Cost-Benefit Analysis Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MACP Mountain Areas Conservancy Project Cost-Benefit Analysis of Changes in Use of Natural Resources by the Local Communities in the MACP Conservancies Final draft June 2006 IUCN Pakistan Programme Mountain Areas Conservancy Project (MACP) CONTENTS Contents 1 Acknowledgements 3 Acronyms And Abbreviations 4 Executive Summary 6 1. INTRODUCTION 8 1.1. Background 9 1.2. Current Situation 9 2. COST- BENEFIT ANALYSIS 13 2.1 Traditional Uses of Biodiversity 13 2.2 Causes of Deterioration in the Traditional Use Practices 13 2.3 MACP Approach vs. Traditional Conservation Practices 16 2.3.1 The Traditional Approach to Conservation 16 2.3.2 The MACP Approach - GEF Alternative Strategy for Conservation 17 2.3.3 Comparison of MACP vs. Traditional Approach to Conservation 18 2.4 Costs borne by Communities in adopting the MACP Approach 19 2.5 Contributions of MACP Approach in Conserving Biodiversity 20 3. BENEFITS, ISSUES & TRENDS 26 3.1 VCC Sadpara (Skardu Conservancy) 26 3.2 VCC Basho (Skardu Conservancy) 27 3.3 VCC Gayul-Burgay (Skardu Conservancy) 27 3.4 VCC Chunda Paeen (Skardu Conservancy) 28 3.5 VCC Bunji (Astore Conservancy) 28 3.6 VCC Donyan (Astore Conservancy) 29 3.7 VCC Dashkin-Mushkin-Turbling (Astore Conservancy) 29 3.8 VCC SKB (Gojal Conservancy) 30 3.9 VCC Gulmit (Gojal Conservancy) 31 3.10 VCC Hussaini (Gojal Conservancy) 31 3.11 VCC KVO (Gojal Conservancy) 31 3.12 VCC Shahoo (Qashqar Kalam Conservancy) 32 3.13 VCC Godar (Qashqar Kalam Conservancy) 33 MACP Cost-Benefit Analysis Page 1 3.14 VCC Bhan (Qashqar Kalam Conservancy) 33 3.15 VCC Munoor (Tirichmir West Garam Chasma Conservancy) 34 3.16 VCC Murdan (Tirichmir West Garam Chasma Conservancy) 34 3.17 VCC Gobor (Tirichmir West Garam Chasma Conservancy) 35 3.18 VCC Begusht (Tirichmir West Garam Chasma Conservancy) 36 4. RECOMMENDATIONS / LESSONS LEARNT 37 ANNEX – I: Terms of Reference of the Consultancy 39 Bibliography 41 MACP Cost-Benefit Analysis Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Author acknowledges crucial logistical, administrative and informational support from the staff of both the Regional Offices of MACP, IUCN-Pakistan. Technical and moral support extended by Bryan Hugill, Program Officer, IUCN-Pakistan and Faiz Ali, Technical Advisor, MACP, IUCN-Pakistan, Islamabad helped the work significantly. Raja Attaullah, National Program Manager, MACP, IUCN-Pakistan, Jawad Khan, Regional Project Manager, MACP, Gilgit, Northern Areas and Iqmail Shah, Regional Project Manager, MACP, Mengora, NWFP were extremely helpful in extending their advice and guidance during this consultancy. Ather Ali and Ghafoor Khan, Biodiversity Specialists at the Regional Offices in Gilgit and Mengora respectively were significant in arranging the meetings with the communities and providing the required information. Aftab Ismail Khan Consultant MACP, Islamabad 2006 MACP Cost-Benefit Analysis Page 3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AKDN Aga Khan Development Network AKRSP Aga Khan Rural support Program AIMS Accelerating Income through Mobilizing Skills BACIP Building and Construction Improvement Program CITES Convention on International Treaty for Endangered Species CMC Conservation Management Committee CMP Conservation Management Plan DCC District Conservation Committee EE Environmental Evaluation EMP Economic and Medicinal Plants GEF Global Environment Fund GOP Government of Pakistan IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature - World conservation Union ISSD International Institute for Sustainable Development IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development KANA Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas KKH KaraKoram Highway LB & RD Local Bodies and Rural Development LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas MACF Mountain Areas Conservancy Fund MACP Mountain Areas Conservancy Project M & E Monitoring and Evaluation MELGRD Ministry of Environment Local Government and Rural Development NA Northern Areas NAC Northern Areas and Chitral NACC&I Northern Areas Chamber of Commerce and Industry NACS Northern Areas Conservation Strategy NAPWD Northern Areas Public Works Department NASSD Northern Areas Strategy for Sustainable Development NATCO Northern Areas Transport Corporation NCS National Conservation Strategy NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRM Natural Resource Management NWFP North West Frontier Province PA Protected Areas P&D Planning and Development PIDC Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation PKR Pakistan Rupee PMDC Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation PRIF Pre Investment Facility QPR Quarterly Progress Report SDPI Sustainable Development Policy Institute SME Small and Medium Enterprise VCC Valley Conservation Committee VCF Valley Conservancy Fund MACP Cost-Benefit Analysis Page 4 VCP Valley Conservation Plan VO Village Organization WASEP Water and Sanitation Extension Program WCC Women Conservation Committee WG Women Group WO Women Organization WWF World Wide Fund for Nature MACP Cost-Benefit Analysis Page 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The traditional approach to conservation of biodiversity in Pakistan’s mountain areas has centred on establishment of Protected Areas (PAs), such as, National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Game Reserves – without truly accommodating the needs and perceptions of the local communities. The administration of conservation programs have followed a top-down approach, focusing on the enforcement of State laws and rules, which were intended to restrict the communities from unsustainable resource use without providing them with alternative means of livelihoods. The State with its limited resources was unable to monitor and regulate the vast and high mountain regions, specifically, in the presence of an ever-growing, poor and helpless local community, which was compelled to resort to unsustainable resource use practices for subsistence. The solution to the problem lied in the Global Environment Fund’s (GEF) Alternative Strategy for conservation, viz., securing a balance between the development needs of the local communities and the objectives of the sustainable ecosystem management. In consequence, the Mountain Areas Conservancy Project (MACP) was initiated in 19991. The project has three principal thrusts: “(1) To empower, organize and boost the capacity of local communities to conserve biodiversity at an ecological landscape level; (2) To enhance the relative values of wild resources (as a conservation incentive) by promoting their sustainable use; and (3) To create a conducive policy, legislative and financial framework for community-based conservation”2. The subject case study is an attempt to elaborate on the costs and benefits of the MACP’s sustainable use policies and activities with respect to the local communities in the MACP area. Cost- benefit analysis is typically used in business planning and decision-making; however, in the present situation it implies analysis of the positive and negative impacts of MACP’s sustainable use initiatives. A review of available literature on the subject, project documents/reports and interviews with MACP communities and staff indicates that with the implementation of MACP some remarkable results have been achieved. By adopting the MACP policies on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, the communities have received considerable benefits without incurring significant costs. Before the inception of MACP, the local communities were in a quandary - despite material and moral reasons, they were unable to sustain their wild resources, which were dwindling due to their over-exploitation by an ever-growing population. This helplessness on part of most of the local communities paved the way for their wholehearted cooperation and acceptance of MACP’s sustainable use policies and interventions. The general sentiment of the communities, visited by the author, is one of gratitude towards MACP for rescuing them from a precarious situation. The costs of MACP interventions are borne by the Project and the communities. The costs incurred by the Project at the end of 2005 amount to $ 9,243,900 out of a total budget of $ 10.35 million. While the costs incurred by the communities cannot be given a dollar value, they comprise mainly of the sacrifices made by the communities to reduce their subsistence-based reliance on the use of wild resources. The Domestic and Global Benefits of MACP interventions are tremendous. In terms of Domestic Benefits: above all, the local mountain communities have been empowered to own, manage, plan, benefit from and account for their wild resources through the establishment of 68 Valley Conservation Committees (VCCs) and development of 56 Valley Conservation Plans (VCPs) across the MACP Conservancies (encompassing over 17,000 km2. 64 valleys and more than 500 villages). Some 2,241 male and 787 female community members have been environmentally-sensitized and imparted 143 different types of conservation related trainings; ecologically-sustainable community infrastructure development schemes such as construction of bridges, water channels, water supply, protection walls, roads and schools have benefited some 24,214 households at a cost of PKR 45,873,110 (community share: PKR 18,193,624). 1 MACP is in the last year of its implementation and the official termination date for the project is December 31, 2006. 2 MACP Project Document, 1 pp MACP Cost-Benefit Analysis Page 6 Further, Sustainable Resource Use (SRU)-based activities such as trophy hunting has generated revenues totalling PKR 8,370,396 in 10 VCCs; 13 Pasture Management Plans (PMPs), 4 Joint Forest Management Plans (JFMPs) and 4 Medicinal Plants Management Plans