1

Report on:

ForewordIn 2008, NECOFA, MEAP, and FKSW teamed up to form MISCC. Initially

MISCC was known as Molo IDPs Support Coordination Committee and therefore the name evolved to Multi Stakeholders Coordination consortium retaining the same acronym. The consequences of violent conflicts on the physical environment and natural resources are evident through clearing of forest cover in farmlands, along rivers, dams and forests. The situation calls for careful attention to environmental stewardship toward the ultimate goal of peace and sustainable development. There is need to restitute the ecosystem and encourage optimal management of natural resources for equitable resource distribution to benefit all citizens and preempt potential natural resource-based conflicts that have been experienced in the region before. Communities need help to rehabilitate degraded areas by reintroducing farm forestry, protecting the remaining forest cover and biodiversity, protesting peacefully against pollution, interference, and encroachment. Due to these environmental issues, the Molo River has diminished substantially and it has become necessary for the organizations to intervene to save the Molo River. It is in this effort that the Molo River survey initiative is identified as a priority intervention area. This report is a cumulative look at the river and surrounding communities, as they struggle for their livelihoods. The survey should be seen as a starting point for further cooperation between the government, organizations, and communities in saving the threatened Molo River.

Research TeamThe research team was led by MISCC and its lead organizations. Samuel

Muhunyu, NECOFA Kenya Director, and Karangathi Njoroge, MEAP Director, lead the vision of the survey and laid strategies down for the students on attachment to undertake. NECOFA’s team of John Wachira, John Munene, Lucy Mathenge, Njoroge Nderitu, and Stanley Mwaura together with MEAP’s Rose Gichohi was crucial in the filming and research assistance needed to accomplish the survey. FKSW’s Gwen Meyer and John Neumeister provided valuable support with the provision of the Global Positioning System, as well as necessary help in creating the attachment program for Gabriel Olson. Wilson Mwangi and Gabriel Olson actualized the vision by working in the field daily to compile research needed for a comprehensive report.

AcknowledgementsThe team would like to thank all of the community members from Longumgum,

Kailer, Eldume, Mogotio, Kabimoi, Eldama Ravine, Rongai, Molo, Mau Summit, Elburgon, and Kuresoi for providing information, perceptions, and perspectives given in regards to the Molo River and its surrounding environment. The team would also like to thank all government officials interviewed in the process of the survey; your willingness to provide us with all needed information was essential towards a fair and balanced report. We would also like to specifically thank WRMA, who provided us with the facilities for the testing of water samples taken from the Molo River. We would like to express our gratitude to the NGO’s, CBO’s, CFA’s, Self-Help Groups, Women Groups, and other organizations for all of your advice, knowledge, and perceptions regarding the Molo River. Wilson Mwangi and Gabriel Olson would like to thank MISCC and its

2

members for the amazing support, guidance, and the opportunity to take on this initiative, we could not have made it this far without your help. Lastly, we would like to thank Wycliffe Sagala who drove us thousands of Kilometers in this effort and whose great driving was essential in getting us to locations many thought were impossible to access, and great sense of humor got us through extremely long days with a smile.

Structure of the ReportIntroductionAcronyms Page 4Executive summary Page 5Introduction Page 6Background Page 6Survey Objectives Page 6Definition of Terms Page 7Survey Design and Methods Page 7Limitations and Challenges of Survey Page 8Upper CatchmentIntroduction Page 8Degradation of the River and Environment Page 8Nature and Magnitude of Challenges Page 9Worst Hit Areas Page 10Community Perceptions of River Degradation Page 11Community Conservation Initiatives Page 11Governmental Action Page 12Middle CatchmentIntroduction Page 12Degradation of the River and Environment Page 13Nature and Magnitude of Challenges Page 13Worst Hit Areas Page 14Community Perceptions of River Degradation Page 14Community Conservation Initiatives Page 15Governmental Action Page 15Lower CatchmentIntroduction Page 16Degradation of the River and Environment Page 16Nature and Magnitude of Challenges Page 17Worst Hit Areas Page 17Community Perceptions of River Degradation Page 18Community Conservation Initiatives Page 18Governmental Action Page 19Governmental Laws, Policies, and ImplementationNational Environmental Management Authority Page 19Water Resource Management Authority Page 20Ministry of Agriculture Page 21Ministry of Public Health Page 22

3

Kenya Forest Service Page 22Provincial Administration Page 23Constituency Development Fund Office Page 23Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Page 24Irrigation Board Page 24Local Authorities Page 24

Closing StatementsConclusion Page 25Recommendations Page 25References Page 26Appendices List of Tables Page 27List of Graphs Page 33List of Stakeholders Used in Molo River Survey Page 35Lead Kenyan Organizational Contacts Page 37

AcronymsCBO- Community Based OrganizationCDF- Constituency Development FundCFA- Community Forest AssociationEMCA- Environmental Management and Conservation ActFKSW- Friends of Kenya Schools and WildlifeFOMAWA- Friends of Mau WatershedIDP- Internally Displaced PersonKARI- Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KFS- Kenya Forest ServiceKWS- Kenya Wildlife ServiceLATF- Local Authority Transfer FundMEAP- Maendeleo Endelevu Action ProgramMISCC- Multi Stakeholders Coordination Consortium NECOFA- Network for Eco-Farming in AfricaNEMA- National Environmental Management AuthorityNGO- Non-Governmental OrganizationWRMA- Water Resource Management AuthorityWRUA- Water Resource Users Association

4

Executive summary Through the course of the Molo River Survey, the team found it necessary to

interview government departments/ministries/Authorities, NGO’s, CBO’s, CSO’s, CDF offices and community members from different age brackets and genders to describe their perceptions, as well as their initiative on the Molo River throughout the upper, middle and lower catchment. According to the information and observations taken the river has adversely been degraded as a result of massive deforestation in particular the Mau forest, extensive farm practices along the riparian, plantation of inappropriate species mainly Eucalyptus species next to water ways whose water consumption rate is very high, poor land allotment system driven by community resettlement & Urban construction in the river bank , water poisoning from (farm chemicals, industrial waste, urban/residential waste, broken sewers, cars and clothes washing among others), poor soil conservation measures and over consumption of water led towards commercialized agriculture and industries that rundown all the way to affect the Molo river. This has led to a general decrease in water levels, increased soil erosion, further encroachment into forest land, widespread pollution, reduced rainfall and loss of biodiversity.

The current conditions are causing suffering in the region, as communities depend on the scarce and mismanaged resources lack clean and sufficient water essential for their day to day survival. The communities’ main sources of livelihood in this region are livestock keeping and agriculture, which both depend heavily on water availability. An example of how the current harsh conditions is causing suffering can be witnessed in a number of case studies conducted by the survey team along the sub-catchments which give pictures of the current drought that has hit the region, gradually increasing along the Molo River from the upper catchment to the lower catchment. The drought has left animal and plants dead and threatened human life as all struggles for sustainability.

Among the community efforts towards environmental conservation in the region is the formation of Community Based Organizations, Community Forest Associations, Self-Help Groups, Women Groups, and Youth Groups who are making plans and taking actions to promote proper management the natural resources that surround them in the region. These organizations with the local available resources mobilize the community members to plant indigenous trees, promote sustainable farming, and create awareness on environmental issues. Although the organizations at times lack funds and external support they try as much as they can to achieve their set goals and objectives.

The government of Kenya plays a major role in protecting the environment and its natural resources including forests and rivers. For the Molo River Survey the team found it necessary to interview relevant officials, to know the extent of the work being done to protect the river. Molo River is in serious danger of becoming not only a seasonal river, but drying up all together, as communities throughout its catchments are currently unable to stop the degradation. Another issues that is crucial for the Molo River is the eviction of land-grabbers in the Mau Complex, as current settlements are destroying the forest that the river depends on for its flow.

The report gives further details about the current status of the Molo River and all other information in regard to the same.

5

IntroductionFlowing down from the Mau Complex, the Molo River has served citizens of the

Rift Valley for hundreds of years. Over the approximately 100 km length that the river covers from the Mau Forest to Lake Baringo, this waterway is a primary source of livelihood amongst the communities it flows through. The constituencies that the Molo River serves along its coverage include: Kuresoi, Molo, Rongai, Mogotio, and Baringo Central. Up to 1985, the water in Molo River remained clean, safe, and sufficient for communities in the region. However, in the recent past the water has become polluted and decreased substantially in volume, as individuals throughout the region suffer. These problems have reached an all-time high this year, as community settlement and extreme drought conditions threaten the lives of humans and animals, as well as threatening the continued existence of the Molo River itself. Because of these increasingly severe conditions, NECOFA Kenya in partnership with MEAP, FKSW, and Slow Food Central Rift Convivium began the initiative to carry out a baseline survey on the Molo River, in an effort to fully understand its current status. Later, the information presented in this report will be used in a campaign to save the Molo River.

BackgroundThe Molo River Survey took shape under the umbrella of MISCC, as it dealt with

a main goal that the consortium was trying to address. To put the idea of the survey into practice, the organizations involved produced a plan where two volunteer students, on internship from their respective Universities, would spearhead the proposed plan. Each provided different strengths to the survey, as the Kenyan and American worked together to analyze the data, and propose ways in which to fix current problems.

Survey ObjectivesThe Molo River Survey had a stated goal of producing a report that could be used

in a future campaign to save the river. In the process of achieving that end goal, the main objectives focused on throughout the survey were:- To establish status in terms of challenges faced on the environment and livelihoods.- To explain the role of governance in ensuring sustainable management of resources,

natural and otherwise.- To collect and compile secondary information on the status of Molo River,

stakeholders, and community initiatives. - To collect secondary data on policies and plans by the government, and local

authorities regarding water and natural resource utilization and management.- Assess awareness and knowledge levels among the CSO’s, CBO’s, learning

institutions, as regards to the river and its social, cultural, economic, and environmental implications and threats.

- Assess and identify hotspots of degradation and threats along the Molo River and its catchment.

- Assess and identify efforts on conservation and management along the river and its catchments.

- Capture community aspirations and priority actions on conservation of the river.- Give recommendations on what should be done at policy and local levels.

6

Definition of TermsAgro-Forestry- A system of land use in which harvestable trees or shrubs are grown among or around crops or on pastureland.Catchment- Means any land drained by a river, stream, or fixed body of water and its tributaries having a common source of surface run-off. Coliforms- Bacteria that commonly inhabit the intestines of humans, causing water-borne diseases and other illness.Consortium- A coalition of organizations with a common goal bound by shared identity and loyalty.Constituency- The body of voters or the residents of a district represented by an elected legislator or official.Deforestation- Means the negative reduction of forest cover from its original status.

Feacal Coliforms- Bacteria found in the intestinal tracts of mammals. Their presence in water or sludge is an indicator of pollution and possible contamination by pathogens.

Global Positioning System- A system of satellites, computers, and receivers that is able to determine the latitude and longitude of an individual’s specific location on the globe at any given point.Indigenous Forest- Means a forest which has come about by natural regeneration of trees primarily native to Kenya, and includes mangrove and bamboo forests. Quarrying- The extraction of building stone or slate from an open surface for commercial purposes.Siltation- A state where rivers and other water bodies become filled with soil and other soil particles, usually due to soil erosion. Tributary- A stream that flows into a main river or lake.Turbidity- Having sediment or foreign particles stirred up or suspended; muddy: turbid water. Heavy, dark, or dense, as smoke or fog.Watershed- The region of highlands, whose streams drain into a river, river system, or other body of water. (E.G. Mau Watershed)

Survey Design and MethodsLed by the survey objectives, the design of the Molo River Survey was to analyze

each section of the river, constituency by constituency, focusing specifically on the local communities and their interactions with the river. To work within this design the survey was based mainly on direct observation, interviews, and water testing to obtain critical information about the current status of the river, and the local steps being taken to improve its condition. Additionally, in the process of identifying hotspots along the river and its tributaries, a Global Positioning System was used to outline the river and show the exact locations where the samples were obtained. In the Appendices of the report, the tables show an outline of where the tests were taken and the relevant hotspots, showing a general outline of the river as it passes from the catchment to the mouth. Upon request, NECOFA and MEAP have a sketch map to better portray the locations, if needed.

7

Limitations and Challenges of the SurveyDue to the heavy schedules of government officials, community members, and

institutions it was very difficult to meet everyone that the survey had originally outlined as key stakeholders. However, the team organized their schedule to make sure that absolutely necessary interviews were carried out to ensure adequate representation from all stakeholders involved. Additionally, language barriers between certain members of the team and the individuals being interviewed were occasionally a hindrance to communication, though the team insured adequate interpretation for all involved. Due to poor road networks, access to the river at a few of its points became impossible, though there was access to similar waypoints along the river. Misinformation also became an issue a few times during the survey, as individuals gave information that portrayed their role along the river as more favorable. Due to the team’s interaction with other stakeholders in those regions, lies were exposed by the rest of the communities. At times in the survey, individuals refused to be interviewed; the team regrets the inability to adequately represent their viewpoint in this report and would hope to work with those individuals in the near future.

Upper CatchmentIntroduction

The upper catchment in the Molo and Kuresoi areas, functions as the primary source of the Molo River. The many streams that begin in the Mau Complex flow into the Molo River and are depended upon all the way down to Lake Baringo. An important aspect of the upper catchment is the Mau Complex, which is among the major water towers in the country with numerous rivers, other than Molo, emanating from it such as, Njoro River and Mara River. The Mau Complex plays an important hydrological function, as the underground water that the area brings is crucial in supplying many rivers that use this water to maintain their flow. It is important to focus on the upper catchment when viewing the Molo River as a whole, because of the effects that problems upstream have to the rest of downstream communities. Additionally, it is important for those downstream communities to understand the issues that are faced upstream, so that all communities involved can work together to conserve the environment.

Degradation of the River and EnvironmentHuman activities in the upper catchment have had severe impacts on the flow of

the Molo River. Starting in the region of Kuresoi, massive deforestation of the Mau Complex has lead to a decrease in the forest cover causing many other issues in the region such as soil erosion, reduced rainfall, and a general decrease in water. It is necessary to mention that the reduced rainfall has also been due to climate change currently affecting the region. These issues cause problems that affect the Molo River throughout its course, as muddy water with a decreased flow have become common in many areas. Another key component of the degradation has been the community re-settlement that has occurred in the past few years. Due to poor land allocation systems, and the lack of implementation when dealing with land policies and laws, individuals

8

have encroached into forest land, clearing the trees and destroying the local environment. Additionally, poor farming methods, and a lack of conservation among community individuals in the region, have had dramatic effects on the river. These methods include farming on sloped lands, farming into river banks, planting of inappropriate species such as Eucalyptus, and lack of soil conservation measures. Pollution of surrounding streams due to the runoff of farm chemicals has also become a problem in the region, leading to a decrease in the quality of the water that individuals downstream are forced to drink. In the Molo area, urban waste has become a huge problem along the Molo River, as the flow of the river has even stopped at some points through the town. Effluents from industries, sewage from residential areas, chemical runoff from horticultural farms, quarry activities, large and small-scale dumping of waste throughout towns, urban construction in the river bank, and general human activities such as car washing and clothes washing have had serious effects on the Molo River. All of these pollutants in the river have had harmful results downstream, as the Molo area sends polluted water to those communities.

Nature and Magnitude of Challenges In the upper catchment access to clean drinking water has already become a

problem for citizens of towns such as Elburgon, Molo, Mukinyai, Kuresoi, and Mau Summit. Due to increased siltation of the river, the turbidity of the water is high, making the status of water not safe for human consumption. Additionally, the human activities along streams in the region pollute the river and have lead to diseases such as Typhoid. These challenges affect every level of society in the region as adult’s to school children’s day to day activities are affected due to the lack of clean and sufficient water. Additionally, culturally important events, such as baptisms, are being cancelled due to a lack of sufficient and clean water to carry out the practice. As the degradation of forest has increased over time, the level of underground water has also decreased, causing the drying of major springs and community boreholes. In addition, the deforestation is perceived to directly correlate with the reduced rainfall that the region has recently experienced. This problem is tremendous for the upper catchment, due to the community dependence on agriculture, specifically farming. This season alone, farmers have incurred great losses as their crops dry up and the season has ended for planting new crops. This affect on society is great due to the food insecurity issues that are facing this region. The drought conditions in the area also cause more harm to the river as more water is needed for irrigation, reducing the flow of the Molo River even more. A specific example of this problem can be seen in the Mukinyai region, which faces extreme crop failure due to reduced rainfall. There is little conservation done by farmers to reverse these affects, and the problems for communities could be immense due to these environmental failures. As the Molo River passes through towns in the upper catchment, a general failure to maintain boundaries has caused many problems. Specifically in Molo town, construction along and in the river has stopped the flow of water downstream. Additionally, rampant sewage leaks and poor management of general solid waste poisons the water in the area, which is used for human consumption downstream. Quarry activities in the upper catchment also cause major challenges for the region as the mined rocks slide down the slopes into the rivers path, blocking the water or forcing it underground. These practices not only hurt the flow of water, but also pollute the river with heavy metals that flow into the water during periods of heavy rain. Another challenge affecting the local people is the

9

lack of disbursement of funds from the government to be used in environmental projects. This has become even more of a problem, as government officials speak daily about protection for the Mau Complex, yet no aid is actually given to improve the situation on the ground.

Worst Hit AreasThrough the course of the survey, the team found it necessary to identify hotspots

in each region, and as a result carried out tests of the specific locations. These samples were taken in such a way that they represented the status of the upper catchment as a whole, focusing on the river after many streams had come together to show the impact on downstream communities specifically. Additionally, the team took samples from the streams before they merged, to show the pollution level that each specific tributary added to the Molo River as a whole. There were also, specific hot spots that have greatly affected the degradation of the Molo River that the team observed, and will mention in this section of the report. In the upper catchment, the team sampled water from seven locations as seen in Table 1.0 and Table 1.1 in Appendices: Gathigi Stream, Molo River at Elburgon Farm, Munju Stream, Mau River at Witima, Molo River at Kenya Breweries Limited, Revete Stream at Kibunja, and Molo River at Mukinyai Primary School. The tests done on the samples confirmed that this water was very polluted and harmful to humans who consumed it. The Bacteriological tests showed pollution to be a general problem in the area, with Mau River at Withima, Munju Stream, Molo River at Mukinyai, and Kibunja Stream exemplifying the extreme signs of general coliform pollution in the region. According to WRMA, any existence of feacal coliforms represents dangerous water. According to Table 1.2, all of the samples taken showed signs of feacal coliforms, though Munju Stream, Mau River at Withima, and Molo River at Kenya Breweries Limited showed extremely high levels of the feacal coliforms, representing extreme danger to the surrounding communities. A good example of the danger of consuming even a few feacal coliforms comes from the Mukinyai area, where students at Mukinyai Primary School have obtained Typhoid from water with only 7 feacal coliforms per 100ml samples. According to the surface water analytical tests, as seen in Table 1.0 and Table 1.1, Iron was a major problem in the water. Iron pollution is generally caused through natural occurrences as well as chemical pollution, and an Iron level over 1.0 is seen as detrimental to human health. Dangerously high levels of Iron were seen at Munju Stream, Molo River at Kenya Breweries Limited, Molo River at Elburgon, Githima Stream, and Kibunja Stream. Manganese was also seen as a problem in the water at Kenya Breweries Limited, possibly due to chemicals used at the industrial plant. High levels of turbidity were seen at Molo River at Elburgon and Munju Stream, as well as extremely high levels at Molo River at Kenya Breweries Limited. Generally all of the water in this region was below the minimum water quality standards, set by WRMA, for safe human consumption in Kenya. A major problem area in the upper catchment is construction going on in Molo Town, which has completely blocked the flow of water in the Molo River from going downstream. Sewage leaks in Molo Town and in the nearby Kenyatta area have also lead to water poisoning in the region that is very harmful to individuals.

10

Community Perceptions of River DegradationThrough the course of the Molo River Survey, the team found it necessary to

interview many community members from different age brackets and genders to describe their perceptions on the Molo River in the upper catchment. Through the interviews it was discovered that the upper catchment used to be densely populated with trees, and the Molo River used to flow in large quantities downstream. Specific examples of this were stories about how the river used to flow over the road that passes through Molo Town during periods of heavy rain. Additionally, swamps that used to exist in Molo Town are now used as dry land for construction. Stories that the survey gathered indicated that the climate in the region was cool and moist generally, helping the environment and rivers specifically. These climatic conditions were also very helpful for nearby crops such as potatoes, maize, beans, and pyrethrum. In the last few decades, human activities, specifically deforestation, were pointed to as specific reasons for the change in the climate of the area. During the survey there was a strong community sense that trees must be replanted in the Mau Complex, and the deforestation that has haunted the region must be reversed. Additionally, land ownership was raised as a severe problem in the Mau, as citizens have encroached into forests and rivers, causing massive environmental problems. A good example of this was a call from community church leaders to protect the environment and put pressure on the government to reverse their past mistakes. Community ownership of water was also mentioned as a specific step that communities could take to conserve the precious water resources that they are given. In general, communities in the region felt as if their government had failed them, by failing to implement the policies that had been passed regarding the protection of the environment. Youth felt endangered by the drastic changes taking place around them, and strongly pushed for changes to be made to ensure that the environment, which their livelihoods depend on, would be able to sustain their lives in the future. The youth also felt like it was their role to empower themselves through campaigns for environmental awareness, as well as sensitize the community on the effects of environmental degradation.

Community Conservation InitiativesAmong the community efforts towards environmental conservation in the region

is the formation of Community Based Organizations, Community Forest Associations, Self-Help Groups, Women Groups, and Youth Groups who are making plans and taking actions to help the natural resources that surround them in the region. These organizations mobilize the community members to plant indigenous trees, promote sustainable farming, and create awareness on environmental issues. Specifically, COFEGFA has made a significant impact in the region, planting trees and working hard to protect the Mau Complex. FOMAWA has also made an impact on tree planting in schools, and individual farms in the upper catchment. Generally, there are many groups in the area that want to make a difference, but have faced a general lack of aid from the government and therefore have had problems getting their operations off the ground. Non-Governmental Organizations in the regions have started a campaign for protection of the environment, specifically focusing on rivers and general waste. The Campaign to Save Molo River, which is starting with this report, will join with other efforts and stakeholders to pioneer a new era of change throughout the region. NECOFA and MEAP have been influential

11

actors in the region as they look to transform the region that they are based in. Other institutions such as Baraka Agricultural College have tried to promote education on environmental issues, as well as leading a campaign for tree planting in the area, though a lack of progress has forced them to re-examine their activities. Local schools in the region such as Mukinyai Primary School, Kiambiriria Primary School, and Michinda Primary School have participated in tree planting efforts as well as environmental initiatives that have taught their students about the value of the environment in the world today, especially in their specific communities.

Governmental ActionThe government is an extremely important stakeholder in the direction of

environmental change, as it holds the ability to implement laws and policies that are essential to the management of a clean environment. In this region, local governmental agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture have been doing local river protections, such as pegging the boundaries of the river. Additionally, research institutes, such as KARI, are conserving the environment using methods such as forest conservation, agro-forestry, and re-forestation. The Ministry of Public Health is conducting a monitoring program of the nearby streams and rivers to ensure clean water for their citizens. On the whole however, the Government has had challenges in fulfilling their mandate to protect the river, as key departments such as NEMA and WRMA are just beginning to focus on the Molo River as a departmental concern. The main project for the Government is the establishment of WRUA’s in the region, which have proved to be successful elsewhere in the country. Though the WRUA’s are currently only in the formation process, this brings a welcome sign to the community members that depend on the Molo River for their livelihoods. According to NEMA, District Environmental Committees have recently been formed in Molo District to tackle the illegal environmental degradation in that area. Other governmental agencies in the region, pointed to NEMA and WRMA as the main agencies for river protection and conservation in the region, which further intensifies the need for these authorities to act quickly in their decided course of action in creating the WRUA’s.

Middle CatchmentIntroduction

As the Molo River flows on its route to Lake Baringo, it passes through a middle section that includes towns such as Rongai, Kabimoi, and Mogotio. Surrounding communities are extremely dependent on this stretch of the river, which functions as their only source of water in the area. The river has become extremely polluted in recent years, causing harm to individuals and destroying their livelihoods. Pastoralists dominate this region, with agriculture as another critical mainstay, all depending on the river water for survival. In this section the volume of water increases due to the merging of streams from the upper catchment that drain all their water to the Molo River. Though this allows for a decent amount of water to flow, the pollutants from upstream are drained as well, leaving the water poisoned and hazardous for human consumption. Additionally, though these communities inherit already polluted water, local activities add to the decrease in water quality. Because this region faces extremely low rainfall, they fully depend on

12

irrigation from the river for their crops. This has caused problems in the region because it causes over consumption of the water from Molo River, leaving downstream sections bare and dry. Degradation of the River and Environment

Human activities in this section of the river such as commercialized agriculture, charcoal burning, deforestation, poor individual farming practices, and poor animal husbandry have all played a role in its continued degradation. Commercialized agriculture in the region, such as horticulture, eucalyptus planting, and large scale farming harm the river in many different ways. A specific result of these activities is farm chemicals directly polluting the river, as effluents from horticultural farms and large scale farms flow downstream into the Molo River. Additionally, sisal farms at Mogotio, dump green matter into the river after processing the sisal, adversely affecting the water. Irrigation and the planting of eucalyptus affect the river as well, as massive amounts of water are taken from the river to support these practices. Additionally, small scale farming has become a problem in the area, as individuals’ plant along river banks, increasing soil erosion and reducing downstream flow. Added to these problems, are individual degradation of the river by activities that include car washing, clothes washing, and animals interfering with the river water. All of these practices pollute the water as oils and grease, dirty laundry detergent, and animal effluents, are put directly into the water that humans are forced to use for daily consumption.

Nature and Magnitude of ChallengesThe middle catchment of the Molo River has been hard hit in recent years by

intense desertification and reduced rainfall, which the pastoralists and farmers depend on for sustainability. Due to this recent trend, the communities in this region depend on the Molo River like never before. Because of the failure of the rains and lack of water available in the river, many individuals have turned to charcoal burning as a source of livelihood. This further deteriorates the remaining forest cover in the area, and exacerbates the problem of soil erosion, leading to exposed streams and dirty water. During an interview with the Chief of Mogotio, the team was told that if the river dries, many community members will perish due to the lack of water sources accessible within a 40km stretch. As the current drought hits the region, food insecurity will affect the area greatly, as maize is currently drying up, and the cost is skyrocketing. Additionally, without food storage from last year, due to the post-election violence, communities are in dire need of assistance. High occurrences of disease have become common, due to the direct contact community members have with the extremely polluted water. A separate problem affecting the region is a lack of infrastructure and a lack of reliable NGO’s to address problems. Specifically, a common problem facing individuals in this region is a lack of support from organizations when the community starts initiatives to promote environmental awareness and conservation efforts. The current NGO’s that have been given support in the area have not fulfilled their mandate, and are not trusted by community members, creating disconnects within the community that stunt possible progress.

13

Worst Hit AreasIn this area the team was able to identify major hotspots that portrayed adverse

water conditions. By sampling the water, the team gained a clear indication of the type and amount of poison the water contained. The areas that were sampled were Chawa Stream, Kabimoi, Salgaa Bridge, Rongai, and Mogotio Town. These results are shown in Table 2.0-2.2 under Appendices. The data indicates extremely high levels of pollution throughout the area, especially at Chawa Stream, where individuals fetch water that has general and feacal coliforms that exceed 2400 per 100ml samples. Additionally, Rongai and Mogotio towns showed extremely high levels of general coliforms. The levels of coliforms indicate the presence of pathogens that are responsible for human disease when consumed. The water was also polluted by feacal coliforms, that had 15 of the coliforms or above in each 100ml sample taken in the region. These coliforms are due to animal waste and sewage, and are unsafe to drink in any situation, but averaged 800 per 100ml sample in the tests. According to the water chemistry taken in this region, the water showed signs of human interference, which has harmed the water quality. The samples taken at Chawa Stream and Mogotio specifically showed high levels of iron, which adversely affects human health. Additionally the 20 Minute PV test, which indicates general pollution, showed all the water to be chemically polluted and unhealthy for general consumption. Amongst the other worst hit areas was Mogotio, experiencing harsh and dry conditions that have forced the citizens’ crops to dry. It is also necessary to note in this section that the situation worsens dramatically as the river flows downstream, and that though the problems are similar in the Middle Catchment to that of the Upper Catchment, they are much more dire.

Community Perceptions of River DegradationThe citizens of the middle catchment along the Molo River are in great fear of the

future and what it will mean for the flow of water. Through interviews, the team discovered that not only is the river water used for livelihoods such as agriculture and animals, it is also used for household use and drinking, sustaining community members on a day to day basis. Dating back to the 1960’s the river was well conserved, through environmental protections, community ownership of land, and the enforcement of laws and policies. During this period the forests were dense with indigenous trees such as Bamboo, which were essential in purifying and conserving water. At the turn of independence, these practices declined as individuals focused on their ownership of land, and the economic benefits that they could garner at the expense of the environment. By the 1980’s the situation had worsened, leading to massive deforestation along rivers and the flow of water gradually decreasing. This trend continued into the 1990’s when individuals blocked water for irrigation schemes, changed the water ways for individual benefit, and starting using pumps for agriculture, which reduced the flow at a more rapid pace. All of these issues raised about that time period are still true today and can be readily seen when visiting the river. Additionally, during this period the introduction of inappropriate tree species for commercial benefits furthered the problems, culminating with water conflicts in the region over the diminishing resource. Interviews with community members in the area showed a concerned group of individuals, who worried not only about their general livelihoods decreasing with the flow of the river, but also feared new conflicts arising as downstream communities migrate upstream in search of

14

water. In general, there was a call for stakeholder meetings between upper catchment individuals and themselves to promote understanding of environmental and water resource management. Additionally, the communities in this area generally feel abandoned by the government, upstream communities, and local NGO’s, who they feel have done nothing to take them into account, leaving them struggling for survival. The communities perceive that it is high time individuals come together and find a way to solve these water depletion problems, and are willing to work to save the river.

Community ConservationIn the middle catchment there are CBO’s, NGO’s, and individuals who are

working hard to protect what little is left of the environment by planting trees and creating awareness through town gatherings and environmental days. CBO’s in the region have made efforts to establish tree nurseries, to restore the degraded forests in the region. Specifically, Berur Emtit Tree Nursery has made great strides in protecting the Molo River catchment, and the surrounding forests. In terms of NGO’s, World Vision has done an admirable job of expanding their efforts from Baringo Central, to ensure that citizens in the middle catchment have access to clean drinking water. Additionally, ESACO has done a fantastic job of planting trees in forests neighboring Pekerra River, and are working to expand their operations into the Molo River catchment. Another organization moving in the right direction is FOMAWA, which has been a leader for environmental protection in the region through planting trees and awareness creation, in schools and individual farms. In general, though there is a desperate want from citizens, there is a lack of organized community conservation efforts in the region. Hopefully, the Campaign to Save the Molo River can create awareness and spur organized action in this region, as the existing efforts are facing a lack of resources at the moment.

Governmental Action In the middle catchment, there has been a general lack of communication amongst

governmental departments regarding the protection of Molo River and the enforcement of policies regarding the environment. Many departments rely heavily on WRMA and NEMA to manage environmental issues, especially when it comes to dealing with rivers. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, efforts are being made in this region to protect the river from soil erosion, by using terraces, building gabions, and moving farming and construction back from the river banks. This area is a prime example of the need for NEMA and WRMA to get involved heavily at a local level, so that they can work together with other governmental officials to protect the citizens.

15

Lower CatchmentIntroduction

The lower catchment of the Molo River covers the region of Eldume, Kailer, Longumgum, and other parts of Marigat District. The area has been severely affected in recent years, due to the decrease in the amount of flow from the river. This section of the catchment is the most vulnerable due to the desert-like conditions, as well as the poor management of the Molo River from the upper and middle catchments. In the past the river was a permanent source of livelihood for the region, as it supplied water down to Lake Baringo throughout the year. Currently however, the river has become seasonal and is dry in the area for many months every year. This forces community members to dig holes in the river banks searching for clean water, and causing great suffering in the region. This year specifically, the problems faced in this community due to the river are the worst on record, as the river has already dried, causing crops to fail, and animals to face starvation. If the situation of the river is not changed, the Molo River in this area will cease to become a beneficial source of livelihood for surrounding citizens, forcing them to either migrate or face great suffering in their current homes. Degradation of the River and Environment

This area is greatly affected by upstream activities that harm the quality and quantity of the Molo River well before it reaches the lower catchment. Because of this, there is little for these communities to conserve as the small amount of water that reaches them is extremely polluted. In these communities the impacts of the degradation throughout the upper and middles catchments becomes much more apparent, as the pollution is quickly seen when observing the Molo River. Through interviews the team discovered that irrigation and pumping of water from the river has become a severe problem in the middle catchment, as these practices reduce the flow of the river and send pollutants, such as oil into the water. Although there is not much degradation in the region, deforestation for the use of charcoal burning has become severe as it decreases the forest cover, increasing desertification and soil erosion. Another issue that has degraded the environment is the introduction of inappropriate tree species such as Prosopis (also known as Mathenge), which were initially used for forest cover, though the species have proven to be harmful to animals and the overall environment. The government has recently legalized charcoal burning using Mathenge, though there are no laws regarding reforestation, making the loss to the surrounding environment great. Due to great poverty, many individuals have been forced into charcoal production as a source of livelihood, using exotic and indigenous tree species and compounding the already severe problem of deforestation. Additionally, the rampant charcoal burning in the area has had harmful affects on citizens’ health, as multiple individuals have been hospitalized due to respiratory problems from smoke inhalation.

16

Nature and Magnitude of ChallengesWater is especially important for citizens of the lower catchment, as rains are

extremely rare, and have become almost non-existent during the current drought. Because of this decrease in rainfall, the communities’ dependence on the local river becomes very intense, and water is needed for sustainability. The main sources of livelihood in this region are livestock keeping and agriculture, which both depend heavily on water availability. An example of how the current conditions are causing suffering in the region can be witnessed at Eldume Irrigation Scheme, where no water is currently flowing. The result of this is hundreds of acres of crops going dry, as the available irrigation water is not enough to support even a quarter of the irrigation scheme farm. Without natural water sources, this issue becomes a huge problem for the sustainable livelihoods of individuals in Eldume. Due in large part to the rampant deforestation throughout the region, during heavy rains large amounts of lose soil flows into the river causing siltation, which blocks the flow and pollutes the water. For individuals to fetch water they are forced to walk long distances, causing much strain to the family as women and children are involved in the day-long task, dropping school enrollment and leading to more poverty in the region as women are unable to contribute to development. The basic practice of fetching water for household use in the region has also become a serious issue, as citizens are forced to dig holes in search of clean water. This practice is hazardous as the holes are unstable and can cave in, harming the individual inside. Additionally, these holes rarely produce clean and sufficient water for drinking, as individuals are forced to suffer from extremely polluted water for household use. According to the Public Health Office, this water has caused many diseases in the region such as Typhoid, Cholera, and skin diseases. Due to increased poverty, the people of this area cannot afford medication for the diseases they acquire, leading to much more severe problems and in some cases death. As the situation worsens, food insecurity and water scarcity in the region may force individuals to migrate or perish, as the situation in this area becomes uninhabitable. Another issue facing this area, is the problems a lack of water has on citizens’ interactions with the surrounding wild animals. According to community members, crocodiles and monkeys have become a threat to livestock as the animals compete at the same water holes for the scarce resource. As the water has decreased, both humans and animals become more desperate, inevitably leading to more severe interactions in the region.

Worst Hit AreasIn the lower catchment, the entire area has been hit hard by the degradation of the

Molo River. Honestly it was hard to find a place to sample water from, due to the dry river beds that used to hold the Molo River. Eldume town represents a general spot where water is fetched by community members on a daily basis, and that was the reasoning behind taking a sample at this point. The Bacteriological tests taken at Eldume represent a general trend for the area, as the water was extremely polluted, with the highest levels possible of general coliforms and feacal coliforms present in the river. This is good evidence of the water that has caused many diseases in the region, as the tests exemplify how unsafe this water is for human consumption. In terms of surface water analytical data for the area, the levels of Iron were the highest discovered along the Molo River, showing a presence of more than two times the allowed rate under government water quality standards. Additionally, the Manganese rates for Eldume showed unsafe levels

17

when tested. The extremely high colour and turbidity levels seen in the water, is an example of the sisal production effluents upstream, as well as the other general pollution from human activities. Overall, the samples exemplified how poisonous the water was in this region, as the pollution levels were the highest seen along the Molo River.

Community Perceptions of River Degradation To the people of the lower catchment, the Molo River is a diminishing resource

that has served their communities as far as stories date back. Many individuals worry that if the river dries more in the following years, whole communities will be forced to migrate in search of water and food, or face death in their current homes. All individuals interviewed stressed the severity of the situation and begged the country to not forget about them, urging people to act now to save their communities. Community members understand that the water is polluted and want action to save the quality of the water that they are forced to consume. A key to governmental action, many individuals believe, could start with the reinforcement of local committees, which were created to monitor environmental issues, but have not been successful due to a lack of enforcement by the local government. Additionally, community members are asking for greater collaboration among governmental and NGO stakeholders, in order to ensure conservation efforts are not duplicated. In many interviews, individuals blamed upstream communities for not conserving the water and there was a general feel that middle catchment irrigation schemes and personal consumption of water was a key contributor to the decreased flow. To solve this, individuals suggested government policies that would regulate water consumption to allow the flow of water to downstream communities remains stable throughout the year, ensuring there is adequate water for all stakeholders involved with the river. Another issue that was often raised was the issue of the Mau Complex and the government’s failures in evicting individuals who have encroached onto forest land. Another perception common among community members was a general feel that local government laws were not being enforced, in regards to personal water usage.

Community ConservationConservation in this region has proven difficult due to an extreme lack of

resources. Efforts have been started however, to eliminate Mathenge trees from the area and replace them with indigenous trees species. Additionally, community groups have started the initiative to establish kitchen gardens to reduce further dependence on water for irrigation. WorldVision has also greatly helped the region through water supply and sanitation projects, ensuring the provision of clean and healthy water to sustain community members. Other than that, there is a general conservation effort by communities to keep the little environment they have left alive, ensuring sustainability for the future.

18

Governmental ActionThis region, and its local government, depends greatly on the conservation efforts

that take place upstream. Because of this there are not many active solutions being created in this area to solve the water scarcity problems. However, the government is doing all it can to protect the citizens from harm, as they struggle against the dire circumstances. According to WRMA, it is in the planning stages of implementing WRUA’s in the region, as a safeguard against further degradation of the river. These groups have proven to be successful and the communities involved are anxious to get started on saving the river. The Ministry of Agriculture is also taking the initiative to create awareness among community members regarding farming and environmentally sound practices. Kenya Wildlife Service is controlling the number of crocodiles in the region, to protect people and animals from dangerous encounters in their own communities. Generally, the government also supplies aid to the region to ensure the citizens are protected from famine and lack of resources, though major governmental action regarding the management of the river is sorely needed in the area.

Governmental Laws, Policies, and Implementation

The government of Kenya plays a large role in protecting the environment, including forests and rivers. For the Molo River Survey the team found it necessary to interview relevant officials, to know the extent of the work being done to protect the Molo River. During the process there were a few government officials who the team were not able to meet with due to the tight schedules involved, and the team apologizes for any gaps that they missed along the way. The following will show the different departments involved in the protection of the river, their mandate, and what they are currently doing to protect the river.

National Environmental Management AuthorityNEMA is served with the task of protecting the environment of Kenya through

the implementation of the EMCA. The Mandate of NEMA is found in the Environmental Management and Conservation Act which highlights the key areas of focus that NEMA must implement. These tasks include Environmental Impact Assessments for all new projects carried out in the country, and the establishment of District Environmental Committees, tasked with reforestation and management of the environment throughout the country. Additionally, the mandate includes specifying Environmentally Significant Areas, establishing buffer zones around rivers and forests, monitoring degradation of the environment, creating and ensuring minimum water quality standards are met, monitoring industrial pollution, and ensuring the rehabilitation of degraded areas. NEMA has had trouble fulfilling their mandate due to under funding, understaffing, and a general lack of resources. For example, there is only one officer charged with the task of protecting the entire upper and middle catchments of the Molo River. These issues affect the ability of NEMA to create change or help improve the environment. The task of NEMA when it comes to managing the environment is well beyond their capabilities, leading to further destruction of the environment through government inaction. This lack of implementation

19

can be seen in many cases along the river as activities such as quarrying, industrial pollution, poor sewage systems, and construction directly in the river, all play a role in the degradation of the Molo River.

Water Resource Management AuthorityWRMA is the main government agency concerned with the protection and

management of water resources. According to other government institutions, a number of water related issues should be addressed by WRMA, as it is viewed as the leading institution on efforts regarding the protection of rivers and waterways. The mandate for WRMA is based in the Water Act of 2002 which sets the standard for WRMA in their actions, in regards to water management: The overall principles adopted in the formulation of the National Water Resource Management Strategy are:(i) To achieve equitable access to water, that is, equity of access to water services, to the use of water resources, and to the benefits from the use of water resources.(ii) To achieve sustainable use of water by making progressive adjustments to water use with the objective of striking a balance between water availability and legitimate water requirements, and by implementing measures to protect water resources.(iii) To achieve efficient and effective water use for optimum social and economic benefit.Goals and objectives of the National Water Resources Management Strategy are:- The overall goal of the National Water Resources Management Strategy is to eradicate poverty through the provision of potable water for human consumption and water for productive use. The fundamental objectives for managing Kenya.s water resources are to achieve equitable access to water resources and their sustainable and efficient use.Strategies for Implementation of Water Act:- Improving Water Resources Assessment. i.e. Classification of water resources nationally and observing reserve water requirements.- Putting in place mechanisms that promote equal access to water for all Kenyans. These include Legal and Institutional Provisions together with stages for water allocation- Putting in place mechanisms for an integrated approach to land and water resources planning and management such as Integrated Catchment Planning, Legislative measures and Pollution prevention- Measures that enhance the availability of water resources of suitable quality and quantity. These include Market based strategies such as Water Pricing and Effluent Charges and Technology-based Strategies namely Reduction of Unaccounted for Water (UFW), Recycling of Water, Conjunctive use of water and Water Demand Management in the Agriculture Sector. Other measures include Public Awareness and Development of Water Resources- Production of accurate data on water use and demand for both surface water and groundwater- Developing water pricing policies and mechanisms which recognize water as an economic good. - Developing strategies for flood and drought disaster management including landslides- Promoting integration of sector and regional water policies (trans-boundary waters)

20

- Support mechanisms for implementing the strategy. These include capacity building, applied research and technology, and financing requirements

WRMA has had difficulties in fulfilling their mandate due to a complete dependence on WRUA’s, which has left rivers, such as the Molo River, without protections to date. Though the WRUA’s are very good ideas in theory, they have proven to be very difficult to create, leading to unprotected zones of rivers throughout the country. At the printing of this report, there are renewed steps by WRMA and community members all along the Molo River to create a WRUA for the catchment, though these steps remain purely in the planning phases. The WRUA’s will improve the usage of water by community members, using a community outlook that factors in all of the views and needs for individuals throughout the protected river. Through interviews, the team was able to establish that these associations are welcomed by the region, and communities look forward to working together to protect their shared resource.

Ministry of AgricultureThe Ministry of Agriculture is the crucial department dealing with government

laws regarding farming and livestock. When it comes to rivers and the overall environment, it is this department’s job to ensure the practices of agriculture don’t interfere with the surrounding lands. The Ministry of Agriculture must fulfill their mandate which is established in the Agricultural Act and sets the following standards for river resources: - To establish the baseline distance between banks of waterways and areas of human activities such as cultivation and construction.- Soil Conservation of watersheds and river banks.- Proper management of water usage towards agriculture.- Create awareness amongst farmers regarding proper tactics for sustainable agricultural practices.

The Ministry of Agriculture has been generally competent in the area of river protection, though actions are limited due to the departments’ understaffed nature. Several departments have started pegging, to designate protected land along the river, as well as installing terraces, gabions, and contours to protect the river from extremely sloped lands. Additionally, initiatives to support agro-forestry have been started in many regions, as the department turns their focus towards reforestation as a way of keeping the environment stable.

21

Ministry of Public HealthThe Ministry of Public Health is tasked with the job of ensuring that citizens are

protected against illness and disease. The Ministry of Public Health relies on its mandate from the Public Health Act and subsequent policies, which set the following standards having to do with the river and its protection:- To ensure public health of citizens through implementation of the Health and Sanitation Policy.- Promoting health education and services to ensure the livelihood of citizens.- Monitoring rivers and waterways to ensure safe and adequate water for individuals.

There is a worry among public health officials that the dirty water that citizens are consuming has caused many problems in the region. The department conducts monitoring and testing on water resources to ensure that it meets the minimum water quality standards. As the survey’s samples have shown, currently the community water along the Molo River is not meeting those standards. According to a public health officer, there have been incidents of disease outbreaks in different regions such as Marigat, Rongai, and Molo. The overall situation along the Molo River is disintegrating and the problems facing this department are growing on a daily basis. The Molo River Survey looks forward to working with the Ministry of Public Health in the future, as steps are needed to ensure lives are saved from diseases obtained in drinking water.

Kenya Forest ServiceThe Kenya Forest Service is tasked with protecting the countries forests, used as a

major source of water supply for rivers and underground water. The Kenya Forest Service receives its mandate through the Forest Act of 2005, which sets the following standards regarding forests and water catchment management in Kenya:The functions of the Kenya Forest Service –

- Formulate for approval of the Board, policies and guidelines regarding the management, conservation and utilization of all types of forest areas in the country; - Manage all state forests; - Manage all provisional forests in consultation with the forest owners; - Protect forests in Kenya in accordance with the provisions of the Act; - Promote capacity building in forest management; - Collaborate with individuals and private and public research institutions in identifying research needs and applying research findings; - Draw or assist in drawing up management plans for all indigenous and plantation state, local authority, provisional and private forests in collaboration with the owners or lessees, as the case may be; - Provide forest extension services by assisting forest owners, farmers and Associations n the sustainable management of forests; - Enforce the conditions and regulations pertaining to logging, charcoal making and other forest utilization activities; - Collect all revenue and charges due to the Government in regard to forest resources, produce and services; - Collaborate with other organizations and communities in the management and conservation of forests and for utilization of biodiversity therein;

22

- Promote the empowerment of associations and communities in the control and management of forests; - Manage forests on water catchment areas primarily for purposes of water and soil conservation, carbon sequestration and other environmental services; - Promote national interests in relation international forest related conventions and principles; and enforce the provisions of the Act and any forestry and land use rules and regulations made pursuant to any other written law.

In terms of the Molo River, the degradation of the Mau Complex is a very serious issue, as many of the problems affecting the river start with the deforestation in the upper catchment. The Kenya Forest Service has done a good job of working with the community to raise awareness and establish Community Forest Associations to protect against deforestation throughout the country. It has been difficult to halt the deforestation however, as a lack of funding, understaffing, corruption, political interference, and a general lack of implementation of the laws and policies from high government officials have hurt the department’s ongoing initiatives to save forests in the region. There is a new government initiative that has been established to evict land-grabbers in the Mau Complex, this initiative is supported by the department, as it sees the program as a chance to halt deforestation and save the upper catchment for the Molo River. Through interviews, the team discovered that KFS has created new charcoal burning technology, which creates efficient means for charcoal production, and reduce energy lost in the process. This new technology has the ability to protect the environment against further degradation, but has yet to be implemented in communities along the Molo River.

Provincial AdministrationEach provincial administration is charged with the task of providing security for

their citizens, and generally working to ensure those individuals basic means of livelihood are protected. A main tool that the administrations have used in environmental awareness is Barazas, which are used to educate community members on the importance of the environment around them. The administration is also given the task of providing enforcement for other agencies that help to protect the environment. Another role given to these administrations is that of conflict resolution over resources, such as water, land, and forest, in the local regions. It has been difficult for these groups to actually improve the environment however, as a lack of resources, lack of dedication, and corruption has lead to environmental degradation along the Molo River. In general the different officers met during the Molo River Survey were very willing to work to save the Molo River, and support initiatives regarding the environment.

Constituency Development Fund OfficeThe Constituency Development Fund supplies resources to individuals in local

communities throughout the country. As seen in the CDF mandate, there is a requirement to allocate 10% of funds to supporting environmental projects. Throughout the Molo River Survey, the team was not able to find a single environmental project that had been funded in any way by the CDF office. This is a real problem, as it shows a breakdown in the governmental process for supporting environmental projects, and protecting the

23

environment in a general sense. Not all of the blame however can be placed on the CDF office itself, as community groups were not writing proposals to be funded, in the survey’s experience. This lack of communication, between communities and the government that serves them, signals a key failure in the process of environmental growth, and opens the doors for rampant corruption and general inaction.

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute The government established research institutes such as KARI to conduct research

on different tree and plant species that have significance to the environment and agriculture. The institute promotes the use of available local resources to promote agro-forestry and establish tree nurseries. KARI’s mandate states:Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) is a premier national institution bringing together research programmes in food crops, horticultural and industrial crops, livestock and range management, land and water management, and socio-economics. KARI promotes sound agricultural research, technology generation and dissemination to ensure food security through improved productivity and environmental conservation.

KARI is able to enhance community participation through workshops, trainings, seminars, and other community activities. However, according to community perceptions, KARI should extend further their conservation efforts into the entire catchment to promote good forest usage in a broader way. This would better help communities focus their efforts on environmental conservation and understand the appropriate tree species to plant in their farms.

Irrigation BoardThe Ministry of Water and Irrigation established the Irrigation Services Board in

order to support communities in their farming practices through irrigation. During the Molo River Survey, it was essential to involve the board as the irrigation water is supplied from water resources such as the Molo River. In Marigat District, communities fully depend on irrigation to sustain their crops due to the extremely harsh conditions in the region. As rivers dry up the Irrigation Board’s efforts are affected poorly, due to the lack of available water to be used in watering crops. This reality may eventually lead to an increase in food insecurity, as crops dry and people face hunger.

Local AuthoritiesThe government uses local authorities to disperse funds to communities through

acts such as the Local Authorities Transfer Fund, which is able to support projects and other initiatives that promote development in the region. The Molo River Survey found that not only were funds not allocated for environmental issues, but local authorities were not taking needed steps to protect the environment in their regions. A good example of this is the Molo Town Council, which has practiced the dumping of waste on the edge of the Molo River at Moto area. It is crucial that local authorities realize the impacts of environmental degradation through such practices, and look to allocate funds and work with communities to better conserve the environment. A good example of this type of environmentally conscious approach comes from Eldama Ravine, where the local authorities have worked with community members to conserve the environment, and

24

protect the Lembus Forest. This protection has been crucial in the conservation of the watershed and its surrounding streams, such as Perkerra River.

ConclusionIn general, the Molo River is in serious danger of becoming not only a seasonal

river, but drying up all together, as communities throughout its catchments are currently unable to stop the degradation. Massive deforestation in the Mau Complex, along with issues such as river bank destruction, domestic and industrial pollution, poor management of sewage systems, farming along the river, and a continued focus on individual ownership of the river affects the quality and quantity of the Molo River. Other issues outlined through the survey were commercial tree planting, introduction of inappropriate species, and poor animal husbandry. General degradation of the river has caused a number of problems such as disease, lack of water, and an increased cost of living to communities dependent on the river. A lack of funds has hurt many institutions and community groups that have began efforts to protect and conserve the environment. All of these problems can be dealt with, but there needs to be a community based push from all levels to change the current attitudes and implementation of the policies regarding the river. The push for change needs to come from the government as well to initiate well supported campaigns to save the current situation in concern for the environment. Politicians need to stop thinking about getting elected before helping their people, and should address situations on the ground that are harming the daily lives of the citizens of this country.

RecommendationsThe first step from the government regarding the Molo River is a basic need for

the implementation of laws and policies regarding the waterway. The Molo River and its catchment areas are considered Environmentally Significant Areas, and should start to be treated as such, with governmental policies strictly enforced. This means that everything from slopes to individual farms must be examined to make sure they meet government standards, without this any practices to restore the river will be in vain. Some of the government standards that should be on the top of the priority list are buffer zones along river banks, terraces for soil conservation along steep slopes, the re-examination and EIA testing of quarry practices along the river, and adherence with government minimum water quality standards. Another issues that is crucial for the Molo River is the eviction of land-grabbers in the Mau Complex, as current settlements are destroying the forest that the river depends on for its flow. WRMA should take quick and substantial steps in developing a WRUA for the Molo River, as currently the entire catchment is a forgotten area in WRMA policy, and this must change to ensure that all citizens’ livelihoods are taken into account by the government. All of the recommendations should not just fall on the government, as communities must re-evaluate the ways in which they currently interact with the river, and come up with strategies and solutions to effective community ownership of the Molo River. An example of this is shown in a proposed strategy to solve the high water consumption from irrigation, as community members from Mogotio proposed that large-scale farms should dig their own boreholes for irrigation. The team found this to be a model for critical thinking when it comes to reducing industries dependence on the Molo River. Farmers and other local citizens should take the initiative

25

to conserve and protect the environment that surrounds them through indigenous tree planting, proper farming systems, and sustainable environmental practices. CBO’s, CFA’s, and NGO’s must start approaching the government for funds, promoting civic education, and in general find ways to support their projects. Though the team understands that this may be difficult, your communities have charged you with the task of protecting and serving them and it is your mandate to follow through with actions on the ground. Schools must be required to educate youth about the importance of the environment and how to conserve and protect the world around them. In general, the entire population, from the MP’s down to the basic citizen, should begin to view themselves as part of a greater community that must share this resource of the Molo River as a source of livelihood for the region as well as the country of Kenya.

References1. Environmental Management and Conservation Act 19992. Water Act 20023. Agricultural Act 4. Forest Act 20055. District Development Plan 2002-2008 (National)6. District Development Plan 2002-2008 (Baringo Central District)7. District Development Plan 2002-2008 (Molo District)8. District Development Plan 2002-2008 (Koibatek District)9. District Development Plan 2002-2008 (Nakuru District)10. Constituency Development Fund Act 200311. Wildlife Act 200712. Public Health Act

26

AppendicesList of TablesTable 1.0: Surface Water Analytical Data for the Upper Catchment Part 1

SAM

PLE

SOU

RC

E

DA

TE S

AM

PLED

PH CO

ND

UC

TIVI

TY m

icro

sei

m

IRO

N m

g/l

MA

MN

GA

NES

Emg/

l

TOTA

L H

AR

DN

ESS

mg/

l

CA

LCIU

Mm

g/l

MA

GN

ESIU

M m

g/l

TOTA

L A

LKA

LIN

ITY

Molo river at Kenya breweries

11/7/09 7.74 365 2.03 0.800 42 24.4 4.3 108

Mau river at Withima

11/7/09 8.04 165 0.79 0.180 46 8.0 5.5 78

Munju stream 11/7/09 7.19 295 2.16 0.400 38 8.0 6.7 94

Molo river at Elburgon Farm

11/7/09 7.56 337 1.64 0.393 38 10.4 2.9 110

Githigi stream 11/7/09 7.39 231 1.30 0.210 28 4.8 2.9 72

Molo river at Mukinyai Primary School

9/7/09 8.35 210 0.49 0.065 38 9.6 4.8 90

Revete Stream at Kibunja

9/7/09 7.36 180 1.23 0.266 44 8.8 2.2 74

27

Table 1.1: Surface Water Analytical Data for the Upper Catchment Part 2

SAM

PLE

SOU

RC

E

FLU

OR

IDE

mg/

l

NIT

RA

TE m

g/l

CO

LOU

R

AM

MO

NIA

mg/

l

CH

LOR

IDE

mg/

l

SULP

HA

TE m

g/l

ELEM

ENTS

RY

PHO

SPH

OR

US

mg/

l

OR

THO

PHO

SPH

ATE

mg/

l

TSS

mg/

l

TUR

BID

ITY

NTU

TDS

mg/

l

20 M

IN P

V m

gO2/

l

Molo river at Kenya breweries

0.311 2.1 239 0.46 48 13 0.2 0.03 163 124.4 182 28.44

Mau river at Withima 0.62 0.1 105 0.36 12 4 0.2 0.41 16 36.9 83 34.76

Munju stream 0.82 1.5 331 0.92 36 40 NIL 0.67 66 87.3 148 6.48

Molo river at Elburgon Farm

0.90 0.7 135 0.47 29 24 NIL 0.73 52 58.3 160 44.24

Gathigi stream 0.75 0.7 107 0.42 24 38 0.4 0.48 22 45.2 164 34.76

Molo river at Mukinyai Primary School

NIL 0.2 76 0.28 20 8 0.1 0.38 24 4.15 100 31.6

Revete Stream at Kibunja

NIL 0.1 136 0.42 12 1 0.4 0.29 15 7.38 90 37.92

28

Table 1.2: Bacteriological Analytical Data for Upper CatchmentSAMPLE NO DATE

SAMPLEDDATE SAMPLE

SOURCEGENERAL FEACAL

RECEIVED COLIFORMS PER

COLIFORMS

  100ML SAMPLES

PER 100ML SAMPLES

329/07 11/7/2009 11/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT KENYA BREWERIES

240 GREATER THAN 2400

330/07 11/7/2009 11/7/2009 MAU RIVER AT WITHIMA

GREATER THAN 2400

GREATER THAN 2400

331/07 11/7/2009 11/7/2009 MUNJU STREAM GREATER THAN 2400

GREATER THAN 2400

332/07 11/7/2009 11/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT ELBURGON FARM

1100 39

333/07 11/7/2009 11/7/2009 GATHIGI STREAM

150 28

324/09 9/7/2009 9/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT MUKINYAI PRIMARY SCHOOL

GREATER THAN 2400

7

325/09 9/7/2009 9/7/2009 REVETE STREAM AT KIBUNJA

GREATER THAN 2400

7

29

Table 2.0: Surface Water Analytical Data for the Middle Catchment Part 1

SAM

PLE

SOU

RC

E

DA

TE S

AM

PLED

PH CO

ND

UC

TIVI

TY m

icro

sei

m

IRO

N m

g/l

MA

MN

GA

NES

Emg/

l

TOTA

L H

AR

DN

ESS

mg/

l

CA

LCIU

Mm

g/l

MA

GN

ESIU

M m

g/l

TOTA

L A

LKA

LIN

ITY

Chawa stream at Belba

9/7/09 7.86 110 1.27 0.261 44 7.2 nil 98

Molo river at Salgaa bridge

9/7/09 8.16 220 0.67 0.145 32 9.6 3.4 86

Molo river at Kabimoi 9/7/09 7.58 110 0.65 0.128 38 5.6 7.2 36

Molo river at Rongai town 9/7/09 7.91 250 0.91 0.152 38 9.6 3.4 98

Molo river at Mogotio town

8/7/09 7.88 286 1.20 0.487 44 12 2.88 96

30

Table 2.1: Surface Water Analytical Data for the Middle Catchment Part 2

SAM

PLE

SOU

RC

E

DA

TE S

AM

PLED

FLU

OR

IDE

mg/

l

NIT

RA

TE m

g/l

CO

LOU

R

AM

MO

NIA

mg/

l

CH

LOR

IDE

mg/

l

SULP

HA

TE m

g/l

ELEM

ENTS

RY

PHO

SPH

OR

US

mg/

l

OR

THO

PHO

SPH

ATE

mg/

l

TSS

mg/

l

TUR

BID

ITY

NTU

TDS

mg/

l

20 M

IN P

V m

gO2/

l

Chawa stream at belba

9/7/09 NIL 0.6 414 0.72 18 12 NIL 0.51 67 30.1 280 44.24

Molo river at Salgaa bridge

9/7/09 NIL 0.4 130 0.23 20 1 NIL 0.48 15 6.23 110 22.12

Molo river at Kabimoi

9/7/09 NIL 0.6 165 0.33 12 2 0.5 0.70 24 11.38 50 28.44

Molo river at Rongai town

9/7/09 1.25 0.3 240 0.42 20 8 0.4 0.50 42 12.03 120 28.44

Molo river at Mogotio town

8/7/09 0.51 0.2 171 0.51 19 NIL NIL 0.60 59 48.3 120 37.92

Table 2.2: Bacteriological Analytical Data for Middle Catchment SAMPLE NO DATE

SAMPLEDDATE SAMPLE SOURCE GENERAL FEACALRECEIVED COLIFORMS

PER COLIFORMS

  100ML SAMPLES

PER 100ML SAMPLES

328/07 9/7/2009 9/7/2009 CHAWA STREAM AT BELBA

GREATER THAN 2400

GREATER THAN 2400

326/09 9/7/2009 9/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT SALGAA BRIDGE

460 28

327/07 9/7/2009 9/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT KABIMOI

1100 460

323/09 9/7/2009 9/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT RONGAI

GREATER THAN 2400

15

320/09 8/7/2009 8/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT MOGOTIO TOWN

GREATER THAN 2400

1100

31

Table 3.0: Surface Water Analytical Data for the Lower Catchment Part 1

SAM

PLE

SOU

RC

E

DA

TE S

AM

PLED

PH CO

ND

UC

TIVI

TY m

icro

sei

m

IRO

N m

g/l

MA

MN

GA

NES

Emg/

l

TOTA

L H

AR

DN

ESS

mg/

l

CA

LCIU

Mm

g/l

MA

GN

ESIU

M m

g/l

TOTA

L A

LKA

LIN

ITY

Molo river at Eldume 8/7/09 8.61 324 2.22 0.640 62 17.6 4.3 16

Table 3.1: Surface Water Analytical Data for the Lower Catchment Part 2

SAM

PLE

SOU

RC

E

FLU

OR

IDE

mg/

l

NIT

RA

TE m

g/l

CO

LOU

R

AM

MO

NIA

mg/

l

CH

LOR

IDE

mg/

l

SULP

HA

TE m

g/l

ELEM

ENTS

RY

PHO

SPH

OR

US

mg/

l

OR

THO

PHO

SPH

ATE

mg/

l

TSS

mg/

l

TUR

BID

ITY

NTU

TDS

mg/

l

20 M

IN P

V m

gO2/

l

Molo river at Eldume

0.65 NIL 612 1.56 24 3 NIL 0.42 178 265.2 160 22.1

Table 3.2: Bacteriological Analytical Data for Lower Catchment SAMPLE NO

DATE SAMPLED

DATE SAMPLE SOURCE GENERAL FEACALRECEIVED COLIFORMS PER COLIFORMS  100ML SAMPLES PER 100ML

SAMPLES322/09 8/7/2009 8/7/2009 MOLO RIVER AT ELDUME GREATER THAN

2400GREATER THAN 2400

32

List of GraphsGraphs representing the status of the Molo RiverBacteriological Analytical Data for General Coliforms Per 100ml Sample

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

GE

NE

RA

L

Sample site

Gen

eral

col

iform

s pe

r 100

ml s

ampl

e

MOLO RIVER AT MOGOTIO TOWNMOLO RIVER AT BARINGO ISLANDMOLO RIVER AT ELDUMEMOLO RIVER AT RONGAIMOLO RIVER AT MUKINYAIMOLO RIVER AT KIBUNJA STREAMMOLO RIVER AT SALGAA BRIDGEMOLO RIVER AT KABIMOICHAW STREAM AT BELBAMOLO RIVER AT KENYA BREWERIESMAU RIVER AT WITHIMAMUNJU STREAMMOLO RIVER AT ELBURGONGITHIMA STREAM

33

BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYTICAL DATA FOR FEACAL COLIFORMS PER 100ML SAMPLE

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

1

Sample source

Feac

al c

olifo

rms

per 1

00m

l sam

ple

MOLO RIVER AT MOGOTIO TOWN

MOLO RIVER AT BARINGO ISLAND

MOLO RIVER AT ELDUME

MOLO RIVER AT RONGAI

MOLO RIVER AT MUKINYAI

MOLO RIVER AT KIBUNJA STREAM

MOLO RIVER AT SALGAA BRIDGE

MOLO RIVER AT KABIMOI

CHAW STREAM AT BELBA

MOLO RIVER AT KENYABREWERIESMAU RIVER AT WITHIMA

MUNJU STREAM

MOLO RIVER AT ELBURGON

GITHIMA STREAM

surface water analysis on iron levels

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

IRON mg/l

sample source

IRO

N L

EVEL

S m

g/l

Molo river at Mogotio townMolo river at lake Baringo islandMolo river at EldumeMolo river at Rongai townMolo river at Mukinyai Molo river at Kibunja streamMolo river at Salgaa bridgeMolo river at KabimoiChaw stream at belbaMolo river at Kenya breweriesMau river at WithimaMunju streamMolo river at ElburgonGithima stream

34

MANGANESE LEVELS ALONG THE MOLO RIVER

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

SAMPLE SOURCE

Man

gane

se le

vels

mg/

l

Molo river at Mogotio townMolo river at lake Baringo islandMolo river at EldumeMolo river at Rongai townMolo river at Mukinyai Molo river at Kibunja streamMolo river at Salgaa bridgeMolo river at KabimoiChaw stream at belbaMolo river at Kenya breweriesMau river at WithimaMunju streamMolo river at ElburgonGithima stream

List of Stakeholders Used in the Molo River Survey Baringo Stakeholder List

- Eldume Community members (Including Chief)- Kailer Community members (Including Chief)- Longumgum Community members (Including Chief)- Marigat Public Health Office- Marigat KWS Office- Marigat Irrigation Board- Marigat KARI- Marigat World Vision- Marigat Ministry of Agriculture- Marigat DO Office- Kabarnet Department of Water (WRMA)- Kabarnet KFS- Kabarnet NEMA (DEO)

Mogotio Stakeholder List- Mogotio Community Members (Including Chief)- Kabimoi Community Members (Including Chief)- ESACO- Molo River Basin Consortium- Tree Nursery Young man- Mogotio Councillor- Koibatek KFS- Youth Development Officer

35

Molo Stakeholder List- Molo Community Members (Including Chief)- Rongai Community Members (Including Chief)- Kuresoi Community Members (Including Chief)- Elburgon Community Members (Including Chief)- Mau Summit Community Members (Including Chief)- Molo DO Office- Molo Ministry of Agriculture Office- Molo WRMA Office/ WRMA in Nakuru- Molo NEMA (DEO)/Sally- Molo KFS- Molo DC Office- Molo Public Health Office- Molo Ward Councilor- CDF Office in Njoro- Divisional Agricultural Officer in Nakuru- Michinda Primary School- Mukinyai Primary School- Kiambiriria Primary School- Baraka Agricultural College- Molo KARI- COFEGFA- FOMAWA- Kihoto Self Help Group- General CBO’s and CFA’s- Molo Town Clerk- Rongai DO Office- Rongai DAO

36

Lead Kenyan Organizational Contacts

Network for Eco-Farming in AfricaCountry Director: Samuel Muhunyu 0722647112AddressP.O. Box 819-20106MoloPhoneTel: 051-721048Emailnecofakenya@yahoo.comWebsitewww.necofa.orgnecofakenya.wordpress.comPhysical AddressNeema Plaza 1st FloorOpposite Molo StadiumGatundu Street

Maendeleo Endelevu Action ProgramDirector: Karangathi Njoroge 0722906453AddressP.O. Box 881-20106MoloPhoneTel: 051-721434Emailmeaprog@gmail.comWebsiteMaendeleoaction.wordpress.comPhysical AddressMothers Plaza1st Floor Room 13

37