José Galindo Max Lascano, Gabriela Ordoñez Paula 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.

Objetive To 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

Methodology AspectsValuation 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. EducationIt was not possible to valuate, a comparative and qualitative approach was used. HealthAvoided 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 = poor people; households Sample: 939 surveys Error: +/-3%

Results 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

The average contribution of tourism varies from USD $80/month in the coast to USD $95/month in the andes.

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!