Total Economic Value of Maasai Mau, Trans Mara and Eastern Mau ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

wood in 2009 valued at KES 86 million (US$ 1,146,667) (Table 4). The projected annualrevenue generation from plantations in the forest reserve is estimated on theassumption that the 3,000ha currently under plantation will be sustainably managed ona 25-year rotation. Thus 120ha will be available for harvesting annually on the assumedfinal stem density of 420 per hectare each yielding 1.2m 3 of roundwood. The EasternMau Forest Reserve can produce an estimated stump volume of 60,000m 3 . At thecurrent price of KES 2,800/m 3 , this would generate an annual revenue of KES 168million (US$ 2.24 million).The Trans Mara forest comprises natural vegetation that does not allow any loggingconcession to be made. According to the Narok Zonal Forest Office the Trans MaraForest Reserve is a protected forest with minimal extraction allowed, mostly forsubsistence firewood collection. Thus, the revenue generation from Trans Mara forestby KFS is minimal. The revenue generated by KFS in 2009 was KES 215,050 (US$ 2,868)with firewood and confiscated charcoal accounting for 42% each.According to the Narok County Council Office there is no legal extraction of treeproducts from the Maasai Mau Forest Reserve. Most of the forest is extensivelyencroached and no record of any products being harvested is available. However, theforest is undergoing serious logging and charcoal burning, and is heavily grazed bylivestock. It was not possible to collect any data on extraction rates for various productsfrom the Maasai Mau Forest Reserve because of the hostility of suspicious settlers.The revenue generated by the forest blocks in 2009 is KES 89,502,085 (US$ 1,193,361)with revenue from plantations accounting for 96% of this amount.Table 4: Roundwood production from East Mau Forest in 2009Station/quantity Volume produced (m 3 ) Value (KES)Kiptunga 17,313.04 43,282,602Baraget 16,404.26 41,010,638Logman 682.44 1,706,100Total 34,399.74 85,999,3403.2 Downstream Values of the Forest Blocks32
The upper catchment of the Mara River Basin comprises a section characterized bylarge-scale agricultural farms, some of which are irrigated using water from the river. Inthe lower section, the Mara River runs through the open savannah grassland protectedby the Maasai Mara Reserve on the Kenyan side and the Serengeti National Park on theTanzanian side. Just before the Mara River drains into Lake Victoria, there is a floodplain. The downstream value of the forests results principally from the support to thewildlife that attracts foreign currency and incomes to the country through tourism,irrigated agriculture and livestock support. The value of water to wildlife and thelodges has been captured through the value of the catchment to tourism.The Mara River Basin is critical for the supply of water to populations in Kenya andTanzania. The total consumptive water demand in the basin is estimated at 24 millioncubic metres per year where large-scale irrigation accounts for 51%, human domesticdemand 20% and livestock 17% (Hoffman, 2007). Using these proportions, 6,505,175m 3of water are required to support livestock in the area. Hoffman (2007) reported that thepopulation living in the Kenyan and Tanzanian part of the Mara River Basin was556,497 and 282,204 people respectively. Using proportional basis the demand for waterfor households in the basin is 4.8 million cubic metres.A single borehole can provide water for 300 persons (IUCN, 2002). The total cost ofconstructing boreholes is assumed to be uniform in all areas of the river basin andinclude the cost of hydrological survey, borehole drilling, and annual boreholemaintenance and permit charges. The annual cost of drilling a borehole was estimatedas an average of the cost of drilling boreholes in six districts of the Mt. Elgon region(Obiri et al., 2009) as US$ 21,185. Annual borehole maintenance cost was US$ 1,476. Theboreholes would fall under class D type for licensing and thus the owners must pay theWater Resource Management Authority an additional US$ 533 as assessment cost andUS$ 667 as permit charges for using the water. Using the replacement cost method, thelifespan of a borehole is 30 years (www.nationaldriller.com) and the cost incurred asreplacement cost of boreholes is US$ 1,237,984. Thus the total cost of boreholes tosupply water for domestic purposes in the Mara River Basin was estimated atUS$ 4,733,674 (Table 5).During the dry season, there is hardly any water in the river basin. Up to 30% of theanimals can be lost without the water provided by the Mara River. Indeed, in 2000pastoralists lost 35% of their cattle due to drought (Ottichilo et al., 2001; Reid et al.,2003). The demand for water by livestock was estimated based on the Hoffman (2007)study at 4.08 million cubic metres. With a daily demand of 40 litres of water per cattle33
Page 1 and 2: 2011THE TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUEOF MAAS
Page 3: Executive SummaryThe Mau Forest Com
Page 9 and 10: 6.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURR
Page 11 and 12: Table 4: Roundwood production from
Page 13 and 14: • Widespread perception on resour
Page 15 and 16: Economic valuation of forest goods
Page 17 and 18: 2.0 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING ECONOMIC
Page 19 and 20: 2.1.3 Prices of SubstitutesThe pric
Page 21 and 22: with interest ranging from the impa
Page 23 and 24: watershed protection functions are
Page 25 and 26: Nakuru. The south-western watershed
Page 27 and 28: 3.0 THE TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF THR
Page 29 and 30: Unit price 100 100 15,700 1,000 1,0
Page 31: 3.1.2 Direct Use by the Ogiek Commu
Page 35 and 36: the river. Because we did not obtai
Page 37 and 38: The role of the Mara Basin in touri
Page 39: The value of the carbon stock outli
Page 42 and 43: 4.0 ASSESSING THE DISTRIBUTION OF T
Page 44 and 45: We obtained an estimated number of
Page 46 and 47: Figure 4: The distribution of the i
Page 48 and 49: Figure 5: Distribution of benefits
Page 50 and 51: For the local communities living ne
Page 52 and 53: staff in coordination, management a
Page 54 and 55: 6.0 POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURR
Page 56 and 57: The Mau forest contains a rich dive
Page 58 and 59: domestic and industrial uses can be
Page 60 and 61: Table 11: The impacts of current st
Page 62 and 63: 8. Resettling the Ogiek community a
Page 64 and 65: economic conditions exist for local
Page 66 and 67: Innovative conservation incentives
Page 68 and 69: to restrict or forbid future develo
Page 70 and 71: practices would be best for some ke
Page 72 and 73: egimes of the forests. In order to
Page 74 and 75: Hodgson, G., and J. A. Dixon. 1988.
Page 76 and 77: Services in the Mara River Basin. G
Page 78 and 79: national income and livelihood of p
Page 80 and 81: 7. Duration of AssignmentThe consul
Page 82 and 83:
for 40 litres of water equivalent t
Page 84 and 85:
Appendix 3: The checklist of data c
Page 86 and 87:
TanzaniaConservation,SUA NationalAg
Page 88 and 89:
Appendix 6: Relationship between to
Page 90 and 91:
Appendix 8: Rapid result questionna
Page 92 and 93:
Appendix 10: Categorization of stak
Page 94 and 95:
Appendix 12: The Mara River Basin94
Page 96:
Appendix 14: Valuation approaches f
show all

Total Economic Value of Maasai Mau, Trans Mara and Eastern Mau ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?