Mercado internacional

The community microfinance services have succeeded in scaling up and facilitating growth in economic activities among the rural population. Loans acquired from CBMFOs are mostly used for farm activities. Agriculture formed the main livelihood for the respondents. Subsistence farming was the main pre-occupation of the respondents, thus making arable land an important resource for the rural communities. FAO (2012) argue that over 80% of the poor derive their needs from the environment. The credit acquired from CBMFOs went into purchasing farm inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and also livestock. These activities took place within the confines of the environment. The social and economic empowerment from financial services of CBMFOs was apparent, although most of the farm activities supported by these organizations were adversely affecting the environment. This presented several environmental challenges, which members of community microfinance groups dealt with individually.

As CBMFOs availed easy access to credit, community members cleared forests, natural vegetation and encroached on wetlands to create more farm lands. There was increased deforestation and loss of biodiversity. Cultivation of trees by people yielded poles for transmission of electricity and construction, timber, charcoal and firewood. Forests and natural vegetation are important resources for the rural communities and contribute

79

significantly to Kenya’s economy. They provide environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits which avail opportunities for poverty alleviation and economic development as envisaged in Vision 2030. Within Kiambu County, farmers planted trees for commercial purposes in the form of timber and poles. Others planted fodder trees like

calleindra, Sesban Sesban, leucaena, leucephella used to feed livestock. Farmers also planted fruit trees which produced mangoes, avocados, macadamia, oranges, guava and laquats for sale (Ministry of Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, 2013). Generally, trees help conserve soil and water and it is a grazing refuge during drought among other important ecosystem services (UNEP, 2009).

Encroachment on wetlands was a major challenge in Kiambu County. According to UNEP (2009), wetlands in Kenya cover about 3 to 4 percent of the land. They contribute directly and indirectly to the national economy through provision of goods and services (GoK, 2013). Wetlands in Kiambu County provide vital products and services important for human well being. Most importantly, they are sources of water for domestic use, watering and grazing ground for livestock (GoK, 2013). According to Kiambu County Development Profile, 2013, trees are planted around identified water catchment areas in order to protect them. Those within CBMFOs embracing wetland management were only 8%. The policy on wetlands management in Kenya recognizes integration of communities in conservation and sustainable management of wetlands. Thus, CBMFOs need to integrate sustainable wetlands management practices into their mandates in order to reduce further degradation.

Livestock production was an important component of the livelihood strategies of the respondents. Livestock owned included cattle, goats, sheep and poultry. Majority of the respondents managed to acquire livestock from the credit. The average number of cattle owned was two with an average of five goats and/or sheep. Although the respondents did not have large number of livestock, grazing them in the open fields on small farm lands with minimal control caused environmental degradation. This was exacerbated by the browsing nature of goats and sheep. Open grazing of livestock without control adversely affected the quality of soil by compacting the soil and reducing vegetation cover (Wenner et al., 2003). Lack of vegetation cover exposed the soil to wind and water erosion. An

80

effective strategy to avoid soil compacting is by rotating different types of livestock and timing grazing (IFAD, 2009). However, only 9% of the respondents practiced livestock rotation.

Most of the respondents in the study area practiced zero-grazing due to land scarcity. However, most of the zero-grazing units were substandard and unhygienic for cattle. Intense production of livestock resulted to high concentration of wastes and use of chemicals. Ultimately, overgrazing and overstocking caused vegetation degradation, soil erosion, water pollution (from erosion and manure) and loss of biodiversity. This also altered the biodiversity of the region by altering the species composition and vegetation quality on grazing lands and in other natural areas (WRI, 2007). Conversion of high concentrates of wastes into bio-fuels (biogas) and manure is most appropriate to deal with the challenges of zero-grazing. However, no respondent had installed biogas plant due to high costs of installations and maintenance. Although most farmers collected the wastes to use as organic manure, the manure stayed outside for long periods losing its vital nutrients. Pollution of water sources from animal wastes was also a challenge. Most farmers preferred to use open water sources as opposed to designating watering points for the livestock.

The study gathered that farmers relied on poor arable land due to intensive farming. These marginal lands were characterized by low fertility, soil erosion, pests and rodents (UNEP, 2009). The major challenge was pollution from pesticides and fertilizers purchased with the credit from the community microfinance groups. Farmers used these chemicals to improve soil fertility and productivity of their crops. The challenge of these chemicals was inappropriate usage, storage and disposal which led to contamination of arable land and drinking water. This polluted water for downstream users and contaminated local sources of drinking water. The alternative was to use animal manure, legumes, living mulch and composts. 95% of the respondents used either organic or inorganic fertilizers.

81

The farm lands within the study area were characterized by shallow soils with low moisture content and poorly drained (sandy and clay soils). This coupled with low rainfall in the area severely limited agricultural productivity. As most farmers were resource poor, majority of them lacked facilities to harvest rain water for irrigation. Only 7% of the respondents harvested rain water. To help reduce water infiltration within the sandy soils farmers required water pans, yet majority of them did not have the resources to purchase them. A partly 7% used water pans. Inadequate access to clean drinking water and irrigation affects economic development. Women spent more time in search of water instead of IGAs which caused them to miss out on the group meetings as well as on their loan repayment schedules.

Other environmental interventions necessary for dealing with marginal lands are the application of low external input technologies such as: crop rotation; soil conservation structures such as terracing, and choice of suitable crops for specific terrain. Marginal land was subject to droughts or floods and was more likely to be affected by small changes in weather patterns. To most farmers, soil conservation was relevant only where the degraded land could be brought back to economic use and within their financial capabilities (Waswa, 2006).

Lack of adequate environmental conservation programs is a clear indication that environmental concerns were not a major concern for the institution of CBMFO. As clearly noted the environmental programs were mainly individual efforts. This explicitly indicates that the financial support of CBMFOs failed to capture the negative impacts emanating from activities supported by them and the related environmental challenges. Although most of these challenges were not obvious, the direct effects they had on the subsistence of community members such as low productivity was enough proof of the adverse effects of environmental challenges brought about by unsustainable agricultural practices. This study, therefore, strongly proposes for the financial support of sustainable environmental practices by CBMFOs. This calls for the integration of sustainable ideals and practices into various socio-economic activities supported by them. It is necessary to

82

link delivery of financial services to sustainable agricultural practices for the achievement of sustainable livelihoods, communities and environmental management.

4.7 The Role of Intermediary Microfinance Institutions and the Government in