Transcript Water

Supply side
Gerdien Meijerink
Ina Porras
Fred Muchena
Davis Onduru
Evelyn Kaari Njue
LEI
IIED
ETC
ETC
ETC
Background – collaboration of IIED, LEI, ETC

Socio-economic feasibility on the supply
side of green water credits:
How will upstream farmers benefit from a GWC
scheme,
 Which institutions can facilitate farmers’ supply
of environmental services and manage
payments
 What is the likelihood of farmer participation
under different design options of the scheme?

Elements of the study




Institutional and stakeholder mapping
Profile of potential suppliers
Upstream Costs and benefits of SWC
Farmer willingness to participate in GWC
Methdology: Field research in the upper Tana basin

Focus groups






The household survey



Existing institutions working in the area and farmers’ attitudes
towards them
Current practices in relation to SWC
Barriers to and opportunities for introducing SWC practices
Constraints in water use and supply
Current channels for access to micro-credit and cash transactions
Builds on LEI’s MONQI methodology (monitoring questionnaire
and associated software)
Indicators for household (livelihood) and farm management
Choice modelling element

Farmers’ preferences for different packages of compensation
involving different mixes and levels of payments, credit and in-kind
benefits such as technical assistance, community development
projects as well as different length of contracts.
Preliminary results

Household surveys
available:
MACHAKOS
20
NYERI
18
EMBU
10
MBEERE
1
Total
58

Selection of target areas





Farm households: suppliers
 In
general:
 High
education level
 Small farms (< 1 ha)
 High number of household members (7
per hh)
 Labour availability (4.6 persons per ha)
Farm households: suppliers

Area is characterized by great diversity:
Cropping systems (tea, coffee, maize-beans,
small-scale irrigation, livestock)
 Small plots are intercropped with 2 or more
crops
 Gross margins differ from 400 US$/ha to 2000
US$/ha
 Share of non-farm income (average 30-40%)
 Slopes of plots (flat to 47%)

Soil and water measures

Data only available for Kiambu, Mbeere and
Githungi (Total 80 plots)





Fanya yuu
Grass strips
None
68%
28%
4%
Level of maintenance?
Scope for extension and or improvement?
Institutional analysis

Credit organizations:



Most small farmers are not eligible for loans from or savings
accounts at banks
Revolving fund (group savings and credit)
Extension organizations:

Close relationships with Social Services (MoA)
• Group formation and capacity development, technical advice




Donor organisations (GTZ, IFAD)
Private sector (Bayer, pesticide sellers)
Export contractor
“Self help” groups


Farmers organize groups around an economic theme
Only successful if there is a clear economic incentive to join and
comply with rules
Trade-offs

Depends on the measures taken:
1.
Enhance productivity (through SWC)
•
2.
1.
2.
Will increase water use but reduce sedimentation
Lower productivity (reduce irrigation…)
Increase labour costs for investment &
maintenance of SWC structures
Need to achieve certain amount of produce:



Food security
Sales in local markets
Fulfill obligations of exporter/contractor
Incentives required


See SWC as a means to an end: economic
tangible benefit
“Payment” for service:





Training & information sharing (transitional cost)
Implements, tools
Revolving fund administered by self help groups
Option of no irrigation – compensation
payments??
Cooperation is key
Contracting, monitoring and payments
Thank you

End