Bura Irrigation and Settlement Project (Kenya)

The project was an ambitious attempt of the government of Kenya, the World Bank and a few other donors to develop a remote area, create employment for thousands of people with a reasonable income and earn foreign exchange.

Bura project would develop about 6,700 net irrigated ha over a 5 1⁄2 year period and settle on smallholdings about 5,150 landless poor families selected from all parts of Kenya.

Physical and social infrastructure would be provided to support the settler and satellite population, expected to reach a total of 65,000 persons by 1985.

Job creation was only 40% of the target, the economic rate of return was negative and the annual operating and maintenance costs exceeded the benefits.

Even with net farm incomes of about 40% of the appraisal estimates in real terms, annual government subsidies amounted to about 1,000 dollars per settler.

This study was carried out by Ilaco and Acres (two engineering firms) and they proposed to start an irrigation project of minimally 100,000 ha.

Although the report raised some questions about the quality of the soils, the Ilaco feasibility study was optimistic and foresaw a bright future for the area.

A principal town and 23 villages were to be built along with education, social and administrative facilities and the physical infrastructure (roads, water, electricity) for a population of 65,000 people.

However, the World Bank argued that its experience and implementation capacity was limited and therefore experienced consultants should be employed to complete the design, supervise the construction and assist in coordination of all activities.

Even though the consortium had confirmed the World Bank estimates (based on the Ilaco studies) before the appraisal report was published, MacDonald and partners gave a total cost of US$112,1m (Kshs936 m), an increase of 22%.

The following parameters were changed to keep the economic rate of return, despite huge cost increases, at an acceptable level: In the PPR, apart from changing other parameters, the consultant introduced a completely new method of retaining the rate of return of the project at an acceptable level by apportioning investments to Stage I, phase II and Stage II.

By claiming, for instance, that the river diversion works could serve an area of 37 000 on both the east and the west bank, it attributed only 6,700 ha (18%) to Stage I, phase I.

[19] Whereas the formal agreements between Kenya and the World Bank were signed in June 1977 the implementation was delayed due to a number of factors.

These changes caused not only new delays, but also, for instance, an increase of concrete structures in the main canal with 138%, stone pitching with 338% and digging with 255%.

Therefore, when calculating the rate of return for the project with a pumping station the consultants should have used lower yields for cotton and maize in their economic analysis.

Important components as the cotton ginnery, river diversion structure, feasibility study East Bank, housing for teachers, social halls and the 132 KV transmission line were not implemented.

[27] In the case of Bura all the reviews showed also that after the investment period, the project would still need a considerable annual subsidy from the government.

[30] They had to meet the following criteria: heads of households must be aged between 25 and 45 years and preferably married, must be landless, unemployed or underemployed or earn an income below the minimum agricultural wage, must be medically and physically fit, must provide the equivalent of four adult labour units, must be of good character and should have a rural or farming background.

The project management finds itself in a balancing act that on the one hand it has to keep the charges at such a level that the tenants do not lose interest in farming, whereas at the same time it needs to keep the annual loss on its operations as low as possible.

[45] In order to avoid the destruction of the riverine forest and other environmental damage in Bura, a plantation programme was included in the BISP.

Whenever water was available, seeds in the droppings germinated readily and within a few years almost all canal sides in Bura were occupied by this fast growing shrub.

This ‘wild’ Prosopis, in Tana River County popularly known as Mathenge, did not limit itself to the canal banks and it also blossomed along roads, in the fields and villages.

Unfortunately eradicating the tree at unwanted places as in the fields and along the canal banks was almost impossible because after cutting the stumps coppice vigorously and within a few months, as long as a little water is available, a new shrub has emerged.

Together with poor pest control and lack of adequate irrigation water, this resulted in very low yields and crop failures.

Firstly the insecurity in Somalia spilled over into Tana County and the Bura Project area was regularly attacked by well-armed roaming bandits.

In addition to remittances, households were surviving on odd jobs for government, National Youth Service and BISP staff, on charcoal burning and small scale trade.

Although the NIB carried out rehabilitation works and installed two new pumps, little production took place until the Economic Stimulus Programme (ESP) was initiated in 2009.

The other functions were delegated to the private sector and tenants were to be given loans to pay for these services, including the water supply, by commercial financial institutions.

Unfortunately, due to the quality of the soils, the margins for this crop are low at Bura and do not make it possible for the tenants to repay already existing debts or to pay for the cost of their food maize.

The original and second generation tenants still living in Bura hope that a gravity water supply will improve their fate, but it is unclear when this will be implemented and be ready.