Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences

SFE
FAO Subregional Office Technical

Paper
for Eastern Africa (SFE)
Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia,

Practices and Experiences
By
Ellen Winberg – Forestry Volunteer
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

SUBREGIONAL OFFICE FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Addis Ababa, 2011
FAO subregional Office for Eastern Africa
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.
Reproduction and copies:

Reproduction and dissemination of material in this document for educational non-commercial purposes
are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided that the source
is fully acknowledged. Reproduction or adaptation of material in this information product for resale or
other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of FAOSFE.
Applications for such permission and requests for copies of this and other FAOSFE publications should
be addressed to:
The Registry:
FAO Subregional Office for Eastern Africa
and FAO Representative in Ethiopia and to AU and ECA
CMC Road - Po. Box 5536, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
or by E-mail to: FAO-SFE@fao.org
Comments and information exchange:

FAO SFE invites comments and exchange of publications and papers on the topic of this and related
publications.
Cover photo: ©FAO/R. Faidutti
© 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
3.4.5 Distribution of benefits, roles, responsibilities and ownership

................................................................................................... 27
3.4.6 Management and Monitoring................................................. 27
3.4.7 Markets for PFM forest products........................................... 28
3.5 Results from introducing PFM........................................................ 29
3.5.1 Changes to community livelihood and engagement following
PFM........................................................................................... 29
3.5.2 Forest cover and quality change since PFM introduction...... 30
3.5.3 Changes in extraction of forest products since PFM
introduction............................................................................... 30
3.6 Challenges, successes and opportunities....................................... 31
3.6.1 Dealing with difficulties along the way of PFM implementation
................................................................................................... 31
3.6.2 Ingredients for success............................................................ 33
3.6.3 Financial sustainability of PFM............................................... 33
3.6.4 PFM opportunities from climate change..........................................34
3.6.5 Future scaling up of PFM in Ethiopia..................................... 35
4. Conclusion and recommendations....................................................... 36
5. References............................................................................................... 39
Annex I: Institutions and Persons Contacted............................................ 47
iii
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.
SFE Technical Paper

2 Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences
Social interactions that are important for effective PFM implementation are:
empowerment; involvement; negotiation and collective decision making (Kelbessa
and De Stoop, 2007).
Photo: ©FAO/Photo Library

3
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.
SFE Technical Paper

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.

5
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
cases was timber of commercial value

indicated as a reason. In many cases,
a biodiversity inventory showing
special values is one of the reasons for
introducing PFM.
SFE Technical Paper

Figure 1 Components that were important for the selection of the PFM sites for 7
organizations.
Reasons behind introducing PFM

Ecotourism
Ceremonial sites (GUDO)
Commercial value-tourism
Underlying reasons
Request from community

Commercial value-timber products
Social-cultural needs
Enabling connectivity of forest fragments
Biodiversity inventory showing special values
Commercial value- NTFP
Watershed protection
Degree of threat to the forest
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of respondents
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.
3.1.2 Valuable features of PFM forest areas

Forests, where PFM is being implemented in Ethiopia, have a number of valuable
ecological and cultural features. Some of these features are part of the reasons
for introducing PFM to an area; and although the others are not reason enough for
introduction, they are of significant potential or obvious value to communities or the
ecosystem functions (e.g. ecosystem services, tourism potential or importance to
traditional local customs). Most commonly, such forests harbour important water
sources and old grown trees, but in a number of cases, they serve as habitat for
endemic species of birds, carnivores and ungulates to mention a few (see Figure 2).
Such animal resources, especially large mammals, can be beneficial when considering
ecotourism as a source of additional income. While such activities already take place
in some areas, this opportunity could still be explored by more actors.
7
Figure 2 Valuable features of the PFM forests reported from 7 actors
Valuable features of PFM forests

Other endemic/endangered
Cultural values/traditional medicines
Important for forest connectivity

Endemic birds
Rare/endemic trees
Feature
Water source
Old growth trees
Large ungulates
Endemic ungulates
Large carnivores
Endemic carnivores
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3.1.3 External pressure on forests as reason behind introducing

PFM
As indicated in the beginning of this chapter, one of the important factors for
introducing PFM to a forest area can be the deforestation rate in a given area. There
are a series of reasons for the loss of forests in Ethiopia. The direct and indirect
pressures on the forests that are now being tackled by PFM are composed of two
main characteristics according to the results (see Figure 3): the first group of reasons
are related to agricultural needs, while the second group of reasons are related to
direct use and needs of forest products.
One third of the world’s population, out of which the majority is located in
developing countries, is dependent on fuel wood for their daily heating and cooking;
fuel wood which is obtained from either forests or plantations (MEA). This case
of dependence on fuel wood is a reality in Ethiopia. The most frequently reported
drivers of deforestation in the PFM areas is the transformation of forest plots to
agricultural land, and the damaging extraction of forest resources, such as fire wood.
Encroachment by people from afar, slash and burn agriculture, livestock and small-
scale agriculture are also commonly reported as affecting forests negatively. Yet
another activity, which was reported as also having negative influence on the forests
where the PFM projects are present is small-scale logging. Selective logging and
poaching however are not considered as problems in more than one area.
SFE Technical Paper

A few organizations reported that large scale farming and encroachment by

companies have had negative effects on the forest cover. One organization reported
of competition for forest resources, such as coffee is increasing the pressure on
the forest. This can imply that there is not enough reasonable alternative income
generation available.
Figure 3 External Pressure and drivers of deforestation of forests includes in PFM, as
reported from seven PFM organizations
External pressure on the forests
Encroachment by companies
Encroachment by immigrating people

Illegal damaging extraction of forest
resources
Large scale farming
Cause of effect
Livestock grazing/browzing
Poaching of wildlife
Selective logging
Slash and burn agriculture
Small scale farming
Small scale logging
Transformation to agricultural land

0 2 4 6 8
3.2 Location of PFM in Ethiopia

3.2.1 Area coverage of PFM in Ethiopia in 2009-2010
Participatory Forest Management is quite new to Ethiopia - it was first implemented
13 years ago (Andargachew, 2009). As such, it is difficult to know the exact expanse
of PFM forests and project areas in Ethiopia. Data on the current area coverage is
lacking. Only by including the respondents from this study, the coverage in 2010 will
be more than 211 076 hectares of forest (see table 1). Only half of the organizations
that are included in this study managed to report area surface of their PFM forests.
There are also a number of additional actors in PFM whose coverage is unknown to
this study.
9
Table 1 The forest surface coverage of a selection of PFM actors in Ethiopia.
FZS JICA NTFP-PFM ORDA SZARDD Total

Reported no. of
3 2 5 2 15 27
sites
Total area covered
10 000 170 000 8 739 - 22 337 211 076
in project (ha)
Total no. of
15 000
households >10 000 505 - 4 396 29 901
(2010)
involved
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
AFAR Broadleaved Deciduous (40-(20-10) Woodland
Asayita Broadleaved Evergreen Closed to

AMHARA Open (100-40)% Trees
BENSHANGUL GUMUZ Bahir Dar
Asosa
Dire Dawa
Addis Ababa Jijiga

Harar
Gambela Nazret
GAMBELLA
OROMIYA
Awassa
SOMALI
SNNPR
W E
0 50 100 200 300 400

Kilometers
SFE Technical Paper

Figure 5 Natural forest and plantation cover in Ethiopia 1994- 2004
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
Figure 6 Zones where PFM is being implemented by the reporting actors.
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).
SFE Technical Paper

3.2.2 Forest types and connectivity of PFM forests

The forests that remain in Ethiopia are close to each other. There are a few larger
forest regions left (see fig. 4 and 5) where most of the PFM projects are being
implemented. The forests that are included in PFM activities are in many cases
separated by farmland. They are constituted by forest patches with some degree of
connectivity or they are found as parts of larger homogenous forest blocks or forest
belts (see fig. 7).
Figure 7 The level of fragmentation of the forests that are represented in PFM from
seven actors
Forest fragmentation properties of PFM forests
Isolated forest blocks
Separated by farmland
Property
Forest patches with

connectivity
Part of large homogenous
block/belt
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
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
Forest types included in PFM

8
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.
3.2.3 Commercial activities in and around PFM forests

There are a number of investments and corporate activities going on in PFM forest
areas and their vicinity. Only two organizations have reported these activities not to
be present. In three out of six cases the corporate activities are coffee plantations
SFE Technical Paper

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.
3.2.4 Implementation stages of the PFM projects

There are few PFM projects that have been finalized with full responsibility handed
over to the communities. Three out of eight organizations at the time of the study
had transferred the management of forest areas to communities within their projects.
The PFM actors that were included in this study are in different stages of the PFM
process, either in investigation, assessment, negotiation or implementation stage.
One of the organizations started their PFM activities in 1995 and one started in
2000. The rest started 2003, 2004 and 2009. Some of the organizations have
experience from work in other African countries before starting in Ethiopia. These
were active in Tanzania, Kenya, Malawi and Senegal.
3.3 Utility of forests and forest products by communities

3.3.1 Community dependence on forests before PFM
It is difficult to determine the Importance of the forest for the livelihoods in
communities living close to forest. These communities are often poor with limited
possibilities. The organizations were asked to get an idea of the level of dependence
of these communities had on forest products. One of the organizations answered that
the dependency is very high because farming, animal husbandry and market access
is low. Three organizations answered that it is seasonally high - when crops and
livestock are insufficient, forest products become essential for food and income. Two
organizations answered that forest resources are always utilized as complements
to food and income but that alternative sources also are well available. These
projects are located in dry forest areas. Only one organization answered that forest
resources have never been important sources for food or income generation for the
communities. In total, seven organizations shared their information. The organizations
were also asked about the importance of forest products for income generation
for the communities. One answered that it is not essential, rather an addition to
the income of villagers. Four out of seven answered that it is essential to at least
20 percent of the community. In one case, each the forest products are considered
to be essential for income generation to more than 50 percent and 80 percent
respectively. This gives an indication that forest products presently play an important
role for income generation in many forest communities.
In all cases where PFM later was implemented, the neighbouring communities were
the ones extracting forest resources (see Table 2.). Temporary visitors from areas
located further away from the forest also extracted products from the forest. In a
few cases, companies also utilized the forests resource. In none of the sites it was
reported that the companies conducted this extraction illegally. (However, since after
introduction of PFM illegal corporate activities have started in some of the areas).
15
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
7 Direct forest neighbours
6 People from further away
2 Companies with extraction rights
0 Companies without extraction rights
3 People with tenure of the surrounding land
1 People with tenure of the forest
1 The customary land right holders (Kobo)
3.3.2 Utilizing forest products before and after PFM introduction

Forest products are reported to be equally important for covering direct household
needs, such as food, medicines, housing and animal feed, as for generating income
in six out of seven cases. In one case, it is said to be most important for income
generation.
The forest products that were of highest importance to the communities before
PFM was implemented are seen in Figures 9 and 10. The products are of varied
importance for household needs and income generation. In general, firewood was the
most important forest product for household needs, closely followed by construction
wood. Honey played an important role in income generation as well as for household
needs in some areas. Timber played an important role in income generation although
in most cases timber and charcoal extraction is not allowed under PFM. There is
a diversity of products that play important roles for households in different areas,
much depending on the forest type of the area e.g. incense and grass is of high
importance in the dry forests areas in the north.
In all cases, communities are allowed to access a number of non-timber forest
products for household needs. The outtake of these is mostly restricted to specific
species and quantities.
Coffee has an important role in income generation before PFM in a number of areas
and under PFM has become one of the most relied on products (see Figure 9.)
Honey is not more important before PFM introduction than it is after however does
become slightly less important to household needs after PFM is introduced. Non
Timber Forest Products become the main income source in most of the areas after
implementing PFM. Firewood (dead wood in most cases) fills an important role for
income generation more often after PFM has been introduced. After introducing
PFM, in most cases it is prohibited to extract timber for income generation. Only
in one of the cases is timber still important for income generation under PFM.
SFE Technical Paper

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
Forest products of importance for income

generation before PFM
Spices
Inscence/Gums
Grass
Charcoal
Product type
Bamboo
Firewood
Coffee
Timber
Honey
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 10 The forest products considered for filling direct household needs before
PFM introduction based on responses from 7 organizations
Forest products of importance for filling

direct household needs before PFM
Wildlife
Spices
Inscence/Gums
Grass
Coffee
Product type
Climbers
Charcoal
Bamboo
Timber
Honey
Construction wood
Firewood
0 2 4 6 8
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
Forest products of importance for income

generation under PFM
Timber
Incense/Gums
Grass
Charcoal
Product type
Bamboo
Spices
Firewood
Honey
Coffee
0 1 2 3 4 5
SFE Technical Paper

Figure 12 The forest products considered as most important for household needs
based on responses from 7 organizations
Forest products of importance for house

hold needs under PFM
Wood
Spices
Medicinal plants
Grass
Product type
Climbers
Charcoal
Honey
Grazing/browzing
Coffee
Construction wood
Firewood
0 2 4 6
3.3.3 Effects of forest resource extraction on forests before PFM

introduction
Prior to PFM, the effect of resource extraction on the forest was mostly reported
to have been negative. This can explain the careful regulations in extraction of forest
resources included in the new management plans. No PFM organizations reported
that the extraction of forest products did not have any negative effects. In fact, seven
out of seven actors reported extraction in their PFM implementation sites to have
differing degrees of impact on either the ecosystem itself, the forest size or quality
or of having negative effects on communities locally or over a larger area, before
the PFM was introduced. Results are shown in Table 3 but most commonly, it led to
severe degradation of the forest with negative impact on local communities. In many
cases the effect was found in an even larger area.
19
Table 3 The effects of forest resource extraction on forests and communities as

reported from seven PFM organizations
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
3.3.4 Limitations to forest resource utilization following

PFMintroduction
When PFM is introduced to a community it is accompanied by a management
agreement and a plan that specifies restrictions and rights of forest utilization for the
community. The utility is often strictly limited in regards to timber products from the
forest, which in many cases, had been the most important source of income generation
before PFM. The new management plan generally regulates extraction levels or
periods in the cases where the extraction is not prohibited. Charcoal remains an
important commodity for income generation in one case but it is otherwise prohibited
under PFM. Bush meat and wildlife is not allowed to be hunted for in any of the PFMs
and was only reported to be exercised before PFM in one case. Timber of native
species that was in all cases extracted before PFM is highly regulated under PFM.
Timber of introduced species is allowed to extract in more cases than it was utilized
before PFM implementation but it is as often prohibited in the new management. It
seems that the utility is directed towards extraction of firewood of both native and
introduced species rather than timber. Dead wood is in no cases prohibited to use.
Coffee is in Ethiopia a high commodity product that can be commercially lucrative
while still being ecologically sustainable to harvest in wild form. However, if one is
really intending to ensure people’s livelihoods and diminish poverty, a major concern is
the fact that coffee can’t always compete with good quality timber when it comes to
revenues that can generate income for communities. Through restricting sustainable
timber extraction for income generation, in areas where coffee is not commercially
viable, the communities risk being locked in poverty.
To avoid this outcome, alternative income sources that pay well must be put in place,
such as sustainable tourism or ecotourism or ecologically sustainable logging for the
market. Not all areas are attractive to tourists and investments in accommodation
possibilities as well as infrastructure are often obstacles that need to be overcome
to improve the flow of tourists, as is organization of the community. Profiling and
marketing also needs to be done to attract tourists among a number of other issues.
SFE Technical Paper

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
3.4 Components of PFM design in Ethiopia

3.4.1 General components of PFM design in Ethiopia
There are some common features across the different PFM implementers when it
comes to their strategies for PFM introduction and implementation. Firstly, the PFM
idea is generally introduced by an external actor, such as an NGO or a local authority.
Overall, the components of PFM are concentrated around: forest development
management that can include plantation and reforestation or rehabilitation of
degraded lands; forest protection and utilization; monitoring of the forest and
evaluation of the management following this. Emphases on these different topics
vary between the implementers and are often complemented by activities aimed to
improve livelihoods.
21
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.
SFE Technical Paper

• Introducing an ecoregion plan; strengthening government and community

institutional capacity for sustainable land management; positioning functional
and sustainable natural resource management and conservation systems that
consider social needs; diversification of natural resource based livelihoods;
ensuring a sustainable financing mechanism that benefit government and
communities; promoting fitted legal, policy and regulatory frameworks for
ecoregion planning, protected areas and community based natural resource
management and finally the establishment of PFM systems.
• Concentrating on PFM strategies while including small scale livelihood
initiatives such as ecotourism as well as working on PFM supporting initiatives
like private land ownership registration to stop encroachment on communal
land, tree nurseries and subsidizing fuel efficient techniques.
Steps for introducing PFM that are reported from the different actors have different
weight on participation on the one hand and external directions on the other. Some
are more top down driven and others emphasize the participation at all levels of
implementation. Some outlines in the different strategies are:
• Establishing forest management associations (FMA) at community level
and making an agreement with the regional government; holding farmer
field schools to improve income generation from agriculture; implementing
certification programs for forest coffee to improve income generation from
coffee; establishing community cooperatives to allow for profit making from
forest products and finally to introduce and implement forest management
plans.
• A clean implementation following the steps of: making a baseline assessment;
investigating; negotiating and implementing PFM. Stages that are otherwise a
general part of most projects.
• PFM agreement between authority and community giving recognition of
customary control of forest area; establishing FMAs who will be responsible
for protection and controlling resource use, developing bylaws and the
management plan; establishing private limited companies and cooperatives to
market NTFP to provide benefits to communities.
• Training and awareness creation for stakeholders; participatory identification
of forest resources and forest users; participatory demarcation of the forest;
organizing the users; defining roles and responsibilities of government and
community in management and introducing alternative livelihoods, woodlots
and agroforestry.
The activities change and develop from the beginning of the process towards the end
when the PFM should be self running. In the beginning they are accompanied with
much awareness raising, trust building and communication. Then they drift toward
the organization taking the lead when organizing the communities and introducing
alternative income generation or livelihood activities. Then they develop to enable
the community to run the PFM independently and finally the external organizations
are phased out and the community and government remain as implementers. Some
23
organizations concentrate on using government development agents (DAs) as

implementers at the community level while others concentrate on using only their
own staff resources. By using DAs one can reach a larger area, but the high turnover
of people at these positions implies costs in frequent capacity building. The quality
of the work also risks being lower when one concentrates on expanding as much as
possible instead of assuring the quality at each site.
3.4.2 Zoning and access limitations

When implementing PFM in large forest areas it is common that some areas are
set aside for protection. These
zones are not allowed to
extract NTFP or timber from
and can include important
features such as water ways.
Most of the organizations
report that parts of the forests
where PFM is introduced is set
aside for protection (four out
of six organizations). Only a
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.
SFE Technical Paper

3.4.3 Alternative income and livelihood sources

While introducing PFM in an area where
dependency on or utility of forest products
is high, some organizations work hard to
offer alternatives to reliance on forest
products. This, in turn, is intended to
Photo: ©FAO/R. Faidutti

give further incentives to PFM members,
diversify and improve livelihoods as well as
relieve pressure on the forest.
Examples of additions or improvements to
livelihoods introduced or promoted in PFM
projects:
• Beekeeping;
• Nurseries;
• Fuel efficient stoves;
• Vegetable gardening;
• Agroforestry or orchards;
• NTFP development
• Agricultural intensification/soil and water conservation
Among seven responding actors in this
study three are not including alternative
livelihood sources in their PFM
strategies. Other actors have different
combination strategies. One introduces
fuel efficient stoves and tree nurseries.
Another promotes vegetable gardens
and agroforestry. A third mentions Photo: ©FAO/J.Fotsin
agroforestry, beekeeping, agricultural
intensification and spice and fruit
development schemes. A fourth
concentrates on beekeeping as only
additional income source. If the need for
firewood is reduced by fuel efficiency,
the income source from selling firewood
can be increased, a higher population
base can potentially be supported or
damaging extraction to the forest can
be avoided. Higher yielding agricultural

lands or a more diverse crop base has
positive impacts such as improved
nutritional intake, which is especially
important to children.
25
Sustainable Land Management in Kafa Zone- a landscape

perspective
Between 2006 and 2008 FAO implemented a sustainable land management
project in Kafa zone supported by the government of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands. In this case, it was clear that strategies concentrating solely on
farmland interventions would not be sufficient when common resource use is
an important factor. Thus an integrated landscape scale approach became
the promoted intervention.
It aimed at contributing to sustainable management and utilization of natural
resources and the development of models that could be replicated elsewhere
in Ethiopia. The ultimate goal would be to achieve “sustainable poverty
alleviation and food security through the introduction of appropriate SLM
techniques” and further “through the protection and conservation of natural
resources, support to land certification and the development of SLM” (FAO,
2007).
The project covered a full watershed and included PFM as one of its
activities. Overall the strategy included: land tenure; forestry and watershed
management.
The project included activities such as:
• structuring 10 PFM sites;
• developing management plans for plantation forests;
• building capacity of coffee producing cooperatives;
• holding awareness creating workshops;
• watershed development and livelihood diversification activities such as
agroforestry, compost introduction and terracing;
• supporting land registration;
• carrying out participatory resource mapping;
• conducting rapid biodiversity and socioeconomic impact assessments;
• developing a wetlands management plan.
The project was deemed successful and after its implementation the PFM sites
are still running effectively. However the project was phased out prematurely.
The SLM/landscape scale strategy is now increasingly being implemented by
other PFM actors in the country.
Unfortunately, rapid government staff turnover resulted in losing investments
made in capacity building. Another obstacle affecting the implementation
process was delay and difficulty in receiving funds from government.
Some of the main results that were seen during the course of the project were:
the important role of women in SLM; influence on policy decision and strategy
and community awareness increase.
The landscape scale strategy can be further developed.
SFE Technical Paper

3.4.4 Stakeholders and beneficiaries of PFM

When introducing PFM, one of the first
steps is to determine the forest user
group (FUG) as well as identifying the
stakeholders in the area. These should
be able to make their voices heard in the
decision making process and throughout
the process of implementing PFM. This
gives credibility and accountability to
the process. It can sometimes create
problems when stakeholders are left
out or disregarded. On the other hand it
can also be very difficult to push along
a project where too many stakeholders
with different priorities and interests are
involved.
In most cases the FUG are identified
and become institutionalized only as
the projects are introduced but in a

small number of cases they are present
even before the introduction. When
determining the FUG most projects
include the direct users of the forest (by
five of six respondents) and as often the
secondary users are included. In many
cases they are determined on the basis of their situation neighbouring the forest
(in four of six cases). In a few cases they are determined on the basis of the carrying
capacity of the forest (two of six). In one case they are determined on the basis of an
eligibility criteria set by the community.
The stakeholders that are always considered in the process of introducing PFM are the
communities living near the forest or in it. In five out of six cases the local authorities
are also included. In two cases the regional authority is considered as well. The
historical inhabitants are included by four out of six organizations. In three of these
four organizations newly arrived inhabitants are also involved in the process. Only
one organization reports that downstream communities are considered as interest
holders and included in the process. In one organization the scientific community is
also involved as stakeholders in the process of implementing PFM. In cases where
outside communities are included as PFM stakeholders it is related to the traditional
user rights. In these areas, during dry spells, forest user groups far away from the
forests are allowed to enter the forest areas to find grazing lands for their cattle. In
other regions there are also seasonal coffee collectors included at stakeholders.
Some PFM organizations run project activities such as farmers’ field schools. In the
selection of participants for these activities some report of giving even representation
to different community groups. Out of six organizations four make sure to represent
27
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.
3.4.5 Distribution of benefits, roles, responsibilities and ownership

In all different PFM intervention sites the general agreement is that the community is
obliged to manage the forest sustainably and have the right to use some of the NTFPs.
There are some different combinations when it comes to benefits, responsibilities
and ownership among the different reported implementation sites:
• Organized community groups and regional government/forest services share
the benefits, roles and responsibilities for the forest; government has the strict
ownership of the forest.
• The benefits are shared between government and community; conservation,
planting and selling of selected trees falls on communities; government is
responsible for providing legal, technical and material support. Communities
have user rights and jointly administer the forest. Ownership by both community
and government.
• Communities have the responsibility for forest management with support
from government and the project; ownership is government with community
stewardship rights.
• Bylaws state the sharing of benefits and responsibilities by government and
communities and government is responsible for monitoring and technical
support.
• Joint management of the forest the responsibility lying on the government
with communities partnering. Sharing of the benefits.
The majority of the answering organizations state that the ownership of the forest
is transferred to the community when PFM is introduced. However in general,
the government retains the ultimate ownership of the land in Ethiopia and the
communities do not have the actual land titles. Some organizations prefer to call the
ownership “stewardships”.
3.4.6 Management and Monitoring

Monitoring of the PFM forest is a hot topic. Its importance, effectiveness and what
actors to involve is highly discussed. Generally the conclusion is that monitoring is
necessary to evaluate the development and effect of the PFM and also that it is of
importance for adaptive management. Only one out of seven implementers of PFM
report not having monitoring in place yet.
When it comes to the executors of the monitoring the views differ on the best solution.
Participatory monitoring by communities would be preferred by many PFM actors
present in Ethiopia. It proves trust in these communities. At the same time it is said to
be difficult to control the procedure and follow up the results if monitoring is carried
out by communities. In three out of five projects the monitoring is carried out by
SFE Technical Paper

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.
3.4.7 Markets for PFM forest products

To increase the possibility of success when improving income generating activities
from agriculture and forest products one needs to evaluate the market for the
products as well as the market access. In areas far from the larger cities market
access and infrastructure is generally limited. If the goal is to increase incomes for the
communities in these areas it is important to enable market access for their products
as well as choosing strategic products for marketing. Processing of forest products
is an additional strategy to add value to them. Three out of nine organizations do
not have any activities included to work on markets for PFM products. One of them
explains that forest products are only allowed to utilize for subsistence which is why
they have no strategy for this. The remaining organizations have different strategies
for working with this, and their niches are:
29
• 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.
3.5 Results from introducing PFM

3.5.1 Changes to community livelihood and engagement following
PFM
Introducing PFM in communities adjacent to forests in general brings considerable
changes. The utilization of forest products is usually restricted and quotas for
extraction are lowered to ecologically sustainable levels. If the allowed utilization is
enough to be socially sustainable is an important question.
Positive impacts on communities’ livelihoods after PFM introduction are reported
from two thirds of the PFM actors. The impacts differ from place to place varying
from a remarkable increase in living conditions, increased health, eradication of
malnutrition and some degree of increase in income. Despite the income increase, still
not all families can afford schooling for their children. One positive impact reported
is that the household resource in terms of NTFPs is secured legally. At some sites
there has been an increase in the utilization of NTFP by the community following the
introduction of PFM. In some areas there are also improved marketing possibilities
thanks to the PFM introduction. Despite this the general income from NTFP is kept
rather low in the reporting areas. Only coffee, honey and spices are said to offer any
significant contribution to incomes and these products are not available in all areas.
In some places the reliance on coffee for income generation is high, with proportions
of up to 80 percent but whether this is an outcome from PFM implementation or
was the state before remains unclear.
During the process of introducing PFM some actors arrange exchange visits to earlier
PFM projects and most actors have activities aimed at increasing awareness and
educating the community about the forest. As a result, communities feel encouraged
to proceed with the PFM and their awareness and knowledge of forest value and
user rights generally increase during the introduction process. Exchanging experiences
with other PFM communities can also be an important component to provide
input and ideas along the way to enable development of the PFM and encourage
entrepreneurship which in turn can improve livelihoods further.
SFE Technical Paper

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.
3.5.2 Forest cover and quality change since PFM introduction

The general consequence of introducing PFM is that the forest gains some degree
of protection by the community and thus many of the negative impacts that were
previously affecting the forest decrease. This generally has positive impacts on the
forest. In two thirds of the areas where PFM has been introduced forest cover is
reported to have ceased decreasing (but yet without increasing in area). In a third
of the areas, forests are increasing through natural regeneration and in one site it is
increasing through planting of indigenous species. In none of the areas is it increasing
through planting of introduced species. Likewise the quality and services of forests
has seized deteriorating in a quarter of the areas. From two thirds of the sites reports
come of improvement of forest quality in terms of recovering biodiversity, higher
seedling survival and improved water quality. In some cases the general resource
status has recovered and improved following agreements of seasonal access to them.
Whether these reported impacts are cause and effect is not possible to determine.
Some more definitive positive effects of PFM are some cases where degraded lands
are being rehabilitated by tree plantations and area closure implemented following
the PFM introduction. Whether these positive impacts will have secondary positive
effects on e.g. the landscape and watersheds remains to be evaluated as PFM
progresses in the country.
3.5.3 Changes in extraction of forest products since PFM

introduction
Introducing PFM includes putting limitations on forest resource extraction. Together
with the commitment in management of the communities it has the consequence
that the outtake levels of forest products from the forests decreases. In two thirds of
the cases reduction and changes in extraction of forest products has been observed
since PFM was introduced. Timber harvesting and charcoal production was reported
to have seized completely or decreased in extent. The outtake levels of firewood and
bamboo has in some areas stopped for commercial purposes and in others fallen to
sustainable levels. Timber extraction was part of the management plan in one of the
sites and thus the extraction did not change. Free access to the forests is reported
to have been diminished in all areas which is likely to be having the effect that no
external actors are encouraged to access forest resources. However in a few areas
an increasing pressure and extraction on neighbouring forests is being experienced.
Some actors cannot confirm the changes to extraction by data from inventories but
have to trust in reports from the communities.
31
3.6 Challenges, successes and opportunities

3.6.1 Dealing with difficulties along the way of PFM implementation
The PFM actors in Ethiopia are experiencing a variety of hindrances throughout
implementation of their projects. These may in some cases cripple the effectiveness
and success of the PFM projects. These obstacles are of different nature:
• Social
• Financial
• Administrative
• Conflicting motives
• Policy related
• Contradictory agreements
• Moving the deforestation problems
At the local level these obstacles include: resistance and scepticism from communities
when introduced to the concept; boundary disputes during the delineation of the
forest and difficulties in building mutual trust between farmers and implementers. The
way to deal with these is commonly to increase the awareness within the community
through frequent activities and meetings and to include all stakeholders and involve
respected community, religious and administrative leaders in the participatory process
and the development activities.
At the administrative level, difficulties encountered include financial limitations for
carrying out activities as well as for expanding. Finding donors can be challenging and
sometimes as a solution the activities are implemented bit by bit as funds become
available. In other cases the financial problems are dealt with by all community
members’ participation in development activities and thus sharing the costs.
The support from government institutions at both regional and local level is reported
to be inconsistent and sporadic. Also the high turnover of officials in key positions,
e.g. development agents and government staff, as well as the lack of clarity in policies
and regulations for ownership and utilization rights is considered to be affecting the
development of PFM projects negatively. These issues are difficult to handle for
the actors and they are hoping for development in the engagement of government
organs as PFM is being scaled up in Ethiopia by MoARD. The challenge of a constant
turnover of officials in important positions is also faced elsewhere in East Africa, e.g.
there is a lack of continuity in key positions in the national forestry authority and
in CBOs reported from Uganda. This is reported to lead to delay in the spread and
development of PFM due to the slowing of the negotiations of agreements between
the parties (Proceedings from Uganda 2008).
In some cases of training and exchange the actual engagement of participating
development agents is minimal. Many participate only for the daily allowance that
is paid and not for the actual learning experience, and have protested to participate
only if they are provided with raised allowances.
SFE Technical Paper

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.
3.6.2 Ingredients for success

The components that are reported to have been 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 NTFP 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. Thus the success spreads to indirect
beneficiaries apart from the directly targeted ones.
3.6.3 Financial sustainability of PFM

One of the main concerns and critiques for PFM as a sustainable solution for tackling
deforestation and poverty is the financial implications it brings. Projects are usually
introduced by external actors who cover their direct costs. Often the projects have
to struggle with financial limitations, thus restricting their effectiveness during
implementation. The second challenge comes as these actors phase out. A self-
financing mechanism needs to be in place for the sustained success of the PFM.
If this is not in place, the enterprise risks being undermined and eventually fails or
remains crippled and not leaving any justifiable positive effect for either community
or environment. Currently none of the PFM projects included in this study have such
a self-financing mechanism in place. They all are aiming at financial sustainability but
have not yet found the solutions. Currently all but one requires external support
SFE Technical Paper

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).
3.6.4 PFM opportunities from climate change

Successfully managed PFM forests, that don’t suffer from deforestation and
prevent the soil erosion, contribute to mitigating climate change. There is a general
awareness of the Climate Change issue among the PFM actors but the strategies
to deal with it differ from actor to actor. The importance of understanding of and
carrying out mitigation measures for climate change such as stopping deforestation
and reforesting degraded lands is on the agenda for a small number of projects.
One PFM actor is actively encouraging communities in non-forested areas to plant
trees individually or collectively to be able to benefit from Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) and Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) project opportunities. One more organization is considering incorporating
REDD and adaptation to climate change in their PFM strategy. The scaling up of PFM
project by MoARD is exploring REDD and CDM and voluntary carbon markets for
their future PFM projects. A third of the organizations are examining the possibility
35
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.
3.6.5 Future scaling up of PFM in Ethiopia

PFM is a growing strategy for dealing with poverty and environmental degradation in
Ethiopia. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) is currently
in the initial stage of scaling up PFM in Ethiopia. The project start-up was in June
2009 and the full implementation will start as from June 2010 and run until 2014.
This will in turn increase the area covered by PFM to the year 2014. In one region
alone the expansion can cover even more than 300 000 hectares of forest. The
scaling up activities of PFM by MoARD will be located to Oromiya and SNNP regions
and to some extent also in Amhara. PFM will also be introduced for the first time
in Benishangul Gumuz region in the west. In total, a number of 349 kebeles will
be included in 31 woredas. FARM Africa/SOS Sahel is an NGO that will be working
parallel and in mutual cooperation with MoARD on scaling up the project. The
span of activities and their specifics are not yet fully decided because of the early
stage of the project. FARM Africa/SOS Sahel have previously implemented PFM
projects in Bonga, Borena and Chillimo. The project is the second phase of their
PFM activities in the country and the current focus is on strengthening sustainable
livelihoods through improved forest management. It includes important components
of information and experience sharing between actors on PFM as well as forest
policy foundation and institutionalizing PFM in more regions. (PFM-WG, 2010) The
distribution of the intervention sites for FARM Africa/SOS Sahel and MoARD are
overlapping in some woredas to ease sharing of information as well as training of
project staff. In February 2010 MoARD and FARM Africa/SOS Sahel jointly launched
the two EU funded projects for scaling up PFM in Ethiopia during the PFM working
group meeting in Nazareth.
Apart from this large scale implementation programme, other actors are continuing
their PFM work and are introducing it to new areas. OFWE report that GTZ-SLM
PFM runs an up-scaling program carried out by AMBERO-GITEC in four forest sites.
NTFP-PFM are also planning to scale up their activities to more areas and at the
time of writing were waiting to get co-management with government in order to
ensure the long term sustainability of the PFM. The NGO will support financially and
technically.
SFE Technical Paper

4. Conclusion and recommendations

Forests under Participatory Forest Management are expanding in coverage in Ethiopia.
The management strategy has good intentions to sustainably manage forest land and
contribute to poverty reduction. It often leads to improved forest and environmental
conditions. However it still faces problems of leakage and financial sustainability.
It is also unclear whether it actually reduces poverty. Whether the management
strategy can really lead to the desired results in a cost effective manner needs to be
investigated further and as more and more projects are implemented there will be a
broader data amount to base the conclusions on.
Ensuring that funds are sufficient before starting the PFM process is an important
consideration as is allowing a lot of extra time for the implementation. Being able
to finalize projects and see the results before phasing out is vital. To leave a project
incomplete affects the trust and commitment of communities.
Implementing PFM in a Sustainable Land Management strategy has been shown to
be effective and successful. This can minimize secondary effects on neighbouring
forests as well as provide a more comprehensive solution for the entire area. Putting
larger emphasis on activities outside of the forests is an important contribution to
sustainability of the PFM. By improving the output from farm plots and introducing
alternative or more efficient fuel consumption possibilities one can reduce pressure
on the forest.
The incentives for government institutions as well as communities to engage and
commit to PFM are in many cases unclear and insufficient. Communities need proper
incentives and benefits that rightfully outweigh their investment in management
and their limited access to the forests. It is also unclear whether user rights are
really secured under the present agreements. Government, on the other hand, need
clear incentives to ensure their continued engagement and investment in the field.
Managing forests is a long term investment which requires commitment and clear
incentives. Stable and clear policies are often pointed out as necessities for PFM to
develop and succeed. Strong and well functioning institutions are considered to be
prerequisites for good forest conditions (ECFF, 2010). PFM is not the only solution
to reach sustainable forest management or for securing livelihoods in forest areas.
PFM organizations in Ethiopia are limited in their cooperation and communication in-
between the organizations. They need to be more organized, make better use of the
PFM working group (PFM WG) for exchange and need to follow up the commitments
they have made in this forum. Apart from a high degree of cooperation between some
organizations there is also an unbeneficial degree of competition between some
actors. This does not benefit the overall goal of achieving poverty reduction and
environmental sustainability in Ethiopia’s best interest. The responsibility of MoARD
in taking the lead in PFM is large and must be given priority in resources to be able
to achieve what they have set out to. The PFM actors are also not well organized in
their data gathering for their own projects or when it comes to data sharing.
37
Few organizations working on PFM in Ethiopia include climate change modalities in

their strategies. The possibility for benefiting from these and the counter investment
and guarantee that needs to be made is not readily examined.
More work needs to be put into developing clear policies regarding forest-user right
security and the accountability of government organs.
A proper evaluation of social, economic and environmental impacts of the PFM is
necessary and timely. It should ascertain whether or not PFM is truly beneficial in
reducing poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability in Ethiopia. Furthermore,
the cost effectiveness in comparison to alternatives to reach the objectives of social
and ecological sustainability needs to be evaluated to see if the current strategies
are justified from social and economical perspective or if revision of strategies are
needed. This evaluation should be performed by a neutral actor and be supported by
all PFM actors in the country, government and NGOs alike.
Government institutions and officers need to be clear in their positions and stay
active in their commitment to PFM to improve the chances of successful PFM.
More effort needs to be made to finding a solution for the financial sustainability
of PFM as for the incentives of PFM for communities and government. At the
community level, clear benefits and incentives are needed that rightfully outweigh
the investments that are put into managing the forests. At the government level,
incentives are required to ensure that strong engagement continues and priorities
on how to best manage forests and what investments to make will not change. One
strategy to consider can be sustainable timber extraction for income generation. The
benefits from this can be shared between communities and government. Timber
harvesting and all other strategies that are introduced to improve incomes of people
need to be combined with improved market access and work on value addition.
When it comes to timber, one can also explore possibilities for processing of the
timber in multi-cooperative sawmills to increase the value of the product further
and create job opportunities. The possibilities for PFM to reach past subsistence for
communities and into development needs to be explored and emphasized.
The agreements that are made between communities and government need to
secure a continuous commitment to the rights of communities. The government
commitment needs to be stable without contradictory actions to ensure trust and
dedication to the agreement from the community side.
Strategies to give incentives for staff to stay in their positions for the full duration of
the projects must be developed to ensure that investments in capacity building are
not lost. Also general regulating agreements with government for daily allowances
for the different organizations can be a solution to avoid conflicting situations.
Planning and introducing PFM should more often, where it is relevant, be introduced
in a landscape context strategy to avoid leakage. This can be in the form of sustainable
land management covering e.g. forest as well as agricultural areas and communities
or across multiple forest compartments at once.
SFE Technical Paper

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.
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.
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).
SFE Technical Paper

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).
SFE Technical Paper

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
Khiwer Academic, (1998). A Review of Tree Fodder Production and Utilization

within small holder Agro-forestry systems in Kenya. (Copied pages from 181 to
199).
List of Summary of WaBuB Establishment in Gera and Sabe sombo Districts
Liz Alden Wily. Forest law in Eastern and Southern Africa: Moving Towards
a Community –Based Forest Future? Land Tenure and Community Forest
Management in East Africa.
Liz Alden Wily, (2001). Forest Management and Democracy in East and Southern
Africa: Lessons From Tanzania, (Gatekeeper Series no. 95). International Institute
for Environment and Development (IIED). Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 20
Liz Mwambui, (June 2008), updated (March 2009). Kenya Forest Working Group
work areas. (Printed from internet).
M. Idinoba, F.Kalame, J.Nkem, D.Blay and Y.Coulibaly. Climate Change and
non-wood forest products: vulnerability and adaptation in West Africa. (Internet
prints out).
MELCA Mahiber – Movement for Ecological Learning and Community action:
Annual Report, 2008. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PPs 18.
Monitoring Participatory Forest Management (PFM) progresses in Kefa Zone.
Meshak Malo, Mafa Chipeta & Michel Laverdiere, FAO Sub Regional Office
of Eastern Africa (SFE) Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, (2008). Visioning The Energy
Dimension of Kenya’s Changing Forest Landscape Under vision 2030. Ethiopia:
Addis Ababa.
Ministry of Agriculture, (2009). Proceedings of the PFM-Working Group Meeting:
“Critical Reflection on PFM Progress and Looking Ahead Together”. Ministry of
Agriculture Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PPs 25 with a CD.
Mr. Ake Barklund and Dr. Demel Teketay, (Sept. 2004). Forest Certificaiton a
Potential Tool to Promote SFM in Africa: Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest
Management in Africa. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 16.
Mr. J. Ruhombe, Hon. B-M. TAAL & Prof. R. Persoon, (2004). Observations on
Participation of Africa in International Forestry Processes: Lessons Learnt on
Sustainable Forest Management in Africa. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 19.
SFE Technical Paper

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
Peter O’Hara, Consultant and specialist in participatory natural resource

management, (2009). Enhancing stakeholder Participation in National Forest
Programmes: Tools for Practitioner. National Forest Programme Facility UNFAO.
Italy: Rome. PPs 59.
Proceedings of the 1st Uganda National Collaborative Forest Management
Forum- Collaborative Forest Management for Improved Livelihoods, 3-4th April
2008; EMPAFORM; 2008
PROGRESS REPORT; “Sustainable Land Management Project in Kafa zone,
SNNPR”; OSRO/ETH/604/NET; FAO Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation
Division; 2007
Proclamation No. 542 (2007). Forest Development, Conservation and Utilization
Proclamation. PPs 12. (two copies).
Prof. F.Owino & Dr. A. Ndinga, (April 2004). Study on Forest Administration
and Related Institutional Arrangements: Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest
Management in Africa. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 43.
Protected Areas Kibira National Park, Burundi: Description of the Kibira National
Park. (Print out from Internet).
REDD (2009): North-South Agreement for New Emissions Reduction Mechanism.
(Internet Printout).
Redd Community protocol: A Community Approach to Ensuring the Local
Integrity of REDD. Outreach.
René Czudek and Dominique Reeb, Community of Practice to Enhance
Stakeholder Participation in National Forest Programmes. (ETFRN News 41/42:
National Forest Programmes). Italy: Rome. PPs 2. (two copies).
Sacred land Film Project – Sheka Forest. (Internet prints out).
Simply REDD. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Guide to
Forests, Climate Change and REDD, CIFOR
Status of Forest Management in Kenya. PPs 12.
Stella O. Odebode. Contributions of Selected Non-Timber Forest Products to
Household Food Security in Osun State, Nigeria. (Internet printout). PPs 9.
T.Gobeze, M.Bekele, M.Lemenih & H. Kassa, (2009). Participatory Forest
Management and its Impacts on Livelihoods and Forest Status: The case of
Bonga forest in Ethiopia. Wondo Genet College of Forestry & Natural Resources
& Center for Int. Forestry Research, forests and Livelihoods Program, Ethiopia:
Addis Ababa. (Two copies).
SFE Technical Paper

Technical Assistance Service Contract Agreement. Review of Planning Steps

for the WABUB Forest Management Plan, at the Belete-Gera Regional Forest
Priority Area. PPs 11.
The African Conservation Foundation – Community Based Forest Conservation,
Mau Forest Complex – Kenya. (2009). Saving a Water Tower. (Printed from
internet).
The Government of Ethiopia in Collaboration with other Stakeholders, (2007).
Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Biodiversity and Livelihoods in Africa:
Proceedings of the International Conference from 19 to 21 March 2007. Ministry
of Agriculture Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. PPs 288.
The Interim Coordinating Secretariat, office of the Prime Minister, (Sept 2009).
Rehabilitation of the Mau Forest Ecosystem. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 19.
Thiombiano, Lamourdia. Sustainable Land Management New Prospects in East
Africa. FAO Sub-Regional Office for Easter Africa (SFE). Ethiopia: Addis Ababa.
WaBub Field Manual Part II. (Version 2). (Draft Prepared on Oct. 13). Wabub
Participatory Planning. PP 85.
WWF Eastern Africa Regional Programme Office, (August 2006). The Eastern
Africa Coastal Forests Eco-region: Strategic Framework for Conservation 2005-
2025. Kenya: Nairobi. PPs 50.
Y.Silgian & Neldysavrino, (2007). Collective Action to Secure Land Management
Rights for Poor Communities. Forests and Governance Programme. (Copied
material).
47
Annex 1: Institutions and Persons Contacted

Bale Eco Region Sustainable Management Participatory Natural Resources
Programme (BERSMP), a joint programme Management Advisor,
of FARM Africa and SOS Sahel-Ethiopia
Assefa Bereket
Frankfurt Zoological Society Senior Technical Advisor,
Dereje Tadesse
Japan International Cooperation Agency Chief Advisor,
Participatory Forest Management Project Tsutomu Nishimura
in Belete-Gera Regional Forest Priority Area.
Phase 2
Movement for Ecological Learning and Program Coordinator
Community Action-MELCA Mahiber
Befekadu Refera
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Technical Assistant PFM,
Development, Natural Resources
Management Directorate Peter McCarter
European Commission funded Scaling-up

PFM Project
NTFP-PFM Project SW Ethiopia PFM Specialist,
Ahmid Said;
PFM Advisor,
Peter O’Hara;
Project Coordinator,
Bekele Haile
Oromia Forest and Wildlife Enterprise Regional Counterpart
Coordinator for Bale Eco-Region
Sustainable Management
Program,
Alemayehu Nigussie
Oromia Forest and Wildlife Enterprise General Manager,
Finfine Branch Office
Batu Meskelu
SFE Technical Paper

Organization for Rehabilitation and Dr. Yehanew Ashagrie;

Development in Amhara
South Gonder Biodiversity
Highland Project Coordinator,
Abebaw Zeleke
Sheka Zone Agriculture and Rural NRM Work Process Coordinator,
Development Department
Tadesse Shobeno;
Head of Sheka Zone Agriculture
and Rural Development
Apartment,
Tilahun Bekele
Further organizations that are working on PFM in Ethiopia are:

• Coffee Forest Forum
• Forum for Environment
• German Agro-action
• GTZ
• SUNARMA-Sustainable Natural Resource Management Association
There are likely more NGOs and organizations working on PFM in Ethiopia that have
not come to the knowledge of FAO in time for this survey.
49
SFE Technical Paper

SFE Technical Paper
FAO Subregional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE)
CMC Road Next to ILRI

P.O.Box 5536 Addis Ababa Ethiopia
Tel: +251 11 6478888
Fax: +251 11 6478800
FAO-SFE@fao.org
www.fao.org

Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia, Practices and Experiences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SFE

FAO Subregional Office Technical

Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia,

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Reproduction and copies:

Comments and information exchange:

Cover photo: ©FAO/R. Faidutti

3.4.5 Distribution of benefits, roles, responsibilities and ownership

SFE Technical Paper

Photo: ©FAO/Photo Library

SFE Technical Paper

Photo: ©FAO/Photo Library

cases was timber of commercial value

SFE Technical Paper

Reasons behind introducing PFM

Request from community

3.1.2 Valuable features of PFM forest areas

Figure 2 Valuable features of the PFM forests reported from 7 actors

Valuable features of PFM forests

Important for forest connectivity

3.1.3 External pressure on forests as reason behind introducing

SFE Technical Paper

A few organizations reported that large scale farming and encroachment by

External pressure on the forests

Encroachment by immigrating people

Slash and burn agriculture

Small scale farming

Small scale logging

Transformation to agricultural land

3.2 Location of PFM in Ethiopia

Table 1 The forest surface coverage of a selection of PFM actors in Ethiopia.

FZS JICA NTFP-PFM ORDA SZARDD Total

AFAR Broadleaved Deciduous (40-(20-10) Woodland

Asayita Broadleaved Evergreen Closed to

Addis Ababa Jijiga

0 50 100 200 300 400

SFE Technical Paper

Figure 5 Natural forest and plantation cover in Ethiopia 1994- 2004

Figure 6 Zones where PFM is being implemented by the reporting actors.

SFE Technical Paper

3.2.2 Forest types and connectivity of PFM forests

Forest fragmentation properties of PFM forests

Isolated forest blocks

Forest patches with

Forest types included in PFM

3.2.3 Commercial activities in and around PFM forests

SFE Technical Paper

3.2.4 Implementation stages of the PFM projects

3.3 Utility of forests and forest products by communities

7 Direct forest neighbours

6 People from further away

2 Companies with extraction rights

0 Companies without extraction rights

3 People with tenure of the surrounding land

1 People with tenure of the forest

1 The customary land right holders (Kobo)

3.3.2 Utilizing forest products before and after PFM introduction

SFE Technical Paper

Forest products of importance for income

Forest products of importance for ﬁlling

Forest products of importance for income

SFE Technical Paper

Forest products of importance for house