The Nairobi Water
Fund in the
Upper Tana
Basin of Kenya
Fred Kizito
f.kizito@cigar.org
25 July 2015
Cali, Colombia
APR 2015

The Upper Tana: Nairobi Water Fund
Kenya
Donors- WLE,
UNDP- GEF, SIDA- ACT!,
IFAD, UNEP, GIZ, TNC
PRIVATE ENTITIES
Corporates-
EABL, Coca- Cola, Nairobi
Water Round Table
Research-
Research- Future Water,
Natural Capital Project,
WLE and CIAT
Partners

The Upper Tana Basin of Kenya

The Upper Tana Basin of Kenya

From Ecosystems to Value
Biophysical Social
Supply
Service
Benefit
Ecosystem
Structure
Human locations &
Activities
Social
preferences
Production
Function
Ecosystem services as a pillar

Milestones towards impactThe 5 year span

City of NairobiCity of Nairobi
N’gethuN’gethu
TreatmentTreatment
WorksWorks
Nairobi WaterNairobi Water
Supply CatchmentSupply Catchment
Ndakaini DamNdakaini Dam
Inflow Water Turbidity at Ng’ethu Treatment Works
(Water Fund Interventions aimed at reducing turbidity to below 500NTU)
Development Challenge
 Erosion and sedimentationErosion and sedimentation
 Poor water qualityPoor water quality
 Very low flows during the dry seasonVery low flows during the dry season
 Costly hydro-power generationCostly hydro-power generation
Development challenge

PRIMARY:
Sediment retention
for
Water quality
CO-BENEFITS:
Baseflow
for
Water availability
Water Fund Objectives

 The Water Fund will establish a revolving fund to support land-
conservation measures upstream
The Nairobi Water Fund Business Case
Analysis of the benefits from a US$10
million investment in sustainable land
management interventions through
the Water Fund over 30-years
Average sediment concentration by month
at the intake area for Nairobi’s water
(mg/kg) showing a sediment concentration
reduced by 50–60%
Source: TNC, 2015. Upper Tana-
Nairobi Water Fund Business
Case. Version 2. The Nature
Conservancy: Nairobi, Kenya.
Reproduced from TNC, 2015
How the fund envisions success

Monitoring the performance of sustainable land management
strategies and so deliver proof of concept
Monitoring subwatersheds (with partners)- detects system wide
changes
Monitoring microwatersheds – to test the efficiency of practices in
reducing sedimentation; but also:
 the feasibility of interventions for people;
 the impact of interventions on other ES;
 trade-offs involved in implementing interventions.
Will impact be achieved?

Research for impact
Field monitoring and capacity building

Sub-watershed monitoring
Subwatersheds – measuring river height on all major rivers and
turbidity probes on three major rivers (hourly), one installed by
CIAT
Turbidity (NTU) of river water measured over the period of one
month at hourly intervals in Kamakia river
Measured with a Greenspan Turbidity Meter

Micro-watershed monitoring
Microwatersheds
Impact and control sites
Interventions will be
implemented in impact sites
after 6 months of monitoring
Before–After Control–Impact
(BACI) design
 Monitoring water quality and
quantity
Map produced by Kirk Klausmeyer, TNC

 Mapping microwatersheds to ensure they fulfill certain
criteria; originally chosen from partner recommendations
 Bimonthly monitoring of turbidity and other properties
Turbidity (NTU) of river water at microwatershed site Thika valley
before and after a rainstorm and of runoff entering the river
Normal After
rain
Runoff
Based only on one sample from one day! Runoff entering clear water
Micro-watershed monitoring
172.7
2.9
1056

Fundamental Model
for Water Fund in Kenya
Water Users Watershed keepers$$
Use and growth Quality Watershed
CLEAN &
AVAILABLE
WATER
Strong
Governance &
Endowment
Funding
Private Sector-farmer linkages
Raw materials

tea, vegetables and
grassland to cereals
cereals and forest to tea
and coffee
agriculture to forest
Land use
changes

Stakeholder Engagement
Sorghum assessments

Stakeholder Engagement
Sorghum assessments

Comparative flux assessments
2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5
A ll Y e a r s
- 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AnnualMoistureFluxes(m3)
P r e c ip it a t io n
E v a p o r a t io n
F lo w to G r o u n d w a te r
S u r fa c e R u n o ff
T r a n s p ir a tio n
2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5
A ll Y e a r s
- 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AnnualMoistureFluxes(m3)
P r e c ip ita t io n
E v a p o r a t io n
F lo w to G r o u n d w a t e r
S u r f a c e R u n o f f
T r a n s p ir a t io n
M a i z e S o r g h u m

0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
Cerealprices(Kshs/kg)
M a iz e
S o r g h u m
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5
V e g e t a b le s M a iz e S o r g h u m
C r o p p in g r e g im e s
0
4 0 0
8 0 0
1 2 0 0
1 6 0 0
2 0 0 0
Seasonalcropyield(kgha-1) Cereals assessments
Sorghum yields are masked by other
Considerations of pests and diseases, drought years

Engagements for uptake
Moving forwards
Need for stakeholder engagement through participatory processes:
preferences, tradeoffs and feasibility
Incorporate results into stakeholder platforms which will examine
how investments and incentives into SLM can be designed.
Motivation of investors, active engagement of resource stewards,
environmental considerations
Uptake and policy
Results will be given to the WRMAs, Water Fund monitoring team,
Steering committee and NGOs implementing Water Fund activities so
that Water Fund investment strategies can be adapted if necessary.

The Nature conservancy, Water
Management Resources Authority
(WRMA), Sustainable Agricultural
Community Development Programme
(SACDEP), Green Belt Movement and
Kenya National Farmers Program

Thanks for your attention
Donors- WLE,
UNDP- GEF, SIDA- ACT!,
IFAD, UNEP, GIZ, TNC
PRIVATE ENTITIES
Corporates-EABL,
Coca- Cola, Nairobi Water
Round Table
Research- Future
Water, Natural Capital
Project, and CIAT
Courtesy of Fred Kihara (TNC)