In a previous life, I worked in conservation in a country not too far from here. By far the most fascinating concept I ever heard of when I was there was one called PES - Payment for Environmental Services. It had been developed by, among others, Dr. Patrick Karani (and helped along by Rest Kanju). In its simplest form, PES recognises that there are advantages gained by downstream communities that are only possible through the sacrifice of upstream communities. For example, we ask communities abutting national parks and other conservation areas to not engage in farming or ranching, so that the country as a whole will benefit from the conservation area and its attendant economic gains.
The same concept applies, especially, to water. Urban areas very rarely serve as the source of the water they consume. At the same time, though, there is a demand that upstream communities conserve water catchments, or alter agricultural patterns, in order that water flow to cities is not interrupted. I saw this first hand when I visited, as a child, my uncle's farm in Githunguri (the gent - Ken Gitari's father, died a fortnight ago). His farm sloped down to a dam, but we were not allowed to even go near that dam, on pain of arrest and punishment by Nairobi City Commission officials. The dam, you see, belonged to Nairobi, and local people were not allowed to draw much water, or to fish, or to engage in watersports, therein.
PES thus recognises all these dynamics. It creates a commercial market for upstream communities to be compensated, in monetary terms, for their sacrifice. The cost of this is borne by the downstream community. It creates an incentive for conservation and the husbanding of public resources, while at the same time making clear what the true cost of resources such as water and clean air are.
PES can be applied to many of Kenya's current conservation conundrums. Pay directly to communities to conserve the Mau Forest. Make direct cash payments to my Maasai relatives, and they would have no incentive to keep large herds next to the Mara or Amboseli. Pay Murang'a, Kiambu, Nyandarua and Kirinyaga County residents so that they can keep water sources pristine. It would mean that the tea farms around Kericho would factor the cost of these environmental payments into their operational budgets. A component of tourist fees would go directly to communities (and not the tokenism of their serving as watchmen and guides). Nairobians would pay significantly more for (purer, cleaner and a guaranteed supply of) water.
Everyone comes out a winner, and all this political talk stops.
Comments
Post a Comment