IMPACT OF DEFORESTATION ON RURAL LIVELIHOOD IN SHEKILA

AND QALLO KEBELES OF DEWA-CHEFA DISTRICT, OROMIA ZONE,

AMHARA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

MSc THESIS

MENGISTU BIRHANU TASISA

AUGUST 2017

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA

Impact of deforestation on rural livelihood in Shekila and Qallo Kebeles of
Dewa-Chefa District, Oromia Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Natural Resources Management and

Environmental Sciences, Postgraduate Program Directorate

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND

MANAGEMENT

MENGISTU BIRHANU

August 2017

Haramaya University, Haramaya

 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

DIRECTORATE FOR POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM

As thesis research advisor, I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated this thesis prepared
under my guidance by Mengistu Birhanu entitled “Impact of Deforestation on Rural
Livelihood in Shekila and Qallo kebeles of Dewa-Chefa District, Oromia Zone, and
Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia”. I recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling the thesis
requirement

Muluken Gezahegn (PhD) __________________ _____________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Lisanework Nigatu (PhD) ________________ _____________

Co-Advisor Signature Date

As members of the Board of Examiners of the M.Sc.Thesis open defense examination, I certify
that I have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Mengistu Birhanu and examined the
candidate. We recommended that the thesis can be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement
for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Sciences Management.

Chairperson Signature Date

_______________ _______________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________ _______________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

______________ _______________ _______________

The final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent up on the submission of the final
copy of the thesis to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the Departmental Graduate
Committee (DGC) of the candidate’s major department.

iii
 DEDICATION

This thesis work is dedicated to my wife Alemnesh Taye, and my son Hawi Mengistu and
Sinbone Mengistu who have been consistently rendering me encouragement and help during
the study period, and for their love, prayers they made towards my success.

iv
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

I declare that this thesis is my work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis have
been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for a M.Sc. degree at the Haramaya University and deposited at the University
Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I declare that this thesis is
not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma
or certificate.

Brief quotation from this thesis is allowable without special permission provided that accurate
acknowledgement of sources is made. Requests for permission for extended quotations from or
reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major
department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the
proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however,
permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Mengistu Birhanu

Signature: _________

Place: Haramaya University, Haramaya

Date of Submission: _________________

v
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born on September 12, 1984 from his father Birhanu Tasisa and his mother Mulu
Garie at Bushane Alalitu Kebele Administration, Nedjo District, West Wollega Zone, Oromiya
Regional State, Ethiopia. He attended his primary education in Dongoro Buna Primary School
(from grade 1-6) and his junior Secondary education (from grade 7-8) in Lalisa Aleltu and
Secondary School Education (from grade 9-12) in Nedjo Senior high School. After he had
completed his secondary education, he joined Mersa ATVET College in 2003 and graduated
with a Diploma in Natural Resource Management in 2005.

Soon after graduation he was employed in Artuma Fursi District of Agricultural Office, Oromia
Special Zone where he served as a Natural Resource Management expert since he joined Bahir
Dar University in 2008 and graduated with a B.Sc. Degree in Natural Resource Management in
2012. After graduation he was employed by the Natural Resource Management (NRM) expert in
Artuma Fursi District Agricultural Office Since 2013 June 12/6/2013. After 13/6/2013 He served
as a Natural Resource Management expert in Oromia Special Zone Agricultural Office, Amhara
Regional State since he joined the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University in
October 2016 to pursue his MSc. Studies majoring in the field of Environmental Sciences and
Management.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and for most, I would like to thank my God for his overall gifts and help in passing me
through the complicated situations I faced for pursing my study (from starting to end) and for his
help and encourage during my whole life time.

Next, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my major advisor Dr. Muluken Gezahegn
for his invaluable comment, close supervision and encouragement all along from research
proposal formulation to its successful execution.

I am also grateful to my co- advisor Dr. Lisanework Nigatu for his encouragements, critical
comments and suggestions during the write up of this thesis. I would like to thank the Amhara
regional state of Agricultural bureau for letting me join post graduate studies at Haramaya
University and for funding my M.Sc. study and research work. I would like also to express my
sincere appreciation to Oromia Administrative Zone of Agriculture office for giving me a chance
to pursue my post graduate study. Moreover, I am highly indebted to Shekila and Qallo kebeles
development agents for assisting me in the field work and their encouragement.

Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest thanks and appreciation to my wife
Alemnesh Taye for her encouragement, love, and patience to challenges faced during my
absence from home. She deserves much credit for my accomplishment. My love also goes to my
sons, Hawi Mengistu and Sinbone Mengistu.

vii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BoARD Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development

DA Development Agent
DCDADO Dewa-Chefa District Agricultural Development Office
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GDP Growth Development Program
ITCZ Inter Tropical Convergence Zone
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NTFPs None Timber Forest Products
PFM Participatory Forest Management
PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme
SLMP Sustainable Land Management Program
UNRISD United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
WB World Bank

viii
 TABLE CONTENTS

DEDICATION IV
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR V
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS VIII
TABLE CONTENTS IX
LIST OF TABLES XIII
LIST OF FIGURES XIV
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX XV
ABSTRACT XVI
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the Study 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 3
1.3. Objectives of the Study 5
1.4. Research Questions 4
1.5. Significance of the Study 5
1.6. Scope of the Study 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1. Definition of Forests 7
2.2. The Concept of Deforestation 7
2.3. The Causes of Deforestation 8
2.3.1. Fuel wood and charcoal making 9
2.3.2. High population growth 10
2.3.3. Agricultural land expansion 11
2.3.4. Overgrazing 11

ix
2.4. Effects of Deforestation 12
2.4.1. Climate change 12
2.4.2. Water and soil resource loss and flooding 13
2.4.3. Decreased biodiversity and habitat loss 14
2.4.4. Social consequences 15
2.5. Definition of Livelihood 16
2.6. Concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihoods 16
2.7. Livelihood in Forest Surround Rural Communities in Ethiopia 17
2.8. Impact of Deforestation on Rural livelihood 18
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 20
3.1. Description of the Study Area 20
3.1.1. Location of the study area 20
3.1.2. Soils of the study area 21
3.1.3. Physiographic feature of the study area 21
3.1.4. Vegetation of the study area 21
3.1.5. Climate of the study area 22
3.1.6. Livelihood 23
3.1.7. Population of the study area 24
3.2. Research Design 25
3.2.1. Sample size and sampling techniques 25
3.2.2. Method of data collection and instrument 27
3.2.3.1. Questionnaires 28
3.2.3.2. Key informant interview 28
3.2.3.3. Focus group discussion 29
3.2.3.4. Field observation 29
3.3. Methods of Data Analysis 30
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 31
4.1. Descriptive Statistics on Socio Demographic Characteristics 31
4.2. Livelihood strategies 34

x
4.2.1. Sources of Livelihood in the Study Area 34
4.2.2. Yearly Income of the Sample Households 35
4.2.3. Major Source of Cash Income in Study Area 36
4.3. Land Holding Size of Respondents in Hectares 37
4.4. Livelihood Contribution of Forest 39
4.4.1. Households Extraction of Forest products 39
4.4.2. Utilization of Forest Products for Sale and Consumption 40
4.4.3. Forest Resources Role for Rural Livelihood and Major Causes of Deforestation in the
Study Area 41
4.4.4. Dominant Tree Species use for the domestic consumption 42
4.4.5. Sources of Energy for Domestic Consumption 43
4.5: Vegetation Cover Change in the Study Area 45
4.5.1. Observation of Forest Resource Degradation in Study Area 46
4.6. The Main Cause of Forest Degradation in Study Area 47
4.7. Mechanisms of Obtaining Farmland the Respondents 49
4.7.1. Agricultural land size and forest area of the respondents. 50
4.7.2. The Impact of Deforestation on Agricultural Production 52
4.8. The Livestock’s as a Source of Income and the Grazing Land of Respondents
53
4.9. Major Impacts of Deforestation on Environment 54
4.9.1.The Impact of Deforestation on the Environment Interims of (Climate Change, Loss of
Biodiversity, Decline of Soil Fertility and Increase of Temperature). 56
4.10. Impact of Deforestation on Socio-Economic of the Respondents 57
4.11. Awareness crate of training on impact of deforestation on rural livelihood of
community 60
4.11.1. The Responsibility of Rural Communities in Forest Resource Management 61
4.12. The Level of Deforestation Impact in the study area 62
4.13: The Strategies to Overcome the Impact of Deforestation on Livelihood 63

xi
4.14. Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews and Field Observation 64
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67
5.1. Summary 67
5.2. Conclusion and Recommendation 68
6. REFERENCES 71
7. APPENDICES 82

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1:Provides some registered household figures for the two Kebeles in study area 26
2: Descriptive statistics on socio demographic characteristics 31
3: Family size of respondents 33
4: Major livelihoods of the respondents 35
5:Total annual income of the respondents 36
6:Summary of households major sources of cash income 37
7:Farmland holding size in hectare 38
8:Percentage distribution of households by forest product exploitation 40
9:Utilization of forest products for sale and consumption 41
10:Dominant forest resources contribution for rural livelihood and major livelihood activities
causing deforestation of the study area 42
11: Dominant tree species use for the domestic consumption of the respondents 43
12: The dominant source of energy for domestic consumption of respondents 44
13: Observation of decline in vegetation coverage’s 45
14: The factors and cause of deforestation in study area 48
15: Do you have sufficient agricultural land ? and mechanism of obtaining farmland of
respondents 51
16: Impact of deforestation on agricultural production 53
17: Livestock’s as a source of income for respondents 54
18: Prioritize the environmental impacts of deforestation as perceived by respondents 55
19: Impact of deforestation on the environment interims 57
20. Impact of deforestation on livelihood of the respondents 57
21. Respondents responses on training of forest conservation and management 61
22. The level of deforestation impact on rural livelihood 62
23. Coping Strategies to overcome the impact deforestation on livelihood 63

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1: Location map of the study area 20

2: Do you benefit obtained from forest resources sufficiently 39
3: Observation of forest resource degradation in study area 47
5. The dense vegetation in the Reke heap of the study 51
6. Farmland expansion by clearing trees in study area 52

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1.Forest area of Ethiopia (1990-2015) 1100

2.Deforestation estimates in Ethiopia by forest type (in hectare) 1994-2003 E.C 100
3.Projected population of the study area (1984-2015) 101
4. Land under cultivation and major crops cultivated in the Dewa Chefa District 102
5.The type and number of Livestock in Dewa Chefa District Figures (2007- 2015) 102

xv
Impact of Deforestation on Rural Livelihood in Shekila and Qallo Kebeles of
Dewa -Chefa District, Oromia Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

Deforestation has significant negative impacts on the livelihood of the local community. The rate
and extent of deforestation is much higher today than in the past. However, the impact of
deforestation on community livelihood is not documented. Therefore, this study was aimed to
address and fill the existing theoretical and practical research gap. That means by providing the
necessary information about the impact of deforestation on rural livelihood. This research was
carried out with the intention of investigating impacts of deforestation on rural livelihood in
selected Kebeles of Dewa -Chefa District, Oromia Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. The
study used a cross sectional data consist of survey method, which was supplemented by
qualitative research to enrich quantitative data. Two kebeles were purposively selected based on
their severity of deforestation impact on livelihood, exploitation of the forest resources for
different purposes. Ninety seven sample household heads were selected using simple random
sampling technique. In addition, key informants and people as FGD were selected by purposely
sampling technique .SPSS software (version 20) were used to analysis the data. The study
findings indicated that the major factors contributing to the rapid deforestation of the natural
forest were attributed to farm land expansion, the rising demand for tree products for fire wood,
expanding population pressures, poverty /lack of income/ and construction materials ,demand
for grazing land. The results of the study also included that the major environmental
consequences of deforestation included the decline of soil fertility, increase in temperature, and
decline in amount of rain fall. Furthermore, the study showed that the socioeconomic impacts of
deforestation on livelihood of rural households in the study area was identified by factors like
decline in forest products, decreased in household income, decline in agricultural yield,
decreased in livestock population and livestock products, increase in desolation of people and
decrease in social consistency. The study also showed that forest resource degradation had
resulted in biodiversity loss in the study area. The efforts in forest resources conservation by
rural households in the study area were not adequate to mitigate the problem of local forest
degradation and deforestation despite the fact that there were some efforts on part of
governmental and nongovernmental organizations in mobilizing the rural community towards
forest conservation. By considering the above facts, then it's recommended that the natural forest
of the study area could be developed. Through- provision of environmental education,
afforestation, providing alternative form of fuel (energy), strengthening PFM and strong law
enforcement on part of the government. On those who illegally and indiscriminately eliminate
the forests help solve the impacts deforestation on the environment and socio-economic of
livelihoods of rural household of study area.
Keywords: Deforestation, Forest degradation, Dewa Chefa district, household, rural livelihood.

xvi
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Forests are one of the most important natural resources with diverse economic, socio-cultural and
ecological uses. The livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been engaged
on forest products either directly or indirectly. Forests have a vital safety net role in time of
needs (Anonymous, 2008).

In addition to contributing to the overall macroeconomic growth of nations, it also uses the
people those depend on these resources for their basic livelihood needs. This is especially true
for the poor and rural populations. So the forest functions depend on the daily needs of
livelihood of people living close to it. For instance, rural populations depend most fundamentally
on forests in terms of subsistence, health, income and culture (Adebisi, 2008).

Forests provide a wide varieties of ecological, economic and social services, including the
conservation of biological diversity, carbon storage, soil and water conservation, provision of
employment and enhanced livelihood, enhancement of agricultural productivity and
improvement of urban and per urban living conditions. That means forest is an intricate system
made up of plants and trees that protect biodiversity, providing home to terrestrial biodiversity
and improving the quality of life forms on earth (Popoola, 2014). While some services are
immediately visible, other is a long term nature and takes their full sense only in the perspective
of intergenerational equity. These services are at risk where they are most needed, especially in
fragile ecosystem which characterized many poor countries and areas in the developing
countries.

The livelihoods of over two hundred million forest dwellers and poor settlers depend directly on
food, fiber, fodder, fuel and other resources taken from the forest or produced on recently cleared
forest resources. Also, according to Nzeh and Eboh (2007) poor people have thus been able to
exploit the forest for food, fuel and other marketable products which create both income and
employment for the rural dwellers.

However, these forest functions and services are being continuously affected by deforestation
and land degradation. Deforestation is one of the major environmental issues not only in directly
 2

affected countries and locations, but also from global perspective, the degree of international
attention to deforestation is appropriate with the role of forests in the global, national and local
ecosystems.

There is increasing societal concern about the impact of deforestation especially in this 21st
century because of the mixed effects; socio-economic benefits and negative effects that it
produces. On the positive side, the loss of the world’s forest resources has contributed to the
fulfillment of households’ livelihoods and provided other socio-economic, cultural and spiritual
benefits. It’s identified about 500 million to 1.6 billion people live in and around forests
benefitting partly from the forests for their livelihoods (TEEB, 2010).

The causes of continuous forest loss are multidimensional and they include both internal and
external factors. The internal factors include: unsustainable agriculture, conversion to
agriculture, wildfires, fire wood collection and charcoal production, mining, population pressure,
poorly defined land and resource tenure. On the other hand, the external factors include: market
failures, international trade, and the imposition of economic programs such as the structural
adjustment program (Appiah et al., 2009).

Different studies indicate that the fertile topsoil is lost at a rate of about one billion cubic meters
per year, resulting in massive environmental degradation and a serious threat to sustainable
agriculture and rural livelihoods (Haileslassie et al., 2005). Altitude and topographic location
have favored Ethiopia to have varying agro climatic zones. This has given rise to the presence of
a botanical treasure house containing over 6000 different flowering plants in Ethiopia; out of
these flowering plants, 12% are probably endemic (FAO, 2007). Measuring the total rate of
habitat conservation for the 1990-2005 intervals, Ethiopia lost 3.6 percent of its forest and
woodland habitat due to firewood collection, conservation to farm land, overgrazing and use of
forest for building materials (FAO, 2005). Population increase have resulted in extensive forest
clearing for agriculture, overgrazing by domestic animals, utilization for fuel wood, fodder and
construction materials (Sands, 2006).

These factors undermine agricultural productivity and aggravate economic development efforts,
especially in developing countries where there is heavy land dependence (Shiferaw and Holden,
2000) in low external-input farming systems as the case being experienced in the Ethiopian
 3

highlands. Incomes from forest sources play an important role in rural livelihoods in developing
countries. In particular, products from forest sources contribute significantly to rural households'
economic wellbeing (Getachew et al., 2007).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Alarming population growth has attributed to increasing demand for forest products and
impacted forest based livelihoods of the local communities adversely. It also confirmed that
deteriorating livelihoods of the local communities at household level were impacts of a growing
population and increasing demands for forest products and other natural resources (Zelalem,
2008). According to Bedru (2007) forest products have a significant role in rural livelihoods
since they are sources of food, medicine, fuel, lumber, paper and habitats for a variety of life
forms. In addition to this, they help to protect soil erosion, regulate climate change and are places
of grazing for livestock during the dry season. African countries the spate of deforestation has
increased over the past four decades, with significant effects on rainfall, temperature, water
resources, wildfire frequency, agriculture and livelihoods (Amisah et al., 2009).It is generally
accepted that consumption of forests has multifaceted benefits for rural livelihood in Ethiopia.
Increase use of fuel wood and charcoal leads to deforestation and forest degradation, soil erosion,
loss of biodiversity and other environmental problems such as negative environmental, economic
and health impacts (Cooke, 2008).

Pressure on arable land is growing, forcing people to convert more marginal lands to arable land
and this leads to further deforestation and land degradation. On the other hand, former areas used
as grazing land are converted to arable lands. Because forest resources are very few and further
decreasing, people are forced to use animal dung as a fuel wood substitute organic matter is thus
not brought back to the soil, but used for other purpose (Ludi, 2002). This fundamental
condition, lead the investigator to propose the research programmes to take the issue seriously.

Loss of forest resources, therefore, make rural people poorer due to loss of direct access to forest
resources, disappearance of arable land due to soil erosion, loss of animal and plant species of
medicinal value, poor environmental quality and loss of water bodies. Therefore, the study
focuses on the impact of deforestation on rural livelihood and to understand rural community
 4

perception towards major causes of deforestation with the current high deforestation rates, which
reduces the yield and the food insecurity problem of the country.

However, local communities are clearing the forests deliberately and/or unknowingly for
various purposes. Similarly, from the investigator’s observation, the existing forest in the study
area is being highly destroyed due to exert excessive pressure on forest reserves as their
livelihoods predicated on the availability, access and utilization of forest products (Appiah,
2009). Additionally, forest degradation risks the quality of life in rural communities and beyond,
militates against the stability of climate and local weather; threaten the existence of other
species. Ultimately, these effects affect the livelihoods in such rural communities in most.

Therefore, forest degradation has significant impact on the livelihood of the local community and
environment of the study area. Cognizant of the above mentioned issues one can infer that
increasing demand of wood for fuel and construction purpose, the shortage of farm land, scarcity
of forest product coupled with poverty and rapid population growth in the study area would lead
to clearance of vegetation cover. Therefore, this research work was conducted to fill the existing
theoretical and practical research findings gap by providing the necessary information about the
impact of deforestation on rural livelihood of households in the Dewa Chefa district.

1.3. Research Questions

In relation to the cause’s extent, the study tries to answer the following research questions.
 What is the impact of deforestation on rural livelihood in the Shekila and Qallo Kebeles of
Dewa-Chefa district?
 What is the contribution of forest resource to rural livelihood in the Shekila and Qallo
Kebeles of Dewa-Chefa District
 What the efforts by local community on forest resource in the Shekila and Qallo Kebeles
of Dewa-Chefa District?
 5

1.4. Objectives of the Study

General Objective: -
The study focused on investigating the impact of deforestation on the rural livelihood in the
Shekila and Qallo Kebeles of Dewa-Chefa district

The specific objectives were:-

 To assess the impact of deforestation on the rural livelihood in the Shekila and Qallo
Kebeles of Dewa-Chefa District
 To assess the contribution of forest to rural livelihood in the Shekila and Qallo Kebeles of
Dewa-Chefa District
 To investigate the efforts by local community on forest resource in the Shekila and Qallo
Kebeles of Dewa-Chefa District

1.5. Significance of the Study

Livelihoods of rural households are adversely affected by impacts of deforestation and land
degradation since them directly or indirectly depend on forest resources. The study is useful to
assess the impact of deforestation on the rural livelihood of the farming households.
Furthermore, the findings of this study important in providing valuable information to policy
makers, development planners, NGOs, and government institutions working in the locality; for
the purpose of successful food security programme enhancement practices. Deforestation,
besides altering the natural environment, affects the access of households to wood for fuel and
construction. Rural households rely mainly on the forest products for energy. Therefore,
understanding of the impact of deforestation on the rural livelihood of farmers would enable
policy makers and development partners of the government to plan and implement programmes
and projects to alleviate the problems there by improving livelihood of the community.

This research is designed to understand the level of knowledge of the community about
deforestation and the associated negative impacts on their rural livelihood which is essential in
the development and implementation of natural resource management programmes. The
declining fertility of the soil leading to demand for chemical fertilizers to compensate for the loss
of organic matter and essential nutrients through deforestation has been a pressing issue among
 6

rural communities. This study helping know the extent to which the rural livelihoods of the study
area are affected by deforestation and land degradation. Therefore, the information can be
useful to understand, the impact of deforestation on the rural livelihood of farmers, what are the
major determinants for households to impacts environmental and socioeconomic on the study
area.

1.6. Scope of the Study

The geographical size of the study area and the scope of the problem should be delimited to
restricted selected Kebeles. Accordingly, the focus of this study was to assess the impacts of
deforestation on the rural livelihood. The survey activity was conducted in two representative
Kebele administrations of Shekila and Qallo in Dewa-Chefa District, Oromia Zone, Amhara
Regional State. These findings from the study may possibly assist policy makers in developing
pertinent policies to protect the forests in study area and also, provide better alternatives for the
people take advantage of the forest for their own development.
 7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Definition of Forests

A basic definition of a forest is that, it is an ecosystem or assemblage of ecosystems dominated

by trees and other woody vegetation. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) however,
provides a more comprehensive definition of the term. According to FAO (2010), a forest is a
land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5meters and a canopy cover of more
than 10 percent, or trees able to reach these thresholds situated naturally and uninterrupted.

2.2. The Concept of Deforestation

Deforestation defined broadly can include not only conversion to non-forest, but also
degradation that reduces forest quality, density and structure of the trees, the ecological services
supplied, the biomass of plants and animals, the species diversity and the genetic diversity (FAO,
2005). Angelsen and Balcher (2005), report that the disappearance of natural forests in
developing countries is a major problem because it negatively affects the livelihoods of people
dependent on forest products and services.

Historically forests have been any important for the people of Ethiopia for their livelihood even
more than now. People used trees to cook their food, to build their traditional homes. They also
made traditional medicines from trees and other forests plants. Ethiopia reported in FAO (2010)
puts Ethiopia among countries of the world with forest cover of 10–30 %. According to this
report Ethiopia’s forest cover (FAO definition) is 12.2 million ha (11 %). It further indicated that
the forest cover shows a decline from 15.11 million ha in 1990 to 12.2 million ha in 2010, during
which 2.65 % of the forest cover was deforested.

Bishaw (2003) indicates that forests and the benefits they provide in the form of wood, food,
income and watershed protection against land degradation have an important and critical role to
play in enabling people to secure a stable adequate food supply. Claus (2006), deforestation
impacts economic activity and threatens the livelihood and cultural integrity of forest-dependent
people at local level. Deforestation reduces the supply of forest products and leads to siltation,
 8

flooding and soil degradation. Yasuoka and Levins (2007) are of the opinion that clearing forests
and the subsequent agricultural development has a detrimental effect on every element of local
ecosystems such as microclimate, soil and aquatic conditions, and most significantly, the ecology
of local plants and animals including human disease factors.

Ethiopian farmers and a significant number of urban dwellers depend solely on biomass energy
for cooking and in some cases even for lighting. Wood is therefore vital sources of domestic
energy besides the need for construction and production of farm implements and household
furniture. Bekele (2001) maintains that the energy sector remains heavily dependent on wood for
fuel. Wood provides 78% of the energy required, while dung and crop residues provide 16 %.
Additionally, Asfaw (2003) reports that a marked feature of Ethiopia’s energy sector is the high
proportion about 93% of biomass energy relative to modern forms of energy consumption.
However, deforestation and land degradation are rapidly becoming the most serious problems in
rural Ethiopia where the majority of the population live and depend on the forest products for
energy.

Tumbe et al. (2005) and Schereckenberga et al. (2007) state that forests fulfill central role in
rural livelihoods, providing a wide range of products and services for subsistence use, cash
income and safety nets in times of need. In particular, rural households depend on forest and
wood land resources to meet their energy needs, to provide construction and roofing materials,
and to provide fodder for livestock. In addition wild fruits ensure healthy diet as well as a supply
of medicinal plants.

Consumption of wood for fuel occurs not only in rural areas, but also in urban areas. Area
attributed to deforestation stands at 150, 000 to 200,000 hectares per year, Bishaw (2001), Haile
et al. (2006) and Berhe (2004). Generally deforestation occurs when people clear forest for their
personal need such as, for fuel, hunting, when they need the land to grow and harvest crops, for
building houses, and at times because of religion beliefs (Sucoff, 2003).

2.3. The Causes of Deforestation

The causative factors of deforestation have their roots in different sectors (Mahapatra and Kant,
2003) and as a result, the effects produced are also varied across the global, national and local
 9

boundaries. These factors may be categorized broadly into anthropogenic and natural. In most
cases the anthropogenic causes are often easily identifiable probably because of the increasingly
recognition of human footprints on the earth’s system (McCarthy, 2009). It is important to note
the human drivers of environmental change (deforestation) vary in nature and scope but can be
broadly grouped together as economic, conflict and governance, demographic, social and science
and technology (UNEP, 2006).

There are several reasons for the depletion of forest resources in Ethiopia. However, the major
causes include: increases in population and consequent increases in the demand for agricultural
land, fuel wood as well as construction and industrial use; settlements around forest areas and
forest fires; the expansion of large commercial farms in forest areas; the absence of a forest
protection and conservation policy; the absence of a strong forest administration system capable
of arresting the rapidly increasing rate of deforestation as well as controlling and preventing the
disruption of the various eco-systems; lack of effort to ensure the participation of communities in
forest protection and conservation and the sharing of benefits; failure to clearly demarcate and
enforce the boundaries of natural forest reserves (EPA, 2003, MELCA Mahiber, 2008). Ethiopia,
forest degradation is closely linked to the ongoing population growth. As commonly known
more people lead to an increasing demand on land for living and for agricultural production. This
is can be done at the expanse of forest lands.

2.3.1. Fuel wood and charcoal making

People who are living in developing countries depend largely on fuel wood as major energy for
cooking and heating. The collection and burning of fuel wood create environmental problems
including soil erosion, loss of watershed areas, and emission of particulate and other pollutants
(De Souza et al., 2003). Firewood gathering and charcoal making have significantly contributed
to land degradation and forest destruction.

In most developing countries, more than 80% of wood extracted are being used for fuel
(Myanmar, 2000). Fuel wood consumption is one of the main causes of deforestation and
excessive cutting trees for firewood before they are fully grown, leads to the loss of potential
growth of the forest stands in these countries.
 10

In Ethiopia, 85% of domestic energy consumption is derived from forest products and this
clearing land without selection to expand agricultural lands is the main cause of loss of
biodiversity (Girma. et al., 2002).As population increases household energy consumption also
increases. Large population of the country depends on fuel wood and charcoal. For the poor in
rural areas, it is not only a source of energy but a means of income generation too.

Charcoal making and selling is a major non-farm employment along main roads of the country
(Mulat et al., 2004). Scarcity of fire wood has become acute in many parts of the country causing
a continuous rise in prices, and thus increasing the economic burden on house hold budget.
Animal dung and crop residues are increasingly being used for household fuel rather than being
added to the soil to improve soil fertility, thus further exacerbating the problems of
environmental degradation and deforestation. This indicates that the situation with energy use is
one of the most critical land degradation issues in Ethiopia.

2.3.2. High population growth

Rapid population growth affects the quality of the environment and living standard of the people
and the reverse is true. Population growth means an increasing number of people with no
proportionally growing alternative sources of livelihood. This unbalanced growth of population
and alternative resources may lead to environmental deterioration such as deforestation,
overgrazing, soil erosion, water pollution and others (Woldeamlak, 2002).

According to the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2010),
the overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture; with subsistence farming
responsible for 32%, logging 14% and fire wood removal make up 5%. Nigeria has the worst
deforestation rate in the world, which can be attributed to increase in population with high
poverty level bulk of the population depend on forests for their energy needs (IITA, 2011).

In most parts of Ethiopia, rural households are depending on subsistence agriculture; use forest
products as fuel, fodder, and building materials. In poor rural comminutes the continued need for
family labor supports high fertility and rapid population growth that places additional pressure
on natural vegetation (De Souza et al., 2003). Similarly, Medhin (2002), in his report titled with
sustainable development in Ethiopia, ‟ described that unchecked population growth, coupled
 11

with overgrazing, has brought about the encroachments of the marginal areas as steep slopes and
ecologically precious lands to meet the need for wood, fuel and grazing. The subsequent
removals of natural vegetation and improper land use practices have resulted in the degradation
of the land and eventually conversion into wastelands.

2.3.3. Agricultural land expansion

The rapid population growth coupled with accelerated deforestation and land degradation has led
to an increasing demand for agricultural land. The rapid degradation and depletion of the forest
resources base is already finding its expression in the different sectors of the economy such as
agriculture, water resources, energy and biodiversity (Hosonuma et al., 2012).

The expansion of agricultural land by clearing forests is the major cause of deforestation in
Ethiopia (Verchot, 2014) The greatest threats to the remaining natural forests of Ethiopia are
man-made clearing for farm land expansion at present level, the clearing of forests by investors
for coffee and tea plantations, and indicated that uncontrolled exploitation of the timber and fuel
wood in the remaining woody vegetation. Yet, depending on the orientation between land-
converting activities and forest resource extraction, effort allocation by households might
increase deforestation, increase forest degradation, or enhance both (Delacote and Angelsen,
2015).

2.3.4. Overgrazing

In the highlands, the expansion of grazing land beyond the land’s carrying capacity occurs at the
expense of the remaining natural vegetation and further land degradation. The scarcity of grazing
land and livestock feed causes the wide spread use of natural vegetation particularly forests to
feed livestock (MoARD, 2007).

Livestock pressure and stock management (mainly based on free grazing system) are major
sources of deforestation and land degradation. Only 25% of Ethiopia’s high livestock population
grazes in the rangelands, where as 75% graze in the highlands (EPA, 2010). Overgrazing
destroys the most palatable and useful species in the plant mixture and reduces the density of the
plant cover, thereby increasing the erosion hazard and reducing the nutritive value and the
carrying capacity of the land.
 12

In Ethiopia, overgrazing is mainly due to keeping large number of cattle in forest and wood
lands. The consequences of overgrazing have been land degradation, soil erosion, soil
compaction as well as reduced species diversity and density of the vegetation (Chamshama and
Nduwayezu, 2002). Heavily grazed plots result in poor quality of physical and even chemical
properties of soils. High soil compaction is clearly observed in heavily grazed plots than less
grazed plots (Girma et. al., 2002).

2.4. Effects of Deforestation

Deforestation is a contributor to global warming and is often cited as one of the major causes of
the enhanced greenhouse effect. Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of
world greenhouse gas emissions (Williams, 2006). Removal of forest cover leads to a loss of
animal habitat, loss of biodiversity, shortage fuel wood, agricultural land soil erosion and
drought (Mulligan, 2004).

2.4.1. Climate change

Deforestation, particularly tropical deforestation, can change the global change of energy by
increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Lawton et al., 2001). Tropical
deforestation has regional effects on the ecological environment of adjacent mountains.
Deforestation disrupts normal weather patterns creating hotter and drier weather thus clearly
increasing drought and desertification, crop failures and displacement of vegetation regimes. In
dry forest areas, land degradation and deforestation has become, an increasing serious problem
resulting extreme cases in desertification (Hays, 2008).

Climate is the interaction of all of the components of the earth’s system and it includes the solar
and infrared radiations and sensible and latent heat fluxes are all impacted by changes in the
earth’s surface. The significant role of the land within the climate system should not be
surprising. Apart from their role as reservoirs, sinks, and sources of carbon, forests provide
numerous additional ecosystem services. Many of these ecosystem services directly or indirectly
influence climate. The climate-related ecosystem services that forests provide include the
maintenance of elevated soil moisture and surface air humidity, reduced sunlight penetration,
weaker near-surface winds and the inhibition of anaerobic soil conditions (Pielke, 2002).
 13

It is frequently stressed that the changes of vegetation type can modify the characteristics of the
regional atmospheric circulation and the large-scale external moisture fluxes. So that Changes in
surface energy budgets resulting from land surface change can have a profound influence on the
Earth's climate (WMO, 2005). On the other hand, the transported transformation of substances in
the environment, through living organisms, the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice are known
collectively as biogeochemical cycles. The Earth system is composed of a number of
biogeochemical cycles, all powered by the sun’s energy. These global cycles include the
circulation of certain elements, or nutrients, upon which life and the earth’s climate depend.
Then, through these cycles, all components of the environment are interrelated and greatly affect
each other.

2.4.2. Water and soil resource loss and flooding

In rural Ethiopia, food security is affected by a combination of socio-economic factors and

increasing fragility of local ecosystems (erosion and deforestation in particular), together with
increasing population pressure which has seriously affected agriculture productivity in many
areas. Bruijnzeel (2004) in his study of hydrological function of forests, described deforestation
disrupts the global water cycle. With the removal of forest, the area cannot hold as much water
creating drier climate. Thus, deforestation seriously affects water resources including drinking
water, streams and dams affected by siltation, and damage to crops and irrigation system from
erosion. In line with above ideas, Van NordWijk (2006) indicated deforestation results in to
watersheds that are no longer able to sustain and water flows from rivers and streams which
leads to flooding and soil erosion. The formation of sheet, rill and/or gully erosion are common
in areas where ground cover is insufficient.

In Ethiopia, soil erosion is the most ecological process which degraded the precious soil
resources which is basis of agricultural productivity and food for the people (Hurni, 1993). Loss
of fertile soil reduced production and the per capita income, which further impoverished the
resources poor-subsistence farmers (Mekuria, 2005). The massive removal of forests cover is a
driving force behind land degradation in Ethiopia. The removal of vegetation cover for the use as
fodder, and fuel leads to an increasing surface runoff and, to high soil erosion. In addition this
will lead to loss of soil nutrient and a reduction in water holding capacity (Teketay, 2001).
 14

2.4.3. Decreased biodiversity and habitat loss

Forest ecosystems play several roles at worldwide as well as local levels as contributor of
environmental services to nature in general, humans in particular, and as source of economically
valued products (UNEP, 2005). Forests especially natural forests are used for various ecological
and economic purposes.

Myers and Mittermier (2002) stated that forests especially those in tropics serve as store house of
biodiversity and consequently deforestation, fragmentation and degradation destroys the
biodiversity as a whole and habitats for migratory species including the endangered species.
They also argue that tropical forests support about two-thirds of all species and contain 65% of
the world’s 10,000 endangered species. Moreover, the biodiversity loss and associated large
changes in the forest cover trigger abrupt, irreversible harmful regional, climatic changes which
could shift rainforests to savannas and deserts (FAO, 2010).

In support of this, MoARD (2007) described Ethiopia’s forests has been currently depleted by
conversion of forest areas to agricultural lands, by a high demand for timber and fuel wood. In
Ethiopia, a leading cause of degradation of marginal forested is caused poor farmers and landless
people who clear trees to grow crops and the abject of rural population poverty. People damage
environment and accelerate environmental degradation, there by adding to rural poverty and
misery.

Moreover, CBD (2009) reported that forest and generally biomass degradation, as well as
consequent land degradation leads to the destruction and erosion of biodiversity of both plants
and animals. In the past, the focus of biodiversity conservation in Ethiopia was only in crop
genetic resources. Thus, animal diversity was completely neglected, while plant diversity was
only of interest as far as it related to crop genetic resource diversity. More specifically, the
destruction of habitats; the introduction of a narrow spectrum of crop varieties; recurring
droughts, as well as wars and conflicts could be mentioned as the most common causes for the
destruction of biodiversity in Ethiopia. In view of the presently growing conflicts between
biodiversity conservation and agricultural needs, there is a potential danger that conservation of
biodiversity may lose.
 15

The loss of plant biodiversity may lead to the decline of ecosystem integrity and loss of plant
genetic resources, which in turn result in hindrance of scientific progress in agriculture and
pharmaceutics. According to WHO (1999), 80 percent of the world population depends on herbal
medicine for primary health care needs. The main source of these traditional medicines is the
forest ecosystem. Therefore, loss of plant biodiversity would have great influence on the health
of the poor who are financially constrained and will not be able to buy modern medicine.
According Tadesse (2003), deforestation resulting in loss of biodiversity is among the most acute
environmental problems in the country. The use of herbal medicine in the country therefore may
not have a sustainable future.

2.4.4. Social consequences

According to Schmink and Wood (1992), the most immediate social impact of deforestation
occurs at local level with change or loss of ecological service provided by forests. Forests afford
humans valuable service such as erosion prevention, flood control, water treatment functions that
are particularly important in the world’s poorest people who relying on natural resources for their
own every day survival. They also argue that by destroying the forests peoples risk own quality
of life, gamble with the stability of climate and local weather, and threaten the existence of other
species.

Cultural factors such as attitudes and perceptions as unconcern for forests due to low morale and
frontier mentalities, lack of steward ship values, and disregard for “nature”, profit-orientation of
actors, traditional or inherited modes of cultivation or land-exploitation, and a commonly
expressed sentiment that it is necessary to clear the land to establish an exclusive claim (Alex,
2002).

As to Wageyehu (2003), the destruction of tree stocks would cause changes the ecology of rural
areas, mainly carrying capacity of the soil loses of top soil, reduced erosion soil moisture content
and greeter flooding adversely changes water tables, reduction in the recycling of soil nutrients
are observed in many parts of Ethiopia.
 16

2.5. Definition of Livelihood

Carney (1998) defines a livelihood as “the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living”. The assets are defined as capitals
(natural, human, financial, physical and social) and more than just being simply the means to
make a living with, they also give value to people’s life. This definition incorporates attributes
such as: getting the basic requirement of living (food, shelter, clothing, money); capabilities or
capacities, which are based on equity of resources and participatory decision making (Hiremath
and Raju, 2004).

Ellis (2000) also defines livelihood as the activities, the assets and the access that jointly
determine the living gained by the individual or household. What is common to the three views
is the ability of people to undertake activities and own assets to guarantee them decent living
conditions. Aduse-Pokuet al. (2003) posits that livelihood is much more than a job. It covers the
wide and diverse range of things people do, comprising the capabilities, assets and activities
required for a means of living. In most situations resources found within one’s immediate
vicinity will provide a livelihood or the means of making a living, which is true of most rural
dwellers in Ethiopia.

2.6. Concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihoods

The concept of ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods’ relates to a wide set of issues and is increasingly
central to the debate about rural development, poverty reduction and environmental management
(Scoones, 1998).Thus, the idea of sustainable livelihoods emerged as an approach to maintaining
or enhancing resource productivity, securing ownership of and access to assets, resources and
income-earning activities, as well as ensuring adequate stocks and flows of food and cash to
meet basic needs. Clearly, impact of deforestation on rural livelihood is an important component
of this framework (Tropenbos International, 2005).

A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks maintain or
enhances its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next
generation, and which contribute net benefit to other livelihood at the local or global levels and
in the short and long term (Solesbury, 2003) .Rainfall remains a constraint outside the influence
of households, and its affects the productive practices. The importance of rainfall for agriculture,
 17

especially small holder agriculture, cannot be over emphasized as its variability and scarcity
affects sharply the yields and livelihood of farmers. It is factor within the control of small
holders, and depends on the use of sustainable management practice. Rain fed agriculture and
animal husbandry are the principal economic activities in the study area. These factors lead to
deforestation and land degradation, which reduces the bio- productivity of the soil and land.
Deforestation mostly affects rural households who are forced to depend on natural resources for
their livelihoods. More so, deforestation and land degradation lead to the migration of people to
urban or other areas to engage in economic activities such as farming, grazing and fishing. Other
impacts of deforestation are that it could lead to economic and social strife. Food security
remains a top priority for most rural people, including the urban poor that constitute the majority
of farmers in the study area. Contending with low rainfall, depleting soil fertility, and high
temperature, farmers adopt various methods to ensure adequate harvests.

2.7. Livelihood in Forest Surround Rural Communities in Ethiopia

Most forest fringe communities are rural in nature and that, the rural economy is primarily
agricultural although some trading, small-scale production and food processing, collection and
processing of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and services take place in the community
(Abane, 2009). Some of the dominant livelihood activities include farming (crop production and
animal rearing.), gathering, hunting, trading and craft making. Among these livelihood activities,
crop production and animal rearing are the most common source of livelihoods for most rural
dwellers.

Gathering is a seasonal livelihood activity since most of the items collected do not appear
throughout the year. These products are usually gathered in the forest and are called non timber
forest products (NTFPs). Examples include snails, mushrooms, canes and leafy vegetables. They
are particularly important among the rural poor who have access to few resources beyond the
forest. Hunting is another form of livelihood, mainly practiced by males. Small wild animals are
hunted during the day and bigger animals hunted during the night. Women are normally not
involved (Aduse-Poku et al., 2003). This livelihood depends on the continued existence of
suitable wildlife habitats. With the introduction of commercialization, trading has become very
popular in most rural economies. Items traded in include food, crops, local and imported
 18

products. Women and the youth used to do most of the selling; however the trend is now
changing since more men are getting involved. In some villages and towns cottage industries
such as pottery, woodcarving, soap making, basket weaving, cloth making, wood industry, palm
oil extraction and food processing e.g. corn or rice mill are found. Some rural dwellers that have
some form of formal training are employed in the public services such as teaching, nursing, or in
providing services to the public. These people may be few due to lower levels of education in the
rural areas (Aduse-Poku et al., 2003).

2.8. Impact of Deforestation on Rural livelihood

From the reviewed literature, deforestation is a known development challenge. It is proposed that
people have an understanding of forest types and that deforestation influence the local perception
of the rate and extent of deforestation and its causes (Adams, 2009).

The livelihood of rural people is directly linked to the utilization of forest resources for food
production, energy sources and shelter. Mismanagement of these resources reduces the
livelihoods of those who are dependent on these resources. The majority of the Ethiopian
population (85%) relies on land resources including forest resources for their livelihood, mainly
through land cultivation (Bekele, 2001). The traditional system of land cultivation has led to the
removal of the productive top-soil hence a decline in land productivity, which has negative
economic and environmental implications. The demand for wood both to build houses and for
fuel contributes to the depletion of the resources. This imbalance between the natural
regeneration and removal of the resources exacerbates land degradation there by placing a strain
on the livelihoods of households. Therefore, further exploration of the causes of deforestation
and soil erosion and linking this impact to rural livelihoods of the farming communities of
Ethiopia can make a vital contribution to local knowledge and community development
planning.

Deforestation, partly resulting from unsustainable agricultural practices and fuel wood
exploitation are exacerbating problems of environmental degradation especially desertification
and soil erosion and loss of biodiversity in the more arid and semi-arid regions. These
environmental problems may ultimately result in soil impoverishment or outright loss of the
productive topsoil with an attendant decline in vegetation cover of the areas. This was
 19

consequently cause forest ecosystems to change in various ways, such as in animal and plant
species distribution, changes in tree physiology and stability. This was manifested itself in stand-
level effects, as well as in major disruptions or disasters caused by more dramatic weather
events.
 20

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1. Location of the study area

Geographically, Dewa-Chefa district is located in Amhara National Regional State, Oromia

special administrative Zone. Dewa-Chefa district was found 325 km North-East of Addis Ababa.
In terms of relative location, Dewa-Chefa district is bordered on the North by Kalu district, on
the South by the Artuma fursi district, on the East by Dawe Harewa district and on the West by
Antsokya district. The geographical location of Dewa-Chefa district is in North-Eastern part of
Ethiopia between 10o32’–10o58’N latitudes and 39o46’–39o56’E longitudes with an altitudinal
range between 1,400 to 2,500 meters above sea level (masl). The Dewa-Chefa district covers an
area of 1,156.36 square kilometer (115,636 ha) (DCDADO, 2015).

Figure 1: Location map of the study area

Source: Ethio-Arc GIS, 2014

 21

3.1.2. Soils of the study area

According to FAO (1984), the soils of Wollo area have been developed almost exclusively on
trap series volcanoes. The soil on the land forms, which include wide parallel valleys, side slopes
and volcanic plateau, are generally stony phase eutric and dystric Vertisols or vertic Cambisols.
In the intensively cultivated, even on minimum slopes, these highly erodible soils can become
quite shallow. On the steeper land forms, eutric Cambisols predominate, with lithic phases and
Leptosols occurring on the steepest slopes. The soil for the study area includes predominantly
Chromic Cambisols, Eutric Cambisols and Chromic Vertisols where the Chromic Cambisols
dominates the eastern part of the study area and the Chromic Vertisols occupies the southern,
south western and north western area of the study area. Vertisols is generally fertile soil, with
good moisture holding capacity, but with water logging problems in those areas where the land
slope is below 8% (IPMS, 2004). They are hard and crack during dry season and sticky when it
is wet in the rainy season (summer).

3.1.3. Physiographic feature of the study area

Dewa-Chefa district is composed of various altitudinal categories of highlands that rising from
1400m to 2500 masl (meters above sea level) in the extreme West (Terefe kebele) to the
extreme East (Reke Glana and Gula kebele) of the study area.According to DCDARDO (2015),
the topography of Dewa-Chefa district is grouped in to three; namely, mountain, rugged
topography, and flat land. Generally, rugged topography is the dominant land form of the survey
area. It is obvious that the present day land configuration of the district is the result of past
tectonic activities in the area. The study area is largely exposed to these negative impacts of
deforestation and forest resources degradation.

3.1.4. Vegetation of the study area

The Dewa Chefa district administration vegetation cover is categorized as vegetation of arid and
semi-arid lands (highly variable, including cactus scrub, thorn scrub and many woody and sparse
grasses formations). The vegetation in the Administration is not found in contiguous form
covering large area; rather it is seen as fragmented patches of bush land, shrub land and trees in
agricultural sites and hillsides. The natural forest has been cleared to satisfy the demands of the
ever increasing population such as construction material, fuel wood, fodder and agricultural
 22

expansion. The remaining high forests cover less than 7% while the majority of the landmass is
covered with shrub lands. According to the Dewa Chefa district Agricultural Development
Office 2015 report about 7.8 percent of the total land area of the district is covered by
vegetation; 16% open shrub and lantana camara land, Whereas, the vast area of the district 8.7%,
is bare land, sand or rock with scrubs and grasses. On large hills of the area, the vegetation is
extremely threatened because of intense grazing and fuel wood extraction.

However, recently, substantial environmental regeneration campaign practices have been

underway in some parts of the district where enclosing an area from livestock and human
interventions being taken as a one of strategies in the restoration of the degraded forest lands. In
addition to this the planting of different young trees is enabling the degraded hills in restorations
and conservations of vegetation in the district where. Reke forests can be taken as a good
example.

3.1.5. Climate of the study area

The agro-climate of the study area is sub-divided in to two zones; that is, Woyina Dega and Kola
zones. Therefore, the agro-climate of the study area is dominantly characterized by Tropical
(Kola) type of climate. The highest temperature is observed during the spring season (May to
June), while the lowest temperature is during the months of October, November and December.
Temperature and rainfall are considered to be the two most important factors in the agriculture of
the highland regions of Amhara, and Ethiopia at large. The maximum and minimum annual
average temperatures are 35 0C and 25 0C (DCDADO, 2015).

There are two rainy seasons in the highland regions of Ethiopia namely the short rainy season
(Belg), occurs between February and April and “Kiremt” and which show the big rains. Summer
(Kiremt) rains which accounts for about 74% of the annual precipitation are the most
economically important rains for crop production (Kahsay, 2004).The rainfall of the study area is
similar to other parts of the lowland regions. The rainfall pattern of the study area is bi-modal
and the main rainy season (summer) extends from June to September when the ITCZ is to the
North of the equator. The small wet season is usually occurs during the first two months of
spring (March to April). The annual total rainfall of the study area is not more than 900 mm. on
an average DCDADO (2015).
 23

3.1.6. Livelihood

The major source of livelihood of the population in the study area is mixed farming (i.e. crop and
livestock). The primary economic activities are crop and livestock production. In addition to
these activities, the people engage in petty trading, construction, and daily labor. Crop
production plays a great role in income generation in the district. Cereals and pulses are the main
crops grown. Farming land has expanded towards steeper slopes and this has accelerated soil
erosion and vegetation degradation in Dewa Chefa district. The farmers are also rear animals like
cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys. Hillside areas are used as a communal grazing land. There is
high animal feed shortage throughout the year, especially during the dry season. The major crops
grown in the area include teff, sorghum, and maize. The major growing season is the Meher, the
most productive (dominant) season in the study area. Having only one productive agricultural
season is one of the reasons, coupled with severe deforestation and land degradation, that the
population of the area is often faced with food shortages (Dewa- Chefa district ADO, 2015).

Agriculture activities are rain-fed, and planned around the Kiremt season which lasts from June
to mid-September. An erratic belg short rainy season occurs from February to April. The
cultivation of staple sorghum, maize, and teff is complemented by an assortment of cash crops
that include masho (mung bean), tobacco, fruits and vegetables. Oxen are used to provide
draught power for land preparation.

Ploughing requires the heaviest labour and is done by men. Women do most of the weeding, and
support men during harvesting. Migrant laborers from the Wollo and Shoa highlands come into
the zone in search of harvesting labor opportunities. The main livestock reared are cattle and
goats. Goats are the commonly sold and slaughtered livestock. Goat sales and slaughter increase
during the religious festivals in April (Easter), September (New Year) and January (Christmas).
Income from the sale of goats is important for covering regular household expenses throughout
the year. Cattle are high-value assets owned only by the middle and better-off households.
Though they are sparingly sold, they provide most of livestock income. Livestock sales in
normal years are moderated by the interest in modest herd growth in order to accumulate a stock
of animals that can be sold in bad years. For this reason, mature female animals are particularly
esteemed. They are usually replaced from within the herd. Increased availability of mature
 24

female animals on the market is a strong indicator of severe household distress. Lactating cows
provide additional income from the sale of butter. Oxen are also important for providing traction
power. Seasonal oxen sales occur during the land preparation period, and provide an opportunity
to replace ageing oxen from the market. Children are mainly responsible for watching over all
livestock. Black leg and anthrax are the main hazards to livestock production. Treatment and
vaccination for these diseases is available from the BoARD free of charge or from the market.
The poor earn additional income from firewood sales and wage labor opportunities. Firewood is
collected from state protected areas, and labor is available in urban areas or in the fields of the
better off households.

The productive safety net programme (PSNP) was initiated in 2005 and is designed to protect the
assets of chronically food insecure households through the provision of food and cash
entitlements. Household with able-bodied members get access to their entitlements through
public works activities, and households without labor receive direct support i.e. without
participating in public works. PSNP distributes cash to the very poor from January to June.
Participants are paid 25 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) per day for a 5-day working week for one person
(Dewa- Chefa district ADO, 2015).

Since agro-climatic zone of the district is conducive for crop production, various types of crops
such as sorghum, teff, maize, mung beans, etc. are the major crops grown in the district.
Furthermore, cattle breading is very common in the area. In addition, forest exploitation and sale
of forest resources is also one of the major household income sources of the forest surrounding
community and the poorest households. Forest products such as constructional materials, fuel
wood and charcoal are supplied to Kemise, Komobolcha and Dessie town and even to the city of
Addis Ababa from the existing forest resources in the district.

3.1.7. Population of the study area

Dewa-Chefa district has the total population of 141,529. Out of this 70,115 are females the
remaining 71,414 are males. From the total Population (urban and rural) about 98 percent are
Muslims; the remaining (2 percent) are Orthodox, Protestant and other religious groups. About
97.8 percent (137, 283) live in rural areas and out of these 99 % are Muslims (DCDADO,
20015).
 25

3.2. Research Design

The study was designed to investigate the impact of deforestation on rural livelihood in selected
kebeles of Dewa-Chefa district, Oromia Zone; Amhara Regional State. A cross sectional data
was employed to collect data because this method is suitable for describing the existing situation,
narrating facts and investigating phenomena. Cross sectional data involves data collection from
sample of population at one specific time as opposed to longitudinal method which gathers data
on a factor over time. Its advantage is that it is an efficient way to identify possible group
differences because one can study them at one point in time. Here, it was used to describe, the
causes and impacts of deforestation on rural livelihood in the study area. In order to address the
stated objectives both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used.

The cross sectional data used to describe and explain the current situation of forest degradation
in the study area. It was also chosen because it would be helpful in obtaining pertinent and
precise information on impact of deforestation on rural livelihood by concerned stakeholders and
to draw valid conclusions about the events of the sample population.

3.2.1. Sample size and sampling techniques

There are 21 administrative kebeles in Dewa-Chefa district. Out of them two kebeles were
selected purposively based on severity of deforestation and forest degradation. Moreover, these
two kebeles were selected, because of the researcher’s own experience about the area, which was
important to know and prioritize the serious problems in the study area. Their inhabitants live in
close proximity to the main road and forest product selling site than the remaining ones.
Therefore, the information obtained through in depth discussions made with Dewa-Chefa district
Agricultural Development Office (DCDADO) and Dewa-Chefa district Agricultural
experts(DCDAE) gave priority to them to be selected. The purposively selected kebeles were
Shekila and Qallo. Shekila kebele has the total population of 7,068 and total household size
of 1414 and Qallo kebele has the total population of 7,041 and total household size of 1408.
The total numbers of households of these kebeles are 2,822. The sample households for Shekila
and Qallo kebele administrations were 97respondents.
 26

Selection of data collection techniques depended on the type of information needed, and also the
types of the respondents. While designing of the techniques, attention was given to answer the
research questions and to attain the objectives. The following are key techniques which applied
to collect the required data from the subject matter of the study in the selected area. The sample
household heads were selected from each kebele using Simple random sampling techniques. Out
of 2,822 totals households (HHs), 97 sample households plus 8 key informants and 16 focus
group discussions were purposively selected.

The sample size was determined by using formula to determine sample size. Once the total
sample household size is determined, the sample household’s size from each kebele was
determined proportionally. Finally, the sample households were chosen from each Kebele using
Simple random sampling technique as follows:

Where:

n= Sample size of household

N= total number of housing units (excluding institutions)
e= is the precision level with 95% of confidence level i.e. 0.1

Table 1: Provides some registered household figures for the two Kebeles in study area

No Kebele Total Total Sample size Percent (%)

population household
1 Qallo 7068 1408 48 49.5
2 Shekila 7066 1414 49 50.5
Total 14134 2822 97 100
 27

Hence,
Using the mathematical determination with the total household of the two (2) selected Kebeles =
2822.

2,822
n=
1+2822(0.1)

n=

n=

n=

n=97

Therefore, 97 respondents were selected by using simple random sampling and purposely
sampling techniques. Generally, the sample size of the researcher was 97 including those
selected as key informants and FGD.

3.2.2. Method of data collection and instrument

Both primary and secondary data sources were used in this study in order to achieve the
objectives of the study. The primary data sources were the purposively selected Kebeles, which
in turn the sources of sample individual household head’s (HHHs). In this respect,
questionnaires, interviews, and focus group discussion (FGD) were used to gather the original
data. Additionally, based on the nature of data required, field observation was conducted by the
researcher. The necessary data related to the socioeconomic and physiographic factors that could
affect the rural livelihoods were examined. Relevant secondary data were obtained from
published and unpublished office documents, governmental and nongovernmental organizations,
 28

articles, journals, internet sources, research reports and books were employed for acquiring the
necessary information.

3.2.3.1. Questionnaires

Questionnaire is the most appropriate tool to obtain reliable information. It is also better for the
household respondents in that minimizing the difficulties of ambiguity and reduces effect of
biased conclusion and interpretation happened in the other methods. The questionnaires were
used to collect the data from the sample household heads (HHHs) in the form of open-ended and
close-ended questions. Open-ended question enable respondents to freely express their options
and view without prejudices, and hence obtain adequate information in relation to the objectives
set for this study. However, the close-ended questions, apart from reducing time consumption,
made it easier for data analysis and processing of factual information.

The items of the close-ended questions were choice type. The questionnaires covered the wide
range of socio-demographic variable as well as variable related to the assessment impact of
deforestation and land degradation on rural livelihoods. Before distributing the actual
questionnaire, it was pre-tested on selected farmers of non-sample household respondents. The
enumerators were recruited and trained for four hours. The trained enumerators under close
supervision of the researcher administered the questionnaires. It was again used for the training
and discussion with the enumerators at the beginning of the survey period to familiarize and
make any necessary modification. One day was spent on training the enumerators. Ten
enumerators were hired to execute the survey. The target person to be interviewed was the
household head or an influential person in each household.

3.2.3.2. Key informant interview

The semi-structured interview schedules were prepared. The interviews were conducted by the
researcher targeting the key informants such as elderly persons, kebele officials, youngsters,
women, development agents (DAs), and experts at the districts office of agriculture and rural
development. The key informants were selected and interviewed purposively. Due to time and
financial constraints, eight key informants were interviewed for this study from the kebeles
including the district agricultural office experts. Based on their experience and indigenous
knowledge on forests on the study area, one local elder from each kebele were purposively
 29

selected for the interviews and the interviews were also done with one youngster and one woman
from the two kebeles was purposively selected for the interviews. The interviews were also done
with two district experts in environmental protection and Agricultural Office in natural resource
management department of Dewa-Chefa district and two kebele experts working on natural
resource management and agronomy field. The interview was conducted with a focus on the
present status of forests, the change in forests of the study area, the response taken by concerned
bodies, and the level of community and stakeholders participation in the management of forests.
Key information gathered from informant interviews was used as a means of triangulation with
the data from the questionnaire result.

3.2.3.3. Focus group discussion

The focus group discussion was made to collect the qualitative information from the selected two
kebele administrations. The individual participants of the focus group discussion was
purposively selected based on the information obtained from the DAs working in the sites, their
interest of participation in group discussion and their knowledge backgrounds about the severity
impact of deforestation and land degradation on rural livelihoods in the study area. The
discussion was structured so that participants were asked a predetermined set of questions, using
the same wording and order of questions.

Thus it was helpful that to substantiate the information that was obtained through interviews of
the key informants. Therefore, sixteen target individuals were selected from the two kebele
administrations and the total numbers of selected household heads’ discussion were accordingly,
different open- ended questions were prepared and presented to the selected individual to express
their responses regarding the current research question under investigation. This condition in
turn, enabled the researcher to confirm and justify the results of the questionnaires that
distributed to the household heads’ (HHHs).

3.2.3.4. Field observation

Field observation was begun while writing the proposal and continued on to the whole process of
data collection to make sure the validity of acquired information. It was aimed on an
understanding the local condition of local community in terms of their culture, farm practices
and traditional way of resources utilization and application of conservation measures, etc. During
 30

the study, the researcher took notes on the impact of deforestation on rural livelihood of the
community, existing physical and biological soil conservation measures, livelihoods of the
community, yield conditions, livestock condition ,forest resources, topography and land use. It
was also necessarily used to gather primary information with regard to the current conditions of
cultivated lands, the observable management practices and the surrounding environmental
conditions relating to the conservation practices through transect walking across the environment
and forest lands of the study area with the aid of visual photographs so as to realize the actual
existing realities that will be raised in the questionnaires. While the investigator was conducted
frequent field observation by using the check lists on to assess the impact of deforestation and
forest degradation on rural livelihood and the types of livelihood.

3.3. Methods of Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative data which were collected from primary and secondary sources
were analyzed by using different methods of data analysis. The qualitative data were analyzed
through narration, summarization, and discussion. Whereas, the quantitative data were analyzed
using simple descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, mean, graphs and cross
tabulations were used in analyzing the data. The basic data analysis tools which were used for
this were Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version20 and Excel.
 31

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the result of survey data that was conducted using different instruments
of gathering information from a sample of 97 households. The results extracted from the sample
respondents through questionnaire, interviews, focus group discussions and observation are
presented as follows.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics on Socio Demographic Characteristics

This section looked at the demographic characteristics of the respondents interviewed during the
field survey for the study. Though this section does not necessarily address the core objectives of
the study, it provides useful information that might complement the findings for policy decisions
to be made on the affected population.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics on socio demographic characteristics

Variables Frequency Percent

Sex
Male 66 68.0
Female 31 32.0
Total 97 100

Age Group (years)

16-25 3 3.1
26-35 15 15.5
36-45 35 36.1
46-55 33 34.0
56-65 9 9.3
≥66 2 2.1
Total 97 100.0
Educational qualification
Illiterate 65 67.0
Grade 1-4 25 25.8
Grade 5-8 6 6.2

≥12 1 1.0
Total 97 100.0
 32

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics on socio demographic characteristics of the respondents.
The results indicate that about 68.0% of the respondents were males and the female respondents
account for only 32.0%. Though literature has identified many causes of deforestation which
include mining, logging, and bushfires among other factors, this did not show much significance
in the study communities in relation to agricultural production (food and cash crop farming) as
being the major activities undertaken by men with women and children playing supporting roles.

People in different age groups have different perception due to forest resources conservation
practices. Accordingly, the relatively respondent age group (36-45 years) respondents, 36.1
percent responded to the impacts of deforestation on rural livelihood. The proportion is 34.0 for
the impacts deforestation on livelihood community .Hence, the response is less among the
relatively old age group and younger age groups (66 years and above and 16-25 years)
respondents to the impacts of deforestation on rural livelihood (2.1and 3.1percent) respectively.
The age range of the respondents was so divers that there has been good information gathered in
relation with the impact of deforestation on rural livelihoods. The interview conducted with some
of the youth during the survey also indicated that the youth in the communities did not find much
prospects in the forest and its resources. Farming has also been left basically in the hands of the
elderly households who depended on hire labor with their little earnings instead of the youth
being encouraged to take over farming activities that would increase productivity. The situation
has led to subsistence and peasant farming which has exacerbated poverty in the study area. It
provides the data on the ages of respondents. According to Table 2, educational backgrounds of
the sampled households of the study area were 67% (Illiterate), 25.8 %( 1-4 grade) and 6.2% (5-
8 grade) respectively. The percentage of respondents above 12grades is 1%.

Education would have a great influence to use and manage forest resources. Mainly, the
educational background of a respondent was used as indicators of the level of awareness of the
respondents on the forest resources uses and abuses and the impacts of deforestation on the rural
livelihoods of the communities. The literacy status of farmers is useful to know their perception
about the current situation of impacts of deforestation on rural livelihoods. Educational level of
farmers has a great impact on the general awareness on the adverse effects of environmental
degradation due to deforestation (Shibiru, 2003).
 33

Level of education is one of the demographic features of households which have crucial role to
increase information about environmental problems in general and causes and consequences of
deforestation and land degradation. Practically the education performance of farmers who
attended primary education (1-8) was better than that of farmers who did not attend formal
education. Similarly farmers who attended high school (10-12) were found to be superior in
terms of understand the impact of deforestation on rural livelihood when we compared to those
who had primary education in general.

Therefore, literacy has fundamental impacts on the environment in general and deforestation and
land degradation management in particular and practices to be implemented. The finding was
consistent with initial assumption and it was also similar to findings by Habtamu (2006) who
identified educational status of farmers to have positive influence on their decision to retain
introduced natural resource conservation practices. That means either biological or physical
conservation mechanism since adequate education enhances farmers’ level of forests and its
conservation practices. It was therefore, expected that the farmers would be inclined to
sustainable forest resources management.

Table 3: Family size of respondents

Family size Frequency Percent (%)

1 3 3.1
2 7 7.2
3 17 17.5
4 15 15.5
5 21 21.6
6 10 10.3
7 6 6.2
8 6 6.2
9 4 4.1
10 2 2.1
11 2 2.1
12 1 1.0
13 2 2.1
14 1 1.0
Total 97 100
 34

According to the above Table the size of the household is an important demographic variable
affecting the perception of deforestation and land degradation. It should be noted that as the
household size increases, there will be more chances to implement negative changes on forest
resources due to food insecurity to generated income. The data presented in Table 3 lists the
number of family members per household interviewed, -and then the member ranged from 1 to
14. The percentage of households with family members of 5 was 21.6%; the percentage of
households with a total family size of 7 was 17.5% and 15.5% of households had a total family
size of 6.

In principle, despite the differences in socio-economic status and other related factors,
households having large family size need large area of cultivated land. When the comparison of
the family size is seen among the individual age groups, the maximum family size is common by
those whose frequency ranges between 5-7 family size in these kebeles and their respective sub
kebeles. The size of family members can be seen from different angles; in the first place, if the
household size is larger with many mouths to eat rather than to work, will have negative effect
on practices of forest resources conservation measures in general. In relation to this, the study
conducted by Drake (2003) indicated that in the large families with greater number of mouth to
feed, immediate food need is given priority and labor is diverted to deforestation activities that
generate livelihood items. In the field observation it was observed that gender of the farming
household; literacy status, household size, and even experience of the household in deforestation
were other major causes of economic losses from deforestation in Dewa Chefa district.

4.2. Livelihood Strategies

4.2.1. Sources of livelihood in the study area

Based on the findings, the major livelihood activities can be categorized broadly into agricultural
production; and other forms of livelihoods. Farming activities, including crop production and
animal husbandry, are the major economic activities as well as main sources of household
income in the Dewa Chefa district. Hence the dominant livelihood of the area is derived from
mixed farming (85.6%). crop production and animal husbandry dominate because livestock are
the assets that a rural household needs to possess for security in overcoming food shortages in
times of crop failure. Additionally, land cultivation is undertaken using oxen and a human labor,
 35

unless it is very poor, a households needs to have at least two oxen for tilling the land it is
owns.8.2% of households interviewed indicated that earning livelihood included small trading in
addition to farming and animal husbandry and 6.2% of households participated on farm and off
farm activities fields. Farming activities are usually seasonal and rain fed, however they are by
far the biggest income generators for the local people. In fact, the Ethiopian economy is heavily
dependent on agriculture/farming, which provides employment for about 85% of the population
and accounts for 45% of the GDP (FDRE, 2013).

Table 4: Major livelihoods of the respondents

S/No Major livelihoods Frequency Percent (%)

1 Mixed farming 83 85.6
2 Farming and Trading 8 8.2
3 On farm and off farm activities 6 6.2
Total 97 100.0

4.2.2. Total annual income of the sample households

It’s difficult to establish precise information regarding household income because the
respondents could hardly tell sincerely their household earnings. However, effort had been made
to know their income by asking the amount of money they earned from all livelihood activities
such as selling of grain, livestock and livestock products, vegetables, charcoal , fire wood , local
trades product and other non-farm activities. Accordingly, as indicated in the Table 4, below, the
monthly income distribution of the respondents ranges from≤6,000 to≥ 9,000 Ethiopian birr with
an average income.

According to the expert from Dewa-Chefa District Agricultural Development Office, the forest
resource at district area is an important constituent of the natural capital available to the local
people. Forest productivities and forest income are important components of household’s
livelihood strategies. Forest income plays a role in alleviating poverty, filling seasonal income
gaps and coping with income crisis, particularly in the poorer households who were more
dependent on forest income than better off households.

This finding concurs with a finding by Yemiru et al. (2010) who used a sustainable livelihood
perspective in Southern Ethiopia in which forest provides 24% of household incomes for high
 36

income groups and 52% for low income groups. In both groups, forest products generate both
subsistence and cash incomes which let rural people tackle poverty or have income in crisis
times. Rural households (poor and non-poor) commonly seek forest resources for support when
they have to face emergency situation such as crop failures and shortage of rainfalls.

Meanwhile, the investigator observed that some households sell forest products from the local
forest as additional source of livelihood to generate supplementary income, particularly in the
rainy period/before harvest. In addition, those who did not have land or hold small land sizes
gradually became involved in clearing the forest land into crop and /or grazing areas as a coping
mechanism to resolve their seasonal income insecurity.

One of the key informants from kebele development agents working on natural resource
management in district described that “forest resources are highly exploited due to the high
demand for farming land expansion, for firewood consumption and for fire wood and charcoal
sale in the nearby markets. This is mainly because the district was very close to Kemise, the
capital town of the Oromia special Zone. In the Dewa Chefa district, the main way through
which the community generated income from forests was through selling firewood, charcoal and
timber products.” The rural households were also inquired how often they sell forest products
like firewood and other forest products to the market in order to get money for their household as
well as whether their household income was disturbed if they stopped selling these forest
products.

Table 5: Total annual income of the respondents

S/No Yearly income of respondent Frequency Percent (%)

1 ≤6000 27 27.8
2 6001-7000 26 26.8
3 7001-8000 24 24.7
4 ≥9000 20 20.6

4.2.3. Major source of cash income in study area

As indicated in Table 5, off-farm employment opportunities in Dewa Chefa district as a whole

and in particular are available but not considerably much. Thus, the single most important source
 37

of cash for the households was the sale of agricultural products such as grain, livestock and
livestock products, and in very few places vegetables, fruits and khat. In fact, extremely poor
peasants and some female- headed households secure subsistence cash from firewood and
charcoal sales, and petty trades.

As presented in Table 5, the most significant source of cash income from the grain sale was
accounted for 30.9%.That means it was found out to be the most important source of the
respondents' subsistence in the study area. Cash income from livestock and livestock products
sale accounts for 27.8% while income from other non-timber forest products and off- farm
activities constitutes 17.5% of the total cash earned by the respondents in 2016. The remaining
minor sources such as transfer or gift, firewood and charcoal sales, poultry and bee production,
petty trades and local crafts work are responsible for only 23.7.% of the total financial income
for the sample households.

Table 6: Summary of households major sources of cash income

S/No Source of cash income Frequency Percent

1 Livestock’s and livestock products sale 27 27.8
2 Grain sale 30 30.9
5 Fire wood Sale 20 20.7
6 Transfer (PSNP) 3 3.1
7 Other off farm activities and NTFP 17 17.5
Total 97 100.0

4.3. Land Holding Size of Respondents in Hectares

Farmland holding size of households which ranges from ≤0.5 hectares to ≥ 1.51 hectares is
presented in Table 6. When compared to the average land holding size of 2 hectares at national
level, only 7.21% of the interviewed households owned land near to the national average of 2
hectares. Owning land by the households enables generation of information in relation with the
impact of deforestation and land degradation. This is because households can clearly see what
deforestation causes on their farm plots and the associated problem in affecting land productivity
and impacting the livelihoods of the rural community.
 38

Again the survey results showed that most of the respondents were engaged in crop production
for subsistence and commercial purposes only while some of them undertake it for both
purposes. The motive for farming usually influence the size of land on which one undertakes his
or her activities. From the survey result it was realized that the farmers undertake their farming
productivities both for home consumption and for sale. This clearly indicates that crop
production is the main source of livelihood for the respondents. Therefore, from the discussions,
farmers expand food and cash crop production on forest land by deforesting forest resources, but
must be encouraged to integrate tree crops in the farm land to regain the loss vegetation that
nourishes the land for increase productivity.

Table 7: Farmland holding size of the respondents’ in hectare

S/No Farm land Size Frequency Percent (%)

1 ≤0.5 45 46.4
2 0.51-1.00 37 38.14
3 1.01-1.50 8 8.25
4 ≥1.51 7 7.21
Total 97 100.0

Land is one of the most important natural resources to a community or rural household. People
use land for many different purposes, like agriculture. This variable is a basic asset for majority
of the rural livelihoods. As it has been shown in the Table 6, the average farm size is aggregated
to 1 hectare per household and it’s difference to the national average of land size two hectare .
This means that there is an acute shortage of land in study area, which inhibits the farmer’s
ability to produce an adequate amount of crops to nourish the fast-growing population. In
Ethiopia, the ratio of people per hectare of land under cultivation is less than one hectare; this
means a family with seven members has only a hectare of land (Sisay, 2003, CSA, 2007).
Hence, pressure on land at the household level has been increased as long as the population size
was increased. Generally, as discussed above in detail farmlands in the study area were small and
fragmented. This has contributed to massive expansion of agricultural land at the expense of
vegetation area.
 39

4.4. Livelihood Contribution of Forest

Forest resources contribute directly to the livelihood of 90% of the 1.2 billion people in the
developing world that live in extreme poverty (Culas, 2006). Poverty and dependency on forests
as a livelihood are also a serious threat to forests and other natural resources. They have been
causing destruction of forests and environmental degradation. This point is further elaborated
that many people in our country are dependent on forest and forest products. They cut and sale
firewood and charcoal or use forest products for cooking and construction. As a result such
integrated effect contributes for the destruction of forest resources. Such challenge is facilitated
by the weaker enforcement mechanism, lack of alternative energy sources especially in country
sides. Observation on sufficient benefit obtained from forest resources as a result of deforestation
was one of the points used to collect information from the sampled households. Figure 6
summarizes the response from sampled households; due to forest resources degradation the
respondents’ responded with 61.9% of them indicating that there was no sufficient benefit
obtained from forest resources at this time due to decline of vegetation cover. 38.1% households
were agreed that have sufficient benefit obtained from forest resources of study area.

Figure 2: Do you benefit obtained from forest resources sufficiently

4.4.1. Households extraction of forest products

As it can be shown on, Table 7: the respondents extract forest products or supply them to support
the household consumption and income. In view of that, considerably large proportion (94.8%)
 40

of the sample households replied that they had produce forest products to supplement their
family income with other activities. Local people in the study area utilize forests for different
purposes. Forests are exploited to gather natural resources, including timber for construction and
furniture making, for sale, for firewood, and for the production of charcoal. Only 5% of the
sample households responded that they were not clears the vegetation for making household
products either for market or consumption.

The households were also they produce forest products like fire wood ,charcoal, timbers, pole,
construction woods and other forest products either for market or for household consumption in
order to get money for their household as well as whether their household income was disturbed
if they stopped selling these forest products. This is illustrated in the Table 7 below.

Table 8: Percentage distribution of households by forest product exploitation

Do you use forest products Frequency Percent%

Yes 92 94.8
No 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0

4.4.2. Utilization of forest products for sale and consumption

As shown in Table 8, the majority of households in the study area use forest products mainly for
household consumption 74.2%, while only 20.6% of households use them for the local market
sale and 5.2 % no used forest products. It is estimated that about 45% of the wood consumed in
the world is used for home heating and cooking. Being one of the poorest countries in the world,
Ethiopia’s experience is not an exception, where 96 percent of the population is dependent on
biomass energy sources for cooking and other energy demands (Mekonnen, 2012). Moreover,
99.9 percent of the total rural population uses energy that is derived from biomass fuels
(Gebreegziabher, 2007).

Forest products generate both subsistence and cash incomes which let rural people tackle poverty
or have income in crisis times. Rural households (poor and non-poor) commonly seek forest
resources for support when they have to face an emergency situation such as crop failures and
shortage of rainfalls. Meanwhile, the researcher observed that some households sell forest
 41

products from the local forest as additional source of livelihood to generate supplementary
income, particularly in the rainy period/before harvest. In addition, those who did not have land
or hold small land size gradually became involved in clearing the forest land into crop/or grazing
areas as a coping mechanism to resolve their seasonal income insecurity.

Table 9: Utilization of forest products for sale and consumption

Item Frequency Percent (%)

For market 20 20.6
For consumption 72 74.2
None 5 5.2
Total 97 100.0

4.4.3. Forest resources role for rural livelihood and major causes of deforestation in study
area

Forests resources are valued from a variety of perspectives and for a variety of purposes. Table 9
shows impact of the deforestation on rural livelihood of the study area. As the result indicates,
73.2% of farmers’ responded that the main cause of deforestation was energy supply to the
households. This may be attributed to the fact that farmers use trees for home fuel wood energy
consumption. However, from interviewed farmers 13.4% of them were aware of most of the
causes of deforestation such as using wood product materials for shelter, local crafts materials
(7.2%) and food supply (6.2%). Whatever it is, from the above result, it is convincing to say that
the majority of farmers’ perceived energy supply from fuel wood; using wood products for house
construction materials; local crafts materials, and food supply as the main contribution of
deforestation on rural livelihoods, while the least contribution to deforestation of rural
livelihoods identified by farmers were local crafts materials and food supply practices.
 42

Table 10: Dominant forest resources contribution for rural livelihood and major livelihood
activities causing deforestation of the study area

Item Frequency. Percentage (%)

Energy supply 71 73.2
Food supply 6 6.2
Materials for shelter 13 13.4
Local crafts materials 7 7.2
Total 97 100.0

4.4.4. Dominant tree species use for the domestic consumption

The inhabitants of the study area also make use of the surrounding vegetation for different
purposes such as social, cultural, and environmental values. The local population obtained
almost all of their house hold utensil and construction material from forest product. The survey
conducted in the area also showed that the great majority of the households’ utensil and furniture
were derived from the forest resources.

As information obtained from the sampled households indicates, forest is everything so as far as
house construction, fences and furniture are concerned in the area. The construction of any kind
of houses demands forest at least to obtain doors, windows and the like, although the major tree
species that respondents used for the production of energy sources were Eucalyptus
camaldulensis, Cordia africana, Calpurnia aurea, Acacia decurrens, Dodonea viscosa etc,
shrubs and bushes were obtained from own forest resources. These forests products for energy
source purposes were obtained through collection of wood from forests depending on the
accessibility. These caused over exploitation of the forest ecosystem for local energy sources
purpose; it had induced substantial pressure on the forest resource of the study area.
 43

Table 11: Dominant tree species use for the domestic consumption of the respondents

Tree species Frequency Percent (%)

Cordia africana 2 2.1
Calpurnia aurea 3 3.1
Acacia decurrens 21 21.6
Eucalyptus camaldulensis 25 25.8
Dodonea viscosa 12 12.4
Shrubs and Bush 34 35.1
Total 97 100.0

It was observed that 35.1% of the respondent farmers were used for the production of energy
sources are shrubs and bush, 25.8% of the respondents indicating that making fuel wood is
Eucalyptus camaldulensis, the third major species that respondents were used for the production
of energy sources indicated by 21.6% of the respondents were Acacia Decurrens, Dodonea
Viscosa species for energy source with 12.4% , Calpurnia Aurea species 3.1% ,and Cordia
Africana 2.1% of the respondents indicated that the search for energy sources respectively. This
is illustrated in the table 10 above.

4.4.5. Sources of energy for domestic consumption

Forest resources are the base for social and economic development in Ethiopia. This
development of a society finds expressions in its increasing capacity to meet certain need.
Satisfying most of these needs would require the consumption of energy, albeit in varying
degree. The development and the use of energy are thus vital to economic and social
development and contribute to the improvement of living conditions. The global energy demand
was growing and is expected to continue growing with the projected growth of the population
and with the expansion of energy-dissipative economic activities.

Fuel wood production was the cause of deforestation in the Dewa-Chefa District, because, wood
is required for fuel in rural areas. The excessive cutting of trees for firewood before they are fully
grown leads to the loss of growth potential of the forest stands. As indicated in Table 9, (21.6%)
 44

of the respondents confirmed that fuel wood production was a major cause of deforestation next
to agricultural land expansion in the study area.

In most developing countries, more than 80% of wood extracted from forests is being used for
fuel (Myanmar, 2000). In relation to this, most of the key informants noted that they were
collecting a lot of firewood to prepare food and heat their houses as there were few or no sources
of alternative energy in their locality. According to the respondents, in the study area fuel wood
consumption was the common and major household energy source for home based activities
(food cooking, water heating, etc). Because of the lack of modern electric energy supply, the
majority of the households are depends on fuel wood. This indicates that much of the rural
livelihoods do not have access to alternative energy sources like biogas, solar energy and electric
energy. In connection with this, the respondents were also inquired to describe the source of
energy for household use (cooking and heating) as revealed in Table 12 below.

Table 12: The dominant source of energy for domestic consumption of respondents

Source of energy Frequency Percent (%)

Fuel wood 31 32.0
Charcoal 6 6.2
Cow dung 24 24.7
kerosene 4 4.1
Crop residues 32 33.0
Total 97 100.0

The respondents agreed that the major source of energy for household consumption was crop
residues, fuel wood and cow dung. In this regard, 33.0%, 32.0% and 24.7% of the respondents
indicated that the source of energy was crop residues, fuel wood and cow dung respectively, the
other energy sources were from, Kerosene and Charcoal were 10.3%. The local leader and focus
groups and Development Agents support the above statement in that firewood consumption was
one factor for forest’s depletion in their area. It was obvious that land and forests were some of
the resources used as major means of livelihoods of the local community. However, there was a
scarcity of these resources; as a result, the resources were under serious degradation particularly
forest lands (Abaynesh et al, 2015).
 45

Wood provides 78%, with dung and crop residues supplying 16 % of the energy required.
Additionally, many studies (Dawit, 2010) revealed that, next to agricultural land expansion, the
most leading factors for high deforestation is using firewood as a source of energy in Ethiopia
and it has been suggested that the key issue in the energy sector is improving the supply of
household energy and reducing the heavy reliance of the household sector on biomass source of
energy to abate the ever increasing deforestation in the country. Other researchers support the
findings of this study that deforestation and land degradation are the most serious problems in
rural Ethiopia, where the majority of the population is dependent on the forest products as a
source of energy.

4.5: Vegetation Cover Change in the Study Area

The increasing population of Ethiopia has resulted in excessive forest clearing for agricultural
purpose, overgrazing and exploitation of the existing forests for fuel, fodder and construction
purposes because, livelihood of rural people is directly linked to the utilization of forest
resources for food production, energy sources and shelter. Understanding the changes in
environmental conditions stems mainly from knowledge of land insight into the changes related
to the availability of natural resources, particularly soil, forest and water. With declining forest
cover, environmental and economic costs increase each year therefore the next generation will
face severe challenges unless the current generation implements strategies to reverse
deforestation, through planting tree seedlings and managing the existing vegetation significantly.

Table 13: Observation of decline in vegetation coverage’s

Observation of vegetation cover change Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 91 93.8
No 6 6.2
Total 97 100

Observation of vegetation cover change and deforestation were similar since deforestation has
led to a decline in vegetation cover over the past 10 years. Households were also asked whether
or not they had observed deforestation in their area. As in Table18 above; 93.8% of the
respondents indicated that they have observed deforestation in their areas. 6.2% of respondents
 46

no changes in forest cover to recognize the existence of deforestation within their areas
regardless of age. Therefore, it was clear from the responses of the households sampled that
deforestation is clearly understood by the community in the study area.

4.5.1. Observation of forest resource degradation in study area

Environmental services of forest (conservation of soil, water, biological diversity; micro and
macro climatic effects; nutrient cycling) and socio-cultural services other than those provided by
the production of wood and non-wood products (e.g. recreation and tourism, protection of
cultural, aesthetic and scientific values) provided by forests. Forest degradation impoverishment
of standing woody material mainly caused by human activities such as over-grazing, over-
exploitation (for firewood in particular), repeated fires, or due to attacks by insects, diseases,
plant parasites or other natural causes such as cyclones. Deforestation had caused and continued
to cause environmental degradation, land degradation, water resources degradation and loss of
biodiversity. Deforestation and forest degradation therefore are undoubtedly part of the largest
environmental problems facing the world today. The study which supported this investigate, 16
million square kilometers of forest that once covered the earth’s surface; only 6.2 million remain
up to date, 2.3 million have been destroyed between 2000 and 2012 (Goldstein,2016).

In the study area; forest resources were extremely cleared. Other bush and shrubs types of
vegetation are found. In many part of the study area, forest resources were found along river
valleys, gorges and on other in accessible areas which is not suitable for agricultural purposes.
According to experienced farmers in the villages their local area was covered by forest some two
decade ago. During that time forests of the area were an important habitat for a great diversity of
wild life. However, deforestation has led the biodiversity at great risk. A number of wild animals
were found in forest such as elephant, lion, monkey, etc. which have disappeared now from the
area. Tree species such as Cordia africana (wanza), Acacia nilotica, Olea Africana, Faidheribia
albadia, Croton macrostchys (bissana), Podocarpus fulcatus (zigba),), Maesea lanceolata
(kelewa) and other variety tree species were highly distributed in the district. However, these tree
species were highly affected and destructed by deforestation and forest degradation at the present
time. Large areas of land which were once covered by forest have changed into other land use
and only small areas were covered by bush and shrubs. While as indicated in Figure5 below
observing the impact of forest resources degradation on the environment, the majority (86.6%) of
 47

the respondents observed that deforestation have impacted on environment while 13.4% had not
observed the impact of deforestation on environment. In the study area some tree species were
still found around Reke terrain as a result the environment of the area was good.

Figure 3: Observation of forest resource degradation in study area

4.6. The Main Cause of Forest Degradation in Study Area

The cause of forest destruction in the study area was complex and many in numbers. Many
human and natural factors are responsible for the gradual destruction of the vegetation cover of
the land masses of the study area. Data obtained from districts agricultural and rural development
offices reveals that, rising demand for tree products, conversion of forest land to agricultural
land, poverty and expanding population pressures are the major factors. The population also
often lacks the finance necessary for investments to maintain the quality of soil or increase yields
on the existing cleared land (Purnamasari, 2010). Deforestation is affected mainly by the uneven
distribution of wealth. Shifting cultivators at the forest frontier are among the poorest and most
marginalized sections of the population. They usually own no land and have little capital.
Consequently they have no option but to clear the virgin forest.
 48

Table 14: The factors and cause of deforestation in study area

Forest degradation factors Frequency Percentage (%)

Natural factors 18 18.6
Human activities 79 81.4
Total 97 100.0
Human cause of deforestation
Search for fuel wood 27 27.8
Charcoal production 22 22.7
Illegal logging for sale and consumption 9 9.3
Farm land expansions 29 29.9
Population pressure 6 6.2
Over grazing 4 4.1

The majority of household respondents, (81.4%) indicated that the process of deforestation in the
municipality is solely driven by anthropogenic factors, while less than 2% is solely influenced by
natural factors. The remaining 18.6% argued that the process of deforestation is caused by a
combination of both anthropogenic and natural factors. It is also identified that, the broad sources
of anthropogenic deforestation in the communities include economic, demographic, conflict and
governance, and social factors and that these are similar to the factors highlighted by the UNEP
(2006).These human impacts was Farm land expansions was 29.9% .However, as the land
degrades people are forced to migrate, exploring new forest frontiers increasing deforestation
(Amor, 2008; and Pfaff, 2008). Deforestation is proxied by the expansion of agricultural land.
This is because agricultural land expansion is generally viewed as the main source of
deforestation. Shifting agriculture also called slash and burn agriculture is the clearing of
forested land for raising or growing the crops until the soil is exhausted of nutrients and/or the
site is overtaken by weeds and then moving on to clear more forest. It is been often reported as
the main agent of deforestation. It appears that the proportion of direct conversion of forest to
agriculture is increasing and the proportion of shifting agriculture is decreasing with time.
Search for wood fuel 27.8%, for search of charcoal 22.7%, 9.3% for illegal logging for sale and
consumption. Logging and fuel wood production is more intensive and can be quite destructive.
 49

However, logging provides access roads to follow-on settlers and log scales can help finance the
cost of clearing remaining trees and preparing land for planting of crops or pasture. Logging thus
catalyzes deforestation (Chomitz et al., 2007).

10.3% was for overgrazing and other purpose of human house hold consumption and for market
sale. Overgrazing is more common in drier areas of the tropics where pastures degraded by
overgrazing are subject to soil erosion. Stripping trees to provide fodder for grazing animals can
also be a problem in some dry areas of the tropics but is probably not a major cause of
deforestation. Clear cutting and overgrazing have turned large areas of the study area.
Overgrazing is causing large areas of grasslands province to turn into a desert. But now the grass
is disappearing and the sand is coming.” Huge flocks of sheep and goats strip the land of
vegetation. Animals remove the vegetation and winds finished the job by blowing away the top
soil, transforming grasslands into desert. “The lands are too infertile to grow crops—herding is
the only way for us to survive (Hays, 2008).

Deforestation and forest degradation over the past 30 years had been the continuation of a
process with a long history. The historic loss of forests was closely related to demographic
expansion and the conversion of forest land to other uses. Major direct causes of forest
degradation brought on by humans include over harvesting of industrial wood, fuel wood and
other forest products, and overgrazing. Generally deforestation occurs when people clear forest
for their personal need such as, for fuel, hunting, when they need the land to grow and harvest
crops, for building houses, and at times because of religion beliefs (Sucoff, 2003).

4.7. Mechanisms of Obtaining Farmland the Respondents

In 2011 about 713,770 hectare of land was burnt and out of this 76, 629 hectare was forest land
(EMA, 2012) Agricultural land expansion was the major cause of deforestation in the study area.
The rapid population growth, coupled with a high demand for food, has added to further
destruction. As mentioned in Table 9, the largest proportion (38.14%) of the respondents stated
that the conversion of forest land into farmland was the major cause of deforestation in their
local area. As it was learned from the field observation, most of the rural households did not
have adequate cultivated land to produce an adequate amount of food for their households.
 50

Similarly, participants of FGD described that the people in the study area were highly dependent
on agriculture as their main means of livelihood, in spite of its low productivity. They added that
the uncontrolled increase in population led to the clearing of forests cover to produce crops. This
clearly provides support for the conclusion of Netsanet (2007) in her study of land use and land
cover change. In the Reke (Riqee) forest and the surrounding areas there was constant decrease
of high forest due to its conversion into agricultural land, logging, and khat production activities.
A further study by Alemtsehay (2010) showed that farmers were cutting down trees to expand
agricultural lands in order to produce various types of crops.

4.7.1. Agricultural land size and forest area of the respondents

In Ethiopia, agriculture forms the back bone of the country’s economy. According to Table 6, the
land holding of farmers in the study area varied from less than or equal to 0.5 hectare to more
than 1.51 hectares with an average holding of 1.00 hectare per household. The farmers in the
study area are extending the farm lands to the fragile forest ecosystem in an attempt to meet the
increasing demand for food and forest products’. The uncontrolled population growth and
subsequent increase in demand for livelihood to support the surplus population could contribute
to further deforestation. During field survey, many inhabitants reported that they do not have
enough agricultural land to produce enough food for their family. According to Table 6 more
than 85% of the total sampled house hold in the village owned farm land less or equals to one
hectare. Under current production technology, as justified by different researchers, this holding
size is too small to produce adequate grain for a household in the country as a whole. Provided
that the present rapid population growth continues unabated, the scarcity of farmlands will be
more severe in the future and the corresponding grain production per household will undoubtedly
be affected. In fact most inhabitants obtain additional agricultural land in the form of crop
sharing and contract.

One can infer from Table11; that about 30.9 % of respondents obtains farm land through clearing
vegetation area and change it into agricultural land. The vegetation area of the study area started
to change into agricultural land since farm land expansion started. This is because of decline of
soil fertility, population growth and food insecurity. They also respond that the low productivity
of traditional method of farming demanded extensive lands. In addition to that, the amount of
 51

land required to feed the growing population is steadily increasing. With agricultural
productivity lagging far behind population growth rates the gap between the availability and the
demand for agricultural land continues to grow from year to year. This led to severe land use
conflicts among crop farming animal grazing and forestry. Under such condition clearance of the
existing forest resource and soil degradation is inevitable. The following table shows the land
previously under forest and ready to use for farming purpose.

Table 15: Do you have sufficient agricultural land? And mechanism of obtaining farmland of
respondents

Do you have sufficient agricultural land Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 45 46.4
No 52 53.6
Total 97 100.0
Mechanisms of obtaining agricultural land
By clearing vegetation 30 30.9
By inheritance 1 1.0
Contract 13 13.4
Crop sharing 36 37.1
Selling forest products 17 17.5
Total 97 100.0

Figure 4. The dense vegetation in the Reke heap of the study

 52

Figure 5. Farmland expansion by clearing trees in study area

4.7.2. The impact of deforestation on agricultural production

Deforestation has socioeconomic impacts on livelihood of rural households .Some of the socio-
economic changes in Dewa Chefa District local government that was directly linked to
deforestation include the loss of vegetation cover making the soil bare and prone to erosion. As a
consequence the soil losses its fertility and there was poor crop yield. Also, it leads to accelerated
erosion in the study area. Most of the respondents were believed that deforestation had reduced
crop yield, this was due to the fact that the level of crop production keeps dropping in recent
years due to the problem of erosion, the loss of plants that has medicinal potential and animal
species that have migrated to other areas because of loss of habitat all contribute negatively to
the socio-economic development in the study area.

Most of the forested lands in study area were located in the rural areas and in these areas where
the level of environmental awareness was very low compared to the highly enlightened populace
in the city centers. Therefore, the physical effects of deforestation which was mostly
environmental were not foreseen by the rural dwellers. However the economic effects of
deforestation which affects their substance directly cannot be over emphasized. It was thus very
common to observe the high cost of forage crops and other forest products as deforestation
results in their scarcity in communities and settlements where they used to would be cheap and
available; this was in agreement with (Oguntala, 2000).
 53

Table 16: Impact of deforestation on agricultural production

Impact of deforestation on Agricultural Frequency Percent (%)

Production
Decrease in production per hectare( Kg) 11 11.3
Decrease in livestock production 11 11.3
Both in crop production and livestock 69 71.1
Decrease in cash income from forests 6 6.2
Total 97 100.0

As it was shown in Table 20, the respondents were asked their understanding of the impact of
land-use change on agricultural production the study area. Accordingly, the respondents were
also asked to tell the reason behind a decrease in land productivity over time. Accordingly, as
described in Table 20, the main reason for the decrease in production per hectare (Kg) of their
farmland was rain fluctuation due to the results of deforestation brings climate change of the
study area (11.3%), followed by decrease in livestock production (11.3%) due to lack of
sufficient grazing land , both decrease in production per hectare (Kg) and decrease in livestock
numbers and products loss (71.1%), and a combination of other factors, like the equivalent in
cash per year of the livelihoods (6.2%).

4.8. The Livestock’s as a Source of Income and the Grazing Land of

Respondents

There are different levels in numbers of livestock owned by farmers in the study area. The major
categories of livestock include cattle, small ruminants such as goats and sheep. Furthermore,
37.1% of the respondents were engaged in other alternative livelihood activities such as rearing
of livestock, bee-keeping to help supplement their major livelihood venture (farming) which has
seen some decline over the years. The district in general is known for crop production
predominantly and less attention is given for rearing animal. This is related to the scarcity of
grazing land. However, the cattle population is large enough to affect the communal grazing area
of the forest. Some farmers with relatively large cattle population from different corners of the
district drive their cattle’s in group to unsettled and forested area especially around Chefa valley.
 54

These farmers have the habit of communally grazing on this area without restriction which is
called “Urane or Godansa”. Hence, people with large population commonly spent more than six
months of dry season on this communally grazing land. They return with their cattle around July
when there is communal other grazing land shift to other place.

Table 17: Livestock’s as a source of income for respondents

Use cattle as a source of income Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 27 27.8
No 70 72.2
Total 97 100.0
Methods of obtain grazing land for cattle
Separated grazing land 29 29.9
Forest area 48 49.5
Privately owned 25 25.8
Commonly owned 52 53.6
No answer 20 20.6

Total 97 100.0

4.9. Major Impacts of Deforestation on Environment

Forests contain numerous species of flora and fauna. Forests protect the soil from heavy rainfall
and control erosion. However, deforestation reduces the biological diversity and increases soil
erosion and flooding. The removal or the destruction of significant areas of the forest cover has
resulted in degraded environment, adverse impacts on socio-economic condition of the people
aspects and biodiversity.

As it is portrayed in Table 14, the respondents have been requested to state the major impacts of
deforestation on the environment of the rural households. Accordingly, out of the total
respondents, 63.9% replied that there were high impact on rainfall patterns, followed by 35%
medium impact in rainfall patterns, and the rest 1% said no impact in rainfall patterns in the
study area. The forest resource prioritizes to improve of water resources is concerned, highly
 55

49.5% of the respondents described that and moderately it had improved of water resource
50.5%. Due to forest degradation and only 7.9% of the respondents replied that the temperature
has increased in a lesser amount in their area. Similarly, the respondents were asked the reducing
temperature change of climate in respect of forest resource some of the respondents, 58.8%
highly perceived that the benefit obtained from forest due to reduced environmental temperature
and 39% respondents were medium prioritized the benefit obtained from forest resources. Very
insignificant proportion (2.1%) replied that the impact due to forest degradation in their area was
very low. Meanwhile, the sample respondents were also requested the status of air quality where
by considerably large proportion (50.5%) confirmed that its impact was medium and 47.4%
highly. Only 2.1% of them argued that the impact on air quality was low. As to biodiversity loss,
the majority (54.6%) of the respondents responded that it was impacted medium. 42.3% said the
loss of biodiversity was impacted strongly, whereas only 3.1% described its loss was low.
Furthermore, the sample households were inquired about the increment in the occurrence of
flood in the area as result of deforestation. Consequently, the majority (71%) replied that the
erosion control was extremely increased, 24.7% said that it was medium and 3.1% of them
indicated that the forest resource benefited in erosion control was in insignificant amount and 1%
of the respondents agreed that forest resource loss is no impact on soil erosion control. The most
environmental impacts of deforestation are briefly described in the following sections.

Table 18: Prioritize the environmental impacts of deforestation as perceived by respondents

No Item High Medium Low No Total

Fre. (%) Fre. (%) Fre. %) Fre. % Fre. %.
1 Rainfall patterns 62 63.9 34 35 - - 1 1 97 100
2 Improvement of water 48 49.5 49 50.5 - - - - 97 100
resources
3 Reducing temperature 57 58.8 38 39 2 2.1 - - 97 100
4 Air Quality 46 47.4 49 50.5 2 2.1 - - 97 100
5 Erosion control 69 71 24 24.7 3 3.1 1 1 97 100
6 Promotion of biodiversity 41 42.3 53 54.6 3 3.1 - - 97 100
 56

4.9.1: The impact of deforestation on the environment interims of (Climate change, loss of
biodiversity, decline of soil fertility and increase of temperature).

In addition to climate change, deforestation is the key environmental challenge for the country.
Forest degradation leads to CO2 emissions and is primarily caused by fuel wood consumption
and logging in excess of the natural yield of the forests, with the major driver being population
growth. This demand for fuel contributes to an imbalance between the natural regeneration and
removal of the forest resources. One of the major dominantly uses traditional fuel like fuel wood
and charcoal stent is the clearing of forest for fuel and crop production.

In the study area, where the population grows repeatedly, forests were being cleared at an
alarming rate to make way for agricultural crops, and to meet the demand for fuel wood,
construction wood, etc. The respondents highlighted impact of deforestation on the environment
interims of Climate change, loss of biodiversity, decline of soil fertility and increase of
temperature. These experiences are built on their understanding of the local climate and which in
turn were related with a respondent’s age, livelihood and probably length of stay in the
community. The perceived manifestations of environmental climate change as identified by
household respondents were summarized in Table 20. It was identified that, though different
viewpoints were suggested, a higher proportion of the household respondents (65.9%), indicated
that the impact deforestation on environment due to rain fall variability were highly declined.
29.9% of respondents were agreed on medium level of deforestation impact on environmental
change due to rain fall variability with regard to 4.1% impact of deforestation on rain fall
variability in low level impact.

The impact of deforestation on the environment interims of biodiversity loss (49.5%) of the
respondents were highly reported, (50.5%), respondents moderately agreed the impact of
deforestation on biodiversity loss. The impact of deforestation on the environment due to soil
fertility loss 63.9% of the respondents realized high. The remaining 35.1% and 1% of the
respondents replied moderately, and low respectively. Due to the impact of deforestation the
environmental temperature increased 67% of respondents were highly agreed, with 31.9%
regarded too moderately and 1% of the respondents were agreed at low level impact the
 57

environmental temperature. Deforestation affects wind flows, water vapor flows and absorption
of solar energy thus clearly influencing local and global climate (Chomitz et al., 2007).

Table 19: Impact of deforestation on the environment interims

High Medium Low Total

Item Fre. % Fre. % Fre. % Fre. %
Rainfall variability 64 65.9 29 29.9 4 4.1 97 100
Loss of domestic animals and 48 49.5 49 50.5 - - 97 100
plants (i.e., fauna and flora
Decline of soil fertility 62 63.9 34 35.1 1 1 97 100
Warmer temperatures 65 67.0 31 31.9 1 1 97 100

4.10. Impact of Deforestation on Socio-Economic of the Respondents

Land degradation, as a result of deforestation, reduces the goods and services that the community
had negatively affected the standard of living. However, deforestation obstructed people from
receiving such benefits. Forest degradation affects and drags livelihood downward resulting in
reduced access to sufficient forest products, lower yields, increase misery of people (workloads)
and decease in social cohesion. This was presented in Table17 below and discussed widely in the
following parts.

Table 20.Impact of deforestation on livelihood of the respondents

Item high medium Low Total

Fre. % Fre. % Fre. % Fre. %
Decline of forest product 77 79.4 20 20.6 - - 97 100
(quality and quantity)
Agricultural production reduce 69 71.1 27 27.8 1 1.0 97 100

Long distance to be traveled to 64 65.98 31 31.96 2 2.1 97 100

collect fuel wood
 58

Deforestation and land degradation had impacted the socioeconomic livelihood of rural
households as shown in Table17. As result of deforestation; both timber and non-timber forest
products were no longer easily available in the study area. This had the greatest impact on rural
communities’ socio economic as perceived, which depend primarily on forest resources for fuel
wood, construction materials, farm implements, energy, medicinal use, forest food and fodder
needs.

As it was depicted in the above Table, the majority (79.4%), of the respondents indicated that
the forest products were highly declined and the socio economic of the rural community was
impacted in study area due to the shocking rate of deforestation. Information obtained from
FGDs showed that the people had been continuously clearing forests for fire wood, timber, and
construction materials and to expand crop and grazing areas. This resulted in declining of the
forest resources in such a way that the people were even unable to produce non-timber forest
products such as honey production, traditional medicine and others as there was no forest in the
nearby surroundings.

About 20.6% of the respondents indicated that the income of their households was moderately
declined due to deforestation as it indicated in Table17. In connection with this, field observation
of the researcher indicated that there were many people who were involved in the exploitation of
forest resources as an extra source of livelihood through gathering and selling of forest products
from the forest to make additional income, particularly in periods before harvesting crops.
Similarly, people those who hold small land sizes and did not have land at all steadily become
involved in clearance of the forests land into crop and grazing land as a coping method to solve
their recurring income uncertainty in the study area. Likewise, most of the key informants
showed that selling of timber and non-timber products was the main source of income during
existence of high forest coverage in the study area. They further said that as there were less or
not enough forest products to be sold in the study area, there were also loss forest products and
forest related income. This in turn has negatively affected the livelihood of the rural households
who was depended on the selling of forest products and services. On the contrary to the above
findings, Karke (2004) concluded that deforestation did not reduce income of local community.
It can be understood from this that the thinning forest products from the wild has brought the
 59

reduction of income of forest dependent rural livelihood and thereby their living condition has
been threatened.

Agricultural yield decline was also considered to be the second highly socioeconomic effects of
deforestation in the study area as described by 71.1% of the respondents (Table17). This was
supplemented with FGDs which showed that the decline in the amount of rainfall, its irregularity
and scarcity of farm land brought about by the population pressure were attributed to the
declining of the productivity of farm lands overtime. In line with this, the study of Legesse
(2008) indicated that conversion of forests into farmlands, indiscriminate cutting of trees for fire
wood and charcoal making, and inappropriate agricultural practices were the main causes for the
declining productivity of the land. (Table17), also illustrates that moderately (27.8%) of the
respondents reported and 1.0% at low level that deforestation had significantly increased their
misery since they were dependent on forest products due to reduced availability of forest
product. Focus Group Discussions revealed that the availability of fuel wood, timber, wood for
construction and furniture making were highly diminished so that they feared that could lose
such products in the near future. People had to go long distance in search of the above mentioned
forest products which took much of the time otherwise they would pass in other productive
economic activities- this aggravates the economic problems of the households.

In support of the above results, Kassu (2011) in his study of „ deforestation and rural livelihoods
in Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia‟ indicated that the time spent on collection of wood for
households was significant in terms of economic interpretation because if this time had been
used for other household activities, more income could have been generated for their households.
He also added that the problem of deforestation imposes an additional burden on women who
frequently collect fuel wood for the household. Therefore, from this it can be interpreted that
deforestation has led to increased misery of the local people who are directly dependent on forest
exploitation as the result of shortage of the forest resources in their vicinity. Moreover, the
households‟ response, as illustrated in (Table17)., showed that about 65.98% of respondents
affirmed that deforestation has strongly decreased their social cohesion (relation), 31.96%
moderately and 2.1% shows at low level it was impacted the socio economic of the livelihood.
 60

In support of this, Acheampong and Marfo (2011) indicated that forests loss not only reduces
the contribution of forest communities to national economic growth, but also more critically
threatens the livelihood and traditions of rural and forest dwelling people across the country.
Meanwhile, based an interview made with key informants, the lives of local people were
generally tied up with natural forest availability not only as a means of livelihood but also in its
socio-cultural value. But, due to forest resource degradation, nowadays, the local people lost the
socio-cultural value they used to get from the forest. According to these informants, the
deterioration of forest resources affected the indirect use components of socio-cultural value of
the natural forest to local community. The local people were unable to celebrate cultural festivals
and perform different ritual ceremonies under respected trees. The local people believed that this
culture had contributed to conservation of natural forest during the past periods. Moreover, the
culture of people prohibits them from cutting tree near rivers and swamps. However, the local
people had removed trees indiscriminately whether they had socio-cultural value or not. This in
turn reduced the traditional lifestyle and broke down their social cohesions which were used to
generate from the forests. Failures to protect and manage forests by local community led to
decrease tree abundances, decreased the number of wild animals and decreased social cohesion
(Karke, 2004). Therefore, it can be interpreted from the above views that due to shortage of
forest in the vicinity, the social relation among rural household is worsened.

4.11. Awareness Crate of Training on Impact of Deforestation on Rural

Livelihood of Community

This awareness training is expected in order to conserve and manage the forest resources and
other natural resources from destruction. Accordingly, the sample households were asked
whether they had been given training on forest conservation and management by experts from
the District forestry department and non-governmental organizations (NGO) working on natural
resource management particularly on the forest resources.

As indicated in Table19, about 47.4% of the respondent received training on forest conservation
and management by district forestry expert and NGO working on forest and/or natural resource
management, climate change issues and livelihood diversification, whereas 52.6% of the
respondents did not get any training on issues under consideration. As it was already stated in
 61

literature review, Dewa-Chefa District natural resource management (GOV), and Sustainable
Land Management Program (SLMP) (NGO) were the two organizations that work on
Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and livelihood diversifications in Dewa Chefa District.

Experts from above organizations, as key informants, described that the society was sensitized
and mobilized through different panel discussions, workshops, training and establishing
community committees. The training given to the community also includes conservation,
protection, development and utilization of forest resources. Information on how to develop
conservation plan, livelihood sources and resource assessment were also taught to the
community. However, some of key informants and participants FGD argued that the training
and/or education given to create awareness were not enough and on a regular basis to change the
community’s attitude and perception on forest resource degradation. This would have future
implication for those actors to provide the training appropriately, so that the establishment
process ends up with success.

4.11.1. The responsibility of rural communities in forest resource management

The respondents were asked whether they put it in to practice the training rendered to them by
conserving and planting trees. The role of local communities is not only preventing deforestation
and forest degradation, but encouraging forest regeneration. Also they have responsibility in
implementing adaptation and mitigation actions in the study area. The following Table showed
the extent to which the rural households put in to practice the training given to them and whether
they plant trees or not.
Table 21.Respondents responses on training of forest conservation and management

Did you get training on forest Frequency Percent (%)

conservation?
Yes 75 77.3
No 22 22.7
Total 97 100.0
Have you implemented the training
Yes 71 73.2
No 26 26.8
Total 97 100.0
 62

4.12. The Level of Deforestation Impact in the study area

According to the key informant interviews, both the livestock population and grazing land have
highly decreased in the past couple of decades and all respondents also believe the same. This is
due to population increment and expansion of farmland among others. Grazing lands are
converted to cropland as there is always the need to expand farm plots among land scarce
farmers who are out weighting with increase in population.

A shortage of feed is associated with deforestation and land degradation and expansion of
agricultural land which had encroached much of the grazing areas (serious land use change). In
the area, there was no enough grazing land for livestock, as observed by the researcher during
field observation, and this is a serious problem associated with deforestation. The role of
deforestation and land degradation in affecting crop and livestock production was also reported
by other researchers. For instance, land degradation as a result of deforestation, low productivity,
poverty, and declining human welfare as the dominant problems encountered in crop livestock
production systems prevalent in most parts of the tropical highlands of the world (Okuma et al.,
1995).

Table 22.The level of deforestation impact on rural livelihood

Level of deforestation impact Frequency Percent

Low level 3 3.1
Medium level 28 28.9
High level 66 68.0
Total 97 100.0

Deforestation has socioeconomic impacts on livelihoods of rural households as shown in

Table21: as result of deforestation, various forest products (both timber and non-timber forest
products) are no longer easily available in the study area. As it is depicted in the above Table, the
majority 68.0% of the respondents were highly impacted deforestation the rural livelihood.
About 28.9 of the respondents indicated that the income of their households was medium
 63

declined due to deforestation as it indicated in Table20. Only 3.1% of the respondents were
found to be low level impact livelihood.

4.13: The Strategies to Overcome the Impact of Deforestation on Livelihood

Forests contain numerous species of flora and fauna. Forests protect the soil from heavy rainfall
and control erosion. However, deforestation reduces the biological diversity and increases soil
erosion and flooding. The removal or the destruction of significant areas of the forest cover had
resulted in degraded environment, adverse impacts on socio-economic condition of the people
aspects and biodiversity. As it has already been mentioned, the objectives of this research were
to assess the impacts of deforestation on rural livelihoods or socioeconomic condition of the rural
households. The tropical forests destroyed each year amounts to a loss in forest capital valued at
US $ 45 billion (Hansen, 1997). By destroying the forests, all potential future revenues and
future employment that could be derived from their sustainable management for timber and non-
timber products disappear.

Table 23.Coping Strategies to overcome the impact deforestation on livelihood

Strategies Frequency Percent (%)

Reduced number of food per day 15 15.5
Reduced quantity of food per day 59 60.8
Sale of forest products such as fire wood and 7 7.2
charcoal
wage earned from labor 2 2.1
Expansion of farm land cultivation 1 1.0
All 13 13.4
Total 97 100.0

Deforestation has negative impact on livelihood as shown in Table22 above. Means of

overcoming impacts of deforestation on rural livelihood 60.8% of the respondents include
reducing the quantity of food per day, with 15.5% reported they were forced to reduce the
number of food taken per day, and 13.4% of the respondents were impacted in all factors showed
in Table 22, only 7.2% of the respondents forced to sale of forest products such as fire wood and
charcoal since they cannot provide them with food and the others. 2.1% and 1.0% of the
 64

respondents were agreed to wage earned from labor and also expansion of farm land cultivation
measures respectively.

The negative impact of deforestation on livelihood of rural households was also reported
elsewhere, Sunderline et al. (2005) maintain that the dwindling natural forests in developing
countries was a critical problem, since this negatively affects the livelihood of people dependent
on forest products and services. Table22, above supports the facts reflected the Strategies to
overcome the impact deforestation on livelihood of households in the study area. The majority of
the respondents indicated that the reduction in income had resulted in adopting strategies such as
reducing the quantity of food taken per meal, reducing the number of meals taken per day,
withdrawal of children from school, poor health and marginal land cultivation all above
mentioned was the main effects of deforestation on rural livelihoods of the study area.

4.14. Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews and Field

Observation

During group discussion and Key informant interviews the selected respondents explained how
local communities use the forest resources, the types of indigenous knowledge for forest
conservation practices, how the individual or the communities are actively responding to these
forest loss and land degradation problems, the possible causes of deforestation and impact of
deforestation on the rural livelihood of the study area. During a series of group discussions with
the individual participants, planting trees was not generally a prioritized activity among the local
community of the study area. Before the beginning of the soil conservation and afforestation
program, farmers only planted a few eucalyptus trees and other tree species as a rule; they raised
a few trees around their homestead. The majority of the respondents perceived that they had no
tradition of planting trees away from the homestead of the study area. Some of the participants
said that planting of trees had benefits not only for attaining environmental sustainability but also
for construction of houses and even for income generating mechanism as selling of woods and
other forest products which was being used as livelihood for the communities.

From this, it was possible to say that, planting of trees were played important role which creating
environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The participants also said that the farmers in
the study area have no a tradition of planting trees rather than expanding of their agriculture, as a
 65

result loss of the benefits being obtained from the forests, only a few benefit was gained.
Expansions of agriculture, wood collection, charcoal production and urbanization were the main
factors for increased deforestation rates of the study area. By these factors were decreasing yields
due to impoverished soils, land degradation due to forest lost and increasing workload due to the
time spent for firewood collection were then identified by farmers as the main adverse impacts
of deforestation on rural livelihood . By large, the totality of available evident physical measures
and farmers’ perceptions indicates a troubling forest resources degradation route in the study
area. However, the capability of local people to adapt their livelihoods in order to control, or
even avoid, deforestation activities indeed, as the interviews also suggest, farmers are well aware
of the potentially losing impacts of deforestation on their livelihood and their knowledge of the
factors and processes involved was very detailed.

Deforestation has been considered as the most important causes of land degradation and affected
rural livelihood by all the respondents. Deforestation and Land degradation leads to loss of
agricultural production, increase the requirement of fertilizers and difficulty of farming have
been observed (MoARD, 2007).The group discussion concluded to solve the problems of forest
resources degradation, to sustain forest resources and to solve rural livelihood problems in the
District, all local communities stand together without discriminating by age and sex without
waiting local administrations concern.

Key informant interviews with the individual participants (a team with eight members from both
genders who are as elderly persons, kebele officials, youngsters, women, development agents
(DAs), and experts at the districts office of agriculture development), indicated that deforestation
were major causes of forest destruction and land degradation in study area. In relation to impact
of rural livelihood and change in environmental conditions, they confirmed that they had
observed changes such as a decrease in vegetation cover, with a decline in soil fertility as a result
of soil erosion and then declined of community livelihood due to livestock production and farm
productivities decreased. According to the key informants, deforestation also results in loss of
wild life, by seriously reducing biodiversity.

Formerly, household used to have adequate numbers of livestock as there was good grazing.
Currently some own no livestock or very small when compared with the previous years. In
 66

general, the situation they find themselves in now, when compared to the time when most of
them were young, has deteriorated. Now it is very difficult to make a living because there are a
whole range of new problems due to high deforestation rate serious reduction in soil fertility and
frequent crop failure as well as livelihood declined. Collecting water for drinking presents a
further challenge and they are forced to travel long distances to get wood for fuel. The major
reasons for forest resources lost in the study area according to these informants were expansion
of agricultural land, population pressure, fuel wood collection, and the other activities. There is
no wood for fuel, no water to drink and less wood for construction, forcing them to use
Geomemberen plastic and buying construction materials from other place by expensive price to
construct their house. The general perception of the individuals’ participant was that
deforestation affected the livelihoods of farmers significantly. These views and knowledge are in
line with what has been discussed by the household members who were interviewed.
 67

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary

Based on the major findings of the study, the following summary has been made. Forest
resources play a vital role in income generation and household food security in Ethiopia, with
forest products providing sustenance and revenue for million people in the country.

The study results showed that there was a significant deforestation process in the study area. This
was the fact that, most of the dwellers in the study area depend on agriculture activities,
especially crop cultivation and rearing livestock, which required the clearing and converting of
vast forest areas into farmlands and grazing lands. From interviews with some of the farmers, it
was pointed out that, the principal way they expand their farm sizes were by clearing additional
virgin lands, which are usually forest areas.

From the questioners, interviews, discussion, field observation and consultation with the experts
it was found that deforestation as a form of land degradation were widespread phenomena in the
study area that negatively impacted the rural livelihood of the community members.
Deforestation is another major socio economic problem of the community of the study area. The
community members were forced to travel long distances to collect wood for fuel and much of
their time had taken up collecting wood and to buy construction materials to build their houses.
Farmers also spent much of their money to purchase the farming tools for farming activities.
Environmental degradation as a result of deforestation and land degradation had reduced the
goods and services that the community had access thereby negatively affecting their standard of
living. As a result of the deforestation of forests and degradation of land, the community in the
study area had been to increase farming expenses. Responses from the respondents indicate that
the cost of improved seed variety was rising. From the general trends in crop production,
livestock rearing, and food security situation, there is a clear indication that the community
members are facing critical problems. Their livelihoods are dependent on adequate and reliable
rain, which at present is not the case as a result of sustained drought. In general, the overall
results from both interviews with the sampled households and discussions with key informants
reinforced the fact that the livelihoods of the community were being threatened by land
degradation, the driver of which was deforestation of forest resources.
 68

5.2. Conclusion and Recommendation

Forest play essential role in the preservation of an environment that facilitates sustainable
development. Forests, apart from their short to long-term positive effects on weather and climatic
conditions, are instrumental in controlling soil erosion, land degradation and desertification,
problems that appear to have reached their best moment in Ethiopia.

Deforestation is serious problems that negatively impact rural livelihood of farmers in Ethiopia.
Deforestation is a contributor to global climate change, and is often mentioned as one of the
major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. In addition, shrinking forest cover lessens the
landscape's capacity to intercept, retain and transpire precipitation. Instead of trapping
precipitation, which then percolates to groundwater systems, deforested areas become sources of
surface water runoff, which moves much faster than subsurface flows and then eroding the
productive part of the soil.

Members of households, selected through simple random sampling were interviewed. A diverse
sample ranging in age from 21 to 66 years was identified. Perceptions of the impacted of
deforestation were identical, regardless of the age groups of the participants. Land holding size
of the respondents ranged from less than 0.25 to 2.25 hectare and the number of members per
family ranged from 1 to 14. Both gender groups were included in the sample, with 31.96% being
women and 68.04% being men The major livelihood earners according to household members
are farming and livestock rearing, with a very few respondents indicating that they are also
engaged in small trading. When asked about observation of change in land productivity, the
majority of the respondents indicated that they had observed changes (decline) in Decrease in
livestock and crop production (71.1%) and a significant reduction in production over time.

Among the causes, fuel energy consumption took the highest contribution for the depletions of
forests resource in the study area. The local community in the study area had no options for
energy source; the only was forests wood and continued use of forests for local community who
were highly aggravated the lands resources to be eroded and degraded. Livelihood of the local
community in the study area is mainly depended on agricultural activities. They generate income
from it for sustaining their life, to precede such activities the forest area was changed for
expanding agricultural land. Agricultural land expansion is major drivers of deforestation and
 69

land degradation and possesses key problems to livelihoods of the community members in the
study area. Deterioration of soil fertility as a result of severe deforestation is a critical deterrent
to crop production and a lack of fodder has been a major factor in the decline in livestock
production. As wood was the major source of energy for cooking in the study area, deforestation
had seriously depleted forest resources. This has compelled community members to travel long
distances and spending significant amount of time for collection of fuel wood.

As alternative sources of energy, the community members burn cow dung and crop residues due
to forest resources degradation. So, this leading to degrading soils as the application of compost
and nutrient recycling has been adversely affected exacerbating the problem of crop failure and
dwindling land productivity. The negative impacts of deforestation on the livelihoods of farmers
are well understood by the households. The existing attempts implemented to combat the
problems of deforestation have helped when a comparison is made between a situation as it was
and the results achieved so far.

Therefore, the aim of this research has been achieved as it has been shown that deforestation
negatively impacted rural livelihoods of the study area. Though it is tempting to generalize the
results of this study from a Dewa-Chefa to the overall conditions of Ethiopia, the fact that the
work was conducted in a very small area, is a limiting aspect of this study. This study has also
not addressed the negative impacts of forest degradation on livelihood in pastoral areas as the
livelihoods in such areas are quite different from livelihoods of agriculturalists. This study did
not estimate the economic costs of deforestation as this was not the point of departure. Carrying
out similar assessments in all the agro-ecological zones of the country will supplement the results
of this study.

The result of investigation revealed that the forest in the study area was progressively being
depleted. While the majority of the communities, entirely depended for their daily livelihood on
the local environmental resources. Thus, conservation and sustainable utilization of these
resources are crucial. Therefore, in order to alleviate the challenges, it may better to take the
conservation measures.

To overcome these problems, efforts have been made to launch afforestation/reforestation and
conservation programs; however, success to date has been limited by the government and non-
 70

government organizations. Social and economic issues, such as participation of the local people
in natural resource management and the existence of clear land and tree tenure policies are
critical for the long-term sustainability and expansion of conservation practices.
The present study recommends in under adaptation measures and strategies.
 Training of the development agents and land user association officials is essential to build
the local understanding, management capabilities and community responsiveness the
natural resources; especially on biological conservation activities.
 The environmentalists and experts around the study area require a special attention to
harmonize the negative and positive impacts of fire treatment on forest resources in the
forest and give attention for farmers’ local knowledge;
 Improve extension capacity especially with respect to sustainable forest resources use;
 Institutional variables like extension agents need to be given due to attention to rural
livelihoods in side of farmers and intimately work relationships among farmers and give
emphasize to impact regarding forest resources users;
 The farmers’ attitude should be changed with regard to the importance of conserving and
developing natural resources, and the planning and management of agricultural activities.
 71

6. REFERENCES

Abane, H. 2009. Livelihoods in a forest community in Southern Ghana: Intervening policies and
community resistance, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Cape
Coast, Ghana (2009). Livelihoods in a forest community in Southern Ghana: Intervening
policies and community resistance. Journal of African Studies and Development 1(2):
028-035.

Abaynesh Ketema, A. Chimdi, S.N. Akhila. 2015. Effect of Firewood Energy Consumption of
Households on Status of Soil Fertility in Debis Watershed Ambo District, Oromia
Regional State, Ethiopia. Sci. Technol. and Arts Res. J., 4(1): 154-159.

Acheampong, E., E.Marfo. 2011. “The impact of tree tenure and access on chainsaw milling in
Ghana.” Ghana Journal of Forestry, Vol. 27: 68-86.

Adams, W. M. 2009. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World,
3rd Edition, Rout ledge, London and New York

Adebisi, L.A. 2008. Nature’s Pharmacy in Man’s Immediate Environment: Implications for
Primary Health Care Delivery. 2007/2008, Faculty Lecture. Faculty of Agriculture and
Forestry, University of Ibadan, 59pp

Aduse-Poku, K., Nyinaku, F., Yao, A. V., Awuah, R., Owusu, M. E.; Dwobeng, N. H., Owusu,
K.; and Agyenim-Boateng .2003.Improving Rural Livelihoods within the Context of
Sustainable Development Case Study of Goaso Forest District.Tropenbos International,
Wageningen, and the Netherlands.

Alemtsehay Jima. 2010. Determining Factors for a Successful Establishment of Participatory

Forest Management: Acomparative Study of Goba and Dello Districts,
Ethiopia.M.Sc.thesis. The University of Agder, Norway.pp 10-12.

Alex, D. S.2002. Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, A CIESIN Thematic Guide, Center for
International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University,
Palisades, NY, USA.
 72

Amisah, S., Gyampoh, A. B., Sarfo-Mensah, P.; and Quagrainie, K. K. 2009. “Livelihood trends
in Response to Climate Change in Forest Fringe Communities of the off in Basin in
Ghana.” Applied Science and Environmental Management, Vol. 13: 5-15.

Angelsen, A., Balcher, B. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries:
an overview. Journal of world development, 33(9):1384-1402 [Online]. Available from:
www.elsevier.com/locate. [Accessed: 18/09/2010].

Anonymous .2008. Sustainable Forest Management Practices in Ethiopia

Appiah, M.; Blay, D.; Damnyag, L.; Dwomoh, F.K.; Pappinen, A.; and Luukkanen, O.
2009.Dependence on Forest Resources and Tropical Deforestation in Ghana. Environ.
Dev. Sustain., 11: 471-487

Asfaw, Damtewu.T. 2003. Policies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African High
lands.An Assessment of Restoration of Biodiversity in Degraded High Mountain Grazing
Lands in North Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development.

Bedru Babalo. 2007. Economic Valuation and Management of common-pool Resources: The
Case of enclosures in the Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, PhD Dissertation.
Leuven.

Bishaw and Abdu Abdulkadir. 2003. Agro-forestry and Community Forestry for Rehabilitation
of Degraded Watersheds in the Ethiopian Highlands.The Second EA International
Symposium on Contemporary Issues in Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (July11-13,
2003).

Bishaw Badege. 2001. Deforestation and Land Degradation in Ethiopian Highlands. A strategy
for physical recovery. North East African Studies 8(1) 17-25.

Bruijnzeel, L.A. 2004. Hydrological Functions of Tropical Forests: Not seeing the Soils for the
Trees? Agricultural Ecosystem Environment 104:185-228.

Carney.1998. Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach. Sustainable Rural

Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? D. Carney. London, DFID: 3-23.
 73

CBD. 2009. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).Ethiopia’s 4th Country Report. Institute
of Biodiversity Conservation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Chambers, R., and Conway, G. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the
21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296, IDS, Brighton, UK.

Chemshama, S.A., and J.B. Nduwayezu. 2002. Rehabilitation of Degraded sub-humid lands in
sub-Saharan Africa a Synthesis. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.

Chomitz, K. M., Buys, P., Luca, G. D., Thomas, T. S., and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. 2007.At
loggerheads?Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction and environment in the tropical
forests.World Bank Policy Research Report.World Bank, Washington DC.

Cooke, P. 2008. Fuel wood, forests and community management - Evidence from household
studies. Environment and Development Economics, February 2008, Vol 13(1), pp 103-
135 13(1): 103-135.

CSA.2007. Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia: Results for Oromia Region, Vol. 1,
Addis Abeba.

Dawit Haile.2010. Ethiopian energy systems: Potentials, Opportunities and Sustainable

Utilization MSc. Thesis. Uppsala University, Sweden.

De Souza, M., S. Williams and A.B., Myerson. 2003. Critical Links: Population, Health, and the
Environment. Washington, D.C Population. 58(32):3-16.

DeJong, T. U. 2012. Property Rights and Artisanal Diamond Development (PRADD)

Environmental Rehabilitation and Artisanal Diamond Mining: A Case Study of Land and
Livelihoods in the Central African Republic. Prepared for the United States Agency for
International Development, USAID.

Delacote, P., Angelsen, A. 2015. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation: Leakage or
synergy? Land Economics 91 (3), 501–515.
 74

Dewa-Chefa District, Agricultural Development Office (DCDAO).2015. Annual Report,

Kemise.

Drake, L. 2003. Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Measures by Subsistence Farmers in
the Eastern Ethiopia: Presented at the 17th World Congress of Soil Science, Bangkok,
Thailand.

Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

EMA (Environmental Management Agency).2012.-www.chronicles.co.zw/index.phh?option

Sunday 26 August 2012.

EPA (Environmental Protection Authority) .2010.State of environment report of Ethiopia. The

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.166pp.

EPA (Environmental Protection Authority).2003.State of environment report of Ethiopia.The

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.166pp.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization).2007.State of the World’s Forests.Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization).2005a.State of the World’s Forests.Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization).2005b.Global Forest Resources Assessment. 2005.

FAO Forestry Paper 147, Rome.

FAO. 2010. Global Forest Resource Assessment. 2010. Main Report FA Forestry Paper. Food
and Agricultural Organization United Nations, Rome.

FAO/UNDP (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation/ United Nations
Development Program).1984. Ethiopian geomorphology and soils (1:1,000,000
scales).Assistance to land use planning. Addis Ababa.
 75

FDRE.2013."Economy.”Retrieved04.03, 2013,from
http://www.ethiopia.gov.et/English/Information/ Pages/Economy.aspx.

Gebreegziabher, Zenebe. 2007. Household fuel consumption and resource use in rural-urban
Ethiopia. Wageningen Universities (Wageningen University).

Getachew Mamo, Sjaastad. E., Vedeld, P. 2007. Economic dependence on forest resources: a
case from Dendi district, Ethiopia. For. Policy Ecol. 9 (8), 916–927.

Girma Tadesse, Saleem, M. A., Abyie, and A., Wagnew. 2002. Impact of Grazing on Plant
Species Richness, Plant Biomass, Plant Attribute and Soil Physical and Hydrological
Properties of Vertisols in East African a Highlands. Environmental management.

Goldstein, D. 2016. Eliminating deforestation and forest degradation in order to prevent species
from extinction, especially with regard to areas in Asia, Africa and South America.
Environmental Committee, Research Report: Deforestation Reports/RR ECI
Deforestation.pdf on 3rd, march, 2017

Habtamu, Ertiro. 2006.Adoption of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures in Anna
Watershed, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia.(Unpublished Master’s Thesis Addis Ababa
University, 2006).

Haile, Mitiku, Herweg, K., and Stillhardt, B. 2006.Sustainable land management.A new
approach to soil and water conservation in Ethiopia. University of Bern, Switzerland.

Haileslassie, Amare, Priess, J., Veldkamp, E., Demel Teketay, Lensschen, J.P.2005. Assessment
of Soil Nutrient Depletion and its Spatial Variability on Smallholders‟ Mixed Farming
Systems in Ethiopia Using Partial versus Full Nutrient Balances. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment 108 (1), 1–16.

Hansen, C. P. 1997. Making available information on the conservation and utilization of forest
genetic resources. The FAO Worldwide Information System on Forest genetic resources.

Hays, J. 2008.Deforestation and Desertification in China.Hong Kong.

 76

Hiremath, B.N., and Raju, K.V.2004. Livelihood Security: A Prerequisite for Sustainable Natural
Resource Management ON Srivastava (ed.) Management of Natural Resources for
Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation, Volume I 1 Hyderabad: National
Institute of Rural Development, pp 95-111.

Hosonuma,N., Herold, M., De Sy, V., De Fries, R. S., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., Angelsen, A.,
Romijn, E. 2012.An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in
developing countries. Environmental Research Letters 7 (4), 044009.

Hurni, H. 1993. Land Degradation, Famine and Land Resource Scenarios in Ethiopia. In World
Soil Erosion and Conservation, (Ed: Pimentel), Cambridge University press.

IITA.2011. Deforestation: Nigeria ranked worst in the World. A publication of International

Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS). 2004. Adea-Liben Woreda Pilot Learning
Site Diagnosis and Program Design. ILRI, (unpublished) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Kahsay Berhe. 2004. Land Use and Land Cover Changes in the Central highlands of Ethiopia.
The Case of Yerer Mountain and its Surroundings, [M.Sc. unpublished Thesis], Addis
Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Karke, K. 2004. Effects of Deforestation on Tree Diversity and Livelihoods of Local

Community: A Case Study from Nepal. Lund, Sweden, Lund University.

Kassu Kebede. 2011. Soil Erosion, Deforestation and Rural Livelihoods in The central Rift
Valley Area of Ethiopia: A Case Study in the Denku Micro watershed, Oromia Region.
University of South Africa.MSc. Dissertation.

Krantz, L. 2001. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction: An Introduction.

Division for Policy and Socio-Economic Analysis, Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency.

Lawton, R. O., Nair, U. S., Pielke Sr., R. A. and Welch, R. M. 2001. Climatic impact of tropical
lowland deforestation on nearby Montane Cloud Forests. Science294: 584-587.
 77

Legesse G/Meskel. 2008. The impact of community based land resource management on
agriculture and rural livelihood. The case of Dhabe Dongore: Eastern Shoa Zone.

Ludi, E. 2002. Economic Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation: case studies for the
highlands of Amhara Region, Ethiopian African Studies series A18. University of Berne,
Switzerland.

Mahapatra, K., and Kant, S. 2003. Tropical Deforestation: A Multinomial Logistic Model and
some Country-specific Policy Prescriptions, Journal of Forest Policy and Economics 7
(2005), pp.1 8

McCarthy, J. 2009. Reflections On: Our Planet and Its Life, Origins, and Futures, Science,
available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646.short

Medhin Zewdu. 2002. Sustainable Development in Ethiopia: Report of assessment of activities

and issues relevant to the review process of the earth. IBCR,.A.A, Ethiopia.

Mekonnen, Alemu. 2012.Coping with Fuel wood Scarcity: Household Responses in Rural
Ethiopia.Resources for the Future.

Mekuria Argaw. 2005. Forest Conservation-Soil Degradation-Farmers Perception Nexus:

Implications of Sustainable Land use in the Southwest of Ethiopia. Ecology and
Development Series. No 26, Cuviller Verlag Gottngen.

MELCA Mahiber .2008. Communal Forest Ownership: An Option to Address the Underlying
Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Ethiopia? Proceeding of a workshop
held at Chilimo Forest and Ghion Hotel November 25-27/2008. 43pp.

MoARD. 2007. Woody Biomass Inventory Strategic Planning Project. A National Strategic Plan
for the Biomass Energy Sector.

Mulat Demeke, Fantu Guta, and Tadele Ferede. 2004. Agricultural Development in Ethiopia:
Are there alternatives to food aid? Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, pp.12-62.
 78

Mulligan,M. 2004.Environmental Modeling Finding Simplicity in Complexity, Johan W. Sons,

England.

Mulugeta Lemenih. 2004. Effects of Land use Changes on Soil quality and Native Flora
Degradation and Restoration in the Highlands. Doctoral Dissertation of forest Soils,
SLU.Acta Universitatis Agriculturae suecie, silvesteria vol. 306, pp 99.3-1.

Myres, N., and R. A.,Mittermair.20002. BiodiversityHotspots for Conservation Priorities.Nature

403-835-884.

Netsanet Deneke. 2007. Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Harenna Forest and Surrounding
Area, Bale Mountains National Park, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia.M.Sc
Thesis, and AAU.

Nzeh, C. E. P., and Eboh, E.C. 2007. Analysis of income effects of forest products activities
among rural households in Enugu state Nigeria, Journal of Agriculture and Social
Research(JASR),Vol.7,No.1,2007,ISSN1595-7470.Pages23-33.
www.ajol.info/journals/jasr.

Oguntala, I. A. 2000. Oyo state in Nigeria: a people united, a future assured: Survey of states vol.
2. Reference

Pielke, R. A. 2002. The Influence of Land-Use Change and Landscape Dynamics on the Climate
System: Relevance to Climate-Change Policy beyond the Radioactive Effect of
Greenhouse Gas.

Popoola, L. 2014. Imagine a Planet without Forest. An inaugural lecture delivered at the
University of Ibadan on Thursday, 24 July, 2014. Ibadan University Press, Nigeria.
ISBN: 978- 978-8456-56-8.

Sands, R. 2006.Forestry in a Global Context.CABI Publishing Agency.

Schmink, M., and C.Wood. 1992. Contested Foresters in Amazonia. Columbia University Press,
Newyork.
 79

Schreckenberg, K., Luttrell, C., Zorlu, P. 2007. A way out of poverty: A review of participatory
Forest Managemen, Kenya.

Scoones, I. 1998. ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.’ IDS Working
Paper 72, Brighton: IDS, pp. 3-22.

Sherman, K. 1993. The Environmental Data Book.The World Bank. Washington. D.C.

Shibru Tedla. 2003. Ethiopians Environmental Condition: Today and Twenty five Years from
Now” In Economics focus. Bulletin of Ethiopian Economics Association.Vol-5, No.5.

Shiferaw Bekele, Stein, T., Holden. 2000. Policy instruments for sustainable land management:
the case of highland smallholders in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 22, 217–232.

Sisay Asefa. 2003. " The Ethiopian Population in the 1990s and Beyond" In Population and
Development. Vol.4 No.4 Addis Ababa: National Office of Population.

Solesbury, W. 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods: A case study of the Evolution of DFID policy.
Working paper 217. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Sucoff, E. 2003.Deforestation.In Environmental Encyclopedia. (P.g.358-359). Detroit: Gale.

Sunderlin. W., Angelsen, A., Balcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., and Wunder, S.
2005. Livelihoods, forests and conservation in developing countries: An overview.
Journal of World Development, 33(9): 1384-1402.

Tadesse, K. 2003. Environmental and Habitat Management.The case of Ethiopia and Ghana.
Environmental management31 (3): 313-32.

TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of
Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB,
availableat:http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bYhDohL_TuM%3d&tabi
d=1278&mid=2357

Teketay Demel. 2001. Deforestation; Wood and Famine, and Environmental Degradation in
Ethiopia‟s Highlands Ecosystem; Urgent Need for Action. North East African Studies.
 80

Tropenbos International. 2005. Alternative Livelihoods and Sustainable Resource Management

Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Tumbe, C., Mulenga, S., and Hasselman, M. 2005.Contribution of dry forests to rural livelihoods
and the national economy of Zambia, Zambia.

UNEP. 2005. Forest Loses and Gains, Where do we stand? United Nations Environmental
Program. Rome, Italy.

UNEP. 2006. Global Environmental Outlooks Past, Present and Future Perspective. United
Nations Environmental Program. Italy, Rome.

UNFCCC.2010. Glossary of climate change acronyms. United Nation’s Framework Convention

on Climate Change.WRM's bulletin Nº 161, December 2010.

Union of Myanmar Website. 2000. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

(UNCCD). National Report on the UNCCD implements, pp, 6-25.

Van NordWijk. 2006. Managing Watershed Services in Eco-agriculture Landscapes In: the State
of the area of Eco-agriculture, eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Verchot, L. V. 2014. Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector.
Center for International Forestry Research.

Wegeyehu Bekele. 2003. Economic of Soil and Water Conservation. Theory and Empirical
Application to Subsistence Farming in the Eastern Ethiopian Highlands.Doctoral Thesis,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala, Sweden.

WHO. 1999. FAO production year book 1999:53.

Willams, M. 2006. Deforesting the Earth: from prehistory to Global crisis: An Abridgment.
Chichgo.The University of Chicago Press.

Woldeamlak, B. 2002. Land cover dynamic since the 1950s in Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile
basin, Mountain Research and Development22 (3):263-269.
 81

World Meteorological Organization. 2005. Climate and Land Degradation. Soil conservation
Land Management- Flood forecasting- Food Security. WMO- No 989.

Yasuoka, J., and Levins, R. 2007. Impact of deforestation and agricultural development on
Anopheline ecology and Malaria Epidemiology. Journal of American Society of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 76(3): 450-460.

Yemiru Tesfaye, A., Roos, B.M., Campbell and F.Bohlin. 2010. Forest Incomes and Poverty
Alleviation under Participatory Forest Management in the Bale Highlands, Southern
Ethiopia‟. International Forestry Review 12(1):66-77.

Zelalem Temesgen .2008. Resettlement and Its Impact on Vegetation A Case of Angar Gutin,
Unpublished Thesis, Addis Ababa University

Zerihun Woldu, Meseresha Fetene and Asferachew Abate. 1999. Vegetation Under different
Species in Acacia Woodland in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia. SINET: Ethiopia, J. Sci.
22:235-252, Faculty of Science Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 82

7. APPENDICES

Haramaya University
Post Graduate Program Directorate

College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

School of Natural resource and Management and Environmental Science

Management
Program: Environmental Science Management

Questionnaires Prepared for Household Heads (HHHs)

Appendix - A

Questionnaire to be filled by farmers of Shekila and Qallo kebeles

Dear Respondents,

This questionnaire is meant to gather information for a study on farmers’ knowledge and
practices towards impact of deforestation on rural livelihoods in selected rural kebeles of Dewa
Chefa district, Oromo zone administration, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia.

The purpose of this study is to generate the necessary information for the assessment of impact
of deforestation on rural livelihoods in the study area. It is out puts will be used by decision
makers, planners, researchers, government institutions and sectors at different levels those who
are concerned with the assessment the impact of deforestation on rural livelihoods in the study
area. Therefore, your honest and genuine co-operation in responding and filling the questionnaire
is highly essential.

Thank you! in advance for your time and patience in completing this questionnaires fill the blank
spaces.

N.B. 1. The response you give will not have any negative impact on you.

2. No need of writing your name on the questionnaire.

3. Please respond for in feeling free warty on think is correct.

 83

A. Socio-economic background of the respondent

1. Household head Male Female , Kebele _______

2. Age _______
3. Family size__________ Female _________ Male______
4. Level of Education (house hold heads) ____________
5. Educational and marital status of other family members

Grade Sex and age

Male Age Female Age
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12+

6. Occupation ________
7. Monthly Income _______
8. Source of Income _________
9. How much money did the household earn from the following sources during 2016 crop-year?
(Estimate)

Sources Estimate Income in Birr Sources Estimate Income in Birr

1. Livestock and livestock products
Sale
2. Grain sale
3. Firewood and Charcoal sale
4. Credit:
 84

i. rural credit
ii. individual credit
5. Transfer
6. Others (specify)

10. Land holding size ________

B. General Forestry related Questions

1. Do you produce forest products? Yes No
2. If your answer for question number (1) is yes, could you list them in order of quantity of
product you produce

Rank Forest product

1
2
3

3. For what purpose you produce those forest products?

A. For market B. For Household consumption
C. If other specify _________________________________________
4. Which type of forest product you supply for markets please list them in terms of quantity of
these products per month?

Rank Type of forest product Quantity

1
2
3

5. Do you use forest product as one of the sources of income? How much income you generate
from these forest product? Please list them in order of priority.

Rank Types of forest product Income per month (Birr)

6. Which one is greater in number in your area?

A. Seller of forest product
 85

B. Those do not sale

7. Which tree species you use for the production of energy sources you mostly sell? _
___________________________________________
8. Do you use this forest product for household consumption?
A. Yes B. No
9. Which type of forest product you use for household consumption? Please list them in terms of
priority.
Rank Types of forest product
1
2
3
10. What types of energy you use for domestic consumption?
A. Charcoal B. Crop residue E. Kerosene
C. Fuel wood D. Dry dung
11. Which of the above do you use for cooking ______________________
12. Do you think the agricultural land size you owned is sufficient for the production food for
your family?
A. Yes B. No
13. If your answer for question number 12 is no, by what means you increase food production for
your family?
A. By increasing agricultural land
B. By selling forest product
14. If your answer for question number 13 is A; how do you obtain additional agricultural land?
A. By inheritance D. Contract
B. By clearing forest E. Crop sharing
C. From government F. Please, if other specify _________________
15. If your answer for question number 13 is yes, why do sell forest product?
______________________________________________________________________________
16. Have you use cattle as a source of income?
A. Yes B. No
17. If your answer for question number 16 is yes, how do you obtain grazing land for cattle?
 86

A. Separated grazing land

B. Forest area
18. What type of grazing land you use for cattle?
A. Privately owned
B. Commonly owned
C. Forest resources degradation and its impact on the environment related questions

19. Do you know the role of forest resources towards environmental protection? E.g. Soil
conservation, climate adaptation, rainfall, etc
A. Yes B. No
20. If your answer for question number 19 is yes, how do you prioritize the benefit obtained from
forest? For each Option please ticks the box that you feel most fits your views?
Issues High Medium Low Don’t know
Rainfall patterns
2. Improvement of water
resources
3.Reducing temperature
4. Air Quality
5. Erosion control
6. Promotion of biodiversity
21. Are there other benefits missing from question 20?

A. Yes B. No
22. If your answer for question number 21 is yes, could you list them?
No Benefits of forest reason
1
2
3
23. In your local area, do you get that benefit from forest resources sufficiently?
A. Yes B. No C. Specify if others ______________________
24. If your answer for question no 23 is no, what do you think its reason?
25. When you compose the areal coverage of forest in your local area before 10 years and at the
present time, did you observe its change?
A. Yes B. No
26. If there is change, what is this change?
27. With forest change, what do you observe its impact on the environment interims of?
 87

High Medium Low N

A) Climate change (i.e., rainfall variability
B) Loss of biodiversity (i.e., fauna and flora
C) Decline of soil fertility
D) Increase of temperature

28. Are there other environment impacts missing from question 27?
A. Yes B. No
29. If your answer for question number 21 is yes, could you list them?
____________________________________________________________________________
30. What did you observe the impact of forest reduction on the socio-economic of the people in
terms of?
High Medium Low N
A) Decline of forest product (quality and quantity)
B) Agricultural production
C) Distance to be traveled to collect forest product

31. Are there other socio-economic impacts of forest reduction on the society surrounding?
If these, please list them.
____________________________________________________________________________
32. What do you think the reasons for forest degradation in your locality?
A. Natural B. Human impact
33. If your answer for question number 32 is b, could you list the means by which human have
impact on forest degradation in your area?
___________________________________________________________________________
34. Do you participate in community based forest management in your local area?
A. Yes B. No C. Specify if others ______________________
35. Did you get training (education) about forest resource management by district Agricultural
experts or other NGO’s?
A. Yes B. No
36. Who control (owned) forest resources in your area?
A. Government B. Community
37. What is your attitude/opinion/ towards forest resource conservation?
 88

38. What do you suggest to minimize forest resource degradation in your local area? For
example what should be the following bodies do?
Government_________________________________________________________________
NGOs_____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Rural Societies ______________________________________________________________

Changes in income as a result of deforestation

1. As a result of deforestation impact, has your income decreased? Yes No

2. How do you quantify the decrease in your income? a. decrease in production per hectare KG
b. decrease in livestock production c. both d. Equivalent in cash per year

3. As a result of this impact, what is the level of the problem you have encountered in relation
with your livelihoods? a. low b. medium c. high d. no change
4. What is the consequence of the reduction in your income? Mark all that apply. a. reduced no
of meal b. reduced quantity per meal c. withdrawal of children from school
d. poor health e. marginal land cultivation f. all
 89

Appendix - B

Haramaya University
Post Graduate Program Directorate

College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

School of Natural resource and Management and Environmental Science

Management
Program: Environmental Science Management

Questions for Interviews

This interview guide is prepared to direct the interviews to be conducted with employee
(environmental experts) of District Agricultural Office or any equivalent offices in the selected
District. The purpose of this guide is to secure additional data that may not be clearly secured the
questionnaires to be filled by respondents. It is also designed in such a way that it helps the
interviews and the interviewees focus the discussion on issues related to the research questions.
Thus, this interview is meant to secure only relevant data that could not be obtained through
other means of data collecting tools.
1. What is considered as a major problem leading to forest destruction and degradation in Dewa-
Chefa District?
2. Do you have any policy statement regarding environmental education? If yes, what does it
say? Does it specify any specific areas of training?
3. Do you believe that there are suitable and enough forest resources management plan? If
Yes, what are these guidelines?
4. Do you believe that environmental policy and forest resources management plan incorporate
the rural livelihoods? if so, to what extent?
5. Do you involve the rural poor (forest dependent) is the designing and development of forest
resources management plan?
6. What are the government improvement of forest resource degradation and destruction to
manage up with the environmental impacts (soil erosion, climate change, loss of biodiversity?)
 90

7. What recent actions have been taken to reduce forest resource degradation?
8. What actions do you think need to be taken to reduce the risk of forest resource degradation
and to minimize its environmental impact?
9. If you have any opinion about forest degradation and the loss of biodiversity, decline of soil
fertility, climate change issues which is not mentioned, I would appreciate if you could mention
it.
 91

Appendix - C

Haramaya University
Post Graduate Program Directorate

College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

School of Natural resource and Management and Environmental Science

Management
Program: Environmental Science Management

Questions for Focus Group Discussions

1. How do the local communities use the forest resources? Discuss!

2. What are the types of indigenous knowledge for forest conservation practices that the local
community participates?
3. Do you think that the individual or the communities are actively responding to these forest
degradation impacts?
4. What do you think are the possible causes of deforestation in your area? Discuss!
5. What do you think are the major consequence of deforestation and land degradation in your
area?
6. What is the implication of human activity and land resource interaction in the District?
7. To solve the impacts of deforestation on rural livelihoods, what do you think to be done?
8. How do the local administrations concern the customarily forest land management?
9. What is the trend of total production per unit area from year to year? Discuss!
10. What attempts have been made to sustain forest resources and to solve forest degradation
impacts on rural livelihoods in the District?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE AND YOUR VALUABLE TIME!

 100
Appendix Table 1.Forest area of Ethiopia (1990-2015)
Country Land area(1000ha) Forest Area (1000 ha)

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015

Ethiopia 109, 631 15, 114 13, 705 13, 000 12, 296 12, 499

Source FRA 2015

Appendix Table 2.Deforestation estimates in Ethiopia by forest type (in hectare) 1994-2003 E.C

Type 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
High forest 270, 897 118, 355 99,601 73, 025 57, 182 48, 235 66, 036 76, 412 73 ,875 76, 723
Wood land 83, 720 77, 929 75, 460 79, 195 83, 379 85, 365 86, 611 91, 038 95, 633 96, 323
Shrub land 44, 678 51, 432 56, 752 59, 377 77, 242 70, 164 68, 051 65, 548 61, 854 58, 685

Total 39,9295 247,716 231, 813 211, 597 217,803 203,764 220,698 232,998 231,362 231, 731

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2004)


 101

Appendix Table 3.Projected population of the study area (1984-2015)

Years Projected total population of Dewa

Chefa District
1980 73,940
1984 80,443
1987 86,054
1990 92,057
1994 100,152
1996 105,347
2000 114,611
2005 126,810
2007 133,388
2010 142,692
2013 152,646
1015 160,564

(Source CSA, 1984)

 102

Appendix Table4. Land under cultivation and major crops cultivated in the Dewa Chefa District

Area Cropped (Ha) Average Yield (Mt/ha) Area Cropped (Ha) Average Yield Mt/ha)
Crop % % % %
2007 2009 Change 2007 2009 Change 2010 2014 Change 2010 2014 Change

Maize 2165 3380 56.12 112424 86573 29.86 3243 1716 47.1 65370 14873
77.23
Teff 3460 3188 7.86 58606 42026 28.3 3400 3923 15.5 44200 50220
13.62
Sorghum 8860 7539 14.9 404178 163963 59.4 7847 8688 10.7 239969 115879 51.7

Mung 80 1 9.75 1184 10 99.2 1 1124 100 1 10116 100

bean
Barley 590 204 65.4 8260 3027 63.35 94 328 248.9 1410 4920 248.9

Source DCDAO (2015)

Appendix Table 5.The type and number of Livestock in Dewa Chefa District Figures (2007- 2015)

No Types of livestock’s Number of livestock’s in the study area (2007-2015)

2007 2009 2010 2014 2015
1 Cattle 348,283 123,189 128,260 149,068 173,224

2 Goats and Sheep 230,070 44,551 47,699 36,638 42,715

Source DCDAO (2015)