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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS SCOUL Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited VAT Value Added Tax PAYE Pay as You Earn CFR Central Forest Reserve UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change NGO Non-Governmental Organisation CHOGM Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting PFE Permanent Forest Estate CFR Central Forest Reserve CITES Convention on International Trade of Flora and Fauna TEV Total Economic Value NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product TCM Travel Cost Method CVM Contingent Valuation Method PV Present Value NFA National Forestry Authority FGD Focus Group Discussion RIL Reduced Impact Logging MPA Management Plan Area FD Forest Department PA Protected Area THF Tropical High Forest WTP Willingness To Pay GEF Global Environment Facility Vi The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Government of Uganda received and tabled for discussion a proposal to degazette and change the land use of part of Mabira Central Forest Reserve to sugar cane production. The proposal proved very contentious and resulted in civil unrest and a raging debate on the merits and demerits of the proposed land use change. Those in favour of degazettement cited the numerous direct, indirect and multiplier economic impacts or benefits the change in land use will bring to Uganda. Those for conservation, on the other hand, cited the need to preserve the rich biodiversity of the forest, and the need to respect both regional and international agreements on the conservation of forests and the biodiversity therein. They also cited the public trust doctrine that charges government to manage and maintain forestry resources on behalf of the citizens of Uganda. Whereas those in favour of degazettement have been quite eloquent in enumerating the economic benefits of sugarcane growing, the pro-conservation groups have largely focused on the physical side of the argument and presented little economic data to support their arguments. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the economic implications of the two competing land use options. To undertake the assessment, a Total Economic Value (TEV) framework was applied. This was in view of the fact that forests are complex ecosystems that generate a range of goods and services. The TEV framework is able to account for both use and non-use values of the forest and elaborate them into direct and indirect use values, option, bequest and existence values. Lack of knowledge and awareness of the total value of the goods and services provided by forests previously obscured the ecological and social impact of the conversion of forests into other land uses. The TEV framework helps us to understand the extent to which those who benefit from the forest or its conversion also bear the associated management costs or opportunities foregone. In undertaking this study, the biophysical attributes of Mabira CFR in general and the area of impact in particular were reviewed. The most current and relevant inventory data available for the production zone of Mabira CFR was used. The economics of sugarcane production in Uganda and globally was also reviewed. Additional data and information were derived from an extensive survey of available literature. All this background data and information were then used to derive the total economic value of the impact area within Mabira CFR and compare it with the potential economic yield of growing sugarcane. The analysis concluded that the benefits of conserving Mabira CFR far exceeded those of sugarcane growing. The respective total economic value of conservation was estimated at US$ 45.1 compared to US$ 29.9 million which was the net present value of the annual benefits from sugar cane growing. The study therefore concluded that maintaining Mabira Central Forest Reserve under its current land use constituted a better option than sugarcane growing. This was the case when the total economic value of the forest was considered, but also when just timber values alone were counted. The study noted however, that the degazettement of Mabira CFR could still be favoured for other reasons other than economic considerations. The study recommended that should such a situation arise, then the developer (who is SCOUL) must undertake to compensate the National Forestry Authority for the total economic value (TEV) lost due to the change of land use. This requirement for compensation is legally provided The Economic Valuation of the Proposed Degazettement of Mabira CFR | 2011 Vii
Page 1: THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF THE PROPO
Page 4 and 5: THE ECONOMIC VALUATION OF THE PROPO
Page 8 and 9: for in the National Forestry and Tr
Page 10 and 11: 5.0. THE CONSERVATION OPTION 31 5.1
Page 12 and 13: List of Boxes Box 1: Out-growers pr
Page 14 and 15: The pro-conservation groups who are
Page 16 and 17: Figure 1: Map of Mabira CFR showing
Page 18 and 19: The Economic Valuation of the Propo
Page 20 and 21: which include schist’s, phyllites
Page 22 and 23: Wattled Starling(Creatophora cinere
Page 24 and 25: Restricted-range butterflies record
Page 26 and 27: The demand for sugar has also been
Page 28 and 29: Table 7: Projected sugarcane produc
Page 30 and 31: The Economic Valuation of the Propo
Page 32 and 33: 4.2. THE VALUE OF THE SUGAR SECTOR
Page 34 and 35: 4.3. COST OF PRODUCTION AND THE DET
Page 36 and 37: additional sugarcane they need from
Page 38 and 39: Table 11: Estimate sugar estate lan
Page 40 and 41: ) Opportunity of SCOUL leasing land
Page 42 and 43: then the government goes ahead and
Page 44 and 45: expected from the environment (Lett
Page 46 and 47: Table 15: Example of links between
Page 48 and 49: PVB = PVC = Where: 36 ∑ = t n t =
Page 50 and 51: Table 16: Value of Growing Stock Cl
Page 52 and 53: ased on household livelihoods. Bush
Page 54 and 55: 12,078 per annum by the number of h
Page 56 and 57:
part of the area proposed for degaz
Page 58 and 59:
The Economic Valuation of the Propo
Page 60 and 61:
to mature. Subsequently, conservati
Page 62 and 63:
REFERENCES Adger, N., Brown, K., Ca
Page 64 and 65:
Multinational enterprises in the pl
Page 66 and 67:
Primates of Africa. The IUCN Red Da
Page 68 and 69:
Edinburgh University, Scotland. Sim
Page 70 and 71:
ANNEXES ANNEX 1 BIODIVERSITY DATA T
Page 72 and 73:
Family Species Family Species Rutac
Page 74 and 75:
Family Species Family Species Morac
Page 76 and 77:
Table A2: Species list of birds rec
Page 78 and 79:
Britton No. Species Common Name 467
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Table A3: Species list of Mammals (
Page 86 and 87:
Table A4: Amphibians of Mabira Fore
Page 88 and 89:
Tirumala petiverana African Blue Ti
Page 90 and 91:
ANNEX 2 INVENTORY DATA Table III Ma
Page 92 and 93:
Fig AI Icut id nonsimu sperurbitiac
Page 96:
About NatureUganda NatureUganda, th
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?