The document discusses the Green Water Credits (GWC) approach being implemented in Kenya's Upper Tana Basin to improve management of land and water resources. The GWC links upstream land users practicing soil and water conservation to downstream water users through incentive payments. It shows that improved management can significantly boost crop production and hydroelectric power while enhancing water quality and supply. Lessons indicate a need for integrated biophysical, socioeconomic, institutional and financial domains and linking stakeholders across sectors through a collaborative process.
2. Introduction: the Tana Basin
The Tana basin covers an area of
126,026 km2
= 22% of Kenya’s area
The basin has 34% of Kenyan
surface water, and 24% of Kenyan
groundwater
Tana River is the biggest and
longest river in Kenya, with a
length of 1,012 km
It originates from Mt. Kenya and
the Aberdares, and drains into the
Indian Ocean
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
3. Water demand: major users
The “Big Four” account for 75% of water use: KENGEN, Nairobi
City, NIB, Private irrigators
Other major water users are towns like Nyeri, Embu, Meru, Thika,
Garissa,
70% of Kenya’s electricity requirements are
produced in Tana. The five big dams produce
593 MW
80% of Nairobi’s fresh water comes from
Tana Basin (Ndakaini and Sasumua Dams)
The large irrigation schemes, i.e. Mwea,
Bura & Hola are located in Tana
16% of total surface water is abstracted
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
4. Water Quality & Quantity
The average annual flow in the Tana river is
5,000M m3,
The Tana supplies about 32% of total national
water resources
Mt. Kenya and Aberdares Range respectively
provide 49% and 44% of the total water flows in
the Tana
The remaining 7% is provided by Nyambene Hills
and other minor catchments.
Per capita water availability estimated at 520 m3
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
5. More water cannot be created, but:
Current land management practices
show wasting of rain water by :
• high rates of surface runoff
enhancing flash floods and erosion,
and
• large losses by evaporation of water
directly from bare soil (up to 60% of
rainfall!)
Blue water can be better managed
by good soil & water management:
• reducing runoff and erosion,
• more infiltration,
• less unproductive evaporation,
• more water for plant growth
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
6. Financing: Bridging the Incentive Gap
Farmers know the benefits
from green water WIN
management,
but this is too
little to cover
the costs/
labour
Green Water Credits
bridge the incentive gap:
Compensation by water users to
WIN water providers for specified water
management services
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
7. Legal and institutional arrangements
Multi-party agreements between upstream land managers
and downstream water users (e.g. hydropower, domestic
water, irrigators, government);
In Kenya arrangements between WRUA’s/WRMA, WSTF,
industrial and commercial users (KenGen, NWC, NIB);
The Green Water Credits Commercial Sustainable
Investment Package addresses:
- Production (primary agricultural production);
- Protection (soil and water conservation) and
- Profit (access to markets and marketing agricultural produce)
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
8. Costs and benefits sharing
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
9. 4 Integrated Work Domains
1. Biophysical
2. Socio-economic
3. Institutional
4. Financial
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
10. Bio-physical aspects
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
11. Kenya: Estimated increase in hydro-power from green water
management (50% cut in erosion/siltation)
Hydropower Generation
Scenario: upland_management, All months
b
c
d
e
f
g Masinga
200 b
c
d
e
f
g Kindaruma
b
c
d
e
f
g Kiambere
180 b
c
d
e
f
g Kamburu
b
c
d
e
f
g Gitaru
160
140
120 100 000 GJ =
100 51 000 barrels oil
80 = $ 5.8 million
60
40
20
0
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
Preparing For 2025 2028
16 G. Van Lynden
12. LESSONS LEARNT
Benefits
• Significant and simultaneous gains can be achieved in upstream (crop)
production and in downstream water supply and quality;
• Long-term economic revenues for the four main sectors (rainfed
agriculture, irrigation, domestic and hydropower) can be in the order of
US$ 8 million per year, even assuming implementation of SWC measures
in only 20-25% of the watershed.
• This is mainly thanks to reduced surface run-off and erosion, increased
groundwater recharge and sub-surface flow, and associated decreased
sediment content. It does not even include the economic benefits of
avoided damage because of reduced floods;
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
13. LESSONS LEARNT
• GWM practices can help to restore soil organic matter levels. This contributes to CO2
mitigation and enhances production;
• It presents a substantial potential financial source (in the order of 48-93 million US$
over a 20 year period), which may additionally sustain farmers’ need for investments
in soil and water management.
Institutions and regulations
• The GWC approach aims to make SWC work at basin scale within an upstream-
downstream relationship. It must therefore link up with related existing projects and
programmes.
• It is important to enhance the process of awareness creation about the upstream-
downstream interrelationship among national and international stakeholders by
continuing information dissemination on the value of green water flows and the
linkage between upstream soil and water management and downstream blue water.
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
14. LESSONS LEARNT
Institutions and regulations
• The GWC approach aims to make SWC work at basin scale within an upstream-downstream relationship.
It must therefore link up with related existing projects and programmes.
• It is important to enhance the process of awareness creation about the upstream-downstream
interrelationship among national and international stakeholders by continuing information dissemination on the
value of green water flows and the linkage between upstream soil and water management and downstream
blue water.
• It is essential to have an iterative process in connecting stakeholders, institutions, banks, and researchers in
workshops to discuss common interests and develop a country-specific GWC-approach by joint learning. An
example of the joint learning process is the replacement of the original narrow vision of cash payments to
farmers by a wider investment approach that takes into account production, protection, and profit over both
the short- and long-term.
• The Green Water Credit approach is a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process; local level implementers (like
WRMA in Kenya) and its catchment plans need to get recognition. The GWC plan must be developed by the
local land users. The community is the development unit in a catchment to get soil and land conservation
management improved: “the things are happening in the village”.
• At the closing workshop for the Detailed Project Design stage in Nyeri, Kenya, local stakeholders were well
represented by representatives of many Water Resource Users Associations (WRUAs), as well as some
major downstream institutions (KenGen, Nairobi Water, Equity bank, Water Services Trust Fund) .
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
15. LESSONS LEARNT
Financial Mechanism
• The GWC project in Kenya demonstrates that an acceptable and long-lasting improvement in soil
and water management by smallholders requires simultaneous investments in three components
that together form the Green Water Credits commercial sustainable investment package, the
GWC Climate Change Adaptation Fund :
- Production (primary agricultural production);
- Protection (soil and water conservation); and
- Profit (access to markets and marketing agricultural produce);
• A Green Water Credits CCA Fund is required for the investments in improved water and land
management. These investments upstream are supported by public and private funds. In
particular in the initial stage public and international funds will be required to bridge the time lag
between initial investments and the return of the benefits – especially downstream;
• In order to function properly and to guarantee transparency and trust between the involved
parties, a professional entity needs to be charged with managing the Green Water Credits Fund,
such as Equity Bank or the Water Services Trust Fund in Kenya. In Morocco, the Municipalities,
drinking water companies and/or ABHS would plough back user fees into such a fund.
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
16. LESSONS LEARNT
Livelihoods
Green water management will contribute to improved crop production by
reducing soil erosion and evaporation. This will not only make more water
available to the plants (green water) but also maintain soil fertility and organic
matter and reduce the required input of fertilisers otherwise – if applied at all –
flushed away with the surface runoff and eroded soil. All this leads to better
crops, hence enhanced food security and improved livelihoods.
Further implementation and achieving impact
The project has worked out three options (plus a variant of option 3) for
implementation of the GWC approach in Kenya. As yet, it is still unclear which
option will be effective to reach impact. Highly motivated stakeholders assisted
by knowledge brokers are essential for successful implementation.
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
17. CONCLUSIONS
GWC is a trans-disciplinary approach towards sustainable
utilization of land and water resources through a multi-
stakeholder process:
• Linking soil properties and land use with water flows
availability and quality;
• Linking upstream land users with downstream water users,
showing their interdependency,
• Linking downstream effects of soil and water conservation
with the investments made upstream.
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
22
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
18. Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
19. Results
Implemented in
• Kenya, Upper Tana Basin (Phase II,
2008 till Dec. 2011: Project Design),
IFAD/Swiss funds. New project
proposal (Dutch funds)
• Morocco: Sebou Basin (Phase I, 2009
till Dec. 2011: Proof of Concept), IFAD
funds
• Algeria (Project preparation), Dutch
funds
• China, (Starting July 2012), Dutch
funds
• S. Africa: shown serious interest
Int’l Annual UN-Water Zaragoza Conference 8-10 Jan. 2013
24
Preparing For The 2013 International Year Water Cooperation
G. Van Lynden
One or more downstream beneficiariesmight buy different amounts of GWCs, like buying a “share” of the upstream landscape & downstream impact. The contract would require annual payments (fixed; or a royalty% of profits) to maintain the share & impact.In return, they will be able to increase margins through cost saving, green image.Downstream users are not in a position to monitor/provide myriad contracts with upstream managers. But broker is.Broker must be legal body/entity (Bank, WUA, NGO, or the GWC Fund). Better if it already exists: lower investment cost than setting up a new one. Depends on local conditions what kind of body (may be more complex: require several players to act together?).Broker provides upstream benefits (loan, training, tenure security, hardware etc.), based on what kind of benefits in the given situation will trigger behavior change in land management practices.The model could also involve initial larger investment larger than the annual payment. It depends on the particulars of the PES contract how this becomes interesting for the downstream beneficiary.Possible problem: investing downstream beneficiaries may be hesitant to invest on their own, in case there are other major downstream players that don’t invest but also gain from the investments and land management practice changes. Need considerable lobbying/concerted efforts in this case.