Connecting healthy catchments, livelihoods and sustainable financing.
Who pays to protect the landscapes that supply our water? And how can the people caring for those landscapes share in the benefits?
These questions sit at the heart of “Conservation as a Business.” This edition explores how environmental stewardship can support livelihoods, attract sustained investment and protect the resources on which communities and businesses depend.
In the Kibos-Kajulu catchment, communities across county boundaries share a connected water system. Activities upstream can affect water resources and livelihoods downstream, making cooperation essential.
CESPAD’s published Kajulu case study describes work with Kajulu Community Forest Association and other partners to connect tree planting, nursery development, beekeeping and catchment planning.
Beekeeping offers a practical connection between forest stewardship and economic opportunity. Healthy vegetation can support bee forage, while honey production could give communities an additional reason to protect the landscape. Dependable income also requires hive management, market access and an understanding of operating costs.
The published account documents support for beekeeping, but does not confirm completed honey harvests or earnings. It also describes an emerging payments for ecosystem services process involving water-sector and business stakeholders, without confirming that conservation payments have begun.
Read the Kajulu case study →PES are voluntary arrangements that reward land managers or communities for maintaining or improving specified environmental services under agreed conditions. Beneficiaries, public institutions acting on their behalf, or both may provide funding.
Water funds bring partners and resources together to support catchment protection over time. They may finance restoration and technical assistance without making direct PES payments.
Neither mechanism automatically guarantees success. Reliable funding, community participation and credible evidence of results remain essential. Read OECD guidance →
The following examples illustrate approaches to conservation finance and catchment management. They draw on programme authorities and implementing organisations; they are not an independent comparative evaluation.
The Upper Tana-Nairobi Water Fund’s business case examined how upstream land-management investment could benefit agriculture, water supply and hydropower. It illustrates a starting point: identify the activities needed, who would benefit and why they might contribute. Its modelled benefits are projections, rather than guaranteed returns.
Source: Water Fund business case →FONAG was established in 2000 through cooperation between Quito’s water utility and The Nature Conservancy. It supports protection and restoration of landscapes supplying the city’s water. The model highlights coordination and continued investment beyond an individual project.
Source: The Nature Conservancy →Costa Rica’s programme financially recognises forest owners and holders for environmental services, including water protection, biodiversity and carbon storage. A legally designated share of fuel-tax revenue helps finance it, illustrating the role of public policy and established funding.
Source: FONAFIFO →Brazil’s Water Producer programme encourages soil and water conservation through local partnerships, preferably linked to payments for environmental services. Activities include protecting springs, restoring riverside vegetation and reducing erosion.
Source: Brazil’s National Water Agency →The Greater Cape Town Water Fund supports removal of invasive trees that use more water than the native vegetation they replace. The approach shows why ecological evidence and continued maintenance matter when selecting catchment interventions.
Source: The Nature Conservancy →Our synthesis of these examples suggests practical questions to ask when developing conservation-financing initiatives in Kenya.
Identify communities, water users, businesses and public institutions connected to the catchment.
Agree realistic funding commitments and the costs of sustaining the work.
Provide clear terms, meaningful participation and accessible ways to raise concerns.
Distinguish completed activities from changes in water conditions, ecosystem health and livelihoods.
Plan for continued care, technical support and monitoring after the initial intervention.
CESPAD’s published catchment-planning story describes how communities, Water Resource Users Associations, public agencies and county governments identified priorities and responsibilities together.
The account reports that priorities identified in Kasikeu contributed to county investment in a sand dam along the Kaluku River. It illustrates how participatory planning can connect local needs with public investment. Read the catchment-planning story →
Making conservation economically viable requires fair partnerships, sustained resources and evidence that investment benefits people and ecosystems. CESPAD invites communities, county governments, water users, businesses and development partners to explore that opportunity together.
Connect with CESPAD →About this edition: Based on CESPAD’s public case studies and selected international programme sources. Proposed livelihood and financing benefits are distinguished from documented activities. Photographs are from CESPAD’s existing website gallery and are captioned according to that context. This website edition has not been emailed to subscribers.