Search

Fisheries resources are vulnerable to overexploitation, in large part because of their open-access nature. For long-term ecological and socio-economic sustainability, fisheries therefore need to be regulated by limiting TAC and/or Total Allowable Effort (TAE). It can be argued that to maximize the efficiency of the fisheries sector tradable fishing rights is the way to go. This is the solution implemented successfully in countries such as Iceland, New Zealand, etc. (Arnason 2005, Scott 2000). In many developing countries, however, protection of traditional fishing communities with their subsistence fisheries is added. Objectives of fishing rights allocation can then include poverty reduction and preservation of traditional culture. This study deals with the fishing rights allocation in South Africa. South Africa’s fisheries yields peaked in the 1960s and 1970s, but since then many stocks have declined due to overexploitation. Although the fishing industry has historically been dominated by a few white-owned companies, since the end of apartheid new policies have been introduced to (1) rectify this inequitable distribution of fishing opportunities and (2) improve the sustainability of fisheries (Cockcroft et al. 2002, RSA 1998).

Various valuation methods exist and have been applied to estimate the values of different ecosystem services. The methods reflect the extent to which the services provided by ecosystems touch on the welfare of society either as direct determinants of individuals’ well-being (e.g. as consumer goods) or via production processes (e.g. as intermediate goods). The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of available valuation methods, to discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and to provide guidance on when to use which method. In doing so we do not aim to be comprehensive; extensive details of the underlying theory and on the actual practice of applying the valuation methods are provided in general texts, including Braden and Kolstad (1991), Freeman (2003), Bateman et al. (2002), Mitchell and Carson (1989), Champ et al. (2003), Bockstael and McConnell (2007), and Kanninen (2007). A number of economic valuation methods have been developed to estimate the value of changes in ecosystem services. An important distinction is between market-based and non-market-based valuation methods. Market-based valuation means that existing market behavior and market transactions are used as the basis for the valuation exercise. Economic values are derived from actual market prices for ecosystem services, both when they are used as inputs in production processes (production values) and when they provide direct outputs (consumption values). By observing how much of an ecosystem service is bought and sold at different prices, it is possible to infer directly how people value that good. Examples of market-based methods are the use of direct market prices, net factor income and production function methods, and the calculation of replacement costs, defensive expenditures, and avoided damage costs.

With a population of 34 million and an extremely high reliance on charcoal, Tanzania is a classic example of the social and environmental risks faced by many developing countries. About 85% of the total urban population uses charcoal for household cooking and energy provision for small and medium enterprises (Sawe 2004). In 1992 the total amount of charcoal consumed nationwide was estimated to be about 1.2 million tons (Sawe 2004). In 2002, the charcoal business generated revenues of more than 200 billion TShs (US$ 200 million), with more than 70 000 people from rural and urban areas employed in the industry (TaTEDO 2002b). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’s largest city, accounts for more than 50% of all charcoal consumed in the country. The charcoal sector is far from sustainable. The forest resources that the industry is relying on are disappearing rapidly and the productivity of the sector has not seen any improvement either. The charcoal sector in Tanzania is operating economically, socially and environmentally in a suboptimal manner. However, solutions that safeguard the charcoal sector’s future are not straightforward.