Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program …watergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/F047.01-13...

Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program (IWRAP),

Lake Naivasha, Kenya

Assessment of Water Governance Capacity

WRMA sub-regional office Naivasha, Kenya

Report

COLOFON

Copyright All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be duplicated, saved in any data system or published, or in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, provided the source is clearly given, together with the name of WGC and the author, if mentioned. Liability Water Governance Centre and those who have contributed to this publication, have taken the greatest possible care in compiling this publication. However, the possibility cannot be excluded that there are still errors or omissions in this publication. Any use of this document and the information in it is at your own risk. WGC, including those who have contributed to this publication, is not liable for damage that may result from the use of this publication and its data, unless the damage could result from wilful misconduct or gross negligence on WGC and / or those who have contributed to this publication. If you find deficiencies, we ask you to contact us. Author : Ronald Hemel on behalf of WGC Network Date Reference

: :

June, 2013 Final / F047.01-13-006

Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program (IWRAP), Lake Naivasha, Kenya Page

CONTENT

1 THIS REPORT .............................................................................................................. 4

2 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES ACTION PLAN PROGRAM ........................................ 5 2.1 Lake Naivasha .........................................................................................................................5 2.2 Improving water governance in water management institutions .........................................5

3 WATER GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT METHOD ............................................................ 7 3.1 The three layer model of water governance ..........................................................................7 3.2 Approach in this project .........................................................................................................8 3.3 Activities .................................................................................................................................8

4 WATER GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 9 4.1 Scope and governance mechanisms ......................................................................................9 4.2 Governance gaps ....................................................................................................................9

APPENDIX 1. ASSESSED WATER GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS .......................................... 11


1 THIS REPORT

The Water Governance Centre (WGC) is involved in the execution of a project “Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program (IWRAP), Lake Naivasha, Kenya. Together with regional water authorities De Stichtse Rijnlanden and Noorderzijlvest, WGC supports the development of the sub-regional office in Naivasha of the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) and their cooperation with Water Resources User Associations (WRUAs). Within the project Dutch and Kenyan water partners work together to establish a framework for good water governance and effective implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the Lake Naivasha basin. This report describes the self-assessment of water governance capacity of the sub-regional WRMA office in Naivasha, based on information derived from interviews, workshops and field visits held during a Dutch mission to Kenya in May-June 2013. The application of the Water Governance Assessment Method is an important element in this project. The method is developed by the WGC and must be fine-tuned on the ground during projects. The Lake Naivasha basin is used as a pilot project for this fine-tuning of the Water Governance Assessment Method. The method is also applied in projects in other countries, e.g. Ethiopia and Colombia. The WGC will use these experiences to improve the assessment method for better implementation of IWRM projects. The assessment of the water governance capacity described in this report is a base for the further development of the water management organizations in Naivasha. This report is also published on the WGC website: http://www.watergovernancecentre.nl.

http://www.watergovernancecentre.nl/


2 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES ACTION PLAN PROGRAM

2.1 Lake Naivasha Lake Naivasha lies in Kenya in the Eastern Rift Valley and currently covers approximately 100 to 150 km2. It is the second largest freshwater lake in Kenya and has, since 1995, been listed as a Ramsar site- a Wetland of International Importance. The lake has no surface water outflow. The surface inflows to the lake come via three river systems – the Malewa, the Gilgil and the Karati through a papyrus-dominated fringe in the northern part of the lake. The Lake Naivasha basin is also at the heart of Kenya’s horticulture industry (mainly flowers and vegetables). The Lake Naivasha floriculture industry accounts for more than 70% (US$400 million) of the country’s cut flower exports. Kenya’s cut flower exports account for more than 40% of the EU retail market while generating 9% of Kenya’s total foreign exchange revenue and contributing 2% to 3% to the Kenyan GDP. In 2008, the Netherlands accounted for 51% of Kenya’s cut-flower exports followed by the UK (25%) and Germany (9%). The population of the Lake Naivasha Basin has grown from approximately 230,000 people in 1979 to 650,000 in 2009. In the decade between 1989 and 1999 (during the boom years of the horticulture industry), the population of the basin grew by 64%. In the past decade this population growth has slowed to approximately 13%, and is expected to grow further and reach well over 700,000 people in the near future. The flower industry in Naivasha employs approximately 20,000 people directly and a further 350,000 jobs are created in the associated service and informal businesses sector. South of the lake close to Hell’s Gate National Park, electricity is generated through geothermal power. The focus on the Lake and the horticultural industry tends to overlook the fact that the basin covers approximately 3,400 km2. The upper catchment is characterised by small scale farming activities both for subsistence and cash crops sold in the nearby urban areas of Naivasha town, Nakuru and Nairobi. As the source of water draining to the Lake, the activities of the small scale farmers in the upper catchment have a significant influence on the quantity and quality of water discharging into the Lake. Simplified, one can say that the majority of water quantity issues (over-abstraction) is related to the large water abstractors around the lake and that the majority of the water quality issues (especially pollution with nutrients) is related to poor land use practices of small holders up-stream. Consequently in the IWRAP much attention is directed to improving land use practices and management of water resources in this area.

2.2 Improving water governance in water management institutions In the Integrated Water Resource Action Plan program (IWRAP) public and private partners from Kenya and the Netherlands are working together on sustainable land and water management for people, businesses and nature in the Lake Naivasha Basin. The programme is financed by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and will be executed in the period 2013-2016.


The main result areas are: 1. Increased capacity and improved governance in WRM institutions (WRMA and WRUAs) for water

resource management in LNB 2. Increased knowledge and technical capacity for quantitative water resource management and

monitoring in LNB 3. Increased headwater protection and security of water flows through improved participatory

forest management and income-generation in the catchment 4. Conservation and sustainable development of riparian farmland in the catchment through

improvement and institutionalization of PES mechanism 5. Increases in levels of sustainable production and good stewardship in LNB floriculture through

development and adoption of national standards and certification 6. Strengthened institutional capacity of Imarisha Naivasha for execution of the SDAP (monitoring

impacts, compliance, oversight and communication functions) 7. Partner consultation and finalization of the Lake Naivasha Basin PPP Sustainable Development

Fund project and funding proposal (LNB-3P-SDF)

Within the IWRAP program the Dutch regional water authorities De Stichtse Rijnlanden, Noorderzijl-vest and the Water Governance Centre work together with WRMA Naivasha sub regional office to increase capacity and improve water governance in water management institutions (WRMA and WRUA's) in Lake Naivasha Basin (result area 1). The regional water authorities and the Water Governance Centre focus on the following sub results under result area 1: - Sub result 1.1: Articulation of input/output of technical water management modelling &

scenarios with WRMA policy development and public communication; - Sub result 1.2: Institutional reinforcement and improved stakeholder interaction; - Sub result 1.3: Improved financial management of water user fees; - Sub result 1.4: Improved water use regulation.


3 WATER GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT METHOD

3.1 The three layer model of water governance The Academic Round Table of the WGC developed a water governance assessment method based on nine building blocks, identified from different academic working fields such as civil engineering and hydrology, public administration, law and economics. This assessment method is now being made applicable in the field by testing the method in different projects. One of these projects is IWRAP in Kenya. The outcome of the (self) assessments of different basins will be used to fine tune the governance approach and the assessment method. To be able to communicate clearly about the important aspects of water governance it seems useful to look more closely at the basic elements of water governance. The nine building blocks of the method are developed into the “Three layer model of water governance”, as illustrated in figure 1. Core element of this approach is that good water management comprises of three inter-related layers: - a content layer; - an institutional layer; - a relational layer.

Content layer

Policy, knowledge and skills, information

Institutional layer Organisation, legislation, financing

Relational layer Culture, ethics, communication, cooperation, participation

Fig. 3.1. The three layer model of assessing water governance capacity.

A content layer is necessary to address water management policies, the level of knowledge and skills in water management and information management. Knowledge of the water systems and of the nature of the problems are essential as well as experience and skills to be able to solve the problems and a good information position. However, in most cases this is not enough to reach a good water status. An adequate organizational framework together with the necessary (legal) instruments and a good financing structure are fundamental requirements for successful integrated water resources management (the institutional layer). Besides that, for successfully solving persistent water problems attention to what is called the relational layer is required. Important elements of this layer are communication and cooperation between different actors and with the public, stakeholder participation, transparency and trust. Water governance focuses most explicitly on the institutional and relational layer, without overlooking the importance of and relations with the content layer.


For improving the water governance and successful implementation of IWRM, interventions are needed on all layers. This approach addresses the complexity of implementing IWRM on a basin level.

3.2 Approach in this project The three layer model of water governance was used as a base to address and incorporate all water governance topics within the basin, on different scales. The approach of the assessment is multi layered, composing of: i) a self-assessment by local actors; ii) an assessment by trained experts; iii) an expert judgement in which experts from the different disciplines reflect on the outcomes of

the assessment.

The self-assessment was executed during a one week Dutch mission to Kenya in May 2013. 3.3 Activities The project started in January 2013 with a kick-off workshop in Naivasha. The work plans for 2013 for each sub result were drafted. The work plans are the base future cooperation. In March and April 2013 the Dutch regional water authorities and WGC formulated a project team on the Dutch side, whereas on the Kenyan side experts were recruited and appointed for the project. To start with the activities as mentioned in the work plan for result 1, a mission to Naivasha was executed from 25 May to 2 June 2013. The May-June 2013 mission had the following objectives: - Introducing the NL project team to the Lake Naivasha area and creating a shared overview with

the Kenyan team of the main issues concerning the implementation of IWRM in the basin; - Getting acquainted and building contacts with the Kenyan project team (WWF, WRMA, WRUA’s) - Governance assessment of the subresults 1.1 to 1.4

o Step 1: Exploring current situation Defining scope (geographic, issues , targets, policies) Defining current activities

o Step 2: Analysis/preliminary assessment/score Sufficiency, Stability, Effectivity and Effectiveness Bottlenecks Consequences of lack of governance Description of rules/law Stakeholders involved Explanation of shortcomings Possible actions

o Step 3: Developing joint working agenda Joint activities Planning Cooperation

This report describes the results of the self-assessment, based on information derived from interviews, workshops and field visits during the mission.


4 WATER GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT

4.1 Scope and governance mechanisms The governance (self) assessment is derived from information obtained during interviews, workshops and field visits of the mission of Dutch regional water authorities and Water Governance Centre to Naivasha from 25 May to 2 June 2013. The scope of the assessment is on the capacity to implement IWRM in Naivasha basin. For the different sub results within IWRAP under result area 1, different governance mechanisms were assessed:

Layer Governance Mechanism Sub result Content layer Water quantity monitoring 1.1 Water quality monitoring 1.1 Institutional layer Permit system 1.4 Billing system 1.3 Relational layer Information sharing WRMA-WRUA 1.2 Cooperation WRMA-WRUA 1.2

In the appendix the governance mechanisms are elaborated in more detail. For the reporting on the governance mechanisms a framework was used which covered the following topics: - Step 1: Exploring current situation

o Defining scope (geographic, issues , targets, policies) o Defining current activities

- Step 2: Analysis/preliminary assessment/score o Defining bottlenecks and challenges o Assessment scorecard

- Step 3: Developing joint working agenda o Assess future needs from challenges o Define possible actions

4.2 Governance gaps The self-assessment shows that the water governance capacity at WRMA sub-regional office Naivasha is rather low. Although mechanisms may work quite effectively, the effort is not always sufficient or not organized efficiently. The core business activities on data collection, water quantity monitoring and permitting need immediate improvement for a proper functioning of WRMA. The cooperation between WRMA/WRUA, the billing mechanism and water quality monitoring are slightly better organized, but still need a lot of improvement. Overall, the WRMA Naivasha sub-regional office is in an early stage of institutional development. An overview of the water governance capacity is given on the next page.

Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program

(IWRAP), Lake Naivasha, Kenya

of 39

Overview of water governance capacity in Lake Naivasha basin

Score Summary Water Governance Barriers

Suffi

cien

cy

Stab

ility

Ef

ficie

ncy

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Total score (out of 16) Governance mechanism Description

1 2 1 3 7/16 Water quantity monitoring No integrated approach, focus on abstractions and direct link to permit/billing system, expertise available, little knowledge transfer. A

1 2 3 3 9/16 Water quality monitoring Up till now the direct linkage of the goals of WRMA and the monitoring strategy has not been made. Lacking equipment and additional expertise. A

2 2 1 2 7/16 Permit system System partly in place, not addressing all issues, no awareness, lacking knowledge B C

2 3 2 3 9/16 Billing system Lack of capacity for meter readings, issuing of invoices, lack of digitalised financial administration system, lack of power to effectively enforce non payers.

B

3 1 1 2 7/16 Data collection and information sharing WRMA-WRUA Data collection and information sharing not on a regular basis B

3 1 2 3 9/16 Cooperation WRMA-WRUA Mechanism works, but not stable. General MoU on cooperation with WRUAs which is not in line with specific water management issues in a WRUA area. A

Explanation of scores: Status of sufficiency Status of stability Status of efficiency Status of effectiveness Barriers to effectiveness Total score

Very sufficient, mechanism working properly [4]

Very stable, mechanism not subject to changes [4]

Very efficient, mechanism effect are higher than efforts [4]

Very effective, mechanism good to meet the goals [3]

No integration of different interests [A] 14 – 16 points

Mechanism works, but not always [3]

Mechanism stable, but changes occur [3]

Mechanism efficient, but more effort is needed [3]

Mechanism exists but not fair to meet all goals [3]

No one enforces [B] 11– 13 points

Mechanism close to working [2] Mechanism subject to changes [2] Mechanism needs more effort than effect [2]

Exist but not official [2] Not many know it exists [C] 8 – 10 points

Mechanism doesn’t work [1] Mechanism not in place [1] Mechanism not liable [1] Mechanism does not exist [1] No yet ready to go [D] 4 – 7 points

APPENDIX 1. ASSESSED WATER GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS

In the appendix the following governance mechanisms are elaborated: - Sub result 1.1 - Water quantity monitoring - Sub result 1.1 - Water quality monitoring - Sub result 1.2 – Data collection and information sharing WRMA-WRUA - Sub result 1.2 - Cooperation WRMA-WRUA - Sub result 1.3 - Billing system - Sub result 1.4 - Permit system

Sub result 1.1 – Water quantity monitoring Step 1: exploring current situation

Focus points as defined in ToR: - Defining scope (geographic, issues , targets, policies) - Defining current activities

1. Introduction and goal of interview

a) General - Who are we? - Why are we here? - What do we want to achieve with this interview

b) Defining scope of the interview - What are we talking about/restrictions? - What do we want to know?

2. Current situation

Which activities are undertaken and which not (yet)? An inventory was made of the current monitoring instruments and the needs to improve the monitoring program. Who are (not) involved? SAMUEL KARIMI; JACKLINE MUTHINA MUTINDA CHARLES M. GITONGA; STEVEN OKOTH OWUOR Kennedy Otieno Ochieng; SITONIK CLINTON YIARO Gabriel Wambugu; Dominic Wambua Cheruiyot Justus

Are mandates of organisations clear? Are tasks and job descriptions of staff clear? Do all involved agree on this? Yes. Some adaptations were made (exchange Kennedy with Tabitha). Are targets set for the governance issue? How is it monitored? The target is that monitoring activities are being carried out efficient and with the minimum that is necessary in order to reach policy goals of WRMA. Is there a clear policy on the subject? The WRMA Strategic Plan june2012 has set the following minimum performance/policy goal: pollution control and catchment conservation

Step 2: Analysis/preliminary assessment/score

Focus points as defined in ToR: - Sufficiency, Stability, Effectivity and Effectiveness - Bottlenecks - Consequences of lack of governance - Description of rules/law - Stakeholders involved - Explanation of shortcomings - Possible actions

3. Bottlenecks

What is needed for a full fletched operating monitoring system? River gauging – Technical requirements Additional River Gauging Stations (RGS): - 2GA06 should be moved to the Gilgil upper catchment because there are no proper rating curves and

the little Gilgil is a very small river. It is much more significant to assess what the differences in water quantity in the upper and lower Gilgil catchments are to indicate total abstractions.

- A station should be added to the Mariba River in order to determine how much water flows into the ground water aquifer from the South-Western part of the lake. This may also be used for water management in the Mariba catchment.

- A station should be added much more downstream of 2GB01 to get a more accurate insight in the total amount of water that is flowing in from the Malewa River.

River gauging equipment: - The flow meters need to be serviced which is a cheaper solution than buying new ones.

- The ADCP should be stored in WRMA Naivasha with the laptop. - A rubber boat with engine is required to always be able to perform measurements, even with high

flows. - Wading kits and field safety boots are required to replace broken ones.

Automated divers: - Automated divers are required for all stations, the brand of divers (Keller or Real Sense) and the exact

amount will be decided at a later stage based on the available budget. River gauging – Operational execution Gauge readers: - Readers will be connected with WRUAs and WRUAs will be responsible for collecting data and sending it

to Naivasha, this way WRUAs can also check on the readers. River gauging: - All river gauging stations should be gauged twice a year, once during low flows and once during high

flows - The exact timing of the measurements should be done based on expert judgement (i.e. what is needed

to improve rating curves) and resources available. - The software of the ADCP should be installed on the ThoughBook and the surface monitoring staff

should be instructed on how to operate the ADCP. Groundwater – Technical requirements Boreholes: - A number of additional boreholes are required to get insight in the aquifer system.

- A number of boreholes in a row are required to identify the flow to and from the lake. - Boreholes are required around the Malewa in the region where it enters the lake (Marula Estate)

Equipment: - Dippers are needed to monitor boreholes.

Groundwater – Operational execution - Once every month all boreholes should be measured using a dipper.

Weather Stations - Before adding more rain gauges a connection should be made with KMD to see what stations they are

currently monitoring in order to determine locations for new gauges. - Automated rain gauges will need to be read once every 3 months. - The three weather stations from ITC will remain active and should be monitored by WRMA staff.

Abstractions - Every abstraction/water permit should be monitored once a year if resources allow for this. This will

require 2 CMOs and 1 driver and should be done per WRUA. If resources do not allow it then 3 different WRUAs can be monitored each year resulting in a cycle of 4 years to cover all WRUAs.

- A report on total abstractions per WRUA should be communicated back to them so they gain more insight in their current situation.

Analysis General: - WRMA should be asking the questions to Result 2 (ITC) once they have obtained a sufficient level of

understanding. - Management goals and a policy plan should be developed for monitoring to connect with other

components of WRMA. Surface water: The modelling work should be divided among the staff (f.e. data analysis, hydrological modelling, ground water modelling) - Improve rating curves. - Improve rainfall interpolation. - Assess and interpolate evaporation data. - Get insight in all other data that is available. - Read previous work on hydrology (Gitonga Mmbui 1999, Muthuwattha 2004, Musota 2008, Meins

2013). - Study the Lake Water Balance model (van Oel 2012). - Study SWAT, WEAP and other models.

Groundwater: - Study Modflow and other potential groundwater models.

- Read previous work (Legese Reta 2011).

Is there any cooperation within the organisation and with other organizations on the issue? o Internal WRMA/WRUA o External with other organizations o External with other stakeholders

YES: see above linkages with WRUA and ITC.



of 39

Content layer Status of sufficiency Status of stability Status of efficiency Status of effectiveness

Barriers to effectiveness Consequences of lack of governance

Water quantity monitoring

Very sufficient, mechanism working properly

Very stable, mechanism not subject to changes

Very efficient, mechanism effect are higher than efforts

Very effective, mechanism good to meet the goals

No integration of different interests

No of persons affected:

Mechanism works, but not always

Mechanism stable, but changes occur

Mechanism efficient, but more effort is needed

Mechanism exists but not fair to meet all goals

No one enforces Effects:

Mechanism close to working

Mechanism subject to changes

Mechanism needs more effort than effect

Exist but not official Not many know it exists Duration: Imme-diate

Long-term

Irrev ersible

Mechanism doesn’t work

Mechanism not in place

Mechanism not liable

Mechanism does not exist

No yet ready to go Quantification of impact:

Short description of governance mechanism (rule/law)

Stakeholders User groups

Service providers Regulators/other government agencies Missing links

Explanation of shortcomings, if any (use separate sheet if required)

Suggested actions?

Location: Date: Persons consulted:

Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program (IWRAP), Lake Naivasha, Kenya of 39

Step 3: Developing joint working agenda

Focus points as defined in ToR: - Joint activities - Planning - Cooperation

4. Future needs

See 3.

5. Possible actions

SURFACE WATER Activity

Responsibility When

Update budget for surface water monitoring Dominic Wambua 2013-Q2 Send flow meters for revision Dominic Wambua 2013-Q2 Buy boat, wading kit and rubber boots Dominic Wambua 2013-Q2 Install software ADCP on laptop and demonstrate ITC 2013-Q2 Connect readers with WRUAs Jack Mwangi + Dominic Wambua 2013-2014 Buy and install divers ITC + Dominic Wambua 2013-Q3 Restore current river gauging stations Contractor + Dominic Wambua 2014-Q1* Build new river gauging stations Contractor + Dominic Wambua 2014-Q1*

GROUNDWATER Activity Responsibility When Develop budget for ground water monitoring Samual Karimi 2013-Q2 Buy dippers Samual Karimi 2013-Q2 Visit and assess potential boreholes (also outside lake area)

Samuel Karimi 2013-Q2

Obtain data from farmers Samuel Karimi 2013-Q2 Equip boreholes with hairline Samuel Karimi 2013-Q2 Drill additional boreholes if required ITC 2014

METEO Activity Responsibility When Contact KMD about locations weather stations ITC 2013-Q2 Buy and install new automated rain gauges ITC + Dominic Wambua 2013-Q3/4

ABSTRACTIONS

Activity Responsibility When Assess possibility of monitoring all abstractions Dominic Wambua 2013-Q3 Determine what role WRUAs can play in this Jack Mwangi 2013-Q3 Enforce monitoring of abstractions David Bosuben 2013-Q3

ANALYSIS

Activity Responsibility When Divide tasks on hydrological analyses Steve Okoth + Jack Mwangi 2013-Q2 Collect all data from ITC and Imarisha (water quality) ITC + Steve Okoth 2013-Q2 Become able to ask the right technical questions Steve Okoth 2013-Q2/3 Ensure hydrological specialists understand the current data and models

ITC + Steve Okoth 2013-Q2/3

Ensure groundwater specialists understand current groundwater models

Jackline Mutinda 2013-Q2/3

Communicate with Imarisha on monitoring strategies Beatrice


Sub result 1.1 – Water quality monitoring Step 1: exploring current situation



a) General - Who are we? Beatrice Mwangi (WRMA) Melissa van Hoorn (NZV) - Why are we here? To bring WRMA further into the task of water authority also on

chemical water quality. In contents of IWRAP - What do we want to achieve with this interview: overview of current situation, needs

for different monitoring activities (data collection, analyses, sampling and reporting)

b) Defining scope of the interview - What are we talking about/restrictions?efficient way of monitoring: minimum needs - What do we want to know?--> how to set up a monitoring program that forefills the

needs of WRMA authority

2. Current situation Which activities are undertaken and which not (yet)? Water quality and pollution control monitoring activities(field + lab analyses) situation Besides Naivasha basin also Nakuro basin and Elementaita basin are part of the area in which WRMA operates on monitoring the chemical water quality. activities for the Naivasha area: The following on site parameters: Turbidity; Temperatures, pH; Dissolved oxygen (DO); Electric Conductivity (EC); Total dissolved solids (TDS); Salinity (NaCl). Sample is collected.

In laboratory of Nakuru: Full Chemical Analysis (FCA), Bacteriological Analysis (BACT), Effluent Analysis More analyses are performed if the results indicate certain pollutions.

Measurements are performed quarterly (4 times a year). Though the schedule cannot always be maintained due to financial constraints, in that case national stations are prioritized over management unit stations and intra-management unit stations.

• National stations: Lake Naivasha (2GD06), is not representative for the entire lake but at this moment it is the only station that is there.-->indicator 1a: identify sample sites of the lake that give the proper information

• Management Units: Malewa (2GB01), Gilgil (2GA01), Karati (2GD02, seasonal).

• Intra-management units: Gilgil (2GA03, 2GA06), Turasha (2GC04, 2GC05, 2GC07, 2GC10, PES stations are not included yet), Malewa (2GB03, 2GB04, 2GB05, 2GB08, PES stations are not included yet), Karati (2GD07, seasonal).


There are about 18 surface water stations belonging to a regular monitoring network. Out of these 18 stations, 15 stations are the same as the water quantity stations. The groundwater stations were randomly picked around the lake. There used to be 40 stations; now reduced to 5 stations . This 35 are not operational anymore due to practical problems. WRMA wants to distribute groundwater sites per type of aquifer. → indicator 1b: distribute 5 (or more) ground water stations per aquifer (at least 1 per aquifer). Beatrice + Jackline. compliance from effluent discharges. It is no use to monitor the upper ground water for this matter. Indicator 1c: identify sample sites for regular surface water monitoring that give information on discharges and can be used in the permitting section. The monitoring frequency is 4 times/ year; in dry and wet seasons. Beatrice is doing the field visits herself as well as the analyses at site (Physical parameters) She also has the laboratory and is supposed to do other analyses except Organic micro pollutants instead of the laboratory in Nakuru that is currently performing the analyses. → indicator 2: comparison of costs: two options: out sourcing all to Kengen lab compared to new equipment for the lab of WRMA Naivasha. The samples are being send to the laboratory in Nakuru and the results are then send to Nairobi; WRMA headquarters office. On request, WRMA Naivasha can get it from Nairobi. WMRA's task is to obtain or maintain surface water quality. They are mandated. But the national organisation NEMA interrupts in tasks that are supposed to be carried out by WMRA. . → indicator? Julia: talk with NEMA about mandatation? A lot of monitoring activities are being stirred on crisis management. → indicator 1: Beatrice: establish monitoring plan and implement it There is no ecological expertise at WRMA. There is one person assigned for water quality. → David Harpers' initiative of building a water quality database. Julia was present. Chairmain is mr Mavuti. One of the members is Kitaka. indicator 3: Beatrice and Okoth: obtain and maintain contact with imarisha Kamun Mbobo (?) is the current monitoring officer at Imarisha to arrange data and expertise/information exchange. Who are (not) involved? Involved are and should: Beatrice Mwangi, Okoth, Jackline. Interaction with Dominic Wambua (intern), Imarsha (Nzula Kitaka, Kamun Mbobo? extern)

Mandates of organisation are clear but there is an issue with NEMA. Conflict on tasks of who shoud do what on water quality. Tasks and job description of staff is clear Are targets set for the governance issue? How is it monitored? The target is that monitoring activities are being carried out efficient and with the minimum that is necessary in order to reach policy goals of WRMA. Is there a clear policy on the subject? The WRMA Strategic Plan june2012 has set the following minimum performance/policy goal: pollution control and catchment conservation




3. Bottlenecks Is it working? If not, why? No. There is insufficient equipment or parts of equipment are absent. There is no arrangement set with an external laboratory to out source the analyses. What is missing? - A boat for array sampling of the lake (if necessary). - Phosporus reagens - nitrates glass wear - sollution for calibration of physical parameters - ten system sensors for BOD - EC meter - electrodes for other on site measure equipment What are the main problems considering the issue? At the moment it is impossible to measure water quality due to the bottlenecks mentioned above. Therefor WRMA cannot fulfil pollution control and catchment conservation Is there any cooperation within the organisation and with other organizations on the issue? (see above)

1. Internal WRMA/WRUA 2. External with other organizations 3. External with other stakeholders



of 39

Content layer Status of sufficiency Status of stability Status of efficiency Status of

effectiveness Barriers to effectiveness Consequences

of lack of governance

Water quality monitoring Very sufficient, mechanism working properly










Effects:




Exist but not official Duration: Imme-diate

Long-term

Irrev ersible





Quantification of impact:


Monitoring is the instrument to define, evaluate and redefine policy and management goals by means of the Monitoring cycle (to be added): policy+ management goals--> necessary information--> strategy → data collection--> data analyses--> reporting/ evaluation of policy and management.



Imarisha, citizens Water board, vitens, ….? other water dependent -or management organisations,


Up till now the direct linkage of the goals of WRMA and the monitoring strategy has not been made.

Suggested actions? Establishing an integrated monitoring plan containing the relation with WRMA's goals

Location: In the air above Europe

Date: June 2nd, 2013 Persons consulted: monitoring group members of WRMA


Step 3: Developing joint working agenda Focus points as defined in ToR:

- Joint activities - establishing/further complete the monitoring plan water quality (chemistry) - establishing the contact with the ecologists in lake Naivasha - Planning for solution to bottlenecks - Cooperation Kengion lab, imarisha - WRMA central CEO, mrs Kiruri

4. Future needs See 3.

5. Possible actions What are possible activities to undertaken?

Indicator number (details see tekst)

Bottleneck solution Time frame Details explained Financial consequences? (yes/no)

1a, 1b, 1c, 1d

No direct relation between monitoring activities and policy

establishing/further complete the monitoringplan water quality (chemistry)

september no

Implementation of the monitoring plan

Oktober/november yes

3 No ecological expertise in WRMA

establishing and maintaining the contact with the ecologists in lake Naivasha:

ongoing no

exchange data with: the ecologists and Imarisha's monitoring group/Lake Naivasha: make arrangementKengion laboratoyarrangement with Osirian company

June 2012 Kengen lab can do all analyses. Oserian has a boat and is also doing monitoring

?

Follow tailormade course and also training

Feb-may 2014 To know about the techniques, maybe simple ecological data collection

yes

Joint work agenda for monitoring water quality (1)


Indicator number (details see tekst)

Bottleneck solution Time frame Details explained Financial consequences? (yes/no)

3 No central database(neighter internal: permits+ montoring) or external (ecological data)

WRMA authority as the initiative taker to hold a stakeholders meeting. Kitaka (un.of Egerton) is willing to help. She is experienced. WRMA could for example offer to host all the Imarisha data as the authority

? july WRMA play a primary role in:creatingmanaging the database containing all data (also from Imarisha)

yes

2 No complete laboratorial equipment

omparison of costs: two options: out sourcing all to Kengen lab compared to new equipment for the lab of WRMA Naivash

As soon as possible. Max sept 2013

Yes (see 2)

Inefficient monitoring Communication and coordination: networking and collaboration between experts in the area.

On going This will reduce the use of time and resources (finances)

no

Differences in results of laboratial analyses

Qa/qc performances as process step in monitoring

On going Yes (see 2)

Joint work agenda for monitoring water quality (2)


Sub result 1.2 – Data collection and information sharing WRMA/WRUA

Step 1: exploring current situation



a. General - Who are we? - Why are we here? - What do we want to achieve with this interview

b. Defining scope of the interview - What are we talking about/restrictions? - What do we want to know?


Which activities are undertaken and which not (yet)?

• Data is collected, but not planned and collected on a structural basis in all WRUA areas • Analysis and reporting of data has not been done yet

Who are (not) involved?

• Volunteers who collect the (surface water) data and are connected to the WRUA or WRUA members • WRUA • Christine (now Rachel) to enter data into Mikebasin • Catchment management officers whor are collecting the data; Gabriel, Charles, Dominic

Are mandates of organisations clear? Are tasks and job descriptions of staff clear? Do all involved agree on this? See filled format on institutional development. There should be an MOU on data collection by WRUA members. Are targets set for the governance issue? How is it monitored? WRUAs are collecting data on a daily basis. WRMA collects data once a month. There is no target set for this issue. The data WRUAs collect is limited to surface water levels. Is there a clear policy on the subject? The MOU describes how someone is supposed to take a measurement. WRUA coordinator can give a training on how it’s done. What do you think is the role of WRMA?

• Collect data on a monthly basis. • Gain insight in the effects of the activities following from the SCMP.

Who do you depend on to do your job well and in what way?

• WRUAs need to pick skilled volunteers • Catchment management officers


What kind of tasks can you do independently and when do you require approval? How easy and swift can you receive it?

• In this task the WRUA coordinator depends on other departments within WRMA or on WRUAs to deliver data

Who can lead and take initiative? Does it happen? What do you do when you have new ideas or when you get stuck?

• WRMA could take the initiative on building a WRUA database. Do you feel you have the understanding / skills to do the work well and if not, what holds you back? Skills that are not enough developed are data analysis and interpretation on data. Do you feel you have the resources to do the work? The resources are not an immediate issue, the issue is the ICT application (Mikebasin). Do you feel you have the authority to do the work? Step 2: Analysis/preliminary assessment/score


3. Bottlenecks Is it working? If not, why? It is not always working, as samples are not collected monthly. The WRUA coordinators are not able to retrieve data from Mikebasin. What is missing?

• A WRUA database to harmonize data from other stakeholders with WRMA data. E.g. KFS are also gathering data.

• The way to retrieve, analyze and interpret the data to give follow up on the activities which are undertaken from the SCMP; monitoring of effects.

What are the main problems considering the issue?

• Lack of the ability to retrieve data. • A structural (planning) on collecting data

Is there any cooperation within the organisation and with other organizations on the issue?

• See under 2 What is the level of involvement of your organization on the issue? WRMA has the database on surface water levels and records the data which is collected by WRUAs. On what problems should be focused in terms of improvement of cooperation? The harmonisation of data from all stakeholders.



of 39

Relational layer Status of sufficiency

Status of stability Status of efficiency Status of effectiveness


Data collection and information sharing WRMA/WRUA






No of persons affected: -





No one enforces Effects: Things might be done double, inefficient.





Long-term

Irrev ersible



Mechanism not liable Mechanism does not exist

No yet ready to go Quantification of impact: Inefficiency and no possibility to monitor effects of measures and activities implemented.


WRUAs collect data on surface water levels on a shorter time span than WRMA; daily instead of monthly. Data on a shorter interval will add to get a good understanding of the water balance within the Lake Naivasha basin. As WRUAs are described to be ‘agents’ of WRMA, a thorough understanding of measurement methods, regular planning and collection of data are tasks fitting in their supposed role.



WRMA officers WRUA members Imarisha (?) Links between databases of different stakeholders to be sure things are not done doubled, efficiency


- WRUA database to harmonize data from other stakeholders with WRMA data e.g. KFS - way to retrieve data from Mikebasin - analysis and interpretation of data

Suggested actions? - sensitizing WRUAs on the importance of data collection - ST: 2 pilot WRUAs - MT: 4 WRUAs with SCMP - LT: 6 WRUAs yet to develop SCMP - establishing a WRUA database *Monitoring team - LT: establishing/planning for meetings with the WRUAs to disseminate information on the analyzed data - ST: make a shortlist of the information needs (general for all WRUAs & specific for pilot WRUAs) you and WRUAs have

Location: Naivasha Date: 28-30 May 2013

Persons consulted: Jack Mwangi, Michael Kimani, Tabitha Wangui




4. Future needs What are needs in overcoming the obstacles?

- WRUA database to harmonize data from other stakeholders with WRMA data e.g. KFS - way to retrieve data from Mikebasin - analysis and interpretation of data

What is the desired role of the organizaton / staff on this issue? WRUAs collect data on a regular basis. If relevant, what is the desired role of WRMA on this ? Training/instructing data collectors on measurement methods, giving feedback on activities WRUAs indertake in the scope of their SCMP by retrieving, analysing and reporting on data. If relevant, how can cooperation with WRMA be strenghtened? Discuss the information needs and how to get this clear, shared action by KEN and NL monitoring and WRUA teams. What is expected from the Waterboards, ITC, WWF in this? ITC/Monitoring team, WRUA coordinators and WRUAs should collectively think about the information needs and translate it to guidelines on how to collect which data. The waterboards can assist on:

- share ideas on which data is needed - share ideas on a guideline for WRUAs (MOU??) on what is expected to fulfill their role in data

collection - training skills on data analysis - …..

5. Possible actions What are possible activities to be undertaken? See under 2

Who should be in the lead and who should be involved? WRMA should be in the lead, shared action by monitoring and WRUA team, WRUAs should be involved. What conditions are required? Who can provide this? Proper data registration programme Skills on analyzing and retrieving data training by members of the monitoring team (?)


Sub result 1.2 – Cooperation WRMA/WRUA Step 1: exploring current situation



a. General - Who are we? - Why are we here? - What do we want to achieve with this interview

b. Defining scope of the interview - What are we talking about/restrictions? - What do we want to know?


Which activities are undertaken and which not (yet)?

- Sensitize community on WRUA development o meetings with stakeholders e.g. water users o information:

- on legal requirements Water Act (2012) - on catchment degradation

o use other projects which are undertaken o inform on what happens when nothing is done (status quo) o inform on WRUA model/to be member (election) o emphasize on natural development o meetings on specific subjects e.g. dep. of ministry, conflict

- Technical advise o financial management and book keeping o leadership skills o mobilization of resources (human/financial) o development of proposals e.g. bee keeping

‘livelihood projects are the success factors on short term notice. WRUA leads implementation’ Who are (not) involved?

- WRUAs are involved Are mandates of organisations clear? Are tasks and job descriptions of staff clear? Do all involved agree on this?

- Job descriptions of staff are clear, but there is nog job desciption of a ‘WRUA coordinator’ as such. Job decsriptions of ‘catchment officer’ are there.

- Tabitha and Jack are comfortable with their positions. - Mandates of organisations are clear and set in the following documents:

o Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) o Lake Naivasha catchment area protection order 2011 o Groundwater conservation o Taylormade capacity building modules o WDC manual o Catchment Management Strategy (CMS)


Are targets set for the governance issue? How is it monitored? Yes, within the IWRAP programme, the WRMA and WRUA cooperation model should be proven effective to be implemented elsewhere in Kenya. Is there a clear policy on the subject?

• Water Act 2012 • Eleborated description on tasks and role of WRUA and WRMA is lacking

What do you think is the role of WRMA?

- coordinating WRUA activities - coordinating provision of advise on WRUA activities - keep hold of the activities within different WRUA areas i.e. having the overview of impact considering

the whole Lake Naivahsa Basin area - stay in touch with relevant stakeholders other than WRUA members

Who do you depend on to do your job well and in what way?

- Experts within WRMA office on specific subjects - WRUA members in terms of their skills and capacity - Community projects of other stakeholders to cooperate on

What kind of tasks can you do independently and when do you require approval? How easy and swift can you receive it?

• Tasks of WRUA coordinators are not written down, which means they have a large degree of freedom within fulfilling their tasks.

Who can lead and take initiative? Does it happen? What do you do when you have new ideas or when you get stuck?

• WRMA coordinators towards WRUAs as they have knowlegdge on water management issues • WRUA chairmen these lack pro-activeness

Do you feel you have the understanding / skills to do the work well and if not, what holds you back?

• Involving relevant stakeholders is an issue for Tabitha, she wishes for improved skills on stakeholder participation

Do you feel you have the resources to do the work?

• Resources as in facilities and availability of WRMA staff are a bottleneck in certain cases Do you feel you have the authority to do the work?

• Yes




3. Bottlenecks Is it working? If not, why? Not yet as there is a general MOU on cooperation with WRUAs which is not in line with specific water management issues in a WRUA area. Not all WRUAs have capacity to fulfil their task as ‘WRMA agents’ What is missing?

- skills on improvement of coordinating role of WRMA - WRUA <-> WRUA knowledge exchange - involvement of stakeholders / stakeholder engagement - need to review constitution and SCMP of 2 pilot WRUAs

What are the main problems considering the issue? Is there any cooperation within the organisation and with other organizations on the issue?

- Internal WRMA/WRUA - External with other organizations - External with other stakeholders

What is the level of involvement of your organization on the issue? WRMA has the lead in buidling the WRMA/WRUA cooperation model. On what problems should be focused in terms of improvement of cooperation?

• Improved skills of WRUA members • Skills on how to get stakeholders involved • Clarification of role and tasks of WRUA and WRMA • Knowledge sharing within WRUAs



of 39

Relational layer Status of sufficiency Status of stability

Status of efficiency Status of effectiveness


Cooperation WRMA/WRUA











No one enforces Effects: As not everyone’s role and task is clear, water management issues are not dealt with in a comprehensive way within the whole LNB





Long-term

Irrev ersible





No yet ready to go Quantification of impact: Concerns the effectiveness of WRMA/WRUA cooperation in whole LNB


Water Act 2012 demands the existence of cooperation between WRMA and WRUAs, the latter considered as WRMA agents on water management tasks.

Stakeholders User groups Service providers Regulators/other government agencies Missing links

All relevant stakeholders in WRUA area Solid links between WRUAs Imarisha (?) Role of UmbrellaWRUA


- skills on improvement of coordinating role of WRMA - WRUA <-> WRUA knowledge exchange - involvement of stakeholders / stakeholder engagement - need to review constitution and SCMP of 2 pilot WRUAs

Suggested actions? - MT: clarify role of LNBUWRUA in joint meeting with WRMA and possible cooperation activities and legal position - ST: review of WRUA (2 pilot) constitution - ST: review of MOU between WRMA/WRUA, develop MOU between WRUA & gauge readers *monitoring team - MT: develop 2 frameworks for cooperation with 2 pilot WRUAs

o tasks/responsibility o monitoring progress criteria

- MT: discuss and finalize frameworks with WRUAs - MT: organize meetings between WRMA/WRUA and other stakeholders - start MT: regular meetings WRUAs on knowledge exchange - MT (depends on resources): field learning tours (organize) - ST: undertake sensitizing meetings for stakeholder involvement in WRUA

Location: Naivasha Date: 27th to 29th May

2013 Persons consulted: Jackson Mwangi, Tabitha Wangui, Michael Kimani




4. Future needs What are needs in overcoming the obstacles? See under 3 What is the desired role of the organizaton / staff on this issue? WRMA to be coordinating, WRUAs to be undertaking the needed activities. WRMA being advisors on WRUA activities, placing effects in a broader perspective considering impact. If relevant, what is the desired role of WRMA on this ? If relevant, how can cooperation with WRMA be strenghtened?

- Coordinate getting information on desired role from WRUA perspective and assist on an interview guide

- Assist on developing 2 frameworks for cooperation for pilot WRUAs - Facilitate discussion with WRUAs - Discuss reviewed WRUA constitution - Discuss reviewed MOU - Assist on developing MOU between WRMA and gauge readers (data collection) - Facilitate joint meeting LNBUWRUA/WRMA and possible cooperation activities

What is expected from the Waterboards, ITC, WWF in this? Waterboards assist on all above mentioned tasks

5. Possible actions

What are possible activities to undertaken? See under 2

Who should be in the lead and who should be involved? See under 2 What conditions are required? Who can provide this?



of 39

Sub result 1.3 – Billing system Institutional layer Status of sufficiency Status of stability Status of efficiency Status of

effectiveness Barriers to effectiveness Consequences of lack of governance

Billing system Very sufficient,

mechanism working properly















Long-term

Irrev ersible







System of permit- and water use fees is integrated in permit classification in WRMA rules. This is a national fee classification.

Stakeholders User groups abstractors, WRUA’s, collective enterprise organisations, etc

Service providers NAIVAWASS

Regulators/other government agencies NEMA

Missing links: mainly between the permit department and billing department


Lack of capacity for meter readings, issuing of invoices, checking on permits, lack of digitalised financial administration system, lack of ability to legally prove that someone is not paying his fees, lack of power to effectively enforce nonpayers.

Suggested actions? Introduce a digital financial administration and accountancy system, to be linked to the permit database. Look for more effective ways verification of meter readings, for instance working with samples.

Location: WRMA Naivasha

Date: 28 may 2013 Persons consulted: Bernard Wagumba, John Gakera, Ruth Karambu, Isabel Mutavula


Sub result 1.4 – Permit system Step 1: exploring current situation



- Who are we?

- Interview May 28, 2013 Nairobi Governance - David Busuben, manager, is new to the organization - Moses Macharia, water rights, since 2006, man with many contacts and knowledge about the process - Kahara Hungi water right, since 2012 - Christine Kagombe water rights assistant, has been working with the organization since 2005, most experienced - Eunice Onkaba, water rights assistant, since 2011 - Michael Kimani database assistant, not employed by WRMA is working on Permits system for two years Eddi Ottens coordinator vergunningen en handhaving

- Melissa van Hoorn - Michiel Anten

- Why are we here?

We are here to advise on the process of licensing of WMRA - What do we want to achieve with this interview

We want to ensure that we understand the system of licensing of WMRA Defining scope of the interview

- What are we talking about/restrictions? We are talking about the entire process of licensing. From the first contact on the application for the grant of the license definitely shut. We will search for internal and external parties involved in this process. What do we want to know? Everything, but experience shows that during an initial consultation the major steps are insightful, often detailed actions are not in the picture and only in the course of the interview or later during field visits and interviews known.


Which activities are undertaken and which not (yet)? Rules and legislation Rural - Water Act This Act also contains an overview of all available forms. WMRA rules translate from the national water act


See document Water Resources Management Authority Determine classification permit or parenting (A, B, C or D) on the basis of the document Water resources allocation Thresholds (Determine the m3 and possible risks) There is an overview of the number of licenses in the sub region, but it is not clear how many permits are in the area Naivasha. It also appears that all permits are in the Database system. Not clear how many A, B, C and D, thereby missing income. "Policy" Rural Vision 2030 WRMA strategy plan for all WRMA's (June 2012) Regional CMS Rift Valley Sub region WAP CCMP Licensing - Introductory talk about the application - On the basis of the form "Application for Water permit requirements" knows the applicant, which information should be delivered and what taxes he has to pa. Depending on the activity, there is an application that, together with the other information required to be submitted, including a receipt from the bank. WRMA advises on the application. The form must signed by the applicant and by WRMA after approval. There are 5 different application possibilities effluent discharge surface water groundwater dams drainage of swamps - Data are completed in the license data system and equipped with a number. Through the licensing system, the request sent to the officer WRMA region in Nakuru. This requires a technical committee (there are 5 of them) (eg Hydrologist, groundwater officer, officer groundwater water rights, officer database expert) that will assess the apllications. The acceptance or rejection to the application. This takes 60 days. - The regional officer asks RWUA for advice. Steak Holders are informed by a publication at the office of WRMA, but not at the office of the RWUA. Comment period. This is for the stakeholder involvements (owners of boreholes, neighbours etc.) Classification C and D are being advertised in the local newspapers. 30 days of objection time. If the license can be granted, the regional officer uses the license conditions WRMA Form 010. Then he sends it digitally to WRMA and WRMA sends it to the applicant. The applicant has one year to comply with the conditions. This is controlled by governance. If the applicant should not pay for the tax for four years, a new application must be submitted.


If everything is to be paid for the license then it is sent. This authorization is valid for five years. The RWUA get a copy of the final permit, this check will be desirable. . Then it should be for the use of water, this can be paid monthly or quarterly. This should keep the licensee daily. Reports should be sent to WRMA who checks that the quantities of what is given is also permitted. At this moment there is little to no checks on the withdrawals. The regional manager is a secretary of the Cachs (there are15 Cachs'). For class C and D: Cach being is called by the regional manager. cach's catchment area advisory. Ours is under 'Rift Valley cach. The Cack have 16 members, here is the top management. The term is decided whether a license can be granted is up to 6 months. The cack come four times a year together. At D permits decided by Ministry. This period also lasts 6 months. Opinions of the Ministry Cack and go back to the region officer and then back to WRMA. Step 2: Analysis/preliminary assessment/score


3. Bottlenecks Is it working? If not, why? No. There are many steps in this process where employees governance has no direct influence. Procedures are therefore long and can last for years. The important motive for issuing licenses is money, for both the application and the license shall be paid, then the amount of water that is used. What is missing?

- An independent role of governance - More monitoring and enforcement What are the main problems considering the issue? Problemen aangegeven door de medewerkers van Governace: Problems identified by the staff of Governance: • Because the area have very large to large travel distances for the employees. They also often have to go


somewhere after they drove still walk long distances by car. This also raises an issue of SAFETY FIRST with it considering the wildlife. • Employees do not always get access to locations they want to visit. It may be that they have to wait until they have access to a ground. More than 3 or 4 hours In addition to the fact that one lot of time is lost, this time can be used to adjust. Matters by the owner The Water Act is arranged so that they can access. The employees also have access to an identity. There is a potential to access namely to enable the police in this it's gonna happen but not often. • The employees are too low to grant to leave the field. In • Employees perform inspections or want more training on supervision and enforcement • Transportation, there is only one car available and there are two bikes available to all employees of WMRA. The car is also widely used by the employees of Monitoring. For keeping inspections and controls this is too little, this will hardly control instead. • Perhaps there of the project an extra car available but will be too. Things like arranged lunch • Too few staff to licenses. The current staff are busy with their daily business office will remain too little time left to handle cases sufficient. • The employees want training on the use of computers. • In Governance is one computer available for licensing database system. The staff would like to own a computer to prepare to make to be able to see the data. Letters on the system reports • Michael Kimani may or training of staff care, but has no time to carry this out. • There is only one computer for five employees. • For the determination of an A, B, C or D authorization data are necessary not only to the large rivers but also from the small currents. Also there are no historical data available. • In dry periods, there are problems with the distribution of water • All data of permits are not in the system. • There are many more abstractions and discharges which are not known to WRMA. • Many people do not know what the rules are WRMA, partly arid the fact that a new organization (2005). The media could be. Used here for • There is little or no supervision and enforcement • Several ministries are about the same job, there are clear definitions of roles and responsibilities, there is an overlap in functions. • The team will have a clear description of tasks should be and what skills employees will have to comply. A difference in water rights and water rights employee assistant there in practice. The main challenges are:

1. 2500 permits in het hole subregion are not yet put in the permit system, unknown for catchment en per category

2. Unknown number of illegal abstractors 3. Lack of knowledge by the public about role, rules, regulations, deligations from WRMA. 4. Lack of flow data (historical and current) for streams and small rivers(for decision making) 5. Insufficient logistical support (financial, transport, ...) and computers 6. Few staff for large area, difficult terrain conditions and danger from wildlife, restricted access to

private farms 7. Lack off skills (computer skills, investigation prostection skills)

Is there any cooperation within the organisation and with other organizations on the issue?

o Internal WRMA/WRUA o External with other organizations o External with other stakeholders

See current development situation and the results of the consultation of the afternoon on May 29, 2013.



of 39

Institutional layer Status of sufficiency Status of stability Status of efficiency Status of effectiveness


Permit system Very sufficient, mechanism working properly















Long-term

Irrev ersible










Suggested actions?

Location: Date: Persons consulted:




4. Future needs See 3.

5. Possible actions

1. 2500 permits not yet enterd is the permit system due to legal requierments (meters)

Weak enforcements on compliance to permit precesses (for clients en contracters)

Linking with WRUA’s Lana WRUA 2013 Mkungi Kitiri WRUA 2013 Upper Melewa WRUA 2014

Linking with monitoring - flow measurements of abstracters with their monitoring equipment + also meter reading - WQ measurements of abstracters for Domestie use and affluent dicharge - advice on the hydrological situation related to permitting or water allocation

2. Work on shortening the permit process on the longer term including digitalizing required doc What are possible activities to undertake? Linking proces WRUA’s with permitting David Bosuben is reponsible

Purpose who when Inform WRUA on permit issues enforcements

WRO/WRUA/Mon 3rd quarter 2013

List down permits LANA WRUA/M.K. in WRMA office

WRA 3 rd quarter 2013

Update of above list in the field WRO/WRUA/Mon 4rd quarter 2013 Train WRUA’s on inspection/patrol on the job

WRO/WRUA 4 rd quarter 2013

Work on shortening the permit process on the longer term including digitalizing required doc

WRMA 2014


Prospect to mission 2 • Implementation of the authorization database (system) improvements / WRMA & WRUA • Review existing system of permits and the criteria for granting • Proposal of improving the operation of the system of licenses (permits routines) • Training of WRMA / WRUA staff • Implementation of defined improvements (database and field) In addition to the above actions in 2013 related primarily to update the license file and instructing the WRUA about the rules for permits and conducting inspections in the two pilot WRUA's will work on in 2014: • shortening the process of licensing. The project IWRAP can be used to act independently. A license WRMA Naivasha alter the existing steps in the process of permits to shorten launch a pilot project launched by the licensing authorities to follow advice to their colleagues. This is expected to bring many benefits, the cooperation between the various departments will be strengthened, the processing time is shortened, the customer will see that they work efficiently and WRMA work is also considerably more attractive. Before the permit • the exchange of information between departments authorizations, billing and monitoring. Should be the conformity of a license information is useful for monitoring and how this is also available in digital form. Sort • The optimization of inspection and control, the legal means available, supervision and enforcement performs who and what is the role of the police. Mission two will be to shorten the process of licensing and giving. Voice monitoring and enforcement are the theme, the regional officer in Nakuru and the two pilot WRUA and perhaps with the police. Beside the above actions in 2013 met regarding mainly pronoun updating the license file en pronoun instructing the WRUA the Rules permits FOR en pronoun conducting inspections in the WRUA Two pilot programs will need to be worked in 2014: • Shortening the process of licensing. The project IWRAP could be used to shorten the process. There would be a pilot can be started in the area of WRMA Naivasha. This may create the following benefits: - More integrality within the departments of WRMA; - Colleagues of monitoring can advise on permit applications; - The processing time will be shortened; - The customer will see that is working efficiently WRMA; - The work of governance offers • The exchange of information between departments authorizations, billing and monitoring. Should be whether the information submitted in a permit application is useful for monitoring and how this is also available in digital form. Sort out • Optimizing inspection and control, what legal resources are available, who performs supervision and enforcement who and what is the role of the police. Mission two will have to be to shorten the licensing process and display. Monitoring and enforcement form in the sign Will be the regional officer in Nakuru and the two pilot WRUA's voice and perhaps with the police.

Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program …watergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/F047.01-13...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Water Resources Action Plan program …watergovernance.s3.amazonaws.com/files/F047.01-13...