93
Case Studies of Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands of Pakistan By Akhtar. A. Hai Rahat Najam

Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

It is a research study on economic valuation of natural resources like, wetlands, water, mangrove forest etc.

Citation preview

Page 1: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Case Studies of Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands of Pakistan

By Akhtar. A. HaiRahat Najam

2003

Page 2: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Back page:This study is conducted by Mr. Akhtar A. Hai – Senior Research Economist/ Associate Professor at Applied Economic Research Center - University of Karachi, and Coordinated by Ms. Rahat Najam, Wetland Ecologist / Environmentalist at WWF-Pakistan.

.

Note: Authors can be contacted on the following address:1) Mr. Akhtar A. Hai

AERC - (Applied Economics Research Center) University of Karachi. P.O.Box, 8403,Karachi- 75270. Ph: (009221) 9243204, 9243175, 9243168, Ext. 213. Fax: (009221) 4829730 E.mail: [email protected], [email protected]

2) Ms. Rahat Najam WWF-Pakistan, Karachi Regional Office, E.mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page 3: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Economic Valuation – A Conceptual Framework1.2 Review of Literature1.3 Objectives of the Study1.4 Introduction to the Wetlands1.5 An Overview of Pakistan’s Wetlands

2. STUDY AREA

2.1 Haleji Lake (Freshwater Wetland)

2.1.1 Background2.1.2 Issues at Haleji Lake2.1.3 Community Dependence on the Natural Resources2.1.4 Main Problems of the Haleji Lake

2.2 Sandspit Mangrove Area (Coastal Wetland)

2.2.1 Background2.2.2 Issues at Sandspit Mangrove Area2.2.3 Community Utilizing the Natural Resources2.2.4 Main Problems of the Mangrove Forest at Sandspit

3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Genesis of Methodology3.2 Valuation of Wetland3.3 Sampling Framework

4. IMPACT OF WETLAND

4.1 Benefits of Local Communities4.2 Problems and Performance of the Institutions4.3 Visitor’s Impact4.4 Economic Valuation4.5 Limitations of the Study

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

WEB SITES

ANNEXURE

A – Table on Household DataB – Table on Visitor’s SurveyC – Sindh Wildlife Sanctuary Ordinance (1972 with Amendments)D – Questioners used for surveys of Households and Visitors

Executive Summary

- With the pace of technological advancements and population growth, there is an increased pressure on natural resources. In exerting such pressures there is in implicit ignorance towards higher discounting accorded to future scenarios. In net terms, the environment is the loser but the ultimate losses are to be shared by all including humans.

Page 4: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

- This perpetual ignorance towards rapidly declining natural resources is also reflected in the formal measurement techniques for the economic activities. However, in the wake of increased debate over long term sustainability of natural resources, concerns have been shown over measurement techniques, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which largely remain devoid of the depletion of natural resources.

- The technique of economic valuation of natural resources, evolved in this backdrop, tends to focus on direct, indirect, tangible and intangible benefits from the natural resources extracted by different group of individuals within their hinterland.

- The present study attempts to focus on wetlands of two different environments (i.e. fresh and coastal waters) to conduct economic valuation of natural resources. The main purpose is to create awareness on the pattern of dependence of humans on such resources through the valuation of the benefits achieved in order that a sustainable path for future growth and development is achieved. The study areas include Haleji Lake (to represent freshwater area) and Sandspit Mangrove Area (to account for coastal water).

- In addition to their ecological importance, wetlands are indirectly providing considerable economic and social benefits, including maintenance of fisheries, provision of water supplies, support to agriculture, wildlife resources and timber production providing energy resources, transport, and the supporting important recreational and tourism opportunities. Wetlands also contribute towards climate stability through their role in global water and carbon cycles.

- It is often not easy for planners and decision-makers to allocate taxpayers’ money on environmental activities, especially if there is no broad support from the public. Wetland valuation is a way to estimate ecosystem benefits to people and allow financial experts to ascertain the economic feasibility favoring environmental investments.

- Appreciation of the real value of wetlands is now growing partly because of the realization of the costs involved in providing alternative services if those wetlands are destroyed or degraded.

- The study is based on a household survey of 100 families in the Haleji Lake and Sandspit areas, a survey of 34 tourists/groups of visitors in Haleji Lake area and through the information gathered from officials and policymakers of the associated departments and institutions including, Sindh Wildlife Department, Irrigation Department, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi Port Trust, Sindh Environment Protection Agency etc.

- The analysis of the survey data reveals a positive relationship between family size and mean annual income in both cases, which implies a stronger impact of increased population on environment. It further implies that the rate of extraction of natural resources of wetland would accelerate if alternate employment opportunities were not made available.

- Nearly 60 percent of households in Haleji and 65 percent in the Sandspit areas had, among others, fishing as their primary occupation. In addition, the family members had secondary occupations related with tourism in the area.

- The analysis further shows that whereas the primary occupations directly impacting natural resources was 78 and 65 percent in Haleji and Sandspit areas, respectively, almost all households had their secondary occupation directly impacting on natural resources.

- The immigration pattern into the area shows nearly 27 percent of the present families migrated into the area during the last 25 years or so.

- In addition to the direct benefits, a stream of indirect benefits was also reported by the households. In this regard, wood cutting appears dominant. The other significant sources of indirect benefits included fish for home consumption and camel grazing (in Sandspit area).

Page 5: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

- The alternate sources of income as suggested by the households included development of tourism and increase in visitor’s fee, export of crocodiles (from Haleji area) and provision of natural gas.

- The visitor’s survey reveals that a sizeable number of groups of individuals regularly visit Haleji Lake for fishing and recreational purposes.

- Estimation of direct and indirect benefits received by the local population shows a value of Rs.164 million in Haleji and Rs.151 million in Sandspit area annually.

- In addition, the estimated value of benefits generated through tourism (including both recreational and existence values) at Haleji lake was Rs.24 million annually.

- In aggregate terms, the economic value of both wetland sites is around Rs.339 millions annually which can increase substantially with the help of a comprehensive development plan.

- The economic valuation of the wetland suggests that these natural resources are heavily extracted by the local population and immediate steps needs to be taken to reduce the dependence of the population, particularly on fishing in Haleji area and wood cutting in the mangrove forest in the backwaters of Sandspit area. The steps to be taken may include strict adherence to Ramsar Convention in case of Haleji Lake and provision of natural gas as alternate fuel resource in Sandspit area.

- The level of dependence of population on natural resources, in extracting benefits through secondary occupation and indirect approaches, is quite visible. This dependence is likely to persist and this persistence could be utilized in motivating the local population to conserve the resources through sustainable harvesting. An effective involvement of local population in the efforts to conserve and sustain the natural resources would create a sense of ownership as well as financial benefits.

- The visitor’s survey in Haleji lake area demonstrates considerable potentials for creating general awareness about environment and generation of financial resources through promotion of tourism. The dearth of recreational facilities in Karachi region provides ample opportunities for developing Haleji Lake and Sandspit area. The imputed economic valuation of these wetlands under the study seems significant in the present scenario but would appear quite conservative given the potentials reposed.

Page 6: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Acknowledgement

This report is the result of a case study conducted on Economic Valuation of Wetlands by WWF-Pakistan. During the course of this study the information was collected both from the field surveys and the relevant Govt. Departments. In this regard we would like to thank the Sindh Forest and Wildlife Department which is the key stakeholder. Particularly we would like to thank, Ex. Secretary Forest, Mr. Shamsul-Haq Memon, Ex. Additional Secretary of Forest Mr. Mehboob Alam Ansari, Ex. Conservator, Sindh Wildlife Department, Mr. Munir Awan, Ex. Conservator, Sindh Wildlife Department, Mr. Hussain Bux Bhagat, Conservator Mr. Ghulam Rasool Channa, Assistant Conservator, Mr. Abdul Munaf Qaim Khani for their extreme valuable inputs and full cooperation and support at Haleji Lake.

Thanks are also due for the community leaders at Sandspit, Haji Siddique who provided the valuable information on mangroves forest of Sandspit and extended cooperation during the field surveys in their locality. We would also like to thank Mr. Jahangeer Durrani, for conducting informative technical discussions and providing the data on birds at Sandspit.

Special thanks are also due for Mr. Shahid, Librarian, Sindh Wildlife Department for providing in time series data on waterbirds, Wildlife Act, etc. We wish to thanks Mrs. Samita Nadeem of Environmental Protection Agency-Sindh, providing us the data on Haleji Lake. Mr. Salman Ashraf of GIS Lab. WWF-P, is acknowledged for his providing satellite images for the study area.

We are grateful to Dr. Ejaz Ahmad, Deputy Director General of WWF-Pakistan for coordination and support for the study and his valuable input throughout the study.

We appreciate the field support by Mr. Shaukat Ali, Ms. Mahpara Sadaqat in both study areas. Also thanks to Mr. Shaukat in data analysis and the drivers for their support in field visits.

Akhtar A. HaiRahat Najam

Page 7: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Economic Valuation – A Conceptual Framework.

With the pace of technological advancements and growing population, there is an increased pressure on natural resources. In exerting such pressures there are implicit ignorance towards higher discounting accorded to future scenarios. In net terms, the environment is the ultimate loser and losses are to be shared by all including the humans.

This perpetual ignorance towards rapidly declining natural resources is also reflected in the formal measurement techniques for the economic activities. However, in the wake of increased debate over long term sustainability of natural resources, concerns have been shown over such measurement techniques, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which largely remain devoid of the depletion of natural resources. According to Rondinelli (1989): “A country could exhaust its mineral resources, cut down its forests, erode its soils, pollute its aquifers, and hunt its wildlife to extinction, but the measured income i.e. GDP would not be affected as these assets disappeared” “Politicians, journalists and even sophisticated economists in official agencies continue to use GDP growth as prime measure of economic performance” “ ......... only if the basic measures of economic performance ... are brought into conformity with a valid definition of income will economic policies be influenced towards sustainability”.

The recent literature on the subjects of economics and environment heavily emphasizes on the use of these concepts and issues in an inter-disciplinary manner and in the process has resulted in yielding new approaches and techniques to correctly understand the value of natural resources.

The technique of economic valuation of natural resources, evolved in this backdrop, tends to focus on direct, indirect, tangible and intangible benefits extracted by different groups of individuals from the natural resources within their hinterland.

Today’s, most planning and development decisions are made on economic grounds and more on the basis of free market system. While this new paradigm has its own limitations and dangers, economic valuation is an attempt to quantity the values of the goods and services provided by the natural resources in monetary terms. A very small part of the overall benefits derived from the natural resources is valued through the normal market forces of demand and supply. A significant portion of the benefits derived from these systems, especially those derived from ecological function of the ecosystem remain un-quantified as their values are not expressed in the markets. Economic valuation through the application of market as well as non-market valuation techniques makes the appropriation of these values possible.

To understand why economic valuation may be important to wetland management and policy it is necessary first to review the role of valuation in decision-making that concern the use of environmental resources generally and wetlands specifically. By providing a means for measuring and comparing the various benefits of wetlands economic valuation can be a powerful tool to aid and improve wise use and management of global wetland resources.

Loss of environmental resources is an economic problem because rapid degradation and/or consumption of the resource important values are lost. Each choice or policy for the natural resource has implications in terms of values gained or lost. The decision on whether or to what use the resource is to be put to and whether the present rate of use/extraction is sustainable cannot be taken in absence of the estimation of the monetary valuation of the gains and losses in the values hence making economic valuation an important prerequisite for policy formulation.

In this perspective economic valuation helps to make decisions on resources utilization and allocation more meaningful. It also helps to identify human welfare decisions regarding the use of natural resources which are in effect decisions regarding the allocation of their various uses. Each alternate to which a resource is put to has some direct costs of conversion as well as the benefits foregone which the converted resource can no longer provide.

1

Page 8: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

While the direct costs of conversion are easily measured the exclusion of foregone benefits may lead to over extraction of certain resource or aid their degeneration, economic valuation through the measurement of economic efficiency can be a powerful tool to evaluate such decisions. In several instances market failures lead to sub-optimal tapping of the resource for which the society is the ultimate victim. Economic valuation helps compute the true price of the resource so that the decision makers can make informal choices and not lose out on welfare.

Developing countries are often faced with the problems of several competing concerns in the context of limited resource since several of the benefits derived from the wetlands are either undervalued or not valued. The option of investing into natural resources becomes inefficient. When properly valued, investment in natural resource augmentation is found to yield rates of economic return comparable to that earned on conventional capital investment.

As all the investment opportunities are made comparable, through their expression in a common enumerative, economic valuation helps prioritize decisions, regarding sectoral resource allocation and to integrate environmental concerns with the entire planning framework. Economic valuation also holds the key to sustainable development since the major reason of the failure of sustainable natural resource management and their excessive depletion is the inadequate recognition and underestimation of the values of many goods and services provided by these systems at the local, national, regional and the global levels.

Development decisions are often taken in favor of those uses of the environmental resources which do have marketed outputs thus the failure to fully account for the economic costs of conversion or degradation of environmental resources is a major factor behind the design of inappropriate developmental policies by providing a means for measuring and comparing the various benefits of wet lands. Economic valuation is a powerful tool to aid and improve wise use and sustainable management of global natural resources.

1.2 Review of Literature

Humans have a long history of manipulating water resources for their own needs. Many former civilisations, such as those of the Nile Delta and Far East, were based on control and sharing of the annual floodwaters. Irrigation tanks of South India and Sri Lanka have served communities for 2000 years; ancient complex irrigation systems were developed in the Yemen. In ancient Mesopotamia, irrigation supported a population of 17-25 million some 4000 years ago; the population is now 10 million and food has to be imported. Civilisations of the Peruvian deserts disappeared when their irrigation systems failed. Rice cultivation on the River Niger has for centuries been closely adapted to the annual flood regime. In Guinea Bissau, the effectiveness of the hydraulic systems created by the Balanta and Feloupe people for rice cultivation in saline areas is still unequalled by modern methods.

In Europe, people have a long tradition of farming the floodplains of many large river basins. Such practices were carried out in a consistent, regulated manner in keeping with seasonal water cycles and respect for natural resources. Each year, fodder and grazing rights would be decided and respected; fallow periods were common and extensive. This allowed the development of characteristic rich assemblages of plants and animals. Changing practices, however, have meant a reduction (and loss) of such fallow periods, with increased agriculture and altered flood regimes as a result of dams and canalisation projects upstream.

Locally-based initiatives have often proved to be effective means of regulating and managing natural wetland resources. Lessons learned from these suggest that maintenance of traditional practices, combined with new technology and small-scale development, is vital in order to meet increased demands of growing populations. Responsibility for, or ownership of, resources and the right to use and benefit from them often form a better basis for sustainable use than free use open to everyone. Local concerns have also proved important in preventing certain development schemes which would have resulted in the destruction of important biological and cultural sites.

2

Page 9: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

There are a variety of social and economic issues associated with mangroves and they are intrinsically related to the poverty of effected areas. Mangroves are traditionally and commonly owned and managed by locals who then convert them into food and aquaculture (O’Riordan, 2000). The poorer households of a community rely on mangroves for their livelihoods via food resources and as a form of income, whilst contrasting ‘richer’ households generally engage in private commercial activity utilising this rare resource (O’Riordan, 2000).

The management of Matang's mangrove forest procures direct employment for 1406 persons and more than 1000 persons are indirectly employed. Furthermore, 2600 are directly employed by the fishing industry in the area (Port Weld) and 7800 indirectly. The value of fish landings, mostly prawns, was US$12 million in 1977. This shows the staggering benefits to the local communities and illustrates the phenomenal advantage for livelihoods. However, there is a variation in competing uses of mangroves, which is a precursor for potential conflict and debate between communities as they utilise it as a resource which inadvertently serves to destroy it further – arousing further conflict and impending poverty through a decrease in livelihood standards and quality of life. The main uses of mangroves include, on a small local scale level, the few outputs of home consumption, small scale marketing (generally in the form of shrimp farming), wood for making, wood for poles and housing, Nypa leaves for juice collection, medicinal plants and honey (which also helps as aid to the local economy) and open fishing and fishponds (FAO web page). All of these factors influence largely the basic livelihoods of locals in mangrove areas and therefore any alterations to these uses would invoke an increase in the poverty of an area.

However, as seen in Bangladesh, employment opportunities often associated with aquaculture development also create conflicts within communities when traditional employment clashes with the aquaculture industry (Pangthanapanich, 1996). It is also found that employment is reduced whilst the remaining small farms find it difficult to compete economically. Not only does this conflict have increasing social effects, for example in West Bengal four fishermen were killed and twenty were injured in conflicts between fishermen and shrimp farmers due to changes in access rights to Lake Chilika, but also poverty is exacerbated as communities seek other forms of employment such as industry and the service sector (Pangthanapanich, 1996).

Factors that alter the social needs of communities relying on mangroves vary with geographical location are summarised as inter alia:

1. ethnic composition,2. language,3. religion,4. gender issues5. housing and living standards6. land tenure (effecting land use decisions and investment), and7. access to management.

(Source: FAO webpage)

3

Page 10: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

In some areas rural economies and human well-being are closely dependent on freshwater resources. Riverine floodplains are of considerable local and national importance on almost every continent. Commerce in the Inner Delta of the Niger River, Mali, illustrates how closely humans depend on such habitats. Covering an area of 30,000 km2, this delta supports more than half a million people; its post-flood grasslands provide grazing for about two million head of livestock and the region is of major importance for seasonal transhumance practices. In 1985 alone, export of cattle, sheep and goats accounted for US$8 million. In addition to agricultural practices, some 80,000 fishermen depend on the floods: more than 60,000 tones of fish were landed in 1986. The delta also accounts for more than half of the country's rice growing area. Interruption or loss of these services would represent considerable economic and social hardships (Dugan, 1990).

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The present study attempts to focus on wetland of two different environments (i.e. fresh and marine waters) and tend to focus on the following:

to conduct economic valuation of natural resources in its surrounding.

to create awareness among the policy makers on the pattern of dependence of humans on such resources through the valuation of the benefits achieved in order that a sustainable path for future growth and development is identified.

Though conducted as a pilot study, its outcome could help in creating a basis for specific planning efforts and policy designing for the sustainability of natural resources being used in the process.

1.4 Introduction to the Wetlands

Wetlands are dynamic, complex habitats. Many wetland sites are either continuously submerged or intermittently inundated by seasonal flooding or daily/seasonal tides. They exhibit enormous diversity in size and shape according to their origins and geographical location, their physical structure, as well as their chemical composition. Characteristic flora and fauna are largely defined by the water depth, current and intensity, underlying soil structure, sediment composition, and water temperature and, in coastal regions, reach of the tide.

Wetland ecosystems, by definition, depend on water to maintain their ecological functions. The hydrological cycle renews the flow and quantity of water in rivers, aquifers, lakes and all other freshwater ecosystems. These are complex ecosystems, the boundaries of which are often in a state of flux. Wetlands are therefore easily affected by external events. Nutrient and sediment loads, for example, are frequently moved from one site to another and from one habitat to another. Thus, nutrients obtained in the headwaters of a stream may find their way into lakes or fens. Minerals and nutrients not absorbed by living freshwater organisms may find their way into the marine ecosystem, often thousands of kilometers from where they first entered the water. While the fluid nature of such exchanges guarantees a continued renewal of energy, it also represents a major potential hazard since many harmful agents (pesticides, fertilizers or other chemicals) can also be easily and rapidly transported to other areas where they might have an adverse impact on the environment.

4

According to the Ramsar Convention, wetlands are defined as "areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters" (Article 1.1). In addition, the Ramsar Convention (Article 2.1) provides that wetlands "may incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six meters at low tide lying within the wetlands". As a result, coverage of the Ramsar Convention may be extended to include not only obvious freshwater resources such as rivers and lakes, but also coastal and shallow marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, artificial water bodies and underground water resources. 1Convention on wetlands called as Ramsar Convention, 1971.

Page 11: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Value of Wetland Ecosystem

Different categories of wetlands perform different functions, many of which are not immediately obvious: coastal wetlands (mangroves, estuaries, salt marshes, seagrass beds, coral reefs and mudflats) are vital spawning and nursery areas for large numbers of fish. Inland wetlands - rivers and lakes - not only provide abundant food and income for millions of people, but also serve as an essential lifeline for communications: goods have been traded along all major rivers for centuries. They are the natural storehouses of considerable levels of biological diversity and provide the life support systems for much of humanity. They play a vital role in sediment and erosion control, flood control, maintenance of water quality and abatement of pollution, maintenance of water supplies (including groundwater) and support for fisheries.

While no single wetland fulfils all of these functions, wetlands do yield multiple benefits. In addition to their ecological importance, wetlands are indirectly responsible for considerable economic and social benefits, including maintenance of fisheries, provision of water supplies (maintenance of quality and quantity), support to agriculture, wildlife resources and timber production, providing energy resources (peat and plant matter), transport, and supporting important recreational and tourism opportunities. Wetlands also contribute to climatic stability through their role in global water and carbon cycles.

Source: www.ecosystemvaluation.org

Why estimate ecosystem value?There are at least two good reasons for evaluating wetland services and goods:

1. In difficult financial times, it is not easy for government decision makers to spend taxpayers' money on environmental activities, especially if there is no broad support from the public. Wetland valuation is a way to estimate ecosystem benefits to people and allows financial experts to carry out a Cost-Benefit activity which might be in favour of environmental investment. Cost-Benefit analysis compares the benefits and costs to society of policies, programmes, or actions to protect or restore an ecosystem. It is therefore an important tool for environmental managers and decision makers to justify public spending on conservation activities and wetland management

5

Page 12: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

2. The other good reason is that people are not always aware of the values of wetlands. Many think that they are no more than mosquito breeding areas! By giving objective evidence to skeptical managers and the public of the monetary and non-monetary benefits of wetlands, environmentalists will gain their support. Most people only care about what they love or what brings economic benefit to them. By helping people to improve their living conditions by using and selling wetland goods and services, we will gain strong supporters for our cause!

Economic valuation is but one of many ways to define and measure values. Other types of value (religious, cultural, global, intrinsic…) are also important, but the economic value is the most important in most countries when decision makers have to make difficult choices about allocation of scarce government resources.

Putting an economic tag on wetlands and the many functions they provide has proven very difficult, but has become increasingly necessary. Recommendation 6.10 of the Ramsar Convention recognises that it is "vital that all wetland economic values be identified, measured and reported upon to increase national and international awareness of the needs for and benefits of wetland conservation". Appreciation of the "real" value of wetlands is now growing, partly because of the realisation of the costs involved in providing alternative services if those of wetlands are destroyed or degraded. The value of wetlands in maintaining global fisheries is one such example: two-thirds of the fish caught worldwide hatch or spend part of their life cycle in tidal areas; an estimated 90% of the fish harvested in the Gulf of Mexico (worth US$700 million each year) consist of species dependent on coastal mangroves; shrimp fisheries in Thailand have been valued at US$2000 per hectare; the value of annual scallop harvests on the Niantic River, Connecticut, USA, is greater than that of prime beef on an equivalent area of grazing land [ Maltby, 1986].

The economic value of wetland conservation is also being appreciated: in the United States, the value of wetlands in preventing serious flooding has been put at US$13,500 per hectare per annum. Fur trapping in North American marshes is thought to be worth from US$151-401 per acre [UNEP, 1995], while reed cutting in East Dongting Lake, China, generates about US$1.25 million each year [S. Hails, ed., Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention, Ramsar, in press]. A study of recreational values of wetlands in England has suggested that they are worth from US$100-210 per visitor each year. (Ramsar Bureau, 1996)

Economic realisations such as those noted above are now proving powerful incentives for protecting wetlands. Wildlife-based tourism accounts for a considerable proportion of this: in the United States, five million Americans spend more than US$638 million a year visiting waterfowl refuges. Wildlife safaris in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, are worth about US$13 million a year, while more than half of the GNP of the Bahamas comes from people holidaying on its coasts. Australia earns some US$90 million each year from visitors to the Great Barrier Reef. At the same time, however, many countries are unwittingly destroying these resources: of the 109 countries with significant coral reef communities, 93 are damaging them. In over 50 countries, coral is being smothered by silt; in nearly 70 countries, corals have been affected by dredging and land reclamation. Mining corals for building materials and the use of dynamite and other explosives for fishing has caused irreparable damage to many coral ecosystems (Ramsar Bureau, 1996).

1.5 An Overview of Pakistan’s Wetlands

Wetland cover approximately 9.7% or 7,800,000 hectares (7,800 Km2) of the total area of Pakistan (803,941 Km2). The country has a great variety of wetland both man – made and natural. The Indus River and floodplains from the main wetland artery for the country and the majority of the population of Pakistan is closely dependent on the wetland resource provided directly and indirectly by this great river.

In Pakistan, wetlands are scattered from the high Himalayan region in the north to the mangrove swamps in the south. The River Indus is the major wetland artery of the country, rising in the Himalayas and emptying into the Arabian Sea. All these contribute to a wealth and diversity of wetland habitats. This can be

6

Page 13: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

explained as floodplain wetlands of major river systems and their extensive network of tributaries draining the Pakistan land mass in all directions; saline and temporary wetlands of arid and semi-arid expanses inland; coastal systems such as lagoons, backwaters and estuaries; mangrove swamps; marine wetlands; corals associated with the island and so on. In fact, natural wetlands in Pakistan include the wide range of ecosystems, like freshwater lakes and salt marshes. In addition, there are man-made wetlands such as reservoirs, dams, barrages, rice paddies and flooded arable land.

Wetlands in Pakistan are under threat from various forces primary among which is man although most local communities have exploited wetland resources in a sustainable manner for centuries a combination of increasing population pressure and migration has meant that current patterns of water usage are no longer sustainable. Substantially increased demands from urban areas for water resources have led to the construction of dams barrages irrigation system etc, creating additional burdens wetland ecosystem provide a wide range of services many of which are taken for granted in government planning and development processes very important for water fowl and are thus undervalued (Wetlands Action Plan, 2000).

Economic Benefits

Pakistan’s wetlands provide many direct and in-direct benefits to the people. The main wetland product is the fish which in some places are commercially harvested in natural wetlands like Manchar Lake, Keenjhar Lake, Rawal Lake, Hadero Lake, Khabbeki Lake, at River Indus and its tributaries. This will add more financial and economic benefits to the country’s population in terms of employment and food resources. The river Indus is the major wetland which provides the drinking water as well as the water for the agriculture in the country. The dams and hydropower construction at the Indus River generate power and electricity for commercial and domestic purposes.

In Pakistan after agriculture; fishing is the main occupation of the people in rural areas as well as in the coastal belt. Govt. of Pakistan earns nearly 150 million US Dollars annually from the marine and coastal fishing through foreign trawlers and export of fish products to the Far East, Europe and America which contributes to the country’s economy.

7

Page 14: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

2. STUDY AREA

In this study we have taken two types of wetlands; i) Freshwater wetland, Haleji Lake, (Thatta, Sindh) ii) Coastal wetland. Mangrove Forest, Sandspit (Karachi)

2.1 Haleji Lake (Freshwater Wetland)

2.1.1 Background

Haleji Lake is an example of a large freshwater lake, in Sindh Province of Pakistan. It is a wintering site for the globally threatened pelican Pelecanus crispus. This wetland regularly hosts between 50,000 and 100,000 birds. It is especially important for staging and passing Anatidae and coot Fulica atra, and for breeding Ardeidae. In general, the area is of international importance for breeding, passage and wintering waterbirds.

Haleji is a perennial freshwater lake with associated marshes and adjacent brackish seepage lagoons, set in a stony desert. Originally a seasonal saline lagoon, the lake was formed in the 1930s by converting the lagoon into a water storage reservoir to meet non-agricultural demand for water for Karachi.

The lake was designated as Ramsar site on 23rd of July 1977. The total area of the lake is 1,704 ha. The lake is located 15 km west-northwest of Thatta, and 75 km east of Karachi. (Map 1).

Biological / Ecological Notes

Aquatic Vegetations: The Lake supports abundant aquatic vegetation, including extensive beds of Phragmites karka, Typha angustata, Ipomoea aquatica, Cyperus sp., Scirpus littoralis and Polygonum barbatum. Submerged vegetation includes Potamogeton pectinatus, P. perfoliatus, P. lucens, Vallisneria spiralis, Hydrilla verticulata, Najas minor, Lemna minor, Ceratophyllum demersum and Myriophyllum spicatum. Juncus maritimus grows around the brackish seepage lagoons. Big trees such as Acacia sp., Ficus sp. and Casuarina sp. have been planted on the bunds around the lake.

Fauna

Haleji Lake is an important breeding area for waterbirds, in particular Ardeidae, Nettapus coromandelius, Anas poecilorhyncha, Porphyrio porphyrio, and Hydrophasianus chirurgus. Thousands of night-herons Nycticorax nycticorax roost in the marshes. Wintering waterfowl include Pelecanus crispus, Anas penelope and Fulica atra. The sanctuary is also rich in raptors and fish, and it supports a small population of marsh crocodile Crocodylus palustris. 232 species of birds has been recorded from the lake.

The lake has three islands. One of them is known as Pelican Island and another Cormorant Island. On both the islands hundreds of these birds can be seen nesting and sunning. The Cormorants, a common sight at all wetlands, live the year round at the Haleji. On the Cormorant Island these could be seen in very large numbers resting and sunning with their very large wings spread wide and the long necks held high in the air. They live exclusively on fish, which they chase and catch under water, being expert divers and submarine swimmers.

Marsh crocodiles have also been introduced in to the lake and they have also made an island as their permanent residence. The island has been named after them as the Crocodile Island. They subsist on fish and waterfowl in the lake. The number of crocodiles has increased and now a few instances had been reported when the crocodiles had attacked the goats or sheep while these were drinking water in the lake. A good thing that had happened due to the introduction of crocodiles in the lake is that illegal fishing which the departmental staff had not been able to control or check had been stopped, as the fishermen, due to fear of the crocodiles, do not enter the lake for fishing.

8

Page 15: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Role of Aquatic Plants:Many wetland plants have the capacity to remove toxic substances that have come from pesticides, industrial discharges and mining activities. Some wetland plants have been found to accumulate heavy metals in their tissues at 100,000 times the concentration in the surrounding water and so can detoxify certain kinds of effluent. Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth), some Typha and Phragmites species have been used to treat effluents from mining areas that contain high concentrations of heavy metals such as cadmium, zinc, mercury, nickel, copper and vanadium. Using this purification capacity of wetlands, Calcutta has pioneered a system of sewage disposal that is both efficient and environmentally friendly. Built to house one million people, Calcutta is now home to over 10 million, many living in slums and creating a sanitation nightmare. But the 8,000-hectare East Calcutta marshes, a patchwork of tree-fringed canals, vegetable plots, rice paddies and fish ponds, along with the assistance of 20,000 people, daily transform one third of the city’s sewage and most of its domestic refuse into 20 tones of fish and 150 tones of vegetables. Mobilising people and wetlands here dispenses with the need for costly engineered sewage systems, brings great benefit to many local people, and solves at least part of the sanitation problem in the city.

Hydrological / Physical notes: The Lake was formed by bunding of a natural depression. The newly formed reservoir was drained of saline water and re-flooded with freshwater by the diversion of the Jam branch canal carrying water from Keenjhar Lake. A second canal, in the southwest corner of the lake, is the main outlet. The maximum depth is 6-8 m, and water levels fluctuate with 1 - 1.5 m. The bunds enclosing the lake carry a road lined with trees and shrubs. Beyond the bund there is a series of brackish seepage lagoons – originally “borrow-pits” from creating the bunds. These are supplied by monsoon rains, and water discharged from the main lake by a bypass regulator. The climate is dry, sub-tropical monsoonal, with very hot summers and cool winters. The lake serves as an important reservoir for flood control.

Water Quality

According to the study conducted by Sindh EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in 1999; the water salinity at surface was 0.15‰ (same at 1 and 2 meter depth also). At 3 and 4 meters it is 0.20‰ and 0.25‰ respectively. The PH remained alkaline at all depth except in January it becomes slightly acidic at 4-meter depth. The total suspended solids at surface were 4.9mg/L.

Recreational Uses

Recreational activities include angling of fish, bird watching and lakeside picnic. The site is also important for conservation education, with its information centre (and restaurant) with an observation tower. Proximity to Karachi affords excellent potential for conservation-based recreation and education.

Management

The lake is managed by two departments the Sindh Wildlife Department and Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KW&SB). The dual management had led to a poor management. Major portion of the lake surface is covered with weeds that are never properly or fully cut to clean the lake completely.

2.1.2 Major Factors Impacting the Haleji Lake

Stoppage of water:

When water from Haleji Lake was stopped to supply the Karachi city for drinking purpose, the lake faced many problems. It was about seven years ago that the lake has lost its value for the main drinking water supply to Karachi as the Water Board constructed the main canal directly from the Keenjhar lake to Karachi. Previously water was supplied from Keenjhar to Haleji and then to Karachi city. As a result of stoppage the water of the lake becomes stagnant and eutrophication was observed in the lake. The lotus spread all across the surface of the lake. Water level also started declining. At that time the Water Board did not show any interest of supplying water to the lake. The water management is controlled by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB), and the Sindh Wildlife Department is the custodian of the wildlife. There is a lack of coordination between these two departments. As a result the lake has been deteriorating day by day.

9

Page 16: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Developmental Activity:

The RBOD extension phase will create another negative ecological impact on the lake. According to the revised plan the new drain runs parallel at the surrounding edge of the lake. This Drain will contain the agricultural and industrial effluent and will drain out into the Arabian Sea at Gharo Creek of Indus Delta. The distance of the drain and the lake at one point is about 10 meter and all the seepage of the drain can mix with the Haleji lake water and will deteriorate quality.

Declining of waterbirds populationThe trend in the number of water birds at Haleji Lake during the period 1987-2003 shows significant depletion during late 1990’s and onwards as compared to the earlier period (Fig 1). This pattern is based on the field data collected by Sindh Wildlife Department during their annual census of waterbirds population in Sindh. (With the exception of four years i.e. 1993 and 1995-97, the survey was not undertaken). Whereas this depletion could be attributed to external factors like climatic changes worldwide, the local level factors like water shortage and non adherence to environmental standards seem to provide a more plausible explanation for the degradation of the lake.

Other factors include;

Excessive aquatic vegetation in the lake Lack of single management at the lake Illegal fishing Non-regular water supply to the lake from the inlet Cutting of the reeds near (destroyed) breeding colonies of the resident birds Non-scientific clearing of aquatic weeds (Lotus) New developmental plan without comprehensive EIA. e.g. Extension of RBOD (Right

Bank Outfall Drain).

2.1.3 Community Dependence on the Natural Resources

The local community living around the Lake directly utilizes the lake resources i.e. the water of the lake for drinking and domestic purposes. The local villagers also do fishing at the lake for their food consumptions by surrounding local villagers. The bank of the lake is used by the local females to wash clothes.

Villagers collect the reeds from the lake for many purposes like roof thatching, baskets making, broom making and small boats for fishing in the lake.

Local boys collect the flowers and seeds of the lotus for selling to the visitors and at the local markets. The roots of the lotus are used as the traditional food in the interior of Sindh.

The surrounding land of the lake is utilized by the local villagers for cultivation and livestock grazing.

Fig. 1

10In 2000, the Sindh Wildlife Department organised a ministerial meeting at the lake headed by the law minister of that time. She was briefed with the current situation of the lake and some immediate action was taken.

Page 17: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Trend of waterbirds population at Halej lake-Thatta, Sindh from 1987-2004

68,868

103,16196,124

101,351

79,377

168,645

126,093

28,190

53,936

68,594

44,93139,258

15,393 11480

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

wa

terb

ird

s

Source: Based on data of “Annual Waterfowl Counts” by Sindh Wildlife Department

Factors Impacting Haleji Lake

11

Diversion of drinking water to the Karachi City from Haleji

Diversion of drinking water to the Karachi City from Haleji

Illegal fishingIllegal fishing

Lack of comprehensive

scientific research

Lack of comprehensive

scientific research

Cutting of reeds near

the breeding colonies

Cutting of reeds near

the breeding colonies

Developmental activities like RBOD extension

Developmental activities like RBOD extension

Local women using the lake

bank for washing purposes

Local women using the lake

bank for washing purposes

Lack of awareness

Lack of awareness

Irregular water supply

Irregular water supply

Unchecked aquatic

vegetation

Unchecked aquatic

vegetation

Haleji Lake

Haleji Lake

Page 18: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Solving the problem of the Haleji Lake through

2.2 Sandspit Mangrove Area (Coastal Wetland)

2.2.1 Background

The coast of Sandspit is an open seafront sandy beach, 100-200 meters wide and about 5 km long. It has a large numbers of so called “beach huts” along the high waterline, and is frequented by thousands of visitors for recreation and viewing the endangered Green and Olive Ridley turtles which nest on the coast. (Map 2)

A small fishing village, Kaka Pir, and the adjoining two villages Shams Pir and Younus Abad are located in this area with a population of approximately 7,500 people. The Kaka Pir village is divided into two sections one of which is located close to the mangrove forests. The other section is located across the road, near the beach. In the village some basic facilities are available such as primary school for boys and no health center or commercial water tank. Sandspit is accessible by a “metalled” road which is in reasonably good condition.

The main source of livelihood is fishing. Few men also look after the beach huts of the absentee owners as guards. In addition to their domestic tasks, women look after and forage for the livestock (camels, goats) from the mangrove forests and collect firewood from the mangrove forest and elsewhere, and bring water from a communal water tank on a regular basis.

Ecological Notes

The area covered by the mangroves in Sandspit is about 400 ha. Total mangrove area is 300 ha is in good condition and 100 ha degraded forest. The main species is Avicennia marina. Harvesting by residents and other villagers has resulted in changes in the characteristics of the front trees which look like shrubs. The water level here rises and falls with the tides. Behind the mangrove forests extensive marshlands constitute an excellent habitat for thousands of migratory birds.

The creek system is one of the most important areas for wintering, passage and summering shorebirds in Pakistan, and also supports significant numbers of cormorants, flamingoes, ducks, gulls, and terns. About 32 species of shorebirds have been recorded. (Records of ZSD)

The mangroves forest at Sandspit is called as the backwaters mangroves. The source of freshwater is the Lyari River. The sea water comes through high and low tide daily.

12

Development of Management Plan

for Haleji Lake

Implementation of the Management Plan

Page 19: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Management

The mangrove forest has been managed by the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The mangrove forest is protected under the Pakistan Forest Act 1932 i.e. any cutting and damaging of the forest is prohibited. KPT has Watch and Ward system but due to the lack of manpower and patrolling boats they are not doing it effectively. The watch and ward of the mangrove forest of Sandspit is very weak. The locals regularly grazed the livestock, and cutting for fuel wood is very common in the area. Illegal migrants like Bengalies are cutting the mangrove trees for commercial purposes in the nearby villages. Absence of management plan for mangrove forest creates potential threats for the long term sustainability of these natural resources.

13

Page 20: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

2.2.2 Major Factors Impacting the Sandspit Mangrove Area

Degradation of mangrove forest

i. Cutting for fuel

The local females daily cut the mangrove branches for fuel purpose. This routine cutting of the mangrove trees gradually impact on the height and causes shrub like appearance. After several years of struggle Sui Gas has now been provided by the effort of WWF-P with the support of District Nazim (elected member of the district) and the local community. As a result of this the pressure on the mangrove forest is likely to reduce.

ii. Collection for Fodder

Small branches of mangrove tree have been collected by the local for fodder purpose.

Urban Pollution to the Mangrove forest at Sandspit

The mangrove forests of the backwater area at the Sandspit take freshwater from the Lyari River. The water of the River is now contaminated with the Industrial and domestic pollution as the industrial Area SITE which is located near the Lyari river and also the Kacchi Abadi resident at the bank of the Lyari river throw their domestic waste directly in to the River. This heavy contaminated water feed the mangrove forest.

2.2.3 Community Utilising the Natural Resources

Grazing: The local people use to graze their livestock in the mangrove forest. The livestock include the cows and goats some people have camels. The camels grazing is very common in the mangrove area, people retain the camels for the earning purpose as the beach side visitors like camels ride and horse ride.

Fuel wood Cutting: The local females use to collect/cut the mangrove wood for fuel purpose for their domestic needs. Mostly people in Kaka Pir and surrounding villages collect the mangrove wood for fuel purpose.

Crabbing: Crab fishing is very common in the backwater mangrove area. The mud crab and blue crab are caught by the local people specially the children. According to them the female crab has higher price, male crab has medium price and the juvenile crab has the lowest price in market. All these crabs have export value in Asia Pacific and Far East.

Fishing: Fishing in the mangrove area not very common but in the ban season some of the fisherman come for fishing in the creek and channels. Small size during fish and prawn are found in the backwater mangrove area.

14

Salt marshes, mangroves and other forested wetlands act as the frontline defence against incoming storms. They help minimise the impact of storms by reducing wind action, wave action and currents, while the roots of the plants help to hold the sediment in place.

Page 21: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Factors Impacting Mangrove Forest at Sandspit

Solving the problems by

15

Domestic waste

directly goes to the

mangrove forest

Domestic waste

directly goes to the

mangrove forest

Industrial waste (Pollution) in to the Mangrove

area

Industrial waste (Pollution) in to the Mangrove

area

Collection of small branches of mangroves

for stall feeding

Collection of small branches of mangroves

for stall feeding

Grazing for Camels / CattlesGrazing for

Camels / Cattles

Cutting for Fuel wood

for commercial

and domestic

use

Cutting for Fuel wood

for commercial

and domestic

use

Mangrove Forest at Sandspit

Mangrove Forest at Sandspit

Designating the Mangrove forest as

protected area

Development of Management Plan & its Implementation

Page 22: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

3. Methodological Framework

3.1 Genesis of Methodology

The issue of environmental degradation and rapid decline of natural resources became more prominent and better understood during the decades of 80’s and 90’s.

The rapid growth of population and the consequent development of technology impacted heavily on natural resources, particularly in the developing countries where the awareness about environmental degradation and future consequence has historically not been created.

The efforts towards the development of conservation policies, as a result of global warming, saw acceleration in development of forums, conventions, treaties and laws related to rapidly deteriorating environmental conditions at the world level during the last two decades of the twentieth century. All such changes in policy perspectives toward environment were the net impact of the efforts made by scientists who created technical knowledge in order that the policy makers and the users of natural resources understand better the logical impact of their current actions on the future outcome.

The role of social scientists in this regard, though lately recognized, was vital in bridging the gap between natural sciences and the political spheres, as well as in identifying the complementarities reposed in the jointness of all sciences in creating empirical knowledge for the long term sustainability of natural resources.

The efforts made in this regard also included development of techniques and refinement of various concepts based on rational behaviour of individuals in impacting on natural resources.

These refinements in the concept and techniques concurrently guided the policy makers in the design of policies aimed at conserving natural resources. The development of methods to know the likely responses of individuals towards policies aimed at conservation of natural resources was pivotal in this regard.

3.2 Valuation of Wetland

Based on the information generated through field surveys in both sites, estimates were obtained with regard to the economic valuation of these resources.

The estimated economic values were based on a set of assumptions for each site. As per methodological framework, direct and indirect benefits were estimated in the form of use and non-use values attributable to the impacts of local population and the visitors.

In this backdrop, efforts were made for the refinement of methods/techniques for the valuation of current action(s) of individuals on natural resources. The obtaining information has helped scientists and policy makers in acquiring in-depth knowledge on the subject and in designing policies to ensure better sharing of natural resources and their sustenance by all stakeholders.

Based on the techniques formulated in the economic literature on the valuation of natural resources, a framework was used for the study to conduct valuation of wetland. This includes various indicators of values (both tangible and intangible) benefiting various groups of users (locals and visitors).

Whereas the direct and the indirect use values have largely been focused in the present study, the analysis will help in putting a price tag on non-use values which often remain unclear but are extremely relevant from the view point of future sustainability of the natural resources.

16

Page 23: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

TEV (Total Economic Value) = Use Value + Non-Use Value

1. Direct Use Value Raw materials (for marketed & non-marketed products) e.g. timber, fuel-wood, water, soil

2. Indirect Use Value Waste disposal and Amenities (recreational or scenic value)

3. Existence Value Willing to pay to help ensure existence of a species

4. Options Value Willing to pay to come and see at some point in time

5. Quasi Option Value Existence of any species will have higher value in future

6. Bequest Value Ensuring that future generations will be able to see such species

3.3 Sampling Framework

In order to gather primary data to represent wetland area from fresh and saline water areas to sites of Haleji Lake and Sandspit were chosen, respectively. The data was collected in 2001-02.

The Haleji Lake is Ramsar site with a total population of 9,000 individuals spread over 12 villages. The Sandspit area is located on the Arabian Sea and two sampled villages are located in the backwater and surrounded by mangroves were sampled. These villages had a total population of over 7,500. Table 3.1 provides basic description of these two sites.

Because of scanty information available on these sites, a random sampling approach was adopted. Given the limited resources available and a pilot nature of the study, it was decided to cover a total of 101 households from these two sites (61 from Haleji and 40 from Sandspit). The sample distribution between the sites was made in proportion to the relative number of households.

In addition, 34 interviews were conducted with the visitor’s at Haleji lake to ascertain visitor’s impact on the natural resources of the lake. In case of Sandspit area, there were no visitors observed during the survey.

Two sets of survey instruments (i.e. formal questionnaires) were developed for the survey of households and visitors. At the end of survey, a total of 101 households and 34 visitors (groups) were covered.

17

Direct Use Value

TEV

Use Value Non-Use Value

Indirect Use Value

Existence Value

Option Value

Quasi Option Value

BequestValue

Page 24: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Table – 3.1

Site Description

Haleji Sandspit1. No. of Villages 12 2

2. Total Population 9,000 7,500

3. No. of Households 1,500 1,000

4. Average Household Size 6 7.5

5. Composition Heterogeneous Homogenous

6. Depending on Natural Resources Predominant(for all activities)

Relatively low(for fuel & fodder only)

7. Threat to Environment Direct Direct

8. Recreational Activities Frequent Occasional

9. Land tenureSanctuary

(Protected Area)6 K.M. radius

Leased/Owned

10. Services/Benefits from Wetland- Life Support- Raw Materials- Amenities

- Raw Materials- Waste Disposal Services- Amenities

11. Institutions Involved- KWSB- Wildlife Department (GoS)- Irrigation Department (GoS)

- KPT- Manora Cantonment Board- Wildlife Department (GoS)

18

Page 25: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

4. Impact of Wetland

4.1 Benefits to Local Communities

The local population in both the study areas had shown heavy dependence on the natural resources for their livelihood. Though a large number of direct and indirect benefits (reflecting use and non-use values of the natural resources consumed) were extracted from these areas on a regular basis; the fishing activity dominated over other activities which included farming and wood cutting. At Haleji, continued farming has tended to create significant threats t the lake.

The detailed analysis showed that:

1. There was a positive relationship between family size and mean annual income which implies that there is a stronger impact of increased population on environment (Annexure A – Tables 1&2). It further implies that if alternative employment opportunities are not made available, the rate of extraction of natural resources will accelerate.

2. A total of 36 households out of 61 (i.e. 59 percent) in Haleji lake, and 26 out of 40 (i.e. 65 percent) in Sandspit area had fishing as the primary occupation (Annexure A – Table 2). In addition, family members had secondary occupations creating incomes from tourism (Annexure A – Table 3). It shows that whereas the primary occupations directly related to natural resources was 78 and 65 percent in Haleji and Sandspit areas, respectively, almost all households had their secondary occupation directly impacting on the natural resources through farming, wood cutting, etc.

3. The in-migration pattern into the area shows that nearly 27 percent of the present families migrated into the area during the last 25 years or so (Annexure A – Table 4). Whereas this proportion seems significant, there was no ostensible difference in the average annual incomes of the households as a result of migration. This finding complements the other findings mentioned above.

4. In addition to the direct benefits mentioned earlier, a stream of indirect benefits1 was also reported by the households surveyed. In this regard, wood cutting appears predominant (Annexure A – Table 5). The pattern of other indirect benefits shows that in Haleji lake area water and fish for home consumption, in Sandspit area grazing (camel grazing in mangrove forests) were significant.

5. The inhabitants also indicated certain constraints with regard to reduced opportunities for woodcutting, water fetching, washing and grass cutting (Annexure A – Table 6). As mentioned earlier, the general depletion of the water and forests resources in these wetlands caused by natural and man-made factors which have intensified over time as well as the prevailing socio-economic environment reflecting unemployment, poverty and lack of infrastructure, have tended to improve constraints which are themselves product of over-exploitation of natural resources by the residing population and ignorance perpetuated by the government.

In the wake of this, people find no other resource but those offered by the wetland. Hence the pressure intensifies for the extraction of benefits with no regard to sustainability of these natural resources. The type and nature of constraints thus observed by the local population only relate to wood cutting, water fetching, grass / fodder supplies.

6. The suggestions made by the respondents for the remedy of the constraints included increase in visitor’s fee, development of tourism, export of crocodile and clean drinking water in Haleji area and natural gas in Sandspit area (Annexure A – Table 7). These suggested developmental activities

1 The term indirect benefits used here refers to benefits that were reported as not regular or frequent owning to the fact that supplies of water and forest is limited in the area. Therefore, these benefits were separated out from the benefits of regular and frequent activities described as primary and/or secondary occupations.

19

Page 26: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

are likely to increase incomes of the population residing near these locations through creation of additional job, and services demanded.

7. The loss of income due to the reduced natural resources, as perceived by the households, were primarily related to fish catch and wood cutting in Haleji area (Annexure A – Tables 8&9).

4.2 Problems and Performance of Institutions

In addition to the surveys of households and tourists, consultative meetings/interviews were held with the officials of various departments/organizations as well as the households and tourists to help identify the problems encountered in the overall management of these locations (i.e. the lake and the forest) and the suggested measures. These individuals were also asked to rank various government organizations in terms of their role and the order of importance in the wake of sustainable management of the wetlands.

The responses received have been presented in the following table. However, this must be noted that these ranking are indicative of the general responses received within the limited scope of this study. Nevertheless, these will be helpful in preparing a Management Plan for the Wetland. Where an in-depth institutional analysis will be required, in addition to other surveys and Federal Govt. Departments to attain a precise function and role for each governmental organization.

Institution Role Priority Constraints

At Haleji Lake (from the view point of natural resources conservation and tourism)

Sindh Wildlife Department I 1 Financial, manpowerKarachi Water and Sewerage Board I 2 Lack of environmental awareness, lack of

lake water managementSindh Tourism Department I 3 Lack of eco friendly tourism awareness,

proper planningIrrigation Department II 3 Lack of environmental awarenessAt Sandspit / Hawksbay (from the view point of natural resources conservation)

Karachi Port Trust I 1 Financial, manpower, patrolling facilitiesSindh Wildlife Department II 2 Lack of manpowerKarachi University II 2 Lack of field based research activities,

financial Fishermen Cooperative Society II 2 Lack of environmental awareness, City Government II 2 Lack of environmental awarenessUnion Council II 2 Lack of environmental awarenessMarine Fisheries Department III 3 Financial and lack of research activities

Key:Role: I=Significant, II=Partial, III=negligible, 0= nilPriority: 1= high, 2=medium, 3=low, 0 = nil

4.3 Visitors Impact

1. The visitors survey (only limited to Haleji area) reveals a sizeable number of group of individual (averaging 5 per group) regularly visit Haleji lake for fishing and recreational purposes. The analysis includes value of the visitor’s time (i.e. opportunity cost of their time with reference to their

20

Page 27: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

income/professional class), and the cash expenditure incurred, mode of travel across income and professional classifications (Annexure B – Tables 1-16).

2. The visitor’s survey results also indicate greater potentials in developing tourism on scientific basis which ensures generation of additional financial resources as well as increasing the level of awareness of visitors towards conservation and sustenance of natural resources. Given the close proximity to the city of Karachi, it provides enormous potential for the development of the lake that is financially feasible and environmentally sustainable.

4.4 Economic Valuation

A summarized version of all annexure tables discussed above is presented through Tables 4.1 to 4.4. Here, the benefits derived (direct or indirect or secondary benefits) have been reduced to only those that can be related to the natural resources across both the research sites.

It clearly shows that, on average, the level of direct benefits in Sandspit is nearly 65 percent higher than what was reported for Haleji area.

The comparative picture of Tables 4.1 and 4.2 indicates that in terms of the benefits extracted, the proportion of secondary occupation is relatively small i.e. on average; nearly 92 percent of the benefits (incomes) were derived through those primary occupations which directly impact on natural resources.

In this context, the derivation of economic value was restricted to primary occupations directly impacting on natural resources (i.e. farming, fishing and wood cutting). Similarly, using a set of assumptions, the economic value of visitor’s impact was also estimated.

At Haleji Lake, the estimated use value was Rs.164 million annually and the non-use value covering both recreational and existence values jointly stood at Rs.24 million annually.

Similarly, at Sandspit (where only use values were observed during the survey) the estimated economic value of the site was Rs.151million annually.

In aggregate terms, the total economic value of the wetlands stands around Rs.339 million annually. This potential can be enhanced greatly by developing a comprehensive plan covering all the aspects highlighted by this study in more details.

4.5 Limitations of the study

- The pilot nature of the study has constrained from carrying out a larger survey and further in-depth analysis. Nevertheless, it amply demonstrates the level of environmental degradation due to the heavy dependence of local population on the wetland.

- The study also highlights the enormous potentials for the development of tourism in the area. The visitor’s survey results, though carried out on a relatively small scale, indicate potentials for higher willingness to pay by the visitors. An in-depth analysis of visitors in an inter temporal fashion may help in creating a better understanding of the impact of variations caused by weather, water resources availability, birds migration which jointly impact on visitors pattern of stay and impact on the wetland.

21

Page 28: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Table – 4.1

Average Annual Income Per Household By Primary Occupation by Area

(in Rupees)

Area Primary Occupation TotalFarming Fishing Wood Cutting

1. Haleji 28,360(7)

43,911(36)

19,800(4)

39,543(47)

2. Sandspit

65,249(26)

65,249(26)

Total 28,360(7)

52,859(62)

19,800(4)

48,698(73)

Figure in parenthesis shows # of households.Source: Household Survey under the study.

Table – 4.2

Average Annual Income Per Household By Secondary Occupation by Area

(in Rupees)

22

Average Annual Income Per Household By Primary Occupation by Area

Chart - 1

Source: Household survey under the study

Page 29: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Area Secondary Occupation TotalFarming Fishing Wood Cutting Tourism

1. Haleji 37,600(6)

32,240(5)

43,662(50)

42,288(61)

2. Sandspit

65,600(2)

69,576(38)

69,377(40)

Total 37,600(6)

65,600(2)

32,240(5)

54,852(88)

53,124(101)

Figure in parenthesis shows # of households.Source: Household Survey under the study.

Source: Household Survey under the study.

23

Average Annual Income Per Household By Secondary Occupation by Area

Chart - 2

Page 30: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Table – 4.3

Average Annual Benefits Per Household from Indirect Use of Resources from Environment By Type of Benefits By Area

(in Rupees)

Area

Types of Indirect

TotalWater Fetching & Cloth

WashingGrazing

Fish Consumption

at Home

Raw Materials for

Handicrafts

1. Haleji 47,586(29)

36,000(1)

35,180(24)

54,000(1)

42,078(55)

2. Sandspit 61,014(19)

102,300(4) 68,194

(23)

Total 47,586(29)

59,763(20)

44,769(28)

54,000(1)

49,779(78)

Figure in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey under the study.

Source: Household Survey under the study.

GrazingThough the activity of grazing on pastorals land is common throughout, in a sanctuary like Haleji lake which has been accorded the status of a Ramsar Site the use of land for grazing or other agricultural purposes is not permitted.However, as observed during the course of the study, the local inhabitants were found exerting pressure on the natural resources. Since, grazing is not permitted,(See Annexures C) the activity was carried out with reluctance due to the fear of law. As such, a direct and exclusive dependence on the lake for grazing did not exist in the area and the people extracted the benefits of grazing occasionally as and when they could do it. In this very context, the activity of grazing was regarded as an indirect activity.

Table – 4.4

Total Cash Expenditure and Total Value of Time Per Group*

24

Chart - 3

Average Annual Benefits Per Household from Indirect Use of Resources from Environment By Type of Benefits By Area

Page 31: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Per Year By Origin in Visiting Haleji Lake(in Rupees)

Origin Cash Expenditure Value of Time Total

1. Upper Middle Income Group 5,064(11)

2,027(11)

7,091(11)

2. Lower Middle Income Group 4,759(14)

1,693(14)

6,452(14)

3. Near Distance 4,549(9)

2,222(9)

6,772(9)

Total 4,802(34)

1,941(34)

6,743(34)

Figure in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey under the study.* Each group on average constitutes 5 persons.

Estimation of Economic Valuation (of Use Value)

The specific steps followed in the estimation of economic valuation (Use Value) were as under:

Estimation of direct and indirect benefits through primary and secondary sources;

Based on the assumptions for direct (i.e) primary & secondary) benefits (table 4.1 & 4.2) and indirect benefits (table 4.3), estimation on economic value were made keeping in view the use value.

25

Chart - 4

Total Cash Expenditure and Total Value of Time Per Group* Per Yer By Origin in Visiting Halejee Lake

Source: Visitor's survey under the study.

Page 32: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Direct use value = (Total # of households in each area) X (proportion of households reporting such benefits) X (Average annual benefits per year household).

For example;

A) Estimation of Direct/ primary benefits at Haleji lake Reference table 4.1

Total # household = 1500Proportion of households reporting such benefits = 77%Average annual level of direct / primary benefits = Rs. 39,543

Therefore,Economic Value = 1500 x 0.77 x 39,543 = Rs. 45.7 Million

Similarly, Estimation of Direct / primary benefits at Sandspit reference table 4.1

where,Total # household = 1,000Proportion of household reporting such benefits = 65%Average annual level of direct/primary benefits= Rs.65,249

Therefore,Economic value = 1,000 x0.65 x 652, 49 = Rs.42.4 Million

i.e. total economic value of direct /primary benefits at both the location is Rs. 88.1 Million.

B) Estimation of Direct / Secondary benefits at Haleji Lake; reference table 4.2,Where,Total # of households = 1500Proportion of households reporting such benefits = 98%Average Annual level of direct / secondary benefits = Rs. 42.228

Therefore,Economic value = 1500 x 0.98 x 42,228 = Rs. 62.07 Million

Similarly, Estimation of direct / secondary benefits at Sandspit reference table 4.2Where,Total # households = 1,000Proportion of household reporting such benefits = 100%Average annual level of direct / secondary benefits = Rs. 69,377

Therefore; Economic Value = 1,000 x 1.0 x 69,377 = Rs. 69.38 Million

i.e. Total Economic Value of Direct/Secondary benefits at both location is Rs. 131.45 MillionC) Estimation of Indirect benefits; reference table 4.3

B1 : Haleji lake;

Where, Total # of households = 1500Proportion of Households reporting such benefits = 90.1 5Average level of indirect benefits = Rs. 42,078

Therefore,Economic Value = 1500 x 0.901 x 42.078 = Rs. 56.87 Million

26

Page 33: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

B2 Sandspit;

Where,Total no. of household = 1,000Proportion of households reporting such benefits = 57.5 %Average annual level of indirect benefits = Rs. 68,194

Therefore,Economic value = 1,000 x 0.575 x 68,194 = Rs. 39.21 Million

i.e. Total Economic Value of Indirect benefits at both the location is Rs. 96.08 Million

D) Value of Visitors (Haleji Lake only) reference table 4.4

Assumptions

1. Each group comprises, on average, 5 persons.

2. Visitors come only 2 days per week.

3. It implies from (1) & (2) above that each week 340 persons visit the lake.

4. It further implies that each year 17,680 persons visit the lake.

5. It further implies that each year 3,536 groups of 5 persons each visit the lake.

I. Recreation Value = # Groups Per Year x Total Cash Expenditure(Based on Cash Expenditure) Per Group Per Trip.

= 3,536 x 4,802

= 16.979

~ 17 Million Rupees

II. Existence Value = # Groups Per Year x Total Value of Time(Based on Value of Time) Spent by Each Group on the Lake

= 3,536 x 1,941= 6,861~ 7 Million Rupees

i.e. Total Economic Value of Indirect benefits at both the location is 17 + 7 = Rs. 24 Million RupeesIn summary, the annual economic valuation of both sites appears as follows:

Haleji Lake Sandspit Area1. Use Value 164.14 Million Rs. 151.0 Million Rs.2. Non-Use Value

2.1 Recreational Value 17.0 Million Rs. 2.2 Existence Value 7.0 Million Rs.

188.14 Million Rs. 151.0 Million Rs.

Total Estimated Economic Value of Haleji and Sandspit Areas is Rs. 339.14 Million.

27

Page 34: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

5. RecommendationsIn the light of the results and analysis presented above, following recommendations are being made in order that a basis is created for the future action plan for the sustenance of wetland. The economic valuation of the wetland suggests that these natural resources are heavily extracted

by the local population and immediate steps be taken to reduce the dependence of the population, particularly on fishing in Haleji lake and wood cutting in the mangrove forests in the backwaters of Sandspit area. The steps to be taken may include strict adherence to Ramsar Convention in case of Haleji Lake and provision of alternate fuel sources e.g. natural gas in Sandspit area.

The level of dependence of population on natural resources, in extracting benefits through secondary occupation and indirect approaches, is quite visible. This dependence is likely to persist and this persistence could be utilized in motivating the local population to conserve the resources through sustainable harvesting. An effective involvement of local population in the efforts to conserve and sustain the natural resources would create a sense of ownership as well as financial benefits.

The visitor’s survey in Haleji lake area demonstrates considerable potentials for creating general awareness about environment and generation of financial resources through promotion of tourism. The dearth of recreational facilities in Karachi region provides ample opportunities for developing

28

Page 35: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Haleji Lake and Sandspit area. The imputed economic valuation of these wetlands under the study seems significant in the present scenario but would appear quite conservative given the potentials reposed.

The sustainable harvesting of these resources e.g. export of crocodiles in Haleji lake area could also complement in generating the required financial resources for the development of these areas which seem to have potentials for self financing.

In the light of above, it seems quite relevant that a management plan be developed for conservation of these natural resources depicting different water bodies.

Though the present study is a pilot level study, it nevertheless provides sufficient empirical evidences to suggest that these wetlands are under continuous pressure being exerted from local population and that there exists significant potential for the development for tourism which will in addition to increasing financial resources, also help create a better awareness and understanding among visitors in conserving natural resources. In this backdrop, there appears a greater need to comprehensive management plan based on the entire landscape for sustainable use of these important natural resources.

29

Page 36: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

References[1] Choudhury, J.K (1994) Sustainable management of coastal mangrove forest development and

social needs. IUCN Publication. Pages 266-282.

[2] FAO Press Release Rome 01/49 Forestry Experts Debate Central Themes and Issues for Fighting Hunger and Poverty Through Sustainable Forest Management 04/9/01 from their web site.

[3] Economic valuation of wetlands on the river basin scale --A discussion paper,The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, May 2003.

[4] E. Maltby, Waterlogged Wealth, Earthscan, 1986. IUCN.

[5] EPA – Govt. of Sindh 1999, June. Report on “ Study Into Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in Major Lakes in Sindh.

[6] Gilbert, A, J and Janssen, R (1998) Use of environmental functions to communicate the values of a mangrove ecosystem under different management regimes Ecological Economics volume 25, pages 323–346, produced by Elsevier.

[7] Gladston, W (2000) The ecological and social basis for management of a Red Sea marine-protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, volume 43, pages 1015 – 1032, produced by Elsevier.

[8] Holmes, B (29th October 1994) “The Other Australia” Ecologist and Californian correspondent for new scientist, From New Scientist magazine, Volume 144, Issue 1949, Page 33.

[9] K.Najam et al, Wetlands Action Plan-, WWF-Pakistan, 2000.

[10] Kunstadter, K et al., (1985) Man in the Mangroves - The Socio-economic Situation of Human Settlements in Mangrove Forests, Proceedings of a workshop held at Nong Nuch Village, Pattaya, Thailand, sponsored by the United Nations University and the National Research Council of Thailand.

[11] Ogden, J.C & Gladfelter, E.H (May 1982) Coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves: their interaction in the coastal zones of the Caribbean: report of a workshop, held at West Indies Laboratory, St.Croix, U.S.Virgin Islands sponsored by Unesco, IOCARIBE.

[12] O’Riordan, T (2000) Environmental Science For Environmental Management. 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, UK.

[13] P. Dugan, Wetland Conservation, IUCN, 1990.

[14] Pain, S (08th January 1994) “Living coastline” suffers most from oil spills New Scientist magazine, Volume 141, Issue 1907, Page 4.

[15] Pangthanapanich, T (1996) Economic Study Suggests Management Guidelines for Mangroves to Derive Optimal Economical and Social Benefits. Aquaculture Asia Volume 2, Page 16.

[16] Primavera, J, H (2000) SPECIAL ISSUE - The values of wetlands: landscape and institutional perspectives - development and conservation of Philippine Mangroves, Ecological Economics volume 35, pages 91–106 produced by Elsevier.

[17] Quarto, A (1999) Mangrove Action Project: The Mangrove Forest: background paper by The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

30

Page 37: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

[18] Rajiv, K (2000) Conservation and management of mangroves in India, with special reference to the State of Goa and the Middle Andaman Islands Unasylva, 51; 41-47.

[19] Ramsar Convention Bureau, with considerable input from Dr David Stone, funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). © Ramsar Convention, October 1996.

[20] Rondinelli, R.,Dennis A. (1989), “Market Town and Rural – Urban linkages,” Presented at Eleventh Annual Conference on Housing and Urban Development in Africa (Research Triangle Institute North Carolina).

[21] S. Hails, ed., Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention, Ramsar, in press

[22] Tomlinson, P.B (1986) The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[23] UNEP, Global Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.

31

Page 38: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Web Sites

1. Asian Aquatic Resources Web page - Management practices and Conservation (accessed 01/12/01):http://www.agri-aqua.ait.ac.th/mangroves/management.htl-

2. Australian Institute of Marine Science (1993) Field Guide to the Mangroves of Queensland (accessed 14-03-02):http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/reflib/fg-mangroves/pages/fgm-qld-13.html

3. Christensen, B - What are mangroves worth? (accessed 06-03-02):http://www.Unasylva - No_ 139 - Mangroves What are they worth - Mangroves what are they worth.htm

4. Florida Everglades National Park (accessed 22/03/01):http://www.evergladesplan.org/the_plan/3lev_so_you_animals.shtml

5. Food And Agriculture Organization (FAO) - Forest Reports (accessed 02/12/01):http//www.fao.org/forestry/foda/wforgong/PUBLI/V6/T386E/1-5.htm

6. Mangrove Action Project (accessed 11-03-02) article by Fitzgerald, J, W:http://www.earthisland.org/map/sstal.htm

7. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (1999) Vietnam-Coastal Wetlands - Protection and Development Project in Asia and Pacific by the World Bank (accessed 14-03-02):http://www.wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/11/04/000094946_99031911044384/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf

8. Our planet (accessed 23/1/02):http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/95/gomez Gomez, E.D (1998)

9. The Ecology of Mangroves article (accessed 25/02/02):http://www.agri-aqua.ait.ac.th/mangroves/ECOLOGY.html

10. UNESCO (accessed 23/01/02):http://www.unesco.org/csi/region/desert

11. USGS – Proffitt, E and Doyle, T (Tuesday, February 5th, 2002), Hurricane Damage to Coastal Forests (accessed 14-03-02):http://mitchnts1.cr.usgs.gov/projects/coastal.html

12. Introduction to Relative Ecosystem Valuation. Discussion of the purposes and context for ecosystem valuation. (The Big Picture) non-technical explanation of the economic theory of ecosystem valuation. (Essentials of Ecosystem Valuation).

http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/Indicators/about.htm

32

Page 39: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure – A: Tables Based on Household Data

1. Mean Income by Total Family Size

2. Mean Income by Primary Occupation

3. Mean Income by Secondary Occupation

4. Mean Income by Area by Year of Living

5. Mean Income by Indirect Benefits

6. Type of Constraints by Area

7. Suggested Economic Activities by Areas

8. Mean Income by Area by Type of Losses

9. Proportion of Losses by Area by Income Group

Note: The values contained in these tables are on the basis of averages per year. Different tables have different units which have been already indicated. Due to multiple responses to some questions, the number of responses may exceed the total number of households interviewed.

33

Page 40: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-A Table – 1

MEAN ANNUAL INCOME BY TOTAL FAMILY SIZE(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(Rs.)

Area Family Size Average Total1 – 5 6 – 8 9 Through High

Haleji 40579(19)

27280(14)

51050(28)

42333(61)

Sandspit 49420(10)

57300(14)

92417(16)

69377(40)

Total 43628(29)

42290(28)

66093(44)

53044(101)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 2

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY PRIMARY OCCUPATION(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(Rs.)

AreaPrimary Occupation Average

Total All Occupations

Misc. Works Teacher Govt.

Servant Farmer Fishing WoodCutting

StoneWork

Haleji 50000(3)

55600(1)

54640(5)

28360(7)

43911(36)

19800(4)

56750(4)

42,333(60)

Sandspit 65249(26) 65,249

(26)

Total 50000(3)

55600(1)

54640(5)

28360(7)

52859(62)

19800(4)

56750(4)

49,261(86)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 3

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY SECONDARY OCCUPATION(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(Rs.)

AreaSecondary Occupation Average

TotalMisc. Works Including Tourism Farmer Fishing Wood

Cutting Stone Work

Haleji 43662(50)

37600(5) 33240

(5)45000

(1)42333(61)

Sandspit 69576(38) 65600

(2) 69377(40)

Total 54852(88)

37600(5)

65600(2)

33240(5)

45000(1)

53044(101)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 4

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY YEARS OF LIVING

34

Page 41: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)(Rs.)

Area Years of Living Average TotalBy birth 2 – 5 6 – 15 16 – 25 26 – High

Haleji 39570(42)

42000(1)

41386(14)

39750(4) 42333

(61)

Sandspit 69702(32)

51000(2)

84000(1)

59650(4)

120000(1)

69377(40)

Total 52600(74)

48000(3)

53560(15)

49700(8)

120000(1)

53044(101)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 5

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY INDIRECT BENEFITS(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(Rs.)

AreaIndirect Benefits Average

TotalWoodCutting

Waterfor Home

Fish forConsumption Handicraft Grazing

Haleji 42371(58)

47586(29)

35180(24)

54000(1)

36000(1)

42229(61)

Sandspit 70299(35) 102300

(4) 61014(19)

69465(37)

Total 52882(93)

47586(29)

44769(28)

54000(1)

59764(20)

51467(98)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 6

TYPE OF CONSTRAINTS BY AREA(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(# Households Who Responded)

ReasonsConstraints

WoodCutting

WaterFetching

WashingCloth Grass Cutting

Haleji 12 14 10 Sandspit 32 3Total 44 14 10 3

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

35

Page 42: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-A Table – 7

SUGGESTED ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES BY AREA(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(# Households Who Responded)

AreaSuggestions

Gas Supply Increase Fees Tourism Development

Export Crocodile Clean Water

Haleji 5 26 11 20 4Sandspit 32 Total 37 26 11 20 4

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 8

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY LOSSES(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(Rs.)

Area Losses Average TotalFishing Wood Cutting

Haleji 45482(39)

36600(2)

45049(40)

Sandspit

Total 45482(39)

36600(2)

45049(40)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 9

REPORTED ANNUAL LOSS OF INCOME BY VILLAGE BY INCOME(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)

(000’ Rs.)Total Income Average

TotalBelow 20000 20001 to 40000

40001 to 60000

60001 to 99000

99001 and above

Haleji 11(11)

40(22)

40(16)

32(11)

75(1)

34(61)

Sandspit (6)

(16)

(11)

(7)

(40)

Total 11(11)

32(28)

20(32)

16(22)

9(8)

20(101)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

36

Page 43: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure – B: Tables Based on Visitor’s Survey

1. Total Value of Time Spent per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

2. Total Cash Expenditure per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

3. Total Cash and Time Value per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

4. Total Value of Time Spent per Person per Year by Occupation by Mode.

5. Total Cash Expenditure per Person per Year Occupation by Mode.

6. Total Cash & Time Value per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

7. Average Value of Time Spent per Year by Origin by Mode.

8. Average Cash Expenditure per Year by Origin by Mode.

9. Average Cash & Time Value per Year by Origin by Mode.

10. Average Value of Time Spent per Year.

11. Average Cash Expenditure per Year by Occupation by Mode.

12. Average Cash & Time Value per Year by Occupation by Mode.

13. Suggestions Made by Occupation.

14. Total Value of Time Spent per Year by Origin by Occupation.

15. Total Cash Expenditure per Year by Origin by Occupation

16. Total Cash and Time Value per Year by Origin by Occupation

Note: The values contained in these tables are on the basis of averages per year. Different tables have different units which have been already indicated. Due to multiple responses to some questions, the number of responses may exceed the total number of households interviewed.

37

Page 44: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 1

VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER PERSON PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

Living AreaMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Upper Middle 1829(7)

1200(1)

2700(1) 5200

(1)400(1)

2027(11)

Lower Middle 2700(1)

1980(5)

400(3)

2000(3)

1200(1)

2700(1) 1693

(14)

Near Distance 1950(2)

3950(2) 1433

(3)2700(1) 1200

(1)2222(9)

Total 2200(3)

2186(14)

600(4)

1857(7)

1950(2)

2700(1)

5200(1)

800(2)

1941(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 2

CASH EXPENDITURE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

Living AreaMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Upper Middle 4964(7)

4235(1)

5400(1) 10400

(1)923(1)

5064(11)

Lower Middle 5400(1)

7468(5)

800(3)

5464(3)

2400(1)

2700(1) 4759

(14)

Near Distance 2550(2)

9250(2) 2099

(3)7714(1) 3333

(1)4549(9)

Total 3500(3)

6471(14)

1659(4)

4012(7)

5057(2)

2700(1)

10400(1)

2128(2)

4802(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

38

Page 45: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 3

CASH AND TIME VALUE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

All ExpenditureMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Upper Middle 6793(7)

5435(1)

8100(1) 15600

(1)1323(1)

7092(11)

Lower Middle 8100(1)

944895)

1200(3)

7464(3)

3600(1)

5400(1) 6452

(14)

Near Distance 4500(2)

13200(2) 3532

(3)10414

(1) 4533(1)

6772(9)

Total 5700(3)

8656(14)

2259(4)

5870(7)

7007(2)

5400(1)

15600(1)

292892)

6744(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 4

VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER PERSON PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

OccupationMODE Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Education Class 2240(5)

667(3)

2100(6) 1843

(14)

Skilled Worker 1950(2) 400

(1) 2700(1) 1200

(1)1640(5)

Business Class 2700(1)

2156(9) 400

(1)1950(2) 5200

(1)400(1)

2133(15)

Total 2200(3)

2186(14)

600(4)

1857(7)

1950(2)

2700(1)

5200(1)

800(2)

1941(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

39

Page 46: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 5

CASH EXPENDITURE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

OccupationMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Education Class 5155(5)

2059(3)

4615(6) 4260

(14)

Skilled Worker 3900(2) 457

(1) 2700(1) 3333

(1)2858(5)

Business Class 2700(1)

7202(9) 400

(1)5057(2) 10400

(1)923(1)

5957(15)

Total 3500(3)

6471(14)

1659(4)

4012(7)

5057(2)

2700(1)

10400(1)

2128(2)

4802(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 6

CASH AND TIME VALUE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

OccupationMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Education Class 7395(5)

2726(3)

6715(6) 6103

(14)

Skilled Worker 5850(2) 857

(1) 5400(1) 4533

(1)4498(5)

Business Class 5400(1)

9357(9) 800

(1)7007(2) 15600

(1)1323(1)

8090(15)

Total 5700(3)

8656(14)

2259(4)

5870(7)

7007(2)

540091)

15600(1)

2928(2)

6744(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

40

Page 47: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 7

AVERAGE VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

Living AreaMODE Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Upper Middle 4571(7)

20400(1)

13500(1) 26000

(1)1300(1)

8473(11)

Lower Middle 400(1)

11400(5)

3333(3)

9700(3)

1400(1)

10000(1) 7707

(14)

Near Distance 4500(2)

17150(2) 2433

(3)18900

(1) 10800(1)

8922(9)

Total 3133(3)

8807(14)

7600(4)

7129(7)

10150(2)

10000(1)

26000(1)

6050(2)

8276(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 8

AVERAGE CASH EXPENDITURE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

Living AreaMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Upper Middle 8571(7)

72000(1)

27000(1) 52000

(1)3000(1)

19455(11)

Lower Middle 80(1)

38500(5)

6666(3)

27100(3)

2800(1)

10000(1) 21957

(14)

Near Distance 6300(2)

41050(2) 3433

(3)54000

(1) 30000(1)

21000(9)

Total 4467(3)

23900(14)

23000(4)

16943(7)

28400(2)

10000(1)

52000(1)

16500(2)

20894(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

41

Page 48: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 9

AVERAGE CASH AND TIME VALUE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

Living AreaMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Upper Middle 13143(7)

92400(1)

40500(1) 78000

(1)4300(1)

27927(11)

Lower Middle 1200(1)

49900(5)

10000(3)

36800(3)

4200(1)

20000(1) 29664

(14)

Near Distance 10800(2)

58200(2) 5867

(3)72900

(1) 40800(1)

29922(9)

Total 7600(3)

32707(14)

30600(4)

24071(7)

38550(2)

20000(1)

78000(1)

22550(2)

29171(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 10

AVERAGE VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER YEAR(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

OccupationMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Education Class 8400(5)

8967(3)

8067(6) 8379

(14)

Skilled Worker 2000(2) 3500

(1) 1000(1) 10800

(1)5660(5)

Business Class 5400(1)

9033(9) 1500

(1)10150

(2) 26000(1)

1300(1)

9053(15)

Total 3133(3)

8807(14)

7600(4)

7129(7)

10150(2)

10000(1)

26000(1)

6050(2)

8276(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

42

Page 49: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 11

AVERAGE CASH EXPENDITURE PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

OccupationMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Education Class 16900(5)

29333(3)

19517(6) 20686

(14)

Skilled Worker 5400(1)

27789(9) 1500

(1)28400

(2) 52000(1)

3000(1)

24587(15)

Business Class 4467(3)

23900(14)

23000(4)

16943(7)

28400(2)

1000(1)

52000(1)

3000(1)

24587(15)

Total 4467(3)

23900(14)

23000(4)

16943(7)

28400(2)

10000(1)

52000(1)

16500(2)

20894(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 12

AVERAGE CASH AND TIME VALUE PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY MODE(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

OccupationMode Average

TotalCar Bus Coach/Van

Suzuki Van

High Roof

Car/Coach Jeep Toyota

Hiace

Education Class 25300(5)

38300(3)

27583(6) 29064

(14)

Skilled Worker 6000(2) 7500

(1) 20000(1) 40800

(1)16060

(5)

Business Class 10800(1)

36822(9) 3000

(1)38550

(2) 78000(1)

4300(1)

33640(15)

Total 7600(3)

32707(14)

30600(4)

24071(7)

38550(2)

20000(1)

78000(1)

22550(2)

29171(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

43

Page 50: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 13

SUGGESTIONS MADE BY VISITORS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF HALEJI LAKE BY OCCUPATION(HALEJI LAKE)

(Column Percentages*)

SuggestionsOccupation

TotalEducationClass

SkilledWorker

BusinessClass

Cleaning Lake 78.6(11)

80.0(4)

86.7(13)

82.4(28)

Improve Water Level 50.0(7)

40.0(2)

26.7(4)

38.2(13)

Remove Crocodile 14.3(2)

20.0(1)

20.0(3)

17.6(6)

Safety 14.3(2)

20.0(1)

20.0(3)

17.6(6)

Clean Water 21.4(3)

20.0(1)

40.0(6)

29.4(10)

Make Huts 7.1(1) 2.9

(1)

Protect Trees 7.1(1) 6.7

(1)5.9(2)

Park/Sitting Place 28.6(4)

60.0(3)

46.7(7)

41.2(14)

Shops 28.6(4)

20.0(1)

40.0(6)

32.4(11)

Ban on Netting 21.4(3) 8.8

(3)

Plant More Trees 7.1(1)

20.0(1) 5.9

(2)

Maintain Boundary 7.1(1)

20.0(1) 5.9

(2)

Medical Facility 6.7(1)

2.9(1)

Civic Facility 28.6(4) 13.3

(2)17.6(6)

Vegetation 6.7(1)

2.9(1)

Note: Because of multiple respnses figures do not add up to 100.Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

44

Page 51: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 14

TOTAL VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY OCCUPATION(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

Living AreaOccupation

Average TotalEducationClass

SkilledWorker

BusinessClass

Upper Middle 10075(4) 7557

(7)8473(11)

Lower Middle 8243(7)

4633(3)

9075(4)

7707(14)

Near Distance 6433(3)

7200(2)

11650(4)

8922(9)

Total 8379(14)

5660(5)

9053(15)

8276(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 15

TOTAL CASH EXPENDITURE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY OCCUPATION(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

Living AreaOccupation

Average TotalEducationClass

SkilledWorker

BusinessClass

Upper Middle 28750(4) 14143

(7)19455(11)

Lower Middle 17900(7)

4933(3)

41825(4)

21957(14)

Near Distance 16433(3)

18600(2)

25625(4)

21000(9)

Total 20686(14)

10400(5)

24587(15)

20894(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

45

Page 52: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Annexure-B Table – 16

TOTAL CASH AND TIME VALUE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY OCCUPATION(HALEJI LAKE)

(Rs.)

SuggestionOccupation

Average TotalEducationClass

SkilledWorker

BusinessClass

Upper Middle 38825(4) 21700

(7)27927(11)

Lower Middle 26143(7)

9567(3)

50900(4)

29664(14)

Near Distance 22867(3)

25800(2)

37275(4)

29922(9)

Total 29064(14)

16060(5)

33640(15)

29171(34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure - C

Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972 for Wildlife Sanctuary

46

Page 53: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

According to the Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972. Sindh Ordinance No. V of 1972 Section 14.Wildlife Sanctuary described as;(1) Govt. may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare any area to be a wildlife sanctuary and may demarcate it in such a manner as may be prescribed.

(2) The wildlife sanctuary shall be set aside as undisturbed breeding ground for the protection of wildlife and access there to for public shall, except in accordance with the rules, be prohibited and no exploitation of forest therein shall be allowed except for reducing fire hazards, epidemic or insect attacks or other natural calamities: *“Provided also that this sub-section shall not apply to any activity in an wildlife sanctuary in connection with the exploration or production of oil or gas which is undertaken in accordance with an environmental Protection Act, 1997(Act, XXXIV of 1997)”.

(3) No person shall :-I. enter or reside,

II. cultivate any land,III. damage or destroy any vegetation,IV. hunt, kill or capture any wild animal or fire any gun or other firearm within three miles of the

boundaries or,V. introduce any exotic species of animal or plant,VI. introduce any domestic animal or allow it to stray,VII. Cause any fire, orVIII. pollute water,

in a wildlife sanctuary:Provided that Govt. may for scientific purposes or for aesthetic enjoyment or betterment of scenery authorize the doing of the aforementioned acts: *“Provided further that Govt. may authorize the laying of an underground pipeline, using construction techniques other than blasting, which do not permanently disturb the wildlife or environment, on such terms and conditions, including the betterment, conservation and preservation of the wildlife sanctuary, as may be specified.

(4) *No fishing waters in a wildlife sanctuary shall be leased, auctioned or in any way used for the purpose of fishing or collection of lotus or roots there of for commercial purposes.” **Any lease or permission granted or any agreement executed or auction held for the purpose mentioned in aforesaid sub-section (4) before the coming into force of the Sindh Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 shall stand annulled and be of no effect.

1 Amendment (12) Amendment of Section 14 of Sindh Ordinance V of 1972. The Sindh Govt. Gazette Ext. January 20, 2001-Part -I2 Amendment (7) Amendment of Section 14 of Sindh Ordinance V of 1972. The Sindh Govt. Gazette Ext. June 01, 2001---- Part - I3 Amendment (3)Amendment of Section 14 of Sindh Ordinance V of 1972.The Sindh Govt. Gazette Ext. December 15,1993-Part - I4 Amendment (4) Abetment of lease etc.

Source: The Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1972- with Amendments up to the June 2001-Sindh Wildlife Department, Govt. of Sindh, Karachi-Pakistan.

Annexure D

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

47

Page 54: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

For

Study Entitled

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF WETLANDS

Case Studies on Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands of Pakistan

(Haleji Lake and Sandspit Area)

WORLD WIDE FUND (WWF) FOR NATUREPAKISTAN

48

Page 55: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

Identification Number1. IDENTIFICATION

District: __________, Name of Interviewer: __________________ Date: _________

Tehsil: __________, Questionnaire Edited & Coded by: _________ Date: _______

Village: __________, Checked by: ________________________ Date: _________

Name of the Respondent: ______________, Verified by: _________ Date: _______

2. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

- Single/Joint Household: ________________

- Total Family Members: ______, Males ______, Females ______, Children ______ (under 10 years)

T.D. No.

Relation-ship with HOH

Age(#

Years)

Years of

Schooling

Marital

Status

For how long have you

been living in this village

If a settler

Which place did

you migrate from?

Reason for

Migration

1.(HoH)

2.

3.

4.

5.

3. OCCUPATION

I.D. No.

What is your present

occupation

# Months/Year

in each occupation

Earlier Occupa

tion

Reason for

Change in

Occupation

Agri. Land

Owned / Leased

in

Annual Income

Primary

Secondary

Primary

Secondary

Primary

Secondary

1.

2.

3.

4.

Page 56: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

5.

Page 57: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

4. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAKE/FOREST

4.1 What are the direct benefits:

a) ___________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________

b) ___________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________

c) __________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________

d) ___________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________

4.2 What are the indirect benefits; (Ref: Non-cash benefits)

a) ___________________________________________________

b) __________________________________________________

c) ___________________________________________________

d) __________________________________________________

4.3 What type of losses does your household face?

a) _________________________ (Extent of Loss): _____________

b) _________________________ (Extent of Loss): _____________

c) __________________________ (Extent of Loss): _____________

d)___________________________ (Extent of Loss):

_____________

4.4 In your view, has the wetland degraded over time? __ Yes _____ No.

In either case explain your response: ______________________

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

4.5 What options do you think are available to control degradation?(Give your response in order of priority/relevance)

a) _________________________________________________

b) ________________________________________________

c) _______________________________________________

d) ______________________________________________

Page 58: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

5. SOCIAL COHERENCE

5.1 Is the community living around the lake (or forest) socially stratified? (Explain your response)

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

5.2 In case of any conflict among households or communities, what procedure is followed to resolve it?

_________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

5.3 What political factors, in your opinion, are responsible of the degradation of the wetland?

a) ___________________________________________________

b) __________________________________________________

c) __________________________________________________

d) __________________________________________________

6. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

6.1 In your opinion which government department/organization is responsible for the degradation of the environment and how?(Explain your response in order of importance of the issue)

a) __________________________________________________

b) __________________________________________________

c) ___________________________________________________

d) ___________________________________________________

7. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS

7.1 In order of the importance, identify the constraints along with the apparent causes which affect your daily household activities (e.g. water fetching, washing, woodcutting, tourism, etc.)

Page 59: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

a) ___________________________________________________

b) ___________________________________________________

c) __________________________________________________

d) __________________________________________________

e) ___________________________________________________

f) __________________________________________________

7.2 If your economic activities are causing environmental degradation, what alternate mechanism would you suggest that would be financially feasible and socially acceptable? (e.g. natural gas, access to fee from tourism, export of crocodile, etc.)

a) ___________________________________________________

b) ___________________________________________________

c) __________________________________________________

d) __________________________________________________

e) __________________________________________________

f) __________________________________________________

Page 60: Economic Valuation of Wetlands-Case Study- Final Report

QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEY OF TRAVELLERS/VISITORS TO SITE

1. Place of origin: (Name of the place): ________________________________

(Distance): ___________________ (in Kilometers)

2. Duration of the journey (one –way): _______________________ (in hours)

3. Time spent on the site: _________________________________ (in hours)

4. Frequency of visit: ______________________ (weekly/monthly/yearly)

5. Mode of Conveyance: __________________________________________

6. Direct cash expenses: ______________________________________ (Rs.)(including travelling, food, fees, etc.)

7. Value of the time spent: ______________________________________ (Rs.)(Based on one person)

8. Size of the group: ______________________________ (# individuals)

9. Purpose(s) of visit: 1. ____________________________________

2. ____________________________________

3. ____________________________________

10. Occupation/Profession: ____________________________________(of the head of the group)

11. Would you like to give any ___________________________________suggestion for the improvementof the lake/forest? ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________