evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS) — Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania

Tanzania · Morogoro · See the Tanzania profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 90% 27/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A 2008–2012 CARE/WWF pilot paid upstream farmers in Tanzania's Uluguru Mountains — source of 90% of Dar es Salaam's water — to adopt terracing and agroforestry on 2,240 hectares, funded by $300,000 from the city water utility and Coca-Cola Kwanza.

2,240 hectares
Farmland under sustainable land-management practices (2008-2012)
100,000 USD over 4 years
Water utility (DAWASCO) funding commitment (2008-2012)
200,000 USD over 4 years
Coca-Cola Kwanza funding commitment (2008-2012)
~20 %
EPWS share of participating household cash income (study period)
11 USD
Average EPWS payment per farmer (study period)
77 % (vs 16% of non-participants)
Participants receiving training (study period)
116 participants / 117 non-participants households
Study sample size
Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS) — Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
CARE Tanzania / WWF Tanzania, with DAWASCO and Coca-Cola Kwanza Ltd
Period
2008–2012
Keywords
watershed services, smallholder agriculture, water utility, corporate co-financing

Context

The Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania's Morogoro region are the source of the Ruvu River, which supplies roughly 90% of Dar es Salaam's water.

Objectives

Reduce soil erosion and nutrient loss into the river by paying upstream farmers to adopt sustainable land-management practices.

Activities

Between 2008 and 2012, CARE and WWF piloted an Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS) scheme in the Kibungo Juu ward, paying farmers in five villages to adopt agroforestry, fanya juu and bench terracing across roughly 2,240 hectares of farmland. The Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Corporation (DAWASCO) and Coca-Cola Kwanza Ltd acted as service buyers, committing US$100,000 and US$200,000 respectively over four years.

Results

A peer-reviewed quasi-experimental evaluation (propensity-score matching across 116 participants and 117 non-participants) found EPWS payments contributed about 20% of participating households' cash income (averaging US$11 per farmer), alongside significant indirect gains in crop yields, livestock ownership and land values; 77% of participants received training versus 16% of non-participants.

Conclusions

The same study found that rising land values after terracing made land less accessible to the landless poor. A post-pilot governance handover to a multi-stakeholder steering committee for scale-up was documented as an intention, but independently-verified evidence that this expansion or continuation actually occurred beyond the original pilot was not found.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — USD 300,000 total over four years (USD 100,000 from DAWASCO, USD 200,000 from Coca-Cola Kwanza), plus CARE/WWF implementation costs.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Piloted 2008-2012; the peer-reviewed evaluation used data from this period; no confirmed continuation was found post-2012.
Staffing & skills
CARE Tanzania, WWF Tanzania, DAWASCO (service buyer), Coca-Cola Kwanza Ltd (service buyer)

Conditions for success

  • Direct linkage between downstream water users (utility + bottler) and upstream farmer payments
  • Peer-reviewed impact evaluation design (propensity-score matching) built into the pilot
  • Training component paired with payments (77% of participants trained)

Common failure modes

  • Rising land values after terracing reduced land accessibility for the landless poor
  • No independently verified evidence that the intended post-pilot governance handover or scale-up actually occurred
  • Pilot scale (5 villages, 4 years) with no confirmed continuation limits durability

Where it fits

Governance type
NGO-brokered watershed PES with public utility + private co-buyer
Scale
5 villages, ~2,240 ha catchment
Income level
low-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes Philanthropic / foundation funding Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful