plan vivo concept note final condensedthe project will cover some 81,000 ha of montane broadleaf...

NTFP - PFM R & D PROJECT

CARBON OFFSETS PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT NOTE

Mizen Teferi, July, 2009

NTFP-PFM RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT ii

CONTENTS METHODOLOGICAL NOTE ....................................................................................... v SUMMARY OF PROJECT IDEA ............................................................................... vi 1. TARGET GROUPS AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................... 1

1.1 Project Area ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Target Groups ............................................................................................. 3

1.2.1 Primary Target Groups ......................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Other Project Target Groups ................................................................ 4

1.2 Non Timber Forest Products Research and Development Project Objectives 4

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA ................................................................ 6 2.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................. 6 2.2 Existing Vegetation and Land Use............................................................... 6

2.2.1 Dominant Land Cover Types and Extent .............................................. 6 2.2.2 Forest Coffee Ecosystems: .................................................................. 7 2.2.3 Agricultural Land Use Systems ............................................................ 8 2.2.4 Trends in Land Cover Change ........................................................... 10 2.2.5 Proximate and Underlying Causes of Land Cover Change and Key Agents 12 2.2.6 Influencing Environmental Factors ..................................................... 15

2.3 Socio-economic Environment .................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Local Cultural Groups ........................................................................ 15 2.3.2 Identification and Characterization of Social Groups .......................... 15

2.4 National and Local Governance Structures ............................................... 17 2.4.1 National and Regional Structures ....................................................... 17 2.4.2 Local Forest Management Institutions ................................................ 17

2.5 Estimated Carbon Baseline ....................................................................... 18 2.5.1 Methodology ...................................................................................... 18 2.5.2 Preliminary Estimates of Carbon Lost from Current Rates of Deforestation without and with the Project ....................................................... 19

3. OWNERSHIP OF CARBON RIGHTS – LAND TENURE AND BENEFIT SHARING ................................................................................................................ 22

3.1 National Framework .................................................................................. 22 3.1.1 Land Administration ........................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Forestry .............................................................................................. 22 3.1.3 Investment ......................................................................................... 23

3.2 Local Framework ....................................................................................... 24 3.3 Benefit Sharing of Funds from the Sale of Carbon Offsets ........................ 25

4. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS ....... 27 5. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................... 28

5.1 Project Organization .................................................................................. 28 5.2 Governance Structure ............................................................................... 29

5.2.1 Project Coordinator ............................................................................ 29 5.2.2 Technical Team ................................................................................. 29 5.2.3 Technical Support Services ................................................................ 30

6. COMMUNITY LED DESIGN PLAN .................................................................. 31 7. ADDITIONALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 34

7.1 Current Barriers to avoiding Deforestation................................................. 34 7.2 How the Project will overcome these barriers ............................................ 34

8. COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS .... 35 9. SOURCES OF START UP FUNDING. ............................................................ 35


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT iii


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AGB Above Ground Biomass BGB Below Ground Biomass CBO Community Based Organisation CO2 Carbon Dioxide DNA Designated National Authority ENTRO Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office ETB Ethiopian Birr FAO Food and Agricultural Organization GHG Green House Gas ha hectare IPCC Inter-government Panel on Climate Change LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry masl meters above sea level NPV Net Present Value NTFP Non Timber Forest Product PFM Participatory Forest Management PLUM Participatory Land Use Management RDCO Rural Development Coordination Office REDD Reduced Deforestation and Degradation of Forest SNNPRS Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State TEV Total Economic Value WBISPP Wood Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project (1990-

2005)


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT v

METHODOLOGICAL NOTE The development of this pre-feasibility study has relied on the following methodologies: • Plan Vivo Project Concept Application Template • Plan Vivo Manual: Guidance for Developing Projects • Good Practice Guidelines for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

(IPCC, 2003); • Chapter 5 ("Project Based Activities") of the IPCC's Land Use, Land Use

Change and Forestry (IPCC, 2000); • "Sourcebook for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Projects"

(Pearson et al., 2005); • "Draft REDD Methodology" prepared by CATIE for the World Bank's

BioCarbon Fund (Pedroni, 2008).


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT vi

SUMMARY OF PROJECT IDEA This Project Concept Note examines a potential carbon offset project involving Reduced Deforestation and Degradation of Forests (REDD) in the Montane Forests of Southwest Ethiopia. Current deforestation rates are estimated to be 2,530 ha/yr within the Project's Reference region or approximately 1 percent per annum. The project will cover some 81,000 ha of Montane Broadleaf Forest and build on the activities of the Non Timber Forest Products – Participatory Forest Management Research and Development Project. The main objective of the Project is:

‘To maintain a forested landscape to support improved livelihoods of local forest-dependent communities and thereby ensure the delivery of environmental services in a wider context’

Deforestation is being reduced by establishing village level Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Associations as legal entities. The PFM Associations are developing forest management plans for designated and geo-referenced blocks of natural forest. The forest management plans set out sustainable NTFP harvesting activities that maintain the integrity of the forest. The PFM Associations are supported by local Government Rural Development Coordinating Offices. Village level Private Limited Companies are being established to undertake quality control and marketing of NTFP's to increase value added and thus farm-gate prices. Proximate causes of deforestation (in particular expansion of agriculture) are being addressed through support to communities in intensification of crop and livestock production, expanding the range of alternative livelihoods (fruit trees production, homestead garden spice production) and participatory development of sustainable land use and management systems. Underlying causes of deforestation (policy failures, lack of strategic land use planning) are being addressed through networking with other CBO's and BGO's involved with SFM; through capacity building support to CBO's and Government Rural Development Staff and through advocacy activities. The Project would (i) undertake a detailed inventory of wood biomass to estimate the carbon in the forest, (ii) estimate the amount of avoided deforestation on which the carbon estimate would be made allowing for an insurance buffer and un-avoided deforestation1, and (iii) secure certification from the Plan Vivo Foundation following an external review. The Certified Carbon Offsets (certificates) can then be sold to generate funds. The funds would be deposited in a woreda Trust Fund managed by a Board of Trustees representing Communities and Government. In order to ensure a regular flow of carbon funds (i.e. every 3 to 5 years) forest cover and biomass monitoring would be required over a 25 year timeframe.

1 Carbon offsets are only eligible from the forest prevented from deforestation (approximately 1%/annum) – not the entire forest.


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT vii

Front Map 1. Location Map of the NTFP – PFM R & D Project in Southwest Ethiopia.


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT viii

Front Map 2. The NTFP – PFM Project Reference Region showing Project Area woredas. (Note: Land over 2,000masl not suitable for coffee).


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT ix

Front Map 3. The NTFP - PFM Reference Region showing 24 Project Area kebeles.


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT 1

1. TARGET GROUPS AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1.1 Project Area The Project is located in the north-western part of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS) (see Front Map 1) and focuses on five woredas2: Anderacha and Masha woredas in Sheka Administrative Zone, Gesha woreda in Kefa Administrative Zone and Sheko, South Bench woreda in Bench-Maji Administrative Zone (see Front Map 2). The five woredas cover some 347,381 ha with some 139,750ha of Montane Rain Forest and Highland bamboo (covering 40 percent of the area). Following the draft REDD methodology developed by CATIE for the World Bank Bio-Carbon Fund two areas are defined: • Reference Region: Domain from which information on deforestation and

forest degradation agents, underlying and proximate causes and rates are extracted and projected.

• Project Area: The area where the forest to be protected is located. Reference Region covers some 347,381 ha and comprises the area located in the western part of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS) and focuses on five woredas: Anderacha and Masha woredas in Sheka Zone, Gesha woreda in Kefa Zone and Sheko, Bench woreda in Bench-Maji Zone. Project Area: The project Area comprises 24 kebeles3 indicated in table 1 and Map 1 with a total area of 107,086 ha and a forest area of 80,988 ha.

2 “Woreda” is an administrative unit equivalent to District. 3 Kebeles are the smallest administrative Unit below the Woreda.



GIS ID # Kebelle Wereda Area (ha)30 Duwina Andracha 4,681 34 Goja Andracha 10,711 50 Shera Andracha 12,658 46 Chegecha Andracha 1,714 39 Gada Andracha 3,258 66 Yoki Cheche Andracha 4,149

TOTAL 37,172

12 Turo Acharachi Gesha 4,075 16 Alemgena Gesha 3,210 19 Bahito Chechitoyeri Gesha 4,393 18 Dingiro Endera Gesha 6,208 21 GerechoGocheti Gesha 3,623

TOTAL 21,510

2 Uwa Masha 2,589 1 Keja Masha 2,474 3 Welo Kela Masha 4,171

39 Gada Andracha 3,258 7 Welo Bato Masha 2,820 8 Welo Shoba Masha 2,984

TOTAL 18,297

157 Shimi Sheko 4,955 114 Shayta Sheko 1,401 100 Jemdos Sheko 7,764 113 Sanka Sheko 4,517

TOTAL 18,637

116 Fandoka South Bench 2,411 149 Bebeka Ersha Lemate South Bench 3,737 118 No Name South Bench 5,323

TOTAL 11,471

GRAND TOTAL 107,086 Table 1. Target Kebeles in the project Area where Avoided Deforestation Activities will take place. If sufficient funding is approved the Project will upscale this to cover an additional 30 kebeles in the same 5 woredas to ensure that all major forested areas are covered by participatory forest management arrangements. The Project is supporting the establishment of Community-based Organizations (CBO’s), initially at the got level and subsequently at the kebele level, termed Participatory Forest Management Associations (PFMA’s). PFMA’s are registered legal institutions under the Penal Code and non-profit organizations. PFMA’s have legal agreements with the Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Coordination Offices (ARDCO’s) to administer areas of forest within their jurisdiction. The Project has also supported the same communities to establish small Private Limited Companies (PLC’s) to deal with the marketing of NTFP’s. In addition the government also supports establishment of Cooperatives for input supply, marketing and for savings and credit.



1.2 Target Groups

1.2.1 Primary Target Groups The primary target groups are local communities whose economies are partly forest-based and partly with economies based on annual crops and livestock agriculture and partly based on annual/perennial crops and agro-forestry. Households are the target for all productive activities with men and women given equal opportunities. PFMA’s and other CBO's, both formal and informal, involved with NTFP production, processing, marketing and participatory forest management, are the specific target groups, with a strong PFMA at each kebele envisaged to function as an umbrella organisation for others at the got4 level. The target groups have been identified through the present work in the project area. Forest-dependent communities are chosen because they have the greatest interest in the long-term survival of the forests. PFMA’s are required for sustainable and effective development of activities related to NTFP production and marketing, as well as PFM activities. PLC’s and Cooperatives are essential for the organisation of NTFP marketing in general and especially for certified marketing. The major needs which the communities, PFMA’s and Cooperatives have expressed include:

• better income generating opportunities to reduce poverty and improve livelihood security,

• greater clarity on access and use rights for forest areas, especially for community rights,

• improved access to information on government policies and related rules and guidelines which affect them, especially on forests, resettlement, and private investment,

• capacity building, in terms of skills, materials and finance, to improve production systems, especially NTFPs which contribute cash income and help address seasonal food security,

• market information for gaining better prices for their produce, especially NTFPs, and

• greater recognition by government and involvement of communities in participatory decision making relating to forest use and development.

Socio-economic and socio-cultural details of the various target groups are provided in section 2.2.

4 A “got” is a village. Two or more gots comprise a kebele.



1.1.2 Other Project Target Groups Secondary target groups include Government Administration and other Government Organizations (GO's) involved in policy development at the local, regional and national levels; government technical and field staff, education and research centres in the project area. Primary Cooperatives and Cooperative Unions are considered as target groups, especially in relation to processing and trading of NTFP. Specific needs and constraints identified by government staff include:

• poor exchange of information, on markets, access rules, rights and responsibilities, etc.,

• centrally elaborated sectoral policies are often contradictory and not compatible with the local needs and opportunities, and

• lack of investment funds, potential divergent interests and opportunities among different groups and potential tensions.

Through full involvement in and support for implementing project activities, the local government institutions will feel strengthened to play a key role in supporting rural development, based on local environmental and social conditions, reducing the potential conflicts and competing claims on the resource base of the area. The progress and preliminary findings of the NTFP-PFM R&D project show clearly that the participatory approach and focus on NTFP development/trading and PFM are being considered as highly relevant for sustainable local development, both by community members and local governments. 1.2 Non Timber Forest Products Research and Development Project Objectives The overall objective of the project is: ‘To maintain a forested landscape to support improved livelihoods of local forest-dependent communities and thereby ensure the delivery of environmental services in a wider context’ This refers to the maintenance of a range of forest landscapes – with different tree species due to altitude and rainfall, which can contribute to improved livelihoods amongst the communities who are to various degrees dependent on the forests and are living in these forests and adjoining areas. In addition, the objective of forest maintenance has globally important implications for the maintenance of biodiversity, specifically of wild Coffea arabica, and national and regional implications for the maintenance of the sound hydrological functioning of this area as a key headwater area of the Nile Basin and a source of moisture for the monsoon in Northern Ethiopia.



The specific objective through which the overall objective of the project will be obtained is: ‘To develop and promote integrated practices of non-timber forest product development, local participatory forest management and forest-based economic activities for different people/forest scenarios through local capacity building and advocacy.’ This will contribute to the overall objective of maintaining a forested landscape to support improved livelihoods, by developing increased economic value from forested areas, thereby increasing the interest of communities to manage these areas in a sustainable manner which maintains the forest. These activities are being organised around NTFP Producer Groups, who will be supported to develop skills not only in production of these products but also in adding value to them through processing and in niche marketing. The latter has a considerable potential and wild forest coffee, spices and honey will be tested as marketing brands building on coffee certification. These NTFP groups are being linked to community groups responsible for Participatory Forest Management (PFM). The approach to PFM seeks to develop recognition of the value of different forest areas for different benefits, especially different NTFPs – both for market and domestic use, but also biodiversity conservation and watershed management. Broad forest zonation will form the basis for the development of management practices, which will be implemented by the local communities, these seeking to ensure the maintenance of the forest and the NTFPs therein. This process towards the development of well managed and productive forests will be supported by training and capacity development activities for government staff that will support the farmers groups in their NTFP and PFM activities. There will also be, with project support, policy dialogue development between communities and government staff to develop improved local, regional and national policy frameworks for forest protection and sound environmental management with PFM supported and local access rights confirmed. The project activities will be adjusted to the different people/forest scenarios. By this is meant different ecological types of forest, different degrees of forest degradation or preservation and diversity in terms of the peoples involved with the forests, including minority groups who are indigenous to the areas. In all cases the interaction with the surrounding land uses is important and action to reduce clearance pressure on the forest will be taken through the development with communities of models for sustainable land management.



2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA 2.1 Physical Environment The Project area lies between 900 and 2,750 masl and is located partly in the river basins of the Baro-Sobat-White Nile and the Omo-Lake Turkana (see Front Map 2). The target woredas are underlain by Tertiary Trapp basalts, which give rise to humic Nitosols5. When recently cleared for agriculture these soils are well structured, high in organic matter and fertile. However, they rapidly loose these properties under constant cultivation. The rainfall pattern is uni-modal from April through to October although rain can fall in any month. Over the target woredas mean annual rainfall is between 1,700 to 2,000 mm in the south rising to 2,000 to 2,300 mm in the north. Mean annual temperatures are governed largely by altitude: areas in the north over 2,000 masl are between 13° and 17° C, whilst those between 1,500 and 2,000 masl range between 17° and 22° C (End map 4). 2.2 Existing Vegetation and Land Use

2.2.1 Dominant Land Cover Types and Extent Data on the existing vegetation and land use and changes in land cover from 1973 has been obtained by the NTFP-PFM Project using Landsat TM images of the project area for 1973, 1984, 2001 and 2005. The main forest types are correlated strongly with altitude:

(i) lower altitude (900 – 1,500 masl) Transitional Rainforest of the south-western escarpment (with coffee above 1,100 masl) which merges into,

(ii- a) medium altitude (1,500 – 1,950 masl) Broadleaved Afro-montane forest (with coffee),

(ii- b) higher altitude (1,950 – 2,500 masl) Broadleaved Afro-montane forest without coffee;

(iii) pure stands of Highland Bamboo (Arundinaria alpina) forest between 2,500 – 2,750 masl

(Source: Friis, 1992). (i) Transitional Forests The Transitional Forests occur between 900 to 1,500 masl. The major tree species are Aningeria altissima, Anthocleista schweinfurthii, Ouratea bukobense, Celtis philippensis, Croton machrostachyus, Elaeodendron

5 Deep red sandy clay loam soils: slightly to moderately acidic, with topsoil high in organic matter.



buchananii, Eugenia bukobensis, Ficus exasperata Garcinia huillensis, Manikara butugi, Morus mesozygia, Strychnos mitis, Trichilia degeana and Trilepsium madagascerensis. Transitional forest in the five woredas covers some 36,140 ha or some 19% of the total forest. Most of this forest has wild and managed coffee. (ii) Medium and Higher Altitude Afro-montane Forest The Afro-Montane forest becomes more diverse in species from east to west (i.e. with increasing rainfall) and with decreasing altitude (i.e. with increasing temperature). Forests in the Baro catchment are thus floristically richer than in the Omo catchments. Four strata can be generally recognized. The highest stratum is formed by trees 30 to 50 m high, the most important of which are Aningeria adolfi-friederici, Ficus spp, and Syzygium guineense. Below this is a dense stratum of tree 18 to 25 m high with a wide range of species. The third stratum of small trees and bushes includes Galinera coffeodes and Coffea arabica. Coffee arabica is not found above 1,900 masl in its wild state. The ground stratum includes Aframomum korarima and long pepper, important local spices. The Afro-montane forest in the project area covers some 153,4400ha or 81% of the total forest. (iii) Highland Bamboo (Arundinaria alpina) Highland bamboo is found above 2,450 masl on a broad plateau in Masha and Anderecha woredas that overlooks the Gambella Lowlands. A similar block of highland plateau at the same altitude to the northeast in Gesha woreda is devoid of Highland bamboo. It is not clear why this is so, although the area in Gesha woreda may be in the rain-shadow of the highland area in Masha and Anderacha woredas. After a number of years (variously put at between 20 and 50 years) the bamboo flowers then dies in large areas. Recovery takes about 2 to 4 years. Currently, the bamboo is used only locally, mainly for fencing and house construction. Highland Bamboo in the Project area covers some 11,100 ha.

2.2.2 Forest Coffee Ecosystems: Three forest coffee ecosystems have been recognized (Feyera Senbeta and Dench, 2006), which follow a trajectory of increasing forest disturbance, from undisturbed wild coffee forest through to “semi-forest coffee plantation”:

(i) Undisturbed wild coffee forest which only involves harvesting of wild coffee,

(ii) Semi-forest coffee which involves clearing of the under-storey and

thinning a larger trees, and (iii) Semi-forest coffee plantations which involve modification of forest

vegetation as with semi-forest coffee but with the addition of seedlings either from undisturbed coffee forest or from traditional or modern cultivars from nurseries.



Tadesse Woldemariam (2003) in his study of the Yayu Forest near Gore in Oromiya Region to the north of the Project area, divided Semi-forest coffee into two age groups: (a) less than and (b) more than 5 years old. This division was based on clear differences in tree species numbers and vegetation structure. Areas of older Semi-forest Coffee had fewer species, shade tree density was lower and greatly reduced under-storey. A fourth coffee cultivation system is the homestead garden coffee-based agro-forestry systems under natural or planted shade trees. The three categories of coffee forest differ considerably in their degree of human alteration of the original wild coffee forest and thus of importance in determining their relative importance for carbon sequestration as well as for conservation of the coffee gene pool.

2.2.3 Agricultural Land Use Systems There is a clear distinction between the agro-forestry landscapes of the southern part of the Project area (Bench and Sheko woredas) and those of the north in Masha, Anderacha and Gesha woredas.

(i) Agro-Forestry Landscapes of South Bench and Sheko Woredas in the South

Generally the target kebeles lie between 1,100 and 1,700 masl and are thus well within the wild coffee zone. The agricultural-settlement landscape is quite distinct from the forest landscapes. The settlement-agricultural landscape has a number of landscape elements. The homestead and homestead gardens are quite distinct from cropland and from the grazing lands. Homesteads are generally located along the ridges. The homestead gardens are quite complex and exhibit a number of sub-elements: • Enset garden: small number of plants (10-30) • small vegetable patch (local cabbage, taro, beans, sweet potato, onions,

peppers) • Fruit (mango, papaya) • Banana garden (10 – 30 plants) • Coffee (little/no shade) • Small Eucalyptus woodlots The annual croplands are generally located on steep slopes below the ridge crests. Very occasionally Vetiver grass strips are seen. The main crop is maize with sorghum and more recently teff. Cropping is practiced for 6 to 9 years before being fallowed for 1 or 2 years. Fields are un-fenced. Grazing lands are also located on the steep slopes and are often infested with shrubs. Livestock feed and water supply are problems in the dry season. Grazing areas are unfenced. No homestead forage is cultivated.



Wetlands: These are used for dry-season maize and all-year round taro production. Problems are reported with over-drainage and loss of fertility (particularly important for taro).

Figure 1. Annual cropland on steep slopes in Shayito kebele. (Note Vetiver grass strip in foreground.)

(ii) Agro-forestry Landscapes of Anderacha, Masha and Gesha Woredas in the North

Much of the area of Anderacha, Masha and Gesha woredas is above the wild coffee zone. Compared with South Bench woreda the area of forest is significantly larger. The Agro-forest landscapes and landscape elements exhibit some significant differences from those in Sheko and Bench woredas. The homestead garden is dominated by enset with three to four times the number of plants than the southern agro-landscape. Coffee is of very minor importance (altitude is 2,200 masl) and where grown is for own-consumption only. Vegetable crops include taro and local cabbage. Crop and grazing lands are invariably fenced, often with Euphorbia spp. The range of crops is wider than the south: maize, teff, wheat, barley and pulses. Grazing fields are often individually owned. Many of the livestock are tethered



when grazing. The farmers follow a field rotation of first year crops, next year grass followed by crops again. There is also a crop rotation superimposed on the field rotation of maize, pulses, teff and then wheat or barley. Maize trash lines are used in teff fields only, farmers having recognized the higher erosion potential of a teff crop. These systems are extremely efficient in retaining and recycling soil organic matter and nutrients.

Figure 2. Enset Gardens and Fenced Crop and Grassland Fields in Uwa Kebele. Elsewhere many areas have fenced communal grazing fields that are generally not cropped. Along the main road between Masha and Gecha cabbages and Irish potatoes are common in many fields. Eucalyptus woodlots are common and in Gesha woreda there are planted Highland bamboo patches.

2.2.4 Trends in Land Cover Change Trends in land cover change were derived from the interpretation of Landsat satellite images for the years 1973, 1987, 2001 and 20056. The years 1973, 1987 and 2001-2005 represent three major political phases through which Ethiopia passed. Thus, 1973 represents the pre-1975 revolution years of the reign of Haile Selassie; 1987 represents the era of the Derg (1975-1991) whilst the 2001-2005 years represent the post-Derg era (1991 to the present).

6 This is currently being updated for 2009.



Following the Menelik conquest of Southern Ethiopia land that was often under communal access institutions came under the control of northern landlords or the Government. Although the original inhabitants continued to crop the land this was as tenants and they were obliged to return to the landlord a third ("siso") of their production. Under the post-conquest system the forest lands were divided into blocks and the landlords allocated rights to their tenants to use the forest land for honey production. The land to which these rights belonged became recognized as "kobo" land. Following the land reform in 1975 the cropland reverted to individual user rights although the State retained ultimate control. In the northern woredas Kobo rights continued to be recognized, but only in the use of trees for honey production, rather than to the land itself. This has continued in the post-Derg era. Land cover changes in the five woredas of the Project Reference Area are shown in Table 3. Total forest lost during the period 1973-2005 is 95,956 ha. The annual rates of change have varied in the three time periods: 0.8%/yr in the first period, rising to 1.0%/yr in the second and to 2.8%/yr in the final period. There was also a loss of 1,386 ha (11 percent of total bamboo) of bamboo forest during the period 1987 – 2001. The main increase in land cover type is in agriculture and agro-forestry and coffee and tea plantation. The increase in agriculture and agro-forestry accelerated in the last period: 2001-2005, from 2.2%/yr in the previous period to 4.54%/yr.



Table 2. Land Cover Change: 1973 – 2005: NTFP-PFM Project Reference Area.

LAND COVER CHANGE: NTFP PROJECT REFERENCE AREA1973 - 2005

Landcover 1973 1987 2001 2005ha ha ha ha

Forest 300,434 265,839 230,451 204,838 Agriculture/Agoforestry 80,044 109,920 143,626 169,252 Lowland Shrubland/woodland 22,108 22,033 22,286 22,286 Wetlands 5,352 5,334 5,396 5,396 Bamboo forest 13,168 13,142 11,782 11,782 Coffee/Tea Estate - 4,839 7,566 7,566

TOTAL 421,107 421,107 421,107 421,119

Difference (ha)Landcover 1987 2001 2005 TOTAL

ha ha ha haForest -34,594 -35,388 -25,614 -95,596 Agriculture/Agoforestry 29,876 33,706 25,626 89,207Lowland Shrubland/woodland -75 253 0 178Wetlands -18 61 0 43Bamboo forest -27 -1,360 0 -1,386 Coffee/Tea Estate 4,839 2,728 0 7,566

Difference (%)

Landcover 1973-1987 1987-2001 2001-2005Total

change% % %

Forest -12% -13% -11% -32%Agriculture/Agoforestry 37% 31% 18% 111%Lowland Shrubland/woodland 0% 1% 0% 1%Wetlands 0% 1% 0% 1%Bamboo forest 0% -10% 0% -11%Coffee/Tea Estate 0% 56% 0% 0%

Annual Difference (%)

Landcover 1973-1987 1987-2001 2001-2005Total

change% % % %

Forest -0.8% -1.0% -2.8% -1.0%Agriculture/Agoforestry 2.7% 2.2% 4.5% 3.5%Lowland Shrubland/woodland 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%Wetlands 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%Bamboo forest 0.0% -0.7% 0.0% -0.3%Coffee/Tea Estate 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0%

years 14 14 4 32

2.2.5 Proximate and Underlying Causes of Land Cover Change and Key Agents Following Geist and Lambin (2001) these can be divided into two broad categories: • Proximate Causes (Direct forces, predisposing environmental factors)) • Underlying Causes (Driving forces) (i) Proximate causes (Direct Forces and Agents) The direct forces and the agents affecting forest landscapes within the project areas include the following:



• Clearing forest for traditional small-scale rainfed agriculture by local

inhabitants, • Clearing forest for traditional small-scale rainfed agriculture by informal

immigrants, • Clearing forest for traditional small-scale rainfed agriculture by government

sponsored resettlement, • Clearing forest for traditional small-scale rainfed agriculture by Tea and

Coffee Estate workers, • Clearing forest for small-scale estate-type cash crop development (mainly

coffee) by outside investors through land purchase or through government Investment Bureau support,

• Clearing forest for large-scale estate-type cash crop development (coffee, tea, rubber) by outside investors through government Investment Bureau support.

These activities result in a complete change of land cover from forest to agriculture (cropland, homestead gardens and grazing) and settlement. In addition there are "qualitative" changes in the forest structure and tree species composition to a lesser and greater degree. These changes are being effected through various activities including: • Clearing ground-storey vegetation for wild coffee harvesting by local

inhabitants and by outside purchasers of land, • Tree thinning (reducing shade), clearing ground-storey vegetation and

transplanting wild coffee seedlings for enhancing wild coffee production by local inhabitants and by outside purchasers of land,

• Tree thinning (reducing shade), clearing ground-storey vegetation, transplanting wild coffee seedlings and planting "improved" coffee seedling for coffee production by local inhabitants and by outside purchasers of land,

• Placing bee hives in undisturbed forest by local inhabitants, • Harvesting of wild spices from undisturbed forest by local inhabitants, • Extraction of fuelwood and house construction wood by local inhabitants for

own use and for sale by local inhabitants, • Extraction of fuelwood and house construction wood by Estate workers • Clearing of forest for urban and other infrastructural (e.g. road)

construction. (ii) Underlying Causes (Driving Forces) The underlying causes can form linked chains of some complexity, which are often non-linear and with feed-back loops. In the project area some of these have been identified as follows:

Demographic • Natural increase in local population (local and settler) and increasing

agricultural land requirements for annual crops, perennial crops, grazing land and settlement,



• In-migration: both formal and informal resulting from areas of land scarcity and high population densities in other parts of SNNPRS and Ethiopia,

• Increases in urban populations impacting on increased markets for food, bio-fuels and wood products from the surrounding rural areas (linked to economic factors),

• Low skill levels in rural populations and lack of off-farm employment opportunities (linked to economic factors) leading to need for agricultural land.

Economic • Growth in market demand (local, national and inter-national) for agricultural

goods leading to expansion of cropland and coffee plantation, • Improved market accessibility and information (roads, tele-

communications) leading to increased farm-gate prices for agricultural products.

• Increased producer prices due to improvements to value-added chains (improved processing, quality control, "trade mark registration),

• Lack of appreciation of total economic value (local, national, regional and global) of forests, forest products and services with government budgets determined by size of population only.

Technical • Increased availability of "improved" coffee types (higher yielding, coffee

berry disease resistant) and planting in wild coffee forests, • Low level of agricultural technology (crops and livestock production) linked

to poverty and lack of credit availability, • Inappropriate emphasis of official agricultural research and extension on

annual crops to detriment of root crops.

Cultural • Breakdown in traditional environmental protection institutions for forest

conservation, • Breakdown in traditional natural resource access institutions (e.g. kobo

system).

Policy and Institutional • Contradictions in various sectoral policies (e.g. Forestry, Land Registration,

Investment), • Inconsistencies in policy formation and insensitive implementation with little

consideration for local social, economic and environmental conditions, • Weak development of rules and regulations in forest and environmental

conservation policy, • Limited government and community capacity to enhance participatory

forest management (PFM) and forest conservation efforts, • Lack of sensitivity of policies to the region and lack of awareness of the

need for specific policies.



2.2.6 Influencing Environmental Factors Influencing environmental factors leading to deforestation and forest degradation include degree of slope, soil type, forest type (e.g. undisturbed, disturbed). These shape the spatial patterns of deforestation and degradation. Of particular importance are areas of steep slopes and shallow soils, which will tend not to be cleared for agriculture. Other factors include the prevalence of malaria for humans and trypamosomiasis for livestock, which constrain settlement in many areas below 1,500 masl. Above 2,400 masl low ambient temperatures are a constraint on the production of the preferred cereal maize. However, where population densities are high these factors no longer constrain expansion of agriculture and settlement. 2.3 Socio-economic Environment

2.3.1 Local Cultural Groups The project area can be divided into two main cultural areas: a northern and a south zone mirroring to some extent the two physiographic zones: high altitude forest and bamboo zone, and low altitude coffee zone. In the northern part of the project area the ethnic composition is 35% Shakicho, 21% Kafficho, 21% Amhara, 10% Oromo, 5% Sheko, 5% Bench, and 2% percent Mezengir (NTFP-PMF Livelihoods Survey, 2004). Amhara and Oromo peoples have migrated into the area over the past century as part of the wider north to south population movements across Ethiopia. Sheko and Bench peoples dominate in the southern part of the project area in Bench and Sheko woredas.

2.3.2 Identification and Characterization of Social Groups Within the main cultural groups there are socio-economic groups that can be recognized based on household asset holdings. In the project area different criteria are used by communities to divide the community into four economic classes: ‘rich’, ‘medium’, ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’. Criteria used for this division were the number of beehives, cattle, size of agricultural land and size of enset plantation. The Communities also emphasise that family size is another decisive factor in determining wealth status. Usually, the larger the family size the better the household is able to engage in many activities and thus the household economy is stronger. Northern Zone In the High Altitude Zone keeping bee hives and sale of honey and the cultivation of enset are the key livelihood strategies that distinguish this Zone from the Low Altitude Zone. (i) "Rich" Category The "rich" category comprised between 10 and 20% of households. They generally own between 50 and 100 bee-hives, about 0.25 ha of enset garden



and between 2 and 5 ha of cropland. Livestock assets included 2 oxen, 20 to 30 milking cows and 1- 2 horses. (ii) "Medium" Category The medium category comprise between 35 and 50 percent of households. They own between 50 and 100 bee hives, 0.12 – 0.2 ha of enset garden and 1 – 3 ha of cropland. Livestock assets include 2 oxen, 10 – 15 milking cows and 1 horse. (iii) "Poor" Category The poor category comprise between 20 to 30 percent of households. They generally own between 25 and 50 bee-hives, none to 0.05 ha of enset garden and 0.5 to 1 ha of cropland. Livestock assets include none to sharing 1 ox and 2 – 5 milking cows. (iv) "Very Poor" Category Most very poor households are female headed or are disabled. They are not found in all villages. Where found, they comprise between 15 and 30 percent of households. They own none to 10 bee-hives, have 0.05 ha of enset garden, none to 0.25 ha of cropland. They own no livestock. Southern Zone: In the southern Low Altitude Zone coffee cultivation and wild coffee harvesting is the key livelihood strategy. Honey and enset are much less important. With higher ambient temperatures fruit trees are also important. The variation between different villages as to the proportions of the wealth categories appears to be much greater than in the High Altitude Zone. Ownership of coffee land is a key determinant as to wealth category. (i) "Rich" Category The rich category comprises some 12 to 15 percent of households. They have 5 to 15 ha of coffee and 2 to 5 ha of cropland. Livestock assets include 2 oxen but only 5 milking cows. Only a few have bee hives but most have fruit trees. (ii) Medium Category The medium category comprise between 25 and 60 percent of households. They have between1 – 8 ha of coffee and 0.5 – 2 ha of cropland. Livestock assets include 1 ox and between 1 and 5 cows. Only a few have bee hives but have fruit trees. (iii) Poor Category The poor category comprise between 25 and 57 percent. They only have between 0.5 – 1 ha of coffee and less than 0.5 ha of cropland. Most have no



livestock or fruit trees. One village identified a very poor category (24 percent of households) that had no livelihood assets (coffee or cropland, livestock, bee hives or fruit trees). 2.4 National and Local Governance Structures

2.4.1 National and Regional Structures The project area is located within the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS). The Region is divided into Zones and Woredas. Woredas are divided into "kebeles" (or Peasant Associations), which are the lowest level of government administration. Each kebele comprises two or more "gots" or villages. The Project Area comprises Masha and Anderacha Woredas in Sheka Administrative Zone and Sheko and Bench Woredas in Bench-Maji Zone, and Gesha Woreda of Kefa Zone. The Regional Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) is the primary government organization with respect to agriculture and forestry. It has bureaus at the Regional, Zonal and Woreda levels. The BoARD has one to three Development Agents (DA's) stationed at the kebeles. An important policy of the project has been to coordinate its activities with the BoARD Coordination Offices (CO's) in the selected woredas where it is working. Within the government’s policy of decentralization and democratization these COs are responsible for developing local development plans. The project activities are planned in consultation with the BoARD COs and local Administrative Authorities and their implementation is considered as part of the implementation of the woreda development plans. For this purpose in each woreda a focal person in the RDCO is assigned as a liaison officer to the project and the project’s activities are included in the annual RDCO work plans. Moreover, relevant woreda experts and the Development Agents (D.A.) are involved in the implementation and monitoring of project activities. Regular consultation also takes place with relevant government institutions above the woreda level and with NGO’s which are active in similar fields. These contacts facilitate active participation in inter-institutional, geographic and/or thematic networks for the exchange of information and project experiences.

2.4.2 Local Forest Management Institutions The project currently works at the got level although it will shortly scale up to the kebele level. Based on the outputs of the baseline studies and participatory planning events, it was decided to opt for a Participatory Forest Management (PFM) approach as the most secure way of achieving the sustainable use and management of the remaining forest resources. At the same time it is envisaged that this would guarantee that the local communities would benefit from their forest management initiatives and so improve livelihoods. The project, within the current policy framework, supports the involvement of local communities in the sustainable management of natural resources for their livelihoods. At the same time, the project contributes to the



further development of methods for successful implementation of the PFM approach and shares these experiences through contributions to policy debates. 2.5 Estimated Carbon Baseline

2.5.1 Methodology Information from the National Woody Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project (WBISPP 2001, 2000, 2003) provides data on wood biomass stocks and yields for a wide range of land cover types in the major agro-ecological zones. This data has been used to provide initial estimates of biomass stocks within the project area. As part of the main Feasibility Study and Baseline survey a wood biomass inventory will be undertaken in the project area in representative forest types. The WBISPP (2001) estimated above ground volume for Dense (50-80% crown cover) Broadleaf Forest to be 82 tons/ha biomass and 40 tons/ha for Open Forest (20 - 50% crown cover). These values have been used for "Undisturbed" and "Disturbed" forest respectively. Using the estimated average above ground wood biomass (AGB) and using the UNFCC accepted method (Pearson et al., 2005) of calculating below ground tree biomass (BGB)7, BGB is approximately 21 percent of AGB. The results are shown in Table 4 for the target kebeles that constitute the Project Area. Front Map 3 indicates the location of the target kebeles.

7 BGB = exp(-1.0587+ 0.8836* lnAGB)



Table 3. Total Biomass Stocks in the Target Kebeles of the Project Area

NTFP PROJECT AREA Undisturbed forest (tons/ha) 82

TARGET KEBELLES Disturbed forest (tons/ha) 40

ESTIMATED BIOMASS STOCKS (2005)AGB:BGB ratio 0.21

BIOMASS (tons)

UNDIST DIST TOTAL UNDIST DIST

TOTAL ABOVE

GROUND

BELOW GROUND BIOMASS

TOTAL BIOMASS

GIS ID # Kebelle Wereda ha ha ha tons tons tons tons tons30 Duwina Andracha 3,415 921 4,336 280,046 36,822 316,868 66,542 383,410 34 Goja Andracha 5,102 4,799 9,900 418,347 191,945 610,291 128,161 738,452 50 Shera Andracha 6,067 5,465 11,531 497,462 218,587 716,049 150,370 866,419 46 Chegecha Andracha 645 742 1,388 52,917 29,699 82,616 17,349 99,966 39 Gada Andracha 1,913 666 2,578 156,846 26,622 183,468 38,528 221,996 66 Yoki Cheche Andracha 909 573 1,482 74,513 22,934 97,447 20,464 117,911

TOTAL 18,050 13,165 31,216 1,480,130 526,609 2,006,739 421,415 2,428,154

12 Turo Acharachi Gesha 2,822 434 3,257 231,439 17,365 248,803 52,249 301,052 16 Alemgena Gesha 1,987 351 2,338 162,928 14,024 176,952 37,160 214,112 19 Bahito Chechitoyeri Gesha 2,106 612 2,718 172,700 24,481 197,181 41,408 238,588 18 Dingiro Endera Gesha 3,563 705 4,268 292,156 28,201 320,357 67,275 387,632 21 GerechoGocheti Gesha 1,574 404 1,978 129,102 16,156 145,258 30,504 175,762

TOTAL 12,053 2,506 14,558 988,323 100,227 1,088,551 228,596 1,317,146

2 Uwa Masha 1,686 414 2,099 138,228 16,549 154,777 32,503 187,280 1 Keja Masha 1,870 251 2,121 153,349 10,047 163,396 34,313 197,709 3 Welo Kela Masha 2,793 720 3,513 229,047 28,799 257,846 54,148 311,994

39 Gada Andracha 1,913 666 2,578 156,846 26,622 183,468 38,528 221,996 7 Welo Bato Masha 1,794 357 2,151 147,094 14,278 161,372 33,888 195,260 8 Welo Shoba Masha 1,385 355 1,740 113,581 14,213 127,794 26,837 154,631

TOTAL 11,441 2,763 14,203 938,144 110,509 1,048,652 220,217 1,268,869

157 Shimi Sheko 2,529 1,723 4,253 207,418 68,939 276,357 58,035 334,392 114 Shayta Sheko 287 279 566 23,508 11,168 34,676 7,282 41,958 100 Jemdos Sheko 5,445 1,743 7,188 446,490 69,722 516,213 108,405 624,617 113 Sanka Sheko 2,644 770 3,413 216,770 30,785 247,555 51,987 299,542

TOTAL 10,905 4,515 15,420 894,186 180,614 1,074,800 225,708 1,300,509

116 Fandoka South Bench 893 369 1,262 73,234 14,762 87,996 18,479 106,475 149 Bebeka Ersha Lemate South Bench 1,728 251 1,979 141,698 10,050 151,748 31,867 183,616 118 No Name South Bench 1,836 512 2,349 150,578 20,494 171,071 35,925 206,996

TOTAL 4,457 1,133 5,590 365,510 45,306 410,816 86,271 497,087

GRAND TOTAL 56,906 24,082 80,988 4,666,293 963,266 5,629,559 1,182,207 6,811,766

2.5.2 Preliminary Estimates of Carbon Lost from Current Rates of Deforestation without and with the Project The Carbon ratio for wood biomass is 0.5 and the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to Carbon ratio is 3.67. A buffer of 30 percent of the total carbon sequestered has been retained as an insurance against post-project subsequent forest loss. It has been assumed that following deforestation some 20 percent of biomass would have remained as standing trees in agricultural land and homestead gardens. This has been excluded from the "with project" scenario calculations. In the "with project" situation deforestation avoided has been calculated as an accumulating 1.0 percent per annum. Of this it is estimated that due to the support provided by the Project to the forest communities, some 50 percent of the total deforestation will be prevented. Subtracting the 30 percent buffer this amounts to some 401 ha per year. This is shown in Table 4 and in Figure 3. Annual estimated avoided loss of carbon and CO2 is 27,608 tons/yr and 101,228 tons/yr respectively.



Table 4. NTFP-PFM Project Area Target Kebeles: Estimated Carbon Offsets and Annual Avoided Loss of Carbon and Carbon Dioxide

Biomass:carbon ratio 0.5Buffer 30%Annual Deforestation rate 0.9%CO2:C ratio 3.67 /yrRemaining after deforestation 7.99 t C/ha% losses avoided thru' project 50%price US$/ton CO2 $2.00

CARBON STOCKS

AGB (i) BGB (ii)TOTAL

(i+ii) = (iii)

Potential Gross

Carbon losses from

total deforestation (iii* 1%) = (iv)

Carbon remaining in fields after

deforestation (iv* 20%) = (v)

Potential Net Carbon

losses from total

deforestation (v)-(iv) = (vi)

Expected Carbon losses avoided thru' Project) (vi)* 50% = (vii)

LESS BUFFER CARBON

(vii) * 30% = (viii)

NET ANNUAL

CLAIMABLE AVOIDED C

LOSS (vii) - (viii) =

(ix)

NET ANNUAL

CLAIMABLE AVOIDED

CO2 LOSS (ix)* 3.67 =

(x)

KEBELLE WOREDA tons C tons C tons C tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons CO2/yrSHEKIBEDO ANDERACHA 1,208,256 253,734 1,461,990 69 13,158 1,366 11,792 5,896 1,769 4,127 15,133 SHERA ANDERACHA 1,143,312 240,095 1,383,407 253 12,451 1,293 11,158 5,579 1,674 3,905 14,319 GOJA ANDERACHA 366,948 77,059 444,007 3,996 415 3,581 1,791 537 1,253 4,596 DAYINA ANDERACHA 234,657 49,278 283,935 2,555 265 2,290 1,145 344 802 2,939 GEY ANDERACHA 355,095 74,570 429,665 3,867 401 3,465 1,733 520 1,213 4,447 SHEBI YEMENIGISIT DEN ANDERACHA 200,638 42,134 242,772 2,185 227 1,958 979 294 685 2,513 GEMADIRO ANDERACHA 161,957 34,011 195,967 1,764 183 1,581 790 237 553 2,028 CHEGECHA ANDERACHA 255,468 53,648 309,117 2,782 289 2,493 1,247 374 873 3,200 MODI ANDERACHA 250,995 52,709 303,704 2,733 284 2,450 1,225 367 857 3,144 YOKO CHICHI ANDERACHA 242,477 50,920 293,397 2,641 274 2,366 1,183 355 828 3,037 GECHA TOWN ANDERACHA 74,634 15,673 90,308 813 84 728 364 109 255 935 BESHIFA ANDERACHA 77,586 16,293 93,879 845 88 757 379 114 265 972 SUB-TOTAL 4,572,023 960,125 5,532,148 49,789 5,169 44,620 22,310 6,693 15,617 57,262

KEBELLE WOREDA AGB (i) BGB (ii)TOTAL

(i+ii) = (iii)

Potential Gross

Carbon losses from





losses from total



LESS BUFFER CARBON

(vii) * 30% = (viii)

NET ANNUAL

AVOIDED C LOSS

(vii) - (viii) = (ix)

NET ANNUAL AVOIDED

CO2 LOSS (ix)* 3.67 =

(x)

tons C tons C tons C tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons CO2/yrYERDANIT GESHA 317,953 66,770 384,723 3,463 359 3,103 1,552 465 1,086 3,982 GAWACHA GESHA 130,654 27,437 158,091 1,423 148 1,275 638 191 446 1,636 ANDERACHA GESHA 229,236 48,139 277,375 2,496 259 2,237 1,119 336 783 2,871 GECHETO YERI GESHA 145,368 30,527 175,895 1,583 164 1,419 709 213 497 1,821 SUB-TOTAL 823,210 172,874 996,084 8,965 931 8,034 4,017 1,205 2,812 10,310

KEBELLE WOREDA AGB (i) BGB (ii)TOTAL

(i+ii) = (iii)

Potential Gross

Carbon losses from





losses from total



LESS BUFFER CARBON

(vii) * 30% = (viii)

NET ANNUAL

AVOIDED C LOSS

(vii) - (viii) = (ix)

NET ANNUAL AVOIDED

CO2 LOSS (ix)* 3.67 =

(x)

tons C tons C tons C tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons C/yr tons CO2/yrYESHA AKAKO MASHA 515,591 108,274 623,865 5,615 583 5,032 2,516 755 1,761 6,457 YEPO MASHA 292,744 61,476 354,220 3,188 331 2,857 1,428 429 1,000 3,666 ATLE MASHA 314,723 66,092 380,815 3,427 356 3,071 1,536 461 1,075 3,942 KARINA MASHA 250,055 52,512 302,567 2,723 283 2,440 1,220 366 854 3,132 GANGA MASHA 163,328 34,299 197,627 1,779 185 1,594 797 239 558 2,046 KEWO MASHA 137,259 28,824 166,083 1,495 155 1,340 670 201 469 1,719 GADA MASHA 125,508 26,357 151,865 1,367 142 1,225 612 184 429 1,572 OUWA MASHA 77,065 16,184 93,248 839 87 752 376 113 263 965 CHAGO MASHA 165,044 34,659 199,704 1,797 187 1,611 805 242 564 2,067 ATESO MASHA 132,688 27,864 160,552 1,445 150 1,295 647 194 453 1,662 BETO MASHA 74,382 15,620 90,002 810 84 726 363 109 254 932 WELO MASHA 242,910 51,011 293,921 2,645 275 2,371 1,185 356 830 3,042 KEJA MASHA 93,420 19,618 113,039 1,017 106 912 456 137 319 1,170 GATIMO MASHA 102,453 21,515 123,969 1,116 116 1,000 500 150 350 1,283 SUB-TOTAL 2,687,169 564,306 3,251,475 29,263 3,038 26,225 13,112 3,934 9,179 33,655

TOTAL 8,082,403 1,697,305 9,779,707 88,017 9,138 78,879 39,439 11,832 27,608 101,228



Figure 3. Preliminary Estimates of Carbon Sequestered with and without the NTFP-PFM R and D Project

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF C SEQUESTERED WITH AND WITHOUT NTFP CARBON OFFSET PROJECT

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,0001 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47

years

tons

Car

bon WITHOUT

PROJECT

WITH PROJECT(50%)



3. OWNERSHIP OF CARBON RIGHTS – LAND TENURE AND BENEFIT SHARING

3.1 National Framework Three main areas of Federal and regional policy impact on efforts to maintain forest landscapes within the project area: • Land Administration • Forestry • Investment

3.1.1 Land Administration Land administration is governed nationally by the Federal Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation (No. 456/2005). This Proclamation repealed that of 89/1997. SNNPRS is covered by the similarly named SNNPR Rural Land Administration and Use Proclamation (110/2007). This Proclamation repealed that of 53/2003. The region is currently drafting Regulations under the Regional Proclamation. Land registration is complete or still underway in Tigray, Amhara, Oromiya and SNNP Regions. Only in Amhara Region are the Kebele boundary, Communal Land and Individual land measured and registered. In all other Regions only Individual Land is measured and registered. In SNNPRS coffee land within forest areas under individual ownership is not currently measured and registered, although where farmers with land in coffee forest pay land tax this is regarded as de facto registration of ownership. This is in accordance with a Regional policy directive. However, homestead gardens ("guaro") and homestead coffee gardens are registered. In all the Project woredas measurement and registration will be completed in 2009.

3.1.2 Forestry Federal Policy is now governed by the Forestry Development Conservation and Utilization Proclamation (542/2007), which repealed Proclamation 94/1994. Currently, SNNPRS is drafting its own Forestry Proclamation. The NTFP-PFM Project is providing sundry and technical assistance for this to be based on a participatory process. The previous Federal and Regional legislation recognized three types of forest: (i) Federal, (ii) Regional and (iii) Private. Federal and Regional Forests were "State" Forests, and as such had to be demarcated, management plans prepared and the forest gazetted. Although some State forests had been demarcated during the Derg, and a few management plans prepared, none had been gazetted. The situation is that SNNPRS, the Region with the largest area of forest, has no demarcated forest. "Private" forests were defined and are so under the new legislation defined as



"forest other than a state forest developed by any private person and includes a forest developed by members of a Peasant Association or by any association organized by private individuals, investors and governmental and non-governmental organizations". “Private” refers to individuals, Associations, Communities and other forms of organizations. In interpreting this definition the emphasis has always been on the word "developed" inferring that this did not include natural forests, and that "natural forests" were "State Forests" whether gazetted or not (Head of Land Administration and Natural Resources, Awassa BoARD, SNNPR). However, the new Federal legislation has a new section (4. Promotion of Forest Development subsection 3/, which appears to distinguish two types of "natural forest" – (i) Designated State Forest and (ii) Forests that have not been designated as protected or productive state forests. The full section is as follows: 3/ Management plans shall be developed with the participation of the local

community, for forests that have not been designated as protected or productive state forests, and such forests shall be given to the community, associations or investors so that they conserve and utilize them in accordance with directives to be issued by the appropriate body".

"State Forests" are either "Protected" or "Productive" Forests under the legislation. This new section clearly opens the way for Communities or Associations to be allocated natural forests that have not been designated as "State Forests" (Protective or Productive"). This opens the way for communities under “Private Ownership”. According to the Federal MoARD this was clearly the intention of the Federal legislation (personal comm. Kiflu Segu, MoARD). Much will depend on how the SNNP Region interprets this section in the Regional Forestry Proclamation and the ensuing "Directives". The Proclamation is ready in draft form in Amharic and this clarifies this section further. In the Proclamation "appropriate body" is "an executive organ of the Regional State empowered to undertake activities related to the development, conservation and utilization of forest in the Region".

3.1.3 Investment The Federal Investment Proclamation number 37/1996 vests the power of allocating land for investment activities to the Regional governments. The SNNPRS has issued investment regulation number 2/1997. Article 11 and 12 of the regulation states that every investor has the duty to conserve the land and natural resources found thereon. According to the regulations, rural land reserved for natural resources development and conservation may not be allocated for private investment especially peasant holding.



It was acknowledged in the Regional Investment Bureau and the Environmental Section of the Land Administration and Natural Resources Department of the Regional BoARD that in the past there had been a lack of effective contact between the two agencies and also proper consultation at local levels. The Investment Bureau said that in theory they were to be guided by Zonal Land Use Plans that would clearly demarcated areas suitable for agro-investment, but these were not available. 3.2 Local Framework The project has worked through locally established Participatory Forest Management (PFM) “Associations”. Access and use rights have been institutionally assured by registering the PFM group as an “Association” at regional level. Thus, an “Association” is a legally established CBO registered with the Ministry of Justice. Legal agreements have been signed between the Kebele Administrative Office, the Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Coordination Office (ARDCO) and the PFM Association under which the rights and responsibilities of all parties are prescribed. One of the duties of the ARDCO is to monitor the implementation of the PFMA’s management plan, to provide technical support, resolve border conflicts and provide legal support. It is stipulated that if the forest is needed for the public interest, appropriate compensation will be provided to the PFM Association. The Kebele Administrative Office also has conflict management tasks as well as dealing with cases of illegal occupation of land and assuring that implementation is in line with Proclamations. As the PFM is registered as an Association it cannot engage in income generating activities. However, as the PFMA has the status of an NGO, it has opportunities for fundraising. An agreement has been signed between the PLC (marketing group) and the PFMA in which it is stipulated that a certain percent of the income of PLC is given to the PFM group for running and management costs. Each PLC decides the level of the contribution they can render to the PFM. The PFM Association decides on forest management and how to share benefits from forest management, to obtain information on the forests and to claim for compensation. The responsibilities in forest management include the prevention of forest clearing for settlement, agricultural or other purposes. Graduated sanctions are defined in case of violation of rules and responsibilities. Each PFM Association has developed by-laws that elaborate membership rights, organisation, rights and responsibilities of the management board and the duties and responsibilities of the three coordinators (protection, development and utilisation). Also some forbidden activities in relation to resource use are prescribed. The PFM Association empowers the local community to have a stronger stand towards large-scale investors. The villagers developed the criteria for membership. In general, everyone who is a member of the got can become a



member, but sometimes also the existing rights to coffee lands in the forests have been determined as a criterion. 3.3 Benefit Sharing of Funds from the Sale of Carbon Offsets The Project is supporting the kebele PFMA’s in establishing woreda level networks of PFMA’s to enable sharing of information, experiences, capacity building and policy advocacy. It is proposed that Carbon Trust Funds would be established at the woreda level. Bank accounts would be opened at one of the branches of the Commercial Banks or Micro Finance Institutions (MFI) in all five woredas. A Board of Trustees would be established at each woreda to administer the Carbon Trust Fund. Membership of the Board of Trustees would include the following:

• One Elected representative of each Kebele PFMA • Head of the Woreda Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development • The Woreda Administrator.

An established Ethiopian NGO: the Ethiopian Wetlands and Natural Resources Association (EWNRA) – a partner in the existing Project - would be contracted by the Trust Fund to provide technical support to both the Woreda Trust Fund and to the individual kebeles for estimating carbon offsets, regular monitoring, repeat inventories and forest mapping, etc. Each Kebele PFMA would have a “Carbon Account” based on agreed estimates of carbon stocks deriving from the area of avoided deforestation. Changes may be made to such an account based on agreed results of periodic forest area and biomass monitoring. The agreed Kebele PFMA carbon offsets would be aggregated to the woreda level for the issue of Plan Vivo certificates. The sale of the woreda aggregate Plan Vivo Certificates would be carried out with the support of EWNRA. Funds would flow from the buyers of the Plan Vivo certificates into the Woreda Trust Fund account. These funds would be distributed to each Kebele PFMA. Each PFMA would have opened an account either with a Commercial Bank, MFI or a kebele Rural Savings and Credit Cooperative where these have been established. Funds from the Woreda Trust Fund account would be transferred directly to the Kebele PFMA account. The Board of Trustees would be empowered to make any necessary payments to cover e.g. fees of carbon brokers, to EWNRA for contractual services rendered, etc., prior to distribution to kebele PFMAs. The Woreda Carbon Trust Fund Account would be subject to annual external audit. The Kebele PFMA members would make decisions in consultation with the kebele Administration on the utilization of funds received from the Trust Fund



.



4. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS

The objectives will be achieved in a number of ways of which the most central one is the development of non-timber forest product (NTFP) production, processing and marketing. These activities will be organised around producers groups, who will be supported to develop skills not only in the production of these products but also in adding value to them through processing and in niche marketing. The latter has a considerable potential and wild forest coffee, spices and honey will be tested as marketing brands building on coffee certification. These NTFP groups will be linked to, and usually part of, community groups responsible for Participatory Forest Management (PFM). The approach to PFM seeks to develop recognition of the value of different forest areas for different benefits, especially different NTFPs – both for market and domestic use, but also biodiversity conservation and watershed management. Broad forest zonation will form the basis for the development of management practices, which will be implemented by the local communities seeking to ensure the maintenance of the forest and the NTFPs therein. This process towards the development of well managed and productive forests will be supported by training and capacity development activities for government staff who will support the farmers groups in their NTFP and PFM activities. There will also be policy dialogue development with project support between communities and government staff to develop improved local, regional and national policy frameworks for forest protection and sound environmental management with PFM supported and local access rights confirmed. The project activities will be adjusted to the different people/forest scenarios. By this is meant different ecological types of forest, different degree of forest degradation or preservation and diversity in terms of the peoples involved with the forests, including minority groups who are indigenous to the areas. In some cases the project will be working in National Priority Forest Areas, but in other cases in degraded community forest or forest patches within the agricultural areas, focusing on the restoration of the forested landscape. In all cases the interaction with the surrounding land uses is important and action to reduce clearance pressure on the forest will be taken through the development with communities of models for sustainable land management.



5. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

5.1 Project Organization Figure 2 outlines the links between the different actors in the project at the field level. The project is implemented by a team of Ethiopian specialists working in close collaboration with the relevant government departments and also with local CBOs and communities. The team is based in this remote area, with two offices –one in Mizan Teferi and one in Masha, the respective capitals of Bench Maji and Sheka zones. From these offices support will be provided to the Zonal RDCOs and Cooperative Unions and to the lower level woreda RDCOs and cooperative societies. In order to ensure close collaboration with the woreda government officials and the CBOs at community levels, woreda facilitators have been appointed. They are the lowest level employee of the project. At the kebele and community (sub-kebele) level the project works with the three government extension staff (development agents) per kebele, and through them and directly with community groups with different interests. (See Figure 1) BoARD CO’s are the associate partners in project implementation and are fully involved in it. Collaboration agreements have been signed with details of the modalities of collaboration, time inputs, responsibilities of the partners in implementation, project support etc. In each BoARD CO office a GO staff is assigned as focal person for coordination purposes and provided with a motor bike to facilitate their activities. GO capacity building efforts are focused on enhancing staff skills and knowledge so that they can provide sensitive support to communities, especially in the areas of PFM management, NTFP development and trading, and the provision of environmental services. In particular, support and training will focus on how these activities will interact so that an integrated approach can be taken by government staff. Joint planning, monitoring and evaluation of project activities are a key instrument for building up GO institutional capacities. This is done within the context of the existing strategic plans in each of the woredas, with project activities integrated therein. Where necessary, support is provided for the elaboration of new strategic plans, aiming at incorporation of the project approach and its contribution to sustainable development.



Fig. 2 Project implementation structure 5.2 Governance Structure

5.2.1 Project Coordinator Ethiopian Wetlands and Natural Resource Association (EWNRA) has extensive field experience of community-based natural resource management research, implementation and dissemination in south-west Ethiopia. It is currently a local partner in the NTFP-PFM Research and Development Project and has proved to be very effective, both in obtaining matching funds and in providing training in participatory methods. It has long experience of collaborating with government offices including RDCOs and has office facilities in Addis Ababa which can be used for liaison purposes.

5.2.2 Technical Team The core technical team is based at Mizan and Masha and consists of seven professional staff whose functions are given by their titles: Project Co-ordinator Rural Development and Land Use Specialist Forest Management Specialist NTFP Specialist Capacity Building Specialist Market Development Specialist Participatory Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist



In addition the project employs five Woreda NTFP-development facilitators based in the five woredas where the project operates. Three regular advisers (two international and one national) support, advise and monitor the permanent staff. Additionally, short term consultants are available for specialist support when this is required.

5.2.3 Technical Support Services Huddersfield University has over 20 years of experience of managing training and field development activities in Ethiopia for a range of international funding agencies. The Centre for Wetlands, Environment and Livelihoods has implemented two field development projects in South-West Ethiopia to date, including the original NTFP-PFM R&D project from which this one is developed. Huddersfield University is the Coordinator to the European Union (EU) for the present NTFP-PFM Project. Sustainable Livelihood Action has considerable experience of working in the south-west of Ethiopia, in collaboration with Huddersfield University and has supported EWNRA in its institutional development. In addition, it has particular expertise among its staff in community based natural resource management, sustainable forest management, local level land use planning and multi-stakeholder involvement in rural development and participatory forest management.



6. COMMUNITY LED DESIGN PLAN The development and empowerment of CBO’s is considered to be a key element in order to sustain the project outcomes. CBOs can play an important role in organising local energy and initiatives, as well as providing organisational units which can efficiently manage different activities where groups of farmers / households need to collaborate. CBOs also provide mechanisms for discussion, agreement and conflict resolution. Hence the building of capacity in the CBOs is essential for effective achievement of project goals both during and beyond the project period. Empowerment of CBOs involves creating leadership capacities, conflict resolution abilities, as well as ensuring transparent behaviour by CBO leaders and democratic operation of the organisation. These are all essential if the CBOs are to gain support from their members and to be sustainable in the long term. Two specific target groups of CBO’s are being supported: a) Grassroots organisations established around project related activities at community and kebele levels, especially in the areas of NTFP production and marketing, and PFM, and b) Existing Primary Multi-purpose Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Unions, at respectively woreda and zonal levels. Since organizational development at community level is traditionally weak in the area, the project will facilitate the process of CBO establishment through a process of advice, discussion and support. CBOs will be established to assume the considerable range of new challenges of forest-based community development. These CBO’s will build both on existing local institutions for forest management, -whenever relevant- and experiences accumulated in the NTFP-PFM R&D project. CBO’s to be considered will include informal NTFP producers or processors groups, women's groups, etc, but also legalized CBO’s, such as Associations, Cooperatives or PFM-groups. Several CBO’s can be formed within one kebele as primary target groups, but an effort will be made to ensure that there is an umbrella type of CBO in each kebele, in order to ensure integration of the different groups and their respective activities. The organizational models to be chosen for each CBO will depend on internal efficiency for effective management, the CBO’s objectives and consequently the external requirements according to the policy framework for CBO’s. Training will be given for CBO-leaders, including Cooperative and Union leaders. The precise content of training will depend on participatory needs assessment bearing in mind the objective of the CBO. Specific activities for CBO empowerment include:



- facilitation of the establishment of CBO’s and their legalization, in the cases where this is needed,

- leadership, organizational and financial management, and - conflict management. Appropriate training and extension materials for CBO-leaders will be developed and made available in Amharic. Exchange visits for CBO leaders will be organized to similar CBO’s in the area to reinforce training through practical experience. Support will be provided for the formulation of bylaws, rules and regulations and internal procedures of the CBO, based on democratic principles. The facilitation of a participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation system at CBO level will be a key element for strengthening organizational capacities. Initially, some material support will be provided to assist in the establishment and operation of the CBOs. The achievement of financial sustainability, especially of CBO’s involved in marketing and trading of NTFPs, will be supported through linkage with existing funding mechanisms for CBOs and Cooperatives in the country. Responsibility for activities to empower CBOs will be jointly assumed by the project’s specialist staff and RDCO staff. After Training of Trainers has been undertaken by the project for RDCO staff, these staff will provide training of the CBO leaders and will be in charge of technical assistance to them through day to day follow-up and support activities. Exchange visits and more specific supportive activities will be guided by the Project staff, with additional support as needed from EWNRA staff, which has experience in CBO development for natural resource management. The current Project has followed a participatory approach in forest management planning with a simplified methodology applied to enable full understanding and ownership by the Participatory Forest Management (PFM) members. First a Participatory Forest Resource Assessment is carried out by members of the PFM group, with support of the PFM specialist and woreda staff. In this assessment the general condition of the forest and the presence of key NTFPs and endangered tree species are assessed. In the subsequent management planning, boundaries and different PFM Units are identified based on traditional names for those forest types. It is therefore very easy for villagers to recognise the different forest units. The management plan involves the whole area and includes agricultural fields and settlement area. It is therefore not so much a forest management plan but rather a land use plan. Using the GPS to delineate the PFM Management Units provides a digital geo-referenced map of the kebele. It can be overlain on topo-maps (Figure 4), satellite images (Figure 5), landcover maps and watershed maps. Having a geo-referenced map of the kebele with the Management Units clearly portrayed, adds some measure of tenure security for Communities in the face of possible land alienation (e.g. by investors). Similarly, it provides the basis for future land registration. Land Registration Teams at the Woreda BARD Offices state that the current rope/measuring tape method of delineating plots would not be possible to use in forest areas, and the GPS is the cheapest option.



By covering the whole of the kebele this permits an integrated approach to land use zoning covering the total natural resource base. Finally, the PFM Management Unit system has found wide acceptance amongst Government woreda and Zonal BoARD staff.

Figure 4. The Geo-referenced PFM Management Units of Yigo Got, Uwa Kebele, Masha Woreda over the 1:50,000 topo map sheet.

Figure 5. The Geo-referenced PFM Management Units of Yigo Got, Uwa Kebele, Masha Woreda over the Landsat TM Satellite Image (NB: Clear felled East African Tea Estate in top right corner)



7. ADDITIONALITY ANALYSIS 7.1 Current Barriers to avoiding Deforestation The proximate and underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation in the Project area have been detailed in para. 2.2.5. In summary the major proximate causes are (i) clearing for agriculture by a range of stakeholders and (ii) removal of trees and under-storey vegetation to increase light and remove competitive vegetation for coffee cultivation. This is being driven in part by increasing population from natural increase and in-migration and in part by increased market access and increases in farm-gate prices for maize. Recent increases in international coffee prices are driving expansion of coffee planting in existing forest. A weak forest policy environment and lack of appreciation of the total economic value of forests has led to low levels of government investment in forest conservation and little support for community managed forests. 7.2 How the Project will overcome these barriers

1. Improve policy environment: advocacy and technical support to developing strong regional government forest policy and regulatory framework supportive of community forest management.

2. Supporting development of Participatory Forest Management

Associations and Community level NTFP marketing Private Limited Companies to conserve and sustainably utilize remaining forest resources.

3. Supporting Community Forest Management Associations in

developing sustainable coffee forest management systems by retaining and developing an optimal and sustainable tree cover for coffee production.

4. Supporting community NTFP marketing limited companies in

developing value added chains and linkages to marketing opportunities for forest products such as spices (corrorima, long pepper), honey and coffee. In this way the economic value of forests will be raised.

5. Supporting Community Forest Management Associations in

intensifying current crop, livestock and fuel and construction material production and diversifying into new agricultural production activities (e.g. irrigated vegetables and fruit trees).

6. Supporting communities to develop long-term land use plans to

cater for within-community agricultural expansions. It is estimated that these Project activities will reduce the current rates of deforestation by approximately 70 percent.



8. COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS

The Project has lodged its PIN with the Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which is the Designated National Authority (DNA) for the Clean Development Mechanism. The EPA have indicated that they have no objection to the Project proceeding with the application. The Project is currently seeking similar assurances from the Regional Administration of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State.

9. SOURCES OF START UP FUNDING.

The Project has as one of its components the development of modes of payment for environmental services. The implementation of the carbon off-set activities is currently covered by Project funding, including carbon assessment and the production of the Operational Manual.

plan vivo concept note final condensedthe project will cover some 81,000 ha of montane broadleaf...

Documents