What was the challenge?
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) recognises that effective management of water resources begins with planning at the catchment level. Prior to the implementation of the Promoting Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in Kenya project, many sub-catchments lacked comprehensive management plans to guide conservation, water allocation and investment decisions. As a result, interventions were often implemented independently, making it difficult to coordinate actions among communities, government institutions and development partners.
What did CESPAD do?
CESPAD worked with the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), Water Resource Users Associations (WRUAs), county governments and local communities to facilitate the preparation of Sub-Catchment Management Plans (SCMPs). The planning process was designed to ensure that local knowledge, technical expertise and institutional priorities informed a common framework for managing water resources within each catchment.
The development of the plans followed a participatory approach. Community members, WRUA representatives, technical officers and county government officials jointly identified key water resource challenges, including catchment degradation, declining water availability, unsustainable land use practices and inadequate water infrastructure. The planning process also identified practical interventions, assigned institutional responsibilities and established priorities for implementation.
What was produced?
Beyond producing planning documents, the process strengthened collaboration among institutions responsible for water governance. Communities participated directly in identifying priorities, while county governments and technical agencies contributed scientific and regulatory expertise. This collaborative approach strengthened ownership of the plans and created a shared basis for decision-making across sectors involved in water resources management.
What changed?
Our project evidence shows that the Sub-Catchment Management Plans informed subsequent investment and policy decisions. In Kasikeu, for example, priorities identified through the planning process contributed to county investment in the construction of a sand dam along the Kaluku River. More broadly, the plans provided a framework for conservation activities, catchment restoration and community engagement, while supporting county planning and budgeting processes.
The experience demonstrated that participatory planning serves both technical and governance functions. Technically, it provides evidence for identifying priority interventions. Institutionally, it creates opportunities for dialogue among communities, government agencies and other stakeholders, strengthening accountability and coordination in the management of shared water resources.
What did we learn?
Our experience shows that Sub-Catchment Management Plans are more than planning tools; they are governance instruments that help align community priorities, technical knowledge and public investment. By supporting inclusive planning processes, the project established a foundation for coordinated action that continues to inform water resources management at the catchment level.