The functions of and services from wetlands are seriously compromised due land and water scarcity coupled with the inability of poor people to adopt sound management strategies. The expansion of rice irrigation into the Ombeyi wetland ecosystem is likely to reduce their long-term ecological functionality. Using field observations and measurements, stakeholder analysis framework and consultative fora, this study investigated the growth in irrigated agriculture, irrigation practices and existing and potential trade-offs between the various uses of the wetland and their ecological functions. The objective was to identify the equilibrium between expansion of area under rice and restoration of the Ombeyi wetland ecosystem. Issues affecting wetland use and management were identified and used to derive possible solutions that could lead to sustainable use of the wetlands. The study showed that the area under rice cultivation increased by up to 760% as compared to the 1970s, most of it into the wetlands. There was a huge dependency on irrigation for food and income generation. However, there was observed low efficiency in water use and management. Recent emerging crops, especially arrow roots, would pose more threats to the wetland ecosystem because of their tolerance to waterlogged soils, low labour input, continuous harvesting and fewer pests and diseases. The fast exhaustion of soil fertility by arrow roots is also likely to motivate expansion into new areas, predominantly the wetlands. It was established that transplanting rice by mid May as opposed to the current practice in which farmers transplant in mid July saves water. The impact could further be reduced if the farmers adopted an optimized seasonal calendar. The study concluded that the solutions to wetland encroachment and over exploitation of resources lie in capacity building of farmers, improving efficiency in resource use and seeking for alternative livelihood options.
In the year 2000, almost 190 countries committed, through the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), to reduce by half the 800 million food insecure people. This compelled countries to enact policies, strategies and measures that would eradicate poverty and inequality as well as improve physical and economic access to sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe food all the time. Because it is the responsibility of national governments to ensure that individuals attain food security [
Apart from the economic, socio-political and institutional constraints, there are also a number of biophysical challenges common among smallholder farmers that contribute to low food production. Inadequate water [
Land resources are integral components of watershed ecosystems. The wide-ranging functions and services of watersheds and land resources are, however seriously compromised when these production factors are scarce. Furthermore, watershed management strategies are often challenged by the presence of poor people who typically depend on the natural resources base for their livelihoods. Such is the case in Ombeyi Watershed, Nyando Basin where according to [
In the wetland, land and water are the resources being competed for between sustaining livelihoods through crop production and wetland products on one hand and environmental integrity on the other. Although development of irrigation and drainage increases local food production and enhances rural income, it threatens vulnerable wetlands and the ecosystems services that they provide to local inhabitants. According to [
Ombeyi watershed is situated in Kano plains, Nyando drainage basin in Kenya. The main river that provides the water for recharging the wetland ecotone is R. Ombeyi, while Oroba and Nyakoko streams feed this major river and derive its waters from the upper Nandi escarpment which forms its northern boundary (
According to [
unattractive as an economic venture. However, rice irrigation and recent sugarcane plantations within the wetlands have completely introduced complex hydrological pathways especially as a result of canalization.
The increasing area under irrigation of various crops was considered largely responsible for the diminishing wetland. Within Ombeyi watershed eleven irrigation clusters, based on villages, were active during the time of this study. These were Kore, Sare, Sanda A, Sanda B, Alungo A, Alungo B, Alungo C, Abwao, Wiswa, Rangenya and Asunda. Each cluster had the current area under cultivation and the maximum area defined by the extent of the ancestral land for the village.
The actual cultivated and potential irrigable areas in all the clusters were mapped using a GPS. This information was supplemented by historical records held by irrigation management committees dating back to the 1970s. The areas obtained and their potential are illustrated in
The analyzed data showed that there has been an increase in area under rice irrigation from a paltry 232 ha in 1970s to 2008 ha during the time of the study. Overall, there has been an increase in irrigation area of about 760%. The area being cultivated represented 62% of the potential irrigable land. The increase in area under irrigation could be attributed to unreliable rainfall that has seen irrigation as an assurance, the necessity to produce more food per unit area due to the increasing population, the need to cultivate crops with higher market price and the emergence of competitive crops such as sugarcane and arrow roots. In addition, rice cultivation provides a long fallow period that gives livestock the opportunity to graze in the harvested fields.
| Scheme/Period | 1975 | 1985 | 1995 | 2005 | 2014 | Potential |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alungo B | 3 | 100 | 120 | 138 | 150 | 172 |
| Alungo A | 75 | 150 | 166 | 175 | 300 | 480 |
| Alungo C | - | - | - | 10 | 50 | 65 |
| Abwao | - | 100 | 150 | 195 | 200 | 670 |
| Asunda | - | 2 | 65 | 75 | 110 | 205 |
| Rangenya | 5 | 75 | 88 | 100 | 170 | 210 |
| Wiswa | 10 | 40 | 65 | 73 | 100 | 875 |
| Kore | 480 | 700 | 1000 | 2050 | 2302 | 2500 |
| Sanda A | - | - | 7 | 70 | 300 | 360 |
| Sanda B | - | - | 1 | 130 | 330 | 460 |
| Sare | - | 2 | 80 | 130 | 221 | 600 |
| Total acrage | 523 | 1166 | 1735 | 3146 | 4233 | 6597 |
| Area in ha | 212 | 472 | 702 | 1274 | 1714 | 2671 |
| % decadal increase in area | - | 122.6 | 48.7 | 81.5 | 34.5 |
Even though the area under cultivation continually increased, the average yield of most crops declined, as illustrated in
The declining average production per unit are in rice is partly due to neglect from farmers as a result of low market prices. Importation of cheap rice, especially from Uganda, was viewed by the farmers as the greatest impediment to attractive market prices. Other factors included use of uncertified seed, no or very low fertilizer use, poor weed control, rice diseases and inadequate water for irrigation due to expansion, poor irrigation water management and competition from sugar cane and arrow root production.
The sources of irrigation water comprise two seasonal rivers, Great Oroba and Little Oroba that are gauged at 1HA01 and 1HA02, respectively. The stream flow data for these stations obtained from the Water Resources Authority (WRA) for the period “1970-1999” had numerous gaps, especially for 1HA02 which was thereafter not included in preceding analysis. To address this shortcoming, SWAT model was set up for the watershed using Great Oroba data for calibration and validation. In addition, snapshot discharge measurements were done at five locations over a period of six consecutive weeks. Two sites were selected upstream of the wetland to measure inflows while the other three sites were downstream of the wetland and thus represented outflows from the wetland ecosystem.
Each of the irrigation schemes in
The scheme committees neither undergo any training nor have written by-laws to assist them carry out their duties with some level of professionalism. Currently, their role has been passive and reduced to mainly solving disputes between scheme members. The disagreements could be related to boundaries, access to water and/or interference from livestock. Naturally, such committees’ mandate is expected to, among other duties, manage the schemes by determining such issues as seasonal cropping calendar, water allocation, source for affordable inputs, link up with extension staff for capacity building, promote best management practices in crop production, ensure compliance with laws and regulations, and identify market outlets. Thus, some of the challenges facing the farmers may possibly be attributed to a weak management system resulting from an incompetent committee.
All the irrigation clusters in
According to [
Many farmers in Ombeyi wetland ecosystem divert water using informal structures which in some cases entail the use of soil (sometimes in sacks) and/or trash from weeding to block the earthen canals so that water enters the desired fields. As shown in
same time due to, among other factors, the lack of a seasonal cropping calendar. Furthermore, the consequences of the recurrent floods in the area disperse field operations. Some farmers are more endowed with resources enabling them to transplant a second time if the first crop is destroyed by floods.
The aforementioned challenges complicate water management. Without proper abstraction infrastructure, the amount of water abstracted could either be too little or too much. However, whenever water is available in the river, coupled with the substantial system losses, farmers are opt for risk aversion and hence the chances of abstracting more water are high. In addition, these farmers are not yet registered into a Water Resource Users’ Association (WRUA), a requirement of the WRA, the body charged with regulation of abstractions. This implies that they have no abstraction permits, pay no levies for the water abstracted and thus divert as much as they can so long as water is available in the river.
The presence of an ill-equipped scheme management committee (Section 3.2.1) and the absence of a WRUA suggest that misunderstandings on water allocation are likely to occur frequently as attempts are made to meet the GIR especially when river flows are low. According to the farmers, the lack of a registered WRUA albeit the long period of time that the schemes have been in existence could be attributed to:
1) Ignorance—the farmers are not aware of the functions of a WRUA, their role and the benefits of their participation;
2) The view that WRA is out to exploit the farmers through its mandate of revenue collection;
3) Funding for the association is not forthcoming since the gross margin from the irrigation of rice is currently marginal;
4) Governance issues—after the promulgation of the Kenya Constitution 2010 that led to the creation of a two-tier governance structure, water management was devolved to County governments. This has created confusion among the water managers at District Water Offices, Water Boards, WMA and the newly appointed staff at the County; and
5) There is a frosty working relationship between the managers of water and agriculture at all governance levels. This has negatively affected irrigation activities.
By being non-members of a WRUA, the famers in Ombeyi have not gained the envisioned benefits which according to [
With the recent introduction of arrow roots (
motivated by the increasing average production when that of other crops is exhibiting a declining trend (
On the other hand, arrowroot enjoys high market prices, less labour intensive, have fewer pests and diseases once established, and have a longer harvesting period which enable farmers to:
- Spend less money on harvesting by utilizing only family labour;
- Wait for better prices as opposed to being pressurized by hackers and vendors;
- Have income spread over a longer period of time from the sale of arrow roots; and
- Have food supply for a longer span of time.
Furthermore, as opposed to rice, arrowroot can be grown 1) in soils that rice does not do very well; 2) along river banks that have vegetation (mainly Cyperus papyrus and Phragmites Mauritaianus) that host birds; and 3) throughout the year.
Amid the dwindling crop production, safe for arrow root, alternative income generating activities that the farmers have adopted include livestock production, Cyperus papyrus crafts, sand harvesting and fishing. A recent survey (Nasongo et al., 2018) showed that about 91% of the community engaged in irrigation while 55% simultaneously did irrigation and harvested wetland products. Those who solely relied on wetland products amounted to a paltry 3% while 6% engaged on income generating activities other than irrigation or harvesting wetland products. The alternate livelihood options identified from the survey showed their minimal contribution to household food and/or income since only 9% of the community did not engage in irrigation activities. In addition, 36% of the community depended exclusively on crop production through irrigation. This underscores the significance of planning and better managing land and water resources in Ombeyi wetland ecosystem.
With the recognition that the wetlands were being cleared to pave way to irrigation of rice and arrow roots, a consultative and participatory approach had to be muted. The community desired knowledge and understanding on how to:
- Protect their livelihood which is dependent on the deteriorating wetland ecosystems; and
- Improve the market value of their products.
Given that agricultural intensification and/or expansion often increases local food production and enhances rural income, it threatens vulnerable wetlands and the ecosystems services that hitherto provided to locals. There is a need to optimize the co-existence of wetlands and irrigation activities in a sustainable manner.
As pointed out in Section 3.2.3, farmers abstract as much water as possible and coupled with the numerous system losses that occur due to the dilapidated infrastructure, the amount of water removed from the river is likely to be much higher than the estimated gross irrigation requirement (GIR) of 13.6 m3/s. This abstraction, which is slightly over 70% of the river flow, is not sanctioned by law since the farmers do not have an abstraction license. Thus, although the government’s food security policy advocates for maximizing land and water resources to produce food, the community’s actions seem to be in total contravention of the law. In this study, the farmers were encouraged and guided into forming a WRUA. It is however noted that the process of acquiring the abstraction permit is viewed by many as having so many bureaucracies. There is therefore a need to revise and simplify the procedure to motivate WRUAs and/or individuals to comply with that legal obligation.
Knowledge of the amount of water allocated to each legal entity helps water managers to plan for and oversee the utilization of the resource, among all stakeholders, in an equitable manner. Water to adequately sustain environmental functions should be quantified and included in this arrangement. This quantity is particularly important in the current study since irrigation expansion into wetlands not only consumes additional amount of water but also completely alters the ecological functionality of the converted land. Whereas this study focused only on the gross crop water requirements and the impact of the abstraction on river flow, further work should be directed into the assessment of environmental flow requirements.
In situations where water is scarce and a number of competing uses exist as in this case, water saving opportunities should be sought. The two approaches considered in this study were: 1) optimal cropping calendar and 2) evaluation of various cropping scenarios. It was established that the GIR could be reduced by about 3.5 m3/s, if rice is transplanted by mid May as opposed to the current
| Constraint | Current status/manifestation | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Wetland management | -Rampant and widespread encroachment of the Ombeyi wetland ecosystem | •Wetland rehabilitation through enforcement of national laws and regulation on wetland management by the relevant authorities •Enforcement of community wetland management laws contained in the recently launched Ombeyi Wetland Management Plan (GoK, 2014) |
| Water management | -Farmers still largely dependent on rainfed agriculture as there is inadequate water -Poor water management within the schemes due to the absence of conventional irrigation infrastructure leading to water conflicts and low yields -There is flooding caused by runoff from rains -There is a lack of pasture for livestock due to expansion of irrigation -Key stakeholders not easily reachable e.g. WRA and National Irrigation Authority (NIA) | •Alternative sources of water e.g. through water harvesting and storage •Capacity building of farmers and construction of well designed irrigation and drainage infrastructure •Bottom-up approach in policy formulation in water management •Repairs of dykes through community initiatives •Farmers to embrace dairy breeds managed under modern techniques such as zero grazing •Closer collaboration farmers with key stakeholders—WRA, Lake Victoria Basin Development Authority (LBDA), NIA and others •Improved public relations between the community and stakeholders •Institutions to fulfil their social corporate responsibilities |
| Value addition and marketing | -Currently there is very little value addition being done -There is lack of co-ordination of farmers in the field operations making quality assurance of produce difficult; hence low returns due to poor marketing value chain -Farmers do not use certified seed and not completely aware of when to plant -Crop diseases -High production costs | •Community to lay down strategies for value addition in collaboration with the respective government officers •Formation and registration of farmers’ production and marketing groups •Introduction of new technologies for production of crops •Farmers should set prices for their produce •Farmers should use certified seeds and follow the suggested cropping calendar •Proper agronomic and crop husbandry practices to be adopted •Best Management Practices and lobbing for subsidy of farm inputs |
| Institutional arrangements and resource mobilization | -The scheme committees are not well trained and are only active at the beginning of the rice planting season -There are many absentee farmers referred to as “Telephone farmers” leading to poor coordination of farming activities -Lack of involvement of National Government (Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs) and relevant agencies in scheme issues -Poor roads and poor sanitation within the schemes due to lack of toilet facilities | •Arrangements for capacity building to be done through NIA •Regular meetings, at least on quarterly basis, to be held •All farmers including those leasing farms should follow the laid down rules so that farming activities are synchronized •Sanctions to be put on errant persons •There should be involvement of government officers and relevant agencies e.g. NIA, WRA, LBDA etc. in the scheme activities •Lobby the County government to improve the condition of roads and provide sanitation infrastructure at centres |
| Limited livelihood approaches | -High dependency on cash crop already facing challenges e.g. 1) Rice: poor seeds, crop diseases, high transportation costs and lack of markets 2) Arrowroots: rotting of rhizomes, excessive weeding, pests, middlemen/ brokers and deteriorates soil fertility fast 3) Sugarcane: poor seeds, high transportation costs and poor market value chain | •Diversification of livelihood strategies through: -Fish farming -Dairy farming -Sale of arts and crafts -Establishing horticultural crops -Starting Eco-tourism ventures -Sourcing tissue culture bananas from Kenya Agricultural Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) Kisii and Kakamega -French bean production for sale via KAVES-USAID |
practice in which farmers transplant in mid July. Arrow root cultivation was found to have more impact on stream flow as compared to rice cultivation. A combination of 60% area under rice cultivation and 20% area under arrow root cultivation provided the least relative stream flow impact. Therefore, if these initiatives are incorporated into the community’s water management strategy, then the adverse impacts that is posed by the expansion of land under irrigation will have been mitigated to some considerable degree.
The need to transplant rice in mid May demands that nurseries are established in late March to early April. However, during this time, the flow in the river is low. While the intake structures are informal and could be modified to raise the water level to allow flow into the canals, the farmers are not keen to do that due to: 1) fear to create avenues that could divert flood water in the event of sudden heavy storms at the catchment in the beginning of the wet season; 2) livestock are still grazing in the fields at this time and thus nurseries are hard to be managed; and 3) bird menace is rampant at this time since there is very little green vegetation. Subsequently, the necessity for an alternative water source during the dry season for domestic, livestock and agriculture cannot be over emphasized. Rainwater harvesting with storage at the villages or households could be a viable choice to water the rice nurseries, livestock and even some horticultural crops. The storage facilities could be of various capacities and in the form of tanks (masonry and/or plastic) or reservoirs (pans and/or dams) constructed at suitable sites. With these the flooding hazard is likely to be minimized, livestock allowed to graze for a longer duration in the harvested fields and birds can easily be scared away if the nurseries are within the villages/households. By having rice seedlings ready by mid May, the early planting strategy is possible enabling water savings. Extra food and income could be generated from the horticultural crops.
Apart from the expansion of rice into new areas, arrow root cultivation occurred very close to the river banks (
The discord in the width of the riparian reserve and the diverse reference points for different statutes/institutions, as illustrated in
| Statute/Institution | Recommended width (m) of riparian reserve |
|---|---|
| Water Act (2002) | Minimum 6 m and maximum 30 m from edge of the river |
| EMCA (1999) | Minimum 6 m and maximum 30 m from edge of the river |
| Agriculture Act | 6 - 10 m; sometimes ad hoc |
| Physical Planning Act | Minimum 2 m in height and maximum 30 m horizontal from edge of the river |
| Survey Act | Minimum 30 m for tidal rivers only. No mention of other smaller rivers. Measurement from high water mark |
| Local Government Act | Ad hoc to a planner’s discretion: 3 m, 6 m; in some instances it is taken as equal to the width of the river or twice the width of the river |
| City Council by-laws | Maximum of 30 m from high water mark |
Source: Adapted from City Council of Nairobi (2007) in Karisa (2010).
Arrow root does not only consume more water vis-a-vis rice but also can be grown in areas with conditions not favourable to other crops (Section 3.3.2). The increasing yield per unit area of arrow root (
The community are well aware of the encroachment into the wetlands and is willing to implement the laws on wetland management contained in the recently launched Ombeyi Integrated Wetland Management Plan (GoK, 2014) which they participated in its formulation. This document, developed in conjunction with the National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA), has been adopted by the Kisumu County Government as a reference document for managing wetlands in a sustainable manner. It is hoped that the findings of this study will provide a baseline, framework and targets under which the proposed management plan could be executed.
The over-reliance on irrigation of rice and recently a seemingly unsustainable arrow root production does not guarantee food and income security especially in incidences of high rainfall variability, population growth, limited land and declining fertility. The requirement for alternative livelihood approaches in Ombeyi watershed was accentuated by the community to boost the current 9% that depended on activities that are not directly related to irrigation. The proposed options are intended to shoulder household food and income so that less pressure is eventually exerted on the wetland. The most feasible alternatives that could be explored are novel agricultural production technologies such as intensive horticultural production in greenhouses, dairy farming embracing zero grazing, fish farming using fish ponds and sourcing improved cultivars of bananas from certified centres e.g. those managed by KALRO. There are recent attempts by a youth group within the community to produce horticultural crops using harvested rainwater and shallow wells by putting up a greenhouse (
Tourism has been one of the highest foreign exchange earners in Kenya for a while. However, the recent security concerns in areas traditionally frequented by tourists, has led to some countries issuing travel advisories which has seen the number of visitors diminishing. There is an opportunity to create alternative tourist destinations. The rich cultural diversity and attractive sites in the region can be of great interest to local and foreign visitors if the right publicity and packaging is done. It is also necessary to developed eco-tourism centres at strategic locations that would serve as market outlets for artefacts and crafts. These approaches are likely to diversify household income and thus relief the current strain experienced by wetland resources.
To further promote the sustainable use of wetlands, capacity building of the farmers on various issues of food production, income generation and wetland management should be done. There has been a disparity between production costs and returns. To lower input costs and boost market prices, farmers need to coalesce into production and marketing groups with clear targets, leadership structures and functional by-laws. Pooled procurement of inputs is likely to be cheaper compared to purchases made by individual farmers because it is likely to attract discounts, reduce transport cost and/or could allow payment in instalments. This arrangement could also encourage farmers to produce the same crop varieties at a particular time leading to better market price bargains. Involvement of key partners such as NIAB, LBDA, WRA and the County Government in these engagements will ensure that the right back-stopping is provided, partnerships build and possibly availability of financial support.
The envisaged broad outcome of this study was to increase knowledge and insights on the co-existence of wetlands and irrigation, identify their synergies and problems, contribute to the policy debate concerning agricultural intensification in wetlands, and strengthen partnerships among stakeholders. The main findings of the study highlighted the evidence of irrigation expansion that could jeopardize the capacity of the wetlands to perform their ecological roles due to reduced water flows into them and the extension of cultivated land into riverine areas and/or those designated as wetlands. The huge dependency on irrigation for food and income generation coupled with the low efficiency of water use and management underscore the need for concerted efforts to reverse the negative effects that are likely to occur in the near future.
The possible solutions to the wetland encroachment and over exploitation of resources may be realized through improving the efficiency in resource use and embracing the suggested alternative livelihood options. It was found out that most approaches on wise use of land and water resources lie with the resource users themselves. Thus, enhancing the capacity of the farmers and their leadership is likely to ensure the efficient utilization of the resources. Mechanisms to implement national policies, rules and regulations should be incorporated into scheme management. The involvement of key partners in every aspect is likely to yield prolonged benefits.
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received from UNESCO-IHE, Institute of Water Education through the project “Co-management of wetland ecosystems and irrigation for enhancing livelihoods in Lake Victoria Basin (Assignment No. 103864).
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Kosgei, J.R., Nasongo, S.A., Kipkemboi, J., Kitaka, N. and Owuor-Okeyo, J.B. (2021) Land and Water Resources Planning and Management Options in Floodplain Wetlands in Nyando Basin, Kenya. Journal of Environmental Pro- tection, 12, 1144-1160. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2021.1212067