Download PDF - Anchor Environmental

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Value of water purification The value of purification of domestic effluent could be around P1 million. Assuming the same value for government and institution, the water purification value could be around P2 million excluding camps. Using a high cost estimate of water treatment in the camps of P20/m 3 and assuming that most effluent will end up in the Okavango, the purification value would not exceed P200 000. Even if all domestic effluent would filter into the wetland, the mitigation costs would be estimated at only P 4.0 million (assuming no irreversible damage was done to the wetland). Clearly, the water purification value is currently modest in comparison to other indirect use values. 6.3.6 Scientific and educational value The wetland and the ODRC are frequently used for research and educational purposes. The establishment of the Harry Oppenheimer Research Station (HOORC), the Wildlife Training Centre (WTC) and the large number of international research projects concentrated on the wetland demonstrate the research and information value of the delta. Moreover, a range of films have been produced about the delta. The scientific and educational value is estimated by valuing the research, filming and educational activities associated with the delta. These are gross values as they reflect the budget of the activities, and costs are not intermediate costs deducted. An inventory was made of the Okavango activities of HOORC, DWNP, ODMP, private sector and NGOs. The results are summarised in Table 6-11. These figures are conservative as no figures could be obtained for some of the activities. The annual scientific and educational value is estimated to be P24 million for the Ramsar site and P18 million for the wetland. Even without ODMP, the S & E value would be P17 million for the Ramsar site and P13 million for the wetland. The private sector (research and films) and NGOs account for the largest value. Table 6-11. Scientific and educational value (in P million) Category ODRC Wetland HOORC 6.4 6.2 DWNP 0.5 0.5 ODMP 6.9 5.7 Private/ NGOs 10.1 6.1 Total 24 18.5 Sources: HOORC Annual report 2004/05; ODMP inception report and data provided by researchers. Research is the most important component, accounting for around eighty percent of the estimated value. Education, including films, makes up the remainder. An effort was made to establish whether international or national funding was used. The inventory shows that around two-thirds of the funding is international and one third domestic. 6.4 Overall estimate of indirect use values The results of the estimated indirect use values are brought together in Table 6-12. The indirect use value of the wetland is estimated to be P199 million, compared to P230 million for the entire Ramsar site. Carbon sequestration accounts for the largest component of the indirect use value followed by wildlife refuge, scientific and educational value, groundwater recharge and water purification. The wetland is critical to the indirect use value, as can be seen from the much higher indirect use value: the average IUV per ha is about P69 for the wetland and P41 for the Ramsar site as a whole. 66
Service Table 6-12. Summary of estimated indirect use values for the Ramsar site and the wetland (2005 Pula) Wetland Rest of Ramsar site Whole Ramsar site Groundwater recharge P16 million 0 P16 million Carbon sequestration P86 million 72 P158 million Wildlife refuge P77 million 0 P77 million Water purification P2.2 million 0 P2.2 million Scientific and educational value P18 million 6 P24 million Total P199.2 million P31 million P230.2 million Area 28 782 km 2 26 765 km 2 55 547 km 2 Average per ha P69 P29 P41 The results show that carbon sequestration and wildlife refuge are the most valuable indirect uses accounting together for over eighty percent of the indirect use value of the wetland and Ramsar site. The scientific and educational value is significant, and exceeds that of groundwater recharge and water purification. The wetland and Ramsar site is a major focal point for research, documentaries and education. If one compares the indirect use value of the wetland with that of the surrounding semi-arid savannas within the Ramsar site, the extra or marginal indirect use value of the wetland is considerably lower. This is the ‘premium value’ of the delta. The marginal indirect use value of the wetland is more than half of its full IUV. Wildlife refuge, water purification and groundwater recharge are wetland functions, whereas carbon sequestration and scientific and educational value is provided by both wetland and upland areas. Given the many assumptions that were made and the use of ‘soft data’, it may be more informative for policy makers to know the range of indirect use values (Table 6-13). Table 6-13. Range of estimated indirect use values (Pula million 2005). Wetland Ramsar site Carbon sequestration 50 to 250 80 to 350 Groundwater recharge 12 to 20 12 to 20 Water purification 3 to 5 3 to 5 Wildlife refuge 60 to 80 30 to 45 Scientific and educational value 15 to 20 20 to 25 Total, incl. carbon sequestration P 140 to 375 million P 145 to 445 million Total, excl. carbon sequestration P 90 to 125 million P 65 to 95 million The estimated indirect use values are well below the values of average swamps and wetlands. According to Costanza (quoted in SIWI 2004) the average indirect use value of swamps is US$9 990/ ha compared to our result of US$12 for the wetland and US$ 8/ha for the Ramsar site. The estimated indirect use value per hectare is also considerably lower than that of the Zambezi 9 . The relatively low value can be attributed to two main factors: 1. Unlike in most wetlands, flood attenuation and sediment retention is of low importance in the wetland. Flood attenuation and sediment retention represent significant values in other studies; 2. The value of water purification and groundwater recharge is relatively small because of the low population density and human influence on most of the wetland: waste generation is small and so is groundwater abstraction. Interestingly, the indirect use values prove to be higher than the direct use value, if tourism is not considered. In contrast, the direct use values in the Zambezi valuation exceeded the indirect use values. The difference is caused by the relatively un-spoilt nature of the Okavango Delta associated with low levels of direct use, low population density and large distances to non-tourism markets. 9 This study used NPV, which is not directly comparable with annual values. 67
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 and 70: 5.5 The contribution of delta resou
Page 71 and 72: 6 INDIRECT USE VALUE 6.1 Indirect u
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: Sanitary facilities are poorer. Alm
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 123 and 124: 16 APPENDIX 4. THE SAFARI HUNTING E
Page 133 and 134:
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC MODEL - HIGH QUA
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?