Economic Valuation of Mabamba Bay Wetland System of ...

M.Sc. Programme ‘’Management of Protected Areas’’
Economic Valuation of Mabamba Bay Wetland System of International
Importance, Wakiso District, Uganda
Author : Simon Akwetaireho
Supervisor : Prof. Michael Getzner,
Department of Economics,
Alps-Adriatic University of Klagenfurt,
Universitätsstrasse 65-67,
A – 9020 Klagenfurt
Tel: +43 (0) 463/27004192, +436764129222
E-mail: Michael.Getzner@uni-klu.ac.at
Carried out at :
Department of Economics,
Alps-Adriatic University of Klagenfurt,
Universitätsstrasse 65-67, A – 9020 Klagenfurt
Tel: +436505619219, +256782374594
E-mail: akwetsimo@yahoo.co.uk
Klagenfurt, June 2009
Citation: AKWETAIREHO, S. (2009). ECONOMIC VALUATION OF MABAMBA
BAY WETLAND SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE, WAKISO
DISTRICT, UGANDA. ALPS-ADRIATIC UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT,
KLAGENFURT, AUSTRIA

Table of Contents
Declaration of honor............................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................vi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................vii
Executive summary..........................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Justification for performing an economic valuation study........................................ 2
1.2 Rationale for evaluating benefits of wetland ecosystem conservation...................... 3
1.3 The objectives of the study ........................................................................................ 4
Chapter 2: Literature review ........................................................................................... 5
2.1 Wetland conservation benefits .................................................................................. 5
2.2 Economic costs associated with wetland conservation............................................. 9
2.3 Reasons why wetlands are still under-valued and over-used ................................. 10
2.4 Solutions to correct externalities; and incentives to support the............................ 11
Chapter 3: Description of the study site........................................................................ 13
Chapter 4: Methodology................................................................................................ 20
4.1 Household questionnaire survey ............................................................................. 20
4.2 Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)..................................................................... 21
4.3 Benefit Transfer Method.......................................................................................... 25
4.4 Valuation using market prices ................................................................................ 25
4.5 Focus group discussions ......................................................................................... 25
4.6 Researcher’s observations ...................................................................................... 26
4.7 Secondary data collection ....................................................................................... 26
Chapter 5: Data analysis and results............................................................................ 27
5.1 Data analysis........................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Household characteristics....................................................................................... 27
5.3 Accessibility to water sources ................................................................................. 28
5.4 Livestock ownership among households ................................................................. 28
5.5 Cultivation of cocoyams and sugarcanes................................................................ 29
5.6 Fuel wood collection ............................................................................................... 29
i

5.7 Human-wildlife conflicts ......................................................................................... 30
5.8 Land resources ........................................................................................................ 31
5.9 Contingent Valuation results................................................................................... 31
Chapter 6: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 34
6.1 Economic values of Mabamba Bay wetland system................................................ 34
6.1.1 Domestic water supply..................................................................................... 34
6.1.2 Support cultivation of cocoyams and sugar canes ........................................... 35
6.1.3 Fish catch.......................................................................................................... 36
6.1.4 Recreational and tourism values ...................................................................... 37
6.1.5 Sand harvesting ................................................................................................ 38
6.1.6 Water-based transport ...................................................................................... 39
6.1.7 Harvesting of papyrus plants............................................................................ 39
6.1.8 Carbon storage and sequestration..................................................................... 40
6.1.9 Indirect use, optional and Non-use values ....................................................... 40
6.2 Economic costs associated with Mabamba Bay wetland........................................ 43
6.2.1 Opportunity costs ............................................................................................. 43
6.2.2 Costs arising from damages by wild animals................................................... 43
6.2.3 Direct management costs ................................................................................. 43
Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations............................................................ 44
7.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 44
7.2 Recommendations.................................................................................................... 45
References ......................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix I: Household and contingent survey questionnaire .......................................... 50
ii

List of Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Ecosystem services derived from or provided by wetlands......... 7
Table 2-2: Classification of total economic values for wetlands ........................................ 9
Table 3-1: Population per Parish by sex .......................................................................... 18
Table 3-2: Population of livestock in parishes surrounding Mabamba Bay wetland....... 18
Table 4-1: Distribution of respondents by village............................................................ 21
Table 5-1: Household structure of people living adjacent to Mabamba wetland............. 27
Table 5-2: Mean and total amount of water used per day and year ................................. 28
Table 5-3: Mean and total number of livestock in villages around Mabamba Bay wetland
system.............................................................................................................. 29
Table 5-4: Number of cocoyam and sugarcane stems cultivated per annum in Bussi
Parish................................................................................................................ 29
Table 5-5: Bundles of firewood consumed by per household per week ........................... 30
Table 5-6: Summary of descriptive statistics for household WTA and WTP (US$) per
month................................................................................................................ 31
Table 5-7: Summary of protect bids in response to WTA and WTP surveys................... 33
Table 6-1: Stage 1 water borehole costs for human population........................................ 34
Table 6-2: Stage 2 water borehole costs for livestock ..................................................... 34
Table 6-3: Estimated annual total fish catches in year 2008 as presented by landing sites
and fish species................................................................................................. 37
Table 6-4: Water channels, No. of boats and total revenues generated ........................... 39
Table 6-5: Estimated annual Total Economic Values of Mabamba Bay wetland of
international importance.................................................................................. 41
iii

List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Map of Uganda showing location of Mabamba Bay Wetland System .......... 14
Figure 3-2: Map showing administrative units (Parishes and Villages) around Mabamba
Bay Ramsar Site.............................................................................................. 15
Figure 4-1: Payment card for eliciting WTA for loss of access to wetland ecosystem
services............................................................................................................ 23
Figure 4-2: Payment card for eliciting WTP to secure a better access to wetland products
and services ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 5-1: No. of complaints raised against problem animals………………………….30
Figure 5-2: Trends in HH WTA (US$) per month............................................................ 31
Figure 5-3: Trends in HH WTP (US$) per month ............................................................ 32
Figure 6-1: Proportion of each ecosystem service (%age of TEV)................................... 42
iv

Declaration of honor
I herewith declare that I am the sole author of the current master thesis according to art. 51 par. 2
no. 8 and art. 51 par. 2 no. 13 Universitätsgesetz 2002 (Austrian University Law) and that I have
conducted all works connected with the master thesis on my own. Furthermore, I declare that I
only used those resources that are referenced in the work. All formulations and concepts taken
from printed, verbal or online sources – be they word-for-word quotations or corresponding in
their meaning – are quoted according to the rules of good scientific conduct and are indicated by
footnotes, in the text or other forms of detailed references.
Support during the work including significant supervision is indicated accordingly. The master
thesis has not been presented to any other examination authority. The work has been submitted in
printed and electronic form. I herewith confirm that the electronic form is completely congruent
with the printed version.
I am aware of legal consequences of a false declaration of honor.
Klagenfurt, 15 June 2009
Signature:
v

Acknowledgements
I wish to recognize the various contributions by different people and organizations to the success
of this field study. Sincere thanks are expressed to Austrian Development Co-operation as
represented by Austrian Agency for International Co-operation in Education and Research (Oead)
for generously funding my two-year academic degree programme at Klagenfurt University under
the North – South Dialogue Scholarship Programme.
The field study was also financially supported by the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG)
with a Royal Dutch Shell plc International Leadership and Capacity Building Programme
Bursary”. In respect of this, the financial contribution from Royal Geographical Society is highly
appreciated.
It is also a pleasure to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Michael Getzner, my Masters father for
inspiring and motivating to venture in to the field of environmental and ecological economics;
and for supervising and mentoring me at all levels of my field research; and specifically for his
professional, technical guidance and insightful comments. Acknowledgment of my gratitude is
equally given to Mr. Michael Jungmeier, Miss Caroline Starched and the entire staff of Institute
of Ecology, Klagenfurt who organized a series of research sessions and scientific excursions in
some parts of Europe during which I was able to share my research concept paper with the rest of
course participants.
Last but not least special recognition is given to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of
Wakiso district local government for granting me authority to conduct research in and around
Mabamba Bay wetland system. On a related note, I very much appreciate technical contributions
and administrative support from CAO’s staff especially the Senior District Environment Officer,
Senior Assistant Secretary (Mr. Ssenduli John) and his staff at Kasanje Sub-county. The various
contributions of different local stakeholders, local leaders and local leaders during the data
collection exercise and during Participatory Rural Appraisals is highly acknowledged.
vi

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms
BMU
BV
CITES
CMS
CVM
DUV
ECOTRUST
FACE
HH
IUCN
IUV
KSDP
LC
MA
MBGCA
MWETA
MWLE
NEMA
OP
PES
SPSS
TEV
UV
WTA
WTP
XV
Abbreviations
Beach Management Unit
Bequest Values
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals
Contingent Valuation Methodology
Direct Use Values
Environmental Conservation Trust of Uganda
Forest Absorbing Carbon dioxide Emissions
Household
World Conservation Union
Indirect Use Values
Kasanje Sub-county Development Plan
Local Council
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Mabamba Bird Guides and Conservation Association
Mabamba Wetland Eco-tourism Association
Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment
National Environment Management Authority
Option Values
Payment for Environmental Services
Statistical Package for Social Sciences
Total Economic Value
Use Values
Willingness to accept
Willingness to pay
Existence Values
vii

Executive summary
Wetland systems directly support millions of people and provide goods and services to the world
outside the wetland. People use the wetland soils for agriculture, they catch wetland fish to eat,
they cut wetland trees for timber and fuel wood and wetland reeds to make mats and to thatch
roofs. Direct use may also take the form of recreation, such as bird watching or sailing, or
scientific study. Despite their importance, wetlands through out the world are being modified and
reclaimed. Wetlands are being rapidly modified, converted, over-exploited and degraded in the
interests of other more ‘productive’ land and resource management options which appear to yield
much higher and more immediate profits. Dam construction, irrigation schemes, housing
developments and industrial activities have all had devastating impacts on wetland integrity and
status, and economic policies have often hastened these processes of wetland degradation and
loss. At the same time conservation efforts have traditionally paid little attention to economic
values − as a result it has often been hard to justify or sustain wetlands in economic terms, or for
them to compete with other, often destructive, investments and land uses. Such concerns have led
to an explosion of efforts to value natural ecosystems and the services they provide. Valuation
studies have considerably increased our knowledge of the value of ecosystems. Economic
valuation can provide a powerful tool for placing wetlands on the agendas of conservation and
development decision makers. Economic valuation also aims to quantify the benefits (both
marketed and non-marketed) that people obtain from the wetland ecosystem services. This makes
them comparable with other sectors of the economy, when investments are being appraised,
activities are planned, policies are formulated, or land and water resource use decisions are made.
Wetland ecosystems not only generate valuable goods and services but also give rise to economic
costs which include among others expenditures on the physical inputs associated with resource
and ecosystem management, opportunity costs and economic losses to local communities arising
from crop raiding wild animals. The establishment of protected areas precludes land and resource
uses. Protected areas such as wetlands permit restricted resource utilization, and wholly prevent
cultivation and grazing. Either of these losses represents the opportunity cost of biodiversity
conservation in terms of economic activities (such as agriculture) foregone.
In the light of this, a study was undertaken to assess the present economic value of Mabamba Bay
wetland system of international importance, Wakiso district, Uganda. The study was done
between October – December 2008. The main objectives of the study were: to assess the annual
Total Economic Value (TEV) of Mabamba Bay wetland system; and to determine the distribution
of costs arising from wetland conservation and management. As part of achieving those
objectives, a household survey using stratified random sampling technique was carried out in 5
parishes surrounding Mabamba Bay wetland. Only heads of households were targeted in face to
face interviews. A total of 320 households (representative sample of 3,777 households) were
randomly interviewed. Other data collection methods included evaluation of relevant secondary
data in the field of environmental economics, face to face discussions with stakeholders, focus
group discussions and Benefit Transfer Method.
Contingent valuation method (CVM) was to estimate the economic values of wetland ecosystem
services which were non-marketable or whose market substitutes could not be found. CVM was
specifically used to measure existence value, option values, indirect values and non-use values.
People revealed their value for the benefits derived from a wetland through their WTP for those
benefits. People also revealed their value for wetland benefits through their WTA compensation
for foregoing the benefit. In the case of access to a resource, people revealed their values through
viii

a WTP to prevent the loss of access and their WTA compensation to tolerate the loss. The CVM
involved directly asking people in a household survey by presenting a payment card with
different bids, how much they were WTP to secure better ecosystem services (benefits). People
were also asked for the amount of compensation they would be WTA to give up specific
environmental services. People were asked to state their WTP and WTA, contingent on a specific
hypothetical scenario and description of wetland ecosystem services. As the contingent valuation
study was part of the household survey, 320 households were interviewed, randomly drawn from
5 parishes around Mabamba Ramsar Site.
The data gathered in a household survey was then statistically analyzed using a computer
program called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), which was re-branded in 2009
as Predictive Analysis Software (PASW). The analysis indicated; the mean house hold size of 5
people, 68% of the households engaged in subsistence farming, an annual average household
income of US$276, and mean daily household water consumption as 87 litres. The aggregate
annual water consumption for all 3,777 households was estimated to be119, 249,333litres. Poultry
was the most owned (12,200 chickens) livestock among households. It was found out that the
monthly mean household WTP for ecosystem services stood at US$7.2 while the mean household
WTA for loss of access to wetland goods and services was US$ 196 per month.
According to the findings of the study, the following services and goods emanate from Mabamba
Bay wetland system: supply of water for domestic purposes, support wetland edge cultivation
through provision of water, nutrients, source of fish for local consumption and commercial
purposes, recreation and tourism, source of sand for construction purposes, support water-based
transport and source of handcraft materials such as papyrus for making mats. Indirect ecosystem
services identified included: carbon storage and sequestration, buffering Lake Victoria, playing
an important hydrological role for waters entering Lake Victoria from the surrounding
catchments, acting as a flood control for the surrounding shoreline and maintaining a steady
discharge of water as well as supplementing the water supply to Lake Victoria. The TEV (direct,
indirect, option, bequest and existence values) of Mabamba Bay wetland in its present form was
estimated as US$ 3,576,609 per annum which is an equivalent of Uganda Shillings
6,437,896,200/= (N.B. by the time of the study, 1 US$ was trading 1,800 Uganda Shillings on the
Ugandan foreign exchange market). The non-marketable ecosystem services were valued at US$
326,333 per year, thereby constituting 8.9 % of the annual TEV. Some of the benefits were found
to be of local, national or global importance. The beneficiaries of ecosystem services were found
to be at the household, local community, district, national and international levels.
Following the performance of contingent valuation survey, the opportunity costs as expressed
through WTA were estimated as US$ 8,883,504 per year, which is Uganda Shillings
15,990,307,200/=. Vervet monkeys, Sitatunga, Bush buck, guinea fowl and hippopotamus were
widely reported as crop raiding wild animals from Mabamba Bay wetland. These wild animals
raid agricultural field in the neighbouring resulting in to loss of income and crop yield to farmers.
Because of the limitations of financial resources and time, the monetary costs associated with
losses due to crop raiding animals were not estimated. There was not any annual public
expenditure from the Government specifically dedicated to the management of Mabamba wetland
system. Therefore this study focused on only opportunity costs.
To ensure better deliverance of ecosystem services; and improved management and conservation
of Mabamba Bay wetland system, the study came up with the following practical
recommendations:
1. Illegal sand mining activities be stopped and thereafter restoration measures undertaken
in areas with sand mining activities and abandoned sand pits. This will repair the
ix

environmental damage and eventually lead to restoration of ecosystem functions,
attributes and processes.
2. Environmental Impact Assessment should be mandatory for all future sand mining
operations within the vicinity of Mabamba Bay wetland. This will help avoid irreversible
changes and serious damage to the wetland; and safeguard valuable resources, natural
areas and ecosystem components.
3. Local communities and their local leaders should be sensitized on policies and laws
governing environment management in Uganda, conservation values of Mabamba Bay
wetland, dangers of illegal activities such as hunting, setting fires and wetland edge
farming; and also on the principles of Ramsar Convention.
4. Motivation of local communities to conserve Mabamba Bay wetland ecosystem through
offering economic and financial incentives. Such as engaging local communities in
ecologically sound and culturally acceptable tourism enterprises; and offering grants or
other financial incentives to private forest owners around Mabamba wetland as a
motivation to conserve biodiversity in their forests.
5. Need for stakeholders to assist local communities to develop alternative sources of the
products currently taken from the wetland. Alternatives may include fish farming (pond
aquaculture), bee-keeping, woodlots for fuel wood, income generating products e.g. fruit
garden and medicinal gardens. This may in the long run reduce pressure on the wetland
resources and ultimately lead to conservation of the wetland biodiversity.
6. Because of the role played by Mabamba wetland in mitigating global warming (through
sequestering and storage of carbon), Wakiso district local government and other key
stakeholders like Nature Uganda can secure financial resources from international carbon
markets such as the Clean Development mechanism under Kyoto protocol and World
Bank Bio Carbon fund. Under carbon offset and credit arrangements, highly
industrialized countries can finance the conservation and management activities of
Mabamba wetland in exchange for the credit for the amount of carbon saved or
sequestered.
7. Management of Mabamba Bay wetland system should be strengthened. This should
among others include formulation of the site management plan to guide the management
activities of the site, directing an annual public expenditure towards its (wetland)
management and; incorporating mabamba wetland issues in to other development
activities, policies and plans.
x

Chapter 1: Introduction
Wetlands are amongst the Earth’s most productive ecosystems. They have been described as ‘’the
Kidneys of the landscape’’, because of the functions they perform in the hydrological and
chemical cycles, and ‘’ biological supermarkets’’ because of the extensive food webs and rich
biodiversity they support (Barbier et al., 1997) Wetland systems directly support millions of
people and provide goods and services to the world outside the wetland. People use the wetland
soils for agriculture, they catch wetland fish to eat, they cut wetland trees for timber and fuel
wood and wetland reeds to make mats and to thatch roofs. Direct use may also take the form of
recreation, such as bird watching or sailing, or scientific study. Peat soils have preserved ancient
remains of people and track ways which are of great interest to archaeologists.
Freshwater wetlands have high conservation significance, supporting concentrated populations of
birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrate species. It has been estimated that
fresh water wetlands hold more than 40% of the entire world’s species and 12% of all animal
species. Individual wetlands can be extremely important in supporting high numbers of endemic
species. In addition to their direct biodiversity significance, wetlands play a vital role in
supporting hydrological functions, and therefore underpinning wider freshwater ecosystems
(Schuyt, et al. 2004). The economic value of the world’s wetlands is estimated at US$70 billion
per year. The largest economic values of the world’s wetlands are the hydrological services
provided through flood control and water filtering. Other significant values include fishing,
biodiversity, and sources of local water supply, materials and firewood. Schuyt, et al. 2004,
reports that Charles River Basin wetlands in Massachusetts consist of 3,455 hectares of fresh
water marsh and wooded swamps of which the benefits derived from these wetlands include flood
control, amenity values, pollution reduction, water supply and recreation. The flood damage
prevention and pollution control functions alone are worth US$65 million per annum.
An evaluation study of the services provided by the Nakivubo wetland in Kampala revealed
US$1.7 million a year. Most of this value was attributed to water treatment and purification
services. In addition approximately US$ 100,000 was estimated to accrue from wetland goods
and products through crop cultivation, papyrus harvesting, brick making, and fish farming
(MWLE, 2001). In rural areas of Uganda, households engaged in papyrus harvesting are
estimated to be deriving as much as US$ 200 a year from their wetland activities. In Uganda,
approximately five million people depend directly on wetlands for their water supply. The daily
water consumption is conservatively estimated at 50 million litres a day. At commercial prices for
water in rural areas, this amounts to at least US$ 25 million a year. Wetlands contribute to water
supply not only to neighbouring communities, but to most of the population - through
groundwater recharging, water storage, water purification (MWLE, 2001).
Despite its high value, biodiversity conservation also gives rise to economic costs as well as
requiring expenditures on the physical inputs associated with resource and ecosystem
management. The costs can also be opportunity costs to forego benefits/gains accruing from
wetland ecosystem conservation and management or opportunity costs to tolerate costs associated
with the existence of the wetland ecosystem. Problem animals (including vermin) from the
wetland can be a menace to local communities living around. They (wild animals) can stray in to
the adjacent community lands resulting in to among others; destruction of crops in the gardens,
damage of property, injury to people or transmission of diseases to domestic livestock. This leads
to loss of livelihood and income derived from agricultural production. The establishment of
protected areas precludes land and resource uses. Protected areas such as wetlands permit
1

estricted resource utilisation, and wholly prevent cultivation and grazing. Either of these losses
represents the opportunity cost of biodiversity conservation in terms of economic activities (such
as agriculture) foregone.
1.1 Justification for performing an economic valuation study
Despite their importance, wetlands through out the world are being modified and reclaimed. It has
been estimated that since 1900 more than half of the world’s wetlands have disappeared, largely
through conversion to agricultural use. In the US, for example, 87% of wetland loss has been to
agricultural development (Schuyt, et al. 2004). Wetlands however, provide numerous goods and
services that have an economic value not only to the people who are living in the periphery of a
wetland (in terms of water, fish, reeds and wildlife), but also to those living downstream
(wetlands regulate water supply and recycle human wastes). A major factor contributing to the
loss of wetlands is that decision-makers often have insufficient understanding of these economic
values of these wetlands (Schuyt, et al. 2004).
The value of wetlands and their associated ecosystem services has been estimated at US$14
trillion annually. Yet many of these services, such as the recharge of ground water, water
purification or aesthetic and cultural values are not immediately obvious when one looks at the
wetland. Planners and decision-makers at many levels are frequently not fully aware of the
connections between wetland condition and the provision of wetland services and the consequent
benefits for the people, benefits which often have substantial economic value (De Groot et al.
2006). Only in very few cases have decisions been informed by the TEV and benefits of both
marketed and non-marketed services of wetlands. This lack of understanding and recognition of
the roles wetlands play, leads to ill-informed decisions on management and development, which
contribute to the continued rapid loss, conversion and degradation of wetlands despite the TEV of
unconverted wetlands often being greater than that of converted wetlands.
Infrastructure development activities have all had devastating impacts on wetland integrity and
status, and economic policies have often hastened these processes of wetland degradation and
loss. At the same time conservation efforts have traditionally paid little attention to economic
values − as a result it has often been hard to justify or sustain wetlands in economic terms, or for
them to compete with other, often destructive, investments and land uses. In fact, the problem is
not that wetlands have no economic value, but rather that this value is poorly understood, rarely
articulated, and as a result is frequently omitted from decision-making (Emerton, 2003).
Although conventional analysis decrees that the ‘best’ or most efficient allocation of resources is
one that maximizes economic returns, calculations of the returns to different land, resource and
investment options have for the most part failed to deal adequately with wetland values.
Investment appraisals of dams do not usually consider the economic costs attached to modifying
downstream river flows and hydrology, the economic impacts of loss of wetland resources tends
not to be factored into calculations of the potential profitability of land reclamation or conversion
schemes, cost-benefit analyses of infrastructure projects have rarely incorporated estimates of
environmental benefits and costs (Emerton, 2003). Decisions have tended to be made on the basis
of only partial information and have thus favoured short-term (and often unsustainable)
development imperatives, or led to conservation regimes that generate few financial or economic
benefits. In the absence of information about wetland values, substantial misallocation of
resources has occurred and gone unrecognised (Emerton, 2003) and immense economic costs
have often been incurred. Economic valuation can provide a powerful tool for placing wetlands
on the agenda of conservation and development decision-makers. Its basic aim is to determine
2

people’s preferences: how much they are willing to pay for wetland goods and services, and how
much better or worse off they they would consider themselves to be as a result of changes in their
supply.
Such concerns have led to an explosion of efforts to value natural ecosystems and the services
they provide (Emerton, 2003). Valuation studies have considerably increased our knowledge of
the value of ecosystems. Economic valuation can provide a powerful tool for placing wetlands on
the agendas of conservation and development decision makers. Economic valuation also aims to
quantify the benefits (both marketed and non-marketed) that people obtain from the wetland
ecosystem services. This makes them comparable with other sectors of the economy, when
investments are being appraised, activities are planned, policies are formulated, or land and water
resource use decisions are made. It provides analytical basis for considering trade- offs and
making management decisions that better support public welfare and aspirations. More important,
it is enables decision-makers and the public to evaluate the full economic costs and the benefits of
any proposed change in a wetland. A better understanding of the economic value of wetlands
enables them to be considered as economically productive systems, a long side other possible
uses of land, resources and funds. Valuation techniques are increasingly being used to generate
practical management and policy information.
An important objective of wetland valuation is to provide an improved basis for designing land
and resource use policies and management systems (Barendregt et al 1998). Despite the steps
forward that have been made in calculating and expressing the value of wetland goods and
services, a major challenge remains − to ensure that the results of these studies, and the figures
they generate, are actually fed into decision-making processes and used to influence conservation
and development agendas.
1.2 Rationale for evaluating benefits of wetland ecosystem conservation (adapted
from De Groot, et al. 2006)
More and better information on the socio-cultural and economic benefits of ecosystem
services is needed to:
i. Demonstrate the contribution of wetlands to the local, national and global
economy (and thus build local and political support for their conservation and
sustainable use);
ii. Convince decision-makers that the benefits of conservation and sustainable use of
wetlands usually outweigh the costs and explain the need to better factor wetlands
in to development planning (through more balanced cost-benefit analysis);
iii. Identify the users and beneficiaries of wetland services to attract investments and
secure sustainable financial streams and incentives for the maintenance, or
restoration, of these services (i.e. make users pay and ensure that local people
receive a proper share of the benefits); and
iv. Increase awareness about the many benefits of wetlands to human well-being and
ensure that wetlands are better taken in to account in economic welfare indicators
(e.g., in Gross National Product (GNP) calculations) and pricing mechanisms
(through internalization of externalities).
3

1.3 The objectives of the study
Overall objective
The overall objective is to estimate the annual Total Economic Value (TEV) of Mabamba Bay
wetland system in its present form i.e., to determine the total contribution of the ecosystem to the
local or national economy and human well-being.
The specific objectives of the economic valuation study were:
i. To identify and quantify the benefits (both marketed and non-marketed) that people
obtain from Mabamba Bay wetland ecosystem
ii.
iii.
iv.
To assign monetary values to identified ecosystem goods and services produced by
Mabamba Bay wetland system.
To determine the annual TEV of Mabamba bay wetland ecosystem in its present form.
Determine the opportunity costs of conserving Mabamba bay wetland in terms of benefits
foregone and other economic activities
4

2.1 Wetland conservation benefits
Chapter 2: Literature review
Wetland ecosystems, including rivers, lakes, marshes, rice fields, and coastal areas, provide many
services that contribute to human well-being and poverty alleviation. Some groups of people,
particularly those living near the wetlands, are highly dependent on these services and are directly
harmed by their degradation (MA, 2005). Wetland services with strong linkages to human wellbeing
include:
Fish supply and water availability: Two of the most important wetland ecosystem services
affecting human well-being involve fish supply and water availability. Inland fisheries are of
particular importance in developing countries, and are the primary source of animal protein to
which rural communities have access. Wetland-related fisheries also make important
contributions to local and national economies. Capture fisheries in coastal waters alone contribute
$34 billion to growth world product annually. The principle supply of renewable fresh water for
human use comes from an array of inland wetlands, including lakes, rivers, swamps, and
swallows ground water aquifers. Groundwater, often recharged through wetlands, plays an
important role in water supply, with an estimated 1.5-3 bilion people dependent on it as a source
of drinking water.
Water purification and detoxification of wastes: Wetlands, and in particular marshes, play a major
role in treating and detoxifying a variety of waste products. Some wetlands have been found to
have been found to reduce the concentration of nitrate by more than 80%. Wetlands also provide
a vitally important, water treatment and purification (MA 2005). Large amounts of water enter the
wetlands. The waste include: detergents, hidoricents, oil, acids, nitrates, phosphates and heavy
metals. The wetlands treat and purify this water before it is passed onto the lake or connecting
river (NEMA, 2007). Wetlands also provide important water purification services. Most urban
populations in Uganda lack water-borne sewage systems and domestic wastes often flow directly
into swamps and wetlands. It is estimated that at least 725,000 people rely on wetlands for waste
retention and purification, including populations in Kampala, Bushenyi and Masaka Towns
wetlands (MWLE, 2001). The value of wetland water purification and waste treatment services
can be at least partially valued by looking at their replacement by other means. The cost of
establishing and maintaining a 4,000 m 3 sewage treatment pond, serving some 25,000 people is
some US$ 0.15 million a year (Emerton et al, 1999). This translates into a total annual value for
wetlands water purification services in terms of replacement cost avoided of some US$ 4.77
million a year
Climate regulation: One of the most important roles of wetlands may be in the regulation of
global climate change through sequestering and releasing a major proportion of fixed carbon in
the biosphere. For example although covering only an estimated 3-4% of the world’s land area,
peatlands are estimated to hold 540 gigatons of carbon, representing about 1.5% of the estimated
global carbon storage and about 25-30% of what contained in terrestrial vegetation and soils
(MA, 2005). Wetlands play a sometimes crucial role in regulating exchanges to/from the
atmosphere of the naturally-produced gases involved in “greenhouse” effects, namely water
vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (all associated with warming) and sulphur dioxide
(associated with cooling). They tend to be sinks for carbon and nitrogen, and sources for methane
and sulphur compounds, but situations vary widely from place to place, from time to time, and
between (Pritchard, 2009)
5

Mitigation of climate change impacts: Sea level rises and increases in storm surges associated
with climate change will result in the erosion of shores and habitat, increased salinity of estuaries
and freshwater aquifers, altered tidal ranges in rivers and bays, changes in sediment and nutrient
transport, and increased coastal flooding and in turn, could increase the vulnerability of some
coastal populations. Wetlands such as mangroves and floodplains can play a critical role in the
physical buffering of climate change impacts.
Cultural services: Wetlands provide significant aesthetic, educational, cultural and spiritual
benefits, as well as a vast array of opportunities for recreation and tourism. Recreational fishing
can generate considerable income: 35-45 million people take part in recreational fishing (inland
and salt water) in the United States, spending a total of $24-37 billion each year on their hobby
(MA, 2005). Much of the economic value of coral reefs – with net benefits estimated at nearly
$30 billion each year – is generated from nature-based tourism, including scuba diving and
snorkelling.
Source of food, fiber, fuel and construction materials: Over 30,000 km 2 of Uganda is under
seasonal or permanent wetlands. A wide variety of wetland plant species are harvested by
adjacent human populations for food, medicine, construction material and handicraft production.
Each hectare of papyrus swamp yields 20 tones of dry papyrus culm a year (Emerton et al., 1999 )
with a market price for construction materials of USh 54/kg (US$ 0.036/Kg) giving a minimum
value of papyrus utilization for Uganda of just under USh 6 billion (US$ 4 Million) a year.
Natural vegetation in wetlands and floodplains also provides an important source of off-farm
pasture, fodder and forage as dry season grazing for livestock Emerton et al, 1999 estimate the
dry season grazing of wetlands vegetation in Uganda to be a total value in excess of UShs 18
billion (US$ 12 million) a year in terms of contribution to livestock production. In Apac district,
Uganda, the most common type of fish includes catfish, lung fish, tilapia and clarias observed in
major wetlands. Fishing, especially of tilapia is common in all wetlands of the district with the
greatest activity in the permanent wetlands.
Water retention and purification by wetlands: Wetlands generate a wide range of indirect benefits
through water recharge and storage, sediment trapping, nutrient cycling and water purification
functions. Wetland ecosystem services also maintain and support off-site water dependent
consumption and production activities, including downstream resource utilization, industry and
urban settlement. Wetlands water recharge, storage and productivity services permit on-site
economic activities in addition to those which depend directly on the harvesting of wild
resources, most importantly crop production. This crop output reflects wetland water retention
and productivity maintenance services. The value of wetlands ecosystem functions as reflected in
agricultural production is worth some US$ 44,000 (Emerton et al, 1999).
Hydrological services: Wetlands deliver a wide range of hydrological services – for instance,
swamps, lakes, and marshes assist with flood mitigation, promote ground water recharge, and
regular river flows – but the nature and value of these services differs across wetland types.
Mitigating floods: Many wetlands diminish the destructive nature of flooding, and the loss of
these wetlands increases the risks of floods occurring. Wetlands such as flood plains, lakes, and
reservoirs are the main providers of flood attenuation potential in inland water systems. Nearly 2
billion people live in areas of high flood risk – a risk that will be increased if wetlands are lost or
degraded (MA 2005). Coastal wetlands, including coastal barrier islands, coastal rive floodplains,
and coastal vegetation, all play an important role in reducing the impacts of flood waters
produced by coastal storm events.
6

Table 2-1: Summary of Ecosystem services derived from or provided by wetlands
Services
Comments and Examples
a. Provisioning: products obtained from ecosystems
Food
production of fish, wild game, fruits, and grains
Fresh water
Fiber and fuel
storage and retention of water for domestic,
industrial, and agricultural use
production of logs, fuel wood, peat, fodder
Biochemical
extraction of medicines and other materials
from biota
Genetic materials
genes for resistance to plant pathogens,
ornamental species, and so on
b. Regulating: benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes
Climate regulation
source of and sink for greenhouse gases;
influence local and regional temperature,
precipitation, and other climatic processes
Water regulation (hydrological flows) groundwater recharge/discharge
Water purification and waste treatment
Erosion regulation
Natural hazard regulation
Pollination
retention, recovery, and removal of excess
nutrients and other pollutants
retention of soils and sediments
flood control, storm protection
habitat for pollinators
c. Cultural: non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems
Spiritual and inspirational
source of inspiration; many religions attach
spiritual and religious values to aspects of
wetland ecosystems
Recreational
opportunities for recreational activities
Aesthetic
many people find beauty or aesthetic value in
aspects of wetland ecosystems
Educational
opportunities for formal and informal education
and training
d. Supporting: services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services
Soil formation
sediment retention and accumulation of organic
matter
Nutrient cycling
storage, recycling, processing, and acquisition
of nutrients
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands
and water.
7

Total Economic Value: a framework for defining wetland economic benefits
One reason for the persistent under-valuation of wetlands is that, traditionally, concepts of
economic value have been based on a very narrow definition of benefits. Economists have seen
the value of natural ecosystems only in terms of the raw materials and physical products that they
generate for human production and consumption, especially focusing on commercial activities
and profits. These direct uses however represent only a small proportion of the total value of
wetlands, which generate economic benefits far in excess of just physical or marketed products
(Emerton, 2003). The concept of total economic value has now become one of the most widely
used frameworks for identifying and categorizing ecosystem benefits (Barbier et al 1997). Instead
of focusing only on direct commercial values, it also encompasses the subsistence and nonmarket
values, ecological functions and non-use benefits associated with wetlands. As well as
presenting a more complete picture of the economic importance of wetlands, it clearly
demonstrates the high and wide-ranging economic costs associated with their degradation, which
extends beyond the loss of direct use values.
According to Pearce et al, 1994, conceptually Total Economic Value (TEV) of an environmental
resource consists of its use value (UV) and non-use value (NUV). A use value is much as it
sounds – a value arising from actual use made of a given resource. This might be the use of a
wetland for recreation or fishing and so on. Use values are further divided in to direct use values
(DUV), which refer to actual uses such as fishing, hunting, water extraction, harvesting of
papyrus plants etc; indirect use values (IUV), which refer to the benefits derived from ecosystem
functions such as the wetlands function in regulating hydrological flows; and option values (OV),
which is a value approximating an individual’s willingness to pay to safeguard an asset for the
option of using it at a future date. This is like an insurance value. Non-use values (NUV) are
slightly more problematic in definition and estimation, but are more usually divided between a
bequest value (BV) and an existence or ‘passive use value (XV). Bequest value measures the
benefits accruing to any individual from the knowledge that others may benefit from a resource in
future. Existence values are unrelated to current use or option values, deriving simply from the
existence of any particular asset. An individual’s concern to protect, say, the rare shoe-bill stork
although he or she has never seen one and is never likely to, could be an example of existence
value. Thus in total we have:
TEV = UV + NUV = (DUV + IUV + OV) + (XV + BV)
The total economic valuation framework, as applied to wetlands, is illustrated in Table 2.2
8

Table 2-2: Classification of total economic values for wetlands
Use Values
Non-Use Values
Direct values Indirect values Option values Non-use values
production and
consumption
goods and services
such as . . .
ecosystem functions
and
services
such as . . .
premium placed on
possible future uses
and
applications
intrinsic significance
in terms of . . .
such as . . .
• fish
• fuelwood
• building poles
• sand, gravel, clay
• thatch
• water
• wild foods
• medicines
•agriculture/cultivation
• pasture/grazing
• transport
• recreation
• water quality
• water flow
• water storage
• water purification
• water recharge
• flood control
• storm protection
• nutrient retention
• micro-climate
regulation
• shore stabilization
• pharmaceutical
• agricultural
• industrial
• leisure
• water use
• cultural value
• aesthetic value
• heritage value
• bequest value
• existence value
Source: MWLE, Wetland Strategic Plan, 2001-2010, Kampala, Uganda.
2.2 Economic costs associated with wetland conservation
Despite its high value, biodiversity conservation also gives rise to economic costs as well as
requiring expenditures on the physical inputs associated with resource and ecosystem
management, biodiversity incurs costs because it precludes or interferes with other economic
activities. The economic costs can be:
Management expenditures: This includes direct costs of implementing conservation measures
such as staff, equipment, infrastructure, running costs and other physical inputs associated with
managing biodiversity. They are incurred to government agencies, non-governmental
organizations, community members and external donors
Opportunity costs: Conserving ecosystems and the goods and services they provide may also
involve foregoing certain uses of these ecosystems, and the benefits that would have been derived
from those uses. Not converting a wetland ecosystem to agriculture, for example, preserves
certain valuable ecosystem services that wetlands may provide better than farmland, but also
prevents us from enjoying the benefits of agricultural production.
Opportunity costs represent the income and other benefits foregone from land use, investment and
development opportunities precluded or diminished by the need to maintain biodiversity. These
include unsustainable resource and land utilization activities, production processes and
technologies which harm or deplete biodiversity and alternative investments of funds allocated to
biodiversity management. The opportunity costs of biodiversity can be in terms of agricultural
production benefits foregone in protected areas in a year.
9

Losses to other economic activities: represent the damage caused by biodiversity to human
populations, production and consumption. They include damage, death and injury to humans,
crops and livestock from wild animals, disease and other components of biodiversity which are
harmful to or interfere with production and consumption processes. Damage caused to
agriculture from wild animals comprises a major economic cost associated with Uganda’s
biodiversity. Crop damage rates attributed to wildlife have been estimated to average some USh
116 million per km of boundary for major protected areas in Uganda (Howard 1995, updated to
1998 prices), giving a total economic cost in excess of USh 97 billion a year.
2.3 Reasons why wetlands are still under-valued and over-used (adapted from
Vorhies 1999; Stuip et al. 2002)
Wetland values are often not taken in to account properly or fully in decision making, or are only
partially valued, often leading to degradation or even destruction of a wetland.
Market failure: public goods: Many of the ecological services, biological resources and amenity
values provided by wetlands have the qualities of a public good; i.e. many wetland services are
seen as ‘’free’’ and are thus not accounted for in the market (e.g., water-purification or floodprevention).
Market failures: externalities: Another type of market failure occurs when markets do not reflect
the full social costs or benefits of a change in availability of a good or a service (so-called
externalities. For example, the price of agricultural products obtained from drained wetlands do
not fully reflect the costs, in terms of pollution and lost wetland services, which are imposed upon
society by the production process.
Perverse incentives: (e.g., taxes/subsidies stimulating wetland over-use). Many policies and
government decisions provide incentives for economic activity that often unintentionally work
against the wise use of wetlands, leading to resource degradation and destruction rather than
sustainable management (Vorhies 1999). An example might be subsidies for shrimp farmers
leading to mangrove destruction.
Unequal distribution of costs and benefits: Usually, those stakeholders who benefit from an
ecosystem service, or its over-use, are not the same as the stakeholders who bear the cost. For
example when a wetland is affected by pollution of the upper catchment by the runoff from
agricultural land, the people living downstream of the wetland could suffer from this. The
resulting loss of value (e.g., health, income) is not accounted for and the downstream stakeholders
are generally not compensated for the damages they suffer (Stuip et al. 2002)
No clear ownership: Ownership of wetlands can be difficult to establish. Wetlands ecosystems can
be difficult to establish. Wetland ecosystems often do not have clear natural boundaries and, even
when natural boundaries can be defined, they may not correspond with an administrative boundary.
Therefore, their bounds of responsibility of a government organization cannot be easily allocated
and user values are not apparent to decision makers.
Devolution of decision-making away from local users and managers: Failure of decision-makers
and planners to recognize the importance of wetlands to those who rely on them, either directly or
indirectly.
10

2.4 Solutions to correct externalities; and incentives to support the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): Payments PES schemes have received considerable
attention as a new way of approaching conservation. PES schemes are based on the principle that
biodiversity provides a number of economically significant services: payments and funding
should be therefore devoted to protecting biodiversity, thereby ensuring the continued provision
of these services. The ecosystem services that have received the most attention are watershed
protection and carbon sequestration (NEMA, 2007). Other environmental services include the
maintenance of biodiversity and landscape beauty. In PES, those who are responsible for ensuring
provision of ecosystem services receive payment or compensation to encourage future provision
of the ecosystem services; and those who benefit from the ecosystem services provide the revenue
for the payments. Where the collection of this revenue is linked to a fee on the use of the
ecosystem services – for example a fee on water use – this can also create incentives for more
efficient use of resources. PES can be in form of making user payments to a water fund, which is
allocated to watershed protection, watershed restoration activities, and compensation to forest
owners.
Access charges: Access charges are a form of payment for environmental services and are based
on the same principle: those who benefit from an ecosystem make payments towards the
conservation and protection of the ecosystem. In case the case of access charges, charges are
levied directly on those who use or visit an ecosystem, often visitors to the protected area or
region. The funds raised by access charges can be used directly for conservation purposes and to
generate socio-economic benefits for local communities, thereby providing local communities
with incentives to preserve biodiversity.
Creating markets that support conservation: Creating markets that support conservation involves
ensuring that the returns to ecologically sound economic activity are increased when compared to
the returns to unsustainable activity. Market-based approaches seek to utilize markets to reward
ecologically sound activity. Local communities typically receive little direct gain from
biodiversity products and areas to offset the financial costs and losses they incur. Establishing and
developing markets, and targeting the residents of biodiversity areas as participants in these
markets, can provide an important tool for increasing community economic gain and control over
biodiversity. The creation of biodiversity markets, as well as development of alternatives to
biodiversity depleting sources of income and subsistence, can simultaneously strengthen local
livelihoods and set in place local incentives for conservation (Emerton et al. 1999). There is great
potential for the development of various biodiversity markets in Uganda, and the inclusion of
local communities are primary participants and beneficiaries. Of particular importance are smallscale
biological resource processing and value-added cottage industries, the promotion of locallysourced
products such as supplies of food, labour and other services to larger-scale production
and tourism ventures. The development of products, markets, income and employment
opportunities as alternatives to biodiversity-depleting activities can also provide an important tool
for biodiversity conservation.
Property rights: An important reason why local communities are unwilling to conserve
biodiversity, and fail to benefit from it, is because they are excluded from using or managing land
and biological resources. Property rights address this problem and include the whole or partial
transfer of ownership, tenure, management or use over biological resources, areas and aspects of
conservation. They deal with the fact that market failures lack of consideration of the value of
biodiversity in prices, markets and economic decisions is due in part to the absence of
11

transferable, well-defined and secure rights over land and biological resources. When property
rights are established, biodiversity markets and scarcity prices should emerge, permitting the
owners and users of biological resources to benefit from conservation or be forced to bear the
implications of degradation (Emerton et al. 1999. In Uganda, Property rights in wildlife, forestry
and wetland sectors take the form of joint management, utilisation and partnership arrangements.
Property rights provide a powerful economic tool for biodiversity conservation.
Fiscal measures: budgetary measures that raise and allocate taxes and subsidies (for example the
return of hunting revenues and taxes, through the Treasury, to wildlife conservation activities in
Tanzania. The Uganda National Environment Act, Cap 153 of 2000 provides for tax incentives to
encourage good environmental behaviour, including the conservation of natural resources and the
prevention or abatement of pollution. The Act also recognizes tax disincentives to deter bad
environmental behaviour that leads to depletion of environmental resources or that cause
pollution.
Financial instruments: Forest and wildlife sectors in Uganda have recently been active in
promoting community benefit sharing arrangements around protected areas, which are a form of
financial instrument. Uganda Wildlife Authority normally disburses 20% of park entrance fees to
local governments surrounding the wildlife protected area as a statutory contribution towards
supporting community development projects. Other instruments can be Trust Funds such as
Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust Uganda, which is arranged in such
way that 60 per cent of the trust fund is given to the communities to implement their development
and conservation programmes (State of Environment Report for Uganda, 2006/2007)
Bonds and deposit systems: measures that charge in advance against possible damage caused to
biodiversity; for example the requirement in existing environmental legislation in Kenya,
Tanzania and Uganda for refundable bonds to be paid before certain types of industrial
developments are undertaken in environmentally sensitive areas (Emerton, et al. 1999). In
Uganda, deposit bonds are paid by the operator of an activity or industrial plant as a security for
good environmental practice.
Environmental regulations: here the economic impact has to be estimated by the regulator.
Usually this is done using cost-benefit analysis. For example, if pollution rises above the
threshold prescribed, regulations such as fines and taxes are enforced. Command and control
regulation often applies uniform emission limits on polluters, even though each firm has different
costs for emission reductions.
Influencing policies and plans: In deciding policies, plans and projects, governments weigh up
the advantages and disadvantages of different options using a variety of tools, typically couched
in terms of the potential economic benefits of alternative options. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is
a key tool used by governments and businesses as part of the assessment of whether to go a head
with a proposed project or programme. By so doing, the benefits of and; economic impacts of
damage to biodiversity are considered. CBA analysis may demonstrate the overall negative
economic impact of a proposed major infrastructure project and also; may provide guidance for
decision-making on sustainable management of biodiversity rich areas and provide a basis for
monitoring of socio-economic impacts of land use changes. Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) is a process for assessing the social and environmental impacts of broad policies and
programmes. Undertaking an SEA for a major development programme or sectoral policy can
ensure that environmental and sustainability concerns are fully incorporated in planning.
12

Chapter 3: Description of the study site
Overview
Mabamba Bay Wetland System is Ramsar Site No. 1638 and covers an area of 2,424hectares,
32°14N’ – 32 o 27’E and 00 o 02’ – 00 o 12’N. It lies west of Entebbe International Airport along the
Lake Victoria shores and south of central Uganda, 35 kms south west of Kampala, the capital city
of Uganda. (Refer to figure 3.1) at an elevation of 1,150m above sea level. It is part of Waiya Bay
south west of Nakiwogo Bay. It is situated in Wakiso district in the sub-county of Kasanje.
Within Kasanje sub-county, there are five parishes i.e. Bulumbu, Kasanje, Zziba, Sazzi and Bussi
which surround Mabamba Bay wetland system (see fig. 3.2).
It was added on a List of Wetlands of International Importance in 2006 along side other 8
Ugandan wetlands because of its immense biodiversity conservation values and its significant
contribution to the livelihood of local people. It is an Important Bird Area and an extensive marsh
stretching through a narrow and a long bay fringed with papyrus towards the main body of Lake
Victoria. This site support an average of close to 190,000 birds and is part of the wetland system
which hosts approximately 38% of the global population of Blue Shallow (Hirundo
atrocaerulea), as well as globally threatened Papyrus Yellow Warbler and other birds of global
conservation concern (Byaruhanga et al. 2005). It is a stopover for migratory birds and supports
the existence of globally threatened birds. The site the only swamp close to Kampala where one
can easily find the globally threatened Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) anytime of the day. The site
also supports a lucrative fisheries activity and is a source of fish for home consumption and
commercial use as well as of raw materials for local crafts, building materials, water for domestic
and livestock use.
Factors needing attention are dry season incursion in to the swamp by fishermen; hunting of the
Sitatunga and bushbuck by local people, the proliferation of flower farms along the shores of
Lake Victoria and the use of agrochemicals which impact negatively on the biodiversity of this
wetland system (Byaruhanga et al. 2005). Of recent, the ecological character and conservation
values of this wetland have been threatened by sand mining activities.
Climate
According to the State of the Environment Report (2002), the system falls within the Lake
Victoria climatic zone. The air currents such as the southeast and north east monsoons passing
over Lake Victoria influence the climate of Mabamba Bay wetlands system. The system has
distinct seasons, the rainy and dry season. The area receives bi-modal high rainfall ranging
between 2000-2500mm. The wetland system experiences evapotranspiration ranging between
1,450– 1,600mm (State of environment report 1998). The mean temperature is 17.4 C o and the
maximum mean temperature is 26.7C o .
Hydrology and hydrological values
Mabamba Bay wetland borders the open waters of Lake Victoria. The outflow for Lake Victoria
is the Victoria Nile River. The Katonga River flows in to Lake Victoria from the western regions
of the lake. Mabamba acts as a buffer for Lake Victoria. The system plays an important
hydrological role for the waters entering Lake Victoria from the surrounding catchments by
trapping incoming sediments and silt. The wetlands surrounding the Bay also act as flood control
areas for the surrounding shoreline. The marshes are breeding grounds for fish. During the dry
season, the system maintains a steady discharge of water and supplements the water supply of
Lake Victoria.
13

Figure 3-1: Map of Uganda showing location of Mabamba Bay Wetland System
¤£ ¤£
LWANGA
MPIGI TC
KILOKOLA
MAZIBA
BULWANYI
GWATIRO
KANYIKE
MUNYIRA
KYANJA
KONKOMA
MAKO
SOKOLO
LUGALA
#S Kamengo
KYALI
KASANJE
JUNGO
KAMENGO
BUTOOLO
BULUMBU
ZIBA
SAZI
LUWALA
CENTRAL
MUSA
#S
Entebbe
Lake Victoria
0 3 Kilometers
LEGEND
Mabamba bay
¡¢¢¢¢
N
UGANDA
AFRICA
#S Trading centre
Tropical High Forest
Degraded Forest
Permanently flooded woodland
Bushland
Permanently flooded grassland
Wetland
Small - scale farming
Large - scale farming
Built-up Area
Open Water
£ £
#
Mabamba bay
Lake
Victoria
¡¢¢¢¢ ¢¢¢¢
Uganda
#
¢¢¢¢
14

Figure 3-2: Map showing administrative units (Parishes and Villages) around
Mabamba Bay Ramsar Site
15

Soil types
The Pre-Cambrian Cenoizoic – Precambrian to recent rocks, underlie Mabamba Bay Wetland
System. The rocks give rise to ferrallitic soils, which have a dominant red colour. The soils are
mainly sandy loams and sandy clay loams. According to Uganda Atlas (1997) the northern
Victoria shoreline is underlain by Buganda-Toro system, which is the most extensive of the cover
formations and occupies much of the south-central and westerly parts. Argillites predominate, but
basal or near basal arsenites are important features. Locally as in the Busoga area, one finds thick
amphibolites, which are derived from basaltic material. Large tracts of the system are gratinised;
on the other hand low-grade phyllites also occur, towards Lake Victoria in the Southeast.
Landforms
The catchment is made of two geomorphic units, the Buganda surface (which dominates) and the
miscellaneous alluvie (Aniku, 1996). The geomorphic units make up many of the peculiarities of
the landscape and soil patterns in the catchment. The catchment area for Lake Victoria is quite
wide cutting across borders with numerous swamps, streams and rivers feeding in to lake.
However, the catchment area within the Ugandan boundaries and directly linked to Mabamba
encompasses the river Katonga basin to the west, and fringes of forest and savannah mosaics to
the north of Lake Victoria. The features of the catchment’s are relatively similar to those of the
site.
Biogeography
Mabamba Bay is situated in the Lake Victoria Regional mosaic biogeographic zone and exhibits a
tropical climate. The predominant vegetation type is wooded savannah (state of the environment
report 2002). It falls in the Lakes Kivu, Edwards, George and Victoria (and satellites lakes)
Freshwater Ecoregion (from WWF’s ‘’Freshwater Ecoregions of Africa’’ classification).
Vegetation
Mabamba Bay Wetland System is adjacent a Medium altitude moist semi-deciduous forest. It is a
complex papyrus swamp connected to Makokobe, Kasa and Kasanga papyrus swamps. In the
immediate surroundings one finds Savannah mosaics of Medium altitude moist evergreen forests
(Piptadeniastrum – Albizia – Celtis). The major habitat types are open water, papyrus swamp,
Marsh and Miscanthus swamp (Byaruhanga et al. 2005). It is part of Waiya Bay south west of
Nakiwogo Bay. The bay has patches of Nymphaea nouchali, Cladium mariscus and Cyperus
papyrus which form the open water fringing vegetation and sometimes with drifting papyrus
swamp islands. While C.papyrus dominates the swamp edges, it gives way to Miscanthidium
violacea interspersed with Loudetia phragmatoides in the deeper water towards the open water.
Water hyacinth, Eichornia crassipes is one of the common invasive plants to Lake Victoria
flora. The marsh is dominated by Cyperus papyrus (papyrus plants) and Miscanthus spp
occasioned with Loudetia phragmatoides. The bay has patches of Nymphaea nouchali, Cyperus
mariscus and Cyperus papyrus that form the open water fringing vegetation, while C.papyrus
dominates the swamp edges giving way to Miscanthus violaceus interspersed occasionally with
Loudetia phragmatoides in the deeper water towards the open water.
Mammals
Mabamba bay hosts a number of small rodents but Tropical Vlei Rat, Otomys tropicalis has been
recorded as rare in the Bay. Among the shrews are; Ugandan Lowland Shrew Crocidura selina,
16

African Groove-toothed Rat, Mylomys dybowskii (or mill rat) have also been recorded as being
uncommon. Other note worthy mammal species is Sitatunga or bushbuck (Tragelephus spekii)
which is a swamp dwelling antelope (CITES App. III).
Birds
Over 190 different bird species are known from the swamp, among which are wetland-dependent
and papyrus endemic species. Study of water birds of Lake Victoria has revealed the presence of
several species of global conservation interest. Mabamba Bay wetland supports several globally
threatened bird species. It supports the Blue Shallow, Hirundo atrocaerulea, which is globally
vulnerable species (IUCN Red List). The site supports other globally threatened species of birds
namely Shoebill, Balaeniceps rex (Vulnerable) and Papyrus Yellow Warbler, Chloroptera
gracilirostris (Vulnerable). The site also supports White winged terns, Chlidonias leucoptrus
(CMS app. II). Other species of conservation interest included in the East African Regional Red
List of birds (Bennun and Njoroge, 1996) present in the system include the Spur winged geese
(Plectropterus gambensis), Goliath Herons (Ardea goliath), Pigmy Geese (Nettapus auritus),
African Jacana (Actophilornis africanus) and several lesser Jacana (Microparra capensis). The
site also supports congregatory and migratory species namely Gull-billed Terns (Gelochelidon
nilotica); Whiskered Terns (Chlidonias hybridus); White winged Black Terns, (Chlidonias
leucopterus) and the Grey-headed Gulls (Larus cirrocephalus).
Regular waterfowl counts coordinated by Nature Uganda and Uganda Wetland Inspection
Division from 1999 to 2003 have revealed that Mabamba Bay wetland system supports an
average of 189,385 water birds (Byaruhanga et al. 2005)
Fish
Noteworthy fish species are Three Tilapiine species; Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus,
Oreochromis leucosticus and Zilli’s Tilapia, Tilapia zillii were introduced in Lake Victoria in
1950s, and Nile Perch, Lates niloticus during the 1960s. The extremely low levels of oxygen that
characterise the dense interior of papyrus and Miscanthidium swamps may also limit exploitation
by the Nile Perch since the species has a low tolerance to hypoxia. For that matter, Mabamba
wetland supports fish species, which can occur in such conditions especially lungfish and clarius.
Butterflies
The collection of butterflies from Mabamba bay is enormous with over 200 species recorded.
Abisara neavei, Acraea aganice, Acraea aurivilli, Acraea consanquinea, and Bicyclus sebetus are
some of the very rare butterfly species that have been only recorded in Mabamba Bay.
Demographic characteristics
The population and housing Census figures of 2002 indicate that the five parishes bordering
Mabamba Bay wetland system has a population of 20,966 persons with a growth rate of 4.1%,
women are 8,299 and men are 12,667. Population distribution is mainly concentrated along the
roads, in trading centers, areas around fish landing sites and in the islands. The population density
has reached almost 220.2% per square kilometer. Because of the escalating population the sub
county is facing the following challenges i.e. Uncontrolled developments, pressure on the existing
infrastructure and natural resources such as forests and wetlands,
17

Table 3-1: Population per Parish by sex
Parish. Male. Female. Total.
Bulumbu. 1643 1628 3271.
Kasanje. 2521 2108 4629
Ssazi. 1828 1606 3434
Zziba. 1154 1106 2260
Bussi. 5521 1851 7372
Total. 12667 8299 20966
Source: Kasanje Sub-County council, Busiro county, Wakiso district, Three- year development
plan (2008 – 2011)
Fisheries Resources
The fishing activity is important in the Sub-county as it is the only livelihood to the islanders for
source of revenue and a high food value source. 65% of the people thrive on fish protein value.
Lake fisheries is the most important as it employs about 9000 people in various activities of fish
mongering, fishing, boat building, and repairs, local fish processors and other artisanal fishery
activities (KSDP, 2008). Money earned a month from these activities is close to 10-20 millions.
There are 13 landing sites of which Kyanvubbu, Gulwe, Kagulube, and Nagombe exist on the
Ramsar Site. A number of farmers especially in Bussi Islands revamped their farms and some
shifted to cultivation of other crops like pineapples to compensate for the fall in the fish catch.
Livestock Resources
Livestock rearing is restricted to cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. Since the livestock densities are
very low, the district is implementing animal restocking interventions. As a result the indigenous
cows and birds are increasing in number.
Table 3-2: Population of livestock in parishes surrounding Mabamba Bay wetland
Cattle
Sheep
Type
Exotic
Crosses
Local
Local
Number/2001
96
256
3063
243
Goats
Local
160
Pigs
Exotic
73
Local
348
Poultry
Layers
1457
Broilers
1220
Local
1280
Source: Kasanje Sub-County council, Busiro count, Wakiso district, Three- year development
plan (2008 – 2011)
18

Land Tenure and Land Use
According to the 1995 Constitution, the government of Uganda holds wetlands in trust for the
people. The Government therefore owns the Mabamba Bay wetlands system. In the surrounding
areas, land ownership is mainly Mailo (a land tenure system where the registered land is held in
perpetuity) and the Customary (a system of land tenure regulated by customary rules which are
limited in their operation to a particular description or class of people) ownership. Mabamba
wetlands are mainly used for fishing. The area is also used for both domestic and livestock water
supply. Wetland plants from the area are used for crafts, a lucrative activity for the surrounding
local communities. Forestry related activities are also predominant in the swamp forests. In the
catchments around the wetland area, there is subsistence agriculture farming
Local Government
All communities in Uganda are organized in the five-tier local government system that starts at
the village level (Local Council (LC) 1) and rises to the district level (LC 5). Councils at each
level consist of elected representatives from local communities. Many functions of the
government e.g. income tax collection, service provision and aspects of environmental
management have been decentralized to the district level (LC 5) and Sub-county (LC 3)
according to the Local Government Act (1997). Mabamba is situated entirely within one district
(Wakiso) and is bounded by 5 parishes all in Kasanje Sub-county (Map 2). Kasanje Sub-county
has fifty two Villages and nine parishes of Ssazi, Zibba, Kasanje, Jjungo, Bulumbu, Mako,
Sokolo, Bussi and Zinga islands.The Sub-county local council is the highest political organ. It has
an Executive Committee of 6 members headed by the LCIII Chairperson, who is the political
head of the Sub-county. The council has a total number of 21 councilors who represent all
parishes of the Sub-county, in addition to 2 youths, 11 Women and 2 People with Disabilities.
The Sub-county Council is constituted into 5 Sectoral Committees which deliberates on policy
matters and make recommendation to full council. The Parishes and villages have councils and
executive committees, which coordinate the Sub-county development activities at that level.
Management Authority
According to the 1995 Constitution, the government holds wetlands in trust for the people of
Uganda. Functionally therefore, Mabamba Bay wetland system is in the hands of the Central
Government. The local Government Act devolved the wetland management to the District Local
Governments. Therefore the management authority is Wakiso District Local Government.
Implementation of wetland conservation activities is under the District Environment Officer with
the support of National Environment Management Authority and Wetlands Inspection Division.
19

4.1 Household questionnaire survey
Chapter 4: Methodology
The study was conducted in the Parishes surrounding Mabamba Bay wetland system based on the
reasoning that the local communities who reside in those parishes are the one who coexist with
the wetland most of the time. The parishes were Bussi, Zziba, Ssazi, Kasanje and Bulumbu
parishes. A total of 16 villages located in those 5 parishes were covered. The survey lasted for 3
months i.e. October – December 2008. Respondents were random chosen using stratified random
sampling procedure. Only heads of households were interviewed on the premise that they make
day to day decisions for the good of household members. Therefore the household meant a group
of people living together and identifying the authority of one person the household head, who is
also the decision-maker.
Both open-ended and closed-ended questionnaire was used to interview 320 heads of households
that were randomly selected. Data was collected on aspects such as demographic characteristics,
socio-economic issues such as education and income levels, resources collected from wetlands,
land tenure, crop raiding wild animals and so on.
The objectives of the survey were to:
• Gather quantitative economic data on household consumption of wetland ecosystem
goods and services.
• Assess the contribution of those products to the overall household income generation
• Understand the proportion of the household income derived from wetland products
through assessing household income.
To achieve the above objectives, a structured survey questionnaire was developed to elicit
quantitative and qualitative data (See appendix 1: Household survey questionnaire). The
questionnaire consisted of open-ended and closed questions. At first a pilot survey was done in
Mabamba Village to test the questionnaire for accuracy and validity. This allowed the opportunity
to correct omissions, or ambiguous questions and to discover terms, the meaning of which were
not clear to interviewees or enumerators. To obtain support and cooperation of the local
community for the household survey, five enumerators/interviewers were recruited and trained
from among local residents. The villages selected for interviews were those located adjacent to
Mabamba Ramsar Site (as shown in figure 3.2). A total of 16 Villages in 5 parishes were covered.
The sample unit of a study was a household. Each village (strata) was sampled as an independent
administrative unit, out of which individual households would be randomly selected. A total of
320 households were interviewed out of 3,777 households as summarized in table 4.1.
20

Table 4-1: Distribution of respondents by village
Parishes Villages No. of households No. of households
interviewed
Bussi
Seeta, Lubanga,
1739 153
Gulwe, Gombe,
Bugela
Zziba
Mabamba, Nakasozi, 452 61
Lubya
Ssazi Kikaya, Nangombe, 687 58
Lulongo,
Kasanje Bukalaza, Buyege 320 28
Bulumbu Bugogo, Buyiga, 579 20
Bubebere
Total 3,777 320
4.2 Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)
The CVM enables economic values to be estimated for a wide range of commodities not traded in
markets. This method uses survey techniques to establish the value of goods and services that are
not exchanged in the markets and therefore have no prices associated with them. The CVM
involves asking a randomly chosen sample of people what they are willing-to-pay (WTP) for a
clearly defined change in the provision of a good or service, or to prevent a change. It can be used
to elicit what people are willing-to-accept (WTA) to forego a change or tolerate a change. The
most commonly applied approach in the CVM is to interview people and ask them what they are
WTP towards the preservation of the asset (Bolt, et al. 2005). Analysts can then calculate the
average WTP of respondents and multiply this by the total number of people who enjoy the
environmental site or asset in question to obtain an estimate of the total value which people have
for the asset. The same analysis can performed for WTA. Bolt, et al. 2005) reports that CVM
approach is advantageous because it can be used to elicit the values of resources that people will
never personally utilize or visit.
The CVM is used to estimate economic values for all kinds of ecosystem and environmental
services. It can be use to estimate both use and non-use values, and is the most widely used
method for estimating non-use values. It is also the most controversial of non-market valuation
methods. The CVM involves directly asking people, in a survey, how much they are WTP for
specific environmental services (Dennis et al. 2001). In some cases, people are asked the amount
of compensation they would be WTA to give up a specific environmental service. It is called
‘contingent’ valuation because people are asked to state their WTP, contingent on a specific
hypothetical scenario and description of the environmental service. The CVM is referred to as
‘’stated preference’’ method, because it asks people to directly state their values, rather than
inferring values from the actual choices, as the ‘’revealed preference methods do.
Given the above overview of CVM, a contingent valuation survey was therefore carried out to
assess the monetary values of indirect, option, existence and bequest values. The contingent
valuation survey elicited WTA and WTP from respondents contingent to a specific hypothetical
scenario and description of the environmental service. The contingent valuation survey was part
of the household survey study. The CVM questionnaire contained information the general
conservation status of Mabamba site and valuable ecological goods and services accruing from it
to the beneficiaries. Explanation was also given to respondents about the proposed wetland
management scheme that is intended at improving the quality, quantity and availability of
21

ecosystem services. Then a payment cards for WTA and WTP with different bids were presented
to respondents for nomination of the bid value.
4.2.1 Elicitation of WTA for loss of access to wetland goods and services
A hypothetic market scenario was created and an explanation given to respondents (household
heads) on the situation of the wetland. Using stratified sampling technique, respondents randomly
chosen were offered open bids and then asked to pick an amount of compensation per months
they were WTA for the losses due to the restriction of access to wetlands services and goods. A
total of 320 interviewees were asked, drawn from 16 villages at the periphery of the wetland.
Only when No or zero bid was given, respondents were asked to give a reason for doing so.
The hypothetical market scenario for WTA was framed as follows:
Mabamba Bay wetland is a wetland of international importance, but also heavily used by
residents. However, due to illegal uses and overuse, the wetland has deteriorated, and it is
questionable whether the wetland will be able to provide many benefits to residents also in the
future. Suppose therefore, that a new management scheme will be set up to secure the wetland
that will be beneficial to residents and the wildlife now and in the future. In order to secure this,
suppose that the wetland will be strictly managed with restrictions of access and use of resources
(water, fish, papyrus plants, fuel wood, medicinal plant materials). Probably half of the resources
you currently use will have to be purchased on local markets. But after one year when the
conditions of the wetland have improved, you will be once again allowed to access all the
wetland resources you depend on for your survival. The management would be set up according
to international standards, and would be supervised by the Governments of Uganda as
represented by Ministry of Water and Environment in collaboration with the World Conservation
Union. A compensation scheme running for one year has been put in place to compensate you for
the loss of livelihood you derive from this wetland
a) If alternatives goods were available on local markets, how much money would you except as a
minimal compensation per month for the losses due to the restriction of access to the wetlands, in
order to compensate you for the foregone benefits of the wetland?
22

Figure 4-1: Payment card for eliciting WTA for loss of access to wetland ecosystem
services
Amount of compensation per month (US$) for the losses due to the restriction of access to the
wetlands, in order to compensate you for the foregone benefits
Don’t know, no answer
Zero
5.6
11.2
16.7
22.4
27.8
33.4
38.9
44.4
50.0
55.6
61.1
66.7
72.2
77.8
83.3
88.9
94.4
100.0
105.6
111.1
116.7
122.2
More (please specify)
N.B. at the time of the field study (October – November 2008), 1 US$ was being traded for
1,800/= Uganda Shillings on the Ugandan foreign exchange market.
b) if only no answer, why are you not willing to accept compensation?
4.2.2 Elicitation of WTP for improved conservation and management of wetland
services.
A household survey was carried out using stratified sampling. During the survey, a randomly
chosen sample of people were asked what they are WTP as a voluntary contribution towards
maintenance and improvement of their wetland resources. WTP was determined using openended
bid method. A hypothetical market scenario was set up and presented by the researcher to
the respondents in a face to face interview. Before presenting the scenario to the interviewees, an
adequate explanation was offered on the wetland ecosystem goods and services and the likely
change in their availability. Then respondents asked to nominate their bid from the open-ended
amount given in the payment card. In case the respondent offered a protest bid (answer either in
form of don’t know or zero), he/she was asked to give a reason (s) for giving a protest bid. A total
of 320 respondents were interviewed in 16 villages bordering the wetland.
23

The hypothetical market scenario was designed as follows;
Suppose that a locally run management scheme with international supervision was devised to
maintain and improve your wetland resources i.e. ‘’double availability and security of wetland
service provision’’ compared to today, so that you had more secure access to a better quantity
and quality of wetland products and benefits e.g. easier access to water, fodder, fish etc.
a) How much would you be willing to pay as a mandatory (voluntary) contribution (paid by all
residents) devoted solely to a funding scheme for securing the success of wetland management
per month?).
Figure 4-2: Payment card for eliciting WTP to secure a better access to wetland
products and services
The maximum amount that you are prepared to pay per month in order to secure a better access to
products and services from Mabamba Bay wetland system (in US$)
Don’t know, no answer
Zero answer
0.56
0.83
1.11
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.2
3.1
3.9
5.6
11.1
16.7
22.2
27.8
33.3
38.9
44.4
50.0
55.6
More (please specify)…………………………….
b) May you give me a reason as to why you are not willing to pay anything (only ‘’zero or No
answer’’)?
24

4.3 Benefit Transfer Method
The benefit transfer method was used to estimate the economic values for some ecosystem
services by transferring available information from studies already completed in another location
and/or context. The carbon sequestration values of Mabamba Ramsar Site were estimated by
applying carbon sequestration values from a study conducted in another site. Thus, the basic goal
of benefit transfer was to estimate benefits for one context by adapting an estimate of benefits
from some other context. Dennis et al. 2001 says that Benefit transfer is often used when it is too
expensive and/or there is too litter time available to conduct an original evaluation study The
benefit transfer method is most reliable when the original site and the study site are very similar
in terms of factors such as quality, location, and population characteristics; when the environment
change is very similar for the two sites; and when the original valuation study was carefully
conducted and used sound valuation techniques.
4.4 Valuation using market prices
Many goods and services from the wetland land uses are traded either, in local markets,
internationally, including fish, sand, water, recreational etc. As one way of assigning monetary
values to benefits derived from Mabamba Bay wetland system, prices of fish, sand, sugarcanes
and coco yams were derived within the market place through observing interactions between
consumers and producers over the demand of goods and services or the researcher interacting
with customers and producers with the intention of determining appropriate market price for
various goods and services. Other means ways used to obtain the relevant market prices included
visitor (tourism) statistics, financial receipts accruing from sand mining tenders and; consultations
with Kasanje Sub-county officials and representative of Community-Based Tourism
Associations. Using information derived from such sources, it was possible to derive prices that
reflect the prevailing market value of the goods and services of wetland uses.
4.5 Focus group discussions
Group discussions provide access to a larger body of knowledge of general community
information (Mikkelsen, 1995). Group discussions enable quick access to many people and are
also cheap and quick to conduct compared with individual interviews with the same number of
respondents. Mikkelson (1995) recommends groups of not more than 25 people since large
groups become difficult to manage. According to Hesselink, 2008, in order to get a much better
picture of the social and technical complexities in realizing the plan or start a joint fact finding
and planning process, focus groups is one of the best methods. Focus groups are a means of
interviewing - in a very free way - a specific stakeholder group. The focus group usually consists
of six to ten people, who are invited to spend a few hours with a skilled moderator. This is a
communication expert who must be objective, knowledgeable on the issue and well versed in
group dynamics and stakeholder behaviour. With this over view in mind, discussions were held at
different dates and venues with: four Beach Management Units (representatives of fishing
community), two Community-Based Tourism Organizations and two Water-Based Transporters
Associations operating in and around Mabamba wetland system. The aim of the discussions was
to collect quantitative economic data and qualitative data about wetland products extracted, their
prices, marketing chain, seasonal variability different kinds of products
25

4.6 Researcher’s observations
Observations were made by visiting sites with on-going and past evidence of utilization activities
of wetland resources. Observations were made and recorded at sand excavation sites, community
water sources and fish landing sites. Farmers gardens were visited to see interventions put in
place to deter crop raiding wild animals and making general personal observations about the
condition of the wetland resource. Observations were also made by systematically walking with
informants and local leaders through the villages while observing, asking, seeking problems and
solutions.
4.7 Secondary data collection
Literature search was done by reviewing policy documents, reports, students’ dissertations/theses
and development plans with information relevant to management and conservation of Mabamba
Ramsar Site. Information was obtained from Nature Uganda library, Kasanje Sub-county,
Makerere University (Biodiversity Data Bank, Herbarium, botany department). Internet search
was also carried out by visiting websites managed by international conservation organizations
such as; Ramsar Sites Information Services which is run by wetlands international, Birdlife
International and Wildlife Conservation Society and so on. Information was obtained in form of
maps, wetland information sheet, reports and electronic format.
26

Chapter 5: Data analysis and results
5.1 Data analysis
The data was statistically analyzed using a computer program called Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS). SPSS is among the most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social
science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS). It is used by market researchers, health researchers,
survey companies, government, education researchers, marketing organizations and others. Of
relevant use in analysis was, descriptive statistics menu: Cross tabulation, Frequencies,
Descriptives, Explore, Descriptive Ratio Statistics.
5.2 Household characteristics
A total of 320 (N=320) households were visited for face-to-face interviews in the 16 villages
around Mabamba Bay wetland system representing 19,149 people. Table 5.1 shows the
household structure, including the percentage of households headed by a man or woman, average
household size, average age, the percentages in different occupations and education level of the
household head for each of the corridors.
Table 5-1: Household structure of people living adjacent to Mabamba wetland
Household head
Male (%) 88
Female (%) 12
Average Household size 5
Average age (Household heads)
Male 36
Female 30
Occupation (%)
Farming 68
Fishing 12
Retail trading 16
Wage labour 3
Salaried employee 1
Annual average household income (US$) 276
Education (%)
No formal education 9.7
Primary education 61.6
Secondary education 27.5
Tertiary education 1.25
The results of data analysis revealed that most households were headed by males (88%) while
12% of the households were led by females. The average household size was 5 people. The
average age for men stood at 36 years compared to that of women which was 30 years, implying
that the population is still young. Subsistence farming was found to be the major occupation with
68% of the respondents engaged as farmers, and then retail trading came second with 16%,
followed by fishing with 12%, then wage labour 3% and lastly salaried employees constituted 1%
27

of the occupation. The annual average household income was estimated at US$276, indicating
every household earns less US$ 1 per day and hence poor. From the table above, it can also be
observed that the literacy levels are still very low. 9.7% of respondents said that they attained no
formal education at all, while 61.6% at least acquired primary level education, 27.5% of
respondents completed secondary education and only a paltry 1.25% representing respondents
who finished tertiary level education. Going by literacy levels, the majority of the respondents
can at least read and write.
5.3 Accessibility to water sources
All respondents (100%) said that they obtain water on daily basis (all year around) for their
domestic use from Mabamba Ramsar Site. All members of the household participate in water
collection as follows: children (57%), wives (19%), and husbands (20%) and water
vendors/labourers (4%). The mean water usage per household per week is 606 litres, which is an
equivalent of 30 plastic cans. Plastic can is the widely used container in Uganda both by urban
and rural areas to fetch and carry water from water sources. One plastic can has a carrying
capacity of 20 litres. Water sources around Mabamba wetland site are in the types of protected
springs, unprotected springs, shallow wells, boreholes, community wells and open water body
(lake). All these water sources are located on the edges of the wetland because of the nearness of
the water aquifers to the ground surface. Water is collected mostly on a bicycle or by foot. Each
water collector takes an average of 36 minutes per trip walking to a water source. All able bodied
and grown up members of the household participate in water collection with wives and children
play a more role than husbands.
Table 5-2: Mean and total amount of water used per day and year
Sample Mean HH Mean water No. Total amount of Total amount of
size water
consumption
consumption
per person
of
HHs
water utilized
by all HHs per
water utilized per
annum
per day
day
320 86.5 litres 17.1 litres 3,777 326,711litres 119,249,333litres
Average water consumption was found to be around 17.1 litres/person/day) and with one
household consuming 86.5 litres per day. Regarding drinking water quality, 17% of the
interviewees said that water had drinking quality; while 71% respondents said water was of no
drinking quality and therefore they had to boil it first before drinking; and then 12% respondents
said water lacked drinking quality, so they had to subject it boiling and filtering in order to make
it safe. Therefore 3, 777 households all put together utilize 326,711 litres of water per day, all
sourced from the wetland. On yearly basis the total amount of water consumed is 119,249,333
litres (119,249.333 cubic meters).
5.4 Livestock ownership among households
The survey found out livestock rearing as one of the activity undertaken by households much as it
practiced on a very low scale. Table 5.3 below presents the type of livestock, number of livestock
in the sampled households (N=320), the mean number of animals per household and total number
of livestock in all households within 16 villages.
28

Table 5-3: Mean and total number of livestock in villages around Mabamba Bay
wetland system
Type of Mean No. livestock in No. of livestock in all %age livestock
livestock per HH sampled HHs (N=320) HHs (N= 3,777) owned
Goats 0.78 249 2,946 11.9
sheep 0.12 38 453 1.83
Pigs 0.82 262 3,097 12.51
Poultry 3.23 1,032 12,200 49.27
Cattle 1.60 511 6,063 24.5
Total 24,759 100
Livestock is one of the household held properties much as they are few in numbers. Poultry was
found to be the most owned with 49.27%, followed by cattle, which stood at 24.5%, then pigs
constituting 12.51% of the total livestock, then followed by goats with 11.9%. Sheep were the
least owned with 1.83% of the total livestock
5.5 Cultivation of cocoyams and sugarcanes
Growing of yams at the edges of the wetland was only found to be restricted to Bussi parish and
not in any of the other four parishes. 40% of the interviewees in Bussi parish said that they have
gardens of cocoyams in or around the wetland. The mean number of cocoyam stems cultivated
per household was calculated at 201 per year. As with cocoyam, subsistence growing of
sugarcanes seemed to be restricted to Bussi parish only as indicated by the results of data
analysis. 12% of the respondents said that they were engaged in its cultivation. Each household in
Bussi grows averagely 46 stems of sugarcanes per year in and at the edges of Mabamba wetland.
Table 5-4: Number of cocoyam and sugarcane stems cultivated per annum in Bussi
Parish
Crops Sample Mean HH No. of stems No. of Total number of stems
cultivated size per year
HHs per year
Yams 153 201 1,739 349,539
Sugarcanes 153 46 1,739 79,994
All households in Bussi parish cultivate 349,539 stems/corms of cocoyam year around as
compared with a total of 79,994 sugarcane stems. One stem of cocoyam is taken to represent one
underground corm produced.
5.6 Fuel wood collection
Fuel wood remains the main source of energy for domestic cooking, heating and lighting as
revealed by 97.2% interviewees. It is sourced from private and communal forest reserves at the
periphery of Mabamba wetland. Clearance of these forests for agriculture was noted. May be one
way of curbing forest degradation is through creating economic incentives to motivate the private
land owners to conserve them. Important to note is that these patches of forests are continuous
with Mabamba wetland site and are therefore supplementing biodiversity conservation efforts as
they harbour resident populations of wildlife such bird species.
29

Table 5-5: Bundles of firewood consumed by per household per week
N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Firewood 311 34 1 35 1191 3.83
Mean household fuel wood consumption per week is four bundles/billets, all sourced outside
Mabamba wetland. However to note is that the size of fire wood billet varies from household to
household and time to time.
5.7 Human-wildlife conflicts
Communities around Mabamba wetland face problems caused by wild animals. The animals
destroy crops and at the same time threaten human lives. The resultant loss of income by farmers
breeds resentment to the wetland. 24% of the interviewees cited vervet monkeys, sitatunga,
bushbucks, hippopotamus, and guinea fowl as most problematic wild animals. The animals raid
gardens for crops while snakes threaten human life. Of these problem animals, only vervet
monkeys are gazetted as vermin under section 58 of Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 153 of 2000 and
local governments are responsible for their control with technical assistance from Uganda
Wildlife Authority. These cited problem animals have preference for bananas, maize, cassava,
Irish potatoes, pineapples and sweet potatoes. A number of measures to deter wide animals have
been tried by communities such as guarding gardens, using dogs, using scarecrows and fencing
gardens with nets.
Figure 5.1: No. of complaints raised against problem
animals
No. of complaints
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Series1
Vervet monkeys
Sitatunga
Guineafowls
Bushbuck
Hippopotamus
Snakes
Type of problem animal
30

5.8 Land resources
The mean acreage of land held per household was found to be 1.10 ha in size. 90% of the
respondents said they had land though 10% of respondents were found to be either living in
rented houses or where landless. The major land uses included cultivation, small scale livestock
rearing and human settlements. Most households revealed that they were integrating all their
economic activities on small pieces of land.
5.9 Contingent Valuation results
Indirect, Option and Non-Use Values; and opportunity costs were estimated using Contingent
Valuation methodology. Open bids for WTA and WTP were elicited by stratified random
sampling, where 320 households heads were interviewed face to face. The elicited bids were then
entered in to SPSS spread sheets and analyzed for: minimum bid, maximum bid, sum, mean and
mean standard deviation (std.) error as summarized in table 5.6 below. The payment was solicited
in Uganda Shillings (UG.Shs.) and later on converted in to US Dollars. The prevailing Foreign
Exchange rate in Uganda during the time of study (October- December 2008) was US$ = 1800
UG.Shs.
Table 5-6: Summary of descriptive statistics for household WTA and WTP (US$)
per month
CVM
N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
WTA (US$) 320 2778 0 2,778 62,681 195.88 21.61
WTP(US$) 320 1,111 0 1,111 2,314 7.23 3.56
Figure 5.2: Trends in HH WTA (US$) per month
160
140
No. of respondents
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2800.0
2600.0
2400.0
2200.0
2000.0
1800.0
1600.0
1400.0
1200.0
1000.0
Std. Dev = 386.51
Mean = 195.9
N = 320.00
200.0
0.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
WTA (US$) per month
31

Figure 5.3: Trends in HH WTP (US$) per month
400
No. of respondents
300
200
100
0
Std. Dev = 63.68
Mean = 7.2
N = 320.00
0.0
1100.0
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
WTP (US$) per month
In figures 5.2 and 5.3, it can be deduced that the WTA was far higher than the WTP as evidenced
by the mean household WTA value of US$195.9 per month and monthly mean household WTP
of US$ 7.2. This is to say that the monthly mean household WTA was 22.2fold higher than the
mean household WTP per month. These two concepts of benefit, WTP and WTA, should reveal
the same values for the protected area. But empirical studies suggest this is not the case. It is
generally believed that this is because people value the things they have more than those things
they do not have. Therefore WTP is usually smaller than WTA.
Protest bids
‘’Protest’’bids are usually omitted from the calculation. Protest bids are zero bids given for
reasons other than zero value being placed on the resource in question (Bolt, et al. 2005). For
example, a respondent may refuse any amount of WTAWTP for the loss of a unique wetland
resource or to have better future access to wetland services as they believe it is the government’s
responsibility to protect it, or simply that they do not wish to take part in the survey. For these
reasons, 29.4% of the respondents (N=320) expressed zero WTA value as compared to 30.31% of
the respondents who offered zero WTP value. Various reasons for protest bids were advanced by
the respondents as indicated in table 5.7
32

Table 5-7: Summary of protect bids in response to WTA and WTP surveys
Willingness to accept
• Temptation to divert the compensation
money to buy other personal needs instead
of alternative ecosystem services for which
for which compensation was made, hence
causing welfare insecurity to some
respondents.
• Free water obtained from the wetland
cannot be the same as that one purchased
from the market. Herds of cattle can drink
as much wetland water as they can unlike
priced water on the market which may be
limited by unavailability of funds.
• The wetland is a God given resource. So
there is no need to seek alternatives else
where.
• Other economic activities will be disrupted
since seeking alternatives elsewhere
requires a lot of time, efforts and a lot of
movements/travelling.
• Fear for speculative prices on the market
due to high demand of alternative to
ecosystem services
• We grew up in this village protecting this
wetland but our efforts were not rewarded.
Now it is the duty of the government to
protect the wetland.
• I already move a long distance to collect
water for domestic use. WTA
compensations mean that I move further.
• Before expressing WTA, there is need of
knowing first locations of places or
markets with alternatives to wetland
ecosystem services.
• The intention of this proposed management
scheme is to put the wetland under strict
management regimes that will deny us
access to wetland.
• I need a lot of time to compute the amount
of compensatory payment
• I carry out cultural hunting for wild meat
(Sitatunga and wild pigs). This service is
not available on the market.
• Money arising from compensation may be
less than market prices for alternatives
• The alternatives to ecosystem services are
not available on the market.
• We need formal assurance that after one
year of the management scheme we will be
granted access to wetland ecosystem
services
Willing to pay
• Before WTP is effected there is need know
first the management activities of the
proposed wetland management scheme
• I will only pay after the local wetland
management scheme has produced
result/outcomes
• Iam very poor to pay
• Soliciting WTA is part of the attempt by
Government to introduce and levy user
fees on wetland services and goods.
• Residents have the right to use the wetland
and should not be asked to pay for it
• I will only contribute in kind (labour)
• I will only give a vote of thanks for the
work well done but not make a voluntary
contribution
• I cannot make any financial contribution
because Iam poor, too old and weak
33

Chapter 6: Discussion
6.1 Economic values of Mabamba Bay wetland system
6.1.1 Domestic water supply
Mabamba wetlands are a source of water for local communities living adjacent. It is estimated
that 119,249.333litres cubic meters of water per year are collected from the watering sources
scattered around the wetlands. A number of new water sources have been constructed around the
wetlands with an average of 4 water sources per parish. It was estimated that people have to walk
long distances of more than 2 kms looking for safe and clean water, this affects especially
children and women. Watering sources are in form of spring wells, shallow wells and natural
wells. The wetland meets the daily water requirements of around18, 885 people and 6,063 heads
of cattle in neighbouring villages.
Bush et al, 2005, estimated the value of provision of clean water by forests to local communities
around Budongo, Bugoma, and Rwenzori forests by considering the cost of providing an
alternative source of water should the current supplies of water be made unavailable through the
loss or degradation of the forest that sustains them. One option proposed was to provide clean
water by a sinking borehole, which obviously has a market cost. Bush et al, 2005 further observes
that while a borehole may not be appropriate in all cases; boreholes are perhaps one of the most
common methods seen in Uganda for rural people to obtain a regular supply of clean domestic
water.
Given the above, the monetary value of water provision by Mabamba wetland to the surrounding
households and their livestock will be estimated by considering the costs of providing alternative
sources of water in the event that the wetland ceases to exist. Assuming that the wetland does no
longer exist, the Government of Uganda would provide an alternative supply of water in form of
constructing and maintaining a community borehole (replacing the wetland water conservation
role by artificial means). Based on figures obtained from Masindi district water department,
Uganda, it costs the government of Uganda US$ 10,000 (18 million Uganda Shillings) to
construct a water borehole for a community. The yearly maintenance cost per water borehole is
estimated at US$ 444.44 (Uganda Shillings 800,000). Thus, the annual cost of providing a bore
hole to the rural community was calculated to be US$ 10,444.44. According to IUCN (2002)
study on Sang Bay forest ecosystem a borehole was found to sustain 300 people and 276 heads of
livestock (cow equivalents). The water borehole provision costs are as computed in the tables
6.1 and 6.2.
Table 6-1: Stage 1 water borehole costs for human population
Mean No. of Total No. of Total No. of Total No. of Total cost (US$) of
individuals per households individuals boreholes borehole provision
household
required p.a.
5.07 3,777 19,149 64 668,444
Table 6-2: Stage 2 water borehole costs for livestock
Mean No. of Total No. of Total livestock No. of Total cost (US$)
livestock per households (cow
boreholes of borehole
household (cow
equivalents) required provision p.a
equivalents
1.60 3,777 6,043 22 229,778
34

Based on the calculations in tables 6.1 and 6.2, the total costs of boreholes provision per year is
US$ 898,222, which is the proxy water conservation value for the wetland. It can be concluded
that the presence of Mabamba wetland relieves the Government of US$ 898,222 per annum in
public expenditure for water provision to 3,777 HHs.
6.1.2 Support cultivation of cocoyams and sugar canes
Cocoyams cultivation
Wetlands in Uganda have been noted for their role in providing water, as well as depositing
sediments and nutrients which maintain soil fertility which in turn supports the growth of
cocoyams. A piece of edible yam goes for averagely US$ 0.56 (1,000 Uganda Shillings) on the
local Ugandan food market. 349,539 pieces of yams (as indicated in table 5.4) fetch US$194,188
annually. This only the market value of the yams without the productivity value of the wetland
factored in. this means the cocoyam good is undervalued on the market because it excludes the
value of nutrients and sediments added by the wetland.
The productivity added by wetland-borne nutrients and sediments can be calculated by looking at
expenditures saved on alternative, purchased fertilizers which would be required to maintain
yields in the absence of the wetland. L. Emerton, L. Iyango, P. Luwum and A. Malinga (1999)
found out that Nakivubo Urban wetland, Uganda added a value of 798,126 Uganda
Shillings/ha/year (US$ 614/ha/year) to water logged areas that were being used for cultivation of
cocoyams and sugarcanes. This case study can be used to estimate the soil fertility value of
Mabamba wetland since they have in common some biological, physical and chemical
characteristics. Based on field observations, a household cultivated yams in a 0.1 hectares of land
in and around at Mabamba wetland. The overall size of land for all 1,739 households under yam
cultivation was estimated at 174 ha. Using the soil fertility values from Nakivubo wetland, the
estimated productivity value of Mabamba in terms of nutrients and sediments added to yam fields
was calculated as US $106,836 per annum. Therefore the true market value of cocoyams
produced in Bussi parish is US$ 301,024 per year.
The cocoyam is among the major crops grown in wetlands. Its corms, cormels, stalks and
inflorescence are all utilized for human consumption. In South East Asia, cocoyam leaves are
consumed as green or dry vegetable and the stem is either cooked and eaten on its own or
together with other dietary staples or pound into flour. The leaves are consumed because they are
rich in protein and vitamins while the root is rich in carbohydrates and minerals (Duru and Uma,
2002). In East Africa, cocoyams have traditionally been steamed and eaten as a snack alongside
tea or a beverage. Cocoyam is cultivated as a subsistence crop for home consumption with the
excess sold in near by markets. It has a growing cycle of 9 to 11 months, during which time it
produces a large underground stem called a corm. Serem, et al. 2008, reported cocoyam
cultivation is restricted to wetlands, which is already a limited resource in Lake Victoria region.
Besides, cocoyam cultivation is also viewed as only grown by those people who have access to
wetlands. Cocoyam cultivation is still preferred since it is a good food security crop that is
available throughout the year and is also a stable source of income
Sugarcane cultivation
The mean household piece of land dedicated to sugar cane growing is around 0.1 hectares. 1739
households altogether set aside 174 ha for cane cultivation. Still using the case of Nakivubo
Urban wetland, Mabamba wetland contributes nutrients and sediments to sugarcane plants at a
35

monetary value of US$106,836 per annum, which is the same nutrient value added to cocoyam
cultivation.
Road side markets within the vicinity of Mabamba wetland site sells one harvested stem of
sugarcane at roughly US$0.3. The estimated annual market price of 79,994 pieces of stems (as
indicated in table 5.4) is US$ 25,223, when the productivity value of the wetland is added the
market value the total monetary value of sugarcanes comes to US$ 132,059 per annum.
Therefore, the actual annual monetary value of cocoyams and sugarcanes grown in Bussi parish is
US$ 433,083
6.1.3 Fish catch
Fishes are the most important vertebrates associated with wetlands. World wide, over 1800
species of fishes are resident for all or part of their life cycles in wetlands. As Mabamba wetland
system is one of the many wetlands north of Lake Victoria, it acts as a breeding and nursery
grounds for fish species. Later in adult stages, the fishes migrate to the open water body where
they are easily trapped by fishermen operating at Kagulube/Mabamba, Kyanvubu, Nangombe and
Gulwe landing sites. More so Mabamba wetland provides cover and food to fish species at
different stages of their development. Notable fish species are tilapia, lung fish and cat fish. The
lung fish constitutes the diet of the rare shoebill stork bird, whose IUCN conservation status is
vulnerable. KSDP, 2008 recognizes the importance of the fisheries sub-sector because of its
contribution to the livelihood of islanders in terms of revenue and high food value source. 65% of
the people thrive on fish protein value. Fishing activities in wetland and around Mabamba, is
important as it employs about 506 people in various activities of fish mongering, fishing, boat
building, and repairs, local fish processors and other artisanal fishery activities.
Characteristics of fishing activities
Fish production in and around Mabamba wetland has the following characteristics:
• Fish production is carried out by artisanal fishermen. They include fishing unit owners,
renters and boat crew.
• Fishing unit [boat] owners normally await the return of their boat[s] on beaches where
they check on catches, oversee catch sales and payment of the crew, and consider input
needs such as fuel, net or boat repair.
• Between June and July every year, open water body experience windy days leading to
reduced fishing activities. During that time, some fishermen keep away because they fear
capsizing. This results on low fish catches.
• The average income per year per fisherman is approximately US$ 1,998 per annum.
• The main methods of exploitation are by use of gill nets and baited hooks. The fishermen
mainly target 4 groups of fish species namely; Mud fish (Protopterus aethiopicus) and 3
species of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, Oreochromis esculentus and Oreochromis
niloticus)
• The fish species type, their quantities and average size caught depend on the gear used,
the season and the location. For example baited hooks are used to target mud fish while
the various tilapia species are mainly caught using gillnets. Every boat carries 10 – 20
gillnets for catching tilapia fish and 20 – 30 hooks for fishing mud fish. The
recommended size of the gillnet is 3.5 – 6 inches.
• As the water level recedes during the drier months (for example, the December –
February), fishermen tend to get higher catches of mud fish. Mud fish tend to hide in the
36

papyrus vegetation that surround the lake and are sought to come out in the open water
when the water level recedes, making them easier targets.
• There is no standard price for the fish caught. Therefore while at the landing sites, traders
and fishermen bargain until they reach an agreeable price. Similarly, there is no weighing
of fish in any of the landing sites, so prices are based on sizes and quality of fish as
perceived by the buyers and sellers, and the demand versus supply of a given day.
Table 6-3: Estimated annual total fish catches in year 2008 as presented by landing
sites and fish species
Tilapia
Lung fish
Fish landing site Catch (No.) Value (US$) Catch (Kg) Value (US$)
Kagulube/Mabamba 73,000 111,528 0 0
Kyanvubu 172,280 263,206 8,760 21,900
Nangombe 63,875 97,587 0 0
Gulwe 40,000 61,111 0 0
Total 349,155 533,432 8,760 21,900
N.B. the statistics in this table was calculated based on information obtained during focus group
discussions with Beach Management Units from all landing sites.
In addition to this, each of the four landing sites is obliged by law to pay monthly tender fees
(short of tax) to the Sub-county authorities, which is calculated at US$ 2,667 annually for all
landing sites. It is a statutory requirement for fishermen to pay the annual fishing vessel license
of US$ 11.11 to the National Fisheries Department. As per 2008, all landing sites held about 278
fishing vessels which generated US$ 3,089 in annual license fees. Therefore in the year 2008, the
fishing activities associated with Mabamba Bay wetland were valued at US$ 561,088 at both
local and district levels.
6.1.4 Recreational and tourism values
Mabamba has grown in to one of the most interesting and spectacular site for bird watching in
Uganda. Approximately 38% of the global population of the Blue Shallows, and the globallythreatened
Papyrus Yellow Warbler plus other birds of global conservation concern can be found
in Mabamba bay wetland. Recently, Mabamba has become one of the strong holds for the
migrant Blue Swallow with over 100 individuals recorded every year. Mabamba wetland and
Murchison Falls National Park are the only places in Uganda where the elusive shoe-bill stork
can be spotted at any time of the day. Mabamba is a home to 260 species of birds, with one day’s
of 157 species (Birdlife International). Other birds which are of interest to tourists are; Gull-billed
Terns, White-Winged Black Terns and Whiskered Terns, Grey headed gulls, goliath herons, spurwinged
and pygmy geese and a number of migratory waders. Because of this diversity of bird
species, Mabamba wetland is a popular tourist destination for bird watchers/enthusiasts,
especially those interested in spotting the rare shoe-bill stork. Recognizing need to harness the
tourism potential and promote conservation of Mabamba site, communities living adjacent
mobilized themselves in to Community-Based Tourism Associations like Mabamba Birds Guides
and Conservation Association (MBGCA) and Mabamba Wetland and Eco-tourism Association
(MWETA).
These community associations receive tourists through networking with tour agencies in the
nearby Kampala City (35 km away from site). Tourism is still at a very low level and is restricted
37

to bird watching and canoeing for a few hours in the labyrinth of channels in the marsh. As per
the visitor statistics of 2007/2008, the bulk of the visitors come from England, France,
Netherlands, Germany, USA, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Australia, Belgium, South Africa,
Switzerland, Japan and Lithuania. Every tourist pays up to $ 24 for guiding services, payable to
tourist associations. The charges for a boat are US$ 6 per trip as guiding is conducted along the
labyrinth of water channels in the marsh. The boat is hired from an association of canoe owners
presently offering passenger services along the channels. The Taxi-hire charges for a two-way
journey to Mabamba from the nearby Kampala City are around US$ 67 per tourist. In 2008, a
total of 705 foreign tourists were received and guided. So the total local expenditure incurred per
tourist to do bird watching is US$ 97. The tourism revenues accruing to the local economy in
2008 amounted to US$68,386. From this money, the local people have been able to meet their
needs like building permanent homes, paying school fees for their children, clothing and medical
care among others (per. Communication with tourism associations).
6.1.5 Sand harvesting
Uganda’s construction sector has, during the last few years experienced tremendous growth
owing to an improved and fast growing economy which has led to a number of private residences
and commercial buildings springing up. This has made construction one of the major players in
Uganda’s economic recovery with private investors and individual property developers taking a
lead. It is estimated that the construction sector is growing at 13% annually. Construction
activities require some inputs such as bricks, sand and clay required to meet the needs of the
construction activities are sourced from natural systems a factor that has led to encroachment on
wetlands in Uganda. During the field studies, it was observed that sections of Mabamba wetland
are under encroachment for sand mining to feed the booming construction industry in the nearby
Kampala district. This is in addition to other on-going sand extraction operations within the
neighbourhood of the wetland; on privately own lands though some constitute the buffer zone of
the wetland. This process of sand mining has led to degradation of some sections of wetland.
Where sand extraction has taken place, sand pits have been created which turn in to small lakes
whenever it rains. These pits are likely to be breeding grounds for mosquitoes thus exacerbating
the spread of malaria. Sand extraction activities are specifically pronounced in areas of
Nangombe-Gayaza, Bulumbu-Buyiga, Bubebere-Muzina and Sazzi-Lulongo. Much as the
communities earn from mining, this activity is leading to degradation of the wetland and
subsequently loss of habitat.
As one way of raising revenues, Wakiso District Local Government in 2008 tendered the
collection of revenue from sanding mining to a private organization/company. The tender holder
pays an annual sand tender fee of US$ 93,333 (168 million Uganda Shillings) to the Local
Government. The tender holder in turn collects user charges or levies a tax on vehicles/trucks
transporting sand from Mabamba wetland and its buffer zones. The user charges on sand are
collected at a road toll. Approximately, 65 trucks (Lorries) of sand are produced daily from the
sand excavation sites by sand miners (producers). Therefore sand miners all together sell
approximately 23,725 truck loads of sand per year. Each lorry of sand carries up to 10 tonnes.
The producer (sand miner) at the mining site sells to a middleman truckload of sand at US$ 28
(50,000 Uganda Shillings). The middle man then transports the sand to Kampala/Wakiso districts
where he sells it to constructors. The tender holder collects tax levies from the middle man. The
gross income accruing to sand producers per year is US$ 664,300, when added to US$ 93,333;
the total value of sand to accruing to the beneficiaries at local level is US$757,633 per annum.
38

6.1.6 Water-based transport
All the parishes that make up Kasanje Sub-county are located on the mainland, except only Bussi
and Zzinga islands which are within Lake Victoria. To travel from these 2 islands to mainland
and vice versa, one has to move on a boat/canoe along a labyrinth of three water channels
traversing the wetland system. These channels serve as the only means of transport to and fro the
Sub-county and the mainland in general. The 7.2km-Muzina water channel links Bussi parish to
Bulumbu parish, while Namugobo landing site in Bussi is linked by a 3.2-water passage to
Luwala village in Kamengo Sub-county, Mpigi district. Then a 3-km water channel connects
Mabamba Zziba to Mabamba Bussi. Transport services are offered by 91 boats which are owned
by local residents. Agriculture is the main economic activity in Bussi, with crops like pineapples,
bananas, sweet potatoes, beans and cassava being cultivated. To access the markets for their
agricultural produce in the nearby urban areas like Kampala, the Bussi farmers have to transit
through these water passage ways. Likewise farmers residing on the mainland transit through the
wetland while going to tend their gardens in Bussi Island. Therefore these channels are not only
important as a means of transport and source of employment for local people but also facilitate
commerce between the island and mainland thereby boosting the local economy. The annual
revenue accruing from water transport is as computed in table 6.4.
Table 6-4: Water channels, No. of boats and total revenues generated
Water
channels
Muzina-
Bulumbu
Namugobo-
Luwala
Distance
(km)
No. of
boats
No. of
owners
Amount of money
(US$) made by all
boats per months
7.2 15 15 7 boats/day x $3x30
days=$630
3.2 28 28 28boats x 8 days per
month x $7.22x
=$1617 per month
Zziba-Bussi 3.0 48 48 48 boats x 10days per
months x $5.3= $2,544
per month
Total amount of
money (US$)
generated per year
$7,560
$19,407
$30,528
Total 13.4 91 91 US$ 57,495
Water transport contributes to a local economy roughly US$ 57,495 per annum, generated
through offering passenger services in return for a transport fare which varies among the 3 water
channels. The monetary estimates in the table were arrived at through focus group discussions
with water transport groups and face – to – face meetings with selected passengers.
6.1.7 Harvesting of papyrus plants
Only 6 elderly members of local community in Bussi parish are engaged in handcrafts enterprise.
Papyrus plants are specifically used for making floor mats that are sold to the nearby markets in
Entebbe municipality. The papyrus mats are used for making roofs (for make-shift huts popularly
called Kiosks), fences and ceilings. Therefore the motive for harvesting is financial gains. Around
30 mats are made in a year, of which each mat goes for US$ 5.6, generating a paltry total amount
of US$ 167 per year.
39

6.1.8 Carbon storage and sequestration
Wetlands play a sometimes crucial role in regulating exchanges to/from the atmosphere of the
naturally produced gases involved in ‘’green house’’ effects namely water vapour, carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (all associated with warming) and sculptures dioxide (associated
with cooling). They tend to be sinks for carbon and nitrogen, and sources for methane and sulphur
compounds but situations vary from place to place, from time to time, and between wetland types
(Pritchard, 2009). Wetlands are different from other biomes in their ability to sequester large
amounts of carbon, as a consequence of high primary production and then deposition of decaying
matter in the anaerobic areas of their waterlogged soil. In such soils the normal production of
carbon dioxide that occurs during decomposition is slowed or completely inhibited by the lack of
oxygen; although these same conditions are also conducive for the production of methane. It is
the interplay between water logging, high plant productivity, sequestration of carbon in the soil,
and production of carbon dioxide and methane that makes wetlands one of the most important
terrestrial surfaces in climate change; complicated by the fact that different wetland types have
markedly different greenhouse gas and carbon balance profiles (Pritchard, 2009).
Natural vegetation - including forest, woodland, bush land and grassland - acts as a carbon sink,
thereby helping to mitigate the effects of global warming. Estimates of carbon sequestration range
between 10 tonnes of carbon per hectare of bush land or grassland to 210 tonnes of carbon per
hectare of closed canopy primary forest (Myers 1997, Sala and Paruelo, 1997). Mabamba wetland
ecosystem covers a surface area of 2,424 ha, with a portion of permanent freshwater lakes being
over 8ha (http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database). With the economic costs avoided of carbon
sequestration valued at between $1-100/tonne (Alexander et al. 1997); and at an average
$20/tonne (Myers, 1997), bush lands and permanently flooded grasslands, open water wetland,
degraded, forest and tropical high forest vegetation types in Mabamba wetland ecosystem may
together sequester approximately 24,160 tonnes of carbon per year. This provides economic
benefits through mitigating the effects of global warming to a value of nearly US$ 483,200 a
year.
6.1.9 Indirect use, optional and Non-use values
The contingent valuation is one of the only ways to assign dollar values to non-use values of the
environment –values that do not involve market purchases and may not involve direct
participation. These values are sometimes referred to as ‘’passive use’’ value. They include
everything from the basic life support functions associated with ecosystem health or biodiversity,
to the enjoyment, to the enjoyment of a scenic view or wilderness, to appreciating the option to
fish or bird watch in future, or the right to bequest those options to your grandchildren. It also
includes value people place on simply knowing that say a shoe-bill exists. Non-use, or passive
use, environment benefits are likely to people implicitly treated as zero unless their dollar value is
somehow estimated (Dennis, et al. 2001). From table 5.6, it can be inferred that the monthly
mean household WTP to secure a gain (or benefit) or to avoid damage (a cost) was US$ 7.2. The
annual aggregate WTP by 3,777 households to have improved wetland ecosystem services is US$
326,333.
40

Table 6-5: Estimated annual Total Economic Values of Mabamba Bay wetland of
international importance
Type of
ecosystem
service
Domestic
water supply
Source of
Sand for
construction
purposes
Source of fish
Carbon
storage and
sequestration
Cultivation of
cocoyams and
sugarcanes
Indirect,
option& nonuse
values)
Recreation
and tourism
Water-based
transport
Papyrus
harvesting
Annual
TEV
Quantity of
ecosystem
service
obtained per
year
119,249.333m 3
of water
Valuation method
Replacement
Costs/Expenditure
Avoided
Monetary
value
(US$) per
annum
% of
total
value
Beneficiary
889,222 24.9 Household,
Local
community
237,250 tonnes Market prices 757,633 21.24 Local
economy,
National
economy
349,155 pieces
of tilapia, 8,760
pieces of
lungfish
Market prices and
literature review
24,160 tonnes Benefit Transfer
technique, literature
review
349,539 corms
(yams), 84,076
stems of
sugarcane
709 tourists
visited
Mabamba in
2008
Household survey,
market price,
productivity and
literature review
Contingent
Valuation survey to
determine WTP
Secondary data,
Focus group
discussions
Focus group
discussions, Market
prices
30 mats Market prices, face
to face meetings
with harvesters
561,088 15.7 Household,
Local
community,
National
Consumers
483,200 13.5 Global
community
433,083 12.4 Household,
Local
community
326,333 8.9 Households,
Local
community,
National
economy
68,386 1.92 Local
economy,
National
economy,
Global
consumers
57,497 1.61 Local
community,
National
community,
tourists
167 0.01 Household,
Local
community,
3,576,609 100
41

Figure 6-1: Proportion of each ecosystem service (%age of TEV)
Mabamba Bay wetland ecosystem services and goods
30
25
% a g e o f T E V
20
15
10
5
Series1
0
W a t e r s u p p l y
S a n d
h a r v e s t i n g
F i s h i n g
C a r b o n
s e q u e s t r a t i o n
y a m s & c a n e s
c u l t i v a t i o n
I n d i r e c t ,
o p t i o n & n o n -
u s e v a l u e s
R e c r e a t i o n
a n d t o u r i s m
W a t e r
t r a n s p o r t
P a p y r u s
h a r v e s t i n g
Ecosystem services and goods
42

6.2 Economic costs associated with Mabamba Bay wetland
6.2.1 Opportunity costs
With the establishment of Mabamba Bay wetland and its subsequent maintenance together with
its biodiversity gives rise opportunity cost i.e. exclusion of other land uses which are
incompatible with biodiversity conservation. Some community members may view the
establishment of the wetland as a lost opportunity for example in terms of uncontrolled hunting,
harvesting of handcraft materials, charcoal burning and wetland edge cultivation among others.
This represents the opportunity cost of biodiversity conservation in terms of economic activities
foregone. The opportunity cost of the benefits foregone was determined in a contingent valuation
study which asked respondents the monthly WTA as a compensation for loss of access to
ecosystem services in Mabamba Bay wetland. From table 5.6, the monthly mean household WTA
to tolerate a cost was quantified as US$196. Therefore aggregate WTA for 3,777 households was
US$ 8,883,504 per annum.
6.2.2 Costs arising from damages by wild animals
Damage caused to agriculture from wild animals comprises a major economic cost associated
with biodiversity. Interviewees attributed crop damages to vervet monkeys, sitatunga, bushbuck,
hippopotamus and guinea fowls. Because of limitation of time and finances, the monetary value
of economic losses from crop raiding wild animals were not quantified during this field study.
This is an interesting subject which can be studied by other researchers to quantify the monetary
losses associated with these crop raiding animals and; then generate practical recommendations to
guide policy makers on measures for managing these problem animals.
6.2.3 Direct management costs
Various national agencies incur biodiversity conservation costs including government, Nongovernmental,
community organisations and external donors. Environment management in
Wakiso district is under the District Environment Office, department of natural resources. The
environment management activities are decentralized at the Sub-county level i.e. in case of
Mabamba wetland at Kasanje sub-county level. In the financial year 2007/2008, around US$21,
000 (KSDP, 2008) was allocated by Kasanje Sub-county Local Government as recurrent
operating expenditure for general environment management activities including Mabamba
wetland site. At 2007/2008 levels, this translates into an annual government expenditure of
US$21,000 per annum. Important to note is that there is no specific government expenditure set
aside specially for Mabamba Bay wetland system.
43

7.1 Conclusions
Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations
Mabamba bay wetland system contributes significantly to the livelihood of local communities in
adjacent villages through provision of ecosystem services and goods vital for human well-being.
It is also a source of income and employment for the local residents working in tourism, fishing,
sand mining and water transport. In its present form the wetland contributes goods and services
worth US$ 3,576,609 per annum. The services vary from: freshwater supply, support for
agriculture, source of fish for domestic and commercial consumption purposes, recreation and
tourism, source of sand for housing industry, water transport role, source of materials for mats,
mitigation of global warming, trapping of incoming sediments and silt, flood regulation to
supplementing the water supply of Lake Victoria. Water is the most valuable resource, both for
domestic and livestock use. Each member of the household uses averagely 17.1 litres of water per
day. The annual water conservation value was estimated US$ 898,222. Much as water transport is
valued less, it still remains the only viable means of travelling between Bussi Islands and the
mainland, now and in the foreseeable future.
Important to note is that these ecosystem services are not only beneficial to households and local
communities around the wetland but also to the national and international communities. For
example the role played by Mabamba Bay wetland in sequestering atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide benefits the entire global community since issue of global warming is a global
concern. It is also a tourist destination for mostly foreign tourists who have enthusiasm for bird
watching especially the rare shoebill stork. In addition to that, it supports approximately 38% of
the global population of the blue swallow (stopover for migratory birds) as well as well as
supporting one other globally threatened bird, the Papyrus Yellow Warbler; and other birds of
global conservation concern. Because of this biodiversity conservation value, Mabamba wetland
site assists the government of Uganda in delivering on its international conservation obligations
such as those under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands, Convention on Biological Diversity and Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals just to mention a few.
From the annual TEV of US$ 3,576,609 as calculated in table 6.5, it can inferred that Mabamba
wetland site contributes to each neighbouring household tangible and intangible benefits worth
US$ 947 per annum.The value of non-marketable ecosystem services (Optional, existence and
bequest values) was estimated at US$ 317,268 per annum. However WTA was computed as US$
8,883,504 per year, which was 22 times higher than WTP. Mabamba Bay wetland does not only
generate benefits but also to some extent negative costs to neigbouring communities. The widely
reported negative costs were problem animals/crop raiding wild animals which raid crops in
gardens resulting in to loss of income and livelihood. Problem animals cited included vervet
monkey, sitatunga, bushbuck and guinea fowl. These problem animals raid crops such as sweet
potatoes, bananas and pineapples.
Therefore there is need for concerted management and policy actions which are geared towards
maintaining the health and integrity of Mabamba Bay wetland ecosystem such it can continue
generation vital goods and services which are beneficial to the present and future generations.
This calls for among others; integrating issues related to this wetland in to Sub-county and district
development plans; and dedicating more public expenditure towards its sustainable management
and conservation; and using its biological resources sustainably.
44

7.2 Recommendations
1. Sand mining activies should be halted as they are degrading the wetland. If allowed to
continue they will in the long run undermine the ecological character of the wetland.
These activities were found to be prominent in Sazzi and Bulumbu parishes. The
environmental or wetland restoration measures should be undertaken to repair the
damages imposed on the wetland. In accordance with regulation 35 of The National
Environment (Wetlands, Riverbanks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations and
section 67 of The National Environment Act, Wakiso district local government and
National Environment Management Authority should issue environmental restoration
orders to developers (individuals involved in sand excavation) to regenerate or put back
the wetland to the state it was in before modification.
2. The mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment as required under sections 19, 20 and
21 of National Environment Management Act should be in future be applied to sand
miners operating around Mabamba wetland and enforced by Wakiso district local
government and National Environment Management Authority. This will help avoid
irreversible changes and serious damage to the wetland; and safeguard valuable
resources, natural areas and ecosystem components.
3. Local communities and their local leaders should be sensitized on policies and laws
governing environment management in Uganda, conservation values of Mabamba Bay
wetland as well as discouraging them from illegal hunting, setting illegal fires and
wetland edge farming. There is also need to promote understanding obligations of
Ramsar Convention on wetlands of international importance. More so local leaders
should be sensitized on the roles they are supposed in wetland conservation and
management. This will provide information to the communities about the usefulness of
the Mabamba Bay Ramsar site and encourage them to participate in its conservation.
4. Community-based tourism if well promoted can offer economic incentives to local
communities to appreciate the value of and conserve Mabamba bay wetland and its
biodiversity. Efforts should be made to involve communities in all parishes in ecotourism
enterprises and ensuring that the financial benefits accruing from guiding visitors
are shared equally among all parishes. Eco-tourism community groups need to be help to
develop and establish linkages with Uganda Tourism Board, private sector, NGOs, tour
and travel agencies to among others; marketing of Mabamba wetland as a tourist
destination, training, financial support to build campsites and souvenir shops; and
generally sustainable tourism development in and around Mabamba Bay wetland. One
way of marketing can be maps, posters or participation in national trade fair exhibitions,
creation of web links etc.
5. Mabamba Bay ecosystem plays a vital role in sequestering green house gas
concentrations from the atmosphere. It also leads to avoidance of green house gas
emissions in to atmosphere by retaining vegetation e.g. swamp forests (through
conservation and management activities that prevent or reduce degradation and
conversion of swamps, grassland, woodlands and tropical forests to other land uses).
Through the Clean Development Mechanism of Kyoto protocol, markets for carbon
sequestration services can be accessed in the global market place. This can be one way
generating financial resources for protection and management of the wetland site. Where
45

possible, this may necessitate working with ECOTRUST and FACE as they are some of
the leading intermediaries in carbon trading in Uganda.
6. Given the reported decline in fish catches and fish biodiversity in Lake Victoria, Wakiso
district local government should work with neighbouring communities and other
stakeholders towards diversifying economic activities. Opportunities should include fish
farming (pond aquaculture), bee-keeping, woodlots for fuel wood, income generating
products e.g. fruit garden and medicinal gardens. As there is a potential market for crafts
in the nearby Wakiso, Mpigi and Kampala areas, Wakiso district in co-operation with
stakeholders should encourage communities to identify and produce marketable goods
made from wetland products e.g. mats, baskets, chairs and souvenirs. Communities can
be helped to identify sales space and outlets in may be Kampala or Entebbe areas.
7. Due to time and financial limitations, the economic losses arising from vermin and
problem animals (crop raiding animals from the wetland) were not quantified in monetary
terms let alone assessing the extent of damage afflicted to human property. This could be
an interesting research topic/issue that can be investigated to come up with solutions
needed for decision and policy making. However communities should be trained on
vermin and problem animals’ deterrent measures like digging trenches around gardens,
erecting barriers, scaring of animals, planting of thorny hedges like Mauritius thorns etc.
8. Of the crop raiding wild animals reported around Mabamba, only vervet monkeys are
gazetted as vermin under section 58 of Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 153 of 2000 and local
governments are responsible for their control with technical assistance from Uganda
Wildlife Authority. The district of Wakiso should employ and recruit vermin guards with
the technical input of Uganda Wildlife Authority because of her extensive experience in
control of problem animals and vermin.
46

References
1. Alexander, S., Schneider, S., and Lagerquist, K., 1997, ‘The interaction of climate and
life’, In: Uganda Biodiversity: Economic Assessment. Prepared with National
Environment Management Authority as part of the Uganda National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment Management Authority, Kampala,
Uganda.
2. Aniku, J. (1996) Wetland Soils of Uganda. In: Mabamba Bay Wetland Ramsar
Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Ramsar Sites Information Service, Wetlands
International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. PP 5
3. Barbier, E.B., Acreman, M.C. and Knowler, D. (1997). Economic valuation of wetlands.
A guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.
4. Barndregt, A., van der Straaten, J., Ierland, E. and T.Söderqvist, 1998, ‘Wetland
management and institutions: an ecological-economic approach’, In: Valuing wetlands in
decision-making: Where we are now? Wetland valuation issues paper # 1. Integrating
wetland economic values in to river basin management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
5. Bennun, L. and Njoroge, P. (1996) Birds to watch in East Africa: In: Mabamba Bay
Wetland Ramsar Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Ramsar Sites Information
Service, Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. PP 2
6. Bolt, K., Ruta, G. and Sarraf, M. (2005) Estimating the Cost of Environmental
Degradation. A Training Manual in English, French and Arabic. The World Bank
Environment Department. PP 51-56.
7. Bush, G., Nampindo, S., Aguti, C. and Plumptre A.J. (2005). Valuing of Uganda’s
Forests: A livelihoods and Ecosystems Approach, Unpublished report to National Forest
Authority, Kampala, Uganda. (http://albertinerift.org/arift-home/ariftpublications/reports?)
8. Byaruhanga, A. and Kigoolo, S. (2005) Mabamba Bay Wetland Ramsar Information
Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Ramsar Sites Information Service, Wetlands International,
Wageningen, The Netherlands. 1-11 (http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database)
9. De Groot, R.S., Stuip, M.A.M., Finlayson, C.M. and Davidson, N. (2006). Valuing
Wetlands: Guidance for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland ecosystem services,
Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention
Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
10. Dennis, M.K. and Mazotta, M. (2001) Ecosystem valuation. Website.
http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org. Authors affiliated with University of Maryland and
University of Rhode Island
11. Duru CC, Uma NU (2002). Post harvest spoilage of cormels of Xanthosoma sagitttifolia.
In: Socioeconomic constraints to sustainable cocoyam production in the Lake Victoria
Crescent, Moi University, Department of Economics and Agricultural Resource
Management, P.O. Box 1125-30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
47

12. Emerton, L. and Muramira, E. (1999) Uganda Biodiversity: Economic Assessment.
Prepared with National Environment Management Authority as part of the Uganda
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment Management
Authority, Kampala, Uganda.
13. Emerton, L., Lyango, L., Luwum, P. and Malinga, A. (1999) The Present Value of
Nakivubo Urban Wetland, Uganda, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. PP 5-7.
14. Emerton, L.2003. Valuing wetlands in decision-making: Where we are now? Wetland
valuation issues paper # 1. Integrating wetland economic values in to river basin
management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
15. Hesselink, F. (2008) Course No. 22 on Communication and Participation, HECT
Consultancy, Netherlands. PowerPoint Presentation to MSc. Students ‘’Management of
Protected Areas, Klagenfurt University on 8 th July 2008, Austria.
16. Howard, P., (1995) The Economics of Protected Areas in Uganda: Costs, Benefits and
Policy issues. In: Uganda Biodiversity: Economic Assessment. Prepared with National
Environment Management Authority as part of the Uganda National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment Management Authority, Kampala,
Uganda.
17. IUCN, (2002) Economic valuation of the Sango Bay forest resource. In: Valuing of
Uganda’s Forests: A livelihoods and Ecosystems Approach, Unpublished report to
National Forest Authority, Kampala, Uganda.
18. Mikkelsen, B. 1995. Methods for development work and research. A guide for
practicioners. In: A socio-economic assessment of community livelihoods in areas
adjacent to corridors linking Queen Elizabeth National Park to other protected areas in
Western Uganda, Wildlife Conservation Society, Albertine Rift Programme, Kampala,
Uganda. PP 21-22
19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005) Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems
and human well-being: Wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute,
Washington, D.C.
20. Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, (2001) Wetland Sector Strategic Plan, 2001-
2010. Kampala, Uganda
21. Myers, N., 1997, ‘The world’s forests and their ecosystem services’. In: Economic
Assessment. Prepared with National Environment Management Authority as part of the
Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment
Management Authority, Kampala, Uganda.
22. National Environment Management Authority, 2006/07. State of Environment Report for
Uganda, NEMA, Kampala.
23. NEMA, (2002) State of the Environment Report for Uganda. In: Mabamba Bay Wetland
Ramsar Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Ramsar Sites Information Service,
Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. PP 4
(http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database)
48

24. Pearce, D. and Moran, D. (1994) The economic value of biodiversity. The World
Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.
25. Pritchard, D.(2009) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
developing countries (REDD) – the link with wetlands. A background paper for
Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development, United Kingdom
26. Schuyt, K. and Brander, L. (2004) The economic values of the world’s wetlands. WWF-
International Gland. Switzerland
(www.panda.org/downloads/freshwater/wetlandsbrochurefinal.pdf)
27. Serem, A. K., Palapala, V., Talwana, H., Nandi, J. M., Ndabikunze, B. and Korir, M. K.
(2008) Socioeconomic constraints to sustainable cocoyam production in the Lake
Victoria Crescent, Moi University, Department of Economics and Agricultural Resource
Management, P.O. Box 1125-30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
28. Stuip, M.A.M, Baker, C.J. and Oosterberg, W. (2002). The socio-economics of wetlands.
In: Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland
ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
29. Vorhies, F. (1999) Environmental economics explained. In: Valuing Wetlands: Guidance
for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical
Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland,
Switzerland.
30. Wakiso District Local Council (WDLC), 2008. Kasanje Sub-county Development Plan
2008-2011, Wakiso, Uganda
49

Appendix
Appendix I: Household and contingent survey questionnaire
Economic valuation of Mabamba Bay wetland of international importance, Wakiso
district, Uganda
Introduction and explanation of survey
Mabamba Bay is a swamp and an extensive marsh stretching through a narrow and long bay
fringed with papyrus towards the main body of Lake Victoria with fish landing sites Part of this
wetland has forests with a variety of trees. There are human settlements and croplands in areas
surrounding this wetland. This wetland is known to contribute significantly through provision of
essential natural goods and services necessary for the survival of local communities living
around.
This study seeks to explore the importance of Mabamba Bay wetland system to the local
communities living in the parishes surrounding this wetland. We explicitly want to emphasize
that this study is significant, and we want to contribute to the livelihood and standard of living for
local communities by generating ideas, highlighting and proposing recommendations to the
policy and decision makers at the local and national levels; Wetland Site Managers and other
stakeholders for improved conservation and management of Mabamba wetland ecosystem.
Improved management will assure continuous flow of goods and services to the present and
future generations as well as contributing to the sustainable development of your local economy.
Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and used only for scientific purposes and
proposing policy actions for the wetland and your well-being. No official or government
institution will gain access to the data. The data will only be accessed by the principal researcher
(Simon Akwetaireho) and; lecturers of Alps Adria University of Klagenfurt and officials of
Institute of Ecology; all based in Austria, Europe and are actively involved in managing and
implementing nature conservation programmes including wetland management and conservation
activities. The data will also be stored only anonymously, so there will not be any reference your
household data.
Questionnaire: Household Survey and Contingent Valuation Questionnaire
Interviewer :
Checked by:
Village (Local Council I):
Parish (Local Council II):
Sub-county (Local Council III):
Date:
Time:
Respondent:
age:
Respondent:
sex:
50

1. Household composition
How many people are in the household?
Status Description Age Sex Education Occupation
Head of
Household
Spouse
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
Member 4
Member 5
Member 6
Member 7
Member 8
Member 9
Member 10
Description – 1) Husband, 2) Wife 3) Child 4) Relative, 5) Orphan 6)
Visiting worker 7) Dependent 8) Female Head
Education level – 0) No formal education 1) Primary 3) Secondary 4)
College/University education
Occupation – 0) No work 1) Farming – Including subsistence 2) Fishing 3)
Student 4) Own business 5) Wage labour 6) Salaried employee
7) Infant 8) Others – specify
How much money does your household earn per year (after taxes)? (Once again I would like to
remind you that this is a confidential survey only to used for scientific purposes; no
authority will gain access to the data).
Annual household income __________________________ UGS
How many years has your family been in this Village/Parish?
1) Less than 1 year 2) 1 – 5 years 3) 5 – 10 years 4) 10 years or more
2. Building material
House materials for main dwellings (try to make discreet observations on approach)
Walls
1) Timber/poles 2) Bricks 3) Mud 4) Iron 5) Plastic sheeting
Door/window frame
1) Timber/poles 2) Bricks 3) Others – specify
51

Floor
1) Timber/poles 2) Mud 3) Cement 3) Tiles/bricks
Roof
1) Thatch 2) Tiles 3) Iron sheets 4) Plastic sheeting
3. Accessibility to and use of wetland
i) From which part of the wetland do you obtain goods e.g. fuels, plants, timber, fish, fodder etc?
a) Forest b) Open waters c) Swamp d) Shores
e) Others.
ii) Which means of transport do you use to reach the wetland?
a) By foot b) By bicycle c) By car d) By Bus e) By boat
iii) How long does it take you to reach there?
iv) Which months of the year do you most often use the wetland?
Month JAN FEB MAR APR MA JU JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
4. Livestock
i) Do you have animals among your household assets?
Live stock item
Goats
Sheep
Pigs
Chickens/ducks/pigeons
Rabbits
Cows
Dogs
Number
ii) Do you obtain forage/pasture and water for the livestock from the wetland? YES/NO
iii) If YES, may you provide explanation on the following aspects in the table below?
Live stock item
Goats
Sheep
Pigs
Chickens/ducks/pigeons
Rabbits
Cows
Dogs
Time of
the year
Quantity of
forage/pasture
(bundles)
Price per
unit of
forage
Quantity
of water
(jerry
cans)
Price per
jerry can
of water
52

5. Land resources
i) How much land do you have?
ii)
What do you use it for?
Land type Area (Local Unit) What proportion is this of your total
land holding? (Quarter, half, three quarter
or All)
Land type – 1) Natural forest/woodland, 2) woodlot 3) Arable 4)
Wetland 5) Grassland pasture 6) Woodland/forest pasture 7) Cash crop plantation.
6. Do you own a woodlot? No/Yes
Local name of the
tree (main species)
Common name
(English)
Area (Ha)
Purpose
7. Which fuels do you use every week and how much?
Source Use Volume/amount Share of fuel
provided by
wetland?
Wood
Charcoal
Papyrus
Grass
Other?
Use – 1) cooking 2) Lighting 3) Heating
Share – 1) None 2) Quarter 3) Half 4) Three quarters 5) All
53

8. Where do you get your water?
Source Use Volume/amount Share of water
stemming from
wetland.
Wetland
Bore hole/well
Stream /river
Spring protected
Spring unprotected
Pond/dam
Lake
Others - specify
Share – 1) None 2) Quarter 3) Half 4) Three quarters 5) Al
9. Which means of transport do you use to reach the wetland?
a) By foot b) By bicycle c) By car d) By Bus e) By boat
10. How long does it take you to reach there?
11. Who collects water in the household?
12. How many jerrycans cans do you use each day?
13. Does your water already have drinking water quality? YES/ NO. If NO, continue to question
14).
14. If NOT drinking water quality, what kind of purification do you use?
Purification methods
Nothing
Boiling
Boiling and filtering
Chemicals
Others
Remarks
15. Problem animals and vermin
i) Do you have any problems with crop raiding animals from wetland? 1) Yes 2) No.
ii) Which species?
a. Buffalo b. Antelopes c. Monkeys d. Baboons e. Wild pigs f. Hippopotamus
g) Others (specify)……………….
iii) Which species is most problematic?
iv) Do you ever trap some of these problem animals?
54

16. Do you harvest or sell anything from the wetland?
Item Local Unit Own harvested
units sold annually
Yams
Sugarcanes
Watermelon
Wild honey
Water
Vegetables
Small wild animals
Guinea fowl
Francolin
Fish
Others
Large wild animals
Big antelope
Hippo
Others
Other products
Building poles from
the wetland
Grass for thatching
Papyrus
Climbers/creepers
Sand
Clay
Medicinal plants
Firewood
Charcoal
Piece
Piece
Piece
Litre
Jerry can
Bundle
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Piece
Bundle
Bundle
head load
Heap
Heap
Kg
Bundle/billet
Sack
Own harvested
Units consumed
weekly
Price
per Unit
17. Eliciting of willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for loss of livelihood from the
wetland
Mabamba Bay wetland is a wetland of international importance, but also heavily used by
residents. However, due to illegal uses and overuse, the wetland is deteriorated, and it is
questionable whether the wetland will be able to provide many benefits to residents also in the
future. Suppose therefore, that a new management plan will be set up to secure that the wetland
will be beneficial to residents and the wildlife also in the future. In order to secure this, suppose
that the wetland will be strictly managed with restrictions of access and use of resources (water,
fish, papyrus plants, fuel wood, medicinal plant materials etc). Probably half of the resources you
currently use will have to be purchased on local markets. But after one year when the conditions
of the wetland have improved, you will be once again allowed to access fully the wetland
resources you depend on for your survival.
The management would be set up according to international standards, and would be supervised
by the Governments of Uganda as represented by Ministry of Water and Environment in
collaboration with the World Conservation Union. A compensation scheme running for one year
has been put in place to compensate you for the loss of livelihood you derive from this wetland
55

a) If alternatives goods were available on local markets, how much money would you except as a
minimal compensation per month for the losses due to the restriction of access to the wetlands, in
order to compensate you for the foregone benefits of the wetland?
Payment card for eliciting WTA for loss of access to wetland ecosystem
services
Amount of compensation per month (US$) for the losses due to the restriction of access to the
wetlands, in order to compensate you for the foregone benefits
Don’t know, no answer
Zero
5.6
11.2
16.7
22.4
27.8
33.4
38.9
44.4
50.0
55.6
61.1
66.7
72.2
77.8
83.3
88.9
94.4
100.0
105.6
111.1
116.7
122.2
More (please specify)
b) Only if no answer: Why are you not willing to accept compensation?
i. I would not accept the proposal, because I have a right to use the wetland.
ii.
iii.
iv.
I do not trust the authorities; they would probably take the money without doing
something for the wetland
Even if compensated, I cannot afford to loose access to the wetlands.
I do not trust that the wetland will be open again after one year.
v. others:_________________________________________________________
56

18. Willingness to pay in order to have a better and secure access to wetland goods and
services
Suppose that a locally run management scheme with international supervision was devised to
maintain and improve your wetland resources i.e. ‘’double availability and security of wetland
service provision’’ compared to today, so that you had more secure access to a better quantity
and quality of wetland products and benefits e.g. easier access to water, fodder, fish etc.
a) How much would you be willing to pay as a mandatory (voluntary) contribution (paid by all
residents) devoted solely to a funding scheme for securing the success of wetland management
per month?).
Payment card for eliciting WTP to secure a better access to wetland
products and services
The maximum amount that you are prepared to pay per month in order to secure a better access to
products and services from Mabamba Bay wetland system (in US$)
Don’t know, no answer
Zero answer
0.56
0.83
1.11
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.2
3.1
3.9
5.6
11.1
16.7
22.2
27.8
33.3
38.9
44.4
50.0
55.6
More (please specify)…………………………….
b) If you would not be willing to pay anything (only zero or “No answer”), why?
i. The wetlands should be protected at all costs and financed out of national and international
funds.
ii. Residents have a right to use the wetlands and should not be asked to pay for it.
iii) I do not trust the management scheme and the administration of the management plan.
57

iv) I already pay too much tax.
v) I cannot answer this question (don’t know).
vi) Wetland benefits cannot be valued in money terms; I object such types of questions.
Thank you very much for supporting this important research that will lead to a better use
and improved conservation of this wetland for the present and future generations.
58