The Dynamics of Implementing Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme in Lake Naivasha Basin Ecosystem, Kenya

  • Sammy Marathi Weru University of Nairobi
  • Stephen Anyango Obiero, PhD University of Nairobi
  • Richard Mbithi Mulwa, PhD University of Nairobi
Keywords: Ecosystems Goods and Services, Payment for Ecosystem Services, Watershed Protection, Policy, Land Degradation, Land Use, Climate Change Adaptation
Share Article:


Lake Naivasha Basin is located in Nakuru and Nyandarua counties in the Republic of Kenya. It is an important ecosystem to the economy of Kenya, consistently contributing upwards of 1% of the national Gross Domestic Production. However, this landscape is continuously and rapidly degrading due to intensive land use practices and land fragmentation in spite of the existence of various natural resource management policies in Kenya. The promotion of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) as a policy option to foster ecosystems sustainability by increasing the capacity of government authorities and local communities in Kenya to conserve riparian and forest ecosystems so as to reduce the vulnerability of dependent communities and production enterprises to the observed and anticipated effects of climate change is implied in the key environmental and natural resources policies in Kenya. We examine whether the Lake Naivasha Basin Payment for Ecosystem Services (LNB-PES) scheme embodied the critical characteristics of an effective PES mechanism and if it achieved the desired ecological and livelihood results. A total of 1,191 heads of households and 11 key informants were interviewed for this study. The study results indicate that the LNB-PES scheme had some functional and conceptual inadequacies although it achieved remarkable adoption and compliance by participating farmers. Based on these results, we recommend that a new PES scheme with a conditionalities enforcement mechanism be initiated for the LNB with a view to informing the mainstreaming of the concept of enforceable PES in the existing policy framework, the development of a national or basin-level PES policy, and, support watershed restoration and climate change adaptation through the provision of forest technical extension services to land owners for the creation of woodlots and other watershed protection initiatives at farm level.


Download data is not yet available.


Abdulahi, B. H. (1999). Surface water–groundwater interaction: Lake Naivasha, Kenya. MSc Thesis, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences Enschede, The Netherlands

Bac, D. V., Catacutan, D. C., & Ha, H. M. (2014). Importance of national policy and local interpretation in designing payment for forest environmental services scheme for the Ta Leng River basin in Northeast Vietnam. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 4(1), 39.

Becht, R. (2007). Environmental effects of the floricultural industry on the Lake Naivasha Basin. A report of the International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation

Boonstra, M. (2010). Sustaining and enlarging the Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) program in the Naivasha Catchment - An analysis for developing sustainability mechanisms to sustain the PWS program. Master’s Thesis, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University, Amsterdam

Börner, J., Marinho, E., & Wunder, S. (2015). Mixing carrots and sticks to conserve forests in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial probabilistic modeling approach. PloS one, 10(2), e0116846.

Chepyegon, C., & Kamiya, D. (2018). Challenges faced by the Kenya water sector management in improving water supply coverage. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 10(1), 85-105.

Coase, R. H. (2000). The problem of social cost (pp. 87-137). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

GoK (2012). Lake Naivasha Basin Integrated Management Plan 2012 – 2022. GoK.

Greiber, T. (Ed). (2009). Payments for ecosystem services. Legal and institutional frameworks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. xvi + 296 pp.

Harper, D., & Mavuti, K. (2004). Lake Naivasha, Kenya: Ecohydrology to guide the management of a tropical protected area. International Journal of Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 4(3), 287-305.

Hemel, R. (2013). Integrated Water Resources Action Plan (IWRAP), Lake Naivasha, Kenya: assessment of water governance capacity of WRMA sub-regional office Naivasha. Water Governance Center.

Hepworth, N., Agol, D., Von-Lehr, S., & O’Grady, K. (2011). AWS Kenya case study summary report: Exploring the value of water stewardship standards in Africa. Alliance for Water Stewardship/Marks & Spencer/ GIZ.

Iddon, C. & Boyd, N. (2022). Sample Size Calculation Overview & Methods.

IPBES. (2018). Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. Archer, L. E. Dziba, K. J. Mulongoy, M. A. Maoela, M. Walters, R. Biggs, M-C. Cormier-Salem, F. De Clerck, M. C. Diaw, A. E. Dunham, P. Failler, C. Gordon, K. A. Harhash, R. Kasisi, F. Kizito, W. D. Nyingi, N. Oguge, B. Osman-Elasha, L. C. Stringer, L. Tito de Morais, A. Assogbadjo, B. N. Egoh, M. W. Halmy, K. Heubach, A. Mensah, L. Pereira and N. Sitas (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Kenya Flower Council. (2017). Our Story. Kenya Flower Council.

Khanal, R. & Paudel, D. (2012). Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Schemes for Conserving Sardu Watershed Nepal: Existing Practices and Future Prospects. Technical Working Paper. IUCN Nepal

Kissinger, G. (2014). Case study: Imarisha Naivasha, Kenya. In: Shames, S. ed. Financing strategies for integrated landscape investment. Eco Agriculture Partners, on behalf of the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative. Washington DC

KNBS. (2016). Economic survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Herufi House, Nairobi, Kenya. available at

KNBS. (2017). Economic survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Herufi House, Nairobi, Kenya. available at

KNBS. (2019a). Economic survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Herufi House, Nairobi, Kenya. available at

KNBS. (2019b). Kenya population and housing census: Vol 1: population by county and sub-county. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Herufi House, Nairobi, Kenya

KNBS. (2020). Statistical abstract. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Herufi House, Nairobi, Kenya available at

Marshall, S. (2011). The water crisis in Kenya: Causes, effects and solutions. Global Majority E-Journal, 2(1), 31-45.

Mauerhofer, V., Hubacek, K., & Coleby, A. (2013). From polluter pays to provider gets: distribution of rights and costs under payments for ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 18(4).

Midrift Hurinet. (2022). Lake Naivasha Conflict Resolution. Midrift Hurinet.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. World Resource Institute

Moros, L., Corbera, E., Vélez, M. A., & Flechas, D. (2020). Pragmatic conservation: Discourses of payments for ecosystem services in Colombia. Geoforum, 108, 169-183.

Mugenya, K. O. (2012). Evaluating impact of payment for ecosystem services (PES) on household wealth and land tenure: a case of Kasigau Corridor Redd+ Project in Kenya. Master of Arts thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya.

Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological economics, 69(6), 1202-1208.

Namirembe, S. & Bernard, F. (2015). Private sector engagement in landscape-based approaches – lessons from cases in East Africa. In: Minang, P. A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O. E., Mbow, C., de Leeuw, J., & Catacutan, D. Eds. Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice, 307-315. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

Nordvander, P. (2014). Economic Development versus Biodiversity Conservation – An argumentation analysis of the natural resource management of Lake Naivasha, Kenya. MSc. Thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Perrot-Maître, D. (2006). The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Perfect PES Case? International Institute for Environment and Development.

Sommerville, M. M., Jones, J. P., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2009). A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology and society, 14(2).

The B. D. & Ngoc, H. B. (2008). Payments for Environmental Services in Vietnam: An Empirical Experiment in Sustainable Forest Management. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 25(1), 48-59. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)

The Katoomba Group. (2008). Payments for ecosystem services (PES) in East and Southern Africa: Assessing prospects & pathways forward. East & Southern Africa Katoomba Group

van de Sand, I., Mwangi, J. K., & Namirembe, S. (2014). Can payments for ecosystem services contribute to adaptation to climate change? Insights from a watershed in Kenya. Ecology and Society, 19(1).

Vittel. (2022). Our Commitments. Vittel.

World Economic Forum. (2022). The global risks report 2022, 17th Edition. World Economic Forum.

Wunder, S. (2006). Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecology and society, 11(2).

Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation biology, 21(1), 48-58.

Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological economics, 117, 234-243.

Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological economics, 65(4), 834-852.

28 February, 2023
How to Cite
Weru, S., Obiero, S., & Mulwa, R. (2023). The Dynamics of Implementing Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme in Lake Naivasha Basin Ecosystem, Kenya. East African Journal of Environment and Natural Resources, 6(1), 43-54.