<p>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?</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>

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.