Institutions, incentives and conflicts in coffee forest conservation and use [Elektronische Ressource] : the case of Yayo Coffee Forest in Ilu Abba Bora Zone, Southwest Ethiopia / von Zewdie Jotte Tulu

Institutions, incentives and conflicts in coffee forest conservation and use [Elektronische Ressource] : the case of Yayo Coffee Forest in Ilu Abba Bora Zone, Southwest Ethiopia / von Zewdie Jotte Tulu

-

English
214 Pages
Read
Download
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Description

Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung____________________ Institutions, Incentives and Conflict in Coffee Forest Use and Conservation: the Case of Yayo Forest in Iluu Abba Bora Zone, Southwest Ethiopia Inaugural – Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades Doktor der Agrarwissenschaften (Dr.agr.) der Hohen Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn vorgelegt am 9. Dezember 2009 von Zewdie Jotte Tulu aus North Shoa, Äthiopien Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung____________________ Referent: PD Dr. Peter Mollinga Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Solvay Gerke Prof. Dr. K. Holm-Muller Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 12. Mai. 2010Erscheinungsjahr: 2010 Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung____________________ Abstract Ethiopia is home to many endemic plants and animals including the coffee growing ‘wild’ in the montane rainforests of the South and Southwest. The coffee forest is, however, threatened by fast rate of deforestation.

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Published 01 January 2010
Reads 28
Language English
Document size 4 MB
Report a problem

Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung____________________



Institutions, Incentives and Conflict in Coffee Forest Use and
Conservation: the Case of Yayo Forest in Iluu Abba Bora Zone,
Southwest Ethiopia



Inaugural – Dissertation

zur




Erlangung des Grades
Doktor der Agrarwissenschaften
(Dr.agr.)




der
Hohen Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät
der


Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität
zu Bonn




vorgelegt am 9. Dezember 2009
von
Zewdie Jotte Tulu
aus
North Shoa, Äthiopien
Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung____________________












































Referent: PD Dr. Peter Mollinga
Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Solvay Gerke
Prof. Dr. K. Holm-Muller
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 12. Mai. 2010
Erscheinungsjahr: 2010 Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung____________________


Abstract

Ethiopia is home to many endemic plants and animals including the coffee growing ‘wild’ in the
montane rainforests of the South and Southwest. The coffee forest is, however, threatened by
fast rate of deforestation. The extraction of the resource by the local community for livilihood as
well as the use by different stakes of coffee forest for different purposes and the absence of
viable institutional arrangement for use and conservation are among factors aggravating
deforestation.

This research explores institutions from federal to local level, rules that act either as incentives
or disincentives for local users and rules leading to conflicts in coffee forest use and
conservation. Institutions at different level, policies and proclamations, property rights and formal
rules and regulations imposing disincentives as exogenous variables influence the action arena
and leads to interactions and different outcomes. The research deals with institutions both as
“the rules of the game” and “players of the game”. Relevant information to the research has
been collected in 2007 and 2008 at different times using qualitative and quantitative methods.

Results of this research show that institutions working on coffee forest from federal to local level,
mainly the rules governing the coffee forest protected area (PA) cannot sustainably manage the
coffee forest and ensure farmer’s subsistence. Instead, they contribute to creating disincentives
among the local community and fueling conflicts. The rules are imposed by force through
government institutions and cannot sustainably halt loss of biodiversity. In this work, analysis of
formal and informal institutions shows that there is a need either to modify existing instititions or
establish new ones. This can be done through integration of institutions, both vertically and
horizontally, with the objective towards coffee forest biodiversity conservation. There is also a
need for revision and practical implementation of forest policies and proclamations in keeping
with the interests and customary resource uses of the community.

The research also identifies different rules of the protected area (PA) that act as disincentives
and that need to be changed including guidelines that can serve as yardistik in future use and
conservation process. The study also shows that there is conflict among government institutions
and the local community. The main causes of conflicts in the coffee forest demarcated area are
driven by the need to expand coffee farm areas, disagreement over property rights, local
community’s dependence on products from the coffee forest for livelihoods and prohibition of
harvesting the forest for NTFPs. There is a big gap in the distribution of rights, responsibilities
and returns among stakeholders which indicates the marginalization of local communities and
their institutions from coffee forest use and conservation process.

Analysis of the protected area (PA) rules and the conflicts created in general show the
incompatibility of the current zoning approach with the previous forest use and the peasant’s
livelihood. Co-management is suggested as a way forward in resolving conflicts and institutional problems. In efforts to realize this, it is essential to make smooth transition from management of
coffee forest by force under the auspices of guards to management by well-designed CFM or co-
management system.


Kurzfassung
Äthiopien ist die Heimat vieler endemischer Pflanzen und Tierarten, die wild in den
Bergregenwäldern Süd- und Südwest Äthiopiens vorkommen, so auch der wilde Arabica Kaffee.
Die Kaffeewälder sind von fortschreitender Entwaldung bedroht. Die Übernutzung durch die
lokale Bevölkerung für verschiedene Zwecke und die Abwesenheit von Institutionen die den
Schutz und die Nutzung regeln, sind Faktoren die die Entwaldung vorantreiben.

Diese Studie untersucht Institutionen, verstanden als Regeln, wie sie als positive oder negative
Anreize wirken, Konflikte auslösen können und so den Schutz und die Nutzung von
Kaffeewäldern in der Yayo Region Südwest Äthiopiens, beeinflussen. In dieser Studie werden
Institutionen als „rules of the game“ als auch als „players of the game“ verstanden. Die
Kaffeewälder Äthiopiens sind Habitat für viele endemische Arten und Ursprungsort des Coffea
arabica. Diese Wälder sind jedoch durch Entwaldung bedroht. Die unkontrollierte Nutzung und
fehlende funktionierende Regeln für die Nutzung sind wichtige Gründe, welche die Entwaldung
erklären.

Die Ergebnisse der Studie machen deutlich, dass die derzeitigen Institutionen zum Schutz und der
Nutzung der Wälder weder einen nachhaltigen Schutz noch eine Nutzung gewährleisten können,
die das Subsistenzniveau der anliegenden Bewohner sichern könnte. Die bestehenden
Institutionen, die ohne Beteiligung der Betroffenen festgelegt wurden, wirken eher als negative
Anreize und sie verursachen Konflikte. Die Institutionenanalyse hat gezeigt dass eine vertikale
und horizontale Integration von Institutionen notwendig ist und, daß bestehende Proklamationen
und Gesetzestexte umgeschrieben und implementiert werden müssten.

Die Hauptursachen für Konflikte zwischen den Akteursgruppen, liegen in dem steigenden Bedarf
an landwirtschaftlichen Flächen, Uneinigkeit bezüglich der Zugangs- und Nutzungsrechte, der
Abhängigkeit lokaler Akteure von Ressourcen aus dem Wald und das Verbot Waldprodukte zu
sammeln. Rechte, Pflichten und Nutzen sind unter den Akteursgruppen ungleichmäßig verteilt,
was zu einer Marginalisierung lokaler Gemeinden führt. Die Institutionen- und Konfliktanalyse
hat ebenfalls gezeigt, daß die derzeitige Zonierung des Waldgebiets mit den vergangenen
Nutzungsweisen und den Bedürfnissen der Anwohner nicht vereinbar ist. Eine gemeinschaftliche
Bewirtschaftung (co-management) der Wälder wird als Lösungsweg vorgeschlagen.


i i

Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like to deeply thank my supervisors PD Dr. Peter Mollinga and Prof. Dr. Solvay
Gerke for accepting me as advisee enabling me to trek the long journey towards defense. I am very
greatful to my supervisors Dr. Franz Gatzweiler and Prof. Tadesse Berisso who have made immense
contributions in guiding this research. Dr. Franz Gatzweiler facilitated my study in Bonn and provided
constructive comments to my thesis. He also provided me with the necessary logistics and
encouragement to stay in Bonn beyond guiding my study and research. Prof. Tadesse Berisso of Addis
Ababa University provided constructive comments on the dissertation, especially during my long stay in
Ethiopia for fieldwork and thesis write up. My special gratitude also goes to Dr Mamo Hebo of Addis
Ababa Univerity for providing me valuable comments throughout the thesis. I would also like to extend
my special thanks and appreciation to Dr. Tadesse W. Gole, Manager of ECFF, for providing me
logistical support, encouragements and prompt response to all my requests.

I am very greatful to Prof. Arun Agrawal of the University of Michigan for providing me supplementary
training in support of my research and providing worthy comments on thesis proposals. I would like to
thank Prof. Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University who provided me dozens of books relevant to my
research. My special thanks also go to the coordinator of Bonn International Interdisciplinary Graduate
School for Development Research (BiGS-DR), Dr. Gunther Manske, and Rosamarie Zabel for
facilitation and co-ordination of issues related to my study. I would also like to thank German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for sponsoring my research and study through the CoCE
project.

I am very greatful to my friends and colleagues, especially Taye Gudeta, Abebe Jotte, Marga Abdisaa,
Dr. Abebe Kibe, Girma Asefa Dessie, Sisay Demeku, Sewmwhon Tegegne, Dr. Asefa Seyoum, Abebe
Yadessa, Georg Leith, Tilaye Teklewold, Adane Girma and Dessie Salilew and his family for their
valuable assistance.

I owe special thanks to the Yayo district administration and Yayo ARDO for providing me support in
providing manpower and logistics during fieldwork. My special gratitude goes to Mr. Asfaw Karibo,
Temesgen Oli and Tolessa Aararsa from Yayo woreda ARDO. My special thanks also go to Gabba-Dogi
wild coffee conservation project for providing me transport services during fieldwork. I am pleased to
single out Takele Alebachew and Dessie Olana for all their assistance during fieldwork. My special
gratitude also goes to the people from these three districs (Yayo, Hurumu and Dorenni) for all their
significant inputs.

Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation and special gratitiude to my family members
who are always a source of inspiration. My father Obbo Jotte Tulu and my mother Adde Belaynesh
Bedhiye deserve special thanks in this regard. I thank my brothers Deresse and Tamiru and my sisters
Shunbe, Bizunesh, Asmara, Toleshi and Galane Jotte for their unfailing support and encouragement.
Other family members Tsegu, Dawit, Genet (Basho), Woynishet and Tewabech also deserve my special
thanks for their moral support and concern during my study. Thank you all.

Zewdie Jotte
i ii
Table of Content
Page
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................i
Kurzfassung...................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................... iii
Table of Content............................................................................................................ I
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................ VI
Glossary of Local Terms ......................................................................................... VIII
1. Introduction...............................................................................................................1
1.1. Statement of the Problem..........................................................................................1
1.2. Research Questions ..................................................................................................3
1.3. Objectives of the Study.............................................................................................4
1.3.1. General Objectives.........................................................................................4
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ........................................................................................4
1.4. Organization of the Dissertation ...............................................................................5
2. Background of the Study and Methodology.............................................................7
2.1. Background of the Research and the Study Area.......................................................7
2.1.1. Research Background.....................................................................................7
2.1.2. Background of the Study Area .......................................................................9
2.1.2.1. Geographical Characteristics of the Study Area.......................................9
2.1.2.2. Population and Settlement Patterns........................................................12
2.1.2.3. Natural Resource Endowment ...............................................................13
2.1.2.3.1. Vegetation and Wild Animals.........................................................13
2.1.2.3.2. Overview of Yayo Forest................................................................14
2.1.2.3.3. Background of Gabba-Dogi Forest Coffee Project: Specific Research
Site ................................................................................................................14
2.1.2.4. Social Organization...............................................................................17
2.1.2.4.1. Kinship...........................................................................................17
2.1.2.4.2. Marriage.........................................................................................19
2.1.2.4.3. Religion/Belief System...................................................................20
2.1.2.4.4. Local Institutions............................................................................20
2.1.2.5. Livelihood Strategies.............................................................................21
2.2. Methodology of the Study ......................................................................................22
2.2.1. Field Work...................................................................................................22
2.2.2. Primary Data Collection...............................................................................23
2.2.2.1. Interviews .............................................................................................23
2.2.2.2. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) ...........................................................24
2.2.2.3. Direct Observation ................................................................................26
2.2.2.4. Household Survey .................................................................................26
2.2.3. Levels of Data Collection and Analysis........................................................27
3. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ....................................................28
3.1. Literature Review ...................................................................................................28
3.1.1. Natural Resource Management Perspectives: Shift from Management by
Exclusion to Management by Partnership..............................................................28
3.1.1.1. Ecosystem-Based Natural Resource Management .................................29
I
3.1.1.2. Protected Area.......................................................................................31
3.1.1.3. Biosphere Reserve.................................................................................34
3.1.1.4. Decentralization and Community Participation......................................35
3.1.1.4.1. Decentralization .............................................................................35
3.1.1.4.2. Community Participation................................................................38
3.1.1.5. Co-management and/or Collaborative Forest Management....................39
3.1.1.5.1. What is Co-management? ...............................................................40
3.1.1.5.2. Significance and Forms of Co-Management ...................................41
3.1.1.5.3. Collaborative Forest Management (CFM): What Is It and Why We
Need It? .........................................................................................................42
3.1.1.5.4. Forms of Collaboration...................................................................43
3.1.2. Institutions and Forest Management.............................................................44
3.1.2.1. Understanding Institutions and Institutional Arrangements....................44
3.1.2.2. Institutional Arrangements and Forest Management ..............................47
3.1.2.3. Local Institutions and Forest Management ............................................49
3.1.2.4. Local Community at Crafting Institutions..............................................50
3.2. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework..................................................................51
3.2.1. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................51
3.2.1.1. Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework ...................51
3.2.1.1.1. Using the IAD Framework..............................................................52
3.2.1.1.2. Why IAD Framework? ...................................................................52
3.2.1.1.3. Major Components of IAD Framework ..........................................53
3.2.1.2. Political Ecology ...................................................................................59
3.2.2. Conceptual Framework of the Study ............................................................62
3.2.2. Conceptual Framework of the Study ............................................................62
4. Institutions in Coffee Forest Management in Ethiopia ..........................................64
4.1. Institutional Arrangements and Coffee Forest Management ....................................64
4.1.1. Recurrent Changes in Formal Institutions of Coffee Forest...........................65
4.1.1.1. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD)...................65
4.1.1.1.1. Coffee Improvement Project (CIP) .................................................67
4.1.1.1.2. Institute of Biodiversity Conservation (IBC)...................................68
4.1.1.2. Oromia Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau .............................69
4.1.1.2.1. Coffee Development Team.............................................................70
4.1.1.2.2. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) in Oromia Agriculture and
Rural Development Bureau............................................................................71
4.1.1.3. Gaba- Dogi Forest Coffee Conservation Project ....................................71
4.1.1.4. Oromia Regional State Forest Enterprises Supervising Agency .............72
4.1.1.4.1. The Agency....................................................................................72
4.1.1.4.2. Government Forest Enterprise ........................................................73
4.1.1.5. District Agriculture and Rural Development Office...............................75
4.1.1.6. District Administration..........................................................................75
4.1.1.7. Kebele Administration...........................................................................76
4.1.1.8. Development Team ...............................................................................77
4.1.1.9. Policies of Forest Management..............................................................77
4.1.2. Customary Institutions .................................................................................80
4.1.2.1. Territorial-based, Administrative Customary institutions.......................82
I I
4.1.2.1.1. Tuulla, Xuxee and Shane ................................................................82
4.1.2.1.2. Role of Jaarsa Biyya, Mucho and Salgi in Resource Management ..85
4.1.2.2. Self-Help Work Organizations ..............................................................88
4.1.2.3. Religious Institutions.............................................................................89
4.1.3. Collective Action and Informal Institutions..................................................90
4.1.4. Property Right and Coffee Forest Management ............................................93
4.1.4.1. Property Right (Use Right) before Demarcation ....................................93
4.1.4.2. Property Right after Demarcation: “Guards are Protecting Our Property”
..........................................................................................................................95
4.1.4.3. Forms of Property Right........................................................................96
4.1.5. Interaction of Formal and Informal Institutions ............................................98
4.1.6. Conclusion.................................................................................................100
5. Rules Acting as Incentive or Disincentive.............................................................105
5.1. Interaction of People with Coffee Forest...............................................................105
5.1.1. Establishment of Demarcated Area ............................................................106
5.1.2. Property Right in Protected Area................................................................109
5.1.3. Rules Governing Coffee Forest ..................................................................110
5.1.4. Impacts of Demarcation on Local Community ...........................................113
5.2. Identifying Operational Rules...............................................................................115
5.2.1.1. Perception of the Community as Incentives .........................................122
5.2.1.2. Property Right as Incentives................................................................124
5.3. Rules at Collective Decision Making and Constitutional Levels and their Impact:
Related Incentives and Disincentives...........................................................................126
5.3.1. Incentives and Disincentives Related with National Legislations................128
5.3.1.1. Disincentives.......................................................................................135
5.3.1.1. Incentives............................................................................................137
5.4. Guidelines for Coffee Forest Conservation and Use: Rules Need to be Changed or
Modified .....................................................................................................................139
5.4.1. Guidelines for Coffee Forest Conservation and Use ...................................139
5.4.2. Rules that Need to be Changed or Need Amendments................................140
6) Natural Resources Conflict and its Management ................................................142
6.1. Causes of the Conflict...................................................................................143
6.2. How Does Conflict Manifest Itself?......................................................................146
6.3. Analysis of Conflict: Conflicting Issues and Type of Conflicts .............................148
6.4. Stakeholder Identification and Analysis................................................................151
6.5. Analyzing the 4Rs: Stakeholder Rights, Responsibilities, Returns and Relationships
....................................................................................................................................154
6.5.1. Analysis of Rights, Responsibilities and Returns........................................155
6.5.2. Stakeholders’ Relationship Analysis ..........................................................162
6.6. Conflict Management Mechanisms.......................................................................165
6.6.1. Customary Conflict Management Mechanisms in Yayo Area.....................166
6.6.2. Alternative Conflict Management Mechanisms ..........................................167
6.7. Approaches to Conflict Management....................................................................170
6.8. Communities’ Suggested Approach to Conflict Management................................171
6.9. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................172
7. Conclusions, Recommendations and Further Research Focus............................174
I II
7.1. Institutions and their Link with Coffee Forest Conservation..................................174
7.1.1 Formal Institutions from Federal to Local Level..........................................174
7.1.2. Informal institutions...................................................................................175
7.1.3. Property Rights ..........................................................................................176
7.1.4. Policy Constraints ......................................................................................177
7.1.5. Present and Future Institutions ...................................................................177
7.2. Legal Incentives: Rules that Serve as Incentives or Disincentives .........................178
7.2.1. Operational Level Rules.............................................................................178
7.2.2. Collective-Choice and Constitutional-Choice Level Rules .........................179
7.2.3. Rules that Need to be Changed...................................................................181
7.2.4. General Guidelines for Coffee Forest Conservation and Use ......................181
7.3. Conflict and its Management ................................................................................181
7.4. Recommendations and Policy Implications...........................................................183
7.5. Issues Suggested for Further Research ................................................................186
References..................................................................................................................187


I V
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Location map of the study Area ........................................... .................. 10
Figure 2.2. Location map of the Gabba-Dogi forest (crosscutting the three
districts) as drawn by community representatives ............... .................. 11
Figure 2.3: Overview of the natural forest.............................................. .................. 15
Figure 2.4: Different management zones of Yayo Forest Coffee Gene Reserve......... 16
Figure 2.5: Participants of the FGD at different time and place ................................ 25
Figure 3.1: The IAD Framework............................................................................... 54
Figure 3.2: Conceptual framework of the study......................................................... 62
Figure 4.1: Organizational structure of contemporary (post-1991) indigenous
institutions in Yayo Area........................................................................ 84
Figure/Picture 5.1: Encroachments to the core zone or conversion of forest
coffee to semi-forest coffee ................................................................. 122
Figure 6.1: Root cause analysis of coffee forest conflicts
in Yayo Area........................................................................................ 144
Figure 6.2. Conflict areas and the degree of conflict………………………………..145

Figure 6.3: Different viewpoints on affected stakeholders and
Stakeholder’s power............................................................................ 153
Figure 6.4: Stakeholders’ relationship analysis………………………………….....163

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Respondents who are beneficiaries, members and Participants of
the Tuulla institution...............................................................................................91
Table 4.2: Participants, membership and beneficiaries of
Some Informal Institutions ...................................................................... 92
Table 4.3: Coffee forest property right after demarcation......................................... 97
Table 5.1: Forest products farmers (household members) harvested
in the Past One Year........................................................................... 117
Table 5.2: Products households want to harvest from the core zone ....................... 118
Table 5.3: Participation in conservation activities in the past five years ................. 118
Table 5.4: Perception of the respondents on impact of forest coffee demarcation into
different management zones on the wild coffee productivity ................ 119
Table 5.5: Management or regeneration activities undertaken in the past 12
months (From March 2006 to March 2007) .......................................... 120
Table 5.6: Rules regarding coffee forest use ..........................................................123
Table 5.7: Attitude of the community towards demarcation………………............123
Table 5.8: Bundles of rights for different forest products ...................................... 125
Table 5.9: Involvements in any discussions regarding rules for coffee forest
use and management ............................................................................ 127
Table 5.10: Proclamations and their respective penalties....................................... 131
Table 5.11: Summary of rules, their source, level of enactment and
Related sanctions by formal institutions.............................................. 134
Table 5.12: Households and family members’ willingness to reduce
consumption of benefits from coffee forest......................................... 138
Table 5.13: Agreements of households to coffee forest protection........................ 138
V