringo (tourism), and the solidarity

among villagers. There are abundant acacias in and around the Study area, which provide

high-quality nectar. Goats rate highly in terms of breeding potential and can be raised with

low investment costs even under the harshest climatic conditions. About 35% of the Study

area is associated with alluvial deposits which are moderately fertile. Lake Baringo attracts

as many as 30,000 tourists a year. There still exits inter-dependence and mutual aid among

the community members, which had been necessitated by the harsh living conditions.

The Study area can be classified into 7 clusters of ‘locations’ as follows taking into account

the ethnicity, topography and other specific characteristics. These clusters were used for site

12
selection of participatory planning approaches and the formulation of an area-focused

development master plan.

Participatory Planning Approach

This Study has conducted three types of participatory approaches apart from the

conventional survey tools:, namely, 1) Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) to work “for the

people,” 2) Project Cycle Management (PCM) to plan projects “with the people,”, and 3)

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) for development “by the people.”. However, since the

purpose of the Phase I Study was to formulate a provisional master plan and the first field

study was limited to three months, the Study TTeam did not introduce the advanced form of

PRA “by the people”, which is also called Participatory Learning and Action (PLA).

Instead, the PRA and PCM methods “with the people” were carried outfollowed, in which

the Study TTeam, the people, the Government representatives and other stakeholders were

partners.

PRA was carried out in seven villages representing each of the seven clusters mentioned

above. The sites for RRA were selected in locations where PRA wWorkshops had not taken

place, or in communities with unique characteristics such as Kampi Turkana and Kampi ya

Samaki. The last two communities were selected because the Study TTeam was aware of

the possibility that marginalized communities and minorities might not be included in the

seven villages. After analyzing the results of PRA wWorkshops, RRA and conventional

surveys, the Study TTeam selected five PCM wWorkshop sites to represent the SStudy

AArea.

PRA identified that concerns related to water, such as “insufficient drinking water” and “lack

of irrigation water”, were the most common problems, and “disease” was also chosen as a

priority problem by all the seven villages. Four villages mentioned “Shortage of food” and

“low income.” Concerning priority projects, again most villages upheld solving “water

problems..” Other projects were to “upgrade the primary school” that was the second choice

at Kapkole vVillage (Kimalel), “completion of the dispensary” chosen as the second choice

13
at Ntepes vVillage (Eldume), and “improvement of the road network” at Noosukuro

vVillage (Mukutani).

As to RRA, only major topics were identified beforehand and interviews were done in a

non-structured way. The areas were: 1) occupations, major sources of income, the seasonal

calendar;, 2) family structure, education, family history;, 3) type of house, assets;, 4)

drinking water, diet, cooking;, 5) health and sanitation; and 6) daily life, and expenditure.

Some of the findings were that: 1) more people moved in from outside in the Marigat,

Salabani and Loboi lLocations, 2) the number of cattle owned by each household was higher

in Mukutani lLocation, 3) almost all people used firewood for cooking, and 4) people

needed to go far from home to fetch firewood, especially in Salabani lLocation, and wood
was becomgetting fewer and fewer scarcer and scarcer.

The core problems identified during the PCM workshops were “not enough money” or “low

income” in Kampi Turkana and Arabal, “low standards of living” in Kampi ya Samaki,

“shortages of food” in Sandai / Loboi / Kapkuikui, and “not enough water for drinking” in

Rugus. The direct causes were identified as “jobs” in Kampi Turkana, “water” in Rugus and

“livestock” in Arabal, but covered a wider range of subjects in Kampi ya Samaki and

Sandai / Loboi / Kapkuikui. Population growth and family planning were hot issues in
Kampi Turukana, Kampi ya Samaki and Sandai / Loboi / Kapkuikui. Health services

including thoseveterinary services for livestock were discussed intensively at all the sites

apart from Rugus.

Planning and Implementation Disciplines

The Master Plan formulated in this Study centerers on, as the overall goal, on improving the

living standard of the target beneficiaries in the Baringo Semi-Arid Land AreaSemi-Arid

Land Area (Marigat and Mukutani Divisions). As the beneficiaries stand amidon different

local conditions, which are, especially in the ASAL areas, complex, diverse and risk-prone,

improvement of the standard of living standard should be described in various ways. Near

the center ofPivotal this Study toin realizing the overall goals of this Study is, therefore,

14
decentralizeized process, diversity and choice for local fit and adaptability.

It is usually difficult to makedraw up a precise blueprint for a community project at an early

stage, so that continuous refining of the original plan is necessary in order to finalizeize it.

The mMonitoring and evaluation cycle needs to be shorter as well while a c. Continuous

refining process helps in the decision-making and ownership nurturing processes too. As

compared with conventional construction projects, objectively verifiable indicators are hard

to be defined for community projects. Consequently, participatory monitoring and

evaluation M & E withoutnot relying so much on objectively verifiable quantitative

indicators is more important for community projects.

In participatory projects, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation are a

continuous learning process rather than static phases of a project cycle. That means there are

no essential differences amongbetween monitoring, evaluation, and even project re-

designing. Thus, it is always necessary to check the milestones, such as schedules and

outputs, but more important ideasubjects in the participatory approach are:; “What were

right for the participants to the participants?” “What kind of difficulties did they encounter?”

“What are the countermeasures for those difficulties?” and “What lessons did they learn?”

Theose subjects need to be discussed freely in the workshops and the question “for whom,”
i.e. how do projects affect such people as for community leaders, for community

members,for government officers or for consultants, must be clarified too.

In wWorkshops, often called participatory workshops, does not necessarily mean thea

venue for of decision-making. Even if the participants plan a project and formulate thea

plan of operation, still they may be tend to feel thating it is a sort of seminar whereinin

which they are given a new idea and studying it rather than preparing for the real

commitment needed to commence a project. Planners and GOK staff should not count any

workshop as the venue for their decision-making unless the project is very small, like rain-

harvesting which can be implemented by severaljust a small group of farmers only. Plans

made in a workshop haves to be delivered down to all the villagers concerned villagers and

15
GOK/donors should wait until a decision is made with their consensus.

In most of organizzation- building, there are three important decentralizeized parts:; namely,

1) planning and recommendations, 2) decision-making for the plan recommended, and 3)

day-to-day execution according to the decision made. If an organizzation is relatively

largebig and has to handle certain cash, this kind of institutional setting-up as well as

demarcation of the responsibilitiesy have to be clearly identified, so that the concentration of

power canould be avoided and the decision- making and the process couldcan become more

democratic and transparent.

The Master Plan and Verification Projects

The bottom-up participatory approach helps identify what the local communities really want

and gives them communities a sense of ownership of the plans developed. However, the

interests and development projects identified through this process are often necessarily

localizeized and narrow in scope. In order to provide a clear overview of the project area

and to take into account the carrying capacity of the environment, overall resource

availability and balance with alternative plans, certain top-down approaches also need to be

adopted.

This Study advocates the importance of sharing knowledge with the stakeholders as well as

natural resource management. To respond to these special concerns, the Study tTeam fully

used RRA, PRA and PCM workshops, which made sure that all stakeholders had worked

closely to share knowledge. The Study tTeam also paid a special attention to the natural

resource management not including any further resource exploitation but should be based on

better resource management.

16
 CHAPTER-III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

17
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

The study is both descriptive and analytical in nature. It is a blend of primary data and

secondary data.The primary data has been collected personally by approaching the online

share traders who are engaged in share market. The data are collected with a carefully

prepared questionnaire. The secondary data has been collected from the books, journals and

websites which deal with online share trading.

Source of data

Primary Sources: The primary data was collected through structured unbiased

questionnaire and personal interviews of investors. For this purpose questionnaire included

were both open ended & close ended & multiple-choice questions.

Secondary method: The secondary data collection method includes:

 Websites
 Journals
 Text books
Method Used For Analysis of Study
The methodology used for this purpose is Survey and Questionnaire Method. It is a time

18
consuming and expensive method and requires more administrative planning and

supervision. It is also subjective to interviewer bias or distortion.

CHAPTER-IV

DATA ANALYSIS 　

19
 Table 1 Clustering of the Study area (from 11 locations to 7 clusters)

Sandai Mukuta
Eldume
Locatio Salaban Loboi ni
Kimalel Marigat Ngamb Arabal
n i kapkuik Kiseria
o
ui n

20
 Cluster E A C B D F G
Tugen Il Il
Ethnicit Il
Tugen (Il Chamus Chamus Tugen Tugen
y Chamus
Chamus) (Tugen) (Tugen)
I
Land
LM-5 IL-6 LM-5 L LM-5
Use
-6
Topograp

hy
Charact Cosmopolitan, Traditio Livestoc
Hilly Swamp, Crop field
er Commercial nal k
Note: LM-5 Lower Midland Livestock-Millet Zone, IL-6 Inner Lowland Ranching Zone

The SStudy aArea currently supports a human population of 54,200 and 68,545 livestock

units, which consist of 34,185 heads of cattle, and 34,360 heads of sheep and goats. The

current population growth rate is about 5.5% and livestock is oin a rising trend as well. The

iIrrigated area, at presently 1,904 ha, would be expanded as the population increases.

Should the population and the livestock increase at the same rate as at present, and should

the irrigated area be expanded to their maximum that the availability of river water permits,
the impact on the SStudy aArea would be as follows:

Table 2 Resource Assessment with Projection of Key Indicators

Year 2000 2005 2010 2020 Remarks

94,13
Population 54,202 71,412 163,323
2

21
 100,7
Livestock (LU) 68,545 87,175 116,195
00
Irrigated Area (ha) 1,904 2,311 2,845 4,447
Water use (MCM) 22.8 33.5 47.5 88.9
Cereal Self-sufficiency
43 48 52 56
(%)
Forage Self-sufficiency
76 60 52 45
(%)
Fuelwood Self-
98 75 57 33
sufficiency (%)
Depth of Lake Baringo At the deepest
8.5 7.3 6.5 4.6
(m) point

The projection above shows that population would be three times the present by the year

2020, and the number of livestock would increase by 1.7 times. Due to the population

increase, fuel-wood consumption would drastically increase and so would water use. Hence

resources would become highly deficient within the SStudy AArea, except for food. The

assumed expansion of irrigated lands would raise self-sufficiency thein cereals self-

sufficiency ratio up to 56% against the present 43%. However, in turn, the water depth of

Lake Baringo Lake would go down from the current 8.5 m atof the deepest point to 4.6 m in

the year 2020 due to the water abstraction. These expected outcomes dictate us a

development policy based on no furthermore resource exploitation; rather, there is a need

for rResource mManagement.

22
The framework presented here is composed of a development goal, program objectives, and

a relevant program approaches. All outcomes from PCM workshops and, PRA workshops,

as well as discussions with government staff have contributed to preparinge the development

framework shown below, the overall goal of which is: “the sStandard of living of the

Overall Goal Program Purpose Program Approach

Standard of living of the villagers in ASAL area 1. Villagers get more income. 1-1 Improvement of Livestock
improves. 1-2 Dissemination of Water Saved Agriculture
1-3 Promotion of Small-scale industries

2. Villagers get adequate public services. 2-1 Health and Medical Services
2-2 Fundamental Infrastructure
2-3 Education and Training
2-4 Other Services

3. Variable Environment and Resources are 3-1 Conservation of Forest and Soil
conserved. 3-2 Water Resource Management

4. Administration Organizations are 4-1 Strengthening the Relationship with Farmers

strengthened. 4-2 Capacity Building of the Officials
4-3 Promotion of Research Activities

villagers in the ASAL area area improvess” together with the four program objectives below

thereof:

Fig.1 Development Framework of the Study.

In this Master Plan, the first five years are considered thea short -term, the next five years

thea medium mid-term and the following 10 years the a long -term. Projects which require

urgent attention are included in the short-term phase as long as they do not pose any serious

threat to the environment. Most of the projects identified in the workshops fall into this

category.

23
The Master Plan is firstly presented sector by sector, giving an overview of a “Sector

Development”. After the development plan is made sector by sector, an area-focused

development plan is presented. It is necessary to consider a different process at least for

each cluster, leading to the area-focused development. Also considered in formulating the

area-focused development plan is a balanced development over the SStudy AArea and the

development priorities among the sectors. The fFollowing table showsis the future

development visions for each cluster together with thea short description of their priority

programs/projects which are placedfall in the first five years of the development term:

Table 3 Area Focused Development Master Plan

Development
Cluster Priority Project/Program
Vision
Cluster E Promote rain-fed Promotion of small-scale industry (jar
(Kimalel agriculture together honey, and marketing of skins and hides)
Location)
with soil Rain-fed agriculture and environmental
conservation. conservation such as rehabilitation of

Develop further as a denuded and eroded land.

home of Koriema Supply of drinking water.

goats which are

famous nationwide.
Cluster A Develop as a Strengthening of the facilities for the

(Marigat regional centre of regional centre such as Marigat Health

administration,
Location) Centre, Marigat Youth Polytechnic and
education, health,
Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute
commerce and small-
scale industry (KARI), and Regional Research Centre

Electricity service expansion.

Cluster C Develop as a tourist Promotion of improved Jiko and small-

(Salabani town beside Lake scale industry (jar honey, fried fish,

Location) Baringo with handicrafts and tourism).

24
 diversified culture. Rehabilitation of denuded and eroded land.

Supply of drinking water.

Expansion of electricity service.

Cluster B Promote improved Pasture development with tree planting.

(Eldume/Ngamb Jiko and rehabilitate Promotion of small-scale industry

o) eroded lands. (handicraft) and improved Jiko.

Stabilize livelihood Rehabilitation of denuded and eroded land.

by means of Installation of a public telephone at the
irrigated agriculture centre of each location.
and livestock

improvement
Cluster D Develop as an Communal irrigation water management

(Sandai/Loboi/K advanced together with land registration.

apkuikui) agricultural area of Promotion of modernized livestock feeding.

communal irrigation. Installation of a public telephone at the

centre of each location.

Cluster F Provide safe water, Rehabilitation of pan dams (domestic

(Kiserian/Mukut thereby fulfilling water supply).

ani) BHNs. Support to pre-primary schools.

Harmonise Improvement of rainwater harvesting.

traditional pastoral

life and

modernisation.
Cluster G Stabilize food Improvement of livestock and

(Arabal production by means improvement of rain-fed agriculture.

Location) of rain-fed Promotion of small-scale industry (jar

agriculture honey) Support to pre-primary schools.
promotion and Rehabilitation of denuded and eroded land.
livestock Road improvement.

25
 improvement.
Area wise Strengthening of community organizations such as irrigation

support association, buck group, rain-fed agriculture group; learning from

best practice; capacity building of government staff including PRA

and PCM training; and inter-village monitoring.

Some projects presented in the Master Plan have been already been implemented as

VVerification PProjects. The VVerification PProjects were intended to examine

somecertain hypotheses of development strategies/approaches, technologies and

implementation arrangement. Through the actual implementation of these Verification

pProjects, these hypotheses had, with valuable lessons, been evaluated and conclusions

drawn onded intoas to the rightness of certain aspects and definitions, which are considered

to be more practical, more effective and more sustainable in the development of the Baringo

Semi-Arid Land Area. This allowed valuable lessons to be learnt.

Through the VVerification PProjects, those projects which had performed very well were

improved Jiko(stove), rainwater harvesting and buck (breeding goat) scheme. It can be

recommended that tThese projects can be recommended to extend widely over theto ASAL

areas area. On the other hand, dip improvements in dipping systems, rehabilitation of pan

(small-scale reservoir) and participatory irrigation management (PIM) have been evaluated

as not being so sustainable. As for dipIn the case of dipping, in the ASAL area area, where

people take cattle far away from their base during the dry season, the number of cattle

decreases to a level so as low as to makeing it difficult to purchase accariside. The

rehabilitation of pan, withfor similar reasons, requires periodical assistance from outside to

sustainably maintain the pan. As for the PIM in Sandai, though the project was successful in

terms of efficiency and effectiveness, a dependency syndrome inof the people was strongly

observed.

The final Master Plan, short- term development of which is presented in the aforementioned

table above, was formulated with the feedback fromof the above evaluations. The procedure

26
and constraints” of implementation were learned through the VVerification PProjects, which

would give useful information for applicability and further extension to other ASAL areas

areas. Major feedbacks from the VVerification PProjects are as follows:

 Improved Jiko: Though normal conditions ensures the sustainability of the Jiko,

an area of water scarcity area would have difficulty into maintaining itthe Jiko. As the

full- sized Jiko requires a kitchen house separate from the living house, a small sized

Jiko like with two2 fire places should be promoted for poor people considering their

needs.

Fig.2 Improved Small Size Jiko for Small Families.

 Rainwater Harvesting: As the rainwater harvesting system becomes bigger, there

will be more disparity between the upper part and the lower part of the farm in

allocation of water collected from the catchment area. As the farmers around the project

site have copied the rainwater harvesting technique by themselves, the technique should

be extended with a small group (around 5 members) or on an individual basis.

 Livestock Improvement (Buck Scheme): The program may tend to be on an

individual basis in its nature. Therefore, thea group-based scheme may be preferable as

a pilot and also for poor people who cannot afford to buy the buck individually.

 Small-scale Industry: For the development of income- generating activities in

27
ASAL area areas, diversification such as bee- keeping, handicrafts, and fishing is

necessary to stabilize income level considering the unreliability ofle resources over the

years.

 Rural Water Supply: In the area, people do not prepareput aside cash at any time,

but save their property as ain the form of livestock. Therefore the operation and

maintenance cost borne by the community should not be charged throughwith a small

amount whenever they fetch water from the taps, but one or two timesjust once or twice

per year with as much asperhaps at the price of a goat.

 Marigat Youth Polytechnic: It is difficult to achieve the sustainability of the

polytechnic only byon training fee income. Some other form of income- generation

activities isare necessary to achieve this financial sustainability. Sale from products of a

carpentry training course is one of good means forto stabilizing the financial conditions.

 Marigat Health CenterCentre (MHC): Collaboration with health sector in the

government is needed for both effective health promotion and water resource

development. As well asing the financial sustainability of MHC, administrative reform

in order to give MHC’sit discretion overfor medical bills and, fees for inspection of

restaurants will be needed.

Recommended Implementation Arrangements

In implementing the programs/projects presented in the Master Plan, the GOK should

organize a project implementation unit which to undertakes the responsibility ffor front-line

activities and day-to-day management ion the course of the implementation. The project

management unit is headed by the district program officer and composed of

concernedrelevant divisional officers from the line agencies. The project management unit

should hold monitoring and evaluation meetings preferably every two weeks with attendance

of community representatives. The issues discussed during the meeting should be conveyed

down to all the relevant villagers and also up to the central ministries at an early date.

28
 The process from the entry to dissemination is: 1) identifying communities for entry

programs and those for implementation, 2) dissemination of implemented programs through

an inter-village visiting tour called inter-village monitoring, 3) taking up programs/projects

from a sort of basket of choices with reference to the people’s needs and also referring to the

development policy of the GOK/donors, and then 4) inter-village monitoring for these, once

again from the basket once again. This process would improve the people’s living

conditions gradually but in a wider area rather than harplyradically but in a quite relatively

confined spot area.

The entry programs should be small in scale and should have nature to be well adapted in the

pProject area. The projects are already suggested through the Verification Projects and are
placed in the short-term development period (the first five -years). The entry programs are

summarized in Table 4 together with the places where they are to be undertaken.

Table 4 Entry Programs and Places

First Priority Second Priority

Program
Area Area
Arabal,
Introduction of Improved Buck Mukutani
Kimarel
Rain-fed Agriculture promotion together with Arabal,
Mukutani
Soil Conservation Kimarel
Improved Jiko promotion together with Primary Marigat, Eldume,
Health Care Salabani Ngambo
Pan Rehabilitation with Sanitation Sandai,
Arabal
improvement Mukutani

Discussions
For rural development, both top-down and bottom-up approaches are needed, and the two

29
directions must meet or mesh. When there is still a huge gap between the district

government and the local communities, it is recommended that thisto takes place further

down, at the divisional leveling, instead of the district level presently practiced, in order to

efficiently coordinate grasss-root- level development.

The most important thrust for administrativeon reform ought to be the implementation of

true decentralization in the political, fiscal and market sense. Increasing transparency and

accountability and rlooting out corruption are urgent issues. Perhaps the most important and

urgent aspect of the decentralization at the district level is fiscal decentralization for

sustaining whatever the local initiatives are undertaken by the community.

The starting point of the reform is awareness- building and t. The best way to go about

awareness buildingthis is to learn from best practices elsewhere with a similar semi-arid

environment. There are indeed many such examples, and a series of in-country study tours

should be organized, which attendants are, to start with, the concerned nation, district,

division and, location level officers and, community leaders concerned, followed separately

by various specific groups, such as rain-fed farmers, irrigated farmers, women’s groups,

pastoral groups, etc.

The outcomes from the workshops suggest, as aon the whole, that each cluster is at a

“different development stage” of a “different development process.”. As the beneficiaries

stand onhave to deal with different local conditions, which are, especially in the ASAL area

area, complex, diverse and risk-prone, implementationing of the development plan should be

flexible. This means that some components of projects would be common throughout the

SStudy aArea, but others must be specific to the development stage and the process.

A huge gap may be seen between rural society and modern society without a well-

established intermediary system. The huge gap which bipolarizes the entire country cannot

be underestimated in planning any community- based project. The more materials are

brought to the community in the, rural society, from the outside which is modern society, the

30
less sustainableility the project becomes. Planners should be well aware of that the input

from the outside community should be minimal and made available according to the

increased capacity of the community.

In a rural area like Baringo, live-stock is much prevailinghas a much greater role to play

than money-stock in terms of savings as the livestock is literally same asequivalent to a

savings account in a modern society. Cash flow and its availability are therefore so limited

in rural societies that the financial sustainability of a project could finally be affected.

Consideration should be given to Postal savings should explore a mobile banking system

with postal savings accounts that would contribute to increasing money circulation in the

rural areas. Conversion of livestock to cash also contributes to environmental conservation.

31
CHAPTER-IV

FINDINGS

32
 FINDINGS

Most governments have difficulties into providinge financial support or sufficient public

services to the rural communities over the cCountry by and large. It is now directed that the

communities should basically go with their capacity and resources. It is, therefore, and

emphasized that, wherever possible, an income- generating activity should be built into their

projects as a component to financially sustain their activities from then onward.

In undertaking a community- based project, the central government and donors shall not, as

long as the community within their jurisdiction can manage on its own within their

jurisdiction, come in but stand back in order to assist themit from the technical point of

view and as a subsidy provider. The communities have the resources, such asay local

materials and laborrs, which they can and should mobilize. In addition, the communities are

required to provide a certain amount of cash for purchasing the foreign materials. The cash,

however, could be diverted toward investing in the community’s future or in the future of the

rural development sector on condition that government and donors agree to bear all
necessary costs incurred. The investment should be made in an operation and maintenance

fund, a trust fund called Children’s Education Fund, or otherwise a revolving fund called

Rural Development Fund.

Setting-up of a community-based organization should be carried out in line with the project

implementation. Project implementation can be started as early as right after potential

leaders have been identified who will be in charge of relevant project activities. In this case,

the potential leaders would have to collect the villagers’ cash due, mobilize labors, and

arrange local materials such as river sand through which they are tested and trained on the

job, thereby becoming a real leader. Official election of the committee members and

33
registration to the government shall take place after going through the testing process.

Many pilot projects have so far hardly achieved theirits role; that is, extension of the project

to other areas. In this respect, inter-village monitoring tours should always be arranged

when implementing a community-based project; thereby they are this will so motivate the

sets of participants thatd each other that one side wouldwill be willing to try the other’s

activitiesor vice versa. It is an effective way in order to disseminate a project to other areas

even if the project is so designed that could in fact be easily copied by neighbors.

All the stakeholders for this Study, especially participants forin the VVerification PProjects,

have learnt a great deal. Participants inof the study tours and inter-village monitoring tours

have also learnt a lot of lessons. Some suggested that they should start, literally, from what

they can chew: “When we eat ugali, we first pick up some, make a ball, push the top to make

it like a spoon, and scoop soup with it, and then eat. If the ball is too big we cannot swallow

it. So we make a ball withof a size that we can chew. Likewise, we can start with self-

financing and later, if needed, ask for subsidy,” one participant in a workshop remarked.

34
 SUGGESTION
There has been no real consensus as to what community participation is and how to carry out

such an approach, and this has perpetuated a top-down approach from the state on the one

hand and, on the other, the dependence of the community on the state. In this respect, this

Study offered an excellent chance to try out various hypotheses on participation

methodology throughout the two and half yearss study period. For this reason, the Study’s

participatory and verification process was in fact theits own main objective of the Study,

and the resulting Master Plan is in practical termsly a by-product of this process.

This Study concludes that a e people-centercentered participatory approach, tried out

through the VVerification PProjects and fed ed-backed in the Master Plan, could be at the

core amongof remedial measures aimed atin improving rural living standards and thereby

reducing rural poverty in ASAL aArea. This process nurtures people’s ownership of projects

planned for improving their living standard. It is, therefore, recommended that governments

embark on implementing integrated rural development plans formulated through these

processes by the people, and further extend similar programs to other areas areas.

REFERENCES
Chambers, R. 1993, Challenging the Professions.
Ian Scoones and John Thompson, Reprinted 2000, Beyond Farmer First.

35
JICA. 2002. Master Plan Final Report, The Study on the Integrated Rural Development

Project in The Baringo Semi Arid Land Area (Marigat and Mukutani Divisions) in the

Republic of Kenya.
Republic of Kenya. 1983. District Focus for Rural Development Strategy.
Scarborough, V., S. Killough, D. A. Johnson and J. Farrington. 1997. Farmer-Led-

Extension, Concept and Practices.

Sen, A. K. 1981, Poverty and Famines, An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.

Chambers, Robert

36