Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences
Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences
By
Ellen Winberg – Forestry Volunteer
The subregional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) is a multi-disciplinary technical and policy advisory centre based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
SFE serves Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan and Uganda.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been
patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to
others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
© FAO/SFE 2011
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements....................................................................................... iv
1. Background............................................................................................. 1
2. Methodology.......................................................................................... 3
3. PFM in Ethiopia...................................................................................... 5
3.1 Ecological and social reasons for introducing PFM....................... 5
3.1.1 General motives behind introducing PFM................................ 5
3.1.2 Valuable features of PFM forest areas.................................... 6
3.1.3 External pressure on forests as reason behind introducing PFM
................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Location of PFM in Ethiopia............................................................ 8
3.2.1 Area coverage of PFM in Ethiopia in 2009-2010................... 8
3.2.2 Forest types and connectivity of PFM forests ...................... 12
3.2.3 Commercial activities in and around PFM forests.................. 13
3.2.4 Implementation stages of the PFM projects.......................... 14
3.3 Utility of forests and forest products by communities................. 14
3.3.1 Community dependence on forests before PFM.................... 14
3.3.2 Utilizing forest products before and after PFM introduction.
................................................................................................... 15
3.3.3 Effects of forest resource extraction on forests before PFM
introduction.......................................................................................................18
3.3.4 Limitations to forest resource utilization following PFM
introduction............................................................................... 19
3.4 Components of PFM design in Ethiopia......................................... 20
3.4.1 General components of PFM design in Ethiopia..................... 20
3.4.2 Zoning and access limitations.................................................. 23
3.4.3 Alternative income and livelihood sources............................. 24
3.4.4 Stakeholders and beneficiaries of PFM.................................. 26
ii
Executive Summary
Deforestation and the resulting environmental degradation is a major problem in the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and a key factor challenging food security,
community livelihood and sustainable development. Between 1955 and 1979, over 77
percent of the country’s forested area disappeared and it continues to lose 8 percent
of its remaining forests annually.
Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is a mechanism to protect forests and
enhance the livelihoods of communities who use and benefit from them in the
process. PFM was first introduced to Ethiopia thirteen years ago but the approach is
expanding to cover more and more hectares of forest across the country.
This report is the result of a survey of ten PFM actors in Ethiopia including
stakeholders in the Federal Government of Ethiopia, regional governments, woreda
offices, international development agencies and international as well as national
NGOs.
The largest pockets of remaining natural forests of Ethiopia are located in the south
of Oromiya and Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) regions and the
majority of PFM intervention sites are located in these areas. A smaller number of
recently introduced sites are located in Amhara in northern Ethiopia.
The components that are reported to have been most important for successes in the
different intervention areas are:
• Collaboration, involvement, continuous follow-up and support of relevant
regional and local government sectors.
• Comprehensive and unified understanding within project staff at all levels
including training of all field practitioners.
• Making use of and strengthening already present traditional systems;
repeatedly consulting the community; communicating and building consensus
with local elders, politicians and religious leaders and recognizing traditional
knowledge and customary rights.
• Linking income generation to forest management as well as improving market
access for forest products.
• Enabling exchange of experiences between farmers and communities at
different PFM sites.
• Exchange between farmers of more informal character can have positive
impacts on neighbouring communities. It often leads to farmers copying the
methods that are introduced in the PFM areas, such as farming spices in their
home gardens for income generation.
What became clear throughout the writing of this report was that for PFM approaches
and sustainability of these interventions rely on self-financing mechanisms being put
in place.
iv
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Forestry Volunteer from September 2009 until March
2010 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The author would like to thank the Coordinator of
FAO Sub regional office for East Africa in Ethiopia, Dr. Mafa Chipeta, her direct
supervisor, Mr. Michel Laverdiere (Formerly FAO Forestry Officer) and all the staff of
the FAO Sub regional and Ethiopia Office. Her thanks also go to the many Ethiopian
Government Officers, International organizations and NGOs that helped her in her
survey and analysis work.
FAO would like to acknowledge all PFM organizations, Civil Society and Government
authorities that have contributed to this study both in Ethiopia and Kenya. Thanks
also to all members of the SFE MDT team as well as forestry officials in FAO Rome
for their support and assistance.
1
1. Background
Ethiopia has been subject to extensive deforestation; estimates show that the country
is losing up to 140 000 hectares of forest each year (FRA, 2005). Humans benefit
from and, in many cases, are reliant upon forests for regulating and supporting cultural
and provisional services (MEA). However, the expanse of forest areas is declining
across the globe, partly as a result of logging activities and also due to conversion of
habitats to croplands – agricultural expansion (MEA) accounts for up to 43 percent
of tropical forest losses. Forested catchments account for three quarters of the
planet’s accessible freshwater resources, which loses its quality as forest conditions
worsen (MEA). Fresh water catchments and soil preservation are important inputs to
agriculture and food production.
The reliance on Non Timber Forest Products (NTPF) and other forest resources
can be high in poor, rural populations living close to forests. Forests provide coping
mechanisms during times of food scarcity as they offer wild fruits for children during
periods marked by food shortages; enable bee hive keeping and provide fodder or
grazing sources to communities within proximity (MEA). Some 300 million people on
the planet are dependent, to a substantial degree, on the resources obtained from
forests, their existence and health. These people’s livelihoods and coping mechanisms
are threatened by the loss of forest (MEA).
Protected forest areas with restricted access for local communities have often been
introduced as a solution to tackle deforestation and its effects. When looking at the
approach from a social perspective, restricting access to forest resources and relocating
communities living in forest areas is, at present, becoming more frequently considered
as unsustainable from a social perspective. Participatory Forest Management (PFM)
is a forest management system that was introduced as a complementary mechanism
which safeguards forests, while respecting traditional users and including them in
the process. The designs, names and ideas of PFM are as various as the number of
implementers all over the world. However, the general and common component is
the focus on community participation in forest management. This includes agreeing
with government institutions or landowners on management plans and the sharing
of responsibilities, costs and benefits between a given community and landowners.
It is most often introduced by external actors, such as NGOs or government organs.
PFM is recommended to contribute to improved food security and poverty reduction
(PFM WG, 2010); it could therefore have the potential to play a part in reaching two
of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): Goal 1 - Eradicate Extreme Poverty
and Hunger; and Goal 7 – Ensure Environmental Sustainability. Nevertheless, PFM
has often been criticized for not offering communities with enough revenue to get
out of poverty, as it is usually designed with the main purpose of protecting forests.
The social benefits of a successful PFM implementation include not only revenue
sharing, but also the building of an effective and just local governance as well as
democratization. In the process of introduction and implementation, the relations
between several stakeholders improve as they have to agree on common outputs.
Social interactions that are important for effective PFM implementation are:
empowerment; involvement; negotiation and collective decision making (Kelbessa
and De Stoop, 2007).
2. Methodology
This report is the result of a study that was carried out between September 2009
and March 2010. The main inputs to the report came from a questionnaire that
was distributed to PFM actors in Ethiopia. Results were drawn from the submitted
information, which was qualitatively studied.
The participating actors are found within different types of entities and organizations
such as: the Federal Government of Ethiopia, regional governments, woreda offices,
international development agencies and international as well as national NGOs.
These actors are found at different stages of implementation.
The responses from ten PFM actors were included in this study. Some of them were
still in the planning or introduction stages of their agenda and could thus not respond
to all questions, while others did not yet start preparing their implementation report
for planned activities. During instances that these intended activities are relevant to
the study, e.g. in questions of planning for climate change; they are included in the
results. In other cases, where the question is meant to reflect the current situation,
they are not included. Some projects did not finalize their management plans and
responded based on assumed conditions during the time of the study – these may
however change as they are adapted to local conditions as the project evolves.
The completion of the questionnaire differed between the answering organizations.
Some respondents filled out only a short section of the questionnaire and therefore
were not possible to include in all results. This makes the total number of respondents
different across the study. The study also does not encompass all PFM actors in
Ethiopia and should therefore not be regarded as exhaustive. Some of the reasons
for the limited number of actors included in the study are as follows:
• Some PFM organizations referred to other actors for information sharing on
their behalf.
• Some reported as being unable to contribute due to not being directly involved
in PFM activities.
• Some found the questionnaire too comprehensive and did not manage to fill it
within the time of the study.
• Others had not yet started up their PFM activities and could not contribute
with information from their organizations.
• Some people that were contacted had left their posts at the PFM organization
and could in some cases not refer a successor.
• Some organizations were despite several attempts, not at all accessible due to
unavailability and limited coverage of e-mail and telephone services as well as
lack of updated contacts.
NB: In addition to the above, some organizations may have been unintentionally
overlooked during invitation to participate in the study.
The challenges encountered during the study give indication of the complex network
of PFM actors, their working conditions and sometimes the lack of communication
and connectivity between them. For instance, one overreaching organization
provided information on a number of smaller organizations – and the data had some
discrepancies. In such cases, the study considered the data obtained from the smaller
organizations rather than that from the larger organization.
In this study, those organizations or authorities introducing PFM projects to
communities who have responded to the questionnaire are referred to as actors
or implementers. They make out the foundation for the results of this study. The
organizations have not been weighted for their coverage in the area or population
included in their projects. Some run a number of projects of various sizes and others
run only a few or a single project. The results should be looked at like trends of
actors and activities rather than numerical data.
3. PFM in Ethiopia
3.1 Ecological and social reasons for introducing PFM
3.1.1 General motives behind introducing PFM
There are many reasons for introducing PFM, depending on whom you ask. The
main two objectives are social and environmental. The one emphasizes mitigation
of biodiversity loss, forest degradation and deforestation; while the other views a
concern for livelihoods in forest neighbouring areas as well as the rights to utilize
forest resources legally. These two are closely interlinked under PFM. However,
the proportion of balance can be more prominent in one or the other, sometimes
compromising one.
So in what areas does one introduce PFM and what is special with these areas? The
underlying reasons for introducing PFM to a community can be various. Often a
combination of the below points influence the selection of target communities:
• Cultural or ecological properties of the forest.
• The level of the communities’ dependence on the forest for their livelihoods;
its cultural values or the forest management tradition in the area.
• A history of forest loss and external pressure on the forest in the area and thus
resulting in an acute need to act before forests are lost.
• Landscape management, such as watershed strategies, or enabling connectivity
of forest fragments.
• Direct requests from the communities.
• The commercial value of timber, NTFPs or the potential for tourism.
The direct reasons for introducing PFM
as given by seven organizations in this
study are in all cases a combination
of several causes (see Figure. 1). The
utmost reason for the introduction of
PFM in a forest area is the degree of
threat to the forest and the external
pressure it is facing. The two second
most given reasons are watershed
protection and the commercial value
of NTFP - only in two out of seven
Photo: ©FAO/J. Lejuene
Figure 1 Components that were important for the selection of the PFM sites for 7
organizations.
Five out of six organizations report of recent biodiversity inventories being carried
out, but none report of any historical data on biodiversity. In a number of cases,
the introduction is due to enabling connectivity of forest fragments for ecological
reasons. Social or cultural reasons for introducing PFM are present in three out of
seven cases. In a couple of cases, requests from the community itself is a reason as
well. In two cases commercial tourism or ecotourism was a reason to introduce PFM.
Water source
Old growth trees
Large ungulates
Endemic ungulates
Large carnivores
Endemic carnivores
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of respondents
Encroachment by companies
Livestock grazing/browzing
Poaching of wildlife
Selective logging
NB: The table shows the PFM forest cover, the number of PFM project sites and the
number of households involved in PFM activities by four PFM actors in Ethiopia. The
cover between different actors varies largely in both area and population.
The largest pockets of remaining natural forests of Ethiopia are located in the south
of Oromiya and Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) regions (figure 4.
and 5). The majority of the PFM intervention sites are located in these same regions.
A smaller number of recently introduced sites are located in Amhara in northern
Ethiopia. There are few if any plantation forests under PFM.
Figure 4 Forest and wood land cover of Ethiopia 2009
Legend
Regional Boundaries
TIGRAY
Mekele Regional Capital
Major Lakes
Asosa
Dire Dawa
Gambela Nazret
GAMBELLA
OROMIYA
Awassa
SOMALI
SNNPR
W E
Legend
National Boundary
Regional Boundary
Regional Capital
Major Lakes
Forest Cover
Afro-alpine
Natural forest
Plantation
NB: The land cover map was derived from satellite imagery by the Woody Biomass
Project. The map shows different level of details between the northern and the southern
parts of the country. These differences are due to the adoption of different spatial scales
and interpretation. The southern part was covered during the first phase of the project
and the northern part is covered during the second phase. Year: 1994 – 2004. Source:
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). The forest cover is extracted
from this land cover data.
11
Legend
National Boundary
Regional Boundary
Zone Boundary
PFM
Major Lakes
NB: The majority of the PFM forests consist of large homogenous non isolated blocks.
The second largest part consists of discontinuous blocks separated by farmland. A minor
part consists of plantations or highly degraded fragments of natural forest.
Figures on the area of forest covered by PFM were not provided from many of the
PFM organizations. In 2010, a database on the expanse of PFM in Ethiopia will be
released. The work with this database has revealed that there is inconsistency among
the organizations in the data they keep regarding members and forest surface, as
has also been noted in this study. It is possible that the lack of area data is related
to demarcation difficulties that many actors encounter. Due to the inconsistency
and lack of detail of data, the smallest scale to picture PFM presence in is zonal
level. PFM is present in at least 12 out of the 68 zones of Ethiopia. The zones which
have PFM projects present that are represented in this study are shown in figure
6. However these zones are only covered by forest to some extent as seen in the
previous maps. Some of the zones only harbour a small number of small scale PFM
projects. Other zones harbour a vast number of projects by different actors, such
as Bale. Each project covers all from a few hundred hectares up to some hundred
thousand hectares of forest (see fig. 6).
Separated by farmland
Property
Until now, the majority of the forests represented in PFM projects in Ethiopia have
been highland forests but recently there has been an indication of more lowland
forests being included in PFM solutions (Andargatchew, 2009). The most frequently
represented forest types in PFM are afromontane and moist forests. Only in a few
cases are dry forests included in PFM projects (see fig. 8).
Figure 8 Forest types included in 8 PFM actors’ projects
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Afromontane Moist forest Dry forest
forest
Forest classification
13
A proper overview of the number of people included in PFM activities in the country
is difficult to ascertain. This is due to differences in social and administrative entities
reported from the different actors. There is an inconsistency in documentation
systems between them. The entities used for reflecting the expanse of inclusion
of people in their projects vary from woredas, zones, kebeles and sub-villages to
communities, forest user groups, beneficiaries, household heads and individual
people. An estimation of the numbers from the organizations that have reported
number of households in their PFMs (see table 1) gives an indication of the vast
number of people involved in PFM in Ethiopia. From four organizations the number of
households involved is approximately 30,000. With an average family size of about
six people, the number of people involved in PFM and benefiting from this equals
hundreds of thousands if one also considers that there are a number of other PFM
organizations present in the country. With the scaling up of PFM to be implemented
by MoARD and FARM Africa/SOS Sahel soon the number will be a few millions.
PFM Database
To give a clear view of the cover of PFM in Kafa zone in Ethiopia a GIS Database
for PFM was piloted with support from FAO and FARM Africa. It has the potential
to be expanded and encompass all PFM activities in Ethiopia. It will hopefully
bridge the gap between different PFM actors and enable information sharing.
The database intends to give information on the following:
• Location of PFM sites;
• Size of PFM forests;
• Additional information of projects;
• Number of beneficiaries or members that are involved;
• Proportions in regards to gender/minorities/landless in the projects;
• Status of the community organizations in place (Cooperatives, Forest
Management Associations etc) and the forest user groups;
• Land use and the homogeneity of the forests;
• Forest type;
• Density of PFM members per hectare.
It will give valuable background information of the coverage of PFM and the
different conditions between different localities. Its use can be for evidence
based decision making for land use, land allocation or as a tool to survey
the state of PFM forests and protected areas. The users are intended to be
PFM implementers as well as decision makers. For the database to be useful
it needs homogenously reported data from all PFM parties active in Ethiopia.
or tea estates and in two cases they are tea plantations or tea estates. In one case
companies are collecting incense and gum. Whether the effects of these commercial
activities are beneficial for the local communities or harmless to the environment is
not shown here and should be investigated further.
Table 2 Responses from 7 PFM organizations regarding who extracted resources from
the forest before PFM was implemented
Number of respondents People who carry out the extraction of forest products
Construction wood plays as an important a role for meeting household needs after
PFM is introduced as before PFM.
Figure 9 The forest products of importance for income generation before PFM
Bamboo
Firewood
Coffee
Timber
Honey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of respondents
Figure 10 The forest products considered for filling direct household needs before
PFM introduction based on responses from 7 organizations
Climbers
Charcoal
Bamboo
Timber
Honey
Construction wood
Firewood
0 2 4 6 8
Number of respondents
17
The requirement to be legally allowed to make an income from NTFPs is that the
community is organized and registered as a cooperative. Encouraging formation
of cooperatives is part of the strategy of some but not all PFM implementing
organizations.
Some PFM implementing organizations have specific activities around coffee in their
projects or allow for coffee harvesting. One works exclusively on wild coffee, one on
cultivated coffee and two organizations work with both types. Three actors do not
include coffee at all in their activities. MoARD may work on coffee in areas where it
will be relevant as part of their PFM strategy.
Communities obviously need firewood and construction wood. If this is not accessible
or its availability is limited under PFM management it might affect the livelihoods
of the communities. In three out of seven projects woodlots are introduced to
ease provision of wood for either household or commercial use. The species that
are usually present in these woodlots are fast growing trees like Cordia Africana,
Grevillea robusta and Eucalyptus sp. and in one case Bamboo.
Figure 11 The forest products considered as most important for generating income
based on responses from 7 organizations
Bamboo
Spices
Firewood
Honey
Coffee
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of respondents
Figure 12 The forest products considered as most important for household needs
based on responses from 7 organizations
Climbers
Charcoal
Honey
Grazing/browzing
Coffee
Construction wood
Firewood
0 2 4 6
Number of respondents
Number of
Type of effect from extraction of forest products
respondents
1 Not affecting ecosystem or human well being
3 Extracted species were badly affected (density/behaviour etc.)
4 Severe environmental degradation affecting forest and community locally
3 Severe environmental degradation affecting forest and community in larger area
3 Rapidly reducing forest cover
1 Affecting forest quality but not size
1 Affecting forest quality and reducing forest size
Figure 13 Chart showing the changes to forest utilization for communities with PFM
introduction. The forest products utilized before PFM implementation are shown in
the bottom bar. The products allowed to utilize under the new PFM are shown in the
middle bar and the products prohibited to utilize under PFM are shown in top bar.
Extraction before and after PFM introduction
Dead wood
Soils/stones
Insects
Reeds/bamboo
Medicinal plants
Honey farming
Latex/gums
Wild honey Legend
Utility/product type
Roots
Prohibited under PFM (total 6)
Wild coffee
Allowed under PFM (total 6)
Fruits/mushrooms
Before PFM (total 8)
Grazing/browzing
Wildlife
Charcoal
Firewood (woodlots)
Firewood (introduced sp.)
Firewood (native sp.)
Woodlot timber
Timber (Introduced sp.)
Timber (native sp.)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of respondents
The common features across all the reporting PFM organizations when it comes to
the activities introduced during the implementation of PFM are: the introduction and
creation of Forest Management Associations, Community Based Organizations or
Cooperatives and transferring ownership of the forest to the involved community.
The latter is a possible strategy in the scaling up program by MoARD as well.
A management plan including outtake regulations is the second important part of
the PFM implementation process. This is negotiated together with local authorities
and communities. The preconditions for the negotiating parties can be unequal and
emphasis needs to be put, not only on responsibilities, but on truthful knowledge
sharing on communities rights, benefits and possibilities. This is not always emphasized
during the negotiation process and a management plan is not in place in all of the
project sites. Information and awareness raising of the value and importance of
forests to surrounding communities is also carried out in the majority of the projects
(eight out of nine).
There are some activities and design components to PFM that are not as commonly
implemented across the organizations. Agro-forestry is reportedly introduced in five
of nine organizations and is a possible component in the scaling up activities for
MoARD. In five out of nine cases woodlots with commercial species are introduced
for community use. Two of the organizations introducing woodlots also introduced
agroforestry. Four out of nine programs report the introduction of alternative income
sources as part of the PFM implementation.
Less frequently introduced strategies in PFM projects are: community ownership
of or shareholdings in forest company; Farmer Field Schools to improve agriculture
based income; value addition of community products and improved market access
and finally carbon trading initiatives and/or payment for environmental services.
These activities have been each reported in two out of eight cases. Initiatives that
are implemented only in one site each are: international certification of forest coffee
and premium payment to communities in coffee producing areas. MoARD reports
the prospect of developing NTFP opportunities and linkages to markets for these
products during their scaling up project. One of the organizations that is not including
features to improve livelihoods today mentions that some can be considered for
introduction at a later stage.
The key components of the PFM organizations’ strategies differ from each other.
Some work on wider programs and others concentrate on more specific strategies.
Forest management is not the main priority for communities while livelihoods are.
Some examples of strategies can be outlined that reflect different emphasis on
management and livelihood:
• First of all the scaling up of PFM project by MoARD is concentrating on capacity
building at different levels: of woreda and kebele staff to enable support to
PFM and NTFP development; at federal level for MoARD to take the lead in
coordinating and monitoring PFM nationwide and at regional and zonal level
to enable backstopping to field based extension agents.
Photo: ©FAO/J.Fotsin
couple report not including a
protected zone. This could be
because of a limited size of the
forest or because of general
restrictions to forest resource
use. However the reason is not
clarified in the response.
In some PFM projects a human population capacity for the forest in terms of forest
dwelling people has been set to ensure the sustainability of the management. This
restricts the pressure on the forest further. When limiting the number of people
that can utilize the forest, live in it or live in the vicinity of it, it is important to
remember that it is controversial to put limitations on people as we can do on
e.g. wild animals. Furthermore, it is important to have strategies for dealing with
breaches of the limitations and preventing them in the first place, strategies like
family planning for example. One more thing to consider when determining carrying
capacities are the purpose of introducing these and what one wants to accomplish
with these limitations: conserving forest areas; minimizing land degradation; ensuring
a fair and sustainable flow of forest products to community or something else. An
example on carrying capacity of a PFM forest is set by GTZ project. It is said to be set
to 30 households per 360 hectares of forest or 12 hectares of forest per household
in Adaba-Dodola. This has now been modified to 8 hectares of forest per household.
Whether this improvement has an effect of the current management strategy or an
adjustment of previously faulty numbers is not clear. If the former is the case, one
can study and learn from the strategies implemented there.
gender evenly, two include minorities, two include landless people, one selects upon
livelihood base and one gives full household membership. Only one organization
does not consider even representation of different community groups.
representatives from both government and the PFM community organizations and in
the rest of the cases, government and NGOs share the responsibility for monitoring.
There are requirements on the skills of the government officer who carries out the
monitoring and they generally need specific training such as a forester diploma. On
the community side, awareness of the forest resource value and a good knowledge
of the forest is required. In the scaling up PFM programme by MoARD participatory
monitoring by government and community will be in place once implementation has
started.
Monitoring also implies a financial cost that needs to be dealt with. How this cost
should be covered is also discussed broadly. For a sustainable PFM both management
and monitoring should be covered by the PFM itself which is done in only two out of
seven reported cases, in one case it is also financed by community volunteer service.
In most cases today, the cost is covered by actors from outside, from the initiating
organization, government or by a donor run project.
The time intervals that monitoring is carried out in differs widely between all actors.
The following examples can illustrate this:
• Communities patrol the forest daily and every second month government
representatives patrol.
• Woreda official and NGO monitors every month.
• Development Agents and community representatives patrol every six month.
• Community and regional government patrol every three to five years.
Two important reasons for monitoring is to allow the adaptation of the management
plan and allowing for evaluation of the PFM. Many actors include adaptability in
these plans (4 of 5). They allow for reviews following monitoring and adaptation of
the plan when needed. The enforcers of rules and regulations in all cases include the
communities themselves. They are in most cases supported by local government.
In case of disregarding of plans the procedures for dealing with these violations
stretch from reprimands and sanctions to cancellation of the PFM contract.
• One of the actors concentrates specifically on NTFP and their potential for
markets. They survey market possibilities for the products and link products to
buyers and processors.
• Another actor concentrates largely on establishing business partnerships with
coffee exporters which enables partners to purchase coffee directly from PFM
cooperatives without going through commodity exchange. They also explore
international marketing channels for the coffee.
• MoARD will be exploring market linkages and develop these when scaling up
PFM.
• One more organization works on developing natural products and a market
for these.
Following the PFM implementation there are reports from the actors of commitment
from the communities to protect their forests by following the resource use
regulations, actively managing and patrolling the forest area.
The incentives for PFM introduction from government and community sides often
have different emphasis on protection on the one hand and livelihoods and utilization
on the other. This can have implications for the social and ecological sustainability of
the projects and compromise its success.
There are shortcomings when it comes to offering sufficient economic incentives for
communities to join in PFM. These are largely related to policy and legal limitations
that restrict business and income earning from forest resources for forest management
associations. For resolution to these issues some PFM actors are working on policy
advocacy.
In some areas there are illegal private investments going on in the state forest
areas that compromise the sustainability of the PFMs. There are also contradictory
agreements made for overlapping forest areas where external corporate farming
gets licensed in PFM forests. When scaling up and emphasizing PFM in Ethiopia,
the government needs to commit to their agreements. If this fails there is risk of the
intentions and goals of PFM being undermined and lost.
When restricting the use of a particular forest area there is a risk of redirecting
extraction pressure to other forest areas as has been reported from one of the PFM
actors. Also by limiting the defined user group and missing stakeholders, one risks
increasing social and economic indifferences between neighbouring communities.
This can be the case where one may still illegally extract timber from neighbouring
forests while the PFM community is limited to use only NTFPs or in situations where
PFM communities gain revenues from marketing NTFPs and other communities
are left without. This unequal distribution would call for the extension of PFM to
neighbouring forests and communities and working at a landscape scale.
The main conclusions that were drawn from the encountered obstacles show some
key points to take into consideration to enable successful implementation of PFM.
The following conclusions were stated by the organizations:
• Before the PFM process can even start it is essential to take time to sensitize
the community and local government to the concept and get them onboard
and become part of the process. The local government is especially important
to have onboard for facilitation and negotiation since NGO mandates are
limited.
• Overall transparency and a good approach to the community builds trust for
the concept and eases the introduction and implementation of PFM as well
as problem solving along the way. Undermining of traditional knowledge and
local culture which would damage the process can be avoided by especially
involving key people from the community and letting them make their voice
heard.
• Clear roles and TORs need to be defined for all actors especially to committees
and planning teams. There must be a clear commitment and accountability
from involved actors at all levels and no contradictory actions carried out.
• Securing budget is important to enable smooth implementation
33
• Clear policies are fundamental to success of PFM and must state responsibilities,
tenure rights, user rights and benefits for the parties.
• The motives and aims for PFM in Ethiopia need to be clarified and kept
transparent. As part of this, consensus is needed between all PFM proponents
at all levels.
• The communities’ demands for firewood and charcoal need to be filled not to
put too much pressure on neighbouring forests. For this, offering fuel saving
technologies and alternative fuel sources should be more widely implemented.
for its implementation. The one project that reports not requiring external support
has been extremely costly on the one hand but on the other it has managed to
cover large areas of forest under PFM. The actual management plans are not yet
being implemented but a high number of communities have been involved and the
management should soon be in place. The members of these communities make
good revenue from NTFP as a result of the project, but the sustainable self financing
mechanism is still not in place.
Problems that have been observed elsewhere in East Africa when implementing PFM
and that have crippled the process and goals of PFM are visible also in Ethiopia.
Rather than facing the same problems Ethiopia can benefit from learning from other’s
experiences and mitigating the problems before they are even encountered. Some of
the problems and solutions that are already suggested are:
• Insufficient knowledge in communities of their rights, duties and entitlements
when negotiating the terms of PFM that needs to be strengthened in Kenya
(KEFRI, Proceedings from Uganda, 2008). Today the communities are in an
inferior position when negotiating with authorities about the management
which renders them to end up with fewer benefits and more responsibilities in
the final management agreement.
• Since PFM doesn’t generate direct revenues it isn’t prioritized in the national
forestry authority’s operations in Uganda. Also there is a lack of resources
in manpower and finances that prevents true efficiency. (Proceedings from
Uganda, 2008)
• Interference of national and local politicians in the responsible management
of forest areas is noted as a problem in Uganda (Proceedings from Uganda,
2008).
• In Uganda there are suggestions of stipulating minimum standards for the
communities’ benefits to avoid the imbalance in power relations between
parties when entering the agreement (Proceedings from Uganda, 2008).
of or have initiated the process for payment of environmental services (PES) through
carbon offsetting. Some actors are piloting PES and waiting for the results before
extending. Since many of the actors are reporting challenges with financing and
the long term financial sustainability of the PFM projects, the income from climate
change mitigation initiatives, such as carbon trading, can offer opportunities for
both financing for management activities and give incentives for the communities
to keep their forest by additional incomes. However for investors to be interested
they need security. One needs to be able to guarantee results and sound use of their
investments.
Specialties from different organizations should made use of and knowledge sharing
of best practices should be encouraged e.g. by holding capacity building workshops
under the PFM Working Group umbrella. Also the database for PFM should be made
good use of and accurate and detailed information should be shared by all actors
to this forum. The organizations need to keep a systematic record of their projects’
coverage.
The climate change dilemma should be seized as an opportunity for PFM actors
to safeguard economic incentives for communities and government to engage in
PFM. Initiatives like REDD should be further investigated for its opportunities for
PFM. One also needs to make investigation in counter actions and guarantees for
the investors. One should be aware of the opaqueness of long term commitment
in REDD and similar climate mitigation schemes. Thus such enterprises should still
be complemented by other initiatives, such as sustainable tourism or sustainable
logging.
FAO can be a beneficial and active partner in the investigation and developing of
a self-financing mechanism for PFM that can be adapted for different areas and
organizations.
Further suggestions for FAO are to investigate, coordinate and develop packages for
utilizing climate change modalities as an opportunity for PFM to safeguard economic
incentives of the involved actors in PFM.
FAO can finally also carry out a proper evaluation of PFM’s ecological, economic
and social results as well as its efficiency in providing sustainable development in
Ethiopia.
39
5. References
A. Contreras-Hermosilla, H. M. Gergersen, & A.White, (2008). Forestry
Governance in Countries with Federal Systems of Government: Lessons for
Decentralization. Forest and Government Programme. (Copied material).
A. M. Larson, D. Barry, G. R.Dahal & Carol J. Pierce Colfer, (Editors). Forests for
People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform. (Print out from Internet).
A.S.Ondo-Azi, C.Ella Missang & T.Silou, (2009). Forests, Trees and Livelihoods.
Vol 19 No. 2 (2009). United Kingdom. (Internet prints out) PP 7.
Amare Getahun, Ayele G/Mariam & Michael Hawkes, (2007). Final Evaluation
of FARM-Africa/ SOS Sahel Eth. Participatory Sustainable Forest Management:
Innovations in Policy and Practice in East Africa, Final Report. LTS International
Ltd Pentlands Science Park, Scotland. PPs 71.
AMBERO GITEC & Oromia Forest & Wildlife Enterprise, (2009). Participatory
Forest Management (PFM) Training of Trainers Modules, (Second Draft),
Ethiopia: Addis Ababa. PPs 89.
Andargatchew, A.; Draft- Proceedings from the PFM-Working Group Meeting
5-6- March 2009, Jimma, Ethiopia; MoARD and NTFP-PFM, 2009
Ann Muir, (2005). Institutional Review of Community Based Organizations in
Participatory Forest Management: Report for Farm Africa/SOS Sahel and GTZ.
Ethiopia: Addis Ababa. PPs 30.
Belete – Gera Participatory Forest Management Project. WaBub Forest
Management Plan xActivity Catalogue. (January 2010). Jemma, Ethiopia.
Belete Tafere, (September 2009). Experiences of NRM Practices and Rural
Development in Tigray, and the Role in Ensuring Multiple Livelihood Mechanisms.
Ethiopia: Addis Ababa. PPs 17.
Biritish Columbia Community Forest Association, (2004). The Community
Forestry Guidebook: Tools and Techniques for Communities in British Columbia.
FORREX & Columbia Community Forest Association, Kamloops and Kaslo, BC.
PPs 87 (copied material).
Carol J. Pierce Colfer, (2007) (Editor). Simple Rules for Catalyzing Collective
Action in Natural Resource Management Contexts. Center for International
Forestry Research. Indonesia. (Copied Material)
Carol J. Pierce Colfer & D.Capistrano. The Politics of Decentralization: Forestry
Power and People. CIFOR, Indonesia. (Print out from Internet).
Catherine Moss, Kate Schreckenberg, Cecilia Luttrell and Liz Thassim, (2005).
Participatory Forest Management and Poverty Reduction: a review of the
evidence. Overseas Development Institute. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 35.
Charles K. Meshack, B.Ahdikari, N.Doggart & J.C.Lovett, (2006). Transaction
costs of community-based forest management: Empirical evidence from
Tanzania. Journal compilation & Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Afr. J. Ecol. (Copied
material). PPs 9.
Dianne Rocheleau & David Edmunds, (1997). Women, Men and Trees: Gender,
Poser and Property in Forest and Agrarian Landscapes. Clark University,
Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. (Copied material).
Dr. B. Chikamai and Dr. M. Tchatat. Forest Management for Non-Wood Products
and Services in Africa: Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest Management in
Africa. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 34.
Dr. C.T.S.Nair & Mr. J.Tieguhong, (March 2004). African Forests and Forestry: An
Overview: Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest Management in Africa. Kenya:
Nairobi. PPs 27.
E. Ostrom, K. P. Andersson, R. Meinzen-Dick, E. Mwangi, B. Campbell & M.
Luckert. Decentralization Reforms and Property Rights (LTRA-a), (2010). (Print
out from Internet)
Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation Division. (2007). Progress Report
“Sustainable Land Management Project in Kafa Zone, SNNPR”. FAO Ethiopia,
ECU. Addis Ababa. PPs 19.
Erastus N. Kibuka. Kenya Forest Service: Participatory Forest Management
(PFM)-In Kenya. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 7.
FAO HQ, (2009). Enhancing Stakeholder Participation in National Forest
Programmes. (Forestry Policy Brief). Italy: Rome.
FAO Investment Centre UNFAO, Rome. Rural Invest: A Participatory Approach to
Identifying and Preparing Small Scale Rural Investments. Italy: Rome. (Leaflets).
FARM – Africa and SOS Sahel Eth Participatory Natural Resources Management
Programmes. (Internet print out)
FARM-Africa & SOS Joint Forest Mgmt Programme, (2010). Borana Collaborative
Forest Management Project. (Internet printed doc.).
FARM-Africa & SOS Joint Forest Mgmt Programme, (2010). Chilimo Participatory
Forest Management Project (Internet printed doc.).
41
FARM-Africa & SOS Joint Forest Mgmt Programme, (2010). Bonga Integrated
Participatory Forest Management and Reproductive Health Project. (Internet
printed doc.).
Farm Africa SOS Sahel Ethiopia, (2007). Bale Eco-Region Sustainable
Management Programme (BERSMP). Addis Ababa.
Farm Africa / SOS Sahel Ethiopia, (2007). The Key Steps in Establishing
Participatory Forest Management: A field manual to guide practitioners in
Ethiopia. (BEST PRACTICES SERIES No. 1). Ethiopia: Addis Ababa. PPs 28.
Forestry Department UNFAO, (2004). Global Forest Resources Assessment
Update 2005: Terms and Definitions (Final version). Forest Resources Assessment
Programme: Italy: Rome. PPs 36.
Forestry Department UNFAO, (2005). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005:
Country Report. Global Forest Resources Assessment: Italy: Rome. PPs 37.
Environment and coffee forest forum, personal communication, 2010.
FRA; Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Country Report 036 Ethiopia;
Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
2005
GTZ International Services Ethiopia. Catalysing Conservation for Ethiopia’s
Wildlife, Project: Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System of
Ethiopia (SDPASE), Client: Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA).
Ethiopian: Addis Ababa.
H. R. Ojha, N.P. Timsina, C.Kumar, M.R.Banjade & B.Belcher (2008).
Communities, Forests and Governance: Policy and Institutional Innovations from
Nepal. Adrot Publishers, New Delhi, India.
Hezron Mogaka, Gacheke Simons, Jane Turpie, Lucy Emerton and Francis
Karanja, (March 2001). Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in
Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN – The
World Consservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs
138.
International Development Research Center. Elangata Wuas Ecosystem
Management Program (Kenya) – Phase II, Projects in Kenya. (Print out from
internet).
J.L.Herbohn, N.F. Emtage, S.R.Harrison, N.O.Gergorio & D.P.Peque. The Influence
of Land and Tree Tenure on Participation in Smallholder and Community Forestry
in the Philippines. (Copied material PPs from 205-214).
Jean Jacob Sahon (UNEP). Report on activities supported by Benin UNDP Office.
PPs 5.
Joram K. Kagombe and James Gitonga, Kenya Forest Working Group,
(September 2005). Plantation Establishment in Kenya: The Shamba System Case
Study. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 28.
Jules Pretty and David Smith, (2003). Social Capital in biodiversity Conservation
and Management. Conservation Biology. PPs 631-638.
Kelbessa, E., De Stoop, C.; Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Biodiversity
and Livelihoods in Africa, Proceedings of the International Conference 19-21
March 2007, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; The Government of Ethiopia in Collaboration
with Other Stakeholders; 2007
Kenya Forest Service and other Stakeholders, (December 2007). Manual on
Preparation of Participatory Forest Management Plans (PFMPs). Kenya: Nairobi.
PPs 36.
Kenya Forest Service and other Stakeholders, (March 2009). Manual on Forming
and Registering Community Forest Associations (CFAs). Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 28.
Kenya Forest Service and other Stakeholders, (December 2007). Participatory
Forest Management Guidelines. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 43.
Kenya Forests Working Group (KFWG), (November 2008). Participatory Forest
Management Experiences in Kenya (1076-2007). Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 42.
Kenya Forests Working Group (KFWG), (October 2008). The Forests Act 2005:
An Empty Promise or a Reality? (Policy Brief No. 2). Kenya: Nairobi.
Kenya Forestry Research Institute, (KEFRI 2008). Proceedings of the 1st National
Participatory Forest Management Conference: Better Managed Forests and
Improved Livelihoods. Kenya: Muguga. PPs 191.
Kenya Forest Service, Fact Sheet: Trees for Better Lives. Kenya: Nairobi
Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Participatory Forest Management in
Kenya: Is there Anything for the Poor? For capturing and exploring experiences.
Proceedings: International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests,
(September 2007). Bangkok. PPs 10.
Kenya Gazette Supplement Acts, (2005). Special Issue, Kenya Gazette Supplement
No. 88 (Acts No. 7). Kenya: Nairobi. (Copied pages from 229 to 305).
43
Mr. Julius C. Tieguhong & Dr. Ousseynou Ndoye, (Oct. 2004). Development
of Trade and Marketing of Non-Wood Forest Products for Poverty Alleviation
in Africa: Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest Management in Africa. Kenya:
Nairobi. PPs 46.
Musingo T.E. Mbuvi, Washington O. Ayiemba, Joram K. Kagombe & Paul M.
Matiku, (2007). Participatory Natural Resources Management: How to Involve
Local Communities A Handbook for Facilitators. Kenya Forestry Research Institute
(KEFRI). PPs 48.
National Participatory Forest Management Working Group (PFM-WG)
Workshop (Tentative Schedule) February 18, 2010, Adama. Moderator:
Zelealem Temesgen MEA-Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; www.
millenniumassessment.org
Current state and trends
• Timber, Fuel and Fibre
• Forest and Woodland Systems
• Vulnerable People and Places
Odera, J.; Lessons learnt on community forest management in Africa; Afornet/
FAO/KSLA; 2004
Oromia Forest Enterprise Supervising Agency, Oromia Regional Government,
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA), (August 2009). Participatory Forest Management
Project in Belete-Gera Regional Forest Priority Area Phase 2: Project
Implementation Manual – Version 3. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa. PPs 43.
Oromia Forest Enterprise Supervising Agency, Oromia Regional Government,
The Federal Democratic Republic of Eth & Japan Int. Cooperation Agency (JICA),
(2009). Participatory Forest Management Project in Belete-Gera Regional Forest
Priority Area Phase 2: Project Implementation Manual Version 3. Ethiopia: Addis
Ababa. PPs 43.
P. Gonzalez, R. Hassan, P. Lakyda, J.McCallum, S. Nilsson, J.Pulhin, Bernardt
van Rosenburg & B.Scholes. Forest and Woodland Systems. (Copied Pages fm
587-621)
Participatory Forest Management Project in Belete-Gera. (Brochures). WaBub
PFM in The Belete – Gera Regional Forest Priority Area. An Introduction to
WaBuB Forest Management Plan (WaBuB FMP). An Introduction to WaBuB Field
Schools.
45