IPSI Case Study Summary Sheet
Basic Information
Title of case study (should be concise and within approximately 25 words)
From payment to co-investment for ecosystem services: Stewardship and livelihood improvement in the Lake
Naivasha agro-production landscape, Kenya
Submitting IPSI member organization(s)World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

Other contributing organization(s) (IPSI members and/or non-members)
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, Egerton University

Author(s) and affiliation(s)Josephat Nyongesa (ICRAF, Egerton University); Beria Leimona (ICRAF)

Format of case study (manuscript or audiovisual) Manuscript
Language
EnglishKeywords (3-5 key concepts included in the case study)
Upland smallholders; Payment for ecosystem services; Agrobiodiversity; Watershed services; Lake Naivasha
Date of submission (or update, if this is an update of an existing case study)
19 February 2018
Web link (of the case study or lead organization if
available for more information)

Geographical Information
Country (where site(s) or activities described in the case study are located – can be multiple, or even “global”)
Kenya
Location(s) (within the country or countries – leave blank if specific location(s) cannot be identified)Nakuru County
Longitude/latitude or Google Maps link (if location is identified)
https://www.google.com/maps/@-0.7524093,36.3191308,10z?hl=en
Ecosystem(s) (please place an “x” in all appropriate boxes)
Forestx
Grassland
Agriculturalx
In-land waterx
CoastalDryland
Mountain
Urban/peri-urban
Other (Please specify)
Socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of the area (within 50 words)
The Lake Naivasha watershed is an important socio-ecological landscape in Kenya, where 46.3% of people in
the watershed is below the poverty line. The upstream area of the Lake Naivasha watershed hosts national
conservation areas surrounded by agricultural lands that support local farming communities’ livelihoods andhabitats for biodiversity. The downstream watershed has similarly rich biodiversity, ranging from Lake Naivasha
to the Oserian Wildlife Sanctuary and Hell’s Gate National Park.
Description of human-nature interactions in the area (land-use, traditional resource management practices etc. – within 50words)

Despite the area’s enormous economic potential, unsustainable land use practices mainly in the upper catchment havebeen a major source of ecosystem degradation. Unsustainable farming practices, such as farming on high gradient andriparian areas, overuse of agrochemicals, slash and burn of vegetation, and cultivation across contours, have led to low
farm productivity.

Contents
Status (“ongoing” or “completed”)
Completed
Period (MM/YY to MM/YY)
2008 - 2017
Rationale (why activities or policies described, or information shared in the case study are needed)
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) as a voluntary and performance-based policy instrument can influencepeople’s values and behaviours concerning ecosystem services (ES) and change their modes of livelihood
towards more sustainable agricultural practices. PES involves smallholder farmers as land managers who
provide ES to beneficiaries of ES through mutual voluntary contractual agreements.
Objectives (goals of activities or policies described, or of producing the case study)
Payment and co-investment for ES have been recognized as an incentive-based intervention that can serve as
an alternative policy to sustain socio-ecological production landscapes for ES provision and enhanced local
livelihoods. The Naivasha PES is a hybridized approach, combining compensation to the upstream ES managers
for the opportunities foregone and a collaborative co-investment PES model with private sector beneficiaries ofES in the landscape.
Activities and/or practices employed

The Lake Naivasha PES scheme had two implementation stages (2008-2011 and 2011-2017) involving theUpper Turasha and Wanjohi upstream WRUAs and one downstream Lake Naivasha Water Resource Users
Association (LANAWRUA) as legal entities. The NGOs handed over the PES project to the key stakeholders, theES buyers and sellers, to be organized under the full management and control of the WRUAs. Government
agencies continue with technical backstopping.
Results
Findings show that farmers have endorsed the PES scheme and adopted conservation agricultural technologies
to improve farm productivity, soil fertility, livelihoods, water quality and quantity and to support mitigation ofclimate change. Results further reveal the farmers’ willingness to continue participating in the PES scheme.
Lessons learned (factors in success or failure, challenges and opportunities)
The mutual upstream-downstream co-investment in watershed conservation contributes to ecosystem service
provisions and agro-biodiversity conservation, and more importantly, the livelihoods of the people including
their income, food, skills and knowledge.
Key messages
PES is a major natural resources-related policy driver for local smallholders to restore their farming landscapeand cultural wisdom in providing ecosystem services. The payment and co-investment for ES scheme provides
perceived and actual benefits for the smallholders by engaging diverse stakeholders.
Relationship to other IPSI activities (if the case study is related to any other IPSI collaborative activities, case studies, etc.)
This case study originally appeared in the Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review v. 3.
Funding (any relevant information about funding of activities or projects described in the case study)

Contributions to Global Agendas
CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets (https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/)
The table below shows based on the self-evaluation by author(s). ⚫ and ◼ indicates the “direct” or “indirect” contributions to theCBD’s Aichi Biodiversity Targets respectively to which the work described in this case study contributes to.

Strategic Goal A

Strategic Goal B⚫

⚫

Strategic Goal C

Strategic Goal D◼

Strategic Goal E◼

⚫

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs)
The table below shows based on the self-evaluation by author(s). ⚫ and ◼ indicates the “direct” or “indirect” contributions to theSDGs respectively to which the work described in this case study contributes to.
◼
⚫

⚫

◼

◼