Outcome mapping training for PRESA staff and partners is underway in Limuru, Kenya. At right is lead facilitator, Julius Nyangaga, from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

The training in outcome mapping began on Monday, 1st March, 2010 at the Brackenhurst Conference Centre in Limuru, Kenya. It will run until Saturday the 6th of March. The training coincides with the annual meeting of the PRESA International Advisory Committee, scheduled for Thursday, March 4.

“We thought that the making of the 2010 PRESA workplan and budget should be a participatory process,” says Thomas Yatich of ICRAF, “that is why we are training our partners in outcome mapping.”

Is outcome mapping a new buzz word among development workers? What exactly does it mean?

Outcome mapping is an approach to project planning, monitoring and evaluation that envisages and supports the development of desired outcomes (changes) as they unfold. What is the vision of the project? That is, what should be seen at the end of the project? What must the project planners do to realize the vision? Which partners will help turn the vision into reality?

Julius Nyangaga, a facilitator from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), says that through outcome mapping, a programme becomes specific about which actors to target, what changes are expected, and what kind of strategies to be employed. As a result, the programme becomes more effective in terms of achieving results.

“Outcome mapping requires you to engage with partners in relationships,” explains Julius. In this way, outcome mapping not only focuses on instigating change among beneficiary communities but is interested in changes within boundary partners. For example, building the capacity of community based organizations to become players in natural resource management.

The training schedule, combined with planning for the International Advisory Committee meeting means that participants have had little time to sample what the highland landscape of Limuru has to offer. However, the comfortable ambience at Brackenhurst more than makes up for the effort expended in learning something new.

Scene from the 2009 PRESA IAC meeting. Front row, left to right: Biryahwaho Byamukama (Uganda), Ilaria Firmian (IFAD representative) and Thomas Yatich (ICRAF).

At the meeting, the International Advisory Committee will review PRESA’s achievements in 2009. Committee members will discuss and refine PRESA strategies for 2010 as the project gets into the second half of its four year life.

The PRESA International Advisory Committee advises and provides strategic direction in the planning, implementation, communication and evaluation of the project. The committee consists of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), ICRAF, representatives of landscape and national contact organizations, representatives of the private sector, key donor agencies and other international organizations involved in the project.

The committee is involved at all levels of monitoring through the annual review of progress and work plans. It provides IFAD with independent comment on PRESA and responds to IFAD evaluation reports. In addition, committee members represent PRESA at national, regional and international conferences and events.

IFAD is a key funder for the PRESA project. Other donors include the European Union, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and the World Bank.

The International Advisory Committee first met in Entebbe, Uganda back in February 2008. Subsequent meetings have been held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, as well as in Nairobi.

The profile pages will contain the details of each partner, the people behind the organization and the activities they are carrying out. Research work emanating from site activities will be a useful feature in the profile pages. The work can be posted either in part or in whole, depending on the preferences of each author.

The PRESA website gets over 1,000 visitors a month and some of these could visit the websites of site partners through links that will be provided in their profile pages.

In order to build the partner profiles, it will be necessary for link persons in each organization to send us details that they feel will boost their presence on the PRESA website. The PRESA communications team can assist partners in building their profile pages using the information that they submit.

Having profile pages will certainly boost partner organizations’ visibility.

Cheque presentation. Left to right: Mr Benson Jambo (Ecobank), Mr. Vilipo Munthali (Financial Controller, Ecobank), Mr Henry Kwavale (ICRAF) and Mr. Mdowoka (District Commissioner and Guest of Honour)

Ecobank Malawi, a pan African Bank present in 31 countries, has pledged continued support to over 170 small holder farmers to plant trees in Ntchisi District, central region of Malawi. The project, where farmers will be receiving cash in exchange for investing land and labor, is aimed at promoting the planting of the indigenous M’bawa trees – one of Malawi’s flagship species – on half an acre of their land.

The program will capture and store harmful carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Together with similar programs all over Africa, this initiative will help slow down the rate of climate change across the globe. The trees will eventually serve as a source of fuelwood and timber for these rural families.

Ecobank has pledged $2,500 a year for the first three years of the project. The first Ecobank-supported payment to farmers was made in December 2009. The small incentive payments are based on the number of surviving trees and will encourage farmers to invest the necessary energy into protecting and nurturing the trees while they are young.

“The farmers are enthusiastic about the program and survival rates of seedlings to date are high,” says Kelsey Jack who is a Harvard University researcher analyzing the project’s outcomes to generate lessons for future tree planting programs for carbon sequestration in Malawi. The research will draw important lessons for the rest of Africa.

The project is implemented by ICRAF Malawi and Ntchisi District Departments of Forestry and Agriculture Extension.

The agreement with EcoBank is part of an ongoing research and development project that explores the different approaches to allocating and pricing land use contracts associated with payments for environmental services.

Ecobank Malawi Limited got involved after one of its Directors, Mr. Justin Chinyanta, attended a presentation about the project by Kelsey Jack at Harvard University and then linked up with the Malawi office.

“The Bank saw this as a good opportunity to invest in Malawi’s long term sustainable development as part of our commitment to social responsibility,” says Olufemi Salu, Ecobank Malawi’s Managing Director.

The project is directly in line with Ecobank’s charitable investments in other arenas – right down to the name: “EcoBank investing in eco-friendly local projects.” A meeting in July 2009 between the research team – led by Dr. Oluyede Ajayi of ICRAF – and EcoBank Malawi Limited confirmed the details of the agreement.

Mr Vilipo Munthali of Ecobank, (left) listens as Mr Yohane Manda (centre) explains his M’bawa tree investment at Ntchisi. At right is Mr Benson Jambo also of Ecobank Malawi.

Central Malawi was chosen because of the expected impacts of tree planting on the region’s environment. Unlike the north of Malawi, the central region has been heavily deforested partly due to tobacco production. However, unlike the southern region, land use pressure is not too high, so it is reasonable to think that farmers might be able to spare some land for tree planting if compensated for the environmental services that trees provide.

M’bawa (Khaya anthotheca) is a native hardwood species with a desirable long-term carbon storage profile and substantial economic benefits to the contract holder after approximately 15 to 20 years. After 25 years, full compliance with the program will result in 10,000 tons of sequestered carbon.

Overall, compliance rates have been high. Out of the 50 seedlings distributed to every participating farmer, an average of 42 survived the delicate planting and establishment process where trees are most vulnerable. Nineteen farmers, or over 10% of the total number of participants, had all 50 trees surviving after six months. Survival rates vary significantly across the participating villages, suggesting local micro-climates and soils that impact survival combined with learning and encouragement among village members.

The learning event, which was co-hosted by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), The Nature Conservancy, and the World Bank, brought together tools and experiences for ecosystem management that can be applied in the context of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD), a hot topic at the Copenhagen climate conference.

Meine van Noordwijk presenting PRESA research at Forest Day 3, Copenhagen, December 2009

Trevor Sandwith of The Nature Conservancy showed that healthy ecosystems do not obey governance boundaries, and generally support a complex balance between different ecosystem services such as carbon storage, biodiversity, watershed functions and providing fuel and food. Current REDD approaches still largely look at individual sectors (i.e. forestry) but could be more effective if considered within an adaptable landscape solutions.

Meine van Noordwijk of the World Agroforestry Centre shared experiences from the Sasumua catchment in Central Kenya, where water is the biggest question that affects the local farmers as well as the thirsty city of Nairobi. In a place like Sasumua, it’s clear that local-level costs and benefits must be achieved before global objectives can be met. People are not interested in carbon, but rather the water co-benefits that would come with improved land management. “When dealing with farmers,” said van Noordwijk, “consider carbon a co-benefit, and talk to them about water, about trees they can use, about profitability.” He stressed that Locally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (LAMAs) must be linked with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) as well as global targets (GAMAs) (more on this). The work in Sasumua is part of a larger World Agroforestry Centre project on Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa (PRESA), which aims to facilitate African participation in markets for environmental services including carbon.

Dr. Robert Zomer, from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) described how a holistic landscape approach has proven most appropriate for the Hindu Kush-Himalaya region, where the carbon mitigation potential lies in land uses outside of the traditionally defined forest. In this context, a whole-landscape approach is most beneficial.

Although the Copenhagen meeting failed to produce a new climate deal, significant progress was made on ensuring that a future deal will take into account deforestation, forest degradation and sustainable management of forests (known collectively as REDD-plus). Moreover, the important role played by agricultural landscapes in reducing emissions and storing carbon, also gained visibility, particularly at Agriculture and Rural Development Day (convened by the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security programme of the CGIAR). Organizers of FD3 and Agriculture day released a joint statement of outcomes (70KB PDF), further confirming that these areas are not only important, but deeply interlinked.

Dr. Dennis Garrity of the World Agroforestry Centre, concluded the landscape approaches learning event, by suggesting that the positive momentum from Agriculture Day and Forest Day be directed into a common day ‘Rural Landscape’ day in 2010.

Download the final statement from the “Landscape approaches to mitigation and adaptation” learning event. Download PDF (10 kb)

For a full summary of Forest Day, read the Earth Negotiations Bulletin Summary

View and download the presentations

Hope and funding for saving forests around the world

In the months leading up to the U.N. sponsored climate talks, there was one thing observers said with confidence: Any final outcome would establish global guidelines for paying poor countries to preserve their tropical forests.

That almost happened. The fact that it didn’t may pose a slight glitch, but is unlikely to halt the proliferation of such projects around the world. The talks did produce concrete short-term financial commitments to fund the effort, with $3.5 billion pledged by Norway, Japan, the United States, Britain, France and Australia. Read more.

Copenhagen was more than the accord

Many are disappointed with COP15’s main output. However, the summit did not only introduce the Copenhagen Accord but also a new kind of dynamics in global climate policy.

The very struggle to reach agreement at Copenhagen (…) demonstrates that climate policy has finally come of age. The negotiations at Copenhagen were so contentious because of the very real impact the proposals will have, not only for the environment, but also on national economies. Read more.

The essentials in Copenhagen

Rather than getting every small detail of a new global climate treaty done in Copenhagen, United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer hopes the conference will reach agreements on four political essentials.

The four essentials are:

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
4. How is that money going to be managed? Read more here.

For more information on the Copenhagen conference (COP 15), please visit the following websites:

Website of the United Nations Climate Change Conference:  http://en.cop15.dk/

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: http://unfccc.int/

Farmers (ecosystem stewards) prepare Napier grass seed cane for planting in the upper catchment. PHOTO/CARE Kenya staff

The Lake Naivasha basin is located in the Great Rift Valley of Kenya and has a total area of 1,700 square kilometers, with altitude ranging from 1,887 to 3,906 metres above sea level. The lake is one of the few fresh water lakes in Kenya’s Rift Valley as most of the rest are saline.

Economic activities around Lake Naivasha include small scale agriculture, horticulture, ranching, tourism and geothermal power production. Over 50 square kilometers of land around the lake is under large scale commercial horticulture and flower farming. These activities are a livelihood for over 500,000 people living within the basin.

Major threats to ecosystems in the Lake Naivasha landscape emanate from watershed environmental degradation, unregulated and excessive water abstraction for domestic and agricultural use, poor land use practices, weak policy enforcement, water pollution and high poverty prevalence. The trend leads to significant environmental degradation, biodiversity losses, economic losses and worsening poverty.

About Lake Naivasha’s upper catchments

Naivasha basin upper catchments comprise of several upland forests: Mau, Eburu, Kipipiri, Kinangop and Aberdares. These forests form essential catchments providing water that supports diverse habitats, livelihoods and economic development. Important rivers draining into Lake Naivasha are the Gilgil, Malewa, Karati (seasonal) and their tributaries. River Marmanet drains into Lake Naivasha from Eburu ranges.

The Aberdare Mountains reach a height of 4,000 metres and are among the critical watersheds of Kenya. This mountain range supports important biodiversity conservation areas: Aberdare National Park, Aberdare Forest Reserve, Lake Naivasha Ramsar Site and its associated riparian system.

There are three main eco-systems within the Aberdare Mountain ranges; rain forest, dense bamboo forest and moorland. The Aberdare ranges are an important watershed for Lake Naivasha, the Rift Valley basin and the Uwaso Ngiro, Tana and Athi river basins.

The lake’s upper watershed, too, supports both small and large scale agricultural activities and different flora and fauna.

Payment for environmental services scheme

The Worldwide Fund for nature (WWF) and CARE have entered into joint global partnership for implementing an environment rewards scheme where those who benefit for environmental stewardship reward land managers whose land use interventions provide quality water.

Downstream water users in the Lake Naivasha basin depend on upstream communities who are charged with the protection of the watersheds to ensure enough flow of good quality water for downstream use. Since upstream communities forego some land use activities for the sake of conservation, the downstream communities are expected to give incentives to the upstream communities to motivate them in their services.  A payment for watershed services project is currently linking the down stream and upstream users for better management of water resources.

Payments for environmental services scheme promises to give new lease of life to Lake Naivasha, its tributary waters and agricultural ecosystems to conserve fragile basin biodiversity and improve peoples’ livelihoods.

The ecosystem in the Lake Naivasha landscape provides a wide range of services including;

• Provisioning services (climate moderation, carbon sink, water quality and quantity)
• Regulatory services (soil erosion and flood control, maintenance of aquatic habitats.)
• Cultural services (recreational, aesthetic, spiritual benefits) and
• Supporting services (soil formation, and nutrient cycling).

Payments for environmental services scheme process in Naivasha Landscape

The process of initiating the scheme started with professional studies and surveys (feasibility assessment):

• The studies determined project viability in terms of potential ecosystem services for sellers and buyers
• Analysed land use and its impact on water quantity and sediment load
• Identified and recommended sub-catchment target hot spots suitable for a payment for watershed services project.

Selection of target areas was based on two objective functions;

1. Buyer maximization of return on investment
2. Wealth creation for the poor and equitable distribution of benefits that would accrue from the payments for watershed services scheme.

Potential buyers identified downstream were; Nakuru Water and Sewerage Company, Naivasha Water and Sewerage Company, commercial flower growers, Kengen geothermal electricity generation plant, Kenya Wildlife Services, the tourism industry in Naivasha and the Lake Naivasha Riparian Association.

Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model was applied to predict the impact of land management practices on water over long periods of time. Other important activities in the process were livelihood assessment, cost benefit analysis, marking and mapping of hotspot farms and survey of the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment.

Progress

WWF and CARE Kenya have sensitized the potential sellers and buyers on the payments for watershed services concept, prepared a draft contract with the two parties and facilitated dialogue between buyers and sellers. Developing a common understanding between the two groups will ensure and build trust. All input comments from both sides have been incorporated into the draft contract pending endorsement by the sellers (land owners) and the downstream buyers that include the Lake Naivasha Growers Group (LNGG) and Lake Naivasha Riparian Association (LNRA).

The programme is currently supporting land managers to implement the recommended land use interventions and livelihood improvement activities.

The joint project involves three Water Resources Users Associations, Lake Naivasha Growers Group, Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources Management Authority, Kenya Forest Services and the Provincial Administration. An area of 360,000 square metres is under conservation (grass strips and trees, especially agroforestry species). 510 farms were marked (300 farms in Geta/Wanjohi and 210 farms at Upper Turasha/Kinja) with 475 mapped. Distribution of conservation materials for planting has began to the farmers whose farms were marked and mapped.

The way forward to make payments for environmental services a reality in the Lake Naivasha landscape.

Payments for environmental service schemes have been successfully implemented globally. The WWF – CARE collaboration can successfully implement such a scheme through the cooperation and commitment of all important stakeholders; local communities, government, private sector and civil society organizations. Legalizing payments for environmental services is critical to its success in Kenya, and it is necessary to integrate such schemes in important natural resource policies. Community sensitization on policies and legislation governing natural resource use and management needs to be a collective responsibility of all partners.

Capacity building on conservation practices (terracing, grass strips, tree planting and protection of the riparian land and forests) should be continuous to realize any meaningful impact in the long term.

Conclusion

Understanding socio-economic linkages is a prerequisite to sustainable management of Lake Naivasha landscape ecosystems. Equitable payments for watershed services has the potential to address livelihood improvement and environmental sustainability. The scheme needs to be strengthened through economic policies and by stakeholders committed to partnership. Success of the scheme will protect fragile ecosystems and protect the rich but vulnerable biodiversity.

Payments for environmental services sites in Lake Naivasha landscape:

• Wanjohi/Geta water resource users association (WRUA)
• Upper Turasha/Kinja WRUA
• The lake’s shoreline

About the Author:

Nyongesa Mukele Josephat works as Project Natural Resource Economist with World Wide Fund for Nature-Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office (WWF-EARPO), Lake Naivasha – Malewa MFS Project.

Email addresses: nyongesajm@yahoo.com, nyongesan4@gmail.com, Jnyongesa@malewa.wwfearpo.org

Map of Lake Naivasha

View Larger Map

The page titled, “Research outputs,” contains the results of surveys and assessments carried out at various PRESA sites. The research can provide useful lessons to other organizations interested in setting up payments for environmental service schemes within Africa.

The availability of research work on the PRESA website is aimed at building a community of practice in payments for environmental services.

To view PRESA research work, go to the top menu on this webpage, then follow the path: Rewards for ES >> Research Questions >> Research outputs

Serge Ngendakumana of ICRAF (standing at left) making a presentation on pro poor reward mechanisms for ecosystem services in Africa. Serge is the PRESA site co-ordinator at the Fouta Djallon highlands.

The Fouta Djallon highlands are a core site of PRESA. Critical environmental services offered by the Fouta Djallon ecosystem are water quality and quantity for more than eight countries, biodiversity conservation and trees for carbon sequestration.

For the past two years, ICRAF has been involved with other key stakeholders in advocating policy related issues in the sub region. Working with the ICRAF office in Guinea, PRESA organized a multi-stakeholder meeting to analyse payments for environmental service issues and develop a road map for future developments in the areas of ecosystems.

Serge Ngendakumana, the PRESA site co-ordinator at the Fouta Djallon highlands, has participated in sub-regional review processes where concepts in payments for environmental services were presented to a community of specialized national services and natural resource practitioners from civil society and the private sector.

PRESA has conducted a simplified scoping study in the targeted landscapes at the Fouta Djallon to make an inventory of the potential for environmental services in Guinea and the policies that support or inhibit their development.

The main outcome of these activities is the identification of policy constraints regarding the implementation of payments for environmental services in the Fouta Djallon sub-region of West Africa. There has been a definition of what is needed to update existing environmental policies and the formation of a taskforce to move the process in three other countries.

February 2009 – Sierra Leone workshop

The first Fouta Djallon dependent country to begin reviewing its natural resource management policies is Sierra Leone and this was launched at a multi stakeholders workshop held in February 2009 at Freetown.

After the introduction of the law review process and methodology, an overview of current legislation and policies was done, followed by highlights on international trends and best practices. In this session, ICRAF’s Serge Ngendakumana made a brief presentation on compensation and reward mechanisms (cash and non-cash options) drawn from other ICRAF experiences that involve communities in natural resource management.

Group-work sessions thereafter analysed the existing policy documents, indentified weaknesses and gaps in laws and regulations before formulating valuable recommendations to make the laws up-to-date, comprehensive and implementable.

August 2009 – Guinea meeting

In an effort to get more views and information to strengthen the PRESA community of practice, a multi stakeholders meeting was organised in mid August 2009 in collaboration with the Environmental Science Department, University of Conakry (CERE). The meeting was called to analyse payments for environmental service issues and develop a road map for future developments in the subject of ecosystems.

About 20 stakeholders from organisations and services attended the workshop including representatives from community based organisations, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Geology and Mines, UN agencies, national NGOs, mining companies and researchers from the Guinean universities.

During technical sessions, participants talked about the main threats to the Fouta Djallon natural forests, synergies for action to implement payments for environmental services in Guinea and future perspectives on research for livelihoods and conservation.

Benefits of the policy discussions

Two main themes emerged from high level policy makers during the debates in Sierra Leone and Guinea:

• How do we interest communities in forest reserve conservation?
• How do you address the aspects of environmental risks such us conflicts between wildlife and humans?

In order to create and maintain the enthusiasm of communities in forest reserve conservation, it appears important to work out a mechanism that responds to the practical needs of communities according to their priorities.

It is necessary to value local knowledge and traditional values (what is important to communities: money or other things? What has been going on before we got involved?).

It is also essential to integrate appropriate biodiversity friendly technologies and management practices as well as setting up appropriate incentive mechanisms based mostly on non cash options.

The answers to tackling human and wildlife conflict are not yet clear. Research is needed to provide more insights. However, an Environmental Impact Assessment could be a good starting point.

Summary

All in all, the workshop and meetings contributed to the sharing of information about ongoing initiatives especially mechanisms related to payments for environmental services and which have been developed and tested in Fouta Djallon.

Esther Mbugua (right), a researcher at the Kapingazi survey, interviews a farming couple in October 2009. PHOTO/M. Makela

PRESA is currently evaluating data from the Kapingazi River Basin, following a socio-economic survey done in October 2009.

The survey will contribute to the design of a river care programme that will enhance watershed services from the upper Tana River basin. The Tana, Kenya’s largest river, powers a series of hydro electric power stations as well as supplying towns and farms with fresh water.

“From the survey, PRESA and partners will facilitate a negotiation support mechanism between sellers and buyers of environmental services and help them reach a compromise,” says Thomas Yatich of ICRAF.

PRESA sees its role as that of an intermediary, linking land holders in the Upper Tana (providers of watershed services) with buyers (electricity companies, municipalities and irrigation projects).

“We are looking at the preferences of farmers in providing environmental services,” explains Dr Bedru Balana of the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, “for example, what type of land use change they can implement, what types of interventions are needed and whether they prefer long or short term commitments.”

Based in Scotland, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute has been collaborating with PRESA in 2009.

About the Kapingazi Basin

The Kapingazi river basin in Kenya draws its water from one of the country’s most important water towers – Mt. Kenya. Riparian areas of Kapingazi River have been degraded over the years due to land use change in the face of population increases. This has led to increased sediment flows into the river and water contamination. Consequently downstream hydropower reservoirs on the Tana River are silted. This has interfered with hydropower production, resulting in power rationing especially during drought periods.

ICRAF and its partners – through the project for fostering fair, workable rewards mechanisms for environmental services – are working towards designing a RiverCare Prototype mechanism to arrest the situation. This will reduce sedimentation and water pollution and, in the long run, ensure sustained flows for hydropower production.

Socio-economic, conjoint analyses and contingent valuation surveys will provide solid scientific evidence to shape such a mechanism design.

How the survey was done

The entire exercise lasted close to two weeks, running from 5^th to 19^th October. The first week consisted of interviews and training sessions with community leaders to explain the purpose and methodology of the survey. There were focus group discussions with farmer representatives and government officers on the causes of environmental problems. For instance, why do farmers engage in activities that are harmful to their environment? These sessions were useful as the community made suggestions on how the survey could be done.

The second week was devoted to data collection. Apart from two Masters students working with PRESA, the rest of the enumerators were selected from the local community. The training they received in preparation for the survey will help build their capacity for environmental matters and instill an appreciation of the multi-functionality of landscapes across different scales.

Several land use scenarios were presented to farmers to detect their preferences (conjoint analysis). Before the survey, scientists at ICRAF came up with 108 possible options that farmers were likely to choose. This implied that 108 households were to be picked for sampling out of the 2,600 found in the target area.

The scenarios were categorized as follows:

• Percentage of land a farmer could dedicate to rewards for environmental service (PES) activities on his/her farm.
• The type of measure that will determine how much farmers should get. Should rewards be based on land lease rates, on water rates or should they be pegged on the costs of extension services?
• Length of commitment: long term or short term.
• How much labour is the farmer willing to contribute each month?

To avoid bias in selecting households, the target area was subdivided into blocks of 500 square metres. Interviewers then went into a single household within each block. In the end, 125 households were sampled.

Another objective of the survey was contingent valuation. If the respondent chose a combination of land management practices, how much compensation would be acceptable?

Next steps

PRESA and its partners, including the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), are analyzing data from the October 2009 survey. The results will be presented to farmers and other stakeholders so as to discuss a river-care programme for the Kapingazi basin.

Another PRESA partner, the Mount Kenya East Pilot Project for Natural Resources Management (MKEPP-NRM) has indicated willingness to invest in implementing the river care programme.

Lots of useful experience was gained during the survey and PRESA is eager to extend the methodology to anybody else implementing rewards for environmental services in Africa.

Location map

View Kapingazi river catchment in a larger map