Highlights of Project Objectives and Findings
Presented at CIFOR Knowledge‐Sharing Workshop
April 5, 2019, Nexus Hotel, Addis Ababa
Enabling Conditions to Implement the 2018
Forest Proclamation to Facilitate FLR in
Ethiopia
A GIZ-CIFOR study in Gambella and SNNP Regional States
Habtemariam Kassa, Steven Lawry, Agena Anjulo, Melaku Bekele, and
Rebecca McLain
Contact: h.kassa@cgiar.org

1. Background
• FLR initiatives in Ethiopia well before international
commitments ‐ the Bonn Challenge and New York
Declaration on Forests
• The 2016‐20 Plan:
o 2 million ha of natural forests under PFM
o Identify & demarcate 4.5 m ha of degraded land for A/R
• FLR mechanisms in Ethiopia:
o PFM, AE, SLM through community mobilization and SLMP
o Farmers’ initiatives (woodlots, agroforestry systems)
• PFM successes need to be reexamined (Kassa et al, 2008).
• Tenure influences tree planting (Bekele and Kassa, 2011)

1. Background
Factors hampering state‐led FLR
• low community participation
• limitations in tenure security and equitable benefit distribution
• little emphasis on economic gains
• weak institutional capacity (Seyoum et al, 2015)
Forest Policy and Laws
• 2007 Forest Policy and Forest Law hardly implemented
• Discussion and engagement with the national govt continued
• 2018 (new) forest law devolves a wide range of forest use and
management rights to communities
• Still need to know how to effectively implement the law (legally,
institutionally and functionally )

2. Study objectives
Doing FLR right can impact millions of rural communities and large
areas of degraded landscapes
We aim to:
• identify actions by government, Non‐state actors and communities
so that communities can exercise their forest use and
management rights granted in the 2018 Forest Proclamation.
• provide recommendations for designing regulations to implement
the 2018 Proclamation to move from rights recognition to rights
actualization

3. Research questions
• How do experts perceive
o the strengths and limitations of the Forest Proclamation
o the links between forest and land laws
o lessons to be learnt from implementing the 2005 Land Law?
o impeding and enabling factors for FLR and Forest development
• What specific actions are needed (at national, regional
and local levels) to effectively implement the forest law?
• What kinds of capacities are needed to do so at different
levels? What roles for key actors?

4. Methods
Data collection
• Review of legal documents, reports and plans
• KIIs and FGDs
• Workshops
• to share and validate findings and info gathered
• to gather additional inputs to refine and strengthen results
Limitations
• Limited time and resources – few weeks
• Limited coverage
o Two regions, Two sites/areas
o Community representation
• Security challenges

5. Findings – Legal Aspects
• No national land use policy and plan – there is progress
• Focus on rights of individuals to freely access land, less on the
responsibilities of state actors and community to protect NRs
• Some laws undermine others (the investment law, Regulation No.
283/2013 that establish the Ethiopian Agricultural Investment
Land Administration Agency – no more)
• Some gaps in linking laws (mining, land, forest, investment)
• At lower levels of government, lack of will or capacity to
effectively implement laws (e.g. relevant provisions in the Land
Law, in the Environmental law, in the investment law, etc.)
• Failure to review regional land law and guidelines in line with the
recent forest law (e.g. SNNPR)

6. Findings - Institutions and governance
• Federal & regional gov’ts have different institutional arrangement
to manage forests
• Poor link between Federal and regional entities
o Limit institutional linkages and coordination
o Decentralized decision making power but with limited local capacity
• Institutional instability and extremely high staff turnover
o Very poor institutional memory and continuity of efforts
o Need more interventions by local stakeholders than by govt structure
• Local governments see forests as economic liability (SNNPR)
o Investment initiatives overriding conservation goals
o Forests seen as frontiers of agricultural expansion and
investment lands for job creation

7. Findings – Technical
• Regional plans remain top down – focus is on GTP II targets
• Failure to optimally engage communities ‐ both GOs and NGOs
• Little sign of differentiated approaches and strategies (e.g. for
smallholder forestry, for managing natural forests and
woodlands)
• Extremely low level of capacity – infrastructural, logistical and
technical ‐ to plan, monitor and report FLR and forest
conservation and development
• Rather limited understanding of what FLR is & appropriate
options that work for different landscapes & socio‐economic
contexts
• Almost everywhere focus is on PFM to reduce D&D in natural
forests and planting seedlings on degraded communal lands

(d) Summary of responses of experts
Questions Responses Perce
nt
1. Understanding of what Forest Landscape restoration means? Partially correct or largely incorrect 94
2. Views on impacts of land allocation for investment on the rates of D&D in your
area
Had little or some negative effect 82
3. Perceptions on success rates of tree planting initiatives of farmers on their own
lands
Partially successful or successful 89
4. Perceptions on success rates of tree planting initiatives of communities on
communal lands
Largely unsuccessful 75
5. Perceptions on success rates of PFM in managing natural forests Partially successful 75
6. Is there discussion among sector offices (of land, forest, agriculture, livestock) on
the purposes of rehabilitating degraded lands?
Yes, there is but very little 94
7. Do you feel that privately managed lands still face tenure insecurity? No 75
8. Do you feel that certified communal lands still face tenure insecurity? No 75
9. How do you rate the degree of tenure insecurity of communal lands that have not
been certified?
High or very high 58
10. Has the 2005 land law addressed tenure insecurity challenges of forests and
forestlands?
It has not addressed major challenges
at all
38
11. Are you aware of the 2018 forest law? Am not aware of it 63
12. is the current institutional arrangement (of organizations mandated to do
forestry) is good enough to effectively implement the law?
Requires major adjustment and
capacity
63
13. Is the current role and responsibility of forestry experts good enough to
effectively implement the law and actualize community rights
Needs major rethinking and revision 63
(Note that this is indicative not conclusive as the total number of respondents is 16)
AS(1

Slide 10
AS(1 You need to focus on 2-3 points within this slide, e.g. use a big orange box to highlight a row. Highlight a story that you haven't told
before.
Atmadja, Stibniati (CIFOR), 4/4/2019

(e) Impeding & enabling factors for FLR & Forest
development
Enabling Impeding
Some studies exist– MELCA, HOAREC Lack of land use policy and plan at national and local levels to designate forest and
forestlands – though progress is being made in Gambella
National targets and sector development plan ‐ though not yet
cascaded to regional and lower levels
Institutional instability of organizations mandated to work on forestry
Dedicated institutions – though only at Regional (Gambella)
and to district level (SNNPR)
Little or no coordination mechanism of sectoral plans and actions (e.g. energy,
investment, NRM, forestry,
The 2005 rural land law and experiences of certifying land use
rights
Population growth and ever increasing demand for farm land – free access seen as
constitutional right
Increased awareness of communities about NR degradation
and about climate variability
Competing land use interests on communal lands candidate for FLR
Donor interest to support SFM and FLR Inadequate understanding of legal and technical options to manage duality of
formal and traditional tenure systems
Experiences of community mobilization for NRM works Extremely low level of institutional and human resource s capacity for forest sector
transformation
Major national initiatives – e.g. hydroelectric dam projects,
SLM program, etc. that strengthen the cause and provide
means for FLR
Competing claims over responsibilities between NRM and Forestry agencies
Organizational limitations – no one at kebele level
Logistical and budgetary limitations of forestry institutions
Human resources related challenges –
technical capability, motivation, …
Failure to make SFM and FLR economically attractive undertaking (focus on BDC
and forest protection)
FLR and SFM not part of regional and local level development plan
Budgetary allocation procedures in some areas that works against forest cover
Failure to reconcile traditional tenure systems with formal ones
AS(2

Slide 11
AS(2 You need to focus on 2-3 points within this slide, e.g. use a big orange box to highlight a row. Highlight a story that you haven't told
before.
Atmadja, Stibniati (CIFOR), 4/4/2019

Reflections: How to enhance stakeholder engagement
• We need to look more into the links between the 2005 land law
and the 2018 forest law
• No formal mechanism exists for stakeholder to jointly plan
interventions at a given landscape (even at lower level)
• Even government sector offices hardly plan together
• NGOs facilitate stakeholders engagement, but experience is
limited on how to institutionalize stakeholders engagement in
existing government structures
o To allow for government agencies themselves to work together for
common goal ‐ between land and forest sectors
 Role of the National Planning Commission?
o To bring state and non‐state actors including communities together
 District Administration Office holds the key?

Reflections: How to enhance stakeholder engagement
• High staff turn over is a serious problem
o frequent restructuring, low salaries
o challenge for building capacity and retaining experts in government institutions
• Continuity and building institutional memory needs stronger forestry
institutions.
 how can we build capacity of other actors to help fill the gaps
knowing that challenges associated with government forestry
agencies will continue?
• As findings were shared with the Commission, one of our consultants
is integrating key areas into the forest regulation that is under
preparation by EFCCC
• Regional land and forestry offices hopefully will continue to engage in
facilitating implementation of the forest law
AS(3

Slide 13
AS(3 This question is a bit confusing for me. Can you rephrase?
Atmadja, Stibniati (CIFOR), 4/4/2019

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support of GIZ
and also the Forests, Trees and Agroforests (FTA)
Policies, Institutions and Markets Flagship for
covering part of the research cost.

cifor.org
forestsnews.cifor.org
ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org
THANK YOU