Economic Valuation of Mabamba Bay Wetland System of ...
Economic Valuation of Mabamba Bay Wetland System of ...
Economic Valuation of Mabamba Bay Wetland System of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
M.Sc. Programme ‘’Management <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas’’<br />
<strong>Economic</strong> <strong>Valuation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> <strong>System</strong> <strong>of</strong> International<br />
Importance, Wakiso District, Uganda<br />
Author : Simon Akwetaireho<br />
Supervisor : Pr<strong>of</strong>. Michael Getzner,<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Economic</strong>s,<br />
Alps-Adriatic University <strong>of</strong> Klagenfurt,<br />
Universitätsstrasse 65-67,<br />
A – 9020 Klagenfurt<br />
Tel: +43 (0) 463/27004192, +436764129222<br />
E-mail: Michael.Getzner@uni-klu.ac.at<br />
Carried out at :<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Economic</strong>s,<br />
Alps-Adriatic University <strong>of</strong> Klagenfurt,<br />
Universitätsstrasse 65-67, A – 9020 Klagenfurt<br />
Tel: +436505619219, +256782374594<br />
E-mail: akwetsimo@yahoo.co.uk<br />
Klagenfurt, June 2009<br />
Citation: AKWETAIREHO, S. (2009). ECONOMIC VALUATION OF MABAMBA<br />
BAY WETLAND SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE, WAKISO<br />
DISTRICT, UGANDA. ALPS-ADRIATIC UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT,<br />
KLAGENFURT, AUSTRIA
Table <strong>of</strong> Contents<br />
Declaration <strong>of</strong> honor............................................................................................................ v<br />
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................vi<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................vii<br />
Executive summary..........................................................................................................viii<br />
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1<br />
1.1 Justification for performing an economic valuation study........................................ 2<br />
1.2 Rationale for evaluating benefits <strong>of</strong> wetland ecosystem conservation...................... 3<br />
1.3 The objectives <strong>of</strong> the study ........................................................................................ 4<br />
Chapter 2: Literature review ........................................................................................... 5<br />
2.1 <strong>Wetland</strong> conservation benefits .................................................................................. 5<br />
2.2 <strong>Economic</strong> costs associated with wetland conservation............................................. 9<br />
2.3 Reasons why wetlands are still under-valued and over-used ................................. 10<br />
2.4 Solutions to correct externalities; and incentives to support the............................ 11<br />
Chapter 3: Description <strong>of</strong> the study site........................................................................ 13<br />
Chapter 4: Methodology................................................................................................ 20<br />
4.1 Household questionnaire survey ............................................................................. 20<br />
4.2 Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> Method (CVM)..................................................................... 21<br />
4.3 Benefit Transfer Method.......................................................................................... 25<br />
4.4 <strong>Valuation</strong> using market prices ................................................................................ 25<br />
4.5 Focus group discussions ......................................................................................... 25<br />
4.6 Researcher’s observations ...................................................................................... 26<br />
4.7 Secondary data collection ....................................................................................... 26<br />
Chapter 5: Data analysis and results............................................................................ 27<br />
5.1 Data analysis........................................................................................................... 27<br />
5.2 Household characteristics....................................................................................... 27<br />
5.3 Accessibility to water sources ................................................................................. 28<br />
5.4 Livestock ownership among households ................................................................. 28<br />
5.5 Cultivation <strong>of</strong> cocoyams and sugarcanes................................................................ 29<br />
5.6 Fuel wood collection ............................................................................................... 29<br />
i
5.7 Human-wildlife conflicts ......................................................................................... 30<br />
5.8 Land resources ........................................................................................................ 31<br />
5.9 Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> results................................................................................... 31<br />
Chapter 6: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 34<br />
6.1 <strong>Economic</strong> values <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system................................................ 34<br />
6.1.1 Domestic water supply..................................................................................... 34<br />
6.1.2 Support cultivation <strong>of</strong> cocoyams and sugar canes ........................................... 35<br />
6.1.3 Fish catch.......................................................................................................... 36<br />
6.1.4 Recreational and tourism values ...................................................................... 37<br />
6.1.5 Sand harvesting ................................................................................................ 38<br />
6.1.6 Water-based transport ...................................................................................... 39<br />
6.1.7 Harvesting <strong>of</strong> papyrus plants............................................................................ 39<br />
6.1.8 Carbon storage and sequestration..................................................................... 40<br />
6.1.9 Indirect use, optional and Non-use values ....................................................... 40<br />
6.2 <strong>Economic</strong> costs associated with <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland........................................ 43<br />
6.2.1 Opportunity costs ............................................................................................. 43<br />
6.2.2 Costs arising from damages by wild animals................................................... 43<br />
6.2.3 Direct management costs ................................................................................. 43<br />
Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations............................................................ 44<br />
7.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 44<br />
7.2 Recommendations.................................................................................................... 45<br />
References ......................................................................................................................... 47<br />
Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 50<br />
Appendix I: Household and contingent survey questionnaire .......................................... 50<br />
ii
List <strong>of</strong> Tables<br />
Table 2-1: Summary <strong>of</strong> Ecosystem services derived from or provided by wetlands......... 7<br />
Table 2-2: Classification <strong>of</strong> total economic values for wetlands ........................................ 9<br />
Table 3-1: Population per Parish by sex .......................................................................... 18<br />
Table 3-2: Population <strong>of</strong> livestock in parishes surrounding <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland....... 18<br />
Table 4-1: Distribution <strong>of</strong> respondents by village............................................................ 21<br />
Table 5-1: Household structure <strong>of</strong> people living adjacent to <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland............. 27<br />
Table 5-2: Mean and total amount <strong>of</strong> water used per day and year ................................. 28<br />
Table 5-3: Mean and total number <strong>of</strong> livestock in villages around <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland<br />
system.............................................................................................................. 29<br />
Table 5-4: Number <strong>of</strong> cocoyam and sugarcane stems cultivated per annum in Bussi<br />
Parish................................................................................................................ 29<br />
Table 5-5: Bundles <strong>of</strong> firewood consumed by per household per week ........................... 30<br />
Table 5-6: Summary <strong>of</strong> descriptive statistics for household WTA and WTP (US$) per<br />
month................................................................................................................ 31<br />
Table 5-7: Summary <strong>of</strong> protect bids in response to WTA and WTP surveys................... 33<br />
Table 6-1: Stage 1 water borehole costs for human population........................................ 34<br />
Table 6-2: Stage 2 water borehole costs for livestock ..................................................... 34<br />
Table 6-3: Estimated annual total fish catches in year 2008 as presented by landing sites<br />
and fish species................................................................................................. 37<br />
Table 6-4: Water channels, No. <strong>of</strong> boats and total revenues generated ........................... 39<br />
Table 6-5: Estimated annual Total <strong>Economic</strong> Values <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland <strong>of</strong><br />
international importance.................................................................................. 41<br />
iii
List <strong>of</strong> Figures<br />
Figure 3-1: Map <strong>of</strong> Uganda showing location <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> <strong>System</strong> .......... 14<br />
Figure 3-2: Map showing administrative units (Parishes and Villages) around <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
<strong>Bay</strong> Ramsar Site.............................................................................................. 15<br />
Figure 4-1: Payment card for eliciting WTA for loss <strong>of</strong> access to wetland ecosystem<br />
services............................................................................................................ 23<br />
Figure 4-2: Payment card for eliciting WTP to secure a better access to wetland products<br />
and services ..................................................................................................... 24<br />
Figure 5-1: No. <strong>of</strong> complaints raised against problem animals………………………….30<br />
Figure 5-2: Trends in HH WTA (US$) per month............................................................ 31<br />
Figure 5-3: Trends in HH WTP (US$) per month ............................................................ 32<br />
Figure 6-1: Proportion <strong>of</strong> each ecosystem service (%age <strong>of</strong> TEV)................................... 42<br />
iv
Declaration <strong>of</strong> honor<br />
I herewith declare that I am the sole author <strong>of</strong> the current master thesis according to art. 51 par. 2<br />
no. 8 and art. 51 par. 2 no. 13 Universitätsgesetz 2002 (Austrian University Law) and that I have<br />
conducted all works connected with the master thesis on my own. Furthermore, I declare that I<br />
only used those resources that are referenced in the work. All formulations and concepts taken<br />
from printed, verbal or online sources – be they word-for-word quotations or corresponding in<br />
their meaning – are quoted according to the rules <strong>of</strong> good scientific conduct and are indicated by<br />
footnotes, in the text or other forms <strong>of</strong> detailed references.<br />
Support during the work including significant supervision is indicated accordingly. The master<br />
thesis has not been presented to any other examination authority. The work has been submitted in<br />
printed and electronic form. I herewith confirm that the electronic form is completely congruent<br />
with the printed version.<br />
I am aware <strong>of</strong> legal consequences <strong>of</strong> a false declaration <strong>of</strong> honor.<br />
Klagenfurt, 15 June 2009<br />
Signature:<br />
v
Acknowledgements<br />
I wish to recognize the various contributions by different people and organizations to the success<br />
<strong>of</strong> this field study. Sincere thanks are expressed to Austrian Development Co-operation as<br />
represented by Austrian Agency for International Co-operation in Education and Research (Oead)<br />
for generously funding my two-year academic degree programme at Klagenfurt University under<br />
the North – South Dialogue Scholarship Programme.<br />
The field study was also financially supported by the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG)<br />
with a Royal Dutch Shell plc International Leadership and Capacity Building Programme<br />
Bursary”. In respect <strong>of</strong> this, the financial contribution from Royal Geographical Society is highly<br />
appreciated.<br />
It is also a pleasure to express my deep gratitude to Pr<strong>of</strong>. Michael Getzner, my Masters father for<br />
inspiring and motivating to venture in to the field <strong>of</strong> environmental and ecological economics;<br />
and for supervising and mentoring me at all levels <strong>of</strong> my field research; and specifically for his<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional, technical guidance and insightful comments. Acknowledgment <strong>of</strong> my gratitude is<br />
equally given to Mr. Michael Jungmeier, Miss Caroline Starched and the entire staff <strong>of</strong> Institute<br />
<strong>of</strong> Ecology, Klagenfurt who organized a series <strong>of</strong> research sessions and scientific excursions in<br />
some parts <strong>of</strong> Europe during which I was able to share my research concept paper with the rest <strong>of</strong><br />
course participants.<br />
Last but not least special recognition is given to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) <strong>of</strong><br />
Wakiso district local government for granting me authority to conduct research in and around<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system. On a related note, I very much appreciate technical contributions<br />
and administrative support from CAO’s staff especially the Senior District Environment Officer,<br />
Senior Assistant Secretary (Mr. Ssenduli John) and his staff at Kasanje Sub-county. The various<br />
contributions <strong>of</strong> different local stakeholders, local leaders and local leaders during the data<br />
collection exercise and during Participatory Rural Appraisals is highly acknowledged.<br />
vi
List <strong>of</strong> Acronyms and Abbreviations<br />
Acronyms<br />
BMU<br />
BV<br />
CITES<br />
CMS<br />
CVM<br />
DUV<br />
ECOTRUST<br />
FACE<br />
HH<br />
IUCN<br />
IUV<br />
KSDP<br />
LC<br />
MA<br />
MBGCA<br />
MWETA<br />
MWLE<br />
NEMA<br />
OP<br />
PES<br />
SPSS<br />
TEV<br />
UV<br />
WTA<br />
WTP<br />
XV<br />
Abbreviations<br />
Beach Management Unit<br />
Bequest Values<br />
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species <strong>of</strong> Wild<br />
Fauna and Flora<br />
Convention on the Conservation <strong>of</strong> Migratory Species <strong>of</strong> Wild<br />
Animals<br />
Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> Methodology<br />
Direct Use Values<br />
Environmental Conservation Trust <strong>of</strong> Uganda<br />
Forest Absorbing Carbon dioxide Emissions<br />
Household<br />
World Conservation Union<br />
Indirect Use Values<br />
Kasanje Sub-county Development Plan<br />
Local Council<br />
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> Bird Guides and Conservation Association<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> Eco-tourism Association<br />
Ministry <strong>of</strong> Water, Lands and Environment<br />
National Environment Management Authority<br />
Option Values<br />
Payment for Environmental Services<br />
Statistical Package for Social Sciences<br />
Total <strong>Economic</strong> Value<br />
Use Values<br />
Willingness to accept<br />
Willingness to pay<br />
Existence Values<br />
vii
Executive summary<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong> systems directly support millions <strong>of</strong> people and provide goods and services to the world<br />
outside the wetland. People use the wetland soils for agriculture, they catch wetland fish to eat,<br />
they cut wetland trees for timber and fuel wood and wetland reeds to make mats and to thatch<br />
ro<strong>of</strong>s. Direct use may also take the form <strong>of</strong> recreation, such as bird watching or sailing, or<br />
scientific study. Despite their importance, wetlands through out the world are being modified and<br />
reclaimed. <strong>Wetland</strong>s are being rapidly modified, converted, over-exploited and degraded in the<br />
interests <strong>of</strong> other more ‘productive’ land and resource management options which appear to yield<br />
much higher and more immediate pr<strong>of</strong>its. Dam construction, irrigation schemes, housing<br />
developments and industrial activities have all had devastating impacts on wetland integrity and<br />
status, and economic policies have <strong>of</strong>ten hastened these processes <strong>of</strong> wetland degradation and<br />
loss. At the same time conservation efforts have traditionally paid little attention to economic<br />
values − as a result it has <strong>of</strong>ten been hard to justify or sustain wetlands in economic terms, or for<br />
them to compete with other, <strong>of</strong>ten destructive, investments and land uses. Such concerns have led<br />
to an explosion <strong>of</strong> efforts to value natural ecosystems and the services they provide. <strong>Valuation</strong><br />
studies have considerably increased our knowledge <strong>of</strong> the value <strong>of</strong> ecosystems. <strong>Economic</strong><br />
valuation can provide a powerful tool for placing wetlands on the agendas <strong>of</strong> conservation and<br />
development decision makers. <strong>Economic</strong> valuation also aims to quantify the benefits (both<br />
marketed and non-marketed) that people obtain from the wetland ecosystem services. This makes<br />
them comparable with other sectors <strong>of</strong> the economy, when investments are being appraised,<br />
activities are planned, policies are formulated, or land and water resource use decisions are made.<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong> ecosystems not only generate valuable goods and services but also give rise to economic<br />
costs which include among others expenditures on the physical inputs associated with resource<br />
and ecosystem management, opportunity costs and economic losses to local communities arising<br />
from crop raiding wild animals. The establishment <strong>of</strong> protected areas precludes land and resource<br />
uses. Protected areas such as wetlands permit restricted resource utilization, and wholly prevent<br />
cultivation and grazing. Either <strong>of</strong> these losses represents the opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> biodiversity<br />
conservation in terms <strong>of</strong> economic activities (such as agriculture) foregone.<br />
In the light <strong>of</strong> this, a study was undertaken to assess the present economic value <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong><br />
wetland system <strong>of</strong> international importance, Wakiso district, Uganda. The study was done<br />
between October – December 2008. The main objectives <strong>of</strong> the study were: to assess the annual<br />
Total <strong>Economic</strong> Value (TEV) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system; and to determine the distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> costs arising from wetland conservation and management. As part <strong>of</strong> achieving those<br />
objectives, a household survey using stratified random sampling technique was carried out in 5<br />
parishes surrounding <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland. Only heads <strong>of</strong> households were targeted in face to<br />
face interviews. A total <strong>of</strong> 320 households (representative sample <strong>of</strong> 3,777 households) were<br />
randomly interviewed. Other data collection methods included evaluation <strong>of</strong> relevant secondary<br />
data in the field <strong>of</strong> environmental economics, face to face discussions with stakeholders, focus<br />
group discussions and Benefit Transfer Method.<br />
Contingent valuation method (CVM) was to estimate the economic values <strong>of</strong> wetland ecosystem<br />
services which were non-marketable or whose market substitutes could not be found. CVM was<br />
specifically used to measure existence value, option values, indirect values and non-use values.<br />
People revealed their value for the benefits derived from a wetland through their WTP for those<br />
benefits. People also revealed their value for wetland benefits through their WTA compensation<br />
for foregoing the benefit. In the case <strong>of</strong> access to a resource, people revealed their values through<br />
viii
a WTP to prevent the loss <strong>of</strong> access and their WTA compensation to tolerate the loss. The CVM<br />
involved directly asking people in a household survey by presenting a payment card with<br />
different bids, how much they were WTP to secure better ecosystem services (benefits). People<br />
were also asked for the amount <strong>of</strong> compensation they would be WTA to give up specific<br />
environmental services. People were asked to state their WTP and WTA, contingent on a specific<br />
hypothetical scenario and description <strong>of</strong> wetland ecosystem services. As the contingent valuation<br />
study was part <strong>of</strong> the household survey, 320 households were interviewed, randomly drawn from<br />
5 parishes around <strong>Mabamba</strong> Ramsar Site.<br />
The data gathered in a household survey was then statistically analyzed using a computer<br />
program called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), which was re-branded in 2009<br />
as Predictive Analysis S<strong>of</strong>tware (PASW). The analysis indicated; the mean house hold size <strong>of</strong> 5<br />
people, 68% <strong>of</strong> the households engaged in subsistence farming, an annual average household<br />
income <strong>of</strong> US$276, and mean daily household water consumption as 87 litres. The aggregate<br />
annual water consumption for all 3,777 households was estimated to be119, 249,333litres. Poultry<br />
was the most owned (12,200 chickens) livestock among households. It was found out that the<br />
monthly mean household WTP for ecosystem services stood at US$7.2 while the mean household<br />
WTA for loss <strong>of</strong> access to wetland goods and services was US$ 196 per month.<br />
According to the findings <strong>of</strong> the study, the following services and goods emanate from <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
<strong>Bay</strong> wetland system: supply <strong>of</strong> water for domestic purposes, support wetland edge cultivation<br />
through provision <strong>of</strong> water, nutrients, source <strong>of</strong> fish for local consumption and commercial<br />
purposes, recreation and tourism, source <strong>of</strong> sand for construction purposes, support water-based<br />
transport and source <strong>of</strong> handcraft materials such as papyrus for making mats. Indirect ecosystem<br />
services identified included: carbon storage and sequestration, buffering Lake Victoria, playing<br />
an important hydrological role for waters entering Lake Victoria from the surrounding<br />
catchments, acting as a flood control for the surrounding shoreline and maintaining a steady<br />
discharge <strong>of</strong> water as well as supplementing the water supply to Lake Victoria. The TEV (direct,<br />
indirect, option, bequest and existence values) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland in its present form was<br />
estimated as US$ 3,576,609 per annum which is an equivalent <strong>of</strong> Uganda Shillings<br />
6,437,896,200/= (N.B. by the time <strong>of</strong> the study, 1 US$ was trading 1,800 Uganda Shillings on the<br />
Ugandan foreign exchange market). The non-marketable ecosystem services were valued at US$<br />
326,333 per year, thereby constituting 8.9 % <strong>of</strong> the annual TEV. Some <strong>of</strong> the benefits were found<br />
to be <strong>of</strong> local, national or global importance. The beneficiaries <strong>of</strong> ecosystem services were found<br />
to be at the household, local community, district, national and international levels.<br />
Following the performance <strong>of</strong> contingent valuation survey, the opportunity costs as expressed<br />
through WTA were estimated as US$ 8,883,504 per year, which is Uganda Shillings<br />
15,990,307,200/=. Vervet monkeys, Sitatunga, Bush buck, guinea fowl and hippopotamus were<br />
widely reported as crop raiding wild animals from <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland. These wild animals<br />
raid agricultural field in the neighbouring resulting in to loss <strong>of</strong> income and crop yield to farmers.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> the limitations <strong>of</strong> financial resources and time, the monetary costs associated with<br />
losses due to crop raiding animals were not estimated. There was not any annual public<br />
expenditure from the Government specifically dedicated to the management <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland<br />
system. Therefore this study focused on only opportunity costs.<br />
To ensure better deliverance <strong>of</strong> ecosystem services; and improved management and conservation<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system, the study came up with the following practical<br />
recommendations:<br />
1. Illegal sand mining activities be stopped and thereafter restoration measures undertaken<br />
in areas with sand mining activities and abandoned sand pits. This will repair the<br />
ix
environmental damage and eventually lead to restoration <strong>of</strong> ecosystem functions,<br />
attributes and processes.<br />
2. Environmental Impact Assessment should be mandatory for all future sand mining<br />
operations within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland. This will help avoid irreversible<br />
changes and serious damage to the wetland; and safeguard valuable resources, natural<br />
areas and ecosystem components.<br />
3. Local communities and their local leaders should be sensitized on policies and laws<br />
governing environment management in Uganda, conservation values <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong><br />
wetland, dangers <strong>of</strong> illegal activities such as hunting, setting fires and wetland edge<br />
farming; and also on the principles <strong>of</strong> Ramsar Convention.<br />
4. Motivation <strong>of</strong> local communities to conserve <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland ecosystem through<br />
<strong>of</strong>fering economic and financial incentives. Such as engaging local communities in<br />
ecologically sound and culturally acceptable tourism enterprises; and <strong>of</strong>fering grants or<br />
other financial incentives to private forest owners around <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland as a<br />
motivation to conserve biodiversity in their forests.<br />
5. Need for stakeholders to assist local communities to develop alternative sources <strong>of</strong> the<br />
products currently taken from the wetland. Alternatives may include fish farming (pond<br />
aquaculture), bee-keeping, woodlots for fuel wood, income generating products e.g. fruit<br />
garden and medicinal gardens. This may in the long run reduce pressure on the wetland<br />
resources and ultimately lead to conservation <strong>of</strong> the wetland biodiversity.<br />
6. Because <strong>of</strong> the role played by <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland in mitigating global warming (through<br />
sequestering and storage <strong>of</strong> carbon), Wakiso district local government and other key<br />
stakeholders like Nature Uganda can secure financial resources from international carbon<br />
markets such as the Clean Development mechanism under Kyoto protocol and World<br />
Bank Bio Carbon fund. Under carbon <strong>of</strong>fset and credit arrangements, highly<br />
industrialized countries can finance the conservation and management activities <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland in exchange for the credit for the amount <strong>of</strong> carbon saved or<br />
sequestered.<br />
7. Management <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system should be strengthened. This should<br />
among others include formulation <strong>of</strong> the site management plan to guide the management<br />
activities <strong>of</strong> the site, directing an annual public expenditure towards its (wetland)<br />
management and; incorporating mabamba wetland issues in to other development<br />
activities, policies and plans.<br />
x
Chapter 1: Introduction<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong>s are amongst the Earth’s most productive ecosystems. They have been described as ‘’the<br />
Kidneys <strong>of</strong> the landscape’’, because <strong>of</strong> the functions they perform in the hydrological and<br />
chemical cycles, and ‘’ biological supermarkets’’ because <strong>of</strong> the extensive food webs and rich<br />
biodiversity they support (Barbier et al., 1997) <strong>Wetland</strong> systems directly support millions <strong>of</strong><br />
people and provide goods and services to the world outside the wetland. People use the wetland<br />
soils for agriculture, they catch wetland fish to eat, they cut wetland trees for timber and fuel<br />
wood and wetland reeds to make mats and to thatch ro<strong>of</strong>s. Direct use may also take the form <strong>of</strong><br />
recreation, such as bird watching or sailing, or scientific study. Peat soils have preserved ancient<br />
remains <strong>of</strong> people and track ways which are <strong>of</strong> great interest to archaeologists.<br />
Freshwater wetlands have high conservation significance, supporting concentrated populations <strong>of</strong><br />
birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrate species. It has been estimated that<br />
fresh water wetlands hold more than 40% <strong>of</strong> the entire world’s species and 12% <strong>of</strong> all animal<br />
species. Individual wetlands can be extremely important in supporting high numbers <strong>of</strong> endemic<br />
species. In addition to their direct biodiversity significance, wetlands play a vital role in<br />
supporting hydrological functions, and therefore underpinning wider freshwater ecosystems<br />
(Schuyt, et al. 2004). The economic value <strong>of</strong> the world’s wetlands is estimated at US$70 billion<br />
per year. The largest economic values <strong>of</strong> the world’s wetlands are the hydrological services<br />
provided through flood control and water filtering. Other significant values include fishing,<br />
biodiversity, and sources <strong>of</strong> local water supply, materials and firewood. Schuyt, et al. 2004,<br />
reports that Charles River Basin wetlands in Massachusetts consist <strong>of</strong> 3,455 hectares <strong>of</strong> fresh<br />
water marsh and wooded swamps <strong>of</strong> which the benefits derived from these wetlands include flood<br />
control, amenity values, pollution reduction, water supply and recreation. The flood damage<br />
prevention and pollution control functions alone are worth US$65 million per annum.<br />
An evaluation study <strong>of</strong> the services provided by the Nakivubo wetland in Kampala revealed<br />
US$1.7 million a year. Most <strong>of</strong> this value was attributed to water treatment and purification<br />
services. In addition approximately US$ 100,000 was estimated to accrue from wetland goods<br />
and products through crop cultivation, papyrus harvesting, brick making, and fish farming<br />
(MWLE, 2001). In rural areas <strong>of</strong> Uganda, households engaged in papyrus harvesting are<br />
estimated to be deriving as much as US$ 200 a year from their wetland activities. In Uganda,<br />
approximately five million people depend directly on wetlands for their water supply. The daily<br />
water consumption is conservatively estimated at 50 million litres a day. At commercial prices for<br />
water in rural areas, this amounts to at least US$ 25 million a year. <strong>Wetland</strong>s contribute to water<br />
supply not only to neighbouring communities, but to most <strong>of</strong> the population - through<br />
groundwater recharging, water storage, water purification (MWLE, 2001).<br />
Despite its high value, biodiversity conservation also gives rise to economic costs as well as<br />
requiring expenditures on the physical inputs associated with resource and ecosystem<br />
management. The costs can also be opportunity costs to forego benefits/gains accruing from<br />
wetland ecosystem conservation and management or opportunity costs to tolerate costs associated<br />
with the existence <strong>of</strong> the wetland ecosystem. Problem animals (including vermin) from the<br />
wetland can be a menace to local communities living around. They (wild animals) can stray in to<br />
the adjacent community lands resulting in to among others; destruction <strong>of</strong> crops in the gardens,<br />
damage <strong>of</strong> property, injury to people or transmission <strong>of</strong> diseases to domestic livestock. This leads<br />
to loss <strong>of</strong> livelihood and income derived from agricultural production. The establishment <strong>of</strong><br />
protected areas precludes land and resource uses. Protected areas such as wetlands permit<br />
1
estricted resource utilisation, and wholly prevent cultivation and grazing. Either <strong>of</strong> these losses<br />
represents the opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> biodiversity conservation in terms <strong>of</strong> economic activities (such<br />
as agriculture) foregone.<br />
1.1 Justification for performing an economic valuation study<br />
Despite their importance, wetlands through out the world are being modified and reclaimed. It has<br />
been estimated that since 1900 more than half <strong>of</strong> the world’s wetlands have disappeared, largely<br />
through conversion to agricultural use. In the US, for example, 87% <strong>of</strong> wetland loss has been to<br />
agricultural development (Schuyt, et al. 2004). <strong>Wetland</strong>s however, provide numerous goods and<br />
services that have an economic value not only to the people who are living in the periphery <strong>of</strong> a<br />
wetland (in terms <strong>of</strong> water, fish, reeds and wildlife), but also to those living downstream<br />
(wetlands regulate water supply and recycle human wastes). A major factor contributing to the<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> wetlands is that decision-makers <strong>of</strong>ten have insufficient understanding <strong>of</strong> these economic<br />
values <strong>of</strong> these wetlands (Schuyt, et al. 2004).<br />
The value <strong>of</strong> wetlands and their associated ecosystem services has been estimated at US$14<br />
trillion annually. Yet many <strong>of</strong> these services, such as the recharge <strong>of</strong> ground water, water<br />
purification or aesthetic and cultural values are not immediately obvious when one looks at the<br />
wetland. Planners and decision-makers at many levels are frequently not fully aware <strong>of</strong> the<br />
connections between wetland condition and the provision <strong>of</strong> wetland services and the consequent<br />
benefits for the people, benefits which <strong>of</strong>ten have substantial economic value (De Groot et al.<br />
2006). Only in very few cases have decisions been informed by the TEV and benefits <strong>of</strong> both<br />
marketed and non-marketed services <strong>of</strong> wetlands. This lack <strong>of</strong> understanding and recognition <strong>of</strong><br />
the roles wetlands play, leads to ill-informed decisions on management and development, which<br />
contribute to the continued rapid loss, conversion and degradation <strong>of</strong> wetlands despite the TEV <strong>of</strong><br />
unconverted wetlands <strong>of</strong>ten being greater than that <strong>of</strong> converted wetlands.<br />
Infrastructure development activities have all had devastating impacts on wetland integrity and<br />
status, and economic policies have <strong>of</strong>ten hastened these processes <strong>of</strong> wetland degradation and<br />
loss. At the same time conservation efforts have traditionally paid little attention to economic<br />
values − as a result it has <strong>of</strong>ten been hard to justify or sustain wetlands in economic terms, or for<br />
them to compete with other, <strong>of</strong>ten destructive, investments and land uses. In fact, the problem is<br />
not that wetlands have no economic value, but rather that this value is poorly understood, rarely<br />
articulated, and as a result is frequently omitted from decision-making (Emerton, 2003).<br />
Although conventional analysis decrees that the ‘best’ or most efficient allocation <strong>of</strong> resources is<br />
one that maximizes economic returns, calculations <strong>of</strong> the returns to different land, resource and<br />
investment options have for the most part failed to deal adequately with wetland values.<br />
Investment appraisals <strong>of</strong> dams do not usually consider the economic costs attached to modifying<br />
downstream river flows and hydrology, the economic impacts <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> wetland resources tends<br />
not to be factored into calculations <strong>of</strong> the potential pr<strong>of</strong>itability <strong>of</strong> land reclamation or conversion<br />
schemes, cost-benefit analyses <strong>of</strong> infrastructure projects have rarely incorporated estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental benefits and costs (Emerton, 2003). Decisions have tended to be made on the basis<br />
<strong>of</strong> only partial information and have thus favoured short-term (and <strong>of</strong>ten unsustainable)<br />
development imperatives, or led to conservation regimes that generate few financial or economic<br />
benefits. In the absence <strong>of</strong> information about wetland values, substantial misallocation <strong>of</strong><br />
resources has occurred and gone unrecognised (Emerton, 2003) and immense economic costs<br />
have <strong>of</strong>ten been incurred. <strong>Economic</strong> valuation can provide a powerful tool for placing wetlands<br />
on the agenda <strong>of</strong> conservation and development decision-makers. Its basic aim is to determine<br />
2
people’s preferences: how much they are willing to pay for wetland goods and services, and how<br />
much better or worse <strong>of</strong>f they they would consider themselves to be as a result <strong>of</strong> changes in their<br />
supply.<br />
Such concerns have led to an explosion <strong>of</strong> efforts to value natural ecosystems and the services<br />
they provide (Emerton, 2003). <strong>Valuation</strong> studies have considerably increased our knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />
the value <strong>of</strong> ecosystems. <strong>Economic</strong> valuation can provide a powerful tool for placing wetlands on<br />
the agendas <strong>of</strong> conservation and development decision makers. <strong>Economic</strong> valuation also aims to<br />
quantify the benefits (both marketed and non-marketed) that people obtain from the wetland<br />
ecosystem services. This makes them comparable with other sectors <strong>of</strong> the economy, when<br />
investments are being appraised, activities are planned, policies are formulated, or land and water<br />
resource use decisions are made. It provides analytical basis for considering trade- <strong>of</strong>fs and<br />
making management decisions that better support public welfare and aspirations. More important,<br />
it is enables decision-makers and the public to evaluate the full economic costs and the benefits <strong>of</strong><br />
any proposed change in a wetland. A better understanding <strong>of</strong> the economic value <strong>of</strong> wetlands<br />
enables them to be considered as economically productive systems, a long side other possible<br />
uses <strong>of</strong> land, resources and funds. <strong>Valuation</strong> techniques are increasingly being used to generate<br />
practical management and policy information.<br />
An important objective <strong>of</strong> wetland valuation is to provide an improved basis for designing land<br />
and resource use policies and management systems (Barendregt et al 1998). Despite the steps<br />
forward that have been made in calculating and expressing the value <strong>of</strong> wetland goods and<br />
services, a major challenge remains − to ensure that the results <strong>of</strong> these studies, and the figures<br />
they generate, are actually fed into decision-making processes and used to influence conservation<br />
and development agendas.<br />
1.2 Rationale for evaluating benefits <strong>of</strong> wetland ecosystem conservation (adapted<br />
from De Groot, et al. 2006)<br />
More and better information on the socio-cultural and economic benefits <strong>of</strong> ecosystem<br />
services is needed to:<br />
i. Demonstrate the contribution <strong>of</strong> wetlands to the local, national and global<br />
economy (and thus build local and political support for their conservation and<br />
sustainable use);<br />
ii. Convince decision-makers that the benefits <strong>of</strong> conservation and sustainable use <strong>of</strong><br />
wetlands usually outweigh the costs and explain the need to better factor wetlands<br />
in to development planning (through more balanced cost-benefit analysis);<br />
iii. Identify the users and beneficiaries <strong>of</strong> wetland services to attract investments and<br />
secure sustainable financial streams and incentives for the maintenance, or<br />
restoration, <strong>of</strong> these services (i.e. make users pay and ensure that local people<br />
receive a proper share <strong>of</strong> the benefits); and<br />
iv. Increase awareness about the many benefits <strong>of</strong> wetlands to human well-being and<br />
ensure that wetlands are better taken in to account in economic welfare indicators<br />
(e.g., in Gross National Product (GNP) calculations) and pricing mechanisms<br />
(through internalization <strong>of</strong> externalities).<br />
3
1.3 The objectives <strong>of</strong> the study<br />
Overall objective<br />
The overall objective is to estimate the annual Total <strong>Economic</strong> Value (TEV) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong><br />
wetland system in its present form i.e., to determine the total contribution <strong>of</strong> the ecosystem to the<br />
local or national economy and human well-being.<br />
The specific objectives <strong>of</strong> the economic valuation study were:<br />
i. To identify and quantify the benefits (both marketed and non-marketed) that people<br />
obtain from <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland ecosystem<br />
ii.<br />
iii.<br />
iv.<br />
To assign monetary values to identified ecosystem goods and services produced by<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system.<br />
To determine the annual TEV <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> bay wetland ecosystem in its present form.<br />
Determine the opportunity costs <strong>of</strong> conserving <strong>Mabamba</strong> bay wetland in terms <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
foregone and other economic activities<br />
4
2.1 <strong>Wetland</strong> conservation benefits<br />
Chapter 2: Literature review<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong> ecosystems, including rivers, lakes, marshes, rice fields, and coastal areas, provide many<br />
services that contribute to human well-being and poverty alleviation. Some groups <strong>of</strong> people,<br />
particularly those living near the wetlands, are highly dependent on these services and are directly<br />
harmed by their degradation (MA, 2005). <strong>Wetland</strong> services with strong linkages to human wellbeing<br />
include:<br />
Fish supply and water availability: Two <strong>of</strong> the most important wetland ecosystem services<br />
affecting human well-being involve fish supply and water availability. Inland fisheries are <strong>of</strong><br />
particular importance in developing countries, and are the primary source <strong>of</strong> animal protein to<br />
which rural communities have access. <strong>Wetland</strong>-related fisheries also make important<br />
contributions to local and national economies. Capture fisheries in coastal waters alone contribute<br />
$34 billion to growth world product annually. The principle supply <strong>of</strong> renewable fresh water for<br />
human use comes from an array <strong>of</strong> inland wetlands, including lakes, rivers, swamps, and<br />
swallows ground water aquifers. Groundwater, <strong>of</strong>ten recharged through wetlands, plays an<br />
important role in water supply, with an estimated 1.5-3 bilion people dependent on it as a source<br />
<strong>of</strong> drinking water.<br />
Water purification and detoxification <strong>of</strong> wastes: <strong>Wetland</strong>s, and in particular marshes, play a major<br />
role in treating and detoxifying a variety <strong>of</strong> waste products. Some wetlands have been found to<br />
have been found to reduce the concentration <strong>of</strong> nitrate by more than 80%. <strong>Wetland</strong>s also provide<br />
a vitally important, water treatment and purification (MA 2005). Large amounts <strong>of</strong> water enter the<br />
wetlands. The waste include: detergents, hidoricents, oil, acids, nitrates, phosphates and heavy<br />
metals. The wetlands treat and purify this water before it is passed onto the lake or connecting<br />
river (NEMA, 2007). <strong>Wetland</strong>s also provide important water purification services. Most urban<br />
populations in Uganda lack water-borne sewage systems and domestic wastes <strong>of</strong>ten flow directly<br />
into swamps and wetlands. It is estimated that at least 725,000 people rely on wetlands for waste<br />
retention and purification, including populations in Kampala, Bushenyi and Masaka Towns<br />
wetlands (MWLE, 2001). The value <strong>of</strong> wetland water purification and waste treatment services<br />
can be at least partially valued by looking at their replacement by other means. The cost <strong>of</strong><br />
establishing and maintaining a 4,000 m 3 sewage treatment pond, serving some 25,000 people is<br />
some US$ 0.15 million a year (Emerton et al, 1999). This translates into a total annual value for<br />
wetlands water purification services in terms <strong>of</strong> replacement cost avoided <strong>of</strong> some US$ 4.77<br />
million a year<br />
Climate regulation: One <strong>of</strong> the most important roles <strong>of</strong> wetlands may be in the regulation <strong>of</strong><br />
global climate change through sequestering and releasing a major proportion <strong>of</strong> fixed carbon in<br />
the biosphere. For example although covering only an estimated 3-4% <strong>of</strong> the world’s land area,<br />
peatlands are estimated to hold 540 gigatons <strong>of</strong> carbon, representing about 1.5% <strong>of</strong> the estimated<br />
global carbon storage and about 25-30% <strong>of</strong> what contained in terrestrial vegetation and soils<br />
(MA, 2005). <strong>Wetland</strong>s play a sometimes crucial role in regulating exchanges to/from the<br />
atmosphere <strong>of</strong> the naturally-produced gases involved in “greenhouse” effects, namely water<br />
vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (all associated with warming) and sulphur dioxide<br />
(associated with cooling). They tend to be sinks for carbon and nitrogen, and sources for methane<br />
and sulphur compounds, but situations vary widely from place to place, from time to time, and<br />
between (Pritchard, 2009)<br />
5
Mitigation <strong>of</strong> climate change impacts: Sea level rises and increases in storm surges associated<br />
with climate change will result in the erosion <strong>of</strong> shores and habitat, increased salinity <strong>of</strong> estuaries<br />
and freshwater aquifers, altered tidal ranges in rivers and bays, changes in sediment and nutrient<br />
transport, and increased coastal flooding and in turn, could increase the vulnerability <strong>of</strong> some<br />
coastal populations. <strong>Wetland</strong>s such as mangroves and floodplains can play a critical role in the<br />
physical buffering <strong>of</strong> climate change impacts.<br />
Cultural services: <strong>Wetland</strong>s provide significant aesthetic, educational, cultural and spiritual<br />
benefits, as well as a vast array <strong>of</strong> opportunities for recreation and tourism. Recreational fishing<br />
can generate considerable income: 35-45 million people take part in recreational fishing (inland<br />
and salt water) in the United States, spending a total <strong>of</strong> $24-37 billion each year on their hobby<br />
(MA, 2005). Much <strong>of</strong> the economic value <strong>of</strong> coral reefs – with net benefits estimated at nearly<br />
$30 billion each year – is generated from nature-based tourism, including scuba diving and<br />
snorkelling.<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> food, fiber, fuel and construction materials: Over 30,000 km 2 <strong>of</strong> Uganda is under<br />
seasonal or permanent wetlands. A wide variety <strong>of</strong> wetland plant species are harvested by<br />
adjacent human populations for food, medicine, construction material and handicraft production.<br />
Each hectare <strong>of</strong> papyrus swamp yields 20 tones <strong>of</strong> dry papyrus culm a year (Emerton et al., 1999 )<br />
with a market price for construction materials <strong>of</strong> USh 54/kg (US$ 0.036/Kg) giving a minimum<br />
value <strong>of</strong> papyrus utilization for Uganda <strong>of</strong> just under USh 6 billion (US$ 4 Million) a year.<br />
Natural vegetation in wetlands and floodplains also provides an important source <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>f-farm<br />
pasture, fodder and forage as dry season grazing for livestock Emerton et al, 1999 estimate the<br />
dry season grazing <strong>of</strong> wetlands vegetation in Uganda to be a total value in excess <strong>of</strong> UShs 18<br />
billion (US$ 12 million) a year in terms <strong>of</strong> contribution to livestock production. In Apac district,<br />
Uganda, the most common type <strong>of</strong> fish includes catfish, lung fish, tilapia and clarias observed in<br />
major wetlands. Fishing, especially <strong>of</strong> tilapia is common in all wetlands <strong>of</strong> the district with the<br />
greatest activity in the permanent wetlands.<br />
Water retention and purification by wetlands: <strong>Wetland</strong>s generate a wide range <strong>of</strong> indirect benefits<br />
through water recharge and storage, sediment trapping, nutrient cycling and water purification<br />
functions. <strong>Wetland</strong> ecosystem services also maintain and support <strong>of</strong>f-site water dependent<br />
consumption and production activities, including downstream resource utilization, industry and<br />
urban settlement. <strong>Wetland</strong>s water recharge, storage and productivity services permit on-site<br />
economic activities in addition to those which depend directly on the harvesting <strong>of</strong> wild<br />
resources, most importantly crop production. This crop output reflects wetland water retention<br />
and productivity maintenance services. The value <strong>of</strong> wetlands ecosystem functions as reflected in<br />
agricultural production is worth some US$ 44,000 (Emerton et al, 1999).<br />
Hydrological services: <strong>Wetland</strong>s deliver a wide range <strong>of</strong> hydrological services – for instance,<br />
swamps, lakes, and marshes assist with flood mitigation, promote ground water recharge, and<br />
regular river flows – but the nature and value <strong>of</strong> these services differs across wetland types.<br />
Mitigating floods: Many wetlands diminish the destructive nature <strong>of</strong> flooding, and the loss <strong>of</strong><br />
these wetlands increases the risks <strong>of</strong> floods occurring. <strong>Wetland</strong>s such as flood plains, lakes, and<br />
reservoirs are the main providers <strong>of</strong> flood attenuation potential in inland water systems. Nearly 2<br />
billion people live in areas <strong>of</strong> high flood risk – a risk that will be increased if wetlands are lost or<br />
degraded (MA 2005). Coastal wetlands, including coastal barrier islands, coastal rive floodplains,<br />
and coastal vegetation, all play an important role in reducing the impacts <strong>of</strong> flood waters<br />
produced by coastal storm events.<br />
6
Table 2-1: Summary <strong>of</strong> Ecosystem services derived from or provided by wetlands<br />
Services<br />
Comments and Examples<br />
a. Provisioning: products obtained from ecosystems<br />
Food<br />
production <strong>of</strong> fish, wild game, fruits, and grains<br />
Fresh water<br />
Fiber and fuel<br />
storage and retention <strong>of</strong> water for domestic,<br />
industrial, and agricultural use<br />
production <strong>of</strong> logs, fuel wood, peat, fodder<br />
Biochemical<br />
extraction <strong>of</strong> medicines and other materials<br />
from biota<br />
Genetic materials<br />
genes for resistance to plant pathogens,<br />
ornamental species, and so on<br />
b. Regulating: benefits obtained from regulation <strong>of</strong> ecosystem processes<br />
Climate regulation<br />
source <strong>of</strong> and sink for greenhouse gases;<br />
influence local and regional temperature,<br />
precipitation, and other climatic processes<br />
Water regulation (hydrological flows) groundwater recharge/discharge<br />
Water purification and waste treatment<br />
Erosion regulation<br />
Natural hazard regulation<br />
Pollination<br />
retention, recovery, and removal <strong>of</strong> excess<br />
nutrients and other pollutants<br />
retention <strong>of</strong> soils and sediments<br />
flood control, storm protection<br />
habitat for pollinators<br />
c. Cultural: non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems<br />
Spiritual and inspirational<br />
source <strong>of</strong> inspiration; many religions attach<br />
spiritual and religious values to aspects <strong>of</strong><br />
wetland ecosystems<br />
Recreational<br />
opportunities for recreational activities<br />
Aesthetic<br />
many people find beauty or aesthetic value in<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> wetland ecosystems<br />
Educational<br />
opportunities for formal and informal education<br />
and training<br />
d. Supporting: services necessary for the production <strong>of</strong> all other ecosystem services<br />
Soil formation<br />
sediment retention and accumulation <strong>of</strong> organic<br />
matter<br />
Nutrient cycling<br />
storage, recycling, processing, and acquisition<br />
<strong>of</strong> nutrients<br />
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: <strong>Wetland</strong>s<br />
and water.<br />
7
Total <strong>Economic</strong> Value: a framework for defining wetland economic benefits<br />
One reason for the persistent under-valuation <strong>of</strong> wetlands is that, traditionally, concepts <strong>of</strong><br />
economic value have been based on a very narrow definition <strong>of</strong> benefits. Economists have seen<br />
the value <strong>of</strong> natural ecosystems only in terms <strong>of</strong> the raw materials and physical products that they<br />
generate for human production and consumption, especially focusing on commercial activities<br />
and pr<strong>of</strong>its. These direct uses however represent only a small proportion <strong>of</strong> the total value <strong>of</strong><br />
wetlands, which generate economic benefits far in excess <strong>of</strong> just physical or marketed products<br />
(Emerton, 2003). The concept <strong>of</strong> total economic value has now become one <strong>of</strong> the most widely<br />
used frameworks for identifying and categorizing ecosystem benefits (Barbier et al 1997). Instead<br />
<strong>of</strong> focusing only on direct commercial values, it also encompasses the subsistence and nonmarket<br />
values, ecological functions and non-use benefits associated with wetlands. As well as<br />
presenting a more complete picture <strong>of</strong> the economic importance <strong>of</strong> wetlands, it clearly<br />
demonstrates the high and wide-ranging economic costs associated with their degradation, which<br />
extends beyond the loss <strong>of</strong> direct use values.<br />
According to Pearce et al, 1994, conceptually Total <strong>Economic</strong> Value (TEV) <strong>of</strong> an environmental<br />
resource consists <strong>of</strong> its use value (UV) and non-use value (NUV). A use value is much as it<br />
sounds – a value arising from actual use made <strong>of</strong> a given resource. This might be the use <strong>of</strong> a<br />
wetland for recreation or fishing and so on. Use values are further divided in to direct use values<br />
(DUV), which refer to actual uses such as fishing, hunting, water extraction, harvesting <strong>of</strong><br />
papyrus plants etc; indirect use values (IUV), which refer to the benefits derived from ecosystem<br />
functions such as the wetlands function in regulating hydrological flows; and option values (OV),<br />
which is a value approximating an individual’s willingness to pay to safeguard an asset for the<br />
option <strong>of</strong> using it at a future date. This is like an insurance value. Non-use values (NUV) are<br />
slightly more problematic in definition and estimation, but are more usually divided between a<br />
bequest value (BV) and an existence or ‘passive use value (XV). Bequest value measures the<br />
benefits accruing to any individual from the knowledge that others may benefit from a resource in<br />
future. Existence values are unrelated to current use or option values, deriving simply from the<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> any particular asset. An individual’s concern to protect, say, the rare shoe-bill stork<br />
although he or she has never seen one and is never likely to, could be an example <strong>of</strong> existence<br />
value. Thus in total we have:<br />
TEV = UV + NUV = (DUV + IUV + OV) + (XV + BV)<br />
The total economic valuation framework, as applied to wetlands, is illustrated in Table 2.2<br />
8
Table 2-2: Classification <strong>of</strong> total economic values for wetlands<br />
Use Values<br />
Non-Use Values<br />
Direct values Indirect values Option values Non-use values<br />
production and<br />
consumption<br />
goods and services<br />
such as . . .<br />
ecosystem functions<br />
and<br />
services<br />
such as . . .<br />
premium placed on<br />
possible future uses<br />
and<br />
applications<br />
intrinsic significance<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> . . .<br />
such as . . .<br />
• fish<br />
• fuelwood<br />
• building poles<br />
• sand, gravel, clay<br />
• thatch<br />
• water<br />
• wild foods<br />
• medicines<br />
•agriculture/cultivation<br />
• pasture/grazing<br />
• transport<br />
• recreation<br />
• water quality<br />
• water flow<br />
• water storage<br />
• water purification<br />
• water recharge<br />
• flood control<br />
• storm protection<br />
• nutrient retention<br />
• micro-climate<br />
regulation<br />
• shore stabilization<br />
• pharmaceutical<br />
• agricultural<br />
• industrial<br />
• leisure<br />
• water use<br />
• cultural value<br />
• aesthetic value<br />
• heritage value<br />
• bequest value<br />
• existence value<br />
Source: MWLE, <strong>Wetland</strong> Strategic Plan, 2001-2010, Kampala, Uganda.<br />
2.2 <strong>Economic</strong> costs associated with wetland conservation<br />
Despite its high value, biodiversity conservation also gives rise to economic costs as well as<br />
requiring expenditures on the physical inputs associated with resource and ecosystem<br />
management, biodiversity incurs costs because it precludes or interferes with other economic<br />
activities. The economic costs can be:<br />
Management expenditures: This includes direct costs <strong>of</strong> implementing conservation measures<br />
such as staff, equipment, infrastructure, running costs and other physical inputs associated with<br />
managing biodiversity. They are incurred to government agencies, non-governmental<br />
organizations, community members and external donors<br />
Opportunity costs: Conserving ecosystems and the goods and services they provide may also<br />
involve foregoing certain uses <strong>of</strong> these ecosystems, and the benefits that would have been derived<br />
from those uses. Not converting a wetland ecosystem to agriculture, for example, preserves<br />
certain valuable ecosystem services that wetlands may provide better than farmland, but also<br />
prevents us from enjoying the benefits <strong>of</strong> agricultural production.<br />
Opportunity costs represent the income and other benefits foregone from land use, investment and<br />
development opportunities precluded or diminished by the need to maintain biodiversity. These<br />
include unsustainable resource and land utilization activities, production processes and<br />
technologies which harm or deplete biodiversity and alternative investments <strong>of</strong> funds allocated to<br />
biodiversity management. The opportunity costs <strong>of</strong> biodiversity can be in terms <strong>of</strong> agricultural<br />
production benefits foregone in protected areas in a year.<br />
9
Losses to other economic activities: represent the damage caused by biodiversity to human<br />
populations, production and consumption. They include damage, death and injury to humans,<br />
crops and livestock from wild animals, disease and other components <strong>of</strong> biodiversity which are<br />
harmful to or interfere with production and consumption processes. Damage caused to<br />
agriculture from wild animals comprises a major economic cost associated with Uganda’s<br />
biodiversity. Crop damage rates attributed to wildlife have been estimated to average some USh<br />
116 million per km <strong>of</strong> boundary for major protected areas in Uganda (Howard 1995, updated to<br />
1998 prices), giving a total economic cost in excess <strong>of</strong> USh 97 billion a year.<br />
2.3 Reasons why wetlands are still under-valued and over-used (adapted from<br />
Vorhies 1999; Stuip et al. 2002)<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong> values are <strong>of</strong>ten not taken in to account properly or fully in decision making, or are only<br />
partially valued, <strong>of</strong>ten leading to degradation or even destruction <strong>of</strong> a wetland.<br />
Market failure: public goods: Many <strong>of</strong> the ecological services, biological resources and amenity<br />
values provided by wetlands have the qualities <strong>of</strong> a public good; i.e. many wetland services are<br />
seen as ‘’free’’ and are thus not accounted for in the market (e.g., water-purification or floodprevention).<br />
Market failures: externalities: Another type <strong>of</strong> market failure occurs when markets do not reflect<br />
the full social costs or benefits <strong>of</strong> a change in availability <strong>of</strong> a good or a service (so-called<br />
externalities. For example, the price <strong>of</strong> agricultural products obtained from drained wetlands do<br />
not fully reflect the costs, in terms <strong>of</strong> pollution and lost wetland services, which are imposed upon<br />
society by the production process.<br />
Perverse incentives: (e.g., taxes/subsidies stimulating wetland over-use). Many policies and<br />
government decisions provide incentives for economic activity that <strong>of</strong>ten unintentionally work<br />
against the wise use <strong>of</strong> wetlands, leading to resource degradation and destruction rather than<br />
sustainable management (Vorhies 1999). An example might be subsidies for shrimp farmers<br />
leading to mangrove destruction.<br />
Unequal distribution <strong>of</strong> costs and benefits: Usually, those stakeholders who benefit from an<br />
ecosystem service, or its over-use, are not the same as the stakeholders who bear the cost. For<br />
example when a wetland is affected by pollution <strong>of</strong> the upper catchment by the run<strong>of</strong>f from<br />
agricultural land, the people living downstream <strong>of</strong> the wetland could suffer from this. The<br />
resulting loss <strong>of</strong> value (e.g., health, income) is not accounted for and the downstream stakeholders<br />
are generally not compensated for the damages they suffer (Stuip et al. 2002)<br />
No clear ownership: Ownership <strong>of</strong> wetlands can be difficult to establish. <strong>Wetland</strong>s ecosystems can<br />
be difficult to establish. <strong>Wetland</strong> ecosystems <strong>of</strong>ten do not have clear natural boundaries and, even<br />
when natural boundaries can be defined, they may not correspond with an administrative boundary.<br />
Therefore, their bounds <strong>of</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> a government organization cannot be easily allocated<br />
and user values are not apparent to decision makers.<br />
Devolution <strong>of</strong> decision-making away from local users and managers: Failure <strong>of</strong> decision-makers<br />
and planners to recognize the importance <strong>of</strong> wetlands to those who rely on them, either directly or<br />
indirectly.<br />
10
2.4 Solutions to correct externalities; and incentives to support the<br />
conservation and sustainable use <strong>of</strong> biodiversity<br />
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): Payments PES schemes have received considerable<br />
attention as a new way <strong>of</strong> approaching conservation. PES schemes are based on the principle that<br />
biodiversity provides a number <strong>of</strong> economically significant services: payments and funding<br />
should be therefore devoted to protecting biodiversity, thereby ensuring the continued provision<br />
<strong>of</strong> these services. The ecosystem services that have received the most attention are watershed<br />
protection and carbon sequestration (NEMA, 2007). Other environmental services include the<br />
maintenance <strong>of</strong> biodiversity and landscape beauty. In PES, those who are responsible for ensuring<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> ecosystem services receive payment or compensation to encourage future provision<br />
<strong>of</strong> the ecosystem services; and those who benefit from the ecosystem services provide the revenue<br />
for the payments. Where the collection <strong>of</strong> this revenue is linked to a fee on the use <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ecosystem services – for example a fee on water use – this can also create incentives for more<br />
efficient use <strong>of</strong> resources. PES can be in form <strong>of</strong> making user payments to a water fund, which is<br />
allocated to watershed protection, watershed restoration activities, and compensation to forest<br />
owners.<br />
Access charges: Access charges are a form <strong>of</strong> payment for environmental services and are based<br />
on the same principle: those who benefit from an ecosystem make payments towards the<br />
conservation and protection <strong>of</strong> the ecosystem. In case the case <strong>of</strong> access charges, charges are<br />
levied directly on those who use or visit an ecosystem, <strong>of</strong>ten visitors to the protected area or<br />
region. The funds raised by access charges can be used directly for conservation purposes and to<br />
generate socio-economic benefits for local communities, thereby providing local communities<br />
with incentives to preserve biodiversity.<br />
Creating markets that support conservation: Creating markets that support conservation involves<br />
ensuring that the returns to ecologically sound economic activity are increased when compared to<br />
the returns to unsustainable activity. Market-based approaches seek to utilize markets to reward<br />
ecologically sound activity. Local communities typically receive little direct gain from<br />
biodiversity products and areas to <strong>of</strong>fset the financial costs and losses they incur. Establishing and<br />
developing markets, and targeting the residents <strong>of</strong> biodiversity areas as participants in these<br />
markets, can provide an important tool for increasing community economic gain and control over<br />
biodiversity. The creation <strong>of</strong> biodiversity markets, as well as development <strong>of</strong> alternatives to<br />
biodiversity depleting sources <strong>of</strong> income and subsistence, can simultaneously strengthen local<br />
livelihoods and set in place local incentives for conservation (Emerton et al. 1999). There is great<br />
potential for the development <strong>of</strong> various biodiversity markets in Uganda, and the inclusion <strong>of</strong><br />
local communities are primary participants and beneficiaries. Of particular importance are smallscale<br />
biological resource processing and value-added cottage industries, the promotion <strong>of</strong> locallysourced<br />
products such as supplies <strong>of</strong> food, labour and other services to larger-scale production<br />
and tourism ventures. The development <strong>of</strong> products, markets, income and employment<br />
opportunities as alternatives to biodiversity-depleting activities can also provide an important tool<br />
for biodiversity conservation.<br />
Property rights: An important reason why local communities are unwilling to conserve<br />
biodiversity, and fail to benefit from it, is because they are excluded from using or managing land<br />
and biological resources. Property rights address this problem and include the whole or partial<br />
transfer <strong>of</strong> ownership, tenure, management or use over biological resources, areas and aspects <strong>of</strong><br />
conservation. They deal with the fact that market failures lack <strong>of</strong> consideration <strong>of</strong> the value <strong>of</strong><br />
biodiversity in prices, markets and economic decisions is due in part to the absence <strong>of</strong><br />
11
transferable, well-defined and secure rights over land and biological resources. When property<br />
rights are established, biodiversity markets and scarcity prices should emerge, permitting the<br />
owners and users <strong>of</strong> biological resources to benefit from conservation or be forced to bear the<br />
implications <strong>of</strong> degradation (Emerton et al. 1999. In Uganda, Property rights in wildlife, forestry<br />
and wetland sectors take the form <strong>of</strong> joint management, utilisation and partnership arrangements.<br />
Property rights provide a powerful economic tool for biodiversity conservation.<br />
Fiscal measures: budgetary measures that raise and allocate taxes and subsidies (for example the<br />
return <strong>of</strong> hunting revenues and taxes, through the Treasury, to wildlife conservation activities in<br />
Tanzania. The Uganda National Environment Act, Cap 153 <strong>of</strong> 2000 provides for tax incentives to<br />
encourage good environmental behaviour, including the conservation <strong>of</strong> natural resources and the<br />
prevention or abatement <strong>of</strong> pollution. The Act also recognizes tax disincentives to deter bad<br />
environmental behaviour that leads to depletion <strong>of</strong> environmental resources or that cause<br />
pollution.<br />
Financial instruments: Forest and wildlife sectors in Uganda have recently been active in<br />
promoting community benefit sharing arrangements around protected areas, which are a form <strong>of</strong><br />
financial instrument. Uganda Wildlife Authority normally disburses 20% <strong>of</strong> park entrance fees to<br />
local governments surrounding the wildlife protected area as a statutory contribution towards<br />
supporting community development projects. Other instruments can be Trust Funds such as<br />
Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust Uganda, which is arranged in such<br />
way that 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> the trust fund is given to the communities to implement their development<br />
and conservation programmes (State <strong>of</strong> Environment Report for Uganda, 2006/2007)<br />
Bonds and deposit systems: measures that charge in advance against possible damage caused to<br />
biodiversity; for example the requirement in existing environmental legislation in Kenya,<br />
Tanzania and Uganda for refundable bonds to be paid before certain types <strong>of</strong> industrial<br />
developments are undertaken in environmentally sensitive areas (Emerton, et al. 1999). In<br />
Uganda, deposit bonds are paid by the operator <strong>of</strong> an activity or industrial plant as a security for<br />
good environmental practice.<br />
Environmental regulations: here the economic impact has to be estimated by the regulator.<br />
Usually this is done using cost-benefit analysis. For example, if pollution rises above the<br />
threshold prescribed, regulations such as fines and taxes are enforced. Command and control<br />
regulation <strong>of</strong>ten applies uniform emission limits on polluters, even though each firm has different<br />
costs for emission reductions.<br />
Influencing policies and plans: In deciding policies, plans and projects, governments weigh up<br />
the advantages and disadvantages <strong>of</strong> different options using a variety <strong>of</strong> tools, typically couched<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> the potential economic benefits <strong>of</strong> alternative options. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is<br />
a key tool used by governments and businesses as part <strong>of</strong> the assessment <strong>of</strong> whether to go a head<br />
with a proposed project or programme. By so doing, the benefits <strong>of</strong> and; economic impacts <strong>of</strong><br />
damage to biodiversity are considered. CBA analysis may demonstrate the overall negative<br />
economic impact <strong>of</strong> a proposed major infrastructure project and also; may provide guidance for<br />
decision-making on sustainable management <strong>of</strong> biodiversity rich areas and provide a basis for<br />
monitoring <strong>of</strong> socio-economic impacts <strong>of</strong> land use changes. Strategic Environmental Assessment<br />
(SEA) is a process for assessing the social and environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> broad policies and<br />
programmes. Undertaking an SEA for a major development programme or sectoral policy can<br />
ensure that environmental and sustainability concerns are fully incorporated in planning.<br />
12
Chapter 3: Description <strong>of</strong> the study site<br />
Overview<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> <strong>System</strong> is Ramsar Site No. 1638 and covers an area <strong>of</strong> 2,424hectares,<br />
32°14N’ – 32 o 27’E and 00 o 02’ – 00 o 12’N. It lies west <strong>of</strong> Entebbe International Airport along the<br />
Lake Victoria shores and south <strong>of</strong> central Uganda, 35 kms south west <strong>of</strong> Kampala, the capital city<br />
<strong>of</strong> Uganda. (Refer to figure 3.1) at an elevation <strong>of</strong> 1,150m above sea level. It is part <strong>of</strong> Waiya <strong>Bay</strong><br />
south west <strong>of</strong> Nakiwogo <strong>Bay</strong>. It is situated in Wakiso district in the sub-county <strong>of</strong> Kasanje.<br />
Within Kasanje sub-county, there are five parishes i.e. Bulumbu, Kasanje, Zziba, Sazzi and Bussi<br />
which surround <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system (see fig. 3.2).<br />
It was added on a List <strong>of</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong>s <strong>of</strong> International Importance in 2006 along side other 8<br />
Ugandan wetlands because <strong>of</strong> its immense biodiversity conservation values and its significant<br />
contribution to the livelihood <strong>of</strong> local people. It is an Important Bird Area and an extensive marsh<br />
stretching through a narrow and a long bay fringed with papyrus towards the main body <strong>of</strong> Lake<br />
Victoria. This site support an average <strong>of</strong> close to 190,000 birds and is part <strong>of</strong> the wetland system<br />
which hosts approximately 38% <strong>of</strong> the global population <strong>of</strong> Blue Shallow (Hirundo<br />
atrocaerulea), as well as globally threatened Papyrus Yellow Warbler and other birds <strong>of</strong> global<br />
conservation concern (Byaruhanga et al. 2005). It is a stopover for migratory birds and supports<br />
the existence <strong>of</strong> globally threatened birds. The site the only swamp close to Kampala where one<br />
can easily find the globally threatened Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) anytime <strong>of</strong> the day. The site<br />
also supports a lucrative fisheries activity and is a source <strong>of</strong> fish for home consumption and<br />
commercial use as well as <strong>of</strong> raw materials for local crafts, building materials, water for domestic<br />
and livestock use.<br />
Factors needing attention are dry season incursion in to the swamp by fishermen; hunting <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Sitatunga and bushbuck by local people, the proliferation <strong>of</strong> flower farms along the shores <strong>of</strong><br />
Lake Victoria and the use <strong>of</strong> agrochemicals which impact negatively on the biodiversity <strong>of</strong> this<br />
wetland system (Byaruhanga et al. 2005). Of recent, the ecological character and conservation<br />
values <strong>of</strong> this wetland have been threatened by sand mining activities.<br />
Climate<br />
According to the State <strong>of</strong> the Environment Report (2002), the system falls within the Lake<br />
Victoria climatic zone. The air currents such as the southeast and north east monsoons passing<br />
over Lake Victoria influence the climate <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetlands system. The system has<br />
distinct seasons, the rainy and dry season. The area receives bi-modal high rainfall ranging<br />
between 2000-2500mm. The wetland system experiences evapotranspiration ranging between<br />
1,450– 1,600mm (State <strong>of</strong> environment report 1998). The mean temperature is 17.4 C o and the<br />
maximum mean temperature is 26.7C o .<br />
Hydrology and hydrological values<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland borders the open waters <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria. The outflow for Lake Victoria<br />
is the Victoria Nile River. The Katonga River flows in to Lake Victoria from the western regions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the lake. <strong>Mabamba</strong> acts as a buffer for Lake Victoria. The system plays an important<br />
hydrological role for the waters entering Lake Victoria from the surrounding catchments by<br />
trapping incoming sediments and silt. The wetlands surrounding the <strong>Bay</strong> also act as flood control<br />
areas for the surrounding shoreline. The marshes are breeding grounds for fish. During the dry<br />
season, the system maintains a steady discharge <strong>of</strong> water and supplements the water supply <strong>of</strong><br />
Lake Victoria.<br />
13
Figure 3-1: Map <strong>of</strong> Uganda showing location <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> <strong>System</strong><br />
¤£ ¤£<br />
LWANGA<br />
MPIGI TC<br />
KILOKOLA<br />
MAZIBA<br />
BULWANYI<br />
GWATIRO<br />
KANYIKE<br />
MUNYIRA<br />
KYANJA<br />
KONKOMA<br />
MAKO<br />
SOKOLO<br />
LUGALA<br />
#S Kamengo<br />
KYALI<br />
KASANJE<br />
JUNGO<br />
KAMENGO<br />
BUTOOLO<br />
BULUMBU<br />
ZIBA<br />
SAZI<br />
LUWALA<br />
CENTRAL<br />
MUSA<br />
#S<br />
Entebbe<br />
Lake Victoria<br />
0 3 Kilometers<br />
LEGEND<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> bay<br />
¡¢¢¢¢<br />
N<br />
UGANDA<br />
AFRICA<br />
#S Trading centre<br />
Tropical High Forest<br />
Degraded Forest<br />
Permanently flooded woodland<br />
Bushland<br />
Permanently flooded grassland<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong><br />
Small - scale farming<br />
Large - scale farming<br />
Built-up Area<br />
Open Water<br />
£ £<br />
#<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> bay<br />
Lake<br />
Victoria<br />
¡¢¢¢¢ ¢¢¢¢<br />
Uganda<br />
#<br />
¢¢¢¢<br />
14
Figure 3-2: Map showing administrative units (Parishes and Villages) around<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> Ramsar Site<br />
15
Soil types<br />
The Pre-Cambrian Cenoizoic – Precambrian to recent rocks, underlie <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong><br />
<strong>System</strong>. The rocks give rise to ferrallitic soils, which have a dominant red colour. The soils are<br />
mainly sandy loams and sandy clay loams. According to Uganda Atlas (1997) the northern<br />
Victoria shoreline is underlain by Buganda-Toro system, which is the most extensive <strong>of</strong> the cover<br />
formations and occupies much <strong>of</strong> the south-central and westerly parts. Argillites predominate, but<br />
basal or near basal arsenites are important features. Locally as in the Busoga area, one finds thick<br />
amphibolites, which are derived from basaltic material. Large tracts <strong>of</strong> the system are gratinised;<br />
on the other hand low-grade phyllites also occur, towards Lake Victoria in the Southeast.<br />
Landforms<br />
The catchment is made <strong>of</strong> two geomorphic units, the Buganda surface (which dominates) and the<br />
miscellaneous alluvie (Aniku, 1996). The geomorphic units make up many <strong>of</strong> the peculiarities <strong>of</strong><br />
the landscape and soil patterns in the catchment. The catchment area for Lake Victoria is quite<br />
wide cutting across borders with numerous swamps, streams and rivers feeding in to lake.<br />
However, the catchment area within the Ugandan boundaries and directly linked to <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
encompasses the river Katonga basin to the west, and fringes <strong>of</strong> forest and savannah mosaics to<br />
the north <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria. The features <strong>of</strong> the catchment’s are relatively similar to those <strong>of</strong> the<br />
site.<br />
Biogeography<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> is situated in the Lake Victoria Regional mosaic biogeographic zone and exhibits a<br />
tropical climate. The predominant vegetation type is wooded savannah (state <strong>of</strong> the environment<br />
report 2002). It falls in the Lakes Kivu, Edwards, George and Victoria (and satellites lakes)<br />
Freshwater Ecoregion (from WWF’s ‘’Freshwater Ecoregions <strong>of</strong> Africa’’ classification).<br />
Vegetation<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> <strong>System</strong> is adjacent a Medium altitude moist semi-deciduous forest. It is a<br />
complex papyrus swamp connected to Makokobe, Kasa and Kasanga papyrus swamps. In the<br />
immediate surroundings one finds Savannah mosaics <strong>of</strong> Medium altitude moist evergreen forests<br />
(Piptadeniastrum – Albizia – Celtis). The major habitat types are open water, papyrus swamp,<br />
Marsh and Miscanthus swamp (Byaruhanga et al. 2005). It is part <strong>of</strong> Waiya <strong>Bay</strong> south west <strong>of</strong><br />
Nakiwogo <strong>Bay</strong>. The bay has patches <strong>of</strong> Nymphaea nouchali, Cladium mariscus and Cyperus<br />
papyrus which form the open water fringing vegetation and sometimes with drifting papyrus<br />
swamp islands. While C.papyrus dominates the swamp edges, it gives way to Miscanthidium<br />
violacea interspersed with Loudetia phragmatoides in the deeper water towards the open water.<br />
Water hyacinth, Eichornia crassipes is one <strong>of</strong> the common invasive plants to Lake Victoria<br />
flora. The marsh is dominated by Cyperus papyrus (papyrus plants) and Miscanthus spp<br />
occasioned with Loudetia phragmatoides. The bay has patches <strong>of</strong> Nymphaea nouchali, Cyperus<br />
mariscus and Cyperus papyrus that form the open water fringing vegetation, while C.papyrus<br />
dominates the swamp edges giving way to Miscanthus violaceus interspersed occasionally with<br />
Loudetia phragmatoides in the deeper water towards the open water.<br />
Mammals<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> bay hosts a number <strong>of</strong> small rodents but Tropical Vlei Rat, Otomys tropicalis has been<br />
recorded as rare in the <strong>Bay</strong>. Among the shrews are; Ugandan Lowland Shrew Crocidura selina,<br />
16
African Groove-toothed Rat, Mylomys dybowskii (or mill rat) have also been recorded as being<br />
uncommon. Other note worthy mammal species is Sitatunga or bushbuck (Tragelephus spekii)<br />
which is a swamp dwelling antelope (CITES App. III).<br />
Birds<br />
Over 190 different bird species are known from the swamp, among which are wetland-dependent<br />
and papyrus endemic species. Study <strong>of</strong> water birds <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria has revealed the presence <strong>of</strong><br />
several species <strong>of</strong> global conservation interest. <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland supports several globally<br />
threatened bird species. It supports the Blue Shallow, Hirundo atrocaerulea, which is globally<br />
vulnerable species (IUCN Red List). The site supports other globally threatened species <strong>of</strong> birds<br />
namely Shoebill, Balaeniceps rex (Vulnerable) and Papyrus Yellow Warbler, Chloroptera<br />
gracilirostris (Vulnerable). The site also supports White winged terns, Chlidonias leucoptrus<br />
(CMS app. II). Other species <strong>of</strong> conservation interest included in the East African Regional Red<br />
List <strong>of</strong> birds (Bennun and Njoroge, 1996) present in the system include the Spur winged geese<br />
(Plectropterus gambensis), Goliath Herons (Ardea goliath), Pigmy Geese (Nettapus auritus),<br />
African Jacana (Actophilornis africanus) and several lesser Jacana (Microparra capensis). The<br />
site also supports congregatory and migratory species namely Gull-billed Terns (Gelochelidon<br />
nilotica); Whiskered Terns (Chlidonias hybridus); White winged Black Terns, (Chlidonias<br />
leucopterus) and the Grey-headed Gulls (Larus cirrocephalus).<br />
Regular waterfowl counts coordinated by Nature Uganda and Uganda <strong>Wetland</strong> Inspection<br />
Division from 1999 to 2003 have revealed that <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system supports an<br />
average <strong>of</strong> 189,385 water birds (Byaruhanga et al. 2005)<br />
Fish<br />
Noteworthy fish species are Three Tilapiine species; Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus,<br />
Oreochromis leucosticus and Zilli’s Tilapia, Tilapia zillii were introduced in Lake Victoria in<br />
1950s, and Nile Perch, Lates niloticus during the 1960s. The extremely low levels <strong>of</strong> oxygen that<br />
characterise the dense interior <strong>of</strong> papyrus and Miscanthidium swamps may also limit exploitation<br />
by the Nile Perch since the species has a low tolerance to hypoxia. For that matter, <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
wetland supports fish species, which can occur in such conditions especially lungfish and clarius.<br />
Butterflies<br />
The collection <strong>of</strong> butterflies from <strong>Mabamba</strong> bay is enormous with over 200 species recorded.<br />
Abisara neavei, Acraea aganice, Acraea aurivilli, Acraea consanquinea, and Bicyclus sebetus are<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the very rare butterfly species that have been only recorded in <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong>.<br />
Demographic characteristics<br />
The population and housing Census figures <strong>of</strong> 2002 indicate that the five parishes bordering<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system has a population <strong>of</strong> 20,966 persons with a growth rate <strong>of</strong> 4.1%,<br />
women are 8,299 and men are 12,667. Population distribution is mainly concentrated along the<br />
roads, in trading centers, areas around fish landing sites and in the islands. The population density<br />
has reached almost 220.2% per square kilometer. Because <strong>of</strong> the escalating population the sub<br />
county is facing the following challenges i.e. Uncontrolled developments, pressure on the existing<br />
infrastructure and natural resources such as forests and wetlands,<br />
17
Table 3-1: Population per Parish by sex<br />
Parish. Male. Female. Total.<br />
Bulumbu. 1643 1628 3271.<br />
Kasanje. 2521 2108 4629<br />
Ssazi. 1828 1606 3434<br />
Zziba. 1154 1106 2260<br />
Bussi. 5521 1851 7372<br />
Total. 12667 8299 20966<br />
Source: Kasanje Sub-County council, Busiro county, Wakiso district, Three- year development<br />
plan (2008 – 2011)<br />
Fisheries Resources<br />
The fishing activity is important in the Sub-county as it is the only livelihood to the islanders for<br />
source <strong>of</strong> revenue and a high food value source. 65% <strong>of</strong> the people thrive on fish protein value.<br />
Lake fisheries is the most important as it employs about 9000 people in various activities <strong>of</strong> fish<br />
mongering, fishing, boat building, and repairs, local fish processors and other artisanal fishery<br />
activities (KSDP, 2008). Money earned a month from these activities is close to 10-20 millions.<br />
There are 13 landing sites <strong>of</strong> which Kyanvubbu, Gulwe, Kagulube, and Nagombe exist on the<br />
Ramsar Site. A number <strong>of</strong> farmers especially in Bussi Islands revamped their farms and some<br />
shifted to cultivation <strong>of</strong> other crops like pineapples to compensate for the fall in the fish catch.<br />
Livestock Resources<br />
Livestock rearing is restricted to cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. Since the livestock densities are<br />
very low, the district is implementing animal restocking interventions. As a result the indigenous<br />
cows and birds are increasing in number.<br />
Table 3-2: Population <strong>of</strong> livestock in parishes surrounding <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland<br />
Cattle<br />
Sheep<br />
Type<br />
Exotic<br />
Crosses<br />
Local<br />
Local<br />
Number/2001<br />
96<br />
256<br />
3063<br />
243<br />
Goats<br />
Local<br />
160<br />
Pigs<br />
Exotic<br />
73<br />
Local<br />
348<br />
Poultry<br />
Layers<br />
1457<br />
Broilers<br />
1220<br />
Local<br />
1280<br />
Source: Kasanje Sub-County council, Busiro count, Wakiso district, Three- year development<br />
plan (2008 – 2011)<br />
18
Land Tenure and Land Use<br />
According to the 1995 Constitution, the government <strong>of</strong> Uganda holds wetlands in trust for the<br />
people. The Government therefore owns the <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetlands system. In the surrounding<br />
areas, land ownership is mainly Mailo (a land tenure system where the registered land is held in<br />
perpetuity) and the Customary (a system <strong>of</strong> land tenure regulated by customary rules which are<br />
limited in their operation to a particular description or class <strong>of</strong> people) ownership. <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
wetlands are mainly used for fishing. The area is also used for both domestic and livestock water<br />
supply. <strong>Wetland</strong> plants from the area are used for crafts, a lucrative activity for the surrounding<br />
local communities. Forestry related activities are also predominant in the swamp forests. In the<br />
catchments around the wetland area, there is subsistence agriculture farming<br />
Local Government<br />
All communities in Uganda are organized in the five-tier local government system that starts at<br />
the village level (Local Council (LC) 1) and rises to the district level (LC 5). Councils at each<br />
level consist <strong>of</strong> elected representatives from local communities. Many functions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
government e.g. income tax collection, service provision and aspects <strong>of</strong> environmental<br />
management have been decentralized to the district level (LC 5) and Sub-county (LC 3)<br />
according to the Local Government Act (1997). <strong>Mabamba</strong> is situated entirely within one district<br />
(Wakiso) and is bounded by 5 parishes all in Kasanje Sub-county (Map 2). Kasanje Sub-county<br />
has fifty two Villages and nine parishes <strong>of</strong> Ssazi, Zibba, Kasanje, Jjungo, Bulumbu, Mako,<br />
Sokolo, Bussi and Zinga islands.The Sub-county local council is the highest political organ. It has<br />
an Executive Committee <strong>of</strong> 6 members headed by the LCIII Chairperson, who is the political<br />
head <strong>of</strong> the Sub-county. The council has a total number <strong>of</strong> 21 councilors who represent all<br />
parishes <strong>of</strong> the Sub-county, in addition to 2 youths, 11 Women and 2 People with Disabilities.<br />
The Sub-county Council is constituted into 5 Sectoral Committees which deliberates on policy<br />
matters and make recommendation to full council. The Parishes and villages have councils and<br />
executive committees, which coordinate the Sub-county development activities at that level.<br />
Management Authority<br />
According to the 1995 Constitution, the government holds wetlands in trust for the people <strong>of</strong><br />
Uganda. Functionally therefore, <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system is in the hands <strong>of</strong> the Central<br />
Government. The local Government Act devolved the wetland management to the District Local<br />
Governments. Therefore the management authority is Wakiso District Local Government.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> wetland conservation activities is under the District Environment Officer with<br />
the support <strong>of</strong> National Environment Management Authority and <strong>Wetland</strong>s Inspection Division.<br />
19
4.1 Household questionnaire survey<br />
Chapter 4: Methodology<br />
The study was conducted in the Parishes surrounding <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system based on the<br />
reasoning that the local communities who reside in those parishes are the one who coexist with<br />
the wetland most <strong>of</strong> the time. The parishes were Bussi, Zziba, Ssazi, Kasanje and Bulumbu<br />
parishes. A total <strong>of</strong> 16 villages located in those 5 parishes were covered. The survey lasted for 3<br />
months i.e. October – December 2008. Respondents were random chosen using stratified random<br />
sampling procedure. Only heads <strong>of</strong> households were interviewed on the premise that they make<br />
day to day decisions for the good <strong>of</strong> household members. Therefore the household meant a group<br />
<strong>of</strong> people living together and identifying the authority <strong>of</strong> one person the household head, who is<br />
also the decision-maker.<br />
Both open-ended and closed-ended questionnaire was used to interview 320 heads <strong>of</strong> households<br />
that were randomly selected. Data was collected on aspects such as demographic characteristics,<br />
socio-economic issues such as education and income levels, resources collected from wetlands,<br />
land tenure, crop raiding wild animals and so on.<br />
The objectives <strong>of</strong> the survey were to:<br />
• Gather quantitative economic data on household consumption <strong>of</strong> wetland ecosystem<br />
goods and services.<br />
• Assess the contribution <strong>of</strong> those products to the overall household income generation<br />
• Understand the proportion <strong>of</strong> the household income derived from wetland products<br />
through assessing household income.<br />
To achieve the above objectives, a structured survey questionnaire was developed to elicit<br />
quantitative and qualitative data (See appendix 1: Household survey questionnaire). The<br />
questionnaire consisted <strong>of</strong> open-ended and closed questions. At first a pilot survey was done in<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> Village to test the questionnaire for accuracy and validity. This allowed the opportunity<br />
to correct omissions, or ambiguous questions and to discover terms, the meaning <strong>of</strong> which were<br />
not clear to interviewees or enumerators. To obtain support and cooperation <strong>of</strong> the local<br />
community for the household survey, five enumerators/interviewers were recruited and trained<br />
from among local residents. The villages selected for interviews were those located adjacent to<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> Ramsar Site (as shown in figure 3.2). A total <strong>of</strong> 16 Villages in 5 parishes were covered.<br />
The sample unit <strong>of</strong> a study was a household. Each village (strata) was sampled as an independent<br />
administrative unit, out <strong>of</strong> which individual households would be randomly selected. A total <strong>of</strong><br />
320 households were interviewed out <strong>of</strong> 3,777 households as summarized in table 4.1.<br />
20
Table 4-1: Distribution <strong>of</strong> respondents by village<br />
Parishes Villages No. <strong>of</strong> households No. <strong>of</strong> households<br />
interviewed<br />
Bussi<br />
Seeta, Lubanga,<br />
1739 153<br />
Gulwe, Gombe,<br />
Bugela<br />
Zziba<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong>, Nakasozi, 452 61<br />
Lubya<br />
Ssazi Kikaya, Nangombe, 687 58<br />
Lulongo,<br />
Kasanje Bukalaza, Buyege 320 28<br />
Bulumbu Bugogo, Buyiga, 579 20<br />
Bubebere<br />
Total 3,777 320<br />
4.2 Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> Method (CVM)<br />
The CVM enables economic values to be estimated for a wide range <strong>of</strong> commodities not traded in<br />
markets. This method uses survey techniques to establish the value <strong>of</strong> goods and services that are<br />
not exchanged in the markets and therefore have no prices associated with them. The CVM<br />
involves asking a randomly chosen sample <strong>of</strong> people what they are willing-to-pay (WTP) for a<br />
clearly defined change in the provision <strong>of</strong> a good or service, or to prevent a change. It can be used<br />
to elicit what people are willing-to-accept (WTA) to forego a change or tolerate a change. The<br />
most commonly applied approach in the CVM is to interview people and ask them what they are<br />
WTP towards the preservation <strong>of</strong> the asset (Bolt, et al. 2005). Analysts can then calculate the<br />
average WTP <strong>of</strong> respondents and multiply this by the total number <strong>of</strong> people who enjoy the<br />
environmental site or asset in question to obtain an estimate <strong>of</strong> the total value which people have<br />
for the asset. The same analysis can performed for WTA. Bolt, et al. 2005) reports that CVM<br />
approach is advantageous because it can be used to elicit the values <strong>of</strong> resources that people will<br />
never personally utilize or visit.<br />
The CVM is used to estimate economic values for all kinds <strong>of</strong> ecosystem and environmental<br />
services. It can be use to estimate both use and non-use values, and is the most widely used<br />
method for estimating non-use values. It is also the most controversial <strong>of</strong> non-market valuation<br />
methods. The CVM involves directly asking people, in a survey, how much they are WTP for<br />
specific environmental services (Dennis et al. 2001). In some cases, people are asked the amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> compensation they would be WTA to give up a specific environmental service. It is called<br />
‘contingent’ valuation because people are asked to state their WTP, contingent on a specific<br />
hypothetical scenario and description <strong>of</strong> the environmental service. The CVM is referred to as<br />
‘’stated preference’’ method, because it asks people to directly state their values, rather than<br />
inferring values from the actual choices, as the ‘’revealed preference methods do.<br />
Given the above overview <strong>of</strong> CVM, a contingent valuation survey was therefore carried out to<br />
assess the monetary values <strong>of</strong> indirect, option, existence and bequest values. The contingent<br />
valuation survey elicited WTA and WTP from respondents contingent to a specific hypothetical<br />
scenario and description <strong>of</strong> the environmental service. The contingent valuation survey was part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the household survey study. The CVM questionnaire contained information the general<br />
conservation status <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> site and valuable ecological goods and services accruing from it<br />
to the beneficiaries. Explanation was also given to respondents about the proposed wetland<br />
management scheme that is intended at improving the quality, quantity and availability <strong>of</strong><br />
21
ecosystem services. Then a payment cards for WTA and WTP with different bids were presented<br />
to respondents for nomination <strong>of</strong> the bid value.<br />
4.2.1 Elicitation <strong>of</strong> WTA for loss <strong>of</strong> access to wetland goods and services<br />
A hypothetic market scenario was created and an explanation given to respondents (household<br />
heads) on the situation <strong>of</strong> the wetland. Using stratified sampling technique, respondents randomly<br />
chosen were <strong>of</strong>fered open bids and then asked to pick an amount <strong>of</strong> compensation per months<br />
they were WTA for the losses due to the restriction <strong>of</strong> access to wetlands services and goods. A<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 320 interviewees were asked, drawn from 16 villages at the periphery <strong>of</strong> the wetland.<br />
Only when No or zero bid was given, respondents were asked to give a reason for doing so.<br />
The hypothetical market scenario for WTA was framed as follows:<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland is a wetland <strong>of</strong> international importance, but also heavily used by<br />
residents. However, due to illegal uses and overuse, the wetland has deteriorated, and it is<br />
questionable whether the wetland will be able to provide many benefits to residents also in the<br />
future. Suppose therefore, that a new management scheme will be set up to secure the wetland<br />
that will be beneficial to residents and the wildlife now and in the future. In order to secure this,<br />
suppose that the wetland will be strictly managed with restrictions <strong>of</strong> access and use <strong>of</strong> resources<br />
(water, fish, papyrus plants, fuel wood, medicinal plant materials). Probably half <strong>of</strong> the resources<br />
you currently use will have to be purchased on local markets. But after one year when the<br />
conditions <strong>of</strong> the wetland have improved, you will be once again allowed to access all the<br />
wetland resources you depend on for your survival. The management would be set up according<br />
to international standards, and would be supervised by the Governments <strong>of</strong> Uganda as<br />
represented by Ministry <strong>of</strong> Water and Environment in collaboration with the World Conservation<br />
Union. A compensation scheme running for one year has been put in place to compensate you for<br />
the loss <strong>of</strong> livelihood you derive from this wetland<br />
a) If alternatives goods were available on local markets, how much money would you except as a<br />
minimal compensation per month for the losses due to the restriction <strong>of</strong> access to the wetlands, in<br />
order to compensate you for the foregone benefits <strong>of</strong> the wetland?<br />
22
Figure 4-1: Payment card for eliciting WTA for loss <strong>of</strong> access to wetland ecosystem<br />
services<br />
Amount <strong>of</strong> compensation per month (US$) for the losses due to the restriction <strong>of</strong> access to the<br />
wetlands, in order to compensate you for the foregone benefits<br />
Don’t know, no answer<br />
Zero<br />
5.6<br />
11.2<br />
16.7<br />
22.4<br />
27.8<br />
33.4<br />
38.9<br />
44.4<br />
50.0<br />
55.6<br />
61.1<br />
66.7<br />
72.2<br />
77.8<br />
83.3<br />
88.9<br />
94.4<br />
100.0<br />
105.6<br />
111.1<br />
116.7<br />
122.2<br />
More (please specify)<br />
N.B. at the time <strong>of</strong> the field study (October – November 2008), 1 US$ was being traded for<br />
1,800/= Uganda Shillings on the Ugandan foreign exchange market.<br />
b) if only no answer, why are you not willing to accept compensation?<br />
4.2.2 Elicitation <strong>of</strong> WTP for improved conservation and management <strong>of</strong> wetland<br />
services.<br />
A household survey was carried out using stratified sampling. During the survey, a randomly<br />
chosen sample <strong>of</strong> people were asked what they are WTP as a voluntary contribution towards<br />
maintenance and improvement <strong>of</strong> their wetland resources. WTP was determined using openended<br />
bid method. A hypothetical market scenario was set up and presented by the researcher to<br />
the respondents in a face to face interview. Before presenting the scenario to the interviewees, an<br />
adequate explanation was <strong>of</strong>fered on the wetland ecosystem goods and services and the likely<br />
change in their availability. Then respondents asked to nominate their bid from the open-ended<br />
amount given in the payment card. In case the respondent <strong>of</strong>fered a protest bid (answer either in<br />
form <strong>of</strong> don’t know or zero), he/she was asked to give a reason (s) for giving a protest bid. A total<br />
<strong>of</strong> 320 respondents were interviewed in 16 villages bordering the wetland.<br />
23
The hypothetical market scenario was designed as follows;<br />
Suppose that a locally run management scheme with international supervision was devised to<br />
maintain and improve your wetland resources i.e. ‘’double availability and security <strong>of</strong> wetland<br />
service provision’’ compared to today, so that you had more secure access to a better quantity<br />
and quality <strong>of</strong> wetland products and benefits e.g. easier access to water, fodder, fish etc.<br />
a) How much would you be willing to pay as a mandatory (voluntary) contribution (paid by all<br />
residents) devoted solely to a funding scheme for securing the success <strong>of</strong> wetland management<br />
per month?).<br />
Figure 4-2: Payment card for eliciting WTP to secure a better access to wetland<br />
products and services<br />
The maximum amount that you are prepared to pay per month in order to secure a better access to<br />
products and services from <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system (in US$)<br />
Don’t know, no answer<br />
Zero answer<br />
0.56<br />
0.83<br />
1.11<br />
1.4<br />
1.7<br />
1.9<br />
2.2<br />
3.1<br />
3.9<br />
5.6<br />
11.1<br />
16.7<br />
22.2<br />
27.8<br />
33.3<br />
38.9<br />
44.4<br />
50.0<br />
55.6<br />
More (please specify)…………………………….<br />
b) May you give me a reason as to why you are not willing to pay anything (only ‘’zero or No<br />
answer’’)?<br />
24
4.3 Benefit Transfer Method<br />
The benefit transfer method was used to estimate the economic values for some ecosystem<br />
services by transferring available information from studies already completed in another location<br />
and/or context. The carbon sequestration values <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> Ramsar Site were estimated by<br />
applying carbon sequestration values from a study conducted in another site. Thus, the basic goal<br />
<strong>of</strong> benefit transfer was to estimate benefits for one context by adapting an estimate <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
from some other context. Dennis et al. 2001 says that Benefit transfer is <strong>of</strong>ten used when it is too<br />
expensive and/or there is too litter time available to conduct an original evaluation study The<br />
benefit transfer method is most reliable when the original site and the study site are very similar<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> factors such as quality, location, and population characteristics; when the environment<br />
change is very similar for the two sites; and when the original valuation study was carefully<br />
conducted and used sound valuation techniques.<br />
4.4 <strong>Valuation</strong> using market prices<br />
Many goods and services from the wetland land uses are traded either, in local markets,<br />
internationally, including fish, sand, water, recreational etc. As one way <strong>of</strong> assigning monetary<br />
values to benefits derived from <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system, prices <strong>of</strong> fish, sand, sugarcanes<br />
and coco yams were derived within the market place through observing interactions between<br />
consumers and producers over the demand <strong>of</strong> goods and services or the researcher interacting<br />
with customers and producers with the intention <strong>of</strong> determining appropriate market price for<br />
various goods and services. Other means ways used to obtain the relevant market prices included<br />
visitor (tourism) statistics, financial receipts accruing from sand mining tenders and; consultations<br />
with Kasanje Sub-county <strong>of</strong>ficials and representative <strong>of</strong> Community-Based Tourism<br />
Associations. Using information derived from such sources, it was possible to derive prices that<br />
reflect the prevailing market value <strong>of</strong> the goods and services <strong>of</strong> wetland uses.<br />
4.5 Focus group discussions<br />
Group discussions provide access to a larger body <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> general community<br />
information (Mikkelsen, 1995). Group discussions enable quick access to many people and are<br />
also cheap and quick to conduct compared with individual interviews with the same number <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents. Mikkelson (1995) recommends groups <strong>of</strong> not more than 25 people since large<br />
groups become difficult to manage. According to Hesselink, 2008, in order to get a much better<br />
picture <strong>of</strong> the social and technical complexities in realizing the plan or start a joint fact finding<br />
and planning process, focus groups is one <strong>of</strong> the best methods. Focus groups are a means <strong>of</strong><br />
interviewing - in a very free way - a specific stakeholder group. The focus group usually consists<br />
<strong>of</strong> six to ten people, who are invited to spend a few hours with a skilled moderator. This is a<br />
communication expert who must be objective, knowledgeable on the issue and well versed in<br />
group dynamics and stakeholder behaviour. With this over view in mind, discussions were held at<br />
different dates and venues with: four Beach Management Units (representatives <strong>of</strong> fishing<br />
community), two Community-Based Tourism Organizations and two Water-Based Transporters<br />
Associations operating in and around <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland system. The aim <strong>of</strong> the discussions was<br />
to collect quantitative economic data and qualitative data about wetland products extracted, their<br />
prices, marketing chain, seasonal variability different kinds <strong>of</strong> products<br />
25
4.6 Researcher’s observations<br />
Observations were made by visiting sites with on-going and past evidence <strong>of</strong> utilization activities<br />
<strong>of</strong> wetland resources. Observations were made and recorded at sand excavation sites, community<br />
water sources and fish landing sites. Farmers gardens were visited to see interventions put in<br />
place to deter crop raiding wild animals and making general personal observations about the<br />
condition <strong>of</strong> the wetland resource. Observations were also made by systematically walking with<br />
informants and local leaders through the villages while observing, asking, seeking problems and<br />
solutions.<br />
4.7 Secondary data collection<br />
Literature search was done by reviewing policy documents, reports, students’ dissertations/theses<br />
and development plans with information relevant to management and conservation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
Ramsar Site. Information was obtained from Nature Uganda library, Kasanje Sub-county,<br />
Makerere University (Biodiversity Data Bank, Herbarium, botany department). Internet search<br />
was also carried out by visiting websites managed by international conservation organizations<br />
such as; Ramsar Sites Information Services which is run by wetlands international, Birdlife<br />
International and Wildlife Conservation Society and so on. Information was obtained in form <strong>of</strong><br />
maps, wetland information sheet, reports and electronic format.<br />
26
Chapter 5: Data analysis and results<br />
5.1 Data analysis<br />
The data was statistically analyzed using a computer program called Statistical Package for Social<br />
Sciences (SPSS). SPSS is among the most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social<br />
science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS). It is used by market researchers, health researchers,<br />
survey companies, government, education researchers, marketing organizations and others. Of<br />
relevant use in analysis was, descriptive statistics menu: Cross tabulation, Frequencies,<br />
Descriptives, Explore, Descriptive Ratio Statistics.<br />
5.2 Household characteristics<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 320 (N=320) households were visited for face-to-face interviews in the 16 villages<br />
around <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system representing 19,149 people. Table 5.1 shows the<br />
household structure, including the percentage <strong>of</strong> households headed by a man or woman, average<br />
household size, average age, the percentages in different occupations and education level <strong>of</strong> the<br />
household head for each <strong>of</strong> the corridors.<br />
Table 5-1: Household structure <strong>of</strong> people living adjacent to <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland<br />
Household head<br />
Male (%) 88<br />
Female (%) 12<br />
Average Household size 5<br />
Average age (Household heads)<br />
Male 36<br />
Female 30<br />
Occupation (%)<br />
Farming 68<br />
Fishing 12<br />
Retail trading 16<br />
Wage labour 3<br />
Salaried employee 1<br />
Annual average household income (US$) 276<br />
Education (%)<br />
No formal education 9.7<br />
Primary education 61.6<br />
Secondary education 27.5<br />
Tertiary education 1.25<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> data analysis revealed that most households were headed by males (88%) while<br />
12% <strong>of</strong> the households were led by females. The average household size was 5 people. The<br />
average age for men stood at 36 years compared to that <strong>of</strong> women which was 30 years, implying<br />
that the population is still young. Subsistence farming was found to be the major occupation with<br />
68% <strong>of</strong> the respondents engaged as farmers, and then retail trading came second with 16%,<br />
followed by fishing with 12%, then wage labour 3% and lastly salaried employees constituted 1%<br />
27
<strong>of</strong> the occupation. The annual average household income was estimated at US$276, indicating<br />
every household earns less US$ 1 per day and hence poor. From the table above, it can also be<br />
observed that the literacy levels are still very low. 9.7% <strong>of</strong> respondents said that they attained no<br />
formal education at all, while 61.6% at least acquired primary level education, 27.5% <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents completed secondary education and only a paltry 1.25% representing respondents<br />
who finished tertiary level education. Going by literacy levels, the majority <strong>of</strong> the respondents<br />
can at least read and write.<br />
5.3 Accessibility to water sources<br />
All respondents (100%) said that they obtain water on daily basis (all year around) for their<br />
domestic use from <strong>Mabamba</strong> Ramsar Site. All members <strong>of</strong> the household participate in water<br />
collection as follows: children (57%), wives (19%), and husbands (20%) and water<br />
vendors/labourers (4%). The mean water usage per household per week is 606 litres, which is an<br />
equivalent <strong>of</strong> 30 plastic cans. Plastic can is the widely used container in Uganda both by urban<br />
and rural areas to fetch and carry water from water sources. One plastic can has a carrying<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> 20 litres. Water sources around <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland site are in the types <strong>of</strong> protected<br />
springs, unprotected springs, shallow wells, boreholes, community wells and open water body<br />
(lake). All these water sources are located on the edges <strong>of</strong> the wetland because <strong>of</strong> the nearness <strong>of</strong><br />
the water aquifers to the ground surface. Water is collected mostly on a bicycle or by foot. Each<br />
water collector takes an average <strong>of</strong> 36 minutes per trip walking to a water source. All able bodied<br />
and grown up members <strong>of</strong> the household participate in water collection with wives and children<br />
play a more role than husbands.<br />
Table 5-2: Mean and total amount <strong>of</strong> water used per day and year<br />
Sample Mean HH Mean water No. Total amount <strong>of</strong> Total amount <strong>of</strong><br />
size water<br />
consumption<br />
consumption<br />
per person<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
HHs<br />
water utilized<br />
by all HHs per<br />
water utilized per<br />
annum<br />
per day<br />
day<br />
320 86.5 litres 17.1 litres 3,777 326,711litres 119,249,333litres<br />
Average water consumption was found to be around 17.1 litres/person/day) and with one<br />
household consuming 86.5 litres per day. Regarding drinking water quality, 17% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
interviewees said that water had drinking quality; while 71% respondents said water was <strong>of</strong> no<br />
drinking quality and therefore they had to boil it first before drinking; and then 12% respondents<br />
said water lacked drinking quality, so they had to subject it boiling and filtering in order to make<br />
it safe. Therefore 3, 777 households all put together utilize 326,711 litres <strong>of</strong> water per day, all<br />
sourced from the wetland. On yearly basis the total amount <strong>of</strong> water consumed is 119,249,333<br />
litres (119,249.333 cubic meters).<br />
5.4 Livestock ownership among households<br />
The survey found out livestock rearing as one <strong>of</strong> the activity undertaken by households much as it<br />
practiced on a very low scale. Table 5.3 below presents the type <strong>of</strong> livestock, number <strong>of</strong> livestock<br />
in the sampled households (N=320), the mean number <strong>of</strong> animals per household and total number<br />
<strong>of</strong> livestock in all households within 16 villages.<br />
28
Table 5-3: Mean and total number <strong>of</strong> livestock in villages around <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong><br />
wetland system<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> Mean No. livestock in No. <strong>of</strong> livestock in all %age livestock<br />
livestock per HH sampled HHs (N=320) HHs (N= 3,777) owned<br />
Goats 0.78 249 2,946 11.9<br />
sheep 0.12 38 453 1.83<br />
Pigs 0.82 262 3,097 12.51<br />
Poultry 3.23 1,032 12,200 49.27<br />
Cattle 1.60 511 6,063 24.5<br />
Total 24,759 100<br />
Livestock is one <strong>of</strong> the household held properties much as they are few in numbers. Poultry was<br />
found to be the most owned with 49.27%, followed by cattle, which stood at 24.5%, then pigs<br />
constituting 12.51% <strong>of</strong> the total livestock, then followed by goats with 11.9%. Sheep were the<br />
least owned with 1.83% <strong>of</strong> the total livestock<br />
5.5 Cultivation <strong>of</strong> cocoyams and sugarcanes<br />
Growing <strong>of</strong> yams at the edges <strong>of</strong> the wetland was only found to be restricted to Bussi parish and<br />
not in any <strong>of</strong> the other four parishes. 40% <strong>of</strong> the interviewees in Bussi parish said that they have<br />
gardens <strong>of</strong> cocoyams in or around the wetland. The mean number <strong>of</strong> cocoyam stems cultivated<br />
per household was calculated at 201 per year. As with cocoyam, subsistence growing <strong>of</strong><br />
sugarcanes seemed to be restricted to Bussi parish only as indicated by the results <strong>of</strong> data<br />
analysis. 12% <strong>of</strong> the respondents said that they were engaged in its cultivation. Each household in<br />
Bussi grows averagely 46 stems <strong>of</strong> sugarcanes per year in and at the edges <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland.<br />
Table 5-4: Number <strong>of</strong> cocoyam and sugarcane stems cultivated per annum in Bussi<br />
Parish<br />
Crops Sample Mean HH No. <strong>of</strong> stems No. <strong>of</strong> Total number <strong>of</strong> stems<br />
cultivated size per year<br />
HHs per year<br />
Yams 153 201 1,739 349,539<br />
Sugarcanes 153 46 1,739 79,994<br />
All households in Bussi parish cultivate 349,539 stems/corms <strong>of</strong> cocoyam year around as<br />
compared with a total <strong>of</strong> 79,994 sugarcane stems. One stem <strong>of</strong> cocoyam is taken to represent one<br />
underground corm produced.<br />
5.6 Fuel wood collection<br />
Fuel wood remains the main source <strong>of</strong> energy for domestic cooking, heating and lighting as<br />
revealed by 97.2% interviewees. It is sourced from private and communal forest reserves at the<br />
periphery <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland. Clearance <strong>of</strong> these forests for agriculture was noted. May be one<br />
way <strong>of</strong> curbing forest degradation is through creating economic incentives to motivate the private<br />
land owners to conserve them. Important to note is that these patches <strong>of</strong> forests are continuous<br />
with <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland site and are therefore supplementing biodiversity conservation efforts as<br />
they harbour resident populations <strong>of</strong> wildlife such bird species.<br />
29
Table 5-5: Bundles <strong>of</strong> firewood consumed by per household per week<br />
N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean<br />
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic<br />
Firewood 311 34 1 35 1191 3.83<br />
Mean household fuel wood consumption per week is four bundles/billets, all sourced outside<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland. However to note is that the size <strong>of</strong> fire wood billet varies from household to<br />
household and time to time.<br />
5.7 Human-wildlife conflicts<br />
Communities around <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland face problems caused by wild animals. The animals<br />
destroy crops and at the same time threaten human lives. The resultant loss <strong>of</strong> income by farmers<br />
breeds resentment to the wetland. 24% <strong>of</strong> the interviewees cited vervet monkeys, sitatunga,<br />
bushbucks, hippopotamus, and guinea fowl as most problematic wild animals. The animals raid<br />
gardens for crops while snakes threaten human life. Of these problem animals, only vervet<br />
monkeys are gazetted as vermin under section 58 <strong>of</strong> Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 153 <strong>of</strong> 2000 and<br />
local governments are responsible for their control with technical assistance from Uganda<br />
Wildlife Authority. These cited problem animals have preference for bananas, maize, cassava,<br />
Irish potatoes, pineapples and sweet potatoes. A number <strong>of</strong> measures to deter wide animals have<br />
been tried by communities such as guarding gardens, using dogs, using scarecrows and fencing<br />
gardens with nets.<br />
Figure 5.1: No. <strong>of</strong> complaints raised against problem<br />
animals<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> complaints<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
Series1<br />
Vervet monkeys<br />
Sitatunga<br />
Guineafowls<br />
Bushbuck<br />
Hippopotamus<br />
Snakes<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> problem animal<br />
30
5.8 Land resources<br />
The mean acreage <strong>of</strong> land held per household was found to be 1.10 ha in size. 90% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
respondents said they had land though 10% <strong>of</strong> respondents were found to be either living in<br />
rented houses or where landless. The major land uses included cultivation, small scale livestock<br />
rearing and human settlements. Most households revealed that they were integrating all their<br />
economic activities on small pieces <strong>of</strong> land.<br />
5.9 Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> results<br />
Indirect, Option and Non-Use Values; and opportunity costs were estimated using Contingent<br />
<strong>Valuation</strong> methodology. Open bids for WTA and WTP were elicited by stratified random<br />
sampling, where 320 households heads were interviewed face to face. The elicited bids were then<br />
entered in to SPSS spread sheets and analyzed for: minimum bid, maximum bid, sum, mean and<br />
mean standard deviation (std.) error as summarized in table 5.6 below. The payment was solicited<br />
in Uganda Shillings (UG.Shs.) and later on converted in to US Dollars. The prevailing Foreign<br />
Exchange rate in Uganda during the time <strong>of</strong> study (October- December 2008) was US$ = 1800<br />
UG.Shs.<br />
Table 5-6: Summary <strong>of</strong> descriptive statistics for household WTA and WTP (US$)<br />
per month<br />
CVM<br />
N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean<br />
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error<br />
WTA (US$) 320 2778 0 2,778 62,681 195.88 21.61<br />
WTP(US$) 320 1,111 0 1,111 2,314 7.23 3.56<br />
Figure 5.2: Trends in HH WTA (US$) per month<br />
160<br />
140<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> respondents<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
2800.0<br />
2600.0<br />
2400.0<br />
2200.0<br />
2000.0<br />
1800.0<br />
1600.0<br />
1400.0<br />
1200.0<br />
1000.0<br />
Std. Dev = 386.51<br />
Mean = 195.9<br />
N = 320.00<br />
200.0<br />
0.0<br />
800.0<br />
600.0<br />
400.0<br />
WTA (US$) per month<br />
31
Figure 5.3: Trends in HH WTP (US$) per month<br />
400<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> respondents<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
Std. Dev = 63.68<br />
Mean = 7.2<br />
N = 320.00<br />
0.0<br />
1100.0<br />
1000.0<br />
900.0<br />
800.0<br />
700.0<br />
600.0<br />
500.0<br />
400.0<br />
300.0<br />
200.0<br />
100.0<br />
WTP (US$) per month<br />
In figures 5.2 and 5.3, it can be deduced that the WTA was far higher than the WTP as evidenced<br />
by the mean household WTA value <strong>of</strong> US$195.9 per month and monthly mean household WTP<br />
<strong>of</strong> US$ 7.2. This is to say that the monthly mean household WTA was 22.2fold higher than the<br />
mean household WTP per month. These two concepts <strong>of</strong> benefit, WTP and WTA, should reveal<br />
the same values for the protected area. But empirical studies suggest this is not the case. It is<br />
generally believed that this is because people value the things they have more than those things<br />
they do not have. Therefore WTP is usually smaller than WTA.<br />
Protest bids<br />
‘’Protest’’bids are usually omitted from the calculation. Protest bids are zero bids given for<br />
reasons other than zero value being placed on the resource in question (Bolt, et al. 2005). For<br />
example, a respondent may refuse any amount <strong>of</strong> WTAWTP for the loss <strong>of</strong> a unique wetland<br />
resource or to have better future access to wetland services as they believe it is the government’s<br />
responsibility to protect it, or simply that they do not wish to take part in the survey. For these<br />
reasons, 29.4% <strong>of</strong> the respondents (N=320) expressed zero WTA value as compared to 30.31% <strong>of</strong><br />
the respondents who <strong>of</strong>fered zero WTP value. Various reasons for protest bids were advanced by<br />
the respondents as indicated in table 5.7<br />
32
Table 5-7: Summary <strong>of</strong> protect bids in response to WTA and WTP surveys<br />
Willingness to accept<br />
• Temptation to divert the compensation<br />
money to buy other personal needs instead<br />
<strong>of</strong> alternative ecosystem services for which<br />
for which compensation was made, hence<br />
causing welfare insecurity to some<br />
respondents.<br />
• Free water obtained from the wetland<br />
cannot be the same as that one purchased<br />
from the market. Herds <strong>of</strong> cattle can drink<br />
as much wetland water as they can unlike<br />
priced water on the market which may be<br />
limited by unavailability <strong>of</strong> funds.<br />
• The wetland is a God given resource. So<br />
there is no need to seek alternatives else<br />
where.<br />
• Other economic activities will be disrupted<br />
since seeking alternatives elsewhere<br />
requires a lot <strong>of</strong> time, efforts and a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
movements/travelling.<br />
• Fear for speculative prices on the market<br />
due to high demand <strong>of</strong> alternative to<br />
ecosystem services<br />
• We grew up in this village protecting this<br />
wetland but our efforts were not rewarded.<br />
Now it is the duty <strong>of</strong> the government to<br />
protect the wetland.<br />
• I already move a long distance to collect<br />
water for domestic use. WTA<br />
compensations mean that I move further.<br />
• Before expressing WTA, there is need <strong>of</strong><br />
knowing first locations <strong>of</strong> places or<br />
markets with alternatives to wetland<br />
ecosystem services.<br />
• The intention <strong>of</strong> this proposed management<br />
scheme is to put the wetland under strict<br />
management regimes that will deny us<br />
access to wetland.<br />
• I need a lot <strong>of</strong> time to compute the amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> compensatory payment<br />
• I carry out cultural hunting for wild meat<br />
(Sitatunga and wild pigs). This service is<br />
not available on the market.<br />
• Money arising from compensation may be<br />
less than market prices for alternatives<br />
• The alternatives to ecosystem services are<br />
not available on the market.<br />
• We need formal assurance that after one<br />
year <strong>of</strong> the management scheme we will be<br />
granted access to wetland ecosystem<br />
services<br />
Willing to pay<br />
• Before WTP is effected there is need know<br />
first the management activities <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed wetland management scheme<br />
• I will only pay after the local wetland<br />
management scheme has produced<br />
result/outcomes<br />
• Iam very poor to pay<br />
• Soliciting WTA is part <strong>of</strong> the attempt by<br />
Government to introduce and levy user<br />
fees on wetland services and goods.<br />
• Residents have the right to use the wetland<br />
and should not be asked to pay for it<br />
• I will only contribute in kind (labour)<br />
• I will only give a vote <strong>of</strong> thanks for the<br />
work well done but not make a voluntary<br />
contribution<br />
• I cannot make any financial contribution<br />
because Iam poor, too old and weak<br />
33
Chapter 6: Discussion<br />
6.1 <strong>Economic</strong> values <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system<br />
6.1.1 Domestic water supply<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> wetlands are a source <strong>of</strong> water for local communities living adjacent. It is estimated<br />
that 119,249.333litres cubic meters <strong>of</strong> water per year are collected from the watering sources<br />
scattered around the wetlands. A number <strong>of</strong> new water sources have been constructed around the<br />
wetlands with an average <strong>of</strong> 4 water sources per parish. It was estimated that people have to walk<br />
long distances <strong>of</strong> more than 2 kms looking for safe and clean water, this affects especially<br />
children and women. Watering sources are in form <strong>of</strong> spring wells, shallow wells and natural<br />
wells. The wetland meets the daily water requirements <strong>of</strong> around18, 885 people and 6,063 heads<br />
<strong>of</strong> cattle in neighbouring villages.<br />
Bush et al, 2005, estimated the value <strong>of</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> clean water by forests to local communities<br />
around Budongo, Bugoma, and Rwenzori forests by considering the cost <strong>of</strong> providing an<br />
alternative source <strong>of</strong> water should the current supplies <strong>of</strong> water be made unavailable through the<br />
loss or degradation <strong>of</strong> the forest that sustains them. One option proposed was to provide clean<br />
water by a sinking borehole, which obviously has a market cost. Bush et al, 2005 further observes<br />
that while a borehole may not be appropriate in all cases; boreholes are perhaps one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
common methods seen in Uganda for rural people to obtain a regular supply <strong>of</strong> clean domestic<br />
water.<br />
Given the above, the monetary value <strong>of</strong> water provision by <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland to the surrounding<br />
households and their livestock will be estimated by considering the costs <strong>of</strong> providing alternative<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> water in the event that the wetland ceases to exist. Assuming that the wetland does no<br />
longer exist, the Government <strong>of</strong> Uganda would provide an alternative supply <strong>of</strong> water in form <strong>of</strong><br />
constructing and maintaining a community borehole (replacing the wetland water conservation<br />
role by artificial means). Based on figures obtained from Masindi district water department,<br />
Uganda, it costs the government <strong>of</strong> Uganda US$ 10,000 (18 million Uganda Shillings) to<br />
construct a water borehole for a community. The yearly maintenance cost per water borehole is<br />
estimated at US$ 444.44 (Uganda Shillings 800,000). Thus, the annual cost <strong>of</strong> providing a bore<br />
hole to the rural community was calculated to be US$ 10,444.44. According to IUCN (2002)<br />
study on Sang <strong>Bay</strong> forest ecosystem a borehole was found to sustain 300 people and 276 heads <strong>of</strong><br />
livestock (cow equivalents). The water borehole provision costs are as computed in the tables<br />
6.1 and 6.2.<br />
Table 6-1: Stage 1 water borehole costs for human population<br />
Mean No. <strong>of</strong> Total No. <strong>of</strong> Total No. <strong>of</strong> Total No. <strong>of</strong> Total cost (US$) <strong>of</strong><br />
individuals per households individuals boreholes borehole provision<br />
household<br />
required p.a.<br />
5.07 3,777 19,149 64 668,444<br />
Table 6-2: Stage 2 water borehole costs for livestock<br />
Mean No. <strong>of</strong> Total No. <strong>of</strong> Total livestock No. <strong>of</strong> Total cost (US$)<br />
livestock per households (cow<br />
boreholes <strong>of</strong> borehole<br />
household (cow<br />
equivalents) required provision p.a<br />
equivalents<br />
1.60 3,777 6,043 22 229,778<br />
34
Based on the calculations in tables 6.1 and 6.2, the total costs <strong>of</strong> boreholes provision per year is<br />
US$ 898,222, which is the proxy water conservation value for the wetland. It can be concluded<br />
that the presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland relieves the Government <strong>of</strong> US$ 898,222 per annum in<br />
public expenditure for water provision to 3,777 HHs.<br />
6.1.2 Support cultivation <strong>of</strong> cocoyams and sugar canes<br />
Cocoyams cultivation<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong>s in Uganda have been noted for their role in providing water, as well as depositing<br />
sediments and nutrients which maintain soil fertility which in turn supports the growth <strong>of</strong><br />
cocoyams. A piece <strong>of</strong> edible yam goes for averagely US$ 0.56 (1,000 Uganda Shillings) on the<br />
local Ugandan food market. 349,539 pieces <strong>of</strong> yams (as indicated in table 5.4) fetch US$194,188<br />
annually. This only the market value <strong>of</strong> the yams without the productivity value <strong>of</strong> the wetland<br />
factored in. this means the cocoyam good is undervalued on the market because it excludes the<br />
value <strong>of</strong> nutrients and sediments added by the wetland.<br />
The productivity added by wetland-borne nutrients and sediments can be calculated by looking at<br />
expenditures saved on alternative, purchased fertilizers which would be required to maintain<br />
yields in the absence <strong>of</strong> the wetland. L. Emerton, L. Iyango, P. Luwum and A. Malinga (1999)<br />
found out that Nakivubo Urban wetland, Uganda added a value <strong>of</strong> 798,126 Uganda<br />
Shillings/ha/year (US$ 614/ha/year) to water logged areas that were being used for cultivation <strong>of</strong><br />
cocoyams and sugarcanes. This case study can be used to estimate the soil fertility value <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland since they have in common some biological, physical and chemical<br />
characteristics. Based on field observations, a household cultivated yams in a 0.1 hectares <strong>of</strong> land<br />
in and around at <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland. The overall size <strong>of</strong> land for all 1,739 households under yam<br />
cultivation was estimated at 174 ha. Using the soil fertility values from Nakivubo wetland, the<br />
estimated productivity value <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> nutrients and sediments added to yam fields<br />
was calculated as US $106,836 per annum. Therefore the true market value <strong>of</strong> cocoyams<br />
produced in Bussi parish is US$ 301,024 per year.<br />
The cocoyam is among the major crops grown in wetlands. Its corms, cormels, stalks and<br />
inflorescence are all utilized for human consumption. In South East Asia, cocoyam leaves are<br />
consumed as green or dry vegetable and the stem is either cooked and eaten on its own or<br />
together with other dietary staples or pound into flour. The leaves are consumed because they are<br />
rich in protein and vitamins while the root is rich in carbohydrates and minerals (Duru and Uma,<br />
2002). In East Africa, cocoyams have traditionally been steamed and eaten as a snack alongside<br />
tea or a beverage. Cocoyam is cultivated as a subsistence crop for home consumption with the<br />
excess sold in near by markets. It has a growing cycle <strong>of</strong> 9 to 11 months, during which time it<br />
produces a large underground stem called a corm. Serem, et al. 2008, reported cocoyam<br />
cultivation is restricted to wetlands, which is already a limited resource in Lake Victoria region.<br />
Besides, cocoyam cultivation is also viewed as only grown by those people who have access to<br />
wetlands. Cocoyam cultivation is still preferred since it is a good food security crop that is<br />
available throughout the year and is also a stable source <strong>of</strong> income<br />
Sugarcane cultivation<br />
The mean household piece <strong>of</strong> land dedicated to sugar cane growing is around 0.1 hectares. 1739<br />
households altogether set aside 174 ha for cane cultivation. Still using the case <strong>of</strong> Nakivubo<br />
Urban wetland, <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland contributes nutrients and sediments to sugarcane plants at a<br />
35
monetary value <strong>of</strong> US$106,836 per annum, which is the same nutrient value added to cocoyam<br />
cultivation.<br />
Road side markets within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland site sells one harvested stem <strong>of</strong><br />
sugarcane at roughly US$0.3. The estimated annual market price <strong>of</strong> 79,994 pieces <strong>of</strong> stems (as<br />
indicated in table 5.4) is US$ 25,223, when the productivity value <strong>of</strong> the wetland is added the<br />
market value the total monetary value <strong>of</strong> sugarcanes comes to US$ 132,059 per annum.<br />
Therefore, the actual annual monetary value <strong>of</strong> cocoyams and sugarcanes grown in Bussi parish is<br />
US$ 433,083<br />
6.1.3 Fish catch<br />
Fishes are the most important vertebrates associated with wetlands. World wide, over 1800<br />
species <strong>of</strong> fishes are resident for all or part <strong>of</strong> their life cycles in wetlands. As <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland<br />
system is one <strong>of</strong> the many wetlands north <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria, it acts as a breeding and nursery<br />
grounds for fish species. Later in adult stages, the fishes migrate to the open water body where<br />
they are easily trapped by fishermen operating at Kagulube/<strong>Mabamba</strong>, Kyanvubu, Nangombe and<br />
Gulwe landing sites. More so <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland provides cover and food to fish species at<br />
different stages <strong>of</strong> their development. Notable fish species are tilapia, lung fish and cat fish. The<br />
lung fish constitutes the diet <strong>of</strong> the rare shoebill stork bird, whose IUCN conservation status is<br />
vulnerable. KSDP, 2008 recognizes the importance <strong>of</strong> the fisheries sub-sector because <strong>of</strong> its<br />
contribution to the livelihood <strong>of</strong> islanders in terms <strong>of</strong> revenue and high food value source. 65% <strong>of</strong><br />
the people thrive on fish protein value. Fishing activities in wetland and around <strong>Mabamba</strong>, is<br />
important as it employs about 506 people in various activities <strong>of</strong> fish mongering, fishing, boat<br />
building, and repairs, local fish processors and other artisanal fishery activities.<br />
Characteristics <strong>of</strong> fishing activities<br />
Fish production in and around <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland has the following characteristics:<br />
• Fish production is carried out by artisanal fishermen. They include fishing unit owners,<br />
renters and boat crew.<br />
• Fishing unit [boat] owners normally await the return <strong>of</strong> their boat[s] on beaches where<br />
they check on catches, oversee catch sales and payment <strong>of</strong> the crew, and consider input<br />
needs such as fuel, net or boat repair.<br />
• Between June and July every year, open water body experience windy days leading to<br />
reduced fishing activities. During that time, some fishermen keep away because they fear<br />
capsizing. This results on low fish catches.<br />
• The average income per year per fisherman is approximately US$ 1,998 per annum.<br />
• The main methods <strong>of</strong> exploitation are by use <strong>of</strong> gill nets and baited hooks. The fishermen<br />
mainly target 4 groups <strong>of</strong> fish species namely; Mud fish (Protopterus aethiopicus) and 3<br />
species <strong>of</strong> tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, Oreochromis esculentus and Oreochromis<br />
niloticus)<br />
• The fish species type, their quantities and average size caught depend on the gear used,<br />
the season and the location. For example baited hooks are used to target mud fish while<br />
the various tilapia species are mainly caught using gillnets. Every boat carries 10 – 20<br />
gillnets for catching tilapia fish and 20 – 30 hooks for fishing mud fish. The<br />
recommended size <strong>of</strong> the gillnet is 3.5 – 6 inches.<br />
• As the water level recedes during the drier months (for example, the December –<br />
February), fishermen tend to get higher catches <strong>of</strong> mud fish. Mud fish tend to hide in the<br />
36
papyrus vegetation that surround the lake and are sought to come out in the open water<br />
when the water level recedes, making them easier targets.<br />
• There is no standard price for the fish caught. Therefore while at the landing sites, traders<br />
and fishermen bargain until they reach an agreeable price. Similarly, there is no weighing<br />
<strong>of</strong> fish in any <strong>of</strong> the landing sites, so prices are based on sizes and quality <strong>of</strong> fish as<br />
perceived by the buyers and sellers, and the demand versus supply <strong>of</strong> a given day.<br />
Table 6-3: Estimated annual total fish catches in year 2008 as presented by landing<br />
sites and fish species<br />
Tilapia<br />
Lung fish<br />
Fish landing site Catch (No.) Value (US$) Catch (Kg) Value (US$)<br />
Kagulube/<strong>Mabamba</strong> 73,000 111,528 0 0<br />
Kyanvubu 172,280 263,206 8,760 21,900<br />
Nangombe 63,875 97,587 0 0<br />
Gulwe 40,000 61,111 0 0<br />
Total 349,155 533,432 8,760 21,900<br />
N.B. the statistics in this table was calculated based on information obtained during focus group<br />
discussions with Beach Management Units from all landing sites.<br />
In addition to this, each <strong>of</strong> the four landing sites is obliged by law to pay monthly tender fees<br />
(short <strong>of</strong> tax) to the Sub-county authorities, which is calculated at US$ 2,667 annually for all<br />
landing sites. It is a statutory requirement for fishermen to pay the annual fishing vessel license<br />
<strong>of</strong> US$ 11.11 to the National Fisheries Department. As per 2008, all landing sites held about 278<br />
fishing vessels which generated US$ 3,089 in annual license fees. Therefore in the year 2008, the<br />
fishing activities associated with <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland were valued at US$ 561,088 at both<br />
local and district levels.<br />
6.1.4 Recreational and tourism values<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> has grown in to one <strong>of</strong> the most interesting and spectacular site for bird watching in<br />
Uganda. Approximately 38% <strong>of</strong> the global population <strong>of</strong> the Blue Shallows, and the globallythreatened<br />
Papyrus Yellow Warbler plus other birds <strong>of</strong> global conservation concern can be found<br />
in <strong>Mabamba</strong> bay wetland. Recently, <strong>Mabamba</strong> has become one <strong>of</strong> the strong holds for the<br />
migrant Blue Swallow with over 100 individuals recorded every year. <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland and<br />
Murchison Falls National Park are the only places in Uganda where the elusive shoe-bill stork<br />
can be spotted at any time <strong>of</strong> the day. <strong>Mabamba</strong> is a home to 260 species <strong>of</strong> birds, with one day’s<br />
<strong>of</strong> 157 species (Birdlife International). Other birds which are <strong>of</strong> interest to tourists are; Gull-billed<br />
Terns, White-Winged Black Terns and Whiskered Terns, Grey headed gulls, goliath herons, spurwinged<br />
and pygmy geese and a number <strong>of</strong> migratory waders. Because <strong>of</strong> this diversity <strong>of</strong> bird<br />
species, <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland is a popular tourist destination for bird watchers/enthusiasts,<br />
especially those interested in spotting the rare shoe-bill stork. Recognizing need to harness the<br />
tourism potential and promote conservation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> site, communities living adjacent<br />
mobilized themselves in to Community-Based Tourism Associations like <strong>Mabamba</strong> Birds Guides<br />
and Conservation Association (MBGCA) and <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> and Eco-tourism Association<br />
(MWETA).<br />
These community associations receive tourists through networking with tour agencies in the<br />
nearby Kampala City (35 km away from site). Tourism is still at a very low level and is restricted<br />
37
to bird watching and canoeing for a few hours in the labyrinth <strong>of</strong> channels in the marsh. As per<br />
the visitor statistics <strong>of</strong> 2007/2008, the bulk <strong>of</strong> the visitors come from England, France,<br />
Netherlands, Germany, USA, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Australia, Belgium, South Africa,<br />
Switzerland, Japan and Lithuania. Every tourist pays up to $ 24 for guiding services, payable to<br />
tourist associations. The charges for a boat are US$ 6 per trip as guiding is conducted along the<br />
labyrinth <strong>of</strong> water channels in the marsh. The boat is hired from an association <strong>of</strong> canoe owners<br />
presently <strong>of</strong>fering passenger services along the channels. The Taxi-hire charges for a two-way<br />
journey to <strong>Mabamba</strong> from the nearby Kampala City are around US$ 67 per tourist. In 2008, a<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 705 foreign tourists were received and guided. So the total local expenditure incurred per<br />
tourist to do bird watching is US$ 97. The tourism revenues accruing to the local economy in<br />
2008 amounted to US$68,386. From this money, the local people have been able to meet their<br />
needs like building permanent homes, paying school fees for their children, clothing and medical<br />
care among others (per. Communication with tourism associations).<br />
6.1.5 Sand harvesting<br />
Uganda’s construction sector has, during the last few years experienced tremendous growth<br />
owing to an improved and fast growing economy which has led to a number <strong>of</strong> private residences<br />
and commercial buildings springing up. This has made construction one <strong>of</strong> the major players in<br />
Uganda’s economic recovery with private investors and individual property developers taking a<br />
lead. It is estimated that the construction sector is growing at 13% annually. Construction<br />
activities require some inputs such as bricks, sand and clay required to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the<br />
construction activities are sourced from natural systems a factor that has led to encroachment on<br />
wetlands in Uganda. During the field studies, it was observed that sections <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland<br />
are under encroachment for sand mining to feed the booming construction industry in the nearby<br />
Kampala district. This is in addition to other on-going sand extraction operations within the<br />
neighbourhood <strong>of</strong> the wetland; on privately own lands though some constitute the buffer zone <strong>of</strong><br />
the wetland. This process <strong>of</strong> sand mining has led to degradation <strong>of</strong> some sections <strong>of</strong> wetland.<br />
Where sand extraction has taken place, sand pits have been created which turn in to small lakes<br />
whenever it rains. These pits are likely to be breeding grounds for mosquitoes thus exacerbating<br />
the spread <strong>of</strong> malaria. Sand extraction activities are specifically pronounced in areas <strong>of</strong><br />
Nangombe-Gayaza, Bulumbu-Buyiga, Bubebere-Muzina and Sazzi-Lulongo. Much as the<br />
communities earn from mining, this activity is leading to degradation <strong>of</strong> the wetland and<br />
subsequently loss <strong>of</strong> habitat.<br />
As one way <strong>of</strong> raising revenues, Wakiso District Local Government in 2008 tendered the<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> revenue from sanding mining to a private organization/company. The tender holder<br />
pays an annual sand tender fee <strong>of</strong> US$ 93,333 (168 million Uganda Shillings) to the Local<br />
Government. The tender holder in turn collects user charges or levies a tax on vehicles/trucks<br />
transporting sand from <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland and its buffer zones. The user charges on sand are<br />
collected at a road toll. Approximately, 65 trucks (Lorries) <strong>of</strong> sand are produced daily from the<br />
sand excavation sites by sand miners (producers). Therefore sand miners all together sell<br />
approximately 23,725 truck loads <strong>of</strong> sand per year. Each lorry <strong>of</strong> sand carries up to 10 tonnes.<br />
The producer (sand miner) at the mining site sells to a middleman truckload <strong>of</strong> sand at US$ 28<br />
(50,000 Uganda Shillings). The middle man then transports the sand to Kampala/Wakiso districts<br />
where he sells it to constructors. The tender holder collects tax levies from the middle man. The<br />
gross income accruing to sand producers per year is US$ 664,300, when added to US$ 93,333;<br />
the total value <strong>of</strong> sand to accruing to the beneficiaries at local level is US$757,633 per annum.<br />
38
6.1.6 Water-based transport<br />
All the parishes that make up Kasanje Sub-county are located on the mainland, except only Bussi<br />
and Zzinga islands which are within Lake Victoria. To travel from these 2 islands to mainland<br />
and vice versa, one has to move on a boat/canoe along a labyrinth <strong>of</strong> three water channels<br />
traversing the wetland system. These channels serve as the only means <strong>of</strong> transport to and fro the<br />
Sub-county and the mainland in general. The 7.2km-Muzina water channel links Bussi parish to<br />
Bulumbu parish, while Namugobo landing site in Bussi is linked by a 3.2-water passage to<br />
Luwala village in Kamengo Sub-county, Mpigi district. Then a 3-km water channel connects<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> Zziba to <strong>Mabamba</strong> Bussi. Transport services are <strong>of</strong>fered by 91 boats which are owned<br />
by local residents. Agriculture is the main economic activity in Bussi, with crops like pineapples,<br />
bananas, sweet potatoes, beans and cassava being cultivated. To access the markets for their<br />
agricultural produce in the nearby urban areas like Kampala, the Bussi farmers have to transit<br />
through these water passage ways. Likewise farmers residing on the mainland transit through the<br />
wetland while going to tend their gardens in Bussi Island. Therefore these channels are not only<br />
important as a means <strong>of</strong> transport and source <strong>of</strong> employment for local people but also facilitate<br />
commerce between the island and mainland thereby boosting the local economy. The annual<br />
revenue accruing from water transport is as computed in table 6.4.<br />
Table 6-4: Water channels, No. <strong>of</strong> boats and total revenues generated<br />
Water<br />
channels<br />
Muzina-<br />
Bulumbu<br />
Namugobo-<br />
Luwala<br />
Distance<br />
(km)<br />
No. <strong>of</strong><br />
boats<br />
No. <strong>of</strong><br />
owners<br />
Amount <strong>of</strong> money<br />
(US$) made by all<br />
boats per months<br />
7.2 15 15 7 boats/day x $3x30<br />
days=$630<br />
3.2 28 28 28boats x 8 days per<br />
month x $7.22x<br />
=$1617 per month<br />
Zziba-Bussi 3.0 48 48 48 boats x 10days per<br />
months x $5.3= $2,544<br />
per month<br />
Total amount <strong>of</strong><br />
money (US$)<br />
generated per year<br />
$7,560<br />
$19,407<br />
$30,528<br />
Total 13.4 91 91 US$ 57,495<br />
Water transport contributes to a local economy roughly US$ 57,495 per annum, generated<br />
through <strong>of</strong>fering passenger services in return for a transport fare which varies among the 3 water<br />
channels. The monetary estimates in the table were arrived at through focus group discussions<br />
with water transport groups and face – to – face meetings with selected passengers.<br />
6.1.7 Harvesting <strong>of</strong> papyrus plants<br />
Only 6 elderly members <strong>of</strong> local community in Bussi parish are engaged in handcrafts enterprise.<br />
Papyrus plants are specifically used for making floor mats that are sold to the nearby markets in<br />
Entebbe municipality. The papyrus mats are used for making ro<strong>of</strong>s (for make-shift huts popularly<br />
called Kiosks), fences and ceilings. Therefore the motive for harvesting is financial gains. Around<br />
30 mats are made in a year, <strong>of</strong> which each mat goes for US$ 5.6, generating a paltry total amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> US$ 167 per year.<br />
39
6.1.8 Carbon storage and sequestration<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong>s play a sometimes crucial role in regulating exchanges to/from the atmosphere <strong>of</strong> the<br />
naturally produced gases involved in ‘’green house’’ effects namely water vapour, carbon<br />
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (all associated with warming) and sculptures dioxide (associated<br />
with cooling). They tend to be sinks for carbon and nitrogen, and sources for methane and sulphur<br />
compounds but situations vary from place to place, from time to time, and between wetland types<br />
(Pritchard, 2009). <strong>Wetland</strong>s are different from other biomes in their ability to sequester large<br />
amounts <strong>of</strong> carbon, as a consequence <strong>of</strong> high primary production and then deposition <strong>of</strong> decaying<br />
matter in the anaerobic areas <strong>of</strong> their waterlogged soil. In such soils the normal production <strong>of</strong><br />
carbon dioxide that occurs during decomposition is slowed or completely inhibited by the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
oxygen; although these same conditions are also conducive for the production <strong>of</strong> methane. It is<br />
the interplay between water logging, high plant productivity, sequestration <strong>of</strong> carbon in the soil,<br />
and production <strong>of</strong> carbon dioxide and methane that makes wetlands one <strong>of</strong> the most important<br />
terrestrial surfaces in climate change; complicated by the fact that different wetland types have<br />
markedly different greenhouse gas and carbon balance pr<strong>of</strong>iles (Pritchard, 2009).<br />
Natural vegetation - including forest, woodland, bush land and grassland - acts as a carbon sink,<br />
thereby helping to mitigate the effects <strong>of</strong> global warming. Estimates <strong>of</strong> carbon sequestration range<br />
between 10 tonnes <strong>of</strong> carbon per hectare <strong>of</strong> bush land or grassland to 210 tonnes <strong>of</strong> carbon per<br />
hectare <strong>of</strong> closed canopy primary forest (Myers 1997, Sala and Paruelo, 1997). <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland<br />
ecosystem covers a surface area <strong>of</strong> 2,424 ha, with a portion <strong>of</strong> permanent freshwater lakes being<br />
over 8ha (http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database). With the economic costs avoided <strong>of</strong> carbon<br />
sequestration valued at between $1-100/tonne (Alexander et al. 1997); and at an average<br />
$20/tonne (Myers, 1997), bush lands and permanently flooded grasslands, open water wetland,<br />
degraded, forest and tropical high forest vegetation types in <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland ecosystem may<br />
together sequester approximately 24,160 tonnes <strong>of</strong> carbon per year. This provides economic<br />
benefits through mitigating the effects <strong>of</strong> global warming to a value <strong>of</strong> nearly US$ 483,200 a<br />
year.<br />
6.1.9 Indirect use, optional and Non-use values<br />
The contingent valuation is one <strong>of</strong> the only ways to assign dollar values to non-use values <strong>of</strong> the<br />
environment –values that do not involve market purchases and may not involve direct<br />
participation. These values are sometimes referred to as ‘’passive use’’ value. They include<br />
everything from the basic life support functions associated with ecosystem health or biodiversity,<br />
to the enjoyment, to the enjoyment <strong>of</strong> a scenic view or wilderness, to appreciating the option to<br />
fish or bird watch in future, or the right to bequest those options to your grandchildren. It also<br />
includes value people place on simply knowing that say a shoe-bill exists. Non-use, or passive<br />
use, environment benefits are likely to people implicitly treated as zero unless their dollar value is<br />
somehow estimated (Dennis, et al. 2001). From table 5.6, it can be inferred that the monthly<br />
mean household WTP to secure a gain (or benefit) or to avoid damage (a cost) was US$ 7.2. The<br />
annual aggregate WTP by 3,777 households to have improved wetland ecosystem services is US$<br />
326,333.<br />
40
Table 6-5: Estimated annual Total <strong>Economic</strong> Values <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland <strong>of</strong><br />
international importance<br />
Type <strong>of</strong><br />
ecosystem<br />
service<br />
Domestic<br />
water supply<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
Sand for<br />
construction<br />
purposes<br />
Source <strong>of</strong> fish<br />
Carbon<br />
storage and<br />
sequestration<br />
Cultivation <strong>of</strong><br />
cocoyams and<br />
sugarcanes<br />
Indirect,<br />
option& nonuse<br />
values)<br />
Recreation<br />
and tourism<br />
Water-based<br />
transport<br />
Papyrus<br />
harvesting<br />
Annual<br />
TEV<br />
Quantity <strong>of</strong><br />
ecosystem<br />
service<br />
obtained per<br />
year<br />
119,249.333m 3<br />
<strong>of</strong> water<br />
<strong>Valuation</strong> method<br />
Replacement<br />
Costs/Expenditure<br />
Avoided<br />
Monetary<br />
value<br />
(US$) per<br />
annum<br />
% <strong>of</strong><br />
total<br />
value<br />
Beneficiary<br />
889,222 24.9 Household,<br />
Local<br />
community<br />
237,250 tonnes Market prices 757,633 21.24 Local<br />
economy,<br />
National<br />
economy<br />
349,155 pieces<br />
<strong>of</strong> tilapia, 8,760<br />
pieces <strong>of</strong><br />
lungfish<br />
Market prices and<br />
literature review<br />
24,160 tonnes Benefit Transfer<br />
technique, literature<br />
review<br />
349,539 corms<br />
(yams), 84,076<br />
stems <strong>of</strong><br />
sugarcane<br />
709 tourists<br />
visited<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> in<br />
2008<br />
Household survey,<br />
market price,<br />
productivity and<br />
literature review<br />
Contingent<br />
<strong>Valuation</strong> survey to<br />
determine WTP<br />
Secondary data,<br />
Focus group<br />
discussions<br />
Focus group<br />
discussions, Market<br />
prices<br />
30 mats Market prices, face<br />
to face meetings<br />
with harvesters<br />
561,088 15.7 Household,<br />
Local<br />
community,<br />
National<br />
Consumers<br />
483,200 13.5 Global<br />
community<br />
433,083 12.4 Household,<br />
Local<br />
community<br />
326,333 8.9 Households,<br />
Local<br />
community,<br />
National<br />
economy<br />
68,386 1.92 Local<br />
economy,<br />
National<br />
economy,<br />
Global<br />
consumers<br />
57,497 1.61 Local<br />
community,<br />
National<br />
community,<br />
tourists<br />
167 0.01 Household,<br />
Local<br />
community,<br />
3,576,609 100<br />
41
Figure 6-1: Proportion <strong>of</strong> each ecosystem service (%age <strong>of</strong> TEV)<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland ecosystem services and goods<br />
30<br />
25<br />
% a g e o f T E V<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
Series1<br />
0<br />
W a t e r s u p p l y<br />
S a n d<br />
h a r v e s t i n g<br />
F i s h i n g<br />
C a r b o n<br />
s e q u e s t r a t i o n<br />
y a m s & c a n e s<br />
c u l t i v a t i o n<br />
I n d i r e c t ,<br />
o p t i o n & n o n -<br />
u s e v a l u e s<br />
R e c r e a t i o n<br />
a n d t o u r i s m<br />
W a t e r<br />
t r a n s p o r t<br />
P a p y r u s<br />
h a r v e s t i n g<br />
Ecosystem services and goods<br />
42
6.2 <strong>Economic</strong> costs associated with <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland<br />
6.2.1 Opportunity costs<br />
With the establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland and its subsequent maintenance together with<br />
its biodiversity gives rise opportunity cost i.e. exclusion <strong>of</strong> other land uses which are<br />
incompatible with biodiversity conservation. Some community members may view the<br />
establishment <strong>of</strong> the wetland as a lost opportunity for example in terms <strong>of</strong> uncontrolled hunting,<br />
harvesting <strong>of</strong> handcraft materials, charcoal burning and wetland edge cultivation among others.<br />
This represents the opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> biodiversity conservation in terms <strong>of</strong> economic activities<br />
foregone. The opportunity cost <strong>of</strong> the benefits foregone was determined in a contingent valuation<br />
study which asked respondents the monthly WTA as a compensation for loss <strong>of</strong> access to<br />
ecosystem services in <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland. From table 5.6, the monthly mean household WTA<br />
to tolerate a cost was quantified as US$196. Therefore aggregate WTA for 3,777 households was<br />
US$ 8,883,504 per annum.<br />
6.2.2 Costs arising from damages by wild animals<br />
Damage caused to agriculture from wild animals comprises a major economic cost associated<br />
with biodiversity. Interviewees attributed crop damages to vervet monkeys, sitatunga, bushbuck,<br />
hippopotamus and guinea fowls. Because <strong>of</strong> limitation <strong>of</strong> time and finances, the monetary value<br />
<strong>of</strong> economic losses from crop raiding wild animals were not quantified during this field study.<br />
This is an interesting subject which can be studied by other researchers to quantify the monetary<br />
losses associated with these crop raiding animals and; then generate practical recommendations to<br />
guide policy makers on measures for managing these problem animals.<br />
6.2.3 Direct management costs<br />
Various national agencies incur biodiversity conservation costs including government, Nongovernmental,<br />
community organisations and external donors. Environment management in<br />
Wakiso district is under the District Environment Office, department <strong>of</strong> natural resources. The<br />
environment management activities are decentralized at the Sub-county level i.e. in case <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland at Kasanje sub-county level. In the financial year 2007/2008, around US$21,<br />
000 (KSDP, 2008) was allocated by Kasanje Sub-county Local Government as recurrent<br />
operating expenditure for general environment management activities including <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
wetland site. At 2007/2008 levels, this translates into an annual government expenditure <strong>of</strong><br />
US$21,000 per annum. Important to note is that there is no specific government expenditure set<br />
aside specially for <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system.<br />
43
7.1 Conclusions<br />
Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> bay wetland system contributes significantly to the livelihood <strong>of</strong> local communities in<br />
adjacent villages through provision <strong>of</strong> ecosystem services and goods vital for human well-being.<br />
It is also a source <strong>of</strong> income and employment for the local residents working in tourism, fishing,<br />
sand mining and water transport. In its present form the wetland contributes goods and services<br />
worth US$ 3,576,609 per annum. The services vary from: freshwater supply, support for<br />
agriculture, source <strong>of</strong> fish for domestic and commercial consumption purposes, recreation and<br />
tourism, source <strong>of</strong> sand for housing industry, water transport role, source <strong>of</strong> materials for mats,<br />
mitigation <strong>of</strong> global warming, trapping <strong>of</strong> incoming sediments and silt, flood regulation to<br />
supplementing the water supply <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria. Water is the most valuable resource, both for<br />
domestic and livestock use. Each member <strong>of</strong> the household uses averagely 17.1 litres <strong>of</strong> water per<br />
day. The annual water conservation value was estimated US$ 898,222. Much as water transport is<br />
valued less, it still remains the only viable means <strong>of</strong> travelling between Bussi Islands and the<br />
mainland, now and in the foreseeable future.<br />
Important to note is that these ecosystem services are not only beneficial to households and local<br />
communities around the wetland but also to the national and international communities. For<br />
example the role played by <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland in sequestering atmospheric concentrations <strong>of</strong><br />
carbon dioxide benefits the entire global community since issue <strong>of</strong> global warming is a global<br />
concern. It is also a tourist destination for mostly foreign tourists who have enthusiasm for bird<br />
watching especially the rare shoebill stork. In addition to that, it supports approximately 38% <strong>of</strong><br />
the global population <strong>of</strong> the blue swallow (stopover for migratory birds) as well as well as<br />
supporting one other globally threatened bird, the Papyrus Yellow Warbler; and other birds <strong>of</strong><br />
global conservation concern. Because <strong>of</strong> this biodiversity conservation value, <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland<br />
site assists the government <strong>of</strong> Uganda in delivering on its international conservation obligations<br />
such as those under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Ramsar<br />
Convention on <strong>Wetland</strong>s, Convention on Biological Diversity and Convention on the<br />
Conservation <strong>of</strong> Migratory Species <strong>of</strong> Wild Animals just to mention a few.<br />
From the annual TEV <strong>of</strong> US$ 3,576,609 as calculated in table 6.5, it can inferred that <strong>Mabamba</strong><br />
wetland site contributes to each neighbouring household tangible and intangible benefits worth<br />
US$ 947 per annum.The value <strong>of</strong> non-marketable ecosystem services (Optional, existence and<br />
bequest values) was estimated at US$ 317,268 per annum. However WTA was computed as US$<br />
8,883,504 per year, which was 22 times higher than WTP. <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland does not only<br />
generate benefits but also to some extent negative costs to neigbouring communities. The widely<br />
reported negative costs were problem animals/crop raiding wild animals which raid crops in<br />
gardens resulting in to loss <strong>of</strong> income and livelihood. Problem animals cited included vervet<br />
monkey, sitatunga, bushbuck and guinea fowl. These problem animals raid crops such as sweet<br />
potatoes, bananas and pineapples.<br />
Therefore there is need for concerted management and policy actions which are geared towards<br />
maintaining the health and integrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland ecosystem such it can continue<br />
generation vital goods and services which are beneficial to the present and future generations.<br />
This calls for among others; integrating issues related to this wetland in to Sub-county and district<br />
development plans; and dedicating more public expenditure towards its sustainable management<br />
and conservation; and using its biological resources sustainably.<br />
44
7.2 Recommendations<br />
1. Sand mining activies should be halted as they are degrading the wetland. If allowed to<br />
continue they will in the long run undermine the ecological character <strong>of</strong> the wetland.<br />
These activities were found to be prominent in Sazzi and Bulumbu parishes. The<br />
environmental or wetland restoration measures should be undertaken to repair the<br />
damages imposed on the wetland. In accordance with regulation 35 <strong>of</strong> The National<br />
Environment (<strong>Wetland</strong>s, Riverbanks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations and<br />
section 67 <strong>of</strong> The National Environment Act, Wakiso district local government and<br />
National Environment Management Authority should issue environmental restoration<br />
orders to developers (individuals involved in sand excavation) to regenerate or put back<br />
the wetland to the state it was in before modification.<br />
2. The mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment as required under sections 19, 20 and<br />
21 <strong>of</strong> National Environment Management Act should be in future be applied to sand<br />
miners operating around <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland and enforced by Wakiso district local<br />
government and National Environment Management Authority. This will help avoid<br />
irreversible changes and serious damage to the wetland; and safeguard valuable<br />
resources, natural areas and ecosystem components.<br />
3. Local communities and their local leaders should be sensitized on policies and laws<br />
governing environment management in Uganda, conservation values <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong><br />
wetland as well as discouraging them from illegal hunting, setting illegal fires and<br />
wetland edge farming. There is also need to promote understanding obligations <strong>of</strong><br />
Ramsar Convention on wetlands <strong>of</strong> international importance. More so local leaders<br />
should be sensitized on the roles they are supposed in wetland conservation and<br />
management. This will provide information to the communities about the usefulness <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> Ramsar site and encourage them to participate in its conservation.<br />
4. Community-based tourism if well promoted can <strong>of</strong>fer economic incentives to local<br />
communities to appreciate the value <strong>of</strong> and conserve <strong>Mabamba</strong> bay wetland and its<br />
biodiversity. Efforts should be made to involve communities in all parishes in ecotourism<br />
enterprises and ensuring that the financial benefits accruing from guiding visitors<br />
are shared equally among all parishes. Eco-tourism community groups need to be help to<br />
develop and establish linkages with Uganda Tourism Board, private sector, NGOs, tour<br />
and travel agencies to among others; marketing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland as a tourist<br />
destination, training, financial support to build campsites and souvenir shops; and<br />
generally sustainable tourism development in and around <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland. One<br />
way <strong>of</strong> marketing can be maps, posters or participation in national trade fair exhibitions,<br />
creation <strong>of</strong> web links etc.<br />
5. <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> ecosystem plays a vital role in sequestering green house gas<br />
concentrations from the atmosphere. It also leads to avoidance <strong>of</strong> green house gas<br />
emissions in to atmosphere by retaining vegetation e.g. swamp forests (through<br />
conservation and management activities that prevent or reduce degradation and<br />
conversion <strong>of</strong> swamps, grassland, woodlands and tropical forests to other land uses).<br />
Through the Clean Development Mechanism <strong>of</strong> Kyoto protocol, markets for carbon<br />
sequestration services can be accessed in the global market place. This can be one way<br />
generating financial resources for protection and management <strong>of</strong> the wetland site. Where<br />
45
possible, this may necessitate working with ECOTRUST and FACE as they are some <strong>of</strong><br />
the leading intermediaries in carbon trading in Uganda.<br />
6. Given the reported decline in fish catches and fish biodiversity in Lake Victoria, Wakiso<br />
district local government should work with neighbouring communities and other<br />
stakeholders towards diversifying economic activities. Opportunities should include fish<br />
farming (pond aquaculture), bee-keeping, woodlots for fuel wood, income generating<br />
products e.g. fruit garden and medicinal gardens. As there is a potential market for crafts<br />
in the nearby Wakiso, Mpigi and Kampala areas, Wakiso district in co-operation with<br />
stakeholders should encourage communities to identify and produce marketable goods<br />
made from wetland products e.g. mats, baskets, chairs and souvenirs. Communities can<br />
be helped to identify sales space and outlets in may be Kampala or Entebbe areas.<br />
7. Due to time and financial limitations, the economic losses arising from vermin and<br />
problem animals (crop raiding animals from the wetland) were not quantified in monetary<br />
terms let alone assessing the extent <strong>of</strong> damage afflicted to human property. This could be<br />
an interesting research topic/issue that can be investigated to come up with solutions<br />
needed for decision and policy making. However communities should be trained on<br />
vermin and problem animals’ deterrent measures like digging trenches around gardens,<br />
erecting barriers, scaring <strong>of</strong> animals, planting <strong>of</strong> thorny hedges like Mauritius thorns etc.<br />
8. Of the crop raiding wild animals reported around <strong>Mabamba</strong>, only vervet monkeys are<br />
gazetted as vermin under section 58 <strong>of</strong> Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 153 <strong>of</strong> 2000 and local<br />
governments are responsible for their control with technical assistance from Uganda<br />
Wildlife Authority. The district <strong>of</strong> Wakiso should employ and recruit vermin guards with<br />
the technical input <strong>of</strong> Uganda Wildlife Authority because <strong>of</strong> her extensive experience in<br />
control <strong>of</strong> problem animals and vermin.<br />
46
References<br />
1. Alexander, S., Schneider, S., and Lagerquist, K., 1997, ‘The interaction <strong>of</strong> climate and<br />
life’, In: Uganda Biodiversity: <strong>Economic</strong> Assessment. Prepared with National<br />
Environment Management Authority as part <strong>of</strong> the Uganda National Biodiversity<br />
Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment Management Authority, Kampala,<br />
Uganda.<br />
2. Aniku, J. (1996) <strong>Wetland</strong> Soils <strong>of</strong> Uganda. In: <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> Ramsar<br />
Information Sheet on Ramsar <strong>Wetland</strong>s. Ramsar Sites Information Service, <strong>Wetland</strong>s<br />
International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. PP 5<br />
3. Barbier, E.B., Acreman, M.C. and Knowler, D. (1997). <strong>Economic</strong> valuation <strong>of</strong> wetlands.<br />
A guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
4. Barndregt, A., van der Straaten, J., Ierland, E. and T.Söderqvist, 1998, ‘<strong>Wetland</strong><br />
management and institutions: an ecological-economic approach’, In: Valuing wetlands in<br />
decision-making: Where we are now? <strong>Wetland</strong> valuation issues paper # 1. Integrating<br />
wetland economic values in to river basin management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
5. Bennun, L. and Njoroge, P. (1996) Birds to watch in East Africa: In: <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong><br />
<strong>Wetland</strong> Ramsar Information Sheet on Ramsar <strong>Wetland</strong>s. Ramsar Sites Information<br />
Service, <strong>Wetland</strong>s International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. PP 2<br />
6. Bolt, K., Ruta, G. and Sarraf, M. (2005) Estimating the Cost <strong>of</strong> Environmental<br />
Degradation. A Training Manual in English, French and Arabic. The World Bank<br />
Environment Department. PP 51-56.<br />
7. Bush, G., Nampindo, S., Aguti, C. and Plumptre A.J. (2005). Valuing <strong>of</strong> Uganda’s<br />
Forests: A livelihoods and Ecosystems Approach, Unpublished report to National Forest<br />
Authority, Kampala, Uganda. (http://albertinerift.org/arift-home/ariftpublications/reports?)<br />
8. Byaruhanga, A. and Kigoolo, S. (2005) <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong> Ramsar Information<br />
Sheet on Ramsar <strong>Wetland</strong>s. Ramsar Sites Information Service, <strong>Wetland</strong>s International,<br />
Wageningen, The Netherlands. 1-11 (http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database)<br />
9. De Groot, R.S., Stuip, M.A.M., Finlayson, C.M. and Davidson, N. (2006). Valuing<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong>s: Guidance for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland ecosystem services,<br />
Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention<br />
Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
10. Dennis, M.K. and Mazotta, M. (2001) Ecosystem valuation. Website.<br />
http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org. Authors affiliated with University <strong>of</strong> Maryland and<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Rhode Island<br />
11. Duru CC, Uma NU (2002). Post harvest spoilage <strong>of</strong> cormels <strong>of</strong> Xanthosoma sagitttifolia.<br />
In: Socioeconomic constraints to sustainable cocoyam production in the Lake Victoria<br />
Crescent, Moi University, Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Economic</strong>s and Agricultural Resource<br />
Management, P.O. Box 1125-30100, Eldoret, Kenya.<br />
47
12. Emerton, L. and Muramira, E. (1999) Uganda Biodiversity: <strong>Economic</strong> Assessment.<br />
Prepared with National Environment Management Authority as part <strong>of</strong> the Uganda<br />
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment Management<br />
Authority, Kampala, Uganda.<br />
13. Emerton, L., Lyango, L., Luwum, P. and Malinga, A. (1999) The Present Value <strong>of</strong><br />
Nakivubo Urban <strong>Wetland</strong>, Uganda, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. PP 5-7.<br />
14. Emerton, L.2003. Valuing wetlands in decision-making: Where we are now? <strong>Wetland</strong><br />
valuation issues paper # 1. Integrating wetland economic values in to river basin<br />
management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
15. Hesselink, F. (2008) Course No. 22 on Communication and Participation, HECT<br />
Consultancy, Netherlands. PowerPoint Presentation to MSc. Students ‘’Management <strong>of</strong><br />
Protected Areas, Klagenfurt University on 8 th July 2008, Austria.<br />
16. Howard, P., (1995) The <strong>Economic</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas in Uganda: Costs, Benefits and<br />
Policy issues. In: Uganda Biodiversity: <strong>Economic</strong> Assessment. Prepared with National<br />
Environment Management Authority as part <strong>of</strong> the Uganda National Biodiversity<br />
Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment Management Authority, Kampala,<br />
Uganda.<br />
17. IUCN, (2002) <strong>Economic</strong> valuation <strong>of</strong> the Sango <strong>Bay</strong> forest resource. In: Valuing <strong>of</strong><br />
Uganda’s Forests: A livelihoods and Ecosystems Approach, Unpublished report to<br />
National Forest Authority, Kampala, Uganda.<br />
18. Mikkelsen, B. 1995. Methods for development work and research. A guide for<br />
practicioners. In: A socio-economic assessment <strong>of</strong> community livelihoods in areas<br />
adjacent to corridors linking Queen Elizabeth National Park to other protected areas in<br />
Western Uganda, Wildlife Conservation Society, Albertine Rift Programme, Kampala,<br />
Uganda. PP 21-22<br />
19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005) Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems<br />
and human well-being: <strong>Wetland</strong>s and water synthesis. World Resources Institute,<br />
Washington, D.C.<br />
20. Ministry <strong>of</strong> Water, Lands and Environment, (2001) <strong>Wetland</strong> Sector Strategic Plan, 2001-<br />
2010. Kampala, Uganda<br />
21. Myers, N., 1997, ‘The world’s forests and their ecosystem services’. In: <strong>Economic</strong><br />
Assessment. Prepared with National Environment Management Authority as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Uganda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Environment<br />
Management Authority, Kampala, Uganda.<br />
22. National Environment Management Authority, 2006/07. State <strong>of</strong> Environment Report for<br />
Uganda, NEMA, Kampala.<br />
23. NEMA, (2002) State <strong>of</strong> the Environment Report for Uganda. In: <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Wetland</strong><br />
Ramsar Information Sheet on Ramsar <strong>Wetland</strong>s. Ramsar Sites Information Service,<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong>s International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. PP 4<br />
(http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database)<br />
48
24. Pearce, D. and Moran, D. (1994) The economic value <strong>of</strong> biodiversity. The World<br />
Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
25. Pritchard, D.(2009) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in<br />
developing countries (REDD) – the link with wetlands. A background paper for<br />
Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development, United Kingdom<br />
26. Schuyt, K. and Brander, L. (2004) The economic values <strong>of</strong> the world’s wetlands. WWF-<br />
International Gland. Switzerland<br />
(www.panda.org/downloads/freshwater/wetlandsbrochurefinal.pdf)<br />
27. Serem, A. K., Palapala, V., Talwana, H., Nandi, J. M., Ndabikunze, B. and Korir, M. K.<br />
(2008) Socioeconomic constraints to sustainable cocoyam production in the Lake<br />
Victoria Crescent, Moi University, Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>Economic</strong>s and Agricultural Resource<br />
Management, P.O. Box 1125-30100, Eldoret, Kenya.<br />
28. Stuip, M.A.M, Baker, C.J. and Oosterberg, W. (2002). The socio-economics <strong>of</strong> wetlands.<br />
In: Valuing <strong>Wetland</strong>s: Guidance for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland<br />
ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27.<br />
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.<br />
29. Vorhies, F. (1999) Environmental economics explained. In: Valuing <strong>Wetland</strong>s: Guidance<br />
for valuing the benefits for derived from wetland ecosystem services, Ramsar Technical<br />
Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland,<br />
Switzerland.<br />
30. Wakiso District Local Council (WDLC), 2008. Kasanje Sub-county Development Plan<br />
2008-2011, Wakiso, Uganda<br />
49
Appendix<br />
Appendix I: Household and contingent survey questionnaire<br />
<strong>Economic</strong> valuation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland <strong>of</strong> international importance, Wakiso<br />
district, Uganda<br />
Introduction and explanation <strong>of</strong> survey<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> is a swamp and an extensive marsh stretching through a narrow and long bay<br />
fringed with papyrus towards the main body <strong>of</strong> Lake Victoria with fish landing sites Part <strong>of</strong> this<br />
wetland has forests with a variety <strong>of</strong> trees. There are human settlements and croplands in areas<br />
surrounding this wetland. This wetland is known to contribute significantly through provision <strong>of</strong><br />
essential natural goods and services necessary for the survival <strong>of</strong> local communities living<br />
around.<br />
This study seeks to explore the importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system to the local<br />
communities living in the parishes surrounding this wetland. We explicitly want to emphasize<br />
that this study is significant, and we want to contribute to the livelihood and standard <strong>of</strong> living for<br />
local communities by generating ideas, highlighting and proposing recommendations to the<br />
policy and decision makers at the local and national levels; <strong>Wetland</strong> Site Managers and other<br />
stakeholders for improved conservation and management <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mabamba</strong> wetland ecosystem.<br />
Improved management will assure continuous flow <strong>of</strong> goods and services to the present and<br />
future generations as well as contributing to the sustainable development <strong>of</strong> your local economy.<br />
Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and used only for scientific purposes and<br />
proposing policy actions for the wetland and your well-being. No <strong>of</strong>ficial or government<br />
institution will gain access to the data. The data will only be accessed by the principal researcher<br />
(Simon Akwetaireho) and; lecturers <strong>of</strong> Alps Adria University <strong>of</strong> Klagenfurt and <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>of</strong><br />
Institute <strong>of</strong> Ecology; all based in Austria, Europe and are actively involved in managing and<br />
implementing nature conservation programmes including wetland management and conservation<br />
activities. The data will also be stored only anonymously, so there will not be any reference your<br />
household data.<br />
Questionnaire: Household Survey and Contingent <strong>Valuation</strong> Questionnaire<br />
Interviewer :<br />
Checked by:<br />
Village (Local Council I):<br />
Parish (Local Council II):<br />
Sub-county (Local Council III):<br />
Date:<br />
Time:<br />
Respondent:<br />
age:<br />
Respondent:<br />
sex:<br />
50
1. Household composition<br />
How many people are in the household?<br />
Status Description Age Sex Education Occupation<br />
Head <strong>of</strong><br />
Household<br />
Spouse<br />
Member 1<br />
Member 2<br />
Member 3<br />
Member 4<br />
Member 5<br />
Member 6<br />
Member 7<br />
Member 8<br />
Member 9<br />
Member 10<br />
Description – 1) Husband, 2) Wife 3) Child 4) Relative, 5) Orphan 6)<br />
Visiting worker 7) Dependent 8) Female Head<br />
Education level – 0) No formal education 1) Primary 3) Secondary 4)<br />
College/University education<br />
Occupation – 0) No work 1) Farming – Including subsistence 2) Fishing 3)<br />
Student 4) Own business 5) Wage labour 6) Salaried employee<br />
7) Infant 8) Others – specify<br />
How much money does your household earn per year (after taxes)? (Once again I would like to<br />
remind you that this is a confidential survey only to used for scientific purposes; no<br />
authority will gain access to the data).<br />
Annual household income __________________________ UGS<br />
How many years has your family been in this Village/Parish?<br />
1) Less than 1 year 2) 1 – 5 years 3) 5 – 10 years 4) 10 years or more<br />
2. Building material<br />
House materials for main dwellings (try to make discreet observations on approach)<br />
Walls<br />
1) Timber/poles 2) Bricks 3) Mud 4) Iron 5) Plastic sheeting<br />
Door/window frame<br />
1) Timber/poles 2) Bricks 3) Others – specify<br />
51
Floor<br />
1) Timber/poles 2) Mud 3) Cement 3) Tiles/bricks<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong><br />
1) Thatch 2) Tiles 3) Iron sheets 4) Plastic sheeting<br />
3. Accessibility to and use <strong>of</strong> wetland<br />
i) From which part <strong>of</strong> the wetland do you obtain goods e.g. fuels, plants, timber, fish, fodder etc?<br />
a) Forest b) Open waters c) Swamp d) Shores<br />
e) Others.<br />
ii) Which means <strong>of</strong> transport do you use to reach the wetland?<br />
a) By foot b) By bicycle c) By car d) By Bus e) By boat<br />
iii) How long does it take you to reach there?<br />
iv) Which months <strong>of</strong> the year do you most <strong>of</strong>ten use the wetland?<br />
Month JAN FEB MAR APR MA JU JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC<br />
4. Livestock<br />
i) Do you have animals among your household assets?<br />
Live stock item<br />
Goats<br />
Sheep<br />
Pigs<br />
Chickens/ducks/pigeons<br />
Rabbits<br />
Cows<br />
Dogs<br />
Number<br />
ii) Do you obtain forage/pasture and water for the livestock from the wetland? YES/NO<br />
iii) If YES, may you provide explanation on the following aspects in the table below?<br />
Live stock item<br />
Goats<br />
Sheep<br />
Pigs<br />
Chickens/ducks/pigeons<br />
Rabbits<br />
Cows<br />
Dogs<br />
Time <strong>of</strong><br />
the year<br />
Quantity <strong>of</strong><br />
forage/pasture<br />
(bundles)<br />
Price per<br />
unit <strong>of</strong><br />
forage<br />
Quantity<br />
<strong>of</strong> water<br />
(jerry<br />
cans)<br />
Price per<br />
jerry can<br />
<strong>of</strong> water<br />
52
5. Land resources<br />
i) How much land do you have?<br />
ii)<br />
What do you use it for?<br />
Land type Area (Local Unit) What proportion is this <strong>of</strong> your total<br />
land holding? (Quarter, half, three quarter<br />
or All)<br />
Land type – 1) Natural forest/woodland, 2) woodlot 3) Arable 4)<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong> 5) Grassland pasture 6) Woodland/forest pasture 7) Cash crop plantation.<br />
6. Do you own a woodlot? No/Yes<br />
Local name <strong>of</strong> the<br />
tree (main species)<br />
Common name<br />
(English)<br />
Area (Ha)<br />
Purpose<br />
7. Which fuels do you use every week and how much?<br />
Source Use Volume/amount Share <strong>of</strong> fuel<br />
provided by<br />
wetland?<br />
Wood<br />
Charcoal<br />
Papyrus<br />
Grass<br />
Other?<br />
Use – 1) cooking 2) Lighting 3) Heating<br />
Share – 1) None 2) Quarter 3) Half 4) Three quarters 5) All<br />
53
8. Where do you get your water?<br />
Source Use Volume/amount Share <strong>of</strong> water<br />
stemming from<br />
wetland.<br />
<strong>Wetland</strong><br />
Bore hole/well<br />
Stream /river<br />
Spring protected<br />
Spring unprotected<br />
Pond/dam<br />
Lake<br />
Others - specify<br />
Share – 1) None 2) Quarter 3) Half 4) Three quarters 5) Al<br />
9. Which means <strong>of</strong> transport do you use to reach the wetland?<br />
a) By foot b) By bicycle c) By car d) By Bus e) By boat<br />
10. How long does it take you to reach there?<br />
11. Who collects water in the household?<br />
12. How many jerrycans cans do you use each day?<br />
13. Does your water already have drinking water quality? YES/ NO. If NO, continue to question<br />
14).<br />
14. If NOT drinking water quality, what kind <strong>of</strong> purification do you use?<br />
Purification methods<br />
Nothing<br />
Boiling<br />
Boiling and filtering<br />
Chemicals<br />
Others<br />
Remarks<br />
15. Problem animals and vermin<br />
i) Do you have any problems with crop raiding animals from wetland? 1) Yes 2) No.<br />
ii) Which species?<br />
a. Buffalo b. Antelopes c. Monkeys d. Baboons e. Wild pigs f. Hippopotamus<br />
g) Others (specify)……………….<br />
iii) Which species is most problematic?<br />
iv) Do you ever trap some <strong>of</strong> these problem animals?<br />
54
16. Do you harvest or sell anything from the wetland?<br />
Item Local Unit Own harvested<br />
units sold annually<br />
Yams<br />
Sugarcanes<br />
Watermelon<br />
Wild honey<br />
Water<br />
Vegetables<br />
Small wild animals<br />
Guinea fowl<br />
Francolin<br />
Fish<br />
Others<br />
Large wild animals<br />
Big antelope<br />
Hippo<br />
Others<br />
Other products<br />
Building poles from<br />
the wetland<br />
Grass for thatching<br />
Papyrus<br />
Climbers/creepers<br />
Sand<br />
Clay<br />
Medicinal plants<br />
Firewood<br />
Charcoal<br />
Piece<br />
Piece<br />
Piece<br />
Litre<br />
Jerry can<br />
Bundle<br />
Piece<br />
Piece<br />
Piece<br />
Piece<br />
Piece<br />
Piece<br />
Bundle<br />
Bundle<br />
head load<br />
Heap<br />
Heap<br />
Kg<br />
Bundle/billet<br />
Sack<br />
Own harvested<br />
Units consumed<br />
weekly<br />
Price<br />
per Unit<br />
17. Eliciting <strong>of</strong> willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for loss <strong>of</strong> livelihood from the<br />
wetland<br />
<strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland is a wetland <strong>of</strong> international importance, but also heavily used by<br />
residents. However, due to illegal uses and overuse, the wetland is deteriorated, and it is<br />
questionable whether the wetland will be able to provide many benefits to residents also in the<br />
future. Suppose therefore, that a new management plan will be set up to secure that the wetland<br />
will be beneficial to residents and the wildlife also in the future. In order to secure this, suppose<br />
that the wetland will be strictly managed with restrictions <strong>of</strong> access and use <strong>of</strong> resources (water,<br />
fish, papyrus plants, fuel wood, medicinal plant materials etc). Probably half <strong>of</strong> the resources you<br />
currently use will have to be purchased on local markets. But after one year when the conditions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the wetland have improved, you will be once again allowed to access fully the wetland<br />
resources you depend on for your survival.<br />
The management would be set up according to international standards, and would be supervised<br />
by the Governments <strong>of</strong> Uganda as represented by Ministry <strong>of</strong> Water and Environment in<br />
collaboration with the World Conservation Union. A compensation scheme running for one year<br />
has been put in place to compensate you for the loss <strong>of</strong> livelihood you derive from this wetland<br />
55
a) If alternatives goods were available on local markets, how much money would you except as a<br />
minimal compensation per month for the losses due to the restriction <strong>of</strong> access to the wetlands, in<br />
order to compensate you for the foregone benefits <strong>of</strong> the wetland?<br />
Payment card for eliciting WTA for loss <strong>of</strong> access to wetland ecosystem<br />
services<br />
Amount <strong>of</strong> compensation per month (US$) for the losses due to the restriction <strong>of</strong> access to the<br />
wetlands, in order to compensate you for the foregone benefits<br />
Don’t know, no answer<br />
Zero<br />
5.6<br />
11.2<br />
16.7<br />
22.4<br />
27.8<br />
33.4<br />
38.9<br />
44.4<br />
50.0<br />
55.6<br />
61.1<br />
66.7<br />
72.2<br />
77.8<br />
83.3<br />
88.9<br />
94.4<br />
100.0<br />
105.6<br />
111.1<br />
116.7<br />
122.2<br />
More (please specify)<br />
b) Only if no answer: Why are you not willing to accept compensation?<br />
i. I would not accept the proposal, because I have a right to use the wetland.<br />
ii.<br />
iii.<br />
iv.<br />
I do not trust the authorities; they would probably take the money without doing<br />
something for the wetland<br />
Even if compensated, I cannot afford to loose access to the wetlands.<br />
I do not trust that the wetland will be open again after one year.<br />
v. others:_________________________________________________________<br />
56
18. Willingness to pay in order to have a better and secure access to wetland goods and<br />
services<br />
Suppose that a locally run management scheme with international supervision was devised to<br />
maintain and improve your wetland resources i.e. ‘’double availability and security <strong>of</strong> wetland<br />
service provision’’ compared to today, so that you had more secure access to a better quantity<br />
and quality <strong>of</strong> wetland products and benefits e.g. easier access to water, fodder, fish etc.<br />
a) How much would you be willing to pay as a mandatory (voluntary) contribution (paid by all<br />
residents) devoted solely to a funding scheme for securing the success <strong>of</strong> wetland management<br />
per month?).<br />
Payment card for eliciting WTP to secure a better access to wetland<br />
products and services<br />
The maximum amount that you are prepared to pay per month in order to secure a better access to<br />
products and services from <strong>Mabamba</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> wetland system (in US$)<br />
Don’t know, no answer<br />
Zero answer<br />
0.56<br />
0.83<br />
1.11<br />
1.4<br />
1.7<br />
1.9<br />
2.2<br />
3.1<br />
3.9<br />
5.6<br />
11.1<br />
16.7<br />
22.2<br />
27.8<br />
33.3<br />
38.9<br />
44.4<br />
50.0<br />
55.6<br />
More (please specify)…………………………….<br />
b) If you would not be willing to pay anything (only zero or “No answer”), why?<br />
i. The wetlands should be protected at all costs and financed out <strong>of</strong> national and international<br />
funds.<br />
ii. Residents have a right to use the wetlands and should not be asked to pay for it.<br />
iii) I do not trust the management scheme and the administration <strong>of</strong> the management plan.<br />
57
iv) I already pay too much tax.<br />
v) I cannot answer this question (don’t know).<br />
vi) <strong>Wetland</strong> benefits cannot be valued in money terms; I object such types <strong>of</strong> questions.<br />
Thank you very much for supporting this important research that will lead to a better use<br />
and improved conservation <strong>of</strong> this wetland for the present and future generations.<br />
58