The Biodiversity Resource Mobilisation (ResMob) project of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), in partnership with GiZ TEEB COUNTRY STUDY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN NAMIBIA’S STATE, COMMUNAL AND FREEHOLD LANDS June 2017 Anchor Environmental Consultants & Namibia Nature Foundation Namibia TEEB study
Study objectives • Support ResMob project in conducting main study phase of TEEB country study: – Economic valuation of ecosystem services – Contribution of these ecosystem services to national priority sectors – Costs of their overuse and depletion through economic activities • Inform the resource mobilisation strategy on economic and policy instruments Namibia TEEB study
A NATIO TIONAL A ASSESS SSESSME MENT O OF NAMIB MIBIA’S EC S ECOSY SYST STEM SERV SERVICES Namibia TEEB study
Provision of harvested resources – Woody resources • Used sustainable yields of – Non-woody raw materials services, and modified – Wild foods & medicines based on demand (where – Inland fisheries possible). Namibia TEEB study
Fodder provision • Based on replacement cost of fodder for livestock. • Used livestock numbers, % body weight consumption • Value given in areas where livestock density<carrying capacity, otherwise only carrying capacity valued. • Distribution of value – 60% Freehold land – 40 % Communal land Namibia TEEB study
Game • Value of sustainable off take for meat production and trophies based on regional population estimates or game counts in conservancies with hunting partner • Only for large game species (not antelope smaller than springbok) • Value concentrated in freehold land where game population have higher densities. • Possible overestimate as demand is unknown. Namibia TEEB study
Tourism value • Total tourism expenditure in Namibia is N$16.4 bn • Leisure tourism expenditure is N$13.1 bn – We mapped this based on densities of georeferenced photos on Flikr – Parks – 42% – Communal conservancies – 35% – Freehold rangelands – 23% Namibia TEEB study
Carbon storage • Based on biomass carbon in vegetation. • Values based on the global social cost of carbon, scaled to Namibia based on GDP and vulnerability to climate change index. • N$38 million of damages costs avoided to Namibia and N$2153 billion globally. Namibia TEEB study
Hydrological services • Groundwater recharge – N$538 million/yr • Flood attenuation • Sediment retention • Water quality amelioration Namibia TEEB study
Other support services • Agricultural – Pollination, pest control • Fisheries – Critical breeding and nursery grounds • Hunting and wildlife tourism – Critical seasonal refugia, breeding areas Namibia TEEB study
WP1 WP1: STA : STATE TE PROTEC TECTED TED AR AREAS AS Namibia TEEB study
Namibia’s protected area network • Approximately 17% of Namibia is formally protected • Core strategy for biodiversity conservation (NBSAP2) • Contributes significant value to the national economy • Avg. 9% annual increase in tourist arrivals 1995-2015 • In 2008, PA-tourism generated 2.1% direct value added GDP, 3.8% total value added Namibia TEEB study
Main threats to maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem values • Proximate threats – Poaching – Overstocking (artificial waterholes) – Excessive disturbance and off-road driving by tourists – Mining – Climate change • Systemic challenges – Lack of financial resources – Lack of capacity – Persistent poverty outside PAs Namibia TEEB study
Park financing system • Protected areas continue to experience substantial underfunding • Three main sources of funding for PAN: government, donor & park revenues channelled via GPTF • Park revenues go directly to central government with only a portion of these revenues being reinvested into the management of national parks Namibia TEEB study
Park financing gap • Funding for protected area management is currently in the order of N$215 million Source: MTEF – Represents 48% of MET budget 2016/17-2018/19 • Estimated annual recurrent expenditure of N$275 million required for park management Updated from Turpie et al . (2010) – Shortfall of about N$60 million Namibia TEEB study
Park fees & revenues • Park fees same for all larger parks, lower for smaller parks & heritage sites Daily entrance fee (2017 N$) Park Citizen SADC International Etosha, /Ai-/Ais Hot Springs, Skeleton 30 60 80 Coast, Namib-Naukluft, Waterberg Plateau 10 30 40 All other parks, reserves and heritage sites • Park fees have remained unchanged since 2005 – Parks have become cheaper for most users – Potential foregone income is significant (70% of visitors to larger parks are int. or regional tourists) • Park fees generated N$56.4m in 2014/15 90% of revenues collected by DWNP • 26% of DWNP expenditure • Namibia TEEB study
Regional comparison • Current prices for PA’s in Namibia are low – Lowest prices in the region – International visitor park fees in Namibia are half those charged in Botswana, a third of those in Zim, RSA & Zambia and a tenth of the price charged in Kenya and Tanzania 80 Local Regional (SADC/EAC) International 64 Fee pppd (US$) 60 56 40 32 20 19 20 16 15 13 13 12 10 10 7 6 5 5 5 4 2 2 2 0 Namibia Botswana Zimbabwe South Africa Zambia Kenya Tanzania Namibia TEEB study
Recommendations Namibia needs to update its tariffs and address other institutional issues influencing the efficiency of park revenue systems: 1. Change the institutional set-up DWNP as parastatal and/or parks under long-term contractual agreement – with an organisation like African Parks NWR resorts should be sold to private operators – 2. Determine optimal prices Significant opportunities for increasing current tariffs – Understand local and international demand, PA objectives – 3. Improve revenue collection and management More secure fee collection systems – PA revenues entirely retained by the managing authority – 4. Expand revenue collection to accommodation facilities Resorts within the parks should pay rental and royalties to Parks – Namibia TEEB study
WP2: C WP2: COMMU MMUNAL CONSERVAN RVANCIE IES Namibia TEEB study
CBNRM • 1993 - MET established CBNRM support structure • 1996 - legislation allowed local communities to create conservancies and enter into arrangements with private companies – Royalty payments & direct income provide incentive • 82 conservancies established in 20 years • Now cover 20% of Namibia (165 182 km 2 ) Source: NACSO 2015 Namibia TEEB study
Conservation outcome Source: NACSO 2015 • General increase in North West Number of animals/km Total population wildlife numbers across the country from 1982-2000, then stabilised • Drought since 2012 has reduced wildlife numbers in some areas Zambezi Region Namibia TEEB study
Development outcome • Recognised as a national development strategy • Allows diversification, additional income opportunities • Generated N$102 million for local communities in Concessions Community forests 2015 Emerging conservancy Registered conservancy – $0-$7.2m per conservancy • Created 5116 jobs in 2015 Source: NACSO 2015 Namibia TEEB study
Challenges • Not all conservancies add the value that they could – Institutional problems – Variation in potential, newer ones struggle – Household members drinking the proceeds • Conservation people claim that wildlife is declining – Petty poaching and human encroachment – Organised poaching and wildlife crime • Conservancy members claim that wildlife is increasing too much – Human-wildlife conflict • Problems exacerbated by drought – Fewer antelope, lower meat distribution – Increased HWC (hungry predators, thirsty elephants) – Increased poaching Namibia TEEB study
Some hypotheses/thoughts • Conservancies establishment has happened at relatively low cost to local inhabitants – i.e. people have largely carried on with whatever they were doing, minor sacrifices if any – HWC problems have not increased on average • Refraining from damaging activities is more likely to be as a result of increased control/sanctions rather than co- operation to benefit from increased JV income, except where JV income is high • Stochastic delivery of benefits (e.g. wildlife meat offtake) is having a perverse impact on household co-operation • Increasing wildlife protection will decrease stock depredation but increase elephant damage • The relative damage by individual local households vs organised poachers needs to be assessed Namibia TEEB study
What scope is there for PES? • JV arrangement already provides ‘incentive’ Steady income, % of turnover is indirectly linked to wildlife • • Has had high but variable level of success but still much opportunity for improvement • • The more the better Increased income would help to solve both institutional • problems and household co-operation • We have only scratched the tip of the iceberg Benefits currently come directly from JV businesses • Plenty of scope to channel income from other beneficiaries - • tourists, Namibians (GN), Rest of World (Donors) Namibia TEEB study
Recommend
More recommend
