Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dynamics in People-Tree Interactions in Farm Fields
Farmers’ perspectives in Meskan District, Ethiopia
Ghislaine Bongers
August 2010
Dynamics in People-Tree Interactions in Farm Fields
Farmers’ perspectives in Meskan District, Ethiopia
Ghislaine Bongers
850129-094-100
Supervision:
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy: Dr. Ir. K.F. (Freerk) Wiersum
Land Degradation and Development: Dr. Ir. C.A. (Aad) Kessler
Local supervion Ethiopia: Zenebe Adimassu Teferi (PhD)
Master Thesis, FNP 80439
Wageningen University
Wageningen, The Netherlands/ Butajira, Ethiopia
January-August 2010
Pictures frontpage: Dirama and Dobi kebele, G. Bongers, 2010
1
Acknowledgement
This thesis is done as part of the Master ‘Forest and Nature Conservation’ at Wageningen University,
the Netherlands. Research was conducted in Ethiopia between February and June 2010 in Dirama
and Dobi kebele around Butajira District town, Ethiopia.
Research in Ethiopia was placed in the framework of PhD research on behalf of Zenebe
Adimassu Teferi, part of the project ‘Ecosystems for water, food and economic development in the
Ethiopian Central Rift Valley’, Plant Research International and Wageningen International. I am very
thankful for the contribution to research costs on behalf of this project.
First of all I want to thank Zenebe Adimassu Teferi to enable me to do research with him in
Ethiopia and for his unforgettable support and guidance for both scientific and social life in Ethiopia.
Without Zenebe this research would not have been possible.
In and around Butajira town many people were of tremendous help to accomplish my
mission. Support for actually doing research was great. I want to thank Zerihun Lema, Mulugeta
Zerabeza, Teshome Mohammed, Zelalem Bekele, Dinberu Germa, Marege Yilma and Jilalu Kassa for
accepting me doing field research and the generous support and guidance which has made
everything possible in the rural area. I especially want to thank Zelalem Bekele for his fantastic help
in becoming familiar with the local people and to improve skills for getting the desired information.
Field research would not have been possible without Amare Mekonnen. As being my
translator his support in the field was extraordinary. I want to thank him very much for the time we
spent together in the field as colleagues and friends. I also want to thank Jilalu Kassa and Demissew
Sertse for their incredible help in times of emergent translation needs.
Stepping into the field of analyzing tree cover with aerial and satellite images would not have
been doable without Kefialew Sahle, Demeke Niguse, Alemu Beyene and Jasper Tolsma. Introducing
me to the field and assistance in the practical analysis was essential.
I sincerely want to thank Zenebe Adimassu, Huib Hengsdijk, Frans Bongers, Motuma Feyissa
and Teshale Habebo for contributing their knowledge and understanding regarding the content of
the research.
Throughout the entire project of the thesis the guidance of my supervisors Freerk Wiersum
and Aad Kessler has been tremendous. I very much want to thank them for contributing their time,
critical insights and expertise to accomplish this thesis.
Furthermore I want to thank my friends in Butajira with whom I enjoyed the Ethiopian way of life.
Zelalem, Beza and little Shalom were as my family. I thank them for unforgettably sharing their care,
love and happiness. I thank Makeds, Fassika, Jilalu, Aster and Zemedkun for their kindness and
hospitality which made me feel at home. I thank Zenebe, Demissew and Alemu for the discussions on
science and personal worldviews. Even though these discussions were occasional, they were very
important.
Finally I want to thank the inhabitants of Dirama and Dobi kebele for accepting me and sharing time
and knowledge with me in the field. I will never forget how happy I felt in the kebeles drinking coffee,
eating ‘buna-kurs’, exploring the environment and chatting about life and trees.
Betam ameuseugenalehu!
2
Summary
Increasing environmental problems affect livelihoods all over the world, especially posing threat on
rural populations in developing countries as their livelihoods largely depend on the natural
environment. Changes in forest cover is one of the concerns when addressing environmental
problems. Within the international debate about forest cover, increased attention is given towards
the role of trees in farming systems.
The Ethiopian government and other non-governmental organizations aim to increase forest
cover in Ethiopia. The interaction between people and trees in farming systems is therein of major
importance. Dynamics in local tree utilization and tree management practices should be understood
in order to harmonize policy with local strategies. The objective of this thesis is to improve
understanding of dynamics in the relation between people and trees in farm fields, and to assess
how gained insights can contribute to policies aiming to increase tree cover.
Research has been done in two kebeles in Meskan District, Ethiopia evaluating dynamics in
local tree utilization and tree management practices and farmers’ perceptions on factors influencing
these dynamics.
This thesis presents changes in tree cover and composition in the research site, a detailed
description of local tree utilization and management practices, and an analysis of perceived factors
influencing changes in these practices. Results indicate that local planting practices do not increase in
response to a decline in the availability of resources and that different governmental regimes have
much influence on local tree cover and composition. It furthermore shows that Eucalyptus is not only
important for construction but also for domestic use and ecological services, and that native trees
are of increasing importance. Different factors influence tree utilization and management practices
but the local perception on tree function and value is the main factor.
The study concludes that enabling integration of trees in farm fields to increase tree cover
should adapt to local strategies and will therewith contribute to satisfy household demand for tree
products, environmental stabilization, a healthy environment and enhanced landscape based
biodiversity.
Key-words: tree management practices, tree utilization, dynamics, farm fields, forest cover,
influences, perceptions, Meskan District, Ethiopia
3
Table of Content
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 THESIS OUTLINE ................................................................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 REPRESENTATIONS OF PEOPLE-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS AS SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS .............................................. 7 2.2 PEOPLE AND TREE RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 DYNAMICS IN TREE UTILIZATION AND TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ......................................................................... 11 2.4 THEORETICAL APPLICATION ................................................................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND QUESTIONS ...................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN............................................................................................................................................ 17 4.2 METHODS FOR DATA COLLECTION....................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER 5: PERCEIVED CHANGES IN TREE COVER AND COMPOSITION ......................................................... 22 5.1 CURRENT TREE COVER....................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 PERCEIVED CHANGES IN TREE COVER AND COMPOSITION............................................................................................ 23 5.3 TREE PLANTING PRACTICES CAUSING CHANGE IN TREE NUMBER AND SPECIES COMPOSITION ............................................ 25 5.4 COMPARISON OF CHANGES IN TREE COVER AND COMPOSITION IN THE TWO RESEARCH SITES ........................................... 26 5.5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 6: TREE UTILIZATION AND TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................... 29 6.1 TREE UTILIZATION ............................................................................................................................................ 29 6.2 TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .......................................................................................................................... 32 6.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO KEBELES ................................................................................................................. 35 6.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 7: DYNAMICS IN LOCAL PERCEPTIONS, TREE UTILIZATION AND TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES... 40 7.1 DYNAMICS IN PERCEPTIONS ON TREE FUNCTION AND VALUE ..................................................................................... 40 7.2 PERCEIVED FACTORS INFLUENCING TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ............................................................................ 42 7.3 DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS IN TWO KEBELES ............................................................................................................. 44 7.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 49 8.1 METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS......................................................................................................................... 49 8.2 DYNAMICS IN PEOPLE-TREE INTERACTIONS REVIEWED.............................................................................................. 49 8.3 RELEVANT INSIGHTS IN DYNAMICS IN PEOPLE-TREE INTERACTIONS.............................................................................. 51 8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 52
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 54 ANNEXES........................................................................................................................................................ 60
ANNEX I FACTORS INFLUENCING TREE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................. 60 ANNEX II HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEX III FOCUS-GROUP QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................................................. 68 ANNEX IV TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE RESEARCH AREA. ............................................................................................... 75 ANNEX V CULTURE AND TREES IN THE RESEARCH AREA................................................................................................ 77 ANNEX VI INFLUENCING FACTORS PER TREE SPECIES.................................................................................................... 79
4
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2. Comparison between 1972 and 2003 tree cover and composition, Dirama kebele.............................. 23 Figure 3. Comparison between 1972 and 2003 tree cover and composition, Dobi kebele.................................. 24 Figure 4. Trees planted in farm fields of respondents in the research area, per category of tree species .......... 25 Figure 5. Total number of trees planted over time in farm fields of respondents, per category of tree species,
per kebele ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 6. Use of the trees present in the farm fields, in the research area .......................................................... 29 Figure 7. Use of trees, shrubs and other for fencing and firewood in the research area ..................................... 30 Figure 8. Percentage of specific trees and shrubs used for firewood and fencing within households in the
research area ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 9. Reasons mentioned for Tree planting.................................................................................................... 40 Figure 10. Tree species perceived as best for firewood and fencing .................................................................... 45
Table 1. Tree Functions ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Tree Management Practices.................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3. Kebele characteristics.............................................................................................................................. 19 Table 4. Methods applied in research................................................................................................................... 21 Table 5. Distribution of tree species ..................................................................................................................... 22 Table 6. Species diversity ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 7. Sales of trees and tree products.............................................................................................................. 30 Table 8. Observed tree management practices in the research area................................................................... 38 Table 9. Perceived factors influencing tree utilization and tree management practices ..................................... 46
Abbreviations
REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SES Social Ecological Systems
TMP Tree Management Practices
5
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Problem statement
1.1.1 International environment
Global changes influence interactions between people and the environment. Increasing
environmental problems such as frequency and impact of natural disasters, fluctuations in
international weather patterns and environmental pollution are amongst others related to the rapid
reduction of forest cover and climate change. The consequences of these environmental problems
on livelihoods in different parts of the world are widely acknowledged, for example resulting in
projects concerning Climate Change Adaptation and REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and forest Degradation).
The rural population, especially in developing countries, is threatened by environmental
changes as their livelihood strategies depend largely on the natural environment. Adaptations of
these livelihood strategies are required to cope with the changing environment. Not only have
environmental risks increased, but they are also increasingly more dangerous because of the
coexistence of different risks at the same time, and because environmental changes have human
causes (Nelson et al., 2007). Science and practice need to interact, enabling adaptation at local or
national level (Howden et al., 2007).
Forests play a major role in the debate about environmental changes (Watson et al., 2002).
At the one hand, forest destruction is seen as an important cause of environmental degradation,
biodiversity loss, climate change and poverty. At the other hand, forests are also recognized as an
important factor in climate change mitigation and adaptation, environmental stabilization and a
source for local and national development. Forests are an important natural resource contributing to
rural livelihoods, national economies and international wealth.
1.1.2 Ethiopian circumstances
The role of forests in reducing local poverty, enhancing national economy and preventing disastrous
environmental degradation has also been acknowledged in Ethiopia (Bekele, 2003; Teketay et al.,
2010). Therefore the ‘Forest Development, Conservation and Utilization Proclamation 542-2007’ has
been developed (FDRE, 2007). This policy aims to satisfy the demand for forest products, enhance
the national economy, reduce forest degradation and related environmental disasters, and
encourage development of forests while conserving and using remaining forests in a sustainable way
(FDRE, 2007). Current forest cover in Ethiopia is uncertain but estimates range from 3-3.6% (Dessie
and Kleman, 2007) to 11.9% of the total land cover (FAO, 2009). In order to increase forest cover,
tree planting is promoted by the Ethiopian government as well as by international and national non-
governmental organizations (UNICEF, 2007; ETFF, 2009; TftF, Unknown).
Involvement of the local population is of major importance to reforest Ethiopia. Tree planting
at a large scale requires labour, and after tree seedlings placement maintenance practices are
needed to enhance the survival of these seedlings. Furthermore, successful reforestation requires
sustainable tree utilization and tree management practices for which local willingness is essential.
It is crucial to understand current local tree utilization and tree management practices in
forest areas as well as on private farm fields, when aiming to increase forest cover in a given area.
Trees in human-modified landscapes are an important contribution to forest cover. To encourage the
integration of trees on farms there is a need for understanding current tree management practices in
the context of household livelihood strategies and the farmers’ opinions on the value of trees (Arnold,
1997; Zubair and Garforth, 2006). Local tree management practices are often based on years of
experience of farmers (Roncoli, 2001). It is therefore important to understand those factors that
influence change in tree utilization and tree management practices over time.
Regarding the efforts in Ethiopia to increase forest cover there is a need for understanding
local tree utilization and tree management practices in the context of farming systems. Furthermore,
6
local perceptions on tree value and factors influencing changes in tree utilization and tree
management practices should be understood in detail to better target reforestation projects. This
allows to merge objectives of reforestation projects and objectives of local farmers.
This thesis aims to contribute to the efforts of re-greening Ethiopia by providing detailed
insight in the dynamics of local tree utilization and tree management practices and the perceived
factors influencing these dynamics. This understanding can contribute to policies aiming at increased
tree cover by integrating local objectives and enhancing local participation.
1.1.3 Scientific relevance
The importance of trees in farming systems for ecology and rural livelihoods has received ample
attention during the last decades. This resulted in many specific case studies about the actual
situation and importance of trees in rural farm fields (Arnold and Dewees, 1998). These studies focus
mostly on the intensity of tree management practices concerning purposeful regeneration (Emtage
and Suh, 2004; Zubair and Garforth, 2006; Schuren and Snelder, 2008; Sood and Mitchell, 2009),
specific tree species (Dhillion and Gustad, 2004; Byg and Balslev, 2006) or the actual situation and
contribution of trees to local livelihoods (Hoch et al., 2009; Regmi and Garforth, 2010). Studies
focusing on tree management practices as an integration of purposeful regeneration, protection and
maintenance and controlled harvesting of all tree species within farm fields are scarce. Similarly, little
attention is given to how tree utilization by rural households relates to specific tree management
practices and the local perception on factors influencing dynamics in these practices.
Several studies have focused on the evolution in tree management and the gradual
domestication from intensifying controlled utilization, active protection and maintenance and tree
planting (Wiersum, 2004; Emtage and Suh, 2004; Degrande et al., 2006; Snelder et al., 2007). Analysis
of local rational decision making has been therein of importance. The present research goes beyond
the analysis of rational adaptation practices and an evolutionary perspective on dynamics in people-
tree interactions, by focusing on the importance of socio-cultural tree valuation and local
understanding about external factors influencing tree management practices on current integrated
trees.
This research aims at broadening insights in the complexity between tree utilization and tree
management practices, the dynamics in these practices concerning different tree species, and local
perceptions.
1.2 Thesis outline
First a theoretical outline is presented in Chapter 2, in which the scientific understanding concerning
people-tree interactions is analyzed and the conceptual perspective within the research is presented.
Chapter 3 provides the research objective and research questions, after which in Chapter 4 the
research methodology is described. The research results are structured within the following three
chapters. In Chapter 5 an analysis is presented about perceived changes in tree cover and
composition over time in the research area. Chapter 6 elaborates on current tree utilization and tree
management practices in the research area. In Chapter 7 an analysis of dynamics in perceptions on
tree function and value, and locally perceived factors influencing tree utilization and tree
management practices, is given. Chapter 8 presents the discussion and conclusion, and provides
recommendations for both policy aiming at increased tree cover as for further research.
7
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
This chapter elaborates on the scientific background concerning people-tree interactions. The
relation between tree functions, tree-people interactions and tree management practices is
discussed within the context of trees integrated in farming systems. The chapter furthermore
elaborates on the scientific understanding of factors influencing people-tree interactions in farm
fields, and a classification of influencing factors is developed. Finally, the scientific overview results in
a conceptual framework which describes the chosen approach to address people-tree interactions in
private farm fields.
2.1 Representations of people-environment relations as social-ecological systems
The mutual interdependence of humans and their natural environment and the importance of this
relationship, has been subject of study since the 1920’s (Frazer, 1922) when disciplines such as ‘ethno-
biology’, ‘cultural ecology’, ‘ecological anthropology’ and ‘human ecology’ emerged. The importance of
the human-environment relationship has developed over time and resulted in many studies on the
interaction between social and natural systems (Steward, 1955; Vayda, 1969; Berkes and Folke, 1998).
Various authors have developed systematic frameworks for studying these interdependencies,
e.g. so called social-ecological systems (Berkes and Folke, 1998), socio-ecological systems (Gallopin et
al., 1989), coupled human-environment systems (Turner et al., 2003) and coupled human and natural
systems (Liu et al., 2009). Social-ecological systems (SES) might be seen as (parts of) coupled human-
natural systems (Liu et al., 2009). In this thesis social-ecological systems are defined as the overall
environment in which farming systems operate as it best describes the inseparable unity of social
and ecological systems (Folke et al., 2005).
SES act as complex adaptive systems (Folke et al., 2005), which can be analyzed from a co-
evolutionary perspective (Rammel et al., 2007). The changes of SES are identified by Gual and
Norgaard (2010) as socio-ecological coevolution between the social and ecological components. The
side-by-side evolution of cultural and biotic systems explains ‘why’ human and environment are
related, but is limited in explaining ‘how’ (about Norgaard, 1994, p. 40-44 in Gual and Norgaard,
2010). Gual and Norgaard (2010) therefore propose a common co-evolutionary framework. This
framework focuses on the understanding and explanation of the mutual effect of human- and
environmental changes- within a system, but lacks the capacity to understand how different human-
environment systems influence each other. A co-evolutionary perspective of SES focuses on the past
in order to understand the functioning of current systems, but fails to address the current drivers of
change in SES (Rammel et al., 2007). A co-evolutionary perspective for analyzing the relations
between human and environment fails to grasp the importance of ‘why’ and ‘how’ different SES are
interconnected in the past and current situations.
The analysis of human-environment interactions using a ‘systems’ perspective, focuses on
the patterns and processes linking human and environmental systems, the interactions and feedback
loops, and the spatial and temporal dimensions of interactions (Liu et al., 2009). These systems-
frameworks go beyond the explanation of ‘why’ and ‘how’ within human-environment systems to
understand moreover ‘why’ and ‘how’ among human-environment systems (Rammel et al., 2007; Liu
et al., 2009). Herewith they go beyond previous work like human ecology and ecological
anthropology (Liu et al., 2009) and they incorporate the knowledge on interactions within and among
SES for sustainable development projects.
As human-environment interactions are subject to many external factors influencing
purposeful or unconscious adaptive actions, they should be understood as dynamic systems (Berkes
and Turner, 2006). The actual vulnerability of the social-ecological systems, and possible need for
adaptation, depend on the nature of the disturbances and the fact that the system is exposed to
8
multiple interacting forces (Berkes et al., 2003; Orlove, 2005; Gallopin, 2006). Actual adaptation
depends on the local perceptions of the severity of the disturbance threatening people’s livelihood
strategies, and the capability to adapt (Grothmann and Patt, 2005). However, also without actual
threat, adaptations in local livelihood strategies occur often to take advantage of emerging
opportunities.
Local people’s capacity to adapt their livelihood strategies as a result of changes in the wider
environment, dynamics in the local habitat and at global level (Smit and Wandel, 2006), contribute to
the notion of ‘sustainable livelihoods’1. Sustainable livelihoods include the ability to cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks of external factors, the capacity to adapt, and is strongly related to
the resilience of SES (Folke et al., 2005; Anderies et al., 2006; Walker et al., 2006; Rammel et al.,
2007). Important subjects of analysis regarding sustainable livelihoods and resilience of SES are the
possibilities for coping with or adapting to local specific drivers of change (Adger et al., 2003; Folke et
al., 2005; Lemos et al., 2007; Wehbe et al., 2008) and the evaluation of historical experiences of
responses to external factors (Scoones, 1998; Roncoli et al., 2001; Rammel et al., 2007).
2.2 People and tree resources
Within SES, natural resource management is an important aspect of rural livelihoods. Trees are an
important natural resource providing different products for which they are managed. Adaptations in
the management of trees to changes in the wider environment contribute to sustainable livelihoods.
2.2.1 Tree functions
Trees can have different functions within similar or different circumstances. They are integrated in
rural livelihood systems to meet people’s demands (Arnold, 1997; Long and Nair, 1999; Lengkeek,
2003; Wiersum, 2004; Cedamon et al., 2005), and trees in farming systems provide directly
consumable products as well as generate income and enhance the local ecological situation such as
through soil improvement and their effect on micro-climate (Arnold, 1997). The function of trees can
be broadly divided into productive-, ecological- and cultural-religious functions (Wiersum, 1996), see
Table 1. These tree functions determine the different interactions between people and trees, and the
different uses of trees integrated in the farm fields. Sustainable use and management of trees can
contribute to rural livelihoods and local farming systems and the resilience of SES with regard to
external disturbances.
Table 1. Tree Functions
1 Definition Sustainable livelihood: A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from
stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.
(Scoones, 1998, p.5)
Tree function Example Main authors
Productive function Food, feed, fertilizer, energy, building material, raw-material
for local industry, crafts-making, medicine
(Raintree, 1991)
Ecological function Enhancing crop production, improving soil conditions, protect
natural habitat and water quality, shade, shelter
(Nair, 1993)
Cultural-Religious function Sacred forests and groves, church forests, spirited trees,
cultural meaning of forest product exposition, tree in
traditional weather forecasting and cultural money saving
system
(Posey, 1999)
9
2.2.2 Interaction between peoples and trees
Trees are used by people for their different functions, and trees on their turn may benefit from
management practices of people. Interaction between people and trees depend on the specific tree
functions and people’s needs and desires, concerning both trees in- and outside- forests (Shepherd,
1992; Arnold, 1997; Degrande et al., 2006).
Local people-tree interactions are reflected in different tree utilization and tree management
practices which can be analyzed from a tree perspective as well as from a landscape perspective. In
order to facilitate the use of specific trees they are actively integrated in private farm fields (Boffa,
1999) with the purposes of restoring, enhancing or preserving the physical environment and their
contribution to a rural household economy by securing the availability of tree products (Arnold, 1997;
Wiersum, 2004). Trees are most often integrated for their ecological- and productive- function for
individual use within the farm fields, and trees with a cultural-religious function can be located on
private land but the practical use for cultural-religious purpose is often a community activity.
Trees can also be part of livelihood systems of farmers without managing them on private
farm fields. The use and management of the trees from (communal-) forest areas contribute
significantly to rural livelihoods, like the active extraction of timber or non-timber forest products for
domestic use or marketing purposes. However, forest trees are outside the scope of this research as
they are not spatially integrated in farm fields.
Depending on the special purpose of trees, their integration in farm fields can result in a
specific spatial distribution. Integration of trees with crops on private farm fields is defined as
agroforestry (Nair, 1985; Nair, 1991; Sanchez, 1995), within which a distinction is made between
agroforestry parklands (Augusseau et al., 2006), and trees in home-gardens and forest-gardens
(Wiersum, 2004) which vary in tree density and location. Integration of trees at a broader scale,
going beyond tree-crop interactions, is a result of different levels of intensity related to differences in
wider institutional arrangements and peoples’ preferences, resources and organization. Trees in farm
fields as a part of livelihood practices are subject to different underlying objectives and influencing
factors. Analyzing the intensity with which trees are integrated in farm fields, taking into account the
purpose, location and density of trees, a division can be made into six different categories ranging
between scattered trees on non-arable or fallow land and tree plantations2 (Arnold, 1997).
Even though the integration of trees in farm fields is encouraged for the provision of
ecological services, they do not provide the same ecological services as trees in forests for
biodiversity conservation (Noble and Dirzo, 1997; Schulze et al., 2004). Therefore, trees in farm fields
are rather considered in the context of rural livelihood strategies than as forest resource (Arnold,
1997). Trees on farm fields do not recreate forests (Arnold, 1997) but do contribute to landscape-
based biodiversity (Boffa et al., 2009).
2.2.3 Tree management practices
Tree management practices are carried out in order to enhance and secure the trees’ function now
and in the future, and is interdependent with tree utilization.
Indigenous tree management practices are an expression of the indigenous knowledge
concerning usefulness and harvesting techniques of trees, and the local livelihood strategies
(Wiersum, 1996). According to Wiersum (1997) local tree utilization and management practices can
2 Categories of tree integration in farm fields (modified from Arnold, 1997):
• Trees on non-arable or fallow land: natural regenerated trees on land without crops or grass
• Scattered trees in arable land: natural regenerated trees on cropland
• Trees growing in home-gardens: mostly planted trees around the home area
• Trees growing in boundaries: planted trees as boundaries for demarcation of, or within, fields or to serve protective
purpose
• Intercropping of trees: planted trees on crop land, together with crops
• Monocropping of trees: planted trees on crop land, without crops
10
be divided into controlled utilization, purposeful regeneration and domestication. However, the
actual use of these trees for their ecological and cultural-religious functions is not taken into account.
Therefore, a distinction is made between controlled harvesting and tree utilization. Controlled
harvesting is an important tree focused management practices to obtain tree products, and tree
utilization is the use of trees for human benefit as a result of their productive, ecological or cultural-
religious function. Although utilization is an important aspect determining intensity of management
practices, it is not considered a tree management practice as it is a human focused practice rather
than a tree focused practice. However, tree utilization and tree management practices are
inseparable.
The categorization of tree management practices into controlled utilization, purposeful
regeneration and domestication is a manifestation of an evolutionary perspective on tree
management practices in forested areas (Wiersum, 1997). This mainly results in the analysis of
increasing the input of human energy in tree growing practices until trees are actively planted in
farm fields. The intensity of the tree management practices are highly dependent on wider
institutional arrangements. Going beyond this perspective on the domestication of trees in farming
systems a pragmatic perspective is taken to increase the understanding of the local situation and
dynamics in tree management practices in a little forested area. This will focus on the trees already
part of the farming systems and grown on private farm fields.
As discussed before, the ‘why’ and ‘how’ among SES cannot be explained without the ‘why’
and ‘how’ within these SES. However, the focus on why certain situations exist within SES has
received much more attention than how these situations emerged. Drivers of why dynamics in tree
management practices exist are widely studied (Arnold, 1997), resulting in analysis of factors driving
tree planting. The practices of tree management concerning facilitation of natural regeneration,
protection and maintenance and controlled harvesting in private farm fields and changes therein,
have received much less attention in the literature. A pragmatic perspective on current tree
management practices taking into account purposeful regeneration, protection and maintenance
and controlled harvesting will broaden the understanding of how trees are integrated in farm fields
and how and why dynamics in these practices exist.
Table 2 provides an overview of existing local tree management practices, modified from
Wiersum and Slingerland (1998).
Tree Management Practices
Purposeful regeneration Protection and Maintenance Controlled harvesting
• Sowing
• Transplanting of seedlings
• Planting of bought seedlings
• Protection of natural tree
regeneration
• Planting cuttings
• Transplanting of wildlings
• Stimulating root sprouting
• Pruning
• Ringing
• Protection against ploughing,
grazing and fire
• Application of mulch, animal dung
and fertilizer
• Application of (locally prepared)
pesticides
• Clearance of weed and
surrounding vegetation
• Watering
• Thinning
• Tree root pruning
• Fire management
• General surveillance
• Harvesting of leaves, fruit and bark
• Coppicing of stem
• Pollarding of upper branches
• Lopping of branches
Table 2. Tree Management Practices
(modified from Wiersum and Slingerland, 1998)
11
Purposeful regeneration
Tree management practices concerning trees integrated in farm fields start with purposeful
regeneration practices to meet household demand for the tree function(s). Purposeful regeneration
practices include different methods for planting exotic and native trees, and methods to facilitate
natural regeneration.
Protection and maintenance
When trees are regenerated in the farm fields there might be need for active protection and
maintenance of these trees in order for them to survive and produce the desired products. However,
native (fruit-) trees do not always need active protection and maintenance applications. Different
practices are known and locally applied in order to protect and maintain trees successfully in the
farm fields for future human benefit. Tree management practices can be applied to meet a variety of
specific outcomes, pruning for example can be applied for sanitation, production of specific shapes
and rejuvenation. General surveillance of trees and protection against animals and thieves is also an
important tree protection and maintenance practice (Dhillion and Gustad, 2004).
Controlled harvesting
Different harvesting methods of trees and tree products can have varying results on the sustainability
of the tree and its’ products for future availability. Specific controlled harvesting methods exist for
different tree species and tree products (Den Hertog and Wiersum, 2000; Dhillion and Gustad, 2004;
Walters, 2004; Tabuti, 2007). Pruning systems like coppicing, pollarding and lopping3 are different
methods with which tree products can be harvested, and sustainability to secure future use depends
on the intensity with which these harvesting methods are applied.
2.3 Dynamics in tree utilization and tree management practices
Tree utilization and tree management practices change over time as a result of different factors.
Many studies which analyzed changes in tree utilization and management practices have focused on
planting practices, or on the domestication practices of specific tree species in farm fields (Kumar
and Nair, 2004; Wiersum, 2004). The factors influencing changes in planting practices and species
selection are widely documented, from both a scientific point of view as from a farmers’ perspectives.
The analysis of farmers perceptions however mainly resulted in analysis of ‘why’ and ‘which’ trees
are integrated into farm fields. Detailed research into perceived factors influencing practices of
purposeful regeneration, protection and maintenance and controlled harvesting is limited, as is
analysis of the relation between dynamics in socio-cultural tree valuation and tree utilization.
Farming conditions are widely acknowledged as an important factor influencing tree
management practices of trees integrated within farm fields (Arnold, 1997). Whether farms are
mainly subsistence- or market- oriented, trees have different value in diverse farming systems and
are therefore integrated to a varying extend within farm fields. The farming system is the main factor
influencing tree utilization and tree management practices.
2.3.1 Factors influencing tree planting practices
Whether and which trees are integrated into farm fields depends on many factors operating at
different levels of society, ranging from national and international policies to personal characteristics
of household members or tree characteristics.
The promotion of tree planting by governmental and non-governmental agencies mainly
aims at realizing one, or a combination of, the following three goals: to combat deforestation and its
3 Coppicing: cutting the tree close to the ground for re-growth
Pollarding: cutting the upper branches of the tree for re-growth
Lopping: cutting of branches for re-growth
12
negative effects, to meet peoples demand for basic tree related products, and to increase income to
alleviate household poverty (Arnold and Dewees, 1999; Leakey and Tomich, 1999). For improvement
of livelihoods and promotion of sustainable land use practices the integration of indigenous trees
into farm fields is promoted, for which priority tree species should be identified taking into account
their use, marketability and genetic potential (Leakey and Simons, 1997). Actual adaptation of tree
management and new agroforestry practices, are a result of the farmers’ interpretation of the
feasibility, profitability and acceptability of adopting these practices (Franzel and Scherr, 2002).
Adaptations of tree planting practices in farm fields are a response to different changes in
the wider environment. Arnold (1997) distinguishes between four main reasons for local tree
planting: maintaining the supply when availability of trees and tree products are declining, meeting
the growing demand for tree products, helping to maintain crop productivity when environmental
conditions are declining, and reducing socioeconomic risks. Differences in the availability of the
production factors, i.e. land, labour and capital, determine the management intensity of trees in farm
fields (Arnold and Dewees, 1999).
National and regional rules and regulations concerning tree planting, local land tenure
arrangements and tree tenure arrangements can be stimulating or constraining factors for the actual
planting and harvesting practices of local populations (Shepherd, 1992; Bekele, 2003). Restrictions to
use common forests and insecurity of land tenure arrangements, influence tree use and investments
of farmers. Whether or not trees are planted depends not only on the tenure arrangements but also
on marketing possibilities and access, household characteristics and biophysical aspects of the
environment (Bannister and Nair, 2003; Schuren and Snelder, 2008; Regmi and Garforth, 2010). The
size of the farm, the wealth status and age of the farmers are factors influencing tree planting
activities (Schuren and Snelder, 2008), as are the environmental conditions influencing actual growth
and survival of trees related to specific tree characteristics (De Jong, 2001; Bannister and Nair, 2003).
2.3.2 Factors influencing tree species selection
When tree planting is considered an attractive investment within the farm fields, species should be
selected. Depending on the characteristics of the farming system different tree species can be
selected, for example for subsistence or marketing purpose, for improving the soil or for other
ecological advantages of the trees (Leakey and Simons, 1998). Multipurpose trees are often selected
as they can meet multiple demands while investments are generally low. The ecological value and
application of a tree is what is important for the selection of specific tree species and related tree
management practice, but also rules, market possibilities, household preference and the local
environmental conditions are important.
Specific characteristics of tree species can be important for selection, following criteria
ranging between the utility, drought resistance, compatibility with crops and improvement of soil
fertility (Roothaert and Franzel, 2001; Bannister and Nair, 2003). In case of the use of trees in
combination with livestock, the palatability and effect on the condition of livestock (health, milk-
production and growth) can be important (Roothaert and Franzel, 2001). Trees are furthermore
differently applied within farm fields such as in homegardens, as shelterbelts and windbreaks and in
alley cropping (Nair, 1991; Long and Nair, 1999)4, for which different tree species have different
qualifications.
The choice for trees in a system also depends on household characteristics, differences in
ethnicity of the population (Boffa, 1999) and local perceptions on the value of trees.
2.3.3 Factors influencing tree utilization and tree management practices
In order to encourage the integration of trees on farms there is a need for understanding local tree
management in the context of household livelihood strategies, local opinions on the value of trees
4 Different applications of trees in tropical countries: Alley cropping (hedgerow intercropping), Homegardens, Improved
fallow, Multilayer tree-gardens, Multipurpose trees on farms and rangelands, Pasture under plantations, Plantation-crop
combinations (Shaded perennial-crop systems), Protein banks, Shelterbelts and windbreaks, Taungya, Aquaforestry and
Apiculture with trees. (Nair, 1991; Long and Nair, 1999)
13
and the wider external factors influencing local tree utilization (Arnold, 1997; Zubair and Garforth,
2006). Changes in tree utilization and management practices in different farm fields occur as a
response to local needs and opportunities (Arnold, 1997; Long and Nair, 1999), related to changes
over time in the environmental, economical, political, social and institutional settings(Bruijn and Dijk,
2004). Use of trees in farmland systems is also influenced by a mixture of biophysical factors and
social objectives (Long and Nair, 1999).
Factors influencing tree utilization and tree management practices has been broadly divided
into internal- and external- to the household (Ite, 2005; Degrande et al., 2006), rational- and irrational-
motivations (Sood and Mitchell, 2004) and economical situations, household characteristics and farm-
plot characteristics (Schuren and Snelder, 2008).
Detailed and extensive literature review (Annex I) concerning tree utilization and tree
management practices of trees integrated in farm fields and factors influencing dynamics in these
practices has resulted in the following categorization of influencing factors:
• farming system
• household characteristics
• economy of trees and tree products
• rules and regulations
• ecological and climatic circumstances
• tree characteristics
These categories cover all factors which can influence tree utilization and local tree management
practices of trees integrated in the farm fields. Annex I presents a table with the articles reviewed and
the specific factors mentioned as influencing local tree utilization and tree management practices.
This table also shows that most literature concerning dynamics in tree management practices
focuses on tree planting practices within the farm fields.
Several studies have indicated the importance of farmers’ perceptions on influencing factors
determining local tree management practices (Sood and Mitchell, 2004; Ite, 2005; Zubair and Garforth,
2006). Therefore the focus within this study is on the local perceptions on the identified categories of
influencing factors. This thesis presents the local understanding of external factors and the socio-
cultural opinion on the role and importance of trees which influence dynamics in people-tree
interactions in farm fields.
2.4 Theoretical application
This research is carried out within the framework of SES because this takes into account the patterns
and processes within human-environment systems and also among different systems at different
levels of society. An analysis of local perceptions including socio-cultural tree valuation and local
understanding of external factors influencing tree utilization and tree management practices,
contribute to an increased comprehension of the drivers behind dynamics in local people-tree
interactions in farm fields.
The following definitions are used within this research:
People-tree interactions; tree utilization and tree management practices which benefit both
people and trees
Tree Management Practices; the local practices of purposeful regeneration, protection and
maintenance and controlled harvesting of trees in private farm fields
Tree function; tree benefit according to the ecological, cultural-religious or
productive role
Tree utilization; local use of trees for a specific benefit as result of the productive-,
ecological- and/or cultural-religious function of the tree
14
Local perception; understanding and awareness about tree function and settings in the
wider environment from the perspective of the local population
Socio-cultural tree valuation; value of trees for their productive-, ecological- and/or cultural
religious function from the perspective of the local population
Local understanding; interpretation of environmental-, economical-, political-, social- and
institutional- settings from the perspective of the local population
Dynamics in
people-tree interactions; changes over time in tree utilization and tree management practices
concerning purposeful regeneration, protection and maintenance
and controlled harvesting
Influencing factors; different aspects related to people-tree interactions affecting local
tree utilization and tree management practices
Household farming systems are embedded in social-ecological systems, which on their turn
are integrated in a wider local environmental-, economical-, political- ,social- and institutional-
setting. Tree utilization and management practices are part of household farming systems.
Tree utilization and tree management practices and changes in tree cover and composition
mutually influence each other. Changes in tree cover and composition are therewith a visible
manifestation of dynamics in people-tree interactions in farm fields.
Local perceptions influence tree utilization and management practices, and can be divided
into socio-cultural tree valuation and local understanding of external influencing factors.
Local socio-cultural tree valuations are determined by the farming system, household
characteristics and tree characteristics, and external factors encompass the economy of tree and tree
products, rules and regulations concerning trees and the ecological and climatic circumstances.
Dynamics in people-tree interactions in farm fields are dynamics in tree utilization and tree
management practices.
This research focuses on changes in tree cover and composition, actual tree utilization and
tree management practices and the influence of socio-cultural tree valuation and local understanding
on external factors bringing about dynamics in people-tree interactions in farm fields. Figure 1
provides a visualization of the theoretical application in this research.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
15
Chapter 3: Research Objective and Questions
Within the international debate about forest cover, combating land degradation and enhancing
development, increased attention is given towards the role of trees in farming systems. Local tree
utilization and tree management practices influence the actual status of trees in a rural area. The
farmers’ willingness to invest in trees or specific tree species in their farm fields, depends on the
actual use of trees and their products and the local value attached to trees for their ecological,
productive and cultural functions.
As discussed in the introduction, several policies aim at increased forest cover in Ethiopia. In
order to achieve successful outcome of these policies, farmers’ cooperation is crucial for which
detailed insight in the local relation between people and trees is essential.
The objective of this study is therefore to improve understanding about dynamics in the
relation between people and trees in farm fields, and to asses how gained insights can contribute to
policies aiming to increase tree cover. A detailed analysis is presented about dynamics in local tree
utilization and tree management practices and farmers’ perceptions on factors influencing these
dynamics, in two kebeles in Meskan District in Ethiopia.
To contribute to policies aiming to increase tree cover in rural Ethiopia, the analysis will
result in the formulation of recommendations.
In order to accomplish the research objective, the study will be focused on the following main
research question:
What are essential insights from the analysis of tree utilization and tree management practices
that can contribute to policies aiming to increase forest cover?
The main research question is elaborated into several sub-questions, which will be treated in the
separate chapters presenting the results of field data collected:
1. What are the changes in tree cover and composition in the research area over time?
a. What are the changes in number of trees in the research area?
b. What are the changes in location and species composition of trees in the research area?
c. Is there variation in changes in tree cover and composition between the studied
research sites?
d. How can insights in changes in tree cover and dynamics contribute to policy aiming to
increase forest cover?
These questions are addresses in the analysis of the changes over time in tree composition in the
research area (Chapter 5).
2. What are the current local tree utilizations and tree management practices in the research
area?
a. What are the local tree utilizations in the research area?
b. What are the local tree regeneration practices in the research area?
c. What are the local protection and maintenance practices in the research area?
d. What are the local controlled harvesting practices in the research area?
e. Is there variation in tree utilization and tree management practices between the
studied research sites?
f. How can insights in tree utilization and tree management practices contribute to
policy aiming to increase forest cover?
These questions are addressed in the analysis of the existence and intensity of current tree
management practices and tree utilization concerning different tree species (Chapter 6).
16
3. What are the perceived factors influencing dynamics in tree utilization and tree management
practices in the research area?
a. What are the socio-cultural tree valuations concerning the role and importance of
trees and how do these influence the tree utilization and tree management practices?
b. What are the local understanding on external factors influencing local tree
management practices?
c. Is there variation in perceived factors influencing dynamics in tree utilization and
tree management practices between the studies research sites?
d. How can insights in perceived factors influencing dynamics in tree utilization and tree
management practices contribute to policy aiming to increase forest cover?
These questions are addressed in the analysis of the factors influencing the current existence and
intensity of tree utilization and tree management practices from a farmers’ perspective (Chapter 7).
17
Chapter 4: Methodology
4.1 Research design
This thesis presents a case study of tree utilization and management practices in two kebeles around
Butajira District town, Meskan District, Ethiopia. A case study is characterized by an in-depth analysis
of a feature of a social phenomena like a village, a family or an organization (Babbie, 2007). Here the
case study includes an in-depth analysis of tree utilization and management practices around Butajira
District town. Qualitative and quantitative social research methods have been applied within this
thesis. This inventory study of local people-tree interactions and farmer’s perceived factors
influencing dynamics therein broadens the understanding of the complexity of interactions between
people and their environment. In order to obtain insights into the diversity of tree utilization an tree
management practices and to understand diversity in perceptions, a comparative analysis was done
between two kebeles. Furthermore a participatory study of local practices concerning trees marks
this research, in which the people being studied are given control over the purpose and procedures
of the research (Babbie, 2007).
This thesis includes extensive literature research, field research and both qualitative and
quantitative data analysis. Field research was conducted in 3 phases. First a general inventory of
study area is done to obtain general information. Secondly detailed participatory social research
methods were applied for detailed data collection. In the third phase results were discussed in focus-
group sessions. Triangulation to test findings by applying different research methods (Babbie, 2007),
has been important throughout the research by a combination of observations, informal interviews
and the final focus-group sessions.
4.1.1 Research area
The research is conducted in Meskan district, Ethiopia. Ethiopian forest cover is currently estimated
to be around 3-3.6% (Dessie and Kleman, 2007) and 11.9% (FAO, 2009). Historical forest cover in
Ethiopia has been estimated at 40%, but this is highly contested (McCann, 1997).
Ethiopian politics can be distinguished into three main periods in the last 80 years with the
Imperial regime from 1930 to 1974 ruled by emperor Haile Sellassie including the Italian occupation
between 1936 and 1942. The socialist Derg regime ruled between 1974 and 1991 and the Ethiopian
People Revolutionarily Democratic Front (EPRDF) from 1991 to the present (Geda, 2007). The
changes between the political regimes have had major influences on the rule of law, tenure security
and social and economic stability in Ethiopia. Changes in land- and forest use were also subject to
changes in regime and related policies (Reid et al., 2000; Bekele, 2003; Dessie and Christiansson,
2008).
Meskan District is located in the North-Western Plateau of the Central Rift Valley (Legesse
and Ayenew, 2006), and is therewith part of two main ecological zones: a humid to dry sub-humid
lands and dry sub-humid or semi-arid lands (Abebe, 1988). The average rainfall per year is around
1233 mm. (Jansen et al., 2007) and the elevation is above 2000 meter.
4.1.2 Selection of research sites
The research is conducted in two kebeles5 around Butajira District town within Meskan District.
These kebeles were selected out of four kebeles within the PhD-research of the local supervisor
Zenebe Adimassu Teferi. The presented study could hence make use of existing background
information and research contacts.
The four kebeles were visited in the first week of the field work where informal discussion
have been held in order to get general information concerning changes in tree composition and the
5 A Kebele is the lowest administrative level in Ethiopia, of the currently five existing levels of government, namely the
federal, regional, zonal, wereda and kebele. (Ayenew, 2007)
18
tree planting and management strategies of the populations. This information contributed to the
selection of Dirama and Dobi kebele.
Dirama and Dobi Kebele are located within 10 km distance from Butajira District town,
approximately 130 km South of Addis Ababa. Dirama kebele is located North of Butajira, while Dobi
kebele is located North-West of Butajira, see Map 1. Even though kebele characteristics are different,
the activities in the kebeles are regulated by the same market, the same governmental farming
office and within the same climatic conditions. Conversely the ecological environmental conditions
are different with relative richer soils in Dobi kebele then in Dirama kebele6.
Dirama kebele was selected because of the clear tree use activities, the orderly and visible
farming structures and the hospitality and willingness of the people to participate in the research.
Also the accessibility of the area was an important selection criterion. Dobi kebele was selected
because of contrasting characteristics to Dirama kebele, see Table 3 in which specific characteristics
of the two kebeles are given.
Dirama kebele farming system is dominated by maize (Zea mays), teff (Eragrostis tef) ,
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and bean varieties. This kebele is defined as a food-insecure area, which
is supported by a multi-donor Safety Net Project within which more than half of the inhabitants
receive weekly allowance and food aid in return for community labour projects. Dobi kebele farming
system is dominated by enset (Ensete ventricosum), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and teff (Eragrostis
tef). Every household in Dobi kebele cultivates enset, with an average of 358.5 enset-plants per
household and is therefore classified as food-secure area.
6 The household locations of respondents in Dirama kebele are averagely at an altitude of 2052.25 meter while the average
altitude of respondents from Dobi kebele is 2190.64 meter.
Map 1. Research location: Dirama and Dobi Kebele around
Butajira District Town, Meskan District, Ethiopia.
(Source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/ethiopia.gif)
Dobi
Dirama
Butajira
19
4.1.3 Selection of respondents
Respondents for individual interviews were selected with the help of key-informants, local
Development Agents8, after which snowball sampling has continued providing more respondents.
Random selection by asking respondents in the field directly has also provided some of the
respondents.
Respondents for individual interviews are the head of the household. In total 23
respondents are interviewed in both kebeles. These respondents were all man.
Focusgroup respondents were also selected with the help of key-informants. Respondents
within the preliminary focusgroup were 4-5 people with a range between 40 and 60 years of age. In
every kebele one man- and one women- preliminary focus group are held. After completing the
Household questionnaires, two (Dobi) and three (Dirama) more focusgroup-sessions were organized
with the use of key-informants and household respondents. These focusgroup sessions consisted of 2
to 5 men between 30 and 80 years of age, located at different geographical areas within the kebele.
The last focusgroup-session per kebele consisted of a random group of men in order to verify and
discuss the results found and to obtain some clarifications.
7 Livestock per household is given in TLU, Tropical Livestock Index. To convert in to one TLU (250 kg live weight) the
following mean weight in kg were used; ox 275, cow 200, calf 50, sheep and goat 22, donkey 100 and horse 200 like in
Mekoya et al., 2008 8 Three Development Agents per kebele exist in order to improve with theoretical and practical knowledge the rural living
conditions within the three domains of livestock, natural resources and plants science.
Dirama
Dobi
Distance to District town 8 km 7 km
Elevation 2052.25 meter 2190.64 meter
Accessibility Asphalt road, easy accessible Local road, difficult accessible
Public Transport Mini-bus, bajaj Horse-cart
Food system Food insecure: Cereal based Food secure: Enset based
Cultivation of Ensete
ventricosum
Average: 74.3 plants
Range: 2-300 per HH
Total: 669 over 11 HH
Average: 358.5 plants
Range: 45-1000 per HH
Total: 8245 over 23 HH
Land distribution
(Mean ± SD)
0.87 ± 0.40 ha per HH
4.65 ± 1.77 Plots per HH
0.21 ± 0.15 ha per Plot
1.31 ± 0.66 ha per HH
3.22 ± 1.17 Plots per HH
0.46 ± 0.28 ha per Plot
Livestock (in TLU7)
(Mean ± SD)
2.1 ± 1.2 per HH
Range: 0.3- 3.8
4.7 ± 3.5 per HH
Range: 0-17.0
Religion Muslim (69.5%)
Christian Orthodox (21.8%)
Protestant (8.7 %)
Christian Orthodox (87%)
Protestant (13%)
Education of respondent
(Mean ± SD)
Average grade: 3.9 ± 2.2
Range: 0-7 grade
Uneducated: 13.6%
Average grade: 2.4 ± 2.8
Range: 0-8 grade
Uneducated: 47.8 %
Size Household
(Mean ± SD)
7.9 ± 2.0 members 7.2 ± 4.0 members
Table 3. Kebele characteristics
20
4.2 Methods for Data Collection
4.2.1 Primary data collection
Primary data collection consisted of semi-structured household questionnaires, observations,
informal discussions and focusgroup-sessions, all with the help of a local translator9. The methods
which were used within the field research include Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) in order to select the
specific kebeles in which the research will be conducted, and to get a general idea of what tree
species are present and/or planted, what major changes are perceived in tree composition over the
last years and what trees are used for. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Chambers, 1994 a)
methods and techniques are applied wherewith the participation of local populations is secured and
with which local populations are enabled to analyze and share their knowledge.
Observations, semi-structured interviewed, informal interviews and focus-group sessions
have been done in order to study current tree management practices, the current and historical
existence of trees in the farm fields, value and importance of tree species and the respondents’
knowledge about environmental- economical-, political- and social- structures influences local tree
management practices. Household data is obtained from semi-structured interviews10
, informal
interviews and observations, including field visits to about 60%11
of the total number of
respondents’ farm fields. Focus-group interviews12
were held to obtain general information and to
verify and triangulate information. Observations were important throughout the entire period of
primary data collection to obtain more information and verify gained information.
Focusgroup-sessions are held five (Dobi) and six (Dirama) times in the two kebeles. First two
focusgroup-sessions are held in order to collect general information concerning changes in tree cover
in the kebele, rules concerning trees and use and management of the existing tree species. Herewith
also mapping has been done in order to visualize possible changes in tree cover in the kebele.
Secondly, two (Dobi) and three (Dirama) focusgroup-sessions are held in each kebele in order to
gather extra information concerning changes in tree cover in the different farm fields, existence and
abundance of the most important tree species and cultural and governmental rules and regulations
concerning trees. In order to discuss and clarify some main findings additional focusgroup-sessions
have been done in every kebele. Herein main findings of tree species used for firewood and fencing
are presented and discussed, reasons for not planting more trees are discussed and ranked and
clarification is obtained about where the knowledge on rules and regulations concerning trees were
obtained by the farmers. Furthermore, informal discussions with individuals or groups of farmers
have been done during the time of field research in order to get extra information and to verify other
obtained information.
In order to facilitate historical questions a time-distinction is made between the Haille
Sellassie period, the first half of the Derg regime before the drought in 1985, the second half of the
Derg regime after the drought in 1985, the period after the Derg regime until 10 years ago and the
past 10 years. Table 4 provides and overview of research methods applied in order to obtain
information concerning the specific research questions.
9 Use of a translator in field research makes the information gathered secondary data. However, the act of gathering
information in the field directly from the people concerned is primary data collection. 10
See Annex II: Household Questionnaires 11
46/74 in Dobi and 61/107 in Dirama 12
See Annex III: Focus Group Questionnaires
21
4.2.2 Secondary data collection
Secondary data has been gathered and analyzed to contribute to primary data collected. Literature
research is performed to broaden the perspective of the research towards an international context
and to improve the understanding. Official governmental documents are gathered and analyzed to
deepen the insights in national and regional forest policy in Ethiopia.
Aerial photographs and satellite images are obtained in order to complement the
understanding about changes in forest cover from a local perspective with visual images. Eight aerial
photographs were obtained from the Ethiopian Mapping Agency in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. These are
dated from December 15, 1971 and January 5,6 and 14, 1972. Used satellite images are Quickbird
images from December 2003.
4.3 Data analysis
Content analysis was performed on primary data gathered with field interviews. All raw data as
viewpoints from the interviews were condensed and coded into themes, and entered into Microsoft
Office Excel 2007. Descriptive statistics were performed on the data. Frequency distributions were
used to display results and trend analysis was done to depict changes in tree cover over time.
Furthermore a content analysis of text documents and image interpretation was performed.
Aerial photographs were scanned as TIFF-files and imported into ArcGIS 9.3.1 after which they were
geo-referenced with the ArcMap application. Satellite images were also geo-referenced in ArcMap.
With Quantum GIS 0.11.0 Metis the geo-referenced images were raster classified into three classes:
forest cover, cultivated land and shadow. However, classified images were not sufficient and
therefore not used in this thesis. Aerial photographs were visually compared to satellite images for
specific areas within the two kebeles.
Primary data Secondary Data
Methodology Research Question Methodology
• Literature
• Official documents
• Aerial photographs
• Satellite images
Selection site • Field visits
• Consideration
kebele
characteristics
1. Changes in tree
cover and
composition
• Observations
• Informal discussion
• Focus-group sessions
Selection
respondents
• Key-informants
• Snowball
sampling
• Random selection
2. Tree utilization
and tree
management
practices
• Semi-structured household
questionnaires
• Informal discussions
• Observations
3. Farmers’
perceptions
• Semi-structured household
questionnaires
• Focus-group sessions
• Informal discussions
• Observations
Table 4. Methods applied in research
22
Chapter 5: Perceived changes in tree cover and composition
This chapter elaborates on the current tree cover and composition in the research area and dynamics
therein from a local perspective. This chapter provides an answer to research question 1 ‘ What are the
changes in tree cover and composition in the research area over time?’.
This chapter shows that local practices positively influence tree cover in an agricultural
landscape, that planting practices are not per se a response to declining resource availability, and that
differences between governmental regimes are very important for tree cover and composition.
5.1 Current tree cover
The actual number of trees in the farm fields in Dirama and Dobi kebele differs with 10%. In Dirama
kebele there are 11454 trees on 20.1 ha, corresponding with a density of 570 trees per ha. In Dobi
kebele there are 12638 trees on 30.125 ha, with a density of 420 trees per ha.
A total of 35 different tree species are present in farm fields in both kebeles. Dirama kebele
contains 25 and Dobi kebele 27 of these species. The total number of individual trees per tree
category differs between Dirama and Dobi kebele, see Table 5. The main difference is in the number
of native and exotic trees other than Eucalyptus and fruit-trees. The difference in number of fruit
trees in Dirama and Dobi kebele is mainly because of a difference in number of Coffea arabica. In
Dobi kebele the respondents have almost twice as much C. arabica as the respondents of Dirama
kebele. The average number of individual trees per tree category per household land property is also
given in Table 5. The highest amount of trees per household land property includes Eucalyptus.
In Dirama kebele there are on average 8.9 different tree species per household, with a
minimum of 3 and a maximum of 15. In Dobi the number of tree species vary between 4 and 17 per
household, with an average of 10.2 different tree species per household. Diversity in tree species per
category of farm field is given in Table 6. In Dobi kebele the diversity in tree species is higher than in
Dirama kebele.
Number species Number individual trees Number individual trees per household
land property (Mean ± SD)
Tree category Dirama Dobi Total Dirama Dobi Total Dirama Dobi
Fruit trees
(incl. C. arabica)
9 10 11 477 683 1160 23.8 ± 22.7 29.7 ± 24.0
Eucalyptus 2 2 2 10180 10147 20327 462.7 ± 537.6 441.2 ± 664.7
Other trees - - - 797 1808 2605 - -
Native 10 11 16 429 1725 2154 23.3 ± 29.9 38.8 ± 32.3
Other Exotic 4 4 6 359 48 407 15.6 ± 15.5 54.4 ± 121.4
Unknown - - - 9 35 44 - -
Total 25 27 35 11454 12638 24092 498.0 ± 542.6 547.9 ± 697.7
Tree density
(tree/ha)
- - - 570 420 495 - -
Table 5. Distribution of tree species
Species diversity (Mean ± SD)
Location Dirama Dobi
Home-garden 6.8 ± 3.3 9.1 ± 3.6
Cultivated field 1.9 ± 1.7 2.2 ± 1.9
Plantation 1.8 ± 1.3 3.4 ± 1.9
Per HH 8.9 ± 3.2 10.2 ± 3.3
Table 6. Species diversity
23
Fruit trees present are Annona senegalensis, Carica papaya, Casimiroa edulis, Coffea Arabica,
Citrus aurantifolia, Citrus sinensis, Malus domestica, Mangifera indica, Persea Americana and Psidium
guajava. The Eucalyptus trees in the area are Eucalyptus cameldulensis and Eucalyptus globulus13
.
The other trees in the farm fields are Acacia albidia, Acacia abyssinica14
, Cordia africana, Croton
macrostachyus, Entada abyssinica, Ficus sur, Ficus vasta, Juniperus procera, Millettia ferruginea, Olea
europaea subsp. cuspidata, Phoenix reclinata, Podocarpus falcatus, Prunus africana, Rhamnus
pronoides and Sesbania sesban as native trees. Exotic trees present in the research area are
Chamaecytisus proliferus, Cupressus lusitanica, Grevillea robusta, Jacaranda mimosifolia, Schinus
molle, and Syzygium guineense. These tree species are all grown in private home-gardens, cultivated
fields, common grazing land or fallow land. Other trees growing mainly in the common forest area
but not in private fields include Combretum molle and Hagenia abyssinica. See Annex IV for a
detailed description of species present; their local-, English- and scientific- name, origin and main use
in the research area.
5.2 Perceived changes in tree cover and composition
Changes in tree cover and composition are analyzed from a farmers’ perspective. The analysis
focuses on the perceived changes in the two kebeles separately. A visual comparison from aerial
photographs (1972) and satellite images (2003) is provided to compare local perception on changes
and external visible changes. Unfortunately no quantitative analysis of changes in tree cover and
composition was possible due to low image quality.
5.2.1 Changes in tree number
Changes in tree number are different between the two research sites. In Dirama kebele the tree
number on cultivated land and forest land is reduced. In Dobi kebele the tree number on forested
land and within the entire kebele is increased since the 1970’s, the end of the Haile Sellassie period.
The number of trees within Dirama kebele on communal land and on grazing land is reduced,
with contrasting perception of one of the four focus groups’ that it has increased. Individual
household surveys indicate that 82% of the respondents perceived an increase in the number of
trees on their private lands between the beginning of the Derg regime and currently. Figure 2 shows
a visible example confirming the perception of an increased tree number on private homestead,
farming field and surrounding between 1972 and 2003 of two respondents in Dirama kebele.
Figure 2. Comparison between 1972 and 2003 tree cover and composition, Dirama kebele
13
In the further analysis there is no distinction made between the two Eucalyptus species, but referred to ‘Eucalyptus’. 14
In the further analysis there is no distinction made between the two Acacia species, but referred to ‘Acacia’.
1972 2003
24
Tree number on grazing and cultivated land in Dobi kebele is increased with contrasting
perception of one of the four focus-groups that it has decreased. The number of trees on communal
land is by half of the focus-groups perceived as increased and by the other half perceived as reduced.
Individual household surveys indicate that 78% of the respondents perceive the number of trees on
their individual land has increased since the beginning of the Derg regime. Figure 3 shows a visible
example confirming the general perception of increased tree number in especially forest areas and
on cultivated land in Dobi kebele.
Figure 3. Comparison between 1972 and 2003 tree cover and composition, Dobi kebele
A decline in number of trees on private fields perceived by 15% of the total respondents in
the two research sites, are perceived as the result of harvesting and marketing practices of the trees
or trees’ drying out because of old age.
5.2.2 Changes in tree location and species composition
Changes in tree location in the two kebeles at a landscape level indicate a general increase of trees in
homegardens and on private cultivated plots transformed into Eucalyptus plantations, and a general
decrease of trees on cultivated lands. Changes in tree location within private fields are difficult to
grasp.
Changes in tree species composition indicate a slight change in relative number of tree
species with a dominant increase in Eucalyptus and fruit trees and a relative decrease in native tree
species. In Dirama kebele all tree species except fruit trees have reduced in number between the
Derg Regime and the current. No tree species were mentioned having disappeared completely but
Acacia, Cordia africana, Ficus and Podocarpus falcatus have reduced tremendously. In Dobi kebele
Ficus, Hagenia abysissinica, Juniperus procera, Olea europaea and Podocarpus falcatus have reduced
until almost extinct.
Fruit trees are always planted in home-gardens after introduction. Eucalyptus is currently
located everywhere, but predominantly at cultivated fields. Over time the location of Eucalyptus has
shifted from growing mainly in church-, mosque-, office- or school- areas in the Haile Sellassie period,
to communal land in the Derg period, and on private farming land since the current government.
Cordia africana is was mostly located on cultivated and communal land during the Haile Sellassie and
Derg periods, but now it is more grown on cultivated land and homestead areas. Croton
macrostachyus is in Dirama kebele most dominantly present in forest areas and on cultivated lands,
with no changes over time. In Dobi kebele Croton is mostly growing on private grazing land, with no
changes over time. The dominant location of Grevillea robusta and Schinus molle in village areas,
around school and around the church, has neither changed according to farmers perceptions.
Juniperus procera is in Dirama kebele most dominant on communal land, with no variation over time
but increasing in number in homestead areas and cultural areas since the Derg regime. In Dobi
kebele Juniperus procera was most present on church-areas in the Haile Sellassie period, with an
1972 2003
25
increasing existence on communal forest lands since the Derg regime. Currently there are only few
Juniperus procera growing.
5.3 Tree planting practices causing change in tree number and species composition
Local perceptions on changes in tree cover and composition give an indication of the actual changes
but can be complemented by analyzing the actual influence of local practices. Especially local
planting practices in farm fields influence changes in tree cover and composition over time in the
research area.
Of the total trees planted in the research site Eucalyptus trees accounted for 83% of it.
Eucalyptus was introduced in the Haile Sellassie period, with an increase of planting practiced in the
beginning of the Derg period, the second half of the 1970’s, as can be seen in Figure 4A. The policy of
the Derg regime to reforest Ethiopia resulted in reforestation of communal lands, and the availability
of seedlings also encouraged people to plant Eucalyptus on private farm fields. The Derg regime
furthermore facilitated the planting of Juniperus trees and Cupressus lusitanica15
(74% of the exotic
trees planted) and Schinus molle on private lands. However, actual planting practices of the latter
was very limited. Even though planting practices of Eucalyptus has been relatively constant over time,
Figure 4B indicates that the other exotic trees which were planted in the beginning of the Derg
period, declined in the second half of the Derg period but drastically increased in the new
government after 1991. These exotic trees included also Grevillea robusta (23% of total exotic trees
planted) and Jacaranda mimosifolia and Chamaecytisus proliferus.
Native trees are also planted up to 67% of the total number of exotic trees planted. Native
trees were relatively much planted in the first half of the Derg regime, with Acacia being the
dominant tree species planted in that time with 48%. Since the last 10 years planting of native tree
species like Rhamnus prinoides (37% of total native trees planted), Cordia africana (33%), Sesbania
sesban (15%), Acacia (8%) and Croton macrostachyus (4%) increased tremendously.
Figure 4. Trees planted in farm fields of respondents in the research area, per category of tree species
A: Total number of trees planted over time
B: Relative number of trees planted over time
15
While the Amharic name for Juniperus and Cupressus is the same ‘tid’, it is difficult to make a distinction in their tree
management practices. Juniperus procera is actually a native tree species but it has never been mentioned as naturally
regenerating. Concerning historic information about ‘tid’ no distinction can be made between Juniperus and Cupressus,
while it is impossible to recover which tree was meant. Information about current existence and management practices are
dominantly Cupressus (own observations).
A A
A B
B A
26
Planting of fruit trees also started in the Derg regime but in low numbers. Coffea arabica
(61% of total fruit trees planted) and Citrus fruits (11%) were planted in the Haile Sellassie and Derg
periods, and to a very limited extend Persea americana was also planted. Planting fruit trees became
more popular since the current government after 1991, with a wider diversity of fruit trees being
integrated in the farm fields. Also, the number of C. arabica planted in the last 10 years accounts for
72% of total C. arabica planted and explains therewith the relative high amount of fruit trees planted
in the last 10 years.
5.4 Comparison of changes in tree cover and composition in the two research sites
There is a large difference in planting practices observed between Dirama and Dobi kebele.
Figure 5. Total number of trees planted over time in farm fields of respondents, per category of tree species,
per kebele
A major difference can be observed in the period of planting Eucalyptus, see Figure 5. In
Dirama kebele the highest number of Eucalyptus was planted in the second half of the Derg regime,
between 1985 and 1991 with a slight drop in planting practices since the current government. In
Dobi kebele most Eucalyptus trees were planted in the beginning of the Derg regime, between 1974
and 1984, after which the rate of planting dropped drastically in the second half of the Derg Regime,
and has only been increasing again after the change to the current government in the beginning of
the 1990’s.
An other difference can be observed concerning native and exotic tree species planted. In
Dirama kebele the rate of exotic and native trees planted has never differed much. In Dobi kebele
the number of exotic trees planted increased drastically after the Derg regime, and planting practices
of native tree species is not practiced much due limited seedlings availability (will be discussed in
chapter 7).
When taking into account specific tree species main differences are observed between
planting practices of the native Acacia trees, Cordia africana and Rhamnus prinoides. Concerning the
Acacia trees in Dirama kebele almost 45% of these are planted while in Dobi kebele 2.5% of the
Acacia trees are planted. C. africana and R. prinoides are almost equally existent and relatively
planted (around 85%) in both kebeles, but the timing of planting these native trees are exactly
opposite: C. africana was mostly planted in the Derg regime in Dobi kebele and Rhamnus was more
planted the last 10 years, while in Dirama kebele R. prinoides was mostly planted after the Derg
regime and C. africana in the last 10 years.
27
Analyzing the total amount of native trees planted in the two kebeles other differences are
observed. Of the total amount of native trees planted in Dirama kebele is 31% Cordia africana, 27%
Sesbania sesban, 26% Rhamnus prinoides, 13% Acacia and 2% Croton macrostachyus. Of the total
amount of native trees planted in Dobi kebele is 50% R. prinoides, 35% C. africana,7% C.
macrostachyus, 2% Acacia and no S. sesban. The planting practices concerning native trees in Dirama
kebele mostly include C. africana, while in Dobi most native trees planted are R. prinoides. Acacia
trees are limited planted in comparison to overall planting practices of native trees in both kebeles.
The high number of the exotic tree Cupressus lusitanica in Dobi kebele explains the peak in
planted exotic trees after the Derg regime and these trees are absent in Dirama kebele.
5.5 Discussion
5.5.1 Perceived changes in tree cover and compositions
Results show that the number of trees in the research area is perceived as increased and general tree
location has shifted from communal land to cultivated land. Largest change in tree cover and
composition concern Eucalyptus trees.
It is shown that local perceptions about environmental circumstances are not homogeneous
within and among communities. The perceived changes in tree number in the research sites are
opposing between the two kebeles when looking at tree cover in general, but are similar when
looking at tree cover in private farm fields. In Dirama kebele the availability of trees in general is
perceived as reduced, while in Dobi kebele this is perceived as increased. This means that
perceptions on changes in tree cover and composition between two areas within a range of 20 km2
(ground distance between Dirama and Dobi kebele is around 10 km, see Map 1) can differ drastically.
Assuming that local perceptions represent reality considering changes in tree cover and composition
in their surrounding, this indicates that actual changes in tree cover and composition in small areas
can be contrasting.
The number of trees on private fields are almost all perceived as increased, mainly due to
planting practices of Eucalyptus and fruit trees over time. The relative number of native tree species
has decreased since the Haille Sellassie period, and an increase in planting practices of native trees is
observed since the current government. Perceived changes in tree location were difficult to grasp,
but Figure 2 and 3 show that trees are often planted around farm fields and along road sides.
Results presented in this chapter indicate that there are more factors influencing tree
planting practices than the general thinking of increased planting practices in response to a decline in
tree resources (Arnold, 1997). While the availability of tree resources in Dirama kebele are reduced
and in Dobi kebele increased, there is no large difference observed in tree planting practices.
The changes in tree cover and composition over time were most dominant in the Derg
regime, when large numbers of Eucalyptus were planted. The number of Eucalyptus planted has
been relatively constant ever since, and this is a contrasting observation. While the 1975 rural land
reform implied that ‘individual property rights over forests…were confined to trees of individual
home-gardens and religious sites or compounds’ (Bekele, 2003; p. 108), there is no observed major
difference in number of Eucalyptus planted between the Derg regime and the current government, in
which property rights are more enabling to tree planting (Omiti et al., 1999). The official implication
of only receiving property rights over trees in home-gardens was often interpreted by administrators
to take trees from farm fields of other people when desired. Both the official possibility to loose trees
from private farm fields as the possibility to unofficially loose trees to local administrators, developed
feeling of insecurity concerning tree ownership. However, in contrast to general thinking about the
negative relation between tree- and landowner-ship and tree management practices (Shepherd,
1992; Schuren and Snelder, 2008), including no planting practices when trees may not be personally
owned; many trees were planted on farm fields in the research area during the Derg regime. Also in
contrast to findings of Omiti et al. (1991) where farmers in the Ethiopian Central Highlands indicated
28
to plant and to wish to plant specifically more trees under the new government after the Derg
regime, there are no major differences observed in the research area in planting Eucalyptus between
the Derg regime and the current government on farm fields.
An increase in the amount of trees on private fields, correspond to the main findings of
amongst others Fairhead and Leach (1995) where local tree cover in Guinea, West Africa increase
due to human practices. The increase in tree cover in former little forested areas due to human
practices has also been observed in Kenia by Holmgren et al. (1994) and in Northern Ethiopia by
Nyssen et al. (2009). The results presented in this chapter strengthen the belief that taking into
account human practices and their impact on tree cover by integrating trees on farms is highly
important when aiming at increased tree cover.
5.5.2 Policy implications
For policy aiming to increase forest cover insights in perceived changes in tree cover and composition
are important for different reasons.
First, it is shown that local tree planting practices are very important to increase tree cover in
farm fields (section 5.3). Policy aiming to increase tree cover should therefore not only concentrate
on large areas covered with trees, but also take into account scattered trees and small tree patches
in farm fields and peoples’ individual practices increasing tree cover.
Second, it is shown that farmers’ planting practices concerning different tree species are
dynamic over time (section 5.3 and 5.4). For policy aiming to increase tree cover it is important to
recognize this and to understand why and how these tree planting practices are dynamic over time.
For policy aiming at increased forest cover in the research area, it can be concluded that
people’s need for tree and tree products in the research area increase tree planting practices
regardless of land- and tree tenure security (section 5.5.1). In the research area farmers’ tree
planting strategies are risk-taking by planting while possibly losing the trees. For policy aiming to
increase tree cover in the research area it is highly important to recognize that the local demand for
trees and tree products is tremendous and tree availability should therefore be enhanced.
29
Chapter 6: Tree utilization and tree management practices
This chapter analyzes into detail the local tree management practices in the research sites.
Differences in tree management practices between the two kebeles are described, and the specific
local tree management practices and broader scientific understanding about people-tree interactions
are discussed. This chapter gives an answer to research question 2: ‘What are the current local tree
utilizations and tree management practices in the research area?’.
This chapter shows that the trees in the farm fields are mainly used within the household,
that especially Eucalyptus and native tree species are important for their productive and ecological
function and that tree management practices are most specific for fruit trees.
6.1 Tree utilization
Trees are utilized and managed within a system related to their ecological, productive and cultural-
religious functions.
Figure 6. Use of the trees present in the farm fields, in the research area
(Percentage of total uses mentioned per tree species/ per plot/ per respondent)
As can be seen in Figure 6, trees in the research area are used for different purposes. Most of the
uses include entire trees or tree products which are harvested, and in special cases the trees are
used for their ecological or cultural-religious function. Most trees are used for domestic fencing and
firewood, and a relative large part is used for household consumption and marketing. A very large
part of the trees existing in the area are not used, or not used yet as these are too small, which
confirms the relative large number of tree planted recently. Around 20% of the total number of trees
planted in Dobi, and 32% of the total trees planted in Dirama, were planted during the last 2 years.
Special use of trees include the use of medicinal parts of trees (such as the leaves of Eucalyptus
globulus and Citrus medica) and the use of twigs of Schinus molle or Olea europaea with a smell
repellent to flies. The leaves of Cordia africana are harvested in order to feed it to the livestock and
special fodder trees present are Sesbania sesban and Chamaecytisus proliferus.
6.1.1 Tree utilization concerning the productive function
The use of tree for their productive function in the research area can be distinguished between
commercial and domestic use.
30
Commercial use
Trees and tree products are sold at the local market by 72% of total respondents, however varying
between products, see Table 7. Living trees, mainly Eucalyptus, are sold by 61% of the respondents.
Many Eucalyptus are sold on stem, e.g. potential buyers come to the field and harvest the trees
themselves. This is also practices for selling Acacia, C. africana, J. procera, C. lusitanicus and G.
robusta. About 29% of the respondents cut Eucalyptus and C. africana and prepare the wood for
construction, after which they bring it to the market.
Selling of firewood is not very common, but sold by 15% of the respondents. When it is sold it
is mostly Eucalyptus from private fields. One respondent collected firewood from communal lands to
sell at the local market. In general most firewood collected or gained from private fields is used to
fulfill household demand.
Charcoal and fruits (Citrus trees and Coffea arabica) are only sold by 9% and 13% of the
respondents respectively. Charcoal is hard to make and an illegal practice, and the fruit production is
mostly not large enough to sell it at the market. It is nearly all used for household consumption.
Selling the
following
products
Respondents
Dirama
(%)
Respondents
Dobi
(%)
Living trees 71 52
Firewood 14 22
Construction
wood
29 26
Charcoal 10 9
Fruit 14 13
Table 7. Sales of trees and tree products
Household consumption
Fruits from the trees in the farm fields are almost all consumed within the household, as are
branches of trees for firewood and fencing. Only when there is a surplus these tree products are sold.
Figure 7 shows the use of products for fencing and firewood in the research area. These
products consists of trees, shrubs and other items like stones, animal dung, agave plant, dry maize
and sorghum stem and gathered twigs and leaves. The actual use of trees for either fencing or
firewood is more than half of the total use. Around 15 % of the total products used for fencing or
firewood consists of shrubs, while 30% of the total items used are other things than trees or shrubs.
This high percentage of ‘other products’ is explained by the general use of dry maize and sorghum
stem for firewood in especially Dirama kebele. The approximate 15% of shrubs used for either
fencing or firewood in the entire research area can be clarified by the high use of Carissa spinarum,
an indigenous spiny shrub, for fencing in Dobi kebele.
Figure 7. Use of trees, shrubs and other for fencing and firewood in the research area
31
The trees and shrubs used as firewood originate mainly from private lands, but
approximately 10-15% is taken from forest areas (communal lands), at road-sides and communal
grazing areas. Materials for firewood and fencing are not bought from the market with an exception
of three of the respondent mentioning buying or receiving materials for firewood and fencing from
other households. For fencing farm fields mainly tree species are used which have spines, such as
Acacia and Carissa spinarum. Eucalyptus is used for fencing especially the home-gardens.
6.1.2 Tree utilization concerning the ecological and cultural-religious function
Trees are locally not only used for their productive function but also for their ecological and cultural-
religious function
Ecological application
Tree utilization for their ecological function is mentioned by 45% of the respondents in the research
area. Of the trees used 42% are exotic trees and 58% are native trees. Trees integrated for their
function as living fence is practiced by 26% of the total respondents, for soil improvement by 28% ,
and for prevention of flooding and erosion by 9%.
Use of trees as living fence and windbreaks is practiced with nine different tree species. Use
of trees for soil improvement in farm fields include only native tree species. The use of both Acacia
and Cordia africana to improve the soil on cultivated land is explicitly mentioned by 15% of the
respondents. The leaves fertilize the soil and the shade of the trees influences local micro-climatic
conditions in farm fields and provides people’s and livestock resting place.
The use of trees for specific prevention of erosion and flooding where trees are mainly
planted or purposefully left to grow around river areas and at high sites of slant terrain is mentioned
by 10% of the respondents. Box 1 gives an example. Tree species used for these purposes include
75% Eucalyptus trees because these are always planted in large amounts at once. Even though the
ecological use of trees is not often mentioned as important, the actual ecological importance of trees
is widely acknowledged by 56% of the respondents in the study area.
Box 1.
Trees planted along the river for soil conservation
Accompanying one of the respondents to his farm fields, we reach a small area along the river. The
respondent shows many planted Eucalyptus and large shrubs and trees. He indicates where the river
used to be, and where the river is now. He sais that ‘in order to prevent the land being taken away by
the river, I planted trees which hold the soil. I also don’t cut any trees from this land. I already lost a
part of this land to the river, I don’t want to give it more.’ The area is mainly for livestock to graze,
and the planted trees are used for construction.
Picture 1 and 2. Shrub grown as big as a tree on private farming land along the river (left) and
Acacia and Eucalyptus in a grazing area along the river (right). (Dobi kebele, June 2010)
32
Cultural-religious use
In the research area Rhamnus prinoides is utilized for preparing a local beverage ‘tela’, used in
cultural-religious ceremonies and family- or other informal gatherings. The beverage is also locally
sold to other community members. Of the total respondents 37% grow R. prinoides in their home-
gardens, of which more than 80% respondents from Dobi kebele.
Other cultural-religious important trees existent in the research area are Adbar-trees, big old
trees mostly Ficus species. The cultural-religious role of these trees limit its’ use and controlled
harvesting practices. The specific Adbar-trees are free from any management or harvesting practices,
and are only used by their existence. The cultural use of these trees is secret and people do hardly
elaborate on the background and current practices of the rituals at Adbar trees. The ritual at Adbar
trees include a typical Ethiopian coffee ceremony in the night, with the coffee snacks and
slaughtered animals, and worshipping of the tree by placing butter on the stem. Nothing of these
trees can be used, no leaves can be harvested and no branches can be taken. Even when these trees
die they cannot be used for firewood; nobody is allowed to use any part of this tree at any time.
Adbar-trees exist mostly on communal land, but can also be present on private land.
However, rules concerning these trees are the same, regardless of location. Observations confirm
that the rituals are still performed these days and no product of the trees are harvested. For more
information about the relation between cultural rules and tree management practices in the
research area see Annex V Culture and Trees in the research area.
6.2 Tree management practices
Tree management practices include the purposeful regeneration, protection and maintenance and
controlled utilization of trees in the farm fields. Local tree planting activities and the methods to
ensure the survival of planted or naturally grown seedlings for regeneration are important for tree
existence, as well as protection and maintenance practices for securing their growth and production
in the future after which controlled harvesting practices are applied to obtain the products desired.
6.2.1 Tree Regeneration
Tree regeneration is the result of both planting practices as facilitation practices for natural
regeneration. Farmers in the research area have mostly planted exotic tree species, but facilitation
and plantation of naturally regenerating indigenous tree species has also increased since the past
years. Of the total trees existing in the respondents’ farm fields less than 5%16
is naturally grown.
Planting practices
Of the total 35 tree species present in the farm fields of the research area, all are at least once
planted by one or more respondents. Eucalyptus trees are planted by all respondents and in numbers
op to 1000 seedlings planted in one field at one time. These are planted on cultivated fields which
are not very productive anymore, or on lands which are not suitable for agriculture such as river-
banks and very steep areas. Seedlings are bought or transplanted from private small nurseries.
Other exotic tree species planted are Cupressus lisitanica, Grevillea robusta, Schinus molle,
Jacarandra mimosifolia and Chamaecytisus proliferus and different kinds of fruit trees, as discussed
in Chapter 5. About 50% of the current existing native trees in the farm fields are planted.
16
In Dirama kebele 1.2% of the total number of trees on the farm fields are naturally grown, and in Dobi kebele 4.7% of the
total number of trees are naturally grown.
33
Facilitating natural regeneration
Transplantation of naturally reproduced seedlings or the planting of cuttings from natural trees is not
common in the study area, but growth and survival facilitation of naturally reproduced seedlings is
practiced in the study area by several of the respondents. This is especially done since the last 10
years. Practices for growth facilitation of these native tree species include opening up the soil for
improved reception of rain and root growth, weeding and removal of other trees, shrubs and herbs
growing nearby, and fencing to prevent livestock damage. Water and manure, compost or fertilizer
are not applied to these native seedlings neither to Eucalyptus seedlings, while it is applied to fruit
tree seedlings.
The growth of naturally reproduced seedlings of especially Acacia, Cordia africana and
Croton macrostachyus is enhanced by fencing to protect against damage from livestock and by
weeding and ploughing. Native trees have always grown naturally in and around farm fields, but
since the last 10 years these trees are secured and not removed before growth. C. africana is
mentioned to be facilitated to grow in home-gardens, enset-plantations and cultivated fields. Acacia
is removed from home-gardens but mentioned to be facilitated to grow on cultivated fields. C.
macrostachyus receives much less attention when naturally regenerated, but examples have been
observed in which also these seedlings are protected in farm fields.
6.2.2 Protection and maintenance practices
In the study area a variety of protection and maintenance practices exist to prevent pre-mature
dying of the tree and tree damage, or in order to increase production of the usable tree products.
Trees which are managed with special attention are fruit trees and Eucalyptus trees. Fencing
and opening up the soil around trees are the most common protection and maintenance methods
applied by 85 % of all respondents. Fencing of trees is practiced by 72% of the respondents. Fencing
is needed against livestock damage, and sometimes also against other people. Newly planted trees
or natural regenerated trees are fenced to prevent livestock eating the seedlings. Once these trees
are 2 years old, there is mostly no fence anymore. Especially Eucalyptus trees are fenced when they
are small, but in many cases also when they are already relatively large. This in order to prevent
livestock rubbing itself against the stem which will result in an undesired shape. Fruit trees are often
permanently fenced. Opening up the soil and weeding around trees is practiced by 70% of the
respondents in order to increase root growth and to enhance the ability for rainfall to reach the roots.
Specific protection and maintenance methods are applied by a relatively smaller number of
respondents. Animal manure or compost is applied at Coffea arabica and fruit trees by 35% of the
respondents, especially when these are still small. C. arabica and Ensete ventricosum are the highest
receivers of animal manure or compost, at every stage of growth. Water is also given to C. arabica
and young fruit trees, by 20% of the respondents. In a special case a small dripping system is applied
in which a bottle of water with a small hole at the bottom is put in the ground next to every young
fruit tree.
Protection of trees against strong sunlight is specifically mentioned by 7% of the respondents
but observations confirm that C. arabica is often planted among enset-plants, in the shadow of the
houses or larger fruit-trees, wherewith direct sunlight on C. arabica is minimal. Seedlings of mango,
avocado or custard apple are also planted next to enset in order to prevent direct damaging sunlight.
In a special case dry leaves are placed on top of the C. arabica and avocado seedlings in order to
provide them with shade.
Fruit trees are especially protected against livestock or wild animals in a variety of ways.
Fencing is not only important to protect newly planted seedlings, but also for protection of both
leaves and fruits of mature fruit-trees. Fencing of the entire field in which fruit-trees grow is the most
common practice, especially because these fruit-trees are mostly located in home-gardens along
with cash- and subsistence- crops. Individual fencing of trees is practiced in which branches with
spines (mostly Acacia or Carissa trees) are placed around and on top of the pre-mature fruit-trees by
one respondent, see Box 2. Herewith these trees are protected against livestock eating their leaves.
34
By two respondents seedlings of mango and avocado are planted close to Catha edulis17
to prevent
livestock eating their leaves; livestock’s preference is eating the chat instead. Protection of fruits of
larger trees is done with either individual covering of the fruits or with dogs by two respondents.
Trees other than fruit trees are seldom protected in a special way. Four protection methods
are applied to facilitate growth of these trees including fencing the field, clearing the soil around the
planted trees to give rain more way to reach the roots, pruning of branches to make the tree grow
taller and bigger, and thinning of large numbers of especially planted Eucalyptus trees to give other
trees more space to grow adequately.
Prevention and protection of trees against diseases is not done by any of the respondents.
However curing of diseases of trees is applied. In case of C. arabica affected by a disease, the plant is
cut completely after which it will regrow. Twice it has been mentioned that roots of Persea
americana, Coffea arabica or Citrus trees are digged out completely when they are affected by a
disease or do not produce. These roots are either cut or washed, after which they are placed back
into the soil in accompany of animal dung. Agave sisalana might be used in order to bind the roots
when put back into the soil. No pesticides against tree diseases are applied because this is not
available. In especially Dobi kebele there is a major problem of disease concerning the Citrus trees
where these trees are sometimes cut and destroyed completely to prevent the disease to spread.
17
Shrub used as cash crop. Leaves are chewed as a stimulant.
Box 2.
Example of specific tree protection and maintenance
An in which specific fruit tree seedlings in one home-garden receive specific protection methods:
• White sapote (Casimiroa edulis): No protection at all
• Mango (Mangifera idica): Provision of water with bottle irrigation
• Coffea (Coffea arabica): Provision of water with bottle irrigation
Protected against sun with dry leaves of Croton macrostachyus
• Wild custard-apple (Annona senegalensis): Provision of water with bottle irrigation
Protected against sun with dry leaves of Croton macrostachyus
• Avocado (Persea americana): Provision of water with bottle irrigation
Protected against sun with dry leaves of Croton macrostachyus
Protection against wildlife with branches of Acacia
Provision of compost of dry bean skin
Picture 3 and 4. Avocado protected with Acacia branches (left) and Wild custard-apple with Croton branches
(right), both with bottle irrigation. (Dirama kebele 8-3-2010)
35
6.2.3 Controlled harvesting practices
In the research area there are special methods to harvest trees or tree products by which re-growth
for future use is secured. Eucalyptus, Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus and Acacia trees are
pruned for re-growth. Eucalyptus, C. africana and C. macrostachyus are coppiced, with which the
stem is harvested very close to the ground to secure sprouting of more stems. Acacia trees are
pollarded, all the branches are removed for utilization and more branches will regrow or the amount
of spines on the branches will increase. Other tree species such as Juniperus procero, Cupressus
lustanica and Grevillea robusta do not regrow and are therefore harvested to a much lesser extend.
The actual harvesting of trees is done with an ax, with cutting on both sides of the stem at
unequal height to prevent the bark from breaking. When the bark of the tree is damaged, the tree
will not regrow. Once it is mentioned that trees should only be cut after the first bud in order for it to
regrow well. Remainders of harvested Eucalyptus is slightly set on fire. Also the harvested product is
slightly burned in order to prevent it from decaying fast when used for house construction. The area
around the harvested stem is cleared after it is cut. Special care is also handled for the direction to
which the tree will fall after being cut, as trees which fall down might harm crops in the surroundings.
Coffea arabica and Rhamnus prinoides are sometimes harvested completely to regrow with
more branches. Mentioned is also that these trees are cut completely in order to clear diseases, after
which a better production is secured. R. prinoides is harvested completely in order to produce the
local beverage ‘tela’, for which only the leaves are used but all branches are harvested.
Harvesting of tree branches to use for fencing or firewood goes from bottom to the top of
the tree. Especially with Acacia trees this is practiced because of the spines on the branches. For
other trees this is mostly practiced purely because the lower branches are closer and easier to reach.
Sometimes it is mentioned that all branches should be harvested at once, and once it was mentioned
that the actual size of stem which is needed should be harvested (e.g. if one meter is needed only
one meter should be harvested).
No special methods for fruit harvesting from home-gardens. However, fruit trees are
protected differently and with more care than other trees as described above. The bark of the
available trees is not harvested, and the leaves of only a few trees are harvested for their use.
6.3 Comparison between two kebeles
Concerning tree utilization differences are observed between Dirama and Dobi kebele in tree species
used for firewood and fencing. Differences in tree utilization for the productive-, ecological- and
cultural-religious function and in tree management practices are very minimal.
6.3.1 Differences in tree utilization
Regarding utilization of trees and tree product small differences are observed in marketing practices.
In Dirama kebele 71% of the respondents sell living trees and in Dobi kebele 52%. Firewood is sold in
Dirama kebele by only 14% of the respondents and in Dobi kebele by 22%, a slightly higher number
of people.
Taking into account specific tree species for domestic use of fencing and firewood differences
are observed between Dirama and Dobi kebele, see Figure 8. The product most used for firewood in
Dirama kebele is dry maize or sorghum stem. This is not used in Dobi kebele, while they do not
produce maize or sorghum in large quantities. Eucalyptus and gathered wood are the second and
third most mentioned products used for firewood in Dirama kebele, while in Dobi kebele Acacia,
Eucalyptus and Croton macrostachyus are the first, second and third mentioned items for firewood.
This can be explained by the relatively high number of Acacia trees present in Dobi kebele, which
exceeds the number of Acacia in Dirama kebele by more than 230%. Eucalyptus is used in both
Dirama as Dobi kebele, explained by the local perception of its’ quality for burning even when it is
wet. Eucalyptus is therefore especially used in rainy season, but also in dry season when either the
36
dry maize or sorghum stems or the branches of Acacia are finished. Acacia species are ranked less
important than Eucalyptus species, so these are used primarily in dry season in Dobi kebele. Acacia
trees as a whole are especially used as firewood for festivities or special celebrations when large
amounts of food are prepared. The flame of burning Acacia species is especially good for this
purpose, explained by the respondents. Other products used for firewood are branches of different
trees, shrubs and in a special occasion dried animal dung.
For fencing in Dirama kebele the use of Acacia stands out. The branches with spines are cut
and placed around the farm fields. Also Agave sisalana and Caesalpinia decapetala are observed as
fence around the farm fields as they have spines, however these are not mentioned very often as the
shrub itself is seen as unimportant. Dry sorghum stem is mainly used for fencing the home-gardens,
together with C. macrostachyus and Eucalyptus (both to a limited extend). In Dobi kebele the use of
Eucalyptus for fencing is dominant. With Eucalyptus most home-gardens are fenced, and also
sometimes the farm fields or the Eucalyptus-plantations. The second mentioned product used for
fencing is Carissa spinarum which is mostly used as living fence around farm fields along local roads.
Fencing the farm fields is not practiced extensively in Dobi kebele, but along roads it is perceived as
necessary in order to prevent cattle entering and destroying the farming crops. In Dirama kebele
fencing farm fields is more often mentioned as important than in Dobi kebele.
Figure 8. Percentage of specific trees and shrubs used for firewood and fencing within households in the
research area
The use of trees for the ecological and cultural-religious function do not differ between Dirama and
Dobi kebele. The use of the Adbar-trees for their cultural-religious function is mentioned not to be
existent in both kebeles, but observations confirm the ritual at this tree in Dirama kebele. The
cultural-religious function of the Adbar-tree is sometimes even mentioned as unknown in Dobi
kebele.
6.3.2 Differences in specific tree management practices
Small differences are observed in tree regeneration practices between Dirama and Dobi kebele, as
discussed in Chapter 5, however more differences are observed when analyzing planting practices of
native tree species. In Dirama kebele 77% of the native trees are planted, while in Dobi 35% of the
native trees are planted. However, the number of native trees in Dirama is only 57% of total native
trees in Dobi.
Concerning protection and maintenance practices small differences are observed in disease-
related practices which occur in Dobi kebele but not in Dirama kebele. The environmental conditions
37
in Dobi kebele, located more into forest land, might have influenced the existence of these tree
infections. Dirama kebele, being much dryer, does not face these infections of Coffea arabica and
Citrus trees.
6.4 Discussion
6.4.1 Tree utilization and tree management practices
Results show that tree utilization and tree management practices are very specific for different tree
species. It can be concluded that trees are most used within the household, that the utilization of
Eucalyptus and native trees for their ecological service is important and that very specific protection
and maintenance practices are most focused on fruit trees. The gained insights in tree utilization and
tree management practices in the research area coincide or contradict other case studies of people-
tree interactions in farm fields around the world.
This chapter has shown the importance of the exotic tree species Eucalyptus, and also the
increasing importance of native tree species in the research area. The planting practices of exotic
tree species excluding Eucalyptus, increased after the Derg regime and native trees were increasingly
planted since the last 10 years (Figure 4). Similar to findings of Duguma and Hager (2010 a) the exotic
tree species abundant in the farm fields are only Eucalyptus and Cupressus lusitanica. However, while
Duguma and Hager (2010 a) relate the preference of these exotic tree species to their fast growing
characteristics, in the research area C. lusitanica is perceived as a slow growing species. The
preference for Eucalyptus is because of its’ fast growth, but C. lusitanica is planted extensively in one
of the two kebeles for its’ perceived high value at the market and the seedlings availability.
Tree utilization
The main domestic uses of tree resources are fencing and firewood. This coincides with the results in
the recent case studies of Ventura-Aquino et al. (2008) where the main use of trees in a Mexican
rural situation is for firewood, and the Tanzanian case study of Munishi et al. (2008) where the use of
firewood accounted for the largest use of trees on households’ farming lands.
This chapter has furthermore shown the preference for the utilization of on-farm trees within
the household rather than for marketing. The importance of tree resources for households in large
parts of Ethiopia is widely acknowledged (Nyssen et al., 2009; Duguma and Hager, 2010 b) and the
conclusion that rural Ethiopia is highly dependent on tree resources for firewood (Bekele-Tesemma,
2007) is also observed in the research area.
The observed use of Eucalyptus trees as living fence has also been noticed in other Ethiopian
rural areas (Nyssen et al., 2009), contributing to the debate about the ecological implications of
Eucalyptus on farm fields (Jagger and Pender, 2003) by indicating the local use of Eucalyptus as
windbreaks, erosion prevention and land demarcation despite of the possible negative effect of the
trees on crop productivity.
Tree management practices
It can be concluded that specific tree management practices exist in the research area. Table 8 shows
the specific tree management practices which are applied in the research area to gain a certain
outcome. Tree management practices in the research area aim generally to meet household demand,
meet market demand, improve soil conditions and for the esthetic value of trees. Compared to Table
2 ‘Tree Management Practices’ (Chapter 2) similar tree protection methods are observed in the
research area as in other farming systems (Wiersum and Slingerland, 1998; Dhillion and Gustad,
2004). However, elaborated purposeful regeneration practices to facilitate native tree regeneration
like planting of cuttings, transplanting of wildlings and stimulating root sprouting has not been
observed in the research area. Private small tree nurseries exist including Eucalyptus seedlings but
38
not for native trees. About half of the existing native trees in the farm fields are planted by the
respondents. These seedlings are externally obtained.
Regarding protection and maintenance practices more details are observed in the research
area including protection against the sun and specific fruit protection. Practices concerning tree
disease are limited to local practices of removal of infected parts or entire trees and no pesticides are
applied. Locally prepared pesticides are unknown, and other pesticides are unavailable. Controlled
harvesting methods in the research area mainly aim at re-growth of the harvested products, and are
therefore very specific for different tree species. Not revealed in literature but observed in the
research area is complete harvest of trees to stimulate sprouting of many more branches. Also the
application of fire practices and the protection of the bark when harvesting as an important practice
to enhance re-growth of especially Eucalyptus has not been explicitly pointed out in former literature.
6.4.2 Policy implications
This Chapter has presented insights in tree utilization and tree management practices related to
different tree species in the research area. For policy aiming to increase forest cover in the research
area these insights are important for different reasons.
First, it is shown that on-farm tree resources in the research area are very important for
domestic use and consumption (section 6.1.1). Eucalyptus and Acacia are most used for fencing and
firewood (Figure 8), and fruit trees are important for household consumption. For policy
implementation to increase tree cover in the research area this indicates that the availability of
Eucalyptus and Acacia for firewood and fencing and fruit trees for household consumption should be
secured.
Second, it is shown that use of trees for the ecological function is practiced in the research
area (section 6.1.2). It should not be underestimated that local integration of Eucalyptus to prevent
Tree Management Practices Observed In order to…
Purposeful Regeneration
• Planting of bought seedlings
• Transplanting of private nursed seedlings
• Facilitate natural regeneration
- Weeding
- Opening up soil
- Fencing of seedlings
• Secure tree existence
Protection and Maintenance
• Fencing field
• Fencing individual tree
• Weeding
• Opening up soil
• Provision of animal manure/compost
• Provision of water
• Sun protection
• Fruit protection
• Pruning
• Thinning
• Curing of disease
• Prevent disease spreading
• General surveillance
• Enhance seedlings survival
• Enhance growth
• Improve production
• Secure quality production
• Secure tree existence
• Prevent future damage
Controlled Harvesting
• Harvesting of leaves and fruit
• Coppicing
• Pollarding
• Lopping
• Bark protection
• Application of fire practices
• Complete harvest
• Prevent tree damage
• Enhance re-growth
• Secure future existence
Table 8. Observed tree management practices in the research area
39
erosion and flooding might have a more positive effect on actual crop production than the possible
negative effect the tree might have due to their specific water use characteristics. The use of native
trees like Cordia africana and Acacia for their ecological function can also have positive effects on soil
conditions and crop production. For policy implementation to increase forest cover in the research
area this indicates that the integration of Cordia africana, Acacia and Eucalyptus for their ecological
function in farm fields should be further encouraged.
Third, it is shown that in the research area certain tree management practices might be
improved to enhance tree cover and sustainability (section 6.4.1). For policy implementation to
increase tree cover in the research area this indicates that information should be distributed
concerning practices to increase natural regeneration like planting of cuttings, transplanting of
wildlings and stimulation of root sprouting and sustainable practices to cure and prevent tree
diseases.
40
Chapter 7: Dynamics in local perceptions, tree utilization and tree
management practices
This chapter analyses the perceived factors influencing dynamics in tree utilization and tree
management practices. Variation in factors between Dirama and Dobi kebele are discussed, and an
evaluation of perceived influencing factors in the research area and wider scientific understanding is
provided. This chapter answers research question 3: ‘What are the perceived factors influencing
dynamics in tree utilization and tree management practices the research area?’.
This chapter shows that the local perception on tree function and value are dynamic and that
this is most influential in tree management practices.
7.1 Dynamics in perceptions on tree function and value
Local perceptions on tree function and value are influenced by dynamics in socio-cultural tree
valuation and local understanding of external factors. Trees are managed for their specific function
within a farm field and the value attached to it by the local population. Dynamics in perceived
function and value of trees manifest in changes in tree utilization and management practices.
Figure 9. Reasons mentioned for Tree planting
(Percentage of total reasons mentioned per species/ per plot/ per respondent)
Tree planting practices are a result of the locally perceived tree function and value. In the research
area the domestic consumption function of trees covers 26% of the total reasons given to plant trees ,
see Figure 9. The reason for which a tree is planted is given by every tree species in every plot per
respondent. Therefore, the high diversity in fruit tree species explains this relative high percentage of
trees planted for domestic consumption.
The second most important function for which a tree is planted is for house construction and
furniture, covering 20% of the total reasons mentioned and include Eucalyptus (48%) and Cordia
africana (25%). Trees planted for the third important function of marketing encompass those trees
also planted for household consumption and construction and furniture but which are marketed
when household demand is satisfied. These include also mainly Eucalyptus. The function for domestic
41
use of firewood and fencing, including live tree fencing, is the fourth main reason to plant trees and
include Eucalyptus (42%), Acacia (18%) and Croton macrostachyus (13%). Planting trees for their
conservational purpose, shade and beauty or future inheritance is practiced to a lesser extent.
Further additional tree functions like fodder, ceremonial purpose, medicine, special instruments
made of the wood, the smell it distributes or their special importance for bee-hives are occasionally
mentioned as a reason for tree planting.
The influence of the local agricultural office, or other agencies, to plant trees by seedlings
distribution is sometimes mentioned as a reason to plant. This is not as such related to the locally
perceived function and value of a tree, but rather the external tree valuation. The local valuation of
these introduced tree species is however low (Schinus molle, Sesbania sesban and Chamaecytisus
proliferus), due to limited understanding about their function. Trees of this kind are therefore often
removed shortly after planting.
7.1.1 Dynamics in perceived productive value
Local valuation of trees for their productive function has been changing over time in the research
area. Of all trees existing in the research area, the exotic Eucalyptus tree has always been, and still is,
perceived as the most important tree for house construction and for firewood, fencing and
marketing purposes. It has been mentioned that the native tree Juniperus procera was also
important for construction more than 20 years ago, but this was a result of the scarce availability of
Eucalyptus at that time.
The domestic demand for firewood and fencing material influences the productive valuation
of trees like especially Eucalyptus and Acacia. The perception on the function and value of fruit trees
in the household farming system increased in response to enhanced understanding of the
consumption and marketing possibilities. The economic valuation of trees increased due to
broadened understanding and actual situation of the market situation. The introduction of the
sawmill in Butajira District town and the increased demand for timber influenced the increased in
monetary value of trees like Eucalyptus, Cordia africana, Acacia, Cupressus lusitanica and Grevillea
robusta. This augmented the local valuation of these trees for their productive function, with which
purposeful regeneration practices and protection and maintenance practices increased.
7.1.2 Dynamics in perceived ecological value
A broadened understanding of tree functions going beyond their marketing possibilities by
encompassing the ecological function for soil improvement and environmental stabilization has
further increased local tree valuation and influenced tree management practices. In total 65%
respondents mention the ecological value of trees for the micro-climate or for soil improvement
explicitly. Cordia africana and Acacia trees are evaluated as the most important trees for soil
improvement by 32% and 25% respectively of the total mentioned trees for soil improvement. The
local understanding of the ecological function of these trees has especially increased over the past
years. The current local valuation for the ecological function along with enhanced possibilities for
income generating activities with these trees has enhanced their general local valuation. This has
mainly brought about an increase in purposeful regeneration practices and protection and
maintenance of these trees.
An increased understanding about erosion and erosion-risks, soil fertility and possible
enhancement by trees and trees’ contribution to local micro-climate has changed local perception on
the ecological value of especially Eucalyptus. The specific tree characteristic of Eucalyptus is
mentioned by the respondents as a determining factor to plant large numbers at one field and at
which specific location. Eucalyptus is perceived as having a bad influence on the soil, because of
which it is not integrated with crops. Eucalyptus is furthermore perceived as the only tree which
almost always grows and survives in dry weather conditions and is therefore planted on land
unsuitable for cultivation. Eucalyptus is planted on unproductive land, on areas with steep slopes or
on fields with high erosion risk, with an increase in these specific planting practices since the last 10
42
years. Eucalyptus is also increasingly planted in order to prevent erosion and flooding of other fields
when planted along streams, as discussed in section 6.1.2.
The increased valuation for trees’ ecological function further enhanced the local perception
on the importance of trees for their beauty and provision of shade. The value of trees for the nations’
development and international wellbeing (in relation to climate change) has been mentioned by one
respondent, information he obtained by the radio.
7.1.3 Dynamics in perceived cultural-religious value
The locally perceived cultural-religious function and value of the Adbar-tree which is worshipped in
time of problem, has always prevented people from utilization and harvesting the tree or tree
products. The increased local understanding of, or perception on, the importance of monotheistic
religion has changed the local valuation of these religious trees and therewith influenced the
harvesting practices.
The valuation and utilization of Rhamnus prinoides for local ceremonial purpose has changed
over time. As it used to be a beverage mainly for church-ceremonies, the consumption of it in
informal gatherings is currently also important. Planting practices of this tree have increased after
the Derg regime with 93% of this tree being planted in the current government.
7.2 Perceived factors influencing tree management practices
In addition to dynamics in local tree value and function, different factors are perceived to have
influenced local tree management practices in the research area.
7.2.1 Perceived influence of external factors on purposeful regeneration practices
The governmental transitions from the Haile Sellassie period to the Derg regime (1975) and from the
Derg regime to the current government (1991) are perceived as having influenced tree planting
practices in the research area. In the first transition lands became available for individual farmers,
and tree were planted to claim these lands. At the same time more trees from communal or unused
land were harvested in large numbers to clear the land for agriculture. From former landowners land
was taken away to distribute among other farmers. It has been mentioned that this motivated
former landowners to plant large numbers of Eucalyptus on remaining land as alternative income
generating activities.
During the Derg period, the external encouragement and force by the government has
brought about an increase in tree planting practices, especially concerning Eucalyptus and Cupressus
lusitanica. While these trees were planted in large numbers on communal lands, people also
increasingly planted them on private farm fields. The availability of tree seedlings during this period
also influenced planting practices of Schinus molle, even though these trees were not valued as
having any advantage for the household.
After the second governmental transition new market possibilities for trees and tree
products increased and therewith enhanced local valuation of trees. More tree seedlings were
introduced by the current government and information on the importance of trees for both their
productive and ecological value was distributed. The planting practices of a variety of fruit trees and
other exotic trees like Grevillea robusta, Sesbania sesban and Jacaranda mimosifolia therewith
increased. Local understanding about the importance of fruit trees for household consumption
enlarged local demand for fruit tree seedlings.
Furthermore, the broadened understanding about the ecological and productive function of
native trees is perceived as influencing facilitation practices for natural regeneration. Especially in the
last 10 years facilitation practices of native trees augmented, locally explained as a response to
education about the ecological value of trees on behalf of the local Development Agents per kebele.
43
Perceived restrictions in tree planting
Perceived restrictions are an important factors influencing planting practices wherein land shortage
is the most important restriction to increase planting practices. This mainly refers to Eucalyptus
trees18
because these trees are always planted in large numbers. The necessity to use fertile land for
crop production and the perceived low advantage of integrating crops with trees restricts people to
plant more. Related to this is the perceived rule that Eucalyptus should not be planted in or near
cultivated fields.
Other restrictions to plant more fruit and other trees are mainly a lack of water and infertility
of the soil for both crops and trees. More perceived restrictions to tree planting are given in Box 319
.
The danger of wildlife damaging fruit trees is an important perceived restriction in Dobi kebele where
monkeys, porcupines and warthogs are a big problem for both crops and young trees. When asking
about restriction to plant trees in history, lack of knowledge on the advantage of trees is mentioned.
The limited availability of tree seedlings is perceived as an important restriction in tree
planting especially concerning fruit trees suitable for the specific environment and native trees like
Acacia and Cordia africana.
7.2.2 Perceived influence of external factors on practices for tree conservation
Rules and regulations concerning trees are perceived as influencing protection, maintenance and
controlled harvesting practices of trees to a certain extend. The frequent mentioned rule which
prohibits tree harvesting on both communal and private lands has reduced harvesting practices
concerning large trees on communal land, but it has not influenced harvesting trees on private land.
These are harvested in accordance with people’s demand.
Improvement of infrastructure in the research area has influenced marketing possibilities and
therewith controlled harvesting practices. The frequency and intensity of harvesting practices has
increased as a result of the improved possibility for external buyers to reach the resource area where
tree can be bought. The increase in demand and price of trees are related to the increased harvesting
practices.
Changing dynamics in dry and rainy periods over the last years is perceived as having
influenced both controlled harvesting practices and protection and maintenance practices but with
different perceived results. The dry period of the past three years has influenced an increase in
harvesting practices to gain money for food according to some respondents, but is has also
decreased harvesting practices to conserve and preserve the only resource still available according to
18
The use of the Amharic word ‘zaf’ has influenced this question because ‘zaf’ is locally assigned to Eucalyptus, sometimes
loosing the meaning of ‘tree’ in general. 19
Information obtained for this box is by a combination of informal interviews, household questionnaires and focus-group
questionnaires asking why people don’t plant. Information in Figure 9 ‘Reasons for tree planting’ which is obtained by
household questionnaires, asked for reason to plant per tree/ per field/ per farmer.
Box 3.
Perceived restriction for tree planting
• Shortage of land/Field is for cultivating
crops
• Trees disadvantage crops
• Unavailability of seedlings
• Soil is not fertile
• Trees take fertility of the soil
• Lack of knowledge on advantage
• Lack of ownership of land
• Fields are too far away
• Animals destroy the trees
• Lack of time and labour
• Lack of water
44
other respondents. A decrease in harvesting practices in response to a lower demand because of
very limited investment possibilities by external buyers has also been mentioned. The dry period of
the past three years has furthermore influenced changes in productivity and actual growth of trees,
and therewith intensified protection and maintenance practices. The reduction of the productivity of
fruit trees as a result of changes in rainfall and temperature, increased age and increased existence
of diseases has enhanced local tree maintenance practices. This has increased the frequency of
pruning tree roots and branches.
A reduced importance of cultural traditions and increased understanding about monotheistic
religion is also perceived as having influenced tree protection practices of especially Ficus trees.
While worshipping of the Adbar-tree was common in former periods and harvesting practices were
impossible, the current reduced importance of the Adbar-tree has increased harvesting practices.
Currently more of these trees are cut and ceremonial use of the tree is banned or only secretly
practiced, and future harvest of these trees is also very frequently considered.
7.3 Different perceptions in two kebeles
Differences in perceptions between Dirama and Dobi kebele are observed influencing dynamics in
tree utilization and management practices.
The overall opinion on the role and importance of trees for their ecological, cultural and
productive function differ slightly. The increasing positive valuation of trees and the optimistic
perception on the ecological and cultural function, is more dominant in Dirama kebele than in Dobi
kebele. The actual existence and practice of the Development Agents (from the local Agricultural
Office) in Dirama kebele, while highly absent in Dobi kebele, might have had its influence on this. The
perception on the importance of preserving large trees for environmental protection in Dobi kebele
differs from the perception in Dirama kebele to increase the number of trees for environmental
protection. This can be explained by the shorter distance in Dobi kebele to more forested area, and
therewith more trees, than in Dirama kebele.
The differences in perception on the actual value of trees for the purposes of firewood and
fencing influence the actual harvesting practices and utilization concerning these tree species. In
Dirama kebele Acacia is perceived as best for fencing, and Eucalyptus for firewood, see Figure 10. In
Dobi kebele Eucalyptus is evaluated best for fencing, and for firewood both Acacia and Eucalyptus
are ranked as the best. Planting and protection practices concerning Eucalyptus are similar, but the
actual harvesting frequencies and use of Eucalyptus for fencing in Dobi is much higher than in Dirama,
discussed in section 6.3.1.
45
Figure 10. Tree species perceived as best for firewood and fencing
The cultural-religious Adbar-tree is in Dobi kebele absent, and in Dirama kebele present but
decreasing in importance. This decrease in Dirama kebele is influenced by an increase in
understanding about monotheistic religion and the increasing importance of religious-leaders after
the Derg regime. In Dobi kebele it seems that the cultural valuation of the Adbar-tree has already
disappeared more than 40 years ago, before the start of the Derg regime.
Perceived restrictions in tree planting differ slightly between Dirama and Dobi kebele. In both
kebeles the main restriction to plant more trees is land shortage. In Dirama kebele the lack of fertile
ground and water further negatively influence initiatives to plant more trees. In Dobi kebele the lack
of time and money, infertility of the ground and the risk of wild animals destroying their trees are
important. While in Dirama kebele future intentions of tree planting are discouraged because of pre-
mature dying of trees as a result of dry soils, in Dobi kebele the existence and danger of wild animals
and plant diseases are hampering. Also the existence and frequent occurrence of disease on Coffea
arabica and Citrus trees is important in Dobi kebele. The disappointment of damaged fruit trees by
disease infection restricts planting intentions. The decreased productivity due to this plant disease
has intensified tree protection and maintenance practices.
7.4 Discussion
7.4.1 Dynamics in local perceptions, tree utilization and tree management practices
Results show that the farming conditions, household characteristics and tree characteristics influence
socio-cultural tree valuation and perception on tree function and value. Locally perceived changes in
market opportunities, rules and regulations and environmental circumstances also influence local
tree valuation.
An overview of these locally perceived factors influencing dynamics in tree utilization and
management practices in the research area is given in Table 9. It should be noticed that not all
factors equally influence different management practices. In Annex VI a table is presented in which
tree management practices are analyzed for specific tree species.
46
Locally perceived factors influencing…
Factors …utilization …purposeful
regeneration
…protection and
maintenance
…controlled
harvesting
Socio-cultural tree valuation
• Perceived tree value ++ ++ ++ ++
• Perceived tree function ++ ++ ++ ++
Farming system
• Farming system and
physiological characteristics
++ ++ + ++
• Land availability 0 ++ + +
Tree characteristics
• Tree physiological
characteristics
+ ++ ++ +
• Tree productivity ++ + ++ ++
Household characteristics
• Perceived capacity 0 ++ 0 0
• Income generating
activities
++ ++ + ++
• Cultural traditions ++ 0 0 ++
Economy of trees and tree products
• Economic value trees ++ ++ ++ ++
• Technological possibilities
(sawmill)
+ + + +
• Infrastructure ++ 0 0 ++
• Seedlings availability 0 ++ 0 0
Rules and Regulations
• Governmental policy + ++ 0 +
• Informal Land tenure
arrangement
0 ++ + 0
• Perceived rules and
regulations
0 + + +
Ecological and climatic circumstances
• Ecological conditions 0 ++ ++ 0
• Environmental change
(drought)
+ 0 ++ ++
From Table 9 it can be concluded that local perception on tree function and value is the most
important factor influencing local tree utilization and management practices. Other factors are also
important but not equally influencing all dimensions of people-tree interactions (i.e. tree utilization,
purposeful regeneration, protection and maintenance and controlled harvesting). Economic value of
trees influence most the local perception on tree value.
Arnold and Dewees (1997) argue that the availability of land, labour and capital are
determinant for the decisions taken concerning management intensity of trees in farm fields.
However, these seem to be only of major importance on the decision whether or not to integrate
trees on household farmlands. The intensity of management practices concerning trees already
integrated on the farmlands depend more on the management need of the specific trees in different
environmental circumstances and the households perception concerning its’ value at different levels,
going beyond a focus on households’ assets. Other case studies analyzing the influence of a
reduction in availability of the tree resources with a resulting increase in tree planting activities (Den
Hertog and Wiersum, 2000; Byg and Balslev, 2006; Schuren and Snelder, 2008) do not correspond
with the presented findings.
Table 9. Perceived factors influencing tree utilization and tree management practices
( 0 No influence/ + Small influence/++ Large influence)
47
Local land and tree tenure arrangements seem not to be of major importance determining
tree management practices (as discussed in Chapter 5). Rules and regulations do influence tree
management practices to a certain extend. The local understanding and perception on the existing
rules and regulations however might differ from the actual ones. For example, the most frequent
mentioned rule in the research area concerning Eucalyptus, Box 4, can not be traced in the official
forest proclamation of the region (FDRE, 2007). The lack of control on rules prevent people from
actually living the rules. Changes in agencies responsible for the actual practice of rules is perceived
as slightly affecting tree harvesting practices in Dirama kebele, where it is mentioned to harvest less
trees in practice of these rules. This however is in contrast with responses confirming to harvest
more trees as a result of increased price and demand.
Factors influencing the observed increase in tree planting practices over time (chapter 5)
between the Haile Sellassie period and the Derg regime can be explained by two reasons. First,
approximately half of the respondents obtained their land officially in the first half of the Derg
regime by the land distribution from former land-owners (25%) or by inheritance around that time
(65%). The total numbers of trees planted in the research area (Figure 4) include trees planted by
other people on the respondents’ private fields; mainly trees planted by fathers of respondents
before they inherited it to their children. Secondly, the observed increase in planted trees relates to
the policy in the Derg Regime to reforest Ethiopia. The Derg policy to plant Eucalyptus and Cupressus
lusitanica in large numbers on communal land had influence on individual planting practices and is
often mentioned as reasons to plant Eucalyptus on private farm fields. It can therefore be concluded
that the actual policy in the Derg government to plant trees on communal lands also encouraged
individual planting practices on private lands.
The observed increasing valuation of trees’ productive and ecological function correspond to
other international case studies where the increasing perceived importance of trees and tree
products resulted in an increased integration of trees in private farm fields (Mulatu and Kassa, 2001;
Zubair and Garforth, 2006; Krause et al., 2007; Chukwuone, 2009). The perceived restriction of land
shortage for tree planting practices in combination with increase on tree importance in the research
area might have influenced tree protection and maintenance practices. The existence of trees for
future use or as inheritance for future generations is secured when no more trees can be planted.
The broadened understanding about local, national and international ecological value is a result of
information and education in the research area.
7.4.2 Policy implications
This Chapter has presented insights in dynamics in local perceptions influencing tree valuation, tree
utilization and tree management practices. For policy aiming to increase forest cover these insights
are important for different reasons.
First, it is shown that local perceptions on the function and value of trees is highly influential
for tree utilization and tree management practices concerning specific tree species in local farm
fields (section 7.1). The local perception on tree function and value can differ from a scientific
perception on tree function and value. Projects encouraging integration of trees in farm fields should
understand local perceptions on tree function and value. For policy implementation to increase tree
cover this indicates that local understanding about the function of newly introduced tree species
should be secured.
Box. 4
Perceived rules concerning trees
• Don’t plant Eucalyptus in or near cultivated fields
• Don’t cut trees without permission
• Don’t plant or cut trees on communal land
• Don’t transport wood without permission
48
Second, it is shown that the perception on the function and value of trees can change over
time (section 7.1). Tree species integrated in farm fields receive certain management practices for
their function, but as their function and values change, related tree management practices also
change. For policy aiming to increase tree cover understanding dynamics in perceived function and
value of trees is important because the sustainability of local tree management practices are
therewith also dynamic.
Third, it is shown that many external factors are perceived as influencing local tree
management practices (section 7.2). For policy aiming to increase forest cover it is important to
recognize that local tree management practices are adapted to many locally perceived changes in
wider environmental-, economical-, political- ,social- and institutional- settings.
Fourth, it is shown that local understanding about rules and regulations concerning trees,
and the actual control on these rules and regulations, influence local tree management practices for
tree conservation (7.2.2). For policy aiming to increase tree cover by preventing local tree harvesting
practices, it is important to enhance local understanding about rules and regulations concerning
trees and to implement these rules and regulations by active control.
Fifth, it is shown that local perceptions on tree function and value and external influencing
factors differ among and within communities and that tree utilization and tree management
practices therewith also differ within and among communities (section 7.3). For policy aiming at
increased tree cover it is important to recognize heterogeneity within and among communities, and
adapt policy and practice to specific local situations as much as possible.
Sixth, it is shown that education and distribution of information influences dynamics in tree
utilization and tree management practices (section 7.4.1). For policy aiming to increase forest cover it
is highly significant to enhance local education about the importance of trees for wider society
beyond the household, and therewith increase local tree valuation to encourage tree conservation.
For policy aiming at increased tree cover in the research area, it is important to recognize
that the unavailability of tree seedlings is perceived as a main restriction for tree planting (section
7.2.1). This indicates that the availability of tree seedlings should be improved in the research area.
49
Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusion
8.1 Methodological reflections
Results presented in this research should be considered taking into account the applied methodology.
The selection of two research sites with contrasting characteristics within the research area was an
important methodological consideration, but no major differences in tree utilization and tree
management practices were observed. Therefore the thesis mainly focuses on the research area as
an entity, and points out differences between the research sites when relevant.
Furthermore, three main aspects of primary data collection might have influenced the
obtained information. First, selection of respondents with the help of key-informants and snowball
sampling and respondents’ willingness to cooperate might have given an inadequate representation
of the population. Second, the challenge of gaining farmers’ trust, the length of interviews and the
difficulty of questions about the past might have influenced the truthfulness of obtained information.
Third, the help of a translator when doing interviews might have resulted in loss of information and
an incorrect interpretation of respondents’ answers. Triangulation has been applied aiming to
overcome possible errors in primary data collected. Therefore, the results present in this thesis
provide an indication of tree utilization, tree management practices and dynamics therein around
Butajira District Town.
The understanding and interpretation of the local practices observed in the research area
were shaped according to the theoretical insights and conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2.
The understanding of human-environment relations as dynamic social-ecological system has shaped
the core for understanding current practices. The perception that human and their environment are
mutually influencing each other has resulted in first a focus on perceived dynamics in the
environmental conditions from a human’s perspective (Chapter 5), after which the human
interaction with the environment is described as a representation in people-tree interactions
(Chapter 6). A detailed analysis of the influence of dynamics in local perceptions of the value of tree
resources and people’s understanding about changes in the wider settings (Chapter 7) is a
consequence of the researchers’ conviction that understanding ‘how’ and ‘why’ human-environment
relations change is important. Considering the understanding that trees are locally used and
managed for their different functions has increased the focus on diversity in tree species throughout
the research. The conviction that tree management practices are a manifestation of local knowledge
and understanding about the environment has furthermore influenced the methodological
applications for obtaining primary data information. The application of semi-structured interviews
with open questions and many informal interviews decreased the possibility to pose subjective
questions directing answers to a preconceived idea about certain aspects influencing tree
management practices. The applied methodology therewith broadened the understanding about the
local perceptions on influencing factors, including verification of these perceived factors and main
factors considered in literature with other respondents.
8.2 Dynamics in people-tree interactions reviewed
Understanding local dynamics in livelihood strategies in specific human-environment relations is
important when planning adaptation possibilities to future changes in the environment (Abebe, 1988;
Smit and Wandel, 2006). A detailed understanding of dynamics in local tree utilization and
management practices and related local perceptions in an Ethiopian context is therefore important
with an eye on the increasing threat of environmental disasters and their impact on local livelihoods.
From analysis of the research area it can be concluded that changes in tree cover and
composition are influenced by local tree utilization and management practices. Dynamics in local
50
people-tree interactions are a manifestation of changes in local perceptions on the function and
value of trees and the local understanding about external influencing factors.
The primary reason to plant trees in the farm fields in the research area is to meet household
demand for construction timber, firewood and fruit (Figure 9), and is similar to other case studies in
Ethiopia (Duguma and Hager, 2010 a) and to case studies in other parts of the world like Cedamon et
al. (2005) in the Philippines. Taking into account also the active management of trees for their
ecological function in the research area contributes to the international perception that on-farm
trees are crucial for the existence and sustainability of rural livelihoods (Arnold, 1997; Leakey and
Simons, 1998).
With efforts to increase tree cover during the Derg regime Eucalyptus trees were widely
distributed, and in the present time the abundance of Eucalyptus in the research area is tremendous.
From the presented results it can be concluded that Eucalyptus is much used for domestic firewood
and fencing as shown in Figure 8. Taking into account that the reason to plant trees for firewood and
fencing is high (Figure 9), and the use of on-farm trees for firewood and fencing is also high (Figure 6),
it can be concluded that Eucalyptus is highly valued for domestic use in the research area. While
Eucalyptus is by external agents mostly seen as being of major importance for construction wood for
both rural houses as for the large number of construction-activities in cities, the importance of
Eucalyptus for individual households might be overlooked.
The ecological service of trees on farms does not only contribute to local soil conditions and
stability, but are also proven to be important for landscape based biodiversity (Boffa et al., 2009).
Related to this, the expansion of Eucalyptus should be acknowledged for their likely positive
ecological impacts such as reduction of erosion, increased biomass and watershed protection when
planted on hillsides and degraded lands (Jagger and Pender, 2003). The observed planting practices
of Eucalyptus for their ecological function to prevent erosion and flooding (section 6.1.2) and the
high value for domestic use implies that the integration of Eucalyptus in farm fields should be
considered a good option for environmental stability and rural development in Ethiopia.
As a response to the dominant international debate about global changes and impact on
local livelihoods, local adaptation practices to climate change are discussed with local respondents in
the research area. Changes in the climate are observed by 93% of the respondents focusing on
perceived drought in the past three to five years with good rain and temperature in the current year.
The effect of these changes on trees are perceived as minimal, only affecting newly planted seedlings.
Increased planting practices or dynamics in protection and maintenance practices are not observed.
No increased planting practices of specific tree species are observed in relation to a decline in tree
species as discussed in section 5.5, and the contrasting responses of harvesting intensity in the past
five years related to drought and crop failure as discussed in 7.2.2, do not indicate changes in tree
management practices due to changing resource availability and climate. Locally perceived increased
monetary value of trees and tree products is more influential on actual tree utilization and
management practices. Increased planting practices and protection and maintenance of existing
trees are perceived in response to increased perceived tree function and value. This might indicate
that the international focus on local adaptations to climate change as adaptations to natural resource
availability and risk, is not as important as argued (Adger et al., 2005).
The governmental aim to increase tree cover in Ethiopia is related to the desire to enhance
national economy, improve environmental stability and increase availability of forest resources
(FDRE, 2007). The aim to increase forest cover in Ethiopia by other non-governmental organizations
is for example to gain physical recovery in result to deforestation, soil erosion and land degradation
(ETFF, 2009), to combat climate change and to create a safer and healthier environment for
Ethiopia’s future generations (UNICEF, 2007), and to restore degraded land and increase crop
productivity while yielding tree products like fruits, fodder, medicinal plants, firewood and
construction wood (TftF, Unknown). Taking also into account the FAO projection that the use of
firewood in Africa will increase drastically to 2030, with more than 2 times the demand in all other
developing regions of the world (Arnold et al., 2006), increasing tree cover in Ethiopia is crucial.
Enabling an increase in trees on farms will not only contribute to satisfy household demand by
51
increasing the availability of tree products but also contribute to environmental stabilization, a
healthy environment and enhanced landscape based biodiversity.
8.2.1 Conclusion
• The changes in tree cover and composition in the farm fields of the research area over time are
mainly an increase in number of trees and a shift from communal land to cultivated land and
Eucalyptus have most influenced changes in species composition.
• Current local tree utilizations and tree management practices in the research area are
specific for different tree species. In general trees are most used within the household,
Eucalyptus and native trees are most used for their ecological function and fruit trees receive
most specific tree management practices.
• Perceived factors influencing dynamics in tree utilization and tree management practices in
the research area are many, but local perception on tree function and value is the main
factor.
8.3 Relevant insights in dynamics in people-tree interactions
Essential Insights from the analysis of tree utilization and tree management practices that can
contribute to policies aiming to increase forest cover are the following;
• Tree management practices are dynamic. Tree management practices can change over time
and within and among different local communities within a relative small area. Policies
aiming at increased tree cover should be flexible and adapt to local situations
• The local perception on the function and value of tree species highly influences tree utilization
and tree management practices. Local perceptions on the value of tree influences
sustainability and understanding the importance of trees and specific tree species for local
people enhances local cooperation to increase tree cover
• Local understanding about changes in the wider environmental, economical, political, social
and institutional setting influences local tree utilization and tree management practices.
Aspects of the setting in which people live are locally interpreted and determine tree
utilization and tree management practices. There are many factors which can be perceived
as influencing dynamics in local people-tree interactions with both positive as negative
impact on tree cover
• Local understanding about ecological value of tree species increase tree management
practices. Trees are integrated within farm fields for their ecological service and therewith
enhance local environmental stability
• Perceived influencing factors are not always in line with actual aspects of wider society.
Especially concerning rules and regulations the local perception can differ from the intention
with which they are created, wherewith successful practice of these rules and regulations
can be very limited
• Tree planting is not the only tree management practice influencing tree cover and
composition. Local practices to facilitate natural regeneration contribute to the increasing
52
number of trees in farm fields and protection and maintenance practices and controlled
utilization contribute to a sustainable existence of trees
• Selected species within reforestation projects should meet local demands and be suitable for
environmental conditions. Locally desired trees for their specific function should be able to
grow in the specific environmental circumstances
The presented analysis of tree utilization and tree management practices in the two kebeles in the
Meskan District Ethiopia contribute to broadening the scientific insights in the complexity between
tree utilization and tree management practices, dynamics therein taking into account different tree
species and local perceptions, values and norms.
First of all this research shows the importance of analyzing tree management practices taking
into account purposeful regeneration, protection and maintenance and controlled harvesting going
beyond an evolutionary perspective. Herewith broadened insights are gained for understanding the
current people-tree interactions and the contribution of on-farm trees to forest cover in an
agriculture dominated landscape.
The presented analysis furthermore argues for an elaboration of the scientific perspective on
local adaptation practices. The demonstrated importance of socio-cultural tree valuation and local
understanding about external factors influencing dynamics in local practices should be given more
attention in further research. The dominant analysis of the importance of households’ assets,
composition and location and external factors influencing local human-environment interactions
(Arnold and Dewees, 1995; Franzel and scherr, 2002) should incorporate local perceptions.
Integration of the local rationalization and underlying socio-cultural values and norms locally
perceived in people’s private activities will complement scientific understanding. By focusing on the
local perceptions on human-environment interactions this research contributes to the international
debate about the importance of local cooperation to reach environmental stabilization to combat
wide problems related to global changes (Olsson et al., 2004; Smit and Wandel, 2006).
8.4 Recommendations
8.4.1 Policy recommendations
Important aspects of the local tree utilization and tree management practices around Butajira District
town which should be taken into account in policy:
• Recognize the local importance of Eucalyptus- and Acacia-trees for firewood and fencing
within the household
• Recognize the importance of purposeful facilitation practices concerning native trees and
protection and maintenance practices for tree regeneration
• Recognize the locally perceived importance of Cordia africana and Acacia-trees for their
ecological function
• Recognize that the functions of formerly introduced tree species are locally unknown and
trees are therefore not managed or removed short after planting (including Schinus molle,
Sesbania sesban, Chamaecytisus proliferus and Jacaranda mimosifolia)
• Recognize that perceived lack of seedlings availability is an important restriction to planting
practices
• Recognize that increased understanding of the ecological value of trees for the local, national
and international environment reduces tree harvesting practices mainly concerning native
large trees
• Recognize that tree utilization and management practices are dynamic over time and within
and among households
53
The most important result for the research area presented in this thesis are:
• Local planting practices do not increase in response to a decline in the availability of
resources
• Different governmental regimes have much influence on local tree cover and composition
• Eucalyptus is not only important for construction but also for domestic use and ecological
services
• Native trees are of increasing importance
Therewith, recommendations for improvement of local practices around Butajira District town to
increase tree cover are:
• Distribute seedlings of native tree species mainly Acacia abyssinica, Acacia albidia and Cordia
africana
• Make seedlings of fruit trees available which are suitable for the local environmental
conditions
• Distribute information and education about the ecological importance of trees
• Distribute information about actual rules and regulations and the reasons behind
• Distribute information about practices to regenerate native trees like transplanting of
wildlings, planting of cuttings and stimulation of root sprouting
• Distribute information about possibilities to cure diseases affecting mainly Coffea arabica
and Citrus sinensis, Citrus aurantifolia and Citrus medica
• Increase control on the practice of rules and regulations
8.4.2 Research recommendations
• Quantitative analysis on actual tree management practices in the research area is needed. As
this study has provided an indication of tree utilization and tree management practices a
quantification of the actual practices will contribute to a deepened understanding of the
local relation between people and trees.
• Identification of the main actors aiming at increased forest cover in Ethiopia is needed
wherein their project structure, interlinkages and field practices are analyzed.
• Analysis of the relation between household characteristics and dynamics in tree
management practices is needed to complement locally perceived factors influencing these
dynamics.
• Analysis of the ecological changes in the environment and the actual influence of trees on
the environmental situation is needed. The influence of different species on environmental
conditions should therein be taken into account.
54
References
Abebe, T. (1988). Integration of Trees in Farmers' Land-use Systems (A Case Study in Haykoch and
Butajira Awraja-Central Ethiopia).Thesis. Wageningen University. Wageningen, Wageningen-
University:119
Adger, N. W., N. W. Arnell and E. L. Tompkins (2005). "Successful adaptation to climate change across
scales." Global Environmental Change Part A 15(2): 77-86.
Adger, W. N., S. Huq, Katrina, Brown, D. Conway and M. Hulme (2003). "Adaptation to climate
change in the developing world." Progress in Development Studies 3(3): 179-195.
Anderies, J. M., B. H. Walker and A. P. Kinzig (2006). "Fifteen weddings and a funeral: Case studies
and resilience-based management." Ecology and Society 11(1): 12.
Arnold, J. E. M. and P. A. Dewees, Eds. (1995). Farms, Trees and Farmers. Responses to Agricultural
Intensification. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Arnold, J. E. M., G. Köhlin and R. Persson (2006). "Woodfuels, livelihoods, and policy interventions:
Changing Perspectives." World Development 34(3): 596-611.
Arnold, M. (1997). Framing the issues. In: M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (Eds.)(1997). Farms, Trees and
Farmers. Responses to Agricultural Intensification. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd. 3-11.
Arnold, M. and P. Dewees (1998). Rethinking Approaches to Tree Management by Farmers. Natural
Resource Perspectives, Overseas Development Insitute. 26: 10.
Arnold, M. and P. Dewees (1999). Trees in managed Landscapes: Factors in Farmer Decision Making.
In: L. Buck, J. Lassoie and E. Fernandes (Eds.)(1999). Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural
Systems. Florida, CRC Press. 277-294.
Augusseau, X., P. Nikiema and E. Torquebiau (2006). "Tree biodiversity, land dynamics and farmers'
strategies on the agricultural frontier of southwestern Burkina Faso." Biodiversity and
Conservation 15(2): 613-630.
Ayenew, T. (2007). "Water management problems in the Ethiopian rift: Challenges for development."
Journal of African Earth Sciences 48: 222-236.
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Belmont, USA, Wadsworth Pub Co.
Bannister, M. E. and P. K. R. Nair (2003). "Agroforestry adoption in Haiti: the importance of
household and farm characteristics." Agroforestry Systems 57(2): 149-157.
Bekele-Tesemma, A. (2007). Useful trees and shrubs of Ethiopia: Identification, Propagation and
Management for 17 Agroclimatic Zones. Nairobi, Kenya, RELMA in ICRAF Project/ World
Agroforestry.
Bekele, M. (2003). Forest Property Rights, the Role of the State and Institutional Exigency: The
Ethiopian Experience. Rural Development Studies. Uppsala, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences. PhD: 227.
Bekele, M. (2003). Forest Property Rights, the Role of the State, and Institutional Exigency: The
Ethiopian Experience. Department of Rural Development Studies. Uppsala, Swedish
Universtiy of Agricultural Sciences. Doctoral, PhD: 227.
Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems; building resilience for
complexity and change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Berkes, F. and C. Folke (1998). Linking social and ecological systems; management and practices and
social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Berkes, F. and N. Turner (2006). "Knowledge, Learning and the Evolution of Conservation Practice for
Social-Ecological System Resilience." Human Ecology 34(4): 479-494.
Boffa, J.-M., L. Turyomurugyendo, J.-P. Barnekow-Lilles¸ and R. Kindt (2009). "Enhancing Farm Tree
Diversity as a Means of Conserving Landscape-based Biodiversity." Mountain Research and
Development 25(3): 212-217.
Boffa, J. (1999). Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa.FAO Conservation Guide. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome:231
55
Bruijn, M. d. and H. v. Dijk (2004). The Importance of Socio-Cultural Differences and of Pathway
Analysis for Understanding Local Actors' Responses. In: A. J. Dietz, R. Ruben and A. Verhagen
(Eds.)(2004). The Impact of Climate Change on Drylands: With a Focus on West-Africa, Kluwer
Academic Publishers. 341-362.
Byg, A. and H. Balslev (2006). "Palms in Indigenous and Settler Communities in Southeastern Ecuador:
Farmers’ Perceptions and Cultivation Practices." Agroforestry Systems 67(2): 147-158.
Cedamon, E. O., N. F. Emtage, J. Suh, J. L. Herbohn, S. R. Harrison and E. O. Mangaoang (2005).
"Present Tree Planting and Management Activities in Four Rural Communities in Leyte
Province, the Philippines." Annals of Tropical Research 27(1): 19-34.
Chambers, R. (1994 a). "The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal." World
Development 22(7): 953-969.
Chukwuone, N. (2009). "Socioeconomic determinants of cultivation of non-wood forest products in
southern Nigeria." Biodiversity and Conservation 18(2): 339-353.
De Jong, W. (2001). "Tree and forest management in the floodplains of the Peruvian Amazon." Forest
Ecology and Management 150(1-2): 125-134.
Degrande, A., K. Schreckenberg, C. Mbosso, P. Anegbeh, V. Okafor and J. Kanmegne (2006). "Farmers'
fruit tree-growing strategies in the humid forest zone of Cameroon and Nigeria."
Agroforestry Systems 67(2): 159-175.
Den Hertog, W. H. and K. F. Wiersum (2000). "Timur (Zanthoxylum armatum) production in Nepal -
Dynamics in nontimber forest resource management." Mountain Research and Development
20(2): 136-145.
Dessie, G. and C. Christiansson (2008). "Forest Decline and Its Causes in the South-Central Rift Valley
of Ethiopia: Human Impact over a One Hundred Year Perspective." AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment 37(4): 263-271.
Dessie, G. and J. Kleman (2007). "Pattern and Magnitude of Deforestation in the South Central Rift
Valley Region of Ethiopia." Mountain Research and Development 27(2): 162-168.
Dhillion, S. S. and G. Gustad (2004). "Local management practices influence the viability of the
baobab (Adansonia digitata Linn.) in different land use types, Cinzana, Mali." Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment 101(1): 85-103.
Duguma, L. and H. Hager (2010 a). "Woody Plants Diversity and Possession, and Their Future
Prospects in Small-Scale Tree and Shrub Growing in Agricultural Landscapes in Central
Highlands of Ethiopia." Small-Scale Forestry 9(2): 153-174.
Duguma, L. and H. Hager (2010 b). "Consumption and species preference for house construction
wood in central highlands of Ethiopia — implications for enhancing tree growing." Journal of
Forestry Research 21(1): 104-110.
Emtage, N. and J. Suh (2004). "Socio-economic factors affecting smallholder tree planting and
management intentions in Leyte Province, Philippines." Small-Scale Forestry 3(2): 257-270.
ETFF (2009). "Ethiopian Tree Fund Foundation." Retrieved August 8, 2010, from http://www.etff.org/.
Fairhead, J. and M. Leach (1995). "False Forest History, Complicit Social Analysis: Rethinking Some
West African Environmental Narrative." World Development 23(6): 1023-1035.
FAO (2009). State of the World's Forest. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
FDRE, The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2007). Forest Development, Conservation and
Utilization Proclamation, 542/2007. Addis Ababa: 17.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson and J. Norberg (2005). "Adaptive governance of social-ecological
systems." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441-473.
Franzel, S. and S. scherr, Eds. (2002). Trees on the Farm. Assessing the Adoption Potential of
Agroforestry Practices in Africa. CAB International. New York, CABI Publishing and ICRAF.
Franzel, S. and S. J. Scherr (2002). Introduction. In: S. Franzel and S. J. Scherr (Eds.)(2002). Trees on
the Farm. Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry Practices in Africa. New York,
CABI Publishing. 1-10.
Frazer, J. G. (1922). The Golden Bough, First published 1922. Republished 2008, Forgotten Books.
56
Gallopin, G. C. (2006). "Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity." Global
Environmental Change 16: 293-303.
Gallopin, G. C., P. Gutman and H. Maletta (1989). "Global Impoverishment, Sustainable Development
and the Environment- A Conceptual Approach." International Social Science Journal 41(3):
375-397.
Geda, A. (2007). The Political Economy of Growth in Ethiopia. In: B. Ndulu, S. O'Connell, J.-P. Azam, R.
Bates, A. Fosu, J. W. Gunning and D. Njinkeu (Eds.)(2007). The Political Economy of Economic
Growth in Africa, 1960-2000: Country Case Studies. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ Pr. 116-139.
Grothmann, T. and A. Patt (2005). "Adaptive capacity and human cognition:The process of individual
adaptation to climate change." Global Environmental Change 15: 199-213.
Gual, M. A. and R. B. Norgaard (2010). "Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review
and proposal." Ecological Economics 69(4): 707-717.
Hoch, L., B. Pokorny and W. De Jong (2009). "How successful is tree growing for smallholders in the
Amazon?" International Forestry Review 11(3): 299-310.
Holmgren, P., E. J. Masakha and H. Sjoholm (1994). "Not All African Land Is Being Degraded: A Recent
Survey of Trees on Farms in Kenya Reveals Rapidly Increasing Forest Resources." Ambio 23(7):
390-395.
Howden, S. M., J.-F. Soussana, F. N. Tubiello, N. Chhetri, M. Dunlop and H. Meinke (2007). "Adapting
agriculture to climate change." PNAS 104(50): 19691-19696.
Ite, U. E. (2005). "Tree integration in homestead farms in southeast Nigeria: propositions and
evidence." Geographical Journal 171(3): 209-222.
Jagger, P. and J. Pender (2003). "The role of trees for sustainable management of less-favored lands:
the case of eucalyptus in Ethiopia." Forest Policy and Economics 5(1): 83-95.
Jansen, H., H. Hengsdijk, D. Legesse, T. Ayenew, P. Hellegers and P. Spliethoff (2007). Land and water
resources assessment in the Ethiopian Central Rift valley.Alterra-rapport 1587. Alterra.
Wageningen, Wageningen-University:81
Krause, M., H. Uibrig and B. Kidane (2007). "Decision modelling for the integration of woody plants in
smallholder farms in the central highlands of ethiopia." Journal of Agriculture and Rural
Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 108(1): 1-17.
Kumar, B. M. and P. K. R. Nair (2004). "The enigma of tropical homegardens." Agroforestry Systems
61-62(1): 135-152.
Leakey, R. and A. Simons (1997). "The domestication and commercialization of indigenous trees in
agroforestry for the alleviation of poverty." Agroforestry Systems 38(1): 165-176.
Leakey, R. and A. Simons (1998). "The domestication and commercialization of indigenous trees in
agroforestry for the alleviation of poverty." Agroforestry Systems 38(1): 165-176.
Leakey, R. and T. Tomich (1999). Domestication of Tropical Trees: From Biology to Economics and
Policy. In: L. Buck, J. Lassoie and E. Fernandes (Eds.)(1999). Agoforestry in Sustainable
Agricultural Systems. Florida, CRC Press. 319-338.
Legesse, D. and T. Ayenew (2006). "Effect of improper water and land resource utilization on the
central Main Ethiopian Rift lakes." Quaternary International 148: 8-18.
Lemos, M. C., E. Boyd, E. L. Tompkins, H. Osbahr and D. Liverman (2007). "Developing Adaptation and
Adapting Development." Ecology and Society 12(2): 4.
Lengkeek, A. G. (2003). Diversity makes a difference. Farmers managing inter- and intra- specific tree
species diversity in Meru Kenya. Planttaxonomie. Wageningen, Wageningen University. PhD:
191.
Liu, J., T. Dietz, S. R. Carpenter, C. Folke, M. Alberti, C. L. Redman, S. H. Schneider, E. Ostrom, A. N.
Pell, J. Lubchenco, W. W. Taylor, Z. Ouyang, P. Deadman, T. Kratz and W. Provencher (2009).
"Coupled Human and Natural Systems." AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(8):
639-649.
Long, A. J. and P. K. R. Nair (1999). "Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry."
New Forests 17(1-3): 145-174.
57
McCann, J. C. (1997). "The Plow and the Forest. Narratives of Deforestation in Ethiopia, 1840-1992."
Environmental History: 138-159.
Mekoya, A., S. J. Oosting, S. Fernandez-Rivera and A. J. Van der Zijpp (2008). "Farmers' perceptions
about exotic multipurpose fodder trees and constraints to their adoption." Agroforestry
Systems 73(2): 141-153.
Mulatu, E. and H. Kassa (2001). "Evolution of smallholder mixed farming systems in the Harar
Highlands of Ethiopia: The shift towards trees and shrubs." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
18(4): 81-112.
Munishi, P. K. T., F. Philipina, R. P. C. Temu and N. E. Pima (2008). "Tree species composition and local
use in agricultural landscapes of west Usambaras Tanzania." African Journal of Ecology 46:
66-73.
Nair, P. K. R. (1985). "Classification of agroforestry systems." Agroforestry Systems 3(2): 97-128.
Nair, P. K. R. (1991). "State of the Art of Agroforestry Systems." Forest Ecology and Management
45(1-4): 5-29.
Nair, P. K. R. (1993). An Introduction to Agroforestry. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Nelson, D. R., W. N. Adger and a. Brown (2007). "Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions
of a Resilience Framework." Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc. 32: 395-419.
Noble, I. R. and R. Dirzo (1997). "Forests as human-dominated ecosystems." Science 277(5325): 522-
525.
Nyssen, J., M. Haile, J. Naudts, N. Munro, J. Poesen, J. Moeyersons, A. Frankl, J. Deckers and R.
Pankhurst (2009). "Desertification? Northern Ethiopia re-photographed after 140 years."
Science of the Total Environment 407(8): 2749-2755.
Olsson, P., C. Folke and F. Berkes (2004). "Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-
ecological systems." Environmental Management 34(1): 75-90.
Omiti, J. M., K. A. Parton, J. A. Sinden and S. K. Ehui (1999). "Monitoring changes in land-use practices
following agrarian de-collectivisation in Ethiopia." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
72(2): 111-118.
Orlove, B. (2005). "Human adaptation to climate change: a review of three historical cases and some
general perspectives." Environmental Science & Policy 8: 589-600.
Posey, D. A., Ed. (1999). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. United Nations Environment
Programme. London, Intermediate Technology Publications.
Raintree, J. B. (1991). Socioeconomic attributes of trees and tree planting practices. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome:115
Rammel, C., S. Stagl and H. Wilfing (2007). "Managing complex adaptive systems - A co-evolutionary
perspective on natural resource management." Ecological Economics 63(1): 9-21.
Regmi, B. and C. Garforth (2010). "Trees outside forests and rural livelihoods: a study of Chitwan
District, Nepal." Agroforestry Systems 79(3): 393-407.
Reid, R. S., R. L. Kruska, N. Muthui, A. Taye, S. Wotton, C. J. Wilson and W. Mulatu (2000). "Land-use
and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological and socio-political
forces: the case of southwestern Ethiopia." Landscape Ecology 15: 339-355.
Roncoli, C. (2001). "Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ responses to
climate predictions." Climate Research 33: 81-99.
Roncoli, C., K. Ingram and P. Kirshen (2001). "The costs and risks of coping with drought: livelihood
impacts and farmers’ responses in Burkina Faso." Climate Research 19: 119-132.
Roothaert, R. and S. Franzel (2001). "Farmers' preferences and use of local fodder trees and shrubs in
Kenya." Agroforestry Systems 52(3): 239-252.
Salam, M., T. Noguchi and M. Koike (2000). "Understanding why farmers plant trees in the
homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh." Agroforestry Systems 50(1): 77-93.
Sanchez, P. (1995). "Science in agroforestry." Agroforestry Systems 30(1): 5-55.
Schulze, C. H., M. Waltert, P. J. A. Kessler, R. Pitopang, Shahabuddin, D. Veddeler, M. Muhlenberg, S.
R. Gradstein, C. Leuschner, I. Steffan-Dewenter and T. Tscharntke (2004). "Biodiversity
58
indicator groups of tropical land-use systems: Comparing plants, birds, and insects."
Ecological Applications 14(5): 1321-1333.
Schuren, S. H. G. and D. J. Snelder (2008). Tree Growing on Farms in Northeast Luzon (The
Philippines): Smallholders’ Motivations and Other Determinants for Adopting Agroforestry
Systems. In: (Eds.)(2008). Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and
Environmental Services. 75-97.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework for Analysis.IDS WORKING PAPER 72. IDS
Shepherd, G. (1992). "Managing Africa's tropical dry forests: a review of indigenous methods." ODI
Agricultural Occasional Paper-Overseas Development Institute (RU) 14.
Smit, B. and J. Wandel (2006). "Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability." Global
Environmental Change 16: 282-292.
Snelder, D. J., M. Klein and S. H. G. Schuren (2007). "Farmers preferences, uncertainties and
opportunities in fruit-tree cultivation in Northeast Luzon." Agroforestry Systems 71(1): 1-17.
Sood, K. and C. Mitchell (2004). "Do socio-psychological factors matter in agroforestry planning?
Lessons from smallholder traditional agroforestry systems." Small-Scale Forestry 3(2): 239-
255.
Sood, K. and C. Mitchell (2009). "Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-
farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems." Agroforestry
Systems 75(2): 175-187.
Steward, J. H. (1955). Theory of Culture Change; the methodology of multilinear evolution. United
States of America, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Tabuti, J. (2007). "The uses, local perceptions and ecological status of 16 woody species of Gadumire
Sub-county, Uganda." Biodiversity and Conservation 16(6): 1901-1915.
Teketay, D., M. Lemenih, T. Bekele, Y. Yemshaw, S. Feleke, W. Tadesse, Y. Moges, T. Hunde and D.
Nigussie (2010). Forest Resources and Challenges for Sustainable Forest Management and
Conservation in Ethiopia. In: F. Bongers and T. Tennigkeit (Eds.)(2010). Degraded forests in
Eastern Africa: management and restoration. London, Earthscan. 19-64.
TftF (Unknown). "Trees for the Future. Our work in Ethiopia." Retrieved August 8, 2010, from
http://www.plant-trees.org/projects/ethiopia.htm.
Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X.
Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher and A. Schiller (2003). "A
framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science." PNAS 100(14): 8074-8079.
UNICEF (2007). "Climate Change. Planting trees in Ethiopia." Retrieved August 8, 2010, from
http://www.unicef.org.uk/campaigns/campaign_sub_pages.asp?page=96.
Vayda, A. P. (1969). Environment and Cultural Behavior. New york, Natural History Press.
Ventura-Aquino, Y., B. Rendon, S. Rebollar and G. Hernandez (2008). "Use and conservation of forest
resources in the municipality of San Agustin Loxicha, Sierra Madre del Sur, Oaxaca, Mexico."
Agroforestry Systems 73(3): 167-180.
Walker, B., L. Gunderson, A. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. Carpenter and L. Schultz (2006). "A handful of
heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems."
Ecology and Society 11(1): 15.
Walters, B. B. (2004). "Local management of mangrove forests in the Philippines: Successful
conservation or efficient resource exploitation?" Human Ecology 32(2): 177-195.
Watson, R., I. Noble, B. Bolin, N.H.Ravindranath, D. Verardo and D. Dokken, Eds. (2002). Land Use,
Land-Use Change and Forestry. A Special Report of the IPCC. Cambridge, Cambridge
University.
Wehbe, M., H. Eakin, R. Seiler, M. Vinocur, C. Avila, C. Maurutto and G. S. Torres (2008). Local
perspectives on adaptation to climate change: Lessons from Mexico and Argentina. In: N.
Leary, J. Adewujon, V. Barros, I. Burton, J. Kulkarni and R. Lasco (Eds.)(2008). Climate Change
and Adaptation. London, Earthscan. 315-331.
Wiersum, F. (1996). Forestry and rural development.Lecture course F500-218. Wageningen
University. Wageningen, Forest-Management-and-Forest-Policy
59
Wiersum, K. F. (1997). "Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources: an
evolutionary continuum in forest-people interactions." Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 63(1): 1-16.
Wiersum, K. F. (2004). "Forest gardens as an ‘intermediate’ land-use system in the nature–culture
continuum: Characteristics and future potential." Agroforestry Systems 61-62(1): 123-134.
Wiersum, K. F. and M. Slingerland (1998). Use and management of two multipurpose tree species
(Parkia biglobosa and Detarium microcarpum) in agrosilvopastoral land-use systems in
Burkina Faso. Wageningen [etc.], Universite Agronomique Wageningen [etc.].
Zubair, M. and C. Garforth (2006). "Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: The role of farmers'
perceptions and attitudes." Agroforestry Systems 66(3): 217-229.
60
Annexes
ANNEX I Factors Influencing Tree Management Practices
Since the call for new research in people-tree interactions (Kumar and Nair, 2004; Wiersum, 2004),
different articles were published concerning tree management practices and factors influencing
these practices. The following table shows the factors influencing tree management practices and
the effect on these actual practices argued in different publications. This table only includes
publications concerning trees integrated on farming land, not taking into account trees integrated in
livelihood systems while not actively managed in the farm fields like the extraction of non-timber
forest products from forest located trees. Publications are listed according to their time of
publication.
Factors influencing TMP Effect on TMP Label Source
• Decline of forest supply
• Meeting growing demand for
trees and tree products
• Maintain agricultural productivity
• Reduce risk in socioeconomic
uncertainty
Tree planting • Economy
• Farming system
(Arnold, 1997)
‘Trees in managed
Landscapes: Factors in
Farmer Decision Making’
• Use
• Marketability
• Genetic potential
Selection of
species
• Economy
• Tree
characteristics
(Leakey and Simons, 1997)
‘The domestication and
commercialization of
indigenous trees in
agroforestry for the
alleviation of poverty’
• Need for ecological tree influence Specific planting
species and
location
• Environment
• Tree
characteristics
(Long and Nair, 1999)
‘Trees outside forests: agro-,
community, and urban
forestry’
• Amount of land owned
• Farmers income activities
• Market situation of firewood
• Number of male family members
• Knowledge of activities of
forestry extension programs
Tree planting • Farming system
• Economy
• Household
characteristics
(Salam et al., 2000)
‘Understanding why farmers
plant trees in the homestead
agroforestry in Bangladesh’
• Ecological characteristics of trees Selection of
species
• Tree
characteristics
(Roothaert and Franzel, 2001)
‘Farmers' preferences and
use of local fodder trees and
shrubs in Kenya’
• Alternative options of crop
production on the fields
• Biophysical conditions fields
Tree planting • Environment
• Farming system
(De Jong, 2001)
‘Tree and forest management
in the floodplains of the
Peruvian Amazon’
• Land tenure
• Soil characteristics
• Age
Amount and
species planted
• Policy
• Environment
• Household
characteristics
(Bannister and Nair, 2003)
‘Agroforestry adoption in
Haiti: the importance of
household and farm
characteristics’
• Total household income
• Land size
• Current tree management
Tree planting • Farming system (Emtage and Suh, 2004)
‘Socio-economic factors
61
• Number of farming plots
• Distance to farming plots
• Owning of farmland
affecting smallholder tree
planting and management
intentions in Leyte Province,
Philippines’
• Farmers perceptions on
advantages and disadvantages of
growing trees
• Other people’s opinion
• Marketability
• Availability nursery
• Damage to seedlings
Tree planting • Household
characteristics
• Economy
(Zubair and Garforth, 2006)
‘Farm level tree planting in
Pakistan: The role of farmers'
perceptions and attitudes’
• Market access
• Land use
• Access to forest resources
Amount and
species planted
• Economy
• Farming system
(Degrande et al., 2006)
‘Farmers' fruit tree-growing
strategies in the humid forest
zone of Cameroon and
Nigeria’
• Perceptions on declining natural
availability
• Scarcity alternative products
• Wealth status
• Origin household
Tree planting • Household
characteristics
• Environment
(Byg and Balslev, 2006)
‘Palms in Indigenous and
Settler Communities in
Southeastern Ecuador:
Farmers’ Perceptions and
Cultivation Practices’
• Perception on utility an
constraints of locally available
wood species
• Availability of resources
• Farmers characteristics
• Access to infrastructure and
support service
Tree planting • Household
characteristics
• Economy
(Krause et al., 2007)
‘Decision modelling for the
integration of woody plants
in smallholder farms in the
central highlands of ethiopia’
• Marketability
• Alternatives for crops
• Availability of tree products
• Age
• Farm area
• Lack of extension
• Capital
• Labour time
• Soil texture
• Size farm field
• Land tenure
• Distance to field
Tree planting • Economy
• Faring system
• Household
characteristics
• Environment
(Schuren and Snelder, 2008)
‘Tree Growing on Farms in
Northeast Luzon (The
Philippines): Smallholders’
Motivations and other
Determinants for Adopting
Agroforestry Systems’
• Farm size
• Agro-climatic zone
• Soil fertility
• Mobility
• Importance of trees for future
generations
Tree planting • Environment
• Farming system
(Sood and Mitchell, 2009)
‘Identifying important
biophysical and social
determinants of on-farm tree
growing in subsistence-based
traditional agroforestry
systems’
• Gender
• Farming occupation
• Distance to forest
• Wealth category
• Proportion of household food
from NWFP
• Household size
• Age of farmer
Tree planting
(NWFP
Domestication)
• Household
characteristics
(Chukwuone, 2009)
‘Socioeconomic determinants
of cultivation of non-wood
forest products in southern
Nigeria’
• Disease
• Soil quality
Tree planting • Economy
• Environment
(Regmi and Garforth, 2010)
‘Trees outside forests and
62
• Availability of seedlings
• Technical and financial support
• Market access
rural livelihoods: a study of
Chitwan District, Nepal’
Literature
Arnold, M. (1997). Framing the issues. In: M. Arnold and P. A. Dewees (Eds.)(1997). Farms, Trees and
Farmers. Responses to Agricultural Intensification. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd. 3-11.
Bannister, M. E. and P. K. R. Nair (2003). "Agroforestry adoption in Haiti: the importance of
household and farm characteristics." Agroforestry Systems 57(2): 149-157.
Byg, A. and H. Balslev (2006). "Palms in Indigenous and Settler Communities in Southeastern Ecuador:
Farmers’ Perceptions and Cultivation Practices." Agroforestry Systems 67(2): 147-158.
Chukwuone, N. (2009). "Socioeconomic determinants of cultivation of non-wood forest products in
southern Nigeria." Biodiversity and Conservation 18(2): 339-353.
De Jong, W. (2001). "Tree and forest management in the floodplains of the Peruvian Amazon." Forest
Ecology and Management 150(1-2): 125-134.
Degrande, A., K. Schreckenberg, C. Mbosso, P. Anegbeh, V. Okafor and J. Kanmegne (2006). "Farmers'
fruit tree-growing strategies in the humid forest zone of Cameroon and Nigeria."
Agroforestry Systems 67(2): 159-175.
Emtage, N. and J. Suh (2004). "Socio-economic factors affecting smallholder tree planting and
management intentions in Leyte Province, Philippines." Small-Scale Forestry 3(2): 257-270.
Krause, M., H. Uibrig and B. Kidane (2007). "Decision modelling for the integration of woody plants in
smallholder farms in the central highlands of ethiopia." Journal of Agriculture and Rural
Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 108(1): 1-17.
Leakey, R. and A. Simons (1997). "The domestication and commercialization of indigenous trees in
agroforestry for the alleviation of poverty." Agroforestry Systems 38(1): 165-176.
Long, A. J. and P. K. R. Nair (1999). "Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry."
New Forests 17(1-3): 145-174.
Regmi, B. and C. Garforth (2010). "Trees outside forests and rural livelihoods: a study of Chitwan
District, Nepal." Agroforestry Systems 79(3): 393-407.
Roothaert, R. and S. Franzel (2001). "Farmers' preferences and use of local fodder trees and shrubs in
Kenya." Agroforestry Systems 52(3): 239-252.
Salam, M., T. Noguchi and M. Koike (2000). "Understanding why farmers plant trees in the
homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh." Agroforestry Systems 50(1): 77-93.
Schuren, S. H. G. and D. J. Snelder (2008). Tree Growing on Farms in Northeast Luzon (The
Philippines): Smallholders’ Motivations and Other Determinants for Adopting Agroforestry
Systems. In: (Eds.)(2008). Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and
Environmental Services. 75-97.
Sood, K. and C. Mitchell (2009). "Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-
farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems." Agroforestry
Systems 75(2): 175-187.
Zubair, M. and C. Garforth (2006). "Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: The role of farmers'
perceptions and attitudes." Agroforestry Systems 66(3): 217-229.
63
ANNEX II Household Questionnaire
Questionnaires Phase 2 Village/Kebele…………………………………… Date …………………………… Personal Information 1. Name ………………………………………………………………………………. 2. Age……………………… Sex…….………Religion……………..………………... 3. Number of people dependent in household Total…………Children………………. 4. Education……………………………………………………………………………. 5. Amount of land. ……………Fields……..….ha…………...temad (Eth. Measure) 6. Male activities: 1………………………… 2………………………………… Female activities: 1………………………… 2………………………………… Income Generating activities Household: …………………………………………... 7. Agricultural crops……………………..….........…………………………………….. Enset?………………Chat?.......……………………………………………………….. 8. Amount of livestock…………………………………………………………………. Tree composition 9. Since when do you own the land and how?……………………………………........ …………………………………………………………………………………………. 10. What was the specific land before? Since when own the specific land? Was it home-area before? Field Type of Field Type field
history Own Since/ How
Home-garden before/when
1 2
3 4 5
6
7 8
11. Where are most trees located? What type of land? Since when are the trees in the fields? Are they planted or naturally grown? Why did you plant the trees and what are the use and purpose of those trees? Field
Trees present, specify amount
Planted/ Natural
Since when Why planted? Use and purpose
64
(Plant when: B= Before Derg/ D= During Derg/ A= After Derg/ C= Current, or specify year) 12. If not planting any trees : why not? ………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13. Are there any trees which were on your field before and now not anymore? Specify when disappeared and why…………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14. Are there now more or less trees on your fields then before? MORE / LESS Why? ……………………………….…………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 15. What do YOU mostly use for the following purpose? Rank Fuel-wood
(from where) Fencing Soil
improvement Livestock Furniture
1
2
3
Tree management 16. Do you apply any special methods for harvesting tree products?........................... ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (branches, bark, fruits, leaves, roots etc) 17. Do you apply any methods for protecting trees in order to make them grow better or increase the production? …………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (protection against cattle / Providing water, manure, fertilizer/ protection against sun) 18. Since when do you protect the trees like mentioned above and why? …………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Trees ranking 19. What is the MOST IMPORTANT tree for the following purpose?
65
Rank Fuel-wood Charcoal Furniture Fencing Soil improvement
Livestock
1
2
3
20. What is the most important tree in total and why?..................................................... Important tree and reason
Before Derg Regime
During Derg Regime
After Derg Regime
Currently (last 2years)
21. What are the rules concerning trees? Rule Level of rule Since when
22. What are the cultural rules concerning trees?............................................................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................... 23. Are trees important? YES/NO Specify reason……………………. ……………………….………………………….. ……...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Perceived Factors 24. What are the factors that influence tree growth? (improve or prevent) …………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
66
(scientific explanations, religious explanations, superstitious explanations) 25. Are there any changes in the climate? YES/ NO If yes explain what the change is…………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 26. How does this affect trees? ..……………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27. Do you sell the following products: Entire trees YES/NO Which?...................................When?..…………
Fuelwood YES/NO Which?...................................When?..………… Construction-wood YES/NO Which?...................................When?..………… Charcoal YES/NO Which?...................................When?..………… Fruit YES/NO Which?...................................When?..…………
28. Are there any changes in the market? YES/NO
Changes in Demand and Supply? YES/NO Specify………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………….. Changes in Price? YES?NO Specify………………………………………..
If yes explain what the change is…………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29. How does this affect trees?...................................................................................... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30. Are there any changes in rules or organization of the kebele? YES/NO If yes explain what the change is…………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31. How does this affect trees? ……………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Possible factors of change: Change in Politics Change in rules and regulations Changes in land tenure arrangements Increase population Change in local administrative units Change in village leader Change in market prices Change in importance of trees Change in value of trees Change in spiritual value of trees Change in composition household (migration etc)
Change in health situation
Change in existence diseases like malaria and cattle disease
Change in conditions road
Change in demand fuelwood or NTFPs Climate Change Extra Information and observations in the field.
67
Questions: - Which trees are present. When planted? - Why are you planting the trees at certain places? Specify where - Were there trees before on the field?
� What is the opinion on Adbar?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!! BETAM AMEUSEUGENALLO!!
68
ANNEX III Focus-Group Questionnaires
Focus-Group Questionnaire PRELIMINARY Kebele……………………… Date ………………Man Focus Group /Women Focus Group General Information 1.Participants: 1)………………………………………………….………Age…………….. 2)………………………………………………….…….Age…………….
3)………………………………………………….…….Age…………….. 4)………………………………………………….…….Age…………….. 5)………………………………………………….…….Age……………. 6)………………………………………………….…….Age……………..
2. Occupations……………………………………………………….................................... …………………………………………………………………………………………......... 3. Main activities in Kebele……………………………………………………………....... 4. Main agricultural crops in kebele......................……………………………………......... ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………. Changes in Kebele 5. Amount of trees IN kebele: Reduced / Increased Reason: …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 6. Amount of trees on COMMUNAL LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: …………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7. Amount of trees on GRAZING LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8. Amount of trees on CULTIVATED LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9. Existence of FOREST LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10.Specify definition forest land participants: ………………….…………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Main changes in trees on 11. CROPLAND 12. GRAZING LAND Never
present
Few trees present
Many trees present
Before Derg Regime
During Derg Regime
After Derg Regime
Current (last 2 years)
Never present
Few trees present
Many trees present
Before Derg Regime
During Derg Regime
After Derg Regime
Current (last 2 years)
69
13. List the trees present and specify its’ use, location, whether it has increased or reduced since the Haile Sellassie period, whether it is planted, when and when the spp was most abundant. Tree Location Reduced/
Increased When most abundant
Planted? When
Use
Location: Farmland, Grazing land, Communal Land, River Land, Church Land, Forest land Period: Before-, During-, After- Derg Regime, Current 14. When was the largest change in amount of trees in the area? 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010(current) ‘74 Start D.R. ’84-85 Drought ’91 End D.R. 10 Years Back E.C 1966 1976/77 1983 15. Reason of change in amount: ……………….…………………………………….............. ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………… 16. When was the largest change in species of trees in the area? 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010(current) ‘74 Start D.R. ’84-85 Drought ’91 End D.R. 10 Years Back E.C 1966 1976/77 1983 17. Reason of change in species: ………………….…………………………………............... ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………
70
Rules and Regulations 18. What are the rules concerning trees in the kebele? To what type of land do these rules apply? Are these governmental rules or kebele rules and since when? Rule
Level of rule Since when
(rules in relation to cutting, pruning, logging, replanting, livestock etc) 19. What are the cultural rules concerning trees? ……….………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (When to cut or plant, how to cut etc) Factors of Change 20. What were the different causes of the changes in tree composition in the area? ………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!! / BETAM AMEUSEUGENALEHU!!
71
Focus-Group Questionnaire EXTRA Kebele……………………… Date ………………Man Focus Group /Women Focus Group Location…………………………………………………………………………………… General Information 1.Participants: 1)………………………………………………….………Age…………….. 2)………………………………………………….…….Age…………….
3)………………………………………………….…….Age…………….. 4)………………………………………………….…….Age…………….. 5)………………………………………………….…….Age……………. 6)………………………………………………….…….Age……………..
2. Amount of trees IN kebele: Reduced / Increased Reason: …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. Amount of trees on COMMUNAL LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: …………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4. Amount of trees on GRAZING LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5. Amount of trees on CULTIVATED LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6. Existence of FOREST LAND: Reduced / Increased Reason: ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7. Which Tree Species existed before but have now disappeared?........................................... …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8. Where are/were the following species mostly located? (Farmland, Grazing land, Communal Land, River Land, Church Land, Forest land) Species Current After Derg Derg Regime Haile Sellassie Comments Eucalyptus
Acacia
Ficus
Cordia
Croton
Grevillea
Juniperus
Trueman Tree
Hagenia
Podocarpus
72
9. What is/was the most important tree in the following periods? Important tree and reason
Before Derg Regime
During Derg Regime
After Derg Regime
Currently (last 2years)
10. When was the largest change in amount of trees in the area? 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010(current) ‘74 Start D.R. ’84-85 Drought ’91 End D.R. 10 Years Back E.C 1966 1976/77 1983 11. Reason of change in amount: ……………….………………………….......................... ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12. When was the largest change in species of trees in the area? 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010(current) ‘74 Start D.R. ’84-85 Drought ’91 End D.R. 10 Years Back E.C 1966 1976/77 1983 13. Reason of change in species: ………………….……………………….......................... ………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14. What are the rules concerning trees in the kebele? To what type of land do these rules apply? Are these governmental rules or kebele rules and since when? Rule Level of rule Since when
(rules in relation to cutting, pruning, logging, replanting, livestock etc)
73
15. What are the cultural rules concerning trees? ……….………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (When to cut or plant, how to cut etc) 16. What were the different causes of the changes in tree composition in the area? ……….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!! / BETAM AMEUSEUGENALEHU!!
74
Focus-Group session FEEDBACK Kebele……………………… Date ………………Amount of Participants………………….. 1. Presented results of trees most used for fencing.
Do participants agree with the ranking? YES/NO Why is the first ranked most used?....................................................................................... What types of field are most fenced with the first ranked? ……………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… What are the most important trees for fencing
a. cultivated field b. home-garden 1…………………….. 1……………………. 2…………………….. 2……………………. 3…………………….. 3…………………….
2. Presented results of trees most used for firewood. Do participants agree with the ranking? YES/NO What are the most important tree for firewood a. in dry period b. in rainy period 1………………….. 1………………… 2…………………. 2…………………
3. Presented ‘Reasons why not to plant’: Shortage of land Trees are bad for soil and crops
Trees don’t grow, they don’t survive Land is far away Animals will destroy it No time and no labour No seedlings
Rank the reasons in order of importance 1……………………….. 2……………………….. 3………………………. Is there a solution to the mentioned problems? …………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Would they plant if seedlings would be for free? …………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4. Presented ‘Rules concerning trees’:
Don’t plant Eucalyptus on cultivated fields Not allowed to cut trees and without permission Don’t plant or cut trees on communal land Don’t transport wood without permission
Are these rules correct? YES/NO Which trees cannot be cut? ………………………………………………………………….. Are the rules practiced/implemented? ………………………………………………………. Why/why not? ………………………………………………………………………….. How do they know about the rules? …………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!! / BETAM AMEUSEUGENALEHU!!
75
ANNEX IV Trees and Shrubs in the research area.
A list of existing trees and shrubs in Dobi and Dirama kebele. (Shrubs in the table only include the
most mentioned shrubs)
Trees
Local Name English Name Scientific Name Origin Main Use
Avalo
Velvet-leaved
combretum Combretum molle Indigenous Charcoal
Abucado Avocado Persea americana Tropical america Fruit
Bahar Zaf (kay)
Red river gum,
Murray red gum Eucalyptus cameldulensis Queensland Australia Construction/Firewood
Bahar Zaf (niche)
Tasmanian blue
gum Eucalyptus globulus SW Australia Construction/Firewood
Berbera x Millettia ferruginea
Indigenous, endemic in
Ethiopia No specific use
Birtukan Orange Citrus sinensis
Southern China,
Vietnam Fruit
Bisana
Broad-leaved
croton Croton macrostachyus Indigenous Timber/Firewood/Fodder
Buna Coffee Coffea arabica Indigenous Fruit
Dogma Waterberry Syzygium guineense
India, tropical Asia-
naturalized Fruit
Geisho x Rhamnus prinoides Indigenous Local Drink
Gisheta Wild custard apple
Annona senegalensis (A.
chrysophylla) Indigenous Fruit
Grar (gerbi) Acacia Acacia albidia Indigenous
Timber/Construction/
Firewood/Fencing/
Charcoal/Furniture/Bread
baking/Fodder/ Soil
improvement
Grar (niche) Acacia
Acacia abyssinica subsp.
Abyssinica Indigenous
Timber/Construction/
Firewood/Fencing/
Charcoal/Furniture/Bread
baking/
Soil improvement
Gravilia Grevillea, Silky oak Grevillea robusta Eastern Australia
Timber/Gun
construction/Furniture/ Live
Tree Fence
Iderko x Entada abyssinica Indigenous Fuelwood
Jacaranda
Jacaranda,
Brazilian
rosewood Jacaranda mimosifolia Brazil
Ornamentation/Shade/Live
Tree Fencing
Kazemire White sapote Casimiroa edulis Mexico, South Americ Fruit
Kosso x Hagenia abyssinica Indigenous Timber
Lomie Lemon Citrus aurantifolia
Indonesia, India -
naturalized Fruit/Medicine
Lomie (Tiringo) Lemon Citrus medica South/South-East Asia Fruit/Medicine
Mango Mango Mangifera indica
Northern India,
Myanmar Fruit
Mano/ Tree lucern Tree lucern Chamaecytisus proliferus Canary Islands Fodder
Papaye Papaya Carica papaya
Tropical america -
naturalized Fruit
Pom Apple Malus domestica Central Asia Fruit
Sesbania
River bean,
Egyptian rattle
pod Sesbania sesban Indigenous Fodder/Live Tree Fencing
Shola Cape Fig Ficus sur Indigenous Firewood/Fruit (Children)
Tid (Abeisha)
African pencil
cedar Juniperus procera Indigenous Timber/Construction
76
Tid (Yefaranji) Mexican cypress Cupressus lusitanica Mexico/Guatemala Timber/Construction
Trueman Tree Pepper tree Schinus molle Peru/Andes
Smell in house, fly repellent/
Medicine (throat infection)
Wanza
Large-leaved
cordia Cordia africana Indigenous
Furniture/Firewood/
Fencing/Soil improvement
Warka Ficus Ficus vasta Indigenous Timber/ Charcoal/Firewood
Weiera
African wild olive,
Brown olive
Olea europaea subsp.
Cuspidata Indigenous
Construction/Furniture/ Smell
in house, fly repellent/Alcohol
production
Zeituna Guava Psidium guajava Tropical america Fruit
Zembaba (palm)
Palm (Wild date
palm) Phoenix reclinata Indigenous No specific use
Zigba
Podo, East African
yellowwood Podocarpus falcatus Indigenous Furniture
Shrubs
Local Name English Name Scientific Name Origin Main Use
Agame x Carissa spinarum (C. edulis) Indigenous Fencing/ Eating fruits
Cherchera x Senne didymobotrya Indigenous Fencing/Medicine (Snake bites)
Dingrita x Vernonia adoensis Indigenous Firewood/Fencing
Graua
Bitter leaf, Tree
vernonia Vernonia amygdalina Indigenous Firewood/Fencing
Kacha Agave Agave sisalana Central America Fencing/Fibers
Keteketa Hop bush Dodonaea agustifolia Indigenous Construction
Konter
Mauritius thorn,
Mysore thorn Caesalpinia decapetala Tropical Asa, Mauritius Fencing
Sensel x Justicia schimperiana Indigenous Firewood/Fencing
Sources: - Primary Field Data by Bongers, 2010
- Bekele-Tesemma, A. (2007). Useful trees and shrubs of Ethiopia: Identification,
Propagation and Management for 17 Agroclimatic Zones. Nairobi, Kenya, RELMA in
ICRAF Project/ World Agroforestry. 552p.
77
ANNEX V Culture and Trees in the research area
Trees are an important part of culture in especially rural communities throughout the world.
Information was gathered about cultural rules and regulations concerning trees in the research area.
The hidden character of tree worshipping, and the difficulties of actually getting reliable information
increased my personal interest in the topic. This annex provides some more information about
culture and trees in the research area, slightly going beyond the thesis relevance by going into detail
about cultural rules and regulations determining when trees might be cut and a discussion on
cultural perceptions of tree worshipping.
Cultural Rules and Regulations
As in most rural communities there are cultural rules and regulations about what people should or
should not do concerning available natural resources, social structures and farming systems. In
Butajira area there are also specific cultural rules determining what people should and should not do
concerning their trees and the farming systems.
In every kebele there is a Social Association consisting of people living in the same area,
which serves as a social ‘safety-net’ in case of personal or family problems. Within the Social
Association rules and guidelines a sett up to which every member should be acting. There are
monthly or weekly payments per household, in order to secure the possibility of lending money
when needed, a burial place in case of death and improvement of the general living environment
when wanted20
.
Concerning trees on farm fields there are several rules defined to which the members of the
Social Association should be living. These are mainly based on the fact that the environmental
circumstances should be protected. Trees should not be cut from communal land, and trees should
actually not be cut at all without permission. The general idea is spread that trees should be replaced
when cut and that trees should be protected. The strength of the Social Association (especially in
Dirama Kebele) concerning planting of Eucalyptus on cultivated fields is also mentioned. Eucalyptus
trees should not be planted in or near cultivated fields. This has been mentioned as one of the
factors why people don’t plant more Eucalyptus trees. However, as the Social Association is mainly
based on agreements among the members, it is possible that agreement in made on planting
Eucalyptus trees on cultivated fields. The rule is only practiced when the owner of neighboring fields
really objects against Eucalyptus planting. In general farmers agree with which neighbors both plant
trees on their cultivated fields. The Social Association also enforces the social cohesion and mutual
respect among farmers. Not cutting trees of other people or trees on communal land are mentioned
as being rules from the Social Association. When people do otherwise, the Social Association is able
to punish them. Without these semi-official agreements any punishment would be almost impossible.
The Social Association also concerns the freedom of livestock and the responsibility of
owners to prevent livestock destroying other peoples’ properties. In rainy season livestock is not
allowed to go outside the house and graze freely, as in this period fields are covered with crops.
There are special roads which livestock should take when going to different places, and there are
special grazing areas where all livestock can graze. The social system of livestock herding per day is
also a responsibility within the Social Association.
More cultural rules concerning trees in the farm fields are related to religion and traditional
practices adopted from elderly generations. However, whether these rules and believes are actually
practiced is highly debated among the farmers.
20
Reconstruction of the school or church or mosque for example.
“Culture is for people, not for trees.”
Respondent Dirama Kebele, 24-3-2010
78
There are special days on which trees can or cannot be cut. When the moon is seen in the
evenings trees should not be cut. The tree will not regrow and the wood and timber will decay fast.
Also on the days of the week other than Monday and Thursday (and sometimes mentioned Saturday),
trees should not be cut for the same reasons. It has been mentioned in a special case that trees
should not be cut on certain days of the month, the fourth and the seventh, or in the months March,
May and July. However these rules are strongly related to the general weather conditions in those
months.
An other important factor determining the use of trees is the existence and believe
concerning the ‘Adbar’-trees. Adbar-trees are large trees seen as a religious temple which should be
worshipped and kept satisfied. Especially when there are problems concerning agricultural
production or personal difficulties, a ceremony is held at the Adbar-tree in order to ask for help
overcoming the problem. At the ceremony of the Adbar-tree, people come together at night
preparing the famous Ethiopian coffee-ceremony and they touch the tree with butter. Coffee and
snacks (locally prepared grains, wheat or beans) are given to the Adbar-tree and in case of real
severe problems an animal is slaughtered. With this ceremony people ask for help in case of drought,
flooding or personal problems such as the birth of twins (which is not wanted).
Adbar-trees cannot be cut. No parts of the trees can be taken for personal or communal use.
The Adbar-trees can be no source of firewood or playground for children. Taking a leave from the
Adbar-tree is forbidden. Even when an Adbar-tree has died, the tree is not touched or cut. The
Adbar-tree is free from use by any human being, as long as they believe in it.
The actual practice of these ceremonies and rules concerning Adbar-trees is highly debated.
No person sais to believe in the Adbar-tree, but almost all people admit not to cut the Adbar-tree.
Fear of revenge is the main reason not to cut the Adbar-tree, even though people say not to believe
in the tree. The increase of knowledge about Islam or Christianity has been mentioned as the reason
of the disappearing believe in the Adbar-tree. The Derg-period and short after are appointed as the
period in which the believe in Adbar diminished drastically, even disappeared completely. The
prohibition of religion during the Derg-period and the return of religious leaders short after that has
banned the believe in the Adbar-tree. At least this is what is told, but actual butter on the tree has
been observed…
Dirama and Dobi Kebele have a different religious composition and the expression about Adbar-trees
are also different. In Dirama Kebele actual Adbar-trees are appointed. The rules of not cutting the
Adbar-tree is practiced, resulting in the sight of beautiful large trees in the area, with the branches
hanging on the ground. Talking about Adbar-tree is possible, accompanied with laughing confessions
of not believing in the tree but not cutting them either. In Dobi Kebele only one large tree has been
appointed as a former Adbar-tree. Other former Adbar-trees are cut and destroyed. The only one still
standing serves for shading the market area, and an agreement has been made to preserve this tree
for its’ shade. Talking about the Adbar-tree is difficult, and jokes are made while changing the topic.
“The Adbar-tree was the church,
when there were no churches yet.”
Respondent Dirama Kebele, 7-4-2010
“We only worship God.” Respondent Dobi Kebele, 12-6-2010
“I don’t believe in wood, I believe in Allah” Respondent Dirama Kebele, 8-4-2010
79
ANNEX VI Influencing factors per tree species
Different factors influence tree management practices in general but can have different impact on
varying tree species specifically. This table gives an overview of the perceived factors influencing tree
management practices of dominant native and exotic tree species in the research area.
It should be noticed that factors influencing protection and maintenance methods
concerning specific tree species all include the perceived market possibilities, except fruit trees. The
possibility to increase income and the related perception on the value and function of these trees
completely determine the protection and maintenance practices. The other management practices
are also influenced by external actors, external opinions, and wider changes in the social-ecological
systems including cultural, institutional and climatic situations.
Locally perceived factors influencing…
Tree species Function …Purposeful
Regeneration
…Protection and
Maintenance
…Controlled
Harvesting
Acacia albidia/
abyssinica
Indigenous
Market possibility
Ecological value
Market possibilities
Ecological value
Spine production
Need for soil
improvement
Marketing
possibilities
Household problem
Dry climate
Cordia africana
Indigenous
Market possibility
Ecological value
Market possibilities
Ecological value
Need for soil
protection
Need for soil
improvement
Marketing
possibilities
Household problem
Dry climate
Croton macrostachyus
Indigenous
No management
practices
No management
practices
Household problem
Eucalyptus globulus/
cameldulensis
Exotic
Market possibility
Domestic demand
product
Unsuitability soil for
other purposes
Need for soil
protection
Government
encouragement
Market possibilities
Domestic demand
Livestock damage
Marketing
possibilities
Improved
infrastructure
Dry climate
Ficus vasta
Indigenous
No management
practices
No management
practices
Market possibilities
Reduction cultural
traditions
Fruit trees
Exotic
(except Coffea arabica)
Household demand
Market possibilities
Household demand
Damage by disease
Decrease fruit
production
Household demand
Fruit production
Grevillea robusta
Exotic
Seedlings available
Market possibilities
Need for shade
Esthetic value
No management
practices
Need for shade
Esthetic value
Household problem
Juniperus/Cupressus
Indigenous/Exotic
Seedlings available
Government
encouragement
Market possibilities
Market possibilities Market possibilities
Household problem
Dry climate
Jacaranda mimosifolia
Seedlings available
Esthetic value
Need for shade
No management
practices
(no
harvesting)
Need for shade
80
Exotic Esthetic value
Schinus molle
Exotic
Seedlings available
Government
encouragement
No management
practices
(no
harvesting)
Need for shade
Esthetic value
Sesbania sesban
Indigenous
Seedlings available
Government
encouragement
Need for fence
No management
practices
(no
harvesting)
Need for
fodder
![“AI” PHYSICS - Energy Fields - Part 3.vixra.org/pdf/1906.0492v2.pdf · 4. Interactions between Electrons: Cooper Pairs: From AI Physics - Energy Fields - Parts 1 and 2: [1][2]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5eae35376068d70dd15875d6/aoeaia-physics-energy-fields-part-3vixraorgpdf1906-4-interactions.jpg)
