Watershed Management Practices in the Tropicsintegrated approach to planning and management of land resources. The Rio conference publicized the concept of Integrated Water Resources

Watershed Management Practices in the Tropics

Hosea M. Mwangia,b*, Stefan Julicha and Karl-Heinz FegeraaInstitute of Soil Science and Site Ecology, Technische Universit€at Dresden, Dresden, GermanybBiomechanical and Environmental Engineering Department, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology,Juja, Kenya

Abstract

Tropical watersheds are characterized with high input in energy which allows agricultural productionthroughout the year. Many tropical countries have developing economies largely supported by agricul-ture. Unsustainable agricultural production is a major cause of land degradation and water pollution.Watershed management in the tropics should focus on practices which promote synergies amongagricultural production, environmental protection, and poverty alleviation. In this chapter the conceptof sustainable land management practices which is crucial in selection of appropriate watershed man-agement practices is discussed. Further, the environmental services approach in watershed management ishighlighted, and some examples of water-related Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes andprograms in tropical Africa are given. A case study of a successful PES program in Kenya is thendiscussed. The need for creating an enabling environment for watershed management by creatingappropriate policies, laws, and institutions is discussed, and a case study of legal and institutionalframework from two East African countries is presented.

Keywords

Water resources management; payment for environmental services; sustainable land managementpractices

Introduction

The demand for freshwater worldwide is rising as more water is needed for domestic, irrigation, andindustrial use. Water scarcity is a major challenge facing the world today and is a source of conflict amongcountries, states, and even local communities sharing water resources. Dealing with water scarcityrequires integration of several solutions ranging from efficient use, recycling, and reuse as well assound management of water resources. Pollution, overexploitation of groundwater, climate change, andunsustainable human activities in watersheds (e.g., deforestation, soil degradation) are some of the majorthreats facing water resources today. Sound watershed management ensures that the water resources areprotected from pollution and a sustainable supply of freshwater. Watershed management today goesbeyond the traditional soil and water conservation, thanks to increased environmental awareness,research, and technological advancement. It now additionally includes practices like protection frommicro-pollutants, flood risk management, conservation of floodplain and aquatic biodiversity, and povertyalleviation.

*Email: [email protected]

Tropical Forestry HandbookDOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41554-8_155-1# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Page 1 of 16

Watershed management has evolved over the years, and many countries in the world have toward theend of the twentieth century embraced involvement of the stakeholders. Agenda 21 of the 1992 UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro emphasizes theneed for integrated and participatory watershed management. Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 emphasizes theneed to use integrated approaches in development, management, and use of the finite and vulnerablefreshwater resources. Other chapters of Agenda 21 also touch on various aspects of watershed manage-ment, e.g., combating deforestation, desertification, and drought, sustainable mountain development, andintegrated approach to planning and management of land resources. The Rio conference publicized theconcept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) which is now globally accepted as aneffective approach to watershed management (UNEP 2010). IWRM advocates for a holistic approach. Itincludes participation of stakeholders and recognizes freshwater resources as finite and vulnerable andurges its recognition as a social and an economic good. During the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit onSustainable Development (WSSD), 193 countries agreed to adopt the IWRM approach to water resourcesmanagement. Studies commissioned by various organizations have found that many countries are makinggood progress in the development and implementation of IWRM plans (AMCOW 2012; GWP 2004,2006).

Climate and land use are two main factors that impact watershed hydrology (cf. Julich et al. this book).Climate affects land-use/land cover as well i.e., it influences water and energy supply which determinesthe spatial and temporal variation of vegetation. The relationship is complex, and one of the challengeshydrologists are facing today is to separate the effects of changes in climate and land use in watershedhydrology for predictive purposes. Tropical climate is characterized with great input in solar energy.Hence, tropical watersheds experience warmer temperatures and less fluctuation in day length ascompared to temperate regions. These climatic conditions enhance growth of vegetation all year round.The evergreen nature of tropical vegetation including tropical forests and high temperatures causes highevapotranspiration water losses from tropical watersheds. The climatic conditions in the tropics allowopen field agriculture throughout the year. Most tropical countries have developing economies, andagriculture supports a large share of their economies. The humid tropics in particular are highly suitablefor agriculture. Thus, one of the major challenges for watershed management in the tropics is deforesta-tion and conversion of the tropical forests to agricultural land. This type of land-use change affectswatershed hydrology by increasing the runoff flow, reducing dry season weather flows, and increasing soilerosion as a result of soil disturbance (Bruijnzeel 2004; Recha et al. 2012). Encroachment into the forestsis partly attributed to the rising population and poverty in many tropical countries. Thus, to succeed,watershed management practices in the tropics must as well address poverty alleviation.

Soil and water conservation is a major component of watershed management. Watershed climate andweather affect the purpose and the type of soil and water conservation practices. In the arid and semiaridregions, soil and water conservation practices should address water scarcity by minimizing soil moistureloss through evaporation, runoff harvesting, etc. In humid areas, the aim is to safely dispose excessrainwater, reduce soil erosion by runoff, reduce the speed of runoff, and enhance in situ infiltration ofrainwater. Seasonal or short-term weather conditions, e.g., daily, weekly, or monthly, affect soil and waterconservation needs across the entire spectrum of climatic regions. During the wet seasons or periods ofheavy storms in arid and semiarid regions, the immediate aim of soil and water conservation is to safelydispose the runoff (either for storage or off to the rivers, lakes, or seas) with minimum runoff. During theperiods of drought in humid regions, minimizing soil moisture losses for plant growth is a primary need.Therefore, soil and water conservation practices should be designed to cope with the climatic and seasonalweather conditions of a particular watershed.

Freshwater resources are limited, and therefore, deliberate efforts should be made to prevent theirpollution. Watershed management practices that control impairment of both surface water and


Page 2 of 16

groundwater from point and nonpoint source pollution need to be put in place. Soil erosion leads tosedimentation and siltation in surface water bodies. Eroded particles mostly originate from fertile topsoilrich in organic matter that has a high affinity to agricultural chemicals (e.g., pesticides) and nutrients fromfertilizers causing nonpoint (“diffuse”) water pollution. Thus, soil and water conservation practices on thefarmland and in the riparian areas (e.g., planting trees and hedges) assist in trapping of these pollutantsbefore making their way to surface water. Furthermore, direct discharge of untreated wastewater andliquids and disposal of solid waste into water bodies that pollute water should be prohibited in law and inpractice.

Watershed management requires people’s awareness of the dangers of environmental degradation andthe need to conserve the environment. The political goodwill is another important requirement forenvironmental protection- including watershed management. More important is having policies, laws,and institutions that address all aspects of environmental management.

Sustainable Land Management Practices

There is a complex relationship between land, water, and people. Unsustainable land managementpractices lead to land degradation and threaten availability and quality of freshwater resources andlivelihoods. Sustainable land management (SLM) simply means people taking good care of the land forsupply of environmental goods and services today and in the future. It is the adoption of land-use systemsthat through appropriate management practices enables land users to maximize economic and socialbenefits from land while maintaining or enhancing the ecological support functions of the land resources(Liniger et al. 2011). It seeks to strike synergies among competing ecosystem services that land isexpected to provide such as food production and soil conservation. The aim is to use land managementpractices that have other benefits besides conservation that will drive their adoption. Thus, SLMobjectives are to increase land productivity, to conserve and protect ecosystems, and to improve liveli-hoods (Liniger et al. 2011). The idea is to make sure that land is put into its productive agricultural use(e.g., for food and fodder) and at the same time to avoid or minimize negative effect on the environment.

Land ProductivityLand development is an important activity in watershed management as it has an effect on its capacity toproduce watershed services. Therefore, productive agricultural land use should be a key element ofwatershed management programs. This is more relevant in developing countries where agriculturecontributes a large share to their national economies. In order to maximize land productivity, SLMpractices should ensure good soil and water management. This includes increased water availability(to the crops and other plants) during periods of water scarcity and proper management of excessrainwater in wet seasons. Runoff harvesting and practices which minimize evaporative soil moisturelosses and improve irrigation efficiencies are examples of good water management during drought.Drainage of agricultural fields and minimizing soil nutrient loss through leaching and surface runoff isnecessary during wet seasons. Sound soil management practices are required to maintain and improve soilfertility which is controlled by soil properties such as structure, organic matter content, and cationexchange capacity. Activities that degrade such soil properties, e.g., soil erosion and accelerated miner-alization of soil organic matter, should be controlled by all means to ensure sustainable productivity of theland. On the other hand, practices which improve the soil properties such as good crop residualmanagement should be encouraged (Lal 2009, 2013).


Page 3 of 16

Improving land productivity extends beyond the soil and water management to other areas such asplanting of high yielding crop and other plant varieties and species and good crop husbandry. The point isthat increased land productivity improves livelihoods and minimizes environmental degradation.

Environmental ProtectionMaximizing land productivity should not be done at the expense of the environment. Ecological health ofthe watersheds and the integrity of water resources should be protected even in the pursuit of increasedland productivity.Watershedmanagement should prevent land degradation in the form of soil erosion, soilphysical and chemical properties degradation, desertification, and deforestation. The measures shouldprevent loss of biodiversity and control surface and groundwater impairment through point and nonpointsource pollution. In watersheds where land degradation is already taking place, watershed managementpractices should be designed to rehabilitate the land and the water resources. There are several soil andwater conservation interventions which can be used to prevent land degradation and water pollution (Lal2009, 2013). The interventions can be categorized into agronomic, vegetative, structural, and manage-ment measures (WOCAT 2007).

Livelihood ImprovementAdoption of the SLM practices by land users and managers depends on the expected benefits and the costsof establishment. Practices that have benefits other than soil and water conservation are more likely to beadopted, for example, grass strips which are source of fodder in the short term and used for soil and waterconservation in the long term (Mwangi et al. 2014). The livelihood of the farmers using grass strips wouldbe improved from the extra income generated from increased milk production or from direct sale offodder. Another example is agroforestry with tree species that can provide additional benefits such asfruits, fodder, and firewood.

As pointed out already, increasing land productivity is necessary to improve livelihoods. When thesocioeconomic status improves, people are more likely to follow the environmental laws. In contrast, theprimary concern of poor people is to satisfy the basic needs in life such as food, water, and shelter. Tothem, environmental protection is a secondary issue.

There are several sustainable land management practices that are already in use worldwide and whichare common and applicable in different regions. Several studies have assessed the potential or theeffectiveness of such practices in conservation (e.g., Arabi et al. 2008; Quintero et al. 2009; Mwangiet al. 2012). There is also rich literature on these practices especially in the tropical Africa where moredetails can be found (e.g., Mati 2007; Reij et al. 1996). World Overview of Conservation Approaches andTechnology (WOCAT) maintains an online database of various practices applicable and used in differentparts of the world (WOCAT 2007).

Watershed Management Policies: Legal and Institutional Framework

Current watershed management practices require creation of an enabling environment for effectivewatershed management. An enabling environment implies having the right policies, laws, and plans forwatershed management (AMCOW 2012; FAO 2006). Poverty highly contributes to environmentaldegradation, and therefore, watershed management policies should be designed taking into account thenational poverty alleviation and development strategies (FAO 2006). The integrated approach of water


Page 4 of 16

resources management requires integration of policies of all sectors that use or are likely to abuse waterresources. The national policies on planning, agriculture, irrigation, water, forestry, and environmentshould ideally complement each other. New legislations that prioritize water resources management andcreate or strengthen the water management institutions are required. The laws should include regulationson, e.g., water sharing and prevention of water pollution and give water institutions power to enforce thelaws. Lack of proper legal and institutional framework has been cited as one of the constraints hinderingthe development and implementation of IWRM plans (UNEP 2010; AMCOW 2012).

Many tropical African countries embraced and committed to the introduction of IWRM. Some of thosecountries, e.g., Kenya and Ghana, have already developed and implemented IWRM policies, laws, andplans, while others are at different stages of development. In the following subsections, watershedmanagement practices from two tropical countries in East Africa are presented with a focus on the legaland institutional framework. Kenya has fully implemented IWRM plans, while Tanzania is in the process(AMCOW 2012).

Situation in KenyaWatershed management in Kenya is legally the mandate of Water Resources Management Authority(WRMA), a statutory body created under the Water Act (2002). The institution came into operation in theyear 2005 and has the mandate to effectively regulate andmanage water resources in the country. It has theresponsibility of monitoring, assessing, managing and protecting water resources among other responsi-bilities. Water resources management is guided by National Water Resources Management Strategy(NWRMS) which is developed by the Ministry of Water. Based on NWRMS, WRMA developsCatchment Management Strategies (CMS). The country is divided into six drainage-based catchmentareas, and WRMA develops a CMS for each of the units. A CMS is a tool used to guide the use,development, management, and protection of water resources. Regional Catchment Area AdvisoryCommittees (CAAC) (Fig. 1), formed for each of the six catchment areas, advise WRMA on waterresources utilization, protection, and proper management of the resource. Further down at the subregionallevel, Sub-CatchmentManagement Plans (SCMPs) are used as tools for planning and implementing water

Fig. 1 Water institutional setup after Kenya Water Act (2002) (WRMA Water Resources Management Authority, CAACCatchment Area Advisory Committees, WRUA Water Resources Users’ Associations, WSRB Water Services RegulatoryBoard, WSB Water Services Boards, WSP Water Services Providers)


Page 5 of 16

resources management. The SCMPs are developed from CMS and are tailored for small sub-catchmentswhere specific local interests and concerns are addressed. SCMPs are developed in a participatory processwhere water-related problems, their causes, and feasible interventions are identified and prioritized in aplan. The plan also includes the specific roles of stakeholders identified during the scoping phase of plandevelopment, the budget of implementation of proposed interventions, as well as the time schedule. At thegrassroots level (sub-catchment level) in each of the six catchment areas, Water Resources Users’Associations (WRUA) comprising of local communities and water resources users are formed with thesupport of WRMA. The mandates of WRUAs are water-related conflict resolution and to work withWRMA to oversee fair resource utilization and management at the local level. SCMPs are developed andimplemented by WRUAs with support of WRMA. By 2012, about 400 WRUA had already beenestablished (WRMA 2012).

Fig. 2 Forest areas in Kenya (adapted after KFS 2009)


Page 6 of 16

The Constitution of Kenya (CoK 2010) that was passed in 2010 created a devolved system ofgovernance where the country is divided into 47 counties. This created 47 county governments and theoverall national government. In the new system of governance, some functions of WRMA have beenassigned to the national government, while others have been devolved to the county governments.Catchment management and protection is one of the functions that have been devolved to countygovernments. As transition to county governments and devolvement of functions to counties whichstarted operation after 2013 general election continues, WRMA envisages playing a facilitation role ofwatershed management to the county governments. This will be done through their already establishedsubregional offices, which will work with county governments and WRUAs to develop and implementSCMPs (WRMA 2013).

Kenya Forest Service (KFS) is a separate state corporation which also plays a major role in watershedmanagement. It is responsible for conservation, development, and sustainable management of forests inKenya (Fig. 2). Several natural forests including the five main “water towers” (Mt. Kenya, AberdareRange, Mau Forests Complex, Cherangani Hills and Mt. Elgon) are headwaters of many rivers in thecountry. Conservation of these montane forests is very important for sustainability of river flows. TheKenya Forest Act (2005) provides for community involvement in forest management. KFS works withthe local communities through registered Community Forest Associations (CFA). The communitiesbenefit from the Income Generating Activities (IGAs) that they initiate in the forests (KFWG 2013).Examples of IGAs in Kenya are beekeeping, ecotourism, grazing, and firewood collection (Mbuviet al. 2009). The aim of this form of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is to foster partnershipbetween the government and the communities in conservation and management of forests for mutualbenefit.

Other state corporations that play a role in water resources management include the National Environ-ment Management Authority (NEMA), Kenya Water Towers Agency, and river basin development

Fig. 3 Institutional framework for water resources management in Tanzania (Adapted from Onyando et al. 2013)


Page 7 of 16

authorities, e.g., Tana and Athi River Development Authority (TARDA). Several non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) such as WWF are also actively involved in watershed management programs.

Situation in TanzaniaWater resources management in Tanzania falls under the Ministry of Water and is guided by the WaterResource Management Act (2009). A schematic illustration of the institutional framework ofwater resources management in Tanzania as provided in the Act is shown in Fig. 3. The National WaterBoard (NWB) advises the Minister on water resources planning and management as well as the conflictresolution in national and international waters. The Basin Water Boards are responsible for waterresources management in their respective basins and work with catchment and sub-catchment watercommittees to coordinate and harmonize integrated water resources management plans at catchment andsub-catchment levels, respectively.

Environmental Services’ Concept for Watershed Management

The concept of environmental (ecosystem) services received much attention globally at the start of thetwenty-first century after the United Nations commissioned the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(MEA 2005). The assessment noted that the economic development experienced towards the end of thetwentieth century had caused serious ecosystem degradation. A red flag was raised as a warning foractions to stop environmental degradation; otherwise, the ecosystem’s capacity to provide environmentalservices continued to get limited. Since then, the concept of environmental services has been widely usedin the environmental conservation programs. Innovative market-based schemes such as Payment forEnvironmental Services (PES) have been developed and applied for environmental conservation espe-cially on water resources and forest conservation (Namirembe et al. 2013; Tresierra 2013; Nyongesa2011). In PES schemes, the beneficiaries of the environmental services compensate the stewards of theservices. Water resource-based PES schemes are commonly referred to as Payment for WatershedServices (PWS).

Water-related services provided by the natural environment are commonly referred as watershedservices or Hydrological Ecosystem Services (HES) (Brauman et al. 2007). The interaction of waterand the environment (ecosystem) throughout the hydrological cycle provides many benefits to humanbeings. The benefits include:

(i) Provision of freshwater. This can be divided into green and blue water. Green water is the water in thesoil that is available for plant growth through transpiration, while blue water is the water available fordrinking from different sources including rivers, freshwater lakes, springs, and undergroundaquifers.

(ii) Water purification. As the water moves through the cycle, it sometimes gets contaminated (throughhuman activities). The ecosystem has the ability to remove most of the pollutants from the waternaturally.

(iii) Flow regulation. When the water gets on the Earth’s surface as precipitation, it takes differentpathways. The pathways are infiltration, surface and subsurface flow, and evaporation. The conditionof the particular surface determines how the water will be partitioned into these pathways. Throughthis process the ecosystem is able to regulate overland flow – flash floods and groundwaterflow – including recharge and discharge from underground aquifers. An ecosystem that allowshigh water infiltration is able to reduce flash floods and increase recharge of underground aquiferswhich ensures continuous flow of streams even in dry weather seasons.


Page 8 of 16

These benefits that are derived from water-environment interaction referred as hydrological ecosystemservices or watershed services. Awatershed is basically a topographically delineated area (land and watersurfaces) draining into a common outlet. The outlet could be a reach of a river, a valley, a reservoir, a lake,or a sea. Anthropogenic activities on a particular watershed may have a positive or negative effect onwater quality or quantity. The human activities may be a distance upstream of where their effects are felt ina watershed. In other words, upstream human activities have an effect on downstream water users. Theeffects may also include loss lives and property of downstream residents in case of floods. It is in thisregard of upstream-downstream connection that the concept of Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) isbased.

Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Projects for Watershed Management inAfricaIn the last decade, PES schemes have been used for watershed management in many countries in Africa,Latin America, and Asia (FAO 2006). In Africa, several schemes have been started though under differentnames. Most of these programs are promoted by various NGOs such as WWF, Care international, WorldAgroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa (PRESA), forexample, is a program spearheaded by ICRAF, which has been piloting a number of PES projects in Eastand West Africa. The program has implemented PES projects across seven watersheds in Kenya,Tanzania, Uganda, and Guinea (Namirembe et al. 2013). The projects are targeted at watersheds withunsustainable agricultural activities and deforestation. PRESA project sites in Kenya are Sasumua(Mwangi et al. 2011), Lake Victoria, and Upper Tana (Balana et al. 2011) watersheds. In Tanzania, thesites are Mt. Uluguru and Usambara watersheds, while Albertine Rift and Fouta Djallon watersheds arethe project sites in Uganda and Guinea, respectively (Namirembe et al. 2013). A similar market-basedreward scheme called “Green Water Credits” (GWC) was started in Upper Tana Basin in Kenya (Huninket al. 2012). WWF and CARE have also spearheaded a number of PES projects in Kenya and Tanzaniaunder the name “Equitable Payment for Watershed Services” (EPWS). The EPWS project sites are LakeNaivasha watershed in Kenya, Zigi River watershed in East Usambara Mts. (Tresierra 2013), Ruvu River(Uluguru Mts.) in Tanzania (Kwayu et al. 2014), as well as the trans-boundary Mara River Basin sharedby Kenya and Tanzania.

PES requires the presence of willing sellers (stewards) and buyers (beneficiaries) of the environmentalservice (ES). One of the challenges of PES schemes is to identify and convince potential buyers to join andcontribute financially to the scheme. To engage private companies/institutions and buyers of ES, a strongbusiness case need to be formulated. Lessons learned fromKenya demonstrate that such kind of proposalsneeds to reach and be embraced by the top decision-making organs of the company (Namirembeet al. 2013). Another bottleneck that requires special attention is the legal and institutional arrangement.The legal framework ought to be flexible to allow direct participation of private sector in watershedmanagement. In Kenya, for example, private entities abstracting surface or groundwater pay statutory feesto the government. Most potential buyers cite this as a reason for not joining PES schemes as part of thatmoney is meant for watershed conservation. However, the money paid for conservation which can beaccessed from the Water Service Trust Fund (WSTF) by WRUAs can only be used for conservation ofpublic land. This leaves out privately owned land which is the main form of land tenure system and amajor source on nonpoint source pollution.

Some of the above-mentioned challenges have presented roadblocks to many of the PES projectsdiscussed here and hindered them to continue to the implementation phase. The WWF/CARE EPWSprogram in the Lake Naivasha watershed in Kenya is an example of one of the projects that has undergonethe implementation phase and is now in the scale-up phase. The project is discussed in detail as anexample of a successful PES program where insights/lessons can be drawn from other similar projects.


Page 9 of 16

Fig.4

PESsitesin

LakeNaivasha(N

yongesa2012

)


Page 10 of 16

PES Scheme for Lake Naivasha Watershed, KenyaThe PES in Naivasha watershed was designed to be implemented in three phases. The first phase started in2006 and involved the scoping and feasibility study. The implementation (2nd phase) started in 2008, andthe project is in the final scale-up phase (Nyongesa 2011).

Watershed DescriptionLake Naivasha is situated in the East Rift Valley of Kenya (Fig. 4). It is the largest inland freshwater lakein Kenya and is fed by two main perennial rivers, i.e., Malewa and Gigil. River Karati is a seasonal riverthat also drains into the lake. Rivers Turasha-Kinja and Wanjohi are tributaries of River Malewa that hasits headwaters in Aberdare Mountains. Commercial horticulture is one of the main economic activitiesaround the lake. The horticultural farms which surround the lake use the lake water for irrigation. Othereconomic activities around the lake include ranching, agriculture, tourism, fishing, and geothermal powerproduction (Chiramba et al. 2011). Smallholder agriculture predominates the upper catchments ofMalewa River.

Scoping and Feasibility StudyThis phase essentially entailed assessing the feasibility and viability of initiating a PES scheme in thewatershed. It included watershed characterization (hydrological assessment), economic analyses (i.e.,cost/benefit analysis and business case analysis), livelihood analysis, and legal and policy assessment(Chiramba et al. 2011; Ellis-Jones 2007). The objective of hydrological assessment was to characterize thewatershed problem by identifying the watershed services under threat and identify the possible interven-tions to enhance the provision of ES (Gathenya 2007). The assessment, which employed the use of theSoil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (Arnold et al. 1998), identified water quality as the keywatershed service which had to be addressed. Soil erosion was found to be a major source of sediments

Table 1 PWS implementation costs per hectare of farmland (Ellis-Jones 2007)

Land-use change scenario Implementation costs per ha farmland (US$) Opportunity costs per ha farmland (US$)

10 m grass strips 134 71

25 m grass strips 336 178

100 % pasture 3,655 711

Agroforestry 5,164 711

30,000

0

5,000

Forest Agriculture Grass Agric + 50m strip Agric + 25m strip Agric + 15m strip

4,565

15,633

26,717

16 1 0

Scenario

sedi

men

t ton

/ha

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Fig. 5 Simulated sediment yield with land-use change scenario in Geta sub-catchment (Source: Gathenya 2007). Agriculturerepresents status quo


Page 11 of 16

(Fig. 5) and agricultural chemicals in the water. The study identified five soil erosion “hotspots” in thewatershed out of which two (Turasha and Wanjohi sub-catchments) (Fig. 4) were prioritized for piloting.Land-use change recommendations made were establishment grass strips and terraces on steep slopes toreduce soil erosion, rehabilitation, and maintenance of riparian zones and agroforesty (Chirambaet al. 2011).

Economic analysis was initiated to identify potential buyers of the ES, assess their willingness to jointhe scheme, and carry out a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) for the conservation measures selected during thehydrological assessment. The opportunity cost the farmers (sellers) had to incur as a result of conservationas well as the benefits the buyers were to receive was assessed in the CBA (Table 1). Commercial flowergrowers, water companies, power-generating companies, and businesses in the tourism industry such ashotels and government-owned Kenya Wildlife Service were identified as the potential buyers (Nyongesa2011). The economic analysis provided sufficient financial justification for implementation of the scheme.Crop strip and restoration of riparian areas were found to be the most economical and feasible interven-tions (Gathenya 2007; Ellis-Jones 2007).

The objective of the livelihood assessment was to establish livelihood aspects that would impact thedesign of PES scheme and also assess the willingness of the sellers (farmers) to voluntarily join thescheme. Key finding and recommendation from this study was that the land should not be taken out of itsproductive use and compensation should be in form of goods and services-not cash based. Majority ofland owners are men, and if rewards are cash based, the money would not likely reach the women who arevery important in the implementation and sustainability of conservation measures.

Legal and policy analysis was undertaken to assess the viability of PES in terms of Kenyan law and alsodetermine a legally feasible structure for engaging the upstream sellers and downstream buyers of ES. Itwas found that reward mechanisms were not recognized in law. However, the law recognized community-based Water Resources Users’ Association (WRUA) as responsible for water management at the locallevel and Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) as the state organ tasked with managementand protection of water resources in the country. The selected watershed management measures werefound to be best implemented through the already established WRUAs with the involvement andpermission of WRMA.

Implementation PhaseTurasha and Wanjohi sub-catchments were selected for piloting. The two are located in the foothills ofAberdare ranges, and both are sub-catchments of Malewa River that feeds to the lake. WRUAs alreadyestablished for both sub-catchments through WRMA were used as a platform to engage with stewards(sellers) of the watershed services. The buyers were mainly the commercial horticultural crop growers andare represented in an umbrella called Lake NaivashaWater Resources Users Association (LANAWRUA).

The scheme started with 565 farmers whose membership was mainly drawn from farms in the identified“hotspots” in the two sub-catchments. The buyers association, LANAWRUA, is composed of LakeNaivasha Growers Group (LNGG) and the Lake Naivasha Riparian Association (LNR) (Nyongesa 2011).The two associations representing the sellers and the buyers, respectively, entered into a legally bindingcontract with the sellers committing to undertake mutually agreed conservation practices and the buyerscommitting to compensate the sellers for the conservation activities. The farmers were supplied withsuitable grass varieties (usable as fodder and also appropriate for conservation) and agroforesty treeseedlings.

LANWRUA made first two payments (about USD 10,000 each) to the sellers through their respectiveWRUAs. The payments which are conditional (only paid to the farmers who have implemented the agreedconservation measures) were shared to 470 farmers and 504 farmers for the first and second payments,


Page 12 of 16

respectively. The payment was in a form of vouchers which are redeemable for agricultural inputs atagreed local shops (Nyongesa 2011, 2012).

Scale-Up PhaseThe program is currently in the scale-up stage which targets to include more farmers in the watershed. Inthis stage the number of farmers in the scheme has increased and more have expressed their willingness tojoin. The third payment was made in 2012, a total of 784 farmers from the two WRUAs benefited fromUSD 13,500 paid by the sellers (Nyongesa and Muigai 2012). More buyers have also shown interest andjoined the scheme. The latest entrants comprise of ranchers and more flower companies. Future plansinclude expansion of the scheme internally and also externally to other regions (Chiramba et al. 2011).

Monitoring AspectA team composed of buyer and seller representatives is used to monitor the progress of implementation ofthe project. WWF as an intermediary and WRMA as the state organ tasked with conservation are alsorepresented in the monitoring exercise. The team ensures that both parties fulfill their obligations asstipulated in the contract. Water quality (sediments) change monitoring is done by trained WRUAmembers using turbidity meters (Nyongesa and Muigai 2012).

Impact/AchievementsThough the water quality change in terms of sediment reduction is a long-term benefit, there has beenreported qualitative improvement of water turbidity in the streams (Nyongesa 2011). Additionally over45 ha of land have been put under a combination of different conservation measures (Nyongesa andMuigai 2012). The local community’s awareness of the importance of soil and water conservation hasincreased as demonstrated by the rising number of farmers joining the scheme. Livelihood has beenimproved from direct compensation from the scheme and also the secondary benefits like increased milkproduction due to increased availability of fodder (grass). The willingness of new buyers to join thescheme further demonstrates the viability of market-driven conservation in the region.

ChallengesSome of the challenges experienced in the Lake Naivasha PES project include:

(i) Stretched resources – as more farmers embrace the project and express interest to join the scheme, thefinancial support from the committed buyers get stretched. A deliberate effort to engage and bring onboard more potential buyers in the scheme is required.

(ii) Many potential buyers perceive PES as “imposing an extra payment” for watershed conservationbecause water abstractors are obliged by law to pay a statutory fee for watershed conservation to thegovernment.

(iii) Pollution from degraded public lands – public land is not covered in the scheme, yet it is a majorcontributor of water pollution.

(iv) Changing land ownership where parents subdivide their land to their children as part of inheritanceposes a challenge of commitment of the new land owners to the PES scheme (Chiramba et al. 2011;Nyongesa and Muigai 2012).


Page 13 of 16

References

African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW) (2012) Status report on the application of integratedapproaches to water resources management in Africa. ISBN 978-87-90634-01-8

Arabi M, Frankenberger JR, Engel BA, Arnold JG (2008) Representation of agricultural conservationpractices with SWAT. Hydrol Process 22:3042–3055

Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrological modeling andassessment part 1: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89

Balana BB, Yatich T, M€akel€a M (2011) A conjoint analysis of landholder preferences for reward basedland-management contracts in Kapingazi watershed, East Mt. Kenya. J Environ Manage92:2634–2646

Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: anoverview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98

Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? AgriEcosyst Environ 104:185–228

Chiramba T, Mugoi S, Martinez I, Jones T (2011) Payment for Environmental Services pilot project inLake Naivasha Basin – a viable mechanism for watershed services that delivers sustainable naturalresource management and improved livelihoods. UN-Water international conference on water in thegreen economy in practice: Towards Rio+20. Zaragoza, Spain, 3–5 Oct 2011

Constitution of Kenya (2010) Republic of KenyaEllis-Jones M (2007) Naivasha Payment for Environmental/Watershed Services feasibility study over-

view. CARE Kenya and WWF- Eastern Africa Regional Office (EARPO), NairobiFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2006) The new generation of watershed

management programmes and projects-FAO forestry paper 150. FAO, RomeGathenya JM (2007) Feasibility assessment for Naivasha– Malewa payments for watershed services

hydrological assessment WWF/CARE PES Project. WWF- Eastern Africa Regional Office (EARPO)and CARE Kenya

Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2004) Informal stakeholder baseline survey- current status of nationalefforts to move towards sustainable water management using an IWRM approach. GWP, Stockholm

Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2006) Setting the stage for change – Second Informal Survey by theGWP Network – giving the status of the 2005 WSSD target on national Integrated Water ResourcesManagement and water efficiency plans. GWP, Stockholm

Hunink JE, Droogers P, Kauffman S, Mwaniki BM, Bouma J (2012) Quantitative simulation tools toanalyze up and down interactions of soil and water conservation measures: supporting policy making inthe Green Water Credits Program of Kenya. J Environ Manage 111:187–194

Kenya Forest Service Act (2005) Republic of KenyaKenya Forest Service (KFS) (2009) Kenya Forest Service strategic plan 2009/2010-2013/2014. KFS,

NairobiKenya Forestry Working Group (KFWG) (2013) Participatory forest management plans (PFMG),

Development, implementation, review and proposed monitoring framework report. Miti Mingi MaishaMbora programme. Kenya Forest Service/East African Worldlife Society, Nairobi

Kwayu EJ, Sallu MS, Paavola J (2014) Farmer participation in equitable payment for watershed servicesin Morogoro, Tanzania. Ecosyst Serv 7:1–9

Lal R (2009) Ten tenets of sustainable soil management. J Soil Water Conserv 64:20A–21ALal R (2013) Climate-strategic agriculture and the water-soil-waste nexus. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci

176:479–493


Page 14 of 16

Liniger H, Studer M, Hauert C, Gurtner M (2011) Sustainable land management in practice-guidelinesand best practices for sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of Conservation Practices andTechnologies (WOCAT) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome,ISBN 978-92-5-000000-0

Mati B (2007) 100 ways to manage water for smallholder agriculture in eastern and southern Africa – acompendium of technologies and practices. SWMnet working paper 13. Improved Management inEastern & Southern Africa (IMAWESA), Nairobi

Mbuvi MTE, Ongugo PO, Maua JO, Koech CK (2009) Making participatory forest management work inKenya. Policy Brief, Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Nairobi

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. WorldResources Institute, Island Press, Washington, DC

Mwangi JK, Gathenya JM, Namirembe S, Mwangi HM (2011) Institutional and policy requirements forpayment for watershed services in Kenya – a case study of Sasumua watershed, Kenya. PRESA policybrief No. 2. ICRAF, Nairobi

Mwangi HM, Gathenya JM, Mati BM, Mwangi JK (2012) Evaluation of agricultural practices onecosystem services in Sasumua watershed, Kenya using SWAT model. Paper presented at 7thJKUAT scientific, technological and industrialization conference. Nairobi, 15–16 Nov 2012

Mwangi HM, Feger KH, Julich S, Gathenya J, Mati B (2014) A model-based approach to assess theeffects of sustainable land management practices on hydrological ecosystem services – case studiesfrom Eastern Africa. Forum f€ur Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung Heft 34.14- Wasser,Landschaft, Mensch in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft- Beitr€age zum Tag der Hydrologie,Kartholische Universt€at Eichst€att-Ingolstadt, 20–21 Mar 2014

Namirembe S, Mwangi JK, Gathenya JM (2013) Implementing PES within public watershed structure: acase study of Sasumua watershed in Kenya – case studies on remuneration of positive externalities(RPE)/Payment for Environmental Services (PES). Prepared for multi-stakeholder dialogue FAO,Rome, 12–13 Sept 2013

Nyongesa JM (2011) Payment for environmental services: an integrated Approach to natural resourcemanagement and livelihood improvement – a case study of Lake Naivasha- Malewa River Basinsub-catchment, Kenya. African Crop Sci Confer Proc 10:479–484

Nyongesa JM (2012) Equitable payments for watershed services (EPWS): ecosystem based approach inwater resource management – a case of Lake Naivasha Basin Kenya. Second targeted regionalworkshop for GEF: IW projects in Africa, Addis Ababa, 12–15 Nov 2012

Nyongesa JM, Muigai P (2012) Payment for environmental services: PES scheme in Naivasha Basin,Kenya – Promoting green development and growth through linking downstream water users toupstream land managers. WWF- East Africa Region Project Office (EARPO)/CARE Kenya, Nairobi

Onyando J, Agol D, Onyango L (2013) Phase III – final evaluation report- WWF Mara River BasinInitiative, Kenya and Tanzania. WWF Kenya Country Office (KCO) & WWF Norway

QuinteroM,Wunder S, Estrada RD (2009) For services rendered?Modeling hydrology and livelihoods inAndean payments for environmental services schemes. Forest Ecol Manag 258:1871–1880

Recha JW, Lehmann J, Walter MT, Pell A, Verchot L, Johnson M (2012) Stream discharge in tropicalheadwater catchments as a result of forest clearing and soil degradation. Earth Interact 16(Paperno. 13):1–18

Reij C, Scoones I, Toulmin C (1996) Sustaining the soil – indigenous soil and water conservation inAfrica. Earthscan, New York

Tresierra JC (2013) Equitable payments for watershed services: financing conservation anddevelopment – case studies on remuneration of positive externalities (RPE)/Payment for Environmen-tal Services (PES). Prepared for multi-stakeholder dialogue FAO, Rome, 12–13 Sept 2013


Page 15 of 16

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) (2010) From concept to practice-key features, lessonslearned and recommendations from implementation of the IWRM2005 Target. UNEP IntegratedWaterResources Management Programme. UNEP Collaborating Centre on Water and Environment, Nairobi

Water Act (2002) Republic of KenyaWater Resources Management Act (2009) United Republic of TanzaniaWater Resources Management Authority (WRMA) (2012) Water Resources Management Authority

strategic plan 2012–2017. Water Resources Management Authority, Republic of Kenya, NairobiWater Resources Management Authority (WRMA) (2013) Water Resources Management Authority

framework for engaging with county governments. Water Resources Management Authority, Republicof Kenya, Nairobi

World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) (2007) Where the land isgreener- case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Liniger H,Critchley W (eds). WOCAT/CTA/FAO/UNEP/CDE, ISBN 978-92-9081-339-2


Page 16 of 16

Documents

Watershed Management Practices in the Tropicsintegrated approach to planning and management of land resources. The Rio conference publicized the concept of Integrated Water Resources