Restoring the degraded sites with vegetation cover is an optimal solution to mitigate environmental disasters. Starting from the 1980s, donor-assisted land rehabilitation activities were taking place in Tehulederi District, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Meanwhile, majority of the forests were destroyed; part of the problem was associated with the top-down approach of forest management. The challenge is, therefore, to find a system of management that can enhance the combined effect of both the community and the state. The community forestry (i.e. a forest development activity which is practiced and managed collectively by the community members on their communal land) is one such alternative. The objectives of the study were to (1) examine the views and attitudes of local people towards community versus state forests governance and (2) evaluate the management practices implemented in the community versus state forestry and their implications on the forest status and the livelihood of local people. Methods: A structured questionnaire consisting of closed-and open-ended questions was developed to collect quantitative data from randomly selected households. Moreover, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were conducted to gather qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were used to analyze and interpret the quantitative data. The data obtained through key informant interviews and focus group discussions were synthesized and narrated using a qualitative method. Results: Several socioeconomic variables significantly affected the views and attitudes of local people towards community versus state forests governance. Generally, local people had positive views and attitudes towards the community forestry. Over 83% of the respondents agreed to accept and practice community forestry. In contrast, about 70% of the respondents had negative views and attitudes towards the state forestry. The positive views and attitudes of local people towards the community forestry may be connected with the perceived benefits (e.g. infrastructure development, source of medicinal plants, wood products, and source of fodder) and the values (e.g. aesthetic and recreational) that local people expect from the community forest. However, the negative views and attitudes of local people towards the state forestry could be attributed to the fact that the community may have limited access to forests when they are exclusively managed by the government. Moreover, such forest management may aggravate antagonistic relationship between the government and local people and be manifested as forest use conflicts. The results obtained from key informant interviews and focus group discussions suggested that the community forest had a better status than the state forest. This may have resulted from the relative advantage of the community forestry to make better use of the community forest, manage it more sustainability, and contribute more equitably to satisfy local livelihoods than does the state forestry. The respondents also illustrated the dependence of local people on forests, utilization, protection, management, and silvicultural schemes implemented in the community versus state forests. Conclusions: The findings emphasize the importance of collective decisions in forest management and governance. The intervention for a legal framework and institutional development particularly through formal recognition of local people’s ownership and right over the use of forests is indispensable towards sustainable forestry.
"community forests are defined as forests where communities do have the control over and claim owner- ship. a total of 126ha of forests were managed by the community. community forest is the property of the com- munity so that the right to use and protect is vested on the local people. For example, the local people organized guards to monitor adherence to the rules…The community itself pays the salary of the guards. villagers enforce protection through participation and sanctions. These are reinforced by customary rules and are consti- tuted at the village level through the involvement of vil- lage elders… there are indigenous institutions that facilitate to arrest the person who illegally cut trees in the community forest but not red-handed. tree harvesting either for private or community development activities and social services requires decision and approval of the community members. They noted that such removal or utilization is limited to construction wood and fuelwood, through controlled harvesting of mature plantation forest in favour of saplings. For example, during the field visits, coppice stands of Eucalyptus globulus and stumps of Cupressus lusitanica were ob- served. use of dead logs (i.e. standing dead and wind-fallen trees) instead of saplings, and controlled grazing dur- ing extended drought periods, was allowed. Fuelwood collection was normally allowed in the community forest as long as the wood was dry. since the inception of the community forest management and governance in Tehulederi District, local communities have increased their participation in the management of the community forest. Activities in which they participated include attend- ance at forest meetings, forest patrols, enrichment plant- ing and replanting trees in open areas, weeding newly planted seedlings, cut and carry of grasses, gap restoration, forest boundary resurveying, raising seedlings in commu- nity nursery, coppice thinning (i.e. mainly of Eucalyptus globulus), pruning branches (i.e. mainly of Cupressus lusi- tanica), and construction of water-harvesting structures (i.e. hillside trenches and micro-basins) on hill slopes."
|Climate change impacts||Effect of Nbs on CCI||Effect measures|
|Drought||Positive||**No specific quantified outcome measures reported. “the data obtained through key informant interviews and focus group discussions were synthesized and narrated using a qualitative method” Positive for both Agricultural production: the use of con- trolled grazing during extended drought periods Drought: appreciated the community forest as a source of income to support their families during extended droughts and hardship periods.|
|Loss of food production||Positive||**No specific quantified outcome measures reported. “the data obtained through key informant interviews and focus group discussions were synthesized and narrated using a qualitative method” Positive for both Agricultural production: the use of con- trolled grazing during extended drought periods Drought: appreciated the community forest as a source of income to support their families during extended droughts and hardship periods.|
Tehulederi District, South Wollo, situated in the eastern margin of North Central Massif, about 415km from the northeast of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ...Kebele is the smallest administra- tive unit in Ethiopia. Bededo Kebele is geographically located at 11° 14′ N and 39° 46′ E (Fig. 1), with an aver- age elevation of 2350 m above sea level, and covers a total area of 1545 ha. It has 1035 households.