Bergs, Kathleen2025-11-142025-11-142025-11-14http://hdl.handle.net/10393/51036https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-31510The world faces interconnected crises of biodiversity loss, climate change, and inequality. Academics and practitioners collectively call for development which is equitable, nature-positive and carbon neutral. The integration of these crises is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa, where 89% of the poor live in rural areas, highly dependent upon natural resources for their survival. Financing for these interconnected crises is woefully inadequate, creating what has become known as the ‘conservation finance gap’. While public finance has been the largest source of funds to address these challenges globally, recent shifts—such as the sudden closure of USAID—have caused a re-think of this modality. This research is thus timely and relevant, looking at the potential of the private sector (the ‘market’) to contribute to the financing of global public goods, such as climate and biodiversity. Through comparative case study research in Zambia’s Luangwa Valley, I question whether there is greater evidence of sustainability and / or ecological justice in the donor-dependent North Luangwa landscape than in South Luangwa, where nature has been ‘commodified’ for profit (for example, through tourism, hunting or carbon credits). My cases include i) Luangwa Community Forests Project, Africa’s largest forest carbon project, protecting over one million hectares of forest and benefitting over two hundred thousand community members; and ii) North Luangwa Conservation Programme, which has successfully leveraged private philanthropy to unlock long-term donor support. My research revealed an unexpected finding, as I was unable to uncover greater evidence of ecological justice whether the form of finance was aid-based or commercial. My findings reveal the importance of good governance and strong institutions—bolstered by robust public-private partnerships—in the effort to combat climate change, stem biodiversity loss and reduce poverty, irrespective of the form of finance. Another key finding was the unanimity with which communities, traditional authorities, government and donors seem to have embraced the need to develop sustainable revenue streams. Through a series of journal articles, I address three elements of my over-arching question: The article “The Global Green Policy Assemblage: Forging alignment in Zambia’s Luangwa Valley” (submitted for review) looks at how the Luangwa Community Forests Project (LCFP) creates value—and for whom—considering power dynamics amongst the actors. The article “The Role of the Voluntary Carbon Market in Addressing Global Social Challenges: Ecological (in)justice in Africa’s largest REDD+ project?”, published in the Global Social Challenges Journal, provides a set of recommendations for policymakers to improve equity in the LCFP. The article “Financing Global Public Goods: ‘Green capitalism’ vs foreign aid in Zambia’s Luangwa Valley” (submitted for review) supports the rationale for private sector financing of global public goods, as I was unable to find greater evidence of ecological justice in the donor-dependent North Luangwa landscape than in South Luangwa, where nature has been ‘commodified’ for profit. Elite capture of benefits hampers the sustainable and equitable financing of global public goods—whether the source of finance is commercial or aid-based.enAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Financing for natureCommunity-based natural resource managementEcological justiceCarbon marketsREDD+AfricaZambiaThesis