Economic Valuation of Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex (PDF)

Final Report_ARCOS ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF THE RWERU-MUGESERA WETLANDS COMPLEX IN RWANDA FINAL REPORT August18, 2021  Final Report_ARCOS Economic Valuation...

Final Report_ARCOS ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF THE RWERU-MUGESERA WETLANDS COMPLEX IN RWANDA FINAL REPORT August18, 2021  Final Report_ARCOS Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of the Rweru- Mugesera Wetlands Complex in Rwanda Final Report Report Produced by: IUCN Rwanda Office For ARCOS Network This report was produced as part of the Rwanda Wetlands ecological integrity assessment project supported by JRS Biodiversity Foundation, implemented by ARCOS in collaboration with REMA, IUCN and other members of the National Project Advisory Committee. ARCOS is grateful for the technical contribution from the following persons: Philip Otieno, Dr Dawit W. Mulatu, Dr Sam Kanyamibwa, Charles Karangwa, Jean Paul Kubwimana, Ephrem Manirareba and Christian Mukama. Suggested Citation: ARCOS(2021): Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex in Rwanda. Technical Report. August 18, 2021  Final Report_ARCOS Final Report_ARCOS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................i LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................iv ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................vii 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Background and Context......................................................................................................................1 1.2. Need for valuation and purpose of the study.....................................................................................1 1.3. Scope of valuation.................................................................................................................................1 1.4. Review of wetland ecosystem services...............................................................................................2 1.5. Stakeholders of Wetlands and Wetland Ecosystem services...........................................................2 1.6. An Overview of Valuation and Wetland Valuation Techniques.....................................................2 1.6.1. Value and Value systems......................................................................................................................2 1.6.2. Valuation................................................................................................................................................3 1.6.3. The concept of willingness to pay........................................................................................................3 1.6.4. Ways of measuring the value of ecosystem services.........................................................................3 1.6.5. Valuation techniques.............................................................................................................................4 1.7. Threats and Drivers of Wetland Degradation..................................................................................4 1.8. Policy, Legal, Regulatory and Frameworks........................................................................................5 1.8.1. National Environment and Climate Change Policy..........................................................................5 1.8.2. Agricultural policy of 2017..................................................................................................................6 1.8.3. Biodiversity Policy.................................................................................................................................6 1.8.4. Energy Policy..........................................................................................................................................6 1.8.5. Prime Minister’s Order N°006/03 of 30/01/2017..............................................................................6 1.8.6. National irrigation master plan...........................................................................................................6 1.8.7. Crop intensification programme.........................................................................................................7 1.8.8. The Girinka program............................................................................................................................7 2. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................7 2.1. An overview of the approach adopted for the study........................................................................7 2.2. Study area delineation.........................................................................................................................7 2.2.1. The hydrology of the wetlands complex..............................................................................................7 2.2.2. The ecology of the wetlands complex..................................................................................................8 2.2.3. The socio-economy of the wetland complex.....................................................................................8 2.3. Typology Development........................................................................................................................9 2.4. Data collection strategy......................................................................................................................10 2.4.1. Data needs, types, and sources..........................................................................................................10 2.4.2. Sampling Procedures and Strategy....................................................................................................11 Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetland Complex i  Final Report_ARCOS 2.4.3. Data collection.................................................................................................................................11 2.5. Mapping...........................................................................................................................................13 2.6. Baseline Economic Values Calculation........................................................................................13 2.7. Assessment of the economic consequences of the current institutional frameworks16 2.7.1. Assumptions and patterns of change for the ecosystem services under the current institutional frameworks.............................................................................................................................17 2.7.2. Cost Benefit Analysis of the current institutional frameworks................................................17 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS...................................................................................................18 3.1. The socio-economic characteristics of the local community living around the wetland......................................................................................................................................18 3.2. The ecosystem-economic linkages and stakeholders identified...............................................18 3.3. The baseline (current) economic values of the wetland ecosystem service............................20 3.3.1. Domestic Water Supply..................................................................................................................20 3.3.2. Livestock watering...........................................................................................................................21 3.3.3. Livestock grazing within the wetland...........................................................................................21 3.3.4. Fuelwood access from the wetland...............................................................................................22 3.3.5. Herbal medicine..............................................................................................................................22 3.3.6. Crops growing within the wetland...............................................................................................23 3.3.7. Grass harvesting for zero grazing.................................................................................................23 3.3.8. Capture fisheries.............................................................................................................................24 3.3.9. Papyrus and other grasses products.............................................................................................25 3.3.10. Flood Control..................................................................................................................................25 3.3.11. Waste assimilation and water purification...................................................................................26 3.3.12. Sediment Control............................................................................................................................26 3.3.13. Carbon storage and sequestration................................................................................................27 3.3.14. Habitat for biodiversity..................................................................................................................28 3.3.15. Summary of the baseline (2020) gross economic values of wetland ecosystem services..........................................................................................................................29 3. 4. Cost Benefit Analysis of the current institutional frameworks governing wetland management 3.4.1. Benefits of the wetland ecosystem services under the existing institutional frameworks.................................................................................................................31 3.4.2. Costs associated with current institutional frameworks............................................................31 3.4.3. The Net Present Values of the current institutional frameworks..............................................32 4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................33 4.1. Policy and management implications of the study outcomes.........................................................33 4.2. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................34 Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex ii  Final Report_ARCOS 4.3. Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................35 4.31. Research as a tool for evidence-based Policy and Management Guide............................................35 4.3.2. Policy and Management Recommendation........................................................................................35 References..........................................................................................................................................................36 Annexures..........................................................................................................................................................38 Annex 1: Parameters for the computation of the baseline (current) economic values of the wetland provisioning ecosystem services.....................................................................................................................38 Domestic Water Supply....................................................................................................................................38 Livestock watering............................................................................................................................................38 Livestock grazing within the wetland............................................................................................................39 Grass harvesting for Zero Grazing.................................................................................................................39 Capture fisheries...............................................................................................................................................39 Papyrus and other grasses products...............................................................................................................40 Fuelwood access from the wetland.................................................................................................................42 Annex 2: Data Collection Instrument...........................................................................................................43 Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex iii  Final Report_ARCOS LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Some of the applications of valuation 2Table 2: Stakeholder analysis..............................................................................................................................1 Table 3: Valuation techniques..............................................................................................................................2 Table 4: Local community household population............................................................................................8 Table 5: Land use, land cover types in Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex................................................10 Table 6: Data Needs, and Sources......................................................................................................................10 Table 7: Trends in Land use, land cover in Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex........................................13 Table 8: Models for estimation of the baseline economic values of ecosystem services............................14 Table 9: The ecosystem-economic linkages and the stakeholders................................................................20 Table 10: Computation of economic value of flood control..........................................................................25 Table 11: Inorganic Fertilizer pollution data in Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex.............................25 Table 12: Computation of carbon storage in various wetlands land uses based on 2020..........................27 Table 13: Computation of carbon losses from various wetland land uses..................................................28 Table 14: Summary of current economic values of the wetland ecosystem services.................................29 Table 15: Projected land use, land cover change under existing institutional frameworks up to 2050 Table 16: Present values of the benefits of wetland ecosystem services.......................................................30 Table 17: Present value of costs under the current institutional frameworks.............................................31 Table 18: Net Present values of wetland ecosystem services under the current institutional frameworks.........................................................................................................................................32 Table 19: Policy and management implications of the study outcome........................................................33 Table 20: Computation of economic value of water supply for domestic use.............................................38 Table 21: Computation of economic values for livestock watering ecosystem services............................38 Table 22: Computation of the economic value of livestock grazing within the wetland...........................39 Table 23: Computation of economic value of grass harvesting for livestock feeding................................39 Table 24: Computation of economic value of capture fisheries....................................................................40 Table 25: Computation of economic value of papyrus and other grasses products...................................41 Table 26: Computation of economic value of fuelwood access from the wetland.....................................42 Table 27: Computation of the economic value of herbal medicine ecosystem service.............................43 Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex iv  Final Report_ARCOS LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Study Area showing villages of the affected population....................................................8 Figure 2: Discussion with fisheries stakeholders near lake Rweru...............................................................12 Figure 3: The population who benefit from wetland ecosystem services....................................................18 Figure 4: WASAC water intake facility near Gashora wetland.....................................................................21 Figure 5: Cut and carry grass harvester near Gashora..................................................................................23 Figure 6: Phragmites dominated land cover near lake Rweru......................................................................28 Figure 7: Net Economic Values of Provisioning Ecosystem Services..........................................................30 Figure 8: Projected Land use change between 2020 and 2050 in Rweru-Mugesera wetland complex...............................................................................................................................................................31 Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex v  Final Report_ARCOS ABBREVIATIONS AGC Above Ground Carbon ALU Area of Land of Use ARCOS Albertine Rift Conservation Society BGC Below Ground Carbon CIP Crop Intensification Programme CO2 Carbon dioxide CS Consumer Surplus CSO Civil Society Organisation DAP Di-Ammonium Phosphate DDS District Development Strategies DP Development Partners ES Ecosystem Service ESP Ecosystem Services Partnership FGD Focus Group Discussion GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GoR Government of Rwanda IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union of Nature Conservation KII Key Informant Interview LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas MIFOTRA Ministry of Public Service and Labour MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources MINALOC Ministry of Local Government MINEACOM Ministry of Trade, Industry, and East African Community Affairs MINEDUC Ministry of Education MINICOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning MINIRENA Ministry of Natural Resources and Forest MINISANTE Ministry of Health MOE Ministry of Environment MYICT Ministry of Youth and ICT NB Net Benefit NGO Non-Governmental Organisation MININFRA Ministry of Infrastructure PS Producer Surplus PVC Present Value Cost RDB Rwanda Development Board REMA Rwanda Environment Management Authority RICA Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture RNRA Rwanda Natural Resources Authority RwF Rwandan Francs SSP Strategy Support Programme (e.g., the Rwanda SSP) TEEB The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity TLU Tropical Livestock Unit UR University of Rwanda WTP Willingness To Pay Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex vi  Final Report_ARCOS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction and aims of the valuation study Wetland ecosystem services can be defined into two broad categories. They can be categorized into those services related to water supply, and those services related to water demand. The wetland ecosystem services related to water supply include: (1) Maintenance of water flow and supplies, for example replenishment of water sources, water storage and regulation of flows; (2) Regulation of water quality, for example wastewater purification and control of sedimentation and siltation; (3) Minimization of water-related hazards and disasters, for example flood attenuation, and maintenance of water supplies in dry seasons and droughts. The wetland ecosystem services related to demand for and use of water include: maintenance of aquatic and terrestrial resource productivity and the associated products that these yields, for example fisheries, plants, pasture and forest products. It is these goods and services that have to be considered when talking of the linkages between ecosystems, water and the economy. The major challenges to sustainable management of wetlands is that quite often wetland users and decision-makers have insufficient understanding of the consequences of alternative management and policy regimes on wetland functioning, ecosystem services and human well- being. To reap the optimal benefit from the wetlands while ensuring their sustainability at the same time, better to conserve them earlier than trying to restore them after more damage has occurred to them. In this regard, conducting wetland ecosystem services valuation will enhance the preparation and implementation of wetland management plans not only to protect the wetlands but also creates new opportunities from the preservation of them. Thus, the need to recognize and value wetland ecosystem services is important for better decision makings to enhance wetlands ecosystem services. In this proposed study the main objective is to carry out a total economic valuation of ecosystem services of Rweru-Mugesera wetlands. The study will involve the development of a replicable methodology for ecosystem services assessment and total economic valuation and providing key and actionable recommendations for ecosystem mainstreaming in various sectors of development. Approach and Methodology We used a modified version of the Wilson Troy model of ecosystem valuation which entails; delineation of the wetland boundaries and this was based on three fundamental parameters that define a tropical freshwater wetland-presence of hydric soils, presence of hydrophytic vegetations (mainly the presence of phragmites), and levels of permanence or periodic inundation of the areas; delineation was then followed by typology development which was an exercise involving identification of the land use and land cover found within the wetland delineated boundaries, this was largely conducted through a thorough review of the literature in which five main land uses were identified and they included; water bodies, papyrus(phragmites), other vegetations, grassland, and crop lands. Fifteen ecosystem services were also prioritised for valuation in this exercise. Typology development was then followed by data collection using both probability sampling and purposive sampling, and use of secondary data. Probability sampling deployed cluster sampling of 199 households from a population of 52,173 households for a household survey exercise, while purposive sampling deployed key informant interviews, focus group discissions, and stakeholder workshop. Data collection stage was followed by mapping of land use change between 2010 and 2018 in order to obtain a trend of change to enable projection of future patterns if the implementation of the current institutional frameworks is sustained. Based on the trends obtained for land use change, a cost benefit analysis assessment was conducted for the baseline economic values for the next 30 years based on per unit hectarage available for each land use category and the related ecosystem services provision, a discount factor of 10% per annum was applied to establish present values of both benefits and costs over the 30-year period. Results and Discussions Fifteen ecosystem services were considered for valuation, and as indicated in the methodology section, this results section covers the findings from the data collection strategy section, i.e., estimation of the baseline economic values, and scenario analysis. Nine provisioning ecosystem services were considered for baseline economic valuation and they all yielded a total of over $US 52 million per year, these nine provisioning ecosystem services included; domestic water supply, water for livestock, crop farming, livestock grazing, grass harvesting, capture fisheries, papyrus products, fuelwood, and herbal medicine. Similarly, five regulating services were valued and these together were valued at approximately $US 499 million and they included; water purification, sediment control, flood control, carbon storage & sequestration, and habitat for biodiversity. Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex vii  Final Report_ARCOS The total present values of the benefits of the wetland ecosystem services under the current institutional frameworks governing wetland management for the next 30 years is $US 4.2 billion while the present value of costs under the same time frame is $US 228 million, giving a net present benefit of $US 3.99 billion, and a benefit-cost ratio of 18.88. Policy Implications More than 93% of the local community depend on the wetland for domestic water use, therefore conservation of wetland will enable them access water of reasonable quality. However, the amount of time spent in collecting water makes it time consuming and such precious time could be channelled elsewhere in the economy. Conservation of the Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex would enable more than 5% of the local community to have access to water for livestock use. Even though the amount of time spent in watering livestock this way is not economically desirable if other sources of opportunities for casual labour were available. The Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex currently offers more than 24 thousand households opportunity to income and nutrition through crop farming inside the wetland. However, such a carrier function is often in competition with other wetland uses which when all combined score more than crop farming and other related activities within the wetland. Conservation of the Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex would enable more than 5% of the local community to have access to pasture for livestock use. Even though the amount time spent grazing livestock is not economically desirable if other sources of opportunities for casual labour were available. The Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex currently offers more than 19 thousand households access to grass to feed their livestock. The Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex offers fishery livelihoods and income to more than 7 thousand of the households, and earn them income worth more than $US 16 million per year. Conservation of the Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex would enable more than 20 thousand households in the local community benefit from papyrus and other phragmites with opportunities for mulching, making handicrafts among others that are worth more than $ US 3 million. More than 19 thousand households in the local community access fuelwood from the Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex hence conservation of the resource would provide a source for fuelwood to them. However, the amount of time spent harnessing fuelwood from the Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex makes it economically undesirable. The Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex has a carbon storage potential of over 10 million tons of carbon, and with a sequestration potential of 18 thousand tons annually. This can help the country meet her global obligations towards mitigation of climate change. Conserving the wetland eliminate pollutants that would cost about $US 29 million to clean from the lake reservoirs. The Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex traps sediments amounting to 78.4 tons per ha annually. Conservation of the wetland would therefore saves the stakeholders a dredging cost of $US 2 million annually. Forty-five percent(45%) of the households are exposed to the possibility of annual flooding that can destroy their produce; protection of the wetland would therefore save them from annual damages worth $US 300 thousand. Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex viii  Final Report_ARCOS Conclusions The wetlands complex supplies a host of ecosystem services to more than 48 thousand households or about 194 thousand individuals at an estimated economic value of over $US 52 million. However, there are some ecosystem services whose utilities are not economically desirable if labour is considered as a remunerable factor of production at the prevailing rates; such ecosystem services include: drawing and carrying of water from the wetland for domestic use, livestock grazing, and watering in the wetlands, and fuelwood harvesting. If the current policy and management measures are sustained, then there will be a continuing enhancement in the value of the wetland ecosystem services, and the ecosystem services values in the wetlands complex will increase by more than $US 22million from the current value over the next 30 years; from a baseline (2020) value of slightly more than $US 455 million to slightly more than $US 478 million by 2050. Therefore, it is estimated that Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex ecosystem services will accumulate ecosystem services worth over $US 13 billion by 2050, with a present value slightly more than $US 4 billion. Recommendations For many of the ecosystem services, especially the regulatory services, there were no easily available, timely and consistent data that could have facilitated use of primary or original use of site-specific data and information, it is therefore recommended that stakeholders consider putting investments in creating the necessary infrastructure for regular data collection and ease of access by the scientific and research community to enable generation of evidence for policy and management guidance. To keep track of the flow of the ecosystem services provision, there is need for investments in regular data collection There is a need to promote other sources of access to water through investments that help shorten the distance or reduce the time that the local community currently takes in drawing water from the wetlands complex. This should also apply to access of water for livestock. Keeping and grazing the local breeds of cattle in the wetlands is not economically desirable, there is need to continue with investments that encourage improved breeds of cattle; and cutting and carrying grass from the wetland be encouraged. Investment measures to protect the wetland with the aim of preventing damage to farms due to flooding should be considered. There is need to explore the tapping of the economic potential of climate change mitigation role of the wetlands complex. While the quantity of the wetland ecosystem is on the ascendancy, the same cannot be said of the water quality, there is need for regular collection of data on water quality and measures to help improve water quality in the wetlands. Develop specific wetland management plans for Rweru-Mugesera and Akagera wetlands complexes and confirm Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex as a Ramsar site. Overall, implementation, enforcement and ensuring compliance to the current policies, laws, regulations, and strategies aimed at conservation and protection of the wetland complex should be sustained. Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex ix  Final Report_ARCOS INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background and Context Wetland ecosystem services can be defined into two broad categories. They can be categorized into those services related to water supply, and those services related to water demand. The wetland ecosystem services related to water supply include: (1) Maintenance of water flow and supplies, for example replenishment of water sources, water storage and regulation of flows; (2) Regulation of water quality, for example wastewater purification and control of sedimentation and siltation; (3) Minimization of water-related hazards and disasters, for example flood attenuation, and maintenance of water supplies in dry seasons and droughts. The wetland ecosystem services related to demand for and use of water include: maintenance of aquatic and terrestrial resource productivity and the associated products that these yields, for example fisheries, plants, pasture and forest products. It is these goods and services that have to be considered when talking of the linkages between ecosystems, water and the economy Wetlands have multidimensional contributions for the ecosystems. While covering only 6% of the Earth’s surface, wetlands provide a significant number of ecosystem services and amongst the Earth’s most productive ecosystems (Cherry 20011), providing diverse array of important ecological functions and services, ranging from flood control and flow control to ground water recharge and discharge, water quality maintenance, habitat and nursery for plant and animal species, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and other life support function (Birol et al. 2006). Wetlands provides provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural ecosystem services, notably related to tourism, recreation, and research (Smakhtin 2012; Mitsch & Gosselink 2015). However, in contrast to their international importance, many wetlands have been treated as wasteland and drained or otherwise degraded (Barbier. E.B et al. 1997; Zedler & Kercher 2005). Note that the major challenges to manage wetlands sustainably is that Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex users and decision- makers have insufficient understanding of the consequences of alternative management and policy regimes on wetland functioning, ecosystem services and human well-being (Jogo & Hassan 2010). According to wetland international1 report, currently about 131 million hectares of the African continent is covered by wetland areas. However, wetlands degradation is one of the major causes for ecosystem deprivation. The poor, who are relatively highly dependent on wetlands ecosystem services, were found to be disproportionately affected compared to the non-poor. Because wetlands provide multiple benefits of ecosystems that many of the locals in developing countries rely on for their livelihoods (Turyahabwe & Johnny 2013). Although interventions to restore wetlands ecosystem were not designed as poverty reduction mechanism but primarily as means of improving natural resource management, proponents argue that interventions to improve wetlands degradation can improve the welfare of the poor through the provision of in-cash or in-kind flow (by participating in conservation efforts and practices), and as a means of household income diversification and create incentive for continued benefits (Kakuru et al. 2013; Mulatu 2014). To reap the optimal benefit from the wetlands while ensuring their sustainability at the same time, better to conserve them earlier than trying to restore them after more damage has occurred to them. In this regard, conducting wetland ecosystem services valuation will enhance the preparation and implementation of wetland management plans not only to protect the wetlands but also creates new opportunities from the preservation of them. Thus, the need to recognize and value wetland ecosystem services is important for better decision makings to enhance wetlands ecosystem services To achieve these stated objectives in the Terms of Reference (ToR), the consultant proposed a standard economic valuation analysis using the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) as a major methodological approach. 1.2. Need for valuation and purpose of the study Generally, valuation of ecosystem services can take one of the approaches which include: (1) an impact analysis if the main desire for valuation or the problem at hand is a specific external impact e.g., effluent polluting a wetland; (2) partial analysis, if the issue is about making one choice between a host of wetland use options such as conversion of a wetland to a residential land or diversion of upstream water for irrigation; and (3) a total valuation if the issue is a bit general such as determination of the worth of a wetland as a protected 1 http//www.africa.archive.wetlands.org Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex x  Final Report_ARCOS Table 1: Some of the applications of valuation Purpose Possible assessment question Example Comparing alternative policies, How do alternatives differ in terms of the Assessing options for wetland protection for programmes and projects gains and losses of ecosystem services (ESs) a range of grey and green infrastructures, they are likely to produce or that are likely to including mixes of these arise from their implementation? Identifying livelihood, develop- What new or improved economic opportuni- Assessing the recreational value of wetland ment and investment opportuni- ties can be developed based on the conserva- areas, to identify possible investment strat- ties tion and sustainable use of ESs? egies to promote responsible tourism as a driver of local development Designing environmental policy What information on ESs will enable the de- Assessing the value of carbon sequestration instruments, incentives, regula- sign of effective, equitable and sustainable en- by wetland conservation project to access tions and monitoring vironmental policy instruments? carbon markets and generate revenues that could support peatlands, and related co-ben- efits Undertaking scoping and situa- What is the state of ESs in a given context, and Stakeholder consultation and ES assessment tion analyses what values and stakeholders are associated to identify the perceived importance of ESs with them? among groups and to set priorities for wet- land management (e.g., harvesting intensity and the frequency and size of set-asides) Enhancing environmental aware- How can information on the provision and Assessing the impact of a wetland restoration ness or advocating for a policy impacts of ESs be used to “make the case” for compared with those associated with other option a given policy option? development to inform decisions making Tackling environmental conflicts How can a focus on ESs provide credible in- Meetings with stakeholders and experts to formation on environmental change to help manage human wildlife conflict resolve conflicts? Assessing the impacts of policy What are the impacts on competing resource Assessing the impacts of wetland policy changes, thus informing choices uses of changes in existing policies? changes in the conversion of wetland to agri- among competing uses cultural land uses In this proposed study the main objective is to carry out a total economic valuation of ecosystem services in the selected wetlands in Kigali City, and Rweru-Mugesera wetlands. The study will involve the development of a replicable methodology for ecosystem services assessment and total economic valuation and providing key and actionable recommendations for ecosystem mainstreaming in various sectors of development. It will involve collection, organization and the analysis of spatially explicit data to identify, assess and evaluate the key/priority ecosystem services in Kigali City and Rweru-Mugesera complexes. The results of this assessment will be the core input for a participatory process that aims to identify and prioritize management options and policy instruments to maintain and/or improve the flow of these key ecosystem services for the development processes in Rwanda. The expected outcome is an ecosystem-based decision-making guide for wetland management. 1.3. Scope of valuation In the valuation study of ecosystem services, it is imperative that the ecosystem whose ecosystem services are to be valued is identified, in this case then it is wetland ecosystems which will include the Rweru-Mugesera complexes and two to three other wetlands within the Kigali city. Establishing the scope of a valuation study entails identifying the wetland area under consideration, the time scale of the analysis and the geographic and analytical boundaries of the system (Barbier et al., 1997). Once the system and analytical boundaries are defined, then the basic characteristics of the wetland should be determined for valuation, that is identification of ecosystem services. The scope of valuation can be considered to look at the kinds or categories of ecosystem Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 1  Final Report_ARCOS services to be valued as is classified under the Millennium Assessment Report (MA,2003). 1.4. Review of wetland ecosystem services Wetlands are able to provide high-value ecosystem services because of their position in the landscape (Zedler 2006) as recipients, conduits, sources, and sinks of biotic and abiotic resources. They occur at the land–water interface, usually in topographically low-lying positions that receive water, sediments, nutrients and propagules washed in from up slope and catchment. Within catchments, wetlands allow sediments and other materials to accumulate and settle, providing cleaner water for fish, wildlife and people. The combination of abundant nutrients and shallow water in receiving wetlands promotes vegetation growth, which in turn affords habitat and food for a wide range of fish, birds and invertebrates. Wetlands also accumulate floodwaters, retaining a portion, slowing flows, and reducing peak water levels, which cumulatively have significant roles in flood abatement. The near permanent wetness of wetland ecosystems is equally important. Saturated areas have very low levels of oxygen, particularly in the ‘soil’ where it is accessed by roots and microorganisms (Sorrell and Gerbeaux 2004). Such anoxic conditions promote changes in critical microbial processes resulting in anaerobic nutrient transformations that make nitrogen available for use by plants (nitrogen fixation) and convert nitrates into harmless gas, thereby improving water quality (denitrification). Having anoxic and aerobic conditions in close proximity is a natural property of shallow water and wetlands (Zedler 2006). The anoxic conditions also promote peat accumulation, locking up carbon, which in turn regulates atmospheric carbon levels and helps cool global climates (Frolking and Roulet 2007). In summary, wetlands provide a wide range of ecosystem services vital for human well-being, and these have been categorized into four broad classifications namely; provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting ser- 1.5. Stakeholders of Wetlands and Wetland Ecosystem services Wetlands attract a number of stakeholders. It is also important to identify stakeholders to help in determining the main policy and management objectives, to identify the main relevant services and assess their value and to discuss the trade-offs involved in the wetland use. A stakeholder is a person, organization or group with interests in an issue or particular natural resource. Stakeholders are people with power to control the use of resources, and those with no influence but whose livelihoods are affected by changing the use of the resource. Stakeholders are typically classified or organized in terms of influence and importance to the study so that the relative levels of influence and importance determine whether a stakeholder is a primary, secondary or external stakeholder. Table 2: Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder category Stakeholder description Examples Primary Those who have high importance to Local community resource user the resource use, though they may groups such as mat makers, charcoal have low influence makers, fisher folks among others Secondary Those who can be both important Governmental agencies implement- and influential ing various policies and programmes on protection and or harnessing of wetlands and wetlands resources External Those who can also be influential Civil society organisations, develop- but tend to have low importance for ment partners, property developers particular 1.6. An Overview of Valuation and Wetland Valuation Techniques 1.6.1. Value and Value systems Value refers to the contribution of an object or action to specific goals, objectives, or conditions (Costanza, 2004). Costanza further fronts that value of an object or action may be tightly coupled with an individual’s value system because the latter determines the relative importance to the individual of an action or object relative to other actions or objects within the perceived world, where value systems refer to intrapsychic constellations of norms and precepts that guide human judgment and action (Farber et al., 2002). They refer to the normative and moral frameworks people use to assign importance and necessity to their beliefs and actions and are therefore internal to individuals but are the result of complex patterns of acculturation and may be externally manipulated through, e.g., awareness creation (Farber et al., 2002; Costanza, 2004) Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 2  Final Report_ARCOS vices as presented in TEEB (2010). People’s perceptions are limited, they do not have perfect information, and they have limited capacity to process the information they do possess (Farber et al., 2002; Costanza, 2004). An object or activity may therefore contribute to meeting an individual’s goals without the individual being fully (or even vaguely) aware of the connection (Farber et al., 2002; Costanza, 2004). The value of an object or action therefore needs to be assessed both from the subjective standpoint of individuals and their internal value systems and from the objective standpoint of what we may know from other sources about the connection (Farber et al., 2002; Costanza, 2004). Reasoning on value of ecosystems runs between two approaches: (1) the anthropocentrism/utilitarian approach: Elements of Ecosystem Services are valuable insofar as they serve human beings; Valuable is what creates ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’; and (2) eco- or biocentrism approach-rejects the ‘dominant species’ argument and replaces utility with intrinsic value: “value in and for itself, irrespective of its utility for someone else. Some services of ecosystems, like fish or timber, are bought and sold in markets. Many ecosystem services, like wildlife viewing, are not traded in markets. Markets for most ecosystem services are missing but we still can measure their dollar values. We require a measure of how much one will give up to get the service of the ecosystem, or how much people would need to be paid in order to give it up. The value of an eco-system can be interpreted in many different ways e.g. (1) the value of the current flow of benefits provided by that ecosystem; (2) The value of future flows of benefits; (3) The value of conserving that ecosystem rather than converting it to some other use. 1.6.2. Valuation This is the process of expressing a value for a particular action or object. Value is a measure of the maximum amount an individual is willing to pay (WTP) for goods and services, it entails financial value which is measured in prevailing market prices and economic value which is measured in economic or efficiency prices. The economic value prevails in a competitive market, free of any market imperfections (e.g., monopolies) or policy distortions (e.g., taxes or barriers to trade). It is a more accurate reflection of the contribution of a good or service to social welfare (Bishop, 1999). In valuing ecosystem services we are interested in: (1) Value of the total flow of benefits from ecosystems: Contribution to economy by adjusting national account--We use total economic value; (2) Net benefits of interventions that alter ecosystem conditions: Arises in a project or policy context: We use marginal or net values; (3) Examining distribution of costs and benefits of ecosystems: This is to different stakeholder groups; (4) Identifying potential financing sources for conservation among others, see the purpose section above(Pagiola et al., 2004). 1.6.3. The concept of willingness to pay In principle, economic valuation of ecosystem services is based on “people preference” and their choices. Therefore, it is quantified by the highest monetary value that a person is willing to pay in order to obtain the benefit of that particular service (Mehvar et al., 2018). The “willingness to pay” approach determines how much someone is willing to give up for a change in obtaining a certain ecosystem good or service (MEA, 2005). Thus, the key outcome of valuation studies is to illustrate the importance of a healthy ecosystem for socio-economic prosperity and to monetize the gains that one may achieve or lose due to a change in ecosystem services (Sukhdev et al., 2014). 1.6.4. Ways of measuring the value of ecosystem services The value of ecosystem services can be measured in three different ways (Tinch and Mathieu, 2011): (1) Total economic value (TEV ) that refers to the value of a particular ecosystem service over the entire area covered by an ecosystem during a defined time period; (2) average value of an ecosystem service per unit, which is often indicated for a unit of area or time; (3) marginal value which is the additional value gained or lost by an incremental change in a provision of a particular service. Valuation starts from estimating a TEV of an ecosystem, which is in fact a sum of Consumer Surplus (CS) and Producer Surplus (PS). This is done by applying different valuation techniques. By definition, CS is the difference between the actual market price of the product and the maximum amount that people are willing to pay, while PS refers to the benefit that the producer earns when the market price is higher than the costs of production (also called net income). For example, in the case of tourism, PS is the direct or indirect benefit from the local ecosystems for the tourism sector by considering the revenue made from tourists minus the costs of providing these services to them (van Beukering et al., 2007). In addition, CS conveys the maximum amount that tourists are willing to pay for visiting the specific recreational area. Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 3  Final Report_ARCOS Value of nature depends on the perspective of various stakeholders such as local residents, visitors, policy makers, etc. The key factor of valuation studies is to show how a healthy ecosystem is important for socio- economic prosperity (Sukhdev et al., 2014). 1.6.5. Valuation techniques Valuation methods can be separated into two broad categories: stated preference and revealed preference methods. Each of these broad categories of methods includes both indirect and direct techniques. Revealed preference methods are those that are based on actual observable choices that allow resource values to be directly inferred from those choices. Stated preference methods use survey techniques to elicit willingness to pay for a marginal improvement or for avoiding a marginal loss (Tietenberg & Lewis, 2016). Table 3: Valuation techniques Methods Revealed Preference Stated Preference Direct Market Price Contingent Valuation Simulated Market Production Function Indirect Travel Cost Choice Modelling Hedonic Property Values o Choice experiment Hedonic Wage Values o Choice ranking Avoidance Expenditures o Choice rating Replacement Costs Source: Adopted and Modi- fied from Tietenberg & Lewis (2016) 1.7. Threats and Drivers of Wetland Degradation Rwanda has a very rich wetland cover of approximately 280,000 ha and this accounts for about 11% of the total land of the country. These wetlands provide critical habitats for wildlife and biodiversity, they maintain important hydrologic processes which are essential in cleaning and protecting the surface and groundwater, and they support a variety of local livelihoods. Despite these benefits, these wetlands are experiencing a myriad of challenges as a result of land use conversions, over utilization of and competition for resources and climatic factors. Rwanda’s wetlands are the fastest lost and degraded compared to any other ecosystems in the country. Currently more than half of the wetlands in Rwanda are being used for agricultural activities and energy production. The main threats to the wetlands include reclamation, over exploitation of natural resources in which there is extensive use of wetlands for the purpose of generating hydropower and as mine for clay, sand, gravel and peat include the most direct threats which are faced by wetlands in Rwanda. The hydropower plants usually require a sufficient amount of water which are mostly connected to the wetland schemes. The hydroelectric power plants are usually more susceptible to sedimentation which as a result damages turbine and tubing due to the inadequate storage capacity of wetlands. The drop of water levels has serious economic losses. The other threat to wetland conservation includes invasive species such as water hyacinth, and Mimosa pigra. Water hyacinth grows rapidly to form thick mats on water surfaces, increases swamps areas, reduces water supply and undermines transport, hydroelectric power production, fisheries and fish breeding. It can also affect human health by harbouring mosquitoes (malaria), snails (bilharzias), and snakes (Chemonics International Inc. 2003). Water hyacinth has covered large sections of most of the lakes in the eastern province making them difficult to navigate. In some cases the weeds have contributed to the drying of shallow seasonal lakes. Alien and invasive species which continue to alter the biodiversity balance of the ecosystems that as a result decrease the services which they provide. Pollution is another threat to wetlands health, and this includes point and non-pollution from industries, settlements, and agricultural activities. The use of chemical fertilizers, fungicides and insecticides has modified the chemical composition of these hydrologically-connected water resources. These chemicals seep through the wetlands and join other water sources most of which form rural domestic water supply points such as wells and streams. Spillages from industrial processes also pollute water and wetlands, for instance, during the washing of coffee. The physical and hydrological modifications mainly relate to erosion due to inappropriate agricultural practices. Drains and channels constructed to divert or Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 4  Final Report_ARCOS to increase water out-flow from wetlands lower the water table and can lead to loss of biodiversity through drying out of the wetlands. Generally, and in summary, the major threats to wetlands are; agriculture expansion, pollution, peat mining, sand and clay mining, invasive/exotic species, bushfire, various infrastructure development and others. 53 per cent of Rwanda’s wetlands has been converted into agriculture. The Rweru-Mugesera Swamps are highly affected by the following human activities: agriculture, cattle grazing, production of loam bricks and cutting of plants for animal feeding and construction purposes. Also, invasive plants, especially the water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), are a major threat to the natural vegetation. The area is actually not protected. The causes and or drivers of wetland degradation challenges in Rwanda include: population growth which pushes people to look for more space and land; Poverty/Unemployment which has forced a wide range of people to rely on wetland resources for survival; agricultural expansion and intensification in which wetlands such as Rweru-Mugesera complex, and the Kigali wetlands have been intensively cultivated for crops like flowers, rice, eucalyptus, sweet potatoes and sugarcane. Wetlands which are under the traditional utilization of water, fodder, livestock and small-scale agriculture have the ability to regulate water flow. When this water is drained and utilized for intensive agriculture, the water is rapidly conveyed downstream which reduces the ability of the wetland to buffer peak flows, hold water and retain sediment. Other uses include conversion of wetlands into livestock grazing areas. This has, however, been reduced due to the zero-grazing policy being enforced by the government. Approximately 30 per cent (90,000 ha) of the swamps area is already being used for agriculture. Of these, 5,000 ha are used all year round (MINIRENA 2008). Cultivation of swampland affects their chemical, physical and hydrological nature. Urbanization and industrial development are other causes of wetland degradation in which rural-urban migration has been brought about by the growth of towns in the country. Industrialization, especially industries which are located around the wetlands and infrastructure development such as industrial parks also lead to wetland encroachment and degradation. Other causes include Policy and regulatory shortcomings; Inadequate waste management, Lack of awareness on the values of wetland ecosystem goods and services 1.8. Policy, Legal, Regulatory and Frameworks This analysis is focused on the goals of the policies, instruments, policy typologies, laws and regulations, plans and strategies. The agricultural policy of 2000, considers wetlands as an important resource for the intensification of agriculture, which is required to achieve the goals of food security and poverty reduction for Rwanda to achieve an overall GDP growth rate of 6.4%, agriculture should grow at 5.3%. According to the National Poverty Reduction Programme of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. The policy further estimates that improved wetland management has the potential to contribute to this growth by 0.5%. Other policy frameworks under analysis include; environment policy, organic law, Land use policy 2004, Human settlement Policy 2004, Urban Housing Policy 2008, Land law 2013, Land use planning & Development law 2012, National Land use master plan (2010-2020), National Irrigation Master Plan, Crop Intensification Programme, One Family One Cow Programme among others. 1.8.1. National Environment and Climate Change Policy Adopted in 2019, this policy is a successor to the environment policy that was adopted in 2003. The 2003 environment policy had the policy goal of The national environment policy and climate change has the goal of Rwanda being a nation that has a clean and healthy environment, resilient to climate variability and change that supports a high quality of life for its society. The policy stipulates the following targets or actions that are specifically relevant to wetlands: Integrate Natural Capital Accounting and valuation of ecosystem services into national development planning frameworks Regularly conduct an inventory of degraded ecosystem and prepare restoration development plans Develop a master plan and implementation strategies for wetland management in Rwanda Develop guidelines for the use of wetlands Identify all polluted wetlands and develop a decontamination plan including the use of environmentally- sound technologies (Phytoremediation) for pollution prevention, control and remediation Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 5  Final Report_ARCOS Promote and intensify wetland protection, and restoration and rehabilitation of degraded wetlands Strengthen collaborative and participatory management of wetland resources Strengthen existing wetland research and encourage conservation and restoration of ecosystems critically threatened by climate change Ensure the protection of wetlands, riverbanks, hilltops and slopes from unsustainable practices to prevent soil erosion and environmental degradation. Ensure that developmental activities within wetlands or in the buffer of wetlands conform with EIA process and procedures. Promote the use of alternative forms to biomass fuel (e.g., gas and electricity) in urban and rural areas The policy will be implemented through ministerial and DDS, SSPs, annual Imihigo targets and action plans. The policy will also be implemented through the action plans of development partners, CSOs and the private sector who will translate the policy into action. Develop master plan and implementation strategies and sector specific detailed guidelines for wetland management in Rwanda (MOE, MINAGRI, REMA) between 2018 and 2024. Identify all polluted wetlands, develop and implement their decontamination plan (REMA, MoE, MINAGRI, UR, CSO, DP) between 2019 and 2024. 1.8.2. Agricultural policy of 2017 Adopted in 2017, the policy is a successor to the agriculture policy of 2004. This policy has the mission of ensuring food and nutrition security of Rwandans by using modern agribusiness technologies, professionalizing farmers in terms of production, commercialization of the outputs and then creating a competitive agriculture sector. The policy has identified four main strategic and enabling pillars upon which core policy guidance and actions have been based: Productivity and Commercialization for Food Security, Nutrition, and Incomes Resilience and Sustainable Intensification Inclusive Employment and Improved Agrofood Systems’ Skills and Knowledge An Effective Enabling Environment and Responsive Institutions MINAGRI is the key leading institution to deliver on the implementing of the policy. MINAGRI will closely collaborate in the policy implementation with a range of public institutions that influence the sector (MINALOC, MINICOFIN. RDB, MINEACOM, MINISANTE, MINIRENA, MIFOTRA, MINIFRA, MINEDUC, MYICT) through the creation of collaborative platforms. More detailed policy guidance on a specific policy-area to be defined by subsidiary policies. Specific actions are and timelines are to be defined by subsidiary strategies. 1.8.3. Biodiversity Policy Considers the rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in Rwanda as an urgent and major task that requires the commitment of significant resources from both national budgets and other sources. 1.8.4. Energy Policy recognizes the need to shift consumption from biomass-based energies to clean energies like electricity and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) to reduce pressure on forest resources. It also focuses on renewable energy infrastructure as one strategy to fight global warming through reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 1.8.5. Prime Minister’s Order N°006/03 of 30/01/2017 The minister’s order drew up a list of swamps, their characteristics, and boundaries, and determined modalities of their use, development and management. The Rweru-Mugesera wetland complex is proposed to be considered as a Ramsar site and of international importance. Its use is to be considered under specific conditions. 1.8.6. National irrigation master plan This plan was developed in the year 2010 with the aim of development and management of water resources Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 6  Final Report_ARCOS to promote intensive and sustainable irrigated agriculture and to improve food security (GoR, 2010). The potential of the country for irrigation as captured in the plan is estimated at 600,000 hectares, from this, the potential for wetland use for irrigation is estimated at 219 793 hectares (GoR,2010). The estimated total area of marshes in the country is 275 689 ha, of which 55 896 ha are fully protected, 204 198 ha are non-protected but with limitations while 15 595 ha are non-protected without limitations. It is these latter two categories that have been summed up to carry the irrigation potential for the marshlands (GoR, 2010). By the end of 2006, almost 11 000 ha of swampland had been reclaimed and used for rice production, and it was projected that by the end of 2020, 40 000 ha of swampland should have been reclaimed, and a plan for irrigating 1000 ha in Bugesera was prepared and implemented (GoR,2010). 1.8.7. Crop intensification programme The Crop Intensification Program (CIP) is a cornerstone program for staple food activities within MINAGRI and the GOR. Launched in 2007, the CIP is the main policy adopted by the Rwandan government to bring about agricultural modernisation. The CIP aims for the prioritisation of six food crops (maize, wheat, cassava, beans, Irish potatoes, and rice), and uniformity in farming practices across the country. The programme focuses on four axes: (1) land use consolidation; (2) the distribution of fertilisers (namely DAP – diammonium phosphate – and urea) and improved seeds; (3) the provision of proximity extension services; and (4) the improvement of post-harvesting handling and storage. Since its implementation, the CIP has led to encouraging results in terms of productivity. Production of maize, wheat and cassava tripled between 2007 and 2010, bean production doubled, and rice and Irish potato production increased by 30% over the same time span (MINAGRI 2011). The Crop Intensification Programme covers all the three districts that have footprints in the wetland complex, with Rwamagana and Ngoma districts earmarked for maize and beans growing, while Bugesera district is allocated maize growing only under the programme. The Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex, though considered as one of the four most important wetlands in Rwanda, is not a protected wetland and therefore qualifies for conditional use for crop farming. 1.8.8. The Girinka program The one Cow per Poor Family is the cornerstone for the livestock programme. The Girinka program was approved as one of the implementation measures for national key leading policy, strategies and programs. It aims to enable every poor family to access a dairy cow for income, nutrition, and organic fertilizer. The policy will change the dynamics of pasture access in the wetland as more households embrace the programme. It will lead to a decline in the local breeds that are usually raised through free range and kept in large numbers to a mode of livestock keeping where households will mostly own one cow and access the wetland to cut and carry the grass as opposed to grazing in the wetland. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. An overview of the approach adopted for the study We adapted and modified the methods described in Troy & Wilson (2006) to develop the research methods which entailed; delineation of study area, typology development, data collection strategy, mapping, and data analysis (estimation of current economic values, and scenario analysis i.e. projections of future ecosystem services values based on feasible alternative options for the management and governance of the wetland) as discussed in the next paragraphs. 2.2. Study area delineation The economic values of ecosystem services are typically expressed as per household, per individual, or per hectare values (Barton et al., 2019; He et al. 2015; Bateman et al.,2010; Siikamaki et al., 2015). This is an important step to factor in and take care of since even small boundary adjustments can have significant impacts on the final ecosystem service value estimates. Spatial boundary needs to correspond to the bio-geophysical boundaries, such as being consistent with the characteristics of wetland ecosystem biophysical features such as presence of papyrus plant species, soil type, and areas of inundation (hydrographic boundary) as well. 2.2.1. The hydrology of the wetland complex Rweru-Mugesera wetland complex is located at the Upper Akagera catchment. The Upper Akagera catchment Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 7  Final Report_ARCOS covers a surface area of 3052 square kilometres. The catchment is transboundary with Burundi and Tanzania to its downstream. The catchment drains the area from the confluence of Nyabarongo and Akanyaru rivers down to the Rusuma Falls. The catchment has two sub catchments namely Mugesera /sake, and Rweru sub catchments (RNRA, 2015). The wetlands complex whose main water supply is derived from Nyabarongo river comprises a mosaic of several lakes (Mugesera, Gashariga, Kidogo, Rumira /Gashora, Birara, Mirayi, Sake, Kilimbi, Gaharwa, and Rweru). River Nyabarango empties its waters in River Akagera and lake Rweru and it is also flanked by a phragmites dominated land cover on either of its sides (Fischer et al., 2011). 2.2.2. The ecology of the wetland complex The Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex is dominated by plant and animal communities of various phyla. Around fifty-three (53) vascular plant species can be found in the wetland. There exists a landscape dominated by phragmites plan species classified as Cypero papyri-Dryopteridetum gongylodis. Other reed communities are the Phragmitetum mauritiani with dominating Phragmites mauritianus, the Echinochloetum pyramidalis and the Cyperetum latifolii. Along the rivers, a community with Sesbania sesban and Phoenix reclinata is developed (Sesbanio-Phoenicetum reclinatae). The open water surfaces are colonized by communities of aquatic plants, e.g., the Nymphaeetum calliantho-mildbraedii with Nymphaea lotus and Nymphaea nouchalii, and the Ceratophylletum demersi. Free floating species are Azolla nilotica and the neophytic Eichhornia crassipes. For the animal community, there are around thirteen (13) species of amphibians which have been recorded, 6 species of reptiles have also been recorded. Other animal groups include; over 40 bird species including two listed in IUCN (Papyrus Gonolek and the Papyrus Yellow Warbler) have been recorded, including Laniarius mufumbiri species. The wetland is also home to mammals (16 species) such as Hippopotamus, Bushbuck, Sitatunga and jackal have been observed. 2.2.3. The socio-economy of the wetlands complex Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex traverses three districts (including Ngoma, Bugesera, and Rwamagana) in the Eastern Province of Rwanda. Major settlements around the wetland are found in; ten (10) sectors in Ngoma district, four (4) sectors in Bugesera district, and four (4) sectors in Rwamagana districts. The total household population within three kilometres radius from the wetland in these sectors based on projected (to 2020) 2012 population census is 52,173. Table 4: Local community household population District Sectors 2020 household population considered Rwamagana Nyakaliro, Karenge, Rubona 2491 Ngoma Rurenge, Mugesera, Karembo, Rukumberi, Zaza 41,395 Gashanda, Sake, Jarama, Mutenderi, Kazo Bugesera Gashora, Rilima, Jiru, Rweru 8287 Total 52,173 There are a host of educational centres and facilities in the local community surrounding the wetland complex; they include: approximately over 40 primary schools, and over 25 secondary schools (GoRa, 2014; GoRb, 2015). Other social services and facilities in the local community include the presence of health facilities in nearly at least every sector. Markets and trading centres also exist too in nearly every sector though in some cases such facilities are situated more than two kilometres away from some settlements. Markets and trading centres also exist in nearly every sector and just like with health facilities, these also in some cases are situated more than two kilometres away from some settlements (GoR, 2014). Major sources of livelihoods include; crop farming, livestock, wages, trade, among others, while the mean poverty levels for the three districts or 17 sectors is around 48% which is above the national average of 39% (GoRa, 2014; GoRb, 2015). Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 8  Final Report_ARCOS Figure 1: Map of Study Area showing villages of the affected population From the above figure, we can situate on the south, lake Rweru and between the districts of Rwamagana and Ngoma, lake Mugesera, and the main river, Nyabarongo acting as the boundary for the three districts in most of its reaches. The total area of the lakes in the complex is approximately 13,660 ha, while the whole of the complex measures approximately 32,081 hectares. 2.3. Typology Development Typology has to do with the determination of land use and land cover types that exist in the delineated area of study or ecosystem of study. In this stcudy, this was conducted through a review of existing materials on the Rweru-Mugesera wetland ecosystem or other wetlands of similar nature, and through GIS and remote sensing. The land use land cover determined are as shown in the table below. This was followed by a review of economic studies to determine whether ecosystem service value coefficients have been documented for these cover types in a similar context. For the lakes, lake Rweru covers an area of 3383 ha on the Rwandan side, Gashanga= 202ha, Kidogo=199ha, Rumira=247ha, Mirayi=265ha, Kirimbi=288ha, Gaharwa=469ha, Mugesera=5829 ha, Sake= 2123, Birira= 656 (UNEP et al., 2007). Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 9  Final Report_ARCOS Table 5: Land use, land cover types in Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex Land use, land cover type Areal extent in 2020 (ha) Water body (Lakes, river, streams etc) 13,660 Papyrus (Phragmites) 12206 Grassland 2297 Cropland (within the wetland delineated area & buffer zones) 1517 Other vegetation 2401 Total area 32,081 2.4. Data collection strategy 2.4.1. Data needs, types, and sources The table below shows the various data needs that are necessary in order for the study objectives to be achieved. The information needed is presented for the potential ecosystem services that are likely to be valued in this study, the nature of the data, the potential sources of the data, and the preferred valuation method. Table 6: Data Needs, and Sources Potential Product/services Valuation Method Data needs Potential Sources of data Fuelwood Market price Potential Production Volume (M3), estimated State level reports, Rwanda Bureau of Statistics cost of production (variable and fixed cost) Agricultural crops Market prices Production volume, local units and conversion, Local market prices and quantity supplied, Rwanda Bureau of Statistics, District level responsible cost of production, and Market prices offices, literature and annual reports Domestic water supply Market price Number of households whose water source is from the wetland Rwanda Bureau of Statistics, state and national level reports Average water uses per household Water use price Communal grazing Market price Number of cattle which graze from the wetland Review of existing literature, national and state level reports Livestock watering Market price Number of cattle which drink water from the wetland, average Local market price, amount of water consumed per head per day national and state level reports Fish Market price Amount of fish extracted per annum, cost of fish extraction, Local market prices, literature, reports at federal & state levels, Rwanda Bureau of Statistics price of fish Natural medicines Market price Number of people treated by natural medication Existing literature, Rwanda Bureau of Statistics Average estimated cost of medication Fodder Surrogate, Market prices Quantity in kg, sacks and other local measures to be converted Household surveys, Local market prices, literature, reports at to kg, estimated cost of production federal & state levels, Rwanda Bureau of Statistics Carbon sequestration Market prices Above ground Biomass (AGB), Below ground Existing literature on estimated CO2 sequestration at local or regional level, IPCC reports biomass) (BGB, Soil biomass), international voluntary carbon market, total area under vegetation, Reports on National and/or regional and/or local level carbon sequestration levels IPCC carbon default values. Water attenuation Market price and/or avoided Number of Households around the wetland, estimated cost that Available literture,global and TEEB database cost would have been incurred for flood control Water purfication Market price and/or avoided Total number of households that uses wetland as a major source Exciting literature, national and regional level report cost of water, cost that would be incurred for water purification Soil protection (prevented soil Avoided cost -cost of 1 ton of sediment removal Literature, reports from Ministry of Water Resources & Irrigation, Rwanda National Lands Commis- sion, and State Lands Commissions, National and/or regional and/or local level soil maps erosion) -ratio of sediment entering rivers or reservoirs to total soil lost -Soil erosivity for restored and non-restored forest (tons/ha) Education & research Averted cost Cost learning institutions would incur to visit other wetlands of Annual reports from learning institutions/ market information, existing literature similar nature Revealed price Funds spent by researchers Records from research clearing institutions, and research institutions Value Transfer Habitat for biodiversity Revealed price and/or Expenditures (budget allocated) for biodiversity conservation by National budget allocation, budget set by international actors and NGOs, annual reports and national and international actors (agents) literature value transfer Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 10  Final Report_ARCOS 2.4.2. Sampling Procedures and Strategy Both purposive and probability sampling will be used in this study to collect data. Purposive sampling will be used for qualitative data collection methods such as key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. Data collection through purposive sampling become adequate and reliable once saturation is reached, i.e., a point in which any new respondent interviewed or more focus group discussion adds no new information, Guest et al., (2006) proposed that for Key Informant Interviews, saturation is reached at the 12th respondent for a homogenous group/population. In this proposed study, three kinds of target population have been proposed. They include government agents with interest and mandates on wetland resources, civil society groups with interest in wetland resources, and local community user groups. Therefore, to achieve the min- imum requirements for saturation, a total of 36 respondents, 12 for each of the three stakeholder groups will be conducted. For focused group discussions, Guest et al., (2017) advice that a study objective can be suffi- ciently addressed by between three and six focus group discussions for homogenous groups. Therefore three (3) focus group discussions will be held for each study site, totalling to nine (9) focus group discussions. For the probability sampling, the target populations were households in the local community who reside in the area where they can exact a direct influence on the wetland. Delineation of two kilometres radius from the wetland’s buffer zone was used. Multistage cluster sampling was used in which the sectors/cells acted as clusters. A total of 17 sectors were mapped and out of these, 18 cells were randomly picked for sampling, from the randomly picked cells, 18 villages were also randomly picked and from each village picked, 11 households were randomly picked for survey. Household heads or their spouses were considered for interview; this was based on the assumption that household heads or their spouses are in a position to make financial decisions for the entire household. An assumption of normal distribution of the ecosystem services under consideration among the cells and villages if made using the simple random sampling, then based on Yamane (1967) sample size calculation formula (equation 1), the right sample size determination can be made. Where is the sample size, is the population size, and is the level of precision? Desiring a 95% confidence level and precision levels of 0.05. 2.4.3. Data collection Both primary and secondary data will be collected and analysed. Wetland related policies in particular and environmental related policies, strategies, and plans in general are briefly reviewed and incorporated to un- derstand the enabling policy and strategy environment to implement wetland conservation activities and to support integrated development decisions. Other relevant information from secondary sources will be con- sulted during KII and FGDs to complement this review. Given the benefit transfer approach is the plausible option considering the circumstances of the study sites; much information will be extracted from available secondary sources and literatures. The existing TEEB da- tabase and reports1 and valuation studies and the global Ecosystem service valuation database for data and knowledge sharing at Ecosystem Service Partnership (ESP)2 will be good asset for this purpose. Population data of the wetland site and national level, activities performed in and around the wetlands, benefits obtained from the wetland areas, challenges of the wetlands and related information will be generated from secondary sources. Statistical bulletins, published and unpublished materials about these issues will be consulted in this regard. Primary data will be collected through Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). KIIs and FGDs provide us vital information that could help us in understanding the local contexts, and to develop possible scenarios for wetland conservation options and to value the wetlands ecosystem services. 1 The Nile Basin wetland TEEB data base was collected and can be shared at any need 2 https://www.es-partnership.org/services/data-knowledge-sharing/ Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 11  Final Report_ARCOS a. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) KIIs planned to be carried out with selected experts at different levels of the administrative and institutional hierarchy to solicit information related to the wetlands using a checklist that is prepared as a guide for interviewing3 and the consultation process. In addition, information about the existing situation of the wetlands, stakeholders impacted by the wetlands, wetland conservation options given the local circumstances, viability of the different wetland conservation options, socioeconomics and biophysical characteristics of the wetland area, current estimates of costs and benefits from alternative wetland conservation options (if any), expert outlooks of the state of the wetlands and other information are outlined and obtained from the KIIs workout. The Key informant checklists and potential stakeholders is developed and annexed. Figure 2: Discussion with fisheries stakeholders near lake Rweru b. Focused Group Discussions (FGDs)5 Again, more qualitative information expected be solicited and explored through the focused group discussions. The FGDs participants will further communicated for avail information and consultations. The lists of guiding questions that will be used during focus group discussions with potential stakeholders is developed and annexed. Household Survey Household survey has been designed to among others: Establish the level of consumption of provisioning ecosystem services in terms of the population that harness these ecosystem services, the amount that they extract, their socio-economic and demographic characteristics such as levels of income, gender, age, education among others; Knowledge, attitude and practices towards wetland conservation and biodiversity Establish the population that are at risk of various environmental hazards such as those that are related to wetland regulating services e.g., flood mitigation, water purification, groundwater recharge and discharge, among others. 3 https://www.es-partnership.org/services/data-knowledge-sharing/ 4 Leading or guiding KII questions and checklist are annexed Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 12  Final Report_ARCOS c. Mapping Map creation involves GIS overlay analysis and geoprocessing to combine input layers from diverse sources to derive the land use/ cover map. In this study, the land use cover in Rweru-Mugesera was analysed and it revealed that the existing land uses include; water body, phragmites, crop land (within the wetland & buffer zones) grassland, these maps are facilitators for the analysis and modelling of the stocks and flows of wetland ecosystem services using various valuation techniques including value transfers as shown in table 7 shows the acreage extent for each land use, and land cover. Table 7: Trends in Land use, land cover in Rweru-Mugesera wetlands complex Land use, land cover type 2010 extent (ha) 2020 extent (ha) change Water body 13660 13660 =0 Papyrus (Phragmites) 12,206 15,815 3609 Other vegetation 2401 2401 >=0 Grassland 2297 2297 >=0 Crop land 1517 185 -2332 Total 32,081 32,081 >=0 Economic Valuation of the Rweru-Mugesera Wetlands Complex 30  Final Report_ARCOS Table 16 also shows the computed economic values of the ecosystem system services based on the spatial and temporal dimensions of the wetland under the current institutional frameworks indicating the economic value of the ecosystem services for 2050, the aggregate values and the present value of the benefits. Table 16: Present values of the benefits of wetland ecosystem services Ecosystem services Baseline ecosys- 2050 economic Total economic val- Present Value tem value ($US) value ($US) ue by 2050 of total bene- fits Domestic water supply 142,677 158,259 4,598,437 1,403,797 Water for livestock 13,300 13,985 412,987 128,430 Crop farming 20,153,465 2,457,725 243,447,625 110,851,587 Livestock grazing 13,300 13,300 398,989 124,467 Grass harvesting 10,144,568 10,143,552 304,306,560 95,622,397 Capture fisheries 16,144,568 16,918,650 500,