View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

When asked about the first option “payments” – within which we refer to directpayments to individuals on a cash basis – there was quite a few which did not thinkthis was a good idea. The main reason for this was that if cash payments were givendirectly to them in exchange for reduced forest use, this money would most likely bespent on other expenditures than to cover their energy needs and thus they would stillhave to go to the forest and collect. This view predominated regardless of incomelevel with only a slight difference between the poorest (47%) and the least poor(40%). Those poorest were also more in favour of better social services with 78%compared to 70% among the middle income and 63% from the least poor. Ourprevious findings also mirrored this, as for instance illness seemed to strike thepoorest families the most given their inability to pay for medicines. On the other handthe lest poor villagers were more positive towards increased employmentopportunities as a way of compensation, and whereas 72% answered this, slightly lesspeople, 66%, answered the same out of the poorest. The least poor were also the oneswhich were overall the most involved in other income generating activities whereasthe poorest which were predominately involved in agriculture and thus might havebeen less inclined to this idea as a way of compensation.In terms of location, in Nyali they were especially against direct payment as a way ofcompensation and over 50% disagreed with this option. Rather the majority preferredthe other three options, but also here they were less positive to the payment types andoverall only 50-60% felt the above mentioned compensation options would suffice.This might be explained partly by the higher skepticism towards REDD+ foundamong the villagers, and the disbelief in what the project can offer.In Masugu, on the other hand, direct payments were preferred by 80%. 95% alsoagreed with an increase in employment opportunities. As much of their agriculturalproduction seemed to suffer from low fertility and/or a high vulnerability to drought,pests and weeds, they produced low yields compared to Lunenzi and Nyali. Manywere also more involved in other income generating activities such as smallbusinesses and/or extraction of forest products, something which its close location toKilosa Town also facilitated. However, if receiving assistance in improving theiragriculture, through technical expertise and the provision of fertilizer and pesticides,243