5 Measuring Indicators For Sustainable River Basin Management

Dorice Agol

5.1 Introduction

River basins are complex socio-ecological systems that reflect interactions between humans and their environment as well as multiple interests and activities. Subsequently, sustainable river basin management calls for an integrated approach requiring a balance between social equity, economic efficiency and environmental sustainability (e.g.Gallego-Ayala and Juízo 2012). This is to maintain the various ecosystem services that river basins provide, which range from provision of water supplies for domestic, hydropower and irrigation to regulatory, supporting and cultural/aesthetic benefits (Grossman, 2012; Comino et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2014). However, experiences across the world have shown that optimizing these ecosystem services is a huge challenge due to the need to reconcile trade-offs that are often inherent at their interfaces (e.g.Swallow et al. 2009). For instance, the negative consequences of wetland drainage and deforestation with the aim to foster agricultural development are well documented and evidence shows that such practices can adversely reduce ecological functions and integrity of natural ecosystems (Izac and Swift, 1994; Urama, 2005; Swallow et al., 2009; Guo et al., 2014). This holds true across Sub-Saharan Africa where it is often challenging to realize socio-economic development and environmental sustainability simultaneously due to issues of poverty, unemployment and inequality and poor health.

The basis for socio-economic development is a healthy river basin system with adequate supplies of natural resources such as land, water, energy, timber, food and minerals. Safeguarding adequate supplies of these resources requires robust sustainable river basin management approaches. Sustainability Indicators (SIs) are being increasingly used to monitor and appraise river basin management strategies because they can help to quantify and/or qualify the impacts of programmes, projects, policies and institutions within different contexts (Madulu, 2005; Harmancioglu et al., 2008; Owens et al., 2008; Li and Yang, 2011). Since the Rio Earth Summit the use of SIs has been widespread in fostering sustainable development (UNCED, 1992). There is a range of SIs that is embedded in socio-economic, cultural, political and environmental spheres (e.g. Moldan et al., 2012). SIs are defined within different sectors, including water, forestry, energy, land use, transport, tourism and mining (Hezri, 2004; Strezov and Evans, 2009; Blancas et al., 2011; Shaheen et al., 2011; Popovic et al., 2013). Examples of commonly used sustainability indicators in river basins include water quantity and quality, level of access, richness in biodiversity, efficiency in policy, institutions and regulatory frameworks. These SIs can be measured directly and/or indirectly and the success of their appraisal depends on the level of available technical skills and financial resources. This chapter discusses opportunities and challenges associated with measuring SIs for sustainable management of River Nyando (RNB) in Western Kenya, East Africa. It highlights commonly used river basin management concepts and theories such as decentralization, multi-stakeholder participation, institutional arrangements and ecosystem services.

5.2 Background and Context

The River Nyando, which drains into Lake Victoria on the Western Kenyan side, East Africa, is just over 150 kilometres long and covers an area of approximately 3618 km2. It runs through three distinct hydrological zones namely; upper, middle and lower. The upper zone and parts of the mid zone are cooler with altitudes of approximately 3,000 meters above sea level (asl). The lower and some areas in the mid zone are hotter and drier with lower altitude (~1000m asl). Rainfall in the Nyando River Basin is bimodal with long events in March/April and short ones in October/November. Temperatures can drop up to five Degrees Celsius in the cooler upper zone while in the low lying areas, more than 30 Degrees Celsius have been recorded in the past.

Currently, there are more than one million people living in the River Nyando Basin and many are rural dwellers whose livelihoods depend directly on its natural resources. Some parts of the river basin are so densely populated that they support more than 1,000 people per square kilometre. Subsistence farming is commonly practised and crops such as maize, millet and vegetables are grown. There are also commercial activities in various parts of the RNB mainly growing and processing of tea, rice and sugarcane (Agol, 2010).

Since the last 50 years, the River Nyando Basin has experienced intense environmental problems such as deforestation, soil erosion, pollution and climate change (LVEMP, 2005; Raburu and Okeyo-Owuor, 2006). The River Basin has undergone dramatic land-use changes due to intensive agricultural activities. Deforestation is widespread and has claimed much of the forest cover especially in the upper zone (GoK, 2010; API, 2010). Soil erosion accounts for over 50% of land degradation in the RNB and is caused by intensive forest clearance, over-grazing, sand harvesting, land fragmentation and quarrying (Swallow et al 2003; Shepherd and Walsh 2002). The lower zone is prone to floods during extreme rainfall events and during the El Niño events of 1990/2000, many parts of the lower zone were inundated with water levels exceeding three metres high (JICA, 2007; Olang and Furts, 2011). Pollution is also a common problem in the RNB and in the rainy seasons, sediments from the catchment usually get deposited into the river. These sediments include untreated agro-chemical and municipal wastes which are key sources of pollutants (e.g. Raburu and Okeyo-Owuor, 2006).

Many of the environmental problems in the River Nyando continue to threaten its socio-economic and ecological functions (LVEMP, 2005). For example, previous research estimated that more than 3 million tonnes of soil has been eroded away from the catchment leading to depletion of key nutrients mainly phosphorus, nitrogen, organic matter and soil moisture and subsequent poor crop yields (Swallow et al 2003, Shepherd and Walsh 2002). Common weeds mainly Striga, tend to take advantage of these nutrient-poor conditions by outcompeting food crops (Atela et al., 2008).

Sustaining the functions of the RNB requires strategic and practical actions that are multifaceted in nature. It requires the sustenance of the various ecosystem services that the River system provides including adequate water quantities and good water quality and high levels of biodiversity. It also requires active participation of multi-stakeholders across the River Basin.

5.3 Sustaining River Basin’s Ecosystem Services

Securing a range of benefits that people derive from ecosystems – from provision of food, fibre, and water, to regulation of climate, pests and diseases as well as opportunities for recreation, cultural and spiritual experience- is important for human wellbeing (MA, 2005). The River Nyando Basin is an important socioecological system which provides these ecosystem services which are derived from its rich upland forests, wetlands and flood plains. The river is an important source of food such as fish and wild vegetables, and provides water supplies for domestic, agricultural and industrial use. It regulates the local climate around the Lake Victoria region and filters pollutants from multiple sources. The River Nyando is aesthetic with its course meandering across different landscapes and within its catchment are inhabitants of multiple ethnic communities with distinct cultures and traditions.

However, threats to these ecosystem services such as deforestation, soil erosion, pollution and climate change continue to disrupt the river’s ecological and socioeconomic functions. For example, deforestation in the upper catchment has caused reductions in biodiversity loss including indigenous tree species (GoK, 2010; API, 2010) and is threatening local livelihoods which are dependent on them. Over the years, many wetlands in the RNB have disappeared due to activities such as wetland drainage and use of agro-chemicals and this has destabilized their ecological functions such as regulation of flood and pollutants. Since the early 1990s, efforts have been made to minimize these environmental problems in the River Nyando Basin in order to sustain its ecosystem services. Key strategies have focussed on maintenance of adequate water supplies, good water quality and high levels of biodiversity.

5.3.1 Securing Adequate Water Supplies For All

Securing adequate water supplies is an important perquisite for socio-economic development and environmental sustainability (Lawford et al., 2013). The rationale for sustaining adequate water quantities in a river basin is to improve water security for socio-economic activities and environmental sustainability. The RNB has multiple water sources which are used for various purposes such as domestic, irrigation and industrial activities. They include the river and its associated wetlands (streams, springs, ponds), groundwater and rainfall. The river is the main source of water for irrigation and industrial activities. The mid and upper zones are endowed with numerous springs many of which provide water for domestic purposes.

To sustain adequate water quantities in the RNB, there have been efforts by governmental and non-governmental organizations, private sector and local communities to improve rainwater harvesting, stream flow diversion, spring protection and groundwater abstraction. During rainy seasons, some households can harvest water from rooftops while small dams (water pans) are used to divert stream flows for small-scale irrigation and livestock watering. Abstracting groundwater via shallow wells and boreholes for domestic and small-scale irrigation activities is also common especially due to external funding from the donor community. Many communities are protecting spring water to improve their productivity and quality while piped water systems are used by well-established farms, industries and institutions (e.g. hospitals and schools).

The variety of water sources across the RNB and their productivity levels are obvious indicators of water availability. The Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) is legally mandated to monitor water use across the whole basin. WRMA’s key responsibility is to do water accounting through surveys which involves identifying all water sources, determining their level of productivity and their spatial and temporal distribution. This requires large investments in capital and human resources which unfortunately are limited. Thus although past surveys have revealed that there are multiple water sources across the RNB, one cannot be confident that the multiple water sources are a reliable indicator for water availability because there lacks a systematic monitoring to establish their productivity. For example, there is no up-to-date information on water supply against demand especially owing to the fact that water insecurity level in river Nyando is rising due to a growing human population combined with problems such as pollution and prolonged drought.

5.3.1.1 Determining Water Productivity, Promoting Equitable Allocation

Measuring productivity of the variety of water sources in the RNB can help to determine the water balance, that is supply versus demand. Some efforts are being made by the WRMA to carry out direct measurements of stream flows (cubic metres per second), discharge, evaporation rates (evaporation pans) and water levels (rain gauges). These measurements are done at designated sites along the main course of the river and in some seasonal streams. However, to determine the full situation that truly reflects water productivity across the River Basin is challenging due to limited systematic research and monitoring processes. For example, groundwater production and stream flows/dynamics in the river basin are less well understood (Agol, 2010). The lack of knowledge limits efforts especially by key stakeholders such as conservationists, development practitioners and the local water resources to manage water resources of the Nyando River sustainably.

Sustaining adequate water supplies requires allocation strategies that promote water equity between competing users (Cai et al., 2008; Dai and Li, 2013; Li et al., 2015). The fact that water is now commonly valued as an important economic good (e.g. Agol, 2010), has created opportunities to apply economic instruments such as permits to allocate water in the many river basins across the world. In the River Nyando, the WRMA allocates water through permit mainly to large-scale water users such as irrigators and industries. Permits are a form of water use control mechanism and can be used as indicators of trends in water abstraction, in practice however, there are illegal abstraction activities across the River. Thus a meagre record of the number of permit holders is not sufficient to infer trends in water use and subsequent demand by the population. In addition, there are hundreds of small-scale water abstractors across the River Nyando many of which are not regulated by the WRMA. According to the Water Act 2002, small-scale water abstractors do not necessarily require permits and this means that the WRMA cannot monitor their water use activities across the River Basin. Without adequate information on trends in water use, it is difficult for the WRMA to allocate water efficiently to different users across the River Nyando Basin. Certainly, there needs to be a systematic data collection and analysis, for example on the different water sources, their productivity levels, type of users (illegal and legal water users), population densities, household size to determine water use patterns.

5.3.1.2 Access To Water Resources

The level of access to water resources by different users can be a useful measure of sustainability (Gustavson et al., 1999; Joziasse et al., 2007; Milman and Short, 2008; Dai and Li, 2013) in river basins. In measuring access to water as an indicator of sustainability, it is important to consider what sorts of formal and informal laws prevail in a given context. In the River Nyando Basin, property rights and land tenure significantly influence access to water. In communally owned land, access to water sources is better compared to private property where formal laws tend to prevail and anyone who trespasses can be prosecuted. In communal land settings, the use of customary laws is commonly used to negotiate access to water. In recent years, communal water supply systems (e.g. drilling boreholes and wells) have become popular in the River Nyando Basin. Where a water source is located on private land, an agreement, usually in the form of a verbal consent, is drawn between the land owner and the community group involved. In many cases, land owners have failed to honour such verbal agreements by denying group access to the water after a water resource has been developed. This is common in the dry season when competition for water intensifies due to high levels of shortages. To ensure access, community groups who manage communal water systems in private land are being advised to sign formal and written agreements (Memorandum of Understanding- MoU) with private land owners where a particular water resource has been developed. MoUs and level of commitment can be useful indicators for communal access to water in private land.

Technological innovations for water abstraction although commonly used as indicators for improved access to water can cause conflicts between users. Experience in the River Nyando has shown that the installation of water infrastructure for stream flow diversion and spring protection in one community (e.g. household or population) upstream can simultaneously reduce the flow of water to another community downstream (Agol, 2010). In the mid- 2000s, a sugarcane farmer who was located upstream, channelled stream flow onto his land which inhibited water flow downstream to rice irrigators. This led to conflicts between the sugarcane farmer and the rice irrigators. Similar conflicts have been recorded across the River Basin, for example, where spring protection by one community has excluded another from access to water (Agol, 2010). In these examples, it can be observed that action and technology used by one actor can reduce opportunities for another to abstract water. These are key issues which should be analysed carefully when measuring equitable access to water.

5.3.2 Sustaining Good Water Quality

Good water quality is a key indicator of a healthy river system (Chilundo et al., 2008; Schmitter-Soto et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012; Dahm et al., 2014). One of the basic steps for sustaining good water quality in rivers is to safeguard them from the effects of harmful events such as pollution (Ajeagah et al., 2010; Bouraoui and Grizzetti, 2011; Guo et al., 2014). In many river basins across the world, it is common practice to identify potential sources of pollution, their spatial and temporal distributions and risk levels. In the River Nyando knowledge about point and non-point pollution is known and information is clearly documented. The main pollution sources are farm wastes (e.g. use of agro-chemicals in sugar, tea and horticulture), industrial activities (e.g. effluent from sugar and tea processing) and municipal wastes (e.g. Swallow et al., 2003; Raburu and Okeyo-Owuor, 2006).

5.3.2.1 Water Quality Monitoring

Different aspects of water quality are measured in various points across the RNB by use of physical, chemical, biological and epidemiological parameters. Water quality monitoring involves direct and indirect measurements which are usually done by different stakeholders including research institutes, government authorities (e.g. WRMA), NGOs, private establishments (e.g. industries,) and some local community groups such as the Water Resources Users Associations (WRUAs). Direct measurements of chemical water quality is common for phosphorous and nitrogen as well as monitoring physical aspects such as turbidity, conductivity and temperature. Monitoring results have shown that the water quality in the River Nyando is generally poor due to the effects of pollution in the catchment (e.g. Raburu and Okeyo-Owuor, 2006). During flooding, large quantities of sediments are deposited into the River basin containing traces of phosphorous and nitrogen from agricultural and municipal sources. Due to its connection with Lake Victoria, a high level of nutrient loading in the River Nyando tends to cause eutrophication in the Lake. The consequence is colonization of water hyacinth, an invasive plant species which proliferates quite fast under nutrient-rich (eutrophic) conditions (e.g. Odata et al., 2004; Raburu and Okeyo-Owuon, 2006). Measuring levels of nutrient loads from point sources of pollution such as farmlands and municipalities is a more direct way of determining water quality in the river basin. This is in contrast to non-point sources such as run-off from farmlands, leaching from drainage and drifts from spraying of agro-chemicals which quite often are difficult to measure.

Biological indicators (bio-indicators) such as fresh water invertebrates and macrophytes (water lilies) are also used for monitoring water quality in the RNB. Past observations have shown that some open wetlands and parts of the River channel are devoid of these plants and animals especially in areas close to human settlements (Agol, 2010). Due to limited resources, monitoring bio-indicators of plants and animals is not systematic in the River Nyando. In addition the monitoring activities of the stakeholders in the RNB are not coordinated and this is a drawback in understanding trends in water quality in the River Basin.

Since the 1990s there has been a steady growth and expansion of informal settlements (urban and peri-urban) and associated trading centres. Many of these settlements lack proper water and sanitation facilities and quite often, people are seen bathing and washing directly on the River. Large dumps of municipal waste are also common sights around human settlements especially in the lower zone in Ahero, Muhoroni and Nyamasaria towns. Unfortunately, much of these wastes gets deposited directly into the River and associated streams.

5.3.2.2 Awareness Creation And Capacity Building

Government authorities and NGOs are making efforts in awareness creation and capacity building in sustainable waste management and safe water, hygiene and sanitation (WASH). While some have given support in building communal toilets in schools and public establishments (e.g. trading centres), others have funded protection of water sources from contamination (e.g. spring protection). Supporters of such activities have asserted that incidences of water borne diseases (e.g. cholera) have reduced, for example, within households which use water from protected springs. Such claims are based on personal and public testimonials and less attention is often paid to important indicators such as public attitude and awareness of the dangers of water pollution and capacities and willingness of the people in the catchment to change destructive behaviours (e.g. dumping of waste). Socio-cultural acceptability of WASH facilities is also an important sustainability indicator since it has been shown that some modern WASH facilities (flush toilets) are not fully embraced by certain local communities (Agol, 2010). Hence water quality sustainability indicators such as level of acceptability and use of proposed interventions are also important and should be considered.

5.3.2.3 Compliance With Regulatory Measures

In Kenya there are several regulatory measures that protect water quality in river basins and examples include the Water Act (2002), Water Quality Regulation (2006) and the Water Rules (2007). Tool such as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Polluter Pays Principles complement the regulatory measures in protecting water resources in Kenya. In accordance with these frameworks, any establishment/activity with a likely potential to pollute the environment (including water courses) should implement pollution abatement measures such as installation of waste treatment and recycling plants. They are also required to adopt a protocol of Good Practice including keeping records of all chemical used in their operations and their levels of danger. A systematic monitoring of effluent quality and solid waste generated from the establishment is also a requirement.

Thus the different establishments across the RNB whose operations have the potential to cause harmful effects on quality of the water resources are required by law to implement pollution control measures. Some establishments have complied with legal requirements; others still evade them due to reasons such as lack of technical capacities, ignorance and corruption. Some large-scale industrial and agricultural establishments which operate in the RNB (e.g. the tea and sugar farms and factories) have waste water treatment and recycling plants, solid waste incinerators and constructed wetlands. Some establishments have contractual agreements with third parties such as a certified body or government authority to take the necessary pollution abatement measures such as analysis of effluent in the laboratory and safe disposal of hazardous wastes. But some of the third parties contracted do not comply with legal procedures and tend to take harmful waste from the source and dump it carelessly on the River Basin. Contracting a third party works if they are disciplined, efficient and committed to undertake the assigned tasks. Thus in measuring water quality indicators, it is important to scrutinize the different roles of the key players involved, their capacities and integrity. Knowledge on the destination of waste is necessary when evaluating water quality indicators in a river basin.

Experiences in the RNB have shown that many government authorities who are charged with the enforcement of environmental laws lack financial and technical capacities to do so. As a result, they are unable to monitor all the activities across the River Basin on regular basis. Consequently, knowledge on the level of compliance with regulatory measures for catchment protection in the River Nyando is largely incomplete. In addition, some government officers are not motivated to carry out their duties due to low wages and delays in their payments, inadequate compensation for carrying out fieldwork, etc. This should be taken into consideration when interpreting indicators of water quality for they are important in determining whether the responsible parties are fulfilling their mandate.

5.3.3 Protecting And Conserving Biodiversity

Intensive forest clearance, over-grazing, land fragmentation, sand harvesting and quarrying have caused habitat loss and threats to biodiversity in the Nyando River Basin (Shepherd and Walsh, 2002; Swallow et al., 2003; SANA, 2008). Deforestation is widespread particularly in the Upper catchment where more than ten thousand acres of forest area have been cleared in the past (GoK 2010, API 2010). Agricultural intensification characterized by drainage of several wetlands and use of agro-chemicals have led to loss of natural habitats and biodiversity in the River Nyando Basin.

Current legal measures for protecting and conserving biodiversity in Kenya are encapsulated in the national legislative frameworks such as the Environment Management and Coordination Act (1999), Water Act (2002) and the Forest Act (2005). Gazettement is a common proposed legal measure of these legislative frameworks and aims to conserve biodiversity through physical protection of threatened habitats such as forests.

5.3.3.1 Area Enclosure (Gazettement) To Protect Biodiversity

Some parts of the River Nyando have been officially enclosed through fencing (gazetted) to prevent further degradation. For example, encroachment into the Mau forests in the upper zone and subsequent illegal activities such as logging, charcoal burning and collecting firewood have led to the demarcation of more than 300,000 acres of forestland since the 1930s (API, 2010; GoK, 2010). The need to protect the forests from further degradation through gazettement has led to eviction of local inhabitants from the forests and surrounding areas by the responsible government authorities. Yet indigenous communities such as the Ogiek and the Dorobo have used forests’ resources for food, water, fuel wood, grazing and cultural rituals for over one hundred years. Eviction from the Mau forests has caused tension between government authorities and local people. Some local groups have been resistant to eviction from the forests and have protested against gazettement.

The amount of area gazetted is a commonly used indicator for habitat protection. However, this does not guarantee that an area enclosed necessarily safeguards biodiversity in the demarcated areas in the upper zone of the River Nyando. Local tension combined with national politics and corruption have led to mismanagement of forests’ resources and further destruction (e.g. timber logging) in some gazetted areas. To minimize local tension, government authorities and civil society organizations have been supporting local community groups in carrying out conservation activities. For example, they have given technical and financial services to some Community Forest Associations (CFAs) to carry out afforestation activities. Some CFAs have successfully restored previously degraded areas through re-planting of indigenous trees. The biggest challenge for such institutional arrangements is that many CFAs are not yet sustainable because they do not have reliable financial resources to sustain conservation activities. In addition, it has been difficult to measure precisely what proportion of previously lost biodiversity of plants and animals has been fully restored following re-afforestation activities.

5.3.3.2 Riparian Land Protection

Another notable regulatory measure used for conserving biodiversity in Kenya is the legal requirement that the riparian land along rivers should be set aside and free from intensive cultivation (National Environment Management Authority-NEMA 2011). Similar measures are also introduced in other countries (see discussions on the Chapter on protection of Brazilian riparian areas). Since much of the River Bank of the Nyando has been degraded (e.g. Swallow et al., 2003), setting aside its riparian land is a perquisite for protecting its biodiversity. But many riparian land owners have been hesitant to comply with this regulation due to the high opportunity cost involved (Agol, 2010). For example, faced with limited livelihood choices and climate change uncertainties (e.g. prolonged drought), many riparian land owners prefer to cultivate right up to the River bank where conditions can be favourable (cooler temperatures and moist soils) for farming.

Quantifying and qualifying the positive impacts of riparian land protection with regard to biodiversity improvement in the RNB is not an easy task. Indicators such as compliance level (e.g. proportion of riparian land owners who have set aside land), amount of area set aside and percentage of vegetation cover are commonly used to estimate the level of biodiversity conservation. These indicators are commonly measured by direct observations and surveys. But in the past, some riparian land owners who agreed to set aside changed their minds and continued to cultivate right up to the River Bank. Such changes need to be monitored and noted otherwise the level of compliance may be misrepresented. In addition, only small sections along the River Bank have been physically protected (e.g. fenced off) and it has been difficult to estimate their basin wide impacts on biodiversity improvement across the RNB.

From early 1990s numerous projects have been implemented across the river Nyando basin to promote agro-forestry and increase biodiversity through soil and water conservation activities. Since then many local groups have established tree nurseries and hundreds of exotic and indigenous trees have been planted across the River Nyando Basin. Out puts such as number of trees planted, survival rates (expressed as percentages) and total area covered in acres, are commonly used indicators for measuring biodiversity levels. Quite often these indicators are estimated by use of surveys, for example, during monitoring and evaluation exercises. However, these indicators cannot reveal indirect benefits such as improved soils and water quality which are aspects of biodiversity.

5.3.3.3 Livelihood Diversification

Unsustainable practices such as intensive cultivation and overgrazing by livestock cause threats to biodiversity in the RNB. To minimize their impacts, several capacity building initiatives have been implemented to promote alternative livelihood activities. Since the last two decades, many local groups have been carrying out alternative livelihoods activities such as keeping modern livestock breeds (e.g. dairy goats and cows), planting of high value trees that can generate cash (e.g. mangos, avocados), bee-keeping, and small businesses to improve household income. For example, planting fruit trees offers multiple ecosystem services including provision of food, timber and fodder for livestock and restoration of soil nutrients through nitrogen-fixation and generation of organic matter. Indicators such as the activity type, number of households or groups involved, level of acceptance, amount of income/cash generated tend to be used to evaluate livelihood diversification. However, the direct contribution of livelihood diversification for improved biodiversity conservation remains debatable. For example, if a charcoal trader chooses not to clear a portion of his/her land because they have an alternative livelihood source, it may increase biodiversity during that period. However, the farmer may decide to cut the tree to burn charcoal if the income from the alternative livelihood is not enough. Besides, building evidence that biodiversity has been improved requires sufficient technical and financial resources, which unfortunately is a great challenge for most actors operating in the River Nyando Basin.

5.4 Fostering Multi-Stakeholder Participation

Interest in multi-stakeholder participation in river basin management continues to grow (Nhantumbo et al., 2003) and much of its attraction lies in its promise to promote co-management, democratic decision making and subsequent good governance (Blair, 2000; Mohan and Stokke, 2000; Antunes et al., 2009). Among the key strategies used to promote multi-stakeholder participation in the River Nyando Basin are decentralization and public participation.

5.4.1 Decentralization Through Institutional Arrangements

Increasingly, managing river basins is a shared responsibility of governments, the civil society, and private businesses. This reality has led to widespread promotion of decentralization which has seen many governments worldwide, devolving power to stakeholders at different levels and scales to become active partners and comanagers of river basins (Fraser et al., 2006; Arias-Hidalgo et al., 2013; Benson et al., 2014; Gallego-Ayala and Juízo, 2014). The rationale for decentralized system of river governance is to enhance democratic decision-making involving a mix of stakeholders with different socio-economic, cultural, political and professional backgrounds (e.g. Inguane et al., 2014).

In the River Nyando Basin, the quest for decentralization is reflected in the formal institutional arrangements at catchment and sub-catchment scales. Formal institutions such as the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) and the Water Resources Users Associations (WRUAs) are legally responsible for the management of water resources at catchment and sub-catchment level respectively (GoK, 2002). While the WRMA is responsible for enforcing water laws and policies, the WRUAs are tasked with fostering cooperation and conflict resolution (GoK, 2002). The work of these formal institutions is complemented by non-governmental (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs). Many CBOs are basically local community groups which are informal in nature. These groups comprise members who collectively participate in a range of activities from afforestation, flood control, spring and river bank protection to alternative livelihoods such as dairy farming, poultry and bee-keeping.

Power devolution is a key perquisite of decentralization and in recognition, efforts have been made in the RNB to devolve power to local communities through the WRUAs and CBOs so that they can take full responsibility in catchment protection and conservation. However, power devolution tends to be inhibited by misalignment of roles and responsibilities of the different institutions operating in the RNB. Notably and in the past, misunderstandings have risen between the WRMA and the WRUAs in performing certain tasks such as monitoring water use and resolving conflicts at the local level. Although the WRUAs are legally mandated to resolve local conflicts, the WRMA have carried out similar tasks in some parts of the RNB in the past. The WRUAs are still largely seen as lacking capacity and confidence and in many cases, they remain powerless spectators especially where tension and conflicts between local water users erupts. Although it is often claimed that power has been devolved to the WRUAs, this is fairly theoretical as the WRMA still makes important decisions at the lower levels.

Since the mid- 1990s the numbers of CBOs have more than doubled in the RNB as a part of an initiative to promote decentralized systems of river basin governance. Through external funding from the donor community3, some notable efforts continue to be made to empower local community groups through capacity building initiatives. For example, governmental and non-governmental organizations continue to facilitate formal training workshops and farmer field visits for group representatives. Such efforts aim to help local people gain practical skills in catchment protection and livelihood diversification.

The numbers of CBOs, their goals and objectives and magnitude of operations are commonly used indicators to evaluate the extent of decentralization in the RNB. However, empirical evidence has shown that these indicators alone do not necessarily echo power and capacities required to carry out respective roles and responsibilities (Agol, 2010). Many CBOs in the RNB continue to be challenged with limited financing, infrastructure, personnel and technical knowledge. Over-reliance on external funding sources (e.g. international donors and private businesses), causes lack of independence and self-sufficiency for many local community groups and this is critical challenge for sustainability. Community empowerment is largely perceived as an indicator of devolution and decentralization but one which is difficult to measure. This is because many community groups are still not able to make independent and informed decisions on river basin management and livelihoods matters.

5.4.2 Public Participation And Consultation

Across the RNB there have been efforts to engage the public in different processes such as policy formulation, research, monitoring and evaluation. Success in fostering actual public participation has varied significantly depending on the context. Over the last two decades, non-governmental and governmental organizations have been mobilizing the public in the RNB to find practical solutions to catchment degradation through a number of projects such as the Trans-VIC, and Lake Victoria Environment Management Project (LVEMP). These projects have provided important platforms through which local groups (e.g. comprising farmers, pastoralists, businessmen) have participated in flood control activities (e.g. food-for-work initiatives), afforestation and water storage (e.g. construction of water pans). Since the 1990s, thousands of local farmers have participated directly in soil and water conservation activities such as agro-forestry and building terraces within their farms, with the aim to restore the various ecosystem services of the RNB. Farmers’ participation tends to be evaluated by counting how many of them participate as well as estimations of the amount of land restored. But lack of continuous monitoring has often led to much uncertainty in some areas, with regard to how many farmers have sustained soil and water conservation practices over the years. For example, it is not clear how many farmers continue to practise agro-forestry in their farmlands after the projects through which they were supported exited. It is necessary to evaluate exit strategies within these projects as a measure of sustainability in a river basin such as the Nyando.

The importance of public participation and consultation in river basin management is widely upheld (Jingling et al., 2010) with the assertion that the process promotes democratic decision-making (Lemos and de Oliveira, 2004). The quest for democratic decision-making has led to the endorsement of public participation and consultation across the River Nyando Basin. Many governmental and non-governmental organizations tend to facilitate stakeholders’ dialogues (e.g. meetings, workshops and conferences) which are seen to present the public in river basin management. In the recent years, stakeholders’ dialogues have become increasingly attractive in the RNB because they are perceived as important platforms through which river basin issues can be resolved. In the RNB many of the local representatives of stakeholder fora are community group leaders or local elites who are expected to consult the public in river basin matters and activities. Among the activities include strategic planning and implementation of new projects, participatory monitoring and evaluation, formulation of policies and plans (e.g. catchment and sub-catchment management plans). But measuring public consultation in policy-making processes, research, monitoring and evaluation has proved difficult in the RNB due to limited resources.

Public representatives can be selfish individuals who are out to fulfil their own interests. In the RNB, some local ellites who act as community representatives tend to seize the various opportunities provided by governmental and non-governmental organizations to enhance their own livelihood activities. For example, some expert farmers or businessmen/women who are already successful have had disproportionate advantage of being supported through river basin projects, for example, when they are offered practical training on livelihood diversification. Although seen as local champions, some individuals have remained the sole beneficiaries of development initiatives in the RNB. It is common practice to provide a daily sitting allowance (DSA) to participants at stakeholders’ fora by giving money to those who have attended meetings and workshops. The level of attendance can be quite high in meetings which are facilitated by non-governmental organizations because they pay more money to cover DSA. It has been observed that this kind of incentive tends to attract individuals who neither have interest on the issues of the River Nyando nor the goodwill to negotiate on behalf of the public.

Hence assumptions should not be made that those who attend stakeholder’s dialogues as community/public representatives always act on behalf of public interest. On the other hand, some individuals, although seen as community representatives, neither have power nor interest to mediate the interests of the public in the managememt of the River Nyando. For example, some women representatives have been recruited in community group committees, yet levels of their participation in important activities such as formulation of sub-catchment plans are quite often very low. Empirical studies from Honduras and Bolivia have shown that where female representation on local initiatives was not mandated, women participated poorly in decision making processes (Blair, 2000).

Public participation in the RNB tends to be measured and evaluated by use of meagre numbers (e.g. number of workshop attendees) without considering issues of commitment and dedication. Empirical studies have shown that multi-stakeholders’ participation tends to be evaluated by counting numbers of attendees without paying much attention to the quality of their participation, discussions and associated outcomes (Manzungu, 2002; Marimbe and Manzungu, 2003; Chikozho, 2005). This is a major drawback for sustainable river basin management.

5.5 Lessons Learned And Conclusion

Sustaining adequate water supplies in river basins to meet present and future socioeconomic and environmental objectives is a perquisite for sustainable development. In river basins where there are multiple water sources and users, it is important to gather baseline information on their productivity, types and level of use in order to determine their sustainability. However, due to limited capacities of responsible authorities and actors,, many river basin managers such as in the River Nyando are challenged with gathering reliable and sufficient information on water resources availability and use. In measuring water quantity and quality, attention tends to be paid to biophysical parameters (e.g. volumes and chemical composition) without putting much consideration into socio-economic dimensions such as human population density and rate of growth in a given area, poverty levels, agricultural and industrial activities, levels of sanitation services and extent of use. Yet these parameters are important for understanding water quality dynamics and patterns of use.

Sustainable management of river basins requires an integrated approach involving a myriad of actors with different roles and responsibilities. In measuring sustainability, it is therefore necessary to know which stakeholders have the most/least influence on river basin sustenance. This requires an understanding of their activities and priorities which in many cases tend to be diverse, as well as their attitudes. Success in bringing positive changes is dependent on the technical and financial capacities of river basin actors as well as their efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out their different roles. Both technical and financial capacities of river basin actors can be measured directly and/or indirectly by use of qualitive and quantitative methods. It important to apply multiple methods in measuring capacities and this requires a considerable investment in time and resources.

In promoting sustainable river basin management, the idea is to devolve power to lower level entities (e.g. Water Resources Users Associations) in order to promote a decentralized river basin governance. The role and validity of decentralization of river governance is highly debatable since it is a common practice to measure such systems by counting the number of lower level institutions (e.g. community-based organizations). Even though some government authorities operating in the Nyando have shown a genuine commitment to devolve power to lower level entities such as the WRUAs, these locally based institutions lack much power and subsequent capacities to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Measuring level of power as an indicator of institutional capacity can be challenging since in many cases, power is seldom exercised due to politics and bureaucracy.

At the centre of public participation in river basin management is the issue of representation. In the RNB, it has proved difficult to mediate the interests, priorities and concerns of all the stakeholders especially in pursuit of democratic decision-making. To ensure sustainability, it is vital to consider issues such as dedication and commitment of representatives at the multi-stakeholder platforms.

References

Agol, D. (2010). Exploring knowledge interfaces for integrated water resources managment: a case study of River Nyando, Lake Victoria Basin In International Develoment, 332. United Kingdom: University of East Anglia.

Ajeagah, G., T. Njine & S. Foto (2010) Monitoring of organic load in a tropical urban river basin (Cameroon) by means of BOD and oxydability measurements. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 10, 71-80.

Antunes, P., G. Kallis, N. Videira & R. Santos (2009) Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance. Ecological Economics, 68, 931-939.

API. (2010). Fighting for the Mau Forests: Land, Climate Change and the Politics of the Kibaki succession. Nairobi: Africa Policy Report, June 2010.

Arias-Hidalgo, M., G. Villa-Cox, A. V. Griensven, G. Solórzano, R. Villa-Cox, A. E. Mynett & P. Debels (2013) A decision framework for wetland management in a river basin context: The “Abras de Mantequilla” case study in the Guayas River Basin, Ecuador. Environmental Science & Policy, 34, 103-114.

Atela, J., G. Ayaga, C. Essendi & S. Otieno. (2008). Combating Environmental degradation in Western Kenya through reforestation: A case study of the Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project. Kisumu: KARI.

Benson, D., O. Fritsch, H. Cook & M. Schmid (2014) Evaluating participation in WFD river basin management in England and Wales: Processes, communities, outputs and outcomes. Land Use Policy, 38, 213-222.

Blair, H. (2000) Participation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries. World Development, 28, 21-39.

Blancas, F. J., M. Lozano-Oyola, M. González, F. M. Guerrero & R. Caballero (2011) How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Science of The Total Environment, 412–413, 28-45.

Bouraoui, F. & B. Grizzetti (2011) Long term change of nutrient concentrations of rivers discharging in European seas. Science of The Total Environment, 409, 4899-4916.

Cai, X., C. Ringler & J.-Y. You (2008) Substitution between water and other agricultural inputs: Implications for water conservation in a River Basin context. Ecological Economics, 66, 38-50.

Chikozho, C. (2005) Institutional dimensions of integrated river basin management: Broadening stakeholder participatory.. Commons Southern Africa occasional paper series., xxx, xxx.

Chilundo, M., P. Kelderman & J. H. O´keeffe (2008) Design of a water quality monitoring network for the Limpopo River Basin in Mozambique. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 33, 655-665.

Comino, E., M. Bottero, S. Pomarico & M. Rosso (2014) Exploring the environmental value of ecosystem services for a river basin through a spatial multicriteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 36, 381-395.

Dahm, K. G., K. L. Guerra, J. Munakata-Marr & J. E. Drewes (2014) Trends in water quality variability for coalbed methane produced water. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84,840-848

Dai, Z. Y. & Y. P. Li (2013) A multistage irrigation water allocation model for agricultural land-use planning under uncertainty. Agricultural Water Management, 129, 69-79.

Evans, A., V. Strezov & T. J. Evans (2009) Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1082-1088.

Fraser, E. D. G., A. J. Dougill, W. E. Mabee, M. Reed & P. McAlpine (2006) Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78, 114-127.

Fu, B., Y. K. Wang, P. Xu, K. Yan & M. Li (2014) Value of ecosystem hydropower service and its impact on the payment for ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment, 472, 338-346.

Gallego-Ayala, J. & D. Juízo (2012) Performance evaluation of River Basin Organizations to implement integrated water resources management using composite indexes. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 50–52, 205-216.

GoK. (2002). Water Act 2002. ed. GoK. Government Printers.

GoK. (2010). Rehabilitation of the Mau Forest Ecosystem, Kenya. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.

Grossmann, M. (2012) Economic value of the nutrient retention function of restored floodplain wetlands in the Elbe River basin. Ecological Economics, 83, 108-117.

Guo, W., Y. Fu, B. Ruan, H. Ge & N. Zhao (2014) Agricultural non-point source pollution in the Yongding River Basin. Ecological Indicators, 36, 254-261.

Gustavson, K. R., S. C. Lonergan & H. J. Ruitenbeek (1999) Selection and modeling of sustainable development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Ecological Economics, 28, 117-132.

Harmancioglu, N. B., K. Fedra & F. Barbaros (2008) Analysis for sustainability in management of water scarce basins: the case of the Gediz River Basin in Turkey. Desalination, 226, 175-182.

Hezri, A. A. (2004) Sustainability indicator system and policy processes in Malaysia: a framework for utilisation and learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 357-371.

Inguane, R., J. Gallego-Ayala & D. Juízo (2014) Decentralized water resources management in Mozambique: Challenges of implementation at the river basin level. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 67–69, 214-225.

Izac, A. M. N. & M. J. Swift (1994) On agricultural sustainability and its measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics, 11, 105-125.

JICA. (2007). Report of the study on Integrated Flood Management for Nyando River Basin; February,2007.. ed. JICA-Study-Team. JICA.

Jingling, L., L. Yun, S. Liya, C. Zhiguo & Z. Baoqiang (2010) Public participation in water resources management of Haihe river basin, China: the analysis and evaluation of status quo. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2, 1750-1758.

Joziasse, J., S. Heise, A. Oen, G. J. Ellen & L. Gerrits. (2007). Sediment Management Objectives and Risk Indicators. In Sustainable Management of Sediment Resources, ed. H. Susanne, 9-75. Elsevier.

Lawford, R., J. Bogardi, S. Marx, S. Jain, C. P. Wostl, K. Knüppe, C. Ringler, F. Lansigan & F. Meza (2013) Basin perspectives on the Water–Energy–Food Security Nexus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 607-616.

Lemos, M. C. & J. L. F. de Oliveira (2004) Can Water Reform Survive Politics? Institutional Change and River Basin Management in Ceará, Northeast Brazil. World Development, 32, 2121-2137.

Li, M., P. Guo, L. Zhang & J. Zhao (2015) Multi-dimensional critical regulation control modes and water optimal allocation for irrigation system in the middle reaches of Heihe River basin, China. Ecological Engineering, 76, 166-177

Li, Y. & Z. F. Yang (2011) Quantifying the sustainability of water use systems: Calculating the balance between network efficiency and resilience. Ecological Modelling, 222, 1771-1780.

Li, Y. L., K. Liu, L. Li & Z. X. Xu (2012) Relationship of land use/cover on water quality in the Liao River basin, China. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13, 1484-1493.

LVEMP. (2005) Pilot Study on Sedimentation and Sediment Characteristics on Nyando and Nzoia River Mouths and Winam Gulf of Lake Victoria

MA. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.

Madulu, N. F. (2005) Environment, poverty and health linkages in the Wami River basin: A search for sustainable water resource management. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 30, 950-960.

Manzungu, E. (2002) More than a headcount: towards strategic stakeholder representation in catchment management in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C,, 27, 927-933.

Marimbe, S. & E. Manzungu (2003) Challenges of communicating integrated water resource management in Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28, 1077-1084

Milman, A. & A. Short (2008) Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators: An example for the urban water sector. Global Environmental Change, 18, 758-767.

Mohan, G. & K. Stokke (2000) Participatory development and empowerment:the dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly, 21, 247-268.

Moldan B, Janouskova S, Hak T. (2012) How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17, 4–13.

NEMA. (2011). KENYA: State of the Environment Report and Outlook 2010. Nairobi: National Environment and Management Authority

Nhantumbo, I., S. Norfolk & J. Pereira. (2003). Community based natural resources management in Mozambique: a theoretical or practical strategy for local sustainable development? The case study of Derre Forest Reserve’.. In Sustainable Livelihoodsin Southern Africa Research Paper 10. Brighton.: Institute of Development Studies.

Njogu, A. K. (2000). An Integrated River Basin Planning Approach- Nyando case study in Kenya.. 1st WARFSA/WaterNet Symposium: Sustainable Use of Water Resources, Maputo, Mozambique.

Odada, E. O., D. O. Olago, K. Kulindwa, M. Ntiba and S. Wandiga (2004). Mitigation of Environmental Problems in Lake Victoria, East Africa: Causal Chain and Policy Options Analyses. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 33(1), 13-23.

Olang, L. O. & Fürst (2011) Effects of land cover change on flood peak discharges and runoff volumes: model estimates for the Nyando River Basin, Kenya. Hydrol. Process, 25, 80–89

Owens, P. N., A. F. L. Slob, I. Liska & J. Brils. (2008). Towards sustainable sediment management at the river basin scale. In Sustainable Management of Sediment Resources, ed. N. O. Philip, 217-259. Elsevier.

Popovic, T., A. Kraslawski & Y. Avramenko (2013). Applicability of Sustainability Indicators to Wastewater Treatment Processes. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, eds. K. Andrzej & T. Ilkka, 931-936. Elsevier.

Raburu, P. O. & J. B. Okeyo-Owuor. (2006). Impact of agro-industrial activities on the water quality of River Nyando, Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya. In Proceedings of the 11th World Lakes Conference ed. O. e. al., 307-314. Nairobi.

Schmitter-Soto, J. J., L. E. Ruiz-Cauich, R. L. Herrera & D. González-Solís (2011) An Index of Biotic Integrity for shallow streams of the Hondo River basin, Yucatan Peninsula. Science of The Total Environment, 409, 844-852.

Shaheen, M., M. Shahbaz, A. Guergachi & Z. Rehman (2011) Mining sustainability indicators to classify hydrocarbon development. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24, 1159-1168.

Shepherd, K. D. & M. Walsh (2002) Development of reflectance spectral libraries for characterization of soil propertities. Soil Science Society for America Journal, 66, 988-998.

Swallow, B., A. Okono, C. Ong & F. Place. (2003). Case Three. Project Title - TransVic: Improved Land Management Across the Lake Victoria Basin. In Research Towards Integrated Natural Resources Management - Examples of Research Problems, Approaches and Partnerships in Action in the CGIAR, eds. H. R.R & A. H. Kassam. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Swallow, B. M., J. K. Sang, M. Nyabenge, D. K. Bundotich, A. K. Duraiappah & T. B. Yatich (2009) Tradeoffs, synergies and traps among ecosystem services in the Lake Victoria basin of East Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 504-519.

Urama, K. C. (2005) Land-use intensification and environmental degradation: empirical evidence from irrigated and rain-fed farms in south eastern Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 199-217.

UNCED (1992) Agenda 21, Programme of Action for Sustainable development adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Developemnt. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1992.

 

3 Financial support from donors such as the European Union, SIDA, CIDA, JICA facilitates formation of CBOs