Views and attitudes of local people towards community versus state forest governance in Tehulederi District, South Wollo, Ethiopia

Abstract

Introduction: 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.