NTFP - PFM R & D PROJECT CARBON OFFSETS PLAN VIVO ...

Mizen Teferi, 

July, 2009 

NTFP - PFM R & D PROJECT 

CARBON OFFSETS 

PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT NOTE

NTFP-PFM RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

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 ii


PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT iii


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 iv


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 v


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 

deforestation 1 , 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 vi


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

Southwest Ethiopia. 

PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT vii


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 viii


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

kebeles. 

PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT ix


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 woredas 2 : 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 kebeles 3 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. 

PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT 1


GIS ID # Kebelle 

30 Duwina 

Wereda 

Andracha 

Area (ha) 

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 


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 got 4 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 forestdependent 

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 Nitosols 5 . 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 2005 6 . 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 AREA 

1973 - 2005 

Landcover 1973 1987 2001 2005 

ha 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 ha 

Forest -34,594 -35,388 -25,614 -95,596 

Agriculture/Agoforestry 29,876 33,706 25,626 89,207 

Lowland Shrubland/woodland -75 253 0 178 

Wetlands -18 61 0 43 

Bamboo forest -27 -1,360 0 -1,386 

Coffee/Tea Estate 4,839 2,728 0 7,566 

Difference (%) 

Landcover 1973-1987 1987-2001 2001-2005 

Total 

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 2001-2005 

Total 

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, telecommunications) 

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 agroecological 

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) 

TOTAL BELOW 

ABOVE GROUND TOTAL 

UNDIST DIST TOTAL UNDIST DIST GROUND BIOMASS BIOMASS 

GIS ID # Kebelle Wereda ha ha ha tons tons tons tons tons 

30 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 

16 Alemgena Gesha 1,987 

19 Bahito Chechitoyeri Gesha 2,106 

18 Dingiro Endera Gesha 3,563 

21 GerechoGocheti Gesha 1,574 

TOTAL 12,053 

2 Uwa Masha 1,686 

1 Keja Masha 1,870 

3 Welo Kela Masha 2,793 


7 Welo Bato Masha 1,794 

8 Welo Shoba Masha 1,385 

TOTAL 11,441 

157 Shimi Sheko 2,529 

114 Shayta Sheko 287 

100 Jemdos Sheko 5,445 

113 Sanka Sheko 2,644 

TOTAL 10,905 

116 Fandoka South Bench 893 

149 Bebeka Ersha Lemate South Bench 1,728 

118 No Name South Bench 1,836 

TOTAL 4,457 

GRAND TOTAL 56,906 

434 

351 

612 

705 

404 

2,506 

414 

251 

720 

666 

357 

355 

2,763 

1,723 

279 

1,743 

770 

4,515 

369 

251 

512 

1,133 

24,082 

3,257 

2,338 

2,718 

4,268 

1,978 

14,558 

2,099 

2,121 

3,513 

2,578 

2,151 

1,740 

14,203 

4,253 

566 

7,188 

3,413 

15,420 

1,262 

1,979 

2,349 

5,590 

80,988 

231,439 

162,928 

172,700 

292,156 

129,102 

988,323 

138,228 

153,349 

229,047 

156,846 

147,094 

113,581 

938,144 

207,418 

23,508 

446,490 

216,770 

894,186 

73,234 

141,698 

150,578 

365,510 

4,666,293 

17,365 

14,024 

24,481 

28,201 

16,156 

100,227 

16,549 

10,047 

28,799 

26,622 

14,278 

14,213 

110,509 

68,939 

11,168 

69,722 

30,785 

180,614 

248,803 

176,952 

197,181 

320,357 

145,258 

1,088,551 

154,777 

163,396 

257,846 

183,468 

161,372 

127,794 

1,048,652 

276,357 

34,676 

516,213 

247,555 

1,074,800 

52,249 

37,160 

41,408 

67,275 

30,504 

228,596 

32,503 

34,313 

54,148 

38,528 

33,888 

26,837 

220,217 

58,035 

7,282 

108,405 

51,987 

225,708 

301,052 

214,112 

238,588 

387,632 

175,762 

1,317,146 

187,280 

197,709 

311,994 

221,996 

195,260 

154,631 

1,268,869 

334,392 

41,958 

624,617 

299,542 

1,300,509 

PLAN VIVO PROJECT CONCEPT 19 

14,762 

10,050 

20,494 

45,306 

963,266 

87,996 

151,748 

171,071 

410,816 

5,629,559 

18,479 

31,867 

35,925 

86,271 

1,182,207 

106,475 

183,616 

206,996 

497,087 

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 0.5 

Buffer 30% 

CARBON STOCKS 

AGB (i) BGB (ii) 

TOTAL 

(i+ii) = (iii) 

Annual Deforestation rate 0.9% 

CO2:C ratio 3.67 /yr 

Remaining after deforestation 7.99 t C/ha 

% losses avoided thru' project 50% 

price US$/ton CO2 $2.00 

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/yr 

SHEKIBEDO 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 


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' 


70% = (vii) 

LESS BUFFER 


(vii) * 30% = (viii) 

NET 

ANNUAL 

AVOIDED C 

LOSS 


(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/yr 

YERDANIT 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 


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' 


50% = (vii) 

LESS BUFFER 


(vii) * 30% = (viii) 

NET 

ANNUAL 

AVOIDED C 

LOSS 


(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/yr 

YESHA 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 

tons Carbon 

3,500,000 

3,000,000 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 

500,000 

- 

1 

3 

5 

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF C SEQUESTERED WITH AND WITHOUT 

NTFP CARBON OFFSET PROJECT 

7 

9 

11 

13 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

years 


27 

29 

31 

33 

35 

37 

39 

41 

43 

45 

47 

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 (subkebele) 

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.

NTFP - PFM R & D PROJECT CARBON OFFSETS PLAN VIVO ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?