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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

staff in coordination, management and security that translates to 202ha per person or380ha per forest ranger. This compares with 441 and 618 for Narok in theadministration of gazetted forests (Table 10). It is assumed that 30% of the salary isneeded to cover materials, daily subsistence, fuel and maintenance of vehicles andplants. Nakuru District is estimated to spend KES 1,127 per hectare per annum ascompared to Narok District KES 590 per hectare per annum in direct administrationforests excluding forest plantation and restoration expenditures.From the revenue base, Nakuru that generated over KES 86 million would be able tocover its direct administration and development costs if the current land underplantations is sustainably managed. The Trans Mara Forest block, the only gazettedforest under KFS in Narok District, generated insignificant revenue as compared to thedirect administrative costs. Therefore KFS was subsidizing its direct administrativeoperations from direct government payments or revenues generated from other forestblocks. The ability of the Masai Mau Forest to cover its direct costs is worse given thatthe Narok County Council did not generate any revenue from the forest in 2009 andcovered the costs through transfer of funds from other sources including the MaraGame Reserve. The Council has been actively recruiting and training forest rangers andmanagement staff to manage the Maasai Mau Forest.Table 10: The expenditure in direct administration costs of the forest blocksStaff category Nakuru Estimate costs/year(KES)Narok Estimate cost/year(KES)NumberZonal manager 1 960,000 1 960,000Assistant zonal manager 1 816,000 1 816,000Foresters (Station & Extension) 28 8,736,000 6 1,872,000Account assistant 1 432,000 1 432,000Clerical officer 1 2 456,000 1 456,000Senior clerical officer 1 228,000 2 456,000Typist 1 168,000 0 -Senior store man 2 552,000 0 -Subordinate staffs 94 12,408,000 11 1,452,000Drivers 4 52,000 0 -Plant operator 1 144,000 0Artisans 2 288,000 0 -Forest rangers 156 26,208,000 57 9,576,000TOTAL 294 51,448,000 80 16,020,000Lorry 1 0Landrovers 2 0Pick ups 8 3Tractor 1 1Motor bikes 13 352
From the above synthesis it is clear that cost–benefit analysis of the capacity of the forestblocks to generate revenues that cover the direct administrative and development costsis only possible for the Eastern Mau forest block due to the presence of matureplantations currently being harvested. It may not be possible to generate similarrevenues on an annual basis because the age distribution of mature plantation trees istilted to the presence of large portions under mature and young plantations. Onsupport infrastructure, we observed that the offices and staff houses in the foreststations were in very poor conditions and unfit for use. The only vehicles available werestationed in the zonal offices and few, if any, in the stations at the three forest blocks.For efficient administration and conservation of the three forests nothing short ofinfusion of large amounts of funds from sources other than revenue is recommendedsince their ability to generate sufficient revenue from non-destructive sources is limited.53
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 and 32: 3.1.2 Direct Use by the Ogiek Commu
Page 33 and 34: The upper catchment of the Mara Riv
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 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

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?