Download PDF - Anchor Environmental

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5-50 Average net private values per household per year from agriculture and natural resource use in the study area, and the amount of this value that is derived from the wetland (Pula, 2005) Panhandle West South West South East Central RAMSAR SITE Livestock 2692 8303 7675 3921 184 Crops 521 819 366 371 189 Natural resources 2734 2106 1443 1830 1866 Total 5948 11 228 9484 6122 2239 WETLAND Livestock 0 491 0 31 0 Crops 5 283 45 43 50 Natural resources 1815 1024 402 777 1021 Total 1821 1798 448 851 1071 It should be noted that there are also costs associated with the delta that have not been quantified explicitly, but which are accounted for in the above values. These include the transmission of disease and predation on livestock, and the loss of crops to wild animals (see Barnes 2006). The findings of this study corroborate largely with Rashem’s description of household livelihoods, with livestock providing by far the most important contribution to total and cash income. However, this does not correspond well to the perception of relative value of the households themselves (Figure 5-3). Households generally perceived the value of livestock to be slightly greater than that of crops, whereas the estimated value of livestock was far greater than that of crops. It may also be that the perception of the value of crops is overstated because of their fundamental importance in providing a means of survival. In reality, most farming is purely for subsistence purposes, yields are low and only about 10% of farmers are able to meet their household food needs (Bendsen & Meyer 2002). Figure 5-3 also shows perceived importance to household livelihoods of income from pensions, employment and other business not related to own agriculture and natural resources production. The latter were generally perceived to be more important than wetland resources. Panhandle 14% 26% 15% West 20% 15% South West 18% 11% 15% 14% 6% 15% 18% 10% 1% 11% 17% 21% 1% 5% 22% 25% South East 15% 15% Central 11% 19% Crops Livestock Upland 21% 8% Wetland 25% 21% Fish 4% 2% 22% 16% 15% Other business, jobs Pensions, compensation 6% Figure 5-3 Average household perception of the relative value of different sources of income in each zone. 54
6 INDIRECT USE VALUE 6.1 Indirect use values of wetlands Ecosystem functions may either generate outputs that form inputs into production processes elsewhere (in other words the benefits are realised off-site), or they result in engineering cost savings by performing functions that would otherwise require costly infrastructure or man-made processes. The output of these services is the indirect value of ecosystems, and is generally positively related to their health or integrity. The literature reflects a great degree of consensus about the types of indirect uses of wetlands and the importance of indirect uses as compared to other use components. The following indirect uses are commonly distinguished: 1. Flood attenuation and control, which reduces the risks of and damage caused by floods; 2. Groundwater recharge, where the wetland enhances groundwater recharge, which becomes available for abstraction; 3. Waste treatment and water purification, where the wetland absorbs pollution and waste and purifies the water. This use is also called nutrient cycling; 4. Support the micro climate around the wetland, which is essential for direct uses; 5. Sediment retention, where the wetland retains fertile sediment for the benefit of arable production and the capacity and lifetime of any downstream dam; 6. Habitat for species breeding and nursery. This use is closely linked to biodiversity maintenance; 7. Chemical cycling or carbon sequestration. Wetlands are carbon sinks and therefore contribute towards reducing carbon emissions; The estimation of indirect use values requires in-depth understanding of the ecosystem under review, and inadequate ecological knowledge is often a constraint for their estimate. In the absence of the required ecological knowledge, assumptions need to be made in order to estimate values. 6.2 Reported values of indirect uses of wetlands A brief review of the literature showed that indirect uses are less tangible and more difficult to value than direct uses. Many valuation studies omit indirect use values entirely or only cover a few of them. However, the available studies suggest that indirect use values are significant and often similar to or sometimes even larger than the direct use values. In southern Africa, the Zambezi River Basin study estimated the value of five indirect uses: flood attenuation, groundwater recharge, sediment retention, water purification and shore line protection (Turpie et al. 1999). Details of the estimated indirect use values are given in Table 6-1. The indirect use values are significant, but they are lower than the direct use values. Studies for other parts of the world also demonstrate the significance of indirect use values. In New Zealand, Waikato region, the value of ecosystem services was estimated to be $9.4 billion and equalled GDP. The indirect use values of wetlands were estimated to be $1.2 billion or $39 800/ha (the highest land value after estuaries). Water based ecosystems contributed twice the value of land based systems. The indirect uses of wetlands are; storm protection, flood control, habitat, nutrient recycling and waste treatment (Waikato Regional Council 2006 (www.ew.govt.nz). Pushpam (2001) finds that the value of ecological functions of a wetland (3250 ha of floodplains near New Delhi) was very high at Rs. Lakhs 1452 per annum or around Pula 210 per annum (direct and some indirect use values). Sathirathai (not dated) found that in southern Thailand conversion of mangrove wetlands into fish farms is financially viable but economically unviable because of the high indirect use values of mangroves. In addition, conversion raises equity concerns as only a few fish farmers benefit, and local communities carry the costs. 55
Page 1:
Economic value of the Cover Okavang
Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was f
Page 7 and 8:
# # # # # # # # # # typically quite
Page 9 and 10:
household demographics, the relativ
Page 11 and 12:
are harvested annually in the study
Page 13 and 14:
3. Wise use, based on Ramsar planni
Page 15 and 16:
5.4.5 Palms........................
Page 17 and 18:
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The O
Page 19 and 20: • inform economically efficient p
Page 21 and 22: 2 STUDY AREA 2.1 Location and exten
Page 23 and 24: Maunachira-Khwai) and thence into n
Page 25 and 26: 2.2.5 Soils The soils of the delta
Page 27 and 28: Figure 2-3 Land use categories for
Page 29 and 30: # # # # # # # # # # Shakawe # # # #
Page 31 and 32: 3 VALUATION FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLO
Page 33 and 34: other variable relevant for policy)
Page 35 and 36: 3.3.2.1 Focus group discussions and
Page 37 and 38: A total of 430 households from 12 v
Page 39 and 40: Income and Expenditure Survey, a ne
Page 41 and 42: WMAs pay a lease to the local gover
Page 43 and 44: Table 4-3 Estimated direct gross ou
Page 45 and 46: Table 5-3 Average numbers of dwelli
Page 47 and 48: Table 5-6. Average number and produ
Page 49 and 50: 5.3.2 Cropping Some 75% of househol
Page 51 and 52: N W SW SE C Table 5-15. Average val
Page 53 and 54: general consensus was that pottery
Page 55 and 56: Reed mats are used by a few househo
Page 57 and 58: price, and the resource generates s
Page 59 and 60: large quantities. This is a very im
Page 61 and 62: N W SW SE C Table 5-34. Estimated h
Page 63 and 64: Table 5-39 Relative proportion of d
Page 65 and 66: Mosepele (2005) recorded a fairly c
Page 67 and 68: The regulation of hunting stripped
Page 69: 5.5 The contribution of delta resou
Page 73 and 74: 6.3 Indirect use values in the Okav
Page 75 and 76: estimate the net carbon sink of Aus
Page 77 and 78: Valuable migratory wildlife species
Page 79 and 80: External wildlife uses In order to
Page 81 and 82: Sanitary facilities are poorer. Alm
Page 83 and 84: Service Table 6-12. Summary of esti
Page 85 and 86: 8 THE VALUE OF THE OKAVANGO DELTA I
Page 87 and 88: Table 8-2 Summary of the direct eco
Page 89 and 90: Ramsar site Wetland Rentals & royal
Page 91 and 92: The SAM can also provide an indicat
Page 93 and 94: 9.3 Description of selected scenari
Page 95 and 96: 9.3.4 Scenario 4. Wise use plus ups
Page 97 and 98: 9.4 Parameters under different scen
Page 99 and 100: 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 101 and 102: 11 REFERENCES Abril, A & Bucher, E.
Page 103 and 104: Mbaiwa, J.E. 2002. The socio-econom
Page 105 and 106: 12 GLOSSARY Abstraction - pumping w
Page 107 and 108: Profit - the difference between 'gr
Page 109 and 110: 14 APPENDIX 2. TOURISM OPERATIONS I
Page 111 and 112: 69 Wilderness Dawning 70 Wilmot Saf
Page 113 and 114: FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC MODEL - HIGH QUA
Page 121 and 122:
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC MODEL - HIGH QUA
Page 123 and 124:
16 APPENDIX 4. THE SAFARI HUNTING E
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Table A5.1 Structure of a Social Ac
Page 137 and 138:
The sum of this column is the total
Page 139:
generation and household expenditur
show all

Download PDF - Anchor Environmental

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?