Payment For Environmental Services: Land Use Practices Influence On Livelihood- Environment Nexus And Environmental Services Value In Lake Naivasha Watershed, Kenya

ABSTRACT

Nature provides ecosystem services (ESs) which benefit humans for socio-economic development. However, ecosystems degradation has impacted negatively on people’s livelihood leading to increasing global concern to rethink on sustainable conservation-livelihood mechanisms. Lake Naivasha basin has been undergoing ecosystem degradation threatening ecological functional capacity to provide ESs. As a result, it has increased food insecurity, poverty levels, decreased income and destabilized ESs-dependent commercial investments. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme was initiated by the Non-Governmental Organizations (WWF and CARE-Kenya) in partnership with government agencies, local communities and private sector. The purpose was to rehabilitate and manage Lake Naivasha watershed through financial incentives for smallholder farmers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of PES on farmer’s livelihoods and environment. The study covered 2 community Water Resource Users Associations (Upper Turasha Kinja and Wanjohi) in Nyandarua South, Kinangop and Kipipiri sub-counties of Nyandarua County. Primary data was collected from selected PES households using semi-structured questionnaires. Total of 200 farmers were randomly sampled from 9 purposively selected PES zones. Data was analyzed through qualitative and quantitative description using computer generated STATA and SPSS softwares. Results revealed over 93 percent of farmers were influenced to practice PES overall and 61.5 percent preferred particular PES practices. Average monthly household gross on-farm income without PES was KES 6,891.96 but increased to KES. 11,011.48 with PES interventions. Specifically, monthly revenue increased by KES 3, 333.44 for crop and KES 3, 085.60 for livestock enterprises. Average Willingness to Accept Pay (WTA) to conserve 1 acre of land was KES. 21,902.50 annually. The lowest and highest annual WTA for specific PES farm practices were KES. 7,428.00 for grass strips and KES. 21,847.50 for fallowing. The significant determinants of WTA were gender, age, farm size, acquired skills/knowledge, land use system, conservation interest, income and education. Consequently, 84 percent and 99 percent of farmers perceived that PES improved water quality and soil fertility correspondingly. By inference, findings demonstrate PES as a successful policy tool to enhance environmental conservation and livelihood improvement nexus for sustainable agro-ecosystem management and provision of ESs. There’s need to institutionalize PES as national integrated natural resource management policy to conserve ecosystems for livelihoods benefits through developed market for ESs considering household socio-economic WTA determinants. Findings are useful to policy, development and conservation stakeholders.