Get documents about "NATURAL RESOURCE ENDOWMENTS AND ECONOMIC
Document Sample
NATURAL RESOURCE ENDOWMENTS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Charlie Shackleton
Dept of Environmental Science
Rhodes University
Introduction
Economic
development
Intellectual
requires a number
resources of building blocks Financial
resources
to be in place
Human Institutional
resources & governance
Infrastructural resources
resources
Introduction (cont.)
Economic
development
Natural
Resources
min-
water plants
erals
medic
-ines soil oil fish
Introduction (cont.)
Natural resources
Constraints
Opportunities
Raw resources for Ecosystem services
use & value addition
Balancing
Act
The challenge therefore is …
how to use natural resources to drive and
support economic growth
WITHOUT
undermining the ecosystem services that they
deliver as a benefit to society as a whole
Ecosystem Services:
The benefits people obtain from ecosystems
Provisioning Regulating Cultural
Goods produced or Benefits obtained from Non-material benefits
provided by regulation of ecosystem from ecosystems
ecosystems processes
• spiritual
• food • climate regulation • recreational
• fresh water • disease regulation • aesthetic
• fuel wood • flood regulation • inspirational
• genetic resources • educational
Supporting
Services necessary for production of other ecosystem services
• Soil formation
• Nutrient cycling
• Primary production
Human Wellbeing-Ecosystem Links
Ecosystem Services Constituents and Determinants of Wellbeing
PROVISIONING
•Food Being able to be adequately nourished.
•Timber
•Pharmaceuticals Being able to be free from avoidable disease.
•Fuels/energy
•Fiber
•Minerals Being able to live in an environmentally clean and
•Fresh water safe shelter.
Being able to have adequate and clean drinking
water.
REGULATING
•Purification of air and water Being able to have clean air.
•Hydrological regulation
•Detoxification and decomposition of wastes Being able to have energy to keep warm and cook.
•Nutrient cycling
•Pollination of plants
•Crop pest control Being able to use traditional medicine.
•Maintenance of biodiversity
•Climate regulation Being able to have cultural and spiritual practices
using ecological systems respected.
Being able to cope against extreme natural events
CULTURAL like floods, tropical storms and land slides.
•Spiritual and social values
•Aesthetic values Being able to achieve the necessary material
•Education and scientific value
minimum for a good life- secure and adequate
livelihoods
RESOURCE VALUATION
• Different values attached to natural resources and systems:
Total Economic Value (TEV)
Use Values Non-use values
Direct use Indirect Ecosystem Option Existence Bequest
value use value service value value value value
Content of this presentation
• Opportunities using natural resources:
– Subsistence use
• Daily net How can local
• Safety net and provincial
government
– Commercial use
help?
• Small-scale, informal
• Commercial
• Opportunities harnessing services
DAILY NET VALUE
Direct use values:
•Can be readily expressed in economic terms, as amount extracted
multiplied by unit price, less costs.
•The value may apply to amounts extracted and consumed by the
household, or sold to neighbouring households or via local or regional
markets.
•Various economic tools to determine direct-use value in the absence of
prices (i.e. not traded).
•Although not all species are used, there is a relationship with increasing
diversity, so that increases in total diversity results also in an increase the
number of species actually or potentially used by humans (e.g. Salick et al.
1999; Dovie 2006).
Prevalence of use (mean + SE) of wild resources from South
African savannas (n = 14 villages; 30 – 60 hh per village)
Resource % Resource %
Wild spinaches 95.6 + 1.3 Bushmeat 51.6 + 8.4
Fuelwood 95.5 + 1.9 Wild honey 50.5 + 10.6
Wooden utensils 95.1 + 1.9 Medicinal plants 49.4 + 7.5
Grass brushes 90.7 + 4.6 Wood for housing poles 49.0 + 8.1
Wild fruits 88.2 + 4.0 Thatch grass 48.8 + 9.0
Twig brushes 87.1 + 5.1 Wild mushrooms 25.2 + 9.2
Wood for fencing 62.0 + 5.5 Reeds for construction 14.6 + 6.5
Weaving materials 55.4 + 9.6 Wood for furniture 6.7 + 1.7
Edible insects 53.5 + 9.5 Seeds for decorations 3.2 + 1.8
(Shackleton & Shackleton 2004)
GROSS ANNUAL DIRECT USE VALUES (Rand)
Province Site Value 2008 Value Reference
Limpopo Hagondo 3,619 7,810 Shackleton et al. (1999)
Mogano 7,238 15,619
Bushbuckridge 2,218 4,457 Shackleton & Shackleton (2000)
Thorndale 3,435 5,989 Dovie et al. (2002)
Mametja 4,807 9,035 Twine et al. (2003)
KwaZulu-Natal Scattered hhs 3,375* 7,910 Beukman et al. (1998)
Kwajobe 2,819 6,083 Shackleton et al. (1999)
Mtubatuba 900 1,692 Magasela et al. (2001)
Eastern Cape Scattered hhs 2,811* 7,075 Hassan & Havemann (1997)
Fairbairn 2,526 4,404 Shackleton et al. (2002)
Ntilini 1,645 2,868
Tidbury 1,607 2,802
Cwebe 4,858 6,215 Shackleton et al. (2007)
Ntubeni 12,702 16,251
MEAN (+ SE) 3 897 + 803 7,015 + 1 118 (≈ R585 per month)
(* Original data did not include all NTFPs. Therefore, conservatively adjusted gross direct use value
as 50 % of the mean value for the missing NTFPs from the other studies)
Mean annual gross direct use value (R) of resources used by
households in Kat River Valley
Resource Ntilini Tidbury Fairbairn Mean
Fuelwood 1 141 1 177 1 118 1 145
Bushmeat 61 623 797 493
Imula 133 161 224 173
Wild fruits 137 246 142 175
Wild herbs 36 78 88 67
All resources 1 645 1 607 2 526 1 926
(Shackleton et al. 2002)
Contribution of natural resource to rural livelihoods
Contribution Gross/ Country Vegetation Reference
to hh income net
22.0 % Net S. Africa Savanna (arid, degraded) Crookes (2003)
28.2 % Net S. Africa Savanna (arid, degraded) Crookes (2003)
19.3 % Net S. Africa Savanna (arid) Dovie (2001)
15.2 % Net Zimbabwe Savanna (miombo) Campbell et al.
(2002)
17.2 % Net Zimbabwe Savanna Cavendish (2001)
22.5 % Gross Zimbabwe Savanna (miombo & Cavendish (2000)
mopane)
4 – 20 % Net Cameroon Lowland forest Ambose-Oji
(2003)
(Shackleton et al. 2007)
Household & aggregate values of land-based livelihood sectors in communal lands in
South Africa
Land-based liveli- Value per hh per Aggregate value
hoods component year (2006 R value) (2.4 million rural
hh)
Cropping 2 430 5.83 billion
Livestock 1 890 4.53 billion
Natural resource 4 400 10.56 billion
harvesting
Total 8 720 20.92 billion
(Shackleton et al. 2001)
income to total income 80
Contribution of craft
70
60
50
(%)
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4
Income class (1= poorest; 4 = wealthiest)
(Pereira et al. 2006)
Stratification in NTFP use by wealth category
Wealth group Significance
Wealthy Intermed Poor
Jobs/hh 3.6 + 0.4 1.2 + 0.1 0.6 + 0.1 p<0.0001
Pensions/hh 1.2 + 0.1 0.9 + 0.1 0.4 + 0.6 p<0.005
Cattle/hh 2.6 + 0.8 3.0 + 0.7 0.01 + 0.01 p<0.005
No. of NTFPs used /hh 9.6 + 0.5 8.4 + 0.3 8.6 + 0.5 n.s
% hh buying NTFPs 76 65 56 p<0.001
No. bought/hh 2.4 + 0.3 1.9 + 0.1 1.6 + 0.2 p<0.05
% hh selling NTFPs 8 15 36 p<0.001
No. sold/hh 0.1 + 0.09 0.2 + 0.08 0.48 + 0.2 p< 0.01
(Shackleton & Shackleton 2006)
Consumption & direct use value by wealth category
Wealth group Significance
Wealthy Intermed Poor
Fuelwood use 1.6 + 0.3 2.4 + 0.4 3.3 + 0.8 p<0.05
(kg/capita/day)
Gross direct-use value 154 231 318 p<0.05
(R/capita/yr)
Edible herb use 3.3 + 0.8 3.8 + 0.9 4.0 + 0.6 n.s
(kg/capita/yr)
Gross direct-use value 17 + 4 22 + 4 25 + 3 p<0.05
(R/capita/yr)
Wild fruits use 38.6 + 10.6 46.5 + 13.4 57.8 + 13.7 n.s
(l/capita/yr)
Gross direct-use value 56 + 15 68 + 20 84 + 20 n.s
(R/capita/yr)
(Shackleton & Shackleton 2006)
How Local & Provincial government can help
• Recognise the multiplicity of local livelihoods, especially of the poor – they
engage in many different livelihood strategies
•Provide adequate support (finances, personnel, regulations) for land
management, not just fines for transgressions, nor a blind focus on livestock
• Consider resource supply to poor households when making zoning
decisions (a new golf courses or residential suburb can add hours to a
collection trip)
•Allow access for collection on municipal and State land, with necessary
controls as required
SAFETY NET VALUE
SAFETY NET VALUE
• The safety net function describes the altered or increased use of
use of natural resources to cope during times of stress or shock.
• Three forms:
• use of resources or species not normally used by that
household
• increased use of a resource that is already a component of
their livelihood
• temporary sale of resources on local or regional markets
• Hard to place a value on this safety net function of natural
resources because it is more than just the amount used multiplied
by price; without such safety nets some households cannot cope
with particular stresses or shock, and disintegrate or migrate away
100 % of households had
experienced some shock
in the last two years
No selling
70 % had turned to WEALTHY
natural resource as
a coping 5th most common
mechanism coping mechanism
POOR
Approx 20 % sold Several then
natural resources adopted trading
2nd most common as a permanent
coping mechanism strategy
(Paumgarten 2006)
Reasons for entering trade in natural resource products
Reason for entering Type of product trade
trade
Mat Broom Woodworkers
producers producers
Retrenchment or 4 0 93
resignation of self
Loss of husband’s 30 47 0
income
“Suffering and hunger” 22 24 0
No jobs 6 19 0
Other 35 10 7
(Shackleton et al. 2008)
Sale of wild resources by different wealth categories in the Kat River Valley, Eastern
Cape
40
Proportion selling (%)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poorest Intermediate Richest
Wealth category
(Shackleton et al. 2002)
Use of wild protein by children over a two week period in households of high and
low vulnerability to HIV/AIDS
Group Measure Vulnerability class Stats
Low High
Mammals Frequency in diet 39 133 Sig
% hh using 33 60 Sig
Birds Frequency in diet 89 195 Sig
% hh using 25 64 Sig
Reptiles Frequency in diet 8 13 n.s
% hh using 4 12 Sig
Insects Frequency in diet 3 13 Sig
% hh using 4 24 Sig
(McGarry 2008)
How Local & Provincial government can help
• Provide adequate support (finances, personnel, regulations) or
land management, not just fines for transgressions, nor a blind
focus on livestock
• Consider resource supply to poor households when making
zoning decisions (a new golf courses or residential suburb can
add hours to a collection trip)
•Allow access for collection on municipal and State land, with
necessary controls as required
SMALL-SCALE TRADE
Small-scale trade
• Widespread
• But no national or regional stats on extent, as most
data are sectoral studies
• Some guesstimates that approx 4 % of households
sell one or more natural resource product
• Often overlooked by development planners and
authorities
• Often argued that reruns are very low
Trade in wild resources
• Typically people with low formal skills
Attribute Mats Brooms Marula Wood- Random
beer carvers sample
Education (yrs) 2.1 3.6 7.0 5.9 8.3
Age 57 50 39 63
% female headed hh 53 47 45 0 35
% female 100 98 100 0 58
% hh > 1 formal job 24 7 22 2 35
% hhs with no other regular 12 50 45 50 15
cash income sources
% selling other products too 58 40 73 13
(Source: Shackleton 2005)
PROPORTION OF RURAL HHs SELLING OR BUYING
NTFPs
NTFP Mogano HaGondo KwaJobe
Selling Buying Selling Buying Selling Buying
Fuelwood 4.1 34.7 3.9 17.6 0 0
Wooden utensils 1.7 67.3 3.7 66.7 3.2 64.5
Wood for fences 3.6 17.4 3.3 6.8 8.6 15.0
Spinaches 3.1 12.3 0 0 3.2 0
Wild honey 5.6 5.6 - - 6.4 15.0
Grass brushes 1.6 72.6 0 51.9 14.8 81.5
(Shackleton & Shackleton 2004)
Some illustrative incomes to small-scale trades in natural resources
Resource Prov Mean annual Range (Rand) Year
income (Rand)
Palm brushes EC 4 272 Net 0-12 000 2002
Marula beer LP 500 (2 mths) Net 90-2 230 2001
Fuelwood KZN 338 Gross 12-1 400 1999
Medicinal plants MP 16 740 Gross 360 - >40 000 1999
Woodroses LP 2 895 Gross 640 -6 000 1997
Softwood carvers MP 9 840 Net 1997
Medicinal plants KZN 39 480 Gross 1996
Hardwood carvers LP 3 600 Net 2 580 - 16 930 1994
Mopane worms LP 2 500 (1 mth) Gross
Aloe gel tappers EC 12 000 Net 1994
Wild fruits LP 1 045 Gross 240- > 20 000 1993
TRADING BENEFITS (2001 values)
Brush Traders Marula beer Woodcarvers
traders
Hardwoods Softwoods
Annual
income
- Gross R5 688 R687 R7 602 R10 486
- Net R4 272 R500 R3 603 R 9 838
- % Costs 25 % 27 % 53 % 6%
Income range < R2 400 to R89 to R2 300 R2 584 to
> R12 000 R16 928
Trading > 50 % of 10 % 79 % Not determined,
income as traders rated but "appeared" to
contribution to this as their 1st be the primary
total hh or 2nd main source
income income source
Other benefits Own cash Own cash Work at home Own boss
Own boss – Peak season Own boss Emergency net
flexibility need for school Carving skills Carving skills
Craft skills fees Carvers Social networks
Marketing skills Cultural benefits association
Social Marketing skills
networks Social networks
(Shackleton & Shackleton 2004)
• Absolute incomes may be low
• But usually returns per hour worked are usually above
local wage labour rates
• But many cannot or do not want to increase hours
spent to increase incomes
• Many have no alternatives, and such trade is therefore
invaluable
• Nonetheless, shouldn’t discount small-scale trade in
preventing a deepening of poverty
• Are many other advantages of natural resource based
trading that make it attractive for some role-players
Returns per hour worked for small-scale trade in
natural resources
Product Income per Local wage Year Source
hour worked rate at same
period
Reed mats R2.50 R1.50 1997 Shackleton & Shackleton (1997)
Thatch grass R7.50 R1.50 1997 Shackleton & Shackleton (1997)
Marula beer R4.00 R1.50 2001 Mander et al. (2002)
Palm brooms R3 – R26 R3.50 2002 Gyan & Shackleton (2005)
Imifino (in town) R17.50 R7.00 2004 Mavimbela (2004)
Reed craft R6.00 R3.50 2005 Pereira et al. (2006)
Grass brooms R3.00 R2.00 2005 Shackleton (2006)
Reed mats R4.00 R2.00 2005 Shackleton (2006)
Non-monetory benefits of nat. resource trade
• Low barriers to entry • Ability to make some contribution to the hh
income, however small
• Ability to work from home
• Preserving traditional products, processes &
• Being one’s own boss knowledge
• Opportunity to involve and work • Development of useful business skills
with family
• Recognition by neighbours & community for
• The income is proportional to the one’s skills
effort expended
• Pride in making some attempt to earn a living
• Women often appreciate earning when so many are unemployed and inactive
their own money
• Development of co-operative and
social networks
How Local & Provincial government can help (1 of 2)
• Provide adequate support (finances, personnel, regulations) for land management, not just fines
for transgressions, nor a blind focus on livestock
• Strengthen local organisational and institutional capacity to manage resources, remove
constraints and market products
• Liaise with private land managers to set up harvesting systems on their lands (small-scale traders
are often lack power and skills to undertake such approaches and negotiations
• Set up proper monitoring system for key resources traded; work with traders to manage the
resource
• Invite research agencies & NGOs to assist in inventory of stock and advise on harvests
•Allow access for collection on municipal and State land, with necessary controls as required
• Make trade in natural resource an integral component of LED plans and IDP process; don’t
dismiss is because it is small and informal
• Think in terms of supporting livelihoods rather than developing enterprises
How Local & Provincial government can help (2 of 2)
• Build on what is already happening; support existing and proven entrepreneurs rather than
starting new groups from scratch or welfare approaches
• Investments in training and marketing of existing operations can raise incomes significantly, with
benefits for local economy
• Invest resources in small-scale trade via a pro-poor strategy rather than a big numbers game
• Look at options to increase access to and manage micro-credit
• Make trading permits accessible and affordable
• Give value for money services in relation to permits
• Develop ‘buy local’ or ‘buy traditional’ campaigns
• Consider cultivation options for appropriate resources
COMMERCIALISATION OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Large-scale commercialisation
Aloe bitters Mopane worms
+ R150 million + 75 million p.a.
p.a.
Medicinal plants
Marula products
+ 750 million p.a.
+ 1.5 billion p.a.
- Charcoal ?
- Thatch grass ?
Bees - Rooibos tea?
& honey - Wild flowers?
3.2. billion p.a.
- etc…………….
How Local & Provincial government can help
• Recognise that precise needs and support are very product
specific
• Liaise with NGOs and private sector to draw in poorer sectors
into large scale initiatives
• Consider their visions and plans for their business in local LED
and IPD processes
• Support proven entrepreneurs rather than starting new
initiatives from scratch
PAYMENT FOR
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Introduction: Some background
• Ecosystem services critical for the functioning of the
earths life support systems and many aspects of
human-well being.
• This is slowly being recognised, as well as the fact
that degradation is resulting in the loss of these vital
services.
• Efforts thus being made to place an economic value
on these services and sell them in an emerging
market, creating a direct incentive for their
conservation/restoration.
• We call this ‘Payment for Ecosystem Services’ - PES.
• Wide promotion, particularly through the climate change
agenda - Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
(REDD). 43
Emergence of PES
Ecosystem services:
• are essential for our survival
• have significant economic value (e.g. Constanza et al. (1997) valued
the global ecosystem services at around US16-54 trillion per year
(1012))
• are impacted negatively by human activity, with dire consequences
for society (MA estimates 2/3 of world’s ES under threat)
• provide benefits at many scales and may be important for people far
from where they are generated (e.g. ………)
• are public goods so tend to be taken for granted – a service from
nature (and land owners often more interested in using their land for
private benefits rather than the greater good)
• The poor recognition of ES’ worth means that those who own or
control areas, e.g. local people, farmers, where the services are
produced do not capture the economic benefits of these.
44
Emergence of PES
• Two consequences:
• Local people carry the costs (e.g. through restrictions on say
land use) while others benefit.
• Little incentive for local people to conserve and maintain
the services.
• Putting all this together, it makes sense to consider
mechanisms where these services could be paid for.
• This would recognise their worth and ensure their continuance,
i.e. users pay suppliers for continued delivery so both benefit.
• Increasing scarcity (e.g. water) and global environmental
problems such as climate change and the need to reduce
carbon emissions makes markets possible.
This is where concept of PES came from.
45
PES is receiving lots of attention and is being
widely promoted....
• World Bank recently identified markets for ES as a potential tool for
sustainable environmental management as well as poverty alleviation.
• PES is one of the steps for action emerging out of the global Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment – “Introduce payments to land owners in return
for managing their lands in ways that protect ecosystem services such as
water quality and carbon storage that are of value to society”.
• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of Kyoto Protocol pays for
additional carbon sequestration and storage through restoration (tree
planting) (Mike Powell’s case study later).
• Proposed initiative on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation (REDD) is looking to pay for avoided deforestation/ forest
maintenance. Part of Bali Roadmap towards a new protocol. (Not well
established yet – action on it just initiated). Could be very important for
PES and for Africa.
46
What is PES?
• New innovative approach to sound natural
resource management and, for many, Basic Principle
development and poverty alleviation (goals
same as CBNRM) Those who provide services
• Direct market-based approach where people should be rewarded for doing
paid or compensated for land use and so.
management practices that reduce negative
environmental impacts and protect
ecosystem services.
• Business like transactions between buyers
and sellers.
• Based on the trade-offs between
conservation and development/use, and
seeks to compensate for activities forgone –
rather than trying to reconcile these.
• A way of providing direct economic
incentives for conservation of ES. Payments
can help make conservation a more
attractive option.
47
What is PES?
ES commonly linked to payments
•Carbon sequestration & storage (e.g. CDM
& REDD)
•Biodiversity (e.g. conservation donors
paying for protection & reduced harvesting)
•Landscape beauty (e.g. tourism operator
paying people not to hunt or convert forest)
•Water – catchment protection (water shed
schemes – WWF report)
•Pollination services (farmers paying
neighbouring forest communities)
•Payment for environmental friendly crop
production – shade coffee
• Subsidising farmers for unplanted land
(Europe)
•Bundling
48
Issues, challenges and complexities in PES
• Time consuming – negotiation can be a long process – WWF and partners
preparatory phase for their catchment projects is 18 mths – this is to
prepare a ‘solid business’ case
• Land tenure – Many actors involved but PES only pays those that have
genuine claims to the land – need clear property rights
• Good monitoring essential to demonstrate conditionality – how to audit
• Engaging multiple stakeholders
• Paying people to stop illegal use – this happens - is it valid? – could
become a perverse incentive. But, is possible to supplement weakly
enforced laws with PES compensations especially where these laws are
seen to be unfair. In Costa Rica PES farmers are paid for not deforesting
even though this is illegal. Similar in Vietnam.
• Lots of knowledge gaps in terms of supply dynamics of ES, what works,
what does not, what to pay and how to value a service, how to pay, how to
monitor…etc.
49
Differentiation within PES
PES programmes differ in:
• PES approaches can be quite •Type and scale of ES demand
diverse. Differ according to…. •Payment source
Area vs product based: •Type of activity paid for
•Performance measure used
• Area based schemes •Payment mode and amount
– Most common.
– Contract stipulates land or resource MANY DESIGNS
use conditions for a set area or number
of land units, e.g. forest carbon
plantations/ restoration sites.
• Product based schemes
– Where consumers pay a green
premium on top of market price for a
production scheme that is certified
environmentally friendly, e.g. shade
coffee.
50
Differentiation within PES
The actions that sellers take to
secure the ES:
• Use restricting schemes
– Providers/sellers are rewarded
for conservation and reducing
resource use and land
development, or setting aside
areas as protected habitat.
– Paid for conservation
opportunity costs plus perhaps
for active protection measures
against external threats. (Could
this assist in SA??).
• Asset building schemes
– Aim to restore and rebuild areas
and ES, e.g. replanting trees,
clearing alien vegetation. (Case
study coming up).
51
PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES:
Using carbon credits to restore thickets of the Eastern Cape
Above Litter Roots Soil Total
ground
40 ± 3 11 ± 1 25 ± 1.3 133 ± 27 209 ± 28
t C ha-1
7±1 1 ± 0.4 11 ± 0.7 95 ± 15 114 ± 14
and falling?
Mills et. al. (2005)
Carbon gain
Competitive advantage of
thicket restoration:
Spekboom grows from cuttings
– nursery costs are minimal.
Photo: DWAF Subtropical Thicket
Restoration Programme
Preliminary financial overview
Goat farming $7 – $30 income ha-1 yr-1
Spekboom farming
Implementation costs: $400 – $700 ha-1
- based on large-scale DWAF project in Baviaanskloof
Potential turnover (inclusive of transaction costs):
@ $3 $30 ha-1 yr-1
@ $20 per credit $200 ha-1 yr-1
- present carbon price: $8-$10
- 2006 high: approximately $ 40 (energy credits)
10 t CO2 ha-1 yr-1
- conservative
Mills & Cowling (2006)
Large-scale project scenario
20 000 hectares
417 people employed over 10 years
Total cost: $26 million
Potential annual earnings:
@ $8 per credit $1.6 million
@ $20 per credit $4 million
WWF WATER NEUTRAL SCHEME
• The WWF Water Neutral Scheme’s pilot project with SAB Limited is focusing on
clearing two sites of invasive alien plants which will offset the company’s water
use at its Newlands Brewery in Cape Town and its Ibhayi Brewery in Port
Elizabeth.
• the Eastern Cape’s Kouga Catchment a 172 ha area of invasives, mainly black
wattles (Acacia mearnsii), will be cleared. The Kouga Catchment was chosen as
it feeds the Kouga Dam one of the main water sources for the Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan and thus the Ibhayi Brewery.
The Water Neutral Calculator
(www.waterneutral.co.za)
• Name of company or individual: Estimated
annual water usage in kilolitres (KL) as per
municipal water accounts:
• Approximate Total Cost
• Approximate Annual Cost over 20 years
• Hectares of land rehabilitated
• Employment days created
Examples In Vietnam watershed
payments made – but not
Costa Rica – landowners that
agree to conserve their forests
voluntary – state is receive a per ha annual payment
enforcing forest from a state run forest fund.
Bird friendly protection and justifying Monies from tax on fuels,
coffee in El this by giving payments international loans, carbon
Salvador. often from donors rather payments, and service users –
than service users. hydroelectric schemes,
breweries, etc. Been going for a
decade.
In Ecuador users in town of Problems – more applicants than
Pimampiro pay upstream money, limited additionality. In
farmers not to deforest and one of the first carbon deals sold
to maintain the quality of 200 000 tons of C storage for US$
their drinking water. 2 million to Norway.
Parrots in Mexico. Thick billed parrots in Mexico’s
Sierra Madre Occidental were threatened. 100 See varied water
breeding pairs were found on land belonging to a shed examples in
community cooperative. Conservation agency paid the WWF report in
members to leave the habitat unlogged (US$800/ha your packs
in 2000).
59
East Africa and India. TIST tree
planting project (ww.tist.org).
Examples Small group based scheme, sell
carbon on ebay. In Tanzania now
5 000 small groups, 40 000
members and 6 million trees.
In Costa Rica a citrus Bundles – sustainable land N,hambita
plantation pays for the management. Community Carbon
pollination and pest demo project,
control services Proposed Moloti- Mozambique. Carbon
received from an Drakensburg PES scheme in buyers provide
adjacent forested area South Africa (mainly for revenue for tree
every year. water – areas supplies 25% planting and
of our water). Feasibility woodland protection.
study completed. www.miombo.org.uk
Working for Water in
South Africa. See 2008
paper by Janes Turpie et
al. in special issue of
Ecological Economics.
60
How Local & Provincial government can help
• Engage with knowledgeable role-players about opportunities in
their area
• Communicate opportunities to land managers (incl. State land)
• Engage with stakeholders around wise land management
Conclusions
• Sustainable use and management of natural resources and ecosystems is
not just an eco-fad – it makes economic sense at all scales
• Wise management offers multiple economic opportunities, which
invariably have greater total returns than unsustainable management
practices
• Poor management of ecosystems goods and services translates into:
– Loss of economic development
– Loss of future opportunities
– Potential costly remediation or restoration sometime in the future
• There is lot local and provincial government can do
