1

9Jan04

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief for

Lake Baringo

Prof. Eric Odada, Dr. Japheth Onyando and Dr. Peninah Aloo Obudho 1 Introduction Lake Baringo is named after the local word ‘Mparingo’, meaning lake. The lake is located in the Eastern Rift Valley in Kenya and is one of the 7 inland drainage lakes within the Rift Valley drainage basin. The lake has a surface area of about 108 km² and it drains a total area of 6820 km². The lake is located in the administrative district of Baringo at an altitude of 1000m.a.s while its basin extends to the neighbouring districts of Koibatek, Laikipia and Nakuru. Several seasonal rivers drain into the lake including: Ol Arabel, Makutan, Tangulbei, Endao and Chemeron while Perkerra and Molo are perennial though with significantly reduced discharges during dry seasons. Lake Baringo experiences very high annual evaporation rates of 1650-2300 mm against an annual rainfall of 450-900 mm. Thus, its survival depends on the inflows from rivers originating from the humid hillslopes of the basin where the annual rainfall varies between 1100 mm and 2700 mm. As a fresh water body, Lake Baringo is important to the communities in its basin as a source of water for domestic use and watering livestock consumption. Other important uses are income generation through tourism, biodiversity conservation and fishing. The fish species composition of the lake include: Oreochromis niloticus, Protopterus aethiopicus, Clarias gariepinus, Barbus intermedius and Labeo cylindricus. Three indigenous human communities live in the basin namely the Ilchamus, Pokots and Tugens. They earn their living through pastoralism and agro-pastoralism. As pastoralists, they keep large numbers of cattle which overgraze the catchment vegetation leading to enhanced soil erosion, sedimentation in streams and the lake, and frequent flash floods. Other activities causing further degradation are deforestation and conventional agricultural practices. These together with other forms of degradation including loss of biodiversity and decline in fisheries have drawn the attention of the Government, non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) and other stakeholders to carry out interventions with the aim of minimizing further degradation. Past interventions for resource management are listed in Text Box 1. 1 The approaches adopted by the stakeholders for sustainable management of the basin include; 2 empowering local communities for natural resource management, diversification of 3 agriculture, agro-forestry systems and micro-enterprises. In addition to these, moratoria in 4

Text Box 1. Previous interventions for resource management in Lake Baringo drainage basin.

1. Baringo Semi-Arid Project (BSAP) for land rehabilitation: 1980- 1989 2. African Land Development (ALDEV) for grazing schemes and provision of water 1940’s 3. Kenya livestock development programme (KLDP) for group ranches: 1960-1970 4. FAO project for Fuel and fodder: 1982-1987

2

fishing, and soil and water conservation practices are also emplaced in the lake and its basin. 1 These practices tend to reduce degradation either by reducing pressure on certain resources, 2 especially land, through provision of alternative sources of income or by effecting direct 3 conservation measures. The institutions involved in carrying out these management activities 4 are listed in Text Box 2. 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In the past, the management of the lake and its basin carried out by the above institutions was 19 mainly sectoral. The need for integrated management was realised from lessons learned from 20 past projects. Thus the involvement of UNEP and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) 21 through the Lake Baringo Community Based (LBCB) Land and Water Management Project 22 has facilitated integrated management of the lake and its basin. In this programme, capacity 23 building and awareness creation of local communities were undertaken together with 24 coordination and facilitation of the stakeholders to ensure sound management of Lake Baringo 25 and its basin. 26 27 28

Text Box 2 Institutions involved in management of Lake Baringo 1. Public institutions

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Baringo County Council, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Ministry of Water Resources and Development (MoWR&D), Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR), Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (MoLF), Kenya Agricultural Research institute (KARI)

2. Private Organisations Block Hotels

3. NGOs World Vision, Rehabilitation of Arid Environment (RAE) Trust

4. CBOs Honey care, Women Groups

4

1 Figure 1. Location of Lake Baringo and its Drainage basin, administrative districts of 2

the basin and the neighbouring districts 3 4 2 Background 5 6 Lake Baringo is a fresh water lake and is therefore important to the population of its drainage 7 basin as a source of water for domestic use and for watering livestock. It is also a source of 8 food to the community, especially fish Currently, the species composition of the lake is as 9 follows: Oreochromis niloticus (80.4%), Protopterus aethiopicus (7.95%), Clarias gariepinus 10 (9.8%), Barbus intermedius(96%) and Labeo cylindricus. Barbus rarely appear in the 11 fishermen’s catches while Labeo has almost disappeared from the lake since the damming of 12 the inflowing rivers, which interfered with its breeding habits (Aloo, 2002). The lake is also a 13 source of vegetation products such Aeshynomena elephroxylon, which is used for boat 14 construction, and water lily for making domestic bread ‘ugali’. About 500 families live in 15 Kampi ya Samaki, a centre which has grown mainly due to fishing activities in the lake. Half 16 of the centres population are fishermen, 300 are fish handlers while others earn their living 17 through activities such as boat construction. Due to over-dependence on fishing, there has 18 been a remarkable fluctuation in fish production (Fig. 2. The value for year 2002 was based 19 on experimental fishing while that for 2001, the year of establishment of a moratorium in 20 fishing, was derived through interpolation. 21 22

BARINGO

NAKURU

KOIBATEK

LAIKIPIA

#

#

#

# Nakuru

Eldama Ravine

Marigat

Kampi ya Samaki

R. M

o lo

R. P

e rke

rr a

R. Ol Arabel

R. Makutan

R. Tang

ulbei

R. EndaoR. Chemeron

L. Baringo

NYANDARUA

KEIYO

KERICHO

UASIN GISHU

NAROK

N

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

Nairobi

EmbuNyeriNakuruKisumu

Kakamega

Mombasa

Garissa

MARSABIT

L. Turkana

L. Victoria

L. Magadi

L. Naivasha

L. Baringo & its Drainage Basin

L. Bogoria

5

0

50

100150

200

250

300

350400

450

500

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Year

Fish

cat

ch (m

etric

tonn

es)

1 Figure 2. Trend of fish production in lake Baringo. (Oreochromis, Clarias, Barbus, 2

Protopterus and Labeo) 3 4 Fish is a source of food and the sale of fish to nearby urban centres also generates income for 5 the local people. Through fishing, the lake provides employment to the fisher folk and to the 6 young tour operators who own boats. These boats are used by tourists for navigation in the 7 lake. The lake is also an important tourist attraction due to its rich biodiversity. These include 8 hippos, birds and crocodiles among others. It’s shoreline is also used as a grazing ground for 9 livestock especially during dry seasons when the catchment is dry and grass is scarce. The 10 local people also use the lake for navigation purposes to link the eastern and the western parts 11 of Baringo District. 12 13 Regarding the depth of the lake, records have shown that between 1969 to 1972, the average 14 depth was 8 m. In early 2003 before the onset of the long rains, the average depth was 1.7 m 15 while the current average depth is 2.5 m with the deepest end being 3.5 m. This increase in 16 depth was due to the prolonged long rains during the year 2003 especially in the humid 17 upper catchments. The surface area of the lake has shown a decreasing trend. Studies by 18 Onyando (2002) revealed that in 1976 the area of the lake was 219 km², in 1986 it was 136 19 km², in 1995 the areas was 114 km² while in 2001 it was 108 km². Based on these trends, the 20 author extrapolated the surface area of the lake, which indicated that by the year 2025, the 21 surface area will reduce by 50% if the current degradation trend continues (Fig. 3). 22 23 24

6

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

1970 1990 2010 2030 2050

Time (years)

Surfa

ce a

rea

(km

²)

observedpredicted

1 Figure 3. Predicted and observed surface area of Lake Baringo based on the current 2

trend of degradation. 3 4 The boundary of the basin lies on the Tugen hills to the west, Eldama Ravine ranges to the 5 south and Laikipia plateau to the East. These hills rise as high as 2800 m above mean sea 6 level (a.m.s.l.) while the lake is at an altitude of about 1000 m a.m.s.l. The geology of the area 7 is mainly undifferentiated volcanic rocks while the soils are of clay type. The landscape is 8 characterised by steep slopes from Tugen hills and Eldama Ravine highlands to River 9 Perkerra grading in to gentle slopes and finally to the flood plains of Marigat and Lake 10 Baringo. The basin is drained by several rivers such as the perennial Perkerra and Molo 11 Rivers, and the seasonal Endao, Ol Arabel, Makutan and Tangulbei Rivers. 12 13 Lake Baringo is located in a semi-arid zone while its catchment covers a range of climatic 14 zones from semi-arid through semi-humid and sub-humid to a small portion in the humid 15 zone. The mean annual rainfall in these zones are as follows: 450 mm to 900 mm (semi-arid), 16 800 mm to 1400 mm (semi-humid), 1000 mm to 1600 mm (sub-humid) and 1100 to 2700 mm 17 (humid). The mean annual potential evaporation for these areas are: 1650 mm to 2300 mm 18 (semi-arid), 1450 mm to 2200 mm (semi-humid), 1300 mm to 2100 mm (sub-humid), and 19 1200 mm to 2000 mm (humid). The risks of crop failure are 25% to 75% in the semi-arid 20 zone, 5 to 10% in the semi-humid zone , 1 to 5% in the sub-humid zone and less than 1% in 21 the humid zone. Similarly the potential for plant growth in these zones can be classified as, 22 medium to low, high to medium, high and very high respectively. These figures indicate that 23 the semi-arid zone where Lake Baringo is located is a fragile environment with low natural 24 life sustaining opportunities hence requiring urgent conservation attention. 25 26 The rainfall characteristic of the basin is bi-modal, intense and erratic. The long rains occur in 27 the month of April to August while short rains fall from October to November. Daily rainfall 28 monitoring in the basin dates back to 1903. Since then a total of 101 stations have been 29 installed in the catchment by various organisations including the Kenya Meteorological 30 Department, research organisations and individuals. However, currently only 66 are 31 operational. This gives a density of 97 km²/gauge which is less than the WMO 32 recommendation of 17 km²/gauge. Streamflow monitoring started as early as 1926 and since 33 then a total of 26 river gauging stations have been installed at different times in various 34 locations in the rivers flowing into Lake Baringo. Currently, most of the above stations are not 35 operational due to poor maintenance of gauges. Therefore, the data available has a lot of gaps, 36 which is a drawback in managing water resources in the basin. 37

7

1 Lake Baringo is the lifeline of the communities living in its basin especially within the 2 vicinity of the lake. These communities include the Pokots to the North, Tugens to the east 3 and Ilchamus to the south and eastern sides. The latter form about 50% of the riparian 4 population who are mainly pastoralists. The Ilchamus and Pokots mainly practice agro-5 pastoralism with emphasis on pastoralism while Tugens are more of agriculturalists. 6 Politically the communities are marginalized especially the Ilchamus and the Pokots. 7 Therefore, their poverty level is high and they have limited access to tap water, health 8 facilities and other services. Over-grazing is a major problem in this area since the pastoralists 9 are not willing to reduce the number of their herds to conform with the available biomass. 10 Their livestock comprises of cattle, sheep and goats. Dry seasons are critical periods since 11 grass is rare at that time and most cattle graze along the lakeshore thereby interfering with the 12 ecosystem of the lake. The land tenure system is group ranch and grazing is communal. This 13 accelerates soil erosion as cattle graze together and are driven together from place to place in 14 search of pasture. Another area of conflict is cattle rustling which creates friction between 15 communities in the basin hence limiting collective responsibility in management of the lake 16 and its basin. 17 18 The streams flowing into Lake Baringo originate from humid and sub-humid hillslopes where 19 annual rainfall is more than 1000 mm. These hillslopes are the major recharge areas but they 20 belong to administrative districts outside that of Lake Baringo. This creates restrictions in 21 river basin management since the administration in every district is unique. Some low level of 22 interaction exists between the districts, and it needs to be enhanced to facilitate management 23 of natural resources. The hillslopes which are the water recharge areas have in the recent past 24 undergone deforestation through clearance to create more land for agriculture and through 25 harvesting of forest products for timber, woodfuel and charcoal. The forested areas of the 26 catchment have since 1976 decreased by about 50%. Consequently, ground water recharge 27 have decreased and streams dry up more often during dry seasons while during rainy seasons 28 they cause flash floods. As a result of these floods, loss of property and displacement of 29 people have been prevalent in the lower reaches of the basin. 30 31 The benefits accruing from the lake include; water for domestic and livestock use, fish, 32 tourism and biodiversity. Irrigated agriculture is also another major benefit derived from the 33 water resources of lake Baringo basin. This is mainly through water abstraction from rivers 34 Perkerra, Endao and Chemeron. The crops grown in the irrigation schemes are maize, water 35 melons, tomatoes, onions, pawpaws and oranges among others. 36 37 Lake Baringo basin is endowed with rich terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. These include 38 natural vegetation, wildlife, birds and fisheries. For example, There are about 400-500 39 different bird species (Gichuki, 2000), most of which reside in areas with intact woodland 40 and grassland and rehabilitated lands. Such areas also have a variety of plant species. Reports 41 have also indicated that there are about 40-60 hippopotami in the lake while crocodiles 42 numbering about 20 also occur in the lake. In addition to the lake, the biodiversity offers a 43 resource base for tourism attraction. Through tourism, the area has been opened to other 44 regions both nationally and internationally. This has promoted business enterprises and the 45 interchange of knowledge and technologies through interactions between the locals and 46 foreigners. By attracting foreigners, the lake and its basin has attracted markets for the local 47 agricultural and livestock products among others. 48 49 50 51

8

3 Biophysical Environment 1 2 3.1 Water Quality Problems 3 4 The quality of water in lake Baringo has deteriorated over time. The main problem of concern 5 is turbidity, which has been on the increase due to high rates of sedimentation resulting from 6 increased soil erosion in the catchment. Turbidity values recorded in recent analysis lie 7 between 350 NTU and 900 NTU which are rather high. Related to this is transparency which 8 is less than 0.1 m as measured by Secchi disc. Details of physico-chemical analysis of the lake 9 has been carried out in the past with most recent and reliable analysis done between June 2001 10 and May 2002 (Ballot et al. 2003). The parameters analysed and the results are shown in 11 Table 1. 12 13 Table 1: The Physico-chemical conditions of lake Baringo in the period between 14

June 2001 and May 2002. 15 16

Parameters June 2001 November 2001

January 2002

May 2002

Water temperaturew (°C) 26.3 26.1 23.7 24.9 Secchi depth (m) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 pH 9.0 8.8 9.1 9.1 Conductivity (mScm-1) 1.66 1.39 1.51 1.67 Salinity(‰) 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 TN(mgL-1) 8.0 1.8 1.0 0.5 TP(mgL-1) 1.3 1.0 0.6 1.0

Ballot et al. (2003) 17 18 The physical conditions of Lake Baringo are characterised by high temperature and low 19 transparency (Table 1). The pH of the lake is relatively high and this is because of the 20 alkaline hot spring discharged from Kokwa island located in the lake. The conductivity and 21 salinity indicate the subsalinity of the lake (Hammer, 1986) while the high TN and TP values 22 reflect the hypertrophic condition of the lake. 23 25 3.2 Biomass production 26 The turbid lakewater of Lake Baringo is characterised by a greenish colour due to the 27 presence of the dominant cynabacterium Microcystis aeruginosa. This species dominates the 28 phytoplankton community of Lake Baringo. Primary production in the open water is very low 29 due to the turbid nature of the lake. Therefore, phytoplankton population is limited to only 30 the positively buoyant species including Microcytis aeruginosa, Melosira granulata and 31 Anabaena carcinalis. The high turbidity of the lake limits light penetration resulting in low 32 biomass production. Recent analysis revealed the concentration of phytoplankton biomass as 33 ranging between 1.5 and 8.2 mgL-1 (Ballot et al. 2003). Details of the main phytoplankton 34 groups in Lake Baringo are shown in Table 2. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

9

Table 2: Mean biomass production of the main phytoplankton groups in Lake 1 Baringo in the period between June 2001 and May 2002 2

Phytoplankton groups (mgL-1)

June 2001 November 2001

January 2002

March 2002 May 2002

Cynopyceae 5.45 1.64 0.67 0.22 2.53 Bacillariophyceae 0.26 0.19 0.04 0.46 0.03 Chlorophyceae 1.84 0.52 0.34 0.8 0.17 Euglenophyceae 0.62 0.08 0.56 0.03 0.0 Cryptophyceae 0.0 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 Total biomass 8.17 2.47 1.68 1.54 2.77

Ballot et al. (2003) 3 4 The dominance of Microcystis aeruginosa in Lake Baringo as compared to the other 5 phytoplanktons is because it is able to develop gas vacuoles in the cells and can regulate 6 buoyancy. This ability to control vertical location enables it to locate itself where it can 7 receive relatively more light in turbid water like Lake Baringo. Other factors contributing to 8 Microcystis dominance are temperature and nutrient loading. The growth rates of bloom 9 forming cynobacteria like Microcystis are optimal at 25°c, which falls within the temperature 10 range of lake Baringo (23.7 to 26.3). The TP and TN values of 1.0 mgL-1 and 2.8 mgL-1 11 respectively indicate a high nutrient loading in the lake. However, the production of 12 cynobacteria of between 0.2 mgL-1 and 5.5 mgL-1 is not commensurate with the levels of TP 13 and TN of the lake. Hartebeesport Reservoir in South Africa with similar TP and TN has 14 production level of Microcystis species of between 20 mgL-1 and 50 mgL-1 (Zohar and 15 Robarts, 1990). This production is about 10 times that of Lake Baringo hence indicating the 16 extent to which turbidity can impair lake production. 17 18 3.3 Land use changes 19 20 Although industrial and urban developments in the basin have grown gradually, agricultural 21 developments have rapidly increased particularly in the upper reaches, where climate is 22 conducive for such activities. The natural forest in this region has also been exploited for 23 timber, woodfuel and settlement. The forgone benefits as a result of deforestation include the 24 functioning of forest as a moisture reservoir: they store 100 times more water than grasslands, 25 they capture air moisture and therefore increase incidence of rain, regulate river flow and 26 prevent flooding, reduce sediment load in river water and regulate rainfall patterns. In 27 addition to these, forests are a hotspot for biodiversity and attract tourism. Lake Baringo has 28 lost more than 50% of its natural forest cover, namely from 829 km² in 1976 to 417 km² in the 29 year 2001. Thus the same proportion of the benefits from forests have also been lost. 30 31 The undergrowths in natural forest cover and the humus rich soil encourage retention and 32 recharge of ground water. This ensures a regulated streamflow all the year round compared to 33 deforested catchments with short duration of high magnitude flows during rainy seasons and 34 reduced low flows during dry seasons. This leads to faster drying of rivers as observed in 35 Lake Baringo drainage basin. It is worth noting that, depending on the tree species, some like 36 eucalyptus consume more water and have little undergrowth thereby leading to faster 37 depletion of subsurface water reserves. Such trees when cut will cause low flows to increase. 38 Other species like luceana leucocephala uses less water, encourage undergrowth and water 39 retention of the soil and ground water recharge in a similar way to natural forests. Such trees 40 and forests when cut will cause the low flows to decrease. 41 42

10

Effects of climate change in the region are evidence from the decreasing snow coverage on 1 top of mountains Kenya and Kilimanjaro. This is due to global warming which increases the 2 temperatures of the air. Deforestation results in accumulation of green house such as carbon 3 dioxide in the atmosphere. These gases cause global warming, hence high atmospheric 4 temperatures. Increase in air temperature leads to increase in evaporation in the lake resulting 5 in reduction of lake level. The effect of climate change on Lake Baringo has not yet been 6 well understood due to lack of reliable data. 7 8 3.4 Sedimentation 9 10 Sedimentation is considered to be the main threat to the lake. It reduces both the depth and 11 surface area of the lake in addition to destroying the habitats of aquatic animals. Parts of the 12 catchment which produce most sediments are the steep slopes with erodable soils. Such areas 13 include the footslopes of Tugen hills around Cheberen and Tenges. The rates of soil erosion in 14 these areas are as high as 205.79 tonnes/ha-yr. In other areas soil erosion is quite low, namely 15 2.21 tonnes/ha-yr. The eroded soils are deposited on the flat lower reaches of the drainage 16 basin and in the lake. Estimated sediment yield for Lake Baringo basin extrapolated from 17 erosion studies of Perkerra catchment is 10.38 million tonnes/year (Onyando, 2003). Other 18 estimates three decades ago show sediment yields of 13.5 million tonnes/yr or 5 million cubic 19 tonnes/year (Pencol Engineering Consultants, 1981). 20 21 3.5 Abstractions and impacts on biodiversity 22 23 In addition to siltation, reduced recharge and damming of rivers also pose a threat to the lake. 24 The dams are meant to accumulate water for irrigation, and rural and urban water supply. For 25 example, Kirndich dam covering an area of 2 km² on Endao river supplies water to Kabarnet 26 town. Other dams include Chemeron (area 1 km²) which is used for irrigation. Diversions for 27 irrigation have also been made in rivers Perkerra, Molo and Ol Arabel. These abstractions 28 have also contributed to reduced streamflows. Both the rivers and the lake have been used 29 throughout their history to water animals at various points. Therefore reduction of water levels 30 have significant effects on the livelihoods of the communities. 31 32 The reduced inflows have resulted into low depth of the lake of about 1.7 m early in the year 33 2003. Only a limited number of aquatic animals could survive under such conditions. The fish 34 community, for example, has been very much disadvantaged as over-fishing also threatened 35 their survival. The mean size of O. niloticus for example, reduced to 15 cm necessitating a 36 moratorium in fishing in the year 2001. Other fish species like Barbus and Labeo, which 37 migrate to spawn upstream are today close to extinction in the lake. 38 39 3.5 Socio-economic factors 40 41 Socio-economic factors also have direct and indirect impact on the lake. They include 42

(i) Increased demand for developing and using lake resources 43 • Demand for fish 44 • Demand for water 45 • Tourism facilities 46

(ii) Limited public awareness and understanding of human impacts on lakes 47 • Low literacy level 48 • Cultural beliefs 49 • Stratification within the communities 50

(iii) Insufficient governance and accountability systems 51

11

• Inadequate consultation 1 • Lack of expertise 2 • Insufficient mobilization of institutions 3

(iv) High poverty levels 4 • Disasters due to droughts and floods 5 • Low crop yields 6 • Low livestock returns 7 8

9 (v) Poor land management 10

• Cultivation of river banks 11 • Cultivation of steep slopes without conservation measures 12 13

14 3.6 Other problems 15 16 Other environmental and sustainability problems associated with the lake include invasive 17 species and especially Prosopis juliflora. This is a fast spreading shrub with hairy evergreen 18 leaves. It was introduced in 1982 and it has spread to cover much of the grazing land in 19 Baringo especially around the lake. The shrub forms an extensive impenetrable thicket that 20 gradually chokes up other plants including the acacia tree and grass, leaving much of the soil 21 bare and prone to erosion. It has deep roots and is likely to be linked to the lowering of the 22 water table in the areas where it colonises. It has aroused concern among the pastoralists 23 especially the Ilchamus since it chokes all the grass, which their cattle depend on. 24 25 4 Management Environment 26 27 4.1 Institutional Roles 28 29 The management of the lake and its basin is aimed at its sustainability and that of the biotic 30 community while at the same time benefiting the community through wise use of its 31 resources. For effective management of the resources, a management plan is necessary. This 32 has not yet been prepared for Lake Baringo. The management has in the past been sectoral. 33 The institutions which have been involved and their roles in managing the lake and its basin 34 are outlined below. 35 36 Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute 37 This is a public research institution with the responsibility of carrying out research on fish 38 production and the quality of water as relates to fish production. They provide statistics on 39 fish trends and lake productivity. Their operation is enshrined in the fisheries act. 40 41 Kenya Forestry Research Institute 42 This is also public research institution mandated to carry out research on agro-forestry 43 systems, preservation of indigenous tree species and development of tree species which are 44 environmentally friendly. The trees are planted in the catchment and used for various 45 purposes depending on the species. Some of the uses include, conservation of soil and water, 46 wind breaks, source of fodder, source of woodfuel and timber among others. 47 48 Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries 49 This Ministry is one of those created recently as part of government reform to further 50 streamline fisheries and livestock departments. Fisheries department in this Ministry operates 51

12

under the fisheries act. The departments role is to prevent illegal fishing und use of illegal 1 gear sizes. They also recommend provision of licences to fishermen and transporters. 2 Livestock department provide extension services on livestock management. They are also 3 involved in reseeding of degraded rangeland, livestock improvement and marketing. The 4 Ministry also has affiliated research institutions both national and international which are 5 involved in livestock research. 6 7 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute 8 This is a public research institution under the Ministry of Agriculture. It is responsible for 9 agriculture based researches such developing drought resistant crops, fast maturing crops and 10 disseminating research findings. 11 12 Ministry of Water resources Development 13 This ministry is responsible for water resources management and development within the 14 basin. They operate under the water act and provide guidelines on abstraction, borehole 15 developments among others. 16 17 Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources 18 This ministry is responsible for environmental conservation in the catchment, rivers and the 19 lake. They advice the Government on the use of natural resources in such a way as to 20 minimize degradation. They promote environmental friendly interventions. Their activities are 21 enshrined in environmental act. 22 23 Ministry of Agriculture 24 This is a public institution responsible for improving food production while at the same time 25 conserving the resources to ensure sustainable supply of food needs. The activities involve 26 carrying out extension services on modern farming techniques, creating awareness on 27 sustainable use of resources and educating farmers among others. 28 29 Kenya Wildlife Services 30 This is a public institution responsible for wildlife management. They control as necessary the 31 population of predators to minimize human – wildlife conflict. 32 33 Baringo County Council 34 This is composed of elected leaders from the district. They own the trust land where the lake 35 is located. They collect taxes from revenue generated by the lake. The taxes are ploughed 36 back through facilitation of their personnel who oversee the overall management of the lake. 37 38 Rehabilitation of Arid environment (RAE) Trust 39 This is an NGO, which undertakes planting and regeneration of indigenous trees and grasses 40 in badly eroded lands within the basin. 41 42 World Vision 43 Is an NGO which provide famine relief to families who are affected by extended droughts and 44 have therefore lost crops and other resources. The assistance is also given to those who have 45 lost property due to floods. The objective is to enable them recover from the losses and 46 resume their livelihood activities as fast as possible. 47 48 Honey care 49 This is a CBO responsible for promoting honey production and sale. Honey is an important 50 resource in Baringo District and provides an alternative source of income to the local people. 51

13

1 2 Women groups 3 These are CBOs composed of women with common goal of improving livelihood. They 4 operate micro-enterprises as alternative sources of income. Such enterprises relieve pressure 5 on the lake and its resources and thus contribute towards resource management. 6 7 Block Hotels 8 This is a private organisation operating the three star Hotel, Lake Baringo Club near the lake. 9 The lake and its rich biodiversity attract tourists from which the hotel generates income. As 10 direct beneficiary, the Block Hotels in turn participate in management. Thus they contribute to 11 sustainability of the lake which also sustains them. 12 13 4.2 Legislation 14 The Lake management program operates based on Government legislation and policies. It is 15 linked to other programs such as National Action Plan on Desertification, National 16 Biodiversity Action Plan, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and National Wetland 17 Management. All these organisations have a common objective of sustainable use of natural 18 resources to meet livelihood needs. The legislative framework to enforce management 19 initiatives operates under various acts of the Kenya Government. These include: 20

• Fisheries Act 21 • Water Act 22 • Agriculture Act 23 • Forest Act 24 • Land control Act 25 • Land planning Act 26

27 The enforcement laws are contained in the acts, which in the past have been implemented 28 sectorally. However, in 1999, environmental management and coordination act (EMCA) was 29 enacted to harmonise all the environmental management laws scattered in the various acts. 30 The implementation of this act is overseen by National Environment Management Authority 31 (NEMA). At local levels District Environmental Committees and Village environmental 32 Committees have been established to ensure that environmental management initiatives are 33 implemented. These committees operate by encouraging the local communities to participate 34 in environmental management. 35 36 In cases where serious degradation is taking place or is anticipated as a result of human 37 activities gazettment can be done by the minister concerned as a measure to stop degradation. 38 This has been done in forest areas following extensive felling of trees for timber and 39 recommendations made to the central Government for timber to be imported. 40 41 In other cases where there is deliberate illegal use of resources, law enforcers are encouraged 42 to keep vigilance and arrest those involved. In cases of illegal fishing, scouts carry out 43 surveillance in the lake and arrest poachers. The scouts need to be armed in order to eradicate 44 forceful poaching. Apart from scouts, local chiefs who are the administrators in the localities 45 have the mandate from the provincial administration to enforce legislation. Cases of arrests 46 have been recorded in Lake Baringo and illegal gears sizes of less than 4" burnt in public. 47 48 49 50 51

14

4.3 Research and Science 1 2 Research and science are pre-requisite in resource management. Through these, inferences 3 from statistics of natural phenomena and biodiversity can be made and incorporated in 4 management plans. For example, provision of data on birdlife so that the number of various 5 birds of different species is known is essential for setting up sanctuaries. 6 7 Linkages in research have been made with Universities both locally and internationally. Some 8 of these are Egerton and Kenyatta Universities in Kenya and Upsalla University in 9 Switzerland. The research findings have been disseminated to the rural communities through 10 PRA. Such research findings provide recommendation for sustainable resource management 11 based on available resources and capacity. For example, the fish ban was a recommendation 12 based on research findings which has resulted in improving the quality and quantity of the 13 catch. The improvement in the catch made the practice readily accepted to fishermen. 14 15 16 4.4 Management strategies 17 18 Mitigating measures undertaken to control degradation in the basin include control of soil 19 erosion through terracing, contour farming and gully control among others. Stone walls and 20 desert plants such as cactus are also used to trap sediments in the flood plains. Construction of 21 check dams and semi-circular bands to reduce overland flow rate. Afforestration and control 22 of tree cutting are other control measures undertaken to minimize degradation. These 23 techniques are however long term interventions whose impacts on counteracting the lake’s 24 degradation require more time, perhaps up to a decade or more. 25 26 The other management measures undertaken include reseeding with high yielding pasture, 27 conservation of wetlands around the lake and agroforestry practices in the catchment using 28 fodder trees. In addition to these, water harvesting and ground water supplies are undertaken 29 to provide alternative sources of water. Diversification of alternative livelihood opportunities 30 is encouraged to reduce pressure on lake resources. One possible way of doing this is through 31 facilitation of micro-enterprises. 32 33 Moratorium in fishing involving the local communities is also a measure undertaken to 34 improve fish stocks in the lake. The moratorium was instituted after recognition of dwindling 35 fish stocks following monitoring by Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) 36 and Fisheries department. A monitoring report was presented to the fisherfolk upon which 37 they all agreed to impose the moratorium. It involved instituting fishing ban until the stock 38 improves. The moratorium was enforced by Fishermen corporation and the Fisheries 39 department. This involved regular surveillance to control illegal fishing and ensuring use of 40 recommended gear ratios when the ban is uplifted. The progress in fish production was 41 monitored by Fisheries department and KMFRI, and the outcome disseminated to 42 stakeholders through quarterly reports and stakeholder forums. Recent spot checks showed 43 that the ban instituted about two years ago has made Tilapia (Oreonchromis niloticus) grow to 44 a size of 29 cm from the previous size of 15cm. In contrast to fish moratorium, erosion control 45 in grazing land has had little success. This is because when compared to the lake which is a 46 common resource, the cattle which cause overgrazing are individually owned by pastoralists 47 and they are reluctant to control their numbers to conform with the carrying capacity of the 48 land. 49 50

15

Wildlife conservation and community based water projects are also being undertaken to 1 further reduce degradation. Some of the biodiversity conservation activities are fish and bird 2 counts, protecting endangered species, prohibition of illegal poaching, and establishment of 3 Ramsar site for Lake Baringo. 4 5 The current management initiatives in Lake Baringo drainage basin are mainly sectoral. Areas 6 which have been in focus are fishing, soil conservation and agroforestry, tourism development 7 and biodiversity, micro-enterprises and water resources management. Through Ramsar 8 designation in 2001, Lake Baringo is now recognised as a wetland of international importance 9 and is therefore open to funding opportunities to conserve the resources, support livelihood 10 opportunities and reduce land degradation. The management plan underdevelopment is aimed 11 at integrating all the sectoral plans and it is in accordance with the Ramsar convention. Lake 12 Baringo itself is in trust land and its management is under the jurisdiction of Baringo county 13 council. The council however focuses on income generating activities such as tourism and 14 fishing with little attention on catchment conservation. Therefore, with an integrated 15 management plan, it is anticipated that the management of the lake and its basin will be 16 diversified and will include both income and non-income generating activities and will also 17 incorporate all stakeholders. 18 19 4.5 Conflicts and constraints 20 21 The institutions responsible for Lake Management are not devoid of constraints, which hinder 22 the sound management of the lake. One of the constraints is lack of resources such as boats 23 for surveillance. The Fisheries Department, for example, has been incapacitated and for a long 24 time could not carry out regular surveillance due to lack of motorised boats. This has resulted 25 in cases of illegal fishing during the period of the ban. Coordination of stakeholder activities 26 is another constrain in lake management. This is because every stakeholder has a programme 27 of activities, which may not conform with the others in as much as they have a common goal 28 of sustainable management of natural resources. Conflict of interest is another drawback in 29 lake management. This is particularly so with the local communities who exploit the resources 30 of the lake and its basin to meet their livelihood needs. The fishing ban may conflict the 31 interest of the fishermen to meet their livelihood needs through fishing. 32 33 Grazing of cattle along the lakeshores especially during dry seasons is another area that has 34 generated controversies. The pastoralists keep large herds of cattle which cannot be sustained 35 by the available biomass especially during dry seasons. Consequently they invade the 36 lakeshore where they graze their cattle and destroy the habitats of various plants and animal 37 species. Control of the number of the herds as a management strategy is a practice which is 38 not acceptable by the pastoralists. As an alternative, a participatory range management plan 39 that regulates access to grazing lands and movement of herds could be developed and 40 implemented. The plan could be derived from traditional system with involvement of 41 pastoralists and enforced by elders. Through CBOs, rotational grazing can be introduced in 42 which the herd is rotated to allow re-vegetation. This is likely to increase the carrying capacity 43 of the rangelands and will readily be accepted by the pastoralists. Lack of support, ineffective 44 legislation, lack of transparent decision making systems, lack of qualified personnel in 45 environmental management and lack of sufficient trained personnel are additional drawbacks 46 affecting the institutions. 47 48 49 50 51

16

The other constraints to the management of Lake Baring and its basin include the following: 1 2

• Lack of local expertise, lack of coordination, retrenchment of staff especially in 3 government institutions and low incentives which demoralise personnel in effective 4 management of resources 5

• Inadequate understanding on the part of the public and decision makers on the effect 6 of human activities on the lake and its drainage basin 7

• Lack of data and information about the problems facing the lake and it drainage basin 8 • Inaccessibility to information on past studies and researches on the lake and its 9

drainage basin 10 • Many lake basin inhabitants do not understand their individual roles in causing lake 11

problems, especially those who live on the hillslopes at a considerable distance from 12 the lake 13

• Most of the indigenous communities have no knowledge of what actions to take to 14 solve lake problems 15

• Lack of feedback of information to government officials 16 • Frequent droughts and floods 17 • Inadequate accessibility to safe water 18 • Livestock diseases 19 • High land preparation costs 20 • Limited market opportunities 21 • Lack of awareness 22 • Land tenure system and cultural values 23

24 Some constraints can be minimized through environmental educational programmes. The 25 conflicts on the other hand are resolved from two possible approaches. One way is through 26 Provincial administration whereby the District security teams from different districts organise 27 round table discussions to find amicable solutions to the conflicts or enforce law and order 28 among the conflicting groups. The other approach is through village elders from the 29 conflicting groups. The elders can easily identify the root cause of the problem and find a 30 solution acceptable to the conflicting groups. 31 32 4.6 Capacity building and Stakeholder participation 33 34 Capacity building efforts undertaken in the management of the lake and the basin include 35 training of farmers to create awareness among them so that they become receptive to resource 36 management initiatives. These include involvement of local communities in the tree planting 37 process, participation in programmes such as Kenya-Finland Livestock Development 38 programme Bull scheme which also entails empowering women groups in land rehabilitation. 39 Others are on-farm demonstrations by extensions workers, Village environmental committees 40 to oversee the day today implementation of the on-farm management practices, training of 41 extension staff on the new technologies. Strengthening institutions through facilitation, 42 support of micro-enterprises on income diversification educational visits to demonstration 43 sites are additional capacity building initiatives. 44 45 As part of capacity building, an excursion to Lake Bogoria carried out at one time passed 46 resolutions, which were to be used as guidelines to ensure good management of the lake. 47 These were as follows: 48 49 50

17

1 • Formation of beach committees 2 • Joint patrol and surveillance with the Fisheries Department 3 • Supporting research to determine the rate of recovery of the lake’s fishery 4 • Participation in tree planting 5 • Women groups involved in fodder farming and zero grazing 6

7 One of the experiences of stakeholder involvement is that they tend to participate in activities 8 where they will get direct benefits or if the activities are linked to their livelihood needs. 9 Awareness creation among stakeholders on importance and value of the lake and the need to 10 conserve it has been made possible through training, sensitisation and mobilization using 11 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods. Such methods include, field days, workshops, 12 seminars and demonstrations in which the stakeholders learn through participation. 13 14 4.7 Financial Investment 15 16 The financial investment undertaken to solve the problems associated with sustainable use of 17 the lake include: 18

• Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries US$ 30 000 between 1998 and 1999 19 • Local Afforestration Scheme (LAS) US$ 52 000 for 1.8 million seedlings for planting 20

during 1999 and 2000 21 • Unicef and various NGOs spent US$ 107 000 in 1999-2001 to undertake community 22

based water projects 23 • Kenya-Finland Livestock Development Programme Bull scheme for cow revolving 24

scheme provided approximately US$ 74000 25 • UNEP/GEF through LBCB project allocated approximately US$ 750,000 in 2001 to 26

2003 for capacity building and rehabilitation of degraded lake Baringo basin. 27 28 4.8 UNEP/GEF LBCB project 29 30 Environmental degradation was identified as a major constraint to development in Baringo. 31 The increase in both human and animal population beyond land carrying capacity and 32 unsuitable landuse activities in Lake Baringo drainage basin caused the natural resource base 33 that supports the livelihood and biodiversity to diminish. Environmental status of Baringo has 34 been the concern of Government of Kenya (GOK), NGOs and local communities for a long 35 time. In the year 2000, the GOK forwarded a proposal to UNEP to fund LBCB project whose 36 main objective was to build the capacity of the local communities and institutions to respond 37 positively to the effects of land degradation through demonstration of best land use practices. 38 The project was formulated with line ministries in consultation with the local communities 39 and other stakeholders. The entry point to the communities was through PRA and socio-40 economic surveys. The main problems in focus were: 41

• Land degradation 42 • Biodiversity conservation 43 • Aquatic resources 44

45 The approach adopted was to facilitate institutions to build their capacity for sustainable 46 environmental management. The advantages of this approach are: 47

• Participatory involvement of stakeholders 48 • Strengthening of institutional partnerships/synergies 49 • Resource mobilisation 50

18

• Ownership 1 Disadvantages of the approach include: 2

• Weak partners 3 • Budgetary harmonisation 4 • Ownership of credit 5 • Transparency 6 • High expectations from the stakeholders 7

8 The entry point of the UNEP/GEF project was to build capacity for natural resources 9 management and improvement of income through facilitation of various stakeholders. One 10 such activity where UNEP/GEF funds were committed is micro-enterprise, which was 11 introduced to assist organized community groups to engage in income-generating activities 12 that are environmentally friendly in order to relieve pressure on land use, and at the same time 13 raise people’s livelihood standards. The other activities are environmental education and 14 conservation programmes, facilitation of stakeholder forums, and policies and facilitation of 15 research. 16 17 4.9 Achievements of UNEP/GEF LBCB project 18 19 The project facilitated eight women groups, two self-help groups and a community-based 20 organization. Financial grants totalling US$16500 was allocated to fund micro-enterprise and 21 conservation activities. These are: purchase of zero-grazing animals, poultry-keeping, 22 merchandise kiosks and market day trading, purchase and sale of livestock, agro-vet store 23 establishment, food crop production, roof water catchment, and soil and water conservation 24 measures, among others. In all the groups, 294 households with a population of about 1000 25 people were covered. The assessment results reveal that out of the total grant released, US$ 26 10000 (61.24%) had been utilized by end of June 2003, with a revolving fund build-up of US$ 27 7000 generated by four groups. 28 29 The achievements brought by micro-enterprise support include establishment of 70 acres of 30 pastures, 25 acres of agroforestry plots, 55 acres of food crops, purchase of 16 dairy animals 31 and 200 poultry birds. Others are 2000 goats bought or sold, 16 roof water catchment tanks 32 and 60 energy saving Jikos. The benefits that have accrued from these achievements are: 33 increased sources of income to the groups and individual members, on-farm manure sources 34 from dairy and poultry units, group-managed credit facilities, up to 900 man-hours per month 35 saved for other farm activities, technology transfer to neighbours, reduced water-borne 36 disease incidences and savings on woodfuel. In addition to these, the project also made other 37 significant achievements, which include: 38 39 (i) The project produced baseline information on lake Baringo on: land cover mapping, 40

hydrological data, soil erosion assessment, socio-economics assessment and inventory 41 of biodiversity. The reports were produced in collaboration with consultants from local 42 universities and research institutions. The information generated has been used to 43 formulate project activities and disseminated to other stakeholders. 44

45 (ii) Support of research institutions through procurement of scientific equipment and 46

means of transport. The project procured scientific equipment to KMFRI worth US$ 47 5,000 and a boat worth US$ 3,000. The project also procured a boat engine for the 48 Fisheries Department worth US$ 3,000 for routine surveillance in the lake. 49

50

19

(iii) A major project achievement is the facilitation of dialogue and formation of 1 partnerships amongst government, NGOs and community institutions on resource 2 management. 3

4 (iv) As a result of the project’s awareness creation activities, the local people have decided 5

to establish four community managed wildlife sanctuaries in Kaptuya, Kichirtit, Rugus 6 and Kampi ya Samaki. The Ilchamus community are currently negotiating with 7 Giraffe centre for the return of Baringo Giraffe to its original habitat in Baringo. The 8 Kenya Wildlife Service and LBCB project are currently assisting this community to 9 make the sanctuaries operational. 10

11 (v) The project facilitated extension agents from Department of Agriculture to assist 12

farmers lay out soil and water conservation structures. So far, over 30,000 metres of 13 terraces have been constructed. An encouraging outcome of this effort and which will 14 act as an incentive for conservation is the successful harvest that these farmers got 15 after some years of crop failure. 16

17 (vi) The project successfully lobbied with Baringo County Council to establish a 18

management committee for Lake Baringo ecosystem. The committee draws its 19 membership from the Baringo County Council, District Administration, other 20 government departments, community leaders and NGOs. The committee is responsible 21 for the management of the ecosystem and is currently working on developing an 22 integrated management plan for the ecosystem. A major outcome of this initiative is 23 the designation of Lake Baringo as Kenya’s fourth Ramsar site. Through this 24 initiative, the management committee in consultation with the local fishermen 25 cooperative and other stakeholders unanimously agreed to place a moratorium on 26 fishing in lake Baringo to allow the depleted fish stock to recover. 27

28 (vii) The project assisted Baringo County Council, Samburu County Council and the 29

District Security teams in the two Districts to re-open the Samburu-Baringo 30 component of the northern tourism circuit that has been closed since 1991. The project 31 procured communication equipment for monitoring tourists movement and their 32 security along the route. The communities along the circuit were also trained to 33 generate income through sale of artifacts and establishment of cultural centres. 34

35 (viii) The project participated in reviewing government policies in the following sectors: 36

wetlands, livestock marketing and tourism. It also participated in the regional wetlands 37 policy formulation workshop and made significant contributions that have been 38 incorporated into the draft policy. In livestock marketing, the project contributed to the 39 National Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) through the Pastoralists thematic 40 group. On tourism policy, the project presented its recommendations to the review 41 committee during the regional workshop in Eldoret. In addition to these the project is 42 also pursuing forest policy development. 43

44 (ix) Rehabilitation of degraded lands was facilitated by the project. Achievements to this 45

effect include: grass reseeding of 32 individual plots, promotion of agroforestry 46 practices in seven schools, protection of ten water springs, promoting water harvesting 47 techniques for dryland farming in 20 farms, support for the establishment of four 48 demonstration sites for alternative livestock fodder and promotion and construction of 49 40 energy savings stoves. 50

51

20

(x) Participatory management and conservation of biodiversity was also undertaken by the 1 project. In the process, 8 locational environmental committees were established and 4 2 community conservation groups registered. In addition to these, 20 Government 3 officers were trained on short courses on gender and agro-meteorology. Community 4 workers were also trained in participatory agricultural extension methodologies. The 5 project also integrated various Locational Environmental Action Plans (LEAPS) and 6 sectoral plans into a management structure for the entire lake Baringo ecosystem. 7

8 (xi) Capacity building and sustainable livelihood security were also facilitated by the 9

project. Achievements to this effect include 7 groups of micro enterprise facilitated, 10 1546 mango and 867 macadamia seedlings planted, recruitment and training of 11 farmers, seed varieties of drought resistant pulses worth US$ 4000 procured and 12 distributed, and training of 60 pastoralists on livelihood risk management. 13

14 (xii) Awareness creation programmes accomplished include environmental education using 15

video shows in 16 schools, 8 exchange visits between communities and opinion 16 leaders, and several study tours and exchange visits by the community to rehabilitation 17 sites. The project also organised one joint meeting between District Environmental 18 Committees from the four districts (Nakuru, Laikipia, Koibatek and Baringo) of Lake 19 Baringo drainage basin was organised by the project. 20

21 (xiii) The UNEP/GEF project also managed to mobilise funds from other organisations for 22

community based projects. These are: a pledge of US$ 50 000 from UNDP Kenya for 23 land adjudication in Salabani location, US$ 50 000 from Tourist Trust Fund Kenya to 24 facilitate development of tourism area plan for Lake Baringo circuit. In addition to 25 these, the project also negotiated for US$ 2000 from UNDP Kindelevu project for 26 Marti water pan and US$ 3000 from World Vision for construction of Lomunge water 27 pan. 28

29 5 Lessons learned and recommended initiatives 30 31 A. Stakeholder involvement 32

Lake management programmes should involve all stakeholders and all other parties 33 who are interested in the sustainability of the lake and its resources. This practice will 34 not only minimize duplication of activities and ensure wise use of resources but will 35 also enhance efficiency. Through sharing of information, knowledge will be generated 36 and appraised. The interest of the community, preferences and values will be taken 37 into account in the management plan hence minimizing conflict of interest. The 38 approach also makes the community to be receptive to the project. Care should be 39 taken to involve members of the community from all strata in the management to 40 ensure that their interests are adequately taken into account. 41 42 43 44

B. Improvement of livelihood security 45 Local people will tend to support those interventions that they perceive to favour their 46 aspirations especially those that improve their livelihood security. Initially most 47 farmers were not willing to construct terraces and other water conservation structures 48 until they saw the successful harvest obtained by those who did so. Similarly they do 49 not see direct gains in natural resource conservation and management. This is 50 exacerbated by lack of critical mass with interest in resource conservation, communal 51

21

land ownership and the high poverty levels. It is therefore important to develop 1 environmental awareness packages with incentives in order to build a conservation 2 constituency at grass root level. 3

4 C Diversification of income 5

Income diversification offers more alternatives for meeting livelihood needs. It 6 reduces over dependence on one resource, which often leads to environmental 7 degradation. For example, the Pokots and the Ilchamus are mainly pastoralists and 8 they keep large herds of cattle which do not match the land carrying capacity. This has 9 caused problems of overgrazing with increased soil erosion and siltation of rivers and 10 lakes. Apart from degradation, their animals die during drought reducing livestock 11 products. Other income generating activities such as bee-keeping and micro-12 enterprises are necessary because they reduce pressure on land and minimize risks. 13 14

D. Biodiversity a source of food and income 15 From the perspective of local people, biodiversity in arid and semiarid areas is pastoral 16 risk management strategy. From their perspective, it is a source of food and income. 17 During severe droughts, pastoralists hunt wildlife to supplement their protein supplies. 18 Similarly, they burn acacia and other trees to produce charcoal for sale to compensate 19 for livestock losses. Biodiversity conservation is acceptable to the local people if it can 20 generate socio-economic benefits higher than the subsistence utilization, a mentally 21 caused by lack of awareness. It is worth noting that improved rangeland can attract 22 more biodiversity with more gains. For example, four animal species have returned to 23 a piece of land that was rehabilitated for a period of 12 months. Similarly, birds have 24 built nests on trees in demonstration plots set up by a local NGO whereas there are no 25 nests on trees in nearby degraded areas. It is therefore important to have sufficient 26 information on biodiversity in the project area including the social dimension of its 27 conservation. 28 29

E Conservation to focus on the means of achieving the end 30 Conservation projects should focus not only on producing physical end products like 31 the total area and species conserved but also on the means of achieving the end. This is 32 critical especially where various stakeholders are involved. The LBCB project applied 33 the participatory approach and formation of partnerships among key stakeholders to 34 create the synergy and increased sense of ownership as a means of enhancing 35 conservation of natural resources in Lake Baringo drainage basin. While it is prudent 36 to take an integrated approach involving various development partners and 37 stakeholders, it is important to critically examine some of the underlying assumptions. 38 Most development agencies share the same vision of livelihood improvement, but 39 have their own preconceived idea about community approach and implementation 40 strategy. They also operate on different budgets and time scales. If the operations of 41 these partners are not regulated and harmonized, it can create confusion to the local 42 communities and scrambling for recognition at the expense of conservation. The 43 UNEP/GEF project played a pivotal role in synchronization of activities among the 44 stakeholders through participatory approach. 45

46 F. Awareness creation, capacity building and sustainable resource use 47

Awareness creation and educating the stakeholders on various management scenarios 48 are the major aspects of building capacity for implementing and addressing the 49 principles of sustainable lake management. The local communities who are the direct 50 beneficiaries and who exploit the resources to meet their livelihood demands should be 51

22

made aware of the risks involved in such exploitation. In the majority of cases, they 1 look at the short term benefits at the expense of the long-term ones. Apart from 2 exploitation of fish, the forest reserves have also been exploited not only in the 3 hillslopes of Lake Baringo drainage basin but all forest areas of Kenya. Currently the 4 forest area of Kenya is less than 2%, which is far much less than the 9% forest 5 coverage of Africa and 20% of the world. The Government of Kenya targets a 10% 6 coverage. As the Government plans to achieve this goal, education of the masses to 7 live in harmony with the resources is essential. 8

9 G. Inclusion of entire drainage basin in the management plan 10

The management of the lake should not only be concentrated on the reservoir itself but 11 should extend to cover the whole basin that drains into the lake. In most of cases, the 12 administrative boundaries do not coincide with river basin boundaries like in the case 13 of Lake Baringo drainage basin which is in four districts of Baringo, Koibatek, Nakuru 14 and Laikipia. However the LBCB project was designed for Baringo District. This 15 made the involvement of other districts in resource management difficult. However the 16 activities in parts of those districts which were in the catchment were directly affecting 17 the management of the lake. Therefore programmes should be designed to include the 18 entire drainage basin. 19

20 H. Financial investment in lake basin projects 21

Financial constraints made the UNEP/GEF funded LBCB project be focused mainly in 22 Baringo District. The project was a medium-sized project (MSP) for which the upper 23 funding limit at the time amounted to US$750,000. One lesson learnt is that larger 24 investments than MSPs are needed for integrated lake basin management and that time 25 frames longer than three years, which is the average duration of an MSP, are needed to 26 bring about change in management of an entire basin. 27

28 I. Documentation and extension 29

The information and data gained from Lake Management programmes and 30 experiences can be disseminated to national and local governments, lake management 31 practitioners, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders through reports, 32 seminars, workshops and the internet. All these should be available in libraries where 33 they can be easily accessed. Field days through PRA are also an avenue of 34 disseminating the information particularly to the local communities. 35

36 6. References 37 38 1 Aloo, P.A., 2002. Effects of climate and human activities on the Ecosystem of lake 39

Baringo. In “East African Great lakes: Limnology, Paleolimnology and Biodiversity”. 40 Odada and Olago (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publisers, London. 41

2 Ballot, A., Pflugmacher, S., Wiegand C., Kotut, K., Krienitz, L., 2003. Cyanobacterial 42 toxins in Lake Baringo, Kenya. Limnologica. 33:2-9. 43

3 Fisheries Dept. Annual reports and Verbal communication 44 4 Gichuki, F.N., 2003. Monitoring of Birds in Lake Baringo and its watershed. 45

Consultancy report submitted to UNOPS 46 5 Hammer, U.T., 1986. Saline ecosystems of the world. Dr. W. JunkPublisher 47

Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster. 48 6 KEMFRI. Annual reports and Verbal communication 49 7 Onyando, J.O., 2003. Soil Erosion hazard assessment of River Perkerra Catchment. 50

Consultancy report submitted to UNOPS 51

23

8 Onyando, J.O., 2002b. Landcover resource maps of Lake Baringo drainage basin. 1 Consultancy report submitted to UNOPS 2

9 Pencol Engineering consultants, 1981. In: Lake Baringo Community based land and 3 water management project. Project document 4

10 Unops Marigat. Progress and consultancy reports, and verbal communication. 5 11 Zohary, T. and Roberts, R.D., 1990. Hypercums and the population of Microcystis 6

aeruginosa. J. Plankton Res. 12:423-432. 7