-
extracted text
-
A Bottom-Up Approach in Climate Change Response in
Kenya: Assessing the Benefits of Community
Based Projects in Kirikoini Village,
Kandara Division
By
Mercy Kariuki-McGee
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
December 2011
©{2011} by Mercy Kariuki-McGee All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
By
Mercy Kariuki-McGee
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
By
________________________
Laurence Geri, D.P.A
Member of the Faculty
ABSTRACT
A Bottom-Up Approach in Climate Change Response in
Kenya: Assessing the Benefits of Community Based
Projects in Kirikoini Village, Kandara Division
By
Mercy Kariuki-McGee
Eastern Africa has been experiencing an intensifying dipole rainfall pattern on the
decadal time-scale. The dipole is characterized by increasing rainfall over the northern
sector of this region and declining amounts over the southern sector. Kenya, in Eastern
Africa, will be facing the impacts of this dipole rainfall pattern. Kenya’s economy is
largely supported by agriculture. An unpredictable rainfall and changes in temperatures
have major impacts on food production. Climate change impacts are accelerated by the
factors of poverty, health issues, rapid immigration, population growth, and increased
demand for food and viable sources of water.
This thesis research examines how rural communities in Kenya are dealing with these
expected changes in climate by exploring the impacts on Kandara. Kandara is an
agriculturally productive area. The majority of the residents in this area engage in
subsistence farming which is conducted on the river banks and along several creeks
running through the sloped terrain. The average farm holdings range from 2 to 10 acres.
The author of this thesis conducted an assessment of Kirikoini Village located in Kandara
Sub-location regarding how small-holder farmers are coping with this rainfall dipole. A
survey of 50 randomly selected farm households was conducted June 2010. All
respondents indicated farming has been extremely affected by the unpredictable rainfall.
Some of the respondents indicated they have shifted their farming practices to cope with
the changing climate. Lack of economic stability (74%) affects the majority of the
farmers who are unable to adapt.
The research further assesses potential benefits that exist for a bottom-up approach in
climate change adaptation within rural communities. This assessment identifies and
recommends rural community-based biogas project that would carry positive socioeconomic impacts and help mitigate the effects of climate change while increasing farm
productivity and reducing poverty.
Table of Contents
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 RECENT HISTORICAL RECORD
1.2 THE NATIONAL DIALOGUE
1.3 GEOGRAPHY OF KENYA
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2. ANALYSIS OF COMMONLY APPLIED RESPONSE STRATEGIES
2.1 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT (SLM)
2.2. CARBON SEQUESTRATION
2.2.1 The cost of investing in Carbon Sequestration in Africa
2.3 CARBON FINANCE – A NEW TREND
2.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CARBON FUND (CDCF)
2.5 FINANCING AND INVESTING IN CLIMATE CHANGE
2.6 PRACTICAL APPLICATION: ANALYSIS OF A BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
OF COMMUNITY-BASED PROJECT
2.6.1 Sustainable Development for All-Kenya (SDFA)
2.6.2 Nepal Biogas Support Partnership, (BSP-Nepal)
2.6.2.1 Project commissioning, Monitoring, and Registering
the CDM Project
2.6.2.2 Specification of Baseline
2.6.2.3 Emission Reduction Calculation
CHAPTER 3
3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 STUDY AREA
3.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
3.3 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
CHAPTER 4
4. ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS ON FARMING IN KANDARA
4.1 BACKGROUND
4.2 CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT ON AGRICULTURAL FARMING
4.3 ECONOMIC STABILITY
4.4 RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
4.4.1 Recommendation - Anaerobic Digestion Pilot
Project in Kandara
4.4.1.1 Background
4.4.1.2 Estimated Emission Reduction
4.4.1.3 Other gases with Global Warming Potentials (GPW)
from the use of a biodigester
4.4.1.4 Justification and Benefits of an Anaerobic Biodigester
4.4.1.5 Financial feasibility and acquisition of a biodigester
CHAPTER 5
5. CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
[vi]
ix
X
1
1
2
4
6
7
7
7
7
12
16
17
18
19
24
24
24
27
28
28
29
31
34
34
36
37
37
38
38
38
42
44
44
47
47
47
49
50
50
51
53
54
54
56
60
APPENDIX 1: IPCC - WORKING GROUP II:
IMPACTS, ADAPTATION AND VULNERABILITY: CHAPTER 10: AFRICA
APPENDIX 2:
(A) LETTER TO THE PARTICIPANTS
(B) SURVEY QUESTIONS
(C) EXAMPLE OF FARMER RESPONSE
APPENDIX 3 - SDFA NUMBER OF LAMPS SUPPLIED IN 2010
APPENDIX 4: MURANG’A DISTRICT POPULATION DENSITY
APPENDIX 5: KENYA RESPIRATORY ILLNESS –VS- FUEL WOOD USE PER COUNTY
MAPS
[vii]
60
60
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
68
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3(a):
Figure 3(b)
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Chart.1:
Chart 2:
Chart 3:
Farley et. al 2005: Changing Runoff with
plantation age
General Biogas Plant
Aerial Map of Kandara Township showing hilly terrain
Hilly Landscape
Example of Unsustainable biomass burning
Anaerobic digestion
Stages of an anaerobic digestion system
Sketch of Small Scale Biodigester
BSP-Nepal project Boundaries
Map of Kenya
Kenya January-February, 2009 Rainfall Forecast
The population density of Kenya (2002)
USA Biogas Projects
Climate Change Effects on Agricultural Practices
Comparison of farmer’s adaptation method to climate
change
United States biogas projects annual emission reductions
14
28
41
42
46
47
48
48
69
70
71
71
72
43
43
49
List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
SDFA Solar Lantern Total GHG Reduction
26
Emission Source
30
Total number of Plants with Different Sizes and Constructed in
Different Ecological Regions in the CDM Project
(Project Activity 2)
31
Details of Emission Reduction Calculation for Project
Activity 2 (2005-2006)
32
Annual savings due to non-burning of unsustainable fuels
33
Other Associated benefits
33
Emission Reduction for proposed Kirikoini village biogas
Project
50
[viii]
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AREED
African Rural Energy Enterprise Development
AFOLU
Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Use
BSP
Biogas Support Programme
CDCF
Community Development Carbon Fund
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
CH4
Methane
CO2
Carbon Dioxide
DNA
Designated National Authority
DRC
Democratic Republic of Congo
ER
Emission Reduction
FACE
Forest Absorbing Carbon Emissions
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF
Global Environmental Facility (World Bank Initiative)
GWP
Global Warming Potential
GOK
Government of Kenya
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KES
Kenya Shillings
KIPPRA
The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis
MDG
Millennium Development Goals
REDD
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation
REP
Rural Electrification Programme
SDFA
Sustainable Development for All
[ix]
SLM
Sustainable Land Management
SREP
Scaling Up Renewable Program
UNEP
United Nations Environment Program
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
Acknowledgements
This thesis research would not have been possible without the tremendous support
and guidance from my thesis Reader, Laurence Geri, who guided me throughout
this research writing. Very Special thanks to my Research Assistant, Euticus
Kamau Kariuki who solely and successfully undertook my field research and
collected all the data from Kirikoini village. Thank you to the Kirikoini farmers
who collaborated in this research and for their hospitality. The data collected was
critical in analyzing the effects of climate change on farming in my study area.
Thank you to Evan Wandongo, Director SDFA-Kenya and Amos Wamenya
SDFA-Kenya for their support and for providing the data that guided the GHG
analyzes of kerosene usage versus LED solar lamp adoption in rural Kenya. This
analyzes could not have been possible without the support of Fanny Roberts,
Washington Department of Transportation(WSDOT) who assisted the author in
developing and adopting the GHG methodologies and Joe Kollo for his support
and guidance in statistical analyzes.
Special thanks to my Evergreen faculty, Ralph Murphy who helped shape my
research topic and Martha Henderson and Laurence Geri who helped me in laying
the foundation of this research by supporting my summer credits. Ted Whitesell,
former MES Director, who guided me in my MES studies and supported my ideas
of conducting research in Kenya and to my Evergreen faculty who have shaped
my goals over the years.
[x]
This research would not have been possible without the support of my family.
Special thanks to Matt McGee and Theresa McGee, for proof-reading my final
draft and to my children, Kevin, Elisa and Prisika, who understood the importance
of finishing this research. And to my in-laws, Mike and Theresa McGee who gave
me moral support and reassured me every day. Thank you to all my friends who
supported me throughout this research.
[xi]
Chapter 1
1.1Introduction
According to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), further
warming of the global climate would induce many changes in the global climate
system through 2100. Changes in wind patterns, precipitation, weather extremes,
and sea ice will be evident. The IPCC further states that a global temperature rise
of more than 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels might result in abrupt or
irreversible changes as indicated in their Emission Scenario “B1” section 3.5.3
(IPCC, 2007).
In recent decades, Eastern Africa has been experiencing an intensifying dipole
rainfall pattern on the decadal time-scale (IPCC, 2007). The dipole is
characterized by increasing rainfall over the eastern sector and declining amounts
over the southern sector. Interannual variability of the African climate is
determined by several factors. The most dominant perturbation factor causing
interannual climate variability is the El Niño1-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
(Nicholson and Entekhapi, 1986). Eastern Africa is in phase with warm ENSO
episodes, whereas southern Africa is negatively correlated with these events
(Nicholson and Kim, 1997). IPCC also notes that the 1997–1998 ENSO events
1
El Niño/La Niña
The El Niño/La Niña pattern is an irregular climate oscillation that arises from the interaction between
atmospheric and ocean temperatures in the east Pacific, but that can affect temperatures and rainfall in many
parts of the world.
[1]
resulted in extreme wet conditions over eastern Africa (see Appendix..10-1 and
10-2 (IPCC), and the 1999–2000 La Niña may have caused devastating floods in
places like Mozambique. IPCC Modeling exercises indicate that climate change
may increase the frequency of ENSO warm phases - increased warm pool in the
tropical western
Pacific or reduce the efficiency of heat loss (Trenberth and Hoar, 1997;
Timmerman et al., 1999).
1.1.1 Recent Historical Record
IPCC observational records show that the continent of Africa is warmer than it
was 100 years ago (IPCC, 1996). Records show warming through the 20th
century has been at the rate of about 0.05°C per decade with slightly larger
warming in the June, July, August (JJA) and September–November seasons than
in December, January, February (DJF) and March–May (Hulme et al., 2001).
With the 5 warmest years in Africa all occurred since 1988 - 1988 and 1995 being
the two warmest years. Records show that this rate of warming is not dissimilar to
that experienced globally, and the periods of most rapid warming—the 1910s to
1930s and the post-1970s—occur simultaneously (IPCC, 2007).
According to the IPCC, a decrease in vegetation density, for example, has been
suggested to result in a year-round cooling of 0.8°C in the tropics, including
tropical areas of Africa. Complex feedback mechanisms mainly due to
deforestation/land-cover change and changes in atmospheric dust loadings also
[2]
play a role in climate variability, particularly for drought persistence in the Sahel
and its surrounding areas (IPCC, 2007).
Kenya is an Eastern African country and, will face the impacts of this dipole
rainfall pattern. Kenya’s economy is largely supported by agriculture including
crops such as coffee, tea, rice, and produce, and so is highly sensitive to elements
of climate change (FAO, 2010). This is evident when examining tea and coffee
farming for the export market as well as the wealth of crops grown on small-scale
farms and sold in local markets for consumption throughout the country. Kenya’s
lack of economic development and institutional capacity makes the country
among the most vulnerable (IPCC, 2007). Climate change impacts will be
accelerated by the factors of poverty, health issues, rapid immigration, population
growth, and increased demand for food and viable sources of water. For many
generations, African indigenous people relied on indigenous knowledge to predict
weather patterns. This was the basis for forming local-level decision-making in
many rural communities. Such knowledge has value not only when viewed
culturally, but also for emerging science and planning scenarios that can help
improve conditions in rural localities. Incorporating indigenous knowledge into
climate-change effective mitigation policies can help lead to the development of
beneficial adaptation strategies that are cost-effective, participatory, and
sustainable (Nyong et.al, 2007).
[3]
Mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change in Kenya demands a
bottom-up approach that emphasizes reducing the vulnerability of local
communities. Local communities have relied on knowledge of traditional farming
and natural cycles to deal with climatic variations throughout the region, yet with
predicted climatic patterns this knowledge may not be sufficient. Successful
local/rural development and adaptation to climate change will require an
integrated approach that considers small-scale community projects. Mitigation
strategies should take into account the reduction of poverty, water/soil
management, forestation/reforestation, and green-energy projects for smallholder
farms.
1.2 The National Dialogue
Africa is among the continent’s most vulnerable to climate change and faces a
very low capacity to adapt to its impacts. There has been great consideration of
impacts that will affect poor communities - such as: flood control, irrigation
infrastructure, and diversification of water sources. It has been noted that climate
change impacts will especially affect the Sub-Saharan region due to widespread
poverty and the unique geographic climate. Climate change simulations for
Africa have indicated that Africa is likely to experience (IPCC, 2007):
Stress on agricultural and natural ecosystems due to temperature rise
Less rainfall in certain regions which will result to shorter growing
seasons
[4]
Higher rainfall in certain regions which will increase the flood frequency
Sea level rise in the coastal and delta regions, and
More severe and frequent hydrological disasters – cyclones
As global initiatives on climate change continue, African countries have come
together to reaffirm their stand on global climate change impacts. In 2009, the
African Ministers of Environment met in Nairobi, Kenya for a special session on
climate change during the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment, at
this session they reaffirmed their position on global climate change policy. Africa
is especially vulnerable to drought, flooding and financial crisis and it is
important to set strategies to deal with the impacts of climate change. Africa’s
climate change priority is to implement policies that increase food security and
alleviate poverty while attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDG)2
In the Nairobi Declaration of 2008, the Ministers of Environment from various
African countries reaffirmed the African Union’s adaptation of the Algiers
Declaration on Climate Change of 19 November 2008. This was in the form of a
common African position and the need to speak with one voice in the negotiations
process for the new legally binding global climate change regime. They
2
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world's time-bound and quantified targets
for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions-income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of
adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental
sustainability. They are also basic human rights-the rights of each person on the planet to health,
education, shelter, and security. (i.e. eradicate extreme hunger and poverty; achieve universal
primary education, promote general equality and empower women, reduce child mortality,
improve maternal health, combat HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental
sustainability and develop global partnership for development)
[5]
expressed concern about the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and in particular as it relates to the social, economic,
and environmental impacts of climate change in Africa. They noted that Africa
contributes the least to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, yet is the most vulnerable continent to the impacts of climate change
and has the least capacity to adapt (Ministry of Environment, Kenya, 2010). They
further stressed the urgent need for all countries to take action, including more
stringent and legally binding emissions reduction by the developed countries.
This declaration stresses the implementation of climate change programs that
focus on mitigation and adaptation – with achievable sustainable development
that alleviates poverty and attains the MDG.
1.3 Geography of Kenya
Kenya has an estimated 39 million people, 32.3% of the population live in urban
area and 67.7% in rural areas (Kenya Census, 2009). Kenya is found on the
Equator in the eastern part of Africa. Kenya covers about 582650 Km2 with
11,230 km2 of water. It lies approximately between 5 degree north and 5 degrees
south and between latitudes 34 degrees and 42 degrees in the east of Africa, with
the equator bisecting the country in two halves. Kenya has a unique landscape
which varies across the country. It lies from sea level to approximately 5000
meters above sea level. With 2% of the landscape covered by lakes and 16% by
agricultural land, 72% of the landscape is arid and semi-arid. Kenya is classified
as a dry land country with less than 20% of humid environment and over 80% of
[6]
dry land. Land distribution is as follows: savanna (8%), semi arid areas (14%),
arid areas (36%) and very arid areas (22%). Kenya has high and medium potential
areas, in the humid zone which is suitable for rained agriculture and is dominated
by crop and dairy farming, occupying 31% and 30%, respectively.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2. Analysis of commonly applied response strategies
2.1 Sustainable agriculture and Sustainable Land Management (SLM)
Climate change may pose a threat to many African countries, but it also provides
a new opportunity for implementation of productive and sustainable land
management practices. For many years, non-profit organizations have been
working with communities in Africa to educate and implement reforestation,
water resource, land management, and soil management projects. These efforts
now have become more important with the predicted climate change and will help
improve the economic status of many countries. Countries can now be involved
in new sustainable practices such as reforestation, improved water management,
integrated soil fertility management, conservation agriculture, agro-forestry, and
improved rangeland management.
IPCC estimates that about 50 million additional people will be at risk of hunger
by 2050 due to climate change, and they predict that these numbers could rise to
132 million additional people by 2050 and 266 million by 2080 (Actionaid, 2009).
[7]
Besides the increased human suffering this would create the cost to countries and
donors in hunger management, health, sanitation, and housing would be
significant. It is important to develop tools and knowledge that can help
communities adapt to climate change and minimize such costs. To aid in this,
IPCC have developed a framework in which SLM can be used to mitigate global
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), especially in the sub-Saharan region.
Under IPCC Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use (AFOLU) practices, SubSaharan Africa can play a major role in mitigating GHG emissions by
sequestering carbon in vegetation, litter and soils. IPCC estimates that improved
cropland and grazing land management, restoration of peaty soils, and restoration
of degraded land could reduce GHG emissions by 265 Mt CO2e per year by 2030.
Afforestation in Africa could sequester 665 Mc CO2 per year, while reduced
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) could reduce emissions by 1260 Mt
CO2e in 2030. This alone may not be the ultimate answer but it has the possibility
of reducing about 6.5 percent of global GHG emissions ((based on year 2000),
TerrAfrica, 2009).
For many years communities have relied on local knowledge to sustain their land,
but climate change has brought new challenges. Using sustainable land
management, farmers can develop techniques to both deal with the impact of
climate change and adapt to projected changes in the climate. According to a
report by TerrAfrica (2009), investing in soil and water conservation efforts can
help deal with the impact of declining rainfall and can increase soil organic
[8]
carbon. SLM practices reduce variability of agricultural production, for example,
soil and water conservation, and organic agricultural practices that improve
moisture holding capacity, integrated pest management, and other practices that
help diversify agricultural income.
Agricultural practices contribute nearly 4% of greenhouse gas emissions annually
while land use changes such as deforestation (to increase agricultural land)
contributes another 19% (Actionaid, 2009). The largest contributor of agricultural
induced greenhouse gas emissions are industrial agricultural practices caused by
the use of pesticides and chemicals, deforestation and the burning of biomass.
Since most agricultural land in Africa is owned by small scale farmers, this may
not be a major concern for Africa. But the role of the African farmer is important
in dealing with climate change. About 450 million smallholder farms produce
80% of the world’s food and play a major role in the world’s food system
(Actionaid, 2009). The dipole rainfall being experienced in most parts of Africa
will have a major impact on their agricultural practices. Currently there is very
little attention worldwide directed to these smallholder farmers. Helping them
adapt to climate change will have a global benefit in the world’s food market and
in curbing global emissions. Also with this premise, we cannot forget that
smallholder families make up 75% of the world’s poor. Developing sustainable
agriculture practices with a focus towards promoting local food supply and
organic-grown produce that promotes a healthy biodiversity will have a
substantial climate change mitigation benefit. Effective land management tools
would boost agriculture in Africa. Enabling access to water storage facilities,
[9]
better sanitation, diversifying production to reduce reliance on a single crop and
building community self-sufficiency through the use of seed banks, limiting the
use of fertilizers and taking advantage of the rich biodiversity that surrounds these
environments will increase resilience.
One of Africa’s problems is lack of knowledge of potential climate change
impacts. The impacts are expected to be most severe where current climate
change information is the poorest, technological change has been the slowest, and
the domestic economies depend heavily on agriculture. It is evident that African
farmers have adapted to a certain degree of climate variability, but climate change
may force large regions of marginal agriculture out of production. The
agriculture sector is a major contributor to the current economy of most African
countries, averaging 21% and ranging from 10% to 70% of the Growth Domestic
Product (GDP) (Mandelsohn et al., 2000). Future development is likely to reduce
agriculture’s share of GDP. With an optimistic forecast of future development,
agriculture’s share of GDP could shrink to as little as 4% by 2100. Even with
this scenario, several countries will still have large agricultural sectors of over
10% of GDP (Mandelsohn, et. al. 2000).
Even without climate change, there are serious concerns about agriculture in
Africa because of water supply variability, soil degradation, and recurring drought
events. A number of countries face semi-arid conditions that make agriculture
challenging. Further, development efforts have been particularly difficult to
[10]
sustain. African agriculture has the slowest record of productivity increase in the
world. It is important to understand the substantial threat that climate change
poses to agriculture and create an approved understanding of how to respond to
agricultural impacts from climate change. There is very little research on tropical
countries, and the damage of climate change is still to be known. Climate change
will cause warming rapidly and beyond the understanding of African farmers.
They may not have the knowledge on how to deal with these rapid changes in
temperatures. Although farmers have adapted to climate change variability to a
certain degree, climate change may still be catastrophic. Regions of marginal
agriculture areas may be forced out of production. Large populations in Africa
live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihood and are faced
with possible loss of food supply due to intense climate change.
A recent study by Burke et.al (2009) examined likely shifts in crop climates in
Sub-Saharan Africa under the climate change scenario for 2040. The study
explored the implications of agricultural adaptation with a focus on identifying
priorities in crop breeding and the conservation of crop genetic resources. Using
historical climate data, maps of crops, and climate model from recent IPCC and
present data, they investigated how crops will change across the African
Continent. The study focused on three rain-fed cereals – maize, sorghum and
pearl millet. These provide at least 30% of calories consumed in most part of
Africa (FAO, 2008). The results of the studies demonstrate the importance of
international cooperation on genetic resources conservation, as crucial in helping
[11]
African farmers adapt to imminent threats of climate change.
2.2. Carbon Sequestration
Carbon sequestration projects are likely to have economic and development
benefits for Africa. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) carbon sequestration is one of the solutions that will benefit the continent
of Africa; however land ownership patterns in Africa could be a huge barrier
(Berninger et.al, 2009). Project tenure security is crucial and creates a barrier in
Africa since a piece of land could have multiple tenures for different land use
purposes, making it difficult to invest in carbon projects. Currently, the World
Bank’s BioCarbon Fund is the leading investor of carbon sequestration projects in
Africa. Others include Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), the Forest Absorbing Carbon
Emissions (FACE) Foundation and the European Union. Currently there are over
19 carbon sequestration projects in Africa and seven of these projects are located
in East Africa (Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania). This is a good indication that
investors are willing to invest in projects in Africa. Projects are located in
different agro-ecological zones and have different land uses. Projects vary from
rangelands, dense forests, to lake basins. Many of these projects are capable of
sequestering approximately 35 million tons of CO2, and they will be able to
generate carbon offsets under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. These carbon
credit projects are worth millions of dollars and some of these projects are already
selling carbon credits in international markets.
[12]
Carbon sequestration provides global benefits to the local communities and to the
project investors. One of the Kyoto stipulations is that any CDM projects should
achieve sustainable development within the country they are located in (Earth
Trend, 2009). One of the benefits is the increase of timber and non-timber
products. These provide dependable income for households while promoting
environment conservation as well. One of the major problems for Africa is the
loss of biodiversity due to deforestation. Implementing carbon sequestration
projects will help address this concern. By investing in afforestation and
reforestation projects Africa can benefit from improved water quality, decreased
soil erosion, and improved land management. It is, however, noted that
converting land into large plantations can have some hydrological effects on the
ecosystem, according to a global study by Farely et al. According to the study,
runoff reductions are greater than 75% in 1/5 of the water catchment.
[13]
Fig.1 (a) Foliage (Source: Farley et. al 2005: Changing Runoff with plantation
age)
[14]
Fig. 1(b)) Source: Farley et. al 2005: Changing Runoff with plantation age
[15]
2.2.1 The cost of investing in Carbon Sequestration in Africa
Carbon sequestration projects come with high transaction costs usually from the
negotiations, implementation, and monitoring of small-scale projects compared to
larger projects. The cost of carbon sequestration increases when there are
multiple parties involved. This is the case for most land ownership in Africa.
Although most of the rural land is owned by small landholders, there are largescale privately or government held lands that present opportunities for carbon
sequestration in Africa. Carbon sequestration projects are expected to benefit the
poor communities and any sustainable development should give an opportunity to
the rural communities to benefit. Any carbon sequestration projects that aim to
have sustainable development should involve small landowners despite the
financial constraints involved. To help alleviate the high transaction cost barrier,
CDM guidelines have been revised to allow the participation of small-scale
carbon sequestration projects that target and benefit poor communities while still
generating emissions reductions of less than 8000 tons CO2 per annum (UNEP,
2004)
Governance and institutional capacity building is important to any project
implementation. Many international non-profit organizations have dedicated time
and money to institutional capacity building. UNEP has made this a top priority
and has initiated capacity building projects to help Africa manage and mitigate
climate change impacts. UNEP’s capacity building includes training government
staff to be able to identify, design, and implement carbon projects. One of the
[16]
Kyoto requirements is that developing countries establish a Designated National
Authority (DNA)3 in order to promote carbon projects that align with its national
development priorities that benefit local communities and support sustainable
development. This has placed pressure on African governments to integrate
capacity building. The political volatility of most Africa countries makes
investing in carbon sequestration a risky effort for many investors. But in many
cases there has been substantial improvement in economic development and
skilled leadership. Through international support, many regional efforts have led
to better collaboration among African countries.
2.3 Carbon Finance – A New Trend
The World Bank is always exploring new ways to help developing countries and
is currently exploring innovative approaches to agricultural carbon. The World
Bank BioCarbon Fund is the newest approach in mitigating global climate
change. Since the year 2000, the BioCarbon Fund has directed its effort to
projects that sequester or conserve carbon in forest and agro-ecosystems. This
public/private initiative that is administered by World Bank, aims to deliver costeffective emission reductions, while promoting biodiversity conservation and
poverty alleviation. The Fund has two Tranches: tranche One has invested a total
3
Source UNFCC - A designated national authority (DNA) is the body granted responsibility by a
Party to authorize and approve participation in CDM projects. Establishment of a DNA is one of
the requirements for participation by a Party in the CDM. The main task of the DNA is to assess
potential CDM projects to determine whether they will assist the host country in achieving its
sustainable development goals and to provide a letter of approval to project participants in CDM
projects. This letter of approval must confirm that the project activity contributes to sustainable
development in the country. It is then submitted to CDM Executive Board to support the
registration of the project
[17]
capital of $53.8 million and tranche two invested a total capital of $36.6 million.
This BioCarbon Fund purchases carbon from a variety of land use and forestry
projects. The Carbon Fund portfolio includes afforestation and reforestation, and
reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.
2.4 Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF)
The CDCF is a World Bank Carbon Fund initiative that provides carbon finance
to projects in the poorer areas of the developing world. The Fund is a
public/private initiative designed in cooperation with the International Emissions
Trading Association and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and became operational in March 2003. This fund has two tranches and in
the first tranche, CDCF capitalized $128.6 million with nine governments and 16
corporations/organizations participating in it .The CDCF supports projects that
combine community development that are attributed with emission reductions to
create "development plus carbon" credits, and can significantly improve the lives
of the poor and their local environment. In return contributors to the CDCF
support projects receive verified Kyoto-compliant emission reductions (ER) from
these projects. World Bank uses parallel resources from donors to mobilize
technical support assistance, capacity building, and project preparation in CDCF
countries. Since these projects are directed to the developing countries, there is
difficulty in attracting carbon finance due to the financial risk associated with
political stability of these countries. The World Bank continues to mitigate this
process to make it viable. The CDCF Fund is a good example of a bottom-up
[18]
approach in mitigating climate change.
The World Bank also has funded agricultural-based carbon finance project in
Kenya – one of the first of the CDCF projects. The project is based in Nyanza
Province and Western Province of Kenya, with an approximately 45,000 ha of
land. The projects engage small-holder farmers at a grassroots level to adapt
sustainable agricultural land management practices which result in increased crop
yields, farm productivity and soil carbon sequestration, as well as above-ground
carbon sequestration. A second CDCF project has been initiated in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). DRC utilizes the CDCF funds to replant
degraded forest. The Carbon Sink Plantation project is located in Ibi village on
the Bateke Plateau located 150 kilometers from the DRC capital, Kinshasa.
Funds generated from the carbon sinks are used to educate children as well as
provide basic health care services. The Ibi Bateke reforestation project covers
over 4,200 hectares of degraded land and is estimated to absorb 2.4 million tons
of carbon dioxide over the next 30 years (World Bank, 2008). These projects
align with the World Bank strategy for Africa and benefit communities by
improving health access, agricultural practices, education, and increased food
security.
2.5 Financing and Investing in Climate Change
Although African countries contribute less than four percent of total global
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is a great challenge for Africa and
[19]
voluntary contributions will not meet the demand that will be caused by the
impacts of climate change. According to UNDP report (2007), adaptation costs
vary with funding, World Bank’s estimated to $86 billion per year in 2015, with
around US$100 - $200 billion dedicated to climate change mitigation (World
Bank, 2009).
African governments have made a commitment to improve the economic welfare
of their countries, and have developed a framework to assist nations to end
poverty and increase their economic statuses through a climate change mitigation
framework. Financing sustainable practices in Africa is important and was a core
discussion topic in climate change talks in Copenhagen in 2010 and continues to
be a critical discussion in Durban, South Africa climate change talk in 2011.
The Kyoto Protocol included the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) option
to fund climate change mitigation projects in developing countries. Under the
Kyoto Protocol countries wishing to reduce their emissions can do so through the
CDM option. They can also use such projects to earn saleable emission-reduction
credits that can be used to meet the Kyoto targets. CDM goals are to stimulate
sustainable development while giving developed countries flexibility to reduce
their emission targets, but unfortunately, it is not clear if it encourages good
behavior. One problem is that it does not support primary forest protection, it
only supports reforestation and afforestation – a basic concept – clear the forests
and replant so you can benefit from a CDM. The projects should fund forest
protection efforts such educating communities and those involved in the timber
[20]
industry why it is important to keep old forests. With the possibilities of carbon
sequestration a key opportunity for African countries, this should be a primary
requirement for qualifying projects but the CDM option has placed some
limitation on qualifying projects.
One such limitation is the lack of a CDM option accepting projects that invest in
the expansion of the electricity grid for clean energy. Since most African
countries get their electricity from hydropower, solar power and biomass for
electricity this creates a great opportunity for Africa. Combining the different
available sources of green energy, such sources could meet 80 percent of the
continent’s electricity needs (IPCC, 2007). In Europe’s Climate Change Action
plan, they have considered taking advantage of these abundant resources and
generating electricity with solar thermal technology in Northern Africa, which
will mean importing it and connecting it to their grid (EIA Climate Action Plan,
2009) fortunately due to the limitation of the CDM option Africa is unlikely to be
able to take advantage of such a technology. Other uncovered projects are the
support of capturing methane from biomass feeds and wind power. Farmers may
be able to take advantage of this growing technology, but bio-fuel has severe
limitations under CDM. Plant oil only qualifies if is to be used for transportation
fuel. Unfortunately, a large population in Africa does not own a car nor take any
means of oil-fueled transportation. Traditionally fuel usage in Africa is largely
for household energy needs such as cooking, lighting or running water pumps.
Africa’s priority now is to be able to meet basic human needs, which is about one
[21]
tenth of the per capita energy use in the developed world. Africa needs advanced
sustainable technologies such as renewable energy and efficient-clean energy
saving fuel technologies to meet the growing demand for energy and especially in
rural communities. The CDM option should adjust the requirement to allow the
investments of such technology that meets basic human needs in Africa.
Financing climate change in Africa is a complex undertaking that requires
involvement at all levels of policy making and the cooperation of the local
communities. International non-profit organizations and World Bank have
initiated different strategies to help finance climate change projects. And to do
so local communities have to be engaged and have to have the understanding of
climate change impacts. Financial institutions may not be willing to invest in
projects that have high costs to prepare and administer, and are more willing to
finance projects that already exist. In many developing countries investing and
developing clean energy means early engagement of those who will rely on the
energy or technology.
Investment barriers, political risks, and government bureaucracy may keep Africa
from climate change mitigation and it may require refocusing the financing tool.
United Nations Environmental Programme’s (UNEP) core focus is to remove
investment barriers and develop markets for renewable energy and energy
efficiency – sustainable energy. UNEP sustainable energy financing is part of
their overall approach to strengthen the finance element needed to carry clean
[22]
energy ideas and technologies from project conception to commercial investment.
UNEP is a humanitarian organization and does not finance projects but their goal
is to work with banks and other financial institutions to increase their support for
clean energy projects. They work on building capacities and awareness that the
banks need in order to invest in sustainable energy projects. Their work
compliments major sustainable energy investors such as the World Bank and
GEF. It engages to create awareness and develop ways to finance sustainable
energy projects. UNEP’s Africa Rural Energy Enterprise Development
(AREED), combines enterprise development services and seed capital to promise
clean energy services and products to rural and peri-urban communities. AREED
has invested $9.4 million in five countries in West, East and Southern Africa.
With the World Bank taking a lead on carbon finance in Africa, there is much
hope of financing climate change while boosting livelihoods and reducing poverty
among rural communities.
To-date, the World Bank has initiated funding for a number of climate change
projects – 19 in total - and has made Africa an integral part of their development
and business strategy. In their African Action Plan, they have included the
following climate change goals in these key areas:
1. Adaptation and climate risk management – this will focus on energy,
disaster risk reduction, sustainable management of land, water and forests,
coastal and urban development, agricultural productivity, and health and
[23]
social issues.
2. Mitigation – Most communities in Africa depend on wood for fuel,
therefore it makes sense to link any mitigation opportunities with
sustainable land and forest management, energy consumption and
innovative development, and urban transportation. There is a huge
opportunity for Africa to develop clean energy that is accessible by local
communities.
3. Knowledge and capacity development – Uncertainties about climate
change impact make policy decisions complex and magnify any trade-offs.
To prepare Africa for climate change impacts, the World Bank is investing
in technologies that will lead to improved weather forecasting, water
resource monitoring, land use information, disaster preparedness, and
technology development. The bank is committed to building capacity for
risk management, planning, and coordination.
2.6 Practical Application: Analysis of a bottom-up approach
of community-based project
2.6.1 Sustainable Development for All-Kenya (SDFA)
Sustainable Development for All-Kenya (SDFA) is a non-profit organization
based in Kenya. It was founded in Kenya by Evans Wadongo, a recipient of CNN
Heroes top ten 2010, Mikhail Gorbachev Award – “The Man Who Changed the
World”, and a Schwab Fellow of the World Economic Forum. SDFA focuses on
rural development, renewable energy, health and education for all. SDFA created
a LED solar lantern out of scrap metal that transformed the way rural community
[24]
light their homes (SDFA, 2010). Solar lantern development is focused on youth
and women who spend their time in their rural homes. According to SDFA 60%
of rural households’ income in the sub-Sahara Africa is spent on paraffin or
kerosene. Paraffin and kerosene has adverse effects on health and in particular
eyesight when used under prolonged periods of time. Children in the majority of
Africa households use paraffin or kerosene wiki lamps to study after dark. SDFA
Solar lantern introduction in these rural households has boosted the learning
experience for many children and helped initiate business ventures that benefit an
entire community such bee keeping, raising poultry, fish farming and water
projects. Other benefits are increased health for those vulnerable.
[25]
GHG reduction from SDFA solar lanterns project in Kenya
Table 1: SDFA Solar Lantern Total GHG reduction. Source: SDFA
estimates.
Name of village
Chebwai
Msalaba
Makutano
Mwamzugha
Maralal
Mwangeni
Sitian
mauche
Mukhonje
Bukhakunga
Nyaobe
Chiliva
Kaptilit
Amorii
Serem
Gisambai
Chulaimbo
Nzaikoni
Narok
Total
Number of
lamps
distributed
per
household
Total annual
kerosene
consumption
per village
CO2
reduction
per HH
(savings)
*CO2 emission
reduction per
Village
CO2 reduction by
2016
372
463
60
138
86
103
428
123
347
138
122
149
345
232
49
34
78
123
129
678,900
844,975
109,500
251,850
156,950
187,975
781,100
224,475
633,275
251,850
222,650
271,925
629,625
423,400
89,425
62,050
142,350
224,475
235,425
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
4,636
1,724,406
2,146,237
278,130
639,699
398,653
477,457
1,983,994
570,167
1,608,519
639,699
565,531
690,690
1,599,248
1,075,436
227,140
157,607
361,569
570,167
597,980
3,207,395,160
4,968,537,498
83,439,000
441,392,310
171,420,790
245,890,098
4,245,747,160
350,652,398
2,790,779,598
441,392,310
344,973,910
514,563,678
2,758,701,938
1,247,505,760
55,649,178
26,793,190
141,011,910
350,652,398
385,696,778
3519
6,422,175
88,075
16,312,325
22,772,195,058
*Emission factor = 2.54 kgs CO2 per liter of kerosene
Assumption- 1 lamp per family, therefore # of lamps per village = # of HHs per
village
5x365=1825 litres per yr per family
1825x# of lamps = litres/yr
Total emissions of CO2 for village = total # of liters x 2.54 (emission factor)
SDFA has distributed 3,519 solar lanterns to households in 19 villages (SDFA,
2010). Total annual consumption of kerosene is 6,422,175 liters with a total of
16,312,325 tones of CO2e emissions for all villages in the absence of solar
[26]
lanterns. As shown in Table 1, based on 3519 solar lanterns supplied to rural
household, the program will deliver GHG reductions of approximately 22 million
tons of CO2e by 2016.
Kerosene-based lamps are the leading source of lighting for a majority of Kenyan
households - 79%. In rural areas, 87% rely on kerosene-based lamps; 55% of
urban residents rely on such lamps while 42% rely on electricity (GoK, 2007).
The SDFA solar lamp has contributed to the elimination of kerosene-based lamps
in the rural areas. The lack of electricity for lighting has serious gender-related
dimensions and the continued exposure to kerosene fumes in the kitchen while
cooking leads to disproportionate vulnerability of women to associated indoor
pollution (GoK, 2007).
2.6.2 Nepal Biogas Support Partnership, (BSP-Nepal)
BSP-Nepal was established as a non-profit organization in 2003 to take over the
implementation responsibility of BSP. BSP’s key objective is to develop a donorsupported biogas program for commercial use integrated with carbon revenue to
serve the Nepali rural populations. This program was formerly managed by the
Netherlands Development Organization. The program is part of the Nepali
government’s biogas project and the first of the CDM projects in Nepal. By its
fourth phase BSP has disseminated a total of 111,395 biogas plants. BSP’s goal is
to install a total of 200,000 small biogas digesters in Nepal (UNFCC accessed
August, 20 2011). All activities registered under the CDM are renewable energy
projects registered under category 1.C. Thermal Energy for the User of the Small[27]
Scale CDM Project (UNFCC, 2007).
The project targeted areas where households had a higher cooking fuel
consumption which is determined through a household survey. Another criterion
for project participation was the geographic location where households could not
afford to buy firewood for fuel use in the absence of a biodigester installation.
Figure 2 below shows the common design used for the BSP-Nepal Biogas plants.
Figure 2: General Biogas Plant. Source: BSP-Nepal.
2.6.2.1 Project commissioning, Monitoring, and Registering
the CDM Project
All projects were constructed and commissioned right away. First feeding of
[28]
biodigester was done on large quantity of cattle dung mixed with water and
feeding was done every day for constant gas production for cooking and lighting.
For quality control, monitoring and After Sales Service (ASS) was done within
one or two years of commissioning the plants. Monitoring of the plants is done to
check the quality and functionality of the biogas plant before it is classified as a
CDM project. The monitoring project is based on a random sampling of existing
biogas plants database and follows a 4-tier system with 15 clusters based on 5
development regions and 3 categories of districts, Terai, Hill and remote Hill
(these are geographical area). The survey was based on samples of households
from these 3 geographic areas.
2.6.2.2 Specification of Baseline
The project follows a 5-step process to determine the net emissions as specified in
appendix B of the simplified M & P for small scale CDM project activities.
1) Identification of baseline and project emissions sources. Table 2 shows
emission sources
determined for the project.
[29]
Table 2: Emission Source
Source: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNVCUK1132671435.09/view
Emission Source
Baseline
Fuel Use
Co2 emissions from
kerosene
CO2 emissions from
burning unsustainable fuel
wood
CH4 emissions from
burning of fuel wood
Fugitive emissions
2)
Project
None
None
None
Biogas (CH4)
leaks from digester
and incomplete
combustion
Identification of emission factors
The project utilizes the IPCC tier 14 approach to calculate CO2 emissions
from source (Kerosene, firewood and charcoal usage). After identifying
the source, the next step taken is to aggregate emissions per source into
standardized emission reduction factor per biogas plant per region (see
BSP CDM Activity 1, pg 31-2006)
3)
Identification of activities per sources
4)
Calculation of emissions per sources and;
5)
Calculation of emission reduction factor per plant per region
4
A Tier 1 method follows the approach in the IPCC Guidelines, Section 5.2.3 (Forest and Grassland
Conversion) where the amount of aboveground biomass that is removed is estimated by multiplying the
forest
area converted annually to other land by the average annual carbon content of biomass in the land prior to
conversion. It is assumed that the entire biomass is removed in the year of conversion. The recommended
default
assumption for the Tier 1 calculation is that all carbon in biomass is released to the atmosphere through decay
processes either on- or off-site.
[30]
2.6.2.3 Emission Reduction Calculation
In Project Activity 2 monitoring period August 1, 05 to July 31, 06, using
an ER factor of 4.99, the projects total ER claimed for the crediting period
was 46854.07 TCO2e for a total of 9,6885 operating plants (See below).
ER calculation formulas were adopted form the established CDM
monitoring guideline (CDM-UNFCC Version 2, 2006) and it was based
on number of plants in operation. Table 3 shows total annual reduction
from project activity 2 for each geographical area.
Table 3: Total number of Plants with Different Sizes and Constructed in
Different Ecological Regions in the CDM project (Project Activity 2)
Total Plants
Registered
under CDM
Project
Activity 2
(6/16/20044/6/2005
Location
Hill
Remote Hill
Terrai
Total
4m3
1168
42
216
1426
6m3
2961
41
4178
7180
8m3
134
1
847
982
10m3
91
0
91
100
Total
4272
84
5332
9688
Source: Annual Emission Report for Project Activity 2 of CDM Project in Biogas Support Program
of Nepal (Monitoring Period: 08/01/2005-10/19/2006)
5
For the biogas digester, ER is calculated using a standardized method for a household size biogas digester
measuring minimum 3m3, 6m3, 8 m3, and 10m3.
[31]
Table 4: Details of Emission Reduction Calculation for Project Activity 2)
(Source: BSP-Nepal Monitoring Report, 2006)
Emission
Reduction
Calculatio
n for
Project
Activity 2
A
Annual
Performance
Crediting Period
1
8/1/ 05 to
B
C
Fiscal Year
Total Number of
Existing Plants
Annual
Performance
Rate
Annual
Emission
Reduction
Factor
Annual Weighted
ER Factor
Applied ER
Factor
Emission
Reduction from
Augst1, 2005-31July, 2006
Size/Region
6/1/06
9688
98.70%
8.9975
4.99
Unit
Total
(Terai/Hills)
4m3 Hill
TCO2e
5842.25
4m3 Terai
TCO2e
4m3 Total
TCO2e
6m3 Hill
TCO2e
14528.25
6m3 Terai
TCO2e
20206.06
6m3 Total
TCO2e
8m3 Hill
TCO2e
8m3 Hill
TCO2e
8m3 Total
TCO2e
10m3 Hill
TCO2e
43.53
10m3 Terai
TCO2e
440.1
10m3 Total
TCO2e
Total
Annual ER
TCO2e
Total
1044.64
Total
6886.89
Total
34734.31
652.9
4096.25
Total
4749.25
483.63
483.63
46854.0
8
Source: Annual Emission reduction Report for Project Activity 2 of CDM Project in Biogas Support Program
of Nepal CDM Project Reference No,0139 (Monitoring Period 1 st August 2005 to 19th October 2006)
[32]
Based on 2008/2009 Biogas User Survey (BUS) Monitoring period 1 August
2006 to 31 July, 2009, a total ER of 95652 TCO2e6 was claimed. The Nepal
project showed a 20-year Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) 7 of 21 percent
in the Hills and 16 percent in the Terrai for and average 6m3 biogas system.
However, the FIRR is very sensitive to the price of fuel wood.
The BSP-Nepal now it’s in fourth phase has revised its target for Phase-IV to
135,000 plants (BSP-Nepal, 2010). In addition to these financial and emissions
benefits, BSP-IV Phase8 projects are expected to generate substantial other
positive outcomes as shown in Table 5 and 6.
Table 5: Annual savings due to non-burning of unsustainable fuels
Fuel wood
Agricultural waster
Dung Cake
Kerosene
Total Annual GHG
emissions reduction
Annual Reduction
tons/plant
345, 716
60,500
103,700
Annual savings
per/litre
Annual Total GHG
emission reduction
5.83 million
1,210,000
Table 6: Other Associated benefits
Bio-slurry/bio-compost
Improved sanitation
Improved indoor air pollution
Employment
# of household
127,900
112,400
135,000
Annual production
302,500
12,000
6
UNFCC/CCNUCC Monitoring Report Version 01 dated 01/12/2010 EB 54 Report Annex 34
page 32 biogas Support Program – Nepal (BSP-Nepal) Activity 2 – 2nd Monitoring Report
(01/08/2006-31/07/2009).
7
The FIRR is an indicator to measure the financial return on investment of an income generation
project and is used to make the investment decision.
8
Source: http://www.bspnepal.org.np/objectives
[33]
The project overall direct benefits to the farmers are:
Improved agriculture yields and reduced use of chemical fertilizers.
Reduced incidence of illness and expenses on health
Avoided cost of firewood, kerosene and charcoal for house use.
Avoided purchase of inorganic fertilizer as a result of use of the biogas
slurry (bio-slurry).
Chapter 3
3. Research Objective and Methodology
Two questions are driving this research:
1) Is a bottom-up approach a viable way to mitigate the effects of climate
change in rural communities?
2) How are rural communities in eastern Kenya adapting to the changing
climate?
To answer these questions, the researcher first conducted the above literature
review to quantify the benefits of community-based climate change
mitigation. The review highlights the effectiveness, efficiency, risk, and
uncertainty of environmental mitigation projects under the Kyoto Protocol Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM).
To examine the effectiveness of a bottom-up
approach, the researcher analyzed two community projects, in Kenya and Nepal
[34]
respectively. The Nepal project data were obtained from a previously published
case study (UNFCC, 2010).
A random survey of fifty households in the Kirikoini Village of Kandara
Township was conducted. Each household was asked a series of climate change,
farming practices, and adaptability questions. The survey was conducted by two
research assistants who are familiar with the area and possess knowledge of
farming in Kandara Township. The survey instrument and letter of intent are
attached (see Appendix 2(a) (b) (c)).
Data from the survey were analyzed to understand how the farmers are dealing
with the changing climate. 50 respondents were asked a series of ten related
questions as shown in the survey instrument. The answers had a degree of
similarity. These answers were sorted according to the response and categorized
into four groups: 1) Climate change effects on farming 2) Farmers efforts to
adapt, 3) Economic stability, 4) Factors affecting farmers’ ability to adapt. Data
were then entered into a data sheet, and the responses analyzed to show climate
change effects.
The responses from the survey have similarities and demonstrate the farm
holders’ reactions to the effects of climate change in rural communities in Kenya.
The survey findings are broadly applicable to other communities with similar
challenges in mitigating the effects of climate change. The results of this survey
[35]
may be limited due to the relatively small number of households surveyed and the
particular characteristics of the study area. Increasing the number of households
and size of the study area would increase the validity and reliability of the data,
and thus yield better results. Future surveys that target different geographic areas
with a larger sample would be necessary to fully quantify benefits of a bottom-up
approach to climate change mitigation.
The data gathered from the survey were analyzed and will be used to recommend
sustainable mitigation projects that carry both economic and social benefits to the
farmers. The results of the survey are also analyzed to determine if they satisfy
the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for Kenya.
3.1 Study area
Kirikoini Village in Kandara Division was chosen for this research because it has
a great opportunity for a community carbon finance project. It is an agricultural
area and the majority of residents rely on subsistence farming to support family
needs, such as health, education, energy, etc. Some farmers engage in small-scale
coffee farming, growing fruits and vegetables, and animal rearing. The majority
of the farms are less than 5 acres. And, in most cases women and children tend the
land while the men perform labor or professional work in the cities. In Kirikoini
village, there is no government supplied electricity or running tap water.
Communities rely on kerosene, charcoal and fuel wood for cooking and lighting
needs. Water is either collected in rain barrels or fetched by women and children
[36]
from the nearby river/creek. Based on the survey results, it is evident that this area
has experienced unpredictable rainfall resulting in prolonged drought with
fluctuating temperatures (KEMET, 2010).
3.2 Data Collection and Analysis
i) Solar lantern and biogas data
The amount of kerosene displaced by solar lanterns was based on the number of
lamps supplied by Sustainable Development For All-Kenya in 2010 and daily
assumption per household (Appendix 3). Annual base emissions reduction and
kerosene/fuel wood saving calculations are adopted from IPCC 2007 emission
factors. ER for this project is projected for a six year period. See below:
ii) Fuel Baseline calculation
a)
Kerosene emission factors = 2.41 kgCo22/litre kerosene
Kerosene savings in liters per day*365*2.41 kgCO2/litre
b)
Fuel wood emission factor = 1.83 kgCo2/kg of fuel wood
Calculations = fuel wood savings in kg per day* of unsustainable fuel
wood consumption per hh*365*1.83 kgCO2/kg of fuel wood
3.3 Research Limitations
Conducting the quantitative research for this project in Kandara was extremely
difficult. The researcher was not able to travel to Kenya to conduct the
quantitative research in person. However, efforts were made to gather the data
[37]
used in analyzing the effects of climate change in Kandara using reliable local
resources and knowledge. These included the GOK, and other UN-funded nonprofit organization analyses for current status on climate change and sustainable
efforts in Kenya. The best available data on climate change impacts on Eastern
Kenya are from the IPCC and other published reports. This inhibited the ability
to analyze climate data specific to Kandara Township for 1997-2010, which were
the years that all respondents expressed as having prolonged lack of rainfall and
drought as was experienced in most parts of Kenya. The data analyzed here are
based on best knowledge of the researcher and current studies/reports published.
Overall, the data from the survey show that drought conditions during this period
in the Kandara area were consistent with the IPCC data on the region as a whole.
Still, the lack of more specific data may lead to some inaccuracy in data
interpretation.
Chapter 4
4. Analysis of Climate Change effects on farming in Kandara
4.1 Background
Kandara is located in Murang´a District, Central Province of Kenya. It is one of
the oldest towns in the central province, built during the colonial period, and sits
on top of a hill. Kandara has a population of 274,000 (2009 census). It has a
cooler climate than the rest of the country due to the higher altitude. There are
two main wet seasons: long rain season (March, April and May) and short rain
[38]
season (October, November). The rainfall has been unpredictable and the area
has experienced climate change - shorter or no rain period during the long rainy
season and prolonged rainfall in the short rain season. One of the socialeconomic impacts of climate change in Kandara is the lack of work for the youth
due to reduced farm production which is compounded by the high rising cost of
living in rural areas. Kandara, like many townships in Murang´a District, has
experienced a high rate of unemployment (MDSP, 2005). Poverty caused by poor
farm production and rising cost of basic living commodities and has forced young
residents to migrate to the cities in search for work (MDSP, 2005)
As part of the implementation of The National Population Policy for Sustainable
Development in Maragua Districts Strategic Plan (MDSP) for 2005-2010, the
government identified some key issues/problems to address within the district.
Some of these key goals identified are:
Integrated population and environment concerns into all aspects of the
development process
Enhance environment, population and development
Enhance the rights of children and their basic needs
Improve employment opportunities for youth
Reduce deforestation
Reduce the rate of school dropouts
[39]
There are some disparities between females and males which creates restrictions
on opportunities in this area. This disparity is very common in many African
societies. Opportunities are commonly laid out in the societies’ values and norms
within the community. Women constitute 52% of the population and contribute
70% to 80% of the total agriculture work done and yet property ownership for
women is very limited (Maragua Strategic Plan 2005-2010). These disparities are
also evident in the provision of social services such as school enrollment,
employment and general access to available services. There is a lack of equal
gender involvement in the district in the development process of sustainable
development. Women could play a major role in a bottom-up development
approach.
Kandara is an agriculturally productive area and primarily contributes to the
production of coffee on a small-scale for export. There are also even smaller tea
and fruit plantations. The majority of the residents in this area engage in
subsistence farming which is conducted along the river banks and several creeks
along the sloppy terrain. The average farm holdings range from 2 to 10 acres.
The Kandara region until recently was covered with natural habitat, including
dense forest land where wild animals roamed and native trees and plants survived.
Like many other parts of Central Kenya, Kandara has faced a degree of
desertification over the last 30 years mainly due to deforestation, overgrazing, and
bad irrigation practices. These causes undermine the land's fertility and
contribute to poverty in the region.
[40]
Figure 3 (a): Aerial Map of Kandara Township showing hilly terrain
[41]
Figure 3(b): Hilly Landscape
4.2 Climate Change Effect on Agricultural Farming
All 50 respondents to the project survey expressed that farming has been
extremely affected by unpredictable rainfall and prolonged drought like in many
other parts of the country. The unpredictable rainfall caused low food production
due to early or no crop maturity. 35% of the respondents experienced livestock
death due to prolonged drought in the country, while 35% have shifted to shortterm and hybrid crops. Chart 1 and 2 below show the effects on agriculture and
how farmers are coping with the changes in this region.
[42]
Effects of Climate Change
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Upredictable
rainfall
Drought
Animal dying Crop maturity
affected(Low
crop harvest)
Climate change effects on agricultural practices
Effects of Climate Change
Chart.1 Climate Change Effects on Agricultural Practices. (Source: survey
data).
Percentage
Comparison of farmers adapting to climate
change
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Short term Change from Early land
Use of
Switched to
crops/Hybrid holticulrural preparation Manure and
compost
crops
toRearing
and planting fertilizers to
manure
animals
boost
productivity
No. of farmers
No of farmers trying to adapt
No of farmers unable to adapt
Chart 2: Comparison of farmer’s adaptation method to climate change. Source:
survey data.
[43]
4.3 Economic stability
74% of the respondents expressed that economic instability has major effects on
their ability to adapt to the changing climate. The high price of seeds also limits
farmers’ ability to switch to more adaptable seed such hybrid-Crop or short-term
crops. Survey data show that only 26 % can afford to do so. 43% face a shortage
of land to expand their farms due to limited land space and the growing
population in the area. This limits farmers’ ability to cultivate new land to
increase productivity of the farm.
The majority of the farmers expressed that they lacked the finances to practice
sustainable farming. All farmers in Kirikoini village depend on subsistence
agriculture with some small dairy farming used to generate family income. It is
evident from the survey that most farmers have taken alternative steps to deal
with the unpredictable climate. Although lack of finance is a big problem, 45%
indicated that due to unpredictable rainfall (2004-2008) they have adapted to new
farming practices to increase food production.
4.4 Recommended Community Development Project
As per the 2009 Kenyan Census, Kandara township is densely populated, and the
development of friendly and affordable sustainable programs, such as renewable
energy, afforestation and water resource management would help meet the
district’s strategic development (MDSP, 2010) Kandara rural communities rely
heavily on fuel wood, kerosene, and charcoal for cooking and other energy use.
[44]
An analysis of fuel types in Kenya by urban and rural areas showed that 80%
relied on Kerosene, 60% on charcoal while 55% relied on fuel wood. Due to a
lack of access, connectivity and knowledge only 37% use electricity and 21% use
LPG (KIPPRA, 2010). Market penetration by renewable energy (solar, biogas
and wind) is very low, only 3%, 0.2% and 0.1% respectively (KIPPRA, 2010).
Rural access to electricity in rural areas is only 4 per cent compared to the
national average of 15 per cent (Kamfor, 2002). The cost of connecting to a grid
is approximately KES.35000 (US$422 at an exchange rate of 83) about 15 US
cents equivalent per kWh of electricity service (GoK, 2011). Since 1973, the
Government of Kenya has been working on rural energy access through the Rural
Electrification Programme (REP). One of Kenya’s Millennium Development
Goals is to reduce the number of people who lack access to modern energy
services and live in poverty by 2015. Kenya hopes to achieve this goal through
Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program (SREP) - part of Kenya’s Vision 2030
plan.
In most cases, the biomass used for cooking is usually produced unsustainably
and contributes to land degradation. Thus, this quality of biomass results in
higher CO2 emissions and indoor air pollution. 1.6 million deaths occur every
year because of diseases caused by indoor air pollution (UNICEF, 2005).
Biomass correctly managed can be an efficient source of energy that provides
quality indoor air and other direct and indirect benefits to the rural communities.
[45]
Figure 4: Example of Unsustainable biomass burning
Source: FAO Forestry Department/CFU000334/R.Faidutti
Kandara community presents a great opportunity for climate change mitigation
through the CDCF Fund. The social-economic status of the area indicates the
need for grassroots level projects that would help generate income as well as help
sustain farming. The unpredictable weather has forced the majority of the farmers
to abandon their land or default to unsustainable farming methods. Farmers are
looking for ways to improve food production. In the past, farmers relied on the
local Kandara Farmers’ Cooperative Union for support in farm management and
education, fertilizer supply, seed supply, and secure options for selling their farm
produce. However with poor management and lack of government funding, the
local union cooperative is not able to sustain the same level of support to the
farmers as has been evident in the past. Initiating community-based projects that
[46]
are cost-effective will boost the economy, restore sustainable food production,
and help alleviate poverty in the community.
4.4.1 Recommendation - Anaerobic Digestion Pilot
Project in Kandara
4.4.1.1 Background
Anaerobic digestion is a series of biological processes in which microorganisms
break down organic matter with little oxygen. This system can be used for
industrial or domestic purposes to manage waste and/or to generate energy.
During this process the system breaks down the manure in an oxygen-free
environment, it then produces a natural product, “biogas” which contains between
60 to 70 percent methane, 30 to 40 percent carbon dioxide, and a few other gases,
as shown in Figure 5 (EPA, 2002).
Figure 5: Anaerobic digestion: Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion
The system has four basic components: a digester, a gas-handling system, a gasuse device, and a manure storage tank or pond to hold the treated affluent prior to
land-use application, as shown in Figure 6.
[47]
Figure 6: Stages of an anaerobic digestion system
(Source EPA 2010 http://www.epa.gov/outreach/agstar/anaerobic/ad101/index.html)
Small Scale Biodigester
Input:
Animal
dung
Output: Biogas
(used for cooking & lightning)
Gas Storage
Gas outlet
valve
Output:
bioslurry
(fertilizer)
Fermentation Chamber
Figure 7: Sketch of Small Scale Biodigester
Anaerobic digesters reduce greenhouse gas emissions from direct methane
emission reduction from the capture and burning of biogas. The graph below
shows the United States biogas projects annual emission reductions, including
both direct reductions and avoided emissions, resulting from anaerobic digesters
[48]
since 2000 (EPA, 2010). There are over 150 big scale biogas systems currently in
operation in the United States.
Chart 3: United States biogas projects annual emission reductions
Source: http://www.epa.gov/outreach/agstar/about-us/accomplish.html
Note: Avoided emissions calculated based on EPA eGRID national average emission rates for
electricity projects and EPA's "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19902006" for non-electricity projects. EPA eGRID data unavailable for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2006
so values were extrapolated based on a linear decrease from 2000 to 2004 and from 2005 to 2007.
EPA eGRID data for 2007 and EPA greenhouse gas inventory data for 2006 were assumed for
subsequent years as these are the most recent data available.
4.4.1.2 Estimated Emission Reduction
CO2 emission from fuel wood is calculated using the emission factors outlined
under the CDM methodologies for small scale plant. CO2 emissions reduction
was only considered for possible unsustainable fuel wood usage since this is the
primary cooking and heating source in most families in this community.
Emission factors = 1.83 kgsCO2/kg of fuel wood
Average daily fuel wood consumption = 6 kgs/365 days = 2190 kg per
family
[49]
Total emissions of CO2 for plants = total # of kg x 1.83 (emission factor)
Table 7: Emission Reduction for proposed Kandara Biogas project
Projected
Number of
biodigester
to be
distributed
Total annual
unsustainable
fuel wood
consumption
kg per hh
CO2 ER/ y**
CO2 reduction
per
HH (savings)
Total CO2
reduction per
village by 2016
50
109,500
200,385
4,008
50,096,250
**1) Since the project is not implemented, the reduction is only derived from
average consumption of fuel wood per day per household (in kg/day), and 2)
Under real scenario, ER would be calculated using before and after installation
data.
Overall if all 50 households installed a biodigester, the estimated annual
emissions reductions would be 200,385 t/CO2e/yr.
4.4.1.3 Other gases with Global Warming Potentials (GPW)
from the use of a biodigester
There are two major GHG pollutants indicated by the IPCC as significant
amounts as a result of biodigester composting process:
itrous oxide (N2O) emissions: According to the AM0025 methodology
(UNFCCC 2009), two parts of the composting process are involved in
emitting N2O. During the storage of waste in collection containers as well
as the application of compost, N2O emissions have possibility for being
produced and released.
Methane (CH4) emissions – Emissions are from physical leakage and
incomplete
[50]
combustion of biogas during fermentation and may be transportation of
the gas.
4.4.1.4 Justification and Benefits of an Anaerobic Biodigester
A new report released by the United Nations Environment Program in
collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization, proposes “a climatechange stopgap: controlling two noxious ground-level pollutants, black carbon
(or soot) and ozone”. The report concluded that reducing levels of these
substances “will slow the rate of climate change in the first half of the 21st
century,” (New York Times, 2011). Black carbon or soot is from tiny black
particles that come from burning fire and diesel vehicles. In developing countries
the majorities of families prepare meals and heat their houses by burning wood,
charcoal or kerosene. The smoke associated with burning of processed or nonprocessed biomass results in a high rate of respiratory disease. Small-scale
anaerobic digesters can play an important role in reducing related greenhouse
gas emissions from use of unsustainable fuel wood and improving human health
while providing economic benefits for small scale farmers. Based on data from
Kenya Bureau of National Statistics (KBS, 2010), the chart below saw the trend of
respiratory sickness due to continued use of fuel wood as a source of energy in
many rural and urban households. Chart 4below shows the distribution of
respiratory illness by county. The average respiratory sickness in Kenya is 4.9%
while in Murang’a District, where Kandara is located is at 6.3% (Kenya Open
Data, accessed 2010)
[51]
Percentages
Respiratory Illnesses vs use of fuelwood
16.%
14.%
12.%
10.%
8.%
6.%
4.%
2.%
.%
% principally using Fuel
wood
Repiratory: Lower
(Chest, Lung)
0
20
40
60
County lines
Chart 4: Respiratory Illness –vs- Use of Fuel Wood as a source of cooking
Source http://www.opendata.go.ke
Kandara is an excellent potential location for an anaerobic digester. Most
farmers in Kandara own one or two cattle and engage in subsistence farming
which is a prerequisite for running a biogas plant. Kerosene, charcoal, or
firewood is the choice for cooking and heating the house, which makes a biogas
an ideal replacement of these unsustainable fuel sources.
An Anaerobic digester would give farmers in Kandara several direct and indirect
benefits.. The direct benefits are affordable renewable energy source for cooking,
heating, electricity generation, and a healthier environment due to reduced
emissions from these sources. The indirect benefit to the farmers will be the use of
the residue that results from the fermentation process which can be used in the
farm as an organic fertilizer. Other associated benefits are reduction on time and
[52]
workload of collecting fuel wood; and avoided deforestation from cutting trees for
firewood or charcoal.
4.4.1.5 Financial feasibility and acquisition of a biodigester
The survey results show that a majority of the farmers expressed financial
hardships that will make it difficult to cope with any adaptation efforts or
increase farm productivity. The penetration of a biodigester in the rural area will
require the following:
upfront production costs of individual households.
operation and maintenance costs of the biodigester.
acquisition and handling of the substrate (feedstock), if feedstock is not
located within the household compound.
commitment to feeding and operating of the plant for best performance.
supervision, maintenance, and repair of the plant.
ability to manage storage and disposal of the slurry in sustainable way.
The installation of the biodigester is expected to be funded fully or through partial
purchase by the farmers through a micro-finance credit scheme. The cost of
production needs to be determined, specifically who will bear the cost and is
based on various factors:
location of the biogas plant and slurry storage (in most cases cows are
located about 50 – 60 meters away from the house).
model of the biogas plant to be introduced.
biogas unit size and dimensions – for space allocation.
[53]
cost of materials to build the biodigester.
labor input and wages.
percentage of participation level and justification of benefits of associated
benefits of a biodigester.
Chapter 5
5. Conclusion
Extreme weather effects – higher temperatures and variable precipitation continue
to be evident throughout Kenya. This extreme weather is affecting food security.
Since 1970, Kenya has observed 13 extreme weather effects (1970-2010) (GoK,
2011). Most of the farming is done in smallholder farms – 2 to5 ha, and
cultivation is done using basic technology. Technology transfer and adoption will
play a major role in enabling these smallholder farmers adapt to the effects of
climate change. Potential land productivity will depend on good rainfall and
fertile soils, but land degradation (caused by unsustainable fuel wood cultivation)
coupled with unsustainable land use practices and climate change has had a major
effect on food production. With 80% of the country classified as ASAL and
agriculture remaining the most crucial sector in stimulating Kenya’s economy, it
is evident that more localized community based projects will be important to
meeting Kenya’s Millennium Development Goals. This paper recommends such
a project, supporting investment in an anaerobic digester pilot program in
Kandara, Central Province. Kenya is already preparing to invest in renewable
energy (SREP, 2011). Considering a bottom-up approach will lead to successful
[54]
mitigation of climate change. It will strengthen community involvement in
sustainable development, allow knowledge and technology transfer in rural
communities.
[55]
Bibliography
Actionaid: We Know What We Need: South Asian Women Speak out on Climate
Change
www.actionaid.org/docs/agriculture%20and%20climate%20change%20in
%20template%20m (Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
African Rural Energy Enterprise Development (AREED)
http://www.areed.org/ (Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
Alternative Energy Investments United Nations Environment
http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/WEBx0140xPAInvestClimateChange.pdf
http://www.gpa.unep.org/(Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
Brown, Valerie J: Biogas: A Bright Idea for Africa
Environmental Health Perspectives * VOLUME11 41 NUMBER51 May
2006, Accessed: JSTOR 05/18/2011
CDM Methodologies
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/index.html(Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
CDM U-UNFCC: Nepal Biogas Project
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1132671435.09/view
(Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
CDM – UNFCC: Nepal Biogas Project: Program Design
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/S/3/1/S31951BRDYT8P4J5649G4OJO5
OQKV6/PDD%20Nepal%20Biogas%20Project%20Activity%2022%20NovemberFINAL%20SM.pdf?t=dTN8bHdsNXg2fDCoZBird3
FeUtPFmOj-R1pu (Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
CDM-UNFCC: Nepal Biogas Project
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/r/e/p/report.404/ER%20REPORT%20for
%20PA2-Nov%2030%2006_2.pdf?t=Z2x8bHdsNXMzfDDP5ToT8kiG31Mn-BpcLcU (Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
CDM-UNFCC: Nepal Biogas Project – Activity 1 (Version 02)
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/A/4/N/A4NYD8EXQY928HD61LHWH
EIM82MBIN/PDD%20Nepal%20Biogas%20Project%20Activity1%2022%20%20NovemberFINAL%20SM.pdf?t=eE18bHdvbzB6fDA6Ki
AB95iog5LYQhNUqjmp, (Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
[56]
Climate Change 2007 – IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-2.html#9-21], (Accessed, Apri1, 2011)
Climate Change Synthesis Report 2007
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap10.pdf
(Accessed, August, 2011)
Development in a Changing Climate
http://beta.worldbank.org/overview/climate-change-mitigation
http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/,
(Accessed, July, 2011)
Girard, P: FAO - Charcoal production and use in Africa: what future?
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4450e/y4450e10.htm (Accessed June
2011)
Global Climate Change
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/ (Accessed, May,
2011)
FAO: Analysis of Climate Change and Variability Risks in the Smallholder
Sector
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1785e/i1785e00.pdf (Accessed June
2011)
Hulme, M., R.M. Doherty, T. Ngara, M.G. New, and D. Lister, 2001: African
climate change: 1900–2100. Climate Research, (in press)
IPCC Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=377, (Accessed
June 2011)
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS)
http://www.knbs.or.ke/disseminate.php (Accessed August 2010)
Kenya Institute For Public Policy Research And Analysis (KIPPRA): A
Comprehensive Study And Analysis On Energy Consumption patterns In
Kenya: A Synopsis Of The Draft Final Report
http://www.cofek.co.ke/ERCStudy_ExecSummary_02082010.pdf
(Accessed June 2011)
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) - Leading Economic Indicators, May
2011
http://www.knbs.or.ke/news/lei052011.pdf, (Accessed June 2011)
[57]
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics: Leading Economic Indicators, April 2011
http://www.knbs.or.ke/news/lei042011.pdf., Accessed, August 09, 2011
Kenya Open data Online Access
http://www.opendata.go.ke/Health-Sector/Respiratory-Illnesses-vs-Useof-Fuel-Wood-2005-6/nyvr- 46xq?2010),
(Accessed June 2011)
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
http://www.environment.go.ke/, (Accessed December 2010)
Nicholson, S.E. and D. Entekhabi, 1986: The quasi-periodic behavior of rainfall
variability in Africa and its relationship to the Southern Oscillation.
Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 34, 331–348, (retrieved,
November, 2011)
Nicholson, S.E. and J. Kim, 1997: The relationship of the El Niño Southern
Oscillation to African rainfall. International Journal of Climatology,
17,117–135, (retrieved, November, 2011)
Nyong, A., F. Adesina, and B. Osman Elasha. 2007. “The Value of Indigenous
Knowledge in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in
the African Sahel,” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 12: 787–97, (retrieved, November, 2011)
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) , Kenya Ministry Of
Environment And Natural Resources: Third National Report On The
Implementation Of The United Nations Convention To Combat
Desertification (UNCCD)
http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/africa/national/2004/kenya-eng.pdf
(Accessed December 2010)
Potential of Renewable Energy Outlined in Report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ipcc33/PRESS%20RELEASE
%20Updated%20version%20%20Potential%20of%20Renewable%20Energy%20Outline.pdf.,
(Accessed December 2010)
Rural Kenyan energy project lights up job market, incomes
http://pressroom.ipc-undp.org/2011/rural-kenyan-energy-project-lights-upjob-market-incomes/, (Accessed December 2010)
Seeberg-Elverfeldt, Christina. Tapio-Biström, Marja-Liisa: Mitigation of Climate
[58]
Change In Agriculture Series: Global Survey of Agricultural Mitigation
Projects (August 2010)
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al388e/al388e00.pdf, (Accessed December
2010)
Sustainable agriculture and Climate change: An Action Aid rough guide
http://www.actionaid.org/docs/agriculture%20and%20climate%20change
%20in%20template%20may%202009%20final.pdf (Accessed, March
2009)
The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate Change
http://www.africaclimatesolution.org/features/Land_Climate_Executive_S
ummary.pdf.,(Accessed December 2010)
The New York Times Online publication, Tuesday, May 24, 2011
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/a-stopgap-for-globalfarming/?partner=rss&emc=rss, (Accessed December 2010)
UN Millennium Project
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/index.htm (Accessed
November. 2011)
UNDP – International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth (IPC): Rural Kenyan
energy lights up job market, incomes
http://pressroom.ipc-undp.org/2011/rural-kenyan-energy-project-lights-up-jobmarket-incomes/, (Accessed December 2010)
UNEP: Kenya: Integrated Assessment of the Energy Policy - With focus on the
transport and household energy sectors
http://www.unep.ch/etb/areas/pdf/Kenya%20ReportFINAL.pdf,
(Accessed December 2010)
UNFCC – CDM Annex 34 - Guidelines For Completing The Monitoring Report
Form (CDM-MR)
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/6/5/W/65W4GJ3KU91POAHZ2EQDV8I
LRNS0MY/0139%202%20MR.pdf?t=UlF8bHJ1dnE0fDB0ZTCwzLZ4G
vjQPdgO2T1D, (Accessed 09/20/2011)
[59]
Appendices
Appendix 1: IPCC - Working Group II:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Chapter 10: Africa
Box 10-1. The 1997-1998 ENSO Event
ENSO appears to play a major role in east Africa, but it masks the perhaps more important
role of the other oceans, particularly the Indian Ocean. The 1961-1962 rains were
spectacularly manifested as rapid rises in the levels of east African lakes. Lake Victoria rose
2 m in little more than a year (Flohn and Nicholson, 1980). This was not an ENSO year, but
exceedingly high sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) occurred in the nearby Indian Ocean as
well as the Atlantic. Such high SSTs are associated with most ENSO events, and it is
probably SSTs in these regions, rather than the Pacific ENSO (Nicholson and Kim, 1997),
that have the largest influence on east African rainfall. In another example, the dipole pattern
anticipated to occur during ENSO events did not occur during the 1997-1998 events. There
was a tremendous increase in rainfall in east Africa, but intense drought conditions did not
occur throughout southern Africa. The reason appears to be an unusual pattern of SST in the
Indian Ocean.
Box 10-2. Drought Conditions in the Sahel
One of the most significant climatic variations has been the persistent decline in rainfall in
the Sahel since the late 1960s. The trend was abruptly interrupted by a return of adequate
rainfall conditions in 1994. This was considered to be the wettest year of the past 30 and was
thought to perhaps indicate the end of the drought. However, by the standard of the whole
century, rainfall in 1994 barely exceeded the long-term mean. Also, the 1994 rainy season
was unusual in that the anomalously wet conditions occurred toward the end of the rainy
season and in the months following. Unfortunately, dry conditions returned after 1994. The
persistent drying trend has caused concern among development planners regarding how to
cope with losses of food production, episodes of food insecurity, displacements of
populations, lack of water resources, and constraints on hydroelectricity.
[60]
Appendix 2
(a) Letter to the participants
Thank you for agreeing to participate voluntarily in my research.
The purpose of this research is to understand how climate change has affected our
area and the farming habits. This research will help me complete my studies in
America. Please note this research is for the purpose of completion of my degree
and I am not receiving any compensation for it. Any work that will be done on
this research will help me get informed of the needs that exist in our community.
I will be able to use the information collected to further understand how we can
be more involved to ensuring that the community is able to deal with climate
change effects.
Please note that I will not be offering any compensation for your participation and
participation is voluntary. You do have a right not to participate and we will
honor your request. If you do participate, I will share my findings with you upon
the completion of my work.
I apologize that I cannot be here to talk to you directly. I have requested Euticuse
Kamau, to be my research assistant with two other assistants to help me gather
this information.
Your corporation is highly appreciated and I thank you for your willingness to
help inform me and others of how weather has changed in Kandara.
Thank you,
Mercy Kariuki-McGee
Graduate Student
Masters in Environment Studies
The Evergreen State College
Olympia, WA 98506
011-360-888-311
[61]
(b) Survey Questions
Questionnaires for the oral research
1) How can you describe your farming practices?
2) Have you seen changes in the amount of rainfall in the past five years?
3) Can you describe the kind of weather/rainfall that you have been receiving
within the past five years?
4) What is the most severe weather you seen and when?
5) What damage have you experienced associated by the amount of rainfall
or drought in recent years?
6) How have the changes in the weather affected your style of farming?
7) Have you changed the way you do things on your farm to adjust to the
changing weather?
8) Have the adjustments improved your farming?
9) How do you increase productivity of the farm – do you use expensive
fertilizer or do you use
manure or compost?
10) Have you cultivated new land in order to increase crop yield to feed the
family?
11) Do you know about mixed farming – have you been doing it?
[62]
(c) Example of farmer response
[63]
Appendix 3 - SDFA Number of lamps supplied in 2010
Name of
village
Number
Of
lamps
distributed
Economic
ventures
set up
Number of
beneficiaries
How long
has
SDFAKenya
worked
with
them
Since
2007
Areas that
have
improved
significantly
Direct
beneficiaries
Chebwai
372
Fish farming
Poultry keeping
Crop farming
Msalaba
463
Bee keeping
Crop farming
About 1,300
people have
benefited
with
majority
being
schoo
l going
children
About 1,400
people have
benefited
from
this program
Education
Income of
people
Environment
Health
School going
children
Women Youth
SDFA-Kenya
Since
2007
Education
Income of
people
Environment
SDFA-Kenya
Women
School children
Makutano
60
Dairy keeping
Since
2009
Since
2008
Income of
people
Education
Income of
people
Environment
Education
Women
SDFA-Kenya
Youth Women
SDFA-Kenya
School children
mwamzugha
138
Fish farming
Bee keeping
Maralal
86
Goat keeping
Since
2010
Mwangeni
103
Bee keeping
Water project
Since
2008
Sitian
428
Dairy farming
Crop farming
Since
2008
mauche
123
Crop farming
2009
Mukhonje
347
2008
Bukhakunga
138
Poultry keeping
Napier
grass growing for
commercial
purposes
Fish farming
Dairy farming
Tree
nursery
establishment
Nyaobe
Chiliva
122
149
Kaptilit
345
2008
2010
2009
Sugarcane
plantation
Dairy farming
Goat keeping
2008
[64]
Education
Environment
Income of
people
Education
Environment
Income of
people
Health
Education
Environment
Education
Income of
people
Environment
Health
Income of
youth
Environment
Income of
youth
Education
Income of
people
School children
in the shepherd
program Women
Women
SDFA-Kenya
School children
Women
School children
SDFA-Kenya
Youth
Women
School children
Mukhonje
community
Women Youth
School children
SDFA-Kenya
Youth
SDFA-Kenya
Community of
Bukhakunga
Youth
School children
Youth
Kaptilit
Amorii
232
Serem
Gisambai
Chulaimbo
Nzaikoni
Narok
49
34
78
123
129
Fish farming
Tree
nursery
establishment
Animal
for beef
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2009
rearing
Manyatta**
Education
Environment
Income of
women
Education
community
SDFA-Kenya
Women
SDFA-Kenya
Education
Environment
School children
SDFA-Kenya
2011
Manyatta** we are partnering with Un-Habitat in Manyatta starting this April,
where we are setting a community resource center/workshop for solar lantern
assembling and other metal works for the youth in this region.
Appendix 4: Murang’a District Population Density
Area of the District by
Area (sq.
administrative
km²)
Population
Density
Locations
units (km²). Division
Makuyu
195
58,695
299
3
Kandara
234
157,141
672
6
Kigumo
210
79,098
372
3
Maragua
200
93,666
468
5
Gatare Forest
226
-
-
-
Total
1,065
387,778
447
17
Source: District’s Statistics Office, Maragua, 2001
[65]
Appendix 5: Kenya Respiratory Illness –vs- Fuel Wood Use per county
County
Nairobi
Mombasa
Wajir
Mandera
Garissa
Busia
Bungoma
West Pokot
Kilifi
Vihiga
Kakamega
Turkana
Kiambu
Kwale
Migori
Trans Nzoia
Siaya
Kisii
Tana River
Nyamira
Kisumu
Homa Bay
Kajiado
Uasin Gishu
Marsabit
Nandi
Narok
Isiolo
Samburu
Elgeyo Marakwet
Kenya Average
Kericho
Baringo
Nakuru
Taita Taveta
Murang'a
% principally using
Fuel wood
0.10%
0.14%
0.17%
0.23%
0.37%
0.41%
0.45%
0.50%
0.56%
0.62%
0.72%
0.77%
0.79%
0.82%
0.82%
0.85%
0.89%
0.94%
0.94%
0.96%
1.00%
1.01%
1.05%
1.17%
1.19%
1.25%
1.36%
1.37%
1.39%
1.49%
1.62%
1.70%
1.72%
2.26%
2.30%
2.31%
[66]
Respiratory: Lower
(Chest, Lung)
6.40%
3.30%
5.10%
3.50%
0.70%
1.70%
4.50%
1.70%
13.90%
2%
4.80%
12.30%
8.40%
4.80%
0.90%
4.10%
2.20%
3%
3.70%
0%
3.10%
4.30%
6.30%
1%
4.50%
6.40%
4.70%
5.20%
7.50%
9.30%
4.90%
1.70%
5.50%
0%
5.90%
6.30%
Cont..d….Kenya Respiratory Illness –vs- Fuel Wood Use per county
Machakos
Bomet
Kitui
Embu
Kirinyaga
Makueni
Nyeri
Lamu
Meru
Laikipia
Nyandarua
Tharaka nithi
2.64%
2.83%
2.92%
3.43%
3.47%
3.75%
4.28%
5.29%
5.50%
5.94%
6.01%
8.42%
3.10%
1.70%
6.60%
12.30%
4.90%
2.20%
3.70%
3.60%
7.90%
5%
5.90%
7.50%
[67]
MAPS
Fig. 8 BSP-Nepal project Boundaries
Source:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/A/4/N/A4NYD8EXQY928HD61LHWHEIM82
MBIN/PDD%20Nepal%20Biogas%20Project%20Activity1%2022%20%20NovemberFINAL%20SM.pdf?t=TGp8bHdsOG8xfDBQAPAOu
DbysG3DVf8rhNDh
[68]
Figure 9: Map of Kenya
Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2962.htm
[69]
Figure 10: Kenya January-February, 2009 Rainfall Forecast
Source: KMET
Figure 11: The population density of Kenya (2002)
Source: http://www.unepunctad.org/cbtf/publications/Integrated%20Assessment%20of%20the%20OA%20
Sector%20in%20Kenya.pdf
[70]
Figure 12: USA Biogas Projects
Source: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/about-us/accomplish.html
(Total farm-scale projects: 152, Total regional/centralized projects: 10)
[71]
[72]
