TANZANIA Poverty-Environment Initiative Economic Valuation of Ihefu Wetland Country Experience

1

TANZANIA Poverty-TANZANIA Poverty-Environment InitiativeEnvironment Initiative

Economic Valuation of Ihefu WetlandEconomic Valuation of Ihefu Wetland

Country ExperienceCountry Experience

Presented to the PEI Africa Regional Economic Forum Presented to the PEI Africa Regional Economic Forum 8-11 November 20108-11 November 2010

2

Government of TanzaniaUNDP-UNEP Poverty- Environment Initiative

1.PEI Program Objectives

2.Key Achievements related to Economic Valuation of Ihefu Wetlands

3.Objectives and Methodology

4.Key Findings/Recommendations

5.Policy Impact

6.Challenges and Response

7.Lessons Learned

8.Next Steps

OutlineOutline

3

PEI is a Joint Program between Government of Tanzania, UNDP Tanzania and UNEP that commenced in July 2007 to December 2010.

The overall goal of the program which is linked to Tanzania’s UNDAF (2007-2010) is to contribute to poverty reduction and improved well-being of poor and vulnerable groups through mainstreaming of poverty-environment linkages into national development processes

Programme implementation is coordinated by Vice-President’s Office (Division of Environment) including

– Poverty Eradication Division (Ministry of Finance),– National Environmental Management Council– National Bureau of Statistics– Prime Minister’s Office/Regional Administration and Local Government– Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries– University of Dar es Salaam (Environment for Development)– Civil Society Organisations– Media organizations.

The total budget (2007-2010) is USD 4 million of which USD 3.45 million has been mobilized.



BACKGROUND (1)BACKGROUND (1)

4


Outcome (1): Institutional capacity further enhanced to integrate environment and livelihoods issues into sector and district level plans and to implement strategic poverty-environment interventions at local level

Outcome (2): Improved access and utilization of environment/livelihoods data for use in MKUKUTA process and in local level planning

Outcome (3): Sustainable financing of environmental targets contained in the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP/MKUKUTA in Swahili)

Outcome (4): Promoting efficient utilization of rangelands and empowering pastoralist to improve livestock productivity through improved livestock productivity and market access

BACKGROUND (2)BACKGROUND (2)

5


Public Environmental Expenditure Review in Mbozi, Sengerama, and Singida in Tanzania

Public Environmental Expenditure Review in Kongwa District Council in Tanzania

Review of Current Practices in Applying Economic Instruments for Environment Management in Tanzania

Economic evaluation of Ihefu wetlands

KEY ACHIEVEMENTSKEY ACHIEVEMENTS

6


In Tanzania, many wetlands have been lost, degraded or are in the danger of being lost/degraded as a result of increasing demands for land and water.

An understanding of the socioeconomic value of wetlands is crucial when deciding on conservation and development priorities related to land use and the allocation of scarce water resources.

Usangu flood plain in which Ihefu is part of it is important to the local people and the general public

More than 65% of Hydropower comes from waters originating in this area The purpose of valuation is to give an indication of the extent of household,

village, district and national economy dependence on the natural environment of the Ihefu wetland.

To quantify the total economic value of wetland at household, village, district and national level

OBJECTIVES: Economic valuation – Ihefu OBJECTIVES: Economic valuation – Ihefu

7


In order to evaluate the economic value of wetlands, we first define and specify the spatial boundary of the wetland in question following IUCN definition of a wetland.

This is then followed by the identification of all services (benefits) of the wetlands ecosystem under study.

Three methods of data collection were employed during the survey to obtain primary data and secondary data.

The household survey, focus group discussions and field observation.

The selection of households to be interviewed was based on a combination of stratified and random sampling.

The sample was stratified according to the four levels (administrative structure) – ward, village, hamlet and the household

METHODOLOGY: Valuation IhefuMETHODOLOGY: Valuation Ihefu

8


The stratification started at ward level where only wards near or covering Ihefu wetland was included for the study.

The second stage was the selection of village from each ward. Here village proximity to the Ihefu wetlands resources (water and forests) was considered.

In addition, village selection included those new villages established as result of eviction of people from the Ihefu wetlands.

This was important to get information on what and how was the situation in both periods (before and after eviction).

The third level was the selection of households from each village. In this case, selection of household for the study was done by ensuring representativeness i.e having mixed kind of respondents in terms of age composition, gender, economic status, harvesting and use of resources, economic activities etc.


9


A total of 600 households (30 from each village) were sampled for interview

In each selected household, a head of household or elder member of the household was interviewed using a pre – tested questionnaire.

For the focus group, a total of ten (10) people formed a focus group in each village.

The group composed of village government officials, and other village members who are not in government.

This was important to have both government and non government opinion.

Information from the focus group were used to generate important data for both validating household data and

also extrapolating some data to get standard values for estimation purposes.


10


Field observation was also done in each village for the aim of having in our mind the actual situation on the ground. Eg resource use (firewood, poles etc), crop grown (by visiting rice farms in some villages), state of infrastructure such as schools, dispensaries, water sources etc.

At the end of village visits, we further visited District Administrative office, PCCB office, District Agricultural and Livestock Officer for some discussion on matters related to Ihefu and peoples welfare.

This was important and formed a basis of establishing the validity of what the individual households’ members and focus group discussion have given during interviews.

We requested a visit to Ruaha National park, but his has not been okeyed

We will soon visit Tanzania National Park Authorities (TANAPA) and the Ministry of natural Resources and Tourism for the same discussion.


11


The preliminary findings of the study identified socio-economic activities and key environmental problems in the study areas.

In all villages surveyed, the main economic activities - agriculture, animal grazing, business, and wage employment

Importanceactivity_ranks.docx Other economic activities (in very small scale by some households)

including sale of firewood, charcoal, furniture, local brew, leasing of farm land and supplying casual labour to estates.

KEY FINDINGSKEY FINDINGS

12


Household economy is totally dependent on agriculture, livestock, N.R harvesting and Business.

Any disruption from these activities would have detrimental effect to the living condition of majority households in the study area.

Economic situation – household economic situation have deteriorated now as compared to their life situation in the past five years.

Change in the economic situation has been attributed by conversion of the Ihefu wetlands into National park.

By being national park, households have no access for any form of economic activity in the area, contrary to what they used to do before.


13


All households who were depending on resource harvesting from Ihefu have lost completely their means of livelihoods and income

some have resorted either farming, while others are yet (not doing anything at the moment) in order to get their living.

This situation have made majority household members suffering from lack of shelter, food, other services such as medical and schools.

In all villages, individuals have lost the opportunity to collect resources for food, income and other uses.

This has been so as a result of conversion of the wetland into the national park.


14


The reported loss is on the following products: Fish, firewood, poles, wild meat, wild fruits etc.

Households’ members were used to collect these products freely in the area. But what has happen now, non of these could be collected.

From the livelihood and poverty reduction point of view, households have lost significant opportunity for their means of living and poverty reduction.

There are two dimensions into which households are negatively affected by the current conversion of Ihefu wetland into National Park.

In addition to the lost opportunity, these households also face additional costs in obtaining these products from alternative sources

Conflict on resource use between the managers of the resource (TANAPA) and users (community adjacent)

Reduced land holding for agriculture and livestock – area is under park management.


15


The data analysis work is still ongoing it is not possible to draw any recommendations at this stage

One of the recommendation that is coming from our preliminary results is to allow the local community to harvest resource from the wetlands. This is especially allowing the community fish from the wetland. However, this should be done under strictly enforcement to ensure that no destructive efforts in use.

Majority of the communities in the study area were complaining about the lack of sufficient land for farming and livestock keeping. This is especially after their farms being taken as part of the Ruaha National Park. Thus there are a desperate need of alternative means of livelihood.

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

16


According to national park policy, areas under its jurisdiction are non accessible for resource extraction. In such case to allow fishing to go on in Ihefu wetland will require the relaxation of this policy.

Key advocacy group in this should be the local communities, local NGOs especially those focusing on poverty-environment linkages, VPO-DoE, NEMC, academicians etc

Our preliminary results show that only 1.2% of the surveyed areas use electricity for lighting, 0.17% use gas for cooking, thus is rural electrification policy is speeded up there is huge potential of increasing the number of rural using electricity, thus reducing their heavy reliance on firewood and charcoal.

POLICY IMPACTPOLICY IMPACT

17


Finalize analysisFinalize analysis

Hold two stakeholder workshops (Dar Hold two stakeholder workshops (Dar and Mbeyaand Mbeya

NEXT STEPSNEXT STEPS

Documents

TANZANIA Poverty-Environment Initiative Economic Valuation of Ihefu Wetland Country Experience