Wetlands and Lakes III - GaMampa Wetlands

In this post, I will address the economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in terms of policy and decision making with a specific example at the GaMampa wetland in South Africa.

GaMampa Wetlands

20% of the South African landscape is covered by inland wetlands. The GaMampa wetland is an example of such small inland wetlands. Located within the Mohlapetsi river catchment, the GaMampa wetland covers an area of >120 ha and is crucial to the livelihoods of surrounding local communities. 

Ecosystem Services provision:

Although the wetlands merely covers around 1% of the entire catchment of the Mohlapetsi River basin, it contributes significantly to dry season flows through a natural springs, comprising >15% of the dry season flow of the Olifants River (Mohlapetsi trib.).

Source

Provisioning services include the provision of natural resources (grass for grazing, reed for handicrafts), water supply provision, fuel wood and fisheries. Regulatory services include carbon storage and cultural/recreational services include the ever-expanding eco-tourism. 5 villages are located within the vicinity of the wetlands and almost all households were found to be actively engaging with at least one or more of the wetland services (Adekola 2007). However, while there is no doubt of the wide range of ecosystem services the wetlands provides, it does not imply equal access. ES usage across households often reveals underlying social conditions (class, wealth, power relations). Poorer households were found to be less frequently engaged with ecosystem services than medium to high wealth groups which tends to actively exploit wetlands services, most notably through high soil fertility and wetland conversions (McCartney et.al. 2011). This also reveals the inherent traits of trade-offs within the usage of ecosystem services where agricultural productivity and food provision may be prioritised at the expense of hidden services, eventually and ironically leading to the collapse/decline of the initially prioritised services.

Economic valuation:

McCartney et.al. 2011 concluded that the net value of $USD 80,000 significantly exceeds the annual cash income of households within the area, suggesting a major contribution of ES delivery/provision to local livelihoods. Total wetland benefits if shared among households of surrounding villages was found to be able to contribute >$400 per household (Adekola 2007).

However, while these economic values may look encouraging for poverty alleviation, it masks the fact that wetland conversions has been dramatic in recent years with the wetlands halving in size between 1996 and 2002, illustrating the reality of trade-offs within different ecosystem services. 

Management and decision-making:

There is no doubt the GaMampa wetlands plays an important role in sustaining local livelihoods, survival and water/food security through both direct benefits (cropping, fuel wood, water) and indirect benefits (streamflow generation, water quality regulation, eco-tourism). Economic valuation, although may risk neglecting hidden services, is ultimately useful tool for decision-making and future management of wetlands if used with the wide appreciation of the ES concept. Within the Gamampa wetlands, the economic valuation of the wetlands and the increased scientific research within the area did increase local environmental awareness and agricultural land conversion has been markedly reduced since 2004. Combing biophysical (wetland hydrology) research with economic valuation can help reach agreement and decisions over future governance of the area and may stimulate government/NGO involvement to optimize benefits and limit degradation. Ultimately, I do think that the economic valuation of ecosystem services, if  used among an entire suite of other ways of valuation, is a powerful tool in stimulating action and sustainable management. This was shown through Sylvie et.al. 2010, where a modelling study using STELLA modelling language was used to assess trade-offs within the GaMampa wetlands, including not only the value of natural services, but also the hydrology, community well-being, population dynamics, future environmental change and future management scenarios. Descending into a theoretical/ethical debate over valuing/commodifying nature may therefore not be helpful.

In the next post, we will look at environmental change on future provision of ecosystem services.