the economic valuation of the proposed ... - Nature Uganda

describe three contexts in which such values might
arise. They are:
» someone may express a willingness to pay to
conserve the forest in order that they may make
some use of it in the future, e.g. for recreation.
This is known as an option value;
» someone may express a willingness to pay to
conserve a forest even though they make no
use of it, nor intend to. Their motive may be that
they wish their children or future generations to
be able to use it. This is a form of option value
for others’ benefit, sometimes called a bequest
value; and
» someone may express a willingness to pay
to conserve a forest even though they make
no use of it, nor intend to, nor intend it for
others’ use. They simply wish the forest to
exist. Motivations may vary, from some feeling
about the intrinsic value of the forest through
to notions of stewardship, religious or spiritual
value, the rights of other living things, etc. This
is known as existence value (Pearce & Pearce
2001).
While extremely difficult to determine the relevance
of the option and existence values is that they may
be ‘capturable’ through mechanisms such as debt-for-
nature swaps, official aid, donations to conservation
agencies, and pricing mechanisms (Pearce &Pearce
2001). According to Swanson & Kontoleon (2000), an
example of using a price is the suggestion that visitors
to China would have the option of paying $1 extra
for a panda stamp’ in their passports, along with their
visa, to indicate that they have donated towards panda
conservation in China.
Some option and existence value estimates for the
world’s tropical forests have been reported elsewhere
including: Sri Lankan forests (villagers, rural and urban
groups of use, bequest and existence values) by
Gunawardena et al (1999) using a contingent valuation
method (CVM); and US residents’ willingness to pay ‘one-
off’ payment of $21-31 per household for protection of 5
percent more of the world’s tropical rain forests (Kramer
&Mercer 1997). However, for purposes of arriving at a
relevant estimate for the impact area in Mabira three
studies are particularly pertinent. The first concerns use
of a willingness to pay study to estimate the implied
‘world’ willingness to pay for limited forest areas covered
by debt-for-nature swaps at $5/ha (Pearce 1996).
The second study is a similar one by the same author
on implied ‘world’ willingness to pay via the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF) of $2/ha.
The third study was estimates of option and existence
values revealed in a study of debt-for-nature swaps
and grant aid to Mexico forest conservation of $12/ha.
For the impact area in Mabira, the implied willingness
to pay via the GEF facility was chosen mainly because
it represents the most conservative estimate but also
because Uganda has been a beneficiary of several GEF
funding arrangements 9 .
From the foregoing, the unit option and existence
value for the Mabira impact area would be $2/ha,
which when multiplied by the 7186ha translates into
$14,372/annum (or UShs 24,432,400/year using 1 US$
= UShs 1,700) and a present value of about $119,767
(or UShs 203,603,900).
5.4. SUMMARY
The results of the foregoing analysis are summarised
in Table 21. The value of the timber growing stock in
the impact area (40 cm dbh+) was estimated at about
US$35.2 million. Irrespective of the use to which the
timber maybe put, it holds a stored carbon value of
US$3.7 million. For purposes of comparing the merits
and demerits of the proposed land conversion, the
stored carbon value will be ignored. It is assumed that the
growing timber stock will be converted into sawnwood
and used further in other processes or products (e.g.
9 Including part of the World Bank support to Uganda under
the Environment Management Capacity Building Project (EMCBP)
for NEMA; and the Protected Area Management and Sustainable Use
(PAMSU) whose beneficiaries include UWA, MTTI, Museums &
Antiquities and UWEC, among others.
The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011 45