Measuring the impact of livelihood initiatives in the conservation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Measuring the impact of livelihood initiatives in the conservation context Initial results from Samburu National Reserve, Kenya IUCN Resources, Environment and CARE Economics Center for Studies In collaboration with: Todays presentation
Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies
CARE
In collaboration with:
1. Need for aggregate measures of livelihood (beyond financial): how significant are non-financial factors compared to financial factors?
2. Need for household level impact in addition to community
3. Need to address equity: how do local costs and benefits vary between communities and/or within communities?
related benefits and costs are significant to households for 30-odd welfare indicators.
RSIA financial gains and losses to households, and to wealth groups.
gains and losses to households. Each household ranks and weights each ‘strong’ positive and negative impact identified in the RSIA. A financial item(s) (‘numaire’) is included, allowing comparison / equal calibration
into dollar values.
These are ideally by wealth group and gender
3 2 4 6 1 5
A baseline for future intervention in surrounding communities
1300
TOTAL:
Social status
Relations external
Fines
Time
Immigration 6 School bursaries
NTFP 11 Road
Firewood 19 Transport
Emigration 25 PA related income
Relations internal 49 Water infrastructure
Household water 71 Illegal hunting
Timber 80 Health access
Livestock water access 118 Employment
Grazing quality 196 Livestock marketing
Grazing access 259 Knowledge and exposure
Livestock health 295 Security to people
Loss from wildlife
USD Annual HH Benefits (n=157) USD Annual HH Costs (n=157)
Total community financial and non-financial costs-benefits (annual USD)
200000 400000 G access G quality LVS water LVS health LVS mktg HH water Timber Firewood NTFP Road Wa ter infra Rel in Rel out Status Sec ppl Sec w ildlife Health Bursary Knowledge Time Immigratio n Emigration Employment Fines Ill huntg Income Tran sport
Financial vs non-financial contributions at local level (annual USD) Samburu NR
500000 1000000 1500000 Benefits Costs Net Financial NonFinancial
0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 Very Poor Poor Average Rich Average P EV Benefit/HH/yr Average P EV Cost/HH/yr Net PEV Impact/HH/yr
50 100 150 200 Poor Av erage Wealthy USD per household per year Average Benefit/HH/yr Average Cost/HH/yr Net Impact/HH/y r
0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00 Very Poor Poor Average Rich U S D pe r hous e hol d pe r y ea r Average Benefit/HH/yr Average Cost/HH/yr Net Impact/HH/yr
(600.00) (400.00) (200.00)
400.00 600.00 800.00 Very Poor Poor Average Rich Average PEV Benefit Average PEV Cost Net PEV Im pact
Samburu NR Kenya (A1) Ob Luang NP Thailand (A2) Bwindi NP Uganda (B1) Balbalasang Balbalan NP Phillipines (D2)
Annual cost-benefit by distance
0.0 500000.0 1000000.0 1500000.0 Very Near Medium Far Total Benefit for Population Total Cost for Population Net cost-benefit
500000 1000000 1500000 Community PA Authority Total benefits/revenue in the Last Year Total Cost Incurred in the Last Year
Q: Do some groups in the community bear more costs than others from the PA?
Perception is that : (A) costs are wider spread than benefits. There is consensus that some of the costs, especially in terms of natural capital are borne relatively more by communities far from the PA (people migrating to their area to collect the resources). (B) People who own livestock are more affected than others by costs (fines, access to grazing, access to water, wildlife attacks, disease…).
Q: Do some groups in the community receive more benefits from the PA?
Perception is that: benefits are captured by communities located nearer to the PA, and households nearer to the SNR gates. Tourists are also an important vehicle for indirect benefits to surrounding communities. They provide access to health and school, as well as direct income by buying local artefacts but tourists are only brought to the nearest communities and households.
technical considerations
community
perspective
danger)
economic and conservation impacts
suitable entry-points
beneficiaries, particularly use of community enumerators – which also builds local M&E capacity
3 2 4 6 1 5
Moving forward: A baseline for future intervention in surrounding communities
Conservation Intervention Component 1: Institution-bldg
GRC (governance) (a) technical skills (b) appropriate management structures functioning
Impacts: – Systematic management / sustainable-improved use of resources – Improved decision-making – Development roadmap guiding actions Indicators: ….?
Conservation Intervention Component 2: Enterprise development
enterprise Impacts: – Employment, skills, enterprise-income, funding self-sufficiency for GR
confidence Indicators: …?
Conservation Intervention Component 3: NRM planning & implementation
Impacts: – Equitable use of resources – Reduction of conflict – human-wildlife, livestock-wildlife, e.g. water, tolerance levels; between neighbouring communities; within community – Each individual becomes responsible for conservation – Improved NRM productivity & management – GR water management & development plan Indicators: ….?