Gathenya, John Mwangi, John Mwangi, Hosea Namirembe, Sara Presentation to Stakeholders Meeting to Discuss PES implementati...
Sasumua watershed <ul><li>Total area  107 km 2 ,  50% under cultivation </li></ul><ul><li>Population density: high  Househ...
Available Water and its use <ul><li>Average daily yield is 202,176 m 3 /day.  </li></ul><ul><li>Of this  64,000 m 3 /day  ...
Land use changes Woodlots and wetlands converted to agriculture Forest encroachment now under control Conversion of agricu...
Impact on watershed services <ul><li>Dry season flows: reduced,  </li></ul><ul><li>Wet season surface runoff: increased. <...
Sediment sources <ul><li>Low erosion rates from the forest, high rates on the agricultural areas </li></ul><ul><li>In the ...
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) can enhance water quality and flow BMPs reduce sediment yield significantly ...
Cost of interventions - BMPs Cost of grass strips = grass + labour + manure Cost of terracing = setting + excavation + gra...
Cost of intervention – Grass waterway <ul><li>Example: Grassed waterway </li></ul><ul><li>Approximate width = 6 m </li></u...
Action required in Sasumua <ul><li>Targeting individual farms to control water pollution </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on hotspo...
<ul><li>Mutually beneficial partnerships between land owners and water service providers </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable wat...
Where will funds for Sasumua come from? <ul><li>Source 1: NCWSC </li></ul><ul><li>From savings in water production costs <...
Challenges facing Source 1: WSPs <ul><li>Burdened with multiple levies – may view RES as another burden </li></ul><ul><li>...
Potential for RES via Source 2: WDC Funds <ul><li>PRESA could provide technical support to WRUA to develop proposal for RE...
Reward mechanisms <ul><li>Co-investment in watershed conservation – for example, provision of water harvesting structures ...
Acknowledgement <ul><li>This research is being implemented by PRESA, a research project of World Agroforestry Centre  (ICR...
Thank you!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Rewarding upland farmers for environmental services in Sasumua watershed

752 views

Published on

A payments for environmental services scheme at Sasumua watershed could help farmers to implement sustainable land management practices in the area, which in turn, will ensure the reliable flow of clean water into the Sasumua Dam reservoir.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
752
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rewarding upland farmers for environmental services in Sasumua watershed

  1. 1. Gathenya, John Mwangi, John Mwangi, Hosea Namirembe, Sara Presentation to Stakeholders Meeting to Discuss PES implementation in Sasumua 22 nd February 2010
  2. 2. Sasumua watershed <ul><li>Total area 107 km 2 , 50% under cultivation </li></ul><ul><li>Population density: high Households: ca. 3,700 Population: 17,500 Growing at 3.5% </li></ul><ul><li>Intensive commercial agriculture - horticultural crops and dairy farming, </li></ul><ul><li>Average farm size 2.86 acres </li></ul>
  3. 3. Available Water and its use <ul><li>Average daily yield is 202,176 m 3 /day. </li></ul><ul><li>Of this 64,000 m 3 /day is supplied to Nairobi’s 3.5 M inhabitants, 20% of city’s total consumption . </li></ul><ul><li>Sasumua water yield is highly seasonal </li></ul>
  4. 4. Land use changes Woodlots and wetlands converted to agriculture Forest encroachment now under control Conversion of agricultural land into commercial plots Wetlands, river banks and drainage waterways are used for cultivation.
  5. 5. Impact on watershed services <ul><li>Dry season flows: reduced, </li></ul><ul><li>Wet season surface runoff: increased. </li></ul><ul><li>Sediment load: High </li></ul><ul><li>Chemical and biological pollutants: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Heavy metal pollutants (Pb) noticed in levels close to NEMA-limits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High microbial pathogen counts in raw water esp near town centres </li></ul></ul>Annual Alum consumption 450 tons Total cost for Alum : KSh 15 M per yea r
  6. 6. Sediment sources <ul><li>Low erosion rates from the forest, high rates on the agricultural areas </li></ul><ul><li>In the hotspots (A &B), rates exceed tolerable soil loss rates of 11.2 tons/ha per year </li></ul>Soil erosion rates A B
  7. 7. Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) can enhance water quality and flow BMPs reduce sediment yield significantly , cause some increase of base flow (and dry weather), have minimal effect on total water yield BMP Impact on surface runoff & sediment yield Impact on total water yield Impact on baseflow Terraces reduced Not significant Increased Contour farming reduced Not significant Increased Grass filter strips reduced Not significant Not significant Grass waterway reduced Not significant Not significant
  8. 8. Cost of interventions - BMPs Cost of grass strips = grass + labour + manure Cost of terracing = setting + excavation + grass + manure Agroforestry = seedlings + manure + labour In PES implementation, the farmers could provide labour while the beneficiary provides materials and technical staff costs. The implementation can be phased, e.g. over 5 years Implementation should target hotspots Technology Establishment cost per farmer (Ksh) Annual maintenance cost per farmer (Ksh) Total establishment costs for 1000 farmers (Ksh) Total maintenance costs for 1000 farmers (KSh) Grass strips 15,000 1,000 15,000,000 1,000,000 Terraces 50,000 5,000 50,000,000 5,000,000 Agroforestry 15,000 2,000 15,000,000 2,000,000
  9. 9. Cost of intervention – Grass waterway <ul><li>Example: Grassed waterway </li></ul><ul><li>Approximate width = 6 m </li></ul><ul><li>Approximate length = 20 km </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of establishment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Labour = 1,000,000/= </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grass = 2,000,000/= </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total = 3,000,000/= </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Land owners need compensation to keep the waterway free from cultivation </li></ul><ul><li>The grassed waterway reduces sediment yield by 20%, the saving on alum cost may be Ksh 2 M per year. </li></ul><ul><li>Approx 500 households are affected </li></ul><ul><li>Total area is 30 acres and annual lease is KSh 15,000/= per acre </li></ul><ul><li>Approx compensation = 15,000*30 = KSh 450,000/= per year </li></ul>
  10. 10. Action required in Sasumua <ul><li>Targeting individual farms to control water pollution </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on hotspots where you get most value for investment </li></ul><ul><li>Options </li></ul><ul><li>Regulatory approaches – to get land owners to incur extra cost in more conservation practices </li></ul><ul><li>Rewards or compensation to land owners – to invest more in conservation practices. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gets away from punishing ‘wrong doers’, towards rewarding the ‘right doer’. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’. </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>Mutually beneficial partnerships between land owners and water service providers </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable watershed management </li></ul><ul><li>Improved household wellbeing </li></ul><ul><li>RES is more than CSR: conditional, based on binding contracts </li></ul>What is to be gained via a RES approach?
  12. 12. Where will funds for Sasumua come from? <ul><li>Source 1: NCWSC </li></ul><ul><li>From savings in water production costs </li></ul><ul><li>Source 2: WRMA </li></ul><ul><li>Using WDC funds contributed to by NCWSC (For Sasumua about KSh. 1,000,000 per month is paid per month) </li></ul><ul><li>In both cases, we propose direct payments to land owners </li></ul>
  13. 13. Challenges facing Source 1: WSPs <ul><li>Burdened with multiple levies – may view RES as another burden </li></ul><ul><li>Poor financial base </li></ul><ul><li>Governance issues </li></ul><ul><li>Water scarcity </li></ul><ul><li>High UFW </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing water demand </li></ul><ul><li>Poor infrastructure and high investment costs </li></ul><ul><li>Inefficient service provision </li></ul><ul><li>Inadequate management and technical capacity </li></ul>
  14. 14. Potential for RES via Source 2: WDC Funds <ul><li>PRESA could provide technical support to WRUA to develop proposal for RES to WRMA/WSTF </li></ul><ul><li>PRESA provide scientific evidence and monitor the conditionality of RES </li></ul><ul><li>CARE/WWF implementing PES in Naivasha can provide capacity support to WRUAs for developing and managing contracts with land owners </li></ul><ul><li>Issues generated from RES pilot sites to influence policy support for up-scaling RES </li></ul>
  15. 15. Reward mechanisms <ul><li>Co-investment in watershed conservation – for example, provision of water harvesting structures </li></ul><ul><li>Compensation for opportunities skipped – for example compensating farmers to replace farming with grass along waterways </li></ul><ul><li>Commoditised payments for services provided - cash payments to individual farmers </li></ul>
  16. 16. Acknowledgement <ul><li>This research is being implemented by PRESA, a research project of World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) </li></ul><ul><li>Web site http://presa.worldagroforestry.org . </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>
  17. 17. Thank you!

×