KILIFI COUNTY-BASELINE STUDY
2018-2019
1
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Data collection ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Questionnaires ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Location coordinates ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Photography ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.4 Physical Observation...................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.5 Soil and Water Samples ................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2.6 Sampling ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Data Entry ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4
2. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION. ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2 .1 Gender Distribution ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Educational level of respondents........................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Presence of civil society organizations ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Access to information ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Newspaper Access ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.6 Environmental information on the newspapers ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Other modes of accessing environmental information .......................................................................................................... 8
2.8 Familiarity with Mining activities ......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.9 Public participation ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Meeting invitation. .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Meeting attendance ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Access to information to enable participation ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Community views ............................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Consideration of the views. ................................................................................................................................................. 12
3.5 Worked in the company ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.6 Infringement of rights by the Company .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.7 Environmental Human Rights Defenders Presence ............................................................................................................. 13
3.8 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ............................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
2
1. Introduction
Cement production is among the most lucrative business ventures globally. The cost of a new cement plan is equally
equivalent to about 3 years of turnover.
Kenya’s building and construction sector is amongst the most rapidly growing, experiencing an average growth rate
of 14.2% for the period 2006 –2011. (Dyer & Blair Investment Bank, 2012)1. This has been attributed to the rapidly
growing real estate development.
The cement industry contributes significantly to local and regional economies through the wide geographic spread
of its plants which are mainly located in rural areas according to (CEMBUREAU, 1999)2. An overlooking factor in
most case scenarios is the adverse impacts the industries bring forth to their immediate communities.
This document presents a report assessing the socio-economic challenges, in relation to their participatory rights,
faced by residents neighboring Mombasa Cement Industry in Vipingo.
1.1 Study Area
The study was carried out in Vuma village located in Takaungu location, Kilifi County. Vuma is located at
approximately 47.8 KM Northward from Mombasa at GPS coordinates:
Latitude-3°43'0.01", Longitude: 39°50'59.99”. The estimated terrain level is 18 meters above sea level. Vuma is
home to Mombasa Cement, a subsidiary of Tororo cement based in Uganda. The company is situated on plot Number
MN/III/291/2 and MN/III/[Link] site lies on coral limestone area, 1 kilometer off the tarmac Mombasa-Kilifi road
on the seaside.
1
[Link]
2
[Link]
coprocem-pdfdrivecom/32175982
3
1.2 Data collection
1.2.1 Questionnaires
The primary tools used in Data Collection were questionnaires attached in Annex I. Respondents targeted were those
residing within the vicinity of the extractive industry and the factory workers. The results are presented in tables, bar
graphs and pie charts.
1.2.2 Location coordinates
Locations of samples collected were recorded by use of a GPS device (GPSMAP® 64s).
1.2.3 Photography
Photography and videos were also used to capture visual data.
1.2.4 Physical Observation
Direct observation was also incorporated. This primarily involved visiting affected communities within the vicinity of
the salt companies and making observations with regards to their environment
1.2.5 Soil and Water Samples
Soil and water samples were taken from a variety of points within communities neighboring the companies. The
samples were then taken to SGS Laboratory in Mombasa for analysis.
1.2.6 Sampling
A total of 28 respondents were interviewed for the study. The methods employed were random and purposive sampling.
Purposive sampling was based on respondents directly affected by the company’s activities inclusive of the workers.
Random sampling was done at a nearby town approximately 1 kilometer from the site (Mombasa Cement).
1.3 Limitations of the study
Language barrier; some of the respondents interviewed were unable to fluently speak in Kiswahili which is the
common mode of communication and this proved a big challenged during the research.
1.4 Data Entry
The data that was collected from the study was entered and analyzed by use of MINITAB software. The data
garnered was majorly descriptive.
4
2. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION.
2 .1 Gender Distribution
Figure 1Gender Distribution
An equal distribution of respondents was garnered, 25% of the respondents were male while 25% were female.
2.2 Educational level of respondents
The respondents showed intermediate levels of education with a majority (64.3%) having learnt up to primary
level.7.1% had gone up to secondary level, 3.6% have undergone Islamic education (Madrassa), while the remaining
population had not yet undergone formal education.
Figure 2Literacy levels
5
2.3 Presence of civil society organizations
Respondents were probed on the presence of civil societies in the area. 21.4% of respondents positively responded
on the presence of CSOs. HURIA was mentioned as the main CSO that visited the locality and also conversed
with the members. The remaining population (78.6%), reported of no previous engagement with any CSO
Figure 4
Figure 3Presence of CSOs
2.4 Access to information
As part of the study, access to information by the respondents was a critical component in assessing their procedural
rights (access to information & public participation). 92.9% of the respondents had access to media channels, either
Figure 4Modes of communication
through tv, radio or modile.
6
2.5 Newspaper Access
During the survey we established that 67.9% of the respondents do not gain access to newspapers while the proportion
of the population that said that they get access to news paper on rarely basis was 32.1% as shown by the pie chart
below.
Figure 5 Pecentages with and without access to newspaper
2.6 Environmental information on the newspapers
The survey indicated that 71.4% of the population were not aware on the weather the newspapers contained any
environmental information since they never read newspapers. Half of the respondents who read newspapers said the
Figure 6Environment infoon newspapers
newspapers communicated some environmental information while the other half said that the newspapers do not
7
contain environmental information as represented in the pie chart below.
2.7 Other modes of accessing environmental information
Verbal communication was the mode widely used to communicate environmental information to the community
members represented by 53.6% in the pie chart followed by radio and television with 28.6% and 7.1% respectively.
10.1% of the respondents registered that they never receive any environmental information at all.
Figure 7other sources
2.8 Familiarity with Mining activities
The survey established that 96.4% of the respondents were fully aware of the mining activities that were taking place
in their area of residence while 3.65% of the respondents said that they were not fully aware of the activities that were
taking place inside the company.
8
Figure 8Percentages of familiarity with mining activities.
2.9 Public participation
During the survey, 32.1% of the respondents had participated in a meeting during the expansion of the company
activities while 64.3% said that no meeting between the community and the investors or the duty bearers was held
prior to establishment of this company or at any stage of expansion. On the same note 3.6% of the respondents were
not even aware whether a meeting had been held.
Residents from Vuma area have not been actively involved in public participation by the community. This was
revealed after an interview with one respondent who spoke of how the company is affecting their environment and
health. He further stated that public participation involved only the workers in the cement factory and not community
members.
Media channels used to convey information to community members by the company was inaccessible to some, the
channels herein stated including newspapers whereby most residents were unable to access or even read due to high
illiteracy levels in the community
9
Figure 9 Figure showing public participation.
3.0 Meeting invitation.
A big proportion of the respondents who were able to learn about the meeting got the information from the local
authority while others got the information through verbal communication by word of mouth from the other community
members as represented by 70% and 30% respectively on the pie chart.
Figure 10 figure showing source of information about the meeting
10
3.1 Meeting attendance
Only half of those who knew that the meeting had been called attended as shown below.
Figure 35. Percentages of meeting attendance.
3.2 Access to information to enable participation
All the respondents who attended the meeting recorded that they did not get enough information on the agenda prior
to the actual day of the meeting to enable them have effective participation. They felt that the meeting was not relevant
because information was not well flowing and this denied them a full opportunity to contribute their views regarding
the activities of the company.
3.3 Community views
The respondents who recorded that the community members had raised some views for consideration before the
commencement of the mining activities were 83.3% and 16.7% of those who attended the meeting said that no views
were raised to object the commencement of the project.
11
3.4 Consideration of the views.
One of the concerns that had been raised during the meeting was dust pollution as a major impact on the environment
and the health of the residents which they wanted addressed to minimize their effects on the community. 83.3% of
the population said that the considerations had not been implemented during the implementation of the project while
16.7% said that their views were not considered at all.
3.5 Worked in the company
The proportion of the respondent that had or was working in the cement company was 64.3% while 35.7% of the
respondents had not worked in this company. This showed that a larger population of the community is dependent on
this company for employment.
Figure 11Percentages of people who have worked in the industry.
12
3.6 Infringement of rights by the Company
All the respondents interviewed registered violation of human rights and degradation of the environment. A major
concern expressed by the residents was dust pollution emanating from the company as a result of the cement
manufacturing processes.
One of our respondents gave us a clear description of what the company has put the communities through. He talked
of how the company erected a wall on community land without their consent and they as a community remain
powerless since any form of objection or rage towards the company leads to arbitrary arrests under false allegations.
3.7 Environmental Human Rights Defenders Presence
A big proportion 71.4% of the respondents interviewed felt that there had been no Environmental Human Rights
Defenders (EHRDs) to represent their interest against the negative effects of the company while 28.6 % of the
population were of the opinion that there had been EHRDs who had constantly advocated for both environmental as
well as the human rights within the community but they were under constant arrest and intimidation and therefore
they could not carry on with the work for long. Most of them ended up being silenced either by being bribed while
others were arrested and prosecuted of incitement.
Figure 12Figure showing EHRD's present
13
3.8 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Our survey established that 57.1% of the respondents interviewed felt that the company had not made any
contribution towards development of the community infrastructure and neither had it provided any basic social
amenity services such as water, education and health services. On the other hand, 42.9% of the respondents felt
that the presence of the company had improved the wellbeing of the community majorly through employment
creation, tree planting and construction of Vuma Primary School. The findings are represented in the pie chart
below.
Figure 13respondents views in percentage
14
Conclusion
Residents of Vuma area have not been actively involved in public participation by the company
or any state agencies mandated with the task of environmental management in Kenya. This was
clear after an interview with a larger proportion of the respondents stating how the company has
over the past years been polluting their environment through heavy dust emission which has
affected their health but despite their public outcry no stakeholder has taken interest to address
their concerns. Residence further stated that public participation involved only the workers in
the cement factory and not community members and therefore any data relating to public
participation is not a true representation of the population in the area.
15
