José Galindo

jose@mentefactura.net

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!