Case Studies of Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands

of Pakistan

By
Akhtar. A. Hai
Rahat Najam
 2003

Back page:
This study is conducted by Mr. Akhtar A. Hai – Senior Research
Economist/ Associate Professor at Applied Economic Research
Center - University of Karachi, and Coordinated by Ms. Rahat Najam,
Wetland Ecologist / Environmentalist at WWF-Pakistan.
.

Note: Authors can be contacted on the following address:

1) Mr. Akhtar A. Hai
AERC - (Applied Economics Research Center) University of
Karachi.
P.O.Box, 8403,Karachi- 75270.
Ph: (009221) 9243204, 9243175, 9243168, Ext. 213.
 Fax: (009221) 4829730
E.mail: aerc@cyber.net.pk, aerc@super.net.pk
2) Ms. Rahat Najam
WWF-Pakistan, Karachi Regional Office,
E.mail: rjabeen@wwf.org.pk, rahat@hotmail.com

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Economic Valuation – A Conceptual Framework
1.2 Review of Literature
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.4 Introduction to the Wetlands
1.5 An Overview of Pakistan’s Wetlands
2. STUDY AREA
2.1 Haleji Lake (Freshwater Wetland)
2.1.1 Background
2.1.2 Issues at Haleji Lake
2.1.3 Community Dependence on the Natural
Resources
2.1.4 Main Problems of the Haleji Lake

2.2 Sandspit Mangrove Area (Coastal Wetland)

2.2.1 Background
2.2.2 Issues at Sandspit Mangrove Area
2.2.3 Community Utilizing the Natural Resources
2.2.4 Main Problems of the Mangrove Forest at
Sandspit
3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Genesis of Methodology
3.2 Valuation of Wetland
3.3 Sampling Framework
4. IMPACT OF WETLAND
4.1 Benefits of Local Communities
4.2 Problems and Performance of the Institutions
4.3 Visitor’s Impact
4.4 Economic Valuation
4.5 Limitations of the Study
5. RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES
 WEB SITES

ANNEXURE
A – Table on Household Data
B – Table on Visitor’s Survey
C – Sindh Wildlife Sanctuary Ordinance (1972 with
Amendments)
D – Questioners used for surveys of Households and Visitors

Executive Summary

- With the pace of technological advancements and population

growth, there is an increased pressure on natural resources. In
exerting such pressures there is in implicit ignorance towards
higher discounting accorded to future scenarios. In net terms, the
environment is the loser but the ultimate losses are to be shared by
all including humans.

- This perpetual ignorance towards rapidly declining natural

resources is also reflected in the formal measurement techniques
for the economic activities. However, in the wake of increased
debate over long term sustainability of natural resources, concerns
have been shown over measurement techniques, such as Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), which largely remain devoid of the
depletion of natural resources.

- The technique of economic valuation of natural resources, evolved

in this backdrop, tends to focus on direct, indirect, tangible and
intangible benefits from the natural resources extracted by different
group of individuals within their hinterland.

- The present study attempts to focus on wetlands of two different

environments (i.e. fresh and coastal waters) to conduct economic
valuation of natural resources. The main purpose is to create
awareness on the pattern of dependence of humans on such
resources through the valuation of the benefits achieved in order
that a sustainable path for future growth and development is
achieved. The study areas include Haleji Lake (to represent
freshwater area) and Sandspit Mangrove Area (to account for
coastal water).

- In addition to their ecological importance, wetlands are indirectly

providing considerable economic and social benefits, including
maintenance of fisheries, provision of water supplies, support to
agriculture, wildlife resources and timber production providing
energy resources, transport, and the supporting important
recreational and tourism opportunities. Wetlands also contribute
towards climate stability through their role in global water and
carbon cycles.

- It is often not easy for planners and decision-makers to allocate

taxpayers’ money on environmental activities, especially if there is
 no broad support from the public. Wetland valuation is a way to
estimate ecosystem benefits to people and allow financial experts
to ascertain the economic feasibility favoring environmental
investments.

- Appreciation of the real value of wetlands is now growing partly

because of the realization of the costs involved in providing
alternative services if those wetlands are destroyed or degraded.

- The study is based on a household survey of 100 families in the

Haleji Lake and Sandspit areas, a survey of 34 tourists/groups of
visitors in Haleji Lake area and through the information gathered
from officials and policymakers of the associated departments and
institutions including, Sindh Wildlife Department, Irrigation
Department, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi Port Trust,
Sindh Environment Protection Agency etc.

- The analysis of the survey data reveals a positive relationship

between family size and mean annual income in both cases, which
implies a stronger impact of increased population on environment.
It further implies that the rate of extraction of natural resources of
wetland would accelerate if alternate employment opportunities
were not made available.

- Nearly 60 percent of households in Haleji and 65 percent in the

Sandspit areas had, among others, fishing as their primary
occupation. In addition, the family members had secondary
occupations related with tourism in the area.

- The analysis further shows that whereas the primary occupations

directly impacting natural resources was 78 and 65 percent in Haleji
and Sandspit areas, respectively, almost all households had their
secondary occupation directly impacting on natural resources.

- The immigration pattern into the area shows nearly 27 percent of

the present families migrated into the area during the last 25 years
or so.

- In addition to the direct benefits, a stream of indirect benefits was

also reported by the households. In this regard, wood cutting
appears dominant. The other significant sources of indirect benefits
included fish for home consumption and camel grazing (in Sandspit
area).

- The alternate sources of income as suggested by the households

included development of tourism and increase in visitor’s fee,
export of crocodiles (from Haleji area) and provision of natural gas.

- The visitor’s survey reveals that a sizeable number of groups of

individuals regularly visit Haleji Lake for fishing and recreational
purposes.
- Estimation of direct and indirect benefits received by the local
population shows a value of Rs.164 million in Haleji and Rs.151
million in Sandspit area annually.

- In addition, the estimated value of benefits generated through

tourism (including both recreational and existence values) at Haleji
lake was Rs.24 million annually.

- In aggregate terms, the economic value of both wetland sites is

around Rs.339 millions annually which can increase substantially
with the help of a comprehensive development plan.

- The economic valuation of the wetland suggests that these natural

resources are heavily extracted by the local population and
immediate steps needs to be taken to reduce the dependence of
the population, particularly on fishing in Haleji area and wood
cutting in the mangrove forest in the backwaters of Sandspit area.
The steps to be taken may include strict adherence to Ramsar
Convention in case of Haleji Lake and provision of natural gas as
alternate fuel resource in Sandspit area.

- The level of dependence of population on natural resources, in

extracting benefits through secondary occupation and indirect
approaches, is quite visible. This dependence is likely to persist and
this persistence could be utilized in motivating the local population
to conserve the resources through sustainable harvesting. An
effective involvement of local population in the efforts to conserve
and sustain the natural resources would create a sense of
ownership as well as financial benefits.

- The visitor’s survey in Haleji lake area demonstrates considerable

potentials for creating general awareness about environment and
generation of financial resources through promotion of tourism. The
dearth of recreational facilities in Karachi region provides ample
opportunities for developing Haleji Lake and Sandspit area. The
imputed economic valuation of these wetlands under the study
seems significant in the present scenario but would appear quite
conservative given the potentials reposed.
 Acknowledgement
This report is the result of a case study conducted on Economic Valuation
of Wetlands by WWF-Pakistan. During the course of this study the
information was collected both from the field surveys and the relevant
Govt. Departments. In this regard we would like to thank the Sindh Forest
and Wildlife Department which is the key stakeholder. Particularly we
would like to thank, Ex. Secretary Forest, Mr. Shamsul-Haq Memon, Ex.
Additional Secretary of Forest Mr. Mehboob Alam Ansari, Ex. Conservator,
Sindh Wildlife Department, Mr. Munir Awan, Ex. Conservator, Sindh Wildlife
Department, Mr. Hussain Bux Bhagat, Conservator Mr. Ghulam Rasool
Channa, Assistant Conservator, Mr. Abdul Munaf Qaim Khani for their
extreme valuable inputs and full cooperation and support at Haleji Lake.

Thanks are also due for the community leaders at Sandspit, Haji Siddique
who provided the valuable information on mangroves forest of Sandspit
and extended cooperation during the field surveys in their locality. We
would also like to thank Mr. Jahangeer Durrani, for conducting informative
technical discussions and providing the data on birds at Sandspit.

Special thanks are also due for Mr. Shahid, Librarian, Sindh Wildlife
Department for providing in time series data on waterbirds, Wildlife Act,
etc. We wish to thanks Mrs. Samita Nadeem of Environmental Protection
Agency-Sindh, providing us the data on Haleji Lake. Mr. Salman Ashraf of
GIS Lab. WWF-P, is acknowledged for his providing satellite images for the
study area.

We are grateful to Dr. Ejaz Ahmad, Deputy Director General of WWF-

Pakistan for coordination and support for the study and his valuable input
throughout the study.

We appreciate the field support by Mr. Shaukat Ali, Ms. Mahpara Sadaqat
in both study areas. Also thanks to Mr. Shaukat in data analysis and the
drivers for their support in field visits.

Akhtar A. Hai
Rahat Najam
 1

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Economic Valuation – A Conceptual Framework.
With the pace of technological advancements and growing population, there
is an increased pressure on natural resources. In exerting such pressures
there are implicit ignorance towards higher discounting accorded to future
scenarios. In net terms, the environment is the ultimate loser and losses are
to be shared by all including the humans.

This perpetual ignorance towards rapidly declining natural resources is also

reflected in the formal measurement techniques for the economic activities.
However, in the wake of increased debate over long term sustainability of
natural resources, concerns have been shown over such measurement
techniques, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which largely remain
devoid of the depletion of natural resources. According to Rondinelli (1989):
“A country could exhaust its mineral resources, cut down its forests, erode its
soils, pollute its aquifers, and hunt its wildlife to extinction, but the measured
income i.e. GDP would not be affected as these assets disappeared”
“Politicians, journalists and even sophisticated economists in official agencies
continue to use GDP growth as prime measure of economic performance”
“ ......... only if the basic measures of economic performance ... are brought
into conformity with a valid definition of income will economic policies be
influenced towards sustainability”.

The recent literature on the subjects of economics and environment heavily

emphasizes on the use of these concepts and issues in an inter-disciplinary
manner and in the process has resulted in yielding new approaches and
techniques to correctly understand the value of natural resources.

The technique of economic valuation of natural resources, evolved in this

backdrop, tends to focus on direct, indirect, tangible and intangible benefits
extracted by different groups of individuals from the natural resources within
their hinterland.

Today’s, most planning and development decisions are made on economic

grounds and more on the basis of free market system. While this new
paradigm has its own limitations and dangers, economic valuation is an
attempt to quantity the values of the goods and services provided by the
natural resources in monetary terms. A very small part of the overall benefits
derived from the natural resources is valued through the normal market
forces of demand and supply. A significant portion of the benefits derived
from these systems, especially those derived from ecological function of the
ecosystem remain un-quantified as their values are not expressed in the
markets. Economic valuation through the application of market as well as
non-market valuation techniques makes the appropriation of these values
possible.

To understand why economic valuation may be important to wetland

management and policy it is necessary first to review the role of valuation in
 2

decision-making that concern the use of environmental resources generally

and wetlands specifically. By providing a means for measuring and
comparing the various benefits of wetlands economic valuation can be a
powerful tool to aid and improve wise use and management of global wetland
resources.

Loss of environmental resources is an economic problem because rapid

degradation and/or consumption of the resource important values are lost.
Each choice or policy for the natural resource has implications in terms of
values gained or lost. The decision on whether or to what use the resource is
to be put to and whether the present rate of use/extraction is sustainable
cannot be taken in absence of the estimation of the monetary valuation of
the gains and losses in the values hence making economic valuation an
important prerequisite for policy formulation.

In this perspective economic valuation helps to make decisions on resources

utilization and allocation more meaningful. It also helps to identify human
welfare decisions regarding the use of natural resources which are in effect
decisions regarding the allocation of their various uses. Each alternate to
which a resource is put to has some direct costs of conversion as well as the
benefits foregone which the converted resource can no longer provide.

While the direct costs of conversion are easily measured the exclusion of
foregone benefits may lead to over extraction of certain resource or aid their
degeneration, economic valuation through the measurement of economic
efficiency can be a powerful tool to evaluate such decisions. In several
instances market failures lead to sub-optimal tapping of the resource for
which the society is the ultimate victim. Economic valuation helps compute
the true price of the resource so that the decision makers can make informal
choices and not lose out on welfare.

Developing countries are often faced with the problems of several competing
concerns in the context of limited resource since several of the benefits
derived from the wetlands are either undervalued or not valued. The option
of investing into natural resources becomes inefficient. When properly
valued, investment in natural resource augmentation is found to yield rates
of economic return comparable to that earned on conventional capital
investment.

As all the investment opportunities are made comparable, through their

expression in a common enumerative, economic valuation helps prioritize
decisions, regarding sectoral resource allocation and to integrate
environmental concerns with the entire planning framework. Economic
valuation also holds the key to sustainable development since the major
reason of the failure of sustainable natural resource management and their
excessive depletion is the inadequate recognition and underestimation of the
values of many goods and services provided by these systems at the local,
national, regional and the global levels.
 3

Development decisions are often taken in favor of those uses of the

environmental resources which do have marketed outputs thus the failure to
fully account for the economic costs of conversion or degradation of
environmental resources is a major factor behind the design of inappropriate
developmental policies by providing a means for measuring and comparing
the various benefits of wet lands. Economic valuation is a powerful tool to aid
and improve wise use and sustainable management of global natural
resources.

1.2 Review of Literature

Humans have a long history of manipulating water resources for their own
needs. Many former civilisations, such as those of the Nile Delta and Far East,
were based on control and sharing of the annual floodwaters. Irrigation tanks
of South India and Sri Lanka have served communities for 2000 years;
ancient complex irrigation systems were developed in the Yemen. In ancient
Mesopotamia, irrigation supported a population of 17-25 million some 4000
years ago; the population is now 10 million and food has to be imported.
Civilisations of the Peruvian deserts disappeared when their irrigation
systems failed. Rice cultivation on the River Niger has for centuries been
closely adapted to the annual flood regime. In Guinea Bissau, the
effectiveness of the hydraulic systems created by the Balanta and Feloupe
people for rice cultivation in saline areas is still unequalled by modern
methods.

In Europe, people have a long tradition of farming the floodplains of many

large river basins. Such practices were carried out in a consistent, regulated
manner in keeping with seasonal water cycles and respect for natural
resources. Each year, fodder and grazing rights would be decided and
respected; fallow periods were common and extensive. This allowed the
development of characteristic rich assemblages of plants and animals.
Changing practices, however, have meant a reduction (and loss) of such
fallow periods, with increased agriculture and altered flood regimes as a
result of dams and canalisation projects upstream.

Locally-based initiatives have often proved to be effective means of

regulating and managing natural wetland resources. Lessons learned from
these suggest that maintenance of traditional practices, combined with new
technology and small-scale development, is vital in order to meet increased
demands of growing populations. Responsibility for, or ownership of,
resources and the right to use and benefit from them often form a better
basis for sustainable use than free use open to everyone. Local concerns
have also proved important in preventing certain development schemes
which would have resulted in the destruction of important biological and
cultural sites.

There are a variety of social and economic issues associated with mangroves
and they are intrinsically related to the poverty of effected areas. Mangroves
are traditionally and commonly owned and managed by locals who then
convert them into food and aquaculture (O’Riordan, 2000). The poorer
 4

households of a community rely on mangroves for their livelihoods via food

resources and as a form of income, whilst contrasting ‘richer’ households
generally engage in private commercial activity utilising this rare resource
(O’Riordan, 2000).

The management of Matang's mangrove forest procures direct employment

for 1406 persons and more than 1000 persons are indirectly employed.
Furthermore, 2600 are directly employed by the fishing industry in the area
(Port Weld) and 7800 indirectly. The value of fish landings, mostly prawns,
was US$12 million in 1977. This shows the staggering benefits to the local
communities and illustrates the phenomenal advantage for livelihoods.
However, there is a variation in competing uses of mangroves, which is a
precursor for potential conflict and debate between communities as they
utilise it as a resource which inadvertently serves to destroy it further –
arousing further conflict and impending poverty through a decrease in
livelihood standards and quality of life. The main uses of mangroves include,
on a small local scale level, the few outputs of home consumption, small
scale marketing (generally in the form of shrimp farming), wood for making,
wood for poles and housing, Nypa leaves for juice collection, medicinal plants
and honey (which also helps as aid to the local economy) and open fishing
and fishponds (FAO web page). All of these factors influence largely the basic
livelihoods of locals in mangrove areas and therefore any alterations to these
uses would invoke an increase in the poverty of an area.

However, as seen in Bangladesh, employment opportunities often associated

with aquaculture development also create conflicts within communities when
traditional employment clashes with the aquaculture industry
(Pangthanapanich, 1996). It is also found that employment is reduced whilst
the remaining small farms find it difficult to compete economically. Not only
does this conflict have increasing social effects, for example in West Bengal
four fishermen were killed and twenty were injured in conflicts between
fishermen and shrimp farmers due to changes in access rights to Lake
Chilika, but also poverty is exacerbated as communities seek other forms of
employment such as industry and the service sector (Pangthanapanich,
1996).

Factors that alter the social needs of communities relying on mangroves vary
with geographical location are summarised as inter alia:

1. ethnic composition,
2. language,
3. religion,
4. gender issues
5. housing and living standards
6. land tenure (effecting land use decisions and investment), and
7. access to management.
(Source: FAO webpage)
 5

In some areas rural economies and human well-being are closely dependent
on freshwater resources. Riverine floodplains are of considerable local and
national importance on almost every continent. Commerce in the Inner Delta
of the Niger River, Mali, illustrates how closely humans depend on such
habitats. Covering an area of 30,000 km2, this delta supports more than half
a million people; its post-flood grasslands provide grazing for about two
million head of livestock and the region is of major importance for seasonal
transhumance practices. In 1985 alone, export of cattle, sheep and goats
accounted for US$8 million. In addition to agricultural practices, some 80,000
fishermen depend on the floods: more than 60,000 tones of fish were landed
in 1986. The delta also accounts for more than half of the country's rice
growing area. Interruption or loss of these services would represent
considerable economic and social hardships (Dugan, 1990).

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The present study attempts to focus on wetland of two different
environments (i.e. fresh and marine waters) and tend to focus on the
following:

• to conduct economic valuation of natural resources in its surrounding.

• to create awareness among the policy makers on the pattern of
dependence of humans on such resources through the valuation of the
benefits achieved in order that a sustainable path for future growth and
development is identified.

Though conducted as a pilot study, its outcome could help in creating a basis
for specific planning efforts and policy designing for the sustainability of
natural resources being used in the process.

1.4 Introduction to the Wetlands

Wetlands are dynamic, complex habitats. Many wetland sites are either
continuously submerged or intermittently inundated by seasonal flooding or
daily/seasonal tides. They exhibit enormous diversity in size and shape
according to their origins and
geographical location, their According to the Ramsar Convention, wetlands are
physical structure, as well as defined as "areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water,
their chemical composition. whether natural or artificial, permanent or
temporary, with water that is static or flowing,
Characteristic flora and fauna brackish or salt, including areas of marine water
are largely defined by the water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six
depth, current and intensity, meters" (Article 1.1). In addition, the Ramsar
underlying soil structure, Convention (Article 2.1) provides that wetlands
"may incorporate riparian and coastal zones
sediment composition, and
adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of
water temperature and, in marine water deeper than six meters at low tide
coastal regions, reach of the lying within the wetlands". As a result, coverage of
tide. the Ramsar Convention may be extended to
include not only obvious freshwater resources such
as rivers and lakes, but also coastal and shallow
Wetland ecosystems, by marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, artificial
definition, depend on water to water bodies and underground water resources.
1
Convention on wetlands called as Ramsar
Convention, 1971.
 6

maintain their ecological functions. The hydrological cycle renews the flow
and quantity of water in rivers, aquifers, lakes and all other freshwater
ecosystems. These are complex ecosystems, the boundaries of which are
often in a state of flux. Wetlands are therefore easily affected by external
events. Nutrient and sediment loads, for example, are frequently moved from
one site to another and from one habitat to another. Thus, nutrients obtained
in the headwaters of a stream may find their way into lakes or fens. Minerals
and nutrients not absorbed by living freshwater organisms may find their way
into the marine ecosystem, often thousands of kilometers from where they
first entered the water. While the fluid nature of such exchanges guarantees
a continued renewal of energy, it also represents a major potential hazard
since many harmful agents (pesticides, fertilizers or other chemicals) can also
be easily and rapidly transported to other areas where they might have an
adverse impact on the environment.

Value of Wetland Ecosystem

Different categories of wetlands perform different functions, many of which
are not immediately obvious: coastal wetlands (mangroves, estuaries, salt
marshes, seagrass beds, coral reefs and mudflats) are vital spawning and
nursery areas for large numbers of fish. Inland wetlands - rivers and lakes -
not only provide abundant food and income for millions of people, but also
serve as an essential lifeline for communications: goods have been traded
along all major rivers for centuries. They are the natural storehouses of
considerable levels of biological diversity and provide the life support
systems for much of humanity. They play a vital role in sediment and erosion
control, flood control, maintenance of water quality and abatement of
pollution, maintenance of water supplies (including groundwater) and support
for fisheries.

While no single wetland fulfils all of these functions, wetlands do yield

multiple benefits. In addition to their ecological importance, wetlands are
indirectly responsible for considerable economic and social benefits, including
maintenance of fisheries, provision of water supplies (maintenance of quality
and quantity), support to agriculture, wildlife resources and timber
production, providing energy resources (peat and plant matter), transport,
and supporting important recreational and tourism opportunities. Wetlands
also contribute to climatic stability through their role in global water and
carbon cycles.
 7

Source: www.ecosystemvaluation.org

Why estimate ecosystem value?

There are at least two good reasons for evaluating wetland services and
goods:

1. In difficult financial times, it is not easy for government decision makers to

spend taxpayers' money on environmental activities, especially if there
is no broad support from the public. Wetland valuation is a way to
estimate ecosystem benefits to people and allows financial experts to
carry out a Cost-Benefit activity which might be in favour of
environmental investment. Cost-Benefit analysis compares the benefits
and costs to society of policies, programmes, or actions to protect or
restore an ecosystem. It is therefore an important tool for
environmental managers and decision makers to justify public
spending on conservation activities and wetland management

2. The other good reason is that people are not always aware of the values
of wetlands. Many think that they are no more than mosquito breeding
areas! By giving objective evidence to skeptical managers and the
public of the monetary and non-monetary benefits of wetlands,
environmentalists will gain their support. Most people only care about
what they love or what brings economic benefit to them. By helping
people to improve their living conditions by using and selling wetland
goods and services, we will gain strong supporters for our cause!

Economic valuation is but one of many ways to define and measure values.
Other types of value (religious, cultural, global, intrinsic…) are also important,
but the economic value is the most important in most countries when
 8

decision makers have to make difficult choices about allocation of scarce

government resources.

Putting an economic tag on wetlands and the many functions they provide
has proven very difficult, but has become increasingly necessary.
Recommendation 6.10 of the Ramsar Convention recognises that it is "vital
that all wetland economic values be identified, measured and reported upon
to increase national and international awareness of the needs for and
benefits of wetland conservation". Appreciation of the "real" value of
wetlands is now growing, partly because of the realisation of the costs
involved in providing alternative services if those of wetlands are destroyed
or degraded. The value of wetlands in maintaining global fisheries is one such
example: two-thirds of the fish caught worldwide hatch or spend part of their
life cycle in tidal areas; an estimated 90% of the fish harvested in the Gulf of
Mexico (worth US$700 million each year) consist of species dependent on
coastal mangroves; shrimp fisheries in Thailand have been valued at
US$2000 per hectare; the value of annual scallop harvests on the Niantic
River, Connecticut, USA, is greater than that of prime beef on an equivalent
area of grazing land [ Maltby, 1986].

The economic value of wetland conservation is also being appreciated: in the

United States, the value of wetlands in preventing serious flooding has been
put at US$13,500 per hectare per annum. Fur trapping in North American
marshes is thought to be worth from US$151-401 per acre [UNEP, 1995],
while reed cutting in East Dongting Lake, China, generates about US$1.25
million each year [S. Hails, ed., Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar
Convention, Ramsar, in press]. A study of recreational values of wetlands in
England has suggested that they are worth from US$100-210 per visitor each
year. (Ramsar Bureau, 1996)

Economic realisations such as those noted above are now proving powerful
incentives for protecting wetlands. Wildlife-based tourism accounts for a
considerable proportion of this: in the United States, five million Americans
spend more than US$638 million a year visiting waterfowl refuges. Wildlife
safaris in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, are worth about US$13 million a
year, while more than half of the GNP of the Bahamas comes from people
holidaying on its coasts. Australia earns some US$90 million each year from
visitors to the Great Barrier Reef. At the same time, however, many countries
are unwittingly destroying these resources: of the 109 countries with
significant coral reef communities, 93 are damaging them. In over 50
countries, coral is being smothered by silt; in nearly 70 countries, corals have
been affected by dredging and land reclamation. Mining corals for building
materials and the use of dynamite and other explosives for fishing has
caused irreparable damage to many coral ecosystems (Ramsar Bureau,
1996).
 9

1.5 An Overview of Pakistan’s Wetlands

Wetland cover approximately 9.7% or 7,800,000 hectares (7,800 Km 2) of the
total area of Pakistan (803,941 Km2). The country has a great variety of
wetland both man – made and natural. The Indus River and floodplains from
the main wetland artery for the country and the majority of the population of
Pakistan is closely dependent on the wetland resource provided directly and
indirectly by this great river.

In Pakistan, wetlands are scattered from the high Himalayan region in the
north to the mangrove swamps in the south. The River Indus is the major
wetland artery of the country, rising in the Himalayas and emptying into the
Arabian Sea. All these contribute to a wealth and diversity of wetland
habitats. This can be explained as floodplain wetlands of major river systems
and their extensive network of tributaries draining the Pakistan land mass in
all directions; saline and temporary wetlands of arid and semi-arid expanses
inland; coastal systems such as lagoons, backwaters and estuaries;
mangrove swamps; marine wetlands; corals associated with the island and so
on. In fact, natural wetlands in Pakistan include the wide range of
ecosystems, like freshwater lakes and salt marshes. In addition, there are
man-made wetlands such as reservoirs, dams, barrages, rice paddies and
flooded arable land.

Wetlands in Pakistan are under threat from various forces primary among
which is man although most local communities have exploited wetland
resources in a sustainable manner for centuries a combination of increasing
population pressure and migration has meant that current patterns of water
usage are no longer sustainable. Substantially increased demands from
urban areas for water resources have led to the construction of dams
barrages irrigation system etc, creating additional burdens wetland
ecosystem provide a wide range of services many of which are taken for
granted in government planning and development processes very important
for water fowl and are thus undervalued (Wetlands Action Plan, 2000).

Economic Benefits
Pakistan’s wetlands provide many direct and in-direct benefits to the people.
The main wetland product is the fish which in some places are commercially
harvested in natural wetlands like Manchar Lake, Keenjhar Lake, Rawal Lake,
Hadero Lake, Khabbeki Lake, at River Indus and its tributaries. This will add
more financial and economic benefits to the country’s population in terms of
employment and food resources. The river Indus is the major wetland which
provides the drinking water as well as the water for the agriculture in the
country. The dams and hydropower construction at the Indus River generate
power and electricity for commercial and domestic purposes.

In Pakistan after agriculture; fishing is the main occupation of the people in

rural areas as well as in the coastal belt. Govt. of Pakistan earns nearly 150
million US Dollars annually from the marine and coastal fishing through
 10

foreign trawlers and export of fish products to the Far East, Europe and
America which contributes to the country’s economy.
 11

2. STUDY AREA

In this study we have taken two types of wetlands;

i) Freshwater wetland, Haleji Lake, (Thatta, Sindh)
ii) Coastal wetland. Mangrove Forest, Sandspit (Karachi)

2.1 Haleji Lake (Freshwater Wetland)

2.1.1 Background
Haleji Lake is an example of a large freshwater lake, in Sindh Province of
Pakistan. It is a wintering site for the globally threatened pelican Pelecanus
crispus. This wetland regularly hosts between 50,000 and 100,000 birds. It is
especially important for staging and passing Anatidae and coot Fulica atra,
and for breeding Ardeidae. In general, the area is of international importance
for breeding, passage and wintering waterbirds.

Haleji is a perennial freshwater lake with associated marshes and adjacent

brackish seepage lagoons, set in a stony desert. Originally a seasonal saline
lagoon, the lake was formed in the 1930s by converting the lagoon into a
water storage reservoir to meet non-agricultural demand for water for
Karachi.

The lake was designated as Ramsar site on 23rd of July 1977. The total area of
the lake is 1,704 ha. The lake is located 15 km west-northwest of Thatta, and
75 km east of Karachi. (Map 1).

Biological / Ecological Notes

Aquatic Vegetations: The Lake supports abundant aquatic vegetation,
including extensive beds of Phragmites karka, Typha angustata, Ipomoea
aquatica, Cyperus sp., Scirpus littoralis and Polygonum barbatum. Submerged
vegetation includes Potamogeton pectinatus, P. perfoliatus, P. lucens,
Vallisneria spiralis, Hydrilla verticulata, Najas minor, Lemna minor,
Ceratophyllum demersum and Myriophyllum spicatum. Juncus maritimus
grows around the brackish seepage lagoons. Big trees such as Acacia sp.,
Ficus sp. and Casuarina sp. have been planted on the bunds around the lake.

Fauna
Haleji Lake is an important breeding area for waterbirds, in particular
Ardeidae, Nettapus coromandelius, Anas poecilorhyncha, Porphyrio porphyrio,
and Hydrophasianus chirurgus. Thousands of night-herons Nycticorax
nycticorax roost in the marshes. Wintering waterfowl include Pelecanus
crispus, Anas penelope and Fulica atra. The sanctuary is also rich in raptors
and fish, and it supports a small population of marsh crocodile Crocodylus
palustris. 232 species of birds has been recorded from the lake.

The lake has three islands. One of them is known as Pelican Island and
another Cormorant Island. On both the islands hundreds of these birds can be
seen nesting and sunning. The Cormorants, a common sight at all wetlands,
 12

live the year round at the Haleji. On the Cormorant Island these could be
seen in very large numbers resting and sunning with their very large wings
spread wide and the long necks held high in the air. They live exclusively on
fish, which they chase and catch under water, being expert divers and
submarine swimmers.

Marsh crocodiles have also been introduced in to the lake and they have also
made an island as their permanent residence. The island has been named
after them as the Crocodile Island. They subsist on fish and waterfowl in the
lake. The number of crocodiles has increased and now a few instances had
been reported when the crocodiles had attacked the goats or sheep while
these were drinking water in the lake. A good thing that had happened due to
the introduction of crocodiles in the lake is that illegal fishing which the
departmental staff had not been able to control or check had been stopped,
as the fishermen, due to fear of the crocodiles, do not enter the lake for
fishing.

Hydrological / Physical notes:

The Lake was formed by bunding of a
natural depression. The newly formed
reservoir was drained of saline water
and re-flooded with freshwater by the
diversion of the Jam branch canal
carrying water from Keenjhar Lake. A
second canal, in the southwest corner
of the lake, is the main outlet. The
maximum depth is 6-8 m, and water
levels fluctuate with 1 - 1.5 m. The
bunds enclosing the lake carry a road
lined with trees and shrubs. Beyond the
bund there is a series of brackish
seepage lagoons – originally “borrow-
pits” from creating the bunds. These
are supplied by monsoon rains, and
water discharged from the main lake
by a bypass regulator. The climate is
dry, sub-tropical monsoonal, with very
hot summers and cool winters. The
lake serves as an important reservoir
for flood control.
Role of Aquatic Plants:
Many wetland plants have the capacity to
remove toxic substances that have come from
pesticides, industrial discharges and mining
activities. Some wetland plants have been
found to accumulate heavy metals in their
tissues at 100,000 times the concentration in
the surrounding water and so can detoxify
certain kinds of effluent. Eichhornia crassipes
(water hyacinth), some Typha and Phragmites
species have been used to treat effluents
from mining areas that contain high
concentrations of heavy metals such as
cadmium, zinc, mercury, nickel, copper and
vanadium. Using this purification capacity of
wetlands, Calcutta has pioneered a system of
sewage disposal that is both efficient and
environmentally friendly. Built to house one
million people, Calcutta is now home to over
10 million, many living in slums and creating a
sanitation nightmare. But the 8,000-hectare
East Calcutta marshes, a patchwork of tree-
fringed canals, vegetable plots, rice paddies
and fish ponds, along with the assistance of
20,000 people, daily transform one third of

Water Quality
According to the study conducted by Sindh EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) in 1999; the water salinity at surface was 0.15‰ (same at 1 and 2
meter depth also). At 3 and 4 meters it is 0.20‰ and 0.25‰ respectively.
The PH remained alkaline at all depth except in January it becomes slightly
acidic at 4-meter depth. The total suspended solids at surface were 4.9mg/L.
 13

Recreational Uses
Recreational activities include angling of fish, bird watching and lakeside
picnic. The site is also important for conservation education, with its
information centre (and restaurant) with an observation tower. Proximity to
Karachi affords excellent potential for conservation-based recreation and
education.

Management
The lake is managed by two departments the Sindh Wildlife Department and
Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KW&SB). The dual management had led
to a poor management. Major portion of the lake surface is covered with
weeds that are never properly or fully cut to clean the lake completely.

2.1.2 Major Factors Impacting the Haleji Lake

• Stoppage of water:

When water from Haleji Lake was stopped to supply the Karachi city for
drinking purpose, the lake faced many problems. It was about seven years
ago that the lake has lost its value for the main drinking water supply to
Karachi as the Water Board constructed the main canal directly from the
Keenjhar lake to Karachi. Previously water was supplied from Keenjhar to
Haleji and then to Karachi city. As a result of stoppage the water of the lake
becomes stagnant and eutrophication was observed in the lake. The lotus
spread all across the surface of the lake. Water level also started declining. At
that time the Water Board did not show any interest of supplying water to the
lake. The water management is controlled
by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board In 2000, the Sindh Wildlife
(KWSB), and the Sindh Wildlife Department organised a
ministerial meeting at the lake
Department is the custodian of the
headed by the law minister of that
wildlife. There is a lack of coordination time. She was briefed with the
between these two departments. As a
result the lake has been deteriorating day by day.

• Developmental Activity:

The RBOD extension phase will create another negative ecological impact on
the lake. According to the revised plan the new drain runs parallel at the
surrounding edge of the lake. This Drain will contain the agricultural and
industrial effluent and will drain out into the Arabian Sea at Gharo Creek of
Indus Delta. The distance of the drain and the lake at one point is about 10
meter and all the seepage of the drain can mix with the Haleji lake water and
will deteriorate quality.

• Declining of waterbirds population

The trend in the number of water birds at Haleji Lake during the period
1987-2003 shows significant depletion during late 1990’s and onwards as
compared to the earlier period (Fig 1). This pattern is based on the field data
 14

collected by Sindh Wildlife Department during their annual census of

waterbirds population in Sindh. (With the exception of four years i.e. 1993
and 1995-97, the survey was not undertaken). Whereas this depletion could
be attributed to external factors like climatic changes worldwide, the local
level factors like water shortage and non adherence to environmental
standards seem to provide a more plausible explanation for the degradation
of the lake.

Other factors include;

• Excessive aquatic vegetation in the lake

• Lack of single management at the lake
• Illegal fishing
• Non-regular water supply to the lake from the inlet
• Cutting of the reeds near (destroyed) breeding colonies of the
resident birds
• Non-scientific clearing of aquatic weeds (Lotus)
• New developmental plan without comprehensive EIA. e.g.
Extension of RBOD (Right Bank Outfall Drain).

2.1.3 Community Dependence on the Natural Resources

The local community living around the Lake directly utilizes the lake
resources i.e. the water of the lake for drinking and domestic purposes. The
local villagers also do fishing at the lake for their food consumptions by
surrounding local villagers. The bank of the lake is used by the local females
to wash clothes.

Villagers collect the reeds from the lake for many purposes like roof
thatching, baskets making, broom making and small boats for fishing in the
lake.

Local boys collect the flowers and seeds of the lotus for selling to the visitors
and at the local markets. The roots of the lotus are used as the traditional
food in the interior of Sindh.

The surrounding land of the lake is utilized by the local villagers for cultivation
and livestock grazing.

Fig. 1
 15

Trend of waterbirds population at Halej lake-Thatta, Sindh from

1987-2004

180,000 168,645

160,000
Number of waterbirds

140,000 126,093

120,000
103,161 101,351
96,124
100,000
79,377
80,000 68,868 68,594

60,000 53,936
44,931
39,258
40,000 28,190
15,393
20,000 11480

0
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Source: Based on data of “Annual Waterfowl Counts” by Sindh Wildlife

Department
 16

Factors Impacting Haleji Lake

Diversion Unchecke
Diversion Unchecke
of of d aquatic
d aquatic
drinking vegetatio
drinking vegetatio
water toto nn Irregular
water Irregular
the water
the water
Karachi supply
Karachi supply
City from
City from
Haleji
Haleji
Illegal Lack of of
Illegal Lack
fishing awarenes
fishing Haleji
Haleji awarenes
s s
Lake
Lake Local
Local
Lack of of women
Lack women
comprehen using the
comprehen using the
sive lake bank
sive lake bank
scientific forfor
scientific
research Cutting of Developm washing
research Cutting of Developm washing
reeds ental
reeds ental purposes
purposes
near the activities
near the activities
breeding
breeding like RBOD
like RBOD
colonies extension
colonies extension

Solving the problem of the Haleji Lake through

Development
of
Management

Implementation
of the
Management
 17

2.2 Sandspit Mangrove Area (Coastal Wetland)

2.2.1 Background
The coast of Sandspit is an open seafront sandy beach, 100-200 meters wide
and about 5 km long. It has a large numbers of so called “beach huts” along
the high waterline, and is frequented by thousands of visitors for recreation
and viewing the endangered Green and Olive Ridley turtles which nest on the
coast. (Map 2)

A small fishing village, Kaka Pir, and the adjoining two villages Shams Pir and
Younus Abad are located in this area with a population of approximately
7,500 people. The Kaka Pir village is divided into two sections one of which is
located close to the mangrove forests. The other section is located across the
road, near the beach. In the village some basic facilities are available such as
primary school for boys and no health center or commercial water tank.
Sandspit is accessible by a “metalled” road which is in reasonably good
condition.

The main source of livelihood is fishing. Few men also look after the beach
huts of the absentee owners as guards. In addition to their domestic tasks,
women look after and forage for the livestock (camels, goats) from the
mangrove forests and collect firewood from the mangrove forest and
elsewhere, and bring water from a communal water tank on a regular basis.

Ecological Notes
The area covered by the mangroves in Sandspit is about 400 ha. Total
mangrove area is 300 ha is in good condition and 100 ha degraded forest.
The main species is Avicennia marina. Harvesting by residents and other
villagers has resulted in changes in the characteristics of the front trees
which look like shrubs. The water level here rises and falls with the tides.
Behind the mangrove forests extensive marshlands constitute an excellent
habitat for thousands of migratory birds.

The creek system is one of the most important areas for wintering, passage
and summering shorebirds in Pakistan, and also supports significant numbers
of cormorants, flamingoes, ducks, gulls, and terns. About 32 species of
shorebirds have been recorded. (Records of ZSD)

The mangroves forest at Sandspit is called as the backwaters mangroves.

The source of freshwater is the Lyari River. The sea water comes through
high and low tide daily.

Management
The mangrove forest has been managed by the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The
mangrove forest is protected under the Pakistan Forest Act 1932 i.e. any
cutting and damaging of the forest is prohibited. KPT has Watch and Ward
 18

system but due to the lack of manpower and patrolling boats they are not
doing it effectively. The watch and ward of the mangrove forest of Sandspit is
very weak. The locals regularly grazed the livestock, and cutting for fuel
wood is very common in the area. Illegal migrants like Bengalies are cutting
the mangrove trees for commercial purposes in the nearby villages. Absence
of management plan for mangrove forest creates potential threats for the
long term sustainability of these natural resources.
 19

2.2.2 Major Factors Impacting the Salt marshes,

Sandspit Mangrove Area mangroves and other
forested wetlands act
• Degradation of mangrove forest as the frontline defence
against incoming
i. Cutting for fuel storms. They help
minimise the impact of
The local females daily cut the mangrove storms by reducing
branches for fuel purpose. This routine wind action, wave
action and currents,
cutting of the mangrove trees gradually
impact on the height and causes shrub like appearance. After several years
of struggle Sui Gas has now been provided by the effort of WWF-P with the
support of District Nazim (elected member of the district) and the local
community. As a result of this the pressure on the mangrove forest is likely
to reduce.

ii. Collection for Fodder

Small branches of mangrove tree have been collected by the local for
fodder purpose.

• Urban Pollution to the Mangrove forest at Sandspit

The mangrove forests of the backwater area at the Sandspit take

freshwater from the Lyari River. The water of the River is now
contaminated with the Industrial and domestic pollution as the industrial
Area SITE which is located near the Lyari river and also the Kacchi Abadi
resident at the bank of the Lyari river throw their domestic waste directly
in to the River. This heavy contaminated water feed the mangrove forest.

2.2.3 Community Utilising the Natural Resources

Grazing: The local people use to graze their livestock in the mangrove forest.
The livestock include the cows and goats some people have camels. The
camels grazing is very common in the mangrove area, people retain the
camels for the earning purpose as the beach side visitors like camels ride and
horse ride.

Fuel wood Cutting: The local females use to collect/cut the mangrove wood
for fuel purpose for their domestic needs. Mostly people in Kaka Pir and
surrounding villages collect the mangrove wood for fuel purpose.

Crabbing: Crab fishing is very common in the backwater mangrove area. The
mud crab and blue crab are caught by the local people specially the children.
According to them the female crab has higher price, male crab has medium
price and the juvenile crab has the lowest price in market. All these crabs
have export value in Asia Pacific and Far East.
 20

Fishing: Fishing in the mangrove area not very common but in the ban
season some of the fisherman come for fishing in the creek and channels.
Small size during fish and prawn are found in the backwater mangrove area.

Factors Impacting Mangrove Forest at Sandspit

Cutting
for Fuel
wood for
commerc
ial and
domestic
use
Domestic
waste
directly
Grazing for
goes to
Camels /
the
Cattles
mangrov
e forest
Mangrove
Forest at
Sandspit

Industrial Collection
waste of small
(Pollution) branches of
in to the mangroves
for stall
Mangrove
feeding
area

Solving the problems by

Designating the
Mangrove forest
as protected area

Development of
Management Plan & its
Implementation
 21

3. Methodological Framework

3.1 Genesis of Methodology

The issue of environmental degradation and rapid decline of natural
resources became more prominent and better understood during the decades
of 80’s and 90’s.

The rapid growth of population and the consequent development of

technology impacted heavily on natural resources, particularly in the
developing countries where the awareness about environmental degradation
and future consequence has historically not been created.

The efforts towards the development of conservation policies, as a result of

global warming, saw acceleration in development of forums, conventions,
treaties and laws related to rapidly deteriorating environmental conditions at
the world level during the last two decades of the twentieth century. All such
changes in policy perspectives toward environment were the net impact of
the efforts made by scientists who created technical knowledge in order that
the policy makers and the users of natural resources understand better the
logical impact of their current actions on the future outcome.

The role of social scientists in this regard, though lately recognized, was vital
in bridging the gap between natural sciences and the political spheres, as
well as in identifying the complementarities reposed in the jointness of all
sciences in creating empirical knowledge for the long term sustainability of
natural resources.

The efforts made in this regard also included development of techniques and
refinement of various concepts based on rational behaviour of individuals in
impacting on natural resources.

These refinements in the concept and techniques concurrently guided the

policy makers in the design of policies aimed at conserving natural resources.
The development of methods to know the likely responses of individuals
towards policies aimed at conservation of natural resources was pivotal in
this regard.

3.2 Valuation of Wetland

Based on the information generated through field surveys in both sites,
estimates were obtained with regard to the economic valuation of these
resources.

The estimated economic values were based on a set of assumptions for each
site. As per methodological framework, direct and indirect benefits were
estimated in the form of use and non-use values attributable to the impacts
of local population and the visitors.
 22

In this backdrop, efforts were made for the refinement of methods/techniques

for the valuation of current action(s) of individuals on natural resources. The
obtaining information has helped scientists and policy makers in acquiring
in-depth knowledge on the subject and in designing policies to ensure better
sharing of natural resources and their sustenance by all stakeholders.

Based on the techniques formulated in the economic literature on the

valuation of natural resources, a framework was used for the study to
conduct valuation of wetland. This includes various indicators of values (both
tangible and intangible) benefiting various groups of users (locals and
visitors).

Whereas the direct and the indirect use values have largely been focused in
the present study, the analysis will help in putting a price tag on non-use
values which often remain unclear but are extremely relevant from the view
point of future sustainability of the natural resources.

TEV (Total Economic Value) = Use Value + Non-Use Value

TEV

Use Value Non-Use Value

Direct Use Value Indirect Use Value

Existence Option Quasi Bequest

Value Value Option Value
Value

1. Direct Use Value ⇒ Raw materials (for marketed & non-marketed

products) e.g. timber, fuel-wood, water, soil
2. Indirect Use Value ⇒ Waste disposal and Amenities (recreational
or scenic value)
3. Existence Value ⇒ Willing to pay to help ensure existence of a
species
4. Options Value ⇒ Willing to pay to come and see at some point in
time
5. Quasi Option Value ⇒ Existence of any species will have higher
value in future
 23

6. Bequest Value ⇒ Ensuring that future generations will be able to

see such species

3.3 Sampling Framework

In order to gather primary data to represent wetland area from fresh and
saline water areas to sites of Haleji Lake and Sandspit were chosen,
respectively. The data was collected in 2001-02.

The Haleji Lake is Ramsar site with a total population of 9,000 individuals
spread over 12 villages. The Sandspit area is located on the Arabian Sea and
two sampled villages are located in the backwater and surrounded by
mangroves were sampled. These villages had a total population of over
7,500. Table 3.1 provides basic description of these two sites.

Because of scanty information available on these sites, a random sampling

approach was adopted. Given the limited resources available and a pilot
nature of the study, it was decided to cover a total of 101 households from
these two sites (61 from Haleji and 40 from Sandspit). The sample
distribution between the sites was made in proportion to the relative number
of households.

In addition, 34 interviews were conducted with the visitor’s at Haleji lake to

ascertain visitor’s impact on the natural resources of the lake. In case of
Sandspit area, there were no visitors observed during the survey.

Two sets of survey instruments (i.e. formal questionnaires) were developed

for the survey of households and visitors. At the end of survey, a total of 101
households and 34 visitors (groups) were covered.

Table – 3.1
SITE DESCRIPTION
Haleji Sandspit
1. No. of Villages 12 2
2. Total Population 9,000 7,500
3. No. of Households 1,500 1,000
4. Average Household Size 6 7.5
5. Composition Heterogeneous Homogenous
6. Depending on Natural Predominant Relatively low
Resources (for all activities) (for fuel & fodder only)
7. Threat to Environment Direct Direct
8. Recreational Activities Frequent Occasional
Sanctuary
Leased/Owned
9. Land tenure (Protected Area)
6 K.M. radius
 24

- Raw Materials
- Life Support
10. Services/Benefits from - Waste Disposal
- Raw Materials
Wetland Services
- Amenities
- Amenities
- KWSB - KPT
- Wildlife Department - Manora
11. Institutions Involved (GoS) Cantonment Board
- Irrigation - Wildlife Department
Department (GoS) (GoS)
 25

4. Impact of Wetland

4.1 Benefits to Local Communities

The local population in both the study areas had shown heavy dependence
on the natural resources for their livelihood. Though a large number of direct
and indirect benefits (reflecting use and non-use values of the natural
resources consumed) were extracted from these areas on a regular basis; the
fishing activity dominated over other activities which included farming and
wood cutting. At Haleji, continued farming has tended to create significant
threats t the lake.

The detailed analysis showed that:

1. There was a positive relationship between family size and mean annual
income which implies that there is a stronger impact of increased
population on environment (Annexure A – Tables 1&2). It further
implies that if alternative employment opportunities are not made
available, the rate of extraction of natural resources will accelerate.

2. A total of 36 households out of 61 (i.e. 59 percent) in Haleji lake, and

26 out of 40 (i.e. 65 percent) in Sandspit area had fishing as the
primary occupation (Annexure A – Table 2). In addition, family
members had secondary occupations creating incomes from tourism
(Annexure A – Table 3). It shows that whereas the primary occupations
directly related to natural resources was 78 and 65 percent in Haleji
and Sandspit areas, respectively, almost all households had their
secondary occupation directly impacting on the natural resources
through farming, wood cutting, etc.

3. The in-migration pattern into the area shows that nearly 27 percent of
the present families migrated into the area during the last 25 years or
so (Annexure A – Table 4). Whereas this proportion seems significant,
there was no ostensible difference in the average annual incomes of
the households as a result of migration. This finding complements the
other findings mentioned above.

4. In addition to the direct benefits mentioned earlier, a stream of indirect

benefits1 was also reported by the households surveyed. In this
regard, wood cutting appears predominant (Annexure A – Table 5).
The pattern of other indirect benefits shows that in Haleji lake area
water and fish for home consumption, in Sandspit area grazing (camel
grazing in mangrove forests) were significant.

5. The inhabitants also indicated certain constraints with regard to

reduced opportunities for woodcutting, water fetching, washing and
1
The term indirect benefits used here refers to benefits that were reported as not
regular or frequent owning to the fact that supplies of water and forest is limited in
the area. Therefore, these benefits were separated out from the benefits of regular
and frequent activities described as primary and/or secondary occupations.
 26

grass cutting (Annexure A – Table 6). As mentioned earlier, the

general depletion of the water and forests resources in these wetlands
caused by natural and man-made factors which have intensified over
time as well as the prevailing socio-economic environment reflecting
unemployment, poverty and lack of infrastructure, have tended to
improve constraints which are themselves product of over-exploitation
of natural resources by the residing population and ignorance
perpetuated by the government.

In the wake of this, people find no other resource but those offered by
the wetland. Hence the pressure intensifies for the extraction of
benefits with no regard to sustainability of these natural resources.
The type and nature of constraints thus observed by the local
population only relate to wood cutting, water fetching, grass / fodder
supplies.

6. The suggestions made by the respondents for the remedy of the

constraints included increase in visitor’s fee, development of tourism,
export of crocodile and clean drinking water in Haleji area and natural
gas in Sandspit area (Annexure A – Table 7). These suggested
developmental activities are likely to increase incomes of the
population residing near these locations through creation of additional
job, and services demanded.

7. The loss of income due to the reduced natural resources, as perceived

by the households, were primarily related to fish catch and wood
cutting in Haleji area (Annexure A – Tables 8&9).

4.2 Problems and Performance of Institutions

In addition to the surveys of households and tourists, consultative
meetings/interviews were held with the officials of various
departments/organizations as well as the households and tourists to help
identify the problems encountered in the overall management of these
locations (i.e. the lake and the forest) and the suggested measures. These
individuals were also asked to rank various government organizations in
terms of their role and the order of importance in the wake of sustainable
management of the wetlands.

The responses received have been presented in the following table.

However, this must be noted that these ranking are indicative of the general
responses received within the limited scope of this study. Nevertheless,
these will be helpful in preparing a Management Plan for the Wetland. Where
an in-depth institutional analysis will be required, in addition to other surveys
and Federal Govt. Departments to attain a precise function and role for each
governmental organization.

Institution Rol Prior Constraints

e ity
 27

At Haleji Lake (from the view point of natural resources conservation and tourism)
Sindh Wildlife Department I 1 Financial, manpower
Karachi Water and I 2 Lack of environmental
Sewerage Board awareness, lack of lake water
management
Sindh Tourism I 3 Lack of eco friendly tourism
Department awareness, proper planning
Irrigation Department II 3 Lack of environmental
awareness
At Sandspit / Hawksbay (from the view point of natural resources conservation)
Karachi Port Trust I 1 Financial, manpower, patrolling
facilities
Sindh Wildlife Department II 2 Lack of manpower
Karachi University II 2 Lack of field based research
activities, financial
Fishermen Cooperative II 2 Lack of environmental
Society awareness,
City Government II 2 Lack of environmental
awareness
Union Council II 2 Lack of environmental
awareness
Marine Fisheries III 3 Financial and lack of research
Department activities

Key:
Role: I=Significant, II=Partial, III=negligible, 0= nil
Priority: 1= high, 2=medium, 3=low, 0 = nil

4.3 Visitors Impact

1. The visitors survey (only limited to Haleji area) reveals a sizeable
number of group of individual (averaging 5 per group) regularly visit
Haleji lake for fishing and recreational purposes. The analysis includes
value of the visitor’s time (i.e. opportunity cost of their time with
reference to their income/professional class), and the cash expenditure
incurred, mode of travel across income and professional classifications
(Annexure B – Tables 1-16).

2. The visitor’s survey results also indicate greater potentials in

developing tourism on scientific basis which ensures generation of
additional financial resources as well as increasing the level of
awareness of visitors towards conservation and sustenance of natural
resources. Given the close proximity to the city of Karachi, it provides
enormous potential for the development of the lake that is financially
feasible and environmentally sustainable.
 28

4.4 Economic Valuation

A summarized version of all annexure tables discussed above is presented
through Tables 4.1 to 4.4. Here, the benefits derived (direct or indirect or
secondary benefits) have been reduced to only those that can be related to
the natural resources across both the research sites.

It clearly shows that, on average, the level of direct benefits in Sandspit is

nearly 65 percent higher than what was reported for Haleji area.

The comparative picture of Tables 4.1 and 4.2 indicates that in terms of the
benefits extracted, the proportion of secondary occupation is relatively small
i.e. on average; nearly 92 percent of the benefits (incomes) were derived
through those primary occupations which directly impact on natural
resources.

In this context, the derivation of economic value was restricted to primary

occupations directly impacting on natural resources (i.e. farming, fishing and
wood cutting). Similarly, using a set of assumptions, the economic value of
visitor’s impact was also estimated.

At Haleji Lake, the estimated use value was Rs.164 million annually and the
non-use value covering both recreational and existence values jointly stood
at Rs.24 million annually.

Similarly, at Sandspit (where only use values were observed during the
survey) the estimated economic value of the site was Rs.151million annually.

In aggregate terms, the total economic value of the wetlands stands around
Rs.339 million annually. This potential can be enhanced greatly by
developing a comprehensive plan covering all the aspects highlighted by this
study in more details.

4.5 Limitations of the study

- The pilot nature of the study has constrained from carrying out a larger
survey and further in-depth analysis. Nevertheless, it amply
demonstrates the level of environmental degradation due to the heavy
dependence of local population on the wetland.
- The study also highlights the enormous potentials for the development
of tourism in the area. The visitor’s survey results, though carried out
on a relatively small scale, indicate potentials for higher willingness to
pay by the visitors. An in-depth analysis of visitors in an inter temporal
fashion may help in creating a better understanding of the impact of
variations caused by weather, water resources availability, birds
migration which jointly impact on visitors pattern of stay and impact on
the wetland.
 29

Table – 4.1

Average Annual Income Per Household By Primary Occupation by

Area
(in Rupees)
Primary Occupation
Area Wood Total
Farming Fishing
Cutting
28,360 43,911 19,800 39,543
1. Haleji
(7) (36) (4) (47)
− 65,249 − 65,249
2. Sandspit
− (26) − (26)
28,360 52,859 19,800 48,698
Total
(7) (62) (4) (73)

Figure in parenthesis shows # of households.

Source: Household Survey under the study.

Chart - 1
Average Annual Income Per Household By Primary
Occupation by Area

Source: Household survey under

the study
 30

Table – 4.2
Average Annual Income Per Household By Secondary Occupation by
Area
(in Rupees)
Secondary Occupation
Area Wood Total
Farming Fishing Tourism
Cutting
37,600 − 32,240 43,662 42,288
1. Haleji
(6) − (5) (50) (61)
2.
− 65,600 − 69,576 69,377
− (2) − (38) (40)
Sandspit
37,600 65,600 32,240 54,852 53,124
Total
(6) (2) (5) (88) (101)

Figure in parenthesis shows # of households.

Source: Household Survey under the study.

Chart - 2
Average Annual Income Per Household By
Secondary Occupation by Area

Source: Household Survey under the study.

31
 32

Table – 4.3

Average Annual Benefits Per Household from Indirect Use of

Resources
from Environment By Type of Benefits By Area
(in Rupees)
Types of Indirect
Raw
Water Fish
Materials
Area Fetching Consump Total
Grazing for
& Cloth tion at
Handicraf
Washing Home
ts
47,586 36,000 35,180 54,000 42,078
1. Haleji
(29) (1) (24) (1) (55)
2.
61,014 102,300 68,194
− −
(19) (4) (23)
Sandspit
47,586 59,763 44,769 54,000 49,779
Total
(29) (20) (28) (1) (78)

Figure in parenthesis shows # households.

Source: Household Survey under the study.

Chart - 3
Average Annual Benefits Per Household from
Indirect Use of Resources from Environment By Type
of Benefits By Area

Source: Household Survey under the study.

Grazing
Though the activity of grazing on pastorals land is common throughout,
in a sanctuary like Haleji lake which has been accorded the status of a
Ramsar Site the use of land for grazing or other agricultural purposes is
not permitted.
 33

However, as observed during the course of the study, the local

inhabitants were found exerting pressure on the natural resources.
Since, grazing is not permitted,(See Annexures C) the activity was
carried out with reluctance due to the fear of law. As such, a direct and
exclusive dependence on the lake for grazing did not exist in the area
and the people extracted the benefits of grazing occasionally as and
when they could do it. In this very context, the activity of grazing was
regarded as an indirect activity.

Table – 4.4
Total Cash Expenditure and Total Value of Time Per Group*
Per Year By Origin in Visiting Haleji Lake
(in Rupees)
Cash Value of
Origin Total
Expenditure Time
1. Upper Middle Income 5,064 2,027 7,091
Group (11) (11) (11)
2. Lower Middle Income 4,759 1,693 6,452
Group (14) (14) (14)
4,549 2,222 6,772
3. Near Distance
(9) (9) (9)
4,802 1,941 6,743
Total
(34) (34) (34)

Figure in parenthesis shows # households.

Source: Household Survey under the study.
* Each group on average constitutes 5 persons.

Chart - 4
Total Cash Expenditure and Total Value of Time
Per Group* Per Yer By Origin in Visiting Halejee
Lake
 34

Source: Visitor's survey under the

study.

Estimation of Economic Valuation (of Use Value)

The specific steps followed in the estimation of economic valuation (Use Value) were
as under:

Estimation of direct and indirect benefits through primary and secondary

sources;

Based on the assumptions for direct (i.e) primary & secondary) benefits (table 4.1 &
4.2) and indirect benefits (table 4.3), estimation on economic value were made
keeping in view the use value.

Direct use value = (Total # of households in each area) X (proportion of households

reporting such
benefits) X (Average annual benefits per year household).
For example;

A) Estimation of Direct/ primary benefits at Haleji lake Reference table

4.1

Total # household = 1500

Proportion of households reporting such benefits = 77%
Average annual level of direct / primary benefits = Rs. 39,543

Therefore,
Economic Value = 1500 x 0.77 x 39,543 = Rs. 45.7 Million

Similarly,
Estimation of Direct / primary benefits at Sandspit reference table
4.1

where,
Total # household = 1,000
Proportion of household reporting such benefits = 65%
Average annual level of direct/primary benefits= Rs.65,249

Therefore,
Economic value = 1,000 x0.65 x 652, 49 = Rs.42.4 Million

i.e. total economic value of direct /primary benefits at both the location is Rs.
88.1 Million.

B) Estimation of Direct / Secondary benefits at Haleji Lake; reference

table 4.2,
Where,
 35

Total # of households = 1500

Proportion of households reporting such benefits = 98%
Average Annual level of direct / secondary benefits = Rs. 42.228

Therefore,
Economic value = 1500 x 0.98 x 42,228 = Rs. 62.07 Million

Similarly,
Estimation of direct / secondary benefits at Sandspit reference table
4.2
Where,
Total # households = 1,000
Proportion of household reporting such benefits = 100%
Average annual level of direct / secondary benefits = Rs. 69,377

Therefore;
Economic Value = 1,000 x 1.0 x 69,377 = Rs. 69.38 Million

i.e. Total Economic Value of Direct/Secondary benefits at both location is Rs.

131.45 Million
C) Estimation of Indirect benefits; reference table 4.3

B1 : Haleji lake;

Where,
Total # of households = 1500
Proportion of Households reporting such benefits = 90.1 5
Average level of indirect benefits = Rs. 42,078

Therefore,
Economic Value = 1500 x 0.901 x 42.078 = Rs. 56.87 Million

B2 Sandspit;

Where,
Total no. of household = 1,000
Proportion of households reporting such benefits = 57.5 %
Average annual level of indirect benefits = Rs. 68,194

Therefore,
Economic value = 1,000 x 0.575 x 68,194 = Rs. 39.21 Million

i.e. Total Economic Value of Indirect benefits at both the location is Rs. 96.08
Million

D) Value of Visitors (Haleji Lake only) reference table 4.4

Assumptions
1. Each group comprises, on average, 5 persons.

2. Visitors come only 2 days per week.

 36

3. It implies from (1) & (2) above that each week 340 persons visit
the lake.

4. It further implies that each year 17,680 persons visit the lake.

5. It further implies that each year 3,536 groups of 5 persons each visit
the lake.

I. Recreation Value = # Groups Per Year x Total Cash Expenditure

(Based on Cash Expenditure) Per Group Per Trip.

= 3,536 x 4,802

= 16.979

~ 17 Million Rupees

II. Existence Value = # Groups Per Year x Total Value of Time

(Based on Value of Time) Spent by Each Group on the Lake

= 3,536 x 1,941
= 6,861
~ 7 Million Rupees

i.e. Total Economic Value of Indirect benefits at both the location is 17 + 7 = Rs.
24 Million Rupees
In summary, the annual economic valuation of both sites appears as follows:

Haleji Lake Sandspit Area

1. Use Value 164.14Million Rs. 151.0 Million Rs.
2. Non-Use Value
2.1 Recreational Value 17.0 Million Rs. −
2.2 Existence Value 7.0 Million Rs. −
188.14 Million 151.0 Million
Rs. Rs.

Total Estimated Economic Value of Haleji and Sandspit Areas is Rs. 339.14 Million.
 37

5. Recommendations
In the light of the results and analysis presented above, following
recommendations are being made in order that a basis is created for the
future action plan for the sustenance of wetland.
− The economic valuation of the wetland suggests that these natural
resources are heavily extracted by the local population and immediate
steps be taken to reduce the dependence of the population,
particularly on fishing in Haleji lake and wood cutting in the mangrove
forests in the backwaters of Sandspit area. The steps to be taken may
include strict adherence to Ramsar Convention in case of Haleji Lake
and provision of alternate fuel sources e.g. natural gas in Sandspit
area.

− The level of dependence of population on natural resources, in

extracting benefits through secondary occupation and indirect
approaches, is quite visible. This dependence is likely to persist and
this persistence could be utilized in motivating the local population to
conserve the resources through sustainable harvesting. An effective
involvement of local population in the efforts to conserve and sustain
the natural resources would create a sense of ownership as well as
financial benefits.

− The visitor’s survey in Haleji lake area demonstrates considerable

potentials for creating general awareness about environment and
 38

generation of financial resources through promotion of tourism. The

dearth of recreational facilities in Karachi region provides ample
opportunities for developing Haleji Lake and Sandspit area. The
imputed economic valuation of these wetlands under the study seems
significant in the present scenario but would appear quite conservative
given the potentials reposed.

− The sustainable harvesting of these resources e.g. export of crocodiles

in Haleji lake area could also complement in generating the required
financial resources for the development of these areas which seem to
have potentials for self financing.

− In the light of above, it seems quite relevant that a management plan

be developed for conservation of these natural resources depicting
different water bodies.

− Though the present study is a pilot level study, it nevertheless provides

sufficient empirical evidences to suggest that these wetlands are
under continuous pressure being exerted from local population and
that there exists significant potential for the development for tourism
which will in addition to increasing financial resources, also help create
a better awareness and understanding among visitors in conserving
natural resources. In this backdrop, there appears a greater need to
comprehensive management plan based on the entire landscape for
sustainable use of these important natural resources.
 39

References
[1] Choudhury, J.K (1994) Sustainable management of coastal mangrove
forest development and social needs. IUCN Publication. Pages 266-
282.

[2] FAO Press Release Rome 01/49 Forestry Experts Debate Central
Themes and Issues for Fighting Hunger and Poverty Through
Sustainable Forest Management 04/9/01 from their web site.

[3] Economic valuation of wetlands on the river basin scale --A discussion
paper,The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, May 2003.

[4] E. Maltby, Waterlogged Wealth, Earthscan, 1986. IUCN.

[5] EPA – Govt. of Sindh 1999, June. Report on “ Study Into Causes and
Effects of Eutrophication in Major Lakes in Sindh.
[6] Gilbert, A, J and Janssen, R (1998) Use of environmental functions to
communicate the values of a mangrove ecosystem under different
management regimes Ecological Economics volume 25, pages 323–
346, produced by Elsevier.

[7] Gladston, W (2000) The ecological and social basis for management of
a Red Sea marine-protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management,
volume 43, pages 1015 – 1032, produced by Elsevier.

[8] Holmes, B (29th October 1994) “The Other Australia” Ecologist and
Californian correspondent for new scientist, From New Scientist
magazine, Volume 144, Issue 1949, Page 33.

[9] K.Najam et al, Wetlands Action Plan-, WWF-Pakistan, 2000.

[10] Kunstadter, K et al., (1985) Man in the Mangroves - The Socio-

economic Situation of Human Settlements in Mangrove Forests,
Proceedings of a workshop held at Nong Nuch Village, Pattaya,
Thailand, sponsored by the United Nations University and the National
Research Council of Thailand.

[11] Ogden, J.C & Gladfelter, E.H (May 1982) Coral reefs, seagrass beds and
mangroves: their interaction in the coastal zones of the Caribbean:
report of a workshop, held at West Indies Laboratory, St.Croix,
U.S.Virgin Islands sponsored by Unesco, IOCARIBE.

[12] O’Riordan, T (2000) Environmental Science For Environmental

Management. 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, UK.

[13] P. Dugan, Wetland Conservation, IUCN, 1990.

[14] Pain, S (08th January 1994) “Living coastline” suffers most from oil
spills New Scientist magazine, Volume 141, Issue 1907, Page 4.
 40

[15] Pangthanapanich, T (1996) Economic Study Suggests Management

Guidelines for Mangroves to Derive Optimal Economical and Social
Benefits. Aquaculture Asia Volume 2, Page 16.

[16] Primavera, J, H (2000) SPECIAL ISSUE - The values of wetlands:

landscape and institutional perspectives - development and
conservation of Philippine Mangroves, Ecological Economics volume
35, pages 91–106 produced by Elsevier.

[17] Quarto, A (1999) Mangrove Action Project: The Mangrove Forest:

background paper by The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

[18] Rajiv, K (2000) Conservation and management of mangroves in India,

with special reference to the State of Goa and the Middle Andaman
Islands Unasylva, 51; 41-47.

[19] Ramsar Convention Bureau, with considerable input from Dr David

Stone, funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). © Ramsar
Convention, October 1996.

[20] Rondinelli, R.,Dennis A. (1989), “Market Town and Rural – Urban

linkages,” Presented at Eleventh Annual Conference on Housing and
Urban Development in Africa (Research Triangle Institute North
Carolina).

[21] S. Hails, ed., Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention,

Ramsar, in press

[22] Tomlinson, P.B (1986) The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

[23] UNEP, Global Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.

 41

Web Sites

1. Asian Aquatic Resources Web page - Management practices and

Conservation (accessed 01/12/01):
http://www.agri-aqua.ait.ac.th/mangroves/management.htl-

2. Australian Institute of Marine Science (1993) Field Guide to the

Mangroves of Queensland (accessed 14-03-02):
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/reflib/fg-mangroves/pages/fgm-qld-
13.html

3. Christensen, B - What are mangroves worth? (accessed 06-03-02):

http://www.Unasylva - No_ 139 - Mangroves What are they worth -
Mangroves what are they worth.htm

4. Florida Everglades National Park (accessed 22/03/01):

http://www.evergladesplan.org/the_plan/3lev_so_you_animals.shtml

5. Food And Agriculture Organization (FAO) - Forest Reports (accessed

02/12/01):
http//www.fao.org/forestry/foda/wforgong/PUBLI/V6/T386E/1-5.htm

6. Mangrove Action Project (accessed 11-03-02) article by Fitzgerald, J, W:

http://www.earthisland.org/map/sstal.htm

7. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (1999) Vietnam-Coastal

Wetlands - Protection and Development Project in Asia and Pacific by
the World Bank (accessed 14-03-02):
http://www.wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/199
9/11/04/000094946_99031911044384/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf

8. Our planet (accessed 23/1/02):

http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/95/gomez Gomez, E.D (1998)

9. The Ecology of Mangroves article (accessed 25/02/02):

http://www.agri-aqua.ait.ac.th/mangroves/ECOLOGY.html

10.UNESCO (accessed 23/01/02):

http://www.unesco.org/csi/region/desert

11. USGS – Proffitt, E and Doyle, T (Tuesday, February 5th, 2002),

Hurricane Damage to Coastal Forests (accessed 14-03-02):
http://mitchnts1.cr.usgs.gov/projects/coastal.html

12. Introduction to Relative Ecosystem Valuation. Discussion of the

purposes and context for ecosystem valuation. (The Big Picture)
non-technical explanation of the economic theory of ecosystem
valuation. (Essentials of Ecosystem Valuation).
http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/Indicators/about.htm
42
 43

Annexure – A: Tables Based on Household Data

1. Mean Income by Total Family Size

2. Mean Income by Primary Occupation

3. Mean Income by Secondary Occupation

4. Mean Income by Area by Year of Living

5. Mean Income by Indirect Benefits

6. Type of Constraints by Area

7. Suggested Economic Activities by Areas

8. Mean Income by Area by Type of Losses

9. Proportion of Losses by Area by Income Group

Note: The values contained in these tables are on the basis of averages per
year. Different tables have different units which have been already
indicated. Due to multiple responses to some questions, the number
of responses may exceed the total number of households interviewed.
 44

Annexure-A Table – 1

MEAN ANNUAL INCOME BY TOTAL FAMILY SIZE

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(Rs.)
Family Size
Average
Area 9 Through
1–5 6–8 Total
High
40579 27280 51050 42333
Haleji
(19) (14) (28) (61)
49420 57300 92417 69377
Sandspit
(10) (14) (16) (40)
43628 42290 66093 53044
Total
(29) (28) (44) (101)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 2

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY PRIMARY OCCUPATION

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(Rs.)
Primary Occupation Average
Govt. Total All
Area Misc. Teache Wood Stone
Occupati
Servan Farmer Fishing
Works r Cutting Work
t ons
50000 55600 54640 28360
43911 19800 56750 42,333
Haleji
(3) (1) (5)(36) (7)
(4) (4) (60)
65249 65,249
− − − − − −
Sandspit (26) (26)
50000 55600 54640 28360 52859 19800 56750 49,261
Total
(3) (1) (5) (7) (62) (4) (4) (86)
Number in parenthesis shows # households.
Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 3

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY SECONDARY OCCUPATION

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(Rs.)
Secondary Occupation
Misc. Works Average
Area Farme Fishin Wood Stone
Including Total
r g Cutting Work
Tourism
43662 37600 33240 45000 42333
Haleji −
(50) (5) (5) (1) (61)
69576 65600 69377
− − −
Sandspit (38) (2) (40)
 45

6560
54852 37600 33240 45000 53044
Total 0
(88) (5) (5) (1) (101)
(2)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.
Annexure-A Table – 4

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY YEARS OF LIVING

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(Rs.)
Years of Living
Average
Area 26 –
By birth 2–5 6 – 15 16 – 25 Total
High
39570 42000 41386 39750 42333
Haleji −
(42) (1) (14) (4) (61)
69702 51000 84000 59650 120000 69377
Sandspit (32) (2) (1) (4) (1) (40)
52600 48000 53560 49700 120000 53044
Total
(74) (3) (15) (8) (1) (101)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 5

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY INDIRECT BENEFITS

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(Rs.)
Indirect Benefits
Water Fish for Average
Area Wood Handic Grazin
for Consumpti Total
Cutting raft g
Home on
42371 47586 35180 54000 36000 42229
Haleji
(58) (29) (24) (1) (1) (61)
70299 102300 61014 69465
− −
Sandspit (35) (4) (19) (37)
52882 47586 44769 54000 59764 51467
Total
(93) (29) (28) (1) (20) (98)
Number in parenthesis shows # households.
Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 6

TYPE OF CONSTRAINTS BY AREA

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(# Households Who Responded)
Reasons Constraints
Wood Water Washing Grass Cutting
 46

Cutting Fetching Cloth

Haleji 12 14 10 −
32 − − 3
Sandspit
Total 44 14 10 3

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

 47

Annexure-A Table – 7

SUGGESTED ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES BY AREA

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(# Households Who Responded)
Suggestions
Tourism
Area Gas Increase Export Clean
Developm
Supply Fees Crocodile Water
ent
Haleji 5 26 11 20 4
32 − − − −
Sandspit
Total 37 26 11 20 4
Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 8

MEAN INCOME BY AREA BY LOSSES

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(Rs.)
Losses Average
Area
Fishing Wood Cutting Total
45482 36600 45049
Haleji
(39) (2) (40)
Sandspit − − −
45482 36600 45049
Total
(39) (2) (40)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-A Table – 9

REPORTED ANNUAL LOSS OF INCOME BY VILLAGE BY INCOME

(HALEJI LAKE AND SANDSPIT AREA)
(000’ Rs.)
Total Income
20001 40001 60001 99001 Average
Below
to to to and Total
20000
40000 60000 99000 above
11 40 40 32 75 34
Haleji
(11) (22) (16) (11) (1) (61)
− − − − −
−
Sandspit (6) (16) (11) (7) (40)
11 32 20 16 9 20
Total
(11) (28) (32) (22) (8) (101)

Number in parenthesis shows # households.

 48

Source: Household Survey Under the Study.

 49

Annexure – B: Tables Based on Visitor’s Survey

1. Total Value of Time Spent per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

2. Total Cash Expenditure per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

3. Total Cash and Time Value per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

4. Total Value of Time Spent per Person per Year by Occupation by Mode.

5. Total Cash Expenditure per Person per Year Occupation by Mode.

6. Total Cash & Time Value per Person per Year by Origin by Mode.

7. Average Value of Time Spent per Year by Origin by Mode.

8. Average Cash Expenditure per Year by Origin by Mode.

9. Average Cash & Time Value per Year by Origin by Mode.

10. Average Value of Time Spent per Year.

11. Average Cash Expenditure per Year by Occupation by Mode.

12. Average Cash & Time Value per Year by Occupation by Mode.

13. Suggestions Made by Occupation.

14. Total Value of Time Spent per Year by Origin by Occupation.

15. Total Cash Expenditure per Year by Origin by Occupation

16. Total Cash and Time Value per Year by Origin by Occupation

Note: The values contained in these tables are on the basis of averages per
year. Different tables have different units which have been already
indicated. Due to multiple responses to some questions, the number
of responses may exceed the total number of households interviewed.
 50

Annexure-B Table – 1

VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER PERSON PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode
Avera
Coach Toyot
Living Area Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus / Jeep a
i Van Roof Coach Total
Van Hiace
Upper 1829 1200 2700 5200 400 2027
− − −
Middle (7) (1) (1) (1) (1) (11)
Lower 2700 1980 400 2000 1200 2700 1693
− −
Middle (1) (5) (3) (3) (1) (1) (14)
Near 1950 3950 1433 2700 1200 2222
− − −
Distance (2) (2) (3) (1) (1) (9)
2200 2186 600 1857 1950 2700 5200 800 1941
Total
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (1) (2) (34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 2

CASH EXPENDITURE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coach Toyot
Living Area Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus / Jeep a
i Van Roof Coach Total
Van Hiace
1040
Upper 4964 4235 5400 923 5064
− − − 0
Middle (7) (1) (1) (1) (11)
(1)
Lower 5400 7468 800 5464 2400 2700 4759
− −
Middle (1) (5) (3) (3) (1) (1) (14)
Near 2550 9250 2099 7714 3333 4549
− − −
Distance (2) (2) (3) (1) (1) (9)
1040
3500 6471 1659 4012 5057 2700 2128 4802
Total 0
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (2) (34)
(1)
Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.
Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 51

Annexure-B Table – 3

CASH AND TIME VALUE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE
(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
All Mode Avera
Coach Toyot
Expenditur Suzuk High Car/ geTot
Car Bus / Jeep a
e Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
al
1560
Upper 6793 5435 8100 1323 7092
− − − 0
Middle (7) (1) (1) (1) (11)
(1)
Lower 8100 9448 1200 7464 3600 5400 6452
− −
Middle (1) 95) (3) (3) (1) (1) (14)
1320 1041
Near 4500 3532 4533 6772
0 − 4 − −
Distance (2) (3) (1) (9)
(2) (1)
1560
5700 8656 2259 5870 7007 5400 2928 6744
Total 0
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) (1) 92) (34)
(1)
Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.
Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 4

VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER PERSON PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY

MODE
(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
MODE Avera
Coac Toyot
Occupation Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus h/ Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
Education 2240 667 2100 1843
− − − − −
Class (5) (3) (6) (14)
Skilled 1950 400 2700 1200 1640
− − − −
Worker (2) (1) (1) (1) (5)
Business 2700 2156 400 1950 5200 400 2133
− −
Class (1) (9) (1) (2) (1) (1) (15)
2200 2186 600 1857 1950 2700 5200 800 1941
Total
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (1) (2) (34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 52

Annexure-B Table – 5

CASH EXPENDITURE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY

MODE
(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coac Toyot
Occupation Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus h/ Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
Education 5155 2059 4615 4260
− − − − −
Class (5) (3) (6) (14)
Skilled 3900 457 2700 3333 2858
− − − −
Worker (2) (1) (1) (1) (5)
1040
Business 2700 7202 400 5057
923 5957
− − 0
Class (1) (9) (1) (2)
(1) (15)
(1)
1040
3500 6471 1659 4012 5057 2700 2128 4802
Total 0
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (2) (34)
(1)
Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.
Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 6

CASH AND TIME VALUE PER PERSON PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY

MODE
(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coac Toyot
Occupation Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus h/ Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
Education 7395 2726 6715 6103
− − − − −
Class (5) (3) (6) (14)
Skilled 5850 857 5400 4533 4498
− − − −
Worker (2) (1) (1) (1) (5)
1560
Business 5400 9357 800 7007
1323 8090
− − 0
Class (1) (9) (1) (2)
(1) (15)
(1)
1560
5700 8656 2259 5870 7007 5400 2928 6744
Total 0
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) 91) (2) (34)
(1)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 53

Annexure-B Table – 7

AVERAGE VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
MODE
Avera
Coach Toyot
Living Area Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus / Jeep a
i Van Roof Coach Total
Van Hiace
Upper 4571 20400 13500 26000 1300 8473
− − −
Middle (7) (1) (1) (1) (1) (11)
Lower 400 11400 3333 9700 1400 10000 7707
− −
Middle (1) (5) (3) (3) (1) (1) (14)
Near 4500 17150 2433 18900 10800 8922
− − −
Distance (2) (2) (3) (1) (1) (9)
1015 1000 2600
3133 8807 7600 7129 6050 8276
Total 0 0 0
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) (34)
(2) (1) (1)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 8

AVERAGE CASH EXPENDITURE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coach Toyot
Living Area Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus / Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
7200 2700 5200
Upper 8571 3000 19455
− 0 0 − − 0
Middle (7) (1) (11)
(1) (1) (1)
3850 2710 1000
Lower 80 6666 2800 21957
0 0 0 − −
Middle (1) (3) (1) (14)
(5) (3) (1)
4105 5400 3000
Near 6300 3433 21000
0 − 0 − − 0
Distance (2) (3) (9)
(2) (1) (1)
2390 2300 1694 2840 1000 5200 1650
4467 20894
Total 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
(3) (34)
(14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (1) (2)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 54

Annexure-B Table – 9

AVERAGE CASH AND TIME VALUE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY MODE

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coach Toyot
Living Area Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus / Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
1314 9240 4050 7800
Upper 4300 27927
− 3 0 0 − − 0
Middle (1) (11)
(7) (1) (1) (1)
4990 1000 3680 2000
Lower 1200 4200 29664
0 0 0 0 − −
Middle (1) (1) (14)
(5) (3) (3) (1)
1080 5820 7290 4080
Near 5867 29922
0 0 − 0 − − 0
Distance (3) (9)
(2) (2) (1) (1)
3270 3060 2407 3855 2000 7800 2255
7600 29171
Total 7 0 1 0 0 0 0
(3) (34)
(14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (1) (2)
Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.
Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 10

AVERAGE VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER YEAR

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coac Toyot
Occupation Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus h/ Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
Education 8400 8967 8067 8379
− − − − −
Class (5) (3) (6) (14)
1080
Skilled 2000 3500 1000 5660
− − − − 0
Worker (2) (1) (1) (5)
(1)
1015 2600
Business 5400 9033 1500 1300 9053
− 0 − 0
Class (1) (9) (1) (1) (15)
(2) (1)
1015 1000 2600
3133 8807 7600 7129 6050 8276
Total 0 0 0
(3) (14) (4) (7) (2) (34)
(2) (1) (1)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 55

Annexure-B Table – 11

AVERAGE CASH EXPENDITURE PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY MODE

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coac Toyot
Occupation Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus h/ Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
1690 2933 1951
Education 20686
− 0 3 7 − − − −
Class (14)
(5) (3) (6)
2778 2840 5200
Skilled 5400 1500 3000 24587
9 − 0 − 0
Worker (1) (1) (1) (15)
(9) (2) (1)
2390 2300 1694 2840 5200
Business 4467 1000 3000 24587
0 0 3 0 0
Class (3) (1) (1) (15)
(14) (4) (7) (2) (1)
2390 2300 1694 2840 1000 5200 1650
4467 20894
Total 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
(3) (34)
(14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (1) (2)
Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.
Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 12

AVERAGE CASH AND TIME VALUE PER YEAR BY OCCUPATION BY

MODE
(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Mode Avera
Coac Toyot
Occupation Suzuk High Car/ ge
Car Bus h/ Jeep a
Van
i Van Roof Coach
Hiace
Total
2530 3830 2758
Education 29064
− 0 0 3 − − − −
Class (14)
(5) (3) (6)
2000 4080
Skilled 6000 7500 16060
− − − 0 − 0
Worker (2) (1) (5)
(1) (1)
1080 3682 3855 7800
Business 3000 4300 33640
0 2 − 0 − 0
Class (1) (1) (15)
(1) (9) (2) (1)
3270 3060 2407 3855 2000 7800 2255
7600 29171
Total 7 0 1 0 0 0 0
(3) (34)
(14) (4) (7) (2) (1) (1) (2)
 56

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 57

Annexure-B Table – 13

SUGGESTIONS MADE BY VISITORS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF HALEJI

LAKE BY OCCUPATION
(HALEJI LAKE)
(Column Percentages*)
Occupation
Educatio
Suggestions Skilled Business Total
n
Worker Class
Class
78.6 80.0 86.7 82.4
Cleaning Lake
(11) (4) (13) (28)
Improve Water 50.0 40.0 26.7 38.2
Level (7) (2) (4) (13)
14.3 20.0 20.0 17.6
Remove Crocodile
(2) (1) (3) (6)
14.3 20.0 20.0 17.6
Safety
(2) (1) (3) (6)
21.4 20.0 40.0 29.4
Clean Water
(3) (1) (6) (10)
7.1 2.9
Make Huts − −
(1) (1)
7.1 6.7 5.9
Protect Trees −
(1) (1) (2)
28.6 60.0 46.7 41.2
Park/Sitting Place
(4) (3) (7) (14)
28.6 20.0 40.0 32.4
Shops
(4) (1) (6) (11)
21.4 8.8
Ban on Netting − −
(3) (3)
7.1 20.0 5.9
Plant More Trees −
(1) (1) (2)
7.1 20.0 5.9
Maintain Boundary −
(1) (1) (2)
6.7 2.9
Medical Facility − −
(1) (1)
28.6 13.3 17.6
Civic Facility −
(4) (2) (6)
6.7 2.9
Vegetation − −
(1) (1)

Note: Because of multiple respnses figures do not add up to 100.

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.
Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 58

Annexure-B Table – 14

TOTAL VALUE OF TIME SPENT PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY OCCUPATION

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Occupation
Educatio Average
Living Area Skilled Business
n Total
Worker Class
Class
10075 7557 8473
Upper Middle −
(4) (7) (11)
8243 4633 9075 7707
Lower Middle
(7) (3) (4) (14)
6433 7200 11650 8922
Near Distance
(3) (2) (4) (9)
8379 5660 9053 8276
Total
(14) (5) (15) (34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.

Annexure-B Table – 15

TOTAL CASH EXPENDITURE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY OCCUPATION

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Occupation
Educatio Average
Living Area Skilled Business
n Total
Worker Class
Class
28750 14143 19455
Upper Middle −
(4) (7) (11)
17900 4933 41825 21957
Lower Middle
(7) (3) (4) (14)
16433 18600 25625 21000
Near Distance
(3) (2) (4) (9)
20686 10400 24587 20894
Total
(14) (5) (15) (34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 59

Annexure-B Table – 16

TOTAL CASH AND TIME VALUE PER YEAR BY ORIGIN BY OCCUPATION

(HALEJI LAKE)
(Rs.)
Occupation
Educatio Average
Suggestion Skilled Business
n Total
Worker Class
Class
38825 21700 27927
Upper Middle −
(4) (7) (11)
26143 9567 50900 29664
Lower Middle
(7) (3) (4) (14)
22867 25800 37275 29922
Near Distance
(3) (2) (4) (9)
29064 16060 33640 29171
Total
(14) (5) (15) (34)

Number in parenthesis shows # groups of visitors.

Source: Visitor’s Survey Under the Study.
 60

Annexure - C

Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972 for Wildlife Sanctuary

According to the Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972. Sindh Ordinance

No. V of 1972 Section 14.
Wildlife Sanctuary described as;
(1)Govt. may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare any area to
be a wildlife sanctuary and may demarcate it in such a manner as may
be prescribed.

(2) The wildlife sanctuary shall be set aside as undisturbed breeding

ground for the protection of wildlife and access there to for public shall,
except in accordance with the rules, be prohibited and no exploitation
of forest therein shall be allowed except for reducing fire hazards,
epidemic or insect attacks or other natural calamities: *“Provided also
that this sub-section shall not apply to any activity in an wildlife
sanctuary in connection with the exploration or production of oil or gas
which is undertaken in accordance with an environmental Protection
Act, 1997(Act, XXXIV of 1997)”.

(3) No person shall :-

I. enter or reside,
II. cultivate any land,
III. damage or destroy any vegetation,
IV. hunt, kill or capture any wild animal or fire any gun or other
firearm within three miles of the boundaries or,
V. introduce any exotic species of animal or plant,
VI. introduce any domestic animal or allow it to stray,
VII. Cause any fire, or
VIII. pollute water,
in a wildlife sanctuary:
Provided that Govt. may for scientific purposes or for aesthetic enjoyment
or betterment of scenery authorize the doing of the aforementioned acts:
*“Provided further that Govt. may authorize the laying of an underground
pipeline, using construction techniques other than blasting, which do not
permanently disturb the wildlife or environment, on such terms and
conditions, including the betterment, conservation and preservation of the
wildlife sanctuary, as may be specified.

(4) *No fishing waters in a wildlife sanctuary shall be leased, auctioned or in

any way used for the purpose of fishing or collection of lotus or roots there of
for commercial purposes.” **Any lease or permission granted or any
agreement executed or auction held for the purpose mentioned in aforesaid
sub-section (4) before the coming into force of the Sindh Wildlife Protection
(Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 shall stand annulled and be of no effect.
 61

1 Amendment (12) Amendment of Section 14 of Sindh Ordinance V of 1972. The Sindh Govt. Gazette Ext.
January 20, 2001-Part -I
2 Amendment (7) Amendment of Section 14 of Sindh Ordinance V of 1972. The Sindh Govt. Gazette Ext.
June 01, 2001---- Part - I
3 Amendment (3)Amendment of Section 14 of Sindh Ordinance V of 1972.The Sindh Govt. Gazette Ext.
December 15,1993-Part - I
4 Amendment (4) Abetment of lease etc.

Source: The Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1972- with Amendments up

to the June 2001-Sindh Wildlife Department, Govt. of Sindh, Karachi-Pakistan.

Annexure D

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

For

Study Entitled

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF WETLANDS

Case Studies on Freshwater and Coastal

Wetlands of Pakistan
(Haleji Lake and Sandspit Area)

WORLD WIDE FUND (WWF) FOR NATURE

 62

PAKISTAN
 Identification Number
1. IDENTIFICATION

District: __________, Name of Interviewer: __________________ Date: _________

Tehsil: __________, Questionnaire Edited & Coded by: _________ Date: _______
Village: __________, Checked by: ________________________ Date: _________
Name of the Respondent: ______________, Verified by: _________ Date: _______

2. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

- Single/Joint Household: ________________

- Total Family Members: ______, Males ______, Females ______,

Children ______ (under 10 years)

For If a settler
how
Relati long
Age Years Marit Which
on- have Reason
T.D. (# of al place did
ship you for
No. Years Schooli Statu you
with been Migrati
) ng s migrate
HOH living on
from?
in this
village
1.
(HoH
)
2.
3.
4.
5.

3. OCCUPATION

# Reason
What is your Agri.
Months/Year for Annual
present Earlier Land
I.D. in each Change Income
occupation Occupa Owned /
No. occupation in
tion Leased
Prim Second Prima Second Occupati Prima Secon
in
ary ary ry ary on ry dary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAKE/FOREST

4.1 What are the direct benefits:

a) ___________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________

b) ___________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________
c) __________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________
d) ___________ (Frequency): _________ (Value): _________

4.2 What are the indirect benefits; (Ref: Non-cash benefits)

a) ___________________________________________________

b) __________________________________________________

c) ___________________________________________________

d) __________________________________________________

4.3 What type of losses does your household face?

a) _________________________ (Extent of Loss): _____________

b) _________________________ (Extent of Loss): _____________
c) __________________________ (Extent of Loss): _____________
d)___________________________ (Extent of Loss):
_____________

4.4 In your view, has the wetland degraded over time? __ Yes _____ No.

In either case explain your response: ______________________

_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

4.5 What options do you think are available to control degradation?

(Give your response in order of priority/relevance)

a) _________________________________________________
b) ________________________________________________
c) _______________________________________________
d) ______________________________________________
5. SOCIAL COHERENCE

5.1 Is the community living around the lake (or forest) socially stratified?
(Explain your response)

_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

5.2 In case of any conflict among households or communities, what

procedure is followed to resolve it?

_________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

5.3 What political factors, in your opinion, are responsible of the

degradation of the wetland?

a) ___________________________________________________
b) __________________________________________________
c) __________________________________________________
d) __________________________________________________

6. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

6.1 In your opinion which government department/organization is

responsible for the degradation of the environment and how?
(Explain your response in order of importance of the issue)

a) __________________________________________________
b) __________________________________________________
c) ___________________________________________________
d) ___________________________________________________

7. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS

7.1 In order of the importance, identify the constraints along with the
apparent causes which affect your daily household activities (e.g. water
fetching, washing, woodcutting, tourism, etc.)
 a) ___________________________________________________
b) ___________________________________________________
c) __________________________________________________
d) __________________________________________________
e) ___________________________________________________
f) __________________________________________________

7.2 If your economic activities are causing environmental degradation,

what alternate mechanism would you suggest that would be financially
feasible and socially acceptable? (e.g. natural gas, access to fee from
tourism, export of crocodile, etc.)

a) ___________________________________________________
b) ___________________________________________________
c) __________________________________________________
d) __________________________________________________
e) __________________________________________________
f) __________________________________________________
 QUESTIONNAIRE
SURVEY OF TRAVELLERS/VISITORS TO SITE

1. Place of origin: (Name of the place): ________________________________

(Distance): ___________________ (in Kilometers)

2. Duration of the journey (one –way): _______________________ (in hours)

3. Time spent on the site: _________________________________ (in hours)

4. Frequency of visit: ______________________ (weekly/monthly/yearly)

5. Mode of Conveyance: __________________________________________

6. Direct cash expenses: ______________________________________ (Rs.)

(including travelling, food, fees, etc.)

7. Value of the time spent: ______________________________________ (Rs.)

(Based on one person)

8. Size of the group: ______________________________ (# individuals)

9. Purpose(s) of visit: 1. ____________________________________

2. ____________________________________

3. ____________________________________

10. Occupation/Profession: ____________________________________

(of the head of the group)

11. Would you like to give any ___________________________________

suggestion for the improvement
of the lake/forest? ___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________