THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIES TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Namibia TEEB study

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
• n 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

• Used sustainable yields of

services, and modified based on demand (where possible).

– Woody resources – Non-woody raw materials – Wild foods & medicines – Inland fisheries

Namibia TEEB study

• Based on replacement

cost of fodder for livestock.

• Used livestock numbers, %

body weight consumption

• Value given in areas

where livestock density<carrying capacity,

• therwise only carrying

capacity valued.

• Distribution of value

– 60% Freehold land – 40 % Communal land

Fodder provision

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

• f 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

• nly 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

– Represents 48% of MET budget

• Estimated annual recurrent expenditure of

N$275 million required for park management

– Shortfall of about N$60 million

Source: MTEF 2016/17-2018/19 Updated from Turpie et al. (2010)

Namibia TEEB study

Park fees & revenues

• Park fees same for all larger parks, lower for smaller

parks & 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

Daily entrance fee (2017 N$) Park Citizen SADC International Etosha, /Ai-/Ais Hot Springs, Skeleton Coast, Namib-Naukluft, Waterberg Plateau

30 60 80

All other parks, reserves and heritage sites

10 30 40

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

2 2 5 5 2 7 4 5 13 12 10 15 10 32 6 13 16 19 20 56 64

20 40 60 80

Namibia Botswana Zimbabwe South Africa Zambia Kenya Tanzania

Fee pppd (US$)

Local Regional (SADC/EAC) International

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

Source: NACSO 2015

• 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 km2)

Namibia TEEB study

Conservation outcome

• General increase in

wildlife numbers across the country from 1982-2000, then stabilised

• Drought since 2012

has reduced wildlife numbers in some areas

Total population Number of animals/km

Source: NACSO 2015

North West Zambezi Region

Namibia TEEB study

Development outcome

• Recognised as a national

development strategy

• Allows diversification,

additional income

• pportunities
• Generated N$102 million

for local communities in 2015

– $0-$7.2m per conservancy

• Created 5116 jobs in

2015

Concessions Community forests Emerging conservancy Registered conservancy

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-

• peration 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
• rganised 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

Communal conservancy Ecosystem services

Locals All Nami bians Value of natural systems Locals Namibians Rest of world Provision of harvested resources Local value

• Agricultural and fishery

support services Local value

• Refugia
• Significant to

surrounding conservation areas Groundwater recharge Local value Value in longer term

• Wildlife & unspoilt

landscapes N$102 million - damages N$1.8bn + national WTP Visitors’ consumer surplus + global WTP Carbon storage N$3.8m N$18.9m N$1071bn Options for PES

Namibia TEEB study

What could PES achieve

• Aim would be to discourage encroachment into areas

set aside for wildlife, burning and excessive harvesting/hunting (poaching).

• PES as a direct payment to households may not

achieve desired effect due to tragedy of the commons (free-riding)

• However could be effective if a substantial portion is

invested in conservation measures

• PES (or any incentive measure) cannot be expected to

address high-value, organised wildlife crime

– This has to be addressed by Gov (PA?) – This is increasingly going to be a prerequisite for the success of other measures

Namibia TEEB study

Payments for Ecosystem Services

• Beneficiaries pay land
• wners/managers for

delivery of a service such as water, carbon or biodiversity

• Seller will have to incur

some costs to provide the ecosystem service

• The payment

compensates the landowner for these costs

• The payment is

conditional on delivery

Benefits to locals Costs to rest of society

Without PES With PES

Agric & NR income Water/ carbon losses PES Agric & NR income

e.g. paying to reduce deforestation

Namibia TEEB study

PES for conservancies

HH share

Cons

Liveli- hood income Costs

JV income and allocation Household income

Residual HWC

HWC

HH share Income HH share

Cons

Liveli- hood income Costs

JV + PES income and allocation Household income HWC

Income HH share

Namibia TEEB study

Proposed design

• Build on existing structures

– additional to existing JV arrangement – payment to existing structure, but with external treasurer from NGO

• Funding from donors and tourist

voluntary contributions

– to central managed endowment fund

• Payment is linked to wildlife status

– Annual habitat assessment + census – Status takes climate conditions into account

• Simple computational system for

determining reward level

– E.g. $1*HaOK+$2*HaGood+$3*HaExcellent

• Pooled income is split between

conservation management + households

– Payments spread e.g. quarterly – Meat (any type) as well as cash

• Continued capacity-building support will

be necessary

Wildlife status Wildlife counts

Habitat assessment

Scoring system Conservation action Community and hh benefits PES Payout Existing conservancy income Conservancy funds Payment rules

Namibia TEEB study

Proposed study area

• 3 conservancies in Southern

Kunene region.

• 1. Uibasen-Twyfelfontein: (1999)

100% of income from JV tourism, home to Twyfelfontein World Heritage Site, well managed.

• 2. Sorris-Sorris: (2001) JV

tourism 65%, hunting 13% of income, institutional problems & some misappropriation of funds.

• 3. Tsiseb: (2001), JV tourism 99%

& hunting 1% of income, home to Brandberg Mountain & White Lady rock paintings, some institutional problems.

Arid landscape, <100 mm annual rainfall

Namibia TEEB study

Field experiments & surveys

• Aims:

– To establish likelihood of co-operation in a system where rewards are introduced – To determine how reward levels, baseline income and institutional effectiveness affect co-

• peration

Namibia TEEB study

Proposed approach

• Behavioural experiments

– ~180 participants from 3 conservancies – a game played in groups, with varying treatments.

• The game

– Members of each group are given a sum of real money, representing the current benefits received by households. – PES system is explained.

• The more invested, the more difficult it will be for people to

infringe on conservation rules

• The payoff depends on total group investment.
• The more invested, the greater the payoff.

– Members have to decide how much to invest in conservation action. – Several rounds are played, and a $ payout is given to players.

Namibia TEEB study

Proposed approach

• Brief participant survey after the game

– Gender, age, education – Main sources of income – Benefits received from conservancy last year – HWC damages experienced last year – Extent to which increased surveillance would impact own hh livelihood – Confidence in conservancy management

Namibia TEEB study

Next steps

• Finalising of experiment details & logistics
• Fieldwork in mid-July

– Training of field co-ordinators – 2-3 days in each conservancy

• Analysis in August
• Write-up in Sep/Oct
• Research results
• Recommended set-up for Namibian conservancies

Namibia TEEB study

Outputs

• Average contributions to

conservation at different levels

• f the PES (low, medium, high)
• Untangle how institutional

elements (such as mismanagement) and other key metrics (other livelihood sources, age) impact on contributions

• This informs the design of the
• PES. For example, if trust in

management impacts on cooperation, the PES will need to be externally audited

Namibia TEEB study

Design

• Option 1: Vary the PES

– Vary the level of the PES (low, middle and high PES) – This gives an indication of when cooperation rates shift under the different PES levels – Capture metrics such as mismanagement through the survey (relevant for option 2) – Capture information on benefits received over the past year through the survey (relevant for option 3)

• Option 2: Vary the level of external oversight

– Test one level of PES but vary the framing around the level of external oversight – Only in one treatment is the involvement of an external auditor explicitly mentioned – The results would give an indication of the degree to which concerns around management inhibit cooperation

Namibia TEEB study

Design

• Option 3: Vary the level of endowment

– Within each treatment, have high-endowment and low- endowment groups – The endowment acts as a proxy for JV income (high- endowment groups have a relatively higher JV income) – The results would indicate how cooperation varies across the income levels

Namibia TEEB study

Thank you! Any queries/suggestions/information to: jane@anchorenvironmental.co.za