The Response of Kasikeu River to the Impacts of Anthropogenic Activities in Its Catchment Area

THE RESPONSE OF KASIKEU RIVER TO THE IMPACTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES IN ITS CATCHMENT AREA:

OBADIAH NGILA (BSc. Biological Sciences, Egerton University.)

N50/CTY/PT/22973/2012

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF KENYATTA UNIVERSITY.

MAY, 2014

Declaration This research is my original work and has not been submitted for examination for a degree in any other University. Signature …………………………….Date………………….. Obadiah Ngila University Reg. No.N50/CTY/PT/22973/2012 Department of Environmental Planning and Management

Approval This research project has been submitted for examination with our approval as the university supervisors

Signature……………………………Date………………….. Prof. Simon Onywere Department of Environmental Planning and Management

Signature…………………….Date…………………… Mr Wilson Nyaoro Department of Environmental Planning and Management.

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my late mum Beatrice Ngila, my wife, Norah and children, Shennon, Bernest and Rubby.

Acknowledgement My heartfelt gratitude is to Prof. Simon Onywere and Mr. Wilson Nyaoro my project supervisors, and Dr. Kamau project coordinator. Their sincere support and constructive criticism has actualised this research project. I thank them for their moral support and careful guidance throughout the project period.

My acknowledgements are extended to the staff of the department of Environmental planning and management under the chairmanship of Prof. Mireri for their unlimited support. I appreciate the information and assistance from the Mr. John Kamau sub county agricultural officer, Janet Munyao sub county water officer, Mrs. Kimeu secretary of Mukaa women conservation group, and Mr. Kinyua of WARMA Machakos office.

Special thanks go to my family members, friends and colleagues for their motivation, encouragement and moral support. Special thanks go to my sister for her encouragement and support both in material and in kind. To everyone who was part of this journey to bring this research project to completion I pass my appreciation and great honour.

iii

Abstract River catchments sustain human civilization and related biodiversity. The numerous resource bases from river catchments include: drinking water supply, abstraction of water for agriculture, for hydropower generation, recreation, transport, construction materials and fishing. However, despite their value to mankind river catchments are under pressure and are facing degradation and threat from communities and from climate change. Kasikeu River catchment is located within the Kilungu catchment. The region is characterized by catchment destruction leading to low water flows. High population density in the area has led to over abstraction of both ground and surface water. Human activities such as sand harvesting and agricultural activities in the various parts of the sub catchment has lead to poor water quality and quantity. The objectives of the study are to assess the impacts of sand harvesting, to assess how maize farming contributes to siltation in the catchment and to examine effect of deforestation in Kasikeu River catchment. The study provides an insight on strategies, action plans and planning modules required in a comprehensive river basin management. This adequately determines the actual causes and effects of degradation in the Kasikeu River catchment while offering mitigation measures for sustainable watershed management. To examine the impact of maize farming activities within the Kasikeu River catchment data was collected on the views and opinions of the residents on the causes and effects of maize farming methods carried out within the river catchment. To assess the effect of sand harvesting within the catchment views and opinions from residents, stakeholders and government officials were sought. Various data sets such as land sizes and tenure systems, use of river basins, impacts of the activities, and conservation measures applied and other variables were analysed. The study established that various anthropogenic activities had serious impacts on the catchment for 30% of the destruction was as result of extensive and uncontrolled sand harvesting, maize farming contributed to 22% while demand for more agricultural land contributed to 17%. Search for fuel contributed 11% hence Kasikeu River catchment has seriously been degraded a fact which is linked to the human activities carried out within the catchment. This has seriously affected the catchment and has led to a decline in the hydrological function of the river basin. The survey recommends that an integrated approach should be adopted in order to manage, restore and preserve the river catchment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION...... I

DEDICATION...... II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... III

ABSTRACT ...... IV

LIST OF FIGURES ...... VI

LIST OF PLATES ...... VIII

ABBREVIATIONS ...... IX

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ...... 1

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 2

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS...... 4

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY...... 4

1.5 RESEARCH PREMISE ...... 4

1.6 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY...... 4

1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY...... 5

1.8 SCOPE OF THE STUDY/ LIMITATIONS ...... 6

1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS...... 6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...... 8

2.1 INTRODUCTION...... 8

2.9 THEORETICAL/ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...... 13

CHAPTER 3 STUDY AREA ...... 16

3.1. LOCATION AND SIZE ...... 16

3.2 PHYSIOLOGICAL FEATURES...... 17

3.3. POPULATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ...... 17

3.4 VEGETATION ...... 17

3.5 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ...... 18

3.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT...... 18

3.7 SOIL AND GEOLOGY...... 18

3.8 INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 19

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY...... 20

4.1. INTRODUCTION...... 20

4.2. NATURE OF DATA ...... 20

4.3. STUDY SAMPLE AND SAMPLE FRAME ...... 21

4.4. SAMPLING TECHNIQUE AND PROCEDURE ...... 21

4.5. DATA COLLECTION ...... 22

4.6. DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION ...... 23

CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ...... 24

5.1 INTRODUCTION...... 24

5.2 STUDY CATCHMENT AREA...... 24

5.2 IMPACT OF DEFORESTATION...... 32

5.3 EFFECTS OF SAND HARVESTING ...... 33

5.3 CAUSES OF KASIKEU RIVER DEGRADATION ...... 37

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION...... 40

6.1 CONCLUSION ...... 40

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 40

6.4 PLANNING MATRIX ...... 43

REFERENCES ...... 46

APPENDIX 1 interview schedule ...... 49

APPENDIX 2 household questionnaire ...... 50

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Makueni county ...... 16 Figure 2: House hold size(Source; field data 2014) ...... 25 Figure 3: Land use on the catchment (Source; field data 2014) ...... 26 Figure 4: Land ownership(Source; field data 2014) ...... 27 Figure 5: Respondents occupation(Source; field data 2014) ...... 28 Figure 6: Land ownership in size(Source; field data 2014) ...... 29 Figure 7: Respondents level of education(Source; field data 2014) ...... 31 Figure 8: Respondents energy sources(Source; field data 2014) ...... 32 Figure 9: Respondents views on causes of water shortage(Source; field data 2014)...... 35 Figure 10: Annual income from sand harvesting. (Source; field data 2014) ...... 36 Figure 11: Impacts of sand harvesting(Source; field data 2014) ...... 36 Figure 12: Respondents views on causes of destruction on the catchment.(Source; field data 2014)...... 37 Figure 13: Respondents reason for failed conservation on the catchment(Source; field data 2014) ...... 38

vii

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Grazing along river banks(Source; field survey 2014) ...... 26 Plate 2:Gullies on river banks.(Source; field survey 2014.) ...... 29 Plate 3: Massive forest destruction and charcoal burning in the catchment.(Source; field survey 2014) ...... 30 Plate 4: Charcoal burning on the highly deforested catchment(Source; field survey 2014)...... 33 Plate 5: A destroyed river bed on Kasikeu river(Source; field survey 2014)...... 34 Plate 6: Impacts of sand harvesting on Kasikeu riverbed(Source; field survey 2014) ...... 35 Plate 7: Increased settlement on hilly and sloppy areas of the catchment(Source; field survey 2014)...... 38 Plate 8: A well restored and conserved section of Kasikeu river(Source; field survey 2014) ..... 39

viii

Abbreviations

EMCA Environment Management and Coordination Act CDF Constituency Development Fund GOK Government of Kenya HH Households IRBM Integrated River Basin Management KFS Kenya Forest Service KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics NEMA National Environmental Management Authority WRMA Water Resources Management Authority

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Problem

Rivers and their catchments are very important part of our natural heritage. Rivers have been utilized by mankind over the centuries to the extent that, very few, if any, are now in their natural condition (Wetzel, 1996). Cunningham and Saigo (1999) have reported that, between 1985 and 1990 there was a decrease in the total length of rivers and canals in England and Wales having top quality water. Of concern nowadays is the fast declining availability of useable fresh water in terms of water quality and quantity as a result of poor land-use practices in the catchment areas (Calder, 1992).

River basins sustain human civilization and related biodiversity activities which have enabled connection between the stability of people, their economic and social development, with the availability and reliability of water, hence leading to hydraulic civilization (Caponera, 1992). River catchments are the natural entities in which freshwater is found and are the major source of water in both domestic and industrial uses and nowadays also the receptors of most wastewater (Barrow, 1998). The numerous resource bases from river basins include: water supply, abstraction for agriculture, hydropower generation, recreation, transport, and fishing. Despite their value to mankind river basins are under pressure and facing environmental degradation from communities and climate change. Uncontrolled human activities such as deforestation, cultivation on river basins, sand harvesting has lead to changes in water quality and quantity (Jaspers, 2003).

Barrow (1998) report showed the remedy to problems and conflicts arising from social and natural demands for water resources within watersheds was integrated river basin approaches. Basic elements of integrated approaches are a basin-wide planning with attention to management of surface and subsurface water for water quantity, water quality and environmental integrity (Savenije, 2000). Emphasis on the relations between land use and water resources attempts to

1 integrate natural, social and economic demands with legal, political and administrative processes (Teclaff, 1985; Mostert, 1999a, 1999b; Savenije, 2000). Poverty and over-population in the Himalayas have led to degradation of highland forests, erosion and downstream flooding. Natural driving forces, such as recent geologic uplift and metamorphism, a monsoon climate and mountainous landscape, have made Nepal extremely vulnerable to erosion (Barten, 2006). The Himalayas are rapidly uplifting and eroding at one of the highest rates (1 to 10 mm/year) in the world, together with that of the Southern Alps in New Zealand and the mountains of Taiwan While it is unlikely that human impacts affect the rates in unpopulated areas, in heavily populated mid-mountain and low altitude regions the problems of land degradation and declining productivity were often interpreted as having been caused by poor natural resource management, resulting in deepening poverty (Jaspers, 2003). Analysis of the core problem requires an institutional approach embracing complex problem definition and a focus on the heterogeneity of physical, ecological, social and cultural aspects. More recently, causes of continuing degradation of the environment were identified as government mismanagement, oppression of mountain minorities, armed conflict and inappropriate tourism development (Eswaran, 2001).

Kenya is classified as chronically water scarce with a limited natural endowment of fresh water. The per capita availability of 503 cubic meters is projected to fall to 359 cubic meters by 2020 as the population increases and could be even less if the resource continues to be degraded. Water is becoming scarce as a result of the growing needs of an increasing population as well as serious water resources degradation (GOK, 2008).

Kasikeu River catchment area faces various challenges pertaining to its management hence negatively impacting the communities’ downstream thus affecting development activities in the neighbourhood.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Kasikeu River catchment lies within the Kilungu and Mukaa sub-county which is a serious water stressed catchment with 162m3 per capita per year (GOK, 2008).The catchment is the source of

2 water for the residents within the river basin and adjacent environs. Kasikeu River is the main source of water for Mukaa sub county residents whose population has increased rapidly in the last two decades, the population has increased from 38,600 person’s in 1989 to 93,866 persons in 1999 and 149,211 persons in 2009 and projected to reach 180,709 person’s in the year 2014 (KNBS, 2010)

The population increase has led to increase in food demand which requires more space for cultivation. Due to this demand and competition for land, there has been encroachment into forest and river riparian of Kasikeu catchment. More and more people have been forced to live on unsuitable areas including hills and sloppy areas. Due to this uncontrolled encroachment there has been increased pressure on land as a result of massive subsistence farming, the poor farming methods has loosened the soil hence exposing it to erosion as a result of runoff, this has affected the water quantity for the eroded sediments end up in sultan dam, increased siltation in this dam has reduced its water holding capacity thus failing to meet the population demand. As a result of exhausted living land there has been demand for more building material which has resulted to forest loss through massive cutting of trees on the catchment. Extensive search for more sources of fuel has also contributed to more forest cover. With less and less trees there has been a notable reduction in amount of rainfall hence low water quantity on the catchment.

As people looked for income to meet their daily needs they resulted to Sand extraction along Kasikeu River banks and its river beds. Continued sand harvesting has led to weakening of the banks, with increase on rainfall there had been collapse of the river banks and depletion of water within the river basin. Collapse of river banks accelerated river banks erosion especially during rainy season. Continued river bank erosion resulted to change on river morphology thus affecting the riparian zones. Sand within the river beds retains water, thus sand harvesting reduces the water retention potential hence during rain seasons the water drain downstream creating serious water scarcity in the upper sand harvesting region of catchment. Transportation of sand which is by heavy commercial trucks leads to loosening of top soil which is washed away during rain seasons, the eroded soil ends up in the dam increasing silt which reduces the dams holding capacity and as a result there is reduced water quantity thus unable to sufficiently meet the demands of the catchment and downstream population.

It’s against this background this study sought to propose, effective measures that could be put in place to address degradation within the Kasikeu River catchment area for the supply of clean, healthy and adequate quantities of water.

1.3 Research Questions.

i) To what extend has maize farming contributed to soil erosion in Kasikeu River catchment? ii) What is the contribution of forest loss on the amount in Kasikeu River? iii) To what extend has sand harvesting affected Kasikeu River riparian ecosystem?

1.4 Objectives of the Study.

i) To assess how maize farming has contributed to siltation of Kasikeu River. ii) To examine the effects of deforestation on Kasikeu River catchment, iii) To assess the impacts of sand harvesting on Kasikeu River riparian ecosystem.

1.5 Research Premise

The proposed study assumed that degradation of the Kasikeu catchment would continue to contribute to the decline in water quality and quantity despite the well known conservation and management measures that could be put in place.

1.6 Justification of the Study.

Kasikeu River catchment area is an important ecosystem as it is the source of water for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes for the community in the catchment and downstream settlements. Sultan Dam being the main source of water to Emali, Sultan Hamud town residents and the surrounding areas is situated within Kasikeu River. The region is classified as an ASAL

4 area receiving insufficient rainfall and is characterized predominantly by seasonal rivers which determine the water quantities.

Human activities like deforestation, intensive irrigation for maize and other crops have led to over drawing of water from the river, agricultural expansion as a result of demand of maize products have also led to diversion of the river waters, uncontrolled sand harvesting, have led to negative environmental impacts along the basin compromising supply of sufficient clean water to the community. This has a direct impact on the livelihoods of the affected community. An efficient, workable solution is required because the catchment is a vital ecosystem in provision of water for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes to the residents. The study sought to provide viable solutions to the perennial water shortages within the Kasikeu River catchment, It sought to provide both mitigative and control measures to the negative impacts caused by the human activities within the river basin .It shall provide an ideal Environmental Management Plan to ensure constant supply of clean water to the residents of these towns and Makueni County at large.

1.7 Significance of the Study.

The study shall provide an insight on strategies, and action plans required in a comprehensive river catchment management. This shall adequately determine the actual causes and effects of degradation in the Kasikeu River catchment while offering mitigation measures for sustainable watershed management. The findings and results derived from this study though based on the Kasikeu river catchment would be applicable to other areas facing similar challenges in Kenya. The study shall also provide as baseline information for other studies of the same nature.

The Environmental Management Plan developed shall serve as a guide to the protection, maintenance and restoration of the river catchment in support of environmental, social and economic needs of the local community and downstream communities.

1.8 Scope of the Study/ Limitations

The study was limited to Mukaa and Kilungu Hills, Emali, Sultan and Kasikeu locations of Nzaui Division, Makueni County. The area covered has a current (2010) population of 35,719 residents (KNBS 2010).The Catchment area under study covers an area of 47.5 Km2.

Legal policy framework and Institutional structures in catchment management were examined. WRMA activities in the Catchment area were also examined to determine their adequacy and effectiveness in sub-catchment management. To determine the cause of river catchment degradation, various variables were considered, including trends in population growth, economic activities, water use survey, land use survey, irrigation methods and rates, use of riverbanks, land sizes and pollution sources. All conventional conservation measures ranging from digging terraces, planting of trees and Napier grass, and construction of gabions were examined.

The study had some limitations such as financial constrains for data collection and purchase of stationary. Challenges in data entry during analysis using excel were encountered.

1.9 Definition of Terms.

The Integrated River Basin Management: can be defined as a "process of coordinating conservation, management and development of water, land and related resources across sectors within a given river basin, in order to maximize the economic and social benefits derived from water resources in an equitable manner while preserving and, where necessary, restoring freshwater ecosystems." (Global Water Partnership, 2000).

Watershed degradation: is the loss of value over time, including the productive potential of land and water, accompanied by marked changes in the hydrological behavior of a river system resulting in inferior quality, quantity and timing of water flow.

Watershed management: Watershed management is the process of formulating and carrying out a course of action involving the manipulation of resources in a watershed to provide goods

6 and services without adversely affecting the soil and water base. Usually, watershed management must consider the social, economic and institutional factors operating within and outside the watershed area

Water resources are sources of water that are useful or potentially useful. Uses of water include agricultural, industrial, household, recreational and environmental activities. The majority of human uses require fresh water.

Water use can mean the amount of water used by a household or a country, or the amount used for a given task or for the production of a given quantity of some product or crop. The term "water footprint" is often used to refer to the amount of water used by an individual, community, business, or nation.

Water scarcity is a situation where water availability in a country is below 1000M3

Sand harvesting is the extraction or removal of sand and soil sediments from their deposits like a river bed, river bank etc.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The world is facing a “looming water crisis” and runs the risk of having its water supplies tapped out (Barrow, 1998). Prospective studies suggest that the number of countries that will face water scarcity in 2025 will increase dramatically, as additional world water requirements are estimated to grow between 25 and 57% (Scherr et al., 1996). This global water shortage narrative, combined with a recurrent discourse by international institutions emphasizing the role of water in the fight against poverty (Caponera, 1992), this has put water issues at the top of many national and international agendas. Because of the vital role of water in human life, deprivation of water is unmistakably associated with poverty and is often seen as an offense to human rights and dignity. Researchers and planners are challenged by the interlocked issues of water availability, water use efficiency, water productivity and water allocation in order to ensure that human needs are met (Scherr et al., 1996).

According to a study done by Global water partnership (2000), matching supply and demands appears more intricate than believed at first sight. Planners have to deal with several dimensions of water needs and use, in particular with their heterogeneous and fluctuating spatial and temporal manifestations. This elicits the need to develop tools that may inform decision-making. Several researchers have attempted to develop indicators as a way to capture the state of water in either a specific or a holistic way. It is believed that such a way of planning, and even management, of water resources may be better oriented and progress measured in more concrete and quantitative ways (Savenije, 2000).

The issues on the trans-boundary river basin scale typically include soil erosion and sediment generation, pollution, other forms of watershed degradation caused by inappropriate land use and activities associated with extractive industries, such as mining and forestry ( Hamalatta, 2005), along with the development of water resources through the construction of storage structures and increasing extraction of groundwater. All these issues have a profound impact on the functionality of ecosystems and their provision of critical services (Bach et al. 2011). According to a study by Bach done in 2001, watershed degradation, urbanization and population increase 8 are factors that decrease natural resilience to extreme weather events such as storms and torrential rains, leading to flash floods in upland areas and extreme inundation of floodplains and coastal areas. The human-induced changes to river basins are compounded by increased water scarcity (Barrow,1998), With its inextricable links to food security and economic development, water scarcity, which is driven by population growth, dietary change, urbanization, globalization, biofuel production and climate change, is becoming one of the defining issues of the 21st century.

The large rivers in USA, China, South Asia and Europe are regulated by series of dams (Eswaran, 2001). In these latter cases the key issues for trans-boundary river basin management have changed from development to protection and restoration of the river ecosystems and biodiversity, for example in the Columbia, Yellow and Danube Rivers. (Eswaran,2001) researched and found that water security is not only about water quantity, it is also related to water quality and people’s vulnerability to risk, which reflects society’s resilience to impacts from water related hazards. Global water partnership (2000) established that Poor people are the most vulnerable to water related security issues such as water scarcity, climate variability resulting in floods and droughts, and impacts of climate change on water availability and variability. In some river basins, such as the Mississippi, Columbia and Yellow rivers, water storages have been constructed with flood control as at least one of the main purposes, whereas in other basins, such as the Mekong, the approach to flood management has been ‘living with floods’. In the context of climate change (Hoogmoed 2007).

Kondoff (1997) established that in Africa, productivity of some lands had declined by more than 50% due to soil erosion and desertification since the 1970s. Yield reduction in Africa due to soil erosion is on average 8.2% for the entire continent (Lal, 1995) and if erosion continues unabated, may rise to 16.5% by 2020 (Eswaran et al., 2001). In order to cope with food security sustainable provision of water and to achieve sustainable development, particularly in developing countries, it is crucial that causes and impacts of land degradation within river basins be adequately addressed (Lal 1995, Eswaran 2001).

Land degradation is more pronounced in the river catchment areas which are high potential areas for agricultural production (Lal, 1995). According to Struhsaker (1972), the situation is worsened by the high population densities in such areas. Land degradation affects soil and water quality, not only upstream production zones, but also for transit and downstream deposition zones. The consequences of land degradation are disastrous and will be aggravated more and more by world population growth and climate change, particularly and developing countries ( Lal 1995, Mostert 1999). By 2020, land degradation will pose a serious threat to food production, water supply and rural livelihoods in poor and densely populated areas of the developing world (Scherr and Satya, 1996).

A study by Iahs (2006) found that although there are some processes or activities that cross the boundary, catchments are bio-geophysical units with a high degree of functional integrity, and is relatively homogeneous systems, even when upper, middle and lower sections have different conditions and human activities. Each basin is unique, but there is enough commonality of hydrological, geomorphologic and ecological characteristics for them to serve as widely applicable, non-ephemeral, operational landscape units for planning and management, and for maintaining environmental quality and pursuit of sustainable development (Tundisi and Straskraba, 1995; Biswas, 1997). Interest has been renewed in part by the 1992 Dublin Conference on Water and the Environment and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, both of which called for comprehensive management of resources, using the river basin as the focus. A number of those who have reviewed river basin development have called for better integration of undervalued traditional agriculture or fishing. RBDPM bodies need to pay more attention to institution building, local involvement and empowerment, but it may be difficult when national planners and international consultants are involved (scherr 1996)

Adams(2001) suggested that, for Nigeria, the opportunity for RBDPM may have been lost, and that with modem conditions, it might make sense to move to a state-wide rather than basin approach. That is roughly the situation in the United Kingdom, where water resources planning and management are the responsibility of 10 regional Water Authorities (established in 1974 and reorganized in 1989 into Water Service Companies), regulated by a National Rivers Authority. The basin should offer a good systems and area framework for developing a holistic resource

10 management model (Savory, 1988). “Policing” should be undertaken by an independent body (or bodies) with enough authority to insist on improvements, e.g., a UN agency, a World Water Council, or a professional planning body. Community participation can help planners and managers glean information and ideas ensure they are accountable for their actions, and inform the public (Burton, 1995). Williams and Dee (1995) report successful inputs from ad hoc citizen groups in integrated water resource planning for the Santa Fe River (New Mexico). Geographical information systems (GIS) should help in the gathering, sharing and processing of data (Santo, 2002), and there is potential for applying computer-aided decision-support techniques such as systems analysis.

Presence of basin-level governance institutions may be a prerequisite for successful water resource management (Teclaff, 1985). Sustained and effective participation of stakeholders presupposes the existence of arrangements by which stakeholders articulate their interests, share information, communicate and bargain, and take collective decisions. Basin-level governance is essential to the ability of water users to operate at multiple levels of action, which is a key to sustained successful resource preservation and efficient use (Ostrom, 1990).

Rapid urbanization is the major cause of demand for sand and is responsible for unsustainable extraction of sand from river basins. It has contributed to an increase in demand for sand in river and streams, which has no substitute for use as building material in reinforced concrete (Hemalatta, 2005). The major user of sand is the construction industry, and due to its increasing demand, sand is being over extracted at different depths varying from three to forty feet, from different river streams and basins. This has resulted to negative impacts on riparian habitats as, the riverbed loses its ability to hold water as sand takes several years for deposition and affects groundwater recharge especially in a low rainfall area. As sand is extracted rapidly, groundwater evaporates fast, reducing groundwater recharge, increasing initial and premature failure of irrigation wells and the associated predicament in farming (Chandrasekhara Rao, 2006).

Stream sand mining results in channel degradation and erosion, head cutting, increased turbidity, stream bank erosion and sedimentation of riffle areas. All these changes adversely affect aquatic organisms either directly by causing damage to the organisms or through habitat degradation or

11 indirectly through disruption (Kondoff, 1997) of the food web. Further, effects on stream geomorphology (e.g. channel incision) can result in infrastructure damage such as undermining bridge piers and exposure of buried pipeline crossings and water supply intake (Kondolf, 1997). Erosion of river banks due to sand mining may lead to deepening of river bed and widening of river resulting in land loss and depletion of ground water level. In a study conducted to determine the environmental impact indicators on sand mining by Santo and Sanchez (2002) it was noted that river channel courses were modified, agricultural land converted into open pits, mining encroachment in legally protected river side zone etc. According to Chandrasekhara Rao (2006), and Silvanus (2007), sand mining causes removal of top soil and vegetation cover along the riverside leading to soil erosion.

In agricultural production, soil resources are of equal importance to water resource quantity. The degradation of lands has become a real threat to all nations, particularly the semi-arid and arid countries where soil resources are limited and rainfall is increasingly erratic. Land degradation is now a major concern for agriculture and the environment, because of the impacts on significant issues such as food security, the struggle against poverty, biodiversity, climate change and integrated water resources management (Eswaran et al., 2001).

Land degradation is more pronounced in the river basins which are high potential areas for agricultural production. The situation is worsened by the high population densities in such areas. Land degradation affects soil and water volumes and quality, not only upstream production zones, but also for transit and downstream deposition zones (Eswaran, 2001). The consequences of land degradation are disastrous and will be aggravated more and more by world population growth and climate change, particularly and developing countries. By 2020, land degradation will pose a serious threat to food production, water supply and rural livelihoods in poor and densely populated areas of the developing world (Scherr and Satya, 1996).

2.9 Theoretical/ Conceptual Framework

The conservation model The conservation model of agricultural development has a long history, beginning at least at the time of the English agricultural revolution of the eighteenth century (Stevens, 1988). The model is based on two assumptions: (1) that land for agricultural production is scarce and becoming more so; and (2) that soil exhaustion is possible and actions to prevent decreases in yields or to increase land productivity will have only slow effects at best. The conservation model as it developed was supported by the economic theories of the classical English economist Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. These theories proposed that as land scarcity increases, poorer land is used, causing the marginal productivity of labor and land to decline. To forestall these declines, high priority was attached to maintaining soil productivity at its present level or in the extreme conservation model, attempting to return the soil to its original presumably more productive level (Stevens, 1988).

The diffusion model

The diffusion model of agricultural development, when applied internationally or domestically is based upon the hypothesis that appreciable increases in agricultural production may be obtained by devoting considerable resources to (1) increasing the flow of information to farmers about a new agricultural technology and new institutional arrangements such as for credit; and (2) teaching tradition-bound farmers how to make more economically rational management decisions about the use of resources they have access to (Stevens, 1988). Diffusion activities in agriculture have usually been carried out by extension workers but other communication systems also contribute, such as newspapers and magazines, radio and television Caponera (1992).

Steven (1988) notes that after World War II, as aid to less developed nations expanded, the success of extension work in more developed nations led to assumption that the international diffusion of the highly productive agricultural technologies available in more developed nations would result in rapid rates of agricultural growth in less developed nations. A primary focus of U.S. development aid was this kind of “technical assistance” as signalled by the beginning of aid 13 to less developed nations in President Truman’s famous point four of his inaugural address in 1948 Barrow (1998) In the 1950s many effective, experienced U.S. agricultural extension agents went to these nations to establish and carry out extension work. However, after spending considerable effort and resources in many areas, they achieved relatively little increase in agricultural production because of location specific nature of agricultural technology which has many dimensions: (1) highly varied soil, pests, moisture and other important plant growth variables, (2) the varied cost of capital relative to labour, and (3) the different social and institutionalized rules that affect the profitability of farming activities (Ibid).

Theoretical framework of the study is based on the integrated river basin management approach which considers integrated water resource management at the river basin level. Integrated water resources management is based on the concept of water being an integral part of an ecosystem, a natural resource and a social and economic good, whose quantity and quality determine the nature of its use (Agenda 21, United Nations, 1992). A water source that is reliable, in terms both of its quantity and its quality, is a prerequisite for the survival of human civilization and socio-economic development. Water scarcity, gradual deterioration, aggravated pollution and infrastructure development. The river basin management approach is an example of an incentive-based participatory mechanism for solving conflicts and allocating water between competing users, including natural ecosystems.

Integrated river basin management encompasses the management of the natural resources within a river basin. Sustainable land use is ideal in ensuring proper management of a river basin. It entails use of good agricultural practices involving regulated use of water for irrigation, controlled and monitored water abstraction, and controlled use of agrochemicals in farming. It also involves increase in vegetation cover by a forestation and controlling deforestation. Basin management to control degradation through controlled human activities like controlling quarrying activities, sand harvesting and livestock grazing. These are aimed at controlling river basin erosion. These precautionary measures are aimed at controlling siltation within the basin. Policies and institutional framework ensures legal enforcement in water shade protection, restoration and conservation. These include adherence to set policies and legislations like water act and policy, agriculture act, forest act, EMCA, vision 2030, National sand harvesting

14 guidelines, Sessional paper number 1 of 1991. Institutions governing watershed management provide legislation for conservation, restoration and protection of the water shade. They include Water Resources Management Authority, Water Resources Users Associations and National Environment Management Authority.

Stake holder participation is through being involved in conservation activities, protection activities and restoration measures. All these aspects are aimed at ensuring an integrated Kasikeu River basin management for provision of a high quality and high quantity of water on a sustainable basis.

CHAPTER 3 STUDY AREA

3.1. Location and Size

Kasikeu sub-county lies within the Makueni County which is located in the South Eastern part of Kenya. It covers an area of 8,008.9 Km2, and it is situated in a transitional area on the rather dry south eastern part of the country. It lies between Latitude 1º 35´ and 30 00 South and Longitude 37º10´ and 38º 30´East. Administratively, the sub-county has two administrative divisions, 11 locations and 32 sub-locations. It is bordered by Machakos to the North, Kitui to the East, Taita Taveta to the South Kajiado County to the west.

Figure 1: Map of Makueni county Source, GOK 2009

3.2 Physiological Features.

The study area lies in the arid and semi arid zone of Makueni county. Kasikeu River Basin lies along Kilungu and Mukaa hills which rises 1,900m above sea level, these are the major sources of water to Kasikeu river basin. The main river in the county is Athi River, which is perennial and fed by tributaries such as Kasikeu, Kambu, Kiboko, Kaiti, Thwake and Mtito Andei, which drain from various parts of the county. A few other streams flow from the Mbooni and Kilungu Hills but their flow becomes irregular as they move to the low-lying areas. These rivers provide a high potential for both large and small-scale irrigation.

3.3. Population and Settlement Patterns

The County has a population of 884,527 (KNBS, 2009) and a population density of 115 persons per Km2 (2010) and is projected to increase to 155 persons per Km2 by 2017. The study area has a population of 79,852(KNBS 2009) Low plains where ranching and dairy farming are carried out are sparsely populated. Land use and settlement patterns are based on agro-ecological zones influenced mainly by soil fertility, rainfall and availability of social amenities (GoK, 2009).

3.4 Vegetation

Vegetation in the Division varies according to altitude. The plains receive less rainfall and are characterized by open grasslands with scattered acacia trees. The high altitude areas that receive high rainfall have dense vegetation and are more suitable for rain fed agriculture. Overtime the area has experienced climate change which includes insufficient rain and prolonged dry spells among other human activities such as farming on the river basins, charcoal burning and sand harvesting have contributed to the above scenario hence requiring urgent measures.

3.5 Climatic Conditions

The county experiences two rainy seasons, the long rains occurring in March /April while the short rains occur in November/December. The hilly parts of Mbooni and Kilungu receive 800- 1200mm of rainfall per year. High temperatures of 35.8 C are experienced in the low-lying areas causing high evaporation which worsens the dry conditions.

Climate variations and extreme differences in temperatures can be explained by change in altitude. The areas to the North such as Kilungu and Mbooni hills are usually cool with temperatures ranging from 20.2 C to 24.6 C, while the low-lying areas of the South such as Kitise are usually hot. Generally, the county experiences high temperatures during the day and low temperatures at night. During the dry periods between May and October the lower parts of the county experience severe heat. The Northern part of the county is hilly with medium rainfall ranging from 800mm to 1200mm and has high potential for food crop production.

3.6 Socio-Economic Development.

The county experiences high levels of poverty which currently stands at 64.3 % (KIHBS 2006). The poor earn less than 1% per day and have and less access to basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, health, water and education. The majority of the poor are women and people living with disability. Poverty is most severe amongst the women due to inequality, essential economic services and decision making hence has led to migration to urban centres.

3.7 Soil and Geology.

Study area is on ASAL region which hardly receives sufficient rainfall. The ground water resources are low and saline because of the basement rock system. This has greatly affected agricultural and livestock production as most farmers are forced to depend on rain feed

18 agricultural production. This has forced people to turn to charcoal burning leading to deforestation which causes.

The basement system represents the original sedimentary series of limestone shales and sand stones into which basic magma has been intruded. Intense compression with rising temperatures has resulted in these rocks being transformed into highly folded metamorphic series. The Recent deposits in the area include soils and alluvial sand deposits. The soils are normally residual weathering deposits whose composition is controlled more by the physical condition of formation than by the type of rock which they were derived. The alluvial sands include river deposits and the outwash fans from the hills.

3.8 Infrastructure

The county has a total road network of 3,203.5 Km of which 453.8Kms is bitumen, 555.2Kms gravel, and 2,198.6Kms surface roads. The main roads in the county are Katumani-Wote- Makindu road, Masii-Mbumbuni road, Salama-Kikoko and Mombasa road. The bitumen roads are in fairly good condition but most of the gravel and surface roads are in poor state which makes them impassable during rain seasons.

The county is traversed by a railway line which covers 140 kms. Major railway stations are Makindu, Kibwezi, Mtito-Andei and Emali. It also have has one airstrip situated in Makindu and it is operational.

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1. Introduction

This chapter outlines the research design and the methodology that was used in this study to demonstrate the various anthropogenic activities and their impacts on Kasikeu river catchment. It examines various sources of data, methodologies of data acquisition, analysis, and the procedure for data presentation.

4.2. Nature of Data

Data comprises of two types namely Primary Data and Secondary Data. Primary data was collected from the residents on the causes and effects of maize farming activities carried out within the catchment. Related issues like the various land uses, land sizes, sources of water, uses of water, conventional measures on river basin management, crops grown, types and number of livestock reared, household sizes and household water consumption, types and sources of energy will also be collected as primary data. All these data sets was important because it gave an indication of how the river basin is utilized, and on this basis it was possible to deduce whether these activities have any link to watershed degradation in the area.

Through interviews the study was able to assess the effect of sand harvesting within the Kasikeu river basin views and opinions from residents, sand harvesters, loaders and transporters, NEMA officials, and local administration were collected. The data collected was based on the reasons for sand excavation within the river basin, any knowledge on the consequences of sand excavation on the river banks and river beds. The income from the sand harvesting activity vis a vis the environmental implications was evaluated. Presence or absence of any organized groups and programmes on sand harvesting and any regard to National sand harvesting guidelines while carrying out the sand excavation activities was also determined. Mapping was also be used in order to indentify the zones highly affected by anthropogenic activities.

The local views were sought in the process of primary data collection which was facilitated through administering of household questionnaires(Appendix 2), surveys, direct observations and interviews with resource persons. Government officers including, District Water Officer, District Agricultural Officer, District Environmental Officer, District Forest Officer, Matereleogical department were interviewed based on the institutional questionnaire Athi Water Management Authority officers were also be interviewed to provide information on how Kasikeu river catchment has been previously managed, problems and future prospects on the catchment.

For Secondary data, Literature review was done on the topic to gain a clearer perspective and deeper understanding of research problem. A range of information and data was collected from annual reports, previous project reports; various governmental reports, case studies and online documents. Literature review included: Government policy and strategic papers related to small scale tea farming. Data collected from various institutions focused on the existing policies, regulations and frameworks in effective river catchment management.

4.3. Study Sample and Sample Frame

In order to ensure that the sample was adequate, manageable and representative of all the aspects of the entire population sample of seventy households from the entire population in the study area.

The sampling frame for the study comprised of all the households within the Kasikeu river catchment. The study was limited spatially to the southern part of Mukaa Hills, Kilungu and Sultan Hamud locations, Makueni County. The area covered has a current population of 199,211 residents; (KNBS 2010).The Catchment area under study covers an area of 47.5 Km2.

4.4. Sampling technique and procedure

The study applied a stratified sampling design because the population from which the sample was drawn did not constitute a homogenous group in terms of the economic activities in which

21 they are involved; stratified sampling technique is generally applied in order to obtain a representative sample Kothari (2004).

The sampling area was divided into strata using transects and within each stratum, data was collected from different groups that were identified as important primary sources of data for the study. These groups included; Households, Businesses and Institutions. Transects were majorly determined by road network.

The catchment area was stratified into three regions: upper region covering the southern slopes of Mukaa hills, lower region covering Sultan Dam areas. Simple random sampling technique was used to draw a sample of seventy households. Thirty was drawn from each of the levels established. In each of the region’s the first household was picked randomly. The existing institutions; Ministry of water, Environment, Agriculture, WRMA were sampled through purposive sampling technique. The institutions were singled out as they will be expected to provide specific information during the survey.

4.5. Data Collection

Various methods of data collection were used. These included

a) Questionnaires Questionnaire schedules were used for the randomly selected households and the data collected was based on the reasons for sand excavation within the river basin, any knowledge on the consequences of sand excavation on the river banks and river beds. The income from the sand harvesting activity vis a vis the environmental implications were also evaluated. Presence or absence of any organized groups and programmes on sand harvesting and any regard to National sand harvesting guidelines while carrying out the sand excavation activities was determined. Interview schedules were used for resource persons from relevant institutions to provide information on how Kasikeu river catchment had been previously managed.

b) Focused Group Discussions (FGD) FGD was instrumental in getting information from organized group of residents like catchment area residents, sand harvesting groups (Kasikeu sand harvesters group) and farmers actively involved in farming in the study area

c) Observation Observation was basic to collecting data on the current state of Kasikeu River ecosystem. It was used in verifying information from data collected using questionnaires. It also served to increase the range of relevance and reliability of data.

d) Photography This comprised capturing of data using digital camera. It helped in clarification as an evidence of actual practices taking place in the study area. Photography captured spatial temporal data and it involved transferring the real situation on the ground and masking it on paper for easier understanding.

4.6. Data analysis and presentation

Data collected was sorted, organized, conceptualized, refined, and interpreted using methods drawn from the constant comparative analysis techniques. The strategy involved comparing data, some which were similar and others different in order to develop conceptualizations of the possible relations between various pieces of data.

Data was analyzed using excel. Various data sets such as land sizes, use of river basins, method of irrigation, sand harvesting techniques and conservation measures applied and other variables were fed to the package. This information was generated in form of percentages and averages which were presented using tables, graphs, and charts, upon which discussions, conclusions and recommendations were based on.

CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

There has been a steady increase in population in Kenya in the last decades. In 2003 Kenya’s population stood at 32 million as compared to 38 million in 2009 and a projection of over 43 million in 2015 (GOK 2010). As a result of the population increase there has been increased pressure on the available limited and scarce natural resources. Population increase is directly proportional to demand in natural resources such as water and land. This has seen Kenya face various challenges in the management of these resources.

The increase in population has seen settlements of people on sloppy and hilly places on the catchment as people look for more productive land. This increase has also seen available land being subdivided to non economical parcels as families increase in their sizes. Also evident as a result of the population increase is settlement on wetlands as people look for areas to grow horticultural produce hence affecting the catchment areas in terms of its water quantity and quality. As a result there has been massive destruction of this sensitive ecosystem. Forests have also not been spared. Demand for more land to undertake farming has seen more and more encroachment to the forest leading to serious destruction of the forests. Increased population has also raised demand for more fuel and building materials hence raised forest areas deforestated. Human activities such as farming near the river banks, sand harvesting, grazing in the catchment has reduced their potential as sources of water for domestic and industrial use.

5.2 Study catchment Area.

The study area was Kasikeu River in Kilungu hills which lies in the Athi river catchment zone. Athi catchment is one of the six catchment areas in Kenya delineated by WARMA in pursuant to section 14 of water Act 2002. It extends across eight administrative Counties namely Nairobi, Machakos, Makueni, Kilifi, Mombasa, Kwale, Kiambu and Kajiado counties.

Kasikeu River has also been heavily degraded by human activities such as farming, sand harvesting and deforestation which have resulted to reduction of water quantity on the river. The river is not able to sustain a continues supply of water within the catchment and downstream. Hence calling for urgent restoration and conservation of the catchment.

The study established that most of the respondents’ house hold size was above 3 as shown in figure 2 where 22% had a size of three to four, and majority had five to six people which were 34% of the population. As discussed above this is a large population and its impacts are see in the deteriorating status of the catchment where people are currently living on sloppy and hilly areas of the catchment. According to the divisional agricultural officer the trend on the encroachment in the forest has been a persisted issue for it had taken a political angle hence being a thorny issue to handle. According to Makueni county CIDP 2013 the projected the population growth rate stands at 1.4 percent, 14.3 of the population is below the age of five which translates to more land and food in future which will result to more pressure on available natural resources.

Figure 2: House hold size (Source; field data 2014)

The survey established that the major land tenure activity was farming as shown on figure 3 below. Of the respondents 18% where deeply involved in maize farming as there source of livilihood as compared to 37% who used there land for both farming and grazing as seen on plate 1 . This two land use ventures were found to seriouly affect the wetlands for some farmers grazed on the river banks which resulted to erosion hence affecting the water quantity and

25 quality. 10% of the respondents said they were involved in conservation of the catchment in various activities such as planting of napier grass, indigeneous trees, gabion contruction.

Plate 1: Grazing along river banks(Source; field survey 2014)

The above was also confirmed by mukaa women conservation secretary who said that the group has been able to complete five gabions within the catchment, planted over ten thousand trees and were also involved in awearness creation forums. The sub county water officer also corcured and commented the womens initiatives in championing environmental conservation. In comparison the restored sections of the catchment had a better water retaining period to the heavily degenarated sections, the group used it as a demonstration area during it awearness creation.

Figure 3: Land use on the catchment (Source; field data 2014)

Lack of aweareness and ignorance was aslo a contributing factor to the degradation of the catchment as 7% of those interviewed did nothing to conserve the catchment though a few were

26 involved in charcoal burning which led to degradation and also air pollution from the smoke fumes.

According to the sub-county agricultural officer the type of land tenure was also a contributing factor to the high rate of destruction on the catchment and this required an urgent attention inorder to address it. The survey estalished that 65% of the land within the catchment was privately owned (figure 4) as a result owners had a higher stake in determing the type of farming to be undertaken. This resulted to majority of them growing maize on the river reparianhence affecting the wetland and fragile ecosystem. 16% of the land was communal in the sence that its shared among the extended family. The reason being it had not be divided by the family head had was a contributor to some family members looking for more land to earn their living hence encroaching to wetlands and other fragile ecosystems.

Figure 4: Land ownership(Source; field data 2014)

The survey also established that the natures of daily activities undertaken by the respondents were also contributing to the catchment degradation. 46% of the respondents were involved in farming activities for their daily income. As these people intensively got involved in farming it was established that a great proportion of the unemployed and especially those involved in sand harvesting would turn to farming during dry seasons and return back to sand harvesting when it rains. This has led to encroachment and destruction to the wetlands as they cultivated along the river banks. Unemployment is at 26% (figure 5), according to the agricultural officer this has contributed to more encroachment on forest and wetlands as they look for land to source for their

27 income. A small proportion of 11% has business as their source of income though some doubled up with farming.

Figure 5: Respondents occupation(Source; field data 2014)

The study established that the farming methods embraced within the study area were intensive and resulted to loosening of the top soil which was eroded during the runoff causing gullies within the catchment. This erosion has also been evident on the river banks causing sedimentation and siltation on sultan dam hence reducing its water holding capacity (plate 2). This is evident as majority of the respondents downstream complained that the river and dam water usually changed colour during rain seasons as compared to dry spells when the water remained clear. This was mainly due to runoff washing loose top soil down the stream during the rain period. According to WARMA the farming methods within the catchment have to be reviewed and policies with strict measures enacted and enforced by both the county and national governments in order to save the situation which has been worsening day by day.

Plate 2: Gullies on river banks.(Source; field survey 2014.)

The study also established that land size and ownership were seriously affecting the catchment as shown on figure 5.6 where the land was over subdivided for 24% of the respondents depended on one to two acres for the farming, grazing and other livelihood. Those with three to four acres were 19% and 14% had 0ne to two acres, this totals to 57% of total population depending on between one and four acres of land. These portions of land are believed to be overused and as a result the soil becomes loose hence carried away by runoff during rainy periods. Some respondent reported that the extensive use of this land led to the soils being blow away on windy days on the dry spells. This has also led to pollution of the air and some respondents felt it was a cause of respiratory diseases.

Figure 6: Land ownership in size(Source; field data 2014)

According to the sub-county agricultural officer the continous subdivision of the available small portions of land was a major contributor of poverty for with population increase there had been increased demand for more food hence more and more clearing of forest cover and also wetland vegetation. These acts results to exposing the land to runoff during rainy seasons leading to soil erosion. Those unable to get land to farm would result into sand harvesting or cutting of trees for wood fire and charcoal burning further hurting the environment as shown on plate 3 below.

Plate 3: Massive forest destruction and charcoal burning in the catchment.(Source; field survey 2014)

The survey also established that litteracy levels and occupation had a role to play in the current status of the catchment. As shown on figure 5.7 below more thn half that 54% of the population has secondary educatuion, 14% had attained tertairy education as compared to 17% with primary education and 15% illitrate.

Figure 7: Respondents level of education(Source; field data 2014)

Figure 7, ascertains that most of the residents have formal education and it is expected that they understand all those activities that contribute to degradation within the basin and hence they are expected to practice the possible conservation measures. Low levels of education and high levels of illiteracy are usually associated with little knowledge on the importance of conservation and hence little or no adoption of the various recommended conservation methods. Ignorance is also associated with illiteracy whereby due low levels of education residents are ignorant of the recommended conservation measures as highlighted by government policies on catchment conservation. As established on levels of education (figure 7), occupation (figure 5) and size of land per household (figure 6) it was observed that the three variables were greatest contributors towards the current status of the catchment. 46% of the population was involved in farming where as a corresponding 54% had attained secondary education. The above proportions are believed to be living in the land acreage size of between one and four hence exerting high pressure on the available land.

The survey also established that type and source of income were directly contributing to the catchment degradation for 26% of the unemployed were linked to 15% of those lacking formal education and were equivalently engaged in sand harvesting for they lacked knowledge on running business or farming. According to Mukaa women conservation group it was difficult to create environmental awareness to these group due to their ignorance as compared to the people involved in other forms of income generation.

5.2 Impact of deforestation.

The study observed that deforestation was a bitting issue in the catchment as shown on plate 3 According to the sub-county forest officer uncontrolled felling of tress for fuel and illegal logging has been in the increase in the past decade, by his research he establishes that search for more land for farming and contruction materials has resulted to encroachment of kilungu catchment area which is a gazetted catchment area. Charcoal burning has also been in the rise for the increasing population had created more market hence leading to more tree cutting. According to the conservation groups people involed in charcoal burning were mostly the illitrate and this hindered the groups objective on conservation. Figure 8 below shows that 37% of the catchment population majorly depends fire wood which reflects to the dangers facing the forests. 33% of the population uses more than one source of energy. This translates to using of electricity for lighting and fire wood for fuel. A few women groups argued that due to high poverty level it had been dificult to introduce fuel saving jikos which the respondents termed as expensive and opted to spend the cash on other pressing need such as food. Of the respondents 7% and 6% used solar and electricity which reflected a small propotion of the population. The water officer felt that the trend should be stoped as soon as possible inorder to secure and restore the catchment for present and future generation.

Figure 8: Respondents energy sources(Source; field data 2014)

Plate 4: Charcoal burning on the highly deforested catchment(Source; field survey 2014).

5.3 Effects of sand harvesting

Sand harvesting is believed to be a cause of river bank destruction in the Kasikeu River catchment. In order to address the problems associated with sand harvesting, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) established National Sand Harvesting Guidelines (GOK, 2007) on sustainable sand harvesting. The guidelines identified the factors that cause and contribute to environmental degradation which includes uncoordinated sand harvesting, inadequate enforcement of existing legal provisions on resource use, inadequate environmental awareness and sensitization, policy conflicts in natural resource management, unsustainable resource exploitation and lack of integration of sustainable use principles in management strategies and inequitable distribution of benefits resulting from resource exploitation.

According to the guidelines the District Environment Committee is mandated to appoint a District Sand Harvesting Committee. The District Sand Harvesting Committee is mandated to ensure that sand dams are constructed in designated sites and ensure that lorries use designated access roads to sites, and sand harvesting sites are refilled and appropriate vegetation planted. The committees should ensure that licensed dealers pay minimum government regulated wage to sand loaders and that the proceeds of sand cess or revenue collected by local authority are reinvested in to local community projects. The district sand harvesting committees are required to establish local riparian resource management unit charged with sustainable management of sand harvesting within its jurisdiction.

Kasikeu river is seasonal thus sand is only available during the rainy seaon, its at this period when illegal sand harvesting is at its peak hence its impacts are realised during the dry seasons when water consumption from the river and dam is high. The intensive sand harvesting destroys riverbank and its bed which reduces the quantity of water for water is stored in pores between sand particles. Sand extraction exposes the stream to evaporation during dry seasons and high runoff during rainy times. Plate 5 shows the extent to which sand harvesting can cause on the riverbed.

Plate 5: A destroyed river bed on Kasikeu river(Source; field survey 2014).

Figure 9, highlights the concerns of Kasikeu residents as 35% of the respondents strongly believed sand harvesting was the major contributor of water scarcity in the area. 21% believed that water scarcity was as a result of large scare framing as compared to 10% in maize farming. Deforestation was also another significant cause of water shortage at 12% of the respondents. The study established that sand harvesting for local and income generation was a major contributor to water scarcity on the catchment and residents downstream. According to the NEMA officer Makueni county government had imposed a ban on sand harvesting and there was a significant increase to water levels on Kasikeu River. The only other challenge was to control farming and grazing on the river bank to reduce erosion of the river riparian.

Plate 6: Impacts of sand harvesting on Kasikeu riverbed (Source; field survey 2014)

Figure 9: Respondents views on causes of water shortage (Source; field data 2014).

Damand for sand in the construction sector has been in the increase and this has been a threat to the reparian ecosystem as their has been an increase in the number of lorries ferring sand from the river as a result of rise in demand which is proportional to rise in the construction industry. With the creation of ethe counties there has been demand for more buildings as more service centres are established leading to demand of more sand which causes more demage to the ecosystem. This is well seen on figure 10 below where majority(46%) of the population earns between eighty and one hundred thousand annually from sand harvesting. 25% have an income above one hundred thousand shillings which is a significant amount when translated to ecosystem loss.

Figure 10: Annual income from sand harvesting. (Source; field data 2014)

Figure 11: Impacts of sand harvesting (Source; field data 2014)

The study established that sand harvesting was a major threat to the catchement as shown in figure 11 above. 26% of the respondents gave a view that flooding was as a result of sand harvesting as compared to 39% who attributed the severe water scarcity to sand harvesting this showed that sand harvesting was high impacting negatively to the environment and casing water scarcity in the catchment and downstream.

The destruction of such vegetation interferes with the habitats for riverine animals like birds and other crawling and flying animals. Reduction of water within the river channel destroys the habitats for the aquatic organisms within the basin. Destruction of the river channel occasionally interferes with the route taken by water during the rainy season and may cause changing of river course leading to floods in such affected areas. Scarcity and reduced levels of water lead to serious shortages of water as a resource for both domestic and agricultural activities. Such

36 shortages create dissatisfaction and consequently feuds and conflicts among users’ especially downstream users against the upstream users.

5.3 Causes of Kasikeu river degradation

The study established that various human activities had led to degradation as shown in figure 12 which included population growth, maize farming, fresh agricultural land, sand harvesting among other causes.

Figure 12: Respondents views on causes of destruction on the catchment.(Source; field data 2014).

According to respondents response on what they felt caused degradation 30% said that sand harvesting was the major cause of degradation as it had a direct impact on the water quantity. As a result of its great negative impact to the catchment majority felt that with continued sand harvesting there was a threat to total water shortage in the near future. 22% of the respondents were of the opinion that maize farming was also a threat to the river riparian ecosystem. It was observed that maize cultivation was being practised all along the river banks hence resulting to sphere erosion. Population growth and as a result demand for more land for settlement resulted to people settling on sloppy areas as shown on plate 6 this plate also shows construction of house on hilly places and encroachment on the forest

Plate 7: Increased settlement on hilly and sloppy areas of the catchment(Source; field survey 2014).

Figure 13: Respondents reason for failed conservation on the catchment(Source; field data 2014)

The survey established that 30% of the respondents thought that conservation in the catchment had failed because they were not involved and thus could not own the venture. This was also confirmed by mukaa women conservation group for most of the conservation projects did not fully involve the resdents at the planning and implimentation stages. 26% felt that poor policy enforcement was a contributor to the catchment degradation for sand harvesting was banned but few influation people were illigally selling the sand hence causng the river degradation. Poor or lack of implementation of the right project was supported by 20% of the respondents who said the project piooneers could choose the wrong project which could be rejected by the residents.

Plate 8: A well restored and conserved section of Kasikeu river(Source; field survey 2014)

According to majority of the conservation groups there was little effort in conservation as show in plate 7. This was attributed to lack of adequate financing, lack of involvement of the locals and also choosing the wrong priority projects.

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION.

6.1 Conclusion

The study did an in depth research and established that there was serious degradation within Kasikeu and Kilungu catchment area, this destruction has negatively impacted the rivers thus leading to water decrease on the catchment and downstream as evident on sultan dam.

As a result Kasikeu River has been unable to perform efficiently its hydrological function which includes provision of adequate water. In general the destruction in the catchment can be attributed to lack or poor implementation of the gazetted policies and legislation on catchment management. This has allowed deforestation and human settlement on the steep and sloppy areas. Farming has also been going on the sloppy areas and along the riverine which has led to loosening of top layer of the soil which is eroded during runoff on rainy seasons.

Leased land has been used for large scale horticultural farming which has led to over abstraction of water for irrigation resulting to scarcity downstream. This has resulted to people walking long distances in search of domestic water hence them less productive economically. Maize farming and grazing along the riverbanks has affected riverine ecosystem resulting to riverbank erosion. Illegal sand harvesting in Kasikeu River has greatly affected the riverbanks and bed leading to a decline in water quantity.

The study concluded that Kasikeu catchment requires urgent measures to restore, conserve and manage the watershed.

6.2 Recommendations

The study suggests various strategies towards restoration, conservation and management of Kasikeu catchment.

40 i. Comprehensive implementation of forest Act This clause regulates and controls encroachment of forests and also highlights various measures in continuos renewal of the forest cover. Its implementation will help remove people living on the gazetted catchment and allow its restoration. ii. Implementation of water Act The Act clearly stipulates the various strategies that can be used in conservation and management of catchment areas. Its full implementation and enforcement will help secure and restore Kasikeu catchment quantity in the catchment and downstream. This will ensure sufficient water supply even during dry seasons. iii. Awareness creation The local residents should be sensitized on the various advantages of conservation against destruction of the catchment for current and future generation. This will help in sustainability of the catchment. iv. Use of modern farming technology The large scale and all other farmers should be encouraged to use water saving technology such as drip irrigation under greenhouse which reduces water wastage at high rates. Rain water harvesting should also be advocated to increase water catchment. v. Ensure controlled water harvesting The county government and National government should be involved in formation of non partisan sand harvesting committees which will ensure there is sanity and transparency in sand harvesting so as to raise revenue for the residents, county and national governments. The committees should enforce the sand harvesting guidelines withot favoure so as to conserve the catchment. Dams should be constructed to act as water reservoirs during dry periods.

Areas of further study

Various studies should be undertaken to establish the water quality to ensure its safety. This due to the fact that horticultural farming is done near the rivers hence agrochemical sieve into the streams and may be a health hazard

6.4 Planning Matrix Objective Issues Proposed intervention measures Actors/ Time Follow up responsibilities frame measure The contribution of maize Increased soil Enforce legislation on catchment NEMA, Short Monitoring farming to siltation of erosion conservation. Makueni County term and Kasikeu river  Urgent rehabilitation and government, evaluation conservation of the riparian zone NGOs, Local  Formation of catchment conservation Communities, committee Local  Total ban on cultivation and grazing on administration, riparian areas. WARMA.  Continuous monitoring and progressive evaluation Water scarcity  Controlled abstraction of water for Ministry of Long Monitoring large scale irrigation. Agriculture, term and  Use of efficient farming technologies KFS, MOW, evaluation. such as drip irrigation. NGOs, local  Cultivation of drought resistant communities, crops which don’t require irrigation. CBOs,  Encourage rain harvesting technologies such as rooftop harvesting, dam construction

The impacts of sand Scarcity of water Construction of sand dams at designated NEMA, Short Monitoring harvesting on the Kasikeu within the river intervals along the river to store more Makueni County term and River Catchment. catchment. sand and check siltation. Government, evaluation  Ensure controlled and sustainable Private sector, NGOs, sand extraction from the sand dams at Communities, determined intervals with special National regard to social and environmental Government, provincial impacts of such extraction. Administration.  Enhance participatory management

of sand harvesting from the

constructed sand dams by the local

communities.

 Establishment of local sand

harvesting management committee to

control sand harvesting.

River Banks  Total ban of cultivation on river banks MOA, KEFRI, Short Monitoring collapse and NGO, Local term and degradation cultivation. Community evaluation

 Total ban of sand harvesting on the river

banks

Effects of deforestation  Reforestation of the upper zone on Kasikeu river should be encouraged and promoted catchment to restore the micro-catchment degraded status.  Establish an assessment and monitoring programme on the activities taking place within the river basin.

REFERENCES

Barrow, C. J. 1998. “River Basin Development Planning and Management: A Critical Review.” World Development 26 (1): 171–86. Barten, P. K. (2006) Overview of forest Hydrology and forest management Effects. Sustainable Forest Management Network-Hydrological Ecology landscapes project Workshop, university of Western Ontario,November 2006. Borst, L., Haas, S .A. (2006), Hydrology of Sand Storage Dams, A case study in the Kiindu catchment, Kituï District, Kenya. Master thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004).Hydrological Functions of Tropical forests :Not seeing the soil for trees. Agriculture, ecosystems, and environment 104,185-228. Calder, I. R., 1992. Hydrologic Effects of Land-use Change, In: Maidment, D. R. (ed); Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, Inc Publishers, USA. Caponera Dante A. (1992), Principles of Water Law and Administration: National and International, Balkema, Rotterdam, p.11. Chandrasekhara Rao, M. 2006. Ground water depletion in Papagani catchment . Economical and Political Weekly, Feb. 18, 593 – 594. Cunningham, W. P. and Saigo, B. W., 1999. Environmental Science: A Global Concern, 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, USA. pp 650. Eswaran, H., Lal, R. & Reich, P. F. (2001) Land degradation: an overview. In:Responses to Land Degradation (ed. By E.M Bridges, I. D Hannam, L. R.Oldeman,F. W. T. Pening de Vries, S. J . Scherr and S.Sompatpanit)(Proc.2nd int.Conf. on Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen,Thailand).Oxford Press,New Delhi, India. FAO, (1982) Forestry paper, Tropical Forest Resources Assessment No.38. Vol 4. Global Water Partnership (2000), Integrated Water Resources Management, Technical Advisory Committee Background Paper No 4, Stockholm. GOK 2000,Environmental Management and Cordination Act (EMCA) 1999 GOK 2006, Kenya National Water Development Report 2005, Nairobi, Government printers. GOK. 2008, Catchment Management Strategy (CMS) report, WRMA Athi Region, Nairobi, Government printers. GOK 2009, Makueni County Integrated Development Plan 2013, Nairobi, Government printers.

GOK 2010 Rehabilitation works on Maruba Dam report; National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation, Nairobi. Hemalatta A. C., 2005. Effect of sand mining on ground water depletion in Karnataka; paper presented to a conference of the central Board of irrigation and power,15-18 Feb. 2005, Bangalore. Hoogmoed, M. (2007). Analyses of impacts of a sand storage dam on groundwater flow and storage. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam IAHS (2006) Hydrology 2020: An Integrating Science to Meet World Water Challenges, IAHS publication 300, Wallingford, UK. Jaspers, Frank G. W. 2003. Institutional arrangements for integrated river basin management Water Policy 5 (1): 77–90 (United Kingdom). Johan K., Kate H.,and Harouna K. (2006) Hydrology and Water Resources Management for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century. In: Hydrology: An integrating Science to meet Water Challenges. (ed. by Taikan O.),49-51.IAHS, UK. Kassas M., (1984) Defforestation, Desertification and soil loss. In: Desertification control Bulletin No. 12. Kondolf, G. M. Hungry Water: effects of dam and gravel mining on river channels. 1997. Environmental Management, 21: 533-551. KNBS (2010) Kenya population and Housing Census 2009, Vol1A and 1B, Nairobi. Lal, R.(1994) Tillage effects of soil degradation, soil resilience, soil quality, and sustainability. Soil Till.Res. 27, 1-8. Lal, R. (1995) Erosion-crop productivity relationships for soils of Africa. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59, 661-667. Mostert, E. (1998). The Allocation of Tasks and Competencies in Dutch Water Management: Discussions, Developments and Present State, RBA Series on River Basin Administration, Research Report No 7, RBA Centre, Delft. Mostert, E. (ed.) (1999a). River Basin Management, Proceedings of the International Workshop on River Basin Management,International Hydrological Programme, 27–29 October 1999, The Hague.

Mostert, E. (1999b). River Basin Management and Planning; Institutional Approaches and Results in five European Countries and six International Basins, RBA Series on River Basin Administration, Research Report No 10, RBA Centre, Delft. Nile Basin Initiative (1999), Shared Vision Programme Overview, Nile Secretariat, Programme Description, Entebbe, Uganda. Penman, H., (1963).Vegetation and the Atmosphere. Technical Communication No. 53. Commonwealth Bureau of soils, Harpenden, UK. Pg.124. Teclaff, L. A. (1985). Water Law in Historic Perspective, William S. Hein: Buffalo, NY. Santo, E. L. and Sanchez, L. E. 2002; GIS applied to determine environmental impact indicators made by sand mining in a floodplain in South Eastern Brazil; Environmental Geology, Volume 41, Number 6, 628 – 637. Savenije, H. H. G. (2000). Water Resources Management, Concepts and Tools, Lecture Notes, IHE Delft. Scherr, S. J., Satya, Y. (1996) Land degradation in the developing world: implications for food, agriculture, and environment to 2020. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 14.International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA. Silvanus Kweenda Unnona, 2007. Impacts ofsand mining on shared perennial rivers and ephemeral water courses in Namibia; esaEarthnet online 2 Meris – (A) ATSRworkshop.earth.esa.int/cgi-bin/confm 8.pl. Struhsaker, T. (1981) Forests and private conservation in East Africa:African Journal of Ecology Vol 19. Struhsaker T .and Leland, L (1972) Observation on two rare and endangered population of red Colobus Monkeys in East Africa: African Journal of Ecology. Underhill, D. (2003). Forest Hydrologic Basics. Streamline watershed management Bulletin Vol.1 No. 1, 1-5. UN 1992, Agenda 21, Wetzel, R. G., 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, 3rd Edition, Academic Press, USA, pp 1006. World Bank, (2006). Integrated river basin Management: From concepts to good practice Report. Washington, DC.

Appendix 1 Interview schedule

Kenyatta University School of Environmental Studies Department of Environmental Planning and Management

I am a Kenyatta University student taking a Masters degree in Environmental Planning and Management. . I am undertaking a research study on The response of Kasikeu River to the impact of anthropogenic activities in the catchment area, Makueni county. The project objectives are i) To assess how maize farming has contributed to siltation of Kasikeu River. ii) To examine the effects of deforestation on Kasikeu River catchment, iii) To assess the impacts of sand harvesting on Kasikeu River riparian ecosystem. I am kindly requesting you to assist me in this endeavor by answering the following questions. Any information given will be handled with a high level of confidentiality and will be used for academic purposes. Thank you in advance for your support. 1) What is your role in watershed management? 2) What is the status of the Kasikeu River catchment? 3) What are the major causes of watershed degradation in the area? 4) How has farming activities affected the status of Kasikeu River Basins? 5) What measures have been put in place to address watershed degradation? 6) Why have policies as well as other conventional measures not effectively and adequately addressed catchment degradation? 7) What should be done to effectively conserve the catchment? 8) What has been the trend in water supply over the past decade? 9) What are the effects of Sand harvesting in the area? 10) How can these effects in (9) above be addressed/ resolved? 11) What is the role of the public in the management of watershed? 12) Are there catchment area management committees in the area? 13) To what extend have the catchment management committees been successful in the management of the watershed?

Appendix 2 Household questionnaire

Kenyatta University School of Environmental Studies Department of Environmental Planning and Management

Household Questionnaire

I am a Kenyatta University student taking a Masters degree in Environmental Planning and Management. I am undertaking a research study on The response of kasikeu River to the impact of anthropogenic activities in the catchment area, Makueni county.The project objectives are i) To assess how maize farming has contributed to siltation of Kasikeu River. ii) To examine the effects of deforestation on Kasikeu River catchment, iii) To assess the impacts of sand harvesting on Kasikeu River riparian ecosystem. I am kindly requesting you to assist me in this endeavor by answering the following questions. Any information given will be handled with a high level of confidentiality and will be used for academic purposes. Thank you in advance for your support.

Questionnaire No:…,,, Name of Interviewer…………………Date………......

Please answer the following questions 1) Background information

House hold member Level of education Occupation House hold size

2) Land Tenure

Form of land tenure Size of Land

a. Private b. Communal c. Lease Hold

3) In order of preference, how do you utilize your land for? a. Farming b. Grazing c. Fallow d. Conservation e. Both grazing and farming f. None

4) For what purpose do you utilize the river bank? a. Vegetable/maize Farming b. Fallow/ uncultivated land c. Grazing d. No land adjoining a stream e. Combination of grazing and farming f. Sand harvesting

5) What is the trend in streams base flow annually for the last two decades? a. Increasing b. Decreasing

6) If decreasing, what is causing the reduction? a. Over abstraction for agriculture b. Maize farming along the river c. Destruction of river banks d. Increased domestic use e. Replacement of indigenous tree species with exotic Species. f. Sand harvesting

7) In your opinion, how can the problem (decrease) above be addressed?......

8) Which measure have you put in place to address soil degradation in the area? a. Strip Cropping b. Contour ploughing c. Construction of gabions d. Terracing e. Agro forestry f. Planting of cover crops g. Planting of trees h. Planting Napier grass i. Combination j. None

9) Are the measures in (8) above adequate? a. Yes b. No

10) If no in (9) above, suggest reasons why you think the measure are not adequate?......

11) What are the causes of watershed degradation in this area? a. Population growth b. Uncontrolled destruction of vegetation cover c. Demand for more land for agriculture d. More demand for firewood and other wood products e. Lack of knowledge on the values of watersheds f. Poverty g. Sand harvesting h. Combination of problems

12) To what extent is Sand harvesting carried out in the catchment? a. High b. Moderate c. Low

13) What are the major reasons why sand harvesting is carried out in the area?......

14) Are there sand harvesting organizations in the area? Yes/No

15) What is the average income per month from the sand harvesting activity?...... 16) What are the environmental implications of the sand harvesting activity in the Kasikeu River ?......

17) What are the effects of River Basin degradation in the area? a. Reduction in stream base flow b. Increase soil erosion c. Longer distance of water resources d. Conflict over water resources

18) In your opinion, what should be done to effectively control River degradation in this catchment area? ......

19) Is there a catchment management committee in this area? ...... Thank You