Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Economic Assessment of Best Management Practices in the Mara River Basin: Toward Implementing Payment for Watershed Services

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Mara River in East Africa is currently experiencing poor water quality and increased fluctuations in seasonal flow. Improved water quality will require upstream farmers and foresters to adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs), which might cost them considerably. This study proposes a Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) mechanism. This is a market-based approach, whereby downstream water users would pay upstream watershed service providers towards the costs of BMPs implementation. This study analyzes the technical feasibility and economic viability of adapting selected BMPs and provides cost estimates of a PWS program. Using three criteria of water quality improvement, economic feasibility, and technical suitability, a detailed economic opportunity cost analysis revealed that farmers would indeed incur economic losses for all BMPs except no-till farming. We also developed a multi-criteria (demographic and environmental) methodology for identifying land areas to be placed under BMPs. More than 122,000 ha of land would require BMPs, including a moratorium on agriculture inside the Mau Forest Complex. The initial per hectare opportunity costs across the five highest ranked BMPs ranged from US$ 272 to US$ 926. Using these cost estimates, the paper draws some valuable policy and management insights on how to finance BMP implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antle JM, Valdivia RO (2005) Modeling the supply of environmental services from Agriculture. Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University. http://www.tradeoffs.montana.edu/pdf/mdapproach.pdf

  • Artita KS, Kaini P, Nicklow JW (2013) Examining the possibilities: generating alternative watershed-scale BMP designs with evolutionary algorithms. Water Resour Manag 27:3849–3863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atela J, Denich M, Kaguamba R, Kibwage J (2012) Agricultural land allocation in small farms around Maasai Mau forest, Kenya and the implications on carbon stock. J Ecol Nat Environ 4:98--108

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger A, Hansen KD, Fowler R (2005) Constraints limiting smallholder adoption of conservation agriculture: some observations based on three South African smallholder-oriented Programmes. ARC Grain crops institute, Postbag X 9059, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa

  • Bryan BA, Kandulu JM (2010) Designing a policy mix and sequence for mitigating agricultural non-point source pollution in a water supply catchment. Water Resour Manag 25:875–892

    Google Scholar 

  • Clint H, Nancy S, Armando L, Sharon R (2002) Agricultural best management practices for the Canadian Prairies. Sponsored by Canada-Saskatchewan Agri-Food Innovation Fund, File No. 6672-1-12-1-18

  • Cunningham L (2003) Idaho Agricultural Best Management Practices. A field guide for evaluating BMP effectiveness. Soil Conservation Commission, Idaho

  • Ekboir J, Boa K, Daankyi AA (2002) Impact of no-till technologies in Ghana. Economics Program Paper 02–01, Mexico

  • Gereta EJ (2004) The importance of water quality and quantity in the tropical systems, Tanzania. Tanzania National parks, Dodoma Road, P.O Box 3134, Arusha, Tanzania

  • Hilliard C, Scott N, Lessa A, Reedyk S (2002) Agricultural best management practices for the Canadian Prairies. Sponsored by Canada-Saskatchewan Agri-Food Innovation Fund, File No. 6672-1-12-1-18. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration Publication Report

  • Hoffman CM, Melesse AM, McClain EM (2011) Geospatial mapping and analysis of water availability—demand use within the Mara River Basin. Florida International University, Miami, Website: www.globalwaters.net

    Google Scholar 

  • Karin HM, Guthiga P, Mburu J (2008) Factors influencing local communities' satisfaction levels with different forest management approaches of Kakamega forest, Kenya. Centre for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex Str. 3, 53113, Bonn, Germany

  • Kenya Bureau of Statistics (2009) Census Report. Available at http://www.knbs.or.ke/population.php

  • Kenya Forests Working Group (2004) Changes in forest cover in Kenya’s five “water towers” 2000–2003. East African Wild Life Society, P.O Box 47146-00100, Riara Road-Kilimani, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Kenya Forests Working Group (2005) Maasai Mau status report 2005. East African Wild Life Society, P.O Box 47146-00100, Riara Road-Kilimani, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Kenya Forests Working Group (2006) Changes in forest cover in Kenya’s five “water towers” 2003–2005. East African Wild Life Society, P.O Box 47146-00100, Riara Road-Kilimani, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Li Y, LeDoux CB, Wang J (2006) An economic assessment of implementing streamside management zones in central Appalachian hardwood forests. West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experimental Station. Forest Products Society

  • Mati BM, Mutie S, Home P, Mtalo F, Gadain H (2005) Land use changes in the trans-boundary Mara Basin: a threat to pristine wildlife sanctuaries in East Africa. I- Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya. II—University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. III—United States Geological Survey, FEWS NET, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Nicholson M (2001) Restore the Earth Project Trees for life. The Park Findhorn Bay, Forres IV36 3TZ, Scotland

  • Nyangena W, Kohlin G (2008) Estimating returns to soil and water conservation investments: an application to crop yield in Kenya. Environment for Development, Discussion Paper Series 08-32. Kenya Institute for Policy and Public Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), University of Nairobi, Kenya

  • Pattanayak SK (2004) “Valuing watershed services: concepts and empirics from Southeast Asia.” Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1): 171-184

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis N, Sydness GS, Barton DN (2007) Feasibility of payment for watershed services. Part 1: a methodological review and survey of experiences in India and Asia. The Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Website: www.niva.no. ISBN 978-82-577-5128-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocha EO, Calijuri ML, Santiago AF, Assis LC, Alves GS (2012) The contribution of conservation practices in reducing runoff, soil loss, and transport of nutrients at the watershed level. Water Resour Manag 26:3831–3852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash CL, Stagl S, Getzner M (2005) Exploring alternatives for environmental valuation. London. Routledge

  • Sun L, Lu W, Yang Q, Martin JD, Li D (2013) Ecological compensation estimation of soil and water conservation based on cost-benefit analysis. Water Resour Manag 27:2709–2727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinkels RA, Franzel S, Shepherd KD, Olhsson E, Ndifa JK (1996) The economics of short rotation improved fallows: evidence from areas of high population density in Western Kenya. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamubula I, Sinden JA (1999) Sustainability and economic efficiency of agroforestry systems in Embu, Kenya: An application of environmental modeling. Department of Agriculture, Institute of Teacher Education, Kyambogo, Makere University, Kampala, Uganda. Available online at www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft. Accessed 19 Jan 2013

  • Tenge AJ, De Graaff J, Hella JP (2005) Financial efficiency of major soil and water conservation measures in West Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Department of Agricultural Economics, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O Box 3003, Morogoro, Tanzania. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

  • Tuppad P, Kannan N, Srinivasan R, Rossi CG, Arnold JG (2010) Simulation of agricultural management alternatives for watershed protection. Water Resour Manag 24:3115–3144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2012) Fifth Global Environment Outlook: GEO5 Environment for the future we want. United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Found at http://www.geo/geo/pdfs/geo5/GEO5_report_full_en.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014

  • UNFAO (2008) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization; Forest and Water. A thematic study prepared in the framework of Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. Information Division, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy

  • World Wildlife Fund (2005) Mara River basin Integrated Water Resources Program, Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Programme Office. WWF—ESARPO, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • World Wildlife Fund (2006) Payments for environmental services an equitable approach to reducing poverty and conserving nature. WWF—International, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2005) Payment for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. By the Center for International Forest Research. ISSN 0854-9818@2005. Website: http://cifor.cgiar.org

  • Wunder S (2008) Payment for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Environment and Development Economics. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom

  • Wunder S, Southgate D (2007) Paying for watershed services in Latin America: a review of current initiatives. Sustainable Agriculture and natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program. Office of International Research, Education, and Development (OIRED), Virginia Tech. Available online at. www.oired.vt.edu

  • Zaag PV (2007) Asymmetry and equity in water resources management; critical institutional issues for Southern Africa. Water Resour Manag 21:1993–2004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible through Global Water for Sustainability (GLOWS) by a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Cooperative Agreement No. EPP-A-00-04-00015-00). Our appreciation also to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Programme Office, and their field offices in Nakuru and Narok for their time and support while traveling in the Mara River Basin. We would like to thank Mr. John Serut, the chair of the Mara River Basin Stakeholders Committee for all his support during the survey. Thank you to the farmers in the Mara River Basin and the anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments. Himadri Biswas and Daniel Gann assisted us with generating the study area map.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    George Atisa

  2. Department of Earth and Environment, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Mahadev G. Bhat

  3. UNESCO-IHE Institute of Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands

    Michael E. McClain

Authors
  1. George Atisa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahadev G. Bhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael E. McClain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahadev G. Bhat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Atisa, G., Bhat, M.G. & McClain, M.E. Economic Assessment of Best Management Practices in the Mara River Basin: Toward Implementing Payment for Watershed Services. Water Resour Manage 28, 1751–1766 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0585-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0585-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation