josé galindo [email protected] max lascano, gabriela ordoñez paula suárez,césar viteri...
TRANSCRIPT
José Galindo
Max Lascano, Gabriela OrdoñezPaula Suárez,César Viteri Mejía
Protected Areas and local
livelihoods in Ecuador: a
summary of results
Context
This assessment was financed by TNC as an
integral component of the financial sustainability
strategy for the Protected Areas System NPAS.
It complements a series of studies aimed to
estimate an economic value for the NPAS (PES,
tourism, poverty).
60% of Ecuadorians live under the poverty line,
while 20% of its territory is devoted to
biodiversity conservation.
ObjetiveTo estimate the economic contribution of the Ecuadorian PA´s System to the living conditions of the local livelihoods located inside of PA´s and in their buffer zone.
– Conceptual framework (+/- relationships)– Economic valuation of the monetary and non
monetary contribution to local families– Qualitative analysis of opportunity costs of local
livelihoods in terms of key social variables
MethodologyAspects Valuation Methods
Non monetary contribution
Avoided costs derived from the relative weight of the goods within the “basic family basket”. Official and market average prices were used to estimate costs.
Monetary contribution
Opportunity costs using market prices. People were asked directly about their use of natural resources, its value was estimated trough market prices.
Education It was not possible to valuate, a comparative and qualitative approach was used.
Health Avoided costs derived from the relative weight of the goods within the “basic family basket”.
Security Vulnerability
Descriptive & statistical results presented
Social fabric
Descriptive & statistical results presented
Total population inside and around PA´s = 227.986 poor people; 54.153 households
Sample: 939 surveys
Error: +/-3%
ResultsEconomic valuation of PA´s yearly contribution per household vs
the rural average income
$ 0,00
$ 500,00
$ 1.000,00
$ 1.500,00
$ 2.000,00
$ 2.500,00
$ 3.000,00
Andes Coast Amazon Rural Average
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Andes Coast Amazon
Monetary and non monetary contribution
Non monetary contribution Monetary contribution
Direct benefits to households to satisfy basic needs (housing, food, wood, medicinal plants) are worth USD 65 per month. Each USD invested by the government generates 5 USD
Results
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Andes
Coast
Amazon
Participation of the different components used to assess the economic valuation
Resources for consumption
Resources for housing
Resources for house appliances
Respurces for transportation means
Use of wood
Use of water
Income from natural resources extractiveactivities
Income from tourism
Income from wildlife commerce
Income from conservation related activities
Income from non timber products
Results
The average contribution of tourism varies from USD $80/month in the coast to USD $95/month in the andes.
0,00% 0,50% 1,00% 1,50% 2,00% 2,50% 3,00%
Andes
Coast
Amazon
Households that work in conservation related activities
0,00%
1,00%
2,00%
3,00%
4,00%
5,00%
6,00%
7,00%
Andes Coast Amazon
Households that work in tourism
4,80%
5,00%
5,20%
5,40%
5,60%
5,80%
6,00%
Andes Coast Amazon
Households that produce or sell non timber products
Conclusions
Survival strategies for poor people living in or around PA´s is heavily based in the use of natural resources. We did not look at the sustainability of these activities.
The study presents high opportunity costs derived from accessibility constrains, affecting household's welfare in terms of education, health and security.
PA´s with older occupation and complex economies, prove to be more intensive in the use of natural resources. Geographic location determines different behaviors and patterns of use of natural resources. Approach should be case by case.
Sustainable activities such as tourism are still benefiting a limited number of households. The income and employment opportunities derived from biodiversity conservation are not been fully realized.
Thank you!