View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

they might then be able to substitute some of the income which they are get from theforest.Given that the land use planning and PFM will establish and give formal rights anddeeds to their land villagers might also be more inclined to invest more time andeffort into their land. In Lunenzi, better social services was seen as the most preferredpayment option, perhaps not so surprising given their lack of dispensary, schools andmodern wells in the village. Many here also commented on the fact that they neededbetter roads so they could more easily get to and from the village.Overall, depending on the particular livelihood situation of the respondents theresponses given would vary significantly, and given the big variations between bothincome groups and between location so did their preferences vary. These variationsthen are vital to be taken into consideration both if indeed it is expected that theirlivelihood conditions will improve and as a way of increasing the cooperation amongvillagers.As shown above TFCG and MJUMITA have vast experiences within PFM andsubsequently this will make up the foundation which REDD will be based on withinthe villages. So far, progress has been made in quite a few areas, although for themost parts it is still very much in the implementation phase. They seem to have givendue diligence to capturing the variations between and within villages, however thisemphasis has cost them a lot of time and money.In addition, as we will show, PFM in itself is not unproblematic and it is not made anyeasier by adding the specificities and requirements needed for a REDD policy on top.While evaluating the current resource regimes in place and as part of looking atREDD in terms of the overall Resource Regime Model, we will now on the basis ofOstroms design principles look at what make a sustainable resource regime, and theamount to which PFM can be seen as such.244