Community natural resource management: the case of woodlots in Northern Ethiopia

Abstract

ABSTRACT. This paper examines the nature of community management of woodlots and investigates the determinants of collective action and its effectiveness in managing woodlots, based on a survey of 100 villages in Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Despite limited current benefits received by community members, the woodlots contribute substantially to community wealth, increasing members' willingness to provide collective effort to manage the woodlots. We find that benefits are greater and problems less on woodlots managed at the village level than those managed at a higher municipality level, and that the average intensity of management is greater on village-managed woodlots. The factors that do significantly affect collective action include population density (higher collective labor input and lower planting density at intermediate than at low or high density), market access (less labor input, planting density and tree survival where market access is better), and presence of external organizations promoting the woodlot (reduces local effort to protect the woodlot and tree survival). The finding of an inverse U-shaped relationship between population density and collective labor input is consistent with induced innovation theory, with the increased labor/land ratio promoting collective effort to invest in resources as population density grows to a moderate level, while incentive problems may undermine collective action at high levels of population density. These findings suggest collective action may be more beneficial and more effective when managed at a more local level, when the role of external organizations is more demand-driven, and when promoted in intermediate population density communities more remote from markets. In higher population density settings and areas closer to markets, private-oriented approaches are likely to be more effective.

The role of trees for sustainable management of less-favored lands: the case of eucalyptus in Ethiopia

“…Within each tabia two villages were randomly selected. A questionnaire was administered with representatives of the community's farmers at both the tabia and kushet (village) levels, with each interview involving 10 respondents chosen to represent different age groups, primary occupations and gender (Gebremedhin, Pender and Tesfaye 1999). 21 For the purpose of this analysis we distinguish between woodlots on community land that are managed by communities, and woodlots on community owned land that are privately managed by smallholders.…”

“…We also note that there is a higher intensity of labor use on a per hectare basis in kushet-managed woodlots. (Gebremedhin, Pender, and Tesfaye 2000).…”

“…In Tigray, collective action on community woodlots appears to work relatively well (Gebremedhin, Pender, and Tesfaye 1999). Based upon community-level data comparing kushet and tabia managed woodlots, they find that collective action may be more effective when managed at a more local level (i.e., at the village level rather than the tabia level), when complementary inputs are provided by external organizations, and when promoted in medium population density regions that are more remote from markets.…”

Institutions, sustainable land use and consumer welfare: the case of forest and grazing lands in northern Ethiopia

“…However, population pressure, market and government failure, tenure insecurity, and lack of effectiveness in internal governance, particularly the absence or ineffectiveness of use regulations of common property resources, have resulted in severe degradation of the resources (Hagos et al, 1999;Gebremedhin et al, 2003Gebremedhin et al, , 2004. In addition, the erosion of common property institutions for various reasons as well as the non-recognition of common property systems are also among the threats to these resources.…”

“…The outcome is excess depletion and dissipation of the resource rent. 3 Rural communities in Ethiopia depend considerably on common property resources for their livelihoods, including for irrigation water, fuelwood, construction material and livestock grazing (Gebremedhin et al, 2003(Gebremedhin et al, , 2004McCarthy, 2004). However, population pressure, market and government failure, tenure insecurity and particularly the absence or ineffectiveness of use regulations of common property resources have resulted in the severe degradation of the resources (Hagos et al, 1999).…”