Economic Assessment of Wetland Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services as an Input for Development of Wetland Investment Plans: A Case Study of the Sio-Siteko

Nile Basin Initiative Secretariat

Biodiversity conservation and utilization of ecosystems in the Nile Basin Wetlands
Ecosystems and biodiversity
Environment
Basin-wide Program
NileSEC Document


Files in this item


  • Mr. Philip Otieno ,
  • 01 Apr 2020
  • Open Access
  • English (United States)
  • Technical Report
  • This study seek to build the economic case for wetland conservation and wise use, with a specific focus on generating evidence on the economic value of wetland as ‘green’ water infrastructure. By so doing, it intends to bring wetland ecosystem values to the attention of river basin planners and managers, and to thereby promote better-informed, more effective, inclusive, equitable and sustainable conservation and development decision-making. It is also good to appreciate that instrumental economic value obtained from ecosystem services is only one constituent of the comprehensive value of a wetland environment, and that the intrinsic value of nature also provides a case for the conservation a wetland ecosystem and its biodiversity. The main objective of this study is to generate information on economic value of the Sio-siteko wetland ecosystem services to inform the development of conservation investment plans The Sio-Siteko wetland system spans the Kenya-Uganda border. It traverses Busia district in Uganda and Busia County in Kenya and is part of the wider Sio-Malaba-Malakisi catchment (World Bank, 2009). In this study, the wetland’s size is regarded to occupy an area of 60 𝑘𝑚2 based on the 2019 Sio-siteko wetland monograph which shows that the wetland size is slightly under than 60 𝑘𝑚2 . In this study, only sub locations and parishes that border the wetland in Kenya and Uganda respectively have been considered as the buffer zone with direct influence on the wetland resource use. These include thirteen parishes (South East, Central, South West, Nangwe, Buyengo, Buhehe, Bulwenge, Budimo, Lumino, Junge, Dadira, Bumunji, and Majanji) in Uganda and sixteen sub locations (Busijo, Agenga, Bujwang’a, Sigalame, Luchululo, Luanda, Buloma, Lugala, Ludacho,Mango, Sibinga, Nang’oma, Muyafwa, Mundika, Mayenje, and Mjini in Kenya (NBI, 2009). However, in the household survey, sub locations and parishes in Busia towns of Kenya and Uganda were excluded since the study mainly focused on production and urban dwellers were viewed as more likely to be consumers.

Similar Documents


  • Singfoong (Cindy) Cheah, Ph.D. ,
  • 01 Sep 2020
  • Open Access
  • English (United States)
  • Technical Report
  • Kebreab Ghebremichael, PhD Tirusew Asefa, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE Solomon Erkyihun, Ph.D. ,
  • 01 Aug 2020
  • Open Access
  • English (United States)
  • Technical Report
  • Dr. Georg Petersen ,
  • 01 Mar 2020
  • Open Access
  • English (United States)
  • Technical Report
  • Mr.Telly Eugene Muramira ,
  • 01 May 2020
  • Open Access
  • English (United States)
  • Technical Report
  • Mr. Herman Musahara ,
  • 30 Aug 2020
  • Open Access
  • English (United States)
  • Technical Report
Login to Comment