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!