Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of Water and Environmental Studies
Reliability of Payment for water Resources as an Environmental Service
towards the sustainable management of watershed forests in Zanzibar,
Tanzania: (A Case study of Kiwengwa - Pongwe Forest Reserve)
Thesis Presented to obtain the Degree of Masters of Science in Water
Resources and Livelihood Security – December 2007
Researcher: Iddi Hussein Hassan
Supervisor: Associate Prof. Hans Holmen
Abstract
Currently, there is a great rampage among conservationists looking for useful approaches that can be
used to bring efficiency towards conservation of global natural ecosystems. But which approach can be
really effective to halt destruction of a particular natural ecosystem where the local people depend on
the same ecosystem resources for their livelihoods? Do the local communities accept to refrain
themselves from using natural ecosystem resources (loss of free access), which they believe is under
their local territory since they are born, without having alternatives that will replace and improve
economic gain of their livelihoods? Are the consumers who benefited from the ecosystem services
always willing to compensate local communities around natural ecosystem as a means of replacing
what they lose?
This study looks at the reliability of Payment for Water Environmental Services (PWES) approach at
Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve (KPFR) as a device aimed at promoting the sustainable
management of KPFR watershed resources without undermining livelihoods of the Kiwengwa-Pongwe
local communities. Hoteliers along the Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourist Area (KPTA) are the potential
customers benefiting from water resources found in the KPFR, which is claimed to be deteriorated by
the intensity of the livelihood activities of Kiwengwa-Pongwe (KP) local communities. Based on
Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), KPTA hoteliers were asked about the amount they would be
willing to pay as maximum (WTP) for improvement of water services through sustainable management
of watershed areas in KPFR. On the other hand, KP communities were asked what level of
compensation they would be willing to accept as minimum amount (WTA) for a loss of free access to
KPFR.
Both hoteliers (75 %) and KP communities (91 %) agreed on the establishment of the PWES system.
However, there were differences between amount accepted by KP communities (10 US$ per 200 litres)
and the amount claimed to be paid by hoteliers (1US$ per 200 litres), thus giving a gap of 9US$. Based
on the overall study findings and experiences from other parts of the world where similar systems have
been implemented, this issue is negotiable. It is upon existing KPFR management team and proposed
board from Zanzibar water authority to launch a constructive dialogue between stakeholders to reach
the amount that can be used as compensation causing no harm to both parts and without compromising
the sustainable management of KPFR.
Key Words: Zanzibar, Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve, Payment for Watershed Environmental
Services, Sustainable Management, CVM, WTA and WTP.
i
Declaration
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that this thesis, submitted for the Master of Science degree in Water Resources and Livelihood Security at the Linkoping University (LIU), is my own work and has not previously been submitted to any other institution of higher education for award of any degree. Furthermore, all sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated or acknowledged by means of a comprehensive list of references. Signature………………………………………………….. Date…………………………. (Iddi Hussein Hassan)
ii
Dedication
To my parents,
Fatuma Juma Khamis
And The late Mr. Hussein Hassan Suleiman,
My wife,
Amina Kombo Mohammed,
My children,
Hamad Iddi Hussein, Yussra Iddi Hussein,
and Asya Iddi Hussein,
And my brother
Kombo Hussein Hassan
For their endless encouragement and support
iii
Acknowledgements I am very grateful for the support, patience and guidance of some people and institutions during my
studies, without which this study would not have been completed successfully. It is to them that I owe
my deepest appreciation. For this, I wish to express my genuine gratitude and appreciation to my
supervisor, Associate Prof. Hans Holmen, whom despite his many other academic and professional
commitments, spared time to guide me to the right direction of my work. His wisdom and
commitments to the highest standard enthused and motivated me. Also, I would like to thank Assoc
Prof Åsa Danielsson, Dr Julie Wilk, Prof Jan Lundqvist, Prof Lars Rahm, Dr. Mattias Hjerpe, Susanne
Eriksson, Ian Dickson and other staff in TEMA, for facilitating my studies at Linkoping University.
I am thankful to the Swedish Institute (SI) and the Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency (SIDA) for providing me with the financial support that enabled me to pursue this Master
programme. I also appreciate the support from Department of Water and Environmental Studies at LIU
(TEMA) which enabled me to carry out my field work properly.
My special appreciation goes to DCCFF management particularly, Dr. Bakar S Asseid, Mr. Kassim H.
Madeweya, and Mr. Makame Kitwana for their assistance and advice during my field work. Mr. Abbas
J. Mzee, Mr. Tahir Abass Haji, Mr. Ali Kassim, Mr. Othman, Mr. Jaffar (driver), Mr. Maulid Masoud
and Silima Ame, Shehas of Kiwengwa and Pongwe; as well as Mr. Vuai Ame Juma and Vuai Ame
Kondo, local assistants; for their assistance in data collection. My gratitude to the Kiwengwa–Pongwe
household heads, key informants, DCCFF and Water department staff, and hotel management in the
KiwengwaPongwe Tourist Zone for providing the required information and data for this study.
The utmost appreciation goes to Amina my dear wife, without whom this effort would have been worth
nothing; my children Hamad, Yussra, and Asya; my mother, brothers and sisters for their
encouragement and constant support throughout the period of my studies. Special thanks goes to my
friends and fellow students in the programme of Water Resources and Livelihood Security at LIU;
particularly Emmanuel, Kinaro, and Yvonne; for their support. My sincere gratitude is extended to all
people who contributed directly or indirectly to the completion of my studies.
I wish to thank GOD Almighty for all the privileges he has been giving me. For this I say ‘Praise be to
God, Lord of the worlds’.
iv
Table of Contents Page
Abstract___________________________________________________________________________i Declaration ________________________________________________________________________ii Dedication________________________________________________________________________ iii Acknowledgements_________________________________________________________________ iv Table of Contents __________________________________________________________________ v Unit of Conversion_________________________________________________________________ vi List of Figures____________________________________________________________________ vii List of Tables ____________________________________________________________________ vii List of Plates _____________________________________________________________________vii List of Annexes___________________________________________________________________viii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations __________________________________________________viii Definition of Terminologies _________________________________________________________viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION_________________________________________________ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND_______________________________________________________________1 1.2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEMS_________________________________4 1.3 PROFILE OF THE RESEARCH SITE _____________________________________________5
1.3.1 Geographical Location of the Study Area________________________________________ 5 1.3.2 Scope of the Study__________________________________________________________ 8 1.3.3 Population_________________________________________________________________8 1.3.4 Socio-economic Activities____________________________________________________ 8 1.3.5 Ecology and Climate_________________________________________________________8
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY________________________________________________ 9 1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY_________________________________________________ 9 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS______________________________________________10
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY__________________11
2.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY_________________________________________________ 11 2.1.1 General Objective__________________________________________________________11 2.1.2 Specific Objectives_________________________________________________________11
2.2 METHODOLOGY USED IN THE RESEARCH____________________________________ 11 2.2.1 Research Design___________________________________________________________11 2.2.2 Research Data Sources______________________________________________________12
2.2.2.1 Secondary Data Collection________________________________________________12 2.2.2.2 Primary Data collection_________________________________________________ 13
2.2.2.2.1 CVM in Collecting WTA and WTP information____________________________13 2.2.2.2.2 Sample Size and Sample Techniques_____________________________________14 2.2.2.2.3 Data Collection Tools_________________________________________________15
2.2.3 Data Treatments, Analysis and Interpretation___________________________________ 16 CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW________________________________________17
3.1 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHED AREAS____________17 3.2 PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES APPROACH IN THE SUSTAINABLE
MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEM____________________________________18 3.3 PAYMENT FOR WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PWES) _____________ 19 3.4 PWES APPROACH IN THE MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHED IN TANZANIA________21 3.5 APPLICATION OF CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD (CVM) __________________22
v
3.5.1 Uncertainties of Contingent Valuation Method____________________________________23 3.5.2 Pros and Cons of Contingent Valuation Method___________________________________24
3.5.2.1 Advantages of Contingent Valuation Method__________________________________24 3.5.2.2 Disadvantages of Contingent Valuation Method________________________________25
3.5.3 Reducing Bias when Applying Contingent Valuation Method________________________26
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION____________________________________ 27
4.1 HOUSEHOLDS SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS__________________________27 4.2 EXISTING POTENTIALS AND CHALLENGES AROUND KPFR_____________________33
4.2.1 Existing Potentials for the Execution of PWES system at KPFR______________________33 4.2.2 Existing Challenges Facing KPFR_____________________________________________ 36
4.3 WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT COMPENSATION___________________________________39 4.3.1 Responses of WTA from Community___________________________________________39
4.4 WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WATER COMPENSATION___________________________43 4.4.1 Sources and Amount of Water used by Hoteliers along KPTA________________________43 4.4.2 WTP from KPTA Hoteliers___________________________________________________45 4.4.3 Distribution of WTP Bids by KPTA Hoteliers____________________________________46
4.5 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PAYMENT MODALITY IN COLLECTING AND DISTRIBUTING COMPENSATION PAID TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES___________47
4.5.1 Mode of Payment to Collect Compensation______________________________________47 4.5.2 Proposed Payment Routine for Collection of Compensation_________________________48 4.5.3 Institutional Framework of PWES System at KPFR_______________________________ 49
4.6 THE STUDY SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS_____________________________ 50 CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION________________________53
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS_______________________________________________________ 53 5.2 CONCLUSION_______________________________________________________________56 REFERENCES__________________________________________________________________58 ANNEXES_____________________________________________________________________ 62
Unit of Conversion
1 barrel of water = 200 litres
1 US $ = 1152 (According to the Bank of Tanzania on 26thNovember 2007)
vi
List of Figures Page Figure 1.1: Map of the United Republic of Tanzania showing location of Zanzibar ………………......6 Figure 1.2: Map of Unguja Island showing the location of study area in the North Region……………7 Figure 1.3: Map of Kiwengwa - Pongwe Forest Reserve in Unguja Island…………………………….7 Figure 3.1: Conceptual Model Comparing PES to other Conservation Approaches…………………..19 Figure 3.2: Model Identifying Potential Financing Sources for a Conservation intervention…………20 Figure 4.1.1: Kiwengwa Pongwe Households’ Education level……………………………………….28 Figure 4.1.2: Households’ main Occupations…………………………………………………………..28 Figure 4.1.3: Major Sources of Income of the Kiwengwa Pongwe Local Communities………………30 Figure 4.1.4: Households’ Total Income per Year in Tanzania Shilling……………………………….31 Figure 4.4.1: Maximum WTP by KPTA Hotels………………………………………………………..45 Figure 4.4.2: Distribution of WTP Bids by KPTA Hotels……………………………………………..46 Figure 4.5.1: Propose use of the Compensation by the Communities…………………………………49 List of Tables Page Table 4.1.1: Distribution of Main Occupations of the Households Based on Shehia and Gender…….29 Table 4.1.2: Major Source of Income Divided by Shehia and Gender………………………………...31 Table 4.1.3: Total Income of Respondents /Year in Tanzania Shillings Based on Shehia and Gender. 32 Table 4.2.1: Reason for not Participate in Conservation Programs as per Communities and Hoteliers.34 Table 4.2.2: Experience of the Local communities on Compensation based System………………….35 Table 4.3.1: Response of WTA by Communities for Compensation to Maintain and Manage KPFR
Per 200 litres used by Hoteliers…………………………………………………………………..40 Table 4.3.2: Mean, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation for WTA by Communities and
Hoteliers…………………………………………………………………………………………..41 Table 4.3.3: Response on How PWES can help the KPFR Communities to Solve Socio-Economic
Problems…………………………………………………………………………………………..41 Table 4.3.4: Negative Impact of PWES for Future Socio-Economic and Livelihood of Communities. 42 Table 4.4.1: Sources and Amount of Water used by Hotels per day…………………………………...44 Table 4.4.2: Amount of Water in Litres Extracted Directly from KPFR Grounds and Amount of Water
Fees (US $) paid to ZAWA………………………………………………………………………45 Table 4.4.3: Mean, Total, Standard deviation and Coefficient of Variation of WTP by KPTA Hotels as
Compensation to KPFR local Communities…………………………………………………….. 46 Table 4.5.1: Distribution of Mode of Payment to be used in Collecting Compensation as per KPTA
Hoteliers and Local Communities………………………………………………………………. 47 Table 4.5.2: Proposed Payment Routine and Distribution of the Compensation Paid to Communities.48 List of Plates Page Plate 4.1: View of the Low Tide Sea of the KP beach which is suitable site for Seaweeds farming…..32 Plate 4.2: Sea shells for Sell along Kiwengwa Pongwe Beach, which is mostly done by Women…….32 Plate 4.3: Women Harvesting Seaweeds at Kiwengwa Pongwe Beach………………………………...33 Plate 4.4: Seaweeds drying at KP Beach Prepared for Sell…………………………………………….33 Plate 4.5: Temporary Shelters under Shifting Cultivation and the Patch left after Cutting Dense Natural
Forest of KPFR……………………………………………………………………………………..37 Plate 4.6: Forest Guard Shows Machine and Pumps’ Houses outside the Mwanampaji Cave………...43 Plate 4.7: The Mwanampaji Water Cave……………………………………………………………….43
vii
List of Annexes Page Annex 1: Frequency tables for Households’ questionnaires output ……………...................................62 Annex 2: Frequency tables for Hoteliers’ questionnaires output ………………………………………70 Annex 3: List of Hotels that are found along Kiwengwa Pongwe Tourist Area (KPTA)………….......76 Annex 4: Agreement of Water Abstraction…………………………………………………………….77 Annex 5. Research Questionnaires for Hoteliers at KPTA……………………………………………..78 Annex 6. Research Questionnaire for WTA for Kiwengwa-Pongwe Households …………………….82 Annex 7. Interviews guide for Natural Resources Management Officials, key Informants, village elders
and Village Conservation Committee (VCCs)……………………………………………………..88 Annex 8. Interviews guide for Zanzibar Water Authority (ZAWA) Officials…………………………89 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations CBNRM: Community-based Natural Resources management CEPF: Coastal Forest of East Africa CNR: Commission for Natural Resources CTM: Cost Travel Method CVM: Contingent Valuation Method DCCFF: Department for Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry GOVT: Government GoZ: Government of Zanzibar HPM: Hedonic Pricing Method ICDP: Integrated Conservation Development Project JFM: Joint Forest Management KP: Kiwengwa-Pongwe KPFR: Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve KPTA: Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourism Area NGOs: Non-Governmental Organisation(s) PES: Payment for Environmental Services PFM: Participatory Forest Management PWES: Payment for Watershed Environmental Services SMZ: Serikali ya Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar (Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar) Tz Shs: Tanzanian Shillings URT: United Republic of Tanzania VDC: Village Development Committee VLA: Village Local Authority WTA: Willingness to Accept WTP: Willingness to Pay WWF: World wide Fund for Nature ZAWA: Zanzibar Water Authority ZWRMB: Zanzibar Water Resources Management Board Definition of Terminologies Community/Communities means Kiwengwa Pongwe Local Communities Government means Government of Zanzibar (GoZ) Sheha is the village leader (Shehia leader appointed by Regional Commissioner) Shehia is the lowest administrative unit in the region that constitute one or more villages
viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND
Lack of appropriate and effective approaches for the management of forested watershed areas is a
colossal challenge facing the developing world in its ambition to realise both environmental protection
and local community livelihoods security. Coase (1960) argued that the common belief is that local
communities inflict harm on natural ecosystem supplying water services and therefore the former must
be restrained from causing harm to the latter. He further suggested that this is a wrong interpretation
because we are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature, such that in avoiding harm on natural
ecosystem would inflict severe harm on local community too.
Management of natural resources demands involvement of important stakeholders, particularly local
community around the natural ecosystem. If rural poor community are given these opportunities and
technical resources, they can not only reverse environmentally degrading impacts of past land-use
practices but also invest in the enhancement of valuable environmental services that ensure sustainable
economic gain (Rosa et al., 2004). Consecutively, many practitioners suggest that failure of the public
or national institutions to compensate local community as land managers for conserving and provision
of environmental services is a key contributory factor to the rapid and environmentally damaging
changes in land use that are taking place globally (Pagiola et al., 2005).
Various conservation approaches have been used for management and protection of environment,
including command-and-control, Joint Forest Management and production (JFM), Social Market and
Integrated Conservation Development Project (ICDP) amongst others. Despite considerable measures
undertaken to promote more sustainable use of natural resources around the world, we have yet to
witness a reversal in the general trend of environmental degradation (Wunder, 2005). Because of these
poor conventional approaches, humans continue to consume more environmental goods and services
than nature can sustain, and more harmful substances are discharged into ecosystems than can be
naturally absorbed (Pagiola et al., 2005).
In Tanzania, assessment shows that a participatory approach, that involves local communities in
development and management of natural resources, has proved to be a more promising way to manage
natural resources than continued reliance on protection by centralized government (Alcorn et al., 2002).
In this context, participatory forest management (PFM) approach has emerged to be more preferred in
the management of natural resources. PFM is a decentralized approach that introduces commitment to
1
equity in forest management between government authorities and local community with main
objectives of ensuring that forest resources, including watersheds products, make real contribution to
secure local livelihoods and that by doing so they also secure their future existence.
PFM has varying facets reflecting varying degrees of involvement of local communities in the
management of forest resources. PFM has two main scenarios in Tanzania, Joint Forest Management
(JFM) whereby villagers and the government jointly manage the forest, and Community Based Forest
Management (CBFM) whereby management of the forest is vested wholly in the hands of the local
communities. This approach helps to ensure that local people can gain shares in the benefits of natural
resources (forestry) and can take decisions about resource matters that affect their lives (Zahabu et al;
2005). For example, carbon sequestration being practiced in Tanzania under CBFM as one kind of
payment for environmental services projects, have potentials to earn about 6,500 US$ per year per
village and at the same time ameliorate the watershed areas that could also be explored as another
source of income for the local communities as environmental services (Zahabu and Jambiya, 2007).
In the Zanzibar islands on other hand, PFM comes forward due to insufficient government resources in
terms of manpower and funding that could enable effective and sustainable natural resources (forest)
management. For a long time, the Department for Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF),
which is the mother department responsible for the management and protection of forest resources, has
faced a number of implementation problems due to insufficient funds allocated for that purpose. This
situation made these natural resources suffer from deterioration. Based on that, DCCFF has adopted the
PFM approach (CNR, 1995) as a tool for management and rescue of natural resources including
Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve (KPFR), which possesses high biodiversity potentials and values.
Based on the nature and sensitivity of KPFR, Joint Forest Management which encompasses DCCFF
and KPFR surrounding communities as core partners, has been adopted to implement the participatory
forest management.
Despite its efficacy, PFM in Zanzibar has revealed weakness on benefit sharing component, which in
the case of Tanzania mainland has been incorporated in PFM projects. Lack of incentives for the
participating communities has been a weak point of implementing PFM and it is proposed that new
ways and institutional set-ups to provide required incentives through market-based environmental
services payments have to be developed (Zahabu et al; 2005). Therefore, conservation approaches that
2
focus on direct payment as compensation for conservation opportunity costs are given more priorities
in the management of natural resources in the country.
Kiwengwa-Pongwe forest reserve, which is the focal point of this research, embraces valuable natural
resources that accommodate a number of big natural caves with water reservoirs and also has
immeasurable protective cover for wildlife, which also contributes to the national economy through
ecotourism (Hassan, 2004). However, the forest reserve encountered several obstacles in its
management due to insufficient community involvement and lack of benefit sharing mechanism, which
lead to deterioration if its environment. This problem could be exacerbated by prevailing climatic
condition. Due to the strong solar radiation, Zanzibar as part of east Africa experiences higher
evaporation rate per unit area than other regions in the world (Holmen 2003; FAO 1987) which reduces
the water level in the ground which usually form aquifers and water springs.
This situation places the island to be vulnerable to any change of its natural ecosystem including
forested watersheds and thus accentuates demand for effective strategies to prevent further destructions
of its natural resources as well as improving local community livelihoods without harming natural
ecological units. Furthermore, forest destruction and illegal extraction of resources from KPFR has
been a common practice that jeopardizes the potential services of the forest. The main reason being the
fact that most surrounding communities depend on the forest for their livelihoods through hunting,
wood cutting (including fuel wood, seaweeds sticks, building poles), lime making, medicinal plant
collection (herbalists) and many others.
Payment for water resources, as an ecosystem service recognizing the basic need of stakeholders while
protecting the watershed, can be an appropriate tool to tackle existing environmental and socio-
economic problems facing KPFR. Under this system, the idea is to set the mechanism whereby those
who receive and buy water services (downstream communities) could contribute some payment as
compensation to producers of environmental services (upstream communities). The downstream
include water service users, and in this case study are Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourism Area (KPTA) hotels
while upstream could be Kiwengwa-Pongwe (KP) communities and institutions responsible for KPFR
watershed management.
Unsustainable environmental conservation projects resulted from failure of conventional approaches
which did not consider the basic needs of surrounding communities (Pagiola, 2003). This lesson leads
3
to a search for new perspectives and holistic approaches towards sustainable management of natural
ecosystems. The challenging subject is to integrate environmental conservation and economic gain for
the environmental conservators (communities) in management of natural resources elements. To solve
this dual goal of environmental conservation and economic gain, there is a need of a participatory,
multi-sectoral and multidisciplinary approach that addresses and recognizes the linkages between
livelihood, land use and watershed conservation.
People cannot protect environment without realizing direct tangible benefits, especially when the
protection of concerned ecosystem involves regulating people’s livelihood activities and patterns.
Moreover, PWES implementation requires extra care and thorough investigation of their applicability
upon prevailing factors like local environment, existing institutional/governmental capacity, political
will, nature of the ecosystem, land use practices by local people at the upstream. In this context, it is
important to know the willingness and the basic requirements of the concerned stakeholders including
preferred institutional framework prior to the establishment and implementation of any conservation
approach.
1.2 JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEMS
Kiwengwa-Pongwe forest reserve (KPFR) represents a wider natural ecosystem of coastal forest of
East Africa (CEPF, 2005). It is a coral rag forest with high biodiversity resources including varieties of
floral and faunal species of rare and endemic status (Hassan, 2004). It also possesses rich water
reservoirs that supply water to tourist hotels and communities surrounding the forest. KPFR has big
caves of which some are very deep connected with ground water level, where those hoteliers extract
water (see front page and plate 4.7). Local communities on the other hand, depend on the same forest
for their livelihood activities such as farming, hunting, wood cutting and lime making to get their daily
basic needs, thus accelerate the rate of forest destruction and reduce the capacity of the forest to
provide ecosystem services.
Department for Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF), as the department mandatory for
management of natural resources, has been using different strategies to protect KPFR due to its national
and international importance. Joint Forest Management (JFM) is one of the tools employed. DCCFF
and the surrounding communities are managing this natural forest, which is the only one of its kind in
the northern east coast zone of Zanzibar. Moreover, the PFM for benefit sharing is emphasized in the
Zanzibar Forest Policy (CNR, 1995), and legally provided by part five of the Act no. 10 of 1996 (GoZ,
4
1997). In addition, communities around KPFR have always contested to blame the government
(through DCCFF) for giving priority to conservation issues and ignoring the basic livelihood needs of
the community surrounding the conservation areas (Hassan, 2004).
When KPFR surrounding communities have already shown collaborative interest by implementing
JFM with DCCFF (Hassan, 2004), it is now the right time to establish market systems as benefit
sharing-mechanism which can be incorporated in the existing system as component to hasten and
improve local communities’ livelihoods as well as biodiversity status of the forest. However, it is not
possible to establish the Payment for watershed environmental services (PWES) system before having
basic information concerning a PWES market-based model.
A suggested by Pagiola (2003), PWES is a very important approach towards meeting sustainable
economic development of the community at local level and reaching environmental conservation goal
with less conflict among stakeholders. Therefore, it is important to have the baseline information that is
required for the establishment of payment for water services as ecosystem services in place including
the acceptance of the system among stakeholders based on local environment and existing settings for
PWES to be executed. The information from the study provides knowledge that enable us to figure out
how much PWES is accepted, and if not what are the reasons behind and what next towards
conservation endeavour of KPFR. Therefore, this study examines the reliability of payment for water
resources as an environmental service in Zanzibar, as the case of Kiwengwa-Pongwe forest reserve.
1.3 PROFILE OF RESEARCH SITE
1.3.1 Geographical location of the Study Area
Zanzibar, which comprises two main islands of Unguja and Pemba and several small islets, is located
between latitude 4˚ and 6˚ south and between 39˚ and 40˚ east (Figure 1.1). The islands, which are part
of the united republic of Tanzania, lie in the Indian Ocean about 35 km from the Dar es Salaam city
coast (Tanzania mainland).
The study was carried out in the north region of Unguja Island (Figure 1.2). Kiwengwa–Pongwe Forest
Reserve (KPFR) communities, which is the study area, is located about 37 km north from Zanzibar
town (Figure 1.3). KPFR is surrounded by fifteen villages including Kairo, Gulioni, and Kumbaurembo
(Kiwengwa), Ndudu, Pongwe, Pwani Mchangani, Kandwi, Kinunduni, Mchekeni, Mgonjoni, Kibuteni,
Upenja, Gamba, Mwadudu and Chokaani.
5
Source, http://www.planet-tz.itgo.com/destinations.html
Figure1.1. Map of the United Republic of Tanzania, showing Zanzibar Islands (Unguja and Pemba) as
pointed by arrow.
6
Source: DCCFF files 2004
Source: Institute of Marine Sciences GIS Unit (2005) Figure 1.3: Map of Kiwengwa Pongwe Forest Reserve in Unguja Island Figure 1.2: Map of Unguja Island showing the location of study area in north region.
Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve
UNGUJA ISLAND
KPFR AREA
TANZANIA
1.3.2 Scope of the study
Based on the closeness, commitments and dependability towards the Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest
Reserve resources, this research was confined to two shehias (village local authority) of Kiwengwa and
Pongwe. These form five villages of enumeration to include Kairo, Gulioni and Kumbaurembo
(Kiwengwa) and Pongwe and Ndudu (Pongwe). Information were collected from hoteliers, local
authorities, community based groups and other associated stakeholders as the main target groups of the
research.
1.3.3 Population
According to the Tanzanian national census of 2002 (URT 2003), the shehia of Kiwengwa dwell in the
total of 2,429 people of whom 1,121 are women and 1,308 are men. Pongwe has been occupied by 513
people of whom 260 are women and 253 are men. Kiwengwa and Pongwe comprise the total of 415
and 106 households respectively.
1.3.4 Socio-economic activities
The majority of Kiwengwa and Pongwe inhabitants depend on fishing, agriculture and commercial
activities, both small and medium scale projects for their livelihoods. The most important commercial
activity is tourist business, which includes possessing local restaurants, tour guide and supply of
products to tourist hotels. A total of 14 tourist hotels are found along KPTA in which villagers get
employement (Annex 3). Other economic activities include seaweeds farming (mostly for women) and
government employment. Despite being the major cause of forest decline, cutting of forest products for
trade and domestic purposes serve as another main occupation in the area.
1.3.5 Ecology and climate
Kiwengwa-Pongwe forest reserve is a coral rag type of forest which is found at 0 – 20m above sea
level. The forest reserve covers an area of approximately 3324 hectares. As it is for most part of
Zanzibar Island, KPFR receive average annual rainfall of about 1750 mm. The area experiences sea
breeze with high humidity ranges between 76 to 87 percent. The reserve also is a locale of different
kinds of wildlife, which includes rare and endemic species such as adder’s duiker, red colobus monkey
and a large number of bird species.
8
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The Zanzibar National Forest Policy (CNR 1995) emphasises the need for community-based natural
resources management, whereby benefit sharing among stakeholders is considered as the main
motivation towards sustainable natural resources management and poverty alleviation. However,
incentives that can be used as returns for the local community management team, who offer their
services to manage and protect the forested catchments, are absent. To comprehend sustainable
management of this dwindling resource in KPFR, there is purposive need of employing an economic
component that can reward local community and serve the factual benefit of protecting surrounding
natural resources.
This study gives a picture on the acceptability of PWES as a mechanism of compensating
environmental services providers to solve both environmental and socio-economic problems in the
area, which is vital in implementing and improving workability of the existing frail JFM. This study is
the first of its kind in Zanzibar, and it is expected that the results can be useful in exploring the basis for
establishment of PWES towards achieving the dual goal of environmental conservation and economic
gain. This study is relevant, not only for sustainability of natural resources and community
development, but also for the tourism sector and the national economy at large.
1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Failures of some hoteliers to provide reliable information about their activities and WTP based on the
study objectives were one of the limiting factors limiting proper execution of the study. The study
managed to get responses from twelve out of fourteen hotels found along KPTA. Some hotels refused
to respond by the face-to-face interview and claimed to send questionnaires by mail to the researcher’s
office. This action caused some questionnaires being returned with some unanswered questions.
Furthermore, to be given only two respondents as representative from Zanzibar Water Authority
(ZAWA) also become a constraint to get more consistent data for the sector. Limited time and financial
resources made the researcher confine the scope of the study to only five out of fifteen villages
surrounding KPFR.
Being known by respondents as a forester in the KPFR somehow might affect the study results. For
example, seeing me as a representative of government could make respondents underestimate the worth
of forest related businesses they undertake (tax evasion). Sometimes respondents gave answers that
might please the interviewer to see that they are not guilty of destructive behaviour. At the same time, it
9
is likely to be easier to fool a complete stranger than someone with firsthand knowledge of the area.
Hence, it is also an advantage to be a forester experienced with the study area, because it was difficult
for respondents to cheat during the interview and whenever misgivings arose I was appropriately
probing the respondents to clear doubts. This was realized when some respondents said that they are
not using the forest for business activities at all, but then I found a customer pick and choose bundles
from heaps of freshly cut fuel woods (green woods) in the backyard of his house. Being known has
both its pros and its cons and I simply assume that these cancel each other out and cause no serious bias
to the present study.
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
The paper is organized into five chapters. Chapter one provides a general overview about management
of natural ecosystem based on different approaches. It also describes the research problem and
justification, profile of the research site, the significance and limitation of the study. Chapter two
describes the research objectives and methodology used to collect and analyze data whilst chapter three
covers literature review based, on the study objectives. Chapter four gives results and discussion on
socio-economic characteristics of KP communities as well as potentials and challenges facing KPFR in
connection with PWES establishment. Furthermore, it explains in depth the results of WTP from
hoteliers and WTA from KP communities. Chapter five presents conclusion based on the study
findings and provides recommendations for better performance of the proposed system in question.
10
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
Payment for Watershed Environmental Services is a very important approach towards sustainable
management of watersheds, especially at local level. However, its establishment depend much upon
getting reliable information from the local site in question based on the objectives of the study. General
and specific objectives are summarised below:
2.1.1 General Objective
The broad objective of this research is to assess the acceptability of payment for watershed
environmental service approach (PWES) as environmental management mechanism in promoting the
sustainable management of KPFR watershed resources as well as improving livelihoods of the KP
communities.
2.1.2 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives are as follows:
• To identify the existing potentials and challenges for PWES to be executed at KPFR.
• To examine the willingness of concerned stakeholders around KPFR, to accept a PWES system.
• To determine and propose a reliable institutional framework and payment modality for PWES
system to work at KPFR.
2.2 METHODOLOGY USED IN THE RESEARCH
This section describes the approach that was used in gathering empirical data for the research.
Furthermore, data collection procedures, analysis techniques and interpretation of data will be
explicated.
2.2.1 Research Design
This study make used of cross-sectional survey design in collecting empirical data from five shehias of
Kiwengwa-Pongwe. A household’s sample was used to give representative information on presented
potentials and challenges, communities’ willingness to accept compensation (WTA), their socio-
economic characteristics as well as institutional framework and payment modality that can work at
11
KPFR. Furthermore, the entire population of fourteen hotels at KPTA (Annex 3), based on the same
design was used to provide information about WTP.
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources. The reason
for combining these two methods is based on the nature of the study and study objectives. Quantitative
statistics for both WTP and WTA on PWES were collected from hoteliers and other commercial water
users, households and local authorities, based on Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) principles and
objective of the study.
It is not possible to explore all important information needed to answer a full package of study
objectives by using quantitative data alone. Issues like stakeholders’ perceptions on PWES, their
opinions and views, reasons for responses and suggestions were qualitatively analysed. As Darlington
and Scott (2002) reported, it is easy to test quantitatively the user characteristics and nature of the
services provision in a particular organization, but the reasons why this might be so, may not easily be
investigated using quantitative methods. The qualitative methods may have a place in exploring how
many people define their needs and why. When investigating human beings and their judgment on a
particular issue surrounding them, there is danger that conclusion, although arithmetically precise, may
fail to fit the reality on the existing situation (Berg, 2004; Mills, 1959). Therefore, one also needs the
qualitative method to assess all unquantifiable facts necessary for a particular statement of the problem
in question.
2.2.2 Research data sources
2.2.2.1 Secondary data collection
Secondary data were collected from various documents and records from several relevant institutions
and organizations including local, national and international organisations, both published and un-
published working documents at all levels. Journals and articles from internet were also a major source
of secondary data. Most of the secondary data were based on what has been done or known in relation
to stakeholders and community perceptions and acceptance on PES and PWES systems in other similar
places in the region. Information from secondary sources helped to create a state of knowledge on the
subject and enable me to determine the missing information about the subject. Furthermore, secondary
data were facilitating the designing of data collection instruments in the field as well data analysis.
12
2.2.2.2 Primary data collection
Based on the conceptual framework of the study, two basic variables (WTA and WTP) were
enumerated as the research is central measures. Primary data were collected directly from the field
using face-to-face survey technique. However, this was only done perfectly on households’
questionnaires concerning WTA. Some of KPTA asked the surveyor to leave the questionnaire so that
they could fill it later.
2.2.2.2.1 CVM method in collecting WTA and WTP information
CVM is a survey-based stated preference methodology that provides respondents the opportunity to
make an economic decision concerning the relevant non-market good. Values for the good are then
inferred from the induced economic decision. It circumvents the absence of markets for public goods
by presenting consumers with hypothetical markets in which they have the opportunity to buy the
service in question. In CV individual respondents are asked hypothetical questions about how much
would they be willing to pay to access a services or goods or what level of compensation they would be
willing to accept for trade-off services of non-market goods (Carson et al., 2001; Shah, 2002).
In this study, a hypothetical market was set as; environmental service is improved water services
purchased by hoteliers (buyers) from the KPFR managed jointly by Zanzibar Water Authority
(ZAWA), Kiwengwa-Pongwe communities and DCCFF as environmental services providers and seller
of the service. The payment vehicle is additional water fees for improved water services. In order to
make the hypothetical market a realistic and plausible, the environmental services has to be properly
described, the methods of payment as well as the institutional structure under which the environmental
services will be provided are to be clearly specified (Mitchell et al., 1989; Giorgio, 1998), which is
explicated in the Results and Discussion chapter.
As suggested by Mitchell and Carson (1989), WTP and WTA measures designed into particularly
simple form: for a desired increase (improve) in an environmental service, the maximum amount the
hoteliers would be willing to pay to obtain the improvement water service, and for a decrease, the
minimum amount that KP communities would be voluntarily willing to accept in compensation in
exchange for accepting the decrease (reduced access to KPFR resources as means of halting forest
destruction and improve conservation of watersheds).
13
The determinant of which CVM method to apply depends much on study objectives, whether it is
primary or pilot kind of study as well as by time and financial resources (FAO, 2000). According to
Cameron et al (1987; cited by Shah 2002), there are three different approaches asking the CVM
questions.
• Open ended (discrete choice method), where the respondents are simply asked to name the amount
they are willing to pay.
• Sequential bids (referendum or dichotomous choice), where respondents are asked whether or not
they would pay or accept some specified sum (the question is then repeated using a higher or lower
amount, depending on the initial response).
• Close ended, where the respondents are asked whether or not they would pay a single
predetermined amount. In this approach the sum is varied across respondents.
It has been suggested that the discrete choice method can mostly be used as a pilot tool to establish
appropriate bidding figures to be used in other approaches (Shah, 2002; Cameron & Quiggin, 1994;
Sal-Salazar & Garcia-Menendez, 2001). Similarly, Whittington et al., (1990) and FAO (2000) have
argued in favor of the dichotomous choice method. Despite these arguments, this study incorporated
discrete choice method1, where the respondents are simply asked to name the amount they are willing
to pay and accept, because of time and financial resources limitations. It was not possible to run a pilot
survey large enough to provide the appropriate bidding figure and then conduct another survey for the
actual data collection.
2.2.2.2.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
To collect information on willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for switching from present non-
environmental activities into provision of environmental services that will ameliorate the watershed
status of KPFR, the household communities from Kiwengwa and Pongwe shehias (village local
authorities), form a basic sampling unit for measurements. In this part, the shehias’ registers were used
as sampling frames, in which 30% of households in each shehia were randomly selected for the
household questionnaire survey, which is enough to represent a population in social research study as
1 In annex 5, question 19, looks like as if uses the dichotomous choice method, but the fact it use discrete choice method,
where respondents were asked about WTA and they openly decide to state the amount wish to offer. Those category bids
were provided in the questionnaires to improve efficiency during data analysis.
14
suggested by Tunis (1998). This made the total of 160 households that were interviewed, of which 125
and 35 households were from Kiwengwa and Pongwe respectively.
To collect information about willingness to pay (WTP) for the environmental services (in this case
water resources from KPFR) hoteliers (water users) were surveyed by asking WTP questions. WTP
survey applied a total population sampling to enumerate all 14 hotels along the KPTA. To get
consistent informants, the snowball sampling of non-probability techniques were used in each
hotel/institution during interview as per Berg (2004).
To obtain representation on standpoint of PWES from NGO’s, governmental institutions and local
authorities, 12 sampling units were involved. Little number of available interviewees per sector was the
basic ground to have 12 sampling units from three above sectors. This gave the total sample size of 186
sampling units for the whole research study.
2.2.2.2.3 Data collection tools
Structured questionnaires were developed, pre-tested (with selected community outside research area),
reviewed and administered. The questionnaires were divided into several parts, which reflect the type
of information needed in addressing specific objectives of the study. There were both open and closed
ended questions with the purpose of unveiling the system of knowledge and structuring of ideas
essential to respondent’s own view of the research problem. Many researchers use a combination of
closed and open questions; often researchers use close-ended questions in the beginning of their survey,
and then allow for more expansive answers once the respondent has some background on the issue and
is "warmed-up" (Palmquist, 1993).
To make conversant with questionnaires, preliminary training were done before the main survey to
local experts who assisted the researcher in the running of the questionnaire at community level. Focus
Group Discussion (FGDs) was conducted to the local communities to supplement the information
collected during questionnaire survey. Interview guides (Annexes 7 and 8) were used to obtain
qualitative information from DCCFF officials, key informants, village leaders, Village Conservation
Committees (VCCs) members and Zanzibar Water Authority (ZAWA) officials.
15
2.2.3 Data Treatment, Analysis and Interpretation
Data from this study were both descriptively and quantitatively analyzed. SPSS and Excel statistical
packages were used for analysis and interpretations and in test of associations among variables based
on the research objectives. Quantitatively the values of water services in KPFR were estimated by
using Contingent Valuation (CV) method to measure willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to
accept (WTA). Targeted water consumers (KPTA hoteliers) were asked to give their maximum WTP
values for the improved water services and communities around KPFR were asked to provide their
minimum WTA values as compensation for switching from their present activities into provision of
environmental management services to improve both water quality and quantity at KPFR.
The respondents mean WTP and WTA are variables of interest that were calculated from CV method.
To calculate these means, the sample average is the best (Shah, 2002; FAO, 2000). In this study,
sample means of WTP and WTA were calculated from all respondents who have expressed their
willingness and revealed their value for the water services, which is multiplied by the size of the
population (N) affected by the proposed PWES system. In this study, mean WTP and WTA were
applied to give the maximum WTP that hoteliers claimed to be willing to give to KP communities as
compensation and minimum WTA that have been accepted by KP communities as compensation
(contributions) from hoteliers for better services they get respectively.
From the analysis, the descriptive statistics were used to provide information on measure of central
tendencies for the data. Frequency distribution tables and computation of proportions in percentage
were used in analyzing the socioeconomic (categories) variables for the households. Cross tabulation
were done to show the degree of influence of dominant responses among other responses. Qualitative
information were analyzed using the content and structural functional analysis techniques in which
components of verbal discussions from different respondents were broken down into smallest
meaningful units of information, values and attitudes of respondents.
16
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHED AREAS.
Currently, holistic approaches emerge to be the main focal point towards the sustainable management
of watershed areas in the world. Johnson et al (2001) highlighted that this motive came into action after
the collapse of many watershed development projects around the world that failed to take into account
the needs, constraints, and practices of local people around their natural ecosystem. Conventional
sectoral approaches did not give opportunities for local communities to participate in the management
of natural ecosystem of which they depend for their livelihoods. Salam et al (2006) noted that despite
local communities for many years living with the natural ecosystem in a compatible manner, the
conventional top-down management approach let these communities feel that they are not part of the
ecosystem, thus resulting in intensive degradation of the environment.
FAO (2006) noted that natural ecosystems supply a wide range of environmental services, from which
people benefit, and upon which all life depends. However, when it comes to the management of natural
ecosystems, a one-sided approach is applied generalising rural people and ecosystems as antagonists.
Under this circumstance, it is worthwhile to find and suggest efficient alternative approaches such as
Payment for watershed environmental service (PWES) that will guarantee both socio-economic
development of local community and natural ecosystem resilience. Larsson (1999) highlighted that the
objective of compensation approaches must be effective in attaining environmental intentions: efficient
in being effective in the lowest possible cost and equitable in the sense that sharing of burden and
benefits be among the members of the target group (stakeholders) around the natural ecosystem.
So the world’s vision towards the sustainable management of watershed focus, not only to raise local
communities’ awareness, but also to improve economic gain of the people livelihoods based on
approaches that jeopardize neither future benefits of environmental services nor future natural
ecosystem resilience. The implementation of the established ecosystem-based approaches adopted by
the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Wetlands, the Food and Agriculture
Organization, and others could substantially improve the future condition of water-provisioning
services by balancing economic development, ecosystem conservation, and human well-being
objectives (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
17
According to Busch et al (2003), an ecosystem-based approach is multi and interdisciplinary which
include stakeholders, perspectives, and human goals, and consider the health and vitality of ecosystems
into the indefinite future, and include the larger landscape and connections among other landscapes. He
added that ecosystem-based decisions acknowledge that the environment changes, even in the absence
of anthropogenic influence. Under these circumstances a payment for environmental services (PES)
approach has taken the lead to ensure that both goals of economic gain and environmental nourishment
are attained. Currently, we are witnessing application of many PES and other market-based approaches
in managing natural ecosystem (Pagiola et al 2005).
3.2 PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES APPROACH IN THE SUSTAINABLE
MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEM
Payment for Environment Services (PES) is becoming a more prevalent tool for natural resources
management. The main idea of PES is to complement and replace weak environmental conservation
measures in protecting the world’s dwindling biodiversity. At the same time it considers the welfare of
the community’s conservators and services providers, who are in most cases rural poor farmers, with
these natural resources as their main source for livelihood. It is a direct approach in solving both
environmental conservation and economic gain for environmental conservators and provides more
benefits to biodiversity than community-based interventions such as Integrated Conservation and
Development Projects (Ferraro and Kiss, 2002).
According to Wunder (2005), PES are part of a new and more direct conservation concept, which
clearly identifies the need to bridge the interests of landowners and communities in rational use of
natural resources. Successful application of PES approach in different parts of the world in solving
environmental problems and at the same time used to alleviate conflicts among stakeholders between
land resource uses and conservation of ecosystems, have made it to be favoured among environmental
practitioners, donors and local communities (Pagiola, 2003).
While forest ecosystems offer both direct and indirect benefits, of which some are perceived as
environmental services, they are threatened by prevailing high rate of deforestation (Zahabu et al.,
2005). According to Pagiola (2003), illegal cutting of forest resources, in tropical forests, is threatening
sustainability of the ecosystems and eventually leads to loss of their ability to provide the required
services. He mentioned that the main factor behind forest degradation is application of inappropriate
18
conservation measures, which usually concentrate on conservation efforts but leaving out important
stakeholders’ needs and shareable benefits (as compensation) for conservation services they provide.
Payment for environmental services (PES) evolved on the idea that sustainable resources management
generate environmental services and that consumers may be willing to pay. The services include carbon
sequestration and storage, biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, landscape beauty and
tourism. PES refers to a voluntary transaction in which a well-defined environmental service (ES), or a
land-use likely to secure that service, is being purchased by at least one ES buyer from at least one ES
provider if, and only if, the ES provider secures ES provision, i.e. conditionality (Wunder, 2006). As
depicted in figure 2.1, PES is distinguished from other conservation approaches based on the degree to
which they rely on economic incentives and the extent to which conservation is targeted directly rather
than integrated into broader development approaches.
Figure3.1: Comparing PES to other Conservation Approaches
Source: Based on Wunder (2005)
3.3 PAYMENT FOR WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE (PWES)
In protecting watersheds, water-based PES system is termed as Payment for watershed environmental
services (PWES), which explains management activities of a specific land and water use in the
upstream part of the watershed that provide beneficial outcomes to downstream water users in terms of
improvement or stabilization of water flow (quantity) and maintaining low concentration of sediment
and chemical elements in the water flow (quality). These beneficial uses are thus defined as
19
environmental services to downstream users (Kiersch et al; 2005). Pagiola et al (2005) propose that the
best ways to create conservation funds in the market-based instrument, that will be used by
environmental service provider to further maintain the natural ecosystem, is by Visitor fees, Payment
for watershed services and Conservation grants for increased recreation, increased downstream water
services and increased biodiversity conservation respectively (figure 2.2).
Figure 3.2: Identifying potential financing sources for a conservation intervention
R e d u c e d e x t r a c t i o n o f f o r e s t p r o d u c t s
I n c r e a s e d r e c r e a t i o n
I n c r e a s e d d o w n s t r e a m
w a t e r s e r v i c e s
I n c r e a s e d b i o d i v e r s i t y
c o n s e r v a t i o n
C o s t o f c o n s e r v a t i o n
Bene
fits
from
the
ecos
yste
m (U
S$ o
r US$
/ha)
V i s i t o r f e e s
P a y m e n t s f o r w a t e r s e r v i c e s
C o n s e r v a t i o n g r a n t s
C o n s e r v a t i o n f u n d
Source: Based on Pagiola (2005)
Watershed protection is an environmental service that has pioneered the use of payment schemes. PES
for watershed management typically involves payments to upstream land users for improving or
stabilising land use in the catchments, for example by paying land owners not to harvest trees, build
roads, or convert forest land to other uses that could adversely affect water quantity or quality needed
for irrigation, drinking water, or hydro-electric utilities. In some cases, financial transfers have been
made from utility companies to land users or land owners (FAO 2006).
Both conservation and development organizations have growing interest in the development of PWES,
from which the primary motives have been to create a steady flow of funding needed to achieve
conservation objectives; to contribute to poverty alleviation by creating economic incentives for
conservation; and to reduce disparities in the costs and benefits of management actions needed to
produce ecosystem services (Tognetti et al; 2003). Willingness to pay (WTP) for watershed ecosystem
20
services had been driven by an increased perception of threats to their continued provision and
recognition of the limits of regulatory approaches and the absence of economic incentives (ibid).
Compensation payment system in PWES can be in cash and/or in kind depending on the structure of
the service provider (Groups, community, individuals, NGOs etc), land-use, land ownerships and
rights, kind of environmental services to be bought by ES buyers and the like. Kirsch et al (2005)
reported that there are no studies or data that enable one to quantify the water-related services of
different type of land uses, and hence compensation mechanisms cannot be based on a full economic
valuation of those services. Wunder (2006) suggests that cash will be most appropriate when ES
suppliers forego cash income to comply with a PWES contract, for instance reducing planned
expansion in cash crops to conserve forest area vital for watershed protection. Indeed, in this situation
ES suppliers could hardly be expected to accept non-cash payment system benefits exclusively, since
cash is exactly what they lose from conservation (ibid).
3.4 PWES APPROACH IN THE MANAGEMENT OF WATERSHEDS IN TANZANIA
Integration of all mentioned stakeholders is very important for the sustainability of the PWES system in
performing its duty effectively. FAO (1996) suggested that the institutional and policy framework for
payments for watershed protection will depend on the size of the watershed, the number of providers
and users of the service, and their social, economic and cultural situation. FAO argues that effective
strategies are needed to ensure that all environmental service providers are thoroughly involved in the
management to ensure the sustainable use of the resources. However, the level of involvement of local
communities in the case of management of watershed areas is still low in most developing countries,
including Tanzania (Dungumaro and Madulu 2002).
Much destruction of watershed areas in Tanzania are the results of using poor conventional
management approaches which do not consider the contribution of local people living around the
catchments (WWF, 2006). This has been noticed by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) which
decided to develop a new, holistic payment approach for environmental services (PES) in Uluguru
Mountains Catchments forest (Tanzania), with the aim to explicitly balance poverty reduction with
conservation by delivering both sustainable natural resources management and improved livelihood
security for the rural poor.
21
The objective of the Uluguru Mountain watershed project is to supply hydrological services to
downstream communities that benefit Dar es Salaam city, Coast and Morogoro regions. According to
Ferraro (2007), the watershed project is managed in the way that local people should stabilize and
improve their farms as well as preventing further forest loss. He added that upstream local communities
are the environmental services providers and downstream stakeholders include water authority, private
sector cooperation as buyers of the hydrological services.
Payment for Watershed Environmental Services system in Zanzibar is a new approach for sustainable
management of watersheds, which has not been implemented before. However, the payment system as
compensation device to local community for particular environmental services provision is not a
strange idea in Zanzibar. Jozani National Park in Zanzibar has experienced compensation system by
paying the local communities on regular basis, in return of their crops that usually are eaten by red
colobus monkeys (Piliocolobus Kirkii) which is the big tourist attraction at the park (Makame, 2001).
This can be a good example to take and apply at KPFR for the sustainable management of biodiversity
and watershed areas in the reserve.
3.5 APPLICATION OF CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD
In recognition of vital services they provide, since 1960’s several non-market valuation techniques
have been developed, to estimate the value of non-market goods including environmental services
(Carson et al., 2001). Some of these methods that currently are used in economic environmental
valuation are Hedonic Pricing Method (HPM), Cost Travel Method (CTM) and Contingent Valuation
method (CVM). The Hedonic pricing method is used to estimate economic values for ecosystem or
environmental services that directly affect market prices. For example, the price of a car reflects the
characteristics of that car-transportation, comfort, fashion, luxury, fuel economy, etc. Therefore, we
can value the individual characteristics of a car or other good by looking at how the price people are
willing to pay for it changes when the characteristics change. The hedonic pricing method is most
often used to value environmental amenities that affect the price of residential properties.
The travel cost method is used to estimate economic use values associated with ecosystems or sites that
are used for recreation. The basic principle of the travel cost method is that the time and travel cost
expenses that people incur to visit a site represent the “price” of access to the site. Thus, peoples’
willingness to pay to visit the site can be estimated based on the number of trips that they make at
different travel costs. All these three methods attempt to express such benefits in monetary values, i.e.
22
the willingness to pay (WTP) of consumers for a particular non-marketed benefit or their willingness to
accept (WTA) monetary compensation for the loss of the same (Mathur et al., 2003).
CVM is the method for estimating the value by using the offer that a person places on a good. The
CVM approach asks people to directly report their willingness to pay (WTP) to obtain a specified good,
or willingness to accept (WTA) to give up a good, rather than inferring them from observed behaviours
in regular market places (FAO, 2000). Currently, the CVM has taken the lead to be applied in assessing
environmental goods. The link between welfare economics and CVM is quite direct because it offers
the potential to trace out the willingness to pay and willingness to accept distributions for a population
of economic agents for a proposed change in a good (Carson et al., 2001).
Furthermore, CVM has become one of the most promising approaches for determining the public’s
willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) for public goods and services due to its
flexibility and ability to estimate total value, including non-use value (Carson et al., 2001).
3.5.1 Uncertainties in Contingent Valuation Method
Contingent valuation method has some uncertainty that may arise in different ways, including the
following: Uncertainty can originate with the public good or contingency that is to be valued.
Respondents may be uncertain about what it is that they are valuing, having no experience with it and
perhaps never having seen it (Shaikh et al., 2006). Wang (1997) noted that, the value an individual
allocated to the specified non-market amenity is influenced by prices of both substitutes and
complements, if they even exist, and markets for these goods may behave in ways that are
unpredictable to the individual. Shaikh et al (2006) suggested that uncertainty can also derived from
questionnaire used to elicit information, although this problem can be overcome to some extent by
improved survey design.
On the other hands, when using CVM, it might happen that individuals may simply be unable to make
a trade-off between the amenity in question and the monetary good. Moreover, respondents may not
understand the contingency in question and the manner in which it would be achieved, perhaps being
hesitant about the policy instrument proposed for addressing the environmental spill out (Shaikh et al.,
2006). While some uncertainty can be resolved by giving respondents with more complete information,
or working with them in controlled interactive environments, some uncertainty can never be resolved
(ibid). Preferences are ambiguous, the response to a valuation question has more than one meaning and,
23
consequently, a person might answer a valuation question but, when probed about their response, will
add caveats and/or express uncertainty about the value provided. Researchers have proposed a variety
of empirical treatments for addressing this type of uncertainty, but there has been no overarching
agreement on a unified approach, mainly because of the nature of the uncertainty and different views
about how it is to be interpreted (Shaikh et al., 2006).
3.5.2 Pros and cons of Contingent valuation method
3.5.2.1 Advantages of CVM
• According to FAO (2000), the Contingent Valuation Method has proven particularly useful when
implemented alone or jointly with other valuation techniques for non-market goods, such as the travel
cost method or hedonic approaches.
• CVM has an aptitude to use responses from respondents to fix value on ecosystem goods that are
not normally marketed. It remains the only technique capable of placing a value on commodities that
have a large non-use component of value, and when the environmental improvements to be valued are
outside of the range of the data (FAO, 2000).
• Brouwer and Spaninks (1999) claim that among the economic methods used to valuate
environment, CVM is the only one to date that is able, in principle, to account for possible non-use
motivations underlying people’s value statements. Some economists argue that environmental
resources associated with multiple outputs are best valued using CVM within the context of total
valuation framework that consider all component values, including non-use values, either sequentially
or simultaneously (Scodari, 1997).
• CVM has been found to be an easy and versatile implement estimating diversity of environmental
goods depending on how you design it to meet the objectives of the concerned study. As Carson et al,
(2001) highlighted, CVM is flexible in facilitating valuation of a wide variety of non-market goods,
including those not currently available. Fuguitt (1999) also supported that CVM has greater versatility;
it can estimate values for a particular site as well as designated resources or activities within a wider
geographical area.
24
3.5.2.2 Disadvantages of CVM
Despite having many merits on its application over other economic valuation methods, CVM has got
some limitations on its applicability that one needs to pay attention to before applying it. Some of these
disadvantages are:
• The CVM responses are based on hypothetical behavior such that the respondent’s attitudes and
knowledge might influence and pit the value of environmental goods on his/her favour and not from
economic point of view. Krishnamurthy (2003) argue that the resultant value of environmental goods is
“contingent” because CVM depends on individual’s perception of a number of background factors that
influence the market under survey.
• In the CVM there is a tendency of having difference between stated preferences as expressed on the
questionnaires and respondents’ actual preference revealed in the real market situation. One survey to
assess WTP for organic foods in Sweden, the surveyor found 90 % are willing to pay for organic foods
with increase of price. However, it was found later that less than 10 % of respondents show up to buy
the products in the market (SVD, September 12, 2007). When a consumer responds to a CVM
questions and states his/her preference or willingness to pay, it usually is not certain that he/she will
actually pay the stated amount for the goods or services in question (Shah 2002; Carson et al., 2001;
Hartwick & Olewiler, 1998).
• The CVM surveys are considered complex, time consuming and expensive to put into practice
(Carson et al., 2001). The CV surveyors need to ensure that prospective consumers understand what
they are being asked to value, how it will be provided, and how it will be paid for (Mitchell and
Carson, 1989; Whittington et al., 1990). This point should be explicitly provided to all respondents
regardless of their difference in life experience and educational background (Shah 2000; Mitchell and
Carson, 1989).
• CVM surveys are vulnerable to the warm glow effect (Shah, 2002). The warm glow effect is a form
of interviewer bias. It happens if a respondent in a CVM survey tries to please an interviewer by
agreeing to pay some amount when he or she would not do so otherwise (Carson et al., 2001).
25
• If CVM is poorly designed and implemented the survey will not give true value of non-market
goods (Krishnamurthy, 2003).
3.5.3 Reducing bias when applying CVM
Despite many allegations and criticisms over CVM application, many environmental economists argue
that CVM remain to be superior in evaluating environmental goods. Careful study design and
implementation can resolve many of the alleged problems with the CV methods (Carson et al., 2001).
FAO (2000) dare to state that “Despite of these difficulties, we (FAO) are confident that proper
application of contingent valuation can and will provide valuable information to policy-makers and
donor agencies seeking to evaluate the benefits of intervention, or the revenues associated with
investment in infrastructure”.
In order to reduce bias in CVM studies and attain its validity and reliability, the following has been
recommended to be done:
• CV method is believed to be highly flawed such that the quality of stated preference data is inferior
to observing revealed preference (Shah, 2002; FAO, 2000). This flaw can be avoided by clearly
explaining to respondents the good or service to be valued, how it will be delivered to the public, and
what are realistic expectations of payment (Carson et al., 2001).
• Making results of a CV study to be credible to policy makers and other economic practitioners,
CVM survey designers need to ensure that potential consumers understand what they are being asked
to value, how it will be provided, and how it will be paid for. For the CV respondent, this means that
the wording of the questionnaire must successfully convey the nature of the good and the context in
which it can be purchased in a way that is reasonable, understandable, and meaningful to respondents
who have widely varying life experiences and educational backgrounds (Mitchell and Carson 1989).
• Others include proper wording and pre-testing of questionnaires before actual survey as suggested
by Carson et al (1989), use random selection principle to select sample respondents, reduce number of
unrecorded questionnaires by randomly resurvey to new respondents available in random frame list and
make face-to-face interview. Carson et al (1989) suggested that face-to-face interview is very
expensive but it yields better results. According to Carson et al (1989), these mentioned attributes will
improve validity and reliability of the CVM under the particular study in question.
26
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 HOUSEHOLDS SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS In this study, the socioeconomic characteristics of the households is an important variable because of
their likely impact on the acceptance of the Payment for Watershed Environment Services (PWES)
system as well as on the sustainable management of the Kiwengwa-Pongwe (KP) forested watershed.
In the data analysis, some demographic variables have been treated based on gender and shehia (village
local authority) so as to reveal clear pictures between males and females and as well as between shehias
of Kiwengwa and Pongwe. Assumption has been made based on working experiences in the study area
that there are differences between shehias and gender on preferences and attitudes towards natural
resources conservation, which is the focal point of payment system in this study.
The survey managed to interview a total of 160 households. At the shehia of Kiwengwa with 125
respondents, 58 % were males and 42 % females while in Pongwe with 35 respondents, 51 % and 49 %
respectively were interviewed (Annex 1.36). This shows that in both shehias there are more male
headed households, meaning that females are more dependant on males and polygamy of one husband
with two wives (personal probing during interview) form the major marriage type. More than 78 % of
KPFR households are in married status (Annex 1.5)
Major group of respondents were found between the age of 26-35 years and 36-45 years old (Annex
1.3), the age group that is considered to have possibility of either conserving or destructing the KPFR
resources. On education level more than 50% of the households have basic education (Primary and
Secondary) (Figure 4.1.1). However, the most interesting findings were on households who have no
formal education. Females (23 % with no formal education) are much better in attending schools for at
least to have basic education than males (29 % with no education) (Annex 1.37). Although figures are
not big, twice as many women (9 %) as men (4%) had above basic education. This suggests that more
males are attached with livelihood activities from their young age (child labour). The survey found
many boys were doing beach jobs including beating of octopus to make them soft, fishing and canoeing
tourists during school time.
27
Figure 4.1.1:KP Households' education level
6,3%
30,0%
26,2%
11,2%
26,2%
Tertiary education
Secondary education
Primary education
Non-formal education
No education
On assessing the main occupation, results suggested that more than 50% of households are engaged in
agricultural (28 %) and fisheries activities (29 %) as first option of their basic livelihood earnings.
These sectors are mostly regarded as the traditional inherited and major occupations in Zanzibar islands
(Kombo et al., 2002). On the other hand, trading and seaweed farming emerge to be the second options
for most of Kiwengwa-Pongwe Forest Reserve (KPFR) surrounding communities accounting for 17 %
and 16 % respectively (Figure 4.1.2).
Figure 4.1.2: Households' main occupations
Main Occupations
Seaweed farmer
Teacher/Civil servan
Trader
Tourist guide
Handy-craftsman
Fishing
Subsistent farmer
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
28
This study found that over 70 % of KP households depend on the primary sector for their livelihoods.
However, there are big divisions of labour appearing between males and females and between shehias.
Table 4.1.1, indicates that Pongwe concentrates more on fishing (46 %) than Kiwengwa (25 %), while
in the agricultural sector Kiwengwa has more farmers (30 %) than Pongwe (20 %). Gender-wise, males
perform more agriculture (36 %) and fishing (43 %), while females carry out seaweed farming (35 %)
and trading (32 %) more than males in the study area.
Table 4.1.1: Distribution of Main Occupations of the Households Based on Shehia and Gender
Shehia Gender
Pongwe Kiwengwa Male Female
Main Occupations
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Subsistent farmer 7 20.0 38 30.4 33 36.3 12 17.4 Fishing 16 45.7 31 24.8 39 42.8 8 11.6 Handy-craftsman 0 0 8 6.4 6 6.6 2 2.9 Tourist guide 0 0 6 4.8 6 6.6 0 0 Trader 7 20.0 20 16.0 5 5.5 22 31.9 Teacher/Civil servants 1 2.9 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 Seaweed farmer 4 11.4 22 17.6 2 2.2 24 34.8 Total 35 100 125 100 100 100 91 69
Despite being full of many tourist hotels along the coast of Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourist Area (KPTA), it
still seems that the tourism sector has not yet brought positive and direct impact towards basic
livelihood activities of the KPFR surrounding community. As suggested by results through Figure
4.1.3, crop and fish production (49 %) are contributing major portion of income followed by small
scale trading (31 %), while tourist business (8 %), hotel employee (1 %) and civil servants (1 %)
account for the lowest part as source of income for KPFR community.
29
Figure 4.1.3: Major sources of income
of the KPFR community
Major sources of income
Selling forest produ
Civil servant
Tourist Business
Hotel employee
Small scale trading
Crop and fish produc
Per
cent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
The situation is worse in Pongwe where the study did not find any respondent dealing with tourist
business or as hotel employee (Table 4.1.2). This finding went concurrent with complaints from
Pongwe that tourist brought poverty instead of alleviating it. To support their arguments, they said
prices went higher after having tourist hotels in the shehia with no significant improvement of their
income, because they are still depending on their traditional low income activities and no employment
from these hotels. They claimed that employment is taken by foreigners, mostly from Kenya, Uganda
and Tanzania mainland.
Looking on sale of forest products as the major source of income, no one responded to sell forest
products as the major source of income at shehia of Pongwe. However, this can not be the case;
because during survey we found heaps of forest products (fuel wood) at Pongwe waiting for customers
from town. We assume that they did not want to reveal the truth since they know the researcher as one
among the forest officers. At Kiwengwa the story is different, 14 % of respondents interviewed (12 %
males and 9 % females) proved to be involved in selling forest products as their major source of
income (Table 4.1.2).
30
Table 4.1.2: Major Source of Income Divided by Shehia and Gender
Shehia Gender
Pongwe Kiwengwa Male Female
Major source of income
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Crop and fish production 25 71.4 53 42.4 59 64.8 19 27.5 Small scale trading 9 25.7 40 32.0 13 14.3 36 52.2 Hotel employee 0 0 2 1.6 2 2.2 0 0 Tourist Business 0 0 12 9.6 6 6.6 6 8.7 Civil servant 1 2.9 1 0.8 0 0 2 2.9 Selling forest products 0 0 17 13.6 11 12.1 6 8.7 Total 35 100 125 100 100 100 91 69
Majority of the households (74 %) earn more than one million Tanzania Shillings (TZ Shs) which is
approximately 794 US$ per annum (Figure 4.1.4). This suggests that KP community earn on average 2
dollars per day at household level. However, based on world poverty index, they are living below
poverty line because each family (household) contains about 3 to 5 individuals and thus earn less than a
dollar per day per capita. Moreover, respondents face problems over their stated total income in terms
of unsustainability of earnings including job insecurity. Total income earning is not being concurrent
with real life expenses in the study area, which was also mentioned to contribute towards the forest
destruction.
Figure 4.1.4: Households' Total Income
per year in Tanzania Shillings
74,4%
13,8%
3,8%
8,1%
> 1,000,000
500,000 to 1,000,000
100,000 to 500,000
< 100,000
31
Of the 74 % of respondents who earn more than 1,000,000 TZ Shs; results show that 78 % are women
and 71% are men (Table 4.13). The major reason for this unusual difference is based on the nature of
their major occupations. Females’ major occupations are business oriented which includes petty trades
like selling of food at the market places in the beach, selling of sea shells, mats (rugs) and other sea
products to tourists. Another females’ occupation is seaweeds farming which also fetches high earnings
and is secured by having permanent market by specific seaweeds companies (see Plates 1 to 4).
Table 4.1.3: Total Income of Respondents per Year in Tanzania Shillings* According to Gender
and Shehia
Shehia Gender
Pongwe Kiwengwa Male Female Freq % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % < 100,000 6 17.1 7 5.6 6 6.6 7 10.1 100,000 to 500,000 3 8.6 3 2.4 4 4.4 2 2.9 500,000 to 1,000,000 3 8.6 19 15.2 16 17.6 6 8.7
Total income per year in Tanzania Shillings
>1,000,000 23 65.7 96 76.8 65 71.4 54 78.3 Totals 35 100 125 100 100 100 91 69
*1 US $ = 1152 (Based on Bank of Tanzania 26thNovember 2007)
Plate 4.1: View of low tide sea of KP beach which is suitable Plate 4.2: Sea shells for sell along KP beach which mostly done site for seaweeds farming (Source: Field Data, 2007). by women and youth (Source: Ocean Paradise Hotel, 2007)
32
Plate 4.3: Women harvesting seaweeds at KP beach Plate 4.4: Seaweeds drying at KP beach prepared for sell (Source: Ocean Paradise Hotel, 2007). (Source: Ocean Paradise Hotel, 2007).
4.2 EXISTING POTENTIALS AND CHALLENGES AROUND KPFR
4.2.1 Existing Potentials for the Execution of PWES System at KPFR
The study found there are some potentials existing in the study area that can be taken as prospective
opportunities for the establishment of a PWES system, if they are effectively facilitated. These
potentials are:
• Awareness of the stakeholders towards environmental conservation around KPFR
There is a widespread awareness concerning the conservation activities towards protection of natural
resources in KPFR. About 65% of the community are aware of and willing to participate in
environmental conservation through tree planting (44 %), protection of natural forests and wild animals
in their natural habitat (31 %), helping Department of Commercial Crops, Fruits and Forestry (DCCFF)
in fighting forest fires during the incident and 11 % of respondents are participating in awareness
campaigns to provide environmental education in the village aimed at reducing forest destruction
(Annex 1.32).
In contrast, 58 % of hoteliers are unacquainted about conservation activities around the forest reserve
while 42 % are responsive towards conservation of forest resources in the area (Annex 2.22). These
include participating in tree planting operations in the villages and their vicinity (50%) and funding
33
conservation activities around KPFR like collection of plastic bags, which litter the village
surroundings and Kiwengwa-Pongwe beach (Annex 2.25). KP community perceive that collection of
plastic bags and other debris, either from their neighbourhood or within the KP jungle where some
hotels dump them, is conservation activity. Based on this finding, may be hoteliers are more interested
in collecting plastic bags on the beach than in the forest.
These results suggest that KPFR community has embarked on environmental conservation and are
willing to perform the joint venture conservation programme such as PWES system if they can be
properly facilitated. Furthermore for hoteliers, the act of funding conservation activities like cleaning
and upkeep of good environment in surrounding villages is a green light to show that they are
conscious towards conservation of biodiversity in KPFR. If KPTA hoteliers and local communities can
be organized to work together in a holistic way it can be easy to solve existing problems around KPFR.
It has seen that more strategies are needed in disseminating of information about conservation
programmes and effective involvement of other stakeholders in the conservation activities. Even when
you look why both community and hoteliers are not participating in the conservation activities around
KPFR, you can easily realise that potential exists for them to participate since their reason behind was
just lack of involvement (95 %) and perverse information (4 %) about conservation programmes (Table
4.2.1).
Table 4.2.1: Reasons for Not Participate in Conservation Program between Community and
Hoteliers
KP communities KPTA Hoteliers Reasons for not participate in conservation programmes
Freq. % Freq. % I was not involved/invited 52 94.5 6 100
2 3.6 - - No environmental conservation knowledge provided 1 1.8 - - Too much involved in personal activities
Total 55 100.0 6 100 • KP communities run through some reward payments based on wildlife conservation
The study found that the KP community has gone through some compensation system. 63 % of the
community has experienced compensation system in a reward like which was aimed at conserving
endemic species of ader’s duiker (Cephalophus adersii) in the KPFR (Annex 1.21). Consecutively, the
34
study found that 90 % of the respondents believe that their local institutions like Village Development
Committees (VDCs) and Village Conservation Committees (VCCs) have ability to be an intermediary
agent on behalf of the KPFR community in collecting and distribution of compensations (Annex 1.24).
Nevertheless, we can not ignore 10 % of the households who feel that their local institutions have not
enough knowledge and capacity to be an intermediary agent of the PWES. They advised that their local
institutions should be given trainings on administration and financial management. Furthermore, they
argued that, experienced institutions like DCCFF and NGOs around KPFR should play their role in
helping KPFR communities to build their capacity (Annex 1.25).
Table 4.2.2: Experience of the Community on Compensation Based System
Kiwengwa Pongwe Kiwengwa PongweExperience on compensation system Freq. % Freq %
Authority and item compensated Freq. % Freq. %
Yes 101 80.8 0 0.0 Ader’s duiker 99 98.02 - -No 24 19.2 35 100 District authority 1 0.99 - -Total 125 100 35 100 VCCs 1 0.99 - -
Total 101 100 -- • Presence of potential components for establishment PWES at KPFR
Potential parts of the PWES system that make its execution to be possible are readily available at
KPFR. Potential buyer of the water resources (hoteliers), seller (ZAWA) and clean and abundant water
resources at KPFR are in place. The strong need of water services from hoteliers and revenue collection
demand from ZAWA make the market to work efficiently. Moreover, the community has strong
relationship with DCCFF and hoteliers thus make it easy to advocate ZAWA to have the joint board in
the management of KPFR including watershed areas. Having in place the KPFR management team
responsible for sustainable management of the KPFR resources including watershed areas and the
proposed Zanzibar Water Resources Management Board (ZWRMB) suggested by ZAWA can be a
good foundation for mutual understanding between stakeholders working around KPFR.
• Critical arguments for the need of sustainable management of KPFR
Emerging needs of sustainable management of KPFR among stakeholders has been a motive towards
creating effective measures against deterioration of the resources. Hoteliers recognize the need of
effective conservation measures to rescue watershed areas for the sustainability of tourist business. As
shown in Annexes 1.27 and 1.28, the level of water has a tendency of declining, hoteliers claimed for
35
support to make what it called sustainable management of water resources for permanent supply of
water service and this is what other stakeholders requested.
4.2.2 Existing Challenges Facing KPFR
Wherever there are prospective opportunities, occurrence of challenges are inevitable. The following
are some challenges found in KPFR that need strategic plan to remove or reduce them before
implementation of the PWES system:
• Declining of water level and quality in KPFR caves
According to results, 67 % of hoteliers have indicated to experience declining water level from the
KPFR caves (Annex 1.27) and during discussion with ZAWA officials, they pointed out that there is
seasonal rise of salinity level because of over exploitations. However, no actions have been taken by
either hoteliers or ZAWA to improve the situation. According to hoteliers when that problem arises
they buy water from other sources. ZAWA being passive in making follow-up and evaluations make
this issue too challenging such that it needs collective efforts to know what the basic grounds for the
different emerged problems in the watershed are, otherwise the whole dream of sustainable resources
will be jeopardized.
• Enormous cutting of forest resources within KPFR
Cutting of forest resources for domestic as well as for business purposes has been mentioned as the
most challenging matter facing the management of KPFR. Lime making, fuel wood and building poles
for commercial purposes are the main products that are harvested. Also, the study found that shifting
cultivation, which is one of the traditional agricultural practices in Zanzibar, has been used as the
ground for cutting trees and leave many patches in the forest that takes several years to recover to their
original state (Plate 5).
36
Plate 4.5: Temporary shelters under shifting cultivation and the patch left after cutting dense natural forest at KPFR (Source: Field Data)
KPFR being the only natural forest in the north part of Unguja Island has been invaded by many people
from far as well as nearby villages. Different efforts have been made by DCCFF to stop the progress of
forest destruction which include provision of environmental education through VCCs and employ
forest guards from Kiwengwa-Pongwe community. But this has showed little success. Yet,
communities have always been complaining about destruction made by the SMZ armed forces at KPFR
(SMZ - Serikali ya Mapinduzi Zanzibar, i.e. forces under the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar).
According to the KP communities and DCCFF officials, SMZ forces become a problem in halting
destruction because they cut massive fuelwoods for cooking in their camps. Sometime they fright forest
guards if they try to stop them, hence leave bad case in point for surrounding villages and the Kiwenga-
Pongwe community.
• Lack of proper coordination between sectors working in KPFR
The study reveals that there is lack of coordination and organization for sectors working at KPFR. The
forest comprises of caves, water resources, and wildlife including bees kept in hives, others are forest
resources which include medicinal herbs, stones and many more. With these few items, the study found
that department of antiquities (dealing with caves and historical materials), ZAWA (caves and water
resources), department of tourism (ecotourism including caves and the scenery of the KPFR), DCCFF
(forest resources and wildlife), herbalists (forest resources), stone crushers, hoteliers and the KP
community are working around KPFR.
However, it is difficult for one sector to find out what on other sector plans to do to the same resource
until problems arise. According to the discussion made with DCCFF officials, KP-village conservation
committees and KP village leaders, they claimed not to know anything about conditions and local or
37
legal arrangement made governing the uses of water resources. According to ZAWA, they have set
conditions governing abstraction of water that stipulate terms and conditions to be used in pumping
water including not exceeding the amount as per agreement. Legal arrangement has been made by
signing the contract for abstraction and use of water resources at KPFR watershed between ZAWA and
hoteliers (see the copy of contract in Annex 4). Nevertheless, DCCFF complains that hotels workers
who are safeguarding machines and pumps around KPFR caves cause destruction of forests including
crushing of stones for making course aggregates and sell for construction purposes, and cutting of trees
for fuel wood.
• Lack of sensitivity for benefit sharing mechanism among stakeholders
Lack of awareness, efficient benefit-sharing (workable) mechanism, appropriate plan, guidelines and
regulations governing the exercise in place is one of the challenges as suggested by DCCFF officials.
Some stakeholders are not yet having the perception of benefit sharing mechanism towards the
sustainable management of natural resources, thus oblige them to work in isolation for the same
resource. During the discussion with ZAWA officials, some noted that there is no point involving the
community in the management of the KP watershed resources.
Moreover, some of these ZAWA members do not recognize community as one of the stakeholders of
KPFR water resources and claims that the resource is owned by government alone. ZAWA do not
believe that benefit sharing mechanism system like PWES can work and all expected beneficiaries can
be satisfied with the products of the system. This existing ambiguity made the local community become
uncertain and suspicious about trusting products of the system unless awareness is raised before
implementation of PWES. On the other hand, the KP community complained that, despite of
supporting the protection of KPFR resources, no tangible benefits have been appropriated to reduce
their level of poverty (Focus group discussion).
• Conflict of interest among stakeholders at KPFR resources
It was shown that there is a conflict of interest between stakeholders in holding and use of the KPFR
resources. This problem has widened the gap of collaboration among KPFR stakeholders, thus creating
isolated complainant groups. According to the discussion with DCCFF staffs, VCCs and village
leaders, they believe that the DCCFF and the community are responsible managers of the Kiwengwa-
Pongwe (KP) watershed resources under the existing Joint Forest Management (JFM) where hoteliers
and KP community are the main users. In contrast, ZAWA officials see that the management of the KP
38
watershed resources including the surrounding trees, caves and water resources is under their
jurisdiction.
• Occurrence of theft associated with investors’ water pumps and machines
Hoteliers complained that they are facing great problem with persistent occurrences of theft of their
machines and pumps installed outside water caves (Plate 5). They proposed that it will be better for
ZAWA to be responsible for installations of pumps, pipelines and other necessary equipments and
include them as an additional fee in their water bills.
• Dumping of solid waste and forest fire incidences
There is a great problem for hoteliers to dump their solid waste anywhere inside the KPFR. Some of
these wastes are plastics, glasses and cosmetic bottles which contain chemicals that are harmful and
very destructive to wild life and other biodiversity in the reserve. Incidence of fires in the forest also is
a big challenge to the management of the forest.
4.3 WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT COMPENSATION (WTA)
To know if the KP communities and other stakeholders could or could not accept the compensation, for
giving up environmental good by refraining themselves (KP communities) from further use of KP
forest resources in a bad manner as defined on the following sub-section 4.3.1, the survey used the
contingent valuation principles to interview respondents. The following are results from respondents
accordingly:
4.3.1 Responses of WTA from Community
About 91 % of the respondents have accepted compensation from hoteliers for provision of
environmental services (Annex 1.14). In this case they should stop using KPFR in bad manner in order
to protect and conserve it for the sustainable provision of good quality and quantity water resources.
According to KPFR community, these bad manners uses of KPFR are cutting of green wood, cutting of
any forest products for business, stone extraction and lime making, and any activities that are likely to
cause destruction of watershed forest in KPFR (Annex 1.13). However, 9 % refused to accept the
compensation (Annex 1.14). Main reason for refusal of the compensation is that the proposed PWES
will not help them rather than increase the life burden because it would be too low to compensate for
what they sacrifice (annex 1.15).
39
A total of 89 % of the respondents make their choices into different bids intervals (table 4.3.1). Half of
the respondents (48 %) put their choice between 1 and 5 US$ to accept compensation for provision of
environment services for every barrel of water used by hoteliers (1 barrel = 200 litres). However, 20 %
of the respondents put their offer into highest level i.e. more than 20 US$ and thus push up the
expected minimum willingness to accept the compensation (Table 4.3.1).
Table 4.3.1: Response of WTA by Community for Compensation to Maintain and Manage
KPFR per 200 lts used by Hoteliers
Interval WTA bids (US $) Mid-point
(US $)
Response
% of respondents put
bids out total respondents
% of respondents
accepted WTA
Distribution of respondents
accepted WTA
1-5 3 68 42.5 47.55 68.9475 6-10 8 24 15.0 16.78 24.331 11-15 13 9 5.6 6.30 9.135 16-20 18 13 8.1 9.10 13.195 > 20 23* 29 18.1 20.27 29.3915 I don’t know - 2 - - No response - 15 - -
Total 160 89.3 100 145 *For the sake of this analysis, the mid point for Interval WTA bids of >20 is assumed to be 23, and those showed I don’t know and No response considered being missing values.
As stipulated in the methodology section, the mean WTA will be regarded as the minimum amount that
KP community would be willing to accept as compensation. Results show that the mean WTA is 9.8
US$ per every barrel (200 lts) used by hoteliers (table 4.3.2). This is much more than what hoteliers
proposed to pay to the KP community. Results shows that KP community were too ambitious when
putting higher bids because even ZAWA who collect water fees as government revenue collector, has
not reached 9.8/200lts.
Based on table 4.4.2, ZAWA are paid by hoteliers at an average rate of 1US$ per every 131 litres of
water which is approximately 1.5 US $ per barrel. Besides being ambitious this result of WTA is not
strange in environmental evaluation studies. Prato (1998) suggested that inequality between WTP and
WTA is not surprising; empirical estimates of WTA for compensation are generally higher than
estimates of WTP. Hammach and Brown (1974) in their study found that WTA for compensation was
over four times greater than WTP for changes in waterfowl (birds) benefits. In CVM studies done in
40
Heredia, Costa Rica, and Jesús de Otoro, Honduras, the estimated willingness to pay were different to
what the tariffs were set by regulatory bodies (Kiersch et al., 2005). He further suggested that, this may
be due to several reasons, including possible discrepancies between actual ability and stated willingness
to pay of households; difficulties to guarantee the promised service levels that are linked to the stated
higher willingness to pay; and political reasons, as it is currently unpopular in Latin America for
municipal governments to raise water tariffs.
Considering the normal distribution, the standard deviation of 4.3 and coefficient variation of 43.6%,
shows fair variability between bids chosen by respondents from the true mean (Table 4.3.2). The
estimated mean WTA differ from the true (expected) mean of the normal distribution by at least half
way (43.6%).
Table 4.3.2: Mean, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation for WTA by KP Community
as Compensation from KPTA Hotels
Number of Respondents (N)
% Mean WTA for compensation/unit (200lts of water)
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation
145 90.6 9.8 4.3 43.6%
About 91 % of the respondents believe that PWES will help the KPFR community to solve their
socioeconomic problems by creating a good tourist environment which will consecutively attract more
investors and tourists and improve their socio-economic status (Table 4.3.3). Also, they have many
expectations that PWES will provide credit for small business projects and maintain public goods like
schools. However, 9 % of the households predict negative impacts in the presence of PWES.
Table 4.3.3: Responses, on How PWES can help the KPFR Community to Solve Socio-Economic
Problems
Responses if PWES can help to solve problems
Freq. % Response on how PWES can solve the problem
Freq. %
Yes 146 91.2 Create good tourist environment and improve economy 77 48.1
No 14 8.8 Provide credits for small business projects 54 33.8
- - Maintain public goods like schools 16 10.0 - - I don’t know 13 8.1 Total 160 100.0 - 160 100
41
On other hand, 45% of the respondents thought that PWES will not solve their problems, suggested that
PWES will not give enough money to compensate people so that they can stop cutting the forest (Table
4.3.4). Others (31 %) said that PWES system will reduce accessibility to forest resources including
local medicines and building poles, which they now get free of charge. Moreover, 10% responded that
PWES will increase problems of land availability for farming and livestock, which they considered as
the backbone of their life.
At least some respondents (1 %) thought about outsiders on this PWES system, according to them if
PWES is established they can not see a chance for outsiders, which mostly come from Mkwajuni,
Chaani, Upenja, Gamba and other areas for collection of forest products, to benefit from anything in
the system, which is not fair. All these arguments need much consideration from planning phase up to
implementation of the PWES system in order to make the system work properly.
Table 4.3.4: Predicted Negative Impact of PWES for Future Socio-Economic and Livelihood of
the Community Responses, if PWES will cause negative impact
Freq. % Predicted negative impacts Freq. %
Yes 134 83.8 Reduce accessibility to forest resource 49 30.6 No 26 16.3 Increase problems of land scarcity for
farming and livestock 16 10.0
- - Not enough money to compensate the community 72 45.0
- - Other people outside KPFR area wont benefit with PWES 2 1.3
I don’t know 21 13.1 Total 160 100.0 - 160 100
42
Plate 4 6: KP Forest guard show machine and pumps’ Plate 4.7: Showing the mwanampaji water cave houses outside Mwanampaji water cave. (Source: Field Data, 2007) (Source: Field Data, 2007)
4.4 WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WATER COMPENSATION
For the PWES system to work, we need to know if Kiwengwa-Pongwe Tourist Area (KPTA) hotels are
willing to pay additional fees as compensation to the environmental service provider particularly KP
communities, for the improved services they give through protection of watershed areas and caves and
stop more destruction which ultimately will improve water services (quality and quantity).
4.4.1 Sources and amount of water used by hoteliers along the KPTA
A total of 14 hotels are found along the KPTA, however, the study managed to make interviews with
12 hoteliers where two claimed to be busy and refused to respond during the whole period of field
survey. From the empirical data we found that 42 % of the hotels are 5 stars status and 25% and 17 %
are in four stars and three stars respectively, while the 17 % have no such status (Annex 2.1).
Results show that 92 % of hotels are pumping water direct from the KPFR grounds (Table 4.4.1), and
they have capacity of pumping about 1500 cubic metre of water per month (Table 4.4.2), and thus
make a total of 18000 cubic metre per year. Some hotels have drilled wells close to their premises (8
%) and others extract directly from the caves, which are found inside the reserve with average distance
between 300m and 2000m from hotels’ zone (Annex 2.11). Some of the hotels do not know the exact
amount of water they are using on a regular basis that is why sometimes it was difficult to get response
from hoteliers about the amount of water they are using per day. Hotels are not keeping records of
water, most likely because they are paying water fees to Zanzibar Water Authority (ZAWA) per period
43
of time and not per unit of water they used. The following figures are based on rough estimates (based
on hoteliers’ suggestions and known pump capacity) about the amount water used per day, therefore
can not guarantee the accuracy2.
Table 4.4.1 Sources and Amount of Water used by Hotel per day
Sources Freq. % Amount of water used by hotels per day
Freq. %
Extract direct from KPFR grounds
11
91.7
100-500 lts
3 25.0
Ferry from other sources outside KPFR
1
8.3
501-1000 lts
2 16.7
Total 12 100 1001-5000 lts 1 8.3 >5000 lts 4 33.3
I don’t know 2 16.7 Total 12 100.0
Hotels are paying for water services to ZAWA at different rates per period of time depending on the
decision of ZAWA to supply water bills. Hoteliers said that sometimes they receive a bill after 3
months otherwise after 6 months. The study discovered that 78 % of hotels are paying water fees to
ZAWA for more than 900 US$ per month. About 11 % of hoteliers pay between 700 US$ and 799 US$
while another 11 % pay at a rate of 800 US$ to 899 US$ per month (Annex 2.14). Results show that in
totality hoteliers are paying about 12,000 US$ per month or 140,000 US$ per year (Table 4.4.2). With
this statistics, hoteliers pay ZAWA with an average rate of 1 US$ per every 131 litres of water which is
about 1.5 US $ per barrel (1barrel = 200 litres).
2 If the time and resources permitted, I could use indirect method of estimating amount of water used per day per hotel
based on hotel statistics and observation. This include, number of tourists and rooms, number and size of gardens and
estimate of all registered uses of water in each hotel such as cooking, swimming pools, laundry and the like.
.
44
Table 4.4.2: Amount of Water in Litres Pumped Directly from KPFR Grounds by 91.7% of the
Hotels and Amount Water Fees (US$) Paid to ZAWA
Mid point amount of water used/day
Distribution of hotels
extracting water
Total litres of water litres per month
Mid point of water fees paid per month
Distribution of fees paid
by hotels
Total water fees paid by hotels/month
300.0 3.2095 28,885.5 749.5 1.4263018 1,069.01 750.5 3.2095 72,261.9 849.5 1.4263018 1,211.64 7500.0 6.419 1,444,275.0 949.5 9.9853964 9,481.13 Total 12.838 1,545,422.4 Total 12.838 11,761.78
4.4.2 WTP from Hoteliers Results show that 75% of the KPTA hotels are willing to pay an additional fee (payment vehicle) as
compensation to KPFR community in return for sustainable management of KPFR watershed and
improved water quality and quantity in light of dwindling biodiversity (Figure 4.4.1). However, 17 %
refused to offer contributions saying that they already pay too much money to ZAWA and also provide
water services free of charge to communities living around KPFR. By supplying water pipes from
hotels to nearby villages, hoteliers feel that they are already contributing more than a fair share.
Another 8 % of hoteliers are undecided and proposed that they need more time until there is a common
understating about PWES system between all stakeholders including hoteliers, ZAWA, DCCFF and the
KPFR community itself (Annex 2.18).
Figure 4.4.1: Maximum WTP by
KPTA hoteliers
Responses of WTP from hoteliers
I dont know yetNoYes
Perce
nt
80
60
40
20
0
45
4.4.3 Distribution of WTP bids by KPTA Hotels
Results show that 44 % of hoteliers put their offer at range between 400 US$ and 499 US$ per month
as compensation (Figure 4.42). About 22 % of hoteliers claim to contribute between 300 US$ and 399
US$ while 33 % decided to offer between 200 US$ and 299 US$ per month (Figure 4.4.2).
Figure 4.4.2: Distribution of WTP Bids
by KPTA Hoteliers
Bids Distribution
600-699 USDollars pe
500-599 USDollars pe
400-499 USDollars pe
300-399 USdollars pe
200-299 USDollars pe
Perc
ent
50
40
30
20
10
0
The mean WTP is 438.4 US$ per month and hoteliers will be ready to contribute a total of about 4,600
US$ per month (Table 4.4.3). About 1300 cubic metre of water per month will be used by at least 11
hotels (75 %), that accepted WTP and thus make the KP community to receive 1 US$ per every 275
litres of water consumed by hoteliers.
Table 4.4.3: Mean, Total, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation of WTP by KPTA
Hotels as Compensation to KPFR Communities
Number of hotels WTP (N)
% Mean WTP (US$/month)
Max Total WTP(US$/month)
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation
10.5 75 438.4 4,603.2 41.5 9.5%
46
Consecutively, this results show that the WTP amount is much less than what KP community set to
accept, which is about 9.8 US$ per barrel. However, this is not extraordinary when you consider the
normal divergence between WTP and WTA. Empirical research in Contingent Valuation Method
(CVM) has shown that stated WTP for the environmental services valuations are consistently
considerably less than WTA for compensation valuations for reasons which may have more to do with
people’s psychology than economics principles (Pugh, 1996).
4.5 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PAYMENT MODALITY IN COLLECTING AND
DISTRIBUTING COMPENSATION PAID TO THE KP COMMUNITIES
4.5.1 Mode of payment to collect compensation
Both hoteliers (57 %) and the KPFR community (95 %) have given high priority in choosing cash as
the mode of payment to be used in collecting compensation of water service (Table 4.5.1). In the
collection of compensation, the village development committee (VDCs) has been given higher rank by
the KPFR community (41 %) followed by the DCCFF (39 %) (Annex 1.18). The community seems to
trust VDC because they are free to impose their views and critics whenever they found something went
wrong or someone goes out of their wants and constitution. According to the Focus Group discussions,
another important positive attribute is that VDCs are non-political groups and are not influenced by
politicians, compared to DCCFF, VCCs and Village Local Authority (VLAs).
Table 4.5.1: Distribution of Mode of Payment to be used in Collecting Compensation as per
KPTA Hoteliers and KP Communities
KPTA Hoteliers KP Communities Payment mode for compensation Freq. % Freq. % Cash as per consumption 5 55.6 137 94.5 Advance payment 1 11.1 8 5.5 Cheque after consumption 1 11.1 - - Fixed mode agreed by all 2 22.2 - - Total 9 100 100 145
In contrast, hoteliers have suggested that DCCFF (44 %) should act as an intermediary agent collecting
the compensations from hoteliers and handing them to the community (Annex 2.20). Based on
successes achieved at Jozani National Park, hoteliers believe that DCCFF has experience to lead the
47
PWES system during its establishment. About 44 % of the hoteliers advised that VDC and ZAWA
should do the job since they are directly engaged with water services matters.
4.5.2 Proposed Payment Routine for Collection of Compensation
From Table 4.5.2, the KP community suggested that payment for the compensation should be done on
a monthly basis (93 %) while their local leaders and DCCFF (Focus group discussion) as well as KPTA
hoteliers (45 %) proposed that payment should be done after every six month to have big
accumulations (Table 4.5.2).
Table 4.5.2: Proposed Payment Routine and Distributions of the Compensation Paid to the
Community
KPTA Hoteliers KP Communities Routine Freq. % Freq. %
Monthly basis - - 135 93.1 3 months basis 2 22.2 4 2.7 6 months basis 4 44.5 3 2.1 Annual basis 3 33.3 3 2.1 Total 9 100 100 145
It seems that people want to make more investments and business oriented activities for their basic
livelihood needs. Results in figure 4.5.1 reveal that 47 % of the respondents proposed that
compensation should be given to the community to establish savings and credits cooperatives
(SACCOS). According to respondents, the saving and credit schemes usually engage a maximum of 5
people per group which then can take loans individually. Another 37 % made a shortcut to opt for
direct individual loan schemes, but what they meant is related to what the first group meant. Last group
(17 %) responded that money should be kept by selected committee (in this case is VDCs) and allocate
uses according to the needs or whenever common needs arise in the villages.
48
Figure 4.5.1: Proposed Uses of the
Compensation by Communities
36,6%
16,6%
46,9%
Provision of Loans
Be kept by VDCs
Establish SACCOS
4.5.3 Institutional Framework of PWES System at KPFR Based on the discussion made with ZAWA and DCCFF officials, they suggested that an institutional
framework of proposed PWES system should involve all core stakeholders that are responsible in one
way or another for the management of resources in the KPFR. According to the findings, ZAWA,
DCCFF, KP community, KPTA hotels and local NGOs around KPFR are basic stakeholders that will
be responsible for the sustainable management of KP watershed areas and safeguarding biodiversity in
the forests.
A local NGO will act as moderator and evaluator to ensure the smooth running of PWES system as
agreed by all concerned stakeholders. During field survey and in focus group discussions, hoteliers and
KP community respectively have suggested that a local NGO should be formed by members from
around KP including private investors like hoteliers and communities.
Furthermore, ZAWA urged that other stakeholders that are likely to be associated or can give support
to the KPFR management board during the implementation of the PWES programme should play a part
in the planning phase and inform about the achievement of the programme through progressive reports,
49
meetings and workshops. These other stakeholders are departments of environment, antiquities,
livestock, police and district commissioners’ office. However, according to respondents, these other
mentioned stakeholders are not supposed to be members of the KPFR management board rather than
allowed to give their contributions and suggestions whenever problems arise.
4.6 SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDINGS • The study discovered that there are considerable amount of opportunities existing around KPFR
that can be explored to establish PWES system under the KP management board. Apart from having
the widespread awareness among stakeholders using resources at KPFR, there are also necessary
elements for successful establishment of PWES system, including seller ( ZAWA and KP community),
buyers (KPTA hoteliers), intermediary agent (KPFR management board composed members from
ZAWA, DCCFF and KP community) and environmental service is improved water provision in terms
of quality and quantity. We have seen that challenges existing around KPFR are due to poor
management of KPFR, which can be easily controlled under effective and holistic management
approach as proposed earlier in this document.
• Evidence shows us that PWES system is accepted around KPFR by all concerned stakeholders,
including hoteliers (WTP is 75 %) and KP community (WTA is 91%). However, there is little
relationship between hoteliers’ WTP amount (about 1 US$ per barrel) claimed to be paid as
compensation to KP communities and WTA amount (10 US$ per barrel) accepted by the latter as
compensation from the former, which gives a gap of 9 US $ per barrel. Despite of above divergence,
this issue is negotiable and consensus can be reached without causing harm to anyone. Rather than
treating these amounts as definite, they should preferably be seen as preliminary position in a
bargaining process. As referenced earlier in this document, different CVM studies showed to give
much discrepancy between WTA and WTP values. Therefore one of the duties of the KPFR
management board is launch a dialogue between KPTA hotels and KP communities, about the average
amount to be used as compensation in the system.
• The most important challenge that may face the proposed PWES system in the study area is the
violation of PWES agreements and possible unaccountability of some stakeholders during its
implementation. If some local communities breach the stipulated agreements by using the forest in bad
50
manners (free-riders) while they are receiving compensation from hoteliers, there is a danger that
hoteliers cease contributing payments and, eventually the whole project could be at risk. On the other
hand, if it happens that hoteliers fail to fulfil their promise of compensating the local communities,
there is a risk of local communities to go and use the forest badly because they lose trust from other
stakeholders and the PWES system in general.
This would be less of a problem if only people from one village were involved. Sense of community,
solidarity and social control is often strong in rural villages in Africa. The people involved in the KPFR
scheme, however, reside in 15 villages and it can be assumed that inter-village solidarity will be weaker
than intra-village solidarity. The risk of free-riding, it increases with size of organization. The proposed
solution is the creation of a registered NGO, made up of representatives from the communities, the
hotels and, perhaps, public authorities to manage daily activities, monitor program implementation, use
of forest and water, and recurring evaluation of the PWES. A local NGO can help to guarantee the
solidarity of the local communities in up-keep the PWES agreements, so it is important for the
management board to work close with the NGO in order to improve transparency and efficiency.
• A majority of the local communities have proposed that the compensation should be used to
establish saving and credits cooperatives (SACCOs) and loan schemes to improve individuals’
livelihood status. Others advised that VDC, on behalf of the local communities, should hold the
compensation for further considerations and allocate funds according to the needs or whenever
common needs arise in the villages. Despite that the major concern of the local communities is to
improve the livelihoods of individuals members, I can concur with them that the implementation of the
above proposal should be done only after all concerned stakeholders are satisfied that local
communities have received compensation enough to establish SACCOS and loan schemes.
I can not ignore the fact of their decision that meant to improve individual economic activities knowing
that they are loosing free access to forest resources. However, implementation of this proposal needs
more attentive strategies and decision to avoid problems that can jeopardize the whole concept of
sustainable development of their livelihoods and conservation status of the KPFR. One such question
concerns the allocation of compensation money to different villages and, possibly to different
SACCOs. Another concern which criteria will be used to select succeeded recipients from among local
communities? Unless fund management and distribution is made transparently and with protocols,
51
book-keeping etc. accessible to all members, it is likely that corruption and nepotism may arise and
cause irreversible problems.
• From the survey, results revealed that there is an urgent need to establish collective KPFR
management board that comprises members from DCCFF, ZAWA, and KP communities. According to
results, this board should be responsible for the management of KPFR including watersheds and caves
areas as well as being an intermediary agent to collect compensation from hoteliers and handle them to
KP communities on a six month basis. Local NGO should be a watchdog under this system. Before
implementation of PWES, the board should ensure that all necessary implements have to be installed to
improve efficient of the work and control amount of water abstractions. These include pipelines, water
measuring metres, pumps and provision of security in the water caves as well as re-allocation of hotels
to water caves based on capacity of the cave to provide water and hotel water demands.
More than 80 % of local communities claimed that the compensation distributions should be done in a
manner that it makes positive impact directly to their livelihood sources of income on a more or less
individual basis. On the other hand, DCCFF, ZAWA and local authority leaders advised that this is not
the right time to distribute compensation on an individual basis because in the first place there will not
be enough money in the early stages of the program and in the second place improving public services
like schools and dispensaries will have a positive impact on individuals, though it takes time.
Therefore, based on the whole study findings review and observations made from the real situation of
the study area, there is a purposive need to concentrate more on collective benefits for the whole
communities first rather than in individual basis. This will build capacity of the majority including
women and later can allow for everyone to play his/her role towards achieving individual development.
52
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
• This is the precise time for the establishment of PWES system as an important component within an
overall plan for the sustainable management of KPFR under the KPFR management board. Based on
this study, positive signs have been given to initiate negotiation between concerned stakeholders. Since
Zanzibar Water Resources Management Board (ZWRMB) under ZAWA is in the pipeline and DCCFF
already has a KPFR management team, it will be very helpful to make the first move towards
organization of a PWES system. During initiation and negotiation of the PWES system, it is necessary
to involve all stakeholders including KP community in order to get constructive contributions and
avoid unnecessary problems that might happen.
• It is worthwhile to establish a local NGO, as was suggested also by both the KP community and
KPTA hotels. Through this NGO, it can be easy for KP community to be acquainted about existing
loan brokers and projects to improve their livelihoods. Moreover, an NGO that is based on KP
community members can be able to provide education on entrepreneurship skills especially related to
tourist, fisheries, livestock and modern and effective agriculture projects. The same NGO can act as
moderator and local evaluator of the implementation of this conservation program and be used as link
between community and investors around KPFR.
• To be effective in the protection of KPFR, we have to be realistic and transparent in preventing
illegal cutting and forest destruction in general. Harvesting of natural forest by Special Forces of SMZ
using power sources is bringing huge negative impact not only to welfare of KPFR biodiversity but
also show bad example to other illegal cutters. This is to tell and influence those woodcutters that
KPFR has no effective mechanism to stop cutting the forest. These forces as government agents were
supposed to be leaders in protecting national natural resources for the current and future generations.
However, DCCFF as government institution should bear blames for failing to prevent Special Forces
from destructing the forest knowing that this can create a loophole for other culprits to do the same.
The point made is for KPFR management team to be legally and physically effective in performing its
duties of protecting natural resources.
• Awareness raising and dissemination of information and knowledge is urgently needed to different
sectors working in the reserve. It is advised that within the management team performing duties at
KPFR must have a section dealing with educating and reminding stakeholders, specifically KP
53
community, on the general plan towards conservation of resources and elicit impacts resulted from
cutting trees, lime making, stone digging and forest fires. On the other hand, hoteliers should be
educated not to dump solid waste in the forest in order to prevent negative effects to the existing
biodiversity.
This publicity about conservation of KPFR should be made on the national arena rather than local in
order to give opportunities for other communities and environmentalists to know what is going on at
KPFR and what they can contribute to the sustainability of the reserve.
• There must be an appropriate management of water supply including installation of pumps and pipe
lines from caves to the respective hotels where metres for measuring water can be installed. ZAWA
were supposed to do this before making contracts with hotels and provide security within caves in order
to allow efficient control of water abstraction and destruction around caves. Moreover, to enhance the
effective control of water abstraction, payments for water services must be done per unit instead of
monthly fees. However, in this transition period towards installation of metres, it wise to make and
apply appropriate estimates for amounts of water used per day per hotel by using hotel statistics and
observation, including number of tourists and rooms, number and size of gardens and estimate of all
registered uses of water in each hotel such swimming pools, laundry and the like. On the other hand,
the KPFR management board should make effective coordination between all hotels in KPTA and
make proper arrangement to where and in which cave should hotel extract water depending on uses of
water of particular hotel and ability of the cave to supply water rather than distance from hotel to water
cave. This will reduce overload of one cave and over extraction of water.
• Capacity building for the KP community is very crucial. In order for the community to develop and
be creative, building of their capacity is indispensable. They should be empowered to be self-reliant in
creating more economical but environmentally friendly livelihood activities. Moreover, building their
social assets is vital for knowledge and implementing PWES schemes that will ensure steady provision
of water services, benefit communities, and distribute benefits fairly among stakeholders. Under the
right arrangements, a PWES scheme that focus on poor, rural communities can help solves both
environmental and socio-economic problems around KPFR.
• Strategies are still needed for developing effective but affordable alternative sources of energy that
will not harm our environment and dwindling biodiversity. With existing high prices of electricity and
kerosene, people will try to find their substitutes (fuel wood and charcoal) that are cheap regardless of
54
cost to environment. Conservation strategies will not succeed if there are no effective alternative
solutions, because big customers of fuelwood and charcoal are from Zanzibar town, including
conservationists. Hence, the central government should permit and attract investors dealing with power
and energy that use sea waves, solar and other available natural resources that will not cause
environmental problems and break the monopoly of one company to supply electricity in the whole
country.
• Further researches. In order to be efficient in the management of this reserve the following studies
are recommended.
Assessment to know how many caves are available at KPFR and their capacity in supplying
water and their quality for human use. Also to register all water uses in the study area.
Study that will find out the sustainable level of fresh water abstraction in the whole Island and
shows the maximum water withdrawal for sustainability of this precious resource.
Assessment to examine impact of tourism sector on the sustainability of water resources in
Zanzibar. This will depict the acceptable amount of tourists per year to visit Zanzibar based on
existing water resources. Better have small amount of tourists who pay much money than many
tourists who pay low rates but cause negative impact to the available water resources.
Studies that will examine and explore new attractions for tourists in order to build and improve
ecotourism sector in the study area. This will include assessment of flora and fauna that are rare
and endemic.
• The new recommended direction of this kind of study must have a wide perspective. PWES studies
must be done to all available watershed area in Tanzania in order to reduce destruction of water sources
and allow opportunities for tangible benefits sharing among involved stakeholders particularly the
fringe communities that depend on natural resources around watershed for their livelihoods.
55
5.2 CONCLUSION
As it is in other parts of the world, payment for watershed environmental service (PWES) is a pioneer
project in the conservation of natural resources in Zanzibar, such that not many stakeholders know
about its working principles. However, there is encouraging evidence shown by the study that PWES
can be able to work as an approach of promoting the sustainable management of KPFR resources as
well as a means of improving the livelihoods of the KP community.
It is openly revealed that the core problem is deficient management of watershed forest in KPFR to
ensure its sustainability including water quality and quantity as well as economic improvement of the
surrounding community. At this juncture you can not blame ZAWA alone for not providing benefits
accrued from water services and share it with other stakeholders. What was lacking is coordination
from all concerned stakeholders including DCCFF, ZAWA, KP community and hoteliers, such that
there was no chance for open dialogue on how they could cooperate in the management of the
resources in a holistic approach and then share benefits among them accordingly. This also will open
opportunities for diffusion of information and knowledge about PWES and its principles among
stakeholders and outside communities as well as improving transparency.
KP community’s members have enough awareness to recognize the importance of conservation of
KPFR for their own livelihoods and they know that as environmental services providers they should
refrain from destructing the forest and its biodiversity. However, conservation without utilization can
not be justifiable. The point is whether the KP community can conserve the KP forest resources that
can be used as sources of livelihoods without benefit, taking into consideration that they have
insufficient alternative sources of income for their livelihoods. KP community have raised their voice
telling KPTA hotels to prioritize them when employing people because this will give alternative way
for securing their livelihoods and ultimately enhance the protection of KP watershed forests.
As the study shows, there is a divergence between bids to be paid by hotels as compensations for water
services (WTP) and bids accepted by KP community as compensations for protection of watersheds
(WTA). However, this is not an issue of great concern. This is usual for studies of applied Contingent
Valuation Method. As noted by Prato (1998), WTP is mostly constrained by respondents’ income while
WTA is unconstrained by the respondents’ income; hence WTA is likely to be greater than WTP.
Many of us also regard water (as air) as a free resource, so why should we pay (Holmen, 2007 personal
communication). Many people usually accept to pay for using infrastructure instalments (boreholes,
pumps and pipes) but not generally when they provide such infrastructures themselves – as in this case.
56
People understand the severity of the problem evolved around KPFR and there is a general acceptance
of the PWES idea as such among core stakeholders of the system. Hence, the divergence of 1 US$
versus 10 US$ should not taken seriously rather be the catalyst for the initial stance in a bargaining
(negotiating) process.
Knowing that in the past they were using KPFR without any restrictions, KP community feels that they
are losers in term of benefits after the forest had been gazetted as reserve. Asking them how much as
minimum amount they will accept as compensation for protection of watershed, it is obvious that they
will put high bids to replace what they lost. On the other hand, hoteliers asked about WTP when they
already have water services on hands, asking how much as the maximum amount will pay as
compensations is coming to their mind that this is extra payments for the same services, therefore they
will offer lower as not to disturb their budgets. However, since there is a positive acceptance of
payment and compensation between KPTA hotels and KP community, implementation of PWES under
this circumstance is debatable within the proposed KPFR management board.
There is a problem that ZAWA is not making follow-up and evaluations to respective caves in the
forest as hotels pump water from these caves. This issue is very serious because the applicability of
proposed PWES system solely depends on a steady supply of water services from KPFR. Already
some hotels have experienced that the water level is declining and sometime they found salty water.
While ZAWA has suggested that the reason for the above problems could be overexploitation, no
metres have been installed to measure units of water used by a particular hotel. Based on this problem,
installation of mitres must be done as soon as possible.
Deeply looking at results, it is concluded that there is an urgent need for collective effort to hasten the
establishment of a benefit sharing mechanism as PWES for the sake of boosting the conservation
morale among stakeholders. The success of PWES will much depend on effective coordination,
cooperation, transparency and clarity between all involved stakeholders. Since resources at KPFR, as in
other ecosystem, are linked to one another, working as a team on one management board will make it
easier to implement plans and tackle problems holistically.
57
REFERENCES
Alcorn, J., Kajuni A., Winterbottom B., Anderson J., Evans D., Humplick B.J., Martino R., Mujuni A.,
Page K., Sosovele H. and Volk R. 2002. Assessment of Community Based Natural Resources
Management (CBNRM) Best Practices in Tanzania. Final Report.
Berg L. B. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. California State University,
Long Beach.
Brouwer, R. and Spaninks, F. A. 1999. The Validity of Environmental benefits Transfer: Further
Empirical Testing. Environmental and Resource Economics 14: 95 – 117. 1999 Kluwer Academic
Publisher, Netherlands.
Busch, W.-D.N., Brown, B.L. and Mayer G.F. (Eds). 2003. Strategic Guidance for Implementing an
Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries Management. United States Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFS, Silver Spring, MD 62p.
Cameron T. A. and M. D. James 1987. Efficient Estimation Methods for “Closed-Ended” Contingent
Valuation. The review of economics and statistics.
Carson R. T., N. E. Flores and N. F. Meade 2001. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence.
Environmental and Resources economics. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Commission for Natural Resources (CNR). 1995. National Forest Policy for Zanzibar. Zanzibar
Government Press. pp 28.
Coase, R. H. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law Economics, Vol. 3, pp 1 – 44.
Published by University of Chicago.
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2005. Eastern Arch Mountains and Coastal forests of
Tanzania and Kenya. Briefing Book Prepared for Improving Linkage Between CEPF and World
Bank Operations. Africa Forum, Cape Town, South Africa April - 2005.
Darlington Y. and D. Scott 2002. Qualitative research in practice. Stories from the field. Open
University press. Buckingham.
Dungumaro, E. W. and Madulu, N. F. 2002. Public participation in Integrated Water resources
management: The case of Tanzania. 3rdWater/Warfsa Symposium ‘Water Demand Management
for Sustainable Development’ Dar es Salaam, 30-31 October 2002.
FAO. 2006. Payment for environmental services. Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission held in Dehradun
India, 17-21 April 2006. Retrieved 31/10/2007
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/010/af353e.pdf
FAO. 2000. Applications of Contingent Valuation Methods in Developing Countries. Economics and
Social development paper 146.
58
FAO. 1987. Irrigation and Water Resources Potential for Africa. Rome.
Ferraro P. J. and A. Kiss 2002. Direct Payments to Conserve Biodiversity. SCIENCE’S COMPASS:
VOL. 298. Retrieved from www.nicholas.duke.edu/ on 06/01/2007.
Fuguitt, D and Wilcox, S. J. 1999. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Public Sector Decision Makers. Published
by Quorum/Green wood.
Giorgio C. 1998. Cognitive Representation of Total Value in CVM framework. A critical review of
literature in Environmental Resources Valuation. Application of the Contingent Valuation
Method in Italy.
Government of Zanzibar (GoZ). 1997. The Forest Resources Management and Conservation Act No.
10 of 1996. Legal Supplement (Part I) to the Zanzibar Government Gazette Vol. No.5769 of 6th
December, 1997. Zanzibar Government Press.
Hammack, J. and G. M. Brown Jr. (1974), Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hartwich, J. M. and Olewiler, N. D. 1998. The Economics of Natural Resource Use. Second edition.
Addisson-Wesley.
Hassan, I. H. 2004. Assessment of the Abundance, Distribution and Potential use of indigenous plant
species of Kiwengwa – Pongwe Forest Reserve- Zanzibar. A special project report submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Science in Forestry of Sokoine
University of Agriculture Morogoro, Tanzania.
Holmen, H. 2003. Reflections on Natural Preconditions for a Green Revolution in Africa. Department
of Geography, Linkoping University.
Kiersch. B., L. Hermans and G. Halsema 2005. Payment schemes for water-related Environmental
services: A financial mechanism for natural resources management experiences from Latin
America and the Caribbean. Land and Water Development Division FAO of the UN. Retrieved
http://www.unece.org/env/water/meetings/payment_ecosystems/Discpapers/FAO.pdf 13/12/2006.
Johnson, N., Ravnborg, H. M., Westermann, O and Probst, K. 2001. User Participation in Watershed
Management and Research. CAPRI Working Paper No. 19. Published by CGIAR and IFPRI.
Kombo, Y. H., Hamdani, S. I., Makame, M. K., Madeweya, K. H., Basha, A. U. and Said, T. A. 2002.
Woodfuel Consumption Survey for the Zanzibar Island. Technical paper number 134.
Krishnamurthy, K. V. 2003. Text Book of Biodiversity. Published by Science Publisher.
Landell-Mills, N. 2003. Developing markets for forest environmental services: an opportunity for
promoting equity while securing efficiency. In Ian R. Swingland. Capturing Carbon &
Conserving Biodiversity: The market approach. Earthscan, Landon.
59
Larsson, M. L. 1999. The Law of Environmental Damage: Liability and Reparation. Published by
Martinus Nijhoff.
Makame, M. K. 2001. Socio-Economic Study of the Proposed Mangrove Board Walk Using
Willingness to Pay and Cost-Benefit Analysis. A Case of Michamvi Village, Zanzibar.
Mathur, A. S. and Sachdeva, A. S. 2003. Towards an Economic Approach to Sustainable forest
Development. Working Paper Series No. 2/2003 – PC. Perspective Planning Division, India.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELL-BEING: WETLANDS
AND WATER Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf
Mills C. W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method. Published by Resources for the future.
Pagiola S., Arcenas, A. and Platais, G. (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce
poverty? An exploration of the ideas and the evidence to date from Latin America. World
Development Vol. 33 No. 2. Elsevier, UK.
Pagiola S. 2003. Environmental service payments: initial lessons from practical experiences.
Fundamental aspects of PES in watersheds. Summaries of presentations Regional Forum on
Payment Schemes for Environmental Services in Watersheds Arequipa, Peru, 9-13 June, 2003).
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ on 14/10/2006.
Palmquist, M. 1993. Overview: Survey Research. Colorado State University. Retrieved from
www.writting.colostate.edu on 17th October, 2007.
Prato, T. 1998. Natural Resources and Environmental Economics. Published by Blackwell. Pp 310-311.
Pugh, C. D. J. 1996. Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanization. Published by Earthscan.
Rosa, H., Barry, D., Kandel, S. and Dimas, L. (2004). Compensation for Environmental Services and
Rural Communities: Lessons from the Americas. University of Massachusetts Amherst working
paper Number 96.
Salam, A. MD., Nogushi, T. and Pothitan, R. 2006. Community Forest Management in Thailand:
Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development. Published by Springer.
Saz-Salazar, S. D. and Garcia-Menendez, L. G. 2001. Willingness to Pay for Environmental
Improvements in a Large City. Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 103-112. Kluwer
Academic Publisher.
Shah, A. S. 2003. The Value of Improvements in Water Supply Reliability in Zanzibar Town. A report
of Contingent Valuation study carried out as a course in Natural Resource Economics in partial
60
fulfilment of a requirement for Master in Environmental Management (MEM). Yale University,
School of forestry and Environment studies.
Shaikh, S. L., Sun, L. and van Kooten, G. C. 2006. Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A Comparison of empirical treatments. Ecological Economics 62 (2007) 115-125. Elsevier B. V.
Skodari, P. F. 1997. Measuring the Benefits of Federal Wetland Programmes. Environmental law Inst.
SVD (2007): Svenska Dagbladet, 20070912.
Tognetti S. S., G. Mendoza, B. Aylward, D. Southgate and A. L. Garcia 2003. Assessing the
Effectiveness of Payment Arrangements for Watershed Ecosystem Services (PWES). For
presentation at the third Latin American Congress on Watershed Management, Regional forum on
Payments for Environmental services. Arequipa, Peru, June, 2003. Retrieved from
www.rlc.fao.org/ on 11/12/2006.
Tunis, C. 1988. Data Collection: Survey designed Interviews techniques and Analysis. Summary. In
Economics of Conservation, Proceedings from workshop. SADCC, Soil and Water Conservation
and Land Utilization Sector. Report No. 17. Maseru, Lesotho
United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2003. Population and Housing Census. General Report. Central
Census Office, National Bureau of Statistics, President’s Office. Planning and Privatization. Dar-
Es-salaam. Government Printer DSM. pp 203.
World Wide Fund For Nature. 2006. Payment for Environmental Services. An equitable approach for
reducing poverty and conserving nature.
Wunder S. 2006. Are Direct Payment for Environmental Services Spelling Doom for Sustainable forest
Management in the Tropics? Ecology and Society 11(2). Resilience Alliance. Retrieved from
www.ecologyandsociety.org/ on 13/10/2006.
Wunder S. 2005. Payment for Environmental Services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional paper
No. 42. Centre for International Forestry Research. Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from
www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications on 13/10/2006.
Wang, H. W. 1997. Treatment of “don't-know” responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random
valuation model, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 (1997), pp. 219–232.
Zahabu, E. and Jambiya, G. 2007. Community Based Forest Management and Carbon Payments: Real
Possiblities for Poverty Reduction? The Arc Journal Issue 21, pp 25 – 27. Retrieved from
www.communitycarbonforestry.org/resources on 16th November, 2007.
Zahabu, E., Malimbwi, R.E., and Ngaga, Y.M. 2005. Payments for Environmental Services as
Incentive Opportunities for Catchments Forest Reserves Management in Tanzania
61
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: FREQUENCY TABLES FOR HOUSEHOLDS’ QUESTIONNAIRES OUTPUT
Table 1: Frequency distribution of the respondents by shehia in the study area
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Pongwe 35 21.9 21.9 21.9 Kiwengwa 125 78.1 78,1 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 2: Frequency distribution of the respondents by Village in the study area
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Pongwe 18 11.3 11.3 11.3 Ndudu 17 10.6 10.6 21.9 Kumbaurembo 42 26.3 26.3 48.1 Kairo 30 18.8 18.8 66.9 Gulioni 53 33.1 33.1 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 3: Frequency distribution of age of the respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 Years 22 13.8 13.8 13.8 26-35 Years 44 27.5 27.5 41.3 36-45 Years 67 41.9 41.9 83.1 46-55 Years 18 11.3 11.3 94.4 56 and above 9 5.6 5.6 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 4: Frequency distribution of respondents by gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male 91 56.9 56.9 56.9 Female 69 43.1 43.1 100.0 Total 160 100,0 100,0
Table 5: Frequency distribution of respondents by marital status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Single 17 10.6 10.6 10.6 Married 125 78.1 78.1 88.8 Divorced 13 8.1 8.1 96.9 Widowed 5 3.1 3.1 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
62
Table 6: Frequency distribution of respondents’ education level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No education 42 26.3 26.3 26.3 Non-formal education 18 11.3 11.3 37.5 Primary education 42 26.3 26.3 63.8 Secondary education 48 30.0 30.0 93.8 Tertiary education 10 6.3 6.3 100.0 Total 160 100,0 100,0
Table 7: Frequency distribution of respondents’ main occupations
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Subsistent farmer 45 28.1 28.1 28.1 Fishing 47 29.4 29.4 57.5 Handy-craftsman 8 5.0 5.0 62.5 Tourist guide 6 3.8 3.8 66.3 Trader 27 16.9 16.9 83.1 Teacher/Civil servants 1 0.6 0.6 83.8 Seaweed farmer 26 16.3 16.3 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 8: Frequency distribution of respondents’ major sources of income
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Crop and fish production 78 48.8 48.8 48.8 Small scale trading 49 30.6 30.6 79.4 Hotel employee 2 1.3 1.3 80.6 Tourist Business 12 7.5 7.5 88.1 Civil servant 2 1.3 1.3 89.4 Selling forest products 17 10.6 10.6 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 9: Frequency distribution for total income per year in Tanzania Shillings of the respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent < 100,000 13 8.1 8.1 8.1 100,000 to 500,000 6 3.8 3.8 11.9 500,000 to 1,000,000 22 13.8 13.8 25.6 > 1,000,000 119 74.4 74.4 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 10: Frequency distribution of respondents’ income per year for selling products at KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent < 1/4 income 123 76.9 76.9 76.9 1/4 of income 29 18.1 18.1 95.0 1/2 of income 6 3.8 3.8 98.8 3/4 of income 2 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
63
Table 11: Frequency distribution for forest products from KPFR that respondents sell to get income
Frequency Percent Valid % Cumulative % Traditional medicines 1 ,6 0.6 0.6 Animal hunting 2 1,3 1.3 1.9 Beekeeping and/or wild honey collection 7 4,4 4.4 6.3 Building materials 3 1,9 1.9 8.1 Fuelwood 71 44,4 44.4 52.5 Seaweed Sticks and fish traps 22 13,8 13.8 66.3 Missing values 54 33,8 33.8 100.0 Total 160 100,0 100.0
Table 12: Frequency distribution of respondents’ awareness about bad uses of forest that result negative
impacts to water quality and quantity at KPFR watershed areas
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 160 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 13: Frequency distribution for the kind of bad uses of forest that yield negative impacts
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percentcutting green wood 13 8.1 8.1 8.1cutting forest products for business 48 30.0 30.0 38.1Stones digging 36 22.5 22.5 60.6combination of all above 63 39.4 39.4 100.0Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 14: Frequency distribution of respondents’ WTA for compensation to cease using KPFR resources
in bad manners for the sake of improving watershed environmental services
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 145 90.6 90.6 90.6 No 15 9.4 9.4 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 15: Distribution of respondents’ main reasons for not accepting compensation (WTA)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent It will not help us 15 9.4 100.0 100.0 Missing System 145 90.6 Total 160 100.0
64
Table 16: Frequency distribution for the minimum amount that respondents (local communities) are
willing to accept as compensation (WTA) per every barrel (200lt) used by KPTA hoteliers
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1-5 US $ 68 42.5 46.9 46.9 6-10 US $ 24 15.0 16.6 63.4 11-15 US $ 9 5.6 6.2 69.7 16-20 US $ 13 8.1 9.0 78.6 More than 20US $ 29 18.1 20.0 98.6 I do not know 2 1.3 1.4 100.0 Sub -total 145 90.6 100.0 Missing 15 9.4 Total 160 100.0
Table 17: Distribution showing mode of payment to be used in collecting compensations
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Cash as per consumption 137 85.6 94.5 94.5 Advance payment 8 5.0 5.5 100.0 Total 145 90.6 100.0 Missing 15 9.4 Total 160 100.0
Table 18: Distribution of selected institutions proposed to collect compensation from hoteliers
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Village Local authority (Shehia) 11 6.9 7.6 7.6
DCCFF 57 35.6 39.3 46.9 Village Conservation Committees 17 10.6 11.7 58.6
Village Development committees 60 37.5 41.4 100.0
Total 145 90.6 100.0 Missing 15 9.4 Total 160 100.0
Table 19: Distribution of the proposed payment routine for collection of compensation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Monthly Basis 135 84.4 93.1 93.1 Three months basis 4 2.5 2.8 95.9 Six Months basis 3 1.9 2.1 97.9 Annual basis 3 1.9 2.1 100.0 Total 145 90.6 100.0 Missing 15 9.4 Total 160 100.0
65
Table 20: Distribution on how the compensation paid to local communities be used or distributed
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Establish saving and credit schemes 68 42.5 46.9 46.9 Kept by specific committee e.g. VDCs and used for public goods 24 15.0 16.6 63.4
Used as loan to villages to establish small scale projects 53 33.1 36.6 100.0
Total 145 90.6 100.0 Missing 15 9.4 Total 160 100.0
Table 21: Distribution if there was any kind of compensation system before that offered to compensate for
conservation activities around KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 101 63.1 63.1 63.1 No 59 36.9 36.9 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 22: Distribution of who provide the compensation previously around KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentAder’s duiker conservation research 99 61.9 98.0 98.0 District authority 1 0.6 1.0 99.0 Village Conservation Committees 1 0.6 1.0 100.0 Total 101 63.1 100.0 Missing 59 36.9 Total 160 100.0
Table 23: Distribution for which activities compensation was made
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Compensation for crop damage 2 1.3 2.0 2.0 Conservation of ader's duiker (red antelope) around KPFR 99 61.9 98.0 100.0
Total 101 63.1 100.0 Missing 59 36.9 Total 160 100.0
Table 24: Distribution to see if local institutions like Village Development Committees have capacity to be
an intermediary agent in collecting and holding compensation under the proposed PWES
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 139 86.9 90.3 90.3 No 15 9.4 9.7 100.0 Total 154 96.3 100.0 Missing 6 3.8 Total 160 100.0
66
Table 25: Distribution of what to be done to ensure the local institutions have the capacity to undertake
activities under the proposed PWES system framework with higher efficiency
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentTrainings on administration and financial management 7 4.4 50.0 50.0
DCCFF should guide and assist to run the program 5 3.1 35.7 85.7
NGOs around KPFR should lend technical staffs 2 1.3 14.3 100.0
Total 14 8.8 100.0 Missing 146 91.3 Total 160 100.0
Table 26: Distribution to see if PWES can help the local community to solve their existing socio-economic
problems for their livelihoods
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 146 91.3 91.3 91.3 No 14 8.8 8.8 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 27: Distribution of how PWES can help to solve problems relating to local communities’ economic
gain for their livelihoods
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Can create conducive tourism environment and improve economy 77 48.1 52.4 52.4
Provide credits for small business projects 54 33.8 36.7 89.1
Maintain public goods like schools, dispensaries and the like 16 10.0 10.9 100.0
Total 147 91.9 100.0 Missing System 13 8.1 Total 160 100.0
Table 28: Distribution if PWES can cause negative impacts to livelihoods’ welfare of local community
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 134 83,8 83.8 83.8 No 26 16,3 16.3 100.0 Total 160 100,0 100.0
67
Table 29: Distribution on how PWES can affect the livelihoods’ welfare of local communities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Reduce accessibility to forest resources 49 30.6 35.3 35.3
Increase problems of land scarcity for farming and livestock 16 10.0 11.5 46.8
Not enough money to compensate from what we lose 72 45.0 51.8 98.6
Other people outside KP area wont benefit with PWES 2 1.3 1.4 100.0
Total 139 86.9 100.0 Missing 21 13.1 Total 160 100.0
Table 30: Distribution to suggest on how to overcome problems that could be brought by PWES
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentEducate stakeholders before implementation of the program 30 18.8 21.6 21.6
Ensure to involved all concerned stakeholders in setting up PWES working mechanism
23 14.4 16.5 38.1
Benefit sharing system and compensation ratios must be clear 37 23.1 26.6 64.7
Allocate potion of the KPFR as for community normal uses 46 28.8 33.1 97.8
GOVT Should provide fair credits and Business skills to secure our livelihoods 3 1.9 2.2 100.0
Total 139 86.9 100.0 Missing 21 13.1 Total 160 100.0
Table: 31: Distribution of main reason for PWES not to cause negative impacts to some members of the
local communities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent I am not using forest at all 4 2.5 211 21.1 I have more than two sources of incomes 8 5.0 42.1 63.2
If agreed by majority of the community it will not be a problem 6 3.8 31.6 94.7
No problem if people allowed cut dried wood for home consumption 1 0.6 5.3 100.0
Total 19 11.9 100.0 Missing 141 88.1 Total 160 100.0
68
Table 32: Distribution on respondents’ participation in the KPFR conservation activities/programs
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 104 65.0 65.0 65.0 No 56 35.0 35.0 100.0 Total 160 100.0 100.0
Table 33: Distribution showing activities/programmes the local communities participate
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Tree planting 46 28.8 43.8 43.8 Protecting natural forest and wild animals 33 20.6 31.4 75.2
Helping to protect and extinguish forest fires 15 9.4 14.3 89.5
Participate to provide environmental education to fellow villagers 11 6.9 10.5 100.0
Total 105 65.6 100.0 Missing 55 34.4 Total 160 100.0
Table 34: Distribution of main reasons for not participating in conservation activities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentNo community involvement 52 32.5 94.5 94.5
No environmental conservation knowledge provided 2 1.3 3.6 98.2
Too much involved in personal activities 1 0.6 1.8 100.0
Total 55 34.4 100.0 Missing 105 65.6 Total 160 100.0
Table 35: Distribution of alternative ways to improve the effective conservation of KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Forest laws and community’s bylaws must be effective 10 6.3 6.3 6.3
Big loans like Kikwete fund must be offered to establish business activities 37 23.1 23.1 29.4
Provide publicity about protection of KPFR by using all effective medias 53 33.1 33.1 62.5
District Commissioners must put the protection of natural ecosystem as one duty of Shehas’ job descriptions
7 4.4 4.4 66.9
Hoteliers should give first priority to local communities when employing 53 33.1 33.1 100.0
Total 160 100.0 100.0
69
Table 36: Frequency distribution of respondents by shehia and gender
Gender % Male Female %
Total households
Total in % Pongwe 18 51.4 17 48.6 35 100 Shehia
Kiwengwa 73 54.4 52 41.6 125 100 Table 37: Frequency distribution of education level of the KPFR households by gender
Gender Male % Female %
No education 26 28.6 16 23.2 Non-formal education 11 12.1 7 10.2 Primary education 23 25.3 19 27.5 Secondary education 27 29.6 21 30.4
Education level
Tertiary education 4 4.4 6 8.7
Total 91 100 69 100
ANNEX 2: FREQUENCY TABLES FOR HOTELIERS’ QUESTIONNAIRES OUTPUT
Table 1: Frequency distribution of the status of hotels at KPTA
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No status 2 16.7 16.7 16.7 Three stars 2 16.7 16.7 33.3 Four stars 3 25.0 25.0 58.3 Five stars 5 41.7 41.7 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 2: Frequency distribution of number of visitors per year
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 500-999 2 16.7 16.7 16.7 1000-4999 5 41.7 41.7 58.3 5000 and above 5 41.7 41.7 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 3: Frequency distribution of respondents’ age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 1 8.3 8.3 8.3 26-35 5 41.7 41.7 50.0 36-45 3 25.0 25.0 75.0 46-55 2 16.7 16.7 91.7 56 and above 1 8.3 8.3 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
70
Table 4: Frequency distribution of respondent’s position of in the hotel
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Resource manager 6 50.0 50.0 50.0General manager 1 8.3 8.3 58.3Water engineer 2 16.7 16.7 75.0Local manager 3 25.0 25.0 100.0Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 5: Frequency distribution of amount of water used by hotel per day
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 100-500 litres 3 25,0 25,0 25,0 501-1000 litres 2 16,7 16,7 41,7 1001-5000 litres 1 8,3 8,3 50,0 More than 5000 litres 4 33,3 33,3 83,3 I do not know 2 16,7 16,7 100,0 Total 12 100,0 100,0
Table 6: Frequency distribution showing where hotels obtain water for their consumption
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Extract direct from KPFR 10 83.3 83.3 83.3 Ferry from other sources elsewhere 1 8.3 8.3 91.7 Own water sources 1 8.3 8.3 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 7: Frequency distribution showing how much hotelier pays for water sources other than KPFR
watershed
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent1-5 US$ per 100 litres 2 16.7 50.0 50.0 6-10 US$ per 100 litres 2 16.7 50.0 100.0 Total 4 33.3 100.0 Missing 8 66.7 Total 12 100.0
Table 8: Frequency distribution showing amount of water that hoteliers extract per day from KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent100-500 litres 2 16.7 20.0 20.0 501-1000 litres 2 16.7 20.0 40.0 More than 5000 litres 4 33.3 40.0 80.0 I do not know 2 16.7 20.0 100.0 Total 10 83.3 100.0 Missing 2 16.7 Total 12 100.0
71
Table 9: Frequency distribution of the main uses of water in KPTA hotels
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Gardening 1 8.3 8.3 8.3 Combination of all uses except for drinking 9 75.0 75.0 83.3
All including for drink 2 16.7 16.7 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 10: Distribution showing at which cave in KPFR that hotelier extract water
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Mwanampaji cave 4 33.3 40.0 40.0 Kiwengwa cave 5 41.7 50.0 90.0 Drilling wells near hotel 1 8.3 10.0 100.0 Total 10 83.3 100.0 Missing 2 16.7 Total 12 100,0
Table 11: Distribution showing distance from cave to hotels
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Less than 500 mitres 1 8.3 10.0 10.0 500 metres 2 16.7 20.0 30.0 1000 mitres 3 25.0 30.0 60.0 1500 mitres 1 8.3 10.0 70.0 More than 1500 mitres 3 25.0 30.0 100.0 Total 10 83.3 100.0 Missing 2 16.7 Total 12 100.0
Table 12: Frequency distribution if hotelier pays for water services that extract from KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 10 83.3 100.0 100.0 Missing 2 16.7 Total 12 100.0
Table 13: Frequency distribution showing who collects the water fees
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Water department 10 83.3 100.0 100.0 Missing 2 16.7 Total 12 100.0
72
Table 14: Distribution of how much hotelier pay water fees per period of time
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 700-799 US$ per month 1 8.3 11.1 11.1 800-899 US$ per month 1 8.3 11.1 22.2 More than 900 US$ per month 7 58.3 77.8 100.0 Total 9 75.0 100.0 Missing 3 25.0 Total 12 100.0
Table 15: Distribution on mode of payment that hoteliers are using to pay the water services
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Cash as per consumption 2 16.7 25.0 25.0 Direct debit 4 33.3 50.0 75.0 Payment by cheque on invoicing 2 16.7 25.0 100.0 Total 8 66.7 100.0 Missing 4 33.3 Total 12 100.0
Table 16: Distribution if hoteliers are willing to pay additional amount as compensation to local
communities, for getting improved water services from KPFR watershed
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 9 75.0 75.0 75.0 No 2 16.7 16.7 91.7 I don’t know yet 1 8.3 8.3 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 17: Frequency distribution of WTP bids claimed to paid by hoteliers as compensation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 200-299 US$ per month 1 8.3 11.1 11.1 300-399 US$ per month 2 16.7 22.2 33.3 400-499 US$ per month 4 33.3 44.4 77.8 500-599 US$ per month 1 8.3 11.1 88.9 600-699 US$ per month 1 8.3 11.1 100.0 Total 9 75.0 100.0 Missing 3 25.0 Total 12 100.0
73
Table 18: Distribution of main reasons for refusing to pay compensation to local communities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentWe are already pay too much to the water department (ZAWA) 1 8.3 50.0 50.0
Because we offer water free of charge to the local community 1 8.3 50.0 100.0
Total 2 16.7 100.0 Missing 10 83.3 Total 12 100.0
Table 19: Distribution on mode of payment that hoteliers proposed to be used in collecting compensation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent Cash as per consumption 5 41.7 55.6 55.6 Advance payment 1 8.3 11.1 66.7 Using Cheque after consumption 1 8.3 11.1 77.8 Fixed rated agreed between stakeholders 2 16.7 22.2 100.0
Total 9 75.0 100.0 Missing 3 25.0 Total 12 100.0
Table 20: Distribution showing the selected institutions as proposed by hoteliers to collect compensation
on behalf of the local communities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Village Local authority (Sheha) 1 8.3 11.1 11.1 DCCFF 4 33.3 44.4 55.6 Village Development Committee 2 16.7 22.2 77.8
Water authority (ZAWA) 2 16.7 22.2 100.0 Total 9 75.0 100.0 Missing 3 25.0 Total 12 100.0
Table 21: Frequency distribution of proposed routine for payment of compensation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Three months basis 2 16.7 22.2 22.2 Six months basis 4 33.3 44.4 66.7 Annual basis 3 25.0 33.3 100.0 Total 9 75.0 100.0 Missing 3 25.0 Total 12 100.0
74
Table 22: Distribution on awareness of conservation activities done in KPFR to conserve its biodiversity
resources
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 5 41.7 41.7 41.7 No 7 58.3 58.3 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 23: Distribution in participating to any conservation programmes around the KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 6 50.0 50.0 50.0 No 6 50.0 50.0 100.0 Total 12 100.0 100.0
Table 24: Distribution of period that hoteliers have been participating in the programmes at KPFR
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent less than one year 2 16.7 33.3 33.3 1-5 years 2 16.7 33.3 66.7 5-10 years 1 8.3 16.7 83.3 more than 10 years 1 8.3 16.7 100.0 Total 6 50.0 100.0 Missing 6 50.0 Total 12 100.0
Table 25: Frequency distribution showing conservation activities that hoteliers are participating
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentFunding conservation activities 2 16.7 33.3 33.3 Planting of trees 3 25.0 50.0 83.3 Cleaning of beaches and plastic bags to conserve the environ 1 8.3 16.7 100.0
Total 6 50.0 100.0 Missing 6 50.0 Total 12 100.0
Table 26: Distribution of main reasons for hoteliers not participating in the conservation activities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent I have not been invited 6 50.0 100.0 100.0 Missing 6 50.0 Total 12 100.0
75
Table 27: Distribution of noticing changes in water quality and/or quantity since hoteliers start to extract
water in the KPFR caves
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 6 50.0 66.7 66.7 No 3 25.0 33.3 100.0 Total 9 75.0 100.0 Missing 3 25.0 Total 12 100.0
Table 28: Frequency distribution on changes that hoteliers notice in the water caves
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Reduction of water level 5 41.7 83.3 83.3 Combination of all above 1 8.3 16.7 100.0 Total 6 50.0 100.0 Missing 6 50.0 Total 12 100.0
Table 29: Distribution of actions that hoteliers have taken to improve the noticed water problems
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Buying water from other sources 5 41.7 100.0 100.0
Missing 7 58.3 Total 12 100.0
ANNEX 3: LIST OF HOTELS THAT ARE FOUND ALONG KIWENGWA PONGWE
TOURISM AREA (KPTA)
S/No. List of Hotels along KPTA Name of the Shehia the are located 1 Neptune Pwani Beach Resort and Spa Pwani mchangani 2 Mapenzi Beach Club Pwani Mchangani 3 Coral Reef Resort Pwani Mchangani 4 Ocean Paradise Resort Pwani Mchangani 5 Shooting Star Kiwengwa 6 Venta Club Kiwengwa 7 Zamani Kempiski Resort Kiwengwa 8 Blue Bay Beach Resort Kiwengwa 9 Vera Club Kiwengwa 10 Sea Club Hotel Kiwengwa 11 Reef View Hotel Kiwengwa 12 Bravo Club Kiwengwa 13 Nature Safari Lodge Pongwe 14 Pongwe Beach Resort Pongwe
76
ANNEX 4: AGREEMENT OF WATER ABSTRACTION. AGREEMENT OF WATER ABSTRACTION AND USE OF WATER SOURCE AT………….......... This agreement is made this……………….day of ………….200… between DEPARTMENT OF WATER DEVELOPMENT (now Zanzibar Water authority – ZAWA) hereinafter called the owner on one part and ……………………. (Hereafter called the consumer) on other part. WHEREAS the owner is vested with all the rights, power and liberty to the use of water source from a…………….. Known as ……………. Situated at ………….. For the purpose of extracting and supplying water there from; and WHEREAS the water is sufficient enough in quantity and good quality, and WHEREAS ………………………..shall be the developer and is therefore desirous to assign its rights and liberty in respect of the said water source. NOW THEREFORE the parties to this agreement agree as follows: 1. The owner shall, in consideration of consumer undertaking to observe the terms and conditions herein
contained, assign its right and liberty to the use of water source here above named. The rate of abstraction for the permit shall not be more than……..m3/hacter and the quantity of water extracted from this source not more than……..m3/day as may be reasonable sufficient to meet the demand of the consumer.
2. The consumer hereby undertakes: (a) To use the water for drinking, cooking, washing, gardening and such other uses as may be reasonable
necessary and in any case, shall not use the water for irrigation purposes. (b) Not to do or cause to be done anything that may cause damage to the water source and adjoining lands. (c) To use all means possible to prevent pollution or any contamination of water from said sources
3. The consumer may erect or construct all necessary infrastructures for extraction and pumping water from the said source, provided that any of such infrastructures and any alteration thereto may not be erected, constructed or made without prior approval of the ZAWA.
4. The consumer shall comply with any tariff of charges for using the water and pay according. 5. Where any party breach any of the terms herein contained the other party shall be entitled to absolutely
determine this agreement. 6. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent the owner, owing to environmental, health or Technical reason, to
close down or suspend the use of the water source and such act shall not be constructed as breach of this agreement, provided that reasonable notice shall be given to the consumer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owner and the consumer each acting through its authorised representatives, have signed this agreement in two equally valid originals in English on the date first above written. For and on behalf of ZAWA. Witnessed by: Name:…………………………………………… Name:……………………………………… Position:………………………………………… Position:…………………………………… Signature:……………………………………….. Signature:………………………………….. For and on behalf of …………………………… Witnessed by:……………………………… Name:…………………………………………… Name:……………………………………… Position:………………………………………… Position:…………………………………… Signature:……………………………………….. Signature:………………………………….
77
ANNEX 5 : RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOTELIERS AT KIWENGWA-PONGWE TOURISM AREA
Section A: Hotel information Date ……. /…../2007, Time: …………hrs 1. Name of the Hotel/Company …………………………………………………….
2. Status of the Hotel i. No Status
ii. Two Stars hotel iii. Three Stars Hotel iv. Four Stars Hotel v. Five Stars Hotel
vi. Others (specify please) …………………………………………………………….. 3. Number of visitors per year
i. 1 - 99 ii. 100 – 499
iii. 500 – 999 iv. 1000 – 4999 v. 5000 and above
4. Name of respondent …………….……………………………... 5. Age
i. 18 – 25 ii. 26 – 35
iii. 36 – 45 iv. 46 – 55 v. 56 and above
6. What is your position in this hotel?
i. Resource manager ii. Hotel owner
iii. Others (specify please) …………………………………………………………….. Section B: Uses and payment of water
7. Water is one of the natural resources that are used in your hotel/investment. Can you estimate the average amount of water that your hotel/investment uses per day? i. 100 – 500 litres
ii. 501 – 1000 litres iii. 1001 – 5000 litres iv. More than 5000 litres v. I do not know
8. From where do you get this water?
i. Extract direct from KPFR ii. Buy from individual sellers
78
iii. Ferry from other sources elsewhere iv. Own water source
9. How much do you pay for the water from sources other than KPFR?
i. 1 – 5 US$ per 100litres ii. 6 – 10 US$ per 100litres
iii. 11 – 15 US$ per 100litres iv. 16 – 20 US$ per 100litres v. More than 20 US$ per 100litres
10. If you are extracting water direct from KPFR, how much do you pump per day? i. 100 – 500 litres
ii. 501 – 1000 litres iii. 1001 – 5000 litres iv. More than 5000 litres v. I do not know
11. What are your main uses of water pumped from KPFR?
i. Drinking ii. Cooking iii. Gardening iv. Cleaning/ Laundry
v. Combination of all above uses vi Combination of all except for drinking
12. Where and in which cave at KPFR do you pump water from?
i. Mwanampaji ii. Kiwengwa Cave iii. Drilling well near hotel iii. Other (specify)
13. What is the distance from your water source (pump) to your hotel/investment? i. Less than 500 metres ii. 500 metres
iv.1000 metres v. 1500 metres
vi. More than 1500 Section C: Payment of water resources 14. Are you paying for water that you extract from KPFR?
i) Yes ii) No
15. If no, go to question 20. If yes, who collects the fees? i. Commission for tourism
ii. Water department iii. Shehia authority (VCC) iv. Forest authority v. None of the above
79
vi. Others (specify please) …………………………………………………………….. 16. How much do you pay?
i. 1 – 5 US$ per month ii. 6 – 10 US$ per month iii. 11 – 15 US$ per month iv. 16 – 20 US$ per month v. More than 20 US$ per month
17. What is the mode of payment for the water services from KPFR are you using?
i. Included in my hotel business licence ii. Cash as per consumption
iii. Direct debit iv. Payment by cheque on invoicing v. Others (specify please) ……………………………………………………………..
18. As part of Kiwengwa Pongwe society, are you willing to pay an additional fee as compensation to
local communities around Kiwengwa Pongwe for getting improved water services and enhance sustainable management of KPFR? i. Yes ii. No
19. If yes to question 18, what the maximum amount are you willing to pay?
i. 1 – 5 US$ per month ii. 6 – 10 US$ per month iii.11 – 15 US$ per month iv.16 – 20 US$ per month
v. More than 20 US$ per month 20. If no to question 18, why not?
i. We are already paid too much ii. We are offering water free of charge to the local communities iii. We do not see the point to pay local communities
21. Which mode of payment are you proposing to be used in collecting water fees? i. Cash as per consumption ii. Advance payment iii. Direct debit iv. Fixed mode agreed by all stakeholders 22. To which institution do you think the payment for compensation should be handed on behalf of
local communities? i. Village Local Authorities (VLAs) ii. Department of Commercial crops, fruits and Forestry iii. Village Conservation Committees (VCC’s) iv. Zanzibar Water Authority (ZAWA) 23. Payments routine/frequency. i. Monthly basis. ii.Three months basis
80
iii. Six months basis iv. Annual basis Section D: Environmental conservation 24. Are you aware of any conservation activities done in KPFR to conserve its biodiversity resources?
i) Yes ii) No
25. Do you participate to any of the KPFR conservation programmes?
i. Yes ii. No
26. If no go to question 28. If yes, for how long have you been participating in the programmes?
i. Less than one year ii. 1 - 5 years
iii. 5 - 10 years iv. More than 10 years
27. Which conservation activities do you participate/involved? i. Funding conservation activities ii. Planting of trees iii. Protection of flora and fauna in the area iv. Participate in preventing and extinguish fires in the forest v. Cleaning of beaches and streets out of plastic bags and other debris 28. If the answer to question 25 is no, what are the reasons for not participating?
i. I have not been invited ii. No environmental conservation knowledge provided
iii. Lack of time iv. I do not see the necessity of conservation v. I do not know
29. Since you started extracting water from KPFR, have you ever noticed a change in water quality
and/or quantity? i. Yes ii. No
30. If Yes, What problem did you notice? i. Change the taste ii. Produce unpleasant smell iii. Found impurities (coloured water) iv. Reduction the water level in the cave v) Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………… 31. What actions have you taken to improve the concerned water problem?
81
i. See water department ii. Talk with KPFR community iii. See DCCFF officials iv. Buying water from other area v. Other (specify) …………………………………………………………… 32. Do you have any recommendation regarding the willingness to pay for water services at KPFR?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
33. Do you think of any other alternative ways that will improve the conservation of KPFR such that it
can continue to provide us with its vital services? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for your cooperation
ANNEX 6: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WTA FOR KIWENGWA-PONGWE
HOUSEHOLDS
Section A: Household Information
Date ……./……/2007, Time …………………. 1. Name of the Shehia
i. Pongwe ii. Kiwengwa
2. Village
i. Pongwe ii. Ndudu
iii. Kumbaurembo iv. Kairo v. Gulioni
3. Respondent’s name: ……………………………………………... 4. Age
i. 18 – 25 ii. 26 – 35
iii. 36 – 45 iv. 46 – 55
82
v. 56 and above 5. Sex
i. Male ii. Female
6. Marital Status
i. Single ii. Married
iii. Divorced iv. Widowed
7. Education
i. No Education ii. Non-formal Education
iii. Primary Education iv. Secondary Education v. Tertiary Education
8. Main occupation
i. Subsistent farmer ii. Fishing
iii. Handy-craftsman iv. Tourist guide v. Hunter
vi. Trader vii. Restaurant/Hotel owner
viii. Teacher/other civil servants ix. Restaurant/Hotel employee x. Retired
xi. Seaweed farmer xii. Others (specify please) ………………………………………………………
10. What is/are major source(s) of your income?
i. Crop and fish production ii. Small scale trading
iii. Hotel employee iv. Tourist Business v. Civil servant
vi. Selling forest products vii. Others (specify please) ……………………………………………………….……
11. Total income per year (Tshs)
i. Less than 100,000/- ii. 100,000/- to 500,000/-
iii. 500,000/- to 1,000,000/- iv. More than 1,000,000/-
83
12. Out of your total income per year how much do you get (Tshs) for using/selling products from KPFR? i. Less than quarter of annual income
ii. Quarter of your annual income iii. Half of your annual income iv. Three quarters of your annual income v. More than three quarters of your annual income
13. What products from KPFR are you using/selling to get income? i. Traditional medicine ii. Animal hunting iii. Beekeeping and/or wild honey collection iv. Building materials v. Fuel wood vi. Lime making vii. Sticks for seaweeds farming and fish traps viii. Nothing Section B: Willingness to accept for compensation 14. Do you know ( aware of) bad uses of forest or using forest in a bad manner that yield negative
impact on quality and quantity of water and other biodiversity resources? i. Yes ii. No
15. If yes mention them. i. Stones digging
ii. Forest fires iii. Cutting of forest products for business iv. Cutting of green wood v. Gravel quarries
vi.Combination of all above 16. Are you willing to accept compensation in a condition that you stop using the KPFR forest in bad
manner in order to improve watershed environmental services and avoid causing negative impact to quality and quantity of water and other biodiversity? i. Yes ii. No
17. If no, why not? i. It will not help us ii. It will stop us from using the forest freely iii. Other (specify)………………………………………………………………………. 18. If yes, what the minimum amount that you are willing to accept as compensation from hoteliers,
knowing that your contributions towards environmental friendly activities will improve water services? i. 1 – 5 US$ per one barrel (200litres) ii. 6 – 10 US$ per one barrel (200litres)
84
iii. 11 – 15 US$ per one barrel (200litres) iv. 16 – 20 US$ per one barrel (200litres)
v. More than 20 US$ per one barrel (200litres) vi. Depend on the common negotiation of all stakeholders vii. I don’t know 19. What mode of payment are you proposing to be used in collecting water fees from
hoteliers/investors? i. Cash as per consumption ii. Advance payment iii. Direct debit iv. Other, (specify)…………………………………………………………………….. 20. Which institution are you proposing to collect compensation on behalf of the local communities? i. Village Local authorities (Sheha) ii. Department of Commercial crops, fruits and Forestry iii.Village Conservation Committees (VCCs)
v. Village Development Committees (VDCs) vi. Zanzibar Water Authority (ZAWA)
iv. Other, specify…………………………………………………………………… 21. How frequently should the compensation payment be made? i. Monthly basis ii. Three months basis iii. Six months basis iv. Annual basis 22. How the compensation/contribution paid to community should be used or distributed? i. Establishment of saving and credit cooperatives
ii. Be kept by specific committee like VDC and used for public goods like building/maintenance of dispensary, schools, etc.
iii. Used as loan to villagers to establish small scale projects. iv. Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………… 23. Do you know any kind of compensation offered to local communities for any kind of conservation
activities around KPFR? i. Yes
ii. No 24. If yes, who provides the compensation?
i. Ader’s duiker conservation and research project ii. District authority
iii. Hoteliers iv. Village Conservation Committee v. Local Development Committee
vi. Others (specify please) …………………………………………………………….. 25. For which activities (if any) that compensation was made?
85
i. Conservation of Flora and Fauna of KPFR ii. Compensation from tourists who are visiting and willing to pay for the environmental services
offered by the KPFR reserve. iii. Compensation for crop damage iv. Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………....... 26. In your experience following that previous compensation, do you think local institutions like VDCs and VCCs have the capacity to be an intermediary agent in collecting and holding the money on behalf of local community?
i. Yes ii. No
27. If no, what should be done to ensure that local institutions have the capacity to undertake activities
under propose PWES system framework with higher efficiency? i Trainings on administrative and financial management ii DCCFF should guide and assist local institutions on how to work under the system
iii.NGOs around KPFR should lend/offer technical staffs to assist local communities iv. Other (specify)………………………………………………………………………
28. Apart from conservation benefits, do you think PWES will help you as community in solving
your socio-economic problems? i. Yes ii. No
29. If yes, how? i. PWES will create conducive tourism environment and improve our economy through selling of
local products. ii. PWES will provide credits for small scale business persons iii. PWES will help to maintain our public goods like schools iv. Other (specify)……………………………………………………………….. 30. Do you think that the implementation of this programme will have negative impact on your future
socio- economic and/or livelihood activities? i. Yes ii. No
31. If yes, How PWES will affect you? i. Reduce accessibility to forest resources like medicines, seaweeds sticks etc. ii. Will increase problems of land scarcity for farming and livestock keeping iii. Will not pay us enough money to compensate for what we are losing iv. Other people from outside KP villages, who depend on KPFR resources won’t be beneficiaries of
the PWES programme v. Non-forested alternative livelihood business needs big capital and experiences 32. How do you suggest overcoming problems that you think can affect you in case PWES is accepted
to done at KPFR? i. Educate all stakeholders before implementing the PWES programme ii.Ensure to involve all concerned stakeholders in setting – up PWES working mechanism iii. Benefit sharing system and compensation ratios must be clear and transparent to all stakeholders
86
iv. Allocate potion of the KPFR as for local home consumption uses (not for business) v. Government should provide fair credits (with no or little interest rate) and Business skills to
secure our livelihoods 33. If no, why PWES has no negative impact on you? i. I am not using the forest at all ii. I have more than two sources of incomes iii. If PWES accepted by majority of local communities it will not cause problem
iv. It will not cause negative impact if people will be allowed to cut dried fuel wood and other products for home consumption
v. Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………. Section C: Environmental conservation 34. Do you participate in the KPFR conservation programmes?
i. Yes ii. No
35. If yes, which activities have you been participating in the programmes?
i. Tree planting activities ii. Protecting flora and fauna of KPFR
iii. Help to prevent and extinguish forest fires iv. Participate to provide environmental education at village level
ii.Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………… 36. If the answer to question 33 is no, what are the reasons for not participating?
i. No community involvement ii. No environmental conservation knowledge provided iii. Too much involved in personal activities iv. I do not see the necessity of conservation around KPFR v. Other (specify)…………………………………………………………….
37. Do you have any recommendation regarding willingness to accept for compensation? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38. Can you suggest other alternatives that will be used together with existing methods to improve the conservation of KPFR such that it can continue to provide us with its vital services at the same time reduce our poverty? ...................................................................................................... ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for your cooperation 87
ANNEX 7: INTERVIEWS GUIDE FOR NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, KEY INFORMANTS, VILLAGE LEADERS AND VILLAGE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE (VCC) MEMBERS
1. KPFR is very rich in water resources as well as biodiversity and landscape (caves). Who is
responsible for the management of these resources and who are the main users?
2. What are the conditions governing the use of water resources? Are there any local and/or legal
arrangements to allow them to use this resource?
3. How do surrounding communities benefit from the use of water resources for commercial
purposes?
4. Are there any compensation mechanisms that have been done before to fringe community for
commercial use of water resources generated by KPFR?
5. If yes, what is the legal status of these mechanisms, and who established them? If no, why not?
6. Do you know any existing potentials at KPFR that can be used to allow smooth running of PWES
system?
7. What are the available weaknesses that need to be corrected to allow smooth execution of PWES
system at KPFR?
8. Do you think it is worthwhile to establish Payment for watershed Environmental services that will
provide the compensation to fringe community for commercial use of water resources at KPFR? If
no, why not?
9. To whom do you think the compensation payment should be handed before taken to the Village
Conservation Committees?
10. How do you propose the institutional framework of this payment system should be? And what
payment mode do you suggest?
11. Do you think NGOs can play any role in the institutional framework of this payment system? How
and what kind of NGOs?
12. Experiences in developing countries including Tanzania show that Payment for Watershed
environmental services through its different compensation systems can play a very significant role
in conserving biodiversity as well as improving socio-economic status of the fringe community. In
your opinion, what should be done to implement and improve this system at KPFR?
Thank you for your cooperation
88
ANNEX 8: INTERVIEWS GUIDE FOR ZANZIBAR WATER AUTHORITY OFFICIALS
1. The Government of Zanzibar through DCCFF has upgraded Kiwengwa forest into Kiwengwa-
Pongwe forest reserve (KPFR). Under this scenario Joint Forest Management (JFM) is used to
involve local community in the management of the resources and benefit out of these resources as
an approach of reaching the dual goal of biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction strategies.
We know that KPFR is very rich in water resources. Who is responsible for the management of
water resources in the reserve and who are the main users of these resources?
2. What are the conditions that allow them to use these resources? Are there any legal arrangements to
allow them use this resource?
3. How do surrounding communities benefit from the use of water resources for commercial
purposes?
4. Are there any compensation mechanisms to fringe community for commercial use of water
resources generated by KPFR?
5. If yes, what is the legal status of these mechanisms, and who established them?
6. If no, why are there no mechanisms?
7. Do you think it is worthwhile to establish Payment for watershed Environmental services that will
provide the compensation to fringe community for commercial use of water resources at KPFR? If
no please explain why not?
8. To whom do you think the compensation payment should be handed before taken to the Village
Conservation Committees?
9. How do you propose the institutional framework of this payment system should be?
10. Do you think NGOs can play any role in the institutional framework of this payment system? How
and what kind of NGOs?
89
11. Was there any environmental evaluation done for the demand for and supply of water resources
from KPFR before allowing its extraction by hoteliers?
12. If yes, what were the general results of the valuation? Is there any legal document backing the
study?
13. Payment for Watershed environmental services has been applied world wide and result into positive
impact in conserving biodiversity as well as improving socio-economic status of the fringe
community if well managed. In your opinion, what should be done to implement and improve this
system at KPFR?
Thank you for your cooperation
90
