1. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Potential in Mzingwane: Possibilities for Zhulube Bella Nyamukure Centre for Applied Social Sciences University of Zimbabwe/TSBF-CIAT

2. Introduction  PES initiative -Theme 2 (PN17)  Collaboration between TSBF/CIAT and CASS-UZ  Assess feasibility of PES in Soil and Water Management in Mzingwane

3. PES  Voluntary transaction  Well defined ES is being bought (land use likely to provide ES)  Minimum one buyer  Minimum one ES provider  Conditional (only if ES provider secures provision) Wunder 2005  ES are benefits individuals and communities get from the environment (water quality, soil erosion and sedimentation control)

4. Problem  Poor environmental practices upstream have consequences for downstream resource users

5. Aim PES study  assess potential of locally designed incentives (payment) to induce improved land and water management practices upstream (provision of ES)

6. Objectives  Characterize socio economic conditions of Zhulube households  Examine relationships amongst different land and water users and quantify them.  Assess perceptions of resource users on current environmental problems.  Examine possibilities for Payment for Environmental Services (PES) in Zhulube.

7. Methods  Qualitative and quantitative methodologies  Qualitative (PRA-land use mapping, wealth ranking, seasonal calendars)  Key Informant Interviews  FGDs (gold panners, irrigation farmers)  Participant observations  Quantitative (questionnaire survey) 50 households, purposive sampling (location upstream/midstream/downstream)  Analysis SPSS 13.0

8. Study area

9. Results  Demographics and Socio- Economics Predominantly male headed households Predominantly male headed households Literacy levels skewed towards males 78% literate Literacy levels skewed towards males 78% literate 18% of women - primary & secondary 18% of women - primary & secondary 4% of women illiterate 4% of women illiterate Livelihoods are diversified Livelihoods are diversified rainfed agriculture, gold panning, gardening, field crop sales, brick moulding, beer brewing, livestock sales, carpentry and others

10. Socio Economics cont  Gold panning provides an income throughout the year  Access to income and inputs inhibits crop farming no access to loans 82%, no access to loans 82%, access to loans is 18% (2% Agribank,16% GMB-seed & fertiliser) access to loans is 18% (2% Agribank,16% GMB-seed & fertiliser)  hyperinflationary climate discouraging for farming  Low possession of farming implements

11. Land/water use interactions  Water sources: dam, rivers, boreholes  Uses: domestic, livestock, irrigation, gold panning  Analysis  water use by location borehole water gold panning – upstream (p=0.001) borehole water gold panning – upstream (p=0.001) Dam water irrigation – downstream (p=0.07) Dam water irrigation – downstream (p=0.07) Practice of gold panning – upstream (p<0.05) Practice of gold panning – upstream (p<0.05)  Cropping systems by location Intercropping - downstream (p=0.046) Intercropping - downstream (p=0.046) Monocropping - upstream (p=0.063) Monocropping - upstream (p=0.063)

12. Perceptions on institutions Regulated access  Gold panning- viewed by 28% as regulated  village head, police, councillor-arrest/curb panning  Forest resources-20%,Forestry Commission traditional leaders  Dams and rivers-10%  Borehole -8%  Soil-AGRITEX,village heads  Suggest weak regulatory power of institutions

13. Environmental problems  Household perceptions vary  Decreased vs improved pastures  Water quality a problem - 38% of respondents (some of which use dam water for drinking)  Siltation of rivers and dams most worrying  Constant fear of silting up of new dam like old one  Environmental problems attributed to gold panning (50% of respondents)

14. Willingness to pay  Community aware of environmental problems  Expressed willingness to pay (money and services), 78% of respondents  Financial capacity lacking  Others do not see logic

15. Discussion –PES potential  Demand for (ES) i.e. water quality and quantity, siltation and soil erosion control evident  Willingness to pay expressed (voluntary transaction)  Potential providers of ES  gold panners and farmers through improved land and water management  If payment is to be made to gold panners  Problematic compensating an activity viewed as illegal - Gold panners have “real but not legal choice” to land use DIIS Report 2007:21

16. Conclusions and Possibilities Environmental problems exist, undermining provision of ES  Education on importance of (ES), benefits sharing  Building from already existing institutions using incentives not coercion (community visioning)  Incentives for organised and cleaner small scale gold panning e.g. organising legal production and linking to legal markets  incentives for soil conservation farming technologies upstream  Increase plot level productivity-C.A. possible option Potential for contextualised PES exists but…………………………… What technologies (with incentives) can be adopted by farmers upstream to manage land with minimal negative effects for farmers downstream??

17. THANK YOU