Document(s) 15 of 18

Senior Program Specialist, IDRC, Nairobi, Kenya

Introduction

Population growth and other factors put increasing pressure on freshwater resources in Africa. Among the different water end-uses in Africa, the agricultural sector accounts for the lion's share. It is sensible, therefore, to examine how water is used in existing irrigation systems, with a view to efficiency management. In sub-Saharan Africa, large-scale irrigation systems have not fared well because of development costs, management problems, and inefficient water use. It is generally agreed that small-scale schemes building on local knowledge and institutions hold greater promise (Rached 1994), and it is important to focus attention on such schemes and accumulated experience.

This paper presents preliminary results of field research into smallholder irrigation activities and other water uses in Rombo Location, Loitokitok Division of Kajiado District, Kenya. The findings are based on a series of in-depth interviews with different resource users and other key informants. The research is an integral part of a larger study assessing processes of land degradation in the area. This paper examines ecological, economic, social, institutional, cultural and political aspects of water access, use and management, primarily in irrigation, and highlights factors contributing to local water stress and conflict as well as possible avenues for conflict resolution and improved management.

Characteristics of the study area

Rombo Location is in the southeastern corner of Kenyan Maasailand, close to the foothills of Mount Kilimanjaro and bordering Tanzania. It is mostly semi-arid: rainfall is highly seasonal and variable, and water becomes a critical constraint during the dry season and even more so during longer spells of drought.

Within Loitokitok Division, Rombo Location is the lowest lying subregion, at an altitude mostly just above 1 000 m. Mean annual rainfall ranges from around 400 mm in the plains of the subregion to 1 000 mm in the foothills of Mount Kilimanjaro. Approximately 80% of Loitokitok Division falls into the category of "low-potential" land and is predominantly used for extensive livestock husbandry by the indigenous Maasai people.

About 10% of the land in the division is "medium-potential" land, which is used for livestock-keeping, with cultivation predominant in the better watered areas. Finally, the remainder, another 10% or so, is "high-potential" land. Here, rainfed cultivation predominates. In addition, irrigated cultivation is practiced in a number of pockets in the plains where springs and swamps supply water even in the dry season.

Land tenure

The above classification of land is mirrored in existing land-tenure forms. The low-potential land tends to be held under group title (land divided up in so-called group ranches). Most of the medium-potential areas are divided into large, individually owned ranches ranging in size from 100 to more than 1 000 ha. Finally, small title plots (mostly less than 4 ha) can be found throughout the high-potential areas. These tenure forms were chosen when all the land of Kajiado District was adjudicated around 1970. However, there is considerable pressure for group ranches to subdivide into individual, private smallholdings.

Fieldwork for the present study focused on two sublocations of Rombo Location: Rombo and Njukini sublocations. This area comprises the Rombo Group Ranch, several individual ranches, and farmed land (rainfed or irrigated) held by thousands of smallholders under individual, private title.

History of socioeconomic change

To understand the socioeconomic and environmental realities in the Rombo area, it is useful to briefly review the recent history of land use and demographic changes. Before the onset of colonization in 1895, there was only one dominant land-use system practiced by the Maasai, namely, nomadic pastoralism. This resource-use system relied on the plains for wet-season pasture and on elevated areas and places endowed with permanent water sources for dry-season grazing. The system was well adapted to the local ecology and hence sustainable.

The colonial rulers expropriated large stretches of land previously controlled by the Maasai. Two treaties in 1904 and 1911 (the so-called Maasai Moves) confined the Maasai to a southern reserve, essentially today's Kenyan Maasailand (districts of Kajiado, Narok, and Trans-Mara). This is an area that is likely to have always been an interface between Maasai pastoralists and agriculturalists, with the existence of Ilcurran communities and some degree of intermarriage with adjacent ethnic groups.

Although the southern Maasai Reserve was sealed from outside influence throughout much of the colonial period, in-migration of other ethnic groups did occur. In particular, colonial expropriation of fertile lands in central Kenya created vast numbers of squatter Kikuyu communities, many migrating in search of better livelihoods. Some succeeded in settling within the Maasai Reserve. These early Kikuyu settlers further introduced and spread agriculture among the Maasai.

In addition, colonial policies of "pacification" and "sedentarization" of pastoralists, promotion of agriculture, creation of nature reserves, penetration of market forces, and population growth undermined the viability of the traditional pastoral system. What used to be a unified, extensive land-use system started to fragment into different forms of competing land use, including rainfed and irrigated agriculture, as well as wildlife tourism in the newly established national reserves and parks. As a rule, the land with highest potential and the most water was progressively made inaccessible to the pastoral livestock economy.

The demise of the colonial regime did not significantly change state policies. In fact, the sedentarization of pastoralists, the establishment of national parks, the promotion of agriculture, and the "commoditization" of the local economy proceeded at an even faster pace. Privatization of land tenure, in particular, reinforced the market principle and gave rise to widespread land transfers and sales. At the same time, the opening of the Maasai Reserve after independence allowed a rapidly increasing stream of migrants, mainly cultivators, into the area. Many bought high-potential land at bargain prices from the Maasai, who, at least initially, did not have an appreciation for land as a precious market commodity. In addition, large numbers of migrants, some from neighbouring Tanzania, have entered into informal short-term land-leasing or share-cropping arrangements with the Maasai. Migrant populations throughout Maasailand have grown very fast and are approaching the size of the indigenous Maasai population.

These processes have stratified Maasai society and have led to growing inequality of resource access and wealth. At the same time, traditional forms of production, reproduction, and social organization have been fast eroding and are evolving into new adaptations in the context of rapidly changing economic, political, and ecological realities.

Water sources, uses, and constraints

Water has always played a crucial role in the local land-use systems of Kajiado District. The traditional Maasai pastoral economy developed an elaborate system of moving herds and people to have access to critical dry-season water points. Later, after independence and especially with land adjudication and individual titling of high-potential and well-watered lands around 1970, these permanent water sources became increasingly inaccessible to livestock and pastoral people. Access to permanent water was largely lost as the extensive livestock economy became encapsulated through the establishment of national parks and the spread of agriculture on freehold land and in recent years even on group ranch land.

This encapsulation is very evident in the Rombo-Loitokitok area. Tsavo National Park was created on the eastern side; Amboseli National Park, on the western side. Further, high-potential land on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro (rainfed) and around permanent water springs and swamps in the plains (irrigation) was appropriated for agriculture. These developments removed critical water sources from the livestock system and put it under considerable water stress.

Today, the main permanent surface-water sources in the Rombo-Loitokitok region are springs and swamps in the plains at the foot of Mount Kilimanjaro. These springs and swamps work like artesian wells and are pressurized and recharged by Mount Kilimanjaro water. The two largest springs in the Rombo area are Kisioki and Olchoro. In most cases, springs discharge into existing river beds, like the Rombo River, which otherwise would dry out during the dry season.

The most important engineered water structure in the division is a 100-km pipeline taking Mount Kilimanjaro water from Noolturesh (near Loitokitok) to areas less endowed with water. There are few engineered groundwater-harvesting structures like boreholes and shallow wells in the area, and the untapped potential for groundwater supply is large.

Domestic water use is also put under strain by growing water scarcity (and diminishing quality). Women, in particular, are affected because fetching water is one of their numerous tasks. On the Rombo Group Ranch, this can take up to 3 h every other day, depending on distance to the water source and size of the family.

Water quality is a serious issue in the Rombo area. Irrigated horticulture involves copious use of pesticides. Toxic chemicals are flushed into the river during heavy rainfalls. Furthermore, people use the river to wash clothes, cars, or themselves. At the same time, water downstream from irrigation schemes or other polluting activities is routinely used as drinking water and for other domestic purposes. Water pollution can also have harmful effects on income-earning activities (notably honey production, because bee-keeping requires clean water).

Irrigation

Irrigation activities in the Loitokitok area were initiated in the 1950s. Early irrigated cultivation involved just a few families and primarily met subsistence needs. It was only in the 1970s, after land adjudication and privatization, that irrigated land and numbers of irrigators expanded significantly and cultivation was directed toward commercial purposes.

Today, Loitokitok Division is the centre of irrigated cultivation in Kajiado District: 11 out of 16 small-scale, farmer-managed, group irrigation schemes in the district are found in this division. Table 1 provides some information on irrigated areas and numbers of irrigators for these irrigation schemes.

The total estimated area under irrigation in 1993 was 1 256 ha, which was farmed by 3 219 families (DIU 1993). The mainstay of farming activity is horticulture, and the main horticultural crops are onions, tomatoes, and a variety of so-called Asiatic vegetables, such as chilies, karela, okra, and brinjals.

Existing irrigation schemes in Loitokitok mostly involve families who farm individual smallholdings. However, to a significant extent, irrigation is also being practiced on group ranch land. Some schemes are located entirely on group ranch land, and others extend onto group ranch land. For example, the Inkisanjani and Oloorika schemes are located on the Kuku Group Ranch (see Table 1), and three of the 13 furrows of the Rombo irrigation scheme ( RIS )-Kanan, Karanja, and Olchoro-extend onto the Rombo Group Ranch (see Table 2). In these cases, "landlords" do not own their land, but they have received permission (formal or informal) from the group ranch authorities to cultivate.

Table 1. Irrigation schemes in Loitokitok Division.

Scheme	1988			1994
	Membersa (n)	IA1b (ha)		Membersa (n)	IA2 (ha)	IA1 (ha)	GA (ha)
Rombo	734c	395		1 125	539	380d	979d
Kimana- Tikondo	700	320		717	162	119	758
Namelok	375	250		468	864	417	970
Isinet	120	73		149	115	66	132
Empiron	-	-		-	209	43	295
Inkisanjani	220	122		-	-	-	-
Illasit- Olkaria- Entarara	93	73		-	-	-	-
Elangata- Enkima- Oloorika	160	65		-	-	-	-
Source: 1988 statistics are from Kimani (1988, table 1.1); 1994 statistics, from Ewaso (1994). Note: GA, gross area; IA1, irrigated area; IA2, irrigable area; aNumber of registered irrigation farmers. bNo distinction is made between irrigated area and irrigable area in Kimani (1988). Possibly, in most cases, pressure on irrigation water was not yet high enough for irrigated and irrigable areas to be different. cIncludes Upper Rombo and Lower Rombo (Maili Tatu). dThis figure is taken from diu (1993), as it was not available in Ewaso (1994).

Case study: Rombo irrigation scheme

RIS

is one of 11 schemes in Loitokitok Division. It is the largest (in terms of the number of irrigators) and one of the oldest in the division. It consists of two subschemes, the Upper Rombo and the Lower Rombo (Maili Tatu

-

Ntere Kesi), both supplied by the two main springs in the area, the Kisioki Spring and the Olchoro Spring, which discharge into the Rombo River.

In comparison with the other irrigation areas, Rombo has a warmer climate because of its lower elevation and more rainfall because of its proximity to Mount Kilimanjaro. More than 80% of crops grown locally under irrigation are horticultural produce: onions and tomatoes for national markets and Asiatic vegetables for export overseas, mainly to the United Kingdom. Although onions and tomatoes are common horticultural crops in the region, Asiatic vegetables are particular to Rombo. Rombo is the principal centre in the division for the production of these Asiatic vegetables, which gives it an international trade link.

Evolution of the scheme

The first irrigation activities in the Rombo area started around 1950 (

PIU

1986). They were initiated by maverick Maasai who had gained farming experience with Wachagga (Tanzanians) or Indians (Kenyan Asians) (Kimani 1988). Early irrigated cultivation remained limited to a few families and served subsistence purposes. The idea of expanding and improving irrigation activities was first raised by the local Roman Catholic mission in 1965. Subsequently, under a policy of land adjudication, land was demarcated into individually owned blocks of approximately 12 ha each.

Over time, more people were attracted to the area by the potential for more intensive (irrigated) agriculture. Most of those who settled (Kenyans) worked as tenants on land owned by the indigenous Maasai. Some were able to purchase land, often at bargain prices, from the Maasai. Increasing in-migration and the establishment of irrigators put pressure on available water resources and caused serious problems of water access.

This led to the formation of the first irrigation committee, which consisted of elders. At the same time, water distributors were appointed and temporary intake canal structures were constructed. The irrigation committee attempted to restrict the influx of new water users by introducing an entrance fee. In 1976, for the first time, bylaws regulating access and distribution of water were drafted and went into force. Later on, the two irrigation sections (Rombo and Maili Tatu) formed their own committees. In addition, most individual furrows formed their own committees and appointed their own water distributors. In 1985, the two subscheme organizations became part of an overall committee, the Rombo Irrigation Committee, whose function was to coordinate water allocation within the entire

RIS

.

Individual furrow committees, as well as the overall committee, were supposed to be elected annually. However, because of internal squabbles, this did not always happen. Furthermore, the election process was not always transparent. Particular local or outside interests sometimes significantly influenced the outcome of elections. The elections in November 1993 were very politicized, and only indigenous influential Maasai were elected as committee members, irrespective of their knowledge of irrigated cultivation and collective irrigation management (Ewaso 1994). Notwithstanding this turn of events, farmers' organizations in

RIS

have been classified as strong in comparison with other schemes in the division (

DIU

1993, table 2.1).

Irrigation technology, layout, and water distribution

Like most other irrigation schemes in Loitokitok Division,

RIS

was developed and is managed entirely by the local farmers without outside assistance.

Technology

The technology of water diversion and conveyance is simple and rudimentary. Water is taken from Rombo River by means of simple check structures erected across the river bed. These structures are made of tree branches, stones, and soil. During floods in the rainy season, intake structures are often damaged or washed away entirely. Reconstruction or repair requires considerable labour and time.

Check structures in the river bed raise the level of water up to intake levels of conveying canals. Water then flows down the canals and subcanals, driven by gravity, until it reaches the farmer's field. There is no provision for on-river storage (like dams). Therefore, at any given time, the availability of irrigation water depends entirely on the yield of the springs that discharge into the river.

Like the intake structures, irrigation canals and most of the divisions into subfurrows are temporary (made out of soil and other local materials). Only three of several dozen divisions are permanent, and none of the furrows or subfurrows are lined. There are no permanent flow-control devices like check gates, drops, or sluices. Furthermore, no more than makeshift structures have been put in place where furrows cross roads, livestock paths, or other obstacles. Water losses during conveyance (seepage from canal bottoms, spillage from breached canal banks, leakage from gully and road crossings, etc.) are correspondingly high.

The type of irrigation practiced throughout the Rombo area is flood irrigation using field basins, a technology that is simple but does not use water efficiently. Water is conveyed to individual plots by means of head and in-field ditches, which empty into field basins. There are two basic types of basin structures: ridged basins, used primarily for tomato-growing, and flat basins, used mostly in the cultivation of onions.

Layout

There are 13 canals originating from Rombo River or separate smaller springs or swamps. Table 2 provides an overview of the main furrows, including the total farm area covered by each of them and the size of the membership of farmers' organizations (individual furrow committees), as well as their ethnic composition. Furrows are listed in sequence starting upstream (Kisioki Spring) and going downstream (Kanan is the spring that is farthest downstream).

Table 2 also shows for each main furrow whether farmers are already using all available water or whether there is room for expanding land under irrigation using current technology. The table also indicates whether, within the latter category, a possible expansion would be marginal or significant. It is evident from Table 2 that only 2 of 13 furrows would allow significant further expansion of land under irrigation if there is no change in irrigation methods. All other furrows would require upgrading of irrigation structures and more efficient in-field water use to increase the scale of total water services for irrigation.

The readily apparent overall water constraint for irrigated cultivation in the Rombo area is underscored by the results of a recent water-availability assessment study carried out for all irrigation schemes in Kajiado District. This study is summarized in

DIU

(1993, pp. 18-21). The study concludes that for

RIS

(and for most other irrigation schemes in Loitokitok Division) "a serious water shortage already does occur at least once in five years for present water abstracters-no consideration for further scheme development should be given."

Even though this conclusion is based on a number of questionable assumptions and rather shaky streamflow data, the general thrust of the argument is likely to be valid.

Table 2. Rombo irrigation scheme.

Furrowa	Membersb (n)	GAc (ha)	Water availability	Ethnic composition
Upper Rombo
Kisioki	300	240	Sat.	Ka-Ki-M-C
Loishiro	60	48	NS/M	Ka-Ki-M-C
Chacha	27	20	Sat.	Ki-M (50:50)
Njeru	40	50	NS/M	Ki-M
Ole Kidoku	66	54	Sat.	Ka-M-Luo-C
Kisopia	90	72	Sat.	Ka-Ki-M
Nduma	5	4	Sat.	Ki-M
Nesere	22	15	Sat.	Ki-Ka-M-Kal
Lower Rombo
Olchoro	30	24	NS/M	Ka-C-Luo-M
Embolie	94	45	NS/M	C-Luo-Ki-Ka-M
Karanja	60	60	NS/S	Ki-C-Ka-M
Essosion	196	185	Sat.	Ki-M
Kanan	135	162	NS/S	C-M-Ki
Total	1 125	979
Source: Mr Otieno (Horticultural Officer) and Mr Njau (Irrigation Officer), Ministry of Agriculture, Rombo (personal communication, 1995). Note: C, Chagga; Ka, Kamba; Kal, Kalenjin; Ki, Kikuyu; M, Maasai; NS/M, nearly saturated (marginal expansion possible; NS/S, not saturated (significant expansion possible); Sat., saturated (all available water used). aList starts upstream and goes downstream. bNumber of registered furrow members. cGross area of farmland linked to furrow.

Water distribution

Irrigation activities in all individual furrow systems proceed continuously day and night. Use of irrigation water rotates among farmers within given subsections of any particular furrow system. Water-distribution schedules are established by the furrow irrigation committee and overseen by the water distributor of the sub-section in question.

The main indicators for water availability and use for irrigation are the duration of the period during which any particular farmer within a furrow system has continuous access to water and the interval between any two water allocations to the farmer. As irrigation schemes or individual furrow systems expand and as the number of participating farmers increases and water demand rises, the duration of the water share tends to decrease and the irrigation interval tends to increase.

Farmers' organizations

Each furrow has its own farmers' organization. Farmers who want to irrigate must register with the farmers' organization of their particular furrow system to be entitled to water allocations. Registration is open to both landlords and tenants. Although entrance fees have risen over time, to 500 KES (in 1996, 42 Kenya shillings [KES] = 1 United States dollar [USD]) since around 1983, it is doubtful that they have ever been effective in deterring newcomer irrigators from joining farmers' associations.

Farmers' associations form their own irrigation committees, primarily at the furrow level. Furrow or spring committees typically have the following responsibilities:

• distribution of water to the farmers;

• reallocation of water shares among farmers in situations where some farmers do not want to use the water for a limited period (such as a season or a year) or decide to leave the farmers' association for good;

• mobilization of farmers for voluntary work to reconstruct, repair, or maintain irrigation structures;

• organization of communal meetings, such as regular (often weekly) meetings to determine and communicate the timing and rotation of water allocations among farmers;

• enforcement of bylaws and mediation of conflicts between irrigating farmers; and

• collection and banking of funds contributed by farmers (or, in very few cases to date, outside agencies) and registration fees from newly registered members.

The implementation of some of these tasks, especially water distribution and reallocation and mediation of conflicts, is normally left to water distributors, who are elected by the farmers or appointed by the committee. Furrow systems may have one or several water distributors, each in charge of a subsection of manageable size.

Where operational issues cannot be resolved by a water distributor, they are passed to the committee. Water distributors are usually not salaried but work as volunteers. However, their pivotal position in the day-to-day management of water resources and irrigation schedules brings them benefits through "informal" gifts, in cash or in kind, from farmers wishing to keep good relations or to gain special favours.

Water stress and institutional responses

Expansion of the irrigation scheme

In RIS, as in most other irrigation schemes in Loitokitok Division, the pressure on available irrigation-water resources has been increasing over the years. Water-use pressure and lack of access prompted the establishment of the first irrigation committee in the 1970s, but despite perceived water scarcity, new irrigator farmers have continued to arrive and settle in Rombo. Table 3 lists the number of participating farmers over the last 10 years. The membership of registered irrigator farmers in the whole of Rombo has nearly doubled over this period, reaching 1

125 in 1994.

Irrigation activities in Lower Rombo developed later than in Upper Rombo. Most of the recent growth in membership has taken place in Lower Rombo, in particular the Kanan, Karanja, and Embolie furrows. Nevertheless, even the membership in the oldest of all furrows, Kisioki (in Upper Rombo), increased by as much as 50%. Clearly, existing farmers' associations and irrigation committees have been unable to restrict new entrants through fees or other means. Interference of local power structures with irrigation business, nepotism among local influential groups, and lack of transparency and accountability in irrigation management are likely to have contributed to this situation.

What impact has scheme expansion had on water allocations to individual farmers? There has been a general trend in virtually all of the furrows toward longer periods of rotation of water shares. In the mid-1980s, intervals averaged approximately 1 week ( PIU 1986). Today, intervals can be as long as 2 weeks, and in at least one case (Essosian Furrow) the interval in 1994 degenerated into something like 30 d. Adjustments in the duration of water application toward shorter water allocations have also occurred. For example, in the not-yet-saturated Kanan Furrow (Lower Rombo), water shares have been reduced from 7 h (every week) 3 years ago to 6 h (every 2 weeks) now (N.O. Kilumet, Rombo, personal communication, 1995). Share-splitting practices have

Table 3. Expansion of Rombo irrigation scheme membership.

	Membership			Gross area (ha)
Furrow	1994	1989	1994
Upper Rombo
Kisioki	200	250	300	240
Loishiro	30	47	60	48
Chacha	10	15	27	20
Njeru	13	27	40	50
Ole Kidoku	35	41	66	54
Kisopia	55	71	90	72
Nduma	3	5	5	4
Nesere	5	18	22	15
Subtotal	360	474	600	503
Lower Rombo
Olchoro	12	18	30	24
Embolie	18	24	94	45
Karanja	6	30	60	60
Essosian	150	173	196	185
Kanan	62	71	135	162
Subtotal	248	316	525	476
Total	608	790	1 125	979
Source: Mr Otieno (Horticultural Officer) and Mr Njau (Irrigation Officer), Ministry of Agriculture (personal communication, 1995).

even further. However, because of transit times for water to reach remote plots and for other reasons, durations have not been reduced to less than 2 h.

Another effect of an expanding irrigation system (and reflection of water stress) is reduced water­application rates. Longer transit distances mean larger water losses and hence reduced water flow.

Markets in irrigation-water shares

To some extent, reductions in duration have gone hand in hand with trading and reallocation of water shares among furrow members. Some irrigators prefer to give their share temporarily to someone else rather than use it themselves, particularly if they lack the resources for the necessary farming inputs or feel that available water is insufficient to ensure adequate crop output. In situations where farmers are able to accumulate water shares, water reallocation is also more frequent. Water reallocation is a responsibility of the irrigation committee. However, in practice, water shares are often reallocated ad hoc, with the assistance of the local water distributor. This provides greater flexibility but is possible only when the rearrangement takes place within the distributor's section of responsibility.

In some furrows where water scarcity is acute, an informal market for water shares has evolved. Shares are traded unofficially for prices determined by local demand and supply, even though water itself has always been "free." For example, until recently, farmers belonging to the Essosian Canal sold and bought water shares for 500 KES. That local market in water shares was, however, brought to a close with a committee decision in August 1994 to reallocate shares on a more equitable basis (one share per farmer, regardless of the size of the plot).

Trading in water shares can provide farmers with more flexible choices (using, buying, or selling shares) and thus can lead to greater efficiency in water use. However, none of my interlocutors (committee member, distributor, or irrigator member) seemed to be in favour of formalizing such a water market. The reasons differed: the committee member saw the perceived risk of reduced control from the vantage point of the committee; the water distributor may have been mindful of the "fringe benefits" he might be losing; and the farmer member invoked equity considerations, that is, preventing rich farmers from buying up a disproportionate share of water allocations to the detriment of the poorer members.

Effects on agricultural productivity and size of irrigated area

Excessively short durations, long intervals, and low rates of water application in irrigation pose clear risks to productivity. Horticultural crops do not thrive unless water is applied in suitable doses. Tomatoes, in particular, require water every 7-10 d at a minimum. Where irrigation intervals exceed this limit, arrangements may be made between farmers (facilitated by the water distributor), usually in the same furrow section, to split water shares into two half shares of half the duration received at half the interval. This helps the farmers avoid productivity losses.

Although splitting shares may address the problem of excessively long intervals, allocations of 2 or even 3 h may not be sufficient to irrigate even 1 ha, especially when flow rates are lower. Hence, farmers often resort to irrigating only a fraction of their irrigable land. In Rombo, such a reduction in irrigated area per farmer appears to have outweighed increases in numbers of irrigators. Indeed, Table 4 shows that the total area of land under irrigation in Rombo decreased from 440 ha in 1986 to 380 ha in 1993.

Table 4. Recent evolution of irrigation in Rombo.

Category	1986	1988	1993
Membership	670a	734	1 066
Irrigated area (ha)	440	395	380
Irrigable area (ha)	539	539	539
Gross area (ha)	979	979	979
Source: 1986 statistics are from piu (1986); 1988 statistics, from Kimani (1988); 1993 statistics, from diu (1993). aEstimated on the basis of the available figure for 1984.

No great efforts appear to have been made to upgrade temporary irrigation structures to reduce copious water losses. The only major upgraded (permanent) structure to date is a gully crossing on Essosian Canal. Likewise, efficiency of in-field water use does not seem to have improved significantly.

Water conflicts and their resolution

Conflict among irrigators

Irrigated farming in Rombo is characterized by a significant level of ongoing conflict between competing water uses and users. Conflicts arise at different levels: within particular furrow systems (within or between subsections); between different furrows; and between irrigation and other uses of water. The most common cause of conflict within and across furrows is water stealing. Because water is scarce and profits depend on having access to sufficient amounts at a particular time, farmers may try to extend the duration of their water allocation at the expense of the next one in the queue.

Moreover, some farmers may tinker (often overnight) with the intake of other nearby farmers to get some water even when it is not their turn; this is easily done (and not always detected) because all intakes and furrows are simple, temporary, makeshift structures. Anger and conflicts can also be caused by reduced flows or complete lack of incoming water at the time when water has been officially allocated. This may occur quite frequently for irrigators toward the end of a furrow. This problem is often contributed to by farmers at the beginning of the furrow when they take advantage of their privileged location to clandestinely divert some of the water passing by. Other conflicts arise when members do not participate in mandatory communal work on irrigation canals or intakes.

The first level of mediation for farmers' quarrels is usually the water distributor. If the distributor cannot resolve the conflict, it comes before the irrigation committee for resolution. Repeat offenders are fined, or in serious cases they may even lose their water allocation. Fines depend on the particular kind of offense but are generally low (500 KES). The level of the fines does not represent a significant deterrent for farmers.

At the interfurrow level, there is constant competition and hence a latent potential for open conflict. This is especially so during the dry season and between neighbouring furrows receiving water from the same spring. When the quantity of water flowing into their own main intake is considered insufficient, farmers regularly resort to collective sabotage by "adjusting" (overnight) the intake structure of another furrow. There may be back-and-forth mutual tampering between members of different furrows over some time, until the respective furrow committees meet to try to resolve the matter. Even then, chances are that decisions may not be abided by or consensus may not be reached. There is currently no standing institutional mechanism to deal with interfurrow conflicts.

Other conflicts

Conflicts also exist between the irrigators and other water users. At the height of the dry season it is not uncommon for irrigation activities to leave no spring water for downstream use, be it for livestock watering, domestic uses, or other purposes. Relations with livestock keepers have generally been strained. Indeed, in critical situations livestock keepers have gone as far as destroying upstream irrigation-intake structures. Often, livestock graze close to the (unprotected) spring source. This practice compacts the soil, removes the vegetation, and denudes the surface. These processes threaten to reduce yield and quality of spring flow (Kimani 1988).

It is ironic that some of the indigenous Maasai are sitting on both sides of the fence: as landlords of irrigable land they benefit directly from irrigated cultivation and try to maintain or increase their access to water; at the same time, almost invariably they are livestock keepers and as such decry competition for water from irrigation activities.

Domestic water use also is affected by the conflict situation and comes under strain when irrigation does not leave any water for downstream use.

Gender issues

Women take an active part in all activities of the irrigated crop cycle, which includes land preparation, planting, weeding, water management, harvesting, produce grading and sorting, and local marketing. Indeed, women generally contribute more than men to the completion of these tasks (DIU 1993).

It is interesting to note, however, that when compared with rainfed farming, irrigated farming in Rombo on average gives women less of an unequal status and more of a say in management decisions. The reason for this is that irrigated farming is extremely labour intensive. Also, success and good profits depend on proper timing, careful coordination, and sound management of all the necessary inputs and tasks. Much more than in rainfed farming, men participate in working the fields, because they have little choice. Conversely, women tend to share in decision-making to a greater extent.

In Rombo, only a small number of active registered members of farmers associations in RIS (about 5%) (J.B.M. Kangethe, Rombo, personal communication, 1995) are women, most of them tenants. However, given the extensive experience in irrigated farming of many local women, they could and should play a much greater role in local water committees.

Those women who are active members of farmers' associations usually are de facto heads of household: either they are not married or their husbands work elsewhere in the country. These women are active irrigators and make most of the operational day-to-day decisions - waiting for a far-away husband to make decisions is not practical. This tends to put women in situations of greater responsibility and to lessen women's marginalization.

As for domestic water use, women and girls are the primary providers and are particularly affected by dwindling water availability and poor water quality.

Cultural and political change

Cultural aspects

RIS

affords a good example of enormous cultural change that is taking place within the indigenous Maasai population. Historically, the Maasai always despised cultivation as a productive activity that seemed to them to be clearly inferior to nomadic pastoralism. However, in Rombo and in some of the other irrigation developments (and areas of rainfed cultivation) in Loitokitok Division, rapid transformation is leading to diversification among the Maasai away from a pure livestock economy toward agriculture and other investments like education.

The fact that it was people of Maasai origin who started irrigation activities in Rombo is likely to have removed some of the stigma attached to irrigated cultivation by the Maasai. Furthermore, intermarriage between the local Maasai and the many Kikuyu, Kamba, and other migrants who settled in Rombo after independence put the Maasai in greater touch with agriculture.

Nevertheless, Maasai generally preferred not to farm but to either sell or lease land to incoming migrants. However, in the last decade this has started to change, with more Maasai landowners taking up active farming themselves. The reasons for this change include the desire for greater profits and the realization that informal short-term leasing arrangements lead to land degradation and consume their land assets in the longer term. In Kisioki Furrow, of Upper Rombo, for example, 6 of the 16 Maasai landowner members are now active irrigators (H. Njoroge, former water distributer, Rombo, personal communication, 1995).

Political aspects

At the political level, recent multiparty politics (following the first multiparty elections in late 1992) and ethnic clashes elsewhere in Kenya have introduced a measure of ethnic rivalry and tension in Rombo (and elsewhere in Loitokitok). This tension has significantly affected irrigated cultivation. A group of Maasai, primarily young men, publicly decried the loss of land and other resources to other ethnic groups and advocated greater control by Maasai over "their" resources.

Notably, the group has attempted to "take over" irrigation committees in most irrigation schemes in Loitokitok Division. In a number of Rombo's canals, new Maasai-dominated committees were announced at meetings held in the second half of 1993. The newly appointed Maasai sought to assert themselves by promulgating new rules, such as "one farmer, one share." One of their main concerns has been ensuring access to land and irrigation water for sons of Maasai landlords.

Marketing problems

The Loitokitok area is the single largest source of horticultural produce in Kenya. The main markets are Mombasa and Nairobi. Total annual production of onions and tomatoes is in the neighbourhood of 3 000 - 4 000 t each. These figures are for 1988 (Kangethe 1990). More recent production levels may deviate from this. There are also pronounced fluctuations in annual production from year to year.

Farmers in Rombo and most other irrigation areas of Loitokitok Division face grave problems in marketing their produce. The two main roads (to Mombasa and Nairobi) are not paved or even all-season roads, and in the rainy season they become virtually impassable. There is not a single telephone connection in Rombo. Farmers have little, if any, market information that could inform their marketing decisions. It is not surprising that farm-gate prices are essentially dictated by middlemen and brokers, mostly based in Mombasa and Nairobi.

Competition from livestock and wildlife

There is considerable competition between livestock and irrigated agriculture for available water, as well as for land and grazing resources, in Rombo. Intensified and integrated modes of livestock production, such as irrigated fodder production and zero grazing, are still too sporadic and underdeveloped in the region to allow benefits to accrue from a more systematic integration of agriculture and livestock.

Wildlife has also caused stress on local water and land. In the long dry season (June-September), wildlife regularly enters the area from the bordering Tsavo National Park in search of water and food. In the process of reaching water sources, elephants, buffaloes, and other wild animals cause considerable damage to land, crops, and spring areas and inflict injury or even death upon humans.

Of course, wildlife brings enormous economic benefits through tourism in the park, but virtually all of these benefits accrue to others in Kenya and abroad. Much of the costs, however, are borne by local farmers. Wildlife damage detracts from surplus resources available to farmers that could be used for the conservation and improvement of water sources and structures and of land assets.

Water and land rights

Perhaps the most critical issue for current irrigation problems and successful future irrigation development in the Loitokitok region relates to property rights (water and land). Traditional resource property-rights systems are complex and work largely on an informal basis. Some of the indigenous Maasai people became formal individual owners of titled land at the time of land adjudication. They have sold part of this land in smaller parcels to a larger number of immigrants and have informally leased most of the remainder to immigrant tenants. Other Maasai were allocated land parcels on group ranch territory.

Acquisition of water rights has been contingent on owning or occupying land next to irrigation canals or on investing time and labour in irrigation systems. Those individuals who bought or inherited titled land or were allocated a parcel of collectively owned (such as group ranch) land within an irrigation area gained access to the in situ water resource as well. Similarly, those who helped construct or maintain an irrigation structure were entitled to a share of the water.

This resource tenure system may have worked reasonably well in the start-up and expansion phases of a particular irrigation system, but it has come under considerable strain as saturation of available water and land resources has occurred.

Informal land leasing

The large number of informal tenants presents a serious problem to sustainable and equitable resource use. Tenants have no incentive to conserve water and land resources or to maintain associated infrastructure. Their interest is usually in making the largest possible short-term profits with minimum inputs. Maasai landlords who lease out their land, on the other hand, are often not interested in farming and fear the possibility of tenants staking claims in land; they want to keep leasing arrangements informal and short term so that they will be able to evict tenants. This way, tenants and landlords collaborate in mining water and land resources for short-term benefits. Also, the tenants' profits are rarely, if ever, reinvested locally; rather, they tend to flow out of the area as remittances or in other forms.

To promote more responsible management of land and water resources, it is critical to promote long-term registered leasing arrangements. As well, there is a great need for awareness-building among Maasai landlords to avoid resource depletion on their lands. To some extent, this has already happened. This is also reflected in an improved ratio of landlords to tenants in Rombo. Ten years ago, there were nine tenants to one landlord (Maasai or non-Maasai); today, the ratio has dropped to 4 : 1 (Otieno and Njau 1995).

Informal irrigation-scheme development

Local irrigation activities and structures were initiated on the basis of personal initiative and later expanded as other farmers joined in, often paying the pioneer farmer for his initiative and investments. However, the informal nature of irrigation developments in Rombo and elsewhere in Loitokitok contributed to an uncontrolled mushrooming of irrigation activity. This has led to a situation where there is no clear sense of the rights of access to water for the different water users.

Until recently, water was essentially regarded as a "free" resource. Accordingly, water use and its distribution among different beneficiaries developed haphazardly. Only within individual irrigation-canal systems have reasonably effective self-regulating institutions evolved. Allocation of water across canals and between irrigation and other uses has been left to an ex-post balancing of interests and forces. No formal water permits have ever been issued for irrigation activities or other water uses. Thus, it is not surprising that water stress is considerable and conflict and tension run high.

Need for long-term approach

There is an urgent need for a careful, long-term approach to water allocation and a framework for water development that assigns different water entitlements to different competing users. Available water should be distributed on an equitable basis, after negotiations and with mutual agreement, in a participatory fashion. Such an approach would not be possible without a careful assessment of spring yields, total available water resources, and individual water needs. Also, irrigation intakes and canals would have to be upgraded, made permanent, and dimensioned as collectively agreed.

Summary and conclusions

The problem

Rombo's irrigation schemes have the virtue that they are developed and managed entirely by the farmers themselves. Unlike other "national" irrigation schemes, no subsidies are received from the government. Nevertheless, irrigation developments in Rombo (and in some other schemes elsewhere in Loitokitok Division) seem to be at a crossroads. Water stress and conflict have increased and reached critical levels in some of the canal systems and between irrigation and other water uses. Negative impacts are starting to be felt on crop yields and livestock productivity, the size of irrigated areas, and farming profits.

These problems have been a consequence of increasing water demand because of expanding numbers of farmers, inefficient irrigation technology, and lack of upgrading of irrigation structures; undefined or insecure property rights (water and land); and apparent declining overall water availability (lower and more variable spring yields).

This situation is exacerbated by severe marketing problems; damage to crops, land, and water sources by wildlife and livestock; opportunistic behaviour of most farmers and lack of local-level institutional cohesiveness; Maasai land owners' reluctance to farm; insufficient participation of women in local farmers' organizations; local political tension and infighting; outflow of farmers' cash surplus from the Rombo area for the benefit of outsiders; and widespread local resource degradation (both land and water).

The way forward

What would be needed to turn things around? First, water needs, rights, and responsibilities within irrigation and between irrigation and other uses need to be clarified. As well, land-tenure arrangements must be reexamined. Informal and short-term leasing arrangements need to be discouraged. At the same time, efforts need to be made to expand irrigation-water services through the gradual upgrading of irrigation structures, with outside assistance as desirable. However, such upgrading is not likely to happen unless the property-rights issue is dealt with effectively.

An overall framework and action plan for long-term equitable and sustainable water development should be worked out. This should include careful water resource assessment; awareness building, education, and training in sustainable forms of resource use, land leasing, and improved farming practices; development of effective participatory institutional mechanisms for transparent local water allocation and conflict resolution; and greater involvement of women in local decision-making processes and institutions.

This framework and action plan should build on existing structures and mechanisms and be developed, as much as possible, by the local people themselves and their representative institutions. It would be essential as well to mobilize the necessary local, regional, and national political support and to evolve effective modes of government assistance for local irrigation development and for the upgrading of general infrastructure (roads, telecommunications, and so on) in the area.

Finally, a number of research inputs would be required. At least the following areas would need priority attention: water-resource assessment; improvements in in-field water use and irrigation technology; mechanisms to upgrade irrigation structures; ways and means to raise awareness and provide skills, particularly among Maasai landowners, on improved irrigation and resources management; and the evolution (through participatory action research) of an equitable and sustainable resource property-rights system and self-regulating local institutions for resource management and conflict resolution.

References

DIU (District Irrigation Unit). 1993. District profile, Kajiado District, Rift Valley Province. District Irrigation Unit, Agricultural Engineering Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Marketing, Kajiado District, Kenya. 56 pp.

Ewaso. 1994. Irrigation schemes in Loitokitok Division of Kajiado District. Report prepared for the Ewaso Ng'iro South Development Authority, Kenya. 43 pp.

Kangethe, J.B.M. 1990. Profitability of small holder farming systems with irrigation, Loitokitok Division. Report prepared for the ASAL Program Office, Kajiado District, Kenya. 108 pp.

Kimani, J.K., compiler. 1988. Evaluation of irrigation developments in Loitokitok Division. Report of a multidisciplinary task force. Rural Development Services. 29 pp.

PIU (Provincial Irrigation Unit). 1986. Rombo irrigation scheme, phase I: Maili Tatu and Ntere Kesi, Kajiado District. Report by the Provincial Irrigation Unit, Rift Valley Province, Land Development Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya. 46 pp.

Rached, E. 1994. Report on the Pan-African Workshop on Water Management. Sponsored by the International Development Research Centre, 5-8 Dec. 1994, Cairo, Egypt. 30 pp.

Document(s) 15 of 18