Study on Rainwater Harvesting Potential in Northern Grazing Area

Study on the Potential for RWH in the NGA of Meru Central & Meru North Districts

Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd i

D.O.M Water

Department

FINAL STUDY REPORT

Study on Rainwater Harvesting Potential in Northern Grazing Area (NGA) of Meru Central and Meru North Districts

This Project is funded by the European Union.

MAY – 2009

GUIDING SYSTEMS (GS) CONSULT LTD.


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd ii

Study on Rainwater Harvesting Potential in Northern Grazing Area (NGA) of Meru Central

and Meru North Districts

Final Study Report

May 2009

_______________________________________

GS Consult Team Members Stanley M Mbagathi Theo Hendrikssen Timothy M Mutinda Keziah N Ngugi

Resource Persons

Paul Kimeu (DMO, Isiolo) Kimathi Mutungi (DMO, Meru North) Michael M Mwongera (Data Analyst, Meru North) Geoffrey Kilonzo (Planning & Design – Water Office, Igembe)

Presented to: The Lay Volunteers International Association (LVIA) P.O. Box 1684 – 60200, Meru, Kenya. Tel / fax: +254 (0)64 – 32865 Email: [email protected]

Prepared by: Guiding Systems (GS) Consult P.O. Box 72387 – 00200, Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254 (0)20 890732 Fax: +254 (0)20 890755 Email: [email protected]


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd iii

Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary................................................................................................... ix 1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 1 2. Context and Rationale ............................................................................................ 1 3. The Assignment ..................................................................................................... 2

3.1 The Consultant........................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Consultant’s Team.................................................................................................. 2 3.3 Objectives of the Assignment.................................................................................. 2 3.4 Consultant’s Responsibilities .................................................................................. 2 3.5 Activities of the Assignment ................................................................................... 3 3.6 Study Methodology ................................................................................................ 4

4. Appropriate RWH Technologies........................................................................... 7

4.1 In-situ Rain Water Harvesting................................................................................. 7 4.2 Micro-catchment RWH........................................................................................... 8 4.3 Macro-catchment RWH .......................................................................................... 8 4.4 Domestic Water Supply Systems ............................................................................ 9

5. Present Situation.................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Physical Features of the Study Area .................................................................. 12 5.1.1 Location .................................................................................................. 12 5.1.2 Climate ................................................................................................... 12 5.1.3 Topography............................................................................................. 12 5.1.4 Soils ........................................................................................................ 12 5.1.5 Hydro-Geography and Groundwater Resources ...................................... 14 5.1.6 Administrative Units................................................................................ 16 5.1.7 Land Rights and Ownership .................................................................... 17 5.1.8 Land Use................................................................................................. 17 5.1.9 State of the Environment ......................................................................... 18 5.1.10 Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 18

5.2 The People............................................................................................................ 18 5.2.1 Population .............................................................................................. 19 5.2.2 Livelihoods.............................................................................................. 20 5.2.3 Pastoralists and Farmers ........................................................................ 21 5.2.4 Coexistence and Conflict ......................................................................... 21 5.2.5 Leadership and Community Organisation ............................................... 22 5.2.6 Traditional Governance Systems ............................................................. 23 5.2.7 Community Based Organisations and Self Help Groups .......................... 24

5.3 Organisations and Agencies Active in the Project Area......................................... 24 5.4 Water Development .............................................................................................. 26

5.4.1 Existing Water Projects and Sources ....................................................... 26


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd iv

5.4.2 Existing Irrigation Projects ..................................................................... 29 5.4.3 Existing Water Harvesting Projects......................................................... 30

5.5 Livestock.............................................................................................................. 30 5.6 Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 31 5.7 Innovative Initiatives ............................................................................................ 31 5.8 Community-Based Participatory Planning and Community Project Cycle (CPC) .. 32 5.9 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 32

6. Development Potential of the NGA....................................................................... 32

6.1 Agriculture Development...................................................................................... 33 6.2 Livestock Production ............................................................................................ 33 6.3 Potential for Water Harvesting Measures .............................................................. 35

6.3.1 The Division of the NGA in WH Units ..................................................... 35 6.3.2 The Potential Types of WH Technologies ................................................ 36 6.3.3 The Location for WH Measures.................................................................. 40

7. Planned Activities for the NGA............................................................................. 40 8. Technical Assessment of Potential WH Sites........................................................ 42

8.1 Community Public Meetings................................................................................. 42 8.2 WH Units and Formation of WH Group................................................................ 42 8.3 Technical Assessment of Proposed WH Sites........................................................ 42 8.4 Outcome of the Technical Assessment of WH Sites per WH Unit ......................... 43

9. Site Investigation and Selection............................................................................. 49

9.1 Topographical survey............................................................................................ 49 9.2 Site selection for pans ........................................................................................... 49 9.3 Soil Survey and Analysis ...................................................................................... 49 9.4 Soil Survey for three Representative Sites............................................................. 50

10. Investment and Maintenance Costs of Selected WH Technologies ................... 53 11. Recommended Way Forward.............................................................................. 53

11.1 Implementation Phase ......................................................................................... 53 11.2 Approach ............................................................................................................ 54 11.3 Immediate Implementation Steps ........................................................................ 54

11.3.1 Further Community Awareness about the Planned RWH Activities........ 54 11.3.2 Soil sampling and analysis on prioritised WH sites................................ 54 11.3.3 Preparation of Designs and BoQs of prioritised WH sites ..................... 55 11.3.4 Formation of Project Management Committees (PMCs)........................ 55 11.3.5 Formalisation of agreements between the respective Partners ............... 55 11.3.6 Network Arrangements .......................................................................... 55 11.3.7 Establishment of Funds Disbursement Procedures ................................ 55 11.3.8 Training and Capacity Building ............................................................ 55 11.3.9 Field Lay-out and Construction of Civil Works...................................... 56 11.3.10 Monitoring and Evaluation.................................................................. 56

11.4 Environmental Protection Guidelines .................................................................. 56 11.4.1 Water source Protection By-laws .......................................................... 56 11.4.2 Catchment Protection By-laws .............................................................. 57

11.5 Scaling Up .......................................................................................................... 58


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd v

12. Stakeholder Feedback Workshop ....................................................................... 58

12.1 Feedback Workshop Preliminaries ...................................................................... 58 12.2 Introduction to RWH Technologies..................................................................... 58 12.3 Presentation of Study Process and Findings ........................................................ 59 12.4 Plenary Feedback and Way Forward ................................................................... 59

13. Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 59 14. References ............................................................................................................ 62 List of Tables Table 1: Administrative Units within NGA……………………………………….… 16

Table 2: Population and Population Density Projections by

Selected Administrative Divisions……………………………………….… 19

Table 3: Buuri Division Population Statistics by Gender……………………...……. 20

Table 4: Development Agencies in NGA…………………………………….……… 25

Table 5: Existing Water Projects……………………………………..……………… 28

Table 6: Livestock Population – Figures & Trend in greater Meru North District….. 30

Table 7: Number of Beef cattle Slaughtered in Selected Towns……………..……… 34

Table 8: Graded Production Figures of Hides & Skins in Tigania &

Igembe Districts in June 2008…………………………………………..…. 35

Table 9: Estimated Value of Hides & Skins in Tigania & Igembe Districts………… 35

Table 10: Proposed WH Units in the NGA ……………………………...………….. 36

Table 11: Water Projects earmarked for development in

NGA by ENNDA ………………………………………………………… 41

Table 12: Implemented Water Development Activities by the ALRMP II ………… 41

Table 13: Planned Water Development Activities by ALRMP II …………….……. 41

Table 14: Site Assessment Checklist ……………………………………….….…… 42

Table 15: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 1 ……………………………………. 43

Table 16: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 2 …………………………………….. 45

Table 17: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 3 ……………………………….……. 46



Table 20: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 6 …………………………..………… 48

Table 21: Soil Analysis Results ……………………………………………………… 50

Table 22: Investment and Maintenance Costs of Selected WH Technologies ……… 53


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Components of in-situ RWH System …………………………………7

Figure 2: A sand Dam ……………………………………………….…………11

Figure 3: Ground Water Potential ………………………………………...……15

Figure 4: Sketch of a Hillside Conduit & Water Storage ………………...……39

Figure 5: Stream / Gully Diversions & Underground Storage ………...……….40

Annexes

Annex 1: Detailed Proposed WH Project Site Descriptions

Annex 2: Maps

Annex 3: Pictures

Annex 4: Standard Drawings of WH Structures

Annex 5: Investment and Maintenance Costs of Water Facilities

Annex 6: Water Users Protocol Guidelines

Annex 7: Field Visit Itineraries

Annex 8: Soil Analysis Results

Annex 9: Names and Contacts of people Interviewed / Consulted

Annex 10: Stakeholder Feedback Workshop Programme

Annex 11: List of Stakeholder Feedback Workshop Participants


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd vii

List of Abbreviations ASAL’s Arid and Semi Arid Lands BoQs Bill of Quantities CA Catchment Area CB Cropped Basin CBAR Catchment Basin Area Ratios CBOs Community Based Organisations CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuro-pneumonia CCPP Contagious Caprine Pleuro-pneumonia CCS Christian Community Services CDF Constituency Development Fund CEFA Central European Farmers Association (Italian Organisation) CIGs Common Interest Groups COPSO Community Project Support Organisation CPC Community Project Cycle DLPO District Livestock Production Officer DOM Catholic Diocese of Meru ENNDA Ewaso Ng’iro North Development Authority GoK Government of Kenya GoN Government of Netherlands GS Guiding Systems Consult ha Hectare JICA Japan International Co-operation Agency JKUAT Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Km Kilometre LFA Logical Framework Approach LVIA Lay Volunteers International Association MW & I Ministry of Water & Irrigation NGA Northern Grazing Area NGO Non Governmental Organisation PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RPK Resource Projects Kenya RWH Rainwater Harvesting SIDA Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency TANAWASCO Tana Water, Borehole and Sewerage Company ToR Terms of Reference WH Water Harvesting WHU Water harvesting Unit WRAP Water Resources Assessment & Planning WUAs Water User Associations


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd viii

Acknowledgements Guiding Systems (GS) Consult wishes to acknowledge the roles played by numerous personalities and other stakeholders during the implementation of the process of carrying out the Study and Research on Alternative Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Methods in the region formerly known as the Northern Grazing Area (NGA) of Meru Central (Imenti North) and Meru North Districts (now Tigania and Igembe Districts). Special thanks to Mr. Heinrich Gorfer, Project Coordinator and LVIA Country Representative and Mr. Kennedy Njenga of Resource Projects Kenya (RPK – Meru) for providing the background information concerning the genesis of the project and also providing advice and direction on implementation of the study. The consultant cannot overlook the support provided by government line ministries and stakeholder organisations that were consulted in providing advice and vital information towards preparation of this report. Special thanks to Mr. Kimathi Mutungi, Drought Monitoring Officer (DMO), Maua, Mr. Paul Kimeu, Drought Monitoring Officer (DMO), Isiolo, Mr. Michael Mwongera, Drought Monitoring Office, Maua, Mr. Jacob Muthuiba, District Water Officer, Maua, Mr. Geoffrey Kilonzo, Planning and Design Officer – Water Office, Maua, Mr. Gabriel Manghe, Manager of Tuuru Water Project, Laare, Mr. S.M. Riungu, District Livestock Production Officer (DLPO), Maua, Mr. Willie Mulwa, Project Co-ordinator, ENNDA and the rest of the ENNDA team in Isiolo. The GS Consult Study Team cannot forget to thank the provincial administration and all the community members and community groups who gave their time to talk to the study team and also accompanied the team to various Rainwater Harvesting Potential sites in their areas. In addition, the community groups and community members also provided vital first hand information that was used to prepare this report. It is our expectation that this report provides a sound basis for the next stage of the implementing the study findings. This will in turn lead to further development of Water Harvesting Strategies in the Northern Grazing Area of Imenti North (Meru Central), Tigania and Igembe Districts.


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd ix

Executive Summary “The Study and Research on Potential of Developing Surface Rainwater Harvesting Options in ASAL’s of Meru” was commissioned by the Lay Volunteers International Association (LVIA). LVIA is an Italian based NGO working in partnership with the Catholic Diocese of Meru and Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) focusing on water development in the greater Meru District. Most of the implemented projects under this programme are large scale gravity flow piped water schemes and roof catchment rainwater harvesting tanks. LVIA received financial support from the EDF for the implementation of this Study as part of Project 9 ACP RPR 39/50 – Water Facility (1st call) entitled: “Safe Water Provision and Sustainable Water Management Options in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of 3 Districts in the Greater Meru Region – Eastern Province – Republic of Kenya”. Guiding Systems (GS) Consult was commissioned to carry out the Study starting March 2008 and this report covers the final outcome of the study. During the study process, GS Consult Study Team members made several field trips to the study area between April 2008 and March 2009. The team made a preliminary visit to Meru, Maua, Isiolo and Nanyuki in April 2008. The main institutions interviewed during this visit are Water Office - Maua, Livestock Development Office (Maua), Drought Monitoring Office (Maua), ENNDA Office (Isiolo) and CETRAD Office (Nanyuki). During this visit, several documents and reference materials for the study were acquired. Second field visit was made from 30th May to 7th June 2008. The visit involved more interviews at LVIA Offices (Meru), Water Office (Maua), Drought Monitoring Office (Maua), Agricultural Office (Laare), transect drive through the Northern Grazing Area (NGA) i.e. from Isiolo through Shaba, Kachiuru, Mutuati and Laare. The third field visit was made from 26th to 30th August 2008. During this visit, the team visited and held discussions with community members covering Imenti North (Meru Central) District, Tigania North and East of Tigania District, Ntonyiri, Laare and Mutuati Divisions of Igembe District. The study team talked to farmers, livestock herders, livestock owners, watering points’ attendants’, community leaders, etc through individual interviews and focus group sessions. The team also visited the Imenti North (Meru Central) District Agricultural Office and interviewed the District Crops Development Officer. The third round of field visits was made during the months of October and November 2008 i.e. from 31st October to 7th November 2008 and from 17th to 22nd November 2008. This round of field visits focussed on the following: -

Raising community awareness on the proposed Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Programme by the LVIA in collaboration with the Catholic Diocese of Meru (DOM) and Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) in the Meru Northern Grazing Area (NGA) in Meru Central (now Imenti North), Tigania and Igembe Districts.

Carrying out a technical assessment of potential RWH sites proposed by the community members to establish their feasibility.

Discuss with community members on the possibility of establishing RWH units and proposing names of community members for the formation of RWH working group(s).


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd x

Assess the level of community interest on the proposed RWH initiative and their ability to contribute and the nature of contribution they can make in the establishment and management of RWH structures.

Collection of additional data relevant to the study. The fourth and final round of field visit was made from 16th to 21st March 2009. This field visit focussed on the following: -

Visiting the proposed sites in Meru Central (Imenti North) District and parts of Tigania District, which were not visited for technical assessment during the previous visits;

Selection of at least three sites in study area, which are to be implemented by the client as a tangible outcome of the study process;

Collection of soil samples from the three selected sites for laboratory analysis; and Collection of additional data relevant to the study.

The study findings were presented at a stakeholders’ feedback workshop held at Gitoro Conference Centre, Meru on 27th April 2009. It was attended by twelve (12) participants from Stakeholder-organisations and four (4) members of the Consultants’ team. The stakeholders’ feedback recommendations were incorporated in this final report. This report presents the background information and the findings from the field visits interviews, focus group discussions, observations and desk review. The final study report covers the following among other aspects:

The background information, rationale and context of the study on the potential for Water Harvesting Activities in the Northern Grazing Area (NGA) of Imenti North (Meru Central, Tigania and Igembe District.

The study objectives, Consultant’s responsibilities, specific activities of the assignment, the study methodology, schedule of activities and the implementation progress.

General information on appropriate RWH technologies that have been successfully

tried in other parts of Kenya. These are in-situ Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) technologies, micro catchment RWH, macro catchment RWH, domestic RWH supply systems, etc.

Physical features of the study area e.g. location, climate, topography, soils, hydro-

geography and ground water resources. This section also covers information on administrative units, land rights and ownership, land-use, environment, infrastructure, population, livelihoods, leadership and community organisation, Community Based Organisations (CBOs), self-help groups and other development agencies working in the project area. In addition, issues of water development, irrigation, agriculture and livestock production and wildlife are also covered.

Development potential in the project area in relation to agriculture, livestock and water

harvesting activities.


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd xi

The last section of the final study report provides insights on the key findings of the study, conclusions and recommendations. The principle key findings, conclusions and recommendations are as follows: -

1. The Northern Grazing Area (NGA) of the greater Meru North and Meru Central Districts was formerly set up for grazing but observations have revealed that agricultural activities are being practiced leading to erection of fences and construction of homesteads. An effort has to be made that the NGA remains a grazing area and appropriate boundaries be set-up to control further encroachment.

2. A Users association should be formed to manage the grazing patterns and all NGA

natural resources. Such an association could be formed as in Isiolo, where a Range Users Association exists to manage pastures, water resources, marketing and security issues.

3. Planning of community managed water systems within the NGA may require

convening meetings with the cattle owners as most of the people within the NGA are workers and their employers stay in the higher potential areas and only visit the area occasionally.

4. Water harvesting systems in the NGA can be divided into water harvesting for

livestock production, crop production and domestic use. The systems are tenable at different places in the NGA as the sufficient conditions for different systems coupled with demands are different.

5. In all farming areas within the NGA, crop and livestock production is hampered by

insufficient and poorly distributed rainfall. Appropriate water harvesting systems should aim at impounding run-off and storing it to meet the requirements during the dry spell.

6. After discussions with the communities, in-situ water harvesting structures were

highly ranked due to applicability, cost of implementation and maintenance and simplicity in technology. These include stone bunds, infiltration ditches, terraces, semi-circular bunds, trapezoidal bunds, zai pits and conservation tillage. The main input in all these structures is layout (by a technician) and labour (which can be provided by the farmers). The Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) has been implementing some of these measures in Buuri Division of Imenti North (Meru Central) District. The same efforts need to be replicated or scaled up in other parts of the NGA where farming activities are being practised.

7. The suitability of a particular site for pans depends largely on the permeability of its

soil. In this case testing for soil texture gives a fairly good indication of its suitability. Most sites visited had evidence of sandy, clay and sandy clay loams and hence suitable for pans. Evidence from existing ponds/pans indicates the sites are not porous and hence can hold water.

8. Communities living within the NGA are seemingly not wealthy and their

participation in the project should include, ‘in kind contribution’ i.e. contribution in the form of labour and local materials. These contributions should be translated into


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd xii

monetary terms to establish the actual value of the contribution. There is sufficient community interest in participating in the RWH initiatives. However, community capacity to manage water harvesting structures must be developed concurrently with the construction of structures and their maintenance.

9. The proposed structures (2 water pans and an earth dam), if implemented are

expected to have a significant positive socio-economic impact on the beneficiary communities. These are (1) Mwero Ithongo Water Pan in Njia Location, Igembe North Division, Igembe District, (2) Kalia Ka Ntarabithi Water Pan in Mula Location, Karama Division of Tigania District and (3) Miunda Mirime Earth Dam in Rwarera Location, Buuri Division, Imenti North District (New Buuri District).

10. It is recommended that the use of mechanisation and contractors for major earthworks

is considered in view of the size of some projects especially for the two water pans and one earth dam. This does not exclude use of labour especially where masonry work is required. It is recommended that such skilled or unskilled labour be sourced within the project area or Water Harvesting Unit.

11. There is a slight risk of negative environmental impacts. This risk can be mitigated

through careful attention to the design, construction and management of the structures. Positive environmental impacts are expected to result from the improved soil and water and catchment management and ground water recharge.

12. Land ownership – in the upper fringes of the NGA, individual land ownership could

be discerned; in the lower parts, land is owned by the County Council (Trust land); there is need that the ongoing land adjudication process identifies and sets aside communal land for the structures and management given to the communities through their Water Harvesting Working Group or Project Management Committees (PMCs).

13. There are substantial logistical challenges, primarily related to security and transport

(accessibility) within the heartland of the NGA that must be adequately planned for during any operations in the area.

14. To ensure sustainability of the implemented WH structures i.e. two pans and the earth

dam, appropriate Operation and Maintenance (O & M) mechanisms should be put in place e.g. catchment protection, community involvement in management and regular desilting and repairs. For instance draught animal dam scooping device has been used in some parts of Kenya such as Baringo, Koibatek and Kajiado. Trained oxen and donkeys can be used to carry out the desilting work. Animal trainers are also available in Kenya and can be hired when the need arises.

15. A more detailed survey will need to be undertaken leading to a comprehensive design

of the three proposed structures of two water pans and an earth dam. This survey should include among other things the human and livestock population; topographical and social dynamics.


Final Study Report – GS Consult Ltd 1

1. Introduction “The Study and Research on Potential of Developing Surface Rainwater Harvesting Options in ASAL’s of Meru” was commissioned by the Lay Volunteers International Association (LVIA). LVIA is an Italian based NGO working in partnership with the Catholic Diocese of Meru (DOM) focusing on water development in the greater Meru District. Most of the implemented projects under this programme are large scale gravity flow piped water schemes and to a lesser extend domestic rainwater harvesting tanks. LVIA received financial support from the EDF for the implementation of this Study as part of Project 9 ACP RPR 39/50 – Water Facility (1st call) entitled: “Safe Water Provision and Sustainable Water Management Options in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of 3 Districts in the Greater Meru Region – Eastern Province – Republic of Kenya”. Guiding Systems (GS) Consult was commissioned to carry out the Study starting March 2008 for a period of ten (10) months and this is the final report of the study process.

2. Context and Rationale The Northern Grazing Area (NGA) in Meru District has a deficit of water provision for both domestic and livestock use. Although hardly any permanent settlement exists at present in a large section of the NGA, there is an increased tendency for people to settle at the foot of the Nyambeni Hills to farm food crops, as the population pressure rises in the high potential areas of Meru Central, Tigania and Igembe Districts. This is aggravated by a food crop production deficiency in these areas due to the extensive production of khat commonly known as miraa. For livestock production, the area is more deficient in water than grazing resources (pasture), especially during long dry spells when the Ewaso Ng’iro River in the north dries up. The area is a conflict prone zone between the Meru, Borana, Samburu livestock herders and to some extent Turkana herders. Conflicts are about grazing and water resources, while the Samburu carry out raids occasionally stealing cattle from Meru and Borana herders. Sometimes, cattle are also raided by the Turkana. According to some sources, while the Turkana or Borana may raid for the sake of livelihoods, the Samburu morans raid not only for livelihoods but also as part of a cultural activity that elevates the successful raiders to heroic status and recognition from peers and the community. Few piped water schemes exist in the upper areas of the three districts covered by the NGA i.e. Meru Central (now Imenti North), Tigania and Igembe. Notable examples are Tuuru Water Project in Igembe District, Kanoo-Mula and Kamberia Water Projects in Tigania District. A main pipeline from Liliaba area and extending to the central part of the NGA was constructed to serve both farmers and livestock keepers. The pipeline has since been vandalised due to conflict between herders in the lower areas and farmers in the upper areas. A few boreholes exist but due to lack of organised management, only few are operational. Examples of operational boreholes are Ndumuru in Ntonyiri Division of Igembe District and Kadembene in Tigania West



Division of Tigania District. A few springs exist but are not protected and are diminishing in water capacity. It is for these reasons that LVIA wishes to investigate the alternative potential for simpler water harvesting methods that can be easily maintained by the communities at low cost.

3. The Assignment

3.1 The Consultant The Consulting firm that was commissioned to carry out this study is Guiding Systems (GS) Consult Ltd, based in Nairobi, Kenya. The firm specialises in development planning, training, project implementation and evaluation. The firm’s mission is to enhance development partnerships by applying a holistic participatory approach in training, project planning and implementation, monitoring and evaluation systems. Its vision is to empower people to overcome poverty by planning and implementing development initiatives, which they recognise as their own while utilising new technologies and approaches in Rural and Arid Lands Development. The firm’s objectives are to: develop concepts and assist people take responsibility for their own development process, create development partnerships and reduce conflicts in development interventions both at community level and in those fields where larger scale concepts and implementation are the way to development. GS Consult places special emphasis on Natural Resource Management.

3.2 Consultant’s Team

The Consultant’s team comprised an Agronomist / Dry land Development Expert (Team Leader), a Social Expert / Socio-economist and a Civil / Environmental Engineer and an Institutional Development Expert who was responsible for providing backstopping input to the field team. In addition, the team also included resource persons drawn from institutions working in the study area such as Water Office (Maua), Drought Monitoring Offices in Isiolo and Maua.

3.3 Objectives of the Assignment

The overall objective of the study was to make a contribution towards improving the livelihoods in the three target areas of Meru Central (Imenti North), Tigania and Igembe Districts by improving sustainable access to water for domestic consumption and other livelihood activities such as livestock and agricultural production. More specifically, the consultant was expected to carry out a Study and Research on Alternative Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Methods in the region formerly known as the Northern Grazing Area (NGA) of Meru Central and Meru North Districts with special emphasis on Surface RWH.

3.4 Consultant’s Responsibilities

The Consultant was responsible for: - (i) submitting a comprehensive final report on the findings of the study and

Research to the Contracting Authority; (ii) creating awareness to the target communities on the potential for RWH

technologies for increasing food security and household income; and (iii) facilitating the formation of RWH Working Group comprising of

community representatives, leaders and other resource persons. This



group is expected to actualise and carry forward the recommendations of the study.

3.5 Activities of the Assignment

Throughout the study process, the consultant was expected to carryout the following activities: -

Hold project awareness meetings or barazas with target communities. The meetings would include project launching workshop, field visits and transects. The meetings would also involve consultation with farmers, pastoralists and other relevant stakeholders operating in the study area.

Carryout review and analysis of existing documentation and other

information relevant to the study on human and livestock population, farming and grazing patterns, socio-economic status, community dynamics, land ownership patterns, existing water sources and occurrence of seasonal streams, prevailing soil characteristics and road infrastructure and accessibility.

Assess and evaluate the existing and potential rainwater harvesting systems in

the NGA in collaboration with local stakeholders using relevant participatory methods: As water harvesting is relatively new to the area, the Consultant would undertake extensive field visits to current and previous sites where small-scale irrigation schemes are on-going or have been attempted in the past. The reasons for previous failures would be examined including the lessons learned. The use of focus group discussions and other rural appraisal methods would be employed. The Consultant would also visit and consult with agencies (governmental and non-governmental) that are engaged in complementary development activities in the study area in order to foster collaboration and establish networks.

Identify and select suitable sites for the construction of RWH structures in

collaboration with participating communities. In consultation with the respective communities and taking into account the field experiences in the area, the Consultant would propose to the Contracting Authority (LVIA), the suitable sites for construction of dams, pans, ponds, rock catchments or other options of surface RWH. The criteria for the selection would take into account (i) the technical and economic viability, (ii) the environmental and social impact, (iii) catchment area extent vis-à-vis water requirements, (iv) soil conditions, (v) community participation, (vi) land ownership and (vii) future management and maintenance options.

Present to the communities any relevant case studies on community based

RWH elsewhere that offer best practices for enhancing food security and water availability. This would also include giving feedback to the community on the findings of the study.

Facilitate the establishment of a rainwater harvesting working group made up

of community representatives, leaders and other resource persons.



Elaboration of the data collected and compilation into a final report, which would be submitted to the Contracting Authority. The report would among other issues contain detailed technical RWH options available and the respective approximate costs. Where applicable, standard designs would be used. The locations of the options would be included on the map of the area.

3.6 Study Methodology

The study process was carried out in four main steps as elaborated below: - Step 1: Inception Phase: The inception phase was carried out between the months of March and August 2008 as explained below: - The study team made a preliminary visit to the study area and held discussions with the contracting authority (LVIA) in Meru, relevant Government Departments e.g. Water Office, Livestock Office, Statistics Office, Drought Monitoring Office, etc in Maua. In addition, the team visited and held discussions with other Development Agencies operating in the study area e.g. Ewaso Nyiro North Development Authority (ENNDA) in Isiolo and CETRAD in Nanyuki. This visit was carried out from 31st March to 1st April 2008. The study team made a familiarisation visit to the study area from 30th May to 7th June 2008. During the visit, the study team accomplished the following: -

Met and held discussions with LVIA and acquired more desk review reference documents.

Reviewed documents on past studies in the project area Reviewed maps of the study area Traversed the study area (transect drives) observing the potential for RWH

structures, interviewed livestock herders met on the way or at watering points. Held discussions with Manager of Tuuru Water Project at Laare, officers at

Maua Water Office, Drought Monitoring Office-Maua, Statistics Office-Maua, Agriculture and Livestock Office-Laare and ENNDA Office-Isiolo, etc.

Key Outcomes: The following are the key outcomes realised from the visit: - A sound understanding and consensus on the project objective and outputs

between Client and Consultant; Awareness amongst all stakeholders in the project area about the Study; Availability of all existing data and analysis including secondary data; Awareness within the communities of the broad purpose of the Study to be

implemented, introduction of the consultant team and initial community access through key persons introduced by the Client.

Identification of key community mobilisation persons. Step 2: Technical Assessment of Potential for RWH This step, which began in September 2008 involved the following: - Taking inventory of existing RWH measures, their location and impact in the

project area;



The technical potential for RWH measures was assessed taking into consideration the geography, soils, water courses, land ownership, environmental aspects, etc.;

The widest diversity of RWH measures were established to allow for choice and full utilisation of the existing potential;

Through participatory research and wide consultation, existing data were validated to establish the water requirements for domestic and livestock use as well as for agriculture purposes in the project area. An analysis of present agriculture practises was carried out and the grazing and fodder base for livestock determined.

Through consultation of the local community and key stakeholders the criterion for sub-dividing the area into RWH Units was agreed upon. The old divisional boundaries of both Meru Central (Imenti North) Districts seemed the most feasible option where smaller administrative divisions would be combined to form RWH Units while larger ones remained as a RWH Unit. These RWH Units will also form the basis for any community-based organisational network to be established during the implementation process of the RWH initiative.

The potential for small-scale irrigation activities including bucket drip irrigation for household kitchen gardens and RWH for dry land farming of annual food crops, fodder, horticulture (fruits and vegetables) as well as other innovative, attractive cash crops for instance jatropha curcas for local bio-fuel was assessed.

Key Outcomes: Key outcomes during this step are as follows: - The study team gained a clear understanding of the project area, the existing

RWH measures, the potential for RWH and the variety of technology applicable and water requirements for domestic and livestock use;

The team members also got a clear picture of the agriculture and livestock development potential under RWH measures, including potential innovations to be presented to the communities during the participatory planning process;

Basic GPS information was used in generation of a map of the study area reflecting the RWH potential and possible sub-division of the project area for community-based organisational purposes.

The technical assessments and identification of potential sites together with basic statistical data for the area acquired from secondary sources and interviews with key informants has provided a matrix of opportunities and possibilities for RWH development in the study area. Step 3: The Community-Based Planning Process This step was carried out in two sessions. The first session was carried out in October and November 2008 i.e. from 31st October to 7th November 2008 and from 17th to 22nd November 2008. The second session was carried out from 16th to 21st March 2009. The third step involved the following activities: - Visiting locations/sub-locations in the project area whereby the study team met

and interviewed provincial administrators (chiefs, assistant chiefs), met and interviewed religious leaders, council of elders (njuri nceke), community opinion leaders, common interest groups, NGOs and CBOs working in the area. The interviews and focus group discussion sessions at this stage focused on community organisational matters, existing water and agriculture and livestock projects (success stories and failures), potential sites and technologies for new



RWH projects. The consultant’s team shared the proposed project concept and discussed possible potential innovations for food security, livelihoods improvement and diversification in relation to RWH technology.

The process also gave the chance to community members whereby they gave suggestions for potential sites for construction of various types of water harvesting structures for provision of water for domestic, livestock and farming use.

The technical possibilities and choices that were earlier established were thoroughly deliberated upon during the community meetings at the visited areas in each of the three districts of Meru Central (Imenti North), Tigania and Igembe.

The final field activity in this step involved the selection of three RWH project sites for implementation i.e. one from each of the three districts of Imenti North (Meru Central), Tigania and Igembe.

Key Outcomes: Several potential sites for location of WH structures were identified. Three

potential sites were prioritised for implementation and soil samples collected for analysis. This was done in consultation with community members. The involvement of the community members in this case ensured that local knowledge is utilised and that the local people also understand the limitations of some of the RWH technologies prioritised.

During this step, six WH Units were agreed upon covering the entire Meru NGA. It needs to be seen if these organisational clusters will be registered as Water Users Associations (WUAs) or other forms of registration of common interest groups (CIGs).

With the discussion of the organisational structures, the establishment and consensus on rules, regulations and terms for implementation is also required especially during the time of scaling-up and expansion of RWH activities. This will provide long-term sustainability to future projects and will pave the way for a smooth implementation process.

Step 4: Final Report and Maps This is the last and final step in the study process. The step involves the following activities: - Preparation and submission of the final report after the completion of the

community-based planning process; Preparation of the final maps; Presentation of the findings and conclusions to the Client and selected

stakeholders at a feedback workshop, which was held on 27th April 2009 at Gitoro Conference Centre in Meru.

Key Outcomes: Final report and thematic maps. Location and type of RWH measures selected; Preliminary standard designs and costs of structural measures; A concise overview of the community contribution to each planned measure.



4. Appropriate RWH Technologies The term “rainwater harvesting” is usually taken to mean the immediate collection of rainwater running off surfaces upon which it has fallen directly. It is also a method for inducing, collecting, storing and conserving local surface run-off for domestic, agriculture and industrial use (Boers and Ben-Asher, 1982). In crop production systems, RWH is composed of a run-off producing area normally called the Catchment Area (CA) and a run-off utilisation area normally called Cropped Basin (CB). In situ RWH system involves methods used to increase the amount of water stored in the soil profile by trapping and holding the rainwater where it falls. Water harvesting systems are divided into different categories basically determined by the distance between CA and CB as discussed below.

4.1 In-situ Rain Water Harvesting

This may involve small movements of rainwater as surface run-off in order to concentrate the water where it is wanted most fig 1 below.

In-situ RWH is sometimes called water conservation and is basically a prevention of net run-off from a given cropped area by holding rainwater and prolonging the time for infiltration. This system works better where the soil water holding capacity is large enough and the rainfall is equal or less than the crop water requirement. The in-situ RWH is achieved mainly by the following means: Deep tillage: Tillage normally assists in increasing the soil moisture holding capacity through increased porosity, increasing the infiltration rates and reducing the surface run-off by providing surface micro-relief or roughness, which helps in temporary storage of rain water, thus providing more time for infiltration. Contour farming and ridging: This is important where cultivation is done on slopes ranging from 3% and above. All farm husbandry practices such as tilling and weeding are done along the contours so as to form a cross-slope barrier to the flow of water. Where this is not enough, it is complemented with ridges, which are sometimes tied to create a high degree of surface roughness to enhance the infiltration of water into the soil. Agronomic practices: Practices such as use of farm yard manure (FYM), timely weeding and mulching are used to enhance water availability in the soil by improving the water holding capacity and reducing soil water evaporation.

Fig. 1 Components of in situ RWH system

CA Treated to increase run-offCB with Enhanced infiltration

Runoff



4.2 Micro-catchment RWH

This is a system where there is a distinct division of CA and CB but the areas are adjacent to each other. This system is mainly used for growing medium water demanding crops such as maize, sorghum, groundnuts and millet. These systems include: Pitting: These are small semi-circular pits dug to break the crusted soil surface. FYM is added in the pits thus permitting the concentration of water and nutrients. Seeds are planted in the middle of the pits. They are suitable for areas with rainfall of between 350-600mm per annum. Strip catchment tillage: This involves tilling strips of land along crop rows and leaving appropriate sections of the inter-row space uncultivated so as to release run-off. It is normally used where the slopes are gentle and the run-off from the uncultivated parts adds water to the cropped strips. The Catchment Basin Area Ratios (CBAR) used are normally less than or equal to 2:1. The system can be used for nearly all types of crops and is easy to mechanize. Contour bunds: This system consists of small trash, earth or stone embankments, constructed along the contour lines. The embankments trap the water flow behind the bunds allowing deeper infiltration into the soil. The height of the bund determines the net storage of the structure. Semi-circular bunds: Runoff water is collected within the hoop from the area above it and impounded by the depth decided by the height of the bund and the position of the tips. Excess water is discharged around the tips and is intercepted by the second row and so on. These are constructed in series in staggered formation. Meskat-type system: In this system, instead of having CA and CB alternating like the previous methods, here the field is divided into two distinct parts, the CA and CB, whereby the CB is immediately below the CA. In this system, the CA is treated either by removal of vegetation and compaction in order to increase the generation of run-off. The CB is enclosed by a U-shaped bund to pond the harvested water. The CBAR is 2:1. It can be used for almost all cereal crops such as maize, sorghum and millet. Large trapezoidal bunds: The bunds are 120m between upstream wings and 40m at the base. They have been tried successfully in arid areas of Turkana District, for sorghum, trees and grass production. Fanya juu terraces: These are made by digging a trench along the contour and throwing the soil upslope to form an embankment. They have made a very significant impact in reducing soil erosion in semi-arid areas with relatively steep slopes. They have been used for RWH by incorporating tied ridges in the channel with closed outlets.

4.3 Macro-catchment RWH

This is a system that involves the collection of run-off from large areas, which are at an appreciable distance from where it is being used. This is sometimes used with intermediate storage of water outside the CB for later use. This system involves harvesting of water from catchments of areas ranging from 0.1ha to thousands of



hectares either located near the cropped basin or long distances away. The catchment areas usually have slopes ranging from 5-50%, while the harvested water is used on cropped areas, which are either terraced or on flat lands. When the catchment is large and located at a significant distance from the cropped area, the run-off water is conveyed through structures of diversion and distribution networks. The most important systems include the following: Hillside sheet/rill run-off utilisation: In this system, run-off which occurs on hill-tops, sloping grounds, grazing lands or other compacted areas flow and naturally collect on low lying flat areas. In many areas, farmers grow their crops on the wetted part of the landscape and use the run-off without any further manipulation or management. Where the run-off is not high, bunds are constructed on the cropped area in order to form earth basins, which assist in holding the water and increasing infiltration into the soil. These bunds are important when the cropped area is not at the bottom of the landscape. Floodwater harvesting within the stream bed: This is a system that uses barriers such as permeable stone dams to block the water flow and spread it on the adjacent plain and enhance infiltration. The wetted area is then used for crop production. Ephemeral stream diversion: This system involves diverting water from its natural ephemeral stream and conveying it to arable cropping areas. RWH with storage: Sometimes macro-catchment RWH produces high volumes of run-off that cannot be stored in the soil profile. In such circumstances, the harvested water is stored in dams or water pans. Small dams are normally constructed in rolling topography where creeks can be found and the dams are constructed across them. The system requires methods for controlling siltation especially if the area is prone to soil erosion, evaporation, and seepage losses especially if the subsoil is sandy. This water is ideal for livestock.

4.4 Domestic Water Supply Systems

Most modern technologies for obtaining domestic/drinking water are related to the exploitation of surface water from rivers, streams and lakes, and groundwater from wells, springs and boreholes. However, these sources account for only 40% of total precipitation. Falling rain can provide some of the cleanest naturally occurring water that is available anywhere. It is, therefore, important to collect rainwater when it falls, before huge losses occur due to evaporation and transpiration and before it becomes contaminated by natural means or man-made activities. Some of the RWH technologies for domestic use are: Roof catchment: Rainwater can be collected from tiled or sheeted roofs (corrugated mild steel) but asbestos sheeting or lead-painted surfaces should be avoided as they are poisonous. The rainwater is collected in guttering placed around the eaves of the building. The guttering drains to a down-pipe, which discharges into a storage tank. The down-pipe should be made to swivel so that the collection of the first run-off can be run to waste (the first foul flush), thus preventing accumulated bird droppings, leaves, twigs, dust and debris from entering the storage tank (see picture 1).



Sometimes a collecting box with a mesh strainer (or with additional filter) is used to prevent the ingress of potential pollutants. Rock catchment: The same way roofs of buildings are used for collecting rainwater, the rock outcrops can be used as collecting surfaces. Access to the catchment area by animals and children should be prevented. A well-maintained rock catchment can collect water of high quality, as long as its surfaces are well flushed and cleaned before storage takes place. Depending on the size of the rock catchment, a significant amount of water can be obtained from sloping rock catchments. At the foot of the slopes, collecting channels drain into pipes that lead to tanks excavated inside the rock. Sometimes it proves difficult to prevent the collected water from being polluted. If so, it is sensible to use this water for purposes that do not require a potable water supply, such as house cleaning and laundry. The water can also be used for agriculture and livestock. There are various water purification methods that can be used if the water is to be used for domestic purposes. In some cases and depending on the size of the rock catchment, a dam or a water pan can be constructed below the rock catchment to serve as a reservoir but this depends on the natural landscape of the area.

Picture 1: Roof catchment system fitted with first foul flush



Sand dams: A sand dam is a special sub-surface concrete or masonry barrier that is built across a seasonal river at the height or above the height of the riverbank (see fig 2). Both sand and sub-surface dams increase the water storage capacity of a river by accumulating sand and gravel against its walls, upstream of the dam.

Sand dams store water in upstream reservoirs and also within the sand and gravel particles accumulating against its walls. Coarse gravel and sand can store and retain up to 35% of its total volume as water. This water is captured for use through an ordinary well or tube-well that is dug into this storage material. Sand dam technology is simple, and construction lends itself to participatory development, making it economically and socially effective. The dams require minimal maintenance and their lifetime is expected to be more than 100 years. Community involvement and participation is possible through provision of labour, sand and stones, artisan housing, and food for those working on the dams. Sand dams have successfully been constructed in Kitui District, Machakos and Makueni Districts in Kenya and both economic and social benefits have been accrued. Subsurface dams: A subsurface dam is a barrier built of clay or masonry across a sandy river bed to prevent sub-surface water flow in the sand within the stream. In arid and semi-arid areas, sand and gravel deposits associated with streams and rivers can provide water for drinking purposes as well as for irrigation. Such watercourses are generally seasonal but can be perennial. Riverbeds that are dry but have green vegetation along their banks and in the bed, indicate that there must be a source of water in the vicinity below bed level. Natural sub-surface dams are often the reason for such areas of accumulated water and the resultant greenery. An outcrop of bedrock lying across a river acts as a dam and prevents the downstream flow of the sub-surface water within the sand bed of the river. Seasonal flood flow also saturates the riverbanks. The improvement of natural sub-surface dams in valleys and river beds, and the construction of new ones, is an effective and less expensive means of augmenting water resources. The dam can be constructed of concrete, masonry, block work, stone-filled gabions with waterproof membranes such as plastic sheet or clay layer, or stabilised soil. It is important that the dam is founded upon impermeable bedrock and that the ends of the dam are keyed into the riverbanks and, where necessary, wing walls are constructed to prevent erosion and the by-passing of flow when the river valley is in flood. Several dams in cascade can be constructed to increase the total volume stored.

Fig. 2: A sand dam



The major advantage of sub-surface dams is minimal water losses from evaporation. In addition, breeding of insects and parasites such as mosquitoes and bilharzia parasites is prevented while contamination of stored water by people and animals is greatly reduced. A hand pump can be provided to abstract water in a hygienic and controlled manner.

5. Present Situation

5.1 Physical Features of the Study Area

5.1.1 Location The Meru North Grazing Area (NGA) is located north and north-west of the Nyambeni Hills. The hills jut out from the hilly landscape of Central Meru in a north to north-eastern direction. It covers semi-arid, low lying grazing lands of northern Meru that border Isiolo District to the east, the north and the west. New Districts have been formed recently and the project area straddles two main Districts, namely Igembe and Tigania, with a small portion in Meru Central District (now Imenti North). The project area stretches between 0 degrees and 40 minutes North and 0 degrees North 13 minutes; 37 degrees and 30 minutes East and 38 degrees and 08 minutes East. The total area covers about 1,180 squared kilometres or 118,000 or just over 290,000 acres of land.

5.1.2 Climate

The climate of the NGA is predominantly semi-arid with an annual average rainfall of about 500 to 900 mm. Although the long rains are still termed as such between March and May, the reality is that the most reliable amount of rainfall is received during October-December (the short rains). The average rainfall in each season is as follows:

March-May season – 291 mm October-December – 448 mm

It seems that the area is gradually changing from a bimodal rainfall pattern to a single rainy season. It is evident that the Study Area is located in a rain shadow of the northern Mount Kenya foothills including the Nyambeni Hills.

5.1.3 Topography

The topography of the area is gently rolling broken by a few hills and has a drainage pattern towards the north, away from the Nyambeni Hills towards the Ewaso Ng’iro River basin. Notable rivers in this case are Lathima, Murompa, Kalibuuri and Liliaba, which are all seasonal. Another notable stream is Rikiundu that flows from Nyambeni hills through Gambela and Ngaremara in Tigania North.

5.1.4 Soils

Brown heavy clays and black cotton soils dominate the area. Higher elevated areas within the undulating topography have lighter clay loams and slightly sandy loams. There is a lot of volcanic stone covering the surface and also buried within the top soil. The tops of the undulating landscape have underlying hard solid rocks. The valleys show deep alluvial heavy soils (see picture 2). The surface of weathered Basement System rocks is covered with coarse, red sand (e.g. in Shaba area). Volcanic rocks are overlain by fine brown, grey and black volcanic soils.



The Northern Grazing Area is part of the Volcanic Low Lands roughly occurring between 600 – 1,500 meters (1,900 – 5,000 ft) above sea level with pre-dominantly heavy soils of volcanic origin (see also section 5.1.8).

Picture 2: A section of the Northern Grazing Area of the greater Meru North District

Picture 3: Cattle owned by Meru herders watering at the Ngarenaite / Lailuba Spring along the Isiolo-Kula Mawe Road. Borana and Somali herders also water their animals at the spring – some coming from as far as 30 km away



5.1.5 Hydro-Geography and Groundwater Resources

Water bearing layers are expected to be encountered at the surface between the lower Nyambeni lava that is located at the base of the hills and surrounding individual hills and the underlying Basement System rocks. This surface represents the end-tertiary peneplain and the upper part most likely consists of sediments underlain by weathered zone of Basement gneisses. The overlying volcanic rocks (Lower Nyambeni Volcanic Series) if substantial are of importance as potential water bearing layers. They also serve as an important conduit for transmission of water from the recharge area within the Nyambeni range. 1 The volcanic low lands have formed from lavas, which extruded from the Nyambeni Hills. These lower most slopes of the Nyambeni Hills that include the NGA, have very few springs and no permanent surface water flowing, but it has rich and very productive aquifers. The potential is so high that it may be suitable to exploit groundwater for irrigation purposes2. This is confirmed by a Study financed by JICA for ENNDA. It indicates a very high potential for groundwater development.

1 Groundwater Survey Kenya Ltd – Hydrogeological Survey Kinna 1998 2 WRAP – Water Resources Assessment & Planning by TNO – The Netherlands 1991 (GoK and GoN)



In figure 3 the bright turquoise color indicates very high groundwater potential. It is clear that under the entire NGA (see red arrow) the potential is high. It can also be seen that near Isiolo town the colour yellow indicates low potential and mostly brackish water. The same applies for the areas presently farmed along the main road to Isiolo town from Timau and the far south-west corner within Meru Central (Imenti North) District. Lava flows have played a major part in the development of drainage. The flows often followed pre-existing river valleys, thus damming the tributary drainage and resulting in the development of ponds and lakes. Eventually rivers developed parallel to the edges of the flows. The splitting and development of parallel streams is evident within the plains. The vegetation within the study area consists of fairly open grassland with scattered thorn trees. Ribbons of dense vegetation exist along the floodplains of the rivers, comprising fig and palm trees, the latter forming extensive doum palm forests where the water table is shallow.

H i g h G r o u n d w a t e r Po t e n t i a l

Z one

M e d i u m G r o u n d w a t e r P o t e n t i a l Zone

L o w G r o u n d w a t e r P o t e n t i a l Z o ne

U n c e r t a i n G r o u n d w a t e r P o t e n t i al

Zone

B r a c k i s h W a t e r

Z o n e S a l i n e W a t e r

Z o n e D i s t r i c t B o u n d a r y

- L E G E N D

-

N

E W

S

M a r s a b i t

Moyale

L aik i p i a

IsioloS a m b u r u

Wajir

Garissa

Mandera

M e r u North

M e r u C e n t r al

N y e r i N y a n d aru a

Fig 3: Groundwater Potential - Source: Ewaso Ng’ro North River Catchment Conservation and Water Resource Management Study/ Rural Water Resource Development and Management Project (ENNDA)



Groundwater development definitely provides an alternative to water harvesting. It has been recorded repeatedly and in many reports that most groundwater development has met with inadequate management from the communities and consequently boreholes do not seem to be a sustainable form of water development in the NGA at present. This begs the question, will water-harvesting structures fare any better if the communities are not willing to maintain and organize themselves around water development, but will go as far as vandalizing existing supply watering systems? The Ndumuru Borehole was first mismanaged by the community’s elected committee before the Tana Water, Borehole and Sanitation Company (TANAWASCO) was contracted to run it on behalf of the community.

5.1.6 Administrative Units

The Northern Grazing Area used to belong to the Meru North District. The District has recently been subdivided into the Igembe and Tigania Districts. The sub-division has been so recent that the new District Headquarters at Uru for Tigania is not yet fully functional and most information in still at the old District Headquarters in Maua. A small corner of the NGA in the far south-west lies within the Meru Central District (currently, Imenti North District) with its headquarters in Meru Town. All administrative units in the NGA run in relatively narrow bands from south to north and incorporate the escarpments, foothills and the highlands. During the second half of 2008, the three districts underwent further sub-divisions; hence the new district boundaries and the constituency boundaries are the same. For instance, the new Buuri District was curved out of Meru Central (Imenti North) District. The new Buuri District has two divisions namely; Buuri and Timau. On the other hand, Tigania District has been sub-divided into Tigania East and Tigania West Districts. Tigania East District Comprises Karama and Muthara Divisions while Tigania West comprises Mituntu, Akithi and Uringu Divisions. Karama Division has Mula, Karama and Antuanduru Locations while Muthara Division has Buuri, Ngaremara and Muthara Locations. On the other hand, Igembe District has been subdivided into two districts namely: Igembe North and Igembe South Districts. The statistics for the administrative units of the former Meru Central and Meru North Districts exist, but are difficult to sub-divide for the NGA alone. There are very few people and any permanent settlement in the NGA apart from in the far west and south-west where smallholder farmers have settled. But even in the surrounding area due north-east of Isiolo Town (Ngaremara area), most farming is on a slash and burn basis and no permanent abode can be identified. Table 1: Administrative Units within the NGA

District Total Divisions

Divisions in NGA

% NGA

Total Locations

Locations in NGA

% NGA

50 2 Naathu 70 Mutuati Kabachi 35

70 3 Antuambui 70 Ntunene 80

Laare

Akiriang'ondu 35 75 6 Njia 80 Kangeta 30

Igembe 8

Igembe North

Nkinyanga 75



80 4 Antuanduru 65 Karama 80

Tigania North

Buuri 95 Akithi 45 2 Akithi 55

Tigania 6

Tigania West 50 3 Mituntu 60 80 Ruiri 95 Naari 80

Imenti North (Meru Central)

Buuri

Rwarera 70

5.1.7 Land Rights and Ownership

At present, the NGA is Trust Land used freely and communally. According to interview sources, land adjudication process has been ongoing since 1966. A lot of pressure is exerted by people in the higher potential areas of Meru to settle in the low lands commonly known to the community members as “jangwani”, Swahili for “desert”. Land adjudication committees have been formed in areas such as Mutuati. The adjudication process however, seems to be plagued by irregularities and more land has been preliminary allocated than exists. Those who have been allocated are in turn selling to unsuspecting buyers without physical verification. There is a very high likelihood that land adjudication could ignite serious crisis as not all those who have lived in the NGA are likely to benefit. The Meru North District Development Plan 2002-2008 confirms that the provision of land adjudication for all land is a priority. The “Meru Concessional Area” in the north-west of the project area was initially not included in the NGA. The reason for this was that its status was unknown. It was confirmed by the Study Team that the area was a concession from the Meru District to the Isiolo District before Independence. The reasons behind the original concession could not be ascertained. However, in 1992 the concession was revoked through an Act of Parliament and it now belongs officially to the Meru North District. It therefore forms part of the study area, the Meru Northern Grazing Area (NGA).

5.1.8 Land Use

The land use in the NGA is predominantly free grazing. The rangelands are communally grazed. The main determinant of animal movements is the availability of water and security concerns from occasional livestock raiders. Land use on agriculture is restricted to the transition zone between the foothills of the Mount Kenya and Nyambeni foothills and the low lands towards Isiolo. There is also some limited irrigation going on near Isiolo where permanent springs exist e.g. at Ngarenaite/Lailubua along the Isiolo – Kula Mawe Road and Ngaremara Location. Other notable small-holder irrigation activities are carried out in Ngarendare area in Meru Central (Imenti North) where crops such as tomatoes, onions and French beans are irrigated with water from permanent streams emanating from the higher areas towards Mt. Kenya forest. In very few places, enclosures of livestock can be seen in grazing camps in the hinterland of the NGA. Permanent settlements are sparse due to insecurity. A few small centres exist such as Ndumuru or Sharp (Shaba Ndogo) and Kachiuru along the main road from Isiolo towards Kula Mawe. The whole NGA section in Imenti North (Meru Central) District and parts of Tigania North, Akithi, and Mituntu Divisions are mostly settled and farmed by smallholders.



5.1.9 State of the Environment

The grazing lands in the NGA are in good condition and serious overgrazing is not evident. During fieldwork, it was observed that the grazing potential had benefited from rains received in April-May 2008 and that livestock was in very good condition (see picture 3). Browsing is limited in the centre belt of the NGA and this is the reason why a lot of cattle are grazed by Meru herders. The pastoralists’ mostly grazing small stock and many camels were evident. Along the foothills in the south and south-west, smallholder farmers are gradually descending into the NGA cultivating on small plots. The invasion of farming into the semi-arid belt of the NGA will cause irrevocable damage to the natural grazing lands while the ongoing incursion is taking advantage of its dry season grazing potential. In Kamweline area in Mutuati Division, new farms are being opened up with no evidence of soil conservation measures and miraa (khat) is planted, which seems to grow reasonably well. Increased and accelerated erosion is evident on the slopes where farming is replacing grasslands. The erosion processes induced by increased farming is reflected in heavier sedimentation in the drainage system within the NGA. It is mostly the lack of reliable water provision for domestic use, which is slowing down the conversion from natural grazing land into arable smallholder farms at present. The extension of Kanoo-Mula Water pipeline into the NGA around Mula Hills has attracted farming and it’s a matter of time before the area is fully settled, hence the state of the environment is bound to drastically change.

5.1.10 Infrastructure

The road network is very limited. Apart from the main road (B9)3 which is a reasonable all weather murrum road that transects the Study Area from Isiolo to Kachiuru, continuing towards Garba Tula, there are no other access roads into the NGA, north or south of this road. From Kachiuru one road leads up into the Nyambeni Hills through Mutuati to Laare. A few tracks lead down from the Nyambeni Hills down towards the foot of the hills but mostly disappear where the smallholder farms end. However, there is one 18-km track from Laare to Ndumuru Village, situated along the Isiolo – Kula Mawe Road. Two main roads are under construction, one from Isiolo to Muthara and the other from Isiolo through Mugae to Ruiri. According to some sources, the former road is expected to ease transportation of khat (miraa) from the Nyambeni hills to Isiolo. The plan is to construct an airport at Isiolo that will also facilitate the transportation of the commodity by air to destinations within and outside Kenya.

5.2 The People

There are very few people permanently settled in the NGA apart from around the fringes of the lower Nyambeni Hills in the south. In the far south west around the Mula Hills, dry land smallholder farming is common and has been present for more than 20 years. Some dry land farming in the vicinity of Isiolo in the far west and north-west is slash and burn and from the non permanent dwellings, people are not really permanently settled. Farmers are mostly from Meru, while the NGA is also utilised by the Turkana, Borana and Somali for their livestock grazing. A mixture of pastoralists and farmers is usually a formula for conflict and the NGA is no exception.

3 Google Earth



5.2.1 Population

Population figures for the area are difficult to assess. Statistics are per administrative units and since most of these are only partly within the NGA it is not simply a matter of extrapolation since hardly any people are settled in most of the NGA. The people using the grazing area are mostly transient and depend on seasonal availability of pasture and water. Even the limited smallholder dry land farming east of Isiolo along the Isiolo – Kula Mawe road is seasonal and people do not stay in one place the entire year. The NGA section that lies in Meru Central District is more populated and settled compared to Tigania and Igembe Districts. The farm sizes increase as one moves from the higher potential zones in the NGA to the more arid sections. In Mumui area of Mituntu Division in Tigania District, farmers in Rarani settlement scheme own lands ranging from 12 acres in higher potential zones, 14 acres in medium potential and 16 acres in low potential zones according to a farmer, Mr. Joseph Mungathia interviewed by the study team. According to the Meru North District Development Plan, the population of the greater Meru North District (now Tigania and Igembe Districts) grew by an average 2.76% per annum in the 1989 – 1999 decade from 459,947 in 1989 to 604,050 in 1999. The population was projected to be 774,376 by year 2008. On the other hand, in 1999, the district population density per km2 was estimated at 153 persons and projected to be 196 persons by 2008. Table 2 below provides population and population density projections by division in 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 in selected divisions covering NGA. It is important to note that names of some divisions have since changed after the Meru North District was split into Tigania and Igembe Districts. Table 2: Population and Population Density Projections by selected Divisions

1999 2002 2004 2006 2008 Division Pop Dens Pop Dens Pop Dens Pop Dens Pop Dens

Igembe North

58,046 207 63,057 225 66,635 238 70,417 251 74,413 266

Igembe Central

41,944 881 45,565 957 48,151 1,012 50,883 1,069 53,771 1,130

Igembe South

18,209 246 19,781 267 20,903 282 22,090 298 23,344 315

Igembe S/West

21,791 281 23,672 305 25,016 322 26,435 341 27,935 360

Igembe East 28,575 398 31,042 432 32,803 457 34,665 483 36,632 510 Igembe S/East

18,700 310 20,314 336 21,467 355 22,685 376 23,973 397

Laare 65,428 158 71,076 171 75,110 181 79,372 191 83,877 202 Ndoleli 54,730 230 59,455 249 62,829 264 66,394 279 70,163 294 Mutuati 56,751 84 61,650 91 65,149 97 68,846 102 72,753 108 Tigania Central

45,061 377 48,951 410 51,729 433 54,665 458 57,767 484

Uringu 39,003 374 42,370 406 44,775 429 47,316 453 50,001 479 Tigania North

49,098 99 53,336 108 56,363 114 59,562 120 62,942 127

Tigania West 32,266 239 35,051 259 37,041 274 39,143 290 41,364 306 Tigania East 30,944 285 33,615 310 35,523 327 37,539 346 39,669 365 Akithi 43,096 266 46,816 289 49,473 305 52,281 322 55,248 341 Meru N. Park 408 1 443 1 468 1 495 1 523 2

Source: District Statistics Office, Maua, 2001



In Imenti North (Meru Central) District, statistics from the Agricultural Department indicated that Buuri Division forms a bigger percentage of the area under NGA. The human population by gender in the four locations in the division are indicated in table 3 below: Table 3: Buuri Division Population Statistics by Gender4

Population by Gender Location No. of Households Male Female

Total

Naari 3,413 8,560 8,653 17,213Kiirwa 2,505 5,281 5,102 10,383Rwarera 1,385 3,142 3,110 6,252Ruiri 2,505 6,113 6,329 12,442Total 9,810 23,096 23,194 46,290Source: Buuri Division Agricultural Office

5.2.2 Livelihoods

The farmers in the high potential areas of the Meru region who are the well-to-do also own the livestock that is grazed in the NGA. Family members and hired hands take care of the large herds of cattle. One herd is often composed of animals belonging to many owners in the highlands who are related through family kinship and clan or just friends or neighbours. Herders are rarely the owners although some herders who were interviewed by the Study Team claimed to own some of the cattle. Since the high potential areas are up to 90% used for miraa cultivation, which provides a significant cash income to farmers, food security in the area is in a precarious situation.5 The area imports most of its food from outside the Meru region and is highly food deficient with regard to its own production. This reflects on the nutrition status of many households. Since miraa is a “cash crop”6 as in the coffee zones of Kenya, the revenue does not always benefit the women and children of the household. Land for subsistence farming is hardly available. In this rural “export and import” cash economy, poverty levels are lower than the estimated national average and is set at 45%.7 The Meru farmers perceive the NGA as an expansion zone for agriculture and are advocating for land adjudication. There are two visions fuelling expansion of farming towards the lower parts of the highlands surrounding the southern part of the NGA. Those farmers producing khat (miraa) see an opportunity to get land for the production of food crops and where water is available for further expansion of khat (miraa) production. Poor households see an opportunity to obtain land for subsistence farming in the NGA since no land is within their financial reach in the highlands, even if there was any land to be acquired. In addition, the more affluent farmers see an opportunity to have large tracts of land enclosed for intensified livestock production. These hopes and visions on the side of the people living in the highlands are causing increased pressure on politicians and leaders to sub-divide land that is “ours”. It was

4 Buuri Division is Currently in the new Buuri District & formerly in Imenti North / Meru Central District 5 Divisional Agriculture Office in Laare and Arid Lands Programme in Maua 6 Miraa (khat) is not classified as a cash crop by the Ministry of Agriculture 7 Meru North District Development Plan 2002-2008



suggested to the Study Team that the NGA in the mind of the people is already fully booked and everybody knows their prospective plot. Actually, people are already fencing off their prospective plots as they wait for adjudication process to seal the deal.

5.2.3 Pastoralists and Farmers

The people from Meru are farmers at heart and the diversification into cattle ranching in the NGA is basically a financial investment and not a mainstay of existence. The cattle owners belong to the richer strata of the Meru community. On the other hand, the NGA is utilised by a variety of pastoralist groups with the Borana most obvious in the north-eastern part of the NGA where they have permanent settlements. There is also Turkana settlement north of the centre of the NGA in Isiolo District, next to the Shaba Game Reserve. Turkana are also present in the Concessional Area, north of Isiolo. The pastoralist groups, including the Somali move in and out of the NGA depending on the availability of grazing pasture and the water. For the neighbouring pastoralist communities the NGA is part of their common and seasonal grazing resources.

5.2.4 Coexistence and Conflict

While the pastoralists feel that the NGA is grazing area for all and certain groupings see the Meru cattle herds as rich picking for raiding, the Meru farmers are having problems protecting their investment in the area. The cattle herds tend to graze at the foothills of the Nyambeni Hills and towards the centre and north-west of the NGA and avoid grazing in the north-east and far north. Although in Meru the people perceive the NGA as “theirs” this is not really the case. The NGA is not traditionally used by herders from Meru alone. Pastoralist communities also make use of the area especially the Borana from neighbouring Isiolo District who are settled in the north-eastern part bordering Kachiuru. More seasonal movement by Borana, Samburu and even Turkana and Somali herders is evident. The Turkana are settled to the east of Shaba Game Reserve. Samburu and sometimes Somali tribesmen raid the Meru owned herds frequently and to some extent with impunity. Sometimes the cattle owners from the Meru side manage to retrieve their stolen animals while other times they lose them completely. However, in Shaba Game Reserve, stolen herds have been often seen during the last year travelling north to Samburu District.8 The devastation in a small centre called Ndumuru / Shaptiga or Shaba Ndogo (Sharp in short) is evidence of the violence since it is virtually abandoned. It is acclaimed that both Samburu and Somali gunmen terrorised the small centre recently. Now a new Administration Police Post has been built although banditry along the main Isiolo – Kula Mawe road still persists. Bushes at a notorious bandit spot between Shaba Ndogo / Ndumuru Centre and Kachiuru had been cleared to improve visibility to motorists plying the Isiolo – Kula Mawe Road. Water shortage is the most limiting factor to continuous grazing in the NGA. When the Ewaso Ng’iro River towards the north of the NGA dries up, insufficient water forces pastoralists to move to other grazing areas. The cattle owned by the Meru retreat to the south into the foothills of Nyambeni Ranges to water their animals and go as far as Laare to find it. This severely restricts the grazing potential for their animals in these farming areas. They travel as far as 25-30 km with their animals to

8 Management Joy’s Camp (Shaba Game Reserve)



balance grazing and water resources. The animals are watered every second or sometimes third day. The situation in the NGA provides the potential for greater conflict in the future by farming and grazing enclosures encroaching on the common grazing areas now available especially in dry spells and droughts. This will give a new dimension to existing conflicts through confrontation between farmers and herders from the same ethnic communities. It also raises the issue that these marginal areas for agriculture with low productivity will replace a highly productive land use for livestock production to the detriment of all. Although any chances of conflict within the Meru community between livestock keepers and farmers is dismissed by the Provincial Administration in Laare,9 since it is one and the same community could be proven over-optimistic considering it may become a struggle between the affluent and the poor, apart from the claims that the pastoralist communities have traditionally grazed their animals within the area. Amidst the existing conflict and the potential for escalation in the near future through land sub-division in the NGA, that state of affairs will continue to pose a threat to development initiatives. For water development requires strategic location of projects and certainly some type of understanding between the various groups using the area on community based organisation and management for sustainability. Careful planning of water provision is key to mitigation rather than escalation of conflict.

5.2.5 Leadership and Community Organisation

Administratively, most of NGA is in Tigania and Igembe districts with headquarters in Uru and Maua, respectively. A small section that lies on the South-west is in Imenti North District (former Meru Central District). The Tigania and Igembe Districts were formed after the former Meru North District was split into two. Most of NGA is grazing land used by different communities namely:

Meru Borana Turkana Somali Samburu

The Merus and Boranas are the most predominant communities within NGA who move in search of water and pasture for their livestock. The Samburus are known to move into NGA to raid cattle from the other communities. Occasionally, the Turkanas will also raid livestock but it is believed they raid for food while the Samburus raid to fulfil some demands of their cultural practices. The Merus and the Boranas co-exist peacefully in utilisation of pasture and watering resources. The Boranas believe the settled Merus are the cause of water shortage for their livestock as they block water flowing in natural water courses upstream to prevent it flowing into the NGA and this, together with the continued settlements by the Merus on the grazing land may become a source of conflicts in future. For instance, Liliaba stream, which is permanent upstream, has been diverted from its natural course into some farms in Laikumukumu Sub-location where the water is used for irrigation. This has

9 Chief of Laare Division



deprived areas downstream from accessing this water. In addition, the Kaololone Water Pan, which was rehabilitated by the Drought Monitoring Office in Maua under the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II in 2008, could not be filled up with water during the October – December rains due to this diversion. The Turkanas arrived into NGA as hired herders by the Merus, Boranas and the Samburus and consequently do not have strong cultural roots after being assimilated into the cultural practices of their neighbours to an extend of performing circumcision rites of passage. With their limited numbers in the area, their cattle rustling activities are inconsequential. They have also intermarried with the Samburus. Traditionally, a Samburu Moran must raid cattle after circumcision if he is to be considered a man. Without the raid, he may not be eligible to marry. Raiding cattle successfully wins Samburu men praise and also gains them admiration from the girls thus making it possible to get brides. This propels the men to heroic status amongst peers and the community in general. The porous Kenyan borders with the volatile Somali and Ethiopia have favoured the Samburu raids as they can easily acquire guns. Their raids are vicious and sometimes tragic.

5.2.6 Traditional Governance Systems

The traditional systems of governance among the pastoralist Boranas, Samburus, Turkanas, Somalis and the agro-pastoralist Merus is centred around clan structures. The clan system of governance provides guidance on resource sharing, security matters and conflict resolution processes. The capacity of traditional authorities in water and pasture management, has been weakened by socio-economic changes e.g. poverty, settlements in urban areas and relief camps and privatisation of communal resources. Pastoralists can identify overgrazing by examination of forage and exchange of information on changes in vegetation, in order to devise indicators or warning of droughts (Muvunga, 1995). For example, to predict the end of the dry season, the back of indigenous trees is cut to observe the quantity and appearance of its milky sap. If the sap flows quickly and is plenty, this indicates that rains are coming. They also use observation of vegetation, measurement of milk yields, conditions of animals’ fur, mating behaviour, colour and texture of dung or both domestic and wild animals as indicators to decide on land management strategy. Based on risk avoidance or reduction strategy, pastoralists permit relatively free livestock movement, dispersal separation and splitting of herds for rotational use of the scarce resources. The effects of modernisation have eroded most cultural practices, including the traditional way of coping mechanisms. Over the years, a culture of violence has become entrenched between some ethnic communities who share common pool resources. Strong community cohesion and relationships have been uprooted, livelihoods shattered and social fabric broken. Conflict resolution dialogue mechanism is often characterised by biased memberships made up of provincial administration, elites and political leaders, and traditional elders, herders, women and youths.



The traditional system of governance had local representation comprising of council of elders (e.g. the njuri nceke of the Meru) organised through community structures that appreciated the capability of all individuals without discrimination. In most of these pastoral and agro-pastoral societies, the clan system of governance that is slowly getting weaker provided guidance on resource sharing, security matters and process solving disputes amicably.

5.2.7 Community Based Organisations and Self Help Groups

Communities from the agriculturally potential and more settled sections of the NGA in the three districts of Imenti North (Meru Central), Tigania and Igembe are more organised in Common Interest Groups (CIGs) depending on the activities performed by such groups. Some of the groups are formed to implement activities of common interest such as Conservation Agriculture, roof catchment rainwater harvesting tanks, gravity flow piped water schemes, etc. The formation of such groups is usually driven by the intended activities, of which in most cases are supported by external development agencies. Examples of such groups are Tuuru Water Project and Kamberia Water Project, which are supported by the Diocese of Meru (DOM), Kirwiro Gravity Scheme, Mugae Women’s Group, which manages the Mugae artesian wells, etc. In Mumui Location of Mituntu Division in Tigania District, the Mukaria Self-help Group with 100 members is in the process of mobilising the community members to raise money to construct a piped water scheme intake at Kithima. In the same Kithima area, the Aturi Water Project Group has 140 members. In Mumui Location, a group of 40 community members have excavated a common water pond measuring 80 ft long, 40 ft wide and 4 ft deep. The group intends to assist each other to excavate individual ponds measuring 40 ft long, 20 ft wide and 4 ft deep. In Amwathi Sub-location, Kabachi Location, Mutuati Division of Igembe District, the Ithata Water Pan Self-help Group has 21 members and 9 project committee members. The group received support from the Drought Monitoring Office in Maua under the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II to construct the water pan at a cost of Kshs 1.3 million. The group mobilised the community to contribute hardcore stones and fencing posts, which is estimated to be 30% of the total project cost. On the other hand, there are other self-mobilised groups such as the Cattle Keepers Group from Igembe with 44 members. The members although based in the high potential areas own cattle that they graze in the NGA. Such groups, sometimes with members from the same clan also jointly own water wells, employ herders and security home guards. The above are just but few examples of how the communities within the NGA are organised to undertake development projects. Findings of this study have confirmed great potential for surface Rain Water Harvesting in the NGA; hence community participation in the implementation of the identified water harvesting projects will only be achieved through such organised community groups.

5.3 Organisations and Agencies Active in the Project Area

The NGA has been marginalised by development agencies according to the community members interviewed by the Study Team. This is because generally, Imenti North (Meru Central), Tigania and Igembe Districts are considered to be high potential areas, which produces high value cash crops such as coffee and tea. In



addition, Tigania and Igembe Districts are well known for the production of khat (miraa) although the Ministry of Agriculture does not classify it as a cash crop. To many development agencies therefore, the idea of having arid sections in these districts remains quite remote unless one visits the area. Some cattle herders informed the study team that sometimes they are forced to pretend to belong to the neighbouring Isiolo District so as to access subsidised services provided by the government such as animal vaccinations. The Provincial Administration and Government Agencies generally have little interest in the NGA as a low potential area. The administrative sub-division on a north-south basis does foster this skewed interest towards the high potential and densely populated areas and less to the insecure dry lands with hardly any permanent settlement. A problem mentioned by various pastoralist ethnic groups is that the Provincial Administration does not represent them adequately as all chiefs and administrators are from Meru descent. This complicates a sound approach for community-based participation and there exists mistrust between those representing the Government and the pastoralist groups. The Arid Lands Programme seems to be the most committed in the NGA with the Catholic Diocese of Meru and Resource Projects Kenya being active in the settled parts of the NGA in Imenti North (Meru Central) and Tigania Districts. The Ewaso Ng’iro North Development Authority has ambitious plans for 30 Districts in the Ewaso Ng’iro Basin, which also covers the arid parts of the three districts of Imenti North (Meru Central), Tigania and Igembe. Table 4 below shows a list of some development agencies that have supported or are still supporting the communities in the NGA. Table 4: Development Agencies in NGA Name of Development Organisation

Activities Supported Areas of Operation (As given by the Community)

1. Catholic Diocese of Meru (DOM) / Lay Volunteers International Association (LVIA)

Gravity water schemes Roof catchment

Rainwater Harvesting Tanks

Sinking of Boreholes

Active in high potential areas of Imenti North (Meru Central), Tigania and Igembe Districts

2. Resource Projects Kenya (RPK)

Conservation Agriculture

Roof catchment rainwater harvesting tanks

Surface water harvesting – dams and water pans

Spring protection

Active in Imenti North (Meru Central) e.g. Buuri Division & Tigania District e.g. Mituntu Division. Other specific areas are Ntuburi, Kithuene, Rwarera, etc.

3. Lewa Conservancy

Spring protection Kithima and Ntuburi

4. Farm Africa Dairy goat project Kithuene and Ntuburi 5. TIST

Tree planting & promotion of sunflower growing

Mumui & Kithuene



6. Central European Farmers’ Association (CEFA) an Italian NGO)

Agricultural activities Kithuene, Nkando & Ntuburi

7. World Reach

Sinking of borehole Established an

orphanage school

Kirwiro

8. Food for the Hungry

Supported 2 schools Kirwiro

9. Ewaso Ng’iro North Development Association (ENNDA)

Constructed a cattle trough

Mumui

10. Swedish International Co-operation Agency (SIDA)

Rainwater Harvesting tanks

Kirwiro

11. Tana Water, Borehole & Sewerage Company (TANAWASCO)

Management of Watering points & revenue collection

Ntonyiri (Ndumuru borehole)

12. Plan International Construction of classrooms

Mumui

Other development agencies that have supported development initiatives in the area are Faulu Kenya, Save the Children Canada, KAPP, CEDCO, Christian Community Services (CCS) of the Anglican Church and Action Aid (Food Aid), etc. The area has also received some support through the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) programme.

5.4 Water Development

Water development in the NGA stands in stark contrast to what has been achieved in the highlands. Especially the Catholic Diocese of Meru has been a strong development agent for gravity flow water schemes. The one gravity piped system that fed into the NGA from Liliaba in the south to Buloi through the centre of the NGA was reportedly vandalised. No rehabilitation has taken place for fear of repeated destruction. The dispute over this piped water was between farmers and cattle keepers from Meru and equitable water distribution.

5.4.1 Existing Water Projects and Sources

There exists a large spring (Ngarenaite/Lailubua) just east of Isiolo along the main road to Kula Mawe. This is the main water source for the Meru cattle and the overflow is used by small scale irrigation farmers. The Arid Lands Programme in Isiolo has protected the main spring by putting up a chain link fence around it. There is no water piping and cattle drink from the road side. Midway along the main road at Shaba Ndogo there is the Ndumuru borehole providing water to people and animals. The borehole is managed by the Tana Water, Borehole and Sewerage Company (TANAWASCO), which operates under the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. The company has employed 2 attendants who manage and collect revenue from water users. The water charges are as follows:-

Cattle – Kshs 2/- per animal Goats / sheep– Kshs 0.50 /- per animal Camels – Kshs 5/- per animal



The herders are allowed to pay on credit since they don’t carry money with them in the grazing fields. The herders interviewed at the borehole complained of spending long hours waiting for their turn, sometimes from 6.00 am to 1.00 pm. The water storage tanks at the borehole were said to be small, hence they cannot cope with the current water demand. When the Study Team visited the borehole site on several occasions the main users of the water were the Meru, Borana and Somali herders who came to water their cattle, small stock (goats and sheep) and camels. Each single day an estimated 15,000 cattle and 7,000 camels are watered at the Ndumuru borehole. Due east again at the far end of the Study Area, there is natural water available at the wells of Magado / Ikombe Crater. An old volcano also mined for salt and Magadi Soda. The water is brackish, but good for livestock and the Borana people living in the area and neighbouring Isiolo District use the water as well for their livestock. The water from these wells is very salty and not drinkable although some wells were said to produce non-saline water. People living in Kachiuru Market usually buy water brought by vehicles from Mutuati at Kshs 50/- per 20-litre jerry can. An alternative water source for people living at Kachiuru is Yaq Barsadi borehole, which lies about 4 km east of the market. About 40 camels, 3,000 cattle and 2,000 shoats (goats and sheep) are watered daily at this borehole. The charges are as follows: -

Cattle – Kshs 3/- per animal Goats / sheep – Kshs 0.50 per animal Camels – Kshs 5/- per animal

Another major watering point for animals in the NGA is Eliati hand dug Wells, which are situated between the Isiolo – Kula Mawe Road and Ewaso Ng’iro River. The wells are situated in a major dry season grazing area and are about 60 feet deep. The herders contributed money and put up a wall lining in some of the wells at a cost of Kshs 350,000. A group of five families may own a well. Initially, the wells were jointly dug by a group of 20 individuals. As the study team traversed the NGA from Isiolo towards Kachiuru, lots of animals were trekking towards Ngarenaite Springs, near Isiolo. The study team met and interviewed herders who had trekked for about 7 hours from their grazing fields to the water source. Some had herds of more than 1,000 cattle, 500 camels and 2000 shoats (goats and sheep) belonging to between 10 and 12 families. The radius between the watering points and grazing areas increases as the dry season progresses. By end of August 2008 when the study team visited the area, the radius was said to be about 15 km and was expected to increase to 20 km by the end of September 2008. Along the main road from Nanyuki-Meru Junction to Isiolo there are also natural water sources and these are used in this settled area through various water projects, with gravity piped distribution. The projects are not without their own problems. Next to Isiolo is Gadissa Lodge with a private borehole that also provides brackish water. Table 5 provides an overview of the existing water projects as listed by the Igembe District Water Office in Maua. Since Tigania is a newly formed District, all the information is available in Maua that was the headquarters of the former Meru North District.



Table 5: Existing Water Projects Name of Water Project

Location / Division Constituency Remarks on Current Status

1. Ruraya Dam Njia cia Mwendwa, Igembe North

Igembe Silted, some parts of embankment were washed away by 2007 Oct-Dec rains

2. Kamberia Pan Buuri / Akithi Tigania East Pan silted, embankment washed away by 2007 Oct-Dec rains

3. Matabithi Pan Buuri Tigania West Channel blocked and water course changed its direction after 2007 Oct-Dec rains

4. Kalia Ka Ngoni Pan

Buuri Tigania West Silted, embankment washed away by 2007 Oct-Dec rains

5. Kadebene Pan Buuri Tigania West Silted, embankment washed away by 2007 Oct-Dec rains

6. Njarune Pan Kabachi Ntonyiri Under rehabilitation 7. Ndumuru Dam Laare Ntonyiri Currently no water. Received water to

capacity during the 2007 Oct-Dec rains. Dam wall needs to be raised.

8. Liliaba / Kaololone Pan

Kangeta, Igembe North Igembe Dam silted, embankment washed away by 2007 Oct-Dec rains – rehabilitated by the Arid Lands Project II in 2008.

9. Mukuiri Pan Karama, Tigania North Tigania East Pan Silted, embankment washed away by 2007 Oct-Dec rains

10. Ithata Pan Kabachi / Mutuati Ntonyiri Newly excavated. Water only filled the silt trap and only trickled into the water pan. Water from one inlet channel had changed course, hence did not reach the pan.

11. Ndumuru Borehole

Laare Ntonyiri Operational

12. Kadebene Borehole

Tigania West Operational

Source: Igembe District Water Office, Maua. Table 5 shows that the two boreholes one in Igembe and the other in Tigania West are both operational. No water pans are functional and most of them have been either filled up with silt or the embankments have been washed away by rains. The sedimentation of water pans is partly due to increasing accelerated erosion in the cultivated highlands and partly due to their positioning in heavy silt bearing drainage water ways. Communities have not undertaken any efforts to de-silt any water pans. A self-help group from Mutuati Division calling itself Cotton Growers self help group attempted to dig a pan near Kachiuru but abandoned the idea soon after. In general terms, the existing types of water sources in NGA are as follows: - Gravity flow piped water schemes: Some intakes are gradually running dry and

may not eventually cope with the increased water demand along the pipelines. The intakes are group owned and if a community plans to have a piped water scheme must register their own group and construct their own piped water system right from the intake. The pipelines get vandalized on the way by those who are not members especially if the pipes pass through their farms.



Springs: Natural springs e.g. Ngarenaite / Lailubua spring is one of the most important and reliable water sources in the NGA. As of now, the animals usually draw water at the roadside where the water flows under a culvert across the road. The water could be channelled to cattle troughs away from the road to reduce water contamination. There are also other springs e.g. in Mugae area in Imenti North District and Mula in Tigania District. The water quality from these springs is not good due to salinity and high content of fluorine in some of the springs.

Boreholes: The NGA has quite a number of boreholes. The study team

confirmed one borehole (Ndumuru) as operational while Kadebene was said to be operational according to Maua, Water Office records (see list in table 5). Most of the other operational boreholes in the three districts (Meru Central/Imenti North, Tigania and Igembe) were said to be outside the NGA.

Roof catchment tanks: Roof catchment rainwater harvesting tanks are many in

most parts of the NGA, which have permanent human settlement e.g. Imenti North (Meru Central), Mituntu and Akithi Divisions of Tigania and in transitional zones of Igembe District. The Catholic Diocese of Meru (DOM) in collaboration with Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) have supported the construction of many 10,000-litre ferro-cement tanks in schools and also for individual community members. Each tank costs about Kshs 60,000 of which the individual community members contribute Kshs 10,500. As the study team visited the area, most of these tanks were leaking. Currently, the RPK and DOM are planning to assist the communities in the same areas and to construct 400 10,000-litre ferro-cement tanks. The study team met and held discussions with a group of artisans who were being trained on how to construct the ferro-cement tanks.

Ponds: Plastic lined ponds have been tried in parts of Meru Central District, an

initiative by the Resource Projects Kenya (RPK). Most of them started leaking after a few seasons. There are also natural ponds within the NGA, which provide water for livestock during the wet seasons. With good amounts of rainfall, some although heavily silted last for up to 3 months.

Wells: Traditional hand dug wells (60 ft deep) with wall lining exist in Eliati area.

These were dug by organized cattle owners in the NGA. They are situated in dry season grazing area and provide water for 6,000 herds of cattle. Others are found at the flow of Magado / Ikombe Crater near Kachiuru.

5.4.2 Existing Irrigation Projects

Small-scale irrigation activities exist in the Ngarendare and Maili Saba areas in Imenti North (Meru Central) District where there are permanent streams of water flowing from Mt. Kenya forest. The crops grown are tomatoes, onions, French beans, etc. In Maili Saba area, about 20 ha are under irrigation. The other notable area with small-scale irrigation is Lailubua / Ngarenaite Spring, which lies a few kilometres from Isiolo, along the Isiolo – Kula Mawe Road. The Drought Monitoring Office, through the Arid Lands Programme in Isiolo protected the spring and this has improved the amount of water discharge. About 1,000 small-scale farmers utilise the water over-flowing the spring banks through narrow water furrows, which directs the water to the irrigated plots. The more financially able



farmers use water pumps to draw water from the spring. The main crops grown are tomatoes, kales, spinach and onions. Both Meru and Borana farmers own (not with title deeds) irrigation plots and also co-exist peacefully. Any land issues arising are sorted out with the help of elders from both communities. The farmers however, decried the destruction of their crops by wild animals, especially the elephants.

5.4.3 Existing Water Harvesting Projects

Apart from mostly failing or silted water pans, there are no major existing water harvesting measures in the NGA. However, much effort has been made in the construction of roof catchment ferro-cement tanks in schools and homes especially in the human settled parts of Imenti North (Meru Central), Tigania West and Tigania East within the NGA by the Catholic Diocese of Meru (DOM) and the Resource Projects Kenya (RPK). The Arid Lands Programme in Maua has supported the construction of four (4) 20M3 ferro-cement tanks in Buuri Location, Muthara Division in Tigania District and two (2) similar tanks in Laare Division and Kachiuru, Mutuati Division in Igembe District.

5.5 Livestock

The estimated number of beef cattle utilising water and pasture resources in the NGA is 55,000 heads10. For small stock, the estimate is around 60,000 goats and sheep frequenting the NGA. These figures also include livestock from the neighbouring Isiolo District. Table 6 provides figures and trend in livestock population in the greater Meru North District from 2004 to 2006 and in Igembe District from 2007 to 2008. Table 6: Livestock Population – figures and trend in greater Meru North & Igembe

Districts Igembe District Greater Meru North (Igembe & Tigania) District Type of Livestock

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 Dairy 25,200 25,127 49,900 49,430 40,300 Zebu 47,700 47,685 93,370 92,450 87,000

Cattle

Exotic Beef N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ALocal Breed 52,650 52,600 103,220 102,200 90,000 Goats Dairy 500 310 580 328 105 Hair 43,000 42,450 82,900 82,110 75,000 Sheep Wool 0 0 0 0 0

Donkeys 2,600 2,500 4,600 4,520 4,400 Camels 50 24 56 45 51 Pigs 8,500 9,450 18,500 18,340 24,000

Indigenous 140,000 130,700 245,800 241,000 220,000 Layers-exotic 10,500 10,120 19,900 19,140 15,000 Broilers 3,300 3,250 6,300 5,980 0 Ducks 1,850 1,880 3,560 3,100 3,250 Turkeys 125 16 28 0 0 Geese 120 21 30 0 0

Poultry

Others 0 0 0 0 0 Horses 0 0 0 0 0

Ostrich 0 0 0 00 0 Guinea fowls 0 0 15 0 0 Quails 0 0 0 0 0 Crocodiles 0 0 0 0 0

Emerging Livestock

Others (doves) 650 525 470 477 511

Source: Livestock Department Office, Maua

10 Divisional Agriculture Office in Laare



When water becomes a scarce commodity, the herders from Meru tend to retreat towards the Nyambeni Hills and seek water for their livestock as far as Laare or even Maua. This severely restricts their grazing in the NGA as they are confined to the areas immediately bordering the lower part of the foothills as they water their animals every second or even third day intervals. Their radius for grazing is limited to approximately 25 kilometres from Laare. It is also important to note that beekeeping is also practised within NGA, especially in the riverine bushes of Kiamboo area in Gambela along Rikiundu Stream. Both traditional beehives and the modern langstroth types are used.

5.6 Agriculture

No agriculture is evident in most parts of the NGA apart from the section in Imenti North (Meru Central) District such as Nkando, Kithima, Kirwiro, Kithuene, Thiira and Mugae. In Tigania District, the NGA sections with some bit of agriculture are Mumui and Kibiru areas. Farming is also practised in Gambela, Ngarendare and Maili Saba areas near Isiolo town, which consists of irrigated smallholdings where spring water flows from Mt. Kenya forest. Slash and burn coupled with dry land farming systems were witnessed by the Study Team in some parts of Kamweline area of Mutuati Davison in Igembe District and in Rwanda Location in Tigania District. The largest concentration of permanent small farms in the NGA section of Tigania District is in Mumui, Kibiru, Karama and Mula areas. Most of the Imenti North (Meru Central) District section of the NGA is under subsistence farming. The farm holdings tend to be small (5 acres and less) and land is not yet demarcated although adjudication process was said to be on-going. These particular areas have been farmed for the past 20 years e.g. the Rarani settlement scheme, which has been in existence since 1969. Since the area is in a rain shadow, farming is certainly a challenge and crop failure the norm due to unreliable and erratic rainfall regimes. During the long rains starting in March, farmers take a chance and grow maize and beans. These rains are gradually diminishing as in most semi-arid areas. In September-October, the farmers plant sorghum, maize and beans more seriously and as expressed by them, normally have a fair to good harvest. This is where the farmer’s income is derived from. If the more reliable short rains (October-December season) fail, the households often go hungry for long periods of time. Most of the farmers also keep some livestock, mostly the local zebu, which they sell to butchers in neighbouring markets/towns like Meru, Nkubu and Kianjai. Due to lack of permanent land ownership, most of the farms are not fully developed with any major soil conservation structures in place.

5.7 Innovative Initiatives

Several pick-up trucks travel daily across the main route in the NGA to collect milk from the grazing areas to supply to Isiolo, Nanyuki and Nairobi. The camel keepers in the grazing areas sell a litre at Kshs 20/- to middle men. In Isiolo the milk costs Kshs 40/- a litre while in Nairobi it costs 120/- a litre or Kshs 30/- a glass. Private enterprise is producing camel dairy products, packaged and treated. The product brand name is Vital and can be seen in supermarkets in Nairobi. The Ewaso Ng’ro North Development Authority (ENNDA)11 together with Egerton University also have

11 Ewaso Ng’iro North Development Authority



an initiative to process and add value to camel milk from the region. However, this project does not seem to be fully functional yet. There are no other discernible innovative activities implemented in the NGA.

5.8 Community-Based Participatory Planning and Community Project Cycle (CPC)

Community-based participatory processes are limited and not strongly developed from the onset of existing development projects. The Community Project Cycle (CPC) is an approach developed to support improved access to water and sanitation in the poorest locations in Kenya. The CPC has been developed under the new water sector reform programme to enhance the capacity of communities to apply for, manage, implement and maintain their own water and sanitation facilities. It relies upon supportive services being outsourced to the private sector and allows the Water Service Boards and other public water sector institutions to concentrate on key elements of facilitation and capacity development.

5.9 Wildlife

Game can be observed in the NGA, but especially during dry periods, additional water sources will certainly attract more wildlife into the area especially when the Ewaso Ng’iro River dries. Particularly, elephants can pose a significant threat to any farming expansion in the area and will compete for water. A Somali cattle herder interviewed by the study team decried persistent attacks by the Jumbos looking for water to the extent that they even crush their plastic water jerry cans to squeeze water our of them. This has to be taken into account with regard to planning the development of water resources to include fencing off the water structures to keep off destructive wildlife.

6. Development Potential of the NGA This semi-arid area stands in stark contrast to the potential of most of the high potential Meru region. The low-lands are in a rain shadow area and as is the case in other semi-arid areas bordering densely populated, high potential areas in Kenya, a spill over of farming into these lands is almost inevitable. Presently, the NGA is used in a balanced manner as demonstrated by the good condition of the grazing lands and this is mainly due to lack of water during dry seasons and insecurity. This provides a natural grazing control mechanism. Thus any intervention in water provision will be welcomed by the land users, but can also create serious conflict and enhance over-grazing in the area. Conflict can be created between wildlife and humans, but also between pastoralists and farmers. For instance a large water pan can also be used for irrigation and may also induce settlement. The positioning of any water development is also important in view of its sustainability. If a water source is left to be managed by the various transient groups using the NGA, no sustainability is likely to be attained. The existence of a high potential aquifer below the NGA opens a way for agriculture development using groundwater resources. However, use of ground water for irrigation purposes for a long time may result in far reaching negative effects on soils. In addition, the utilisation of ground water option would certainly spell the end of present land use (grazing) and would require enormous investment.



The Study cannot cover the wide scale of potential development that could take root within the NGA in future. It will restrict itself to the present situation and a responsible improvement thereof through water harvesting measures that are specifically suited to the conditions in the area. A prominent cattle owner from Muthara area in Tigania District projected a period of not less than 50 years before the NGA is filled with settlement and transformed into agricultural land use practises.

6.1 Agriculture Development

The limited agriculture development in the south-west of the NGA in parts of Imenti North (Meru Central) and Tigania Districts near Isiolo is mostly subsistence and subject to regular crop failure. With poor physical infrastructure and very limited water sources, life can be best described as a struggle for survival. The soils are mostly volcanic and fertile, but continuous use without regard to its fertility will increasingly take its toll. On the lower slopes of the Nyambeni Hills and the Meru highlands, accelerated erosion is another factor that is diminishing the land potential for agriculture seriously. On-farm water harvesting measures will not only preserve run-off in situ for crop production, but also reduce excessive soil erosion. In the undulating low lands of the NGA water harvesting measures on farm land would firstly make use of all the stone and rock in the top soil. While clearing the land, stone contour bunds are a simple solution to retaining run-off on farm land. Where soils are deep these could be incorporated with a “fanya juu” terracing system as is common in other parts of Eastern Province such as Mwingi, Kitui and Machakos Districts. Where permanent houses are established with corrugated iron sheets as roofing, roof catchments with water tanks is a great measure to provide domestic water. If this simple technology is really disseminated early, when people are settling, roofs can be made to the required size to accommodate sufficient domestic water for a household. Arriving with the technology after settlements have been established provides a lot of complication. As people want a roof over their head and know how to do this, roof catchment technology and water storage should also become an integral part of their homestead construction vision. Even with WH measures in agriculture land, crops will have to be adapted to the drier conditions if a farm household wants to survive. Exposure to various dry land crops such as sorghum, millet, cassava, green grams and pigeon peas for instance, will play an important role. Traditional highland crops such as potatoes and highbrid maize varieties will certainly not fare well. This is easier said than done as people from the highlands have their own traditional food culture and will not easily adapt to a different menu on the table. Unless there exists an efficient marketing mechanism for semi-arid land crops for farmers to sell their produce and buy food commodities, this kind of approach will not work. It is to be noted that prices for commodities such as green grams and pigeon peas are very high.

6.2 Livestock Production

The present use of the NGA for beef production is the most cost-efficient use of the land. For the pastoralists it is one of many areas they use for their pastoralist strategy of livestock rearing. It provides the added benefit at present to be able to sell camel milk. An increase in water sources will certainly attract more livestock to be grazed in the NGA for longer periods of time. This will inevitably have a negative effect on



the natural grazing available. The present grazing-water balance will become unhinged. There are plans to investigate tsetse fly infestation in the area and also to improve community-based animal health service12. Furthermore, there are plans to purchase Sahiwal stock and Galla goats to upgrade local livestock breeds. The latter is not really a viable scheme for Government to undertake. If livestock keepers are exposed to the potential for upgrading stock and where to obtain them, they will do so by themselves in the most effective and efficient way. It is also a dangerous undertaking to upgrade existing livestock when the fodder basis, prevailing diseases and water resources are unchanged. When an effective and balanced livestock production system is in place, why change it? The common diseases affecting livestock production in NGA are anaplasmosis, East Coast Fever (ECF), trypanosomiasis, worms, lumpy skin disease and occasionally, foot and mouth disease. According to the veterinary office in Maua, Contagious Caprine Pleuro-pneumonia (CCPP) and Contagious Bovine Pleuro-pneumonia (CBPP) diseases are not common in NGA. On the other hand, there were only four reported cases of heart water disease in June 2008. Most dips in the NGA are not working. The main livestock markets are Kangeta, Kianjai and Isiolo. Depending on the size and weight, beef cattle are sold at between Kshs 10,000 and Kshs 20,000, although prices may also vary depending on the breeds and drought conditions. There is a guaranteed consistent demand for beef cattle in the area and therefore beef production in the NGA remains a viable undertaking. Table 7 below shows the number of beef cattle slaughtered in selected towns in the region on market days. There are at least three market days in a week in respective market centres and towns. Table 7: Number of Beef Cattle Slaughtered in Selected Towns Town Number of Beef Cattle

Slaughtered per mkt Day Number of Small Stock Slaughtered per Market Day

Meru Municipality 50 Nkubu 30 Maua 25 Kianjai 20 Kangeta (Igembe) 12 30 Laare (Igembe) 10 35 Mutuati (Igembe) 10 40 Kiengu (Igembe) 10 30 Other smaller towns 2-3 Source: Veterinary Office, Maua. In addition to the above figures, at least two camels are slaughtered per slaughter day in Maua. There are three slaughter days in a week; hence at least six camels are consumed per week. The demand for livestock meat can also be estimated using the number of hides and skins produced in Tigania and Igembe Districts. Table 8 below shows the number of hides and skins produced in the two districts in June 2008 while table 9 shows the value of the hides and skins produced in the same month.

12 Meru North District Development Plan 2002-2008



Table 8: Graded Production Figures of Hides & Skins in Tigania & Igembe Districts in June 2008 Hides / Skins Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Total No. Total Wt (Kgs) Cattle hides 1,250 675 356 139 2,420 29,040 Calf skins 4 1 4 9 18 -Goat skins 1,622 831 408 145 3,006 -Sheep skins 880 426 220 94 1,620 -Camel hides 14 3 2 2 21 630 Source: Veterinary Office, Maua. Table9: Estimated value of Hides & Skins in Tigania and Igembe Districts in June 2008 Hides / Skins Estimated Value (Kshs) Cattle Hides 808,260 Camel Hides 6,270 Calf skins 1,575 Goats skins 186,650 Sheep skins 6,270 Total 1,009,025 Source: Veterinary Office, Maua. The above figures are a clear confirmation that livestock production in the NGA is the most economically viable land use because the demand for livestock meat products is available. In addition, the potential for bee keeping activities in the area is enormous.

6.3 Potential for Water Harvesting Measures

All arid and semi-arid lands have a potential for water harvesting. The Meru NGA is no exception. The choice of water harvesting projects and their sustainability is not a purely technical decision, but is a people oriented matter. In the present socio-economic context the main need for water is for domestic and livestock. Domestic water demand is higher in the settled areas while the potential demand for water for crop irrigation is enormous.

6.3.1 The Division of the NGA in WH Units

Since the NGA is used by different ethnic groups, with various forms of livelihoods and aspirations, it is necessary to divide the area in main WH units. These units are geared towards specific needs and usage. They will also contribute to potential conflict alleviation on the principle that all are served and will maintain their own water sources. There are six (6) potential WH units that the study team proposes. These are derived from the original district and divisional boundaries of the former Meru Central and Meru North Districts (see attached map in annex). These are elaborated in table 10 below:



Table 10: Proposed WH Units in the NGA Proposed WH Unit

Area Proposed Names of WH Group Members & Contacts

Administrative Area / Group Representing

Charles Kirema (0729-6692620 Karamuta Koome (0729-890361) Peter Mwirigi (0723-019865)

Ruiri Division – Kirimene / Mutuma SHG of New Buuri District

Japheth Kithinji (0713-436168) Daniel Nkuruguchu (0714-128256)

Buuri Division, Rwarera Location - Kithuene Sub-loc of New Buuri District

Daniel Mugambi (0728-770002) Martin Mureithi Japheth Mureithi Muthamia (0728-359094)

Buuri Division, Rwarera Location - Kirwiro Sub-loc

WH Unit 1 Section of Imenti North District (Meru Central) in the NGA

Adam Mutuma (0726-464932/ 0736-179851) Ireri Ikuu (0726-234691)

Buuri Division, Rwarera Location - Mugae Sub-loc

WH Unit 2 Tigania West and Akithi Divisions of former Meru North District.

Zakayo Kimbiri (0724-465083) Geoffrey Anampiu (0726-057567) James Muchiri (0728-483345) Edward Kathurima (0722-393745)

Akithi Division, Rwanda Location – Kibiru Sub-loc

WH Unit 3 Tigania North Division of former Meru North District covering Buuri and Karama Locations.

M’Ithare M’Ithiria (0729377664) Patrick Baariu (0723-247031) Joshua Muchena Naaman Rukunga Joseph Kibore (0726-093174) Charles Munoru (0724478364) Mr. Mwenda (0725-796910)

Karama Division, Mula Location of New Tigania East District / Kanoo-Mula Water Project.

WH Unit 4 Igembe North Division of former Meru North District

Bernard Kaiyongi (0721-878077) Peter M’alaine (0725-753341) Lawrence Gitonga (0736-906878) Isaiah Koberia (0711-533686) Domiano Muyumbi (0723-931056) Isaac G. Baariu (0729-928395)

Igembe North Division, Kangeta and Njia Locations

WH Unit 5 Laare Division of former Meru North District

Stanley M’Mwereria (0725-260354) Muthiane Nkukara Gerald Kibirwa Ithiuki (0728-231950)

Laare Division, Antuambui Location.

WH Unit 6 Mutuati Division of former Meru North District.

Joel Baariu (0726-352116) Mukaria M. Muceke (0726-138192) Henry Ntoitha (0722-851863) Mulindu Peter (0728-562750)

Mutuati Division, Kabachi Location -Amwathi 1 Sub-loc

It is expected that each Water Harvesting Unit (WHU) will have a Water Harvesting Group (WHG) from which representatives will form an umbrella Water Harvesting Group for the entire NGA. However, this does not mean that these units would prevent intermingling by the various groupings and it does not intend to demarcate land. It is mainly set up to ensure that water-harvesting projects in any of the units have the organisational and management commitment from the main users. It also does not intend to restrict usage by other groups. The project management will regulate usage and cost of water to enable it to maintain a particular WH facility. While this is the proposed scenario by the study team, the final zoning of WHU can be adjusted to accommodate new developments pertaining administrative subdivisions, etc.

6.3.2 The Potential Types of WH Technologies

Since the drainage system through the NGA from the Nyambeni Hills does not carry sand, a number of WH measures such as sub-surface and sand dams do not apply.



Taking into consideration that the primary aim is to provide water for livestock, the measures are restricted to:

Water pans Hill side conduits with water storage such as water pan, etc. Earth /Valley dams

For dry land farming, stone bunds and soil bunds are a sound measure and for domestic water in small permanent settlements roof catchment and storage is the best solution. Where springs occur, spring protection is an element that can substantially improve water quality and quantity, although this is not a run-off water-harvesting measure. Water Pans Because of the heavy silt load in all run-offs entering the NGA, water pans are not to be located in the streambed. Water pans planned are to be small to disallow for long periods of livestock concentration and to prevent permanent settlement around the pan with irrigated farming. The core principle of water pan projects should be a cascade of small pans overflowing into each other and fed by one diversion in the main stream. Most important is to allow for sediment traps after the diversion to prevent excessive siltation in the pans and to allow for easy maintenance through de-silting one or two silt traps, rather than a series of water pans. The main maintenance to be carried out by the community-based project management is the de-silting of the silt traps. The strategy of installing water troughs below pans is not advisable. It requires high maintenance and after a short time, most of these facilities are broken or vandalised. At best a rip-rap cemented ramp can be planned where the sides of the pan are steep, to allow for animal to access the water. The siting of the water pans is important and should put into consideration soil depth and soil type for porosity. Where a lot of solid rock is encountered the water pans could become an expensive measure. However, in most valleys to the side of the drainage way, a lot of sedimentary deposits are encountered. Generally, the high clay content of the soils and the sediments carried by the run-off will ensure that water pans will seal quickly. During the preliminary visits to the field by the study team, several potential sites were recommended by the community members. These are explained in detail in section 8 in this report. The community members also mentioned quite a number of natural ponds that hold water during the rainy seasons, which could be de-silted to improve their water holding capacity. More run-off water can be diverted towards these ponds using channels to increase the amount of water that goes into the ponds. Some of these potential sites were visited by the study team and assessed for viability. These are explained in more detail in section 8 of this report. Hillside Conduits and Water Storage This is a very effective run-off harvesting measure for the area which is dotted with old volcanoes. The principle is to dig a diversion around a large enough volcano or



along a large rocky buttress or hill range and divert the run-off into the storage. Storage can be done in various ways. It can be again a number of smaller water pans, or berkherds as used in Somalia. A berkherd is basically a deep, rectangular pool with sides made of stone and cement lining. Water has to be taken out by bucket and rope. This reduces water wastage, but poses a danger to animals and especially wildlife falling into the storage. The top of the berkherd has barbed wire criss-crossed over it for the laying of shrubs on top to prevent excessive evaporation. They are all fenced well to prevent direct access by livestock and people. Water is carried by buckets to an improvised trough outside the fenced area. The sediment trap at the inlet has to be cleaned regularly. Figure 4 provides a sketch of the hillside conduit system. The diversion itself is best dug mechanically and can after hand levelling be paved in the bottom to prevent erosion in the diversion channel. The gradient of the diversion channel is to be carefully surveyed to prevent eroding the channel, but also to provide sufficient water velocity to prevent overtopping of the diversion bank.

Picture 4: A hill side conduit with silt trap



The diversion in the sketch is broken up at a length calculated sufficient to fill on reservoir or pan. The beginning of the next diversion overlaps above the water storage to protect it. In the left top of the sketch is the cross-section of the diversion. All storage, sediment traps, diversion lengths and dimensions have to be calculated according to each specific site.

Picture 5: A berkherd with sediment trap

Fig 4: Sketch of hillside conduit and water storage



Stream / Gully Diversions and Underground Storage Gullies and natural streams can be diverted and dammed in narrow but deep wells and pans/earth dams. Pans and earth dams lose a lot of water due to evaporation and seepage. Experience has shown that they are not very successful in extremely hot conditions. There is need for more investments in soil characteristic studies and catchments conservation to make them more useful and sustainable for water harvesting. Likewise, soil characteristic studies need to be carried out before the narrow deep water reservoirs can be considered for storage. The main advantage with this is because they will not lose water through evaporation whose loses can be substantial. A simple illustration is given in figure 5 here below. The rectangle at the bottom can take different shapes. It can be cylindrical or oval each about 50 M3 made in a series along streams/gullies.

6.3.3 The Location for WH Measures

The proposed WH measures are also presented on a map attached in annex 2. As the study team went round the NGA in the company of community members assessing several sites for WH structures, GPS data was collected, which was fed into a base map of the study area. Other existing GPS data was also incorporated in making the maps.

7. Planned Activities for the NGA The District Development Plan 2002 – 2008 of the greater Meru North District has an ambitious approach to development including the NGA. However, for as far as can be ascertained the actual achievements on the ground have been very limited indeed. The District Water Office in Maua indicated that not sufficient funding was released to achieve any meaningful water development. During the field visit the same office was carrying out the excavation of two water pans (Njarune and Ithata) in Mutuati Division with funding from the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II. However, these sites are at the transitional areas of the farming zones of Nyambeni Hills and the NGA. Ithata Water Pan is actually surrounded by newly developed farms through slash and burn cultivation system. The Arid Lands Resource Management Project II has plans to excavate Munguuru Water Pan in Turingwi Sub-location, Ngaremara Location in Tigania North Division of Tigania District (see table 13 below).

Pipe delivering water to the well

Catchment

Fig 5 Stream / gully diversions and Underground Storage



The Ewaso Ng’iro North Development Authority (ENNDA) has also planned to put up some water harvesting structures in the NGA with funding from African Development bank. Table 11 below gives a list of the water projects earmarked for development by ENNDA. Table 11: Water Projects earmarked for development in NGA by ENNDA Name of Project Division Location 1. Mariara Borehole Igembe North 2. Miuine Borehole Laare Akirang’ondu 3. Mituntu Soteni Water Borehole Tigania West Mituntu 4. Limbine Borehole Akithi Thinyaine 5. Kamweline Borehole Mutuati Naathu 6. Munguuru Water Pan (Nachokokiro)

Buuri Maburua

7. Nathu Pan (Bulu water pan) Laare Nathu 8. Lanyiru Water Pan Tigania North Karama 9. Mituntu Muramba Borehole Tigania West Mituntu 10. Mukuiri Water Pan Tigania North Karama 11. Linjoka Water Pan Laare Ntunene 12. Mwera O Maria Akithi Kibiru Source: ENNDA Office, Isiolo It is also to be noted that ENNDA owns a new large bulldozer and low-loader that can be hired for the implementation of water harvesting projects at reasonable rates. Table 12 below shows WH projects implemented by the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II, Maua Office during 2007/2008 while table 13 shows the planned WH activities during 2008/2009. Table 12: Implemented Water Development Activities by the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II, Meru North (2007/2008) Project Sub-location Location Division Constituency Estimated

Cost (Kshs) Ithata Water Pan Amwathi 1 Kabachi Mutuati Igembe North 1,300,000Njarune Water Pan Amwathi 1 Kabachi Mutuati Igembe North 544,000Mariara Water Pan (Rehabilitation)

Igembe North

Igembe North 540,000

Ndumuru Genset Antuambui Akirang’ondu Laare Igembe North 690,000

Source: Drought Monitoring Office, Maua. Table 13: Planned Water Development Activities by the Arid Lands Resource Management Project II, Meru North (2008/2009) Project Sub-

location Location Division Constituency Estimated Cost

(Kshs) Lusiuti Water Pan Amwathi 1 Kabachi Mutuati Igembe North 2,000,000Matabithi Water Pan Ntulili Buuri Akithi Tigania East 970,000Munguru Water Pan Buuri Tigania

North Tigania East

1,555,000Source: Drought Monitoring Office, Maua.



8. Technical Assessment of Potential WH Sites The study team made two field visits i.e. from 31st October 2008 to 7th November 2008 and from 17th to 22nd November 2008. This was followed by another visit from 16th to 21st March 2009. The following activities were carried out during these three field visits: Holding of community public meetings; Proposing names of Water Harvesting Group Members; and Technical assessment of proposed WH sites; and Collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis from 3 sites prioritised for implementation.

8.1 Community Public Meetings

Several community meetings were held at different sections of the NGA throughout the study process with farmers, livestock owners, elders, livestock herders, attendants of water projects, local leaders, etc. During the meetings, community awareness on the WH study was raised and relevant data collected. During these meetings, the community members were asked to propose a list of potential WH sites in their region. From the list provided, sample potential WH sites were visited for technical assessment to ascertain their viability.

8.2 WH Units and Formation of WH Group

The community members were informed about the subdivision of the NGA into RWH Units and setting up community-based organisational structures through formation of Water Harvesting Group. The community members from different sections of the NGA proposed names of potential members to this WH Group as provided in table 10 in this report. An umbrella WH Group for the NGA can therefore be made from representative members drawn from this list.

8.3 Technical Assessment of Proposed WH Sites

The study team in the company of a few community members visited some of the proposed potential sites in different sections within the NGA. Each site was assessed for among other things, technical viability, number of people and livestock, water requirements, land ownership/land tenure arrangements, the size and condition of the catchment area, cost implications and cost effectiveness, community preferences in hygiene and water use practices, road infrastructure and accessibility. Table 14 below provides a summary of checklist of parameters that were considered during the assessment. Table 14: Site Assessment Checklist Key RWH Site Assessment Parameters

Description

a) Name of Project Local name given by the community & technology e.g. pan, dam, etc.

b) Location Administrative details (village, sub-location, location, division, district)

GPS Reading, Altitude Accessibility (nature of road network)



c) Site Description Is it new site? It is an existing project that needs rehabilitation? Has it been surveyed by another development agency (name)?

d) Proposing Community Group Name of community group if any, registration status, membership issues & organisation.

e) Intended Use of Water Facility Livestock, human (domestic), irrigation, etc. f) Land Issues Land ownership (is it on private or public

land? g) Socio-economic Conditions Population & ethnic status

Livelihoods & food security (livestock & agricultural production)

Livestock population Other forms of economic activities

h) Social Amenities Access to education, health, water & social services, etc.

i) Existing Water Sources Types and distances to existing water sources j) Water Demand Area water demand by humans and livestock

based on population human & livestock including immigrants.

k) Technical Aspects Site description, topography, catchment area, soils, viability, possible intervention, design, cost implications & financing, etc.

l) Environmental Aspects Positive impacts, negative impacts, mitigation measures

m) Social Aspects Positive impacts, negative impacts, mitigation measures

n) Conclusions General conclusions & recommendations by the study team concerning the particular site and the proposed actions to be taken by the client.

8.4 Outcome of the Technical Assessment of WH Sites per WH Unit

WH Unit 1 The proposed WH Unit 1 covers the NGA section in Imenti North (Meru Central) District. This WH Unit currently falls under the new Buuri District. The proposed WH projects are shown in table 15 below. Table 15: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 1

Name of Project Type of Technology

Proposing Group

Administrative Location

Conclusions / Recommended Actions

1) Kirimene Dam Kirimene-Mutuuma SHG

Kirimene Village, Mutuuma Sub-location, Ruiri Location, Buuri Division

Site was assessed. Preliminary findings found it suitable. ENNDA had earlier in September 2008 and found it suitable.

2) Nkurunga Dam Kithuene Water Harvesting Group

M’Mioki-Kirwiro Village, Kithuene Sub-location, Rwarera Location, Buuri Division, Imenti North District (New Buuri District)

The site is a V-shaped valley in 2½ acre plot, in which a dam is proposed. It is a new proposed project and has not yet been surveyed.



3) Kamarai Dam Kithuene

community (Ngwataniro – Njotene Water Project)

M’Mioki-Kirwiro Village, Kithuene Sub-location, Rwarera Location, Buuri Division, Imenti North District (New Buuri District)

The site is a U-shaped valley, in which a dam is proposed. It is a new proposed project and has not yet been surveyed although ENNDA officers visited it in September 2008 but made no commitment to develop it. The site is suitable but it is an expensive undertaking.

4) Kiguuru kia M’Mioki

Dam Kinoria Seed bank Self-help Group

Kinoria Village, Kirwiro Sub-location, Rwarera Location, Buuri Division, Imenti North District (New Buuri District)

The site is a U-shaped valley, in which a dam is proposed. It is a new proposed project and has not yet been surveyed. It has the potential for a series of 3 concrete dams. In one of the sites, there is a sharp drop in depth of the valley with a small depression that holds some water when it rains. The water, which is used for both livestock and domestic, lasts about five months.

5) Njoruta Primary School

Water Pan Kinoria Seed bank Self-help Group

“ The site is currently a farm under cultivation and owned by Pius Kinyua M’Aburuki. There is a stream (Muguru jwa Naucii) that passes through the lower section of the farm, whose flood waters usually spreads into the farm. The flood waters can be diverted into a side pan. The stream floor is well covered with grass; hence siltation can easily be controlled.

6) Miunda Mirime

Dam Miunda Mirime Community

Miunda Mirime Village, Kirwiro Sub-location, Rwarera Location, Buuri Division, Imenti North District (New Buuri District)

The site is a depression of about 2 metres deep that the local community claimed was caused by a bomb that detonated prematurely in 1945. There is a stream that flows into the depression in one end, which can bring in huge quantities of water. The site is suitable for a series of two earth dams.

7) Nkando Dam Nkando community

Mugae Sub-location, Rwarera Location, Buuri Division

Site not visited for pre-feasibility technical assessment

8) Nkando Pan Nkando community

Mugae Sub-location, Rwarera Location, Buuri Division


9) Marere Dam Kirwiro community

Kirwiro Sub-location, Rwarera Location, Buuri Division


10) Demonstration site(s)

In-situ WH measures for Agriculture

Buuri Division community

Buuri Division There are many potential demonstration sites in the whole of WHU 1. Designation of particular sites will need to be allocated by the community members on individual farms of on public land.



The study team visited and technically assessed the proposed Kirimene Dam project on 3rd November 2008. During the visit, twenty two (22) of the ninety five (95) members of the Kirimene-Mutuuma Self-help Group (SHG) met the study team at Kirimene Village. The dam site is on a hilly terrain with a V-shaped valley at an altitude of 1,688m above sea level and lies at latitude 0o09’29.87” north and longitude 37o35’57.78” east If dammed, the valley can hold a large amount of water of which the community members would use for domestic, irrigation and livestock purposes. Horticultural production and tree planting would be the main irrigation activities. The proposed dam site lies on a 2½-acre public piece of land. Initial assessment showed that the site could be suitable although it is likely to attract high costs of implementation. In addition, the implementation would require sound catchment and environmental protection, which might involve relocating farmers within the main catchment section. Officers from ENNDA had also visited the site in September 2008 and recommended the same as a viable site for damming. During another round of field visit from 16th to 21st March 2009, other potential sites were visited by the study team in the company of community members and Mr. Kennedy Njenga of RPK for pre-feasibility technical assessment. These are Nkurunga, Kamarai, Kiguuru kia M’Mioki Valley dam sites, Njoruta Primary School Water pan and Miunda Mirime Earth dam sites. The study team was unable to visit and assess other potential sites, which were proposed at a community meeting at Mugae on 5th November 2008. Out of the above six (6) potential sites, which were assessed, Miunda Mirime Earth dam site was prioritised for implementation. Soil samples were also collected from the site for laboratory analysis. Most of the WH Unit 1 is less water stressed when compared to the other sections of the NGA. The area is also well served with piped water schemes e.g. Kiirwa-Kathita Water Project and several boreholes. The main land use is farming, hence in-situ WH technologies are more recommended for this WH Unit. The RPK through the Meru Dryland Farming Project has been implementing in-situ WH activities in this area including soil and stone bunding, terracing, etc. This will be just a matter of scaling up to cover the remaining section of WH Unit 1. WH Unit 2 This Water Harvesting Unit covers the Tigania West and Akithi Divisions of the former Meru North District. The proposed WH projects are shown in table 16 below. Table 16: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 2


Proposing Group



1) Mweronkoro Pan (new) Rwanda Location community

Mweronkoro Village, Kibiru Sub-location, Rwanda Location – Akithi Division

The site was assessed and found to be suitable.

2) Kibiru Pan (rehabilitation)

Rwanda Location community

Kibiru Sub-location, Rwanda Location – Akithi Division

The site was assessed. It is an existing pan whose embankment was washed away by floods. The pan was also filled with silt



deposits. The pan is suitable for rehabilitation.


In-situ WH measures for Agriculture

Akithi Division community

Akithi Division There are many potential demonstration sites in some sections of WHU 2. Designation of particular sites will need to be allocated by the community members on individual farms or what is currently termed as public land.

The potential for WH structures in this zone was not fully explored by the study team. There is need for further investigation for more potential sites. WH Unit 3 This water harvesting unit covers the area under the Tigania North Division of the former Meru North District. Currently, the area falls under the Karama and Muthara Divisions of the new Tigania East District. The proposed WH projects in this zone are shown in table 17 below. Table 17: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 3


Proposing Group



1) Eliene Pan Mula Location community

Turuka Village, Kalothera Sub-loc, Mula Location, Karama Division

The site was assessed. It is a trough-like valley between 2 rocky hillocks. Environmental protection measures will need to be incorporated in the implementation plan to reduce volume of silt deposits into the pan. The site was found to be suitable.

2) Kalia ka Ntarabithi

Water Pan & Hill side conduit

Mula Self-help Group (SHG), with over 2,000 members

Turuka Village, Kalothera Sub-loc, Mula Location, Karama Division, Tigania District

Natural shallow pond, which needs de-silting. With good rains, the pond lasts for about 3 months. The site has good catchment with a hillock to the west, from which more water can be harvested through hill-side conduits and directed into the pan. Soil samples from the site were collected for laboratory analysis.

3) Lorotone / Ntabara

Pan “ “ The site was assessed. It is a shallow natural pond. The catchment is only suitable for a small volume pan.

4) Tuanguene Pan (rehabilitation)

“ Kamberia Sub-loc, Mula Location, Karama Division

Half-way excavated by contractor who has already left the site. Needs completion of excavation & expansion, raising & compaction of embankment, draw-off pipe, cattle troughs & communal water point.

5) Elia ria tibu Natural pond / pan

“ Thalikwa Village, Kamberia Sub-loc, Mula Location, Karama Division

Natural pond, which needs de-silting. Lasted for 1 year during El Nino rains. Has good catchment.

6) Ndiankuru Pan “ “ Site was not assessed 7) Kamberia Pan “ “ “ 8) Mbataru Pan “ “ “ 9) Mweromuna

nda Pan “ “ “

10) Marere Pan “ “ “ 11) Kalimbene Pan “ “ “



12) Mburuani Pan “ “ “ 13) Demonstratio

n site(s) In-situ WH measures e.g. contour bunds

Karama Division community

Karama Division Some farmers are already using stones to construct bunds in Mula Location. The farmers need to be trained on how to construct them along the contours.

14) Matabithi Pan (diversion of water from Mweromaria / Kemenyi stream)

Ngaremara community

Turingwi Sub-loc, Ngaremara Location

The site was not assessed due to insecurity reasons in the areas bordering Isiolo District. The pan is under construction by the Ministry of Water & Irrigation.

15) Kiamboo - Thaai

Pan (flood water diversion)

“ Gambela Sub-loc, Ngaremara Location

The site was not assessed due to insecurity reasons in the areas bordering Isiolo District.

16) Nachokiro (Mbataru / Liliaba River confluence)

Pan (flood water diversion)

“ Gambela Sub-loc, Ngaremara Location

The site was not assessed due to insecurity reasons in the areas bordering Isiolo District.

17) River Rikiundu / Ngaremara

Flood water impoundment / diversion for irrigation

Gambela Sub-location Community

Kiamboo Village, Gambela Sub-loc, Ngaremara Location, Tigania North Division, Tigania District

The area is a flood plain with fertile alluvial soils deposited over a long period of time by flood waters laden with soils eroded from the Nyambene Hills. There exists few farms, which depend on both rain-fed agriculture and irrigation from water diverted from Rikiundu / Ngaremara Stream. The area has several sites for spate irrigation and construction of water pans.

In addition to the above WH sites for water pans, the area has a lot of potential for in-situ WH structures such as contour stone and soil bunding for agricultural production in the newly settled transitional zones of the NGA. The area has fertile red alluvial volcanic soils. WH Unit 4 This water harvesting unit covers the area under the Igembe North Division of the former Meru North District and covers part of Kangeta and Njia Locations. The proposed WH projects in WH Unit 4 are given in table 18 below. Table 18: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 4


Proposing Group


Conclusions / Recommendations

1) Mwero-Ithongo Stream (site 1)

Pan (water diversion from stream)

Njia Loc community

Njiia cia Mwendwa sub-loc, Njia Location

Preliminary assessment showed that the site has good potential of diverting stream water into a side pan. The proposed pan site is a shallow natural pond with a good natural embankment on one side. Soil samples were collected from the site for laboratory analysis.

2) Mwero-Ithongo Stream (site 2)


Njia Loc community

Njiia cia Mwendwa sub-loc, Njia Location

Preliminary assessment showed that the site has good potential of diverting stream water into a side pan.


In-situ WH measures e.g. contour bunding

Njia Loc community

Njia Location Some farmers are already using stones to construct bunds in Mula Location. The farmers need to be trained on how to construct them along the contours.



The study team could not visit more sites in this area due to poor road accessibility. The tracks are covered with thick bushes. The community members informed the study team that there are other potential sites in the area, which could only be accessed by tracks off the Isiolo-Kula Mawe road. During another round of field visits from 16th to 21st March 2009, soil samples were collected from project site 1 (Mwero-Ithongo 1 Water Pan) for laboratory analysis. This site is one of the three that were prioritised for implementation. WH Unit 5 This water harvesting unit covers Antuambui Location in Laare Division of the former Meru North District. The proposed WH projects in this WH Unit are shown in table 19 below. Table 19: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 5


Proposing Group



1) Ngathu Pan / natural pond

Antambui Location community

Ndumuru Village, Antuambui Sub-loc, Antuambui Location, Laare Division

With good rains, water collects and lasts from December to March the following year. Site has good potential for one big pan or a series of two. Catchment protection will be required especially conservation agriculture on the farms along the Nyambeni hill slopes.

2) Ngitatu lagga / stream


“ Antuambui Sub-loc, Antuambui Location, Laare Division

Site was assessed and found suitable.

3) Ndumuru Earth Dam “ “ The project exists but needs improvement to attain full potential.



Laare Division community

Laare Division Farmers need to be trained on how to utilise the available stones on their farms for water conservation for agriculture.

WH Unit 6 This water harvesting unit covers Amwathi 1 Sub-location, Kabachi Location in Mutuati Division of the former Meru North District. The proposed WH projects in this WH Unit are shown in table 20 below. Table 20: Proposed WH Projects in WH Unit 6


Proposing Group



1) Mweromunanda Pan (water diversion from stream & roadside run-off)

Kabachi Location community

Amwathi 1 Sub-location, Kabachi Location, Mutuati Division (situated along Kamweline-Kachiuru road)

Preliminary assessment showed that the site is suitable i.e. water diversion from a stream and road run-off into a pan. The pan site is currently a shallow natural pond

2) Mataunwa Pan / Natural water pond

“ “ (Situated along Ndumuru-Kachiuru road)

The site is a natural pond and has good potential. It requires de-silting. With good rains, water that collects in the pond lasts for 3 to 4 months and could last more if the



site is improved. The site is under construction by the National Water & Pipeline Conservation. Machinery is already on site.

3) Kabuti Pan “ “ Situated 4 km south-east of Kachiuru market.

The site is located in a water scarce area.



Mutuati Division community

Mutuati Division Farmers need to be trained on how to utilise the available stones or soils on their farms for water conservation for agriculture

9. Site Investigation and Selection

9.1 Topographical survey Potential sites for pans need to be determined through measurement, in order to establish the amount of water they might be able to store for small reservoirs, (less than 500 meters) a simple survey tool such as line level might be adequate where as larger pans (above 3 meters wall height) might require survey teams to site and map out the whole area.

9.2 Site selection for pans

The best sites for construction of pans are in places with deep clay or silky soils where surface run-off accumulates during the rainy season. The land surface should be fairly flat, ideally with a slope of not more than 4% a natural depression where water collects during rainy season is a suitable site. The catchments area should be sufficiently large to generate adequate runoff to fill the pan. Ideally, a pan should be located near a gully or a natural water way, which carries water during and after rainfall events as this water can easily be diverted. A suitable site should have deep fine textured soils, preferably clay. Highly permeable soils will allow ease drainage of water. Soils with low permeability (soils with high clay content) should be used for the flow and sides of the pan to avoid seepage losses. A pond should be located in such a way that the stored water may be used directly without the need for pumping and piping.

9.3 Soil Survey and Analysis

The purpose of this exercise is to see whether the local soils are suitable to use during construction; to estimate the permeability of the soil in the impoundment area to understand whether the site will hold water or lose it all through seepage. Soils can be classified on the basis of their texture. The finest soils are clay and these are impermeable (watertight) and do not allow water to pass through them. Silty soils are not as fine as clays and more permeable and unsuitable. Sandy soil is coarser still and quite permeable allowing water to pass through it easily. Gravel and soils with high gravel content are very permeable. Most soils are made up of a mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel. In order to decide whether the available soil is suitable for storing water or dam/pan wall construction, it is necessary to have a minimum of 30% clay content.



9.4 Soil Survey for three Representative Sites

Three (3) representative sites were identified during the study, to act as pilot areas and demonstration sites of WH technologies. Site characterization included soil surveying. Soil sampling was undertaken at the identified sites (Miunda Mirime, Mwero Ithongo, Kalia Ka Ntarabithi at depths of 30cm, 60cm, and 90cm where appropriate. The soil samples were subjected to some engineering and chemical tests. The following tests were undertaken at the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental engineering at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT):

(i) Sodium metal concentration (ii) Moisture content (iii) Particle size Distribution (iv) Unterberg Limits. (v) Permeability tests.

Table 21 below shows a summary of the results that were obtained while more detailed results are attached as annex 8. Table 21: Soil Analysis Results

Site Test Result Indication Sodium metal (Na+) Avg canc = 441mg (Kg) Will not affect quality of water. Moisture content AVg W(%)=9.5%-10% Good moisture retention capacity

Mwero Ithongo water pan site Particle size classification Well graded silty sand to

well graded gravely sand

Sodium Metal (Na+) Aug Conc = mg/kg=1545

Not affect quality of water, may require borrowing embankment soils.

Moisture content Aug (W%)=17.4% Good moisture retention capacity Particle size classification Well graded silty sand at top

soil to well graded gravely sand at subsoil.

Miunda Mirime earth dam site

Plasticity index 300mm depth 900mm depth 1500depth 2700mmdepth

Permeability

69 71.8 40.85 31.56 -7 K=4.5x10

Very high swelling potential and high degree of expansion (soil has a very low permeability).

Sodium Metal (Na+) Avg conc.(mg/kg)= 19 Will not affect quality of water and soil characteristics

Moisture content Avg (10%) = 25.4% High moisture retention capacity

Kalia Ka Ntarabithi water pan site

Plasticity index 600mm 900mm 1500mm 1800mm

24.97 63.36 52.46 20.36

-medium swelling potential -Very high swelling potential -Very high swelling potential -Medium swelling potential

Comments: 1) Mwero Ithongo water pan site



The medium concentration of sodium metal in the soil will not affect the stored water quality. Since the pan is a dugout structure and then embankment strength is not very significant, the sodium concentration will not affect the soil structure significantly.

The soil has been able to retain 10% moisture content over a period of 10 months since last rains. Water loss through seepage will not affect the quantity of water storage.

The average plasticity index for the soil was 27.46, the soil having medium swelling and expansion potential. This will not affect the pan as it will be a dugout structure

Although, soil texture indicates well graded silty sand, further tests on water soil retention indicate suitability for a pan. It is evident from historical timeline data, that the area is able to collect and retain water over a long period of time.

2) Miunda Mirime earth dam site

The Sodium content in the soil indicates that, the soil on site may not be suitable for the dam embankment. This is confirmed by the high plasticity index, very high swelling and expansion potential. It is therefore necessary that the soil for the embankment should be borrowed away from the site. Suitable sites exist less than 100m from the site.

Moisture Holding Capacity in the soil is quite high and permeability indicate low loss of water through seepage. With the above amendments, the structure is viable under the present conditions.

Picture 6: Soil samples being collected from the proposed Mwero Ithongo Water Pan Site in Igembe District.



3) Kalia Ka Ntarabithi water pan site

The sodium content in the soil was low and may not affect either the quality of water or the embankment. There is high moisture retention capacity of the soil indicating that less water is lost through seepage. This is indicative of significant quantities of clay in the soil texture. The plasticity index of the soil is medium top soil and higher within the subsoil. The high degree of expansion and swelling will not affect the pan as it is a dugout structure.

Therefore, the site is suitable for a pan as is supported by historical timeline data, that there are has been collecting water and retaining it over a long period of time.

Picture 8: Soil samples being collected from the proposed Kalia Ka Ntarabithi Water Pan Site in Tigania District.

Picture 7: The proposed Miunda Mirime Earth Dam site in Rwarera Location, Buuri Division in new Buuri District. The depression was said to have been caused by a



10. Investment and Maintenance Costs of Selected WH Technologies Table 22 below gives a summa ry of investment and maintenance costs of selected WH technologies recommended in this report. Table 22 Investment and Maintenance Costs of Selected WH Technologies13

Type of technology

Specification of technology No. of people served

Investment cost (Kshs)

Cost per capita (Kshs)

Annual repair cost (Kshs)

5,000 m3 (excavation ratio of 100%)

600 1,250,000 2,083 25,000

10,000 m3 (excavation ration of 90%)

1,200 2,250,000 1,875 45,000


1,500 2,812,500 1,667 56,250


1,800 3,000,000 1,563 60,000

Dams (excavation unit rate of 250 Ksh/m3)


2,400 3,750,000 1,458 75,000

5,000 m3 600 1,250,000 2,083 25,00010,000 m3 1,200 2,500,000 2,083 50,00015,000 m3 1,500 3,750,000 2,083 75,00020,000 m3 1,800 4,500,000 2,083 90,000

Water Pans (excavation ratio of 100%)

25,000 m3 2,400 5,000,000 2,083 100,000Source: MW & I - Vol. 1 – CPC Doc 1.4 – Preparation Phase Guidelines The above costs are relative and based on standard designs. In the case of the proposed WH technologies in NGA, the costs may vary taking into consideration the costs in relation to creating access roads, etc. However, they provide a clear guideline for budgeting purposes.

11. Recommended Way Forward Having weighed the best options concerning the implementation of WH initiatives in the NGA, the Consultant proposes the implementation of at least three prioritised projects i.e. two water pans and an earth dam. These are: - Miunda Mirime Earth Dam in WH Unit 1 in Imenti North (new Buuri) District; Kalia Ka Ntarabithi Water Pan (with optional hillside conduit) in WH Unit 3 in

Tigania District; and Mwero-Ithongo 1 Water Pan (stream water diversion) in WH Unit 4 in Igembe

District. In addition to the above projects, the study team proposes implementation of at least three (3) demonstration projects of in-situ water harvesting technologies especially in WH Units 3 and 4.

11.1 Implementation Phase

This section addresses various issues pertinent to the implementation of the proposed three WH Projects.

13 Based on year 2006 Costs



11.2 Approach

The project implementation process should take into account the following core principles, which remain valid throughout the implementation phase:

Inclusive; Consultative; Gender sensitive; Environmentally responsive; Appropriate technology; Practical solutions and implementation strategies; Working with partner communities through Project Management Committees;

and Innovative funds disbursement structure.

In addition, a flexible approach is to be used to ensure that “lessons learned” are immediately used to arrive at a refined and viable implementation process for further expansion into the other WH Units.

11.3 Immediate Implementation Steps

The study team recommends the following follow-up activities to the RWH study: -

Further community awareness about the planned RWH projects in the WH Units around the three prioritised projects;

Carryout further technical surveys of prioritised WH sites; Preparation of detailed designs and BoQs of prioritised WH sites; Formation of Project Management Committees (PMCs); Formalisation of agreements between the respective communities (PMCs) and

the Implementing Partners (LVIA, DOM and RPK); Formalisation of agreements of supplementary support by network

organisations e.g. Government Departments (Water and Irrigation, Arid Lands, etc), Contractors, etc.;

Establishment of Funds Disbursement Procedures; Training and Capacity Building; Field Lay-out and construction of civil works; and Monitoring and Evaluation.

11.3.1 Further Community Awareness about the Planned RWH Activities

A reasonable level of community awareness on the proposed WH programme in Northern Grazing Area (NGA) was attained during the just concluded study on the potential for WH projects. However, more awareness is necessary and especially within the three WH Units where implementation is to take place. This is necessary so as to elicit community interest and active participation.

11.3.2 Soil sampling and analysis on prioritised WH sites

Soil samples were collected for analysis from the three prioritised sites as explained in detail in section 9 and annex 8 of this report. This has shown that the three prioritised sites are suitable for the construction of the proposed WH structures. Soils with gravel textures are unsuitable for construction of dams and pans due to high likelihood



of water loss through seepage. Testing of soil porosity levels is a crucial determining factor.

11.3.3 Preparation of Designs and BoQs of prioritised WH sites

Once the prioritised WH sites have been surveyed, the implementation process can move into the next level of preparing designs and Bills of Quantities for the same. The designs should take into account the reasons why past dams and pans in the Meru NGA have resulted in too much silting or embankments being washed away by floods.

11.3.4 Formation of Project Management Committees (PMCs)

Each WH project will need to have its own management committee (PMC). These committees can be the ones existing for a particular common interest group that is proposing a particular project or a newly elected one. Eventually, there will be several PMCs in a particular WHU depending on the number of WH projects. As for now, three PMCs will need to be formed to manage the following projects: Miunda Mirime Earth Dam in WHU 1; Kalia Ka Ntarabithi Water Pan in WHU 3; and Mwero-Ithongo 1 Water Pan in WHU 4.

11.3.5 Formalisation of agreements between the respective Partners

For each specific project, an agreement has to be reached through consensus between the community concerned and the implementing partner (LVIA). The agreement (protocol) will show community commitment to the project. It serves to formally document the responsibilities and duties of the communities with regard to a specific project. A sample of a draft protocol is attached as an annex 6 to this report. The protocol will be signed by a representative of the community on one hand and a representative of the implementing partner (LVIA) on the other. The protocol addresses issues well beyond implementation of civil works. It deals with community contribution during the implementation and also with organisation and management by the community, and obligations to ensure long term sustainability of the project and cross cutting issues. It is recommended that no civil works construction is undertaken till the protocols are duly agreed upon and signed.

11.3.6 Network Arrangements

Any third party involvement will also require signing of formal agreements of cooperation such as with hired contractors or government departments (Water and Irrigation, Arid Lands, Agriculture, etc).

11.3.7 Establishment of Funds Disbursement Procedures

The implementing agency of the WH projects i.e. LVIA will need to establish funds disbursement procedures for construction of civil works at different stages. Sound accounting and financial reporting systems will also need to be put in place. The same procedures that LVIA and DOM have been using with community groups managing the existing gravity schemes can be adopted.

11.3.8 Training and Capacity Building

Training and capacity building is partly carried out prior, during and after construction of civil works. The content of the training will be in relation to the type of WH



technology. It includes technical training relevant to each project as well as general capacity building of the community and its institutions to use and maintain the project adequately. The training will involve theoretical training, hands-on training and exposure tours to other areas where such technologies have been successfully applied.

11.3.9 Field Lay-out and Construction of Civil Works

The lay-out of RWH structures has to be done professionally. The lay-out of any civil works or earth works is essential to its eventual functionality, low maintenance requirements and its technical viability. The Consultant recommends that labour intensive construction on the basis of voluntary work, food for work or cash for work could result in slower progress. In this case projects that require moving of huge volumes of earth such as water pans and earth dams may take longer time to finalise. In this case it would be more realistic to hire a contractor with earth moving machinery for faster implementation. Where skilled artisans are required for construction of masonry work, it is expected that smaller contractors are used as available within the community or nearby areas. It would furthermore be advisable that any works contracted includes labour recruited from the project area.

11.3.10 Monitoring and Evaluation

The monitoring and evaluation during the implementation of the proposed prioritised RWH projects will primarily concentrate on proper documentation of all aspects of the project implementation right from inception to conclusion. This will be done at both the community and implementing partner levels. It is important that monitoring process of all aspects of implementation of the prioritised WH projects start with the inception of the implementation process and does not restrict itself to implementation of civil works. The administrative and financial aspects, community participation and impact of training and capacity building are all valuable aspects to be monitored. On the other hand, at mid-term and the end of the implementation process, project evaluations will be undertaken. The terms of reference for these exercises will be decided upon by the implementing partner (LVIA) and supporting donors. Externally supported mid-term and end of project evaluations will need to be done. The results of these evaluations will guide the final decision making process on the expansion of the WH activities to cover the entire NGA, based on progress, impact and viability of all aspects pertaining to planning, implementation, cost-effectiveness, socio-cultural and socio-economic acceptability.

11.4 Environmental Protection Guidelines

As outlined in the preparation phase guidelines contained in Volume 1 – CPC Doc 1.4, protection of the environment around water sources including RWH structures is of paramount importance as explained below.

11.4.1 Water source Protection By-laws

The integrity of a water source and its continued provision of clean and safe water is determined first by the design and construction, but in the longer term, by the care and protection that the users exercise on a regular basis. The focus would be on measures and practices that prevent contamination of ground water and surface water that are used or potentially used as sources of drinking water. Such measures could be non-regulatory in nature, such as ‘best management practices’ or regulatory through the use of by-laws, and will focus on: -



Community education through awareness creation on pollution; and Man-made systems to prevent release of contaminants into the source.

Best management practices for water source protection: These are standard operating procedures that can reduce the threats of contamination to water sources and include the following: Springs: The focus would be the protection of the very shallow groundwater by:

Washing clothes away from spring reservoir area; Watering livestock away from the spring; Prevention of trampling of spring reservoir area; Proper maintenance of the cut off drain for the spring; and Constructing pit latrines and animal pens at least 70 metres away.

Wells: Protection of shallow groundwater through:

Washing clothes away from the immediate well; Proper maintenance of the drains away from the well; Constructing pit latrines and animal pens at least 70 metres away;

and Prohibition of soap for cleaning around the well.

Dams: Stagnant water in dams is most vulnerable to pollution; protect by:

Fencing off the reservoir area and keeping the fence intact; Trimming grass and cutting bushes seasonally on the dam wall; Watering animals outside the dam area; Construction of cut-off drains to prevent direct rainfall run-off into

the dams from farmlands, especially agrochemicals; Construction of latrines at least 100 metres from upstream side of

the dam; Providing access paths towards the dam on the downstream side.

11.4.2 Catchment Protection By-laws

Catchment area relate to the wider water resource recharge area for the water point. In some cases, particularly for boreholes, such area could extend to several kilometres. For some sources, especially springs, shallow wells and dams, the catchments area would be of small extent. The primary focus would be the enhancement of recharge characteristics within the catchments area. Best management practices for water source protection: The overall focus will be the enhancement of the groundwater recharge through longer-term infiltration as well as direct catchments conservation upstream of rivers, dams and water pans. These will include but not limited to the following: -

Tree planting in the catchments area; Construction of soil construction structures in farmlands; Construction of soil conservation structures in large catchments; Prevention of footpaths along the slope leading to dams and pans; Maintenance of at least 3 metres strip of land next to the rivers;



Fencing off the immediate catchments area of dams and pans; Maintenance of bush and tree cover in the catchments area of dams; and Land management to minimize release or runoff of contaminants.

11.5 Scaling Up

The process of scaling up of the RWH projects would be based on the outcomes of the end of project evaluation explained above. Once the project arrangements have been tried and tested, then the project can be expanded into other areas within the NGA and neighbouring Isiolo and Samburu Districts. In order to facilitate the scaling up of the project, it would be helpful to adopt a process that channels WH sites proposed by the communities into bankable project proposals, which can be approved by LVIA and implemented on the basis of Community Project Cycle (CPC) concept. The CPC concept provides a set-up that selects and identifies locally based development agencies as Support Organisations (SOs) and Quality Control Agents (QCAs), which assists the communities in preparation of quality proposals and project plans and their implementation. Once such structures have been put in place, LVIA will be able to undertake an expansion programme to cover other areas within and outside the NGA.

12. Stakeholder Feedback Workshop The stakeholder feedback workshop marked the climax of the study process on the potential for rainwater harvesting initiatives in the Meru Northern Grazing Area. The stakeholder feedback workshop was held on 27th April 2009 at Gitoro Conference Centre, Meru. The workshop was attended by twelve (12) participants from stakeholder-organisations namely: Lay Volunteers International Association (LVIA), Resource Projects Kenya (RPK), Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP), Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), Ministry of Agriculture and community representatives. The other institutions that were invited but did not have representatives at the workshop are Ewaso Nyiro North Development Authority (ENNDA), Nyambene County Council, Livestock Department (Maua) and Diocese of Meru, Water Department. On the other hand, the Consultant’s team was represented by four (4) members. The list of participants at the stakeholders’ workshop is attached as annex 11.

12.1 Feedback Workshop Preliminaries

The workshop began with verbal self introductions by the participants whereby they gave their names, institutions they represented and their positions. This was followed by a presentation on the background of the study on the potential for rainwater harvesting (RWH) by the LVIA Project Co-ordinator Mr. Heinrich Gorfer.

12.2 Introduction to RWH Technologies

The introduction to rainwater harvesting technologies was presented by Mr. Paul Kimeu who was the technical resource person in the Consultant’s team. The presentation delved more on the many technical options on RWH that have been tried in many parts of the world, Kenya included. The presentation structure covered the following topics: -

Introduction to water harvesting Benefits of water harvesting Water harvesting and management technologies Abstraction of water Operation and maintenance; and Challenges



The presentation included pictures and diagrammatic drawings of different technologies of water harvesting systems such as catchment systems, runoff delivery systems, storage/reservoir systems. In the case of water harvesting technologies, the presentation covered examples of roof catchments tanks e.g. ferro cement, sausage, masonry, etc, sub-surface and sand dams, rock catchments, water ponds and pans, earth dams, concrete dams. On the other hand, the presentation also covered aspects of water harvesting for crop production with examples such as negarims, contour and trapezoidal bunds, planting pits (zai), etc.

12.3 Presentation of Study Process and Findings

The presentation of the study process and findings was done by Mr. Timothy Mutinda of GS Consult. The presentation covered aspects of the structure of the report, study methodology including the steps followed, data gathering techniques used and the key findings and recommendations. After the presentation, the participants gave their comments especially as regards the findings and recommendations. These comments were incorporated in the finalisation of this report.

12.4 Plenary Feedback and Way Forward

The meeting agreed on the following as the way forward for LVIA and its partners: - Pursue rainwater harvesting (RWH) initiatives to complement the piped water

schemes and boreholes since these sources cannot meet the water demand in the study area;

Look for funding of the water harvesting initiative programme; Carryout more investigations on the three recommended sites of Mwero Ithongo,

Kalia Ka Ntarabithi and Miunda Mirime. These will include environmental impact assessments, consultations with community members on one hand and county councils, land adjudication committees and the lands offices to iron out any land issues concerning the proposed sites;

Need to decide on the use of water from the three sites; Incorporate aspects of conservation agriculture in the water harvesting

programme; and Prepare a four-page summary of the study findings, which can be shared with

stakeholders.

13. Conclusions and Recommendations The principle conclusions and recommendations are as follows: -

1. The Northern Grazing Area (NGA) of the greater Meru North and Meru Central Districts was formerly set up for grazing but observations have revealed that agricultural activities are being practiced leading to erection of fences and construction of homesteads. An effort has to be made that the NGA remains a grazing area and appropriate boundaries be set-up to control further encroachment.

2. A Users association should be formed to manage the grazing patterns and all

NGA natural resources. Such an association could be formed as in Isiolo, where a Range Users Association exists to manage pastures, water resources, marketing and security issues.



3. Planning of community managed water systems within the NGA may require convening meetings with the cattle owners as most of the people within the NGA are workers and their employers stay in the higher potential areas and only visit the area occasionally.

4. Water harvesting systems in the NGA can be divided into water harvesting for

livestock production, crop production and domestic use. The systems are tenable at different places in the NGA as the sufficient conditions for different systems coupled with demands are different.

5. In all farming areas within the NGA, crop and livestock production is

hampered by insufficient and poorly distributed rainfall. Appropriate water harvesting systems should aim at impounding run-off and storing it to meet the requirements during the dry spell.

6. After discussions with the communities, in-situ water harvesting structures

were highly ranked due to applicability, cost of implementation and maintenance and simplicity in technology. These include stone bunds, infiltration ditches, terraces, semi-circular bunds, trapezoidal bunds, zai pits and conservation tillage. The main input in all these structures is layout (by a technician) and labour (which can be provided by the farmers). The Resource Projects Kenya (RPK) has been implementing some of these measures in Buuri Division of Imenti North (Meru Central) District. The same efforts need to be replicated or scaled up in other parts of the NGA where farming activities are being practised.

7. The suitability of a particular site for pans depends largely on the permeability

of its soil. In this case testing for soil texture gives a fairly good indication of its suitability. Most sites visited had evidence of sandy, clay and sandy clay loams and hence suitable for pans. Evidence from existing ponds/pans indicates the sites are not porous and hence can hold water.

8. Communities living within the NGA are seemingly not wealthy and their

participation in the project should include, ‘in kind contribution’ i.e. contribution in the form of labour and local materials. These contributions should be translated into monetary terms to establish the actual value of the contribution. There is sufficient community interest in participating in the RWH initiatives. However, community capacity to manage water harvesting structures must be developed concurrently with the construction of structures and their maintenance.

9. The proposed structures (2 water pans and an earth dam), if implemented are

expected to have a significant positive socio-economic impact on the beneficiary communities. These are (1) Mwero Ithongo Water Pan in Njia Location, Igembe North Division, Igembe District, (2) Kalia Ka Ntarabithi Water Pan in Mula Location, Karama Division of Tigania District and (3) Miunda Mirime Earth Dam in Rwarera Location, Buuri Division, Imenti North District (New Buuri District).



10. It is recommended that the use of mechanisation and contractors for major earthworks is considered in view of the size of some projects especially for the two water pans and one earth dam. This does not exclude use of labour especially where masonry work is required. It is recommended that such skilled or unskilled labour be sourced within the project area or Water Harvesting Unit.

11. There is a slight risk of negative environmental impacts. This risk can be

mitigated through careful attention to the design, construction and management of the structures. Positive environmental impacts are expected to result from the improved soil and water and catchment management and ground water recharge.

12. Land ownership – in the upper fringes of the NGA, individual land ownership

could be discerned; in the lower parts, land is owned by the County Council (Trust land); there is need that the ongoing land adjudication process identifies and sets aside communal land for the structures and management given to the communities through their Water Harvesting Working Group or Project Management Committees (PMCs).

13. There are substantial logistical challenges, primarily related to security and

transport (accessibility) within the heartland of the NGA that must be adequately planned for during any operations in the area.

14. To ensure sustainability of the implemented WH structures i.e. two pans and

the earth dam, appropriate Operation and Maintenance (O & M) mechanisms should be put in place e.g. catchment protection, community involvement in management and regular desilting and repairs. For instance draught animal dam scooping device has been used in some parts of Kenya such as Baringo, Koibatek and Kajiado. Trained oxen and donkeys can be used to carry out the desilting work. Animal trainers are also available in Kenya and can be hired when the need arises.

15. A more detailed survey will need to be undertaken leading to a comprehensive

design of the three proposed structures. This survey should include the population of human and livestock; topographical and social dynamics.



14. References Boers, T.M., Ben-Asher, J. 1982. A review of rainwater harvesting for agriculture and water management. ENNDA/Nippon Koei Co. Ltd, Tokyo Japan, 2002. Ewaso Ng’iro North River Catchment Conservation and Water Resources Management Study Report. Ministry of Water Development (Water Resources Assessment Section (WRAP) Nairobi, Kenya) / TNO Institute of Applied Geoscience DELFT, the Netherlands), 1991. District Water Development Study (1993-2013). Ministry of Planning and National Development, Meru North District Development Plan (2002 – 2008). Groundwater Survey Ltd., 1998. Hydrological Survey, Kinna. Rural Focus Ltd. / Meru Dryland Farming Project, September 2000. Pre-feasibility Assessment of Community Proposed Water Resource Development Interventions. Makali Samuel K., March 2007. Kithuene Sub-location Baseline Survey Report. IGAD/AfDB/GS Consult – COPSO., 2005. Inception Report – Water Harvesting in the IGAD Region, Karamoja Cluster Pilot Project. Surveys of Kenya (GOK) / British Government’s Ministry of Overseas Development (Directorate of Overseas Surveys)., 1976. Topographical sheets: 108/1 – Isiolo, 108/2 – Laare, 109/1 – Kinna, 94/4 – Shaba, 95/3 – Kula Mawe, Ministry of Water & Irrigation (GOK), Volume 1 – CPC Doc 1.4 – Preparation Phase Guidelines Mburu David M (Dr.)., Kinoti G. (Mrs) Shalem Community Educators. A report of Studies on Design and Cost Estimates for Proposed Rainwater Harvesting Structures.

Study on Rainwater Harvesting Potential in Northern Grazing Area

Documents

Transcript of Study on Rainwater Harvesting Potential in Northern Grazing Area