Warning: include_once(../article_type.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/suxhorbncfos/public_html/artoaj/ARTOAJ.MS.ID.556034.php on line 127
Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '../article_type.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/alt/php56/usr/share/pear:/opt/alt/php56/usr/share/php') in /home/suxhorbncfos/public_html/artoaj/ARTOAJ.MS.ID.556034.php on line 127
Assessing the Governance of Payment for
Ecosystem Services in the Upper Catchments
of the Lake Naivasha Basin
Jacob Kwamina Dodoo3, Robert M Kibugi1* and Jesse T Njoka2*
1 School of Law, University of Nairobi, Parklands
2 Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology, University of Nairobi, Kenya
3 Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya
Submission: August 28, 2018; Published: September 12, 2018
*Corresponding author: Robert M Kibugi, School of Law, University of Nairobi, Parklands. Email:
Jesse T Njoka, Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
How to cite this article: Jacob Kwamina Dodoo, Robert M Kibugi, Jesse T Njoka. Assessing the Governance of Payment for Ecosystem Services in the
Upper Catchments of the Lake Naivasha Basin. Agri Res & Tech :Open Access J. 2018; 17(4): 556034. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.17.556034
The importance of Water Resource Users Association (WRUA) committees is examined. Observed activities of the WRUA committees continue to enhance the efforts of members to engage in Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs to meet its objectives. The success of some WRUA committees shows it can attain “win-win” outcomes in managing PES issues. The responses of 1143 PES farmers and 235 non-PES farmers interviewed were examined. Regression analysis were used to determine the significant association between the dependent variables, importance of WRUA committee and knowledge of negotiation process, water regulations and protected areas. The outcomes of these regression was synthesized to identify key factors that inform the formation of committees. Governance at the local level needs to be strengthened with streamlining the roles of each institution in addressing the water quality issue. The cooperation among all stakeholders was based on how they support the committees through capacity building, support through the provision of tree seedlings and awareness creation at the community levels. The results indicates the need for the government of Kenya to develop an expanded policy agenda on PES which will include WRUA committee formation. Also ensure the allocation of funds for institutional and management reorganization, for example WRUA committees are available.
Governance and institutions, as two concepts, are closely interlinked . In Kenya, Naivasha, the concept of water governance has received increased attention . The key question is whether ‘institutions in the management of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) are effective enough to ensure the sustainability of the Lake Naivasha. A study conducted by , found that improved institutional arrangements have significant potential for an integrated ecosystem-based PES design. Therefore, good governance is promoted through transparency, accountability, and participation .
Kenya is a pioneer in implementing the concept of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) through a private scheme, which involved direct payments by service beneficiaries in this case the Lake Naivasha Water Resource Users Association (LANAWRUA), in the downstream catchment to service providers the Water Resource Users Association (WRUA) in the upper catchment of the Lake Naivasha Basin, in which both providers and beneficiaries are private entities (individuals, groups of individuals, private companies) with the government through the county participating
only as an intermediary . This paper aims at answering three questions: why PES was adopted, what are the factors resulting in the formation of WRUA committees, and how does the policy process affect the governance of the PES programme.
The governance and institutional arrangement supports the objective 3 of the PhD thesis in addressing the PES governance context regarding regulation set up for good governance and implementation as informed by Kenyan law and policy. According to , where enforcement of institutions is limited, there is the likelihood that rules will be disobeyed. This is the result of weak institutions . Governance arrangements need to include civil society and private sector as well as government. A study by , argues that considering broad governance characteristics such as state capacity and legitimacy, the rule of law and political organization is essential in conflict-sensitive environments. The existing evidence base on governance instruments is weak in Sub-Saharan Africa .
In Africa, there is an emerging literature on river committees for example, Tanzania , the model of governance there is similar to that of Kenya, Naivasha, as it is based on the biophysical context
and socio-economic context. For successful implementation and
governance of PES schemes, it is essential to understand the
various dimensions of value that can be shared by different groups
within society about the natural environment .
In Kenya, Naivasha, the following institutions have been
involved in the PES scheme. The LANAWRUA represents all
stakeholders at the downstream catchments and the WRUA
responsible for the upper catchment activities which includes onfarm
soil and water conservation, rehabilitation, and management
of riparian land, on-farm tree planting, rehabilitation of degraded
sites, monitoring of silt loads in river water
This study illustrated the implementation of positive
governance of a PES scheme by understanding the emergence and
functioning of river basin committees within the Lake Naivasha
Basin. In the following, the key results followed by discussions and
conclusions. This paper is part of my doctoral thesis.
The study was carried out in the upper catchments of the
Lake Naivasha Basin (LNB). That is Wanjohi, Upper Turasha and
Kiambogu catchment areas. Here WRUA committees are formed
to address the needs of the LANAWRUA and ensure the efficient
usage of the funds and also ensure the implementation of the
contracts signed between the LANAWRUAs and the WRUAs. The
main challenge to operationalizing WRUA committees is lack of
clear legislation and undervaluation of ecosystem resulting to low
resource allocation. The main institutions that have spearheaded
the formation of the WRUA committees are the World-Wide Fund
for Nature (WWF).
The study applied the Ostrom’s design principles .
One of the eight design principles, monitoring, provided useful
entry points in studying the functioning of the committees. As
the knowledge of protected areas increases, farmers can make
informed decisions on management practices to ensure a more
sustainable approach to resource management. Nevertheless, as
the knowledge of water regulations increases, farmers can make
informed decisions on management practices to ensure a more
sustainable approach to resource management. As there seems
to be a high number of respondents who do not understand the
negotiation process clearly, this would then affect the monitoring
of the farmer’s activity and its related sanctions.
In the context of PES, the study was interested in the degree
to which powers have been devolved to institutions that are
accountable to water resource users, as these are typically
based on the failure of central government to deliver . In this
instance, powers refer to authority to make rules and decisions
regarding water management, as well as to implement, enforce
and adjudicate said rules. In practice, this implied attention to the
degree to which the WRUAs can decide about the availability of
water for abstraction, the issuance of permits, including decisions
that affect the benefits that water use give rise to. This way of
assessing what powers have been conferred on the lower level
institutional arrangement is in line with the Kenya, Water Act,
2016. For any new water institution to be effective, it must be
consistent with both the government and local-level institutions
. This, however, requires a good understanding of how local
arrangements emerge, evolve and continue to function over time.
Also, understanding the interface between locally developed
water institutions and those created by the central government
could add insight into the development of integrated catchment
Accountability implies that the body receiving such powers
can be held responsible, to answer for its actions, by members
of the association living in the water catchment areas. Good
governance is promoted through transparency, accountability
and participation . According to , trust is an ingredient in
policymaking which concerns accountability mechanisms and
capacity building. This goes to explain that trust is needed to be
able to function effectively when dealing with water resource
users. The study reviewed the Water Act 2016 and WRUA
management plans and agreements (contract) and did in-depth
interviews with key informants. These included:
a. 3 WRUA executives.
b. 1 WRA official.
c. 3 WWF officials.
d. 2 Hoteliers.
e. 1 Imarisha Naivasha official and 1378 farmers.
The informants were purposely selected for their ability
to inform the study objectives. The interviews were guided
by interview guides specific for each main stakeholder group
prepared in advance of the interviews. Where the interviewee
gave consent, the interviews were recorded, else detailed notes
Data analysis: The qualitative information gathered
through interviews and informal discussions was transcribed
and used to support the quantitative data. The quantitative data
from the survey was organized in SPSS from where descriptive
statistics and regression analysis were prepared to analyze the
governance arrangement employed by stakeholders with different
A Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) was used to
obtain information on trust from the PES farmers, as it is assumed
that this measure would likely shape the governance-related
outcomes. Before the survey, a list of governance indicators was
defined based on focus group discussions with the stakeholders.
During the survey, respondents were asked about Knowledge of Protected Areas, Knowledge of Water regulation, Knowledge of
Negotiation Process and Committee Importance.
The regression model was used to determine the relationship
between the independent variables (Knowledge of Protected
Areas, Knowledge of Water regulation, Knowledge of Negotiation
Process and Committee Importance) and the dependent variable
(perceived water quality after PES).
This paper is an important step to enhance governance
capacities for the protected areas within the catchment areas
by analyzing why they are important and how they might be
integrated into coherent and effective protected area systems and
offer practical guidance for stakeholders willing to embark on the
process of assessing, evaluating and improving governance for
a given system. Regarding the knowledge of water regulations,
this paper addresses two main topics that will be key drivers for
improved water governance in the near future. First, it discusses
new practices of collaborative and disclosure of information for
water governance for decision-making processes. Regarding
knowledge of negotiation process LANAWRUA have established
contractual agreements with WRUA, organised through WRUA
committees, for land to be set aside as a ‘conservancy’ in
exchange for payments to the community, based on annual fees
or proportional payments (e.g., a percentage of gross or net
revenues) and committee importance will try to establish whether
their role is seen as important by the members.
Studies on the institutional arrangement of water governance
have used a great variety of indicators such as accountability,
trust and negotiation . Trust is considered one of the key
components for policy reform and is important in governance for
several reasons. According to , trust decreases the risk inherent
to cooperative relations since it creates greater predictability.
Rate of payment for ecosystem services (PES) adoption
rate by the non – PES farmers: The majority (172, 73.2%) of the
non-PES farmers indicated that they had adopted PES practices.
(63, 26.8%) of the non-PES farmers indicated that they had not
adopted PES practices (Table 1). The majority (642, 46.6%) of
the farmers indicated that the water quality after PES is average.
The statement made by a KWS official stated this about the
institutional arrangement which is coordinated by Imarisha
Naivasha. The official stated that even though attempts are made
on how these agencies can cooperate to achieve the objective of
water quality, there seem to be some institutional challenges.
However, there is some progress made with the intervention of
Imarisha Naivasha, WRA in regulating water abstraction by the
stakeholders (flower farmers, KenGen). Governance at the local
level needs to be strengthened with streamlining the roles of each
institution in addressing the water quality issue (Table 2).
Assessing the importance of WRUA committees: In
assessing the governance of PES, using water quality as a
dependent variable, the study used a binomial logistic regression
model, because the outcome variable was measured as a
dichotomous (Yes/No). Regression analysis was chosen to analyse
the independent variables: knowledge of water regulations;
knowledge of Protected Areas; the committee importance;
knowledge of negotiation process was regressed against the
dependent variables water quality. The regression analysis was
used to test the nature of relationships between the dependent
variables and the independent variables (Table 3). The model
produced a Nagelkerke value of 22%. This implies the independent
variables were explaining 22% of the variation in the dependent
variable (Water quality after PES).
Knowledge of protected areas: There was a significant
association between Knowledge of Protected Area and Water
quality after PES. Farmers who do not have knowledge of
Protected Area were 9.08 times as likely to rate the water quality
as Average than Poor as compared to farmers with knowledge of
Protected Legislation Area. They were also 11.15 times as likely
to rate the water quality as Good than Poor when compared with
farmers in with knowledge of protected areas (Table 4). Majority
of the farmers (1128, 81.9%) had knowledge of protected areas.
Knowledge of water regulations: A farmer with Medium
knowledge of water regulation was 3.65 times as likely to rate
the water quality as Average than Poor as compared to farmers
with low knowledge of water regulation. They were also 2.88
times as likely to rate the water Quality as Good than Poor. There
was no significant association between High knowledge of water
regulation and Water quality rating. Nevertheless, Farmers with
high knowledge of water regulation were 2.38 times as likely
to rate the water quality as Average than Poor as compared to
farmers with Low knowledge of water regulation. They are also
1.57 times as likely to rate the water quality as Good than Poor
(Table 5). Majority of the farmers had a general idea of water
Importance of WRUA committees: There was a strong
significant association between Committee Importance and Water
quality after PES. Hence, the higher the number of farmers who
agree to the importance of committees, the higher the number
of farmers who will rate the water quality as good as they will
monitor water usage and any activities within the LNB to ensure
compliance and adhering to the necessary Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) and rules (Table 6). There was a strong
significant association between Committee Importance and Water
quality after PES. Majority of the farmers (846, 74%) agreed that
committees are important.
Knowledge of negotiation process: In the negotiation
process, the upper catchment farmers are to engage in sustainable
farm practices to ensure water quality. This arrangement is
stipulated in the contract. However, there seems to be a high
number of the respondent who seems not to understand the
process. This would then affect the monitoring of the farmer’s
activity and its related sanctions (Table 7). Majority of the farmers
don’t have knowledge in negotiation process.
This section discusses the committee formation and assesses
the emergence of these institutions. From the literature review,
rules, monitoring and enforcement at the local level , can be
identified as contributory factors for the committee formed in
the LNB catchments. Billboards were placed in rivers around the
tributaries of Wanjohi and Turasha. The WRUA member who are
gauge readers are able to monitor the status of their respective
rivers and adjust the billboards accordingly. Because it was
realized that the WRUAs are weak in Governance and Financial
issues. It was agreed that the WRUAs be capacity build in areas
that they are weak.
Governance at the local level needs to be strengthened with
streamlining the roles of each institution in addressing the water
quality issue. The cooperation among all stakeholders was based
on how they support the committees through capacity building,
support through the provision of tree seedlings and awareness
creation at the community levels. Other support came from
recruiting staff from communities as part of their drive to ensure
Attempts at implementing PES in Africa has not reached the
expected targets, both in reducing poverty and strengthening
social justice, because of numerous pitfalls to effective policy
design. Hence, there is the need to design policy and institutional
arrangements around PES programs . According to ,
different legal and regulatory frameworks are required for
different types of payment schemes. Hence, the need for different
policies when externalities are occurring together .
The WRUA committees have benefited from the already
existing arrangements such as WRA, WRUA and civil societies.
The Water Act 2016 highlights the role of county government.
However, a study in Kenya, undertaken by , investigated the
influence of decision-making at local, regional or national level.
The results suggest that decision making on ecosystem services in
Africa are not homogenously distributed . Hence the need to
strengthen decision making at all levels through local committees,
regional and national bodies.
In the negotiation process, the upper catchment farmers are to
engage in sustainable farm practices to ensure water quality. This
arrangement is stipulated in the contract. However, there seems to
be a high number of the respondent who seems not to understand
the process. This would then affect the monitoring of the farmer’s
activity and its related sanctions [20-23].
This chapter discussed the importance of WRUA committees.
Ostrom’s design principles provided useful entry points in
studying the functioning of the committees. One of the eight design
principles was used to examine the governance of PES, which
is, monitoring. The growing popularity of PES programs as an
environmental conservation and poverty alleviation instrument
warrants scrutiny of its potential. In this paper, I attempted to
identify those factors that influence the formation of WRUA
committee. I conducted a quantitative binary logistic regression
and qualitative literature analysis to meet this objective.
Statistically significant coefficients suggest that formation of
committees is essential to achieve environmental conservation and “win-win” outcomes. Similarly, capacity building for WRUA
members in managing and monitoring water uses must sufficiently
cover the transaction and/or opportunity costs of enrolling and
engaging someone from WRA. Additionally, we find a number of
WRUA members who are not clear with the contracts negotiated
as identified from the field reviews. Our qualitative analysis
shows challenges faced by the WRUA committees in addressing
their administrative duties due to lack of office equipment and
support, primarily funding. The qualitative analysis also revealed
that the most effective activity the committee has established is
the common intake at the rivers/water points and the demolition
of illegal abstractors. All these factors are effective when they
solve local challenges and efficiently minimize costs. The WRUA
committee can benefit from government participation by
exploiting economies of scale enjoyed by government agencies
to manage high transaction and operating costs. The overarching
task for WRUA committee is active engagements with WRA to
recognize their needs and design the program accordingly.
Given the lack of capacity of WRA to manage water resources,
NGOs (WWF and German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ)) are
helping build capacity to address the issue of governance through
the devolved roles of the national government to the counties as
stipulated in the Water Act 2016. It is also recommended that the
government of Kenya develop an expanded policy agenda on PES
which will include issuing of title deeds, methods of cooperation and
WRUA committee formation. In line with the Water Act 2016, the
government of Kenya will need to create a national policy agenda
on PES, which would include: the prioritization of agricultural
extension services as part of a national multi-sectoral integrated
water resource management network; and the allocation of funds
for institutional and management reorganization (for example
WRUA committees). The national policy agenda to be developed
on PES will then hope to achieve the effectiveness of PES through
cooperation among the relevant sectors to develop programmes
for PES to achieve improved water quality and conflict reduction.