Handout

Creating Community-Based Water Systems in Africa: An Example from Gilgil Richard Ford Clark University Center for Community-Based Development International Development, Community, and Environment

June 2004

Gilgil, District,

References: Ford, R.B., Francis Lelo and Harlys Rabarison. Linking Governance and Effective Resource Management: A Guidebook for Community-Based Monitoring and Evalua- tion, Program for International Development, Egerton University, and APAM (Protected Areas of Andasibe/Mantadia) Madagascar, March, 1998;

Ford, R.B., Barbara Thomas-Slayter et al. Conserving Resources and Increasing Pro- duction: Using Participatory Tools to Monitor and Evaluate Community-Based Re- source Management Practices Working Paper in SARSA Series in Defining Trends in Use of Community-Based Indicators, 1996.

Gilgil is a resettlement community in Kenya’s Rift Valley dating back to Kenya’s land distribution programs of the 1970s. In the pre-Colonial years, the land was part of a huge rangeland for the Maasai to graze their cattle, sheep, and goats. In the late 1900s the land became part of the enormous holdings of Lord Delamere that stretched from Lake to – a distance of about 75 kms.

After independence in the early 1960s, many of these European estates were divided into five acre plots and sold at auction to those who could afford to pay. However, land ownership in Gilgil, assumed to be the answer to the dreams of all Kenyans, turned sour. There were three reasons why.

First, the area was dry and soil erosion endemic if one attempted to grow market crops such as tomatoes, maize, beans, cabbages, or carrots. Second, the community shared a border with a major game park – Hell’s Gate Canyon – that housed abundant numbers of wildlife. The wildebeest, zebra, antelope, and buffalo were very happy to come help Gilgil’s farmers harvest their crops. Third, supplies of potable water were several kilo-

1 meters distant. To collect water required many hours a day from Gilgil’s women. The tri- ple demands of crop failures, wildlife encroachment, and water scarcity made Gilgil a diffi- cult place to live.

A participatory assessment conducted by Egerton University in 1992 identified water and wildlife encroachment as the two highest priority needs in the community. In particular, the tensions between park wardens and the villagers were close to violence. For example, when park wardens patrolled near the village, they often did not wear uniforms or drive park vehicles for fear they might be attacked.

Once Gilgil’s action plan was completed, Egerton faculty and Gilgil leaders traveled to park headquarters to see what could be done. The village plan called for installation of a piped water system to each house in the community. Given the great distances between houses and to the water source, 21 kms of plastic pipe were required. The community agreed to dig trenches to install the pipe as well as to construct a large storage tank. Based on these community contributions, the village leaders made a proposal to the park. The village would post guards round-the-clock to protect their crops during the last few weeks before harvest if the park would buy the pipe – an investment of about $10,000. The park officers deliberated and a week later came back with a counter offer. Not only would they buy the pipe, they would establish a surplus wildlife off-take plan in which the villagers of Gilgil could hire scouts to hunt specific game – mostly antelope, zebra, and wildebeest – and sell the meat. Gilgil built its water system plus earned small money through meat sales; the park solved a major problem of claims and demands for compensation for wild- life damage to crops. More importantly, the people of Gilgil learned that they were able to solve their own problems in ways that were satisfactory to both parties. The sketch map on page 3 provides details.

Given the positive experience with their water system, Gilgil’s people have subsequently moved on to additional projects. They have raised money to install water meters at each house to assure that water is not used for irrigation. More recently they have constructed a butchery where they can slaughter their game quota and goats for sale to a nearby cluster of meat roasting restaurants. Their most recent project (2002—2003) has been construction of ferro-cement water storage tanks at each house in the community. The new tanks will supplement their piped water system and allow limited amounts of water for irrigation. The villagers build the eaves and collection system, lay the foundation, and connect the pipes. The Rotary Club of Nakuru, working in partnership with Rotary International, matches the village contributions with funds to construct the actual tanks. Page 6 of this handout shows a picture of Gilgil water collection before 1992 when water was carried in heavy tanks. The second photo, taken in 2003, shows Victoria, chairlady of one of the wa- ter user groups, displaying her new water tank. The people have learned that building con- sensus and village ownership of their own solutions makes it possible to find partners and, working together, get results.

2 SKETCH MAP OF FOUR WATER GROUP PROJECTS: Gilgil

North

Eburru Road Legend 1 km = Map shows four water Quarry groups in Gilgil and represents close to 100 hookups Kambi Somali Tank

Marura Estates

Key Railway Line Main Road, to Nakuru Secondary Road Githirigwa Self-Help Group Water Pipeline Kwale Self-Help Group Water Pipeline Ngu Nyumu Self-Help Group Water Pipeline Kiharu Self-Help Group To Nagumu Water Pipeline Hills House Served by Water Kamathatha Primary School

3 INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS: GILGIL 1992

Kenya Wildlife Service

Government

Education Administration Water Development

Wool Craft Water Projects Group

Environment and Natural Resources Community Development Assistant

Women's Groups Churches

The size of the circles indicates the level of impor- development project groups have appeared including tance the institution plays in village development. the CPK, KENGO, British Council, and the Catholic The overlap of the circle shows which groups cooper- Church. All of these were absent in the 1992 version. ate with one another. Another major change is the substantial increase in the level of importance of Kenya Wildlife Services. Noting changes from 1992 (above) to 1996 (right) reveals many new characteristics. Government and The most significant change is the proliferation of the role of the Community Development Assistant community groups (the inset for 1996 names 13 new remain prominent, as before. But the role of the vil- self-help societies). These are either new groups such lage Administration is substantially larger, showing as the six water user associations or existing groups the new role that local leadership has assumed in that have assumed significantly new duties. Women’s managing the village’s needs. Note that several new groups are also substantially more visible.

4 INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS: GILGIL 1996*

Miti Mingi Mashambani (10) **Explanation of Groups British Note that for "Groups" in rank Council order #5, this category includes all (7) 13 organizations listed below: KENGO Catholic (8) Church 1. Kwale Water Project 2. Githirigwa Water Project (8) 3. Ngunyumu Water Project Church of the **Groups (5) 4. Ngunyumu Women's Group Province of 5. Kiharu Water Project 6. Weiteithie Women's Group Kenya (water) (6) 7. Kamathatha Women's Tree Nursery Group 8. Kekopey Wool Craft Kenya Wildlife 9. Zebra Woold Craft and Service (4) Curio Shop (not yet open) Police 10. Kekopey Wildlife Management Project (9) 11. Chaquo-lako Women's Administration Group (roof tanks, goats, and cows) (3) 12. Nyakiabi Water Project Community 13. Village Security Committee Development Assistant (2)

Government (1) Hospital (4) Veterinary Extension (12)

Health (11) Agricultural Extension (12) Schools (3) *Note: Numbers with each institution indicate the ranked order of importance, according to 48 village leaders present.

5 Gilgil — Before

Gilgil — After

6