Factors influencing level of participation of community forest associations in management forests in Kenya

Abstract

In Kenya, a Participatory Forest Management (PFM) approach was adopted through formation of Community Forest Associations (CFA) to improve forest cover and their livelihoods as provided for in the Forest Act 2005. The main objective of this study was to determine the factors influencing the level of CFA members' participation in PFM activities in selected forests in Kenya. The study was undertaken on the Ontukigo and Ngare Ndare CFAs involved in participatory management of the Ontulili and Ngare Ndare forests respectively, located in the Eastern Conservancy, Buuri Sub County (Meru County) in Kenya. Semi structured questionnaires were administered to randomly selected 80 CFA and 80 Non CFA members. Participatory Rural Appraisal tools, including focused group discussions and community wealth characterization, were used to collect qualitative data for precise description of the quantitative data. The level of participation of CFA members in PFM activities was positively and significantly influenced by the level of perceived PFM benefits (χ 2 = 38.73, P=0.05); range of farm size (χ 2 =12.72, P=0.05); and nature of the head-of-household (χ 2 =29.99, P=0.001). As such, benefits gained from the forest play an important role as incentives to community participation in PFM.

Effect of forest management approach on household economy and community participation in conservation: A case of Aberdare Forest Ecosystem, Kenya

“…These findings portray that, if there are no alternative sources of products, the pressure on the ecosystem would continue unabated, efforts of ecosystem This study further depicted that many (27%) of the households within the poor livelihood category lived adjacent to the conservation area (Table 5). These findings concur with Vedeld et al (2004), Ellis and Ramankutty (2008) and Musyoki et al (2013) that poor people live in remote, forested and fragile areas. In many studies, poverty was linked to increased pressure on forests which leads to forest degradation and destruction (World Bank, 2005;Costa et al, 2017;Rita et al, 2017).…”

“…According to the survey findings, the majority of the forest adjacent community were within the very poor and poor category (Table 5). Similar findings were also obtained from communities living in various PFM sites in Kenya like Iveti, Museve, Nthangu and Makongo (Musyoki et al, 2013;Thenya, 2014). Those classified as rich or very rich in the area reportedly owned large pieces of land, reliable water for irrigation or more livestock.…”

“…We don't get them! Musyoki et al (2013) obtained similar sentiments from focus group discussions (FGD) where community members" claimed the use of forest ecosystem products was theirs by de facto and they felt they should not be denied. Comparable observations were made by Mutune et al (2015) in a related study based on Sururu and Eburru forests in Mau forest complex where KFS remained in control of the forest resources such as licensing of forest products and decision making whereas in practice the CFA were labour providers for forest rehabilitation and policing.…”

“…Proponents pinpoint growth in population and the resultant forest dependence and poverty as the main causes. Secondly, the drivers of deforestation lie in the failure of the forest bureaucracy to adequately involve forest adjacent communities and other stakeholders in the management and governance of the forest resources (Mogoi et al, 2012;Musyoki et al, 2013).…”

Evaluating Management Strategies for Mount Kenya Forest Reserve and National Park to Reduce Fire Danger and Address Interests of Various Stakeholders

“…Therefore, tourist products and services can be marketed and adequate visitor accommodation facilities can be developed [22,23]. The FGDs participants also stated that during the implementation of the Community Partnership and Education Programme, the resource managers were facing difficulties in improving communication among the people living in the area and minimizing human-wildlife conflicts in adjacent areas [5,20,24]. In this context, staff welfare and motivation are critical components for the success of the conservation efforts and that effective and efficient management infrastructure needs to be provided [1,3,7].…”