Walia Special Edition on the Bale Mountains (2011) - Zoologische ...

Ecosystems are typically degraded and over exploited as a result of the common property
characteristics of their goods and services (Hardin 1968). Despite being valuable assets and
contributing to a country’s economy, ecosystem benefits are not adequately represented in markets.
This market failure now threatens global economic performance and a sustainable level of human
wellbeing (HM Treasury 2006). With many rural livelihoods heavily dependent on natural resources
(Bishop 1999) and therefore vulnerable to changes in access regimes, natural resource policy and
management strategies must adequately incorporate ecosystem values to avoid creating wealth
inequity or conflicts with poverty reduction strategies (Vedeld et al. 2004; OECD 2006). The
application of economic valuation can assess dependence on ecosystem goods and services, drawing
attention to the potential welfare losses of resource degradation. It also leads to better informed,
transparent resource management, with mechanisms to capture economic values, provide incentives
to conserve the resource base, or compensate for livelihood opportunities forgone.
Livelihoods are the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living (Forsyth
et al. 1998). In developing countries, rural livelihoods are largely agro-pastoral, complemented
by natural product harvesting. The contribution of ecosystem goods and services to livelihoods
are numerous and diverse but the valuation of environmental benefits is rare. Undertaken within
a sustainable livelihood context, few existing studies have conducted economic analysis of
crops (Dovie et al. 2003), livestock (Scoones 1990; Davies 2007), or their relative contributions
(Shackleton et al. 2001; Dovie et al. 2005). Motivated by the potentially substantial contribution
of forest products to rural households (Neumann and Hirsch 2000; Vedeld et al. 2004), a number
of studies have assessed this value. Potential forest incomes range from US$ 5 per hectare in the
Brazilian Amazon to US$ 422 in the Peruvian Amazon (Godoy and Lubowski 1992; Lampietti and
Dixon 1995). Other demand-led studies focus on specific goods; Mander et al. (2006) estimate the
marketed and non-marketed value of medicinal plants in Ethiopia close to US$ 50,000,000. While
forest product studies reporting possible per hectare values are of use in demonstrating ecosystem
value and as precursors for adding value to forest products, studies focusing on derived economic
values are more directly applicable to decision-making as a starting point from which to assess the
relative reliance on livelihood sources. In rural South Africa, annual income deriving from agropastoralism
and secondary woodland resources was found to be US$ 1660 per household with 27%
from crops, 40% from livestock, and 34% from woodland resources including, fuelwood, grass,
medicinal plants, construction materials and edible plants (Dovie et al. 2005). A Tanzanian study
finds similar contribution from crops (26%) and livestock (53%), but a high contribution from nonagricultural
income that excludes forest products (21%) and a much lower overall household income
of US$ 203 (Dercon 1998). A review undertaken by Vedeld et al. (2004) reports agriculture, including
livestock, as generating 37% of income, forests 22%, and off-farm activities 38%, confirming that
crop production, agriculture and forest production are principal rural livelihood sources. However,
the observed range in economic value (US$ 1.3 to US$ 3,460) between 54 cases over 17 countries,
illustrates the influence of the national environment and policy context on livelihood strategies.
<strong>Walia</strong>-<strong>Special</strong> <strong>Edition</strong> on the Bale Mountains 182