PANGANI BASIN WATER BOARD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

There are few data on the pastoralists of the Pangani River Basin. In 1995, livestock within the Basin was estimated to need 30,500 m 3 of water a day, while they are expected to require 36,400 m 3 /day in 2015 (IVO – NORPLAN, 1997). Current livestock numbers in the Basin are not known. The most recent figures available to this survey come from 2002, and are derived from scattered districts and municipalities throughout the Basin (Table 4). Table 5: Livestock population in selected areas of the Pangani River Basin (2002) Region Cattle Shoats* Donkeys Simanjiro District, Manyara Region 305,075 133,000 11,000 Arusha Municipality & Arumeru District, 470,000 461,450 21,991 Arusha Region. Kilimanjaro Region 568,689 534,420 12,380 Tanga Region 421,261 378,442 Not counted Taita – Taveta District (Kenya) 37,800 40,277 Not counted Total 1,765,025 902,972 Source: Various sources. *‘Shoats’ are goats and sheep combined. C. 5 Urban interests The Pangani River Basin (PRB) contains two main urban areas. In the north, and located relatively close to one another, are Moshi and Arusha. In 1995, urban water use from the Basin was estimated to be 71,200 m 3 /day, and was expected to grow to 163,600 m 3 /day in 2015 (IVO – NORPLAN, 1997). The volumes of water used at present, Sarmett and Kamugisha (2002) estimate are low, and no more than 1.1 m 3 /s. Arusha municipality has a population of between 250,000 and 350,000 (depending on authority). Although most of the water coming off Mt. Meru is used for irrigation and domestic purposes, the biggest commercial water user is the Arusha Urban Water and Sanitation Authority (AUWSA). It has 15 boreholes and an average annual capacity of 7.4 million m 3 (Schechambo, 2002). The Authority also taps water from two springs with an average combined annual yield of almost 6.4 million m 3 (Schechambo, 2002). The rivers are also used to dispose of urban waste. Moshi Municipality, Ngana (2001) says disposes sewerage directly into rivers, while Mkuula (1993) claims that the rivers Themi (near Arusha), Karanga, Njoro and Rau (near Moshi) are all polluted by urban-based industrial waste. C.6 Interventions by NGOs and international organisations in the PRB There are large numbers of NGOs operating in the Pangani River Basin (PRB), and far fewer international organisations. In this section, it is understood that these interests do not typically make demands upon the PRB’s natural resources, but that their interests are often focussed upon Natural Resource Management (NRM), conservation and the development and sustenance of livelihoods. There are far more NGO and international donor interventions than those considered. Those discussed below may form the basis for collaborative integrated management activities in the Basin, as will be discussed in the conclusion. 30
Non-governmental organisations PAMOJA is a Tanzanian-based NGO that believes that dialogue is necessary in a conflict situation. It argues that ‘if the voices of the unofficial and marginalised community groups are heard and listened to by policy and decision makers, local actors can effectively contribute to the protection and rehabilitation of water catchments, while also increasing the efficiency of economic production and use of water’ (PAMOJA, 2002: 3). Mutual agreement, they say, works better than law. Of late, PAMOJA has increasingly come under the scrutiny of the Pangani Basin Water Office (PBWO) as a possible route through which dialogue and mutual understanding between the PBWO and the Basin’s water users can be developed. Launched in 1992, the Tanzania Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) Project in the North Pare Mountains was concerned with a number of serious problems, including high population density, small plot sizes, exhausted soils and alarming levels of forest encroachment. Using an approach that sought to draw up site-specific management plans in collaboration with the project area’s communities, it was able to improve soil fertility, reduce surface run-off and stabilise river banks. TFAP also sought to utilise irrigation systems developed by the Wapare and used by them for centuries. Plot sizes, however, remain small, and the only cash crop cultivated in the area was coffee, leading Mndeme (n.d.) to suggest that the development of off-farm income-making opportunities and the diversification of the cash crop base would be necessary for the future success of the project (source: Mndeme, n.d.). The Traditional Irrigation and Environmental Development Organisation (TIP) has been registered in Tanzania since 1999. The organisation inherited the assets and took over the functions of a former 13-year old donor-funded project called the Traditional Irrigation Programme. As it was with the latter programme, the main focus of TIP is to assist in poverty alleviation and sustaining food security for the small-scale traditional irrigation community in selected areas of Tanzania by improving traditional irrigation practices. TIP emphasises land use planning as a basis for basin management, and argues that, as an initial starting point, the Basin should be divided into sub-catchments. In each of these, there should be a sub-catchment board comprising representatives sent by each village within the sub-catchment. Each sub-catchment board will send representatives to a Basin water board (Mjata, pers. comm.). TIP works through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with four Tanzanian districts: Same and Mwanga in Kilimanjaro Region, Lushoto in Tanga Region and Arumeru in Arusha Region. It reaches other clients and/or interested partners elsewhere through contracts and assignments upon request (Mjata, 2002). The Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Programme (TCZCDP) has partnerships with the District Councils of Pangani and Muheza, the Tanga Municipal Council, the Tanga Regional Authority, Irish Aid (donors), and the IUCN (The Word Conservation Union) for technical and managerial advice. The overall objective of the TCZCDP is the sustainable use of coastal resources. The programme aims to enhance the well-being of coastal communities in the region by improving the health of the environment that they depend upon and diversifying the options for using the coastal environment. The TCZDP started its work in 1987 and its activities are ongoing (Mgongo, 2002). The Tanzania Coastal Management Partnership (TCMP) is a joint initiative between the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC), the Coastal Resources Center/University of Rhode Island and USAID. The partnership was initiated in 1997 to develop and apply a national coastal management framework. This latter framework is based on a series of strategies that aim to develop an integrated management plan for Tanzania’s coastline and to develop sustainable and environmentally friendly economic activities in the area (Luhikula, 2002). The Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) was established in 1985, and promotes the conservation of forests with high biodiversity in Tanzania. The group counts amongst its successes lobbying for the creation of the Udzungwa National Park, Tanzania’s first rainforest park; the purchase of the Mazumbai Forest in the West Usambaras for research purposes by the University of Dar es Salaam; and lobbying for the EU – IUCN/Ministry of Livestock and Agriculture funded East Usambara Conservation and 31
Page 1 and 2: IUCN WATER AND NATURE INITIATIVE IU
Page 3 and 4: Pangani Basin: A Situation Analysis
Page 5 and 6: Contents Abbreviations ............
Page 7 and 8: Abbreviations ANR .................
Page 9 and 10: Preface The objectives of the first
Page 11 and 12: • Conflicts of scale: the relatio
Page 13 and 14: • Livestock increases: these are
Page 15 and 16: A Introduction to the Pangani River
Page 17 and 18: Figure 2: The Pangani River Basin s
Page 19 and 20: A.2 Integrated River Basin Manageme
Page 21 and 22: WANI helps to catalyse change, by i
Page 23 and 24: B The Pangani River Basin’s natur
Page 25 and 26: and in furniture construction. In r
Page 27 and 28: Conservation threats and status On
Page 29 and 30: B.3 Water and wetlands The Pangani
Page 31 and 32: The PRB is thought to have about 90
Page 33 and 34: wake lava flows, cinder fields and
Page 35 and 36: Box 9: Category 1 Globally threaten
Page 37 and 38: • The Basin’s biodiversity is a
Page 39 and 40: Table 4: Tanzanian and Kenyan socio
Page 41 and 42: Further to the south, farming inten
Page 43: Box 11: Sodicity and salinity Sodic
Page 47 and 48: Plate 1: The Pangani River Basin (S
Page 49 and 50: Plate 3: Kilimanjaro’s famous sno
Page 51 and 52: Plate 6: An irrigation furrow in Mo
Page 53 and 54: Conflict within the Pangani River B
Page 55 and 56: felling started and outsiders, perc
Page 57 and 58: These rules emphasise social equity
Page 59 and 60: D Natural Resource Management in th
Page 61 and 62: Table 6: Water rights (WR) in the P
Page 63 and 64: In this respect, Kenya’s Water Po
Page 65 and 66: their resources. However, instituti
Page 67 and 68: Box 14: An example of a Water Users
Page 69 and 70: From the above discussion, the foll
Page 71 and 72: In the Basin’s lowland areas, it
Page 73 and 74: these types of systems may actually
Page 75 and 76: • An additional administrative de
Page 77 and 78: that large(er)-scale interests are
Page 79 and 80: • PAMOJA’s expertise lies in th
Page 81 and 82: Geological Survey, 1960. Summary of
Page 83 and 84: Musyoki, M. M. and Mwandotto, B. A.
Page 85 and 86: W.C.M.C. (World Conservation Monito
Page 87 and 88: Interview sources for Appendix 1 Ar
Page 89 and 90: Natural Resources Protected Areas T
Page 91 and 92: Data collection network • Msangaz
Page 93 and 94: Land The main land use in the catch
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 4: The Administrative Pangan
Page 97:
Coast Development Authority IUCN -
show all

PANGANI BASIN WATER BOARD

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?