International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
The Socio Economic Effects of Community Forest
Management: Evidence from Dendi District, Ethiopia
Tadesse Getacher Engida 1* Alemtsihay Jimma Teshoma 2
1. College of Business and Economics, Mekelle University, PO box 451 , Mekelle, Ethiopia
2. Wagningen University, Wagningen, The Netherlands
* E-mail of the corresponding author: ahadu3xx@gmail.com
Abstract
The system of community forest management (participatory forest management) seeks to initiate the
process of eliminating the main causes of forest depletion through participation of local communities. In
this paper we have attempted to analyze the participatory forest management in Dendi Destirict of Oromia
region through households’ socio-economic and forest conservation lenses.
The findings of the study reported that participatory forest management enhanced the livelihood, the
conservation measurements and the social assets of the local communities. It was found that this regime of
forest management could attain the sustainability of the forest and accelerate the standard of participant
household’s livelihood; hence, the program is an efficient management option towards sustainability of the
forest resources.
Key words: Participatory forest management, Community forestry, Livelihood, Rehabilitation of degraded
forest, Sustainable development
Acronyms
FUG
Forest User Group
PFM
Participatory Forest Management
SNNP
Southern Nations and Nationalities People
1. Introduction
Hundred years ago, about 40% of land was covered by forest in Ethiopia whereas only less than 3% of the
land is covered by forest currently (Bedru, 2007). The proportion of lost forest cover is almost the same
with the size of the Northern European country, Sweden. The major reason behind degradation of forests is
human interference (such as expansion of agricultural land, grazing, firewood) and poverty (Bedru, 2007).
In addition to the above factors, the forest management administration over the last 50 years in Ethiopia has
negatively affected the forest resource by restricting local communities’ access and user rights. After 1941,
Emperor Haile Selassie declared a law to privatize land and limit access to forestland. This proclamation
was in operation until the Derg regime came to power. In 1975, the Derg regime came into power with a
new proclamation, nationalizing lands and putting administration of land under highly centralized system.
The new rule, which is a proclamation on regulation, by Derg resulted into open access to the resource. The
proclamations in the two regimes did not save the country forest resources from degradation as majority of
the lost forests were destroyed in this period. In 1991, the fall of the Derg regime further devastated the
environment and a new government, Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, was came to
power. In 1994, the new government issued a new proclamation, which was unimplemented because of the
subsequent decentralization programme (Abebe et al, 2009; Bedru, 2007; Gebremdhin, 2008).
The Lesser-control over the encroachers, defective forest guarding system deteriorated the effectiveness of
the prior forest management scheme. In order to meet the situation, the management reformed to
participatory management by involving the encroachers and local poor. There has been no participation of
the local people in forest management before. However, the objective of implementing participatory
management was sustainability of resources as well as resettling the encroachers as protector of the forest
along with better livelihood (Sarin, M.., 2002; Wade,R., 1987; Kant S. , 2000; Agarwal, B.,(2001).
Due to the relatively better coverage of forest in Oromia and South Nations Nationalities People Regional
states, they have pioneered the establishment of this new management initiative system (decentralized
forest management approach). Moreover, now the programme is scaled up for implementation in the other
15
International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
regional states too, for example in Tigray region the project started its operation since 2010.
International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ),
FARM Africa and SOS Sahel Ethiopia are implementing the community based forest programmes in
collaboration with the national regional governments Oromya and SNNP. The FARM/SOS Participatory
Forest Management (PFM) programme has been operational in Ethiopia since 2002 in the forest of Bonga,
Chilimo (Dendi District), Borana and Bale in Oromya region.
The introduction of decentralized forest management programme is with the general objective of
controlling forest degradation and achieving conservation of biodiversity on the one hand, and empowering
communities to participate and improve their living condition on the other hand. This research project was
conceived with a view to examine the outcomes of Participatory/community Forest Management (PFM) in
terms of socio-economic variables and conservation results in the case of Dendi district, Ethiopia.
2. Materials and methods
Three forest rich villages such as Chilimo, Mesalemiya and Kersa were selected purposively because these
villages are among those villages of Dendi District having maximum forest cover. The technique of
comparing control versus experimental group was adopted for impact assessment of the PFM project. The
experimental group for this paper was defined as those participating in the project where the participatory
forest management approach had been implemented under Farm SOS; the village level institutions had
been created for carrying out forest management and development activities. The control group was
composed of the non participants of the project. We used proportional stratified random sampling for
selecting sample respondents where the proportion of project members and non members was used to
determine the number of samples from each village. Quantitative data were obtained through structured
questionnaire from randomly selected PFM member and non member households in each village. 100
respondents from PFM participant (52, 41 and 7 respondents from Chilimo, Mesalemiya and Kersa
respectively) and 150 respondents from non members (35, 55 and 60 and respondents from Chilimo,
Mesalemiya and Kersa respectively) were interviewed.
Comparison tests were used to assess the impact of participation on livelihood status of households, in
terms of the differences between the ‘with’ and ‘without’ program situations. Statistical tests were applied
for differences in socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test was applied to check the normality assumption of the
distributions of sampled variables. The statistics showed for some variables a drastic departure from the
normality assumption, which led to use of non-parametric comparison tests. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
nonparametric test (for two independent samples) has been used for determining differences between the
‘with’ and ‘without’ program situations. An independent t-test was applied to depict annual income
differences between the two groups as income distribution maintains the normality assumption.
The qualitative data were also collected to explicate the quantitative data and to obtain the holistic
understanding. Key informants and focus group interviews were included to acquire qualitative data. The
data from qualitative interviews consist of direct quotations from people about their experiences, opinions,
feelings and knowledge.
3. Results and Discussions
3.1 Livelihood strategies
The term livelihood strategies is used to denote the diversity of activities and choices that people
make/undertake in order to achieve their livelihood objectives (including productive activities, investment
strategies, reproductive choices, etc.). The diversification and flexibility that people have in their livelihood
strategies, the greater their ability to withstand – or adapt to – the shocks and stresses of the vulnerability
context (Krantz, L, 2001).
The relevant data regarding the cash oriented livelihood strategies are given on Figure 1. Most PFM
participant/project member respondents reported that forests, livestock, small business and farming were
their main sources of income. Most non member respondents, on the other hand, reported that daily
wage/labor and small business were their main sources of income.
The overall results regarding the livelihood strategies indicated that majority of project members were
dependent on the natural resource (forest, land, etc.) for their cash income; while non member respondents
had adopted diverse non-natural resource based activities such as labor, small business etc. The qualitative
16
International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
interviews regarding forest use patterns also revealed that the majority of the respondents were dependent
on forest wood for their household needs (for example wood for house construction/repair, fuel wood,
fodder and pastures for livestock etc.). It can therefore be argued that the forest resources contributed the
subsistence (or non-cash) oriented livelihood strategies of the local people. In the context of institutional
changes, besides an emphasis on forest conservation, Farm SOS had also contributed towards the
enhancement of cash oriented livelihood strategies, for instance, through creating the institutional
framework for credit access to the participant/ project member households.
3.2 Access to loan
There was large number of respondents who received loans for their household needs. Those respondents,
who received loan, were asked about the sources of the loan. The data pertaining to their responses are
shown on Figure 2. Friends and relatives were the most important sources of loan (cash) as evident on
Figure 2. There were very few (less than 10%) respondents who took loan from banks (Figure 2). The most
important source of loans for households participating in community forest management includes loans
from their relatives, friends, FUG cooperatives and Iqqub1. It can be concluded from the results of the study
that relative and friends were the sources of loan for a number of PFM participants as compared to the non
participants, which indicate the increased level of social capital of the project member residents.
During qualitative interviews the respondents reported increased interaction with their fellow villagers.
Some of the typical qualitative remarks were; “A periodical meeting is held where people come from
various hamlets of each village and openly talk about our problems”, one of a project member told.
“……… now the people have more chances of interaction not only with one another but also with
the government officials as well. Moreover, we frankly discuss our personal as well as village
problems”, a farmer of a project member told.
The above statements indicated that the institutions created as an outcome of participatory approach has
provided a new forum to the project members and enhanced their social capital.
3.3 Yearly Family Expenditure
Yearly household expenditure was grouped according to food, beverages, fuel, clothing, medical care,
education and other expenses (Table 1). The highest proportion of the income is spent on food, as a basic
necessity of daily life. PFM participant households and non participant groups spent the second highest
proportion of their income on clothing. The average food expenditure is higher in the PFM participant
household group than the non participant. The yearly total household expenditure (sum of mean
expenditure for each item) is 45,334 birr.
A non parametric test, Kruskull-Wallis, shows (at the 1% level) that expenditure on food, fuel and clothing
differs significantly between community forest management participants and non participant groups (Table
2). Mean expenditure on beverage and social activities differs between groups at the 5% significance level.
3.4 Yearly Family Income
The study applied t-statistic to compare whether there is a significant difference between the income levels
of PFM participants and non participant groups of the rural population in Dendi district. The test result
reveled that there were significant differences on income levels of households who were participants in
community forest management against the households who were not participants.
From the fact that the average income level for PFM participant households was greater than the averages
of non participant, it can be concluded that participating in PFM has an impact on income level. In this case
PFM participant households evidenced a better level of livelihood status in terms of income than non
participant neighbors. Hence, participation in community forestry improves the income level of households,
which the test result shows that PFM participation has a significant (1% level) effect on annual household
income.
3.5 Summery on the differences in socio economic characteristics of PFM participant and non-participant
households
In order to detect differences in socio economic characteristics of PFM participant and non-participant
1
Ethiopian traditional saving and credit scheme
17
International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
households, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z (two-independent nonparametric sample test) was carried out. The
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z (two-independent nonparametric sample test) was used for testing mean
differences. The variables considered are age, education, family size, annual income, and yearly
expenditure. Between PFM participant and non-participant households the mean years of education, and
annual income are significantly asymptotically different between the groups at1% level. Moreover, yearly
expenditure and household size are siginificanitly asymptotically different between the groups at 5% and
10% level respectively (Table 3). This indicates membership in community forest management may affect
the households’ livelihood in the study area.
3.6 Perceptions on the ecological effects of PFM
A query was made to examine the change in few conservation factors such as forest cover, fuel wood, soil
erosion and wildlife. Table 4 shows the change in conservation factors. Most of the participants (93%)
openioned that forest cover was increased in terms of replanting that helped to reduce encroachment of
natural. 88% of the non-participants agreed that forest cover increased, too. In case of fuel wood both
groups gave almost same opinion. Overall comment on soil erosion was replanting activities helped to
reduce soil erosion by increasing vegetative cover. Most of the participants agreed that wildlife also
changed due to plantation activities whereas a few of them disagreed with the opinion.
4. Discussion
The results indicate that a considerable difference was found in the sources of income and livelihood
strategies of the respondents of community forest participants’ vis-à-vis non-participant groups. The results
also revealed that major cash oriented livelihood strategies of the respondents were dependent on the
natural resources for their cash income. Moreover, forest resources contributed significantly towards the
subsistence (non-cash) oriented livelihoods of the respondents (for example forest wood for
cooking/heating and construction purposes, fodder/pastures for livestock, etc.). It can be argued, therefore,
that the improvement of the forests cover, which is one of the main objectives of PFM, as an outcome of the
institutional changes can ensure the partial livelihood security of the local people in the future (Ali,T and
Shahbaz, B., 2000; Chhetri, K., 2005).
The qualitative interviews (key informants and focus group) were taken to know the perceptions of the
project members regarding participatory forest management system. Some of the excerpts from the
qualitative data are given as under;
The president of FUG cooperative union explained, “(……) After Farm/SOS introduced this
institutional change, our livelihood have been improved. We sell part of the forest, which is our
main source of cash income. In addition, we work on regeneration of new trees and sell part of
them to the market. But in place of the deforested trees for sale, we work on regeneration of new
trees and a forestation on uncovered areas ahead of time. One of a project member reported, “We
are motivated to work on the protection of our forest as the forest is our important source of
income”. Therefore, the stress on financial benefits for project members had higher implication on
the participatory forest management system mission of forest protection and regeneration.
The above statements indicate that the emphasis given on the enhancement of the financial assets of the
project members was the driving factor for better forest protection and forest regeneration in the area. The
objectives (forest protection) of participatory forestry project and the effectiveness of the institutional
change were attained as the livelihood objectives (more income, food security) of project members have
given special attention. However, Ali et al. (2001), while discussing the effectiveness of participatory forest
management system in Pakistan explained that thee incompatibility between the objectives of participatory
forestry project and the livelihood objectives of the local people was one of the factors hindering the
effectiveness of the institutional change process.
The access to loan for more number of the respondents of project members was through relatives, friends,
FUG cooperatives and Iqqub relatives and friends. The qualitative data revealed the enhancement in the
social capital of the respondents of project members through increased interactions and communication
with their fellow villagers, and other tribes.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z (two-independent nonparametric sample test) has revealed that annual
expenditure, is significantly asymptotically different between the PFM participant and non participant
groups at 5% level. Moreover, the t-test showed that yearly annual income is different between the groups
18
International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
at 1% level. This indicates membership in community forest management may affect the households’
livelihood in the study area.
The query made to examine the change in conservation factors depicted that most of the participant and non
participants agreed that forest cover, fuel wood, soil erosion and wildlife status have been improved due to
plantation and conservation activities after PFM have been commenced.
5. Conclusion, lessons learned
In this paper we examined the role of participatory forest management scheme in Dendi district of Oromya
region, Ethiopia.
Participatory forest management has had a positive contribution on improving households’ livelihoods as
well as on sustainability of the forest resource. According to the statistical tests, participatory forest
management has had a positive impact on the livelihood of households. The results also indicated that
participatory forest management brought a significant change in the social assets of the local communities
as well as conservation measurement. It was found that the participatory management regime could attain
the sustainability of the forest and accelerate the standard of PFM project member household’s livelihood;
hence, the program is an efficient management option towards sustainability of the forest resources. These
findings suggest that there is a role for extending the approach to rehabilitate and protect forest resources in
other parts of the country as well.
The following four lessons may be learnt from the study:
• The existence of incentives motivates project members in forest protection. Some economic
incentives (either in the form of cash or noncash) should be provided to the project members to
motivate them in forest protection/conservation in areas where participatory forest management
projects are implementing.
•
The finding that the impacts of participatory forest management on most of the indicators of
financial assets were significant; this can be explicated as the project has given priorities on
financial security. Hence, a lesson that can be learnt from the experiences of PFM project in Dendi
district is that successful PFM require a holistic analysis of the livelihoods assets (particularly
financial assets) and livelihood strategies of local people should be undertaken before
implementation.
•
Integration of the natural resource management schemes with other livelihood interventions, such
as microcredit, infrastructure development etc. can enhance the effectiveness of such interventions.
•
It should be noted that the success came to exist since the need of the community was assessed and
considered as part of the project initiative and people were put at the center of development.
References
Ali, S.M.I.,Quddus, A.H.G., Bhuiyan, A.M.A. and Hossain, M. (1992), Greening the Hills: the
Betagi-Pamora Agoroforestry Experience, Research Report Series 1, 148 pp. Dhaka: BARC-Winrock
International.
Ali,T and Shahbaz, B. (2000), “Participatory forest management: analysis of forest use patterns, livelihood
strategies and extent of participation of forest users in Mansehra and Swat districts of Pakistan”. [Online]
Available: http://www.nccrpakistan.org/publications_pdf/Forests/Shahbaz_SDC_Dec04.pdf (accessed on
June 15, 2011)
Agarwal, B., (2001), “Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South
Asia and a Conceptual Framework”, World Development, 29(10) 1623-1648.
Bedru, B. (2007), “Economic valuation and management of common-pool resources: the case of enclosures
in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia” PhD dissertation. Leuven
Chhetri, K. (2005), “Community Forestry Program in the Hills of Nepal: Determinants of User
Participation and Household Dependency” MSc dissertation submitted to Department of International
19
International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Norway
Gebremdhin, A. (2008), “Determinats of Success of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) The case of
WAJIB approach in Ethiopia” MSc dissertation submitted to Institutes for Environmental decision
Kant, S. (2000), “A dynamic approach to forest regimes in developing economies” Ecological Economics,
32(2, February), 287–300.
Krantz, L. (2001), “The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction. An Introduction”.
[Online]
Available:
http://www.forestry.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@forestry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_202
603.pdf (accessed on September 25, 2011)
Sarin, M. (2002), “Devolution as a Threat to Democratic Decision-Making in Forestry? Findings from
Three States in India”, CIFOR, Indonesia
Wade,R.(1987), “The management of common property resources: collective action as an alternative to
privatisation or state regulation”, Cambridge Journal of Economics 1987, 11, 95-106
1
Figure 1 Livelihood strategies
20
International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
Figure 2: Sources of loan for PFM participant and non participant households
Table1: Mean yearly household expenditure by expenditure item
PFM
Expenditure item
non-
Participant
Totals by means
participant
Mean (Birr)
Mean (Birr)
Food
12,454
15,790
28,245
Beverage
1,199
1,521
2,720
Fuel
691
876
1,567
Clothing
1,999
2,535
4,534
Medical care
470
596
1,065
Education
735
932
1,667
Construction
1,179
1,495
2,675
Travel
760
963
1,723
Social
600
760
1,360
19,991
25,345.50
45,337
Total
21
International Affairs and Global Strategy
ISSN 2224-574X (Paper) ISSN 2224-8951 (Online)
Vol 4, 2012
www.iiste.org
Table 2: The difference on expenditure categories between community forest management
participants and non participant groups
Expenditure item
Ci-square statistic
p-value
Food
19.5
0.000**
Beverage
6.23
0.031*
Fuel
10.12
0.000**
Clothing
13.45
0.000**
Medical care
2.34
0.321
Education
3.17
0.263
Construction
1.33
0.351
Travel
1.21
0.397
Social
7.56
0.024*
* Significant at 5% level; ** significant at 1% level
Table 3. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z for the mean difference of socio economic variables between PFM
participants and non participant households
Variable
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymptotic Seginificance
(2-tailed tests)
Age(years)
0.1477
0.19
Education(years)
0.332
0.000 **
Family Size(number)
0.1635
0.084
Annual Income(Birr)
0.7404
0.000**
Yearly expenditure(Birr)
0.243
0.023*
* Significant at 5% level; ** significant at 1% level
Table 4.
The change in conservation measurement due to participatory forest management
Forest cover
Fuel wood
Soil erosion
Wildlife
PFM
Project
Non
Project
Non
Project
Non
Project
Non
Status
Members
member
Members
members
Members
members
Members
members
Increasing
93%
88%
75%
85%
8%
10%
87%
71%
Decreasing
2%
7%
5%
3%
74%
71%
5%
19%
No change
3%
5%
20%
10%
12%
8%
6%
9%
No answer
2%
0%
0%
2%
5%
11%
2%
1%
22
International Journals Call for Paper
The IISTE, a U.S. publisher, is currently hosting the academic journals listed below. The peer review process of the following journals
usually takes LESS THAN 14 business days and IISTE usually publishes a qualified article within 30 days. Authors should
send their full paper to the following email address. More information can be found in the IISTE website : www.iiste.org
Business, Economics, Finance and Management
PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
European Journal of Business and Management
EJBM@iiste.org
Research Journal of Finance and Accounting
RJFA@iiste.org
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development
JESD@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management
IKM@iiste.org
Developing Country Studies
DCS@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters
IEL@iiste.org
Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Chemistry
PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Natural Sciences Research
JNSR@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research
CMR@iiste.org
Mathematical Theory and Modeling
MTM@iiste.org
Advances in Physics Theories and Applications
APTA@iiste.org
Chemical and Process Engineering Research
CPER@iiste.org
Engineering, Technology and Systems
PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Computer Engineering and Intelligent Systems
CEIS@iiste.org
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering
ISDE@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy
JETP@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management
IKM@iiste.org
Control Theory and Informatics
CTI@iiste.org
Journal of Information Engineering and Applications
JIEA@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters
IEL@iiste.org
Network and Complex Systems
NCS@iiste.org
Environment, Civil, Materials Sciences
PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Environment and Earth Science
JEES@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research
CER@iiste.org
Journal of Natural Sciences Research
JNSR@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research
CER@iiste.org
Life Science, Food and Medical Sciences
PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Natural Sciences Research
JNSR@iiste.org
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare
JBAH@iiste.org
Food Science and Quality Management
FSQM@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research
CMR@iiste.org
Education, and other Social Sciences
PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Education and Practice
JEP@iiste.org
Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization
JLPG@iiste.org
New Media and Mass Communication
NMMC@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy
JETP@iiste.org
Historical Research Letter
HRL@iiste.org
Public Policy and Administration Research
PPAR@iiste.org
International Affairs and Global Strategy
IAGS@iiste.org
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences
RHSS@iiste.org
Developing Country Studies
DCS@iiste.org
Arts and Design Studies
ADS@iiste.org
Global knowledge sharing:
EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's
Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP
Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld
Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate,
OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library ,
NewJour, Google Scholar.
IISTE is member of CrossRef. All journals
have high IC Impact Factor Values (ICV).