CAPACITY BUILDING IN INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN KENYA

An Independent Evaluation

By

Nele Förch (University of Siegen, Germany)

&Cush Ngonzo

(Kenyatta University, Kenya)

ABBREVIATIONS

DAAD: German Academic Exchange ServiceDASS: DAAD Alumni Summer SchoolCMS: Catchment Management StrategyGTZ: German Technical Co-operationGoK: Government of KenyaIWM: Integrated Watershed ManagementSCMP: Sub-Catchment Management PlanWRMA: Water Resource Management Authority WRUA: Water Resource Users Association

OUTLINE

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION Context & Problem StatementContext & Problem Statement Evaluation RationaleEvaluation Rationale Evaluation ObjectivesEvaluation Objectives

STUDY AREA & METHODOLOGYSTUDY AREA & METHODOLOGY

RESULTS OF THE EVALUATIONRESULTS OF THE EVALUATION Assessment of the Learning ProcessAssessment of the Learning Process Weaknesses & Strengths Weaknesses & Strengths Impact on Capacity BuildingImpact on Capacity Building

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

o Global changes affect livelihoods worldwideo Agriculture is increasingly inefficient

o Importance of IWM including Social & Environmental Parameters

o Low Resilience Level in Sub-Saharan Africa & High Vulnerability Level to Change

o Water Sector Reforms High Priority within Region

o Case Study: Kenyan Water Sector Reforms (2002)

Context

INTRODUCTION

Key Aspects: separation water supply services (i.e. private sector) &

water resource management (i.e. WRMA & WRUA) CMSs formulated in consultation with stakeholders

WRUAs develop SCMPs, also using a participatory approach

Universität Siegen in cooperation with the GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) & Kenyatta University support WRMA in IWM (i.e. IWMNet).

INTRODUCTION

Context

Institutional Framework

How does IWMNet through DAAD Summer Schools build capacity in IWM at the catchment level to support WRMA?

What learning process does it put in place to address major issues and challenges facing watersheds in Kenya?

What challenges and outcomes can be expected from that learning process?

INTRODUCTION

Research Question & Objectives

Evaluation needed to assess the effectiveness of the DAAD Summer Schools in capacity building of local stakeholders for the sustainable management of watershed resources. Bwathonaro and Ngaciuma-Kinyaritha Sub- Catchments (pilot areas) and lessons-learned can be used in order to revised the underlying concept as well as improve support of implementation.

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation Rationale

Evaluation Objectives To examine the learning process put in place by

IWMNet to build the capacity of local stakeholders’ in planning, M & E of watershed resources use & conservation.

To assess the strengths and weaknesses f the learning process

To predict the Summer Schools’ impact on stakeholders’ capacity building.

INTRODUCTION

STUDY AREA

Analysis of DAAD Alumni Summer Schools documentation see: http://fwu.fb10.uni-siegen.de/bkd/summerschool.htm

Observations by Participants Survey involving the 2008 DAAD Alumni Summer

School participants.

METHODS USED

1. What impact of the summer schools can you anticipate on your professional life, on local watershed institutions and communities?

2. Who were the key actors, and what were their roles in the learning process?

3. What were the challenges of mixing up people of different backgrounds?

4. What was the final outcome of that Process?

METHODS USED

Sample Questionnaire

EVALUATION RESULTS

o DAAD SS 06 developed a “Participatory Watershed Management Plan” for Bwathonaro Watershed.

o DAAD SS 07 focused on “Participatory Monitoring of the Bwathonaro Sub-Catchment Management Plan” and Ngaciuma-Kinyaritha Sub-Catchment Participatory Management Planning.

o DAAD SS 08 dealt with the development of a “Participatory Water Demand Management Plan” for Ngaciuma-Kinyaritha watershed.

Assessment of the Learning Process

Table 2.1 : Distribution of Participants by Country of Residence

No Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL Percent

1 Cambodia 1 1 0.78

2 Egypt 1 1 0.78 3 Ethiopia 2 2 1.56

4 Germany 4 2 4 7 17 13.28 5 Kenya 12 19 28 26 85 66.41

6 Tanzania 6 2 2 10 7.81 7 Uganda 1 2 4 7 5.47

8 Vietnam 1 1 0.78

9 South-Africa 1 1 0.78 10 Zambia 1 2 3 2.34

TOTAL 28 24 37 39 128 99.99

EVALUATION RESULTS

Assessment of the Learning Process

Affiliation:Alumni: 40 %WRUA: 25% WRMA: 21%Student: 10%Others: 4%

Figure 2.2: Distribution of the Summer school Participants by Affiliation

40

21

25

104

DAAD Alumni WRMA WRUA Students Others

Assessment of the Learning Process

EVALUATION RESULTS

KEY ACTORS AND THEIR ROLES

DAAD Alumni: share their knowledge on principles and methods of planning, M&E pertaining to IWM.

WRMA members: provide interpretation of the law and practical implementation of IWM.

WRUA members: identify and locate key issues and challenges of IWM in the field.

All participants: learning-by-doing a holistic approach of problems assessment and resolution.

EVALUATION RESULTS

Assessment of the Learning Process

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

An IWM Plan (SCMP):

o Introduction to theoretical backgroundo Delineation and Organization of the Watershed Field

surveyo Watershed Field surveyo Catchment Situation Analysiso Problems Mapping and Rankingo Quick Checkso Attribution Analysis and Comparability

EVALUATION RESULTS

Assessment of the Learning Process

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

o Strategic Management Planningo Operational Management Planning

o Monitoring and Evaluation Reporting

EVALUATION RESULTS

Assessment of the Learning Process

STRENGTHS

o A workable, well documented and harmonized participatory learning process involving divers backgrounds (40%).

o A forum for watershed professionals networking, cooperation and exchange of experiences (13.33%).

o A route for change of attitudes by community members toward the water sector reform, and by WRMA and WRUA toward learning innovative methods of management (13.33%).

EVALUATION RESULTS

Strengths & Weaknesses of Learning Process

STRENGTHS

An environment conducive to free cooperation and easy interaction among participants of different backgrounds (10%).

A medium enabling common understanding of concepts and issues involved in IWM (10%), and offering tangible ways of managing efficiently and effectively watershed resources (10%).

EVALUATION RESULTS

Strengths & Weaknesses of Learning Process

WEAKNESSES

o Communication breakdown during the learning process

(35.90%).

o Time-consuming due to longer scientific discussions coupled with longer explanations (30.77%).

o Difficulty to keep local stakeholders and new participants on the track, especially during scientific debates (17.95%)

EVALUATION RESULTS

Strengths & Weaknesses of Learning Process

WEAKNESSES

Difficulty to get consensus from various groups (12.82%).

An environment not conducive to free cooperation and easy interaction among participants (2.56%).

EVALUATION RESULTS

Strengths & Weaknesses of Learning Process

Source

Difficulty for free interaction

Difficult scientific debates

Difficulty for consensus

Tangible watershed evaluation

Theory and practice linkage

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

Figure 2.4: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Learnin g Process

Strengths Weaknesses

Common concepts for same issues

Environment for free interaction

Change of attitudes/ methods

Communication breakdown

Professionals network for co -op

Longer discussions/ explanations Workable participatory learning

EVALUATION RESULTS

Strengths & Weaknesses of Learning Process

Impact on Participants Opportunity to share their experience in IWM and to build own

capacity (27.50%)

Enhanced knowledge and ability to manage watershed resources (22.50%)

Opportunity to network locally, regionally and internationally in IWM (12.50%), and to use IWM theoretical approaches in a participatory planning, and M&E process with an interdisciplinary team (12.50%).

EVALUATION RESULTS

Impact on Capacity Building

DASS Impact on IWM Institutions

Expected improved knowledge and management skills from

WRUA and WRMA members (29.03%).

Awareness created on positive and negative impacts of

activities carried out in the watershed (16.13%).

Use of effective methods in watershed evaluation (12.90%)

Opportunity offered to public managers for self evaluation (12.90%).

EVALUATION RESULTS

Impact on Capacity Building

Impact on Communities

Community members will understand better physical processes in the watershed as well as their role in resource conservation (30%).

They will be more than ever aware of water scarcity and

sustainable management of watershed resources

(16.67%).

The DAAD SS opened a ‘highway’ for dialogue and co-operation among stakeholders for conflicts prevention (16.67%).

EVALUATION RESULTS

Impact on Capacity Building

Figure 2.1: Impact of Summer Schools on Capacity Building

Aware of sustainable resource use

Experience shared /capacity built

Avenues for conflicts resolution

WRMA/WRUAs activities known

New avenues for networking

More aw areness on water scarcity

Ability to create IGA

No anticipated impact

More light on watershed conservation

More knowledge/ability in IWM

Networking / Co-operati on.

Participatory field methods

Opportunity for cooperation

Avenues for better community life

Exposure for future career

New reseach avenues

No anticipated impact

More knowledge / Skills in IWM

/

Aware of human activities impacts

Effective Evaluation methods

Opportunity for self evaluation

Working with com munities

New attitudes and methods

Capacity on conflicts resolution

Ability to implement water reforms

No anticipated impact

Working with communities

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

on communities on participants on WRUA/WRMA

EVALUATION RESULTS

Impact on Capacity Building

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DAAD Summer Schools are a holistic learning process involving professionals from several fields and different backgrounds.

Though some may have been challenged to interact freely while others were monopolizing the debate, stakeholders’ capacity was built.

They acquired new concepts and innovative IWM methods, and had opportunity to network and do self evaluation.

Yet, change of attitudes and working methods is needed.

The IWMNet needs to smooth the learning process by

cutting the Alumni pre-sessions on methodology across

participants training pre-sessions.

It has to conduct an evaluation on change of attitudes

toward the water sector reforms, and application by WRUA

and WRMA members of methods learnt during the DAAD

Summer Schools.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks go to: Universität Siegen, Kenyatta University and the GTZ as the

organizers and the facilitators of the DAAD Alumni Summer Schools for providing us with the excellent opportunity of partaking in an inspiring and productive learning environment (i.e. Summer Schools 2007 and 2008). We are grateful for their consent in conducting this evaluation of their capacity building approach and sincerely thank them for their approval of its dissemination.

Finally, we remain grateful to IDEAS for having invited us to the Global Assembly in Johannesburg in March 2009 and giving us the opportunity of presenting and sharing our evaluation results.

THE END – THANK YOU

UNIVERSITÄT SIEGEN

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY