ASSESSMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION TO
SUSTAINABILITY OF DONOR-FUNDED BOREHOLES IN ARID AND SEMI-ARID
LANDS OF POKOT SOUTH SUB-COUNTY, KENYA
By
Teresa Wasonga Karamunya (Bachelor of Education(Arts), Moi University)
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Postgraduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Master of Arts in Project Planning and
Management of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,Department of Social Sciemces
Kisii University
October 2018
1 DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis is my own original work and has not been presented to any other university.
Teresa Wasonga Karamunya
MAS17/60120/14
...... Signature Date This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as university supervisors.
...... ……...... Signature Date Prof. Edmond Were
Department of Social Sciences,
Kisii University
...... Signature Date Dr. Florence Anyonje
Lecturer,
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
Kisii University
i STUDENT DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis is my own original work and has not been presented to any other university.
Teresa Wasonga Karamunya
MAS17/60120/14
...... Signature Date This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as university supervisors.
...... ……...... Signature Date Prof. Edmond Were
Department of Social Sciences,
Kisii University
...... Signature Date Dr. Florence Anyonje
Lecturer,
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
Kisii University
ii PLAGIARISM DECLARATION
Definition of plagiarism
Is academic dishonesty which involves; taking and using the thoughts, writings, and inventions of another person as one's own.
DECLARATION BY STUDENT
i. I declare I have read and understood Kisii University rules and regulations, and other documents concerning academic dishonesty
ii. I do understand that ignorance of these rules and regulations is not an excuse for a violation of the said rules. iii. If I have any questions or doubts, I realize that it is my responsibility to keep seeking an answer until I understand.
iv. I understand I must do my own work.
v. I also understand that if I commit any act of academic dishonesty like plagiarism, my thesis/project can be assigned a fail grade (“F”) vi. I further understand I may be suspended or expelled from the University for Academic Dishonesty.
Name______Signature______
Reg. No______Date______
DECLARATION BY SUPERVISOR (S)
i. I/we declare that this thesis/project has been submitted to plagiarism detection service.
ii. The thesis/project contains less than 20% of plagiarized work.
iii iii. I/we hereby give consent for marking.
1. Name______Signature______
Affiliation ______Date______
2. Name______Signature______
Affiliation ______Date______
3. Name______Signature______
Affiliation ______Date______
DECLARATION OF NUMBER OF WORDS FOR MASTERS/PROJECT/ PHD THESES
iv This form should be signed by the candidate and the candidate’s supervisor (s) and returned to the Director of Postgraduate Studies at the same time as you submit copies of your thesis/project.
Please note at Kisii University Masters and PhD thesis shall comprise a piece of scholarly writing of not less than 20,000 words for the Masters degree and 50 000 words for the PhD degree. In both cases this length includes references, but excludes the bibliography and any appendices.
Where a candidate wishes to exceed or reduce the word limit for a thesis specified in the regulations, the candidate must enquire with the Director of Postgraduate about the procedures to be followed. Any such enquiries must be made at least 2 months before the submission of the thesis.
Please note in cases where students exceed/reduce the prescribed word limit set out, Director of Postgraduate may refer the thesis for resubmission requiring it to be shortened or lengthened.
Name of Candidate: …………… ……. ADM NO…………………………….
Faculty………………………………….. Department…………………………..
Thesis Title: .. …………………………………………………………………………………………………
I confirm that the word length of:
1) the thesis, including footnotes, is …………… 2) the bibliography is ………………
and, if applicable, 3) the appendices are ……………………………………………..
v I also declare the electronic version is identical to the final, hard bound copy of the thesis and corresponds with those on which the examiners based their recommendation for the award of the degree.
Signed: …………………………………… Date:…………………… …
(Candidate)
I confirm that the thesis submitted by the above-named candidate complies with the relevant word length specified in the School of Postgraduate and Commission of University Education regulations for the Masters and PhD Degrees.
Signed: ...... Email…………..… Tel………………….. Date:……………
(Supervisor 1)
Signed: ...... Email…………….. Tel………………….. Date:……………
(Supervisor 2) COPYRIGHT
All right are reserved. No part of this thesis herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author of Kisii University on that behalf.
© 2018, Teresa Wasonga Karamunya.
vi DEDICATION
I dedicate this piece of work to my lovely family members.
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Through the help of the following that have made this work a success; First, I’m indebted to my supervisors Prof. Edmond Were and Dr. Florence Anyonje for according me professional advice that motivated me to successfully develop this thesis. Secondly, I thank the university management for establishing a campus at Kapenguria that created an opportunity for me to pursue a Master of Arts Degree in Project Planning and
Management at the Campus. Third, I acknowledge the help of my family members especially my husband, Mr. John Karamunya for their financial and moral support. Last but not least, I wish to thank all other individuals not mentioned here who in one way or the other contributed to the development of this research proposal; may the Almighty
God Bless you.
viii Table of Contents STUDENT DECLARATION...... ii
PLAGARISM DECLARATION……………………………………………………….iii
NUMBER OF WORD DECLARATION………………………………………………. ……………………….iv
COPYRIGHT...... v
DEDICATION...... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...... vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES...... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS...... xiii
ABSTRACT...... xiv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION...... 1
1.1 Background of the Study...... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem...... 5
1.3 Significance of the Study...... 7
1.4 Purpose of the Study...... 8
1.5 Specific Objectives of the Study...... 8
1.6 Research Questions...... 8
1.7 Assumptions of the Study...... 9
1.8 Scope of the Study...... 9
ix 1.9 Limitations of the Study...... 9
1.10. Conceptual Framework...... 10
1.11 Definition of Operational Terms...... 12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW...... 13
2.0 Introduction...... 13
2.1 Water and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Drilled Boreholes...... 13
2.1.1 Water Resources...... 13
2.2 Cost Sharing Efforts and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Drilled Boreholes.....16
2.3 Level of Community Involvement and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes
...... 20
2.4 Community Organization, Leadership and Sustainability of Donor-Funded
Boreholes...... 27
2.5 Critical Review...... 33
2.6 Summary...... 35
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...... 37
3.1 Research Design...... 37
3.2 Study Area...... 38
3.3 Target Population...... 38
x 3.4 Sample Size...... 39
3.5 Sampling Design...... 39
3.6 Data Collection Instruments...... 40
3.6.1 Questionnaire...... 40
3.6.2: Interview...... 40
3.7 Reliability and Validity of Data Collection Instruments...... 41
3.7.1 Reliability of Data Collection Instruments...... 41
3.7.2 Validity of Data Collection Instruments...... 41
3.8. Procedures of Data Collection...... 41
3.9: Data Analysis Techniques...... 42
3.10: Ethical Considerations...... 42
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION,INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF
THE FINDINGS...... 44
4.1Introduction...... 44
4.2 Questionnaires Return Rate...... 45
4.3 Donor Funded Boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County...... 45
4.4Effect of Community’s Cost Sharing Efforts on Sustainability of Donor Funded
Boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County...... 50
xi 4.5 Level of Community Involvement and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes
...... 54
4.6 Community Organization and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes...... 58
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 64
5.1: Introduction...... 64
5.2: Summary of Findings...... 64
5.3 Conclusions...... 66
5.4 Recommendations...... 67
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research...... 68
REFERENCES...... 70
KIHBS. (2016). Water Sources in Kenya. Retrieved from: http://www.knbs.or.ke/pdf/Basic%20Report%20(Revised%20 on 6th March 2017..72
APENDICES...... 74
APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTORY LETTER...... 74
APPENDIX B: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSEHOLD HEADS....75
APPENDIX C: Map of Pokot South Sub-County...... 80
APPENDIX D: RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION...... 82
xii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study………………………………… 10
Table 4.1: Questionnaires return rate…………………………………………….. 33
Table 4.2 Main Source of Domestic Water……………………………………. 37
Table 4.3: Average number of Bore-holes the Respondents have ever come across 38
Table 4.4: The Funders/Drillers of the Bore-holes………………………………. 39
Table 4.5: State of the Existing Donor-Funded Boreholes……………………... 40
Table 4.6: Respondents’ Contribution towards Borehole Projects…………….. 41
Table 4.7: Whether the Respondents were Coerced or Forced to contribute... 43
Table 4.8: Reasons for Cost Sharing………………………………………… 44
Table 4.9: Rating of Respondents’ participation in Donor Funded Boreholes.. 46
Table 4.10: Whether the Respondent was Coerced or Forced to participate in Donor Funded Boreholes……………………………………………………………… 47
Table 4.11: Whether the Respondent Was Given Handouts or Goodies during Participation in Donor Funded Boreholes……………………………………….. 49
Table 4.12: People Charged with the Management of Donor Funded Boreholes…. 50
Table 4.13: Sources that Mandates the Donor Funded Borehole Management Team.51
Table 4.14: Whether if requested to be part of the Management Team the Respondent will accept……………………………………………………………………………52
Table 4.15: Reasons for Being Part of a Management Team……………………….53
xiii xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS
ACF…………. Association of Canadian Farmers.
ADB………. African Development Bank
AMREF……….. African Medical and Research Foundation
ANOVA……….. Analysis of Variance
ASAL………… Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
DV…………... Dependent Variable
GWP…………. Global Water Partners
IV…………… Independent Variable
KIHBS……… Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey
LSU…………. Louisiana State University
MV………… Mediating Variable
NACOSTI…… National Commission of Science, Technology and Innovation
SPSS………… Statistical Packages for Social Scientists
UNICEF…….. United Nations Child Education Funds
UN………….. United Nations
USD………… United States Dollar
xv WHO………. World Health Organizations
ABSTRACT
Access to water resources is a whole family concern, finding safe and clean water especially in arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL) in Kenya is a daily challenge for young boys, mothers and daughters who in most homes are tasked with sourcing and providing water for their family. Basing on this, the purpose of this study was to assess how community participation contributes to the sustainability of donor funded boreholes in ASAL areas in Kenya and especially in Pokot South Sub-County. More specifically, the study sought to establish the community’s cost sharing efforts regarding sustainability of donor funded boreholes, to assess the level of community involvement in sustainability of donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, and to establish the community organization structures put in place in relation to sustainability of donor-funded boreholes. This study is of benefit to the Pokot South Sub-County residents, donors and the government agencies as it sheds light on the mechanisms available as far as community participation and sustainability of the donor funded boreholes in the Sub- County is concerned. The study was justified on grounds that issues pertaining access to water resources especially in ASAL areas has not been focused so much despite them forming part of SDGs Based on the objectives of the study, a descriptive research design was adopted. Under it, a survey method was used to solicit information from the residents of Pokot South Sub-County. The data collection tool wasa research questionnaire which was administered to selected household heads in the Sub-County. The questionnaire contained both structured and unstructured questions. Purposive sampling and random sampling techniques were applied in picking the sample from the target population. The sample size comprised of 268 household heads. Each of the four Wards namely: Batei, Lelan, Chepareria and Chepgobegh provided 67 household heads for the study. Other data gathering methods that were adopted by the study are key informant interviews and focused group discussions with residents (who were not be picked for administration of questionnaire). The collected data was analyzed via the help of the Statistical Packages for Social Scientists (SPSS) and is presented in tables for ease of understanding.The study found out that the main sources of water were streams/rivers (44.8%) and borehole (35.7%). 65.8% of the sampled household heads in Pokot South Sub-County stated that they had at least come across an average of 10 boreholes in the area and only10.4% of them had seen at least 20 donor funded boreholes. The study also found out that 51.8% of the sampled residents said that the main financiers of the boreholes in the area were donors and that 53.9% of the donor funded boreholes were fully functional with the remaining ones being either in a state of disrepair (29.5%), vandalized (7.3%) or abandoned (6.7%). The findings show that 67.9% of the respondents had ever contributed towards the successful implementation of the said donor funded boreholes and the management of the said boreholes were vested upon village elders (39.3%) and area chiefs and sub-chiefs (35.4%) who either mandated themselves (26.4%) or were appointed by the donor of the said project (27.5%). The study recommends that there is an urgent need for the County Government of West Pokot and in collaboration with the national government to step up the exercise of providing safe drinking water to the
xvi residents of Pokot South Sub-County and other counties in ASAL as most ofthese population are in dire need of the commodity and most of them depend on unsafe sources.
xvii CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Providing reliable and safe water sources to the families in ASAL areas unlocks potential by lifting the burden off and sparing time for study and income generating activities thus improving the livelihood of the people in totality. This is because in nearly all the African traditions, mothers, young boys and daughters (girls) are tasked with sourcing and providing water resources for the family.
However, United Nations Child Education Fund (2012) observes that over 865 Million people in the world are in dire need of safe drinking water; this translating to 12.4% of the worlds’ population who are at risk of contracting water diseases and over 65% of this being the population from ASAL. However, the European Environmental Agency (2015) clearly indicates that most of the European countries rely so much on underground water for the provision of water resources for her citizens. In particular, various countries across
Europe such as Spain, Portugal and Britain have come up with clear strategies on how to increase water resources to her citizens and this have greatly increased the availability of the resources to the people who are in dire need of the same.
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2016)states that up to 360 Million United State dollars have been spent on building boreholes across African continent though most of them have been rendered useless because they are not maintained and/or fixed when they break down.
1 The report further points out that as a result, 50,000 water supply points are not functioning across rural and ASAL in Africa, [ CITATION Ann17 \l 1033 ]. The report indicates further that only one third of boreholes built by NGOs in Senegal's Kaolack region are working and 58% of boreholes in northern Ghana are in disrepair.
Kelly (2017) observes that in Katine sub-county in north-east Uganda in the year 2007, before the African Medical and Research Foundation and Farm-Africa began their development work in Katine, worms and other water parasites were found in the polluted water supply at the village of Abia, next to the Emuru swamp: this was due to a badly constructed and poorly maintained shallow well which was dug by a charity organization and was full of soil and animal faeces which was making local people sick. This made the
African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF) to come up with strategies on how to train local communities to operate and maintain the new safe water points that have been established in the sub-county.
KIBHS Survey 2015/2016 indicates that there is huge variation between rural and urban dwellers as far as provision of water resources is concerned. The survey categorically points out that while only 6.8% of urban residents are dependent on unsafe water sources,
42.3% of their rural counterparts are dependent on unsafe water sources with over 80% of rural dwellers in ASAL areas of West Pokot, Marakwet, Bomet, and Mwingi counties depending on sources of drinking water that are considered unsafe.Momanyi & Quyen Le
(2015) observe that Kenya as a country is limited by an annual renewable fresh water supply of only 647 cubic meters per capita and is thus classified as a water scarce country with barely 57% of her rural population having access to improved drinking water source.
2 This number is even worse in ASAL regions. This notion is supported by a survey of
National Water Services Strategy which sought to find out water and sanitation situation in the country and established that only 57% of households were using water from sources that are considered safe. Also, access to safe water was around 60% in the urban setting and this drops to as low as 20% in the slum areas where half of the urban population lives with a worse situation experienced in rural areas (KIBHS, 2016).
On the other hand, The Kenya Social Policy (2011) alludes that over half of Kenya’s households currently do not have access to safe drinking water and the proportion is higher among the poor populations. In urban areas for instance, large populations living in informal settlements within the towns and cities have no access at all to safe water. In rural areas, there are large disparities between geographic areas where in most ASAL counties (Pokot South Sub County included) less than 30% of the poor have access to safe water compared to some 60% in non-Arid and Semi-Arid Lands in the country.
However, Ababa (2015), notes that in 2013 development aid to Kenya stood at
770Million United State Dollars and had been rising steadily since the year 2012 mostly supporting several water projects though some of the projects were termed “successful” thus sustainable.
The legislation of The Water Act (2002) was a key achievement towards improving access to safe drinking water to most of Kenyan households. In many developing nations such as Kenya, provision of water resources is largely financed by the Government while the country herself depends on unsustainable flows of foreign aid from external donors
(UNICEF 2012).
3 In order to help address the ever-increasingneed for water in Kenya, several donors and well-wishers have initiated community water projects especially in Arid and Semi-Arid
Lands; Pokot South Sub County not spared. Despite the high number of water projects being initiated by donors, determination of sustainability has been pegged on how the projects are popular enough to attract further financial support after the incumbent donor has exited: this has been a hurdle as far as realization of sustainability of water projects to many Southern Sahara Governments and donors is concerned.
Mutonga (2015) in a study carried out in Kitui East Constituency on “Factors Influencing
Sustainability of Donor Funded Community Water Projects” acknowledges the importance of building institutions to support, strengthen and perpetuate technological innovations as far as sustainability of community projects is concerned. He asserts further that how key stakeholders define sustainability is crucial in setting the pace which is then used for measuring and understanding the determinant issues which may contribute to, or work against the likelihood of sustainability. However, Black (2010) observes that most individuals associate sustainability with financial aspect of the service delivery and the need to make projects self-sufficient. He faults this notion and points out that the low income earners in the communities should also be in-cooperated by basically highlighting and stating the need for them to contribute through cost-sharing.
TheAssociation of Canadian Farmers (2017) points out that reasons why many of the donor funded boreholes become unsustainable cannot be attributed to technical issues but rather to issues to do with their management, social relationships within the community herself and community dynamics.
4 In this case therefore, a post-ante assessment on sustainability of the said donor funded boreholes should take place after the project is completed so as to allow the local community to become self-reliant. This assessment needs to be carried out several years after the end of the project for a valid judgment as to the direction of the benefit stream and its sustainability. It is important therefore to exert extra effort to make sure that donor funded drilled borehole projects are sustained; to realize this, humanitarian actors preferably the community leaders should be honest with donors, other sector actors and communities. In addition, other stakeholders who are directly affected by the said water projects need to be aware of the challenges that are faced in trying to support the said boreholes and the additional challenges that are faced in vulnerable contexts. It was in this context that this research was set out.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The Water Act 2002 mandates water institutions and other stakeholders involved in provision of water, and final recipients to cooperatively share and actively participate in managing and conserving water resources (Government of Kenya, 2002). Thus, the law allows water management to create ways on how to increase the availability of resources by conserving the water catchment areas, drilling of boreholes through collaboration with well-wishers and other donors, and increase the usage of the available water resources for economic and social improvement.
Community participation is a necessary ingredient in sustainability of donor-funded projects and more specifically donor-funded boreholes in pre and post implementation phases of the project cycle.
5 However, in order to realize all this, it is eminent that that continued involvement
(through community participation) of the community members in each and every step of the water projects’ initiation and implementation will see its sustainability later after the donors have pulled out. In this case, the household heads and other local leaders need to actively participate in key decision-making and often be part of the community projects’ top planning team. They should also be made aware of the project costs, risks implications and time allowances. Further, community elites should be trained on various aspects of project maintenance so as to offer leadership and capacity build their fellow folks on the importance of the said donor-funded boreholes; the situstion that seams a mirage in the said Pokot South Sub-County.
On the other hand, the state of the already existing donor-funded borehole projects through cost sharing efforts as it is evidenced in Pokot South Sub-County tells a lot as far as sustainability of the projects in the region is concerned. Cases of abandoned, neglected and vandalized donor-funded boreholes clearly indicates a non-sustained project. This means that even drilling of more boreholes in the area without establishing the underlying factors of the already existing will not be of any good to the affected residents. As alluded by Wesonga (2015), sustainability of donor funded water projects in many countries
(County governments not withstanding) is always questionable and not guaranteed. Many donor funded borehole projects stall immediately after the funder’s and well-wishers withdrawal. There is therefore need to establish the reasons why such projects stall. In most cases, sustainability of donor-funded boreholes basically depends on the three factors namely financial factors, communities’ internal and external development which all fall under the umbrella of community participation.
6 However, little evidence is available on the whole issue of community participation and sustainability of donor funded borehole projects in ASAL areas[CITATION Dic13 \l 1033
]. The critical issue here is being the extent to which the projects are able to persist despite the exit of donors, while the beneficiaries appreciate their ownership role in the project. Apparently, it is community participation that spells the difference between success and failure of the said donor funded boreholes hence, the present study was set to assess how community participation contribute to the sustainability of donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
1.3 Significance of the Study
It is hoped that the findings of this study will help the Government and other Donor
Agencies involved in drilling boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County to gain an insight into the whole issue of community participation and sustainability of these projects.
Secondly, the findings of the study sheds light on recommendations to guarantee the sustainability through community participation on donor funded boreholes in the area.
Lastly, the study generates further researches into ways to improve the sustainability of water projects and help fasten the realization of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals
(United Nations, 2016) in the sense that other researchers and academicians wishing to take a simillar study either in the study area or other ASAL, will borrow a lot from this assessment as well as act as a reference point.
7 1.4 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to assess the contribution of community participation to the sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands in Pokot South
Sub-County.
1.5 Specific Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study were as follows:
i) To evaluate the effects of community’s cost sharing efforts on sustainability of
donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County. ii) To assess the level of community involvement in sustainability of donor-
funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County. iii) To analyze the effectiveness of community organization structures in relations
to sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
1.6 Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
i. How effective is community’s cost sharing efforts in regard to sustainability of
donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County? ii. How do the levels of community involvementinfluence sustainability of donor-
funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County? iii. How is the community organized for the sustainability of donor-funded boreholes
in Pokot South Sub-County?
1.7 Assumptions of the Study
This study made the following assumptions:-
i. There are donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
8 ii. All households in Pokot South Sub-County benefit from the donor-funded
boreholes in the region. iii. The household heads in Pokot South Sub-County will freely and openly provide
the information for this study.
1.8 Scope of the Study
This study was carried out in Pokot South Sub-County one of the four Sub-Counties in
West Pokot County. The study only focused on community participation and donor- funded boreholes within this sub-county. Only the household heads in the said Sub-
County participated in filling the questionnaire and key informantsin the said sub-county were interviewed. This helped to provide data for the study.
1.9 Limitations of the Study
The study faced the following limitations:
i. The respondents sampled were not quick in responding to the questionnaires and
interview schedule given the nature of the questioning which somehow touched
on their personal life.
ii. Some of the information required were deemed sensitive by the concerned
respondents and thus were denied as they thought the researcher was spying on
them.
To address these limitations, the researcher;
9 i. Explained the importance of this research especially to the respondents and
requested them to complete and submit the questionnaires on their own within the
stipulated time frame and at all-time ensured that interview appointments were
sought on time.
ii. Only collected data from sampled household heads in Pokot South Sub-County.
iii. Assured the respondents of confidentiality and that the data was for academic
purposes only.
1.10. Conceptual Framework
Independent Variable (IV) Mediating Variables (MV) Dependent Variable (DV)
Community Participation Sustainability of Donor-Funded o Cost Sharing Efforts Boreholes o Level of Community o Continuous Use Involvement o Maintenance of boreholes Community Organization o o Supervision and management of Structures. boreholes
o Community Culture o Government policy on sustainability
Fig. 1.1: Conceptual Framework (Source: Researcher 2017)
10 The conceptual framework was informed by the theory of community participation. As illustrated in figure 1.1 above, it is clear that sustainability of donor-funded boreholes greatly depends on the participation of community where the project is implemented. It has even been argued that most donors have initiated several water projects without involving the host community and only to hand the project back to the community members who are not in any case aware of how to maintain it; leave alone how to sustain.
Community participation takes a form of community involvement where each and every member willingly contributes his/her available resources towards the success of the water project. Through involvement, community members are able to own the borehole project as theirs and this reduces the chances of rejection thus facilitating the sustainability of the same. This can only be assured in cases where there is clear structures and organization in the said community. This in most cases involves issues to do with how the community is governed and the various community organizations available in the area.
However, factors such as community cultures may hinder the participation of community members thus negatively affecting the sustainability of the said donor funded boreholes.
For instance, most cultures consider underground water as demonic and as such, their participation in the said projects may not be guaranteed. On the other hand, continued use of the donor funded boreholes and community knowledge on how to maintain and repair them is a clear indication of its sustainability.
11 1.11 Definition of Operational Terms
In this study, the following terms are conceptualized and operationalized as follows:
Arid and Semi-Arid Lands: - this refers to areas that receive insufficient rainfall or even none at all annually.
Boreholes: - this refers to well-like water sources usually sunk deep in the ground.
Community Participation: - this refers to involvement of community members in initiated and donor-funded boreholes willingly without any form of coerce or prejudice.
Donors: - Refers to individuals and/or organization that provides mostly financial resources for implementation of boreholes.
Household: - this refers to members of a family who take meals prepared from the same kitchen.
Household Heads: - this is an individual or individuals who heads the homesteads.
Sustainability: - Refers to where community water projects are managed efficiently with adequate resources, beneficiaries are involved during project implementation and there is transparency in financial administration
12 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter dealt with the thorough review of the various scholars who have researched on community participation and sustainability of donor-funded boreholes. This review is divided into the following sections; concept of water resources and sustainability,
Community Cost Sharing Efforts and Sustainability of Donor-Funded boreholes, Level of
Community Involvement and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes, Community
Organization structures and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes, Critical Review of Literature Reviewed and summary on literature reviewed.
2.1 Water and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Drilled Boreholes
2.1.1 Water Resources
The use of improved sources of safe and adequate drinking water is globally high with
87% of the world population and 84% of the people in developing Countries getting their drinking-water from such sources by the year 2008 [ CITATION Joa11 \l 1033 ]. The author points out further that with the exception of oceanic water sources, African continent has the lowest water coverage in the world, thus the need for the provision of the water infrastructures to her citizens. However, the report indicates that in the year
2008, more than 60% of the African population had access to improved (in terms of drilled boreholes) sources of drinking-water signifying an increase of 11% points since
1990.
13 A report by the United Nations Child Education Fund (2008)points out that 884 million people in the world still do not presently get their drinking-water from improved sources with most of them being in developing nations. In particular, Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 330 million (39%) followed by Commonwealth of Independent States (26%) and Eastern Asia (18%). This further indicates a wide variation in country performance:
Mauritius and Egypt which leads with 99% of the population having access to improved water resources. This is closely followed by Botswana (95%), Gambia and Djibouti at
92% each. Important to point out are Ethiopia (38%), Mozambique (47%) and Mauritania
(49%) who are at the bottom as far as water sources are concerned which are also the three countries where access to improved water is still less than 50%.
However, [ CITATION Joa11 \l 1033 ] observes that there are huge rural-urban disparities as evidenced in African Continent as far as water is concerned. He cites an instance where drinking water coverage for rural areas in Africa increased slightly from 36% in the year 2000 to 47% in 2008 and the population with access to piped water which marginally increased from a dismal 4% to 5% in the same period. These compared with urban areas which experienced a marginal decline from 83% to 82% between 2000 and
2008 which is barely keeping pace with population growth in these areas; thus implying that most of those accessing improved water sources are in urban areas.
The World Health Organizations in conjunctions with United Nations Child Education
Fund (2008) categorically states that about 18% of Sub-Saharan Africa, Kenya not excluded population heavily relies on a source of drinking water that in most cases despite it being improved, is still more than 30 minutes water collection trek.
14 It singles out countries notably in Eastern Africa where more than a quarter of the population spends more than half an hour per round trip to collect water resources. It is also in these areas where due to strict cultures, women shoulder the bulk of the water collection responsibility and it often takes considerable time to fetch the water.
Borrowing from the United Nation’s report on “Water Crisis in Kenya”, [ CITATION
Sny17 \l 1033 ] observes that there are myriad issues surrounding the smoother provision of the resources to over 36.6 million Kenyans. This can be attributed to the fact that only a small percentage of the Kenya’s land is optimal for agricultural activity and a predominantly arid land. The report keenly points out that even though the country has various natural water resources, they (water resources) are inequitably distributed in all areas of the country and this leaves most of the population without any fresh water.
Moreover, with the rapid urbanization experienced in the country, most of the poor urban dwellers have been pushed to the slums where there is no water or adequate sanitation facilities. The country has also a unique political environment that has seen the segregation of areas described as private and sectors where investors are discouraged from developing such as swampy places: these policies have hampered the development of water infrastructures in that, there is no room for piping, sanitations and tanker services.
2.1.2: Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes
Matthias et al, (2010) describes sustainability in terms of a development that is capable to cover the immediate needs for an intact environment, social justice and economic
15 prosperity of the society/community without limiting the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
It should be understood that the preservation of the natural environment is a prerequisite for a well-functioning economic structure and social justice system; thus, it is necessary to bring the three pillars of sustainability namely environment, economy and social well-being in harmony in all areas of life.
Eyerer (1996) observes that economic dimension of sustainability has a variety of approaches for the calculation of cost and performance. The economic sustainability is usually done by considering manufacturing costs and life cycle costs. Thus in the case of donor funded water projects, this has to do with the cost of putting up the water project and the usage cost after the project’s completion. The social dimension of sustainability in most cases indicates the impact of a project, product or process on the societal members. The social benefits in this case can be estimated by analyzing the effects of the project on stakeholders at local, national and global levels (Global
Reporting Initiative, 2002). On the other hand, environmental sustainability is correctly conceptualized by focusing on its bio geophysical aspects; thus, maintaining and/or improving the integrity and use of the Earth's life supporting systems to future generations, [ CITATION Bed12 \l 1033 ].
2.2 Cost Sharing Efforts and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Drilled Boreholes
Dehez & Tellone (2013) asserts that cost sharing may be understood as that portion of project or program costs that is not borne by the funding agency. The authors further states that this includes all contributions, including cash and in-kind, that a recipient
16 makes to an award towards the completion and maintenance of the intended projects’ objectives.
In the case of donor funded drilled boreholes in Pokot South Sub County, the cost sharing aspect can be brought in instances where the local community members willingly donates their land for the purposes of projects construction, offer free accommodation services to the technicians and other individuals involved in the project implementations and where possible contribute some cash towards maintenance of the water projects. It is also important to note that cost sharing effort by all the stakeholders is included in the calculation of total committed effort by the donor, in this case therefore, effort can be defined as that portion of time spent on a particular activity within the project expressed as a percentage of the member’s total activity for the project.
For effective continuous use of the donor-funded boreholes in Tanzania which was estimated to a lifespan of approximately 30 years, community members were required to contribute a monthly fee of TSHs. 400 for 10 years to cover the cost of maintenance and replacement of hand pump cylinders and pump heads, (Heysom, 2006). This is one way of cost-sharing efforts where community members willingly devote little coins towards the smooth use of the donor funded boreholes.
Integrated Marketing Communications (2013) proposes the following five models which may be adopted by different stakeholders during the cost-sharing efforts. They are first,
Per Use Basis model which is best used for services that allows for billing based on each and every stakeholders use of the service; in this case, entrepreneurs such as water vendors and other individuals in the society who consume more water to be billed
17 differently from those who use less water. Secondly is Tax Assessment Model which is based on the stakeholders’ capacity to generate revenue as per the standardized property value or from their tax base, perhaps the use of toll services.
Third, the use of Equal Share Model where the cost of the project is shared equally among the available stakeholders. Fourth, Per Capita Model which emphasizes on sharing the cost of the project based on the beneficiaries from either side; for instance, since the community may not have resources to build the boreholes as a result of rampart poverty, they may be required to provide manual labour and be valued as contribution and lastly, Mixed Model where the contribution is not constant but based on the capacity of the stakeholder at different times of the project implementation.
However, Bhalla (2002) asserts that there is no single model for cost-sharing that is ideal for all situations in a project. He further notes that different models of cost-sharing may be more or less appropriate in different situations and with different sets of stakeholders.
In order to settle on a suitable cost-sharing model various factors such as considering whether the model can be executed through simple agreements, whether it requires a lengthy approval process by all stakeholders involved in drilling boreholes or not, whether the model settled upon will address the existing borehole projects alone or any other new borehole projects that may emerge on the way based on the need of the community and/or whether the cost-sharing entities will rely heavily on government agencies or non-profit organizations as their key administrative units.
Morerover, Lousiana State University (2016) categorizes the following expenditures that should not be included in the cost sharing strategies. Key among them include: the
18 unallowable costs as the costs not included in the projects proposals for instance entertainment and refreshments expenses among others.
Also, community facilities such as social hall spaces or community lands should not be included, it should be understood that the proposal drafter should take care of this for sponsored agreements not in any way to commit the use of facilities as cost sharing, but rather to characterize them as available for the performance of the sponsored agreement at no direct cost to the project and lastly, depreciation of community funded equipment and bank overdrafts may not be considered cost sharing for the purposes of fulfilling a cost sharing commitment. Thus, for sustainability of donor funded drilled boreholes in
Pokot South Sub County, in no instance should these factors be pledged as a commitment for the implementation of the projects. The donors and other stakeholders need to be aware of these factors and avoid them as much as possible.
For effective cost sharing strategies, Davis (2015) proposes the following requirenments which includes but not limited to first, the donor funds are provided to cater for expenses that directly benefit the project; in this case, the provision of the sinking machines, pipes and technical know-how should be provided by the donor drilling the boreholes.
Secondly, the cost shared expenses for each donor funded drilled borehole need to be documented whether in kind or cash. Third, allowable costs need to be timely and accurately documented as well as all the cost shared expenses incurred or services required should be rendered during the period of award. Fourth, all the records for cost sharing which includes direct costs should be retained for the same period as the records for the related sponsored agreement and lastly, in-kind cost sharing should be properly valued based on the (fair market) value added to the projects.
19 2.3 Level of Community Involvement and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes
Community involvement and engagement is the processess of engaging in dialogues and lengthy and collective collaborations with all the community members who are otherwise either directly or indirectly affected by the water project being implemented. In this case, all the community members in Pokot South Sub County who are beneficieries of donor funded boreholes. As alluded by United States (2016), this process often involves the advocating and strenghtening an early and meaningful community paticipation during various stages of the project planning, design, implementations, monitoring and evaluation activities. For effective and efficient use of the community involvement strategies and efforts, a community involvement toolkit information need to be deviced that will aide all the activities of the community members. The toolkit often provides the participating teams (Community members, donnors and other key participants) with a practical easy to useaid for scheming and enhancing community involvement undertakings.
The toolkit often describes an activity and/or resources needed that various partcipating teams may utilise to actively and correctly inform the community members. The kits offer a tangible explanations on how and when the activity or a resource can adquately be utilised in the whole entire process. The kit should also provide tips on using the tool and where possible provide footnotes it is required by various country laws and regulations,
(United States, 2016)
20 To attain high levels of community involvement in community water projects (donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County), a community advisory groups need to be devoiced so as to guide and engage all the beneficieries. This advisory committee should be made up of representatives of diverse community interests. These groups often provides a public forum for community members to present and discuss their dire needs and concerns related to donor funded boreholes. They even assists community members in making better decisions on how to effectively realise the projects objective and goals.This forum also provides a unique and special opportunity to hear and seriously consider community preferences for project implementation, United States, 2016)
Social Pin Point (2017) alludes that involving community member in the projects’ life cycle results in first, valueing the community members’ opinions in that in most cases, most of the decision makers often genuinly wants to hear and appreciate the members ideas and feedbacks concerning the ongoing water projects: this is based on the fact that
Community involvement and/or engagement is a vivacious part of many community projects and the paybacks of it are well renowned and as such, they include and not limited to better output for all major players, it promotes a sense of community ownership in the project and often lowers project costs. It needs to be understood that effective community involvement is about knowing that engaging the public in a project
(in this case donor funded boreholes) is not about information diffusion and telling the masses/community what is being done or what need to be done, but rather a two-way information allotmentapparatus. It is vital to point out thatregardless of the community members academic qualifications, each of them are aware of their preferences and as a result has an opinion on what needs to be done and where priorities should be based.
21 Secondly involving community members in a community water project often results in to a wider perspective and broader elaboration of ideas. This is based on the notion that if one of the community members opinion varies to the more common ones, decision makers may want to get to know the other side of the story so as to make a balanced consideration of the community's views. In this sense therefore, any additional perspective results into varied options which in turn enhance the value of the final decision. Important to point out that the more diverse views collected in the course of making a choice, the higher chances that the final creation will meet the most felt needs and address the dire concerns possible thus sustainability of the said donor funded boreholes in the said county will be assured.
Third, there is a sense of community ownership and benefit. It need to be understood that when the community is involved in a donor funded borehole, they often have ownership of it and in the whole decision making process. This process is key to a fruitful project ending, even if not all individuals automaticallyapprove the outcome. This in turn aides in the sustainability of the same projects.
Fourth, Black (2010) points out that when completing the entire process of project implementation and each and every community members can actually see the fruits of their labour, this stimulates them and creates a sense of encouragement where the members know that they were involved in something that benefits them as a whole, thus sustaining such a project is stress-free.
Lastly, involving community members in the projects execution and implementations often offers new information on a project that has yet to be deliberated.
22 Community involvement brings about more evidence to the decision, including scientific or technical knowledge, knowledge about the situation where results are implemented, history and people behind it. Providing a lot of information can make the variance between otherwise good and poor decision, [ CITATION Ari11 \l 1033 ].
Catley & Leyland(2011) observe that lack of common understanding of community involvement process hinders the comparison of experiences between different projects and this may lead to false hopes regarding how community participation should be used and what it might deliver as far as sustainability of donor funded drilled boreholes in
Pokot South Sub County is concerned. In this regard therefore, community participation and involvement is a process through which stakeholders’ influence and share control over development initiatives, decision making and resources allocation. Moraa, Otieno &
Salim (2012) says that there are two broad dimensions of citizen participation and involvement in water resources namely, direct and indirect. Direct involvement and participation entails and put its emphasis on the citizens who are the owners of the government and therefore, should be involved in the decisions of the State affairs as far as water resources is concerned and indirect involvement and participation acknowledges and puts its emphasis on the electoral officials and professional administrators to act on behalf of the electorate in a representative democracy.
In a study by Tosun (2010) who sought to establish limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries, using a descriptive study design, he found out that there are indeed operational, structural and cultural issues that limits to community participation in the Tourism Development Program in many developing countries although they didn’t equally exist in every destination.
23 Thus, borrowing from this findings, the sustainability of donor funded drilled boreholes in Pokot South Sub County which largely depends on the participation of the community members may also fall prey to this. It therefore calls for a prior identification of these limitations and where possible seek amicable approaches to mitigate them before the setting up of the said projects in the county: such approaches may require a total paradigm change in socio-political, administrative and economic structure of the community for which hard political choices and logical decisions based on cumbersome social, economic and environmental trade-offs has to be adapted and be manifested.
24 In a study by Choguill (2011) on“A Ladder of Community Participation for
Underdeveloped Countries”, the researcher aptly identifies various levelsof community participation which are arranged in the form of a ladder starting with (composed of) empowerment where members benefit directly from the activity either materially, financially or in terms of know how that is considered beneficial to immediate individual aspirations; partnership where individual members feel a sense of mutual interdependence between them; conciliation where togetherness is based on societal moral good; dissimulation which has to do with the way the participating members get along with one another; diplomacy where matters pertaining there associations are based on diplomatic principle other than prejudice and other forms of coerce; informing where the individual members are fully aware of any information that pertains the projects as well as conspiracy and self-management of the individual members. Thus, when analyzing community participation as a pillar in sustainability of donor funded drilled boreholes in Pokot South Sub County, a “ladder” of community participation and involvement need not be neglected as it greatly determines the success of the said project.
Also, community members need to be made aware of the stage they’re in as far as the ladder is concerned and be made to accept their current situation.
25 However, in a separate study by Dunn(2006) who sought to asses the Process of
Evaluating Community Participation in health sectors in developing nations, proposes that as far as community participation is concerned, to make it a success, a clear and a better understanding of various issues is required so as to ensure that community participation is valued by all the stakeholders involved and is used effectively to plan and implement the donor funded initiatives and this calls for provision of adequate and correct answers to the following questions such as who participates and why; what are the benefits and challenges of community member participation; what qualitative and quantitative methods are used in process evaluations to measure the community member participation and what measures can be used to help define the influence of community participation in community-based interventions? Thus, any attempts that refutes this processes as far as sustainability of donor funded drilled boreholes in Pokot South Sub
County is concerned prepares a battle field for its failure to achieve the intended purpose after the donors exit.
For successive implementation and execution of community members’ involvement,
Manley (2017) proposes the following seven steps. They are first, Identification of the
‘community’. Here, the donor needs to understand the requirements and needs of the local people to participate in this case the residents of Pokot South Sub-County; Assess community interests and support early; if possible identify and profile all the available stakeholders as far as donor funded boreholes are concerned and make sure that all the elected officials are aware of their activities.
The second step involves the distribution of the maideninformation at the proposal phase.
This basically entails sending out preliminary information about the donor funded
26 borehole projects to each and every community member on the donors’ contact list. In the third step, the donors and/or implementers review the donor funded borehole projects proposal with community members before developing a detailed development of the project, thereafter, an organization and coordination of a face-to-face meetings with community members so as to present to themthe said project proposal is made and this is basically to assist in obtaining of their dire demands, anxieties, desires, discernments, acumens, mattersdemanding resolution and probableelucidations before the implementation of the said project. The fourth Step involves the preparation and review of various options that can aide in addressing the raised community concerns; summarizing the identified community’s concerns, wants and issues and preparation of an array of potential vital options or solutions to address these. At this step also, a review of possible options and solutions with community members need to be conducted as this provides opportunities to clarify and expand the options available for exploitation. Fifth, the donors and/or project implementers makes use of community involvement outcomes to come up with various preferred options or solutions. Where possible and if feasible, they incorporate the results of community participation (Steps 3 and 4) into the design and implementation of the project. Lastly in step six an elaborate plan for ongoing community involvement that is vested upon good practice by any designer is to demonstrate that there will be a continuing community involvement and monitoring of the donor funded borehole project once it’s operating. This basically can be supported through a Good Neighbour Agreement.
This is an agreement that the donor/implementer prepares, with participation by the community to guide the member involvements. This agreement identifies long term
27 community needs and how they will be addressed once the donor funded borehole projects are completed.
2.4 Community Organization, Leadership and Sustainability of Donor-Funded
Boreholes
Community organization usually encompasses an array of actions at the community level directed at conveying about preferred enhancement in the communal good fortune of entities, assemblages and the neighbourhoods. In most cases, these incorporates both community based organizations working as civil society which are non-profit making entities and also as a utility of organizing within communities defined by their geographical placement, common/shared working environment, possessing of common experiences and/or concerns; in this case all the individuals are affected either directly or indirectly with the donor funded boreholes in Pokot South sub county.
Talway (2013) observes that for effective community organization and leadership work, the following steps need to be followed to later. They are, first, the community members need to be consciousness of needs and wants, then, the members need to spreading the consciousness of need/wants to other members of the society who aren’t aware of the same. The next step involves the projection of consciousness of need/wants and how it can be solved.
Then, the emotional impulse to meet the need quickly need to be devised and presentation of other alternative and appropriate solutions to the need or wants of the community and where possible try and establish the conflict of solutions settled upon
28 which is followed closely with the process of investigation and open discussion of issues with the entire community members and integration of selected best alternative options emanating from the dialogue and discussions which in turn results to a compromise on the basis of tentative programme and in this case, the donor funded boreholes.
As conceptualized by Murray (2010) community organization is a course by which a communal pinpoints its wants or intentions, provides priorities to them, cultivates the buoyancy and will to work at them, identifies resources (both from within the community itself and/or from without the community- in this case donors) to deal with them, and in undertaking so, lengthens and cultivatesmutual co-cooperative and collectiveassertiveness and practices in the community.
Further, for the success of community organizations and leadership among the residents of Pokot South Sub County that will in turn see the sustainability of Donor Funded borehole projects in the area, the following seven principles need to be adhered to by the front runners perpetuating or spearheading the projects. These are: first, the principle ofactivism. This is vested on individual pursuits to get things done. In other words when an individual takes an initiative to create a transformation and in this case where an individual takes lead in organizing his/her fellow community members in working together towards the sustainability of donor funded borehole projects. Secondly, the principle of relationships where in order to organize people, one need to know and understand them well.
Keenness should be vested on knowing who the community members are, what they care most about, what they are freely willing to do without coerce or force, and how to get in
29 touch with them in cases of consultations. Further, the community members also need to know the persons/individual organizing for them. In short, the organizer need to always create/build and maintain a relationship with the community members. The organizer also need to meet people where they are or well they reside and not where he/she may want to meet them. By meeting the community members in where they are, the organizer is able to know whatthe community may be knowing,what they care about most and who they hope for and their greatest fear. Fourth, is the situation where the organizer need toidentify and defines achievement in their own terms and develops mechanisms to move forward toward jubilation. This based on the fact that, in cases where one fails to do so, the other party may take precedence and conceptualize it as they may think. Fifth is the need to focus on action, this is by making sure that the organizer always has something that the community members are always engaging in. by doing so, their awareness is raised and in turn the people freely and willingly participates in the donor funded borehole projects. Sixth, the principle where one getsan action done by asking for it.In order for people to work, you must ask for it and lastly, the principle of diverse and inclusive coalitions are always taken stronger
Murray (2010) sees community organization as an autonomous mechanism to generate a sustained social desired and required change. This therefore implies that for the sustainability of donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, the community members to be organized in such a way that they are actively involved in the said project for it to be sustained and be used in lengthy.
30 This is so as it is a process by which individuals whether in groups or not identify needs and take appropriate actions towards realizing of the said needs which in turn develops a shared co-operative attitudes and practice.
In a study by John (2007) on “a critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: from philanthropy to partnerships”, he suggests that the best form of partnership/involvementepitomizes a shift towards a non-linear business model. In other word, it is the process of moving away from aresult towards a coursepositioning. He identifies three issueshabituating the efficaciousexecution and sustainability of community involvement which are allallied with the previous restrictions of transactional methodologies of interface. He finally affirms that through community involvement exercises, the process contributes to the upsurge of institutional expectancy among organizations and across sectors. The process also assists in harmonizing the subtletiesathwartall thesectors in the community and lastly, the participants who are communitymembers are able to understand and appreciate the process of interaction as a source of benefits in totality.
It need to be understood that when community members work together towards a community goal, this usually makes them understand the community contexts which is often characterized by a shared community planning, community action and mobilization, promotion of community change which influences the larger community system. These organizations are not for profit making any coin raised by community members through cost sharing often goes back into supporting various activities of the organizations.
31 As alluded by Hall (2013), quoting the definition by Global Reporting Initiative(2000), leadership is conceptualized as “the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services at different levels of the society…”Thus, for effective sustainability of water resources (in this case drilled boreholes in Pokot South Sub
County) water leadership solely relies on political outfit of the region which entails embracing the relationship between local leadership and the affected needy people in the society through allocation and regulation of the said donor funded water projects.
As part of the water management strategies in Singapore which depends mostly on importation of the said commodity from Malaysia, Tortajadaa (2007) found out that in order to reduce the overdependence of water supply from external sources, the Singapore government had to develop and implement extremely efficient demands and supply management practices. Through well elaborated strategies, the government successfully managed to find the right balances between water quantity and water quality for her citizens. The country also managed to strike a balance between water supply sources and water demand management in all the cities and villages. Also, there were clear elaborated and structured public sector cum private sector participations in dealing with water management and sustainability of the already constructed water infrastructures in the country and lastly, issues of water efficiency and equity considerations among her citizens were also not left out. Its therefore important to allude that for proper and effective leadership as far as donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
32 The donors and the local cum County governments of the day need to successfully assure and manage the right balances between the drilled boreholes’ water quantity and water quality to the targeted communities; this will see the citizens value the said projects and thus facilitate its availability and sustainability long after the donors and government has pulled out of the projects.
In a study by Pérez-Foguet (2010) sought to establish some of the challenges for effective leadership of rural water services in sub-Saharan Africa. Using the rural households in
Tanzania which was taken as a case study, the researcher found out that among the challenges identified, low quality of water services to the local folks, lack of sustainability of constructed and initiated water infrastructures in this case drilled borehole, difficulties for targeting the poor and the needy people in the rural setups and inadequate internal information systems within the rural folks were the major issues impacting on the good governance of the water sources. This study contributes heavily on the underlying issues surrounding the availability and sustainability of donor funded drilled boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
For sustainable donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, the local dwellers who in this case are the needy should be involved in the whole issues of water leadership.
In particular, the local residents need to have access to good quality water services that will see them not suffer with cases of water diseases and which also need to be in larger quantities. It is also imperative for the community members to be made aware of how to sustain the already constructed and initiated donor funded water projects.
33 The rural community should also have adequate internal information systems which ensure that each and every member of the society is made aware of said community donor funded water projects[ CITATION AJi10 \l 1033 ].
In a study by Adhiambo (2012) who sought to establish factors affecting the effectiveness of donor funded projects in promoting development in Kibera slum, using a sample of
150 household heads and descriptive survey design found out that most of the donor funded projects were supervised by the chairpersons and the other organs indicating that the community was under represented in supervision of the said donor funded projects.
However, in the normal circumstances where sustainability is key, the best approach is one where all the primary beneficiaries (especially community members) are fully involved in the projects design, planning, implementing and monitoring; it is this kind of involvement in governance of the donor funded water projects that will bind all those involved in the projects and make them accountable to each other and will ensure continuity and sustainability of their undertakings.
2.5 Critical Review
It is critical to point out here that, other factors which may affect sustainability of donor- funded boreholes and which are not covered by this assessment include environmental issues which may adversely impact on the quantity and quality of water such as degradation of the catchment area which may lead to drying up of the source thus reduction of water production. Pollution of donor-funded boreholes by both minerals and bacteriological contamination may affect odour, colour and taste of water and this may lead to community members’ abandonment of source.
34 On the other hand, policy context such as government policy on sustainability may also have a direct contribution on the sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Arid and
Semi-Arid lands in the country. For instance, the Water Act 2002 says that Water Service
Boards are the asset holders as far as management of community water resources are concerned rather than community members and/or water service providers who own, operate and maintain the said water sources.
This review has espoused that most of the studies reviewed have focused so much on analyzing the theoretical and empirical aspects of providing safe drinking water to the world’s over 865 Million people who still lack access to this prime commodity. In practical examples most scholars have analyzed and profiled various donors based on their willingness, strengths and short comings of their donations, the areas (region) covered and type of donation advanced to the concerned community. However, in a study by Ababa (2013), who sought to establish the “State of Development of Aid in Kenya”, aptly recommends that further investigations need to be devised to elaborate on what are the major reasons behind the labeling of most donor funded projects in the country as
“success”. In his critical analysis, he categorically says that this will greatly address some of the unseen factors as that may result from the implementers’ report which in most cases cater for the interests of the funding agencies and not the recipients as far as the community projects are concerned.
35 2.6 Summary
The review of literature from various scholars has revealed that over 80% of rural dwellers in ASAL areas of West Pokot, Marakwet, Laikipia, and Mwingi counties depend on sources of drinking water that are considered unsafe. On the other hand, about 18% of
Sub-Saharan Africa population heavily relies on a source of drinking water that in most cases despite it being improved, is still more than 30 minutes water collection trek. This has led to various foreign and local donors coming up with initiatives of providing safe drinking water to the community members through drilling of boreholes in ASAL areas.
The literature reviewed has also established that governance and ownership of the donor funded drilled boreholes is a major pillar of sustainability of the said project. In particular, the Malaysian government took a lead in organizing and setting strategies on how to effectively manage the availability of water resources in the country. Another pillar as identified is the level of community participation and in particular, a clear and elaborate understanding of what entails the notion “community participation” need to be devised in order to measure the benefits accruing from it. The review has also identified that there are operational, structural and cultural issues that may limit community participation. Lastly, the stages of community participation are categorized in form of a ladder where successive steps are strongly depended on the preceding ones.
Finally, the review has also identified that key to sustainability of donor funded drilled boreholes depend on the cost sharing efforts set aside by the project implementers.
36 Various expenditures such as community facilities, bank overdrafts and unallowable costs need not be included under cost sharing awards.
37 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter specifically looks at the methodological procedures that were used in the research process in order to meet the objectives of this study. It specifically focuses on the following concepts: research design, study area, target population, sample size and sampling procedures, research instruments, reliability and validity of data collection tools, data collection procedures and methods of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
This study employed a descriptive research design majorly survey which focused on analyzing community participation and sustainability of donor funded boreholes in arid and semi-arid lands in Kenya and specifically Pokot South Sub-County. This study design was chosen as it deeply and vividly examined the conditions of the local people/residents in terms of their knowledge on the said donor funded boreholes, their attitudes towards the implementation and sustainability of the said donor-funded boreholes.The residents behavior towards the use of the said donor-funded boreholes and their perceptions as afar as the existence and use of the donor funded boreholes (Kothari, 2014) in Pokot South
Sub-County and the findings may be generalized and be said to be the case in other Arid and Semi-Arid Lands in the Country and far beyond.
38 3.2 Study Area
This study was carried out in Pokot South Sub-County, which is among the four sub counties in West Pokot County, and it lies in the Rift Valley region (Google Map, 2017).
The Sub-County borders West Pokot Sub County to the West and South, Elgeyo
Marakwet County and Baringo County to the South East. The Sub-County covers an area of 467 square kilometers and it’s headquarter is in Chepareria town (see the map attached as appendix C). The sub county is situated in ASAL area with an annual rainfall of less than 679 mm. Thus forcing most of the population to depend on other means and ways of meeting their daily water requirements.The sub-county has an average of 50 boreholes with more than two thirds being donor funded. The boreholes are spread over the sub county with an average time taken to fetch water on a round trip by the local residents being 2 hours, (West Pokot County Report, 2016). The total population of the Sub-
County according to 2009 Census is approximately 132 100 people stratified in 24,163 households and the main ethnic group being the Pokots. The key economic activities of the people in the Sub-County include; white collar professionals, pastoralists, peasantry farmers and business people.
3.3 Target Population
Population in research basically refers to a group of things, subjects or events that have common observable characteristics. The target population of this study wasdrawn from
24,164 households of Pokot South Sub-County (GoK, 2009) who hadlived in the Sub-
County for not less than five years from which a sample was drawn.
39 Other key informants to this study who were purposely targeted included members of county assembly, area chief and sub-chiefs, Member of Parliament and non-governmental organizations that dealt with provision of water in the sub-county.
3.4 Sample Size
The sample size from the Sub-Countywas determined using the raosoft sample calculator
(available at http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html using a marginal error of 5%, confidence level of 90% and the response distribution of 50 %.) which gives 268 household heads which were sourced from all the 4 Wards in the Sub-County. This is because, given the nature and time limits of the study, 268 household heads were sufficient to provide the information required to meet the objectives of the study.
3.5 Sampling Design
The population of this study was heterogeneous in nature as it consisted of both male and female household heads. The study used both purposive sampling and random sampling.
The researcher used purposive sampling designs to select the perceived household heads, members of county assembly, chiefs and sub chiefs, and leaders of non-governmental organizations that dealt with water provisions from each of the four Wards and Member of Parliament; this technique was used basically to identify only the required household heads to participate in the research based on the purpose of the survey [ CITATION
Kot14 \l 1033 ]. Thereafter, systematic random sampling was employed to identify the respondents from the Wards to participate in the sample.
40 This method of random sampling was used so as to give each and every individual of the population an equal and independent chance of being included in the survey.
3.6 Data Collection Instruments
In order to realize the objectives of this study, data was collected using: Questionnaire and Interviews
3.6.1 Questionnaire
The study questionnaire was constructed in such a way that it gatheredboth quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data was collected by asking the respondents to provide exact responses whereas qualitative data was captured through questions that gave the respondents chances to vividly explain themselves. The research questionnaire was used to collect data from the household heads in Pokot South Sub-County. The questionnaires focused on gathering information on the sustainability of donor funded boreholes in the
Sub-County. This method of data collection was chosen as it necessitated the protection of privacy of the participants and their confidentiality was also assured. The use of questionnaires also provided a lot of information within a short time hence saving on time and costs and the information therein can be used as a future reference. The study made use of the research questions and the conceptual framework to formulate the questionnaire.
3.6.2: Interview
The researcher also used an interview schedule (oral administration of questionnaire) so as to capture information that may have not been covered by the questionnaire[ CITATION Kot14 \l 1033 ].
41 The standardized interview schedule was used to collect valuable information from the selected residents for this study. Interview sessions were pre-arranged and the researcher interviewed each of the sampled members of county assembly, Member of Parliament and area chiefs and sub chiefs. The interviews were held at places convenient to the interviewees. The interviewees were allowed to discuss freely issues to do with donor funded boreholes and the general suggestions on its sustainability was also sought.
3.7 Reliability and Validity of Data Collection Instruments
3.7.1 Reliability of Data Collection Instruments
The university supervisors and the defense panelist evaluated the data collection tools to ascertain whether they covered and measured all the objectives of the study. This activity included the typology of the questions, question format and type.
3.7.2 Validity of Data Collection Instruments
The validity of the data collection tools was assessed through split half method
[ CITATION Mug03 \l 1033 ]. This was carried out during the piloting of the questionnaire, whichwas carried out in the nearby West Pokot Sub-County, which has the same characteristics as the target Pokot South Sub-County. This process gathered the views of the respondents concerning the data collection tools and their input were also sought on various issues they felt need either to be included or excluded from the data collection tools.
3.8. Procedures of Data Collection
The researcher personally delivered the questionnaires to the sampled household heads assisted by three research assistants.
42 Once delivered, the respondents were given questionnaires and expected to respond to them in the presence of the researcher and/or research assistant given the educational status of the residents, as a large number of them were illiterate. The team then collected back the filled-in questionnaires and continued with the exercise until all the sampled resident households were covered. This was because this method of questionnaire administration often offers a 100% response rate [ CITATION Nug10 \l 1033 ]. The researcheralso held interviews with other key informants at a place convenient to them purposely to supplement the information given in the questionnaires.
3.9: Data Analysis Techniques
The collected data was first cleaned, sorted and collated. Then, was entered into the computer generated program (MS Excel), after which analysis was done with the help of
Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS version 22.0). Descriptive statistics such as mean score, frequencies and percentages for each variable was calculated and tabulated using frequency distribution tables. The analyzed data is presented in tables for ease of understanding. Analysis of varianceshave also been used to determine the level of association between each independent and the dependent variable.
3.10: Ethical Considerations
The researcher sought permission from National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation, University, the ward administrators, village heads and family heads to carry out the research. To ensure confidentiality, the respondents were not required to give their names or anything that might identify them on the data collection tools; this ensured that nobody links data to specific respondents.
43 The researcher also clearly indicated the purpose of study as academic only. The researcher sought consent from the respondents that led to voluntary information giving.
Mutual relationship and understanding was kept between the researcher and respondents.
All the referenced sources in this study have been acknowledged.
44 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION,INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF
THE FINDINGS
4.1Introduction
This chapter deals with data analysis and interpretation as per the research objectives.
The purpose for this study was to assess how community participation contributes to the sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands and especially in
Pokot South Sub-County, West Pokot County, Kenya. More specifically, this assessment sought to establish the effects of community’s cost sharing efforts on sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, to assess the level of community involvement in sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County and to establish the effectiveness of community leadership structures in relations to sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were heavily utilized when analyzing the data collected. Under descriptive statistics, frequency distribution tables showing responses and percentages are constructed while in inferential statistics,Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) tables are generated from coded data using Statistical Package for Social
Scientist (SPSS) version 22.0 to test the relationship between independent and dependent variable. This is then followed by interpretation and discussions.
45 4.2 Questionnaires Return Rate
Thisrefers to the proportion of the sample that participated in the survey and returned their questionnaires on time for analysis as intended by the researcher. The results on questionnaire return rate are presented in Table 4.1:
Table 4.1:Questionnaires return rate Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage Returned 230 84.70 84.70 Not Returned 38 15.30 100.00 Total 268 100.00
As illustrated in table 4.1,most (84.70%) of questionnaires dispatched were returned by respondents under this study for analysis. This means that there was good rapport between the respondent and the researcher as well as follow-ups that necessitated the exercise and that the respondents too took the exercise seriously. However, for the few
(15.30%) of the questionnaires that were not returned resulted from the instances where most of the questions in the questionnaire were not responded to and thus the research found it necessary not to consider them.
4.3 Donor Funded Boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County
The overall objective of this study was to assess how community participation contributes to the sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands and especially in Pokot South Sub-County.
However, due to the importance attached to the information sought, factors such as communities’ main source of domestic water, average number of donor funded boreholes
46 in the area, the main funders/drillers of the existing boreholes and the state of the already existing boreholes were considered for analysis.
The sampled residents of Pokot South Sub-County were asked to categorically state their main source of domestic water. This was mainly to ascertain the sources of water that community members depend on for their daily survival. This is illustrated in table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Main Source of Domestic Water Source Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Borehole 82 35.7 35.7 Stream/River 103 44.8 80.4 Dug well 45 19.6 100.0 Total 230 100.0 As illustrated in table 4.2, it is quite clear that more than a third (35.7%) of the sampled residents of Pokot South Sub-County depends on borehole water for their daily survival.
However, these findings are in contrary with [ CITATION Joa11 \l 1033 ]who observes that the use of improved sources of safe and adequate drinking water is globally high with 87% of the world population and 84% of the people in developing Countries getting their drinking-water from such sources in the year 2008 as this is not the case as two thirds of the sampled households in Pokot South Sub-County were found to be dependent on unsafe domestic water sources namely stream or river water (44.8%) and dug wells
(19.6%). Thus the urgent need for development and initiation of safer sources of drinking water to avert community members from water diseases.
Having identified that slightly more than a third (35.7%) of the respondents heavily relied on borehole water, it was found eminent to establish average number of boreholes that the sample had come across in the Sub-County. This was mainly to establish as to whether
47 they were enough to adequately serve the entire population in the area. This is illustrated in table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Average number of Bore-holes the Respondents have ever come across Number Frequenc Valid Cumulativ y Percent e Percent Below 5 63 32.6 32.6 Between 5 to 10 64 33.2 65.8 Between 10 to 15 13 6.7 72.5 Between 15 to 20 46 23.8 89.6 Above 20 20 10.4 100.0 Total 193 100.0 Table 4.3 shows that most (65.8%) of the sampled household heads in Pokot South Sub-
County have at most come across 10 boreholes in the area. Only a few (10.4%) of them had seen at least 20 such water sources in the entire county. Thus, with a population of
132 100 residents in Pokot South Sub-County, this number is too low to meeting their daily water requirements coupled with the geographical location of the region which is an
ASAL area.
The fact that is true as Clos, (2011) asserts that African Continent has the lowest water coverage in the world, thus the need for the provision of the water infrastructures to her citizens.
Based on the main agenda of this assessment, the study sought to establish the main funders/drillers of the existing boreholes in the Sub-County and the findings are illustrated in table 4.4.
Table 4.4: The Funders/Driller of the Bore-holes Frequency Valid Cumulativ Percent e Percent
48 County or Central Government 23 11.9 11.9 Donors/Well-wishers 100 51.8 63.7 Personal Initiatives 61 31.6 95.3 Others 9 4.7 100.0 Total 193 100.0
Table 4.4 clearly shows that slightly more than a half (51.8%) of the boreholes in Pokot
South Sub-County are donor cum well-wishers funded. This is due to the fact that drilling of such water sources is often expensive and requires massive resources and this is where the donors and or well-wishers come in aide. However, a few (31.6%) of them were as a result of personal initiatives and this were mostly affluent individuals in the society and in most cases served particular homesteads and not the community at large.
Having identified that more than half of the boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County were donor funded, the study found it eminent to establish the state of the already existing boreholes as this was part of the main purpose of this assessment. This is illustrated in table 4.5.
Table 4.5: State of the Existing Donor-Funded Boreholes State Frequency Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Fully Functional 104 53.9 53.9 Some are in State of Disrepair 57 29.5 83.4 Most are Vandalized 14 7.3 90.7 A few are Abandoned 13 6.7 97.4 Others 5 2.6 100.0 Total 193 100.0
49 Table 4.5 clearly shows that only slightly more than a half (53.9%) of the donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County are fully functional. The remaining boreholes are either in state of disrepair (29.5%), vandalized (7.3%) or abandoned (6.7%). This was therefore the need for this study as it sought to establish how community participation contributes to the sustainability of donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County as sustainability of donor funded boreholes greatly depends on the participation of community where the project is implemented.
It has even been argued that most donors have initiated several water projects without involving the host community and only to hand the project back to the community members who are not in any case aware of how to maintain it; leave alone how to sustain.
4.4Effect of Community’s Cost Sharing Efforts on Sustainability of Donor Funded
Boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County
The first objective of this assessment was to establish the effects of community’s cost sharing efforts on sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
In realizing this objective issues such as whether the respondents had ever contributed towards the donor funded borehole projects, the type of contribution advanced, whether the respondent was coerced or forced to contribute, the persons who coerced or forced the respondent to contribute and the reasons behind the respondents’ contribution towards the donor funded borehole kitty were analyzed.
The sampled household heads were asked as to whether they had ever contributed towards the donor funded boreholes and this was mainly to ascertain their involvement in the funding of the said water projects. This is illustrated in table 4.6.
50 Table 4.6: Respondents’ Contribution Towards Borehole Projects
Frequency Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Yes 114 67.9 67.9 No 54 32.1 100.0
Total 168 100.0
Table 4.6 shows that most (67.9%) of the respondents had ever contributed towards the successful implementation of the donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
This spirit is in line with Dehez & Tellone (2013) who asserts that cost sharing in most cases is that portion of project or program costs that is not borne by the funding agency.
Further probing on the type of contribution that the respondents had advanced towards the projects kitty revealed that most (63.8%) of them had contributed monetary, 28.8% termed their contribution as “in-kind”, 6.3% had contributed their personal property towards the projects’ implementation which in this case included but not limited to personal lands and access routes to the said boreholes. The findings that somewhat concurs with Dehez & Tellone(2013) who alludes that in most cases cost sharing includes contributions such as cash and in-kind, that a recipient makes to an award towards the completion of the intended projects’ objectives.
However, these findings contradicts that of Lousina State University(2016)which oberves that unallowable costs as the costs not included in the projects proposals for instance entertainment and refreshments expenses among others; as it was the case with a few
(3.1%) who held views that they had contributed “others” towards the project kitty and as
51 the study found out, these included courtesy advances towards the project implementers among others.
The assessment also sought to establish as to whether the respondents who acknowledged that they had contributed towards the projects’ kitty were coerced or forced and if that was the case, who actually coerced them.
This was purposely to ascertain as to whether their participation was free will or not; as sustainability of the said borehole projects depends on free will community member participation as opposed to coerce or force. This is illustrated in table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Whether the Respondentswere Coerced or Forced to Contribute Frequency Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Yes 70 41.9 41.9 No 97 58.1 100.0 Total 167 100.0
Table 4.7 shows that only 41.9% of the resident sampled were either coerced or forced to contribute towards the projects kitty with most of them saying that the provincial administration or otherwise the chiefs, sub-chiefs and village elders were responsible.
This hampers the smooth progress and sustainability of the said borehole projects and this is the major reason behind labeling of the existing donor boreholes as either in state of disrepair (29.5%), vandalized (7.3%) or abandoned (6.7%) by the respondents.
In identifying the reason behind the respondents’ free will contribution towards the borehole projects funding kitty, they were required to rate the extent to which they
Strongly Disagree (5), Disagree (4), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (2) and strongly
52 agree (1) with statements regarding cost sharing and sustainability of donor funded boreholes. Hence, mean and standard deviation were used in answering this question.
This is illustrated in table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Reasons For Cost Sharing Mean Std. Rank Deviation My contribution boosted the implementation kitty of 2.81 1.535 1 the project My family was in dire need of water and so I found it 3.13 1.329 2 good to offer what I had My contribution assured my stake as part of the 3.35 1.280 3 primary owners of the boreholes 3.55 1.115 4 I only contributed because other members of the community were contributing 4.17 1.224 5 I was coerced to give my donation 4.52 .988 6 Any Other
Table 4.8 shows that among the reasons for community members’ contribution towards borehole funds kitty, factors “my contribution boosted the implementation kitty of the project” was ranked first (2.81), “my family was in dire need of water and so I found it
53 good to offer what I had” was ranked second (3.13), “my contribution assured my stake as part of the primary owners of the boreholes” was ranked third (3.35).
“ I only contributed as other members of the community were contributing” was ranked fourth (3.55), “I was coerced to give my contribution” was ranked fifth (4.17) and
“others” was ranked sixth (4.52). Thus among the identified factors, boosting of the borehole projects’ implementation kitty was the main reason that necessitated the contributions through cost sharing as it had a truncated mean of 2.0. This was made possible as the documentation of the said efforts revealed concurred with what,Davis
(2015) proposed as the requirenments for dealing with cost sharing notions where, the donor funds are provided to cater for expenses that directly benefit the project; in this case, the provision of the sinking machines, pipes and technical know-how should be provided by the donor drilling the boreholes. The cost shared expenses for each donor funded drilled borehole need to be documented whether in kind or cash.
4.5 Level of Community Involvement and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes
The second objective of the study was to assess the level of community involvement in sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County. In realizing this objective, factors such as rating of the respondents’ involvement, whether the respondents were coerced or forced to involve in the said donor funded boreholes, whether the respondents were given goodies in return to their involvement in donor funded boreholes, and whether the respondents have ever delegated their involvement chances or willing to when called upon were considered.
54 In rating of the community members’ involvement in donor funded boreholes in Pokot
South Sub-County.
The respondents were requested to state out of five (where responses close to one represented initial stages and those towards 5 represented advanced stages of involvement) their levels of involvement in the said projects. This was mainly to ascertain their level of involvement as far as participation was concerned. This is illustrated in table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Rating of Respondents' Involvement in Donor Funded Boreholes N Minimum Maximu Mean Std. m Deviation Rating of the Respondents 201 1 5 3.12 1.113 participation in Donor Funded Boreholes
Table 4.9 shows that the rating of the residents’ involvement in donor funded boreholes in
Pokot South Sub-County is somewhat in semi-advanced stages. This clearly shows that the individual residents in the Sub-County are slowly appreciating the importance of their involvement as far as sustainability of donor-funded boreholes is concerned. These findings goes contrary to Catley & Leyland(2011) who observes that lack of common understanding of community participation process hinders the comparison of experiences between different projects and this may lead to false hopes regarding how community participation should be used and what it might deliver as an average mean of 3.12 and a close standard deviation of 1.113 is a clear indication of a common understanding between the community members.
55 Having identified that the rating of the community members’ involvement was somewhat desired, the investigator was tempted to ascertain as to whether this participation was as a result of coerce or force from the local authorities. This was basically to validate as to whether any form of prejudice or intimidations were used vis a vis free will. This is illustrated in table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Whether the Respondent was Coerced or Forced to Participate in Donor Funded Boreholes Frequency Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Yes 107 53.2 53.2 No 94 46.8 98.0 Total 201 100.0
Table 4.10 shows that slightly more than a half (53.2%) of the sampled household heads were either forced or coerced by the local authorities and/or donors to participate in the donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County. Only a few (46.8%) participated in the said projects out of free will and as the study established through further probing, this was attributed to high level of illiteracy in the Sub-County thus most residents heavily relied on the local leaders for guidance and directions and as such referred to it as
“force”. For instance, one of the household head lamented that…….”if it wasn’t the effort of the village elder and area sub chief, I wouldn’t have engaged in the said borehole activities…”
This process (use of force) is justified by Moraa, Otieno & Salim (2012) who allude that direct participation should entail and puts its emphasis on the citizens who are the owners
56 of the government and therefore, should be involved in the decisions of the State affairs as far as water resources is concerned.
The study further sought to establish as to whether the household heads sampled for the assessment were given any handouts or goodies in return to their participations. This was mainly to confirm the findings by Choguill (2011) who sees participation as a form of empowerment where members benefit directly from the activity either materially, financially or in terms of know how that is considered beneficial to immediate individual aspirations. This is illustrated in table 4.11
Table 4.11: Whether the Respondent Was Given Handouts or Goodies during Participation in Donor Funded Boreholes Frequency Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Yes 66 33.7 33.7 No 130 66.3 100.0 Total 196 100.0 As illustrated in table 4.11, it’s clear that only a third (33.7%) of the sampled residents of
Pokot South Sub-County were given goodies or handouts in appreciation to their participation exercises in the said donor funded boreholes and the type of goodies or handouts advanced to them were monetary, branded paraphernalia among other goodies such as food stuffs.
However, when asked as to whether the respondents were willing to delegate their participation chances when called upon or when held elsewhere or as to whether they had actually delegated, the study found out that nearly all of the residents sampled were of the views that they could only do that if the person being delegated to was a close relative i.e. spouse or child.
57 4.6 Community Organization and Sustainability of Donor-Funded Boreholes
The third objective of the study was to establish the effectiveness of community organization structures in relations to sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot
South Sub-County. In realizing this objective, factors such as identifying the people charged with the management of donor funded boreholes, sources that mandates the donor funded boreholes management committee, whether the respondents were ready to be members of management committee when requested and the reasons for being part of the donor funded borehole management committee were considered.
The assessment found it eminent to identify the people charged with the management of donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County and this was basically to identify the authority behind the borehole management. This is illustrated in table 4.12.
Table 4.12: People Charged with the Management of Donor Funded Boreholes Frequency Valid Cumulativ Percent e Percent Village Elders 70 39.3 39.3 Area Chiefs and Sub-Chiefs 63 35.4 74.7 Appointed/Elected Local Residents 45 25.3 100.0
Total 178 100.0
58 As illustrated in table 4.12, it is clear that management of donor funded boreholes in
Pokot South Sub-County was vested upon village elders (39.3%) and area chiefs and sub- chiefs (35.4%) as all these represented a more than two thirds of the total sample.
However, even though these findings partly agrees with Adhiambo (2012) who found out that most of the donor funded projects were supervised by the chairpersons, they also contradicts the notion that community was under represented in supervision of the said donor funded projects as the case with Pokot South Sub-County where local residents
(25.3%) were involved in the management of the said donor funded boreholes.
This assessment also found it credible to ascertain the sources that mandated the village elders and/or area chiefs and sub-chiefs to be in charges of the donor funded boreholes in
Pokot South Sub-County. This is illustrated in table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Sources that Mandates the Donor Funded Borehole Management Team Frequency Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Consensus From the Community Members 52 29.2 29.2 Donors or Well-Wishers Appoints them 49 27.5 56.7 They appoints themselves 47 26.4 83.1 I Don't Know 30 16.9 100.0
Total 178 100.0
Table 4.13 shows that most (70.8%) of the resident sampled for the study held views that most of the donor funded borehole projects managers were either appointed by the donors
59 and/or well-wishers of the said projects or the team (chiefs and sub chiefs and village elders) appointed themselves as compared to a few (29.2%) of said that there were consensus from the community borehole beneficiaries. These findings puts in doubt the sustainability of the said donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County as
Adhiambo (2012) asserts that under normal circumstances where sustainability is key, the best approach is one where all the primary beneficiaries (especially community members) are fully involved in the projects design, planning, implementing and monitoring
(projects’ life cycle).
Having identified that 29.2% of the respondents held views that the donor funded boreholes management teams were appointed through consensus from the community members.
The researcher thought it wise to ascertain as to whether the sample picked was ready to serve as one of the management team when called upon. This was to find out the level of consciousness and willingness among the community members as far as management of donor-funded boreholes is concerned. This is illustrated in table 4.14.
Table 4.14: Whether if Requested to be part of the Management Team the Respondent will Accept Frequency Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Yes 169 94.9 94.9 No 9 5.1 100.0 Total 178 100.0
Table 4.14 shows that a whopping 94.9% of the sample accepted that when called upon to be part of the donor funded borehole management team they are willing. This clearly
60 indicates that there is a common will by the people to govern and manage the community resources that benefits them.
In identifying the reasons behind the respondents’ willingness to be part of the donor funded boreholes management team, a likert scale type of question was used and the respondents were requested to rate on how whether they strongly disagree (5), disagree
(4), neutral (3), agree (2) or strongly agree (1) with the statements that poised before them that regards water management. Thus, mean and standard deviation were used in answering this question. This is illustrated in table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Reasons for Being Part of a Management Team Reasons Mean Std. Rank Deviation As a member of the management team, I may gain 1.84 .753 1 knowledge on the maintenance of the boreholes As a member of the management Committee I may be 2.09 1.136 2 able to educate my other community members on how to effectively use the available donor funded borehole 2.34 .857 3 As a member of the management Committee I may be able to offer my support freely on the implementation of the project 2.96 .901 4 As a member of the management Committee I may be able to appreciate the effort done by the donors in drilling 4.48 1.241 5 of bore-holes Any other
61 Table 4.15 shows that among the reasons that necessitates the respondents willingness to be part of the donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, “As a member of the management team, I may gain knowledge on the maintenance of the boreholes” was ranked first (1.84), “As a member of the management Committee I may be able to educate my other community members on how to effectively use the available donor funded boreholes” was ranked second (2.09).
“As a member of the management Committee I may be able to offer my support freely on the implantation of the project” was ranked third (2.34) and “As a member of the management Committee I may be able to appreciate the effort done by the donors in drilling of boreholes” was ranked fourth (2.96). Thus among the reasons identified, gaining knowledge and skills on how to manage and maintain the donor funded boreholes was the major reason that was strongly agreed by the respondents as it had a truncated mean of 1.0. This may be the reason for as to why nearly half of the donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County were either in state of disrepair (29.5%), vandalized (7.3%) or abandoned (6.7%) by the respondents.
62 CHAPTER FIVE
5.0: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1: Introduction
This chapter summarizes the study findings, concludes the assessment and recommends for policy actions to be under-taken.
5.2: Summary of Findings
The study worked with 55.2% of the respondents who were female and 44.8% male.
96.1% of them were above the age of 20 years with only a few (3.9%) being below 20 years of age. The study also established that a whopping 89.1% of the household heads sampled had at least attained primary level of education with only a few (10.9%) having a post primary level of education.
In regard to donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, the study found out that the main sources of water were stream/river water (44.8%), borehole water (35.7%) and dug well (19.6%). This means that a large percentage (64.3%) depends on sources of water that are considered unsafe. 65.8% of the sampled household heads in Pokot South
Sub-County alluded that they had at least come across an average of 10 boreholes in the area with 10.4% of them having seen at least 20 donor funded boreholes. The study also established that 51.8% of the sampled residents alluded that main financiers of the boreholes in the area were donors and well-wishers (thus donor funded boreholes) and that 53.9% of the donor funded boreholes were fully functional with the remaining ones being either in a state of disrepair (29.5%), vandalized (7.3%) or abandoned (6.7%).
63 Regarding community’s cost sharing efforts on sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, the assessment established that 67.9% of the respondents had ever contributed towards the successful implementation of the said donor funded boreholes. The study further established that 41.9% of the sampled residents alluded that they were coerced or forced by the provincial administrators to contribute towards the donor funded boreholes projects’ implementation kitty with 63.8% of them having contributed money, 28.8% terming their contribution as “in-kind” and 6.3% had contributed their personal properties. It was also evident that most of the respondents’ agreed to the fact that heightening of the borehole projects’ implementation kitty was the main reason that necessitated the contribution through cost sharing in the said donor funded boreholes.
Regarding the level of community participation in sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, the study established that the rating of the residents’ participation in donor funded boreholes was somewhat in semi-advanced stages. It was also clear that slightly more than a half (53.2%) of the sampled household heads were either forced or coerced by the local authorities and/or donors to participate in the donor funded borehole projects. The study also established that only a third of the sampled residents of Pokot South Sub-County were given goodies or handouts in appreciation to their participation exercises in the said donor funded boreholes and the type of goodies or handouts advanced to them were monetary and branded paraphernalia among other goodies such as food stuffs. However, the study revealed that the respondents were hesitant to delegate their participation chances to other community members other than their close allies.
64 Regarding the effectiveness of community leadership structures in relations to sustainability of donor-funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, the assessment revealed that the management of donor funded boreholes were vested upon village elders
(39.3%) and area chiefs and sub-chiefs (35.4%) who either mandated themselves (26.4%) or were appointed by the donor of the said project (27.5%). However, 29.2% of the respondents held views that the donor funded boreholes management teams were appointed through consensus from the community members. Further,a whopping 94.9% of the sampled household heads were willing to be part of the management team when called upon with the main reason being gaining knowledge and skills on how to manage and maintain the donor funded boreholes when need be. Further, an ANOVA test revealed that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean of the respondents’ willingness to be part of management team and sustainability of donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County.
5.3 Conclusions
The study concludes that more than half of the residents of Pokot South Sub-County are dependent on donor funded boreholes for their daily source of domestic water and that there is attempts by various donors, well-wishers and other organizations who their primary motive is to sink boreholes in the said sub-county.
The study also established that 44.8% and 19.6% of the households sourced their domestic water from streams/rivers and dug wells respectively. The study makes conclusion that more than half of the population of the said sub county are susceptible to water diseases such as cholera, dysentery, typhoid among others as such sources are considered unsafe for domestic use.
65 The study further established that a number of donor funded boreholes were either in state of disrepair (29.5%), vandalized (7.3%) or abandoned (6.7%) in Pokot South Sub-
County. The study makes conclusion that more than a third of the said borehole projects in the Sub-County are neither sustainable and this is due to the fact that most of the residents are not aware of how to service them nor their maintenance.
The study also found out that 67.9% of the respondents had ever contributed towards the successful implementation of the donor funded boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County, the rating of community members’ participation in the said projects was somewhat at advanced stages (3.2) and that the management of the said water projects were vested upon village elders (39.3%), area chiefs and sub-chiefs (35.4%) and appointed or elected local residents (23.5%). The study concludes that the community members who are the primary beneficiaries and target group as far as donor funded boreholes are concerned are somehow involved in the projects funding, initiations, planning, implementation and decision making processes.
The study further established that 29.2% of the respondents held views that the donor funded boreholes management teams were appointed through consensus from the community members. This study therefore makes conclusion that somehow the leadership and management of donor funded boreholes in Pokot South County is based on democratic principle of governance.
5.4 Recommendations
Based on the above findings, the study offers the following recommendations for policy actions.
66 They are:-
First, there is an urgent need for the County Government of West Pokot and in collaboration with the national government to step up the exercise of providing safe drinking water to the residents of Pokot South Sub-County and other counties in ASAL areas as most this population are in dire need of the commodity and most of them depends on unsafe sources.
Secondly, various donor funding agencies involved in the whole of issue of sinking boreholes in Pokot South Sub-County and other ASAL regions should adequately involve the community members fully in the project cycle and capacity build them in management and maintenance as this will aide their sustainability.
Thirdly, there is also an urgent need for the ministry of public health department to embark on teaching the community members on how to purify water sourced from swallow and uncovered dug wells as well as stream and river water to avert the community members from contacting water diseases.
And lastly, the community members should be capacity build on the importance cost sharing and actively involving themselves in the projects that affect their daily lives without expecting handouts or goodies from the implementing authorities as this boosts the sense ownership among themselves and thus sustainability.
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research During data collection exercisefirst, issues concerning different forms and type of participation emerged out as most of the residents aptly lamented on how their participations were hampered and determined by their distance kins or relatives who were in one way or the other connected to.
67 This study therefore recommends a similar study on how peripheral participation may influence the sustainability of donor funded boreholes in ASAL.
Secondly, some of the members complained that they didn’t know as to why they were forced and/or coerced to contribute towards the proper implementation of the said donor funded boreholes yet the donors had already provided the required cash and implements.
A study on the effectiveness and appropriate way on how cost sharing exercise need to be devoiced with a major aim of capacity building the community members on the importance of contributing freely to the community projects.
Lastly, this assessment recommends a study on the factors that affects the community members participation in community organizations as this was also a challenge to Pokot
South Residents as most of them were either coerced or forced to participate in the said community water project.
68 REFERENCES Ababa, D. (2013). Development AID in Kenya.UnpublishedPh. D Thesis, University of Nairobi
Association of Canadian Farmers, (2017). About us: Association Of Canadian Farmers. Retriebved from www.acf.org.uk on 26th February 2016.
ADB. (2017, March 6). African Development Bank Group. Retrieved from https://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/programme- for-infrastructure-development-in-africa-pida/ on 6th March, 2017.
Adhiambo, L. (2012). Factors that Affect the Effectiveness of Donor Funded Projects; Nairobi, PHD Thesis: University of Nairobi.
Arimah, B. (2011). Slums as expressions of social exclusion: Explaining the prevalence of slums in African countries. Nairobi: UN HABITAT.
ASD. (2017). Asian Dvelopment Bank. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/projects/40515-013/mainon 08/03/2017.
Bedřich, M. E. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological indicators. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033, 17, 4-13. Accessed on 03/04/2016
Bhalla, G. S. (2002). Evaluation Of Infrastructural Interventions For Rural Poverty Alleviation. New Delhi (United Nations): Asian Institute of Transport Development.
Black, T. (2010). Sustainability: A Daily Challenge For Many Managers.United Kingdom Routeledge.
Brunswick, G. O. (2016).Well Water Basics: Retrieved from http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/.../env/.../Water.../WellWaterBasics.pdon 15/04/2017
Catley, A. &. (2011). Community Participation and the Delivery of Veterinary Services in Africa. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 95-113.
Choguill., M. B. (2011). A Ladder of Community Participation for Underdeveloped Countries. Habitat International, 431-444.
Clos, J. (2011). Infrustracture For Economic Development and Poverty Reduction in Africa. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.
69 Davis, C. (2015, June 3). Cost Share Tracking System (CSTS). Retrieved from Accounting and Financial Services: http://afs.ucdavis.edu/systems/cost-share- system/roles-responsibilities.html on 10/02/2017
Dehez, P. (2013). Data Games: Sharing Public Goods with Exclusion. Public Economic Theory, 654-673.
Dunn F., B. (2006). Process Evaluation For Community Participation. Annual Review of Public Health, 323-340.
Eyerer, P. (1996). Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung—Werkzeug zum Planen und Wirtschaften in Kreisläufen. Heidelberg, Switzerland: Springer.
Global Reporting Initiative, (2002). Determinig the Sucesses and Failures of Community Development Projects. Retrived from http://www.globalreportinginitiative.org on 20th March, 2017
GoK. (2009). Pokot South Sub County. Retrieved from www.gok.co.ke on 15/04/2017
Google. (2017). Google Map. Retrieved from Pokot South Sub County: www.kenyans.co.ke/constituency/pokot-south. Accessed on 15/04/2017
Hall, A. W. (2013). Water: Water and Governance. In R. Callway, Governance for Sustainable Development: A Foundation for the Future (pp. 111-120). United Kingdom, Routledge.
Heysom, R.T. (2006). Importance of Cost Sharing Efforts: A case of Donor-Funded Water Projects in Tanzania. Phd Thesis, University of Dar es Salaam.
Humanity, M. (2017, March 04). Helping Hand for Realif and Development. Retrieved from Infrastructure Development: http://www.hhrd.org/hhrd-infrastructureDev
Initiative, G. R. (2002). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Boston: GRI.
Integrated Marketing Communication, (2013). Models for Cost-Sharing Efforts. Retrieved from http://www.integratedmarketingcommunication.org on 6th March, 2017.
Kate Daellenbach, John Davies, Nicholas J. Ashill (2007), A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: from philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Volume 12, Issue 3
Kenya Social Policy, (2011). Kenya Social Policy. Retrieved from http://www.kenyasocialpolicy.org on 6th March 2017.
70 Kempe Ronald Hope, S. (2011). Infrastructure Constraints and Development in Kenya. Journal of Infrastructure Development.
KIHBS. (2016). Water Sources in Kenya. Retrieved from: http://www.knbs.or.ke/pdf/Basic%20Report%20(Revised%20 on 6th March 2017 Kothari, C. R. (2014). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Dheli: New Age International Publishers.
Lousiana Satet University, (2016, July 1). LSU. Retrieved from Cost Sharing and Matching on the Sponsored Projects: www.lsu.edu/administration/ofa/fasops/FASOPAS06updated2016.pdf. Accessed on 10/07/2016
Manley C. M, (2017). Role of Community Involvement in Community Projects. PhD Thesis, Unpublished.
Masinga, S. (2010). Eviction of illegal RDP house owners. Retrieved from http://www.sanews.gov.za/features/eviction-illegal-rdp-house-ownerson 10/07/2016
Matthias Finkbeiner, e. a. (2010). Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Berlin, Germany: Technische Universität Berlin,.
Moraa, H., Otieno, A., & Salim, A. (2012). Water governance in Kenya: Ensuring Accessibility, Service delivery and Citizen Participation. https://ihub.co.ke/ihubresearch/uploads/2012/july/1343052795__537.pdf. Accessed on 10/07/2016
Mugenda, A. G. (2008). Social Science Research: Theory and Practice . Nairobi, Kenya: ARTS Press.
Mugenda, A., & Mugenda, O. (2003). Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. Nairobi: ARTS Press.
Muray J. Otundo, (2010). Principles and Role of Community Organizations. A Case of
Coastal CBOs in Kenya. Ph. D Thesis Unpublished.
Mutonga, B. (2015). Factors Influencing the Sustainability of Donor Funded Community Water Project: A Case of Kitui Central Constituency. Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
Nuguti, O. E. (2010). Understanding Project Monitoring and Evaluation. Nairobi, Kenya: Ekon Publishers.
71 Pérez-Foguet, A. J. (2010). Challenges for Water Governance in Rural Water Supply: Lessons Learned from Tanzania. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 235-248.
Project, T. W. (2016, January 10). Retrieved from The Water Project: http://thewaterproject.org
Snyder, S. (2017). The Water Project. Retrieved from Water in Crisis- Kenya: www.thewaterproject.org. Accessed on 20/02/2017
Talway O. K, (2013) Effective Community Organization and Leadership Work.
International Journal for Community Work, 102, pages 50 - 71.
Tortajadaa, C. (2007). Water Management in Singapore. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(2), pages 227-240.
Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to Community Participation in the Tourism Development Process in Developing Countries. Tourism Management, 613 - 633.
United Nations Child Education Fund, (2008). Bi-Anually Water and National Resource Management in Africa.Retrived from http://www.unicef.org on 20th March, 2017
United Nations, (2016). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from http://www.un.org. on 12/06/2016
Water Act (2002). The Water Act. Retrieved from http://www.wateract.org on 6th March, 2017
World Health Organization and United Nations Child Education Fund. (2008). A Snapshot of Drinking Water and Sanitation in Africa, WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Prepared for AMCOM as a contribution to the 11th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the African Union with special theme.
Wesonga, A. C. (2015). Determinant of Water Funded Water Projects: A CAse of Water Resources Users Associations in Bungoma County Kenya. Nairobi: MA Thesis, University of Nairobi.
72 APENDICES
APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTORY LETTER
I’m Teresa Wasonga Karamunya, pursuing a Master of Arts degree in Project Planning and Management at Kisii University. As part of the requirement of this course, all the trainees are required to undertake a research inquiry of their choice. The purpose of this study is to assess the contribution of community participation in the sustainability of donor funded boreholes in Arid and Semi-arid lands in Kenya and especially in Pokot
South Sub County. You have been sampled out of the many residents of this sub county to participate in to this survey and provide responses to the attached questionnaire. Your participation in this study will be treated with utmost confidentiality and your privacy is also guaranteed. In order to foster this, you are not required to write your name or anything that might identify you anywhere on this questionnaire and the answers you provide will strictly be used for no other purpose other than for academic only. You are therefore requested to spare 20 minutes of your time to respond to the questionnaire attached herein. Thank you very much for your time.
73 APPENDIX B: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOUSEHOLD HEADS
A) BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Please tick appropriately) 1. Gender of the Respondents Male [ ] Female [ ] 2. Age of the resident Between 15 to 20 years [ ] Between 20 to 25years [ ] Between 25 to 30 years [ ] Between 30 to 35 years [ ] Between 35 to 40 years [ ] Above 40 years [ ] 3. Level of education of the respondents Post Primary level [ ] Below Primary level [ ] 4. What’s the main source of water in this area Boreholes [ ] Screams/Rivers [ ] Piped Water [ ] Others [ ] Specify…………………………………. 5. Have you ever used water from a borehole Yes [ ] No [ ] 6. If Yes in Qn. 5 above, who were the drillers of the boreholes you benefited from? County or Central Government [ ] Donors/Well-wishers [ ]
Personal Initiatives [ ] Others [ ] Specify ……………………… 7. How many boreholes have you ever come across in this area
…………………………….. 8. What are the States of these boreholes you’ve come across? Fully functional [ ] Some are in the state of disrepair [ ] Most are vandalized [ ] A few are abandoned [ ] Others [ ] Specify…………………………………
B. COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP STRUCTURES
1. Who are in charge of the donor funded boreholes in this area? Village Elders [ ] Location chiefs and Sub Chiefs [ ]
Appointed/Elected leaders [ ] Others [ ]
Specify……………………………. 2. Who mandates the above leaders in management of donor funded boreholes? Consensus from the community members [ ] Donors/well-wishers appoints them
[ ] They mandates themselves [ ] I don’t know [ ] 3. If you are requested to be part of the management team of the said donor-funded
boreholes, will you volunteer or offer your services? Yes [ ] No [ ]
74 4. If Yes in Qn 3 above what is your views on the following statements? Please tick
appropriately.
75 Factors Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
As a member of the management team, I may gain knowledge on the maintenance of the boreholes
As a member of the management team I may be able to offer my support freely on the implantation of the project As a member of the management team I may be able to appreciate the effort done by the donors in drilling of boreholes As a member of the management team I may be able to educate my other community members on how to effectively use the available donor funded borehole
Any Other
C. COMMUNITY’S COST SHARING EFFORTS
1. Have you ever contributed anything towards implementation of the said donor boreholes?Yes [ ] No [ ]
2. If Yes in Qn 1. above, what type of contribution did you give? Please tick appropriately.
Monetary [ ] In Kind [ ] Personal Property [ ]
3. Was your Contribution as a result of any form of coerce or force? Yes [ ] No[ ]
4. If Yes in 3. above, by who and why? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. What is your views on the following sentiments?
Sentiment Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
76 My contribution boosted the implementation kitty of the project. My contribution assured my stake as part of the primary owners of the boreholes.
I only contributed because other members of the community were contributing.
My family was in dire need of water and so I found it good to offer what I had. I was coerced to give my donation Any Other
6. How can you say about the frequency of your contribution in donor funded boreholes
Never [ ] Rarely [ ] Sometimes [ ] Often [ ] Very often [ ]
D. LEVELS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
1. How can you rate your level of participation out of five in donor-funded boreholes
in this area…………………………………………………………… 2. Were you coerced or forced to involve yourself in donor funded boreholes
Yes [ ] No [ ] 3. During your participation were you given any handout or goodies Yes [ ] No
[ ] 4. If Yes in Qn 3 above, what form of goods or handout were you given?
………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………… 5. Have you ever delegated your participation opportunity/chance to any other
community members in cases where you’re not in a position Yes [ ] No [ ] 6. Do you have any other issues pertaining this research?
77 ………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
78 APPENDIX C: Map of Pokot South Sub-County
Source: Google Map (2017)
79 80 APPENDIX D: RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION
81 APPENDIX E: RESEARCH PERMIT
82