Study on Opportunities and Threats of Irrigation Development in Kenya’s Drylands

Interim Findings and Recommendations

Study commissioned by FAO Carried out by Ocra Consultants February 2013 Ocra Consultants 2 Ocra Consultants 3 RENEWED INTEREST IN INCREASING IRRIGATION POPULATION •Vision 2030; •Draft Irrigation Policy – 1.2m ha new in ASALs @ 32,000 ha p.a. INCREASING DEMAND FOR FOOD New projects

Increased Need to Increase agric agric Increase to Need subsector Rehab & MORE SEVERE Productivity & Production funding expansion AND FREQUENT DROUGHTS More micro- projects

Ocra Consultants 4 Study Background and Objectives National ASALs policy goal:  increase investments to tap the vast potential; reduced vulnerability to natural hazards; drought management; diversification of livelihood (Irrigation??)  Increasing productivity of ASALs through irrigation development (The debate) 1. Is irrigation development in ASALs viable? 1. Economically 2. Environmentally 3. Socially 2. Irrigation Potential in ASALs (Actual?; Perceived?) 3. Threats to irrigation development in ASALs (Investments?; Reliability?; Sustainability?)

Ocra Consultants 5 Study Objectives Overall To develop a reference document to inform investment in irrigation within Kenya’s drylands (focus on Daua, Tana, Turkwel and Kerio river basins and Merti aquifer) Specific 1. To use existing data to establish the irrigation potential; 2. To estimate potential crop production; 3. To estimate number of households to be supported; 3. To establish economic, environmental and social viability 4. To establish the potential threats and risks; 5. To recommend interventions

Ocra Consultants 6 DRYLANDS (ASALs) AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES  Definition (FAO 1993): Growing period of less than 120 days: moisture deficiency; low and unpredictable crop and livestock production; Arid (150 – 550; Semi-arid (550 – 850) and hyper- arid (< 150) mm p.a.  Kenya: > 80% (467,200 Km2); 10 million people; 70% livestock; 39 Counties (10 arid; 20 semi-arid and 9 (pockets)  Economic activities  Livestock and Pastoralism(70% of livestock; KES 70 B)  Dryland Agriculture (non-irrigated crop production on land with <750 mm annual rainfall;  Commercial Ranches (AEZ IV, V, and VI;Beef cattle dominant )  Tourism (12% GDP ; >90% of the wild game; Game reserves and national parks; Rich local cultures) Ocra Consultants 7 Location

WAJIR ISIOLO COUNT COUNT Y Y MERTI AQUIFE R

GARISS ACOUN TY

•It is transboundary, Kenya – Somalia. •It is trancounty, Isiolo, Wajir and Garissa.

Ocra Consultants 8 Groundwater potential:

•Borehole tested yields range from 5 - 25m3/hr.

Ocra Consultants 9 Groundwater Quality

•Salinity ranges from 0 – 20,000 µS/Cm.

Ocra Consultants 10 Merti Aquifer potential Storage/yr M3 yr-1 M3 d-1 ETo M3/ha/d-1 Potential Ha (1/3 mmd-1 (ha) water has tolerable salinity) Total aquifer 75.636x109 2.07x 108 Abstraction 2.52x106m3 5.74616x105 Water 75.63348x109 2.0722x109 5.8 58m3 3.573x107 1.199x107 balance Recharge 3.6x106 Abstraction 2.52x106m3 Water 1.08x106 2,959 5.8 58m3 51 17 balance Which water should we exploit for irrigation? (consider 1.2m ha - Vision 2030 ) How many boreholes are needed to tap the potential ?(yield = 5 – 20m3/hr) Is it economically viable? (sinking & installing 1 borehole = KES

Ocra Consultants 11 SUMMARY OF COUNTY CHARACTERISTICS County Rainfall mm Area under rain fed Area under Irrigation potential Minimum Maximum crop ha irrigation ha (ha) Garissa 236 342 11605 1600 Additional - 1900 PDA/PIO – 742,000 Tana river 400 750 15,517 2,378 Bura - 11,000 Hola – 8,000 Additional -1900 DAO/DIO - 22,342 Wajir 250 700 3681 40 200 PDA/PIO – Nil Mandera 106 517 31928 3,808 DAO/DIO - 10,500

Isiolo 150 650 2575.4 4,200 DAO/DIO - 3,300 Turkana 120 600 4280 2666 DAO/DIO - 16,600

Ocra Consultants 12 Identified Opportunities 1. Increased production through crop intensification and opening up more land 2. Food security 3. Household incomes 4. Fodder production – Mandera – case study 5. Ground water development 6. Fall back for the households that lose livestock

Ocra Consultants 13 Potential Livelihood impacts on Irrigation in ASALs  Reduced risk of crop failure: Cropping intensity of at least 150 %  Improved crop yield : (e.g. Maize productivity increasing from 5 to 25 bags/ha)  Enterprise diversification : Diversification from livestock enterprise and rain fed to Irrigated agriculture in cereals , pulses, mangoes ,bananas and fodder.  Enhanced food availability: number of people supported on food per county ( Table below)  New employment opportunities - farm and non-farm occupations, e.g. rural mechanics,  Small private enterprises in response to demands for farm inputs, agricultural products, technology and services.  Improved infrastructure and social development i.e. roads ,domestic water availability

Ocra Consultants 14 County Irrigation Proposed Expected No of the people that Expected revenue Potential (ha) cropping Production(Ton) can be supported pattern

Garissa 760 Maize 1900 14074 79,800,000 95Paddy 356 2638 14,250,000 380Sorghum 760 5629 28,880,000 380G/ grams 418 19000 45,980,000 380Cow peas 950 43181 104,500,000 570 Fodder 2,375 47,500,000 1,235 Banana 9,500 380,000,000 760 Mango 8,550 128,250,000 Tana River 760 Maize 1900 14074 79,800,000 95Paddy 356 2638 14,250,000 380Sorghum 760 5629 28,880,000 380G/ grams 418 19000 45,980,000 380Cow peas 9500 43181 104,500,000 95 Bananas 2,375 47,500,000 190 Mangoes 9,500 380,000,000 570 Fodder 8,550 128,250,000 Turkana 8300 Maize 207500 1537037 8715000000 3320Sorghum 6640 49185 252320000 3,320 Green grams 8,300 377,272 913,000,000 830 Bananas 20,750 415,000,000 830 Mangoes 41,500 1,660,000,000 4,980OcraFodder Consultants 74,700 1,120,500,000 15 County Proposed Expected cropping Production (Ton) Irrigation pattern No of people that can Expected revenue Potential (ha) be supported Maize 4,200 10,500 77777. 441,000,000 Paddy 525 1,968 14583 78,750,000 Sorghum 2,100 4,200 31111 159600000 G/ grams 2,100 2,310 105000 254,100,000 Cow peas 2,100 5,250 238636 577,500,000 Bananas 13,125 262,500,000 525 Mangoes 52,500 2,100,000,000 1,050 Fodder 47,250 708,750,000 3,150 Isiolo Maize 1650 4125 30555 173250000 sorghum 660 1320 9777 50160000 Cow peas 1,650 75,000 181,500,000 660 Bananas 4,125 82,500,000 165 Mangoes 8,250 330,000,000 165 Fodder 14,850 222,750,000 990 Wajir Maize 100 250 1851 10500000 Sorghum 40 80 592 3040000 Cow peas 100 4,545 11,000,000 40 Bananas 250 5,000,000 10 Mangoes 500 20,000,000 10Ocra Consultants 16 Fodder 900 13,500,000 60 Integrating livestock in irrigation developments in the Kenyan ASAL General Observations on Existing Irrigation Schemes 1. Irrigated land holdings are small and cultivated inconsistently 2. Output from many small schemes not documented • Estimates from what might be ideal may be inaccurate. • Irrigation water is inadequate or inefficiently used 3. The low scale of production, low yield of grain and crop residue can only confer low benefit to integrated livestock i.e. may not attract livestock from pastoralism 4. Irrigated Pasture and Fodder Production in Mandera and the associated business has sufficiently excited many pastoralists • However, intensive production has not resulted. Water is not the main limiting factor.

Ocra Consultants 17 Key Factors affecting pasture and fodder yields

 Temperature (Ideal for tropical spp – 30-35°C)  Many pasture species can grow at high temperatures prevailing in Kenyan ASAL if water is available  Rainfall is the most critical  Luxuriant growth follows the rains  Irrigation would ameliorate lack of rainfall if yield could pay for its infrastructure and labour costs

Ocra Consultants 18 Probable explanation for lack of expansion  Returns do not pay for labour investments.  I imagine that profit is such a great motivator that sufficient profits would motivate continuous cultivation to the extent limited by other factors  Cultural values: This may not be true?  Water inadequacy: This may be true in Turkana and maybe Isiolo  Cost:  To meet pump and fuel costs  Farm inputs (seed, fertilizer (and pesticides??)  Insecurity of land tenure?

Ocra Consultants 19 The Pastoral Peoples Pastoral Livestock Production

High Main Grazing degree of Employment patterns, water similaritie and pasture s

Hold past Tribal Freedom of grudges conflict grazing

Foundation of Economy

Compete Porous for pasture boundaries and water

Ocra Consultants 20 Pastoral Land Pastoral Livestock and Livelihoods productivity

Communally Low birth rates owned lands

Within tribe Low mortality land use except in disaster fairly free As HH periods acrearage Tribal land holding Low offtakes boundaries dwindles, (below loose conflict potential of and poverty 15%) Minimum increase Low livestock units for individual Household milk yields survival Fortune, acumen Yet a HH may and sometimes use 9000lt courage annually

Ocra Consultants 21 Livestock and Crops and irrigation irrigation

Argument: Crop Argument: livestock extravant residues Some crops users of water combined make best use with fodder of water Livestock Some crops have damage little crop residue irrigation useful to infrastructure livestock Balanced economic Developers Crops economic and environmental discourage gains pass those benefits keeping of from livestock livestock advantage of inbuilt Some crops can cultural livestock offer indirect skills lost gains through livestock Failure to maximise Fodder as an Some crops can gains of the heavy economic benefit from investments crop presence of livestock

Ocra Consultants 22 Pastoral population growth

Hungry people More people Conflict to feed Poor people High rate More livestock Poor health of 3.3% required Hungry Animals More grazing Poor prospects required Degraded lands

However irrigation is blamed for taking away grazing land Recent developments promise higher dividends for irrigated crop complemented by livestock Initial evidence show need for fewer more productive livestock to justify the extra effort and input

Ocra Consultants 23 Irrigation having Livestock Cut and carry systems 1. SCENARIO Fodder MODELING. conservation Labour 2. Social systems intensive analysis Crop residue improvement Same growth rate

Fewer animals More productive 1. Marketing Higher system yields 2. Ability to pay Gainful 3. Policy support employment

Ocra Consultants 24 To keep a herd of 10 lactating cows (just about sufficient for a moderate HH) - Three scenarios Forage Acreage Labour Cropping needs, kg needed, needs, pattern DM/year Ha persons Notes

Less crop residue needed ]if Maize alone 15.12 91.9 84 treated Maize and Less total forage needed if sudan grass 8.64 45.7 48 crop residue if treated

Less forage needed if natural Sudan grass fodder harvested and alone 6.12 275 34 preserved during the rains

Ocra Consultants 25 Wisdom from the scenario  Just to sustain ten indigenous lactating cows in an irrigation scheme on grown fodder/crop residues  There is need to cultivate at least 6ha  That will require a labour force of about 30  Such a household does not exist: The largest encountered in Mandera had 23persons  Hence people or Machinery have to be recruited into the system  Products must pay for them  Both crops and livestock yields must be maximised (optimised): better varieties and higher input levels

Ocra Consultants 26 Overall outlook on those who remain pastoralists (residual pastoralism)

New Crops Alternative with more dry season residue feeds Better animals

Urban Enhanced developmen Security t Less conflict Better Life More paying Higher markets incomes Land recovery Services Effective nearer Extension

Ocra Consultants 27 DECISION TREE

Long term genetic improvement for productivity matching the environment Crop residue Pasture and harvesting, fodder conservation and Conservation improvement and before feeding. marketing. .

Ocra Consultants 28 Environmental and Social Impacts of In Irrigation in Drylands 1. Alteration of ecosystem 2. Risk of soil erosion 3. Soil salinization - irrigation schemes in Garissa and Turkana Counties; 4. Upsurge of water borne diseases a) consumption of raw irrigation water b) Breeding conditions for diseases and vector; 5. Resource (land and water)use conflicts Tana River, Garissa, Turkana Counties 6. Human-wildlife conflicts a) encroachment into wildlife habitats b) Interference with migration corridors c) proximity of game reserves – Tana River, Garissa 7. Upsurge / introduction of new of crop pests and diseases 8. Increase in invasive plant species Ocra Consultants 29 Ocra Consultants 30 Ocra Consultants 31 Ocra Consultants 32 Burning, flooding, siltation, soil erosion

.

Ocra Consultants 33 IDENTIFIED BEST PRACTICES • Contract Farming – Hola scheme farmers and Kenya Seed Company • Commercial Fodder Production – Mandera schemes • Integrating livestock into irrigation - Proposed Hola Phase II has 2500 ha earmarked for commercial fodder production • Commercialization of irrigation - proposed Hola phase II – 1,200 ha • Cost of infrastructure • Cost of O&M • Perennial external intervention in O&M • Self-sustaining schemes

Ocra Consultants 34 IDENTIFIED THREATS 1. Seasonality of rivers - Daua (9/12), Turkwel and Kerio 2. Changing river course - risky investment in expensive infrastructure – Tana 3. Flooding - recurrent damage to infrastructure and loss of crop – Tana, Kerio, Daua 4. Siltation - high cost of O &M 5. Land degradation - salinization – several schemes in Garissa and Turkana Counties 6. Loss of dry season grazing - conflicts – Tana River 7. Lack of Implementation ESMP - exacerbated negative social and environmental impacts e.g. Salinization

Ocra Consultants 35 CHALLENGES 1. River morphology – e.g. River Tana - limited sites for gravity systems resulting in expensive intake infrastructure 2. Water quality a) High silt load – limited choice of irrigation method/technology b) Saline borehole water 3. Inadequate hydrological data a) Poor planning for irrigation planning (under or overestimation of irrigation potential (Daua has no gauging station) b) Inaccurate/Inconsistent data on potential 4. Inadequate/poor communication infrastructure a) Subsistence irrigation b) No incentives for commercialization 5. Lack of County land use plans - resource use conflicts

Ocra Consultants 36 Conclusions 1. In terms hydrology, Irrigation potential is limited due to scarcity and quality of water; 2. To a large extent irrigation in ASALs is still subsistence; 3. Most schemes are perennially dependent on outside assistance hence sustainability is doubtful unless they are commercialized; 4. On contribution to livelihood, existing irrigation projects have contributed to food security and household incomes; 5. Irrigation development affects availability of dry season grazing and livestock corridors hence agro-pastoral- pastoral conflicts; 6. Negative environmental and social impacts exist but most of these can be mitigated through appropriate ESMP 7. Inadequate hydrological data that hampers planning;

Ocra Consultants 37 Recommendations 1. Any significant irrigation development must include water harvesting and storage and use of efficient technologies; 2. Need to update hydrological data to aid in planning; 3. Need to commercialize irrigation for sustainability; 4. Inclusion of livestock component in future irrigation development; 5. Institutional capacity building for public institutions supporting irrigation development and IWUAs ; 6. Need for integrated development planning informed by county land use plans 7. Proper flood management measures to be included in scheme design

Ocra Consultants 38 Thanks

Ocra Consultants 39