INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES FORIMPLEMENTING PES IN SASUMUA WATERSHED, KENYA<br />Training Workshop on Payments for Ecosystem ...
Land use changes<br />Woodlots and wetlands converted to agriculture<br />Forest encroachment now under control<br />Conve...
Impact on watershed services<br />Dry season flows: reduced<br />Wet season surface runoff: increased.<br />Sediment load:...
Using Scientific evidence<br />Landuse change affects water partitioning<br />Most sedimentation originates from privately...
Catchment management structure<br />Accessing funds is hard.<br />Limited ability to utilise the funds on privately owned ...
PES in Sasumua<br />WHO GETS PAID?<br />Upland communities in Sasumua WRUA<br />WHO PAYS?<br /><ul><li>Nairobi Water Company
Water Services Trust Fund</li></ul>WHO FACILITATES?<br /><ul><li>WRMA – policy & coordination
ICRAF– scientific evidence
Government – facilitate & advise
CARE, WWF -  cross learning</li></li></ul><li>CASE  FOR PES: NAIROBI WATER COMPANY<br />Grassed waterway causing <br />20%...
Nairobi Water Company would consider PES, but....<br />Burdened with multiple levies – may view PES as double payment<br /...
CASE FOR PESTHE WATER SERVICES TRUST FUND<br />Achieving mandate of watershed conservation more efficiently<br />PES provi...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Institutional challenges for implementing PES in Sasumua watershed, Kenya

644 views
551 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
644
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • For example NWC could be allowed to use 10% of this fee for supporting the Sasumua WRUA through direct PES payment.
  • Institutional challenges for implementing PES in Sasumua watershed, Kenya

    1. 1. INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES FORIMPLEMENTING PES IN SASUMUA WATERSHED, KENYA<br />Training Workshop on Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+)Nairobi, Kenya - August 8th, 2011<br />Sara NamirembeWorld Agroforestry Center<br />
    2. 2. Land use changes<br />Woodlots and wetlands converted to agriculture<br />Forest encroachment now under control<br />Conversion of agricultural land into commercial plots<br />Wetlands, river banks and drainage waterways are used for cultivation.<br />
    3. 3. Impact on watershed services<br />Dry season flows: reduced<br />Wet season surface runoff: increased.<br />Sediment load: High <br />Chemical and biological pollutants:<br />Heavy metal pollutants (Pb) noticed in levels close to WHO-limits<br />High microbial pathogen counts in raw water esp near town centres<br />
    4. 4. Using Scientific evidence<br />Landuse change affects water partitioning<br />Most sedimentation originates from privately owned farmlands<br />Agroforestry , terracing and grass strips along contours and waterways can be used to improve watershed hydrological functions<br />Reducing soil erosion – reduced sedimentation and siltation of dams and reservoirs<br />Improving base flow – sustained availability of water over a longer period<br />
    5. 5. Catchment management structure<br />Accessing funds is hard.<br />Limited ability to utilise the funds on privately owned land<br />
    6. 6. PES in Sasumua<br />WHO GETS PAID?<br />Upland communities in Sasumua WRUA<br />WHO PAYS?<br /><ul><li>Nairobi Water Company
    7. 7. Water Services Trust Fund</li></ul>WHO FACILITATES?<br /><ul><li>WRMA – policy & coordination
    8. 8. ICRAF– scientific evidence
    9. 9. Government – facilitate & advise
    10. 10. CARE, WWF - cross learning</li></li></ul><li>CASE FOR PES: NAIROBI WATER COMPANY<br />Grassed waterway causing <br />20% Reduction in sedimentation<br />
    11. 11. Nairobi Water Company would consider PES, but....<br />Burdened with multiple levies – may view PES as double payment<br />Poor financial base<br />Water scarcity<br />High UFW<br />Governance and management challenges<br />Priority is reducing investment costs and improving infrastructure<br />
    12. 12. CASE FOR PESTHE WATER SERVICES TRUST FUND<br />Achieving mandate of watershed conservation more efficiently<br />PES provides incentive mechanism for improving landuse practices on privately owned land<br />Increasing community access to the fund<br />
    13. 13. WSTF would consider PES but….<br />Mandate is for capacity building<br />Procedure for accessing funds allows only actions stipulated in the catchment management plans<br />Will need to ‘buy’ environmental services across all watersheds - to avoid bias<br />‘Buying’ ES from all watersheds would be too expensive<br />
    14. 14. Key options for PES<br />Expand the mandate of WSTF to include ‘buying’ of ES directly from land owners. <br />Allow local WRUAs to retain and use a portion of abstraction fees for watershed management via PES.<br />Reduce fees levied on NWC if it engages in PES.<br />Other supporting options<br />Include the PES approach formally within the Tana Catchment Management Strategy <br />Enforce existing laws and regulations on zoning of land important for watershed functioning. <br />
    15. 15. Way forward<br />Buyers: Dialogue to increase confidence that PES works <br />Sellers (WRUA): Provide technical backstopping on PES interventions, negotiation and monitoring<br />Provide support on how to structure PES at WRUA level<br />Government: Dialogue on policy and institutional structures to enable PES<br />Thank you<br />s.namirembe@cgiar.org<br />World Agroforestry Centre<br />http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org<br />

    ×