Trade-offs and Challenges (WfW Programme)

Hello all!

In this post, I will elaborate more on the problems facing the WfW Programme in South Africa that I  spoke about last week, and my personal opinions on the contesting uses.

1. Tradeoff between Ecosystem Services: Carbon vs Water

In a separate study, it was found that afforestation of Pinus radiata (one of the invasive species) and the associated benefits of carbon sequestration and timber production are more economically viable than the benefits from increased water resources from clearing out invasive species at current water tariffs (Chisholm, 2010).  However, I beg to differ as water tariffs imposed on the forestry industry are estimated based on streamflow reductions from establishing the plantations, but they have hardly considered for the actual costs of land-use change and water losses for reasons below:

a) Streamflow reduction was estimated to be 90mm for Jonkershoek, a mere third of the actual streamflow reduction. Water tariffs were therefore priced much lower ("water valued [at a] fraction of one percent of the true value of water").

b) There are sunk costs from the loss of biodiversity from invading species, due to the conversion of Fynbos spp. to Pinus spp, and the potential uncontrolled invasion of P. radiata following future fires from warmer temperatures.

c) A treeless landscape associated with the Pinus plantations may lower albedo, rendering climate change mitigation ineffective from carbon sequestration.

d) Future increases in value of water, increasing water demands from population growth and decreasing supply from decreased rainfall in the Fynbos biome will seriously challenge the viability of afforestation. Continued large-scale afforestation will deplete the scarce water resources, increase water scarcity and possibly lead to large economic losses.

The article steers clear of establishing a conclusion for the future, as the net benefits between carbon and water depend on their future estimated costs. If the sum of economic benefits from carbon sequestration within the Pinus plantations were to outweigh the value of water at an extreme scenario of $257/tCO₂ in the event of extreme increases in carbon prices, an ecosystem services approach would call for the afforestation of trees at the expense of water resources as water and its associated benefits are economically viable only for carbon pricing scenarios under $100/tCO₂.

In my personal opinion however, water scarcity is clearly a greater developmental issue than increased CO₂, as the lack of water for domestic uses and consumption will seriously threaten livelihoods directly, while an increased CO₂ from a contracted carbon sink presents its risk to human health only in indirect ways. These may materialise in the forms of increased temperatures causing climate change and extreme weather events, but are arguably not as pressing as the lack of water to get by on a daily basis. These circumstances are when an ecosystem services approach may be lacking, as they do not consider for indirect benefits from water as a service providing unit; for example, 100ml of consumed water can be quantified in cost, but it may be tricky to attribute a value to positive externalities such as good health and well-being from the consumption of water. 

2. Challenges to Poverty Alleviation (McConnachie, 2013)

a) The WfW project only provides temporary employment, therefore making a small impact on the actual percentages of unemployed people within the country. Even so, the pool of unemployed people was from selection committees, and nepotism from local community leaders had disadvantaged the neediest.

b) The low wages for the poorest meant that workers were unmotivated, likely unskilled and inexperienced, leading to many wasted resources and fewer environmental benefits arising from inefficiencies (recall: concept of economic efficiency).

c) Beyond the two-year contract, the programme worsened the long-term livelihoods of workers as it diverted them from finding more sustainable income flows, but had not value-added to their lives and skill sets due to the low quality of training.

d) Clearing alien plants may actually have led to a loss of livelihoods for the poor who depended on harvesting timber and fuelwood in domestic trade and personal use (Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016).

In spite of all these issues challenging the personal development of the underprivileged communities, I still think highly of the Working for Water programme due to its well-meaning ecological and developmental intentions for South Africa. The effectiveness of public works programmes for poverty alleviation may potentially be enhanced by improving work conditions, providing employment benefits and imparting transferable skills into more well-paying opportunities within the agricultural sector. Ecological restoration based on the value of water however, should require a more detailed economic valuation of the true costs/benefits of water for greater economic justification.

Thank you for following through on South Africa for two weeks. In so far, I have mostly spoken about the economic valuation of ecosystem services. In my next post, I hope to talk more about non-monetary approaches to the valuation of water as an ecosystem service, so as to expand our understanding of what an ecosystem service approach encompasses.

See you next Thursday!