Raquel Jerobon. Integrated, sustainable, Transformative Governance over Contested Waters? A Case of

i

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis process was facilitated and made possible by my supervisor Professor Pieter Van den Broeck who guided with patience and took time to respond to questions and share information. The VLIR-UOS Scholarship facilitated this process through the scholarship awarded to undertake the course to which I am grateful. The KU Leuven MaHS community have being supportive and engaging and I appreciated the information and knowledge shared and gained throughout this year despite the varying challenges we encountered. Thank you to all the respondents and friends who took time to engage with me through the thesis as I collected data and finally completing it.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 1 Research Question .................................................................................................................. 6 Research Objectives/Aims ...................................................................................................... 6

2

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 8 Political Economy of Floriculture Global Value Chains ........................................................ 8 Hydro-social Territories ........................................................................................................ 13 Resource/ Water grabbing..................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Accumulation by Dispossession ................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Resource Grabbing/Land grab/Water Grab .................................................................. 17 Governance: A socio-institutionalist Approach .................................................................... 19 Social Innovation and its intersection with governance, territoriality embedded in SI initiatives ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion of Theoretical Basis ........................................................................................... 23

4 CASE STUDY: LAKE NAIVASHA BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE ACTION PLAN................................................................................................................................... 26 A Contested Resource ........................................................................................................... 30 Territorial Expression of Contestation .................................................................................. 33 Stakeholder Involvement ...................................................................................................... 39 Actors and Institutional Dynamics........................................................................................ 42 4.4.1 Before IWRAP: Setting the scene ................................................................................. 42 4.4.2 Actor-Institutional Dynamics Before IWRAP .............................................................. 43 4.4.3 Actor-Institutional Dynamics during IWRAP .............................................................. 47 4.4.4 Actor-Institutional Dynamics After IWRAP ................................................................ 51 Discourse Construction ......................................................................................................... 54 Old Governance System Vs New System ............................................................................. 58 4.6.1. Old Governance ............................................................................................................ 58 4.6.2 IWRAP Governance Framework .................................................................................. 62 4.6.3 Produced Governance Arrangements............................................................................ 66 Power dynamics- new power? Old power?........................................................................... 68 5

CONCLUSION: .......................................................................................................................... 69 Was the IWRAP programme Naivasha Socially Innovative?............................................... 69 5.1.1. Collective action to satisfy neglected human needs ...................................................... 69 5.1.2. Transformation in Social Relations............................................................................... 70 5.1.3. Empowerment of citizens to work towards socio-political transformation .................. 71

v

Did the IWRAP Programme Support a Sustainable Resource Governance System in The Lake Naivasha Basin in Kenya? ....................................................................................................... 74 6

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 77

vi

ABSTRACT Resources especially those that cut across boundaries and involve different actors and institutions usually breed contestation. In the Lake Naivasha Basin in Kenya, historically rooted resource contestation is exemplified in the territory where colonial historicities of land acquisition, internationally linked floriculture and horticulture industry, urban expansion of Naivasha town and its unplanned extensions, geothermal power production, wildlife national parks and private conservancies, smallholder farmers in the upper catchment, fishing, hotels and tourism industry are located in a semiarid area where freshwater is scarce. As such the freshwater from Lake Naivasha emerges as a lifeline to these industries and who all attempt to impart their values and norms into resource management practices to favour their interests. However, with climate change, the increasingly finite status of water increased population of users and uses that are contributing to the Lakes’ degraded condition, the waters become a contested resource, every actor attempting to gain and access and use of it. It is within these contestations that resource management and governance frameworks are challenged, created and recreated to fit territorial constructions that emerge over time. The study takes the Lake Naivasha Basin, where the waters are contested by multiple users and uses and uses the Lake Naivasha Basin Integrated Water Resource Action Plan (IWRAP) programme as a case study to explore how and to what extent the programme supported a sustainable governance system within the basin. The research is grounded in theoretical approaches political economies of global value chains (Kissinger 2014)(Mwangi 2019, Heher and Steenbergen 2021, Rouille 2015), hydro-social territories (Vos and Hinojosa 2016), (Boelens et al. 2016), Swyngedouw 2007, (Damonte and Boelens 2019), resource grabbing (Harvey 2003, Hall 2013, (Mehta, Veldwisch, and Franco 2012), governance ( Moulaert et al. 2019), (Gonzalez and Healey 2005) and social innovation (Van den Broeck 2011, Galego et al. 2021)(Moulaert and MacCallum 2019)(Moulaert and MacCallum 2019) to create a theoretical frame of interrogation of the case study.

It examines how different actors and stakeholders related to each other within the IWRAP programme, how the planning process succeeded or not in the creation of new governance systems that challenged the established centralized resource governance framework. It defines sustainability through a social innovation perspective in questioning whether the IWRAP programme created lasting governance change by examining the place of power, stakeholder involvement, agency and institutional embeddedness to answer the research question. An argument is made that power, discourse, actors, institutions, stakeholders and narratives of claim-making, territoriality determine/frame transformation in governance frameworks. They could work to facilitate or impede transformation and the survival of this change is as path dependant as its emergence. The research concludes that governance transformation requires a ‘seeds’ and ‘sediments’ approach to incubate and facilitate transformation beyond short term project scopes(Gonzalez and Healey 2005). Additionally, community centred participatory, collaborative, partnerships are central to a sustained change mechanism and that real governing transformation is made possible through continued, sustained innovative projects that should be institutionalized to transform centralized governing frameworks that bottleneck transformation. It is concluded that transformation happens in partnered approaches that create platforms of and for stakeholder engagement and bottom-up approaches will not be assimilated and overrule established autocratic hegemonic systems (Moulaert et al. 2019) . Rather an intermediary approach linking bottomup initiatives and top-down institutionalized practices are the means of achieving sustained transformative governance frameworks.

Key Words: contestation, governance, actors, institutions, territory, social innovation

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Naivasha............................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Three different geo-ecological zones in the Lake Basin. Source:(Rouillé et al. 2015) ............ 4 Figure 3 Lake Naivasha Drainage Basin. Source: (Higgins, Odada, and Becht 2005) ........................... 5 Figure 4 Location of Lake Naivasha. Source: Google Maps 2021 ......................................................... 6 Figure 5: The Global Value chain of flower production ......................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Dialectical relationships between actors, relevant social groups, planning instruments and institutional frames at a given time. Source: Adapted from Van den Broeck (2011) ........................... 22 Figure 7: Imagery of activities in the Lake Naivasha Basin.Sources.................................................... 31 Figure 8: Resource contestation and around the lake........................................................................... 32 Figure 9 ................................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 10 Territorial constructions to structure basin water governance. Source:(Rouillé et al. 2015) 35 Figure 11: Contestations spatially inscribed, territorially embedded.................................................... 37 Figure 12:Territoriality as governance, catchment basin and WRUAs divide the territory, ................ 38 Figure 13: Stakeholder groups in Lake Naivasha Basin. Adapted from (Renner 2020 10) .................. 41 Figure 14: Actor-Institutional Dynamics before IWRAP ..................................................................... 45 Figure 15: Actor-Institutional Dynamics during IWRAP ..................................................................... 48 Figure 16: Construction of discourse in the Lake Naivasha Basin ....................................................... 56 Figure 17: Water Act 2002 institutional matrix. (Akinyi and Odundo 2018) ....................................... 59 Figure 18: Water Act 2016 institutional matrix. (Gachenga 2019) ...................................................... 59 Figure 19: Resource Governance Framework in Kenya and how IWRAP fit into it............................ 61 Figure 20: IWRAP's governing framework .......................................................................................... 63 Figure 21: Emerging resource governance framework from IWRAP programme. .............................. 65

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Theoretical and Analytical Framework .................................................................................. 25 Table 2: The 7-goal IWRAP programme. Source: (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014), (WWF 2015), (Kissinger 2014, 19) .................................................................................................................. 29

viii

ABBREVIATIONS IWRAP

Integrated Water Resources Action Plan

KenGen

Kenya Electricity Generating Company

LaNaWRUA Lake Naivasha Water Resources Users Association LNB

Lake Naivasha Basin

LNGG

Lake Naivasha Growers Group

LNRA

Lake Naivasha Riparian

LNROA

Lake Naivasha Riparian Owners Association

SI

Social Innovation

WRA

Water Resources Authority

WRMA

Water Resources Management Authority

WWF

World Wide Fund for Nature

ix

x

1

INTRODUCTION Problem Statement

Lake Naivasha is located on the Rift Valley floor, 90km from Nairobi in Kenya Its fresh water is its distinguishing element, in a territory where all the nearby lakes are saline. This water is the site of contestation where a combination of permanent and ephemeral rivers constitutes its water inlet and underground outlets lend the lake its freshwater status. River Malewa is the largest inlet contributing 80% of the water while River Gilgil and Karati the remaining 20%, (Awange et al. 2013). Together with the rivers, Lake Naivasha forms a water basin that cuts across three county boundaries-Nakuru, Nyahururu, Laikipia and three geo-ecological floors-Valley floor, Kinangop Plateau and Mau Escarpment, (A.O Thompson and R.G Dodson 1963). These differences in administrative and ecological systems are further overlain with differences in the inhabitants of the basin. On the Mau Escarpment are the forest patches that form the Mount Kenya forest and water tower, the Kinangop Plateau is made up of smallholder farmers, a resultant of the post-colonial resettlement schemes that saw settler farms subdivided and allocated to indigenous communities, (Rouillé et al. 2015). The valley floor makes up the Lake Naivasha where “most of the large ranches downstream were conserved intact, thus crystalizing the colonial land tenure structures” (Rouillé et al. 2015 4). This now exists as a mixture of users and actors ranging from the Naivasha town, flower farms, hotels and resorts, game parks and reserves, informal settlements, fisheries, NGO and international organizations actors such as WorldWide Fund for Nature, GIZ, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

Naivasha has existed as a contested territory since the colonial period in Kenya. This contestation is underpinned by matters of land that by extension currently also manifests as a contestation of the Lake waters which in this case is seen as a shared resource used by different actors in different capacities.

Land has always been contentious in Kenya, first by the colonial displacement and acquisition of fertile lands dubbed the ‘White Highlands’ where original communal rights to access and use were disqualified as the land was viewed as ‘terrain vague’, empty land ready for occupation and development. This narrative of developing land assumed to be unoccupied made the general narrative of occupation in colonial Kenya. Naivasha formed part of the territorial White Highlands and in so doing the indigenous pastoral Maasai settlers were dispossessed and displaced from their ancestral land and replaced by White Settlers who were given new legal ownership by the Kenyan Colonial State, (Rouillé et al. 2015).

This displacement ideology and narrative was carried forth to the newly independent state where in 1985 the same Maasai community were dispossessed and displaced from their land in the greater Lake Naivasha basin to create the Hell’s Gate National Park, (Mwangi 2019).

In the 1980s and 1990s, a new form of displacement took place in the form of the new capital-driven floriculture industry mainly funded by foreign investments that saw land around the lake transformed from pastoral, smallholder agricultural and conservation to flower farms (Rouillé et al. 2015). This marked the beginning of the Naivasha agro-industrial complex. Land and consequently land uses were transformed, changed to meet the demands of this industry to make space and sense of the promised economic gains. Naivasha was thus transformed from a pastoral common to the dairy and farmland of the White Highlands and currently to an agro-industry centred around the water that transformed the most fertile but arid land around the lake region into productive irrigated land. However, Naivasha doesn’t exist in isolation, first, it is enmeshed within the complexities of the territorial lake basin, the greater national relations brought about by the floriculture industry that is the second-largest export earner after tea, it's lake dependent tourism industry that contributes to the foreign exchange earnings from tourism in the country. It is these multiplicities of uses, actors and organizations and governance structures that feed into the contested territoriality of Naivasha.

1

In addition, the governance and management of the lake and its basin is made up of a multiplicity of government agencies- Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water and Sanitation, Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), Water Resource Users Associations that cover upstream and downstream users, Nakuru County government, Kenya Wildlife Service. This is the image of Lake Naivasha, a landscape marred by a narrative of attempts at territorialization from the first colonial farms and ranches, to the fragmented territory it is today, where massive anthropogenic activities have redefined the actors, access and use of the water.

2

Figure 1: Location of Naivasha

3

Figure 2 Three different geo-ecological zones in the Lake Basin. Source:(Rouillé et al. 2015)

4

Figure 3 Lake Naivasha Drainage Basin. Source: (Higgins, Odada, and Becht 2005)

5

Figure 4 Location of Lake Naivasha. Source: Google Maps 2021

Research Question The research sets out to explore the dynamics of resource governance and management in the Lake Naivasha Basin with an interest in water resources. It uses the Lake Naivasha Integrated Water Resource Action Plan programme (IWRAP) as an entry point to this exploration. It places the programme in the context of Lake Naivasha Basin understanding it as a contested resource and territorialized environment. It explores how the IWRAP programme may have supported a sustainable resource governance system in the basin. This is explored in the contested resource dynamics, global trade connections, diverse stakeholder groups and interest, power, and discourse and whether transformation in governance was a result of the programme. The study understands sustainability in governance through a social innovation interpretation where it is seen as lasting transformative initiatives that attempt to realise human needs through collective action, build social relations and foster socio-spatial transformation by countering established hegemonic governance practices. On this basis, the research seeks to answer the following research question: i.

How and to what extent has the Lake Naivasha Basin Integrated Water Resource Action Plan programme (IWRAP) supported a sustainable resource governance system in the Lake Naivasha Basin?

Research Objectives/Aims This research aims to explore the dynamics of resource governance in the Lake Naivasha Basin through the IWRAP programme as a case. Its objective is to study and interrogate the case study through a developed interrogative frame based on theoretical approaches and primary data to find out how the IWRAP programme supported a sustainable resource governance system in the basin and to evaluate the extent of this change in terms of whether it contributed to lasting change or not.

6

2

METHODOLOGY

The research adopted a qualitative research approach where a theoretical framework was established as a basis for case interrogation accompanied and supported by primary data from stakeholder groups and actors interviews as well as project documentation, reports, research, findings and secondary literature informing the context of the case study. The IWRAP programme was interrogated based on a framework constructed from this to answer the research question of how and to what extent the programme supported a sustainable resource governance system in the Lake Naivasha Basin.

The methodological approach pursued a theoretical basis that established a frame of primary data collection to support the interrogation of the case. The study adopted a theoretical framework that used five key theories-the political economy of global value chains, hydro-social territories, resource grabbing, governance, and social innovation. These theories were pursued based on the contextual frame of the case study as well as the research question whose focus was on the sustainability of governance dynamics. The theories were combined to create an analytical framework to interrogate the case study.

Primary data was collected through informal semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the IWRAP programme and who remain significant and active/present in the Lake Naivasha Basin as well as other interest groups who responded to requests for interviews. A total of 10 interviews were carried out with: Lake Naivasha Resource Users Association, Lake Naivasha Riparian Owners Association, Imarisha Naivasha, KenGen, an environmental-based Community-Based Organization in the basin, Pastoral community representative, Water Resource Authority, WWF-Kenya, Fisherfolk community, Wanjohi Water Resource Users Association. This was supported by project reports, videos. data, publications, articles, research conducted in the Lake Naivasha Basin as well as news and media reports on resource and management activities in the lake basin.

7

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This research applied 5 main theories in combination to create a framework of analysis of the case study based in Lake Naivasha Basin to answer the research question of how and to what extent the Lake Naivasha Water Resource Action Plan programme (IWRAP) supported a sustainable resource governance system in the lake basin. The basis of these theoretical approaches is an understanding of the contextual frame of the case, a location in Kenya where the arid climate, competitive uses and users have framed the lake basin as a contested territory where efforts of changing and innovating governance systems in a mixture of centralized, collaborative, innovative strategies have been applied. This research centres on Global Value Chains, hydro-social territory, resource grabbing, social innovation, and governance theoretical approaches to creating a framework of analysis.

The study establishes this frame first by appreciating the contested nature of the territory, the resource, the uses, the users and management approaches, establishing the global links of the Lake Basin through its floriculture industry and pursuing to interrogate the IWRAP programme against this frame to find out whether it succeeded in establishing a sustainable resource governance system in the Lake Basin.

This is all bolstered by the social, economic, political conditions and the actors and institutional dynamics that may or may not have emerged during this programme upon which transformed governance systems may have been established. The study uses the IWRAP programme as an entry point for this examination by exploring its setting in a contested resource and territory frame, in a colonial land-grabbing history, in a globally-linked floriculture industry that furthers dispossession, a water management process grounded in a multiplicity of actors and institutions, territorial construction as a governance tool and how and to what extent the programme driven by ambitions and goals of transforming resource management managed to transform governance and whether this change was sustained. This investigation is framed within the political, economic, social, and ecological context of Lake Naivasha and Kenya through which the power dynamics of the different actors, actors, and institutional dynamics within the IWRAP programme are explored.

Political Economy of Floriculture Global Value Chains Global supply and production networks are influenced, affected, and determined by various factors that define actors and institutions dynamics in the supply and demand of global value chains. These global value chains are affected by global economic changes and volatility in global markets that in the 1970s economic crisis led to the movement of capital to emerging markets and where agro-industrial production emerged as avenues of capital investment. The agro-industrial production industries were at the nexus of these global market shifts and were looking for new sites of investment. Global South countries, with their quest for development reeling in Structural Adjustment Policies of the 1980s, were sites of the available global footloose capital. “The non-traditional, high-value flower industry became a darling of these neoliberal prescriptions because “in contrast to the traditional agricultural commodities, which signified ‘the old statist policies of developmentalism, non-traditional exports were vaunted as progressive and entrepreneurial, replacing archaic parastatal agriculture with market savvy actors” (Little and Dolan, 2000: 64 as cited in Mwangi 2019 15). Key among its growth were political conditions and economic incentives that were often offered by governments reeling from the economic crisis of the 1970s and the Structural Adjustment Policies of the 1980s and the wave of privatization processes that came after and were looking for new avenues of development. These industries, being agriculturally centred, were set up in resource-rich territories where resources necessary for production were in ample supply. In the floriculture/horticulture industry, water, land, cheap labour, low capital start-up and conducive climate were the key factors, but the water was integral.

8

9

Figure 5: The Global Value chain of flower production

Naivasha in Kenya was thus a location that satisfied all these key tenets. The flower industry fit within this nexus, coupled with an agro-ecological rich region, government incentives, development-led policy and a governing frame that largely left the industry within private governance systems, (Mwangi 2019).

The 1970s economic crisis compounded by a decline in commodity prices encouraged the production of high-value crops to increase export earnings (Mwangi 2019). “As the sector’s economic success increased, the HCDA gained political influence and resources mostly from external donors, which it used to build horticulture-specific infrastructure (World Bank 1989 cited in Heher and Steenbergen 2021 242). The 1980s followed a period of liberalization of “foreign exchange, freight rates, and streamlined importation procedures which made it easier to import production inputs for the flower industry” (Mwangi 2019 16). Where economic development was pursued as a strategy out of the economic growth slump of the 1980s. The floriculture and horticulture industries flourished within this frame of development-led policy that had flower and horticulture farms set up within umbrellas of trade incentives, tax holidays and exemptions, land leases and guaranteed access to resources for production (Mwangi 2019). This fostered an environment of privatization where capital determined entry into a market liberally connected to global markets and therefore susceptible to its risks, shocks and volatility.

The1990s push for export-based agricultural production by foreign investors and retail markets in Europe drove industry growth in the global south (Mwangi 2019).

Government efforts post-independence, driven by development agendas, pushed a ‘Kenyanization’ programme where land deals were preferentially granted to black Kenyans, promoted export, access to air transit and access to financing. Foreign investment continued playing a key role in the development of the industry that compounded improvement in infrastructure, labour and export market access.

Economic reforms of the 1990s, that saw market liberalisation and privatization strategies where government-imposed reduced control in export, import markets and foreign exchange earnings, (Heher and Steenbergen 2021). The expulsion of Indians from Uganda by Idi Amin increased exports since they created new markets especially in the UK and for cut vegetables together with the growth of tourism created more flights that facilitated freight transit of flowers to European markets(Kuiper and Gemählich 2017).

Global world trade has been made more efficient and interconnected where global north and south countries are connected in complex chains and networks of global supply and demand of products (Heher and Steenbergen 2021). The floriculture industry especially is defined within these globalised connections where value is pegged on changing tastes and cultural influences/whims of buyers located in foreign countries. This has shifted and constructed geographical points of interest for the industry where the North is the market while South countries such as Kenya are the sites of production and where dominance and power are maintained in the market where prices, standards are set in the central and traditional Dutch Auctions and European markets (Mwangi 2019). This incorporation into global value chains has been argued to have streamlined and facilitated the growth of industry and transformed economic conditions in production countries and instigating structural industry change to international standards (Heher and Steenbergen 2021). In this same vein, market control has permeated all chains of global flower production enforced through certifications and regulations used to transfer knowledge, maintain standards, and exert control in production processes. This has extended to farm production with interest in workers socio-economic conditions and the environmental impacts of production being captured in certification requirements for market entry (Kuiper and Gemählich 2017). This permeation of international standards formulated in the global north further streamline global south floriculture production motivated to meet market developed standards that guarantee and maintain market access.

10

The floriculture industry in Kenya was connected from the beginning to the Dutch Auctions as the key market for flowers from Kenya and consequently anchored the industry to the whims and demands and fluctuations in global markets(Kuiper and Gemählich 2017). Prices of flowers are set by these markets which as a result determine the earnings of workers, the profits of the companies and the tax remitted.

The Dutch auctions are the traditional market and regulatory centre that determine and influence the global flower trade, and which maintains power through its historical roots and innovations in marketing and industry knowledge generation (Mwangi 2019). This global north-south dependency relationship is maintained by demand and supply forces of flower trade and the dominance, power and centrality of traditional markets. However, new emerging retail markets in European supermarkets and emerging East markets are expanding and redefining these relationships (Mwangi 2019). The global south maintains its state as production sites because of weak local markets and cheap production costs made possible by low labour costs, weak labour laws, environmental regulations. Fluctuations and changes in global value chains consequently lead to local markets production changes, market competition, change in export markets from Netherlands auctions to UK retailers to new emerging markets in the UAE and changed local farm production in Kenya (Kuiper and Gemählich 2017).

Financial connections and access to capital were significant in its establishment where first investments were by international investors, later on by the political wealthy class and now by the emerging wealthy in the country (Mwangi 2019). This shows the industry has always been a capital recipient and capital demanding allowing international and national elite participation and inclusion in these processes. “The elite origins and ownership of the commercial cut flower sector seen in investment from foreign (European) and Kenyan political circles, European engagement in production and the exploitative use of migrant and mostly female labour on plantations.” (Mwangi 2019 67). The connection to Global Value Chains of flowers is promoted by the internationalization of capital and financing of the industry.

Foreign investment-linked the local market to international markets and “entrepreneurs of foreign origin living in Kenya (who had strong, often kinship connections to markets in Europe) ignited the growth of the sector” (Heher and Steenbergen 2021 235). “The Kenyan flower industry has however evolved more towards local industrial and political capital. Innovation from the industry’s knowledge economy is enclaved within the interests of these capital flows, rather than linking more widely into other sectors, which is further complicated by the asset specificity of production in the cut flower industry” (Mwangi 2019 85). Political power and connections were additionally instrumental in this industry as politicians were among the first investors, where personal interest was driven and supported by political connections and linkages that allowed specific actors with financial capital to emerging as the early winners in the emerging industry.

The early success of the floriculture industry in Kenya is argued to have been driven by a lack of government interference/ involvement in its early establishment. However, this is not necessarily true as government incentives and breaks through land leases, tax incentive allowed for the ease of establishment of the industry in the 1980s (Kuiper and Gemählich 2017). These processes were achieved through the connection of Kenya to the Dutch flower auctions where Mwangi (2019) states, “the success of the flower sector is underpinned by government support in terms of export regulation and traceability systems that build trust and confidence in European markets” (Mwangi 2019 66). It is a consumer-driven industry and changes in consumer consumption behaviour demands and needs are reflected in changing food standards that ensured a change in the supervision of the supply chain that had an impact on local farm producers. “Locally anchored yet deeply embedded in international knowledge networks, the flower farm as the nexus of production” (Mwangi 2019 118). Its’ buyer-driven attribute meant that its international linkage influenced the governing and management of the industry and consequently, as an industry it embodies global value chain contestations and local political, institutional, economic and social contestation. Global chains are manifested in the programming of

11

standard-setting, compliance and certifications requirements for access to market (Kuiper and Gemählich 2017). Consequently, as a reaction to value chains dynamics, large local farms and smallholder producers seek certifications to guarantee market access. This has been made more apparent by emerging bodies and governance instruments and organizations such as the Kenya Flower Council, Horticultural Crops Development Authority, organizations that formulate national standards and certifications that meet and respond to global chain certification requirements because of consumer needs and demands in the European markets (Heher and Steenbergen 2021). Smallholder farmers are additionally assimilated into the value chain through contract farming by large farms to supplement their supply of flowers year-round (Mwangi 2019).

The connection of production in the South and markets in the North has led to systems and regulations guiding the flower industry being pegged to conditions and requirements of the market. The diversification from Dutch auctions to include European and especially UK supermarket chains as markets for flowers has ensured that standards and regulations are set to conform to market needs and demands. The increasing consumer awareness resulting from an expose on flower production conditions that led to EU regulations on point of source regulations as a means of ensuring safety in products sold led to an industry shift to self-management strategies(Kuiper and Gemählich 2017). This led to the creations of various standards and certifications such as Fairtrade, Rain Forest Alliance that are all attempts of the industry to self-governance and ensure quality production process, environmental awareness and worker safety and remuneration (Kuiper and Gemählich 2017, Mwangi 2019). The rise of standards as a form of regulation continues to solidify these global value chains were requirements in the market influence production in the South. This continuously changes as markets continuously become stricter with conditions such that even local industry governing institutions benchmark local production standards and regulations in these largely global north countries, to inform local national standards (Mwangi 2019). This benchmarking in some cases may have mediated power dynamics between local Kenya Flower Council requirements with global standards required and subscribed to by Kenyan producers (Mwangi 2019). However, this furthers processes of dominance and power enshrined in the floriculture industry as powerful economic actors and markets influence the laws and regulations they operate under.

The flower industry fits into the discourses of economic development and growth in the wake of the Structural Adjustment Policies where export-oriented private industries were the favoured means of economic development underpinned by grandiose images of development. The industry provided employment and export earnings to the country cementing its position as a powerful and economically significant industry. The industry is placed within existing colonial historicity of accumulation and dispossession that had original inhabitants displaced and dispossessed of their land and replaced by ranches and farms in the created White Highlands territory in colonial Kenya. The industry is spatially located in these lands layered in the historicity of displacement and dispossession creating new territorial constructions as flower production clusters on the shores of Lake Naivasha (Rouillé et al.

2015). It further enclaved itself into a water consumption territory that over time has created and reproduced contestation in use and access of the water. It introduced new territorialities in water usage and constructed new meanings, rules, norms and identity of the waterscape based on its global value chain connections facilitated by industry standards and self-regulation systems. Its export-centred production furthers global value chains to water resources where “virtual water export creates hydro social territories…Multinational institutions such as financing organizations and major retailers and large multinational agribusiness companies introduce rules and regulation in national regulatory frameworks, and they also influence norms and values regarding water governance” (Vos and Hinojosa 2016 41). Their power and dominance based on its existence on an economic pedestal of employment,

12

foreign exchange and socio-economic development meant that water use and control was influenced by the power and control the industry wielded in the political, economic, and social context in Kenya.

The industry exponentially grew in a resource management context where water and resource consumption were not efficiently regulated therefore, they were reliant on industry-based standards of the regulation (Verstoep 2015). “Large companies’ power over local water resource governance creates new forms of water control that redefine hydro-social territories at a supranational governance level; in this process, local development options, values, imaginaries and knowledge are glossed over. A mechanism of this process is the CSR standards for water stewardship often set by international retailers and producer companies, which eventually shape the practices, norms, values and imaginaries of local producers, who adopt the new regulatory and values framework to be able to export” (Vos and Hinojosa 2016 42). Industry standards developed to make the supply value chains more efficient by managing production and supply process result in exertions of control. “As instruments to reduce complexity.

Their enforcement is part of the governance strategy. And at the same time an expression of these” (Kuiper and Gemahlich 2017 35). Industry formulated standards and certifications facilitate new governmentality of the floriculture industry based on discourses of sustainability, giving credence to the industry’s production process as environmentally safe. These standards inform environmental, economic, and social aspects of the industry and which currently operate concurrently with resource management laws and regulations thereby fostering conflict and contestation.

Hydro-social Territories This study adopts the hydro-social concept to study how territorial conceptualizations of water basins relate to dispossession tactics of resource accumulation leading to contestations across these created territories and how this influences the access and use of the shared resources. The research adopts the definition of hydro-social territories as, “the contested imaginary and socio-environmental materialization of a spatially bound multi-scalar network in which humans, water flows, ecological relations, hydraulic infrastructure, financial means, legal-administrative arrangements and cultural institutions and practices are interactively defined, aligned and mobilized through epistemological belief systems, political hierarchies and naturalizing discourses” (Boelens et al. 2016 2). “Hydro-social territories as a fusion of meaning, actors, political power, water flows, water technology and biophysical elements. Hydro-social territories are co-constituted by the material elements (land, water, ecosystems) within that space and the social power relationships between, and interests of, the people related to that space” (Vos and Hinojosa 2016 48). These created territories “have contested functions, values and meanings, as they define processes of inclusion and exclusion, development and marginalization, and the distribution of benefits and burdens that affect different groups of people in distinct ways” (Boelens et al 2016 3). It is these contestations created out of either “planned, imagined, materialized” territories and how they relate or determine governance dynamics, the contestations that are created out of the assimilation of a multiplicity of users and functions across a water basin/territory that is of interest for this study (Boelens et al 2016 3). The research adopts the understanding of hydro-social territories as creations of capital expansion and accumulation leading to dispossession and acquisition of rights to territories of local communities. The power exerted by different actors and users of the water, create and re-create water-social territories where use and access are expressed through contestation between the different users. The resultant water territories are attempts at governance and application of rules and norms on water spaces where different water users either upstream or downstream are connected by the shared resource. This homogenization of disparate water spaces within different/changing social, ecological, economic and political conditions is made manifest in the different management frameworks adopted.

13

“Hydro-social territories (imagined, planned or materialized) have contested functions, values and meanings, as they define processes of inclusion and exclusion, development and marginalization, and the distribution of benefits and burdens that affect different groups of people in distinct ways” (Boelens et al. 2016 2). Seeing hydro-social territory construction as a continuous process, ever-changing subject to injection of new actors, discourses and meanings shows that territory construction changes and is reflective of societal changes. This conclusively results in new forms of governmentality in the new spatial constructs, how governance is applied and how resources are used and shared between different and diverse users and stakeholders. Hydro-social territorialization is then conceptualized as a production of new spaces beyond the structured and established spatial governmentality of space and replaced with new conceptions, discourses and identity-forming that transform how water spaces are viewed, accessed and used. Hydro-social territorialization processes of territory construction that include and exclude actors, discourse, spatial extents, meanings, historicities and uses of spaces.

Since hydro-social territories are dependent on social, economic, political processes to be created or transformed, capital and capital expansion play a significant role in territorialization. Neoliberal capital expansion to the Global South in the post-1970s economic crises led to the creation of new industries in new territories especially the agro-industrial industry (Mwangi 2019). This expansion was made successful through the injection of global footloose capital in new spaces for investment. The horticulture and floriculture industries were among the significant beneficiaries of this as seen in the meteoric rise of the floriculture industry in the global south in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s (Mwangi 2019). These industries expanded into new territories and because of their demand for resources created homogenized territories that supplied resources such as water. They altered and created new hydro-social spaces influenced by the new industry. In processes of economic rise, resource demand, population rise, increased economic significance, the demand for resource use was amalgamated in new hydro-social territories giving room for new discourses and historicities of territory ownership, use and access, (Vos and Hinojosa 2016). New industries altered communities’ hydro-social territories replacing them with new territories, a result of a compromise between economic, social and political actors and processes. The resultant territories embody compromises between local community ownership claims, industries property ownership and the emergent political representation of the water territories (Vos and Hinojosa 2016).

This territorialization process is not only spatial and social but also political in that, water recreates nature-human relationships by transforming social ties, spaces and produce new nature-human boundary configurations (Boelens et al 2016). It is in these transformative synergies of water flows that political relationships and representations are captured, enmeshing conflict and collaboration thereby recreating and redefining political networks thereby creating social-political-nature networks. However, since territory construction is a subject of different actors’ identity, discourse, claim-making they embody contestation that is localized to the space they inhabit, relationships and social relations are established through iterative socio-spatial processes that change existing relationships (Swyngedouw 2007).

Hydro-social territory construction can be a manifestation of transformation of governance in the management of shared resource and as a resultant of power application and discourse construction among different actors in the territory. These consequently change socio-political structures, contestation and facilitates collaboration through which new socio-natural relationships are forged (Boelens et al. 2016). It emerges that hydro-social territories can be the beginning of ownership claims of communities and also can be the result of negotiations and compromises made by diverse stakeholder groups or be an expression of the dominant actors and players. It is this diversity in meanings that make

14

the governance of hydro-social territories a contested process with inclusion and exclusion dynamics.

In these processes, power, capital and discourse emerge as key in the territorialization processes. It emerges as production by actors who come together negotiate, make compromises, collaborate, conflict the “definition, composition and ordering” of the space and therefore, territorialization is embedded in the societal contexts, holding a mirror to its “contradictions, conflicts and struggles” (Boelens et al.

2016 4).

It is argued that territorialization is usually the first step in governing/managing resources and governance emerges as a significant factor in the process (Rouillé et al. 2015). This means that at the heart of the hydro-social territories concept is the issue of governance that emerges in different ways and made through and in the processes of territory construction itself. Therefore, examining water flow processes and water dependant industrial production and the contextual socio-political processes that creates them allows provides an understanding of the actors in hydro-social constructions, their truths, norms, values and how control and power are used as a basis of dominating narrative (Boelens et al.

2016).

As contested spaces, hydro-social territories embody societal contestation and are enmeshed in other contestation frames of claim-making that operate and are embedded in societal change processes in social, economic, political conditions that consequently influences governance structures. Since societal processes are transformative and constantly evolving, the territorialization process is continually reproduced as per the societal process of claim-making, conflict, negotiation and compromises. Actors attempt to impart their definitions and claims to territories, determining governance systems of resource management and influencing how they work. Plans supplanted on hydro-social territories to govern and manage the use of water impart organizational and management frames that re-pattern local livelihoods, how people live and use the water, production activities and socio-economic development which may “commonly lead to the empowerment of certain groups of actors while disempowering others, and offer arenas for claim-making and contestation” (Boelens et al.

2016 5).

The processes of governing territory are reflective of territory construction processes and reinforce or creates new relationships between different actors and actants in the territory within changing social, political and economic systems. In many ways, governing territories usually replaces existing systems of governance and superimpose new systems that make the territory easy to govern within the aspects of the new territorialization processes. These governing processes change the local communities’ identity with the water to alter their narratives of claim and belonging. New water users are created who construct new meanings of belonging in the new water territories that change their agency, identity, and responsibility. This new frame creates discourses that frame the governmentality of hydro-social territories that are largely dependent on altered local users’ relations with the water. Governing of hydro-social territories is thus tied to the discourse and meaning construction that changes with different users and uses and is reflective of the dominant actors and dominant discourses in the territory at the time that is marshalled to “defend particular water policies, authorities, hierarchies, and management practices” (Boelens et al. 2016 7).

New imaginaries and discourses change the framing of hydro-social territories and determine and define actors and institutional involvement in the definition of governance frameworks that give meaning or creates coherence across a diverse territory homogenized by the use of a shared water resource. The governmentality process follows a process of attempting to align local users’ truths and livelihoods to the promoted discourse imageries of water-related political hierarchies that denote power that seeks to

15

dominate definition and “the nature of problems as well as the solutions to overcome them” (Boelens et al. 2016 7). Hence dominance and power plays are central in hydro-social territorialization processes and governance of the emergent territories. This is made possible by emboldened strategies that create water truths that transform the water territories into spheres of governance where domination is defined by “divisions along ethnic, gender, class or caste lines, frequently sustained by modernist waterscientific conventions” (Boelens et al. 2016 6). This dominance creation is meant to communicate governmentality where dominant and non-dominant narratives come to a head to create order. This conflict of dominant and non-dominant discourse and narratives is solved in everyday negotiation and compromises that result in inclusion and recognition of local users’ territorialities, meanings, norms, narratives and means of management. However, because governance is embedded with exclusion and inclusion discourses, local users’ discourses are selectively included or excluded to further the governmentality of the new hydro-social territories. This selective incorporation “makes use of ‘managed’ or ‘neoliberal multiculturalism’: through ‘participatory’ strategies it recognizes the ‘convenient’ and disregarded ‘problematic’ water cultures and identities” (Boelens et al. 2016 7).

The entry of export-oriented industry into these water territories engaged territorialization and governance processes and structures where political processes and forces favour export-based industries and therefore foreign exchange earning industries in construction and governance of hydro-social territories. Governments develop policies and incentives that allow and make possible easy privatization and setting up of businesses within countries at the cost of local industries and needs. Water resources are thus readily made available to international export-oriented industries that have enabled ease of access to resources by internationally linked companies through conducive government policies that promote “free-trade agreements and privatization of state-owned and community-held resources, subsidizing international transport infrastructure, and allowing tax havens and permissive environmental legislation. This has enabled companies to set the terms of trade and establish private water stewardship standards as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies” (Vos and Hijosa 2016 38).

Export-oriented agro-industrial production creates new hydro-social constructions superimposed on existing local user’s territorializations thereby creating contestations in the different territorial frames.

In this case, political power and governance dynamics exert control and power in businesses alliance between government and international economic agreements that “compete, superimpose, and foster their territorial interests to strengthen their water control” (Boelens et al. 2016 8). This attempts at control and exertion of influence in different territorial constructions superimpose and connect creating new expressions in social, economic, and hydraulic water uses. These diverse territorializations create overlapping, superimposed layers of territory claim-making of the same territory “but with different material, social and symbolic contents and different interlinkages and boundaries” (Boelens et al. 2016 8). As such territorial contestation is layered in dynamics of different claims justified by different socioeconomic bases. These interactions combine contestations of natural resources uses, discourses and norms that support water users’ socio-economic livelihoods as much as they are about meanings and identities (Boelens et al. 2016).

As powerful players because of their economic significance, agro-industrial export production inserts dominant economic discourses that attempt to integrate local communities’ norms, identities, rules and structures into their territorial construction and governance (Damonte and Boelens 2019). This power plays favours powerful actors and dominant narratives that form part of the territorial governance and selectively integrates the discourses of non-dominant actors as ways of co-opting them into the new territorial configurations. Hydro-social territorial governance typically follows this exclusion, inclusion

16

discourse to create hybrid systems of governance where power and dominance are central. It seeks to “involve local water user communities and territories in ruling groups’ hydro-territorial projections and rationalities and so shape or reinforce the dominant hydro-territorial order” which gives legitimacy and authority to the governance system. This co-opted governance system is at the same time unjust to local communities by exerting dominant power and deepening injustice in local access to and use of resources. Consequently, local communities and users challenge these imposed hegemonic territorialization processes coming together to attempt to restructure the fundamental unit and basis that structure and define the dominant hydro-social territory constructions.

Resource/ Water grabbing.

3.3.1

Accumulation by Dispossession

David Harvey formulated the ‘accumulation by dispossession’ concept as a development of Marx’s ‘primitive accumulation’, This research adopts the accumulation by dispossession concept as, “the commodification and privatization of land and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various forms of property rights – common, collective, state, etc.-into exclusive private property rights; suppression of rights to the commons; commodification of labour-power and the suppression of alternative, indigenous, forms of production and consumption; colonial, neo-colonial and imperial processes of appropriation of assets, including natural resources; monetization of exchange and taxation, particularly of land; slave trade; and usury, the national debt and ultimately the credit system” (Harvey 2003 77).

In these diverse processes of dispossession, the chief actant is the state that is co-opted to further the agenda of capital. The role of the state and its intertwinement with capital underscores the narrative of accumulation by dispossession where power gravitates capital towards processes of stripping peasants and the poor of resources, where resources and nature are commodified and co-opted into the capitalist economy, (Harvey 2003). Harvey (2003) posits that capital dispossession has been co-opted in the understanding of commodification of natural resources that has resulted in the “depletion of the global environmental commons (land, air, water) and proliferating habitat degradations” (75). This has facilitated and preserved production activities that are highly capital dependant such as agricultural production developed for the benefit of multinational organizations that have capital resources and which unsurprisingly the state, centred in neoliberal market ideals still plays a central role in furthering.

This neoliberalism that established new means of dispossession was anchored and promoted in the forcing open of markets for “capital flows…and impose other neoliberal practices” (Harvey 2003 71).

3.3.2

Resource Grabbing/Land grab/Water Grab

Resource grab here is premised on the accumulation by dispossession concept. Resource grabbing is defined as, “The processes by which land and other resources are enclosed, and their previous users dispossessed, for the purposes of capital accumulation” (1583) and this goes beyond acquisition whether legal or illegal and includes the “grabbing of control of land” (Hall 2013 1585). It is an appropriation of resources and reconfiguration of local territories with often unequal consequences for different land and water users. It follows upon the role of the state in capital accumulation dynamics, in which resource grabbing is dependent upon the power of the state to promote its agenda.

Resource grabbing is mostly researched as land grab whereby, most land grabs “occur under coloniality of power, global markets, authoritarian corporatism and unresponsive state regimes or endorsing local governments,” (Minoia 2020). This is manifested best within constructed colonial structures of land

17

dispossession and displacement dynamics that set off the process of land grabbing. Agricultural systems have been centred in conceptualizations of land and resource grabbing framing them as systems that further dispossession and displacement for the benefit of one group and the loss of others in the access and use of land. “Accumulation by dispossession…. increasingly, access to water…the power of money, irrespective of social, human, and ecological need…transformed into exclusive property rights whose access is choreographed through market mechanism,” (Swyngedouw 2009 58).

Resource grabbing processes offer interesting intersections at the nexus of the remnant colonial legacy of land grabbing and replacing it with agro-industrial production that is reliant on foreign capital investment. The structures of land acquisition and accumulation that foreground both colonial and agroindustrial expansion are grounded in systems and structures of power and institutionalized systems of land access (Rouillé et al. 2015). Colonial land acquisition was based on a colonial government system of land dispossession and allocation to settlers, based on colonial land laws that enshrined European and settler land ownership and disallowed/made illegal local community land ownership. Land grabbing under coloniality of power, global markets, authoritarian corporatism, and unresponsive state regimes or endorsing local governments, (Minoia 2020).

Resource and land grabbing is characterized by systems of power and structures of institutional control and access that favour powerful actors, corporate and organization’s reach and influence. This is linked to land privatization processes and water grabbing where “companies have free rein in land and water acquisition, thanks to supportive institutional environments and through non-transparent deals disempowering small farmers (Mehta, Veldwisch, and Franco 2012, Minoia 2020 2). Territorialisation processes further controls that are established in resource and land grabbing processes where it extends this control and influence already embedded in grabbing. Territorialization in land acquisition is premised on control and power dynamics in which land grabs by extension lead to water grabbing and other resource grabs (Mehta, Veldwisch, and Franco 2012).

Today, land grabbing is conceptualized to include water grab, especially with increasing competition for finite water resources, indigenous communities claim-making of land and water territories, climate change and increasing competition, contestation for resource use and access. Hall (2013), defines water grabbing as “a particular forms of accumulation by dispossession under neo-liberalisation leading to the commodification and privatisation of resources, the eviction of certain groups and the conversion of various forms of property rights.” (1594) Water grabbing establishes systems of inclusion and exclusion where powerful, economically key players and industries emerge as beneficiaries and small players, community interest is excluded. “In these cases, territorialisation is produced through manipulation of water, land and other natural resources and capital” “traditional practices and territorialities like those of pastoralists, are unrecognised and obstructed,” (Minoia 2020). Water grabbing places water at the centre of contestation and when enclosures are created around water sources, the perception of water as a common resource for access to all is put into question.

“It is necessary to bring into focus the mechanisms through which agribusiness obtains control over not only farmland itself but also control over the practices, products, profits, rents and values generated from land it does not directly control. And in turn, how these dynamics drive displacement of peasants and other rural populations and conditions how forms of struggle over and about land,” (Oliveira et al.

2021 332). This aspect of grabbing driven by agribusiness setup in close proximity to water sources and with increased production demand, water becomes a scarce resource, competed over. This creates instances where water access is secured by control through social system, relations and “choreographed through market mechanism” that structure access and use of resources, (Oliveira et al. 2021, Swyngedouw 2009 58).

18

Land grabbing narratives have centred around arguments of “underutilized land and water resources that require investment to ‘unlock’ their potential and drive the engine of development,” (Mehta, Veldwisch, and Franco 2012 200). Africa, according to World Bank reports, is a ready site for commercial agriculture investment, but with continued threats of water scarcity by climate change and increased contestation over land and water, it drives the agenda of economic development through commercial agribusiness, (Mehta, Veldwisch, and Franco 2012). ‘Unexploited resources’ is a narrative marshalled to justify acquisition and dispossession tactics enforced to dispossess communities of land; foreign investments in commercial agriculture create scarcities where “drivers supported by powerful narratives have propelled the global rush for water, operating through specific processes and mechanisms,” (Mehta, Veldwisch, and Franco 2012). Therefore, water grabbing is a complex process that involves diverse actors in engagement dynamics that may involve community agreement that may result in conflict steeped in resistance that consequently reorganizes tenure, ownership and rights claims which are made successful by government facilitation or co-option (Mehta, Veldwisch, and Franco 2012 202).

Governance: A socio-institutionalist Approach Governance is defined as “the newly emerging models of action result from the concerted combination of social actors coming from diverse milieus (private, public, civic) with the objective to influence systems of action in the direction of their interests” (Paquet, 2001, quoted in Hamel, 2003, p. 378, as cited in Swyngedouw 2005 1994). Here governance is conceptualized as relations and interactions of actors to influence action based on their interests. This definition captures the power, interest-driven agendas of governance and the influence of actors’ interactions in determining the change and transformation of governance systems. Governance is also defined as “a new social, political and institutional way of organizing the territory. Governance as a conductor of an articulated social process, with dialogue, negotiation and indulgence between actors of various levels. Governance as a designer of local autonomy and for the social transformation” (Pessoa De Castro Gentil 2019 510). Governance embodies territoriality once it is concerned with spatial definitions of organization and influence. Actors still form a key part of this as they are the subject of negotiations, compromises and dialogue in territory administration through establishing autonomy in spatial scales and relations with other concerned actors at a territory scale.

Development is successful once systems support and facilitate it and this is usually in a dynamic combination of ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approaches defined by conflict, negotiation, compromises, and corporation across temporal and spatial scales, (Moulaert et al. 2019). Establishing links between ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approaches establish dynamics of collaboration and participation which fosters possibilities of governance transformation. Linking ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches are seen as a means of enhancing the transformative capacities of initiatives as well as facilitating the incubation of participation and collaborative frameworks in governance and management. “Bottomlinked approaches to governance emerge from the milieus of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches where it acts as an intermediary connecting institutional initiatives from ‘above’ and active and empowering involvement from ‘below’” (Baker and Mehmood 2015 331).

As a result, bottom-up governance is fronted as a solution to independent initiatives by different actors which do not necessarily result in sustainable change and of merging the two development approaches.

However, despite the advantages of bottom-up governance, it is criticized as being ineffective, driven by a self-governance belief in transforming and democratising governance processes (Moulaert 2019).

As well as an assumption of institutionalization and adoption of grass-root led initiatives in decision making; that hegemonic power affirming systems would be “overruled by multiplication of bottom-up

19

governance initiatives the ‘naivety of the participation movement’, as it is often called” (Moulaert 2019 64).

Social Innovation in governance is important as it restructures actors’ relationships and eliminates boundaries in public, private, community and civil society involvement since it shifts roles and relationships and redefines governance. Social innovation in governance advocates for “enhanced use of public-private partnerships for the delivery of local initiatives, integrating private capital with public and philanthropic support” (Baker and Mehmood 2015 330). “Emphasis on governance arrangements as a vehicle or enabling environment for germinating and developing social innovation at the local level” (Kim 2021 2). “New governance practices and institutional arrangements…transforming social relations and activating socially innovative actions at the local level” (Kim 2021 2). Consequently, local level governance is seen as essential in establishing transformative change and incubating social innovation where “the relative proximity and increased possibility of interactions among local stakeholders…would lead to active participation, greater responsiveness and enhanced democracy” (Kim 2021 5). It challenges hegemonic and dominant systems by bringing about a merging and interaction of diverse actors and ideas that result in “shifts in their roles and relationships as co-mingled agents of social change” (Baker and Mehmood 2015 330). This establishes governance systems that respond to place-specific needs. Consequently, social innovation and governance exist in a reflexiverecursive relationship where “social innovation supports and is in turn supported by new governance practices” (Baker and Mehmood 2015 330).

Governance systems change as per social, economic, political, ecological changes that actors end up embedding in systems that instigate systems to change. In this regard, new governance approaches have been concerned with interactive relationships between government and non-government actors to establish new relationship dynamics. Collaborative and participatory governance embodies these restructured relationships. Transformed governance systems that promote participation and collaboration between government, civil actors and community generally build sustainability “the adoption of new governance approaches, where collaborative, “multi-modal forms” of governance “comingle” across scale also resonates with a place-based perspective on sustainable development” (Baker and Mehmood 2015 330). Therefore, transformation in governance systems is centred on the actor and institutional change dynamics.

Traditional governance can create an environment for social innovation while maintaining and allowing sustainability by protecting against shocks and changes while also SI initiatives can create new governance systems that support multi-actor and different spatial and temporal levels of involvement and participation. Transformation of governance by embedding participatory and collaborative frames is a process of negotiation, contestation, conflict, learning, construction in which relationships of actors, stakeholders and institutions are reimagined to create new frames of interaction. In this, social innovation and bottom-linked governance emerge as both an outcome of social innovation and a condition for its durability (Moulaert et al 2019). “To the extent that ‘participation’ is invariably mediated by ‘power’ (whether political, economic, gender or cultural among participating ‘holders’, between levels of governance/government and between governing institutions, civil society and encroaching market power, the analysis and understanding of shifting relations of power are a central concern, particularly in light of the link between participation, social innovation and development” (Swyngedouw 2005 1998). Therefore, power dynamics influence actors’ relations and institutional dynamics that consequently impacts governing systems that centre participation and collaboration frames as it ends up embodying actors’ values, norms, rules and conduct thereby restructuring governance systems.

20

Governance systems, however, are inherently contradictory and may create biases by including and privileging some actors over others, excluding others (Baker and Mehmood 2015). These new arrangements in governance, create new actor relationship and transform previous relationships resulting in newly empowered and powerful actors and disempowered and excluded others, (Swyngedouw 2005). Social Innovation intervenes in these tensions where bottom-linked grassroots approaches to governance are pursued as a basis for overcoming inherent system biases. Here bottomlinked governance is defined as “new forms of cooperation between actors and institutions across territorial scales in which policy (broadly defined) and other development practices are not dictated from any one level of governance but transformed and institutionalised through interaction and cooperation itself” (Moulaert et al 2019 64). Identification of transformative and innovative capacity of governance is understood “as located in the practices through which governance relations are played out and not only in the formal rules and allocation of competences for collective action as defined by government laws and procedures. Thus, innovations in governance need to be identified and evaluated in terms of their impact on practices and not only in terms of their outcomes in relation to government objective,” (Gonzales and Healey 2005 2059).

The conceptualization of governance dynamics is not limited to their achievements and roadblocks but also includes the examination of “‘seeds’ and ‘sediments they leave behind as positive and negative resources for future initiative” (Gonzalez and Healey 2005 2066). This is necessary for that Social Innovation initiative are not only about process and output but also include the transformation aspect and which governance may be built upon the changes in social relations and power dynamics that sow the seeds of innovative governance systems. The study follows a sociological institutionalist approach where “governance capacities and modes examine actors and networks, stakeholders, arenas, discourses and frames of meaning, practices and routines” (2059) as a means of identity innovation in governance.

Attention is paid to the contextual frame of reference; that is the political, social, economic and ecological frame upon which initiatives are located. The history, geography and constructions of place and identity also play a role in defining socially innovative governance systems. (Gonzalez and Healey 2005).

Social Innovation and its intersection with governance, territoriality embedded in SI initiatives This study adopts a socio-institutional approach to governance where governance is examined as a factor of actors, institutions, networks, stakeholders’ discourses, institutional dynamics, discourses to understand processes of resource governance. On this basis, governance is related to social innovation by linking it to bottom-linked approaches to governance that centre participation and collaboration of grassroots organizations and promotes these approaches and strategies. In this, the role of actors and institutional dynamics are examined through an actor-institutional dynamics lens to interrogate governance systems and frameworks. This socio-institutional approach examines actor-institutional relationships through a reflexive-discursive approach to agency-structure relationships adopted from Van den Broeck (2011) where structurally oriented strategic dialectic relation sees “actors create, transform and/or produce instruments and institutional frames and imbue their values and interests in the instruments and frames” (Van den Broeck 2011). Actors interact and relate this way in a strategic and reflexive relationship where they are “structured, enabled or constrained” by the same instruments and institutional frames, (Van den Broeck 2011). Institutions are structurally inscribed strategic selectivity where they are “selectively open to actor’s strategies and tactics, depending on the specific interests and values embedded in these institutions as a result of conflicts and compromises between different actors” (Van den Broeck 2011).

21

In this case, institution is defined as more than governmental organizations but also as “institutions express routine behaviour and are more or less coherent sets of formal and informal routines, conventions, organisations, procedures, rules, sanctioning mechanisms etc that structure the strategies of the actors who (consciously or not) mobilise these institutions” (Van den Broeck 2011). This definition leads this actor-institutional dynamic frame into a mobilization of governance dynamics by framing it within different governance approaches especially with how it did/did not instigate socially innovative systems of governance.

Governance here is pursued as embodying socio-political historicities, compromises and negotiations, power relations that determine and drive change in relations and governance dynamics. Approaching governance from a political, institutional, social and economic armature grounding actor-institutional dynamics. Processes of planning, managing or governing resources are determined by social contexts where actors and institutions relations are influenced by social conditions. Governance systems are steeped in complicated institutional relations especially in contested resource territories and therefore, these systems functions in “changing institutional frames and realizes its goals of transformation and project implementation only when accompanied by institutional changes” (Van den Broeck 2011).

Institutional field is defined as “consisting both of actors and their practices” where actors and institutions are examined in terms of each other, “institutions in terms of action and action in terms of institutions” (Van den Broeck 2011). However, because institutions are selectively privileging actors at a given time, “some actions, some strategies” and how and which actors make use of this differential treatment to determine and influence their decision making, (Van den Broeck 2011). Due to this relational dynamic, actors restructure, reorganize institutions differently that creates structural constraints or opportunities that actors may or may not take advantage of therefore is “reflexivelyrecursively” (Van den Broeck 2011). “An ‘institutional frame’ is an institutional ensemble related to a specific planning instrument or group of planning instruments, that privileges certain actors, uses and outcomes over others, and hence structures the institutional field in which planning processes are unrolled” (Van den Broeck 2011).

Figure 6: Dialectical relationships between actors, relevant social groups, planning instruments and institutional frames at a given time. Source: Adapted from Van den Broeck (2011)

22

In addition, social innovation projects are territorially and contextually embedded such that they instigate change transformation. “Territorial dynamics are about socio-spatial relations, their agencies and institutionalisation processes. In this way they offer a unique stage to analyse the connections between diverse, multi-scalar, spatially embedded or disconnected relations; these, in fact, have often played a conclusive part in making SI work or fail” (Moulaert and MacCallum 2019 76). Social innovation and governance literature are combined to reflect on the transformative aspect of the IWRAP programme and process as to whether it resulted/supported in resource governance change frames in social, political, economic and ecological processes especially in terms of power relations and aftermath actions/projects. This transformative aspect of Socially Innovative initiatives in terms of governance “originates from different forms of cooperation between civil society organizations and governments, empowering excluded communities to take part in collective decision-making processes” (Galego et al.

2021 2).

The research uses social innovation literature as a basis of interrogation on how socially innovative the IWRAP process and output was and whether it resulted in lasting/sustainable change /transformation in governance systems of water resources. This is based on the understanding of social innovation as “a combination of processes and practices that aim to meet human needs…that are not attended to-or insufficiently attended to-by the market or public sector. These processes and practices involve social relations built, and collective initiatives are taken by, citizens, communities, organizations and individuals, often in collaboration with state and market actors, to promote greater equity and pursue socio-political transformation–social justice and better living conditions for society as a whole” (4) and governance as “governing beyond the state” (Galego et al. 2021 1). Social Innovation initiatives are concerned with transformative change by creating unification of interactions of different actors “including social actors, politicians interest groups, NGOs, associations among other actors,” (Galego et al. 2021 4). These initiatives seek alternatives to dominant narratives and offer solutions to dominant hegemony thereby transforming complex systems. “SI initiatives have the greatest chance of success when they are territorially and socio-culturally embedded, combining local political opportunities and organizational strategies to trigger institutional changes in public policies” (Galego et al. 2021 2). It is largely based on key features. a) “Collective action to satisfy neglected human needs; b) transformation in social relations; and c) the empowerment of citizens to work towards socio-political transformation” (Galego et al.

2021 4).

The three features above form the basis of the analytical framework used to analyse the social innovativeness of the case study about governance systems.

Conclusion of Theoretical Basis This research uses the 5 theoretical approaches above to construct an analytical framework to interrogate the case study to evaluate and to what extent the IWRAP Programme in Naivasha succeeded in transforming the resource governance system in the Lake Naivasha basin especially about the management of the shared lake water resources. Hydro-social territories constriction will be used as a basis for examining how territorial constructions create meanings and frameworks of conceptualizing shared resources as connected and creates notions of collaborative governance or at least shared risks and opportunities. This territorial construction is further supported by issues of governance that emerge out of these constructions, the study applies a socio-institutionalist approach to governance where discourses, actors, stakeholders, institutions are questioned in how they foster transformative

23

governance or new forms of governance brought about by territorial constructions. In these governance systems, the study introduces social innovation theory to support an analysis of how transformative the new IWRAP framework could be said to change governance systems, in we examine whether the IWRAP resulted in changed social relations, fulfilled human needs based on notions of collectivism, whether it generates socio-political transformation. In this, we question stakeholder involvement, actors and institution embeddedness as well as discourse construction. The study finally critically evaluates how and to what extent the programme created sustainable governance change, evaluated from a social innovation three standards criteria discussed in the theoretical basis.

24

Table 1: Theoretical and Analytical Framework

25

4

CASE STUDY: LAKE NAIVASHA BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE ACTION PLAN

Introduction to IWRAP The Integrated Water Resource Action Plan Programme for Lake Naivasha Basin was formulated in 2013 as a response to the state of the Lake Naivasha Basin after the 2009 drought among other ecological, social and economic and political changes (WWF 2015). The Naivasha Basin is located within this changing context where the lake's waters are a common/shared resource upon which livelihoods, ecosystems and economic activities are anchored. The IWRAP programme was conceptualized as a collaborative, participatory approach to managing a territorial resource adopting a Public, Private, People Partnership strategy for the sustainable management of the land and water resources within the lake basin (WWF 2015). Its purpose was the “creation of enabling conditions for longer-term sustainability of Water Resource Management, land management and natural resource use and sustainable socio-economic development in the Lake Naivasha Basin,” (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). In a landscape where economic activities and territorial constructions took the form of benefits extracted from the basin, different users and stakeholders held different conceptions of what the basin was and the activities it accommodated/supported and consequently the identity created.

The lake Naivasha basin has been a site of research since colonial periods where the hydrological value of the lake took centre stage, and which has persisted owing to the fresh water status of the lake in a section of the Rift Valley with largely saline lakes. These studies have centred hydrological studies and ecological studies focusing on the fluctuating lake water levels and the impact of anthropogenic activities on the lake. (Harper et al. 2011, Higgins, Odada, and Becht 2005). In the recent past, the hydrological and ecological purposes of the lake have been brought to the fore with the flooding of the lake beyond its 1892m defined highest level mark (A.O Thompson and R.G Dodson 1963), which consequently led to the displacement of people on the lake shores and destruction of some flower farms that were within this established riparian zones (Noah 2020). These floods and fluctuating water levels and threats to the lake’s ecosystem has been blamed on the increased economic activities and the ballooning population within the lake basin and critically within Naivasha itself which as of 2019 populations was 355,383 persons (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics 2019).

Amidst these accusations of the increased population causing a negative impact on the ecological state of the lake is the increasingly significant economic role the basin plays in the country. The flower industry in Naivasha provides 70% of Kenya's flowers exports, the tourism industry anchored on the Hells Gate National Park, Private wildlife sanctuaries and the hotel industries on the lake shores, the urban expansion of Naivasha and its constituent unplanned settlements agricultural production both upstream and downstream, geothermal power production and most recently the Inland Container Terminal part of the Standard Gauge Railway project (Lind n.d, Styles 2014, Garric 2015). All of these are dependent on the lake waters, directly or indirectly. Therefore, the economic contribution of the lake basin is significant with floriculture and tourism among the top foreign exchange-earners.

This multiplicity in industry and economic activities means that actors, stakeholders, users and communities involved, affected and dependant on the lake basin are varied. They include the flower farms, water user associations, NGOs working within the basin, national and county level governance, Water Resources Associations, businesses associated with tourism, floriculture industry, research /academic institutions (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). In the case of IWRAP, the following stakeholders were involved in the programme, “WWF Kenya and involves three other Kenyan partners; the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), Imarisha Naivasha, and Kenya Flower Council

26

(KFC) and 3 Dutch partners - University of Twente’s Faculty of Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC), and two Water Authorities: Waterschap Noorderzijlvest (NZV) and Hoogheemraadschap De Stichtse Rijnlanden (Hdsr). Each of the Kenyan partners’ implements one or two of the seven result areas, with technical and advisory support from the Dutch partners” (2) together with local communities, businesses and water users” (WWF 2015). It is within this multiplicity environment that the IWRAP was conceptualized and realized as an integrated and collaborative approach to resource use and management. IWRAP was guided towards achieving seven core goals in supporting transformed collaborative governance of the shared water and land resources (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014, WWF 2015).

27

N0:

Result/Goals

Implementing Partner

Beneficiaries

Outcome

Result/ Output 1

Increased capacity and improved WRMA, ITC, HDSR WRMA, Water Resources Increased capacity and improved governance in WRM governance in WRM institutions and NZV Users Associations (WRUAs) institutions (WRMA and WRUAs) for water resource (WRMA and WRUAs) for water management in LNB. resource management in LNB

Result/ Output 2

Increased knowledge and WRMA, ITC, HDSR WRMA, Water Resources Increased knowledge and technical capacity for technical capacity for quantitative and NZV Users Associations (WRUAs) quantitative water resource management and monitoring water resource management and in LNB monitoring in LNB

Result/ Output 3

Increased headwater protection WWF Kenya and security of water flows through improved participatory forest management and incomegeneration in the catchment

Community Forest Associations Increased headwater protection and security of water (CFA), Kenya Forest Services flows through improved participatory forest management (KFS), 3 Basin WRUAs, Small and income-generation in the catchment. holder farmers

Result/ Output 4

Conservation and sustainable WWF Kenya development of riparian farmland in the catchment through improvement and institutionalization of PES mechanism

Community Forest Conservation and sustainable development of riparian Associations (CFA), Kenya farmland in the catchment through improvement and Forest Services (KFS), 3 Basin institutionalization of PES mechanism.

WRUAs, Small holder

Increases in levels of sustainable production and good stewardship in LNB floriculture through development and adoption of

Floriculture farms and Increases in levels of sustainable production and good Stakeholders in the basin stewardship in LNB floriculture through development and adoption of national standards and certification.

Result/ Output 5

KFC, with support from Lake Naivasha Growers’ Group (LNGG) and

farmers

28

national standards certification

and Horticulture producers in the basin

Result/ Output 6

Strengthened institutional Imarisha Naivasha capacity of Imarisha Naivasha for execution of the SDAP (monitoring impacts, compliance, oversight and communication functions)

Result/ Output 7

Partner consultation and finalization of the Lake Naivasha Basin PPP Sustainable Development Fund project and funding proposal (LNB-3P-SDF)

Imarisha Naivasha Stakeholders in the basin

WWF Kenya, Imarisha Stakeholders in the basin Naivasha, ITC, with support from the Programme Management Unit and private sector

and Strengthened institutional capacity of Imarisha Naivasha for execution of the SDAP (monitoring impacts, compliance, oversight and communication functions)

Partner consultation and finalization of the Lake Naivasha Basin PPP Sustainable Development Fund project and funding proposal

Table 2: The 7-goal IWRAP programme. Source: (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014), (WWF 2015), (Kissinger 2014, 19)

29

A Contested Resource The Lake Naivasha existed as a communal resource territorialized by the Maasai pastoral community where access and use were determined by their nomadic lifestyle and the lake remained a lifeline of freshwater in a valley territory where lakes were predominantly saline. This communal ownership was restricted with the arrival of the colonial settlers who established the White Highlands and, through a series of land agreements, dispossessed and displaced the Maasai to establish native reserves where water and pasture were not necessarily easily available (Rouillé et al. 2015)(Kissinger 2014). The annexed territory around Lake Naivasha became a part of the White Highlands and restrictions of access to the water began with new boundaries, fences and gates and established farms in a previously communal territory. These settler farms were transformed from pastures into dairy farms and crop plantations where the water from the lake played a key role in its survival. The colonial land claim was preserved post-independence and this initial dispossession continues to play out in the territory where the Maasai community has filed cases in court claiming ownership to this land, but which has not borne any significant outcome, (Kavilu 2016). The Maasai protest the reduced access to water for their livestock where “Watering points for livestock have become limited after key corridors to the lake were closed by private land owners, among them the floriculture companies,”(LANDac/IDS and Utrecht University 2016 37). Furthermore, there has been renewed economic interest in the Naivasha territory in geothermal power, tourism, transportation that has brought these old territorial conflicts back to the fore where the same pastoral communities have been displaced, relocated amid claims of improper compensation and loss of cultural sites and threats to the pastoral livelihood, (Lind n.d).

In post-independent Kenya, these waters would come to be significant again with the introduction of cut flowers in Naivasha in the 1980s and irrigation by water abstraction from the lake and ground water supplies grew the industry from nurseries to the multinational companies they are today providing employment, earning foreign exchange, and placing Naivasha on the global market, as the flower hub producing 70% of Kenya’s exported flowers, (Mwangi 2019). The floriculture industry is indeed socially and economically significant, not only in Naivasha but also in the country. Together with floriculture, tourism through game reserves, sanctuaries around the lake increases the significance of Naivasha through the foreign earnings it attracts. In addition, some flower farms have found ways of merging the two, the farms and wildlife habitats, where sections of their farms are wildlife sanctuaries, an attempt to recreate wildlife corridors previously interrupted or a means of sanitizing the image of the floriculture industry put forth in the media as polluters and significant actors of ecosystem shocks, deprecation, and changes in the lake system, (Styles 2014). These different narratives form the fragmented Naivasha landscape set the background for water use and access contestation where power has largely determined who has access to water and who does not. This fragmentation also lends to the multiplicity of interventions that have been put in place in the basin over the years and the state of the lake today. In addition, the governance and management of the lake and its basin is made up of a multiplicity of government agencies- Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water and Sanitation, Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), Water Resource Users Associations that cover upstream and downstream users, Nakuru County government, Kenya Wildlife Service (Imarisha Naivasha interview). This is the image of Lake Naivasha, a landscape marred by a narrative of attempts at territorialization from the first colonial farms and ranches, to the fragmented territory it is today, where massive anthropogenic activities have redefined the actors, access and use of the water. Climate change has brought to fore the direness of managing the water equitably and sustainably and ensuring justice in access to these waters and collectively looking at the water not only as an economic resource but also as conservation and communal resource where upstream and downstream users’ activities affect and influence one another, (World Wide Fund for Nature n.d).

30

1

Figure 7: Imagery of activities in the Lake Naivasha Basin.

1

Sources:

Adam, Welz. 2019. ‘How Kenya’s Push for Development Is Threatening Its Famed Wild Lands’. Yale E360. 24 April 2019. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-kenyas-push-for-development-is-threatening-its-prized-wild-lands.., AFP. 2020. ‘Flooding Due to Torrential Rain Displaces People around Kenya’s Lake Naivasha’. Al Arabiya English. 10 November 2020. https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2020/11/10/Flooding-due-to-torrential-rain-displaces-people-around-Kenya-s-Lake-Naivasha.,, Corbin, Maxey. 2014. ‘Dead Beauty: How Flowers Are Killing Kenya’s Lake Naivasha’. CorbinMaxey.Com (blog). 23 February 2014. https://corbinmaxey.com/blog/rose-the-tragic-rise-and-fall-of-kenyas-lake-naivasha., , Volder, Linda De. 2018. Rose Farm. Photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/lindadevolder/44044874820/., WWF Kenya. 2018. ‘WWF Kenya on Twitter’. Twitter. 2018. https://twitter.com/WWF_Kenya/status/1044189766466621440., WWF Kenya. 2018. ‘WWF Kenya on Twitter’. Twitter. 2018. https://twitter.com/WWF_Kenya/status/1044189766466621440., ‘The Impact of Green Horticulture at Lake Naivasha Basin project’. n.d. Text. EEAS - European Commission. Accessed 15 June 2021. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/92585/impact-green-horticulture-lake-naivasha-basin-project_tm., Rupi, Mangat. 2020. ‘A Weekend Away on Lake Naivasha – Rupi The African Trotter’.

11 April 2020. https://rupitheafricantrotter.com/a-weekend-away-on-lake-naivasha/, WWF Kenya. n.d. ‘The Face of Water Stewardship’. n.d. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/africa_rift_lakes/journey_to_kenya/face_of_water_stewardshop/?

31

Smallholder Farming in the Upper Catchment Forestry in the Aberdare ranges

Hotels/Resorts Smallholder Agriculture Conservation through wildlife sanctuaries

Conservancies

Urban growth, unplanned developments

Resorts and Hotels-The lake enclosed by industry

Urban Expanse

Geothermal Industry Floriculture-Economically significant, significantly responsible

Fishing-Emerging industry but contested

Wildlife Park

Floriculture/Horticulture Geothermal PowerSustainable energy, unsustainable practices

Pastoralism continously displaced

Territorial Boundary Wildlife and tourism threathened by development

0

15 Kilometres

0

3.75

7.5

¯

15 Kilometers

Figure 9: Resource contestation and around the lake.

Forests

32

Territorial Expression of Contestation The multiplicity of users within the lake basin means that territorial constructions are as diverse as the varied stakeholder groups. “Groups with divergent territorial interests struggle to define, influence and command particular scales of resource governance, and to determine the ways in which these mutually connect in a given socio-spatial conjuncture,” (Boelens et al. 2016 5). As such the Naivasha lake basin exists as a contested territorial construction holding the identity, discourse, stakeholder actions and governance systems of diverse groups. These multiple definitions create territories of governance and that changes with socio-political changes.

Territory construction in the Naivasha basin began before colonial settlement where the different geological systems- the escarpment forms the Mt. Kenya Forest, the Kinangop Plateau and the Naivasha valley floor - were occupied by the Kikuyu and Maasai communities where agricultural production and nomadic pastoral lifestyles were respectively practised,(A.O Thompson and R.G Dodson 1963, Roullie et al. 2015). These two communities created territorial ownership of space and resources that exemplified their ways of life. With the onset of colonial settlement, a new form of territorialization took place, where accumulation and dispossession dynamics were co-opted into the creation of white settler-only spaces, inherently viewed as territories borne of dispossessing and displacing original communities that held rights to the land(Rouillé et al. 2015).

In the case of Naivasha, colonial territory creation involved the displacement of Kikuyu and Maasai communities to create the White Highlands territory for settler occupation and large-scale agricultural production. This process of colonial territory making led to the grabbing of once common community resources of land and water and incorporating them into the colonial property conceptualization, where colonial laws created and installed new land rights and constructed new systems of governance along with these territorial constructions. The land was governed and owned within the framework of either private, trust land or government land. (Kavilu 2016, Wily 2018). Trust land was delaminated “reserves were demarcated in the 1920s, wherein natives could live and farm” administered by native councils in native reserves in the colonial period and later on elected council’s post-independence (Wily 2018 7).

The Communal Land Act of 2016 when communal/customary land ownership was recognized and registered (Wily 2018).

This colonial governing of land that prized settler ownership and occupation were carried forth in postindependent Kenya where the same private, public and trust land status, with trust land now defined as communally/owned or customary land held in trusteeship by the government on behalf of communities and which no registered titles were issued (Wily 2018, Rouillé et al. 2015) was retained with the settler higher status replaced and dominated by the new political elite. At the core of this ownership structure was Trust Land, which was land held in trust by the government on behalf of a community predominantly in colonial native reserves. Land rights are considered water rights or at least resource rights, (Rouillé et al. 2015) as such, land ownership in the White highlands gave rights to the settlers over resources such as water. These resources contributed to the large expansive, productive farms and ranches they established while natives were confined to unproductive peripheral reserves. This is especially clear in the retained land ownership structures that persisted post-independence that in many cases were exemplified in long leases some up to 999 years held by settler farms which were either sold back to the government or ‘bought’ by the political elite(Kuiper 2019). This simply replaced the settler White Highlands colonial territory with a new territory constructed by power, influence, and politics.

The Kinangop Plateau was replaced by post-independence resettlement schemes largely dominated by the Kikuyu who had been peasants and labourers in the White Highlands farms, the Aberdare ranges

33

dominated by previously existing colonial forests, around the Lake Naivasha settler farms and ranches were retained as-is with Maasai pastoralist in the plains around the lake (Rouillé et al. 2015). These colonial territorial constructs were thus not done away with, despite furthering displacement and exclusion dynamics that had framed colonial resource governance. Therefore, contestations over resource use and access especially land and water have developed and increased with the continued displacement and exclusionary dynamics that have not been addressed as land remains an emotive issue in Kenya. Additionally, territorialization followed the inclusion and entry of new actors to space, with its new narratives of claims, identities, and norms. The smallholder resettlement scheme created smallholder farmers predominantly in the upper catchment areas of the basin, who emerge over time as interest groups who respond to water as a need for their socio-economic livelihoods. The old and maintained colonial ranches inhabit their positionalities of power, further solidified in their later creation of the Lake Naivasha Riparian Owners Association in 1929, the now renamed Lake Naivasha Riparian Association (Lake Naivasha Riparian Association 2017). Their territorial construction is further realized with their lobbying processes for the Lake’s conservation concluding with a Ramsar status award for the lake basin (Lake Naivasha Riparian Association 2017, LNRA interview). This territorial construction additionally introduced new actors to the basin motivated by their norms, values and goals generally motivated by the same conservation ideals of the LNRA. The creation of the Hell’s Gate National Park in the 1980s, carried forth displacement and dispossession tactics as the Maasai were further displaced from the Lake Basin as the territory was curved under conservation discourses to create territoriality of wildlife responding to the tourism industry (Rouillé et al. 2015). This further included Kenya Wildlife Service as a new actor in the basin mandated with the management of wildlife parks in the country.

The change and increased economic significance of the Lake Naivasha Basin created a new territory, a territory created by the river catchment. This emerged within the frame of multiple uses and users that the lake basin is made of where water and social relations merged to inscribe a new territory. The floriculture/horticulture industry was among the economically significant industries that inscribed itself within the territory, responding to government incentives and a conducive climate for horticulture production in Naivasha (Kuiper 2019). This incentive program corresponds to territorial processes of superimposition over existing constructions. This floriculture/horticulture territory production is asserted and made possible by government incentives and global value chain linkages that exert power and control over space owing to its economic significance. This new construction competes with existing territorialities exerting and introducing new actors in the basin such as the Lake Naivasha Growers Group (LNGG) who create new narratives of claim-making, motivate by their economic discourse and exert this power as attempts to control resource usage and protect their interest and usage (Boelens et al. 2016) Hydro-social territories understood here as, “socially, naturally and politically constituted spaces that are (re)created through the interactions amongst human practices, water flows, hydraulic technologies, biophysical elements, socio-economic structures and cultural-political institutions,” (Boelens et al. 2016 1). This created hydro-social constructions of the lake basin driven by attempts at creating connections between nature and society to manage and govern territorial resources. In hydro-social literature, territorialization is important in resource management processes. It is this territorialisation that was adopted from the Water Act, 2002 modelled with principles of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) of participation and where water was conceptualised as a territorial resource-a basin, and governance shifted to basin-level from water source level, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). “The IWRM insists upon population participation to transform a simple management area into a territory appropriated by residents. User associations are among the tools established to assist engagement

34

processes of inhabitants.” (Rouillé et al. 2015, 6). The Act responded by enshrining participation and community among its principles. The Water Act 2002 created the Water Resources Authority (WRA) former Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) that made official management of water resources through a drainage basin framework (catchment areas), which is an attempt at hydro-social territory construction, and the decentralization of governance to these regional basins that each have regional WRAs, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014) and the creation of Water Resource Users Association (WRUAs)within these water catchments/basins (Water Act 2016). This created territoriality of water governance that was delaminated in a hydro-social boundary that had unique/different characteristics that created a catchment/basin connected by the shared water where both upstream and downstream users were co-opted into a connected system.

These different territorialities were supplanted, imposed, and overlain in a territory already riddled with narratives of ownership and claim-making since before colonial expansion. These territorial pursuits correspond to ideas that territorialization are continuous processes that involve different actors and organizations over time incorporation into new relationships when their interests coincide (Boelens et a. 2016). However, territorialization processes are subjective responding to the actors, contexts, organizations involved and the interests, values, identities, and norms they embed in the process merging relationships and entangling nature and society recreating and maintaining dominant territorial constructs (Swyngedouw 2007). Conclusively, territorialization processes, such as hydro-social constructions such as the Lake Naivasha Basin are specific to contextual social, economic, and political processes. As such governing processes applied on these territories respond to the layered historicities of claim-making, contestation, ownership, and identities present in each attempt at territorialization. It then follows that the actors, their relationships, institutional dynamics, power, and narrative construction remain significant in territorial governance processes.

Figure 10 Territorial constructions to structure basin water governance. Source:(Rouillé et al. 2015)

35

Smallholder Farming in the Upper Catchment Forestry in the Aberdare ranges

Conservation through wildlife sanctuaries

Urban growth, unplanned developments

Resorts and HotelsThe lake enclosed by indutry

Floriculture-Economically significant, significantly responsible

Geothermal PowerSustainable energy, unsustainable practices

Fishing-Emerging industry but contested

Pastoralism continously displaced

Wildlife and tourism threathened by development

0

3.75

0

7.5

¯

15 Kilometers

15 Kilometres

Figure 11 Contestation of Uses within the Lake Naivasha Basin

36

Figure 12: Contestations spatially inscribed, territorially embedded.

37

38

Figure 13:Territoriality as governance, catchment basin and WRUAs divide the territory, embedding new forms of resource justice and governance.

Stakeholder Involvement The Water Act, 2002 enshrined stakeholder participation and involvement in the planning and managing of water resources and institutionalized the creation of Water Resource Users Association that captured different water users within the catchment basin into a participative association involved in water resource management at the lowest water users’ level, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). This reflected territorial processes realized in the governance of resources by institutionalizing catchment as the territory construct of water resource management. This participatory framework in water resource management was reflected in the IWRAP programme where stakeholder collaboration was enshrined and made possible in a collective and participatory framework. This was exemplified in the framing of the goals of the programme as, “This partnership brings together the government, private sector, civil society as well as the people living in this basin with a common goal of ensuring long-term sustainable development with a focus on improving land-use practices and management of water resources” (WWF 2015 2).

The programme was also based on a public, private, people partnership that was a new collaborative and participative approach within the Lake Naivasha basin, as a means of bringing different interest groups together to realise a sustainable frame of governing the water territory (Imarisha Naivasha Interview). It involved different stakeholders at different levels of input with implementing, financing partners and the intended beneficiary’s groups. The target groups were the local communities, organizations and associations that fell within the seven target goals of the programme and who were set to benefit from either capacity building, institutional support, funding, or empowerment in social or ecological means to realise bottom-up water-related initiatives while realising economic and social benefits (WWF 2015). The programme was managed by WWF Kenya in partnership with the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), Imarisha Naivasha, and Kenya Flower Council (KFC), Dutch partnership made of Dutch Water Boards and ITC research group of University of Twente (WWF 2015).

As pointed out by a WWF interview respondent.

“The programme incorporated a lot of them into the activities or as partners. So WRA, KFC (who undertook pilot environment audits), Imarisha Naivasha (which incorporates a lot of the key stakeholders), the WRUAs. Having them part of the programme helped navigate. Plus, WWF office had an open-door policy and many times myself and the officers provided moderation when needed because of the relationships that have been built over time.”

This was supported by the Dutch technical representative during the programme.

“My Main role has been to coordinate the Dutch team that has participated in IWRAP and basically bringing together the knowledge that we have in terms of research, a university, hydrological institute and the water boards who are responsible for the management of water in the Netherlands and bring all that knowledge and try to manipulate that knowledge and transfer it in a way that employees in Kenya could actually exploit.” (WWF Kenya 2017) This followed a partnership landscape approach that valued ownership of actor responsibility for action in the basin. WWF officials captured this collaboration as; “Using the landscape perspective, each partner took responsibility for an aspect that best matched their ability/history.”

39

“Kenya is a water scarce country and therefore how do we work with partners using an integrated approach to actually promote a sustainable management of the scarce fresh water resources. The program was actually also delivering towards our global strategy on management of freshwater resources in major basins in the world. It has actually become very evident that sustainable freshwater management requires an integrated multi-sectoral, inter-agency and multidisciplinary approach” WWF Kenya 2018).

This corresponds with hydro-social territorial governance in which, participation and collaboration are approached by Integrated Water Resource Management discourses that enshrine community and local users. It follows that the IWRAP process was selectively inclusive as the diversity in stakeholder groups is not necessarily represented, corresponding to Baker and Mehmood’s (2015) assertion that governance may create inclusion and exclusion where power and interests may determine the involvement of some actors and exclude others.

Additionally, it appears that engagement and participation do not necessarily denote change. A WWF interview respondent remarked that; “We engaged with all the WRUAs including MARIBA through various other activities. All capacity building and enhancement projects looked to where the need was most, the impact would be greatest.

So, each WRUA benefited if they wanted to. Some WRUAs are weaker and though a lot was done to improve this, the issue remained in the leadership which we could not change.”

As such inclusion of stakeholders does not denote change or transformation as other impacts ranging from power of powerful actors, leadership challenges, aspects of actual participation that may impede actual and successful stakeholder participation. Further, stakeholders do not exist in a void and actorinstitutional dynamics may define and limit aspects of participation that would determine or impede actual program success.

The IWRAP programme was however skewed in stakeholder involvement where interest groups with a direct vested interest in the lake were used in implementing capacities such as the Kenya Flower Council (KFC). KFC is an interest group that states on its website that its role is “advocate and promote interests of the floriculture industry in Kenya”, (Kenya Flower Council 2021). It may be argued that power exerted by the flower industry in the basin and in the country-influenced their inclusion or that their water demand meant they had the most to lose in non-sustainable water resource management practices. Stakeholder involvement was skewed towards powerful actors, financial and networked connections and this contributed to how the resultant governance and management frame was more power affirming than it was power challenges.

40

Figure 14: Stakeholder groups in Lake Naivasha Basin. Adapted from (Renner 2020 10)

41

Actors and Institutional Dynamics The IWRAP programme adopted a collaborative stakeholder process where different stakeholders were involved to realize the goals of the programme. This collaborative process involved different actors and institutional dynamics that first existed before the launch of the programme, created and re-created actor-institutional dynamics that changed and evolved because of the programme and the new interactions after the life of the program. The study adopts a strategic-relational actor-institutional approach adopted from Van den Broeck (Van den Broeck 2011) adopted as a means of accessing how actor-institutional relations transformed during the programme process and how the process transformed actor-institutional relations where “institutions are examined and expressed in terms of each other: institutions in terms of actions and actions in terms of institutions.” (Van den Broeck 2011 54) 4.4.1

Before IWRAP: Setting the scene

In the late 1980s to early 2000s, Lake Naivasha was progressively transforming from a small secondary town into an industrial horticulture cluster made of expanses of greenhouses and irrigated parcels that attracted expansive human settlements in Naivasha town on the lake shores. The economic boom brought about by the flowers and the increasing population restructured the economic position of Naivasha in Kenya. This economic significance was not new, building on former colonial White Highlands territory of ranches and farms and the wildlife parks that made Naivasha a tourist stop, off the normalized Safari and beaches tourist circuits. The significance of Naivasha founded on the Lake’s fresh water was made even more apparent with the international significance of the flowers to Kenya’s exports. Local community initiatives, research and NGOs action within the lake area contributed to the constructed importance of the lake and drew attention to improper use of the water that came to a culmination in the drought experienced in 2007-2009 (Harper et al. 2013). This attracted media and international concern along the global flower value chain, NGOs, and governments (Harper et al. 2013).

In this period of meteoric economic rise, water resource management and water supply in the country was all managed by the same ministry and irrigation water was defined by ministerial discretion as to the creation of irrigation schemes and small scale, up to 2 hectares irrigation as ‘kitchen gardens’ were unaccounted for, (Mumma 2007). It is within this frame of a lack of sufficient legislation on water abstraction and irrigation that the flower/horticulture industry in Lake Naivasha basin flourished, where unregulated water use was the norm as evidenced in “a 2010 study conducted by the Water Resources Management Authority of Kenya found that the number of illegal boreholes and abstraction points in the Naivasha area is almost double the number of legal ones” (WRMA 2010). Attempts have been put together to address these issues but according to Van Oel et al. (2014) there was still a mismatch between required knowledge and efforts by scientists and stakeholders in the Lake Naivasha basin to manage water resources in an integrated way” (African Studies Centre Leiden 2014 21). Irrigation based agricultural production in the upper catchment smallholder farms and poor farming practices compounded by a lack of institutional support, uncontrolled water abstraction by the horticulture industry were all attributed for the deteriorating lake conditions and overall lake basin condition (African Studies Centre Leiden 2014 21).

Water resources management was centralized with the National government through the Ministry of Agriculture and later the Ministry of Water and Irrigation who managed water resources, water supply and distribution, (Mumma 2007). The Water Act of 2002 changed this administration and management framework through the introduction of a collaborative and decentralized integrated management system that saw the creation of the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA). The Act was passed in

42

July 2002 and effected in 2003 marking the beginning of transformative changes in water resource governance and management in Kenya (Mumma 2007). It is within this institutional frame of a new management framework being implemented that those collaborative activities and initiatives on resource management made of community actions and non-government organizations and civil society groups took root in Naivasha now under a regulatory mandate that enshrined integrated, collaborative management of resources.

The WWF Kenya launched a Payment for Ecological Services project in the Lake Naivasha basin in 2005, empowered by these collaborative approaches. This project was a Public-Private project initiated as a way of connecting upstream smallholder farmers with downstream commercial farming activities within the lake basin. The project involved the newly created Water Resource Users Associations in the basin both upstream and downstream, WWF, CARE Kenya and European retail companies reliant on Kenyan flowers (Wambugu 2018). The scheme considered the downstream users as the buyers of ecological services and the upstream users as the sellers connecting their water usage into a water territory constructed by socio-economic dependency on the water. The project was initiated to contribute to water conservation and sustainable resource usage but unfortunately ran into funding challenges and withdrawal of key stakeholders involved at a critical upscaling stage (Wambugu 2018).

At the same time, the government had taken a keen interest in the Lake Naivasha basin due to the 2009 drought. The government reaction was a task force under the Prime Minister’s Office looking into proper management of forest and water resources that together led to the creation of the Imarisha Naivasha project, a public-private initiative mandated with harmonizing and coordinating conservation and management projects, programmes and initiatives within the lake basin through a Sustainable Development Action Plan (SDAP) (Becht et al. 2005, Imarisha Naivasha Interview). It aimed to achieve its objectives through “private-public partnerships, market linkages, nature tourism and payment for ecosystem services,” (Amis and Scherr 2020). It is within this financial difficulty, new water reforms, new actors, new collaborative ventures, a drought that the IWRAP programme was launched as a means of enhancing and developing a sustainable management framework for resources in the Lake Naivasha basin. The programme created a 7-goal programme which was geared towards capacity, knowledge, institutional and technical building of associations and organizations in the basin, water protection, sustainable horticultural production, ecosystem protection and creation of a sustainable fund for Lake Naivasha Basin projects, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014).

4.4.2

Actor-Institutional Dynamics Before IWRAP

The actor-institutional dynamics within the lake basin have always changed with changes in relationships and interest in actors and the goals of each social groups. In the 1920s, the Lake Naivasha Riparian Owners Association (LROA) a landowners’ group was the main actor created to resolve conflicts among the lake’s riparian land owners, (Hepworth et al. 2011) who motivated by nature and conservation discourse advocated for lake ecological conservation culminating in the award of Lake Naivasha as a Ramsar Wetland Site in 1995(Hepworth et al. 2011). The Ramsar status introduced the Kenya Wildlife Society and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in the basin, the latter are custodians of Ramsar sites in Kenya. This introduced and furthered the conservation discourse of the LROA and created new networks of cooperation with shared interests in ecosystem conservation. The institutional frame of LROA changed from a conflict resolution in lake access to nature and conservation frame brought about by the new conferred Ramsar status and new actors responding within this conservation frame.

The association evolved into a community-based organization accepting diverse membership across the lake basin and formulated the first Integrated Management Plan (IMP) for the Lake ratified under the

43

Environment Management and Coordination Act in 1999 that resulted in the formulation of a stakeholder rich “governmental, non-governmental and community-based organizations(Lake Naivasha Riparian Association; Kenya Wildlife Service; The Ministry of Environmental Conservation; Kenya Power Company (KenGen); Fisheries Department; Ministry of Lands & Settlement; Ministry of Water Resources –Water Development Department; District Commissioner –Nakuru District; Naivasha Municipal Council; IUCN; Lake Naivasha Fisherman’s Cooperative Society” (Hepworth et al. 2011 31). The stakeholder coalition convened under the Lake Naivasha Management Committee in 2004 (Hepworth et al. 2011).

The IMP was modelled over the Ramsar Wetland sites regulations of ‘wise use’ (The Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2014). In this case, international linkages by the Ramsar award introduced new frames of international standards of wetland management that required a management plan (and the inclusion of the IUCN as a new actor in the basin, with international linkages (The Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2014). Stakeholder involvement in the committee was defined under integrated management as required by Ramsar guidelines. However, the management plan was contested based on a lack of adequate/real stakeholder engagement where upstream users, pastoralist and community groups claimed not to be involved in the planning process. The latter filed a court case by a Lake Naivasha Basin Stakeholder Forum (LNBSF) and froze the implementation of the plan (Hepworth et al.

2011;(Diaz-Chavez and Van Dam 2020); Kavilu 2016). The pastoral community and upstream users became emerging as an actor within the basin, arising from the exclusionary aspect of the Integrated Management Plan where despite the plan being based on integrated approaches, it only involved powerful actors within the basin, excluding less powerful actors who also derived benefit from the Lake Basin. (Hepworth et al. 2011); (Harper et al. 2011) The Lake Naivasha Basin Growers Group (LNGG) was a stakeholder group and voluntary growers association in the basin lobbying for the interests of the floriculture industry within the lake basin since its formation in 1997, (Lake Naivasha Growers Group 2021). It exists within an economic value institutional frame where its goals in the basin is an economic benefit as a non-state actor, “striving to balance commercial and environmental sustainability of Lake Naivasha” (Lake Naivasha Growers Group 2021). It funded a water balance survey as a “basis of a sustainable abstraction policy” (Harper et al. 2013 258) in anticipation of the 2002 Water Act. In this period of water scarcity, acting within this economic frame, it reacted to the water scarcity threat by funding LaNaWRUA to carry out a water abstraction survey in collaboration with WWF in 2009 (Harper et al. 2013). They were not new actors in Naivasha at that time, but they marshalled their economic interest to initiate management efforts working with a new governance framework and interest group.

New governance frameworks introduced by the Water Act, 2002 introduced new actors in water resource management in the basin such as the regional Catchment Areas managed by the Water Resource Management Authorities (WRMA) mandated to “formulate a comprehensive Catchment Management Strategy (CMS), as an instrument for the management, use, development, conservation, protection and control of water resources within each river basin” (Hepworth et al. 2011 31) and Water Resource Users Associations(WRUAs). This further introduced other institutional arrangements that featured a decentralized management framework but with a centralized decision-making frame for water resource management in Kenya, (Gachenga 2019).

44

45

Figure 15: Actor-Institutional Dynamics before IWRAP

Lake Naivasha Basin is/was within the Rift Valley Catchment Area which has 6 other basins with a WRMA based in Naivasha, (Hepworth et al. 2011). The lake basin was divided into 12 WRUAs representing different interest groups within the basin and the Lake Naivasha Water Resource Users Association (LaNaWRUA) was one of the first to be registered in 2007 and is consequently the best established, (Hepworth et al. 2011 other). It was established by different stakeholder groups in the lake’s sub-basin with the flower farms being part of its initial membership grouping (LaNaWRUA interview).

The LaNaWRUA was funded and established with support from WWF and Lake Naivasha Growers Group (LNGG) responded to the drought threat and went on to carry out an abstraction survey in the basin revealing that “almost 97% were either unlicensed or their licences had expired” (Harper et al.

2013 258). The result was a system of abstraction level to manage and track water, “traffic lights system of lake water uses at the red level, all abstraction ceased; at amber, abstraction was reduced; and at the green, abstractions could continue to the level that the licence allowed.” (Harper et al. 2013, LaNaWRUA interview).

It is well established in the basin relating with other stakeholders and establishing new means of engagement, “The LaNaWRUA has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with WRMA to promote sustainable management of the LNB. In 2009, the group drove the production of the Naivasha Water Allocation Plan (WAP) as well as a Sub-Catchment Management Plan (S-CMP) which were informed by a hydrological study and abstraction survey” (Hepworth et al. 2011 33). The 2009 WAP was a part of a collaborative strategy to address water scarcity threats made apparent by drought in that year. The LaNaWRUA was able to leverage its position as a community water resource management body, backed by law to manage water resource use within its sub-basin as part of the integrated resource management framework adopted in the Water Act, 2002. “This composition reflects LaNaWRUA’s intention as a multi-stakeholder platform for community participation in managing LNB and its resources. Many previously excluded stakeholders such as small-scale farmers, pastoralists, local businesses, villagers and those situated on the upper catchment have been included. Some progress has been made in engaging pastoralists as key stakeholders through two community-based organizations in the LNB.” (Hepworth et al. 2011 34; LaNaWRUA interview) The WRMA obviously hosted the most power as mandated by the Water Act 2002, as the manager of use and conservation of water resources within its catchment basin. This institutional power backed bylaws and regulations made WRMA a key stakeholder within the lake basin. Additionally, the WRUAs were new aspects of management that placed power and new actor dynamics into the management framework were previously ignored community and grassroots organizations were able to be assimilated into a cooperative water resource management frame (LaNaWRUA interview).

In this instance, new actors brought about water reforms in the basin acting within an institutional frame of water resource management framed within the new Water laws. Flower farms within the LNGG group acted within their economic motivations to prompt the Water Allocation Plan creation by the LaNaWRUA and adopted by WRMA in 2008 and implemented from 2010 by LaNaWRUA on behalf of WRA to guide water use in the basin, and the LNGG with membership in LANaWRUA and financial capability facilitated and funded this. (Lake Naivasha Growers Group 2021, LaNaWRUA interview, LaNaWRUA 2015).

46

4.4.3

Actor-Institutional Dynamics during IWRAP

The actors are classified as those cited in project documents as actors in the programme- Embassy of the Netherlands, WWF, WRMA, Imarisha, ITC, Kenya Flower Council (KFC), Dutch Water Boards, water and forest resource users’ associations, community organizations, community and stakeholders.

•

Social groups- the different capacities each actor played; Funding Partner, Implementing partner, Beneficiaries The different backgrounds/ expertise/interest Government, non-government, community

•

What coalitions, networks, collaborations do the different actors formulate?

The planning process/instrument is the Lake Naivasha Basin Integrated Action Plan Programme, a programme applied to instigate sustainable integrated management of the lake basin. It marshals discourses of integrated resource management, participation, sustainability, collaborative discourses of water resource management and governance.

Institutional frame: Goals, strategies, aims, interests → Economic, conservation, capacity building, management, and governance.

Socio-political: Laws /procedures/ regulations →Water Act 2002(integrated, users associations, catchment basin),2016, WRMA 2009, WRUAs, laws on water use and organisation, land and water rights. 2010 Constitution, NEMA 1999, KWS involvement as Ramsar sites custodians in Kenya. Financial resources conditions and biases and where its sourced, political power balance, organizational and governance dynamics, collective decision making, the interplay of public/private/community actors.

Discourse → what values/importance tied to strategies/goals as the value placed on the instruments. Projected interests of the different actors.

Cognitive: Participation, PPPP, Integrated Management

• •

• •

The actors are classified as those cited in project documents as actors in the programme- Embassy of the Netherlands, WWF, WRMA, Imarisha, ITC, Kenya Flower Council (KFC), Dutch Water Boards, water and forest resource users’ associations, community organizations, community, and stakeholders. i.

Funding Partner, Implementing partner, Beneficiaries

Actors in the programme acted within this frame of engagement in the process where each stakeholder had different functions, contributions based on the social grouping in which they belonged. Funding partners were the Embassy of Netherlands where 4 million euros (Deltares n.d) was committed to the IWRAP project in an application made by the WWF to fund the stakeholder collaborative process of sustainable lake basin management. Implementing partners were the WWF, WRMA, Imarisha Naivasha, Kenya Flower Council, Dutch Water Boards, ITC who were identified and mandate with the implementation of programme initiatives in the different categories. The stakeholders were leveraged based on the level of influence and power, influence, activity exerted in the territory especially in the newly constructed discourse of sustainable management of resource for the benefit of ecological, economic and conservation purposes (WWF Interview). Beneficiaries were identified as the organizations and actors of whom the project benefits would accrue, livelihood transformed, and change sustained such as the Water Resource Users Associations, Community Forest Associations, communities and local organizations (WWF Interview)

47

48

Figure 16: Actor-Institutional Dynamics during IWRAP

ii.

Government, non-government, community

Actors’ actions within the programme were also driven by their backgrounds where government, nongovernment and community were the emerging social groups. Government organizations leveraged their legal and institutional mandate to exercise control and management of water resources and within the programme were implementing partners, as by law they have the power to implement actions. They also emerged as beneficiaries in capacity, institutional and technical capacity building by the nongovernment institutions who brought their expertise and technical know-how to the project as shared by a WWF interview respondent: “Using the landscape perspective, each partner took responsibility for an aspect that best matched their ability/history. So, ITC being a technical institute worked towards improving the data, monitoring set-ups, analyses of data, and as an extra, the business system for WRMA. WRMA worked with ITC and the WRUAs to enhance their capacities (some of the work was linked to their normal work, but with attended funding, they were able to have a better programme and give more time to things I believe)” (WWF Interview).

Non-government actors were motivated by different goals in the project area. Where WWF has engaged already in the basin as an environment and nature champion, the Embassy of Netherlands provided funds in an aid and donor funding framework with country-specific focus where Kenyan interest was in water governance and water-based projects (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021). The Dutch Water boards brought their technical expertise in integrated management and collaborative approaches to water resource management and contributed to building government actors capacities. This is tied to donor interest in particular focus areas and the inclusion of Dutch organizations facilitate knowledge transfers and training for the Water Resource Management Agency and Water Resource Users Associations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021, IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). A Dutch coalition representative captured their contribution to the programme as; “My main role has been to coordinate the Dutch team that has participated in IWRAP and basically bringing together the knowledge that we have in terms of research, a university, hydrological institute and the water boards who are responsible for the Management of water in the Netherlands and bring all that knowledge and try to manipulate that knowledge and transfer it in a way that employees in Kenya could actually exploit.” (WWF Kenya 2017) Funding by the Embassy of Netherlands (EKN) was facilitated under the Water Programme based on an integrated approach between other programs and collaboration with other stakeholders (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021 85). “The water programme is identified for its multiparty and multi-project collaboration, enhancing opportunities for knowledge sharing and spinoffs. For example, in the Integrated Water Resource Action Plan (IWRAP), collaboration was sought with the water project ‘Water Operations Partnership’ (WOP) Naivasha (funded by the embassy as well Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021 85). “Typical to the Water Programme has been the integrated approach, with programmes serving similar water objectives and various funded water programmes also serving objectives of other spearheads…implementation of the new agenda in the Water Programme occurred under decreased delegated ODA expenditure, especially since 2014. Indicative to the implementation of the Water Programme is the integrated approach, with links established within the Water Programme and with other spearhead programmes, and the collaboration with other donors and stakeholders.” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021 85).

The EKN at the time was attempting to restructure its financial aid framework to Kenya moving away from donor to public investor role focusing on providing expertise “on investing public funds to

49

leverage private investments (or investments from international financial institutions (IFIs) in the water and food security sectors” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021 80). Water and agriculture were focus sectors because of Dutch expertise and business engagement in water where the expectation was “assistance to develop sustainable business cases, capacity building of SMEs, addressing obstacles to trade and investments, and, where possible, developing programmes in co-creation with implementing agencies and companies” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021 80-81).

The embassy was also concerned about the lack of accountability by the Kenyan government due to corruption and lack of transparency accusations which saw funds channelled through international organizations such as the World Bank and civil institutions to evade the challenges of government and create new cooperation engagements (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021). The funds were conditional to the project managers, WWF as pointed out in an interview, “All funding comes with conditions - predominantly based on project milestones and outputs. It was part of a programme that the Dutch Embassy in Kenya had launched (which included an agricultural programme that was run by another organisation in the catchment. The only condition was to involve Dutch partners I believe, and that the funding come via WWF. Throughout the programme we had to provide annual reports and biannual updates” (WWF Interview).

It is within this institutional frame of donor financing within the Embassy’s focus areas of water and food security and a frame of the public investor by the embassy away from the donor role by extending Dutch knowledge and technical expertise through businesses and research institutions that ITC and Dutch business and water boards became part of the programme, (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021).

The ITC research body attached to the University of Twente was engaged in knowledge and technology transfer capacity to government actors tied to their institutional frame of the research. Dr Becht, who had previously been extensively engaged in the Lake Naivasha basin studies and researches especially concerning the hydrological studies and status of the lake (Becht and Harper 2002; Becht 2007; Mekonnen, Hoekstra, and Becht 2012; Higgins, Odada, and Becht 2005). He had emerged as an influential actor in the construction of knowledge in the basin where he had engaged with other stakeholder groups especially in studying the fluctuating lake levels and the influence of anthropogenic activities on the status of the lake. Dr, Becht had also published extensively especially in the early 2000s during the drought when blame for lake degradation was falling solely on the horticulture/floriculture industry(Mekonnen, Hoekstra, and Becht 2012). He argued and extended responsibility for the condition of the lake to all Lake Basin users and uses and claimed it was the combination of all the anthropogenic activities that contributed to the decline of the lake (Higgins, Odada, and Becht 2005) his discourse was mostly a hydrological perspective of the lake, preservation of its hydrological condition as a means of preserving its economic and ecosystem significance.

Acting through an institutional frame of research and capacity building anchored in the aid framework of the Dutch embassy in Kenya. From donor to public investor by introducing Dutch system of transfer of knowledge and transfer of expertise, ITC acted within this institutional frame to deliver as an implementing partner of IWRAP. ITC were responsible for knowledge and technical capacity building of water resource management institutions in the Lake Naivasha Basin to deliver Activity 2 in the IWRAP programme (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014, Becht 2015). It worked in collaboration “with Deltares as a subcontractor, and collaborates closely with two Dutch water authorities who assist WRMA in activity 1“Increase capacity and improved governance in WRM institutions” (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). Jointly with WWF and Imarisha, ITC is also responsible for activity 7(develop a financial trust to invest in the basin)” (Becht 2015 14). ITC acted within the donor conditions frame where Dutch expertise was part of the programme and was focused on this knowledge

50

transfer by assisting WRMA in “use of modern monitoring systems such as stand-alone and telemetric loggers for water and weather and the installation of GeoNetCast receiving station, development of a web-based open-source water information system (Maji-Sys), part of a much wider multi-organization environmental information system, use of mobile platforms to collect data in the field, implementation of an enterprise resource planning(ERP) system to keep track of all business processes in WRMA” (Becht 2015 15, Morales, Munyao, and Becht 2015). In addition to this, knowledge and technology transfer was made possible through graduates from ITC joining WRMA and Imarisha to facilitate knowledge and technical capacity building (Becht 2015).

Community actors were set to be beneficiaries in the programme in which as stakeholders, projects and initiatives targeted their social and economic conditions for livelihood transformation. Individual CFAs, WRUAs, flower farms were targeted to benefit within this frame. In this perspective, community actors leveraged their livelihood dependence as the beneficiaries through the transformation of how they used/managed or accessed the water resources as a means of ensuring sustainable and integrated benefit for the whole basin. The Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme within the IWRAP benefited upstream smallholder R. Malewa farmers by transforming their farming practices to be more ecosystem conscious (Verstoep 2015). Flower farms within the basin benefitted through the integration of standards of sustainable resource use to transform production processes that were later ratified by KFC into industry standards of sustainable flower production.

4.4.4

Actor-Institutional Dynamics After IWRAP

The IWRAP programme recreated actor-institutional relationships that lasted past the life of the program. The goal of the programme was to transform resource management activities within the lake basin. It is within this frame of change driven by ambitions of transformed management linked to sustainability in resource management that the programme was interested in what could/last beyond the time-scape of the programme. Government involvement is weak so grassroots involved collaboration strategies are part and parcel of water management in Lake Naivasha Basin. Therefore, increased capacities of organizations mean they have been able to manage and kickstart other initiatives and projects towards achieving sustainable development.

The IWRAP programme created a platform and frame of collaboration within the Lake Basin, in the creation of the umbrella WRUA and the inclusion of different stakeholders in a participatory frame of interaction to harmonize different projects and initiatives within the basin to be implemented for the benefit of all users and stakeholders (Kissinger 2014, LaNaWRUA interview, WWF interview, Imarisha Naivasha Interview). This platforming initiative embraced the participation goal pursued in the programme where, based on a history of competing interest, blame-shifting and contested access to use and access of resources, a lack of communication had impeded achieving development clarity (Imarisha Naivasha Interview). The programme clarified actors’ relationships with each other by empowering and platforming issues through an Umbrella WRUA and empowering Imarisha Naivasha’s coordinating and platforming activities, (WWF 2005, Imarisha Naivasha Interview). The expanded partnerships and creation of a wider participatory platform will ensure sustainable management of the Lake Naivasha Basin (Akso nsr 2015). This has ensured publicity of the diverse stakeholders within the lake basin who because of a lack of capacity, funding, knowledge had failed to reach their management goals.

The time specificity of the project duration meant that projects, initiatives were motivated towards selfsustenance. Institutional change and capacity building objectives were intertwined with actor and institutional relationships. The project partners, especially the beneficiaries and implementing partners with direct influence over resource management were centred in maintaining and instituting

51

transformation. The basin WRUAs and WRA remain as the largest beneficiaries of the programme where their relational, knowledge, technical, communication and governance expertise were improved through training, knowledge transfer through ITC and Dutch Water Boards involvement and retained in technical officers to maintain the change established (LaNaWRUA interview). However, this was riddled with bureaucratic challenges of expertise retention and threatened sustained change as expressed by a WWF interview respondent; “This is not easy to tackle when there is a history and continuing examples in the wider populace of this type of governance. The issue with the local govt reps (beyond WRA, this applies to KWS to KFS etc) is that they have limited power, and if something goes through in Nairobi, then even if it is the worse thing for Naivasha …People who raise their voice, just get transferred out. Plus, the policy of not having anyone in a position for more than 2 years to reduce corruption - well that is a problem for a longer-term project” (WWF interview).

This is because decision making was still central government-dependent and was limited by the bureaucratic bottlenecks that entailed (Verstoep 2015). Further, water management regulatory bodies were not necessarily changing recipient and were adamant about changing norms to facilitate upscaling and institutionalization of change; “One thing that was an impediment even though we had requested that it not happen - was the constant changing of managers - we had an excellent person who was very supportive and active, and in my tenure, we then went through another 2. This is not useful for a programme - but we were flatly told that this is government policy.” (WWF Interview).

The project was donor-funded and donor funding remains as a funding strategy for projects within the basin as government funding falls short and is unassured. (Imarisha Interview, LaNaWRUA interview).

This is because the WRUAs are largely dependent on donor support despite being created within the framework of the Water Act, 2016 they have adapted to working largely without government contribution or support except for its establishment (LaNaWRUA interview). This is despite ambitions of creating Sustainable Development Fund as an exit strategy at the end of the programme as was envisioned as framed by the Imarisha Naivasha CEO in project videos as “A sustainable development fund that provides a kitty where any good willing or any development partner who is willing to work with us can put in money here these resources can be used within the lake Naivasha basin” (WWF Kenya 2017).

It remains unclear how if at all this was achieved and funds remain the most cited shortcoming in projects realization in the basin.

Capacity training and assessment instruments are institutionalized and used by the Water Resources Authority for training and capacity building and assessment of other WRUAs (WWF 2015, Ministry of Water and Irrigation Website, WWF Interview). A WRA official reflected in a project video that: “In the ground water and service water monitoring they have bought equipment which they installed in these Rivers. Instead of us going to read them manually, we can get the information using our either laptop or even the desktop” (WWF Kenya 2017) Acknowledging the change and gains in technical expertise and provisioning. Additionally, a training officer based within the WRUAs increases their capacity in the technical expertise required to manage water resource usage in the specific sub-catchment areas. They were paid and funded throughout the programme and now are funded through other donor funding mechanisms, (LaNaWRUA interview).

This has improved relationships between WRA the centralized governing institution mandated by the

52

Water Act, 2016 and at the national government level and the local WRUAs where technical aspects of resource management have been decentralized to WRUAs who now have the technical capacity to carry it out (LaNaWRUA interview, WWF Kenya 2017). The WRUAs do not necessarily report back to the WRA and act largely independently, (LaNaWRUA interview). Therefore, they work at a community level scale without the impediments of centralized governance and management bureaucracies.

Additionally, WRUAs are more community centred and are thus more relational at the grassroots level thereby ensuring the inclusion and participation of marginalized stakeholders. “IWRAP has contributed to the mission or has lived the mission of WWF of living in harmony with nature. We have been able to integrate people and conservation. We’ve been able to show communities the importance of nature and how to live with it well because nature is also very unforgiving. So, one thing we have done is to show that symbiotic relationship that cannot be ignored” (WWF Kenya 2017). This was a matched observation where community socio-economic activities were reconciled with conservation goals. The pastoral community are fully represented within the WRUAs especially in the lake based WRUA, LaNaWRUA, where their spatial location around the lake had created previous contestations of representation, access, and marginalization, (Kavilu 2016). A WRA official remarked that this has contributed to the reduced conflict in the dry season as there now exist empowered and facilitated institutions to channels grievances and solve conflicts through WRUAs and WRA (WWF Kenya 2018).

This was further clarified by a WWF official in the same video that CSAs and WRUAs have become platforms for citizen participation; “One of the biggest next level is building capacities of communities through their CSOs whether the WRUAs or the CSAs to be able to articulate these issues and you know capacity build them to amplify the citizen voice and action and they are able to act in a knowledgeable way” (WWF Kenya 2017).

The governing and management of resources were recreated into a common goal for all stakeholders.

This consequently changed actors-institutional dynamics where now resource management is no longer a preserve of laws and regulation mandated organizations but also includes communities, stakeholders and interest groups. Although the programme began from a motivating shared business risk discourse, the collation of diverse groups of interest recreated the resource relationship into a landscape-based approach where “each partner took responsibility for an aspect that best matched their ability/history” (WWF interview), based on an understanding that the environment/landscapes underscore all relational aspects of resource use and integrated, collaborative, participatory approaches enshrines this approach of mutual and common benefit.

53

Discourse Construction Discourse is defined as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorisations that are produced reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Arts 2012 10). Discourse covers how different actors construct interpretations and meanings of realities and how this influences their actions and how they relate to each other. It relates to understanding different narratives that actors construct to drive and motivate their actions. In the Lake Naivasha basin, the discourse has and continues to play a significant role in determining action and defining programmes and project especially in natural resource management, (Wambugu 2018). The dominant narratives have always been tied to the significance of the lake basin or the extracted benefits from the lake basin. Discourse in the lake basin has oscillated between conservation, economic value underpinned by water scarcity, integrated water management and publicprivate-people partnership.

In the IWRAP programme, the different stakeholders all had their own constructed discourse about the lake basin, and they consequently exerted these into the programme. Conservation and economic value were the dominant discourses of the IWRAP programme as enshrined in their vision “create enabling environment for sustainable water resource management, where the government, public and private sector work together in implementing actions to address water resource management challenges in the basin (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). Conservation and economic value became intertwined together after the shared risk and shared opportunity study by WWF in 2010 where economic value within the basin was found to be threatened by degradation and risk of environmental degradation, (WWF 2010). This led to a collaborative frame of stakeholder involvement in resource management in the basin framed within a similar environmental threat threatening their economic interests and investments.

Water scarcity had been a familiar discourse in the lake basin where water held an important resource position where multiple industries, users and uses were dependant on it. The lake and its ever-fluctuating levels were always a subject of concern. In 2009 during the drought, water scarcity became a dominant narrative marshalled as a means of addressing unsustainable usage and abstraction of water in the Lake Basin (Imarisha Naivasha Interview)At this time, because of the significant floriculture industry, the large influence of NGOs that were writing reports extensively laying blame on the flower industry for the deteriorated state of the lake, government involvement through the Prime Minister’s office led to the creation of the Imarisha Naivasha Board through the Sustainability Research Group by the Prince of Wales (Becht et al. 2005). This water scarcity narrative was furthered by calls of ‘restoring’ Lake Naivasha. As such water scarcity or threats of water scarcity created narratives of restoration of the lake.

It is from this water scarcity and restoration narratives that IWRAP emerged with a new narrative of economic value and conservation combined to achieve sustainability in resource management and governance (WWF 2015). This was supported by WWF’s earlier interest in conservation in the basin and Kenya. However, because of the diverse stakeholders and the economic significance and contribution of the basin to the national economy, the economic value was also a dominant narrative to be pursued, (WWF 2010). The WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) was a programme manager with conservation interest owing to its long activity and involvement in nature, wildlife and conservation issues within the lake basin (WWF 2015). However, conservation and economic value are not necessarily narratives that co-exist as seen in the 2009 drought blame game. Industries drawing water from the basin such as hotels, urban development, agriculture, and floriculture were seen as extractive and harmful to the environment and conservation, sanctuaries, wildlife parks and protected riparian and

54

wetland zones were seen as conservative to environment and ecosystem. In this discourse selectivity it follows that governance processes embody selectivities, choosing to co-opt some strategies, users’ group over others, gravitating towards powerfully driven discourse, defining them as appropriate/sustainable/unsustainable and selectively choosing which to embed into governance processes (Boelens et al. 2016).

55

56

Figure 17: Construction of discourse in the Lake Naivasha Basin

Both the conservation and economic value dominant industries were all dependent on the water, hence the shared risk and opportunity study conducted by the WWF (WWF 2011). The collaborative and participatory engagement and governance structure emerged within these dominant and contested identities and narratives of the Lake Basin. Therefore, the IWRAP framework of participatory governance through a public-private-people-partnership was an emergent discourse seeking to bring together conservation and economic narratives under a narrative of integrated management and use of resources in the basin.

Kenya Flower Council (KFC) promoted an economic discourse of the lake where water is linked to horticulture and floriculture production. The IWRAP programme included the provision for the promotion, use and development of industry standardization and certification standards as part of the regulatory framework for water use in the flower farms and environmental protection in the basin (Akso RSR 2014).

The WWF involvement in the IWRAP programme was driven by their approach of “shared risk and opportunity in water resources” which made a business case for natural resource use and management in Naivasha after the 2009 drought, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). They constructed a discourse of shared business risk in addition to their conservation discourse which is part of their goals in Kenya.

This concept was adopted by basin stakeholders as means of visualizing the risks and impacts of actions between the different stakeholder groups as a basis of creating engagement and seeking a common vision to solve common basin challenges in natural resource use and access, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014).

“Acceptance of the shared risk approach led to a “shared vision”- advocating for a balance between economic development and conservation of biodiversity especially natural resources for sustainable development. The stakeholders recognise that conservation and development complement each other and that conserving natural resources is a vital element of minimising risks and improving economic sustainability and growth in the future,” (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). This shared risk approach led to an integrated, collaborative, and participatory process embedded in the IWRAP programme for water resource management in the basin. At this point conservation and economic gains discourse were constructed as the dominant and significant discourse that motivated action and was linked to the individual projects within the IWRAP programme.

This approach additionally brought to light contestations and “tensions between politics, economics, institutional capacity, local governance, development priorities and investment decisions. It highlights how they all come together to inform the decisions that determine water use and protection, which will ultimately determine the long-run sustainability of the Lake,” (WWF 2010 7, Pegasys Strategy and Development 2012). This commonality in conservation and economic discourse was an addition to the sustainability discourse that was emerging in resource use and management in the country. The IWRAP programme adopted an integrated approach where economic, social, environmental, and political concerns were addressed in different capacities within the programme all in a quest to restructure/reimagine governance of natural resources, where sustainability in use and equity in access and management was advocated for in its participatory frame of governance, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014, LaNaWRUA Interview 2021, WWF 2015, WWF Kenya 2018). In many ways, IWRAP was able to bring together economic, ecological, social and conservation concerns into an integrated programme framed within a participatory stakeholder process to achieve a vision of sustainable development and governance of natural resource in Lake Naivasha Basin.

57

Old Governance System Vs New System 4.6.1. Old Governance The Water Act 2002 was transformative legislation in water governance chief among which was the separation of water resource management from the water supply, decentralization of water management to local government units but not devolved decision making, involvement of non-government organizations in water management, (Mumma 2007). The Act created the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA) as mandated to oversee the management of water resources empowered through a permitting system, regional WRMAs that function within the created ‘catchment areas’ as “areas from which rainwater flows into a watercourse” (Mumma 2007 161). Since the 1980s government financial and budgetary constraints, water management has progressively expanded to included non-government actors such as local communities, private sector empowered in pieces of legislation such as a manual by the Ministry of Land Reclamation Regional and Water Development of 1997, The National Water Policy as the Sessional Paper N0. 1 of 1999 where government role was redefined from “direct service provision to regulatory functions: service provision would be left to municipalities, private sector and communities” (Mumma 2007 160). The Water Act of 2002 ratified and expanded these changes in water resource management.

Water Resource Users Associations (WRUAs) was a major formalization of community involvement in water management empowering them as voluntary systems of collaborative/cooperative organization and conflict resolution in water management, (Mumma 2007). However, the Act vested ownership of water resources to the state, thus centralizing resource ownership, “Every water resource is hereby vested in the State, subject to any rights of use granted by or under this Act or any other written law” (The Government of Kenya 2002 section 3) but this changed within the Water Act of 2016 which states that, “Every water resource is vested in and held by the national government in trust for the people of Kenya” (The Government of Kenya 2016 section 5). The Water Resource Authority (WRA), former Water Resource Management Authority, “shall serve as an agent of the national government and regulate the management and use of water resources” (The Government of Kenya 2016 section 6), thereby still maintaining central control of water resource management decision making despite decentralizing management function to regional WRAs based on catchment areas.

58

Figure 18: Water Act 2002 institutional matrix. (Akinyi and Odundo 2018)

Figure 19: Water Act 2016 institutional matrix. (Gachenga 2019)

59

Water rights to use water resources are acquired and enforced through the use of permits for, “any use of water from a water resource” (Water Act 2016 section 36 31) except for domestic water uses, water within one’s landholding and water storage. Permits are subject to charges and renewals to the Water Resource Authority, therefore, centralizing and monetizing water use and access, which essentially favours private landholders who can leverage their landholding to gain water rights. Permit acquisition is largely land-based, “A permit shall specify, as far as practicable, the particular portion of any land, or the particular undertaking to which the permit is to be appurtenant (The Government of Kenya 2016 section 45) in that “It is thus not possible, under the law, to obtain a permit in gross (i.e., that is not linked to a particular land),” (Mumma 2007 165). This prioritizes private ownership/interest of land ownership in the use of water resources which largely undermines and infringes upon communal claims to water resources ownership and use.

The Water Act 2002, failed to recognized communal land ownership/land rights as a factor of access of water rights, which limits communal water ownership, (Mumma 2007), this was rectified in the Water Act 2016, which recognizes communal land ownership and makes reference to other laws recognizing this as a factor in the implementation of water rights and access, “Despite anything contained in this Act, any powers and functions conferred or imposed under this Act affecting land shall, in respect of community land, be exercised and performed subject to any written law relating to that land” (The Government of Kenya 2016 section 138). The relationship between WRUAs and WRA was defined to the extent that WRUAs could carry out regulatory activities for WRA with funds from permitting, thereby recognizing the capacity of “community-based water governance” (Gachenga 2019 436). The 2-prong separation of water resources management and water supply were revolutionary in 2002 and was carried forth in Water Act 2016 aimed at a decentralized decision-making structure to achieve equity in water, however, this has not necessarily been successful what with the structure still being “state-centric” with “nominal decentralization”, (Gachenga 2019 437).

The Water Services Trust Fund (WSTF) was a creation intended to support community-led initiatives through financing and was “critical for the successful implementation of devolved water governance” funded through the Equalization fund, national budget allocation and levies on water supply, (Gachenga 2019 441) but the technical, financial, and political interference hampered the decentralization goal in 2002.

60

Figure 20: Resource Governance Framework in Kenya and how IWRAP fit into it.

61

4.6.2

IWRAP Governance Framework

The IWRAP programme established a new collaborative public-private-people-partnership governance system that reconfigured user relationships and stakeholder engagement creating some new ways of governing, managing resources in the Naivasha basin. Following Galego et al. (2021), this study examines whether new governance arrangements were created through the public, private, people partnership framework that formed the basis of the IWRAP programme. It interrogates how new social relations were created and how communities were empowered to drive social transformation and whether this resulted in a sustainable governance system.

The established collaborative and participatory framework adopted spoke to the democratic goals of the programme, challenging bureaucratic systems of governance that benefitted well-connected, economically and politically linked actors.

“In Naivasha, most successful programs have been implemented under the public, private, people partnerships where NGOs have worked closely with the Government and the Private sector. It is difficult to separate them as most programs across the catchment have been and still are implemented through partnership,” (LNRA Interview).

“Yet, top-down political decision-making still predominates…SI becomes a relevant ‘game-changer’ challenging hegemonic political systems and fostering new arrangements of governance through building bottom-linked modes of governance, participatory decision-making, co-construction of public policies, and other forms of citizen involvement in the political arena” (Galego et al. 2021). Despite offering alternative frames of relations that enshrined bottom-led approaches to water management and governance, the IWRAP programme did not sufficiently challenge the established top-down governance mechanisms. Rather it established a possible route of interaction by promoting participation centred bottom-up governance initiatives, but which function together with established top-down bureaucratic systems since decision-making and implementation were still enshrined in government structures such as the Water Resource Authority, Ministry of Water and Irrigation, (Verstoep 2015, LNRA interview 2021, LaNaWRUA Interview 2021).

The newly imagined systems of governance and relations imagined by the IWRAP programme was based on integrated, collaborative and participatory dynamics that sought to construct new relations between stakeholder groups. This process of challenging the hegemony of established systems is “associated with the rise to prominence of new actors, the consolidation of the presence of others, the exclusion or diminished power position of groups that were present in earlier forms of government and the continuing exclusion of other social actors who have never been included,” (Galego 2021 12). The IWRAP programme was selectively strategic in the choice of stakeholder involvement in line with the dominant discourses of conservation and economic value with a threat of water scarcity discourse as the background, including the most significant and already established stakeholders and empowering and building their capacities and positions in power and linkages dynamics. The LaNaWRUA and Wanjohi WRUAs were selected as pilot WRUA for technical, institutional capacity building because of their location and expected influence both downstream and upstream respectively, (Verstoep 2015, LaNaWRUA Interview 2021). Funding was sourced from the Embassy of the Netherlands (EKN) who at the time within their strategic Kenya project goals included water resource management driven by their well-known Dutch expertise in water technology (co-existence or coherence). The EKN fit into this discourse of integrated water management but for them, their discourse was based on their knowledge expertise which they sought to transfer through Dutch companies, water board and the University of Twente Research group ITC, (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021).

62

63

Figure 21: IWRAP's governing framework

The Dutch funding was also associated with their promotion of integrated water management that was prized as a collaborative process, this was seen as a possible knowledge transfer of how to get water resource management right, through participation, (International Water Week Kenya Workshop 2011).

The complication of the innovation aspect is that despite introducing new systems and frameworks, socially innovative initiatives often fail to change governance frameworks by running into institutionalized systems of power, actor’s embeddedness in institutional settings, economic discourses, financial challenges and interactions of powerful and weak actors in the programme, (Galego et al.

2021). “But bottom-linked governance dynamics can also bump into political conservatism and budget austerity” (Galego et al. 2021 20). “It is apparent that a lack of financial resources restricts action by NEMA, WRMA and the Water Service Provider and the WRUAs. For example, Water Resource Management Authority officers responsible for the Lake Naivasha Basin even lack a dedicated vehicle” (Hepworth et al. 2011 42). The IWRAP programme fell within this limitation of a bottom-linked governance dynamic that fell short because of funding and financing shortages. This is not unique to projects within the Lake Naivasha basin where funding shortages are reported as a limitation in both government-led initiatives and non-government led programmes (LaNAWRUA interview, CBO interview). This is compounded by the high dependency on donor financing especially for bottom-led initiatives, where government funding falls short or is unavailable.

Water Resource Authority and Imarisha Naivasha act as implementing partners in the programme where their capacities for water resource management was improved. They have become the lasting feature of the IWRAP programme carrying forth the collaborative and participative framework of governance. In some ways lasting beyond the scope of the programme as positive ‘seeds’ and ‘sediments’ that help build governance practices that could institutionalize the new collaborative governance framework (Gonzalez and Healey 2005). However, governance transformation requires, “the interaction of the accumulation of experiences from different episodes combined with societal shifts in values and the generative power of the internal learning capacity of dominant governance actors” (Gonzalez and Healey 2005, 2066). This was not the case in the IWRAP programme whereby the dominant governance actor WRA and government ministry were the actors with the power to make decisions and direct change. Whereas the IWRAP and Imarisha Naivasha were collaborative bottom-linked approaches that attempted to establish a collaborative governance framework different from the traditional centralized system (Verstoep 2015, WWF Interview). However, because decision making, implementation and enforcing power was still enshrined with the Water Resource Authority, the alternative governance framework survived for the duration of the programme but struggled after the IWRAP program came to an end.

This uncertainty and lack of continuity in funding mean project lifecycles more often than not denote the end of change processes. Even when changes in governance are institutionalized, funding still limits the scope of application and use. This was seen in the case where institutional capacity training and frameworks were adopted from the IWRAP programme and institutionalized as part of the Water Resource Authority’s training manuals for other WRUAs (Water Resource Authority 2021). The slow uptake is largely blamed on lack of funding for training, transfers of trained officers thus not allowing for the sustained transfer of knowledge and also a lack of funding for actual change implementation after training has been secured, (Verstoep 2015, LaNaWRUA interview).

64

65

Figure 22: Emerging resource governance framework from IWRAP programme.

4.6.3

Produced Governance Arrangements

In the Lake Naivasha Basin, bottom-up community-led initiatives have set the tone for resource management activities and the IWRAP programme fit into this established norm whereas far back as the Lake Naivasha Riparian Association (LNRA), the lake Naivasha community has learnt to use community frameworks of the organization to push for change within the community. The IWRAP programme adopted this participatory community-led management strategy and extended it into a collaborative, participatory process of interaction between diverse stakeholders within the basin.

Importantly, this took place at a time when the shared risk of water scarcity had resulted in an increase in projects and initiatives directed towards resource management informed by different interest groups ranging from wildlife and tourism actors, floriculture industry, NGOs, community-led programmes all attempting to address the threat of water scarcity (Interview LaNaWRUA, interview Imarisha Naivasha). The result was a multiplicity of efforts driven by goodwill but applied at small scales and not in collaboration with all the involved stakeholders that consequently did not lead to large scale change or innovation. As such an integrated approach was pursued to create harmony in the creation of a common vision as observed by WWF official in an IWRAP project video: “Kenya is a water scarce country and therefore how do we work with partners using an integrate approach to actually promote a sustainable management of the scarce freshwater resources. The program was actually also delivering towards our global strategy on management of freshwater resources in major basins in the world. It has actually become very evident that sustainable freshwater management requires an integrated multi-sectoral, inter-agency and multidisciplinary approach” (WWF Kenya 2017).

The IWRAP programme was formulated within this effort filled environment within existing collaborative approaches, was able to harness stakeholder interest in water resource management in a platform that brought together diverse interest groups in a collaborative project process that had 7 different activities, including diverse stakeholders all geared towards a collaborative, integrated and sustainable approach to governing water resources. The programme worked with the existing statecentric system of governance where the Water Resource Authority (WRA) was the key stakeholder with a goal of building its technical, institutional capacity by creating a collaborative frame with the Dutch Water Boards, businesses, and ITC (Imarisha Interview, WWF interview, LNRA interview). A WRA official remarked in 2017 that, “Since we have started, we have capacity built the Communities so that we never do see anything to do with pollution or water conflict. Like during the dry season they normally sit, if they cannot solve the problem, they can approach either of us even these other stakeholders we work with,” (WWF Kenya 2017), as to the success within the organization. However, in recognition of the limitations of the government-centred management framework that was riddled with the multiplicity of actors and state departments that led to corruption and bureaucratic bottlenecks, the programme involved community organizations (WWF interview). This included the WRUAs and Community Forest Associations (CFAs) by building the capacities of WRUAs to conduct their mandate as cooperative community water managers and CFAs as community-led forest management organizations. Working around the bureaucracy of state-led approaches by going directly to community members ensured livelihood, social and economic transformation was achieved by the programme (WWF Interview, Imarisha Naivasha interview, WWF Kenya 2018).

IWRAP set out to establish an integrated, collaborative, participatory, transformative, and sustainable system of management of water resources and its platform of engagement and stakeholder collaboration was an example of attempts at challenging the norm of centralized governance systems (WWF Interview, WWF 2015, Imarisha Naivasha). As to whether this was sustainable remains to be seen since

66

the project was donor-dependent and the management framework was not institutionalized (Verstoep 2015). The capacities built-in community initiatives through the WRUAs, and CFAs are, however, strengthened with built operative capacities of these organizations. The LaNaWRUA a beneficiary of the programme built its technical and governance capacities and continues to be active within the basin.

LaNaWRUA exists as a strong WRUA that facilitates and leads initiatives and projects on its own by creating collaborative frames and engagement contracts with donor organizations and other stakeholders in the basin to achieve effective and sustainable water resource management (Interview LaNaWRUA, Imarisha Naivasha, WWF Interview). The umbrella WRUA was also among the resultants of the programme where an overall Water Resource Users Association for the lake basin was formed during the IWRAP programme and remains as a lasting change in governance approaches to water resources that are still used to harmonize activities within the basin through the 12 WRUAs who learn from each other, direct resources and source funding for projects, (LaNaWRUA interview)

67

Power dynamics- new power? Old power?

The power dynamics in the Lake basin have deep historical roots especially with regards to the different stakeholders. Within the basin, power has been inscribed by access and control of land and water. The floriculture industry follows these logics by occupying the most economically productive parts of the basin. The Lake Naivasha Riparian Association also exerts its power and influence first by being the first promotors of the conservation narrative leading to the awarding of Lake Naivasha as a Ramsar site in 1995. This led to their designation as managers of the implementation of the Ramsar status of the lake. However, the Lake Naivasha Riparian Association (LNRA) “being the oldest association in the basin, has a long-standing interest in the protection and conservation of the riparian region, giving it an edge over the other local NGOs and community-based organizations. Under the new constitution, however, the riparian land belongs to and should be managed by, the government. This has weakened LNRA’s influence and interest since its role in the basin is no longer clear” (Ogada et al. 2017 281).

Their involvement in IWRAP was not necessarily directly as beneficiaries but rather they benefitted indirectly by being involved in the umbrella WRUA and the common stakeholder platform of participation in resource governance (LNRA Interview).

The floriculture industry (here represented by Kenya Flower Council) on the other hand constructs power through its land occupation around the lake as well as the economic benefit of the industry through employment and foreign exchange earnings from exports. This power according to Verstoep (2015) is maintained through the influence of the industry marshals and is made even more apparent in the integration and promotion of its use of flower industry certification and standards as part of the IWRAP programme goals. Among the targeted outcomes for IWRAP was the enhancing of “Increases in levels of sustainable production and good stewardship in Lake Naivasha Basin floriculture through development and adoption of national standards and certification,” (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014).

In this case, industry standards emerge as “networks that prescribe roles and establish power relations between companies and producers” where they “reinforce the political and market power of private sector agro-food chains in local water management, to the detriment of local water user communities and national governments,” (Vos and Boelens 2014, 205). Vos and Boelens (2014) further argue that “the roles that actors assume and the positions they occupy imply social power relations.” (214) In this case the positionality of the Kenya Flower Council within the IWRAP programme is questioned because by their use of certification aimed at producing ‘order and control’, western industry standards are adopted that favour global value chain production without necessarily respecting the rules and norms of local resource governance. The inclusion of industry certifications and standards maintains the power dominance of the floriculture industry and exerts this influence within the implementation framework of the programme. Therefore, the IWRAP programme fails to upset this age-old power dynamic and rather maintains and even enhances the skewed power dynamics where the use of industry standards and certifications is made part of a self-regulation strategy for water use for the flower farms.

68

5

CONCLUSION: Was the IWRAP programme Naivasha Socially Innovative?

“The multidimensional scrutiny of SI cum governance literature provides input on how SI initiatives can collaborate with local authorities and promote social and political changes. These dimensions have been presented in clusters corresponding to the three basic pillars of SI’s definition: collective actions fulfilling human needs, social relations and socio-political transformations” (Galego et al. 2021 20).

Innovative governance frameworks have always been resultant in innovative processes seeking to challenge dominant narratives of how systems work. Adopting social innovation literature, the IWRAP programme is analysed to question if the programme emerged as a socially innovative programme. This is based on three key tenets of social innovation assessment: i. ii. iii.

Collective action to satisfy neglected human needs.

Transformation in Social Relations Empowerment of citizens to work towards socio-political transformation.

5.1.1. Collective action to satisfy neglected human needs The IWRAP programme fits into this nexus of addressing neglected communal needs. In this case, emerging from a period of prolonged drought, seeking to address coherence in water management and access for the different interest groups in the basin. The programme filled the missing link between government-mandated departments and ministries and the actual people who used the water resource.

This gap was highlighted in the drought period when blame for deteriorating lake conditions was placed on different groups of stakeholders. The programme was able to mobilize systems and structures of water governance that were instituted with the Water Act reforms in 2002 and 2016 that had largely failed to achieve transformation in water resource management. The programme adopted an Integrated Water Resource Management discourse and framework where different interest groups were involved and participated in collaborative and participatory governance practices of shared resources management.

The main beneficiary group in the capacity building was the Water Resource Authority, Water Resource Users Associations that were the main water reform creations that were empowered in the programme, (LaNaWRUA interview, WWF 2015, IWRAP document). “The WRMA sub-regional office based in Naivasha, which oversees the Naivasha, Elementaita and Nakuru basins, has benefitted through a rehabilitated and improved monitoring network for ground and surface water,” (WWF 2015 3), “The capacity of all 12 WRUAs within the basin on key areas for WRM has been enhanced through training and support on issues of governance, conflict, financial management and proposal development, etc.

They have been given the opportunity to learn from one another and from WRUAs in other basins through exchange visits,” (WWF 2015 4).

The neglected human need here was the water that was contested in nature, the diverse uses, and multiple users. Collective action in socially innovative initiatives according to Galego involves, “dimensions related to collective actions emphasize citizens’ actions improvements, grassroots initiatives and community-led collaboration. Such actions often attract public and political attention to neglected social and human rights and to how these can be met,” (Galego et al. 2021 20). In this case, the IWRAP programme was built on collective actions that had framed conservation and interest by stakeholders in the basin such as the WWF Linking Futures programme (2007-2011) whose goal was connecting ecosystem conservation and livelihood alleviation through the support of existing

69

community-based organizations such as WRUAs and CFAs towards a common vision for the lake basin, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014).

The IWRAP programme, coming after this and other initiatives because of the 2009 drought also sought to amplify community-based initiatives through financial, technical and knowledge support of CFAs and WRUAs, Payment for Ecological Services scheme that responded to economic aspects of livelihood within an ecological conservation frame, (WWF 2015). “WWF-Kenya in collaboration with Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and Community Forest Associations (CFAs) through the Integrated Water Resources Action Plan (IWRAP) programme has been working with different stakeholders to increase headwater protection and security of water flows through improved participatory forest management and income-generating activities for the forest adjacent communities” (WWF 2017). A process through which a participatory management plan allowed community-based forest management where community rights were protected and retained in a socio-economic livelihood approach that retained the socio-economic role of the forests to communities that secured water flows in the upper catchment through transformed agricultural practices by the community (WWF 2017).

5.1.2. Transformation in Social Relations The IWRAP programme made use of existing structures and systems, marshalling the power and mandate placed in these new structures to instigate change. The creation of a platform in the umbrella Lake Naivasha basin WRUA ensured that stakeholder groups and actors in the lake basin were assimilated into one main platform. Creating connections between forestry in the upstream sections of the basin and water use and demand downstream realized in projects that targeted both interest groups transformed relations between conservation narratives that permeated upstream activities and economic extractive narratives that permeated water usage downstream. “One of the direct outcomes of the IWRAP programme is increased headwater protection and security of water flows through improved participatory forest management and adoption of conservation agriculture by several community members in the upper catchment areas” (Okande 2016). Economic and conservation discourses were amalgamated in the programme with results and objectives intended to coalesce these two different discourses marshalled and promoted by different stakeholder groups. The acknowledgement that conservation and economic benefit in the lake basin could be pursued together reduced transfer of blame to different actor groups. Social relations in the Lake Naivasha basin had in the past been driven by conservation agendas, side-lining economic visions and interests. However, when economic discourses grew due to the economic and political power it wielded through the significant industries established within the basin-floriculture, geothermal, tourism, hotels- economic interests became significant push factors in social relations within the basin.

“Second, the dimensions related to social relations concentrate on changing power balances. Key actors in such processes are civil society organizations and networks. Given that dense social relations often culminate ineffective network features, these actors’ social power may rise to overcome cultural barriers, build inclusiveness and create cohesion in governance among marginalized communities,” (Galego 2021 20). The programme created new paths of stakeholder involvement and interaction that restructured relationships and power dynamics within the lake basin. The key actors involved was WWF that led the programme in a Public-Private-People Partnership bringing together communities in community organizations-CFAs and WRUAs, EKN as a funding agency and government-Water Resource Agency, non-government Dutch Water boards, University of Twente and ITC research group, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014).

The creation of a common and interactive platform in the programme and the Umbrella WRUA in Lake Naivasha basin during IWRAP centred community involvement in water resource management and

70

governance, (LaNaWRUA interview, LNRA interview, WWF interview, Imarisha Naivasha Interview). The platform motivated by a need to have a common vision in lake resources use and management, a result of disparate and different projects and programmes by different interest groups that more often than not replicated efforts and did not necessarily end in common results, (LaNaWRUA interview). In other ways, the programme also created means of including stakeholder groups that had been uninvolved and excluded in the past in water resource management. The LaNaWRUA through capacity building processes made possible by the IWRAP programme where their governance, communication and involvement strategies were improved, (WWF 2015, WWF interview) have an inclusive membership framework where the pastoral community and fisherfolk have been included as significant stakeholders in Lake Naivasha Basin, (Lake Naivasha Water Resources Users Association 2015).

5.1.3. Empowerment of citizens to work towards socio-political transformation “Third, dimensions related to socio-political transformations reveal that, although there is a risk of Janus facing in governance beyond the state, demands for public participation in decision-making and new governance arrangements are intertwined” (Galego et al. 2021 20). The IWRAP programme facilitated the interaction of stakeholder groups in different capacities, especially in technical, knowledge and institutional capacity building. This interaction facilitated knowledge transfers and increased capacity in management by the Water Resources Authority, Water Resources Users Associations and Community Forest Organizations. Although the programme seemed to be largely driven by institutional change interests, platforms and linkages were established that certainly trickled down to communities who were able to participate in the programme through funding projects that in some ways transformed their livelihoods and may have sown the seeds of transformed water resource access and use relations, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014).

The study finds that the project indeed delivered within its goal of establishing a sustainable governance framework for water resource management. Capacity, institutional, technical and knowledge building were the largest transformative aspects of the programme. That is adequately reprogrammed and repatterned relationships within actors in the Lake Basin founded on a landscape approach where each actor took responsibility. This was supported by interviewees as an achievement during the program and post-program (WWF interview, Imarisha interview, LaNaWRUA interview) However, the grand ambitions were limited by the short project time frame-four years- and within which transformation couldn’t be qualified. During the programme, achievements could be pegged to continued project objectives. However, sustained change is dependent on a ‘seeds’ and ‘sediments approach. So what seeds were sown and what sediments were left behind post-IWRAP and could these be indicators of a sustainable governance frame? Interviews conducted and project documents and research publications largely gravitate towards pointing out that some change was achieved during the program. The most citied change was increased capacities of resource management agencies-WRA, WRUAs, CFAs. Several interviewers and project video documents pointed out that; “We must build on the momentum that has been generated. The ball cannot be dropped now. But I must say that IWRAP has played a very important role of creating a very solid foundation on which future initiatives can build on” (WWF Kenya 2017).

Capacity building and development sowed seeds of change that are still present in the technical capacities of WRA and WRUAs through technical officers, information technology and collaboration memorandum between them. “One of the biggest next level is building capacities of communities through their CSOs whether the WRUAs or the CSAs to be able to articulate these issues and you know capacity build them to amplify the citizen voice and action and they are able to act in a knowledgeable

71

way” (WWF Kenya 2017). This recognized the platforming success of the programme in giving avenues for voices of previously excluded actors within the basin. However, this is still subject to critique where the centralized decision-making system is still a bottleneck to scaling up and institutionalize change as reflected upon by a WWF interview respondent; “The government was represented by the Water Resources Authority (used to be WRMA). They were key partners in the programme, but with the issues they were having at head office level, we were not able to get as much outcome as we would have hoped. The local office was always supportive but they took their cue from the head office, where the CFO who was not supportive, though he turned out to be very corrupt” (WWF 2017).

“One thing that was an impediment even though we had requested that it not happen - was the constant changing of managers - we had an excellent person who was very supportive and active, and in my tenure, we then went through another two. This is not useful for a programme - but we were flatly told that this is govt policy. In retrospect, more should have been done with the head office and bringing along the whole of that group, than with the local branch - as this may have been more impactful.

However, the work done in Naivasha I believe has had some influence on things then piloted elsewhere - in the western region I think” (WWF 2017).

Here bottlenecks enshrined in traditional systems of governance end up being resistant to change thereby the changes brought about by the programme can hardly be adapted to other levels. Perhaps this was a failure in the programme, expecting innovative practices to be assimilated and restructure dominant systems. It falls into the virtue trap of participation approaches, (Moulaert et al. 2019).

However, all is not lost as capacity building manuals developed in the programme have been institutionalized into national WRA training manuals for WRUAs in the country (Water Resources Authority 2017, WWF Kenya 2021).

Imarisha Naivasha as a beneficiary of the programme was able to leverage and institute itself as a significantly powerful actor in basin management dynamics due to the connections to other stakeholder groups and access to funding, donors and empowered status of action through the project facilitating the achievement of the organization’s SDAP, (Imarisha Naivasha 2015, Imarisha Naivasha Interview).

This did not necessarily empower actual citizens, at least not in the aftermath of the project as it’s been reported that its institutional focus limited the change-making process and transformation to organizations that took part in the programme, (Verstoep 2015, LaNaWRUA Interview 2021). This changed their power dynamics, where most became powerful actors, marshalling their institutional frames and linkages to further their objectives and different plans. At the grassroots levels, communities and people did not gain directly individually in the transformation, (Verstoep 2015). As much as they were empowered, they were empowered to work within established systems of governance. In other cases, small and weak actors did not really change in position such as the pastoral community. Despite the expectation that the programme would change the dominant governance frames, it merely challenged established systems, empowered them but the transformation is achieved in streamlined institutionalized processes. The participatory and collaborative approach to the programme was significantly innovative that in different ways empowered voiceless actors by giving them a platform to be heard, especially as seen in the Umbrella WRUA and empowered WRUAs and CFAs, (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014, LaNaWRUA Interview, Imarisha Naivasha Interview, WWF interview).

Representation matters and empowered community resource associations offered representation to unheard voices, bringing together powerful and weak actors together.

72

Communities benefited from the partnership model that placed people first and was motivated towards socio-economic benefits to communities in addition to conservation and integrated resource management. According to Boelens et al. 2016, governance of resource territories, embody selectivity in the assimilation of norms, values and identities of local users. In the IWRAP programme some community values, practices were assimilated into resource management, to fit the agenda of integrated resource management. Farming practices were assimilated as transformative actions to promote ownership of forest restoration activities as reflected upon by a CFA chairperson, “When the Communities were involved and they started cultivating, that is when the trees survived because of the fertilizer and manure they were using to plant their crops the trees did well and that is why they survived. We have planted 33,000 tree seedlings so it is through cultivation that the trees survived” (WWF Kenya 2017). Their productive practices were absorbed to further conservation. However, in other instances, assimilation was not pursued as community norms and practices were deemed destructive and repatterning demanded. This was captured in the Payment for Ecological Services scheme where upper catchment smallholder farmers were deemed destructive and soil erosion contributors and their farming practices restructured in a market-led strategy of ecosystem sellersbuyers dynamic (WWF Kenya 2017).

In another instance, the flower industry is included out of all industry stakeholders, following an individual responsibility frame, their publicized water consumption suggests their inclusion.

Additionally, their economic power and water dependency mean water management endeavours lies within their interests. A Kenya Flower Council official reflected that the programme changed their approaches to water usage “This engagement has helped us to add value to our code of practice. It has helped no to build capacity within ourselves in terms of determining footprints. There are very many times that you need to demonstrate what it is that you are advocating for or what it is that you are lobbying for. Now with scientifically derived tools like this, it reduces the number of explanations that you have to go into and gives you indices that are very easy to communicate” (WWF Kenya 2017). The industry further benefits in establishing sustainable production systems through the formulation of industry regulations on environmental protection, “developed and benchmarked a watershed standard; Flowers and Ornamental Sustainability Standard (FOSS) to Global Social Compliance Program (GCP) and almost ALL of the large-scale flower farms, who are members of KFC are embracing and adopting the standards for better management of on-farm water resources” (WWF n.d). Their power and influence influenced the integration and support of self-governance frames dominant in the floriculture industry into basin water resource management strategies. Additionally, the EKN funding and the flower industry connection to Dutch markets presents an interesting nexus of agendas that reinforces flows of power. This is captured in an EKN’s official’s sentiments based on their involvement in the IWRAP programme; “Economic development is important for us in horticulture for the flower growers around but also sustainable development. So that’s why when WWF came, we agreed to go along” (WWF Kenya 2017).

It is therefore clear that even in participation frameworks of governance, there is still selectivity of who and what aspect of their practices are embedded in the programme. It appears even here power, dominance and the motivator of discourse determines inclusion.

73

Did the IWRAP Programme Support a Sustainable Resource Governance System in The Lake Naivasha Basin in Kenya?

This research set out to study and explore how and to what extent the Lake Naivasha Basin Integrated Resource Action Plan programme (IWRAP) supported a sustainable resource governance system in the Lake Naivasha Basin in Kenya. The research adopted a methodological process that pursued a theoretical framework that formed the basis of case interrogation supported and accompanied by primary data. This exploration interrogated IWRAP as a case of governance that emerged in a resource contested context between diverse interest groups and users framed within a territory that had been constructed and reconstructed in territorialization processes driven by claim-making agendas and by industrial growth driven by a development agenda. In Kenya, the Lake Naivasha Basin is a quilt of disparate voices, contesting representation, access and use of water resources dominated by narratives of blame-shifting as each actor shift environmental degradation responsibility to the next. The 2009 drought emerged as a defining moment that set the tone for repatterning relationships, interactions and decisions in the lake basin where a threat of water scarcity brought dissenting voices together. The programme framed within this need to develop solutions to water resources management and established its goal “to create an enabling environment for sustainable water resource management, where the government, public and private sector work together in implementing actions to address water resource management challenges in the basin” (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). From the very beginning, sustainability was within its interests, visualizing it in a frame of a participation framework of public-private-people-partnership. Management and governance were within its agendas of capacity, knowledge, the institutional and technical building of associations and organizations in the basin, water protection, sustainable horticultural production, ecosystem protection and creation of a sustainable fund for Lake Basin projects (IWRAP Programme Naivasha 2014). Thus, the sustainability and transformative aspect of the programme was worth exploring especially in a basin where multiple projects have been implemented in short project periods all driven by diverse agendas.

The study found that governance and management sustainability in the lake basin is framed in different ways by different actors. The respondents viewed and conceptualized governance as a whole and could not particularly identify a programme or project as being the instigator of change and transformation.

However, the finding was that collaboration and participation were enshrined as new strategies of resource governing that was thought and attributed to be successful. This was unsurprising as, since the 2010 Kenya Constitution, public participation was enshrined as the principle of governance which has trickled down to aspects of governing and managing public and common resources.

The IWRAP programme was found to have transformed resource governance approaches that had followed a centralized state-led system into a community centre, a bottom-linked governing strategy that embodied the frames of cooperation in line with Moulaert’s et al. definition of bottom-linked governance as “new forms of cooperation between actors and institutions across territorial scales in which policy (broadly defined) and other development practices are not dictated from any one level of governance but transformed and institutionalised through interaction and cooperation itself” (Moulaert et al.2019 64). It fostered cooperation between diverse stakeholder and interest groups responding to each actor’s capacity, either by transforming their capacities or by making use of their expertise (WWF interview). This cooperation framework responds to ideas of governing that bottom-linked approaches act as links between innovative and empowering grassroots initiatives and institutional programmes (Baker and Mehmood 2015). This linking aspect of governance was captured in the currently existing approaches where the platforming of stakeholders is a sustained and institutionalized practice embodied

74

in the Imarisha Naivasha’s coordination platform and the umbrella Water Resource Users Association (Imarisha Naivasha Interview, LaNaWRUA interview).

The goals of the IWRAP programme were ambitious for a programme that had a lifeline of 4 years. The length of time required to institute and gauge change needs to be long enough for actual change to happen. Therefore, the IWRAP programme is evaluated on a basis of whether it left ‘seeds’ and ‘sediments’ after the programme’s running period. A lot of change was ‘seeded’ when the project was active as funding was consistently assured through the donor financing frame of the programme.

However, sustained change requires institutionalization and with institutionalization, the same system of governing that the programme sought to challenge/reconstitute are sought as the incubator of transformation and sustainability. However, the dominant hegemonic centralized systems of governing resources are not necessarily changing recipient because of bureaucracies, centralized decision making, funding, socio-political change etc. This observation is supported by a WWF interviewee’s response that; “As much as possible, WWF worked on building relations and trying to showcase how good leadership provides success using examples, and capacity building, but as I said this is not easy to tackle when there is a history and continuing examples in the wider populace of this type of governance. The issue with the local govt reps (beyond WRA, this applies to KWS to KFS etc) is that they have limited power, and if something goes through in Nairobi, then even if it is the worse thing for Naivasha (case in point the geothermal dev in Hells' Gate which has decimated the park and further endangered the already threatened raptors) there is nothing you can do locally. People who raise their voice, just get transferred out. Plus, the policy of not having anyone in a position for more than 2 years to reduce corruption - well that is a problem for a longer-term project.” (WWF interview).

Post IWRAP, these circumstances were clearly still at play in Naivasha. Since the conclusion of the programme, Imarisha Naivasha has been assimilated into the Ministry of Environment with the nonexistence of the Prime Minister’s Office after the 2013 elections (Imarisha Naivasha Interview). It continues to play its coordinating role, but funding is unassured, capacities for action seems unclear now despite its importance as a platform that collates diverse stakeholders into a common vision. In this, it is clear that sustainability is still susceptible to socio-political shocks.

New actors were empowered, and their capacities increased within the Lake basin restructuring power and discourse narratives capturing action and influence dynamics in the Lake basin. In this case, LaNaWRUA emerges as a clear winner whereby they become the most influential WRUA in the basin.

It can be argued, however, that their power is enshrined at source creation through LNGG initiatives (LaNaWRUA interview). It is also true that IWRAP compounded their capacity and influence through training but importantly, positionality matters more, located closest to the lake and the economically powerful industries-floriculture, tourism. This has also ensured that they have been able to restructure other basins WRUAs through the umbrella WRUA whom they are the instructive members who influence other WRUAs in the basin (LaNaWRUA interview, Imarisha Naivasha interview).

Consistently since then, they are largely involved in Lake Naivasha Basin projects and are considered sources of knowledge and information and are thus sought out on water resource matters in the basin (Noah 2020). This compounded network power is exerted in the basin and can be attributed to their large and growing platform of engagement. Since governance processes are inherently selective, not all WRUAs were winners as positionality and significance are skewed towards LaNaWRUA possibly because of more access to funds as the ‘first-stop WRUA in the basin. However, it begs to reason that if enough power and influence is exerted, determined by its membership framework, its funding

75

capacity, does it still advocate for all community members, or is representation reserved to those members/stakeholder groups that wield more power.

It can also be seen that the IWRAP programme was in some ways selective in stakeholder involvement.

They involved water and forestry resource governing organizations and the floriculture industry, out of all industries in the basin. Although it could not be verified, it appears the programme already embodied selectivity in involvement as the most economically significant industries were included. It could be argued that the floriculture industry was included because they were blamed the most for environmental and lake degradation, but it also valid that power determined inclusion Significantly, the discourse frameworks that motivated the programme are still at play in the lake basin where economic value, conservation, integrated management, water scarcity are constantly shuffled and wielded in governance practices. These discourses are largely determined by power and influence which consistently means narratives are told from positions of power and influence and subaltern voices are dismissed as their discourse do not command influence. Economic value and conservation remain the most powerful discourses and are motivated by the most influential and powerful actors in the basin, floriculture industry and wildlife/tourism. This has increasingly found strange unions in the merging of floriculture and wildlife industries to create a combination of flower farms and wildlife conservancies, peddling to the conservation and economic value discourse in emerging interesting ways (Styles 2014).

This nexus of incorporation has been questioned and pointed out to be unholy unions described as new whitewashing strategies by the floriculture industry responding to their international consumers to whom environmental concerns in production matters (Styles 2014). Additionally, this complicates water resource management in the basin, where it could be argued that in a place continuously being territorialized, this could be a new form of resource capture-merging water grabbing and green grabbing to satisfy the agendas of capital.

In 2019, heavy rainfall led to the flooding of the lake beyond its established water levels (Noah 2020).

This was an interesting occurrence since, in the background, water scarcity is an apparent threat in the basin. However, when too much water was the threat, discourses of economic value were put into question and conservation was pursued as the miracle save all strategy and the age-old blame game was revisited and the government called upon to be the saviour (Noah 2020). This suggests that governance strategies have hardly changed, at least not where it matters; at the community level, despite pursuing collaboration, participation, integrated management and sustainability frames of governing, centralized systems are seen as solutions to threats. This seems to suggest that socially innovative governance frames can only survive project timelines, once institutionalized they lose their innovative capacity and ease of response. There is little structure to uphold innovative change especially when funding, government bureaucracies, corruption, short project periods is cited as an impediment to sustained transformation. Therefore, is participation, collaboration, public-private-people-partnerships and integrated management just trendy and catchy governance approaches pursued to motivate action or could they be integrated and adapted into centralized systems linking institutional processes with innovative grassroots initiatives to influence sustained change?

76

6

REFERENCES

A.O Thompson, and R.G Dodson. 1963. “GEOLOGY OF THE NAIVASHA AREA: EXPLANATION OF DEGREE SHEET 43 S.W.(with Coloured Geological Map).” Nairobi.

African Studies Centre Leiden. 2014. ‘Water Dynamics in the Seven African Countries of Dutch Policy Focus: Benin, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Sudan-Report on Kenya’.

Leiden: VIA Water, Programme on water innovation in Africa.

Akvo RSR. 2014. ‘IWRAP’. Akvo RSR. 2014. http://rsr.akvo.org/en/project/2359/.

Akvo RSR. n.d. ‘IWRAP’. Akvo RSR. Accessed 8 May 2021. http://rsr.akvo.org/en/project/2359/.

Alden Wily, Liz. 2018. ‘The Community Land Act in Kenya Opportunities and Challenges for Communities’. Land 7 (1): 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7010012.

Amis, Mao, and Sara Scherr. 2020. ‘The Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative | Unlocking Finance to Bolster Investments for Landscape Resilience in Africa: Insights and Innovations from the African Landscapes Dialogue’.

January 2020. https://peoplefoodandnature.org/blog/unlocking-finance-to-bolster-investments-for-landscaperesilience-in-africa-insights-and-innovations-from-the-african-landscapes-dialogue/.

Arts, B. J. M. 2012. ‘Forests Policy Analysis and Theory Use: Overview and Trends’. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.12.003.

Awange, Joseph, Ehsan Forootan, Jürgen Kusche, John Kiema, P. Omondi, Bernhard Heck, Kevin Fleming, S.O. Ohanya, and Rodrigo Gonçalves. 2013. ‘Understanding the Decline of Water Storage across the Ramser-Lake Naivasha Using Satellite-Based Methods’. Advances in Water Resources 60 (July). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.07.002.

Baker, Susan, and Abid Mehmood. 2015. ‘Social Innovation and the Governance of Sustainable Places’.

Local Environment 20 (3): 321–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.842964.

Becht, Robert, and David M. Harper. 2002. “Towards an Understanding of Human Impact upon the Hydrology of Lake Naivasha, Kenya.”

In Hydrobiologia, 488:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023318007715.

Becht, Robert, E.O. Odada, and S. Higgins. 2005. ‘Lake Naivasha: Experience and Lessons Learned’.

ILEC, January, 277–98.

Becht, Robert. 2007. “Environmental Effects of the Floricultural Industry on the Lake Naivasha Basin.”

Boelens, Rutgerd, Jaime Hoogesteger, Erik Swyngedouw, Jeroen Vos, and Philippus Wester. 2016.

“Hydrosocial Territories: A Political Ecology Perspective.” Water International 41 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898.

Deltares. n.d. ‘Integrated Water Resource Action Plan Programme (IWRAP) for Kenya’. Deltares.

Accessed 22 May 2021. https://www.deltares.nl/en/projects/integrated-water-resource-actionplan-programme-iwrap-kenya/.

Dolan, Catherine S. 2005. ‘Benevolent Intent? The Development Encounter in Kenya’s Horticulture Industry’.

Journal of Asian and African Studies 40 (6): 411–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909605059512.

77

Edelman, Marc, Carlos Oya, and Saturnino Borras. 2016. Global Land Grabs: History, Theory and Method.

Franco,Jennifer, Kishimoto,Satoko, Kay, Sylvia, Feodoroff, Timothé, and Pracucci,Gloria. 2014. ‘The Global Water Grab: A Primer’. Transnational Institute. https://www.tni.org/en/publication/theglobal-water-grab-a-primer.

Gachenga, Elizabeth. 2019. ‘Kenya’s Water Act (2016) : Real Devolution or Simply the “Same Script, Different Cast”’.

Undefined. /paper/Kenya%E2%80%99s-Water-Act-(2016)-%3A-realdevolution-or-the-Gachenga/7662c6ce9b637e6f2ddbc361ab62c52de1dd58b4.

Galego, Diego, Frank Moulaert, Marleen Brans, and Gonçalo Santinha. 2021. “Social Innovation & Governance: A Scoping Review.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1879630.

Garric, Audrey. 2015. ‘Au Kenya, Les Épineuses Roses de La Saint-Valentin’. Le Monde.Fr, 13 February 2015. https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/02/13/au-kenya-les-epineuses-rosesde-la-saint-valentin_4575835_3244.html.

German International Cooperation Agency. n.d. ‘International Water Stewardship Programme: Ensuring Water Security through Joint Action’. n.d. https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/27890.html Gonzalez, Sara, and Patsy Healey. 2005. “A Sociological Institutionalist Approach to the Study of Innovation in Governance Capacity.”

Urban Studies 42 (11): 2055–69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248974134_A_Sociological_Institutionalist_Approach _to_the_Study_of_Innovation_in_Governance_Capacity.

Hall, Derek. 2015. ‘The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology’. In The Political Ecology of International Agri-Food Systems, edited by Tom Perreault, Gavin Bridge, and James McCarthy.

Routledge Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759289.ch31.

Harper, David M., Edward H.J. Morrison, Michael M. Macharia, Kenneth M. Mavuti, and Caroline Upton. 2011. “Lake Naivasha, Kenya: Ecology, Society and Future.” Freshwater Reviews 4 (2): 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1608/frj-4.2.149.

Harper, David M., Nic Pacini, Caroline Upton, Ed H.J. Morrison, Richard Fox, and Enock Kiminta.

2013. ‘Water Cooperation for Sustainable Utilization: Lake Naivasha, Kenya’. In Free Flow: Reaching Water Security Through Cooperation, edited by Jacqui Griffiths and Rebecca Lambert.

UNESCO Publishing. http://digital.tudor-rose.co.uk/free-flow/index.html#1/z.

Harvey, David. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Heher, Ulla, and Victor Steenbergen. 2021. ‘Kenya–Supplying to Multinationals Exposed Local Firms to International Horticulture Markets’. In An Investment Perspective on Global Value Chains, by Christine Zhenwei Qiang, Yan Liu, and Victor Steenbergen, 22. Washington: The World Bank Group.

Hepworth, Nick, Dorice Agol, Sabine von Wiren-Lehr, and Kevin O’Grady. 2011. “Alliance for Water Stewardship Kenya Case Study Technical Report: Exploring the Value of Water Stewardship Standards in Africa. Alliance for Water Stewardship/Marks and Spencer/ GIZ/BMZ.” https://www.evidensia.eco/resources/39/alliance-for-water-stewardship-kenya-case-studyexploring-the-value-of-water-stewardship-standards-in-africa/.

78

Heynen, Nik, Maria Kaika, and Erik Swyngedouw. 2006. In the Nature of Cities - Urban Political Ecology and The Politics of Urban Metabolism.

Higgins, S., E. Odada, and R. Becht. 2005. “Lake Naivasha: Experiences and Lessons Learned Brief.”

Undefined.

Imarisha Naivasha. 2015. ‘Imarisha Naivasha’. https://imarishanaivasha.wordpress.com/.

Imarisha

Naivasha

(blog).

2015.

International Water Stewardship Programme. 2019. ‘International Water Stewardship Programme, Annual Report 2018/2019’, September, 49.

International WaTERS Network. n.d. ‘An Introduction to Conflicts and Struggles Over Water Territories – International Waters – Training Modules’. n.d. http://blogs.ubc.ca/internationalwaters/water-society-territories-conflicting-uses/1-anintroduction-to-conflicts-and-struggles-over-water-territories/.

IWRAP Programme Naivasha. 2014. ‘Background - IWRAP Programme Naivasha’. 2014. https://sites.google.com/site/iwrapprojectnvs/home/back.

IWRAP Programme Naivasha.

2014.

‘IWRAP https://sites.google.com/site/iwrapprojectnvs/

Programme

Naivasha’.

2014.

Kavilu, Shadrack. 2016. ‘Kenya’s Flourishing Flower Sector Is Not All Roses for Maasai Herdsmen’.

Reuters, 30 June 2016. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-landrights-idUSKCN0ZG0Z0.

Kenya Flower Council. 2021. https://kenyaflowercouncil.org/.

‘OUR

STORY’.

Kenya

Flower

Council.

2021.

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. 2019. ‘2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census: Volume I’.

Nairobi: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.

Kim, Sangmin. 2021. ‘A Participatory Local Governance Approach to Social Innovation: A Case Study of Seongbuk-Gu, South Korea’. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, April, 23996544211005784. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211005784.

Kirigia, Evans, Gemma Betsema, Guus van Westen, and Annelies Zoomers. 2016. ‘Flowers for Food?

Scoping Study on Dutch Flower Farms, Land Governance and Local Food Security in Eastern Africa’. Synthesis and country reports. Food & Business Knowledge Platform (F&BKP)& Land Governance for Equitable and Sustainable Development.

Kissinger, Gabrielle. 2014. “Financing Strategies for Integrated Landscape Investment Case Study: Imarisha Naivasha, Kenya.”

Kuiper, Gerda, and Andreas Gemählich. 2018. ‘Sustainability and Depoliticisation: Certifications in the Cut-Flower Industry at Lake Naivasha, Kenya’. Africa Spectrum 52 (3): 31–53.

Kuiper, Gerda. 2019. Agro-Industrial Labour in Kenya Cut Flower Farms and Migrant Workers’ Settlements. 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lake Naivasha Growers Group. 2021. ‘Lake Naivasha Growers Group – LNGG’. 2021. http://thelngg.org/.

79

LaNaWRUA. 2015. ‘Lanawrua – Lake Naivasha Water Resource Users Association’. Lake Naivasha Water Resource Users Association. 2015. http://lanawrua.org/.

LANDac/IDS, and Utrecht University. 2016. “Land Governance for Equitable and Sustainable Development Flowers for Food? Scoping Study on Dutch Flower Farms, Land Governance and Local Food Security in Eastern Africa Flowers for Food?” www.knowledge4food.net.

Lind, Jeremy. n.d. ‘Ol Karia: Geothermal Meets Pastoral Livelihoods’. Seeing Conflict At The Margins. n.d. https://seeingconflict.org/ol-karia Mekonnen, M. M., A. Y. Hoekstra, and R. Becht. 2012. “Mitigating the Water Footprint of Export Cut Flowers from the Lake Naivasha Basin, Kenya.” Water Resources Management 26 (13): 3725–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0099-9.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2017. ‘IOB Evaluation - Tackling Major Water Challenges’. Embassy of the Kingdom of Netherlands in Kenya.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2021. ‘Coherence or Co-Existence? A Study on the Implementation of the Aid, Trade and Investment Agenda in Three Transition Partner Countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Kenya. - Google Search’. Embassy of the Kingdoom of Netherlands in Kenya. https://www.google.com/search?q=Coherence+or+coexistence%3F+A+study+on+the+implementation+of+the+aid%2C+trade+and+investment+agen da+in+three+transition+partner+countries%3A+Bangladesh%2C+Ethiopia+and+Kenya.&oq=Co herence+or+coexistence%3F+++A+study+on+the+implementation+of+the+aid%2C+trade+and+investment+ag enda+in+++three+transition+partner+countries%3A+Bangladesh%2C+Ethiopia+and+Kenya.&a qs=edge..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

Minoia, Paola. 2020. ‘Corporate Land Grabs: Colonial Continuity and Space of Exception in Kenya’.

Land Use Policy 99 (December): 104964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104964.

Morales, Javier, John Ngila Munyao, and Robert Becht. 2015. ‘A Water Information System Tailored for Users’. GIM International, August. https://www.gim-international.com/content/article/awater-information-system-tailored-for-users.

Moulaert, Frank, and Diana MacCallum. 2019. Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation. 1st ed.

Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Moulaert, Frank, Diana Maccallum, Pieter Van den Broeck, and Marisol Cabeza. 2019.

‘BOTTOM-LINKED GOVERNANCE AND SOCIALLY INNOVATIVE POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION’. In , edited by Jürgen Jürgen, Christoph Kaletka, Antonius Schröder, and Marthe Zirngiebl, 62–63.

Mukele, Nyongesa Josephat. 2018. ‘PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: LAND USE PRACTICES INFLUENCE ON LIVELIHOOD- ENVIRONMENT NEXUS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES VALUE IN LAKE NAIVASHA WATERSHED’,. Doctoral Thesis, Nakuru: Egerton University.

Mumma, Albert. 2007. ‘Kenya’s New Water Law: An Analysis of the Implications of Kenya’s Water Act, 2002 for the Rural Poor’. In Community-Based Water Law and Water Resource Management Reform in Developing Countries, edited by J. Butterworth, B van Koppen, and Mark Giordano. https://www.cabi.org/bookshop/book/9781845933265/.

80

Mwangi, Nungari. 2019. ‘The Power to Flourish: Unearthing the Roots of Kenyan Flower Producers’ Market Access Strategies’.

Thesis, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.36687.

Noah, Moses. 2020. Nature Fury, Lake Naivasha (Kenya)Is Going Crazy. Lakes in the Rift Valleys Kenya Are Bursting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuGE1kSICZ4.

Ogada, Job Ochieng, George Okoye Krhoda, Anne Van Der Veen, Martin Marani, and Pieter Richards van Oel. 2017. “Managing Resources through Stakeholder Networks: Collaborative Water Governance for Lake Naivasha Basin, Kenya.” Water International 42 (3): 271–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1292076.

Okande, Austin. 2016. ‘EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES TO CONSERVE LAKE NAIVASHA BASIN’.

ARL FOCUS (blog).

16 December 2016. https://arlfocusnewsletter.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/empowering-communities-to-conservelake-naivasha-basin/.

Oliveira, Gustavo de L. T., Ben M. McKay, and Juan Liu. 2021. ‘Beyond Land Grabs: New Insights on Land Struggles and Global Agrarian Change’. Globalizations 18 (3): 321–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1843842.

Renner, Julia. 2020. ‘New Power Structures and Shifted Governance Agendas Disrupting Climate Change Adaptation Developments in Kenya and Uganda’. Sustainability 12 (7): 2799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072799.

Rouillé, Gaele, David Blanchon, Bernard Calas, and Alise Temple-Boyer. 2015. “Environment, Ecologisation of Politics, and Territorialisations: New Water Policies (Gire and Pes) in Kenya.”

Espace Geographique. Editions Belin. https://doi.org/10.3917/eg.442.0131.

Rouillé-Kielo, Gaële. 2019. “Distributing Responsibilities in an Agricultural Ecosystem Insights from the Lake Naivasha Water Basin in Kenya.” Nature and Culture 14 (3): 251–70. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2019.140303.

Styles, Megan A. 2014. ‘“Horticulture in Harmony with Wildlife”: The Awkward Marriage of Ecotourism and Industrial Floriculture in Naivasha Kenya’. In The Ecotourism-Extraction Nexus: Political Economies and Rural Realities of (Un)Comfortable Bedfellows, edited by Bram Büscher and Veronica Davidov. Routledge.

Swyngedouw, Erik. 2005. ‘Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governancebeyond-the-State’.

Urban Studies 42 (11): 1991–2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279869.

Swyngedouw, Erik. 2007. ‘Technonatural Revolutions: The Scalar Politics of Franco’s Hydro-Social Dream for Spain, 1939–1975’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32 (1): 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00233.x.

Swyngedouw, Erik. 2009. ‘The Political Economy and Political Ecology of the Hydro-Social Cycle’.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 142 (1): 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2009.00054.x.

The Government of Kenya. 2016. The Water Act, 2016. https://wasreb.go.ke/the-water-act-2016/ The Government of Kenya. 2002. The Water Act, 2002. https://wasreb.go.ke/the-water-act-2002/.

81

The Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2014. ‘NGO Award 1999 - Lake Naivasha Riparian Association | Ramsar’. 2014. https://ramsar.org/activities/ngo-award-1999-lake-naivasha-riparian-association.

Van den Broeck, Pieter. 2010. ‘Analyzing Social Innovation Through Planning Instruments. A Strategic-Relational Approach’. In Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts for ChangeStijn Oosterlynck, Jef Van Den Broeck, Louis Albrechts, Frank Moulaert, Ann Verhetsel, edited by Stijn Oosterlynck, Jef Van den Broeck, Louis Albrechts, Frank Moulaert, and Ann Verhetsel. Routledge & CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/Strategic-Spatial-Projects-Catalysts-forChange/Oosterlynck-Broeck-Albrechts-Moulaert-Verhetsel/p/book/9780415566841.

Veldwisch, Gert Jan, Jennifer Franco, and Lyla Mehta. 2018. ‘Water Grabbing: Practices of Contestation and Appropriation of Water Resources in the Context of Expanding Global Capital’.

In Water Justice, edited by Jeroen Vos, Rutgerd Boelens, and Tom Perreault, 59–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316831847.004.

Verstoep, Joël. 2015. “Challenges in Water Management in the Lake Naivasha Basin Analysis on the Effects and Performance of IWRAP for Different Irrigation Water User Groups in the Lake Naivasha Basin, Kenya Water Resources Management Group.” Wageningen University. www.iwe.wur.nl/uk.

Vos, Jeroen, and Leonith Hinojosa. 2016. “Virtual Water Trade and the Contestation of Hydrosocial Territories.” Water International 41 (1): 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1107682.

Vos, Jeroen, and Rutgerd Boelens. 2014. “Sustainability Standards and the Water Question.”

Development and Change 45 (2): 205–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12083.

Water Resources Authority. 2017. ‘Water Resources Users Association Capacity Assessment Tool’.

Water Resources Authority.

Wambugu, Joshua Kiama. 2018. ‘Financing Conservation: Understanding Policy Arrangements and Finacial Flows for Payments for Environmental Services Program in the Lake Naivasha Basin, Kenya’. Netherlands: Cultural Geography Group, Department of Environmental Sciences at Wageningen University and Research Centre.

World Wide Fund For Nature. n.d. ‘The Face of Water Stewardship | WWF’. World Wide Fund For Nature. n.d. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/africa_rift_lakes/journey_to_ke nya/face_of_water_stewardshop/?

WWF Kenya. 2017. The Lake Naivasha Basin in the Integrated Water Action Plan (IWRAP). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTS5_PhTSho. Noah, Moses. 2020. Nature Fury, Lake Naivasha (Kenya)Is Going Crazy. Lakes in the Rift Valleys Kenya Are Bursting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuGE1kSICZ4.

WWF Kenya.

2021.

‘Fresh Water Resource Management’. https://www.wwfkenya.org/our_work/fresh_water_resource_management_/.

2021.

WWF. 2015. “PARTNERING TO SECURE THE FUTURE OF THE LAKE NAIVASHA BASIN: The Integrated Water Resource Action Plan Programme (IWRAP).”

82