MATTU

UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

FACTORS AFFECTING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN FOREST

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE CASE OF ILUBABOR ZONE,
NONO SELE WOREDA

RESEACH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY IN

PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF BSc DEGREE IN FORESTRY.

PREPARED BY: HAYMANOT DEREJE

ADVISOR: Mr. SAMUEL TAYE (MSc)

JUNE, 2024
MATTU,
ETHIOPIA

I
DECLARATION

We hereby declare that this research entitled “Factors Affecting Community

Participation in Forest Resource Management .A case study of Ilubabor zone,
Nono sele woreda”,, has been Carried out by us under the guidance of Mr. Samuel Taye
(MSc). This Research paper is original and has not been submitted for the award of degree at
any university.

Researcher Name: Haymanot Dereje

Signature:__________

Date: 29/9/2016 EC

II
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost, I would like to thank the supreme, almighty God for giving me health,
strength, patience and support to complete this study.

Next, I would like to express my special indebtedness to my advisor Mr. for critically guided
me while carrying-out this research from the topic selection stage to the final work. To say
honestly, his contribution is not confined to sacrificing his time used up in advising me in the
research work, reading and shaping the research; but the moral support and encouragement he
gave me is also invaluable.

Also, My special thanks go to Head of Nono sele woreda Forest Priority Area and Wildlife
Enterprise for their help with getting access to existing documents in relation to the topic
under investigated.

Last but not least, special thanks go to all my friends and relatives who, in one way or
another, helped me at the time of my happiness and stress through encouragements and moral
supports to accomplish my BSc Program.

III
 Table of Contents

CONTENTS
PAGE

DECLARATION...........................................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................V
LIST OF ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................VI
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................VII
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the Study......................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the Problem..........................................................................................................1
1.3.Research questions.....................................................................................................................2
1.4. Objectives of the Study.............................................................................................................2
1.4.1 General objective of the study................................................................................................2
1.4.2. Specific objectives.................................................................................................................2
1.5. Significance of the Study..........................................................................................................2
1.6. Scope of the Study....................................................................................................................3
1.7. Limitations of the Study...........................................................................................................3
1.8. Organization of the paper.........................................................................................................3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................4
2.1.The Natural Resource management approach...........................................................................4
2.1.2 Participatory Forest Management (PFM)...............................................................................4
2.3. The Concept of Participatory Forest Management(PFM)........................................................4
2.2.3. Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia.......................................................................6
2.4.. Role of PFM on forest condition improvement.......................................................................7
2.1.5.Factors Affecting Peoples Participation in Participatory Forest Management................7
2.1.6.Challenges and Constraints of Participatory Forest Management..........................................8
2.1.7.Perception and attitude towards PFM.....................................................................................9
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................10
3.1. Description of the study area..................................................................................................10
3.1.1.Background of Nono Sele PFM program.............................................................................10
3.2. Research Design.....................................................................................................................11
3.3. Sampling technique and sample size......................................................................................11
3.4Methods of Data Collections....................................................................................................11
3.5. Method of Data Analysis........................................................................................................12
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................13
4.1. Results of the Study................................................................................................................13
4.1.2. Perceptions of community towards PFM...........................................................................16
4.1.3. Level of community Participation in Nono sele PFM........................................................17
4.1.4. Factors Hindering community participation in PFM.......................................................17
4.1.5. Challenges of PFM in Nono Sele Woreda...........................................................................18
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION........................................19
5.1. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................19
5.2. Recommendations...................................................................................................................20
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................21
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................22

IV
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Distribut1ion of Respondents by Age ……………………………...

……………….13

Table 2: Marital Status of

Respondents………………………………………………………13

Table 3: Literacy Status of

Respondents……………………………………………………...13

Table 4: House hold

size………………………………………………………………………..14

Table5:Respondents’Frequencyof Attendance…………………………….…………,,…..
…14

Table 6. Perceptions of Respondents towards the Importance of PFM,……………...

…….15

Table 7 Stages of local people participation

………………………………………………….15

Table 8: Reasons for the Exclusion from PFM membership………………….

…………….16

V
LIST OF ACRONYMS

CBO Community Based Organization

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

FGD Focus Group discussion

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GTZ German Technical Cooperation,

JICA Japan international Cooperation Agency

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NFPA National Forest Priority Area

NGOs Non -Governmental Organizations

NR Natural Resource

NRM Natural Resource Management

NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product

OFWE Oromia Forest and wildlife Enterprise

PFM Participatory Forest Management

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

VI
ABSTRACT

The global forest has been declining from year to year due to human and natural factors. The
Nono Sele district in southwest Ethiopia which is a biodiversity hotspot area historically
containing a rich diversity of wild Coffee Arabica cultivars and forest species of commercial
and scientific values. To address the problems of deforestation and forest degradation in the
area, different protection strategies have been implemented through government and
community in a coordinated manner. PFM plays an essential role to contributes natural
resource conservation, income diversification and enhancing welfare of smallholder farmers.
This study investigated the factors affecting community participation on participatory forest
management in Nono sele forest. Two stage sampling procedures were used to select sample
households for data collection. A total of 241 sample households were randomly selected.
Data collection were used through group discussion, key informant interviews in the study
area. Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary
sources. The descriptive and inferential statistics models were used to analyze perception of
household, and the level of participation in PFM, respectively.

The result shows that duration of residence, perception house hold, forest distance from
home and market, total annual income were affected community participation. The study
suggested need to create a sense of ownership for farmers, strengthening existing benefit
schemes and creating others benefit related to the forest resources improvement of rural
infrastructures and timely providing information to improve PFM practices.

Key words: Factors Affecting, Community Participation, Participatory Forest Management.

VII
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background of the Study

Forests are crucial for the sustenance of life on earth, particularly for rural communities in and
adjacent to forested areas (Belcher, 2005; Powell et al.2013; Slee et al. 2004; Vedeld et al. 2007).
Forest resources can be governed through centralized or participatory approaches. Centralized
approaches exclude local communities from forest management as well as benefit-sharing
arrangements.

Centralized approaches also undermine the role of local communities in forest management and
consider local communities as destroyers and encroachers rather than partners who can play a
significant role in forest resource conservation and sustainable management. Heltberg (2002)
stated that many of the tropical forests were state land; however, due to a lack of property rights
being properly enforced, they were open to access and vulnerable to degradation. Without a
clearly defined right to use forest products, local people have no incentive to protect forest
resources. Such systems force local communities to irresponsibly exploit and devastate forest
resources. In contrast to centralized forest management approaches, PFM was introduced to
serve as a vehicle for the sustainable management of forests. The introduction of PFM in
Ethiopia was considered as a change from the bureaucratic and technocratic model of forest
management to a more egalitarian system (Ayana et al., 2017). In the Ethiopian context, a key
issue that requires attention is the legal status of the forest management communities.

The members of community level organizations have the right to use forest products. At the
same time, the community has the responsibility to conserve the forest from damage and
encroachments (Farm Africa and SOS Sahel-Ethiopia, 2007). PFM has been found to encourage
forest conservation and livelihood improvement. Thus, PFM has expanded significantly and is
currently being implemented across the country with nearly 40% of forest resources in Ethiopia
are under some sort of PFM approach. PFM plays an active role in forest conservation and
enhances the livelihoods of rural communities (Tesfaye, 2017; Siraj et al., 2018; Zewdu &
Beyene, 2018). Communities can receive income from forest products such as wild coffee,
honey, and spices (Ayana et al., 2017; Winberg, 2011). Thus, to expand the adoption of PFM and
ensure its effective implementation, it is important to identify and understand barriers to
household heads’ participation in PFM (Engida & Mengistu, 2013). Factors that influence
community participation in forestry management around Nono sele forest were determined by
defining political factors that influence community participation in forestry projects, examining
social/economic factors that influence participation in forestry projects among the members, and
lastly, determining the environ-mental factors that influence participation in forestry projects
among the members.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Participation is the act of local communities actively engaging in forest management activities,
providing space for decision-making and equitable benefit sharing.

1
Further, active participation of the community is essential for the successful implementation of
natural resource management related projects (Bagdi & Kurothe, 2014; Obadire et al., 2014;
Sharma et al., 2011). However, despite the advantages, participation may also have key
drawbacks in specific contexts and may be restricted by administrative, political, and financial
constraints. For instance, Singh (1992) identified that gender, illiteracy, and lack of awareness,
wealth, and social status of communities may influence household head participation in forest
resource management. Farmland size, household size, total income, and economic importance of
the forest have also been identified to influence household head participation in PFM (Wambugu
et al., 2018). Hence, various socio-economic factors influence the participation of the community
in forest management. In Southwest Ethiopia, all household heads are not engaged in PFM
activities. Consequently, what enables or hinders these household heads to participate in PFM
needs to be investigated. Therefore, this study has tried to investigate the major factors that
influence community participation in participatory forest resource management with particular
emphasis on Nono sele participatory forest management in Ilubabor Zone.
1.3. Research questions
This research attempted to answer the following central research questions

1. What are the Demographic and Socio-economic factors affecting people’s participation on
Forest Management in the study area?
2. How is farmers‘ perception towards participation on Participatory Forest Management in
support of their livelihood in the study area?

1.4. Objectives of the Study

1.4.1 General objective of the study
To assess factors affecting community participation in participatory Forest management in Nono
sele forest in Ilubabor Zone
1.4.2. Specific objectives
 To analyze Demographic and socio-economic factors that are affecting people’s participation
on Forest Management in the study area.
 To identify the major factors that influence community in participatory forest
management in the study area.
 To assess farmers perception towards PFM in the support of their livelihood.
1.5. Significance of the Study
This study has three major benefits: First, the finding of this study will hopefully be of scientific
contributions for those who are interested to make further studies in similar issues at different
geographical settings. Second, it will also help to inform policy makers to genuinely involve
community mainstreaming issue with special emphasis in forest on management activities.
Third, this study will have a contribution to the current literature on common resource pool. It
will also have contribution on how to establish and manage common resources successfully
through collective action by taking gender issue into consideration (PFM in this case).
2
1.6. Scope of the Study
The researcher undertook research on the participatory forest management of Nono sele forest
by taking Nono sele Woreda as study area. There are three rationales for choosing Nono sele
Woreda as a study area. First and most, even though PFM was established in the Woreda , there
is no research conducted yet on the factors affecting community participation in PFM under this
study area as far as the knowledge of the researcher is concerned. Thus, the researcher interested
to assess the factors affecting community participation in the implementation of PFM in the
Woreda. Finally, because of its proximity to the researcher’s-Nono Sele home town to wittiness
easy for the researcher in accessing transportation to go and come back to her hometown
frequently during the of time data collection.
1.7. Limitations of the Study
This study conducted within limited time and cost as part of academic degree i.e., for partial
fulfillment of the BA degree Program. The study emphasized only on the factors affecting
community participation in Participatory Forest Management of Nono sele Forest Priority Area
in Ilubabor Zone. Thus, Addressing all dimensions of factors affecting participation of
community in forest management practices in this research is difficult due to limited financial
resource and time. The study is also limited to 241 sample households in four kebeles of Nono
sele in Illubabor Zone of Nono Sele.
1.8. Organization of the paper
This research organized in to five chapter. The first chapter dealt with Introduction
part ,Background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research
Questions, Significance of the Study, Scope and Limitations of the Study. Chapter Two dealt
with the Literature Review. Chapter three is the Methodology. This looks at the Type of
Research, Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques, Data Collection and Method of Data
Analysis. Chapter four indicated the Results and Discussion of Findings. This covered General
Information on factor affect community participation in PFM in Nono Sele woreda, Data
Presentation and Analysis, and Discussion of Research Findings. Chapter five gives the
Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations of the Study.

3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. The Natural Resource management approach

In many parts of the world local peoples have been managing their natural resources based on
their traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge before the stewardship role of the state.
This was because local people were able to manage natural resource through complex interplay
of mutual benefit and support. Their indigenous knowledge and skill played great role in
managing the resource (Tirhas, 2009). Nevertheless, the intervention of the state with their
wholehearted interest to have control over those commonly managed resource brought
disturbances to indigenous natural resource management system (Borrini-Ferabend, 2000). Thi
has resulted in continuous forest degradation in the world.
2.1.2 Participatory Forest Management (PFM)
World forests have been degraded by about 40% since agriculture began (10,000 years ago) and
three fourth of this loss occurred in the last two centuries (UN, 2005). Currently, only 30% of the
Earth is covered by forests (UN, 2005). Moreover, 3% of the Earth lost between 1990 and 2005
and the rate of degradation is becoming more serious (UN, 2005). The battle against forest
degradation is getting tough and challenging as the degradation rate world wide from 2000 to
2005 was about 7.3 million hectares per year (Schulte et al, 2008).

This is the same size of the West African country Sierra Leone. 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 and it was introduced as one of the
solutions to solve the problem of open access to forest resources and promote sustainable forest
management in the country through community participation. Some experiences from around the
world show that shifts from state-centered policies toward solutions at the local level, such as
PFM, resulted in successful forest conservation and development (Wily.,2002 and Khanal.,
2007).
Based on lessons learnt elsewhere, PFM was introduced to Ethiopia by some NGOs and donor
agencies, notably FARM Africa, SOS Sahel, GTZ and JICA. These non-State actors attempted to
respond to the prevailing forest management problems in Ethiopia through the introduction,
adaptation and establishment of PFM projects. Indeed, introduction of PFM will expected to
achieve the dual goal of contributing to the sustainable management of the forest resources and
the improvement of the socioeconomic status of the local community.
2.3. The Concept of Participatory Forest Management(PFM)

The idea of participatory forest management came into practice in the world following the high
rate of forest degradation and deforestation in the early 1990s (FAO, 2011).This approach
anticipated to ensure sustainable forest management by involving a large number of stakeholders
with different interests, knowledge, expectations and rights (Sumbi, 2004).

4
Before the 1990s, the majority of countries in the world had relied on the centralization approach
whereby, the central government managed forests without the involvement of the local
communities. In response to this challenge, the Rio de Janeiro summit was held in 1992. At the
summit, a number of agreements were reached, including the adoption of a comprehensive
statement of forest principles on sustainable forest management worldwide; Agenda 21, which
entails a comprehensive programmed of global action in all areas regarding sustainable forest
management and development; and the Rio Declaration on environmental development that
define roles and responsibilities of every state (Himberg et al., 2009). The Rio de Janeiro
summit, which is also known as the UN Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED), was held with the goal of addressing various environmental issues such as the
protection of forests, and other natural resources, conservation of biological diversity;
management of wastes and technology. Subsequently, after Rio de Janeiro agreements, countries
started to change the forest management approach by introducing participatory forest
management that directly involves local communities in forest management (Himberg et al.,
2009).
Local communities play a crucial role in influencing forest management because of their needs
for land, wood for energy, construction and other non-timber forest products NTFPs (Ribot,
2003).Several scholars and practitioners (Larsen et al., 2007and Blomley, 2013), therefore, argue
that engaging local actors is a crucial step toward enhancing contribution of resources to
community development and at the same time improving resource management through the
participation of local communities. This stance tends to contrast with the centralized
(government-led) schemes that are largely rated as having failed to ensure proper management of
natural resources through the protectionist model. For instance, Enters and Anderson (2008)
argued that, contrary to the objective of enhancing conservation, some protected areas
experienced loss of biodiversity mainly because there lacked genuine engagement of local
communities. Participatory forest management includes many forms of partnership. The first
one is collaborative forest management in which the communities cooperate with the
government. The second one is joint forest management in which the community lead agency
and the community take over the duty of conservation of forest (Lawrence and Green,
2008).FARM/SOS(2008:34) defines participatory forest management as a system in which the
communities (forest users and managers) and government services (forest department) work
together to define rights of forest resource use, identify and develop forest resource
responsibilities, and agree on how forest benefits will be shared. For the purpose of this study,
PFM is operationalized to mean the definition given by FARM/SOS.
PFM is a multi-stakeholder approach where the private sector, institutions and communities are
involved in management of forests and sharing of benefits that accrue from such management
processes. While PFM can be considered in a wider perspective of CBNRM, community forest
management is the most emphasized approach for implementing PFM in many developing
countries (Koech et al, 2009). PFM is a mechanism to protect forests and enhance the livelihoods
of communities who use and benefit from them in the process (Ellen Weinberg, 2010).
5
PFM is shown to have positive impacts both on the state of the forest and living condition of
participant households. Forest conditions such as seedling and sapling densities improved
(Wondimagegn Mengistu et al., 2016). PFM also (i) promote awareness about forest, (ii)
Capacitated locals to form new institutional arrangement that increased their participation in
forest management, helped to reduce open access and assisted a regulated forest use, and (iii)
contributed towards social equity in terms of gender and minority ethnic groups. When
accompanied with complementary non forest based livelihood activities, PFM helps to diversify
income sources, increase household income level and build household assets.
2.2.3. Participatory Forest Management in Ethiopia

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,
2005). 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
accounts for up to 43 percent of tropical forest losses. Forested catchments account for three
quarters of the planet‟s accessible freshwa conditions worsen. Fresh water catchments and soil
preservation are important inputs to agriculture and food production (MEA, 2005).

Participatory forest management (PFM) was introduced in Ethiopia around the mid-1990s as a
new system of forest governance (Mogoi et.al, 2012). PFM was meant to avert the persistent
problems of deforestation and to deliver better social and economic outcomes compared with the
former centralized command-and-control resource management approach. In Ethiopian context,
PFM is recognized as a co-governance institutional arrangement where forest management
responsibilities and use rights are legally shared between government agency and a community-
based organization (CBO), such as forest user groups or forest cooperatives (Bradstock et al.,
2007; Winberg, 2010).

The introduction of PFM in Ethiopia was officially founded on three complementary beliefs held
by forest authorities and donors:- (i) Centralized and expert led forest management practices
have been unsuccessful so far and will not succeed in the future; (ii) Participation of local
communities which hold the major stake in forest resources around them in most effective
strategy to achieve sustainable forest management and; (iii) forests offer multiple social,
economic and ecological roles to local communities and are capable of generating sufficient and
sustainable livelihoods to take them out of poverty; Kubsa et al, 2003 cited on (Akililu Ameha et
al., 2014). PFM is designed to form a component of the broader rural development strategy that
aims at improving rural livelihoods, promoting gender equality and reduce poverty whilst
protecting the environment from degradation (Mulugeta and Melaku, 2008).In Ethiopia, PFM is
used as a strategy to engage local communities to achieve a sustainable forest management
objective while also generating livelihood benefits (Tadesse and Teketay, 2017).

6
2.4. Role of PFM on forest condition improvement
Though there is a strong consensus on the positive contributions of CBFMs to forest
conservation relative to the state-controlled and centralized management models, the impacts are
often place based and context specific. A similar analysis conducted by(Ribot et.al., 2010) also
highlights the mixed reports of impacts of CBFM on forest conservation. Participatory forest
management exhibits the most balanced goals as compared to other interventions in the sector.
Where specifically targeted, these projects have also achieved positive environmental outcomes
such as reduced deforestation rates, regeneration of degraded forests, and reduced incidence of
fires and protection of biodiversity(FAO, 2013).After their improvement, the user groups have
proved their capacity in wisely utilizing and regulating in access to the forests. As a result, there
has been a significant improvement in the forest regeneration status and regeneration of stamps
by the presence and h has also been a significant reduction in the rate of illegal logging (Girma,
(2005 and Girma,(2006)also found that the current level of wood consumption is far lower than
the allowable cut. In most cases, the used groups are utilizing trees that have fallen down or were
left behind the forest floor during past illegal logging.
This also implies that the user groups are more protective than exploitative. Behind the strategy
of the PFM, there is an assumption that forest area that is managed by or together with local,
rural and adjacent communities towards the forest and regulated by local laws of management
planning.

The basis for the establishment of the PFM in Ethiopia was the persistence of high levels of
deforestation. Therefore, all the projects stated contribution to improved forest conservation as
their main goal and objectives (Akiilu et al., 2014). Accordingly, PFM has shown that
community based forest management has significantly contributed to successful forest
conservation. The good works done in community mobilization, organization and sufficient
building coupled with the granting of legal forest use rights have realized forest rehabilitation
and conservation success. The PFM of the farm Africa/SOS Sahel project performance in
Ethiopia had shown the following achievements in forest conservation.

2.1.5.Factors Affecting Peoples Participation in Participatory Forest

Management.
Yonas (2007) briefly states three basic f participatory forest management .Each in turn is
branched in to a diverse group of factors or variables. Resource Attributes: size of resource,
clarity of boundaries, predictability of recourse flow, condition of resource, ease of exclusion.
Users attributes: size of communities, proximity to resource and market, group cohesion or
heterogeneity, norms of behavior, available skills and knowledge of recourses and historical
events. Institutional arrangements: membership, access, appropriation, monitoring and sanctions,
conflicts resolution decision making arrangements, relationships with external agents.

The dynamics of actors interaction their interactions have positively or negatively impacted on
the management process of forest.
7
 In addition to the above elements that determine the success of PFM, scholars (McKean, 2000
Yonas, 2007) further put the following elements that determine effective functioning of forest
user group (FUG) under participatory forest management arrangements. Ease of excludability
(cost of preventing others from using the resource) favors PFM which is related to size and
clarity of boundaries. More homogenous, smaller close knit groups with intimate knowledge
ofthe resource and history of successful collective action are likely to succeed (Grace, 2007).
Simple flexible, faire rules that are supported by external arrangements are likely to favor PFM.

Experience in many countries clearly indicates that when PFM is implemented appropriately,
with sensitivity to local conditions and the various attributes mentioned above, it produces
significant result. Such as ecological result: conserving the natural resource, improve the extent
of forest, increase ecological benefits like maintenances of local climate reduce erosion, and
protect watershed; Economic: support rural livelihoods and so helping to alleviate poverty and
also bring non-economic benefits such as experience, skill development etc for communities
involved in the process (Zelalem,2005). Although PFM has several benefits to all stake holders,
PFM is not solution; that is it doesn‟t provided a quick fix for to work in all circumstance
(Zelalem, 2005). Ethnic composition, political ideology, and cultural with the community could
create problems at the user group level. He further indicates that in order to have successful
common property, every individual should have an equal level of participation in decision
making. Within the common property resource management, participation of different interesting
groups is important to minimize the risk of excludability to certain group of the people.

2.1.6. Challenges and Constraints of Participatory Forest Management

Participatory forest management needs different attentions to achieve the intended objectives. In
addition to academic works that demonstrated the potential of PFM, there also existed a concern
over the success and sustainability of these co-management initiatives. Especially when applied
in wider scales and broader contexts, the performance of this strategy has been found to be
varying and requires specific local and regional environmental context (Yonas, 2007).
One of the prerequisites for successful PFM is local people’s act participation (Matta, 2005).
Though the name PFM is used as a general term to indicate local involvement in forest
management, its specific application and types of forests with in which itoperates vary widely.
According to Yonas (2007), among the many of PFM arrangements in many of African counties,
the diversity in group size, group cohesion, and proximity to marketis immense.

The typology of PFM diffe ranging from simple consultation to contracts, consignment and joint
venture. As such it is complex and highly context specific which prevents the possibility of
blueprinting the PFM process at operational level (Yonas, 2007). As is when developing
community based management systems, the appropriate definition of the community is also
important. It is vital to assess who are the relevant stakeholders rather than simply identifying all
the stakeholders.

8
2.1.7. Perception and attitude towards PFM
The successful conservation of forests is dependent upon the attitudes of the local people who
are inherently connected with the forests and through their active participation in forest
management. Previous benefits and values can affect the conservation attitudes and perception of
the local people towards forest conservation and management (Gadd 2005; Kidegheshoet al.,
2007).Thus, negative or positive attitudes and perception of local people towards PFM will likely
affect their contribution and participation in the conservation and management of forests
(Tesfaye 2011; Tesfayeet al., 2012; Amehaet al., 2014; Sirajet al., 2016).

The perception of farmers towards participation in PFM viewed from the angles of perceived
benefits and participation obtained from the forest. Forest conservation and their effects,
perceived from PFM approach, were the rules and regulation and perceived responsibility of
community in the area as a whole for sustainable management of forest in the area. According to
the key informants the rules and regulations, external support delivered from organizations and
incentives given enable the households in forest conservation practices. In line this Girma and
Zegeye, (2017) their result shows households (who was participant of PFM) perception towards
PFM approach to improves the livelihood of farmers. Thus, most participants consider PFM as a
vital activity for people and for the forests. The result coincides with the study conducted by
Tadesse and Abay, (2013) who indicate positive perception of households has a better influence
on the level of participation in forest management at Alamata forest in Tigray region of Ethiopia.
Similarly, the study conducted by Arowosoge, (2015) indicates that the perception of the
community have a perceived positive relationship with the participation of communities in forest
conservation in Ethiopia (Tesfayeet al., 2012).

9
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the study area

The study was conducted in Nono sele woreda, located in Ilaubabor administrative zone of
Oromia National Regional State, Southwest Ethiopia, where PFM has been actively
implemented. Astronomically it lies between 7° 27'-8°18' N latitude and 34°52'-35°26' E
longitude. The altitude of the study area rises from 1,444 to 2,244 m asl.

Different landforms such as rugged mountains, deep gorges and extensive dissected plateaus are
the main topographic features of the study area. The main part of the district (90% of the land
area) belongs to the woina-dega (subtropical) ranges from 1500 to 2300 m asl) traditional agro-
climatic zone, with the remaining area belonging to the kolla agro-climatic zone (500– 1500 m
asl). As projected from population data (CSA, 2013), 27,616 people inhabit the district, of which
49.9% are male and 51.1% are female. The district generally experiences humid climatic
conditions. The rainfall distribution is uni-modal, with the highest rainfall between Junes to
September. Rain falls throughout the year. Reliable climatic data of the area is not available due
to lack of weather station for many years. Based on the information from nearby station such as
Gore, the mean annual rainfall is estimated to be well over 2100mm.

The study area has high potential in cereal production due to its favorable agro-climatic
conditions and the main crops cultivated in the area are maize and sorghum mainly for
consumption purposes. Harvesting of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as forest coffee,
honey and spices also occupy an important place in the household economy.

3.1.1. Background of Nono Sele PFM program

The PFM project was implemented in the Nono Sele forest from 2010-2014 by Oromia Forest
and Wildlife Enterprise (OFWE) with financial support from European Union. The project
encompasses seven rural kebeles and eight cooperatives. The goals of the project include
promoting of sustainable forest management through implementation of PFM and improvement
of the livelihood of forest dependent communities through providing forest based and non-forest
based livelihood activities. Before the conservation intervention, the forest was one of the 58
National Forest Priority Areas and the management of forests was the full responsibility of the
government and much of the attention was given on protecting the forest. Ethio-wetland and
natural resources association with financial support from Norwegian Agency for
Development(NORAD) through the Development Fund of Norway in collaboration with OFWE
was implemented PFM program in the Nono Sele forest from 2013- 2015. This project consists
twelve rural kebeles and twelve cooperatives. The overall objective of the project to establish
PFM and contributes to increasing carbon storage in Nono-sele forest.

10
3.2. Research Design
In this study, a cross-sectional research design was applied where data collected at a point in
time. The researcher adopted probability sampling namely stratified and purposive sampling
techniques to select the households and the users of state forest were stratified into male and
female household heads and then forest user groups and non-forest user groups. This is because
male and female could have different attitude and perceptions towards forest resources
management; and also to give equal chance for the whole target population to be selected as a
respondent and to select high forest exploiters, charcoal producers from the state or non-
participatory forest management (NPFM) forest in order to compare livelihood status of them
with that of PFM
3.3. Sampling technique and sample size
A two stage sampling procedure with a combination of purposive (to select sample district) and
random sampling (to select sample PFM rural kebeles and household heads).In the first stage,
Nono sele woreda among the districts of the Ilubabor zone was purposive selected for the study
due to PFM has been practiced in the forest for a numbers of years. In the second stage, five
PFM rural kebeles, namely, Gemechisa, Welkitesa, Kimo, Qoti and Onose were also purposively
selected out of the total 19 PFM rural kebeles that were included under PFM program in relation
to accessibility of transportation and different community development activities were carried
out by the project. In the third stage, sample size was determined through probability
proportional to size sampling techniques recommended by Kumar (1999). For household survey
, a total of 241 household heads (from all sampled PFM rural kebeles), which was 10% of total
households in each kebele) were sampled based on a random sampling procedure sample, with
FUGs registers used as sampling frames.
The sample size of the households to be taken was calculated using the formula (Cochran, 1977)

Where: no= desired sample size when population q =is 1-P

n1 = finite population correction factors
Z = standard normal deviation N = is total number of population
P = proportion of population to be included in sample i.e. 10%)
d =is degree of accuracy desired

3.4Methods of Data Collections

Data were collected from primary and secondary sources. Primary data were collected through a
household questionnaire survey, key informant interview and focus group discussions.
Secondary data was gathered from various government offices at district, available NGO reports
and published and unpublished articles. Purposive sampling was employed to select participants
of the focus group discussions and key informant interviews.

11
The rationale for using a purposive sampling technique was to ensure that the selected
participants had an extensive knowledge of the research topic/issues and those both male and
female members were represented. Finally, field observation was carried out as a supporting data
collection approach, to observe the major forest products collected from the forest and bee hives
and honey products of the forest.

3.5. Method of Data Analysis

Data collected through various methods was analyzed by using both descriptive statistics and
inferential model, to draw meaningful inferences about the problem under investigation.
Qualitative data analysis methods: this was used to analyze the data collected through semi-
structured techniques. Descriptive statistical analysis: depending on the available data at hand,
data were coded, and subjected to analysis using descriptive statistics tools, such as the mean,
standard deviation, percentage, frequency of occurrences.

12
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Results of the Study
This chapter presents and analyzes results obtained from this study. The socio-demographic
information of the respondents of the study, factor affecting community participation in
PFM, their role in decision making in this approach as a forest management system, perceptions
of community towards PFM and major factors that affect community participation in PFM in
the study area are presented in this chapter.
4.1. 1. Socio-demographic Information of the Respondents
In this section, age, sex, literacy status, marital status, ethnic background,, household size, major
occupation of the households’ income are analyzed and described
Table 1: Distribution of Respondents by Age
No. Age group Frequency Percent

1 15-25 36 15.91
2 26-35 78 28.36
3 36-45 60 21.82
4 46-55 53 19.27
5 56-65 19 6.91
6 66 and above 2 0.73
Total 241 100
Source: Rural kebeles and woreda forest offices, 2016
This table depicted that from the minimum age group of respondents recruited for this study and
maximum age without limitation, women of different age groups are taking part in Nono sele
PFM in their living area. However, information obtained from document analysis revealed that
age should only be considered as criteria to elect and be elected as committees.
Table 2: Marital Status of Respondents
No. Marital Status Frequency Percent
1 Married 211 84.7
2 Single 21 12
3 Widowed 9 3.3
Total 241 100
Source: Rural kebeles and woreda forest offices, 2016
The above table shows that out of total respondents (241) of this study, 211 (84.7 percent) are
married while 21 (12 percent) and 9 (3.3 percent) are single and widowed respectively.
Table 3: Literacy Status of Respondents
No. Literacy Status Frequency Percent
1 Able to read and write 142 60.91
2 Unable to read and write 99 38.09
Total 241 100
Source: Rural kebeles and woreda forest offices, 2016
13
The survey result showed that about 39% educational status of sampled households heads were
illiterate; while 61% of the sample households were literate. The study finding that high level of
education house hold have better to participation on PFM activities. Similarly to the expected
hypothesis anticipates that relatively educated households show better participation for collective
forest management.
Table 4: Household Size of Respondents
No. Household size Frequency Percent
1 1-4 54 19.64
2 5-8 170 74.91
3 9 and above 15 5.45
Total 241 100
Source: Rural kebeles and woreda forest offices, 2016
The above table indicates that the household size of 54 (19.64 percent) respondents ranges
between 1- 4, the household size of 206 (74.91 percent) respondents ranges between 5 to 8 and
the household size of the rest 15 (5.45 percent) respondents is above 9. The occupation of the
households of the respondents is agriculture namely crop and mixed farming. Out of the total
respondents, 47 (17.09 percent) and 228 (82.91 percent) responded that their household
occupation as a livelihood strategy is crop and mixed farming respectively. All respondents of
the study, 275 (100 percent) responded that their major house holds income source is agriculture.
Beside agricultural activities, be it crop an 209 (76 percent) of respondent replied that
forest products like naturally grown spices called long pepper Tunjoo in local language and
Aframomum Cororrima are also their additional sources of income. It was identified by this
study that women are the responsible family members to collect these spices from the natural
forest for free and take to the market for sale to generate income for the family.
Table 5. Respondents’ Frequency of Attendance
No. How often do you attend meetings Frequency Percent

1 Always 160 71.43

2 Sometimes 76 28.57
3 Not participate at all 13 3.27
Total 241 100
Source:survey, 2016
Result from the above table indicates that out of total respondents, 266 (96.73 percent) of them
responded that they attend meetings called by the executive and sub-committees of WaBuB
approach and the rest 9 (3.27 percent) answered that they have never been attended meetings
called by the committees. Out of the 266 (96.73 percent) ever attended meetings, 190 (71.43
percent) of them replied that they actively attend every me and sub-committee regularly to
discuss on different issues in relation to forest protection and conservation whereas about 76
(28.57 percent) responded that they attend the meetings occasionally.

14
On the other hand, those respondents who replied that they have never been attended meetings
called by PFM-committee executive reasoned out that and they are busy with housework
activities and childcare burden. In addition, they have also responded that because their husbands
are participating and they thought that These women further elaborated that they have to
effectively manage the household chores since this is their traditional responsibilities according
to the norm of the community.
Table 6: Perceptions of Respondents towards the Importance of PFM
No. How do you see the importance of PFM approach Frequency Percent
in conserving
1 It is very important 201 95.64
2 It is important 40 4..36
3 Less important - -
4 It is not important - -
Total 241 100
Source:survey, 2016
The above table depicts that all respondents of the study reacted positive about the importance of
PFM approach in conserving forest. Out of total respondents of the study, 201(95.64 percent)
responded that PFM approach is very important in conserving forest while 40 (4.36 percent)
replied that it is important. They stated that this is because they have seen encouraging change as
a result of PFM approach in forest conservation in their local area. Respondents were also asked
to respond how they see PFM in improving the livelihoods of local community. Based on asked
question, 180 (76.72 percent) of respondents responded that it is very good, 40 (21.81 percent) of
respondents replied that it is good while 20 (1.45 percent) responded that it is not good.
Respondents those replied PFM is not good in improving the livelihoods of local people
reasoned out that the approach is delimited only to natural forest excluding plantation. They also
mentioned that they are not sharing benefits from man planted forest (plantation) even though it
was they, local people, who planted and protected it from destruction.
Table 7: Stages of local people participation
Stages of project planning Frequency Percent
Planning 103 70.5
Implementation 143 91.5
Monitoring and evaluation 23 15.8
Benefit sharing 20 13.7

Source: survey, 2016

For the achievement of this study, four stages of project including planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation, and benefits sharing were used as frame work to assess stages at
which they have participated in the execution of the different activities of the project. The
concern in identifying the stage in which the local people participated was to know whether they
were involved in all stages of the project or not.
15
Out of the total informants covered in this survey, about 70.5% of the respondents participated at
planning stage. Likewise, about 91.5% of them involved at implementation stage through field
activities.

Nevertheless, relatively small numbers of participants were involved at stages of monitoring and
evaluation (15.5%), and benefit sharing (13.7%) as shown in Table 7. According to the result
relatively majority of the respondents were involved at implementation stage of the forest
management. But, this was to implement what was recommended by the field staffs and
emphasis was given to the participation of the local people to get their labor contributions in the
field activities. In the other hand, participation at implementation stage was high due to the
understanding of the local people about the benefits of the rehabilitation project through
awareness creation and at the same time.
Table 8: Reasons for the Exclusion from PFM membership.
Reasons for exclusion N %
Lack of interest 53 34.7
Residing very far from the forest 66 27.9
Lack of awareness 16 8.4
Financial problem to pay a 12 6.3
membership fee
Dependence on parents 13 6.8
Unavailability in the PFM area 10 5.3
Age 2 1.1
Refusal by the committee 18 9.5
Source: survey, 2016
Among all the PFM selection criteria used in Nono sele PFM, the distance between the forest
and residents house is the main factor that determines one's membership application for a
particular PFM cooperatives. The household survey also examined the non-forest user group
reasons for their exclusion from membership and the result revealed that 35% of the non-PFM
members were excluded from membership due to their residence out of the forest periphery
(Table 8). The PFM committees also stated that if a member is residing very far or out of the
periphery, it would be difficult to keep the forest and easily take part in the participatory forest
management activities. Due to these, they do not choose members who are living very far from
the forest area. Lack of interest by the households is the second major factor for the exclusion of
non-PFM from membership. However, some of the non-PFM admitted that they feel sad for
missing the opportunity and they would consider the options to join the cooperative in the future

4.1.2. Perceptions of community towards PFM

This study result revealed that the local community in general in particular in the study area have
positive attitude or perception towards PFM. The survey result indicated that all respondents of
the study replied that they believe PFM is very important in protecting and conserving forest in
sustainable manner for it is important solution to alleviate forest destruction.
16
4.1.3. Level of community Participation in Nono sele PFM
Respondents of this study were asked whether they know the presence of PFM approach in their
living area as a forest management system or not before getting into the issue of dealing with
their level of participation in the approach. Accordingly, based on the question asked them to
respond, all of them replied that they know very well about the existence of PFM approach as a
participatory forest management system in their local area. Having known their knowledge about
its presence in their living area, attempt was made to identify their participation in it.
Concerning this, all respondents, 121 (50%) of them responded that they have been taking part in
the approach as the household members for the approach encourages women to become part of
the members to protect and conserve forest in their living area since membership to the approach
starts from the household level.

As far as the level of women their member ship participation in the approach may not adequate
to understand to what extent women participate in the approach equally with their male
counterparts. To this end, the respondents were asked to evaluate their level of participation in
the PFM approach. Criteria of their evaluation was based on involvement in different activities
of forest management, taking part in the election of PFM committees and frequency of attending
meetings called by the committees, and generating idea or speaking up in decision making
process as well as acceptance of their idea in the PFM approach of the study area. Accordingly,
out of total respondents of the study, 107 (42.55 percent), 124 (50.55 percent) responded that
they participate very active, active and less active respectively.

4.1.4. Factors Hindering community participation in PFM

Different hindering factors PFM of approach community participation in the study area were
identified. Respondents of household survey as well as informants from interviews and FGD
discussants mentioned different hindering factors approach of Nono sele forest management.
Identified participation in PFM approach of forest management are housework and child care
burden, lack of incentives, perception of community and local people perception participation
in outside activities discussants. said that the first two factors are the prevailing hindering factors
of community participation in PFM approach of Nono sele forest priority area in the woreda
even though respondents from household survey stated all the four aforementioned factors as
hindering factors of community participation activities in forest management.

Respondents were asked to respond whether there is special opportunity for local people
participating in PFM approach of nono sele woreda or not. Based on asked question, all
respondents of this study, 241 (100 percent) responded that there is no special opportunity
available for women different from their male counterparts participating in the forest
management. Results obtained from interviews and FGD discussants also revealed that there is
no any incentive available only for women. Informants of the study discussed absence of special
opportunity for women in the approach interlinking with lack of incentives and considered it as
one of the hindering factors.
17
4.1.5. Challenges of PFM in Nono Sele Woreda
All respondents from household survey as well as informants from interviews and FGD
discussants mentioned that PFM approach in Nono Sele woreda is facing challenges from newly
established households after the forest management agreement was signed between PFM
members and Oromia Forest and Wildlife enterprise, Nono sele Branch to manage the forest.
The awareness of these newly established households is not strongly improved in relation to
sustainable forest management. Some members of the association also sometimes go against the
rule and regulation of forest management. Support from the state is also unsatisfactory to provide
legal assistance for forest users against encroachers and offenders. This is reflected in the judicial
procedure, which is protracted, and decisions have reportedly been less deterrent. Because of the
weak law enforcement, there is a continuous clash between members of forest users group and
others on access to the forest and use of its products. Another challenge of Nono sele PFM
mentioned by the informants is membership to PFM is at household level but there are conflicts
of interest on forest resource use in the area at individual level. Informants of the study also
stated that population pressure or growth is also another challenge specifically in relation to
increasing number of young population in the forest priority area. They added that the approach
consider young people didn’t as much as possible.

Despite the challenges surrounding the Nono sele woreda, most respondents are optimistic about
the sustainability of PFM. Those who doubt the sustainability of PFM base their pessimism on
the perceived failures of the government structures to provide the required support.

18
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
In conclusion, the pre-conditions for participatory forest management, like common
understanding on the problems of forest conservation and management, perceived community
responsibility of forest management, users' conservation perception on forest changes, their
livelihood activities‟ with their forest resource family s management in the study area. Duration
of residence is one of the variables that positive affecting on the likelihood of participation at
5%, significant level in participatory forest management. It is categorized under the broader
factor length of living in year in the peasant association, social network of the peoples and
structural relationship, trust by the people which may facilitate or impedes participation of
farmers in PFM collectively.

Distance of the forest from the home had a negative impact on participation of protection of
forest activities at 1% level of statistical significance; that satisfies prior expectation. The
household far from the forest did not benefit from the forest because it requires additional cost
for transportation of forest product from the area. They found a negative relationship between
distances of a household’s and participation in home forest management from and the for
protection practices due to information asymmetry and rare benefits obtained from the forest
annual income obtained both from forest products sale and other livelihood diversification of
their activity in the production year is used to measure the relative impact on participate behavior
of forest users.

The perception of farmers towards participation in PFM viewed from the angles of perceived
benefits obtained from the forest, perceived extent of forest conservation and their effects,
perceived current PFM approach, perceived rules and regulation and perceived responsibility of
community in the area as a whole for sustainable management of forest in the area. Forest
dependent had a positive effect and statistically significant at 10% level that satisfies the prior
expectation. The highest number of livestock owner and households closer to the forest utilized
feeds for their livestock either by sharing system or through payment. The results of the survey
indicate 65.8% of sampled households were participating in participatory forest conservation and
protection practices while the remaining 34.2% of sampled households were non-participants.

The result raveled that Distance of the forest from home is negatively related and decrease the
likelihood of participation at less than 10% significance level and total annual income of the
household was found to have a very significant negative correlation with participation in
participatory forest management activities.. Finally, any intervention intended to enhance forest
conservation and management through promoting collective institutions in the study area should
take into account the most important variables identified by this study.

19
5.2. Recommendations
The study contributes to addressing constraints prevailed in the participation process of the
communities in PFM practices. Therefore, based on findings of the study the following
recommendations are given.
 The majority of d participation household’s made for conservation perceive practices is vital
but there is considerable number of households who did not perceive towards participation
made by farmers.

 Improving rural infrastructures such as road and transportation and timely providing
information to encourage peoples participation on PFM activitiesin the study area

 The federal government, forest policies & strategies, rural land administration and

land use policy& proclamations should be applied to reduce factors that hinder the goal
of PFM practice in the area. Other concerns of different facilitator of PFM practice was
about wise use of forest products, insuring equitable distribution among different social
groups like gender and poor farmers in the study area to reduce factors affecting peoples
participation in PFM..

 In addition to solving boundary conflicts, setting common rules and regulations at

the forest ecosystem level, and making relevant decisions, monitoring and evaluating
their implementations and create a sense of ownership for the farmers.

20
REFERENCES

Amogne, A., E.2014. Forest resource management systems in Ethiopia: Historical perspective.

International Journal of Biodiversity and conservation, Vol.6 (2), pp121-131

Disasa, M., L. 2015. The Significance of Indigenous Knowledge and Institutions in Forest
Management: A Case of Gera Forest, in Southwestern Ethiopia. International Journal of
Science and Research (IJSR), Volume 4 Issue 4.

Nygren, A.2005. Community-based forest management within the context

of institutional decentralization in Honduras. World Development
33: 4, 639–655.
Tom, B., and Said, I. 2009. Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: Lessons learned and
experiences to date. Tanzania, Dare Salam.

Wondimagegn Mengist, Kaba Urgessa, Kiflu Haile and Zerihun

Kiflu.2013.Comparative study of forest under participatory forest
management: A case of Belete-Gera Forest, Southwest Ethiopia. Middle-
East Journal of Scientific Research 17(5):607-612

Yemiru, T. 2011. Participatory Forest Management for Sustainable Livelihoods in

the Bale Mountains, Southern Ethiopia. Uppsala: Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.

Yitebitu M, Zewdu E, Sisay N 2012. Ethiopian forest resources: current status and
future management options in view of access to carbon finances. Prepared for the
Ethiopia climate research and networking and UNDP. Addis Ababa; Ethiopia. pp.
15-20.

Zelalem Temesgen. 2005. An introduction to Chilimo Participatory Forest Management Project:

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

21
APPENDICES

Annex A: Questionnaires

Introduction

This questionnaire is prepared with an aim to assess The factor affect community participation
in Participatory Forest Management: The case of Nono sele Forest Priority Area in
Nono Sele Woreda, Ilubabor Zone. Hence, you are sincerely required to provide me genuine
information. The information that you provide me is very important for this study. Thus, I kindly
request you to provide me your answer. The information that you provide me will only be used
for academic purpose. I also ensure that any sources of this information will be fully anonymous.

Questionnaires for Respondents

PART I: General Information

1. Name of the district: ___________ village/sub village: __________
2. Sex: Male_______ Female ____________. Age ____________
3. Number of people live/economically dependent in the household: ______
4. Distance from market in hours: _______________
5. Distance from forest in hours: _____________________
PART II: Participation in PFM + understanding
1. Are you a member of the community forest management group?
1. Yes 2 No
2. If no, why? ____________________________________________
3. If yes, how long it takes from learning to the date CBO is formulated? 1. Less than 2 years
2. 3 –3years 3. Not yet formed
4. If your answer to the above question is not yet formed, why it takes long please specify
_____________________________________________________________________
5. How were you involved in the identification of forest user group?
______________________________________________________________
6. What are the major stages to formulate PFM?
________________________________________________________________________
Was that satisfactory: Yes/No comments___________________________

22
7. How were by-laws set?
8. Was the community consulted about the by-laws? 1. Yes 2.No 3. No idea
9. Were you involved in decisions making? 1. Yes 2. No
PART III. Factors that Influence community participation
1. Please list if there is a factor that you believe may enhance your participation in forest
management in your local area different from the aforementioned factors
_______________

2. What hinders your participation in PFM of your local area? ________________________

3. What are the challenges of PFM in forest management? ___________________________

4. What should be done to overcome these challenges and hindering factors of women
participation in PFM approach of Nono sele forest?

Annex B: Interview Guide

The aim of preparing this interview guide is to assess The factor affect community participation in
Participatory Forest Management: The case of Nono sele Forest Priority Area in Nono Sele Woreda,
Ilubabor Zone. As informant, you are selected as a key informant of this study and your participation in
this research is entirely voluntary and greatly appreciated. Hence, you are sincerely required to provide
me genuine information. The information that you provide me is very important for this study. The
information you provide me will only be used for academic purpose. I also ensure that any sources of
this information will be fully anonymous. Any audio recordings that may be made will be stored securely
and will only be listened to by myself or my supervisor and will be destroyed after the research is
complete.

Thank You for Your Cooperation!

A. Interview Guide

1. Who are the stakeholders of Nono sele Participatory Forest Management?

2. What are their role and responsibility in managing the forest?

3. Are there women in the executive and sub-committee of PFM of Nono sele forest?

4. Is really power devolved to the local community and sense of accountability created?
23
5. Does Nono sele Participatory Forest Management ensured local people
empowerment in forest management? How?

6. What are the objectives of Nono sele PFM? Do it achieving its objectives?

7.Do support and trainings are provided for the members of PFM ?

Interview with project and Nono Sele forest enterprise staff

1. What do you think very relevant in your PFM?

___________________________________________________________________________
2. How do you rate the performance of your staff in Nono Sele and selected kebeles especially
in performing these duties and responsibilities?
___________________________________________________________________________
3. Has this difference resulted in the participation of PFM in Nono Sele and selected kebeles?
1. Yes 2. No
4. What has been the contribution of the traditional forest management system in Nonon Sele
and selected kebeles which have almost the same sprit with PFM for the faster take-up of the
project?_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
5. Who are the stakeholders of the project (PFM) in Nono Sele and selected kebeles?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
6. What are the roles of each stakeholder to reduce factors affecting farmers participation in each
kebeles? Is there any difference?

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________

24
Annex C: Observation Checklist

The below listed are observation checklist used in field observation.

1. Who is there in the meetings of PFM committees? Only men, women or both?

2. What are their roles?

3. What distinguish them? Ethnicity? Religion? Age?

4. What is being done to protect and conserve forest?

5. What is going on to manage the forest?

6. Do local community physically take part in forest management activities?

7. What are people talking about the forest management?

8. What does the forest looks like? Is it regenerating? Is there forest destruction?
Annex D: Focus group discussion
Focus group discussion
1. What has been done by PFM project to formulate cooperatives other than forest
cooperatives to support livelihood of the community?----------------------------------
 Was that enough? -------------------------------------------------------------------

 And was the livelihood diversification program performed so far

successful?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 What impacts it has on establishment of PFM?

2. Have you faced any problem in the past due to forest related policy or any other policy? Do
You think that the problem will appear again if you adopt PFM? Have you thought it as a
factor?
When adopting PFM?
3. Do you have a fear that PFM will restrict your use rights (such as firewood sells, honey
Production timber etc) of forest? Why do you think this?
4. Any other suggestion about the forest management, management committee of the forest
group and PFM in general?

25