Rewarding upland farmers for environmental services in Sasumua watershed

Gathenya, JohnMwangi, JohnMwangi, HoseaNamirembe, Sara

Presentation to Stakeholders Meeting to Discuss PES implementation in Sasumua 22nd February 2010

Sasumua watershed Total area 107 km2,

50% under cultivation Population density:

high Households: ca. 3,700 Population: 17,500 Growing at 3.5%

Intensive commercial agriculture - horticultural crops and dairy farming,

Average farm size 2.86 acres

Available Water and its use

Average daily yield is 202,176 m3/day.

Of this 64,000 m3/day is supplied to Nairobi’s 3.5 M inhabitants, 20% of city’s total consumption.

Sasumua water yield is highly seasonal

Land use changes

Woodlots and wetlands converted to agricultureForest encroachment now under controlConversion of agricultural land into commercial plotsWetlands, river banks and drainage waterways are used for cultivation.

Impact on watershed services

Dry season flows: reduced, Wet season surface runoff:

increased. Sediment load: High Chemical and biological

pollutants: Heavy metal pollutants

(Pb) noticed in levels close to NEMA-limits

High microbial pathogen counts in raw water esp near town centres

Annual Alum consumption 450 tonsTotal cost for Alum: KSh 15 M per year

Sediment sourcesSoil erosion rates Low erosion rates

from the forest, high rates on the agricultural areas

In the hotspots (A &B), rates exceed tolerable soil loss rates of 11.2 tons/ha per year

A

B

Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) can enhance water quality and flow

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

BMPs reduce sediment yield significantly, cause some increase of base flow (and dry weather), have minimal effect on total water yield

Cost of interventions - BMPsTechnology 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

Cost of grass strips = grass + labour + manureCost of terracing = setting + excavation + grass + manureAgroforestry = 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

Cost of intervention – Grass waterwayExample: Grassed waterway Approximate width = 6 m Approximate length = 20 km Cost of establishment

Labour = 1,000,000/= Grass = 2,000,000/= Total = 3,000,000/=

Land owners need compensation to keep the waterway free from cultivation

The grassed waterway reduces sediment yield by 20%, the saving on alum cost may be Ksh 2 M per year.

Approx 500 households are affected Total area is 30 acres and annual lease is KSh 15,000/=

per acre Approx compensation = 15,000*30 = KSh 450,000/=

per year

Action required in Sasumua Targeting individual farms to control water pollution Focus on hotspots where you get most value for

investment

Options

1. Regulatory approaches – to get land owners to incur extra cost in more conservation practices

2. Rewards or compensation to land owners – to invest more in conservation practices. Gets away from punishing ‘wrong doers’, towards

rewarding the ‘right doer’. Is ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top down’.

Mutually beneficial partnerships between land owners and water service providers

Sustainable watershed management Improved household wellbeing RES is more than CSR: conditional,

based on binding contracts

What is to be gained via a RES approach?

Where will funds for Sasumua come from?Source 1: NCWSC From savings in water production costs

Source 2:WRMA Using WDC funds contributed to by

NCWSC (For Sasumua about KSh. 1,000,000 per month is paid per month)

In both cases, we propose direct payments to land owners

Challenges facing Source 1: WSPs Burdened with multiple levies – may

view RES as another burden Poor financial base Governance issues Water scarcity High UFW Increasing water demand Poor infrastructure and high

investment costs Inefficient service provision Inadequate management and technical

capacity

Potential for RES via Source 2: WDC Funds

PRESA could provide technical support to WRUA to develop proposal for RES to WRMA/WSTF

PRESA provide scientific evidence and monitor the conditionality of RES

CARE/WWF implementing PES in Naivasha can provide capacity support to WRUAs for developing and managing contracts with land owners

Issues generated from RES pilot sites to influence policy support for up-scaling RES

Reward mechanisms

Co-investment in watershed conservation – for example, provision of water harvesting structures

Compensation for opportunities skipped – for example compensating farmers to replace farming with grass along waterways

Commoditised payments for services provided - cash payments to individual farmers

Acknowledgement

This research is being implemented by PRESA, a research project of World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

Web site http://presa.worldagroforestry.org.

Thank you!