Tana Delta Irrigation Project, Kenya: An Environmental Assessment

Rehabilitation of the Tana Delta Irrigation Project, Kenya: An Environmental Assessment.
2. Non-delivery of promised benefits from TARDA/TDIP that constituted a commitment on
TARDA’s part, in return for Hewani and Kulesa 2 agreeing to transfer (traditional)
ownership of prime village land to the TDIP, principally:
• Rice cultivation by the communities on the portion of village lands annexed by the
project, accompanied by sale of rice to TARDA at a fair market price. The expected
available area per household in Wema, for example, was 2 hectares.
• Building of schools and clinics.
• Building of a bridge over the Tana River connecting upper TDIP area (Sailoni) with
Garsen town, to assist with transport and market access.
• All-weather road connecting villages to main Malindi-Lamu highway, to assist with
transport and market access.
•
3. Arrogant attitude of TARDA towards villages :
• Whilst TARDA actions can and do impact negatively on village livelihoods, TARDA
neither consults with villages before taking action, nor informs villages when/after
taking action.
• TARDA does not pay casual workers in a timely manner, or always in cash as
agreed.
• TARDA only engages the villages when problems are encountered on TARDA’s part,
and does not take the subsequent views expressed by the community seriously.
• A benevolent attitude by TARDA towards communities is expected, given that TDIP
represents a development-focused project in a poverty-stricken area.
The only aspect in which TARDA has been seen to deliver benefits during the 15-year course
of the project was the pre-1997 El Nino period, where the TDIP provided significant casual
employment to villages, paid in a timely manner. Such a source of non-farm cash income
represented an important contribution to household livelihoods, particularly as an additional
coping strategy in dry-season periods of stress. However, since 1997, whilst the TDIP has
continued to employ villagers as casual labour (to a lesser degree), such employment is
considered to be of little value due to late (up to one year) and often partial payment; payment
in rice rather than needed cash; and the fact that the real value of casual employment is seen
as a coping strategy in periods of food stress – a strategy made relatively worthless in the
face of late payments.
One of the problems contributing to continued disaffection is the (apparent) lack of a written
‘contract’ between TARDA and the communities outlining the nature and details of the
relationship surrounding TDIP – certainly the communities have not aware of the existence of
such a document. Whilst
Other institutional relationships
Remaining institutional relationships – either positive or negative – are relatively undeveloped.
The greatest institutional influence is derived from village-based community organizations,
principally women, youth, and church groups – which are well represented in each village.
Many groups are involved in poultry propagation, whilst the youth groups play an active role in
HIV-AIDS education. However, many of these groups lack financial resources to meet
expectations (for example, women’s micro-finance “merry-go-round groups), however groups
appear to be active and motivated. There is little reliance on external organizations beyond
support from the region’s sizeable array of church denominations, including Catholic,
Anglican. Pentecostal, and Seventh-day Adventist amongst others.
Otherwise, a number of NGOs – principally CRS (Catholic Relief Services), Red Cross and
World Vision – have provided limited but significant help, principally with hand pumps (CRS,
Red Cross) and limited school bursaries (World Vision).
2 The case of Wema Village is different: Wema never agreed to transfer of its lands to the TDIP.
Whilst the TDIP did annex that part of Wema traditional lands, the project to date has never utilized
this land – in recognition of this fact.
15