https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2693-5152
Figures
Abstract
Participatory Forest Management decentralizes forest governance by granting local communities rights and responsibilities to manage forest resources, aiming to reduce degradation and enhance livelihoods. This study explores PFM as an adaptive governance strategy in Gargeda State Forest, western Ethiopia, where Farm Africa initiated 30 Forest User Groups in 2013, of which only 10 remain active. Using a mixed method approach 324 Forest User Groups surveys, Key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and document reviews the research assessed governance performance, socio-economic outcomes, enabling conditions, and barriers. Results reveal high community awareness (85%) and moderate transparency in enforcement (62%), contrasted by low women’s participation (15.6%) and limited satisfaction with benefit sharing (48%). Willingness to engage in conservation training (83%) and patrols (53%) indicates growing collective commitment. Governance evaluations show moderate policy and legal frameworks (60%), but weaknesses in planning (40%) and implementation (40%). Major challenges include reduced NGO support, weak technical capacity, poor coordination, political instability, and tensions between statutory and customary rules. Nonetheless, strong NGO facilitation, community bylaws and youth engagement were key enabling factors identified as enhancing the sustainability of forest resources. However, sustained institutional backing, technical and financial capacity building, and inclusive participation particularly of women and youth are essential for long term success and wider replication across Ethiopia.
Author summary
We examined PFM as a form of adaptive forest governance in western Ethiopia, assessing its role in promoting sustainable forest management by evaluating interactions between forest resources and local communities within the protected Gargeda State Forest. Through a mixed methods approach, including surveys of FUGs, FGD, KIIs, and document reviews, we found that the existence of rare FUGs’ structures and practices in the forest, moderate forest governance pillars, and the impact of community participation influenced the outcomes of pre-PFM and post-PFM involvement on forest conservation and livelihood improvement. Additionally, we identified external challenges to PFM in the study area, along with conditions necessary for scaling up successful practices. Our findings underscore the need for adaptive forest governance that integrates community knowledge with national strategies, offering valuable lessons for sustainable forest management. These insights can help policymakers and practitioners balance human needs with environmental protection and ultimately support the resilience of forest ecosystems for future generations. To enhance PFM, sustained institutional support, strengthened technical capacity, and inclusive participation particularly by women and youth are essential to ensure long term success and scalability in similar regions.
Citation: Telila Z, Amare A, Tolera T (2026) Participatory Forest Management as an adaptive strategy for sustainable forest governance in Gargeda State Forest, Ethiopia. PLOS Sustain Transform 5(6): e0000251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000251
Editor: Julie G. Zaehringer, University of Bern, SWITZERLAND
Received: November 7, 2025; Accepted: May 8, 2026; Published: June 3, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Telila et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Forests are among the most important ecological systems worldwide, serving as biodiversity hotspots and critical regulators of global climate, hydrological cycles, and rural livelihoods [1,2]. They provide essential ecosystem services such as water purification, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and cultural and spiritual values that support both planetary and human wellbeing [3]. Globally, forests sequester about 2.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, accounting for roughly one third of emissions and highlighting their key role in mitigating climate change [4]. In low income regions, specially across Africa, forests also serve as socio-economic safeguards by providing fuel wood, food, medicinal plants, and income opportunities to forest dependent communities [5].
Despite their significance, forests face ongoing threats from deforestation and degradation. Between 2010 and 2020, the world lost an estimated 3.94 million hectares annually, with deforestation rates increasing by 4% over the decade [6,7]. Sub Saharan Africa is particularly vulnerable, currently lagging 30% behind its 2030 deforestation reduction targets [8]. These challenges expose structural and institutional weaknesses in forest governance, where policies often fail to achieve lasting results [9].
In Ethiopia, early reforestation efforts in the 1970s, driven by state led soil conservation programs under the Derg regime, focused on large scale planting [10] however, often failed due to top down approaches neglecting local involvement and land tenure issues [11,12].These laid groundwork however proved insufficient against escalating deforestation fueled by agricultural expansion, unclear land tenure, and fragmented institutions [13,14]. Building on this, Ethiopia institutionalized Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) in the mid1990s, pioneering Participatory Forest Management (PFM) with broader policy uptake in the early 2000s [15]. Unlike prior centralized initiatives, PFM uniquely decentralizes forest rights and responsibilities to empowered local communities [16], fostering collaborative stewardship grounded in economic incentives for sustainable governance [17].
Globally, PFM has proved effective in harmonizing conservation and livelihood objectives [18]. In Tanzania and Kenya, PFM reduced deforestation by 18–25%, enhancing forest regeneration and carbon stocks [19]. These efforts also boosted local incomes through sustainable timber harvesting, beekeeping, and ecotourism, contributing significantly to district revenues. In South Asia, community forest groups in Nepal and India restored over 1.6 million hectares of degraded lands, revived native biodiversity, and strengthened inclusivity by empowering women and marginalized groups in governance [20]. These global lessons illustrate PFM’s potential as a flexible, inclusive, and adaptive framework for sustainable forest management across diverse contexts.
In Ethiopia, early assessments noted promising improvements such as curtailed illegal logging and enhanced community participation [15,16,21]. However, more recent evidence reveals complex and uneven results, with persistent challenges including elite capture, donor dependency, limited participation, and inequitable benefit sharing [18]. These issues are linked to institutional rigidity and a lack of adaptive governance defined as the capacity of governance systems to learn, adjust, and respond to social environmental changes [22,23]. Without mechanisms for feedback, collaborative learning, and adaptable rule making, PFM risks becoming a static framework incapable of meeting the needs of forest dependent communities [24,25].
This tension is evident in the Gargeda State Forest of western Ethiopia, a biologically diverse yet degrading landscape subject to multiple PFM interventions over the past decade. Despite a robust policy framework, practical implementation has yielded only modest outcomes. Forest degradation, weak community trust, limited transparency, and poor institutional adaptability persist [26,27]. While some localized successes in reforestation and management have occurred, these often depend on donor funding and lack sustainable community ownership [28,29].
A persistent implementation gap undermines PFM, as unclear local rights and responsibilities weaken accountability and limit effective community participation [30]. In practice, forest user groups (FUG) often face restricted resource access, have minimal decision making power, and doubt the equity of benefit sharing [31]. Concurrently, the supporting institutional frameworks lack key adaptive governance elements, such as inclusive monitoring and iterative learning [32]. This reality raises fundamental questions about PFM’s viability as a transformative governance model. While existing literature on Ethiopian PFM has focused predominantly on ecological or livelihood impacts, it has paid limited attention to governance processes, institutional learning, and power dynamics [21,33–35]. This study aims to address this gap by critically examining the under explored linkage between community empowerment and adaptive capacity, with a specific focus on the fragile and politically sensitive environment of the Gargeda State Forest in Ethiopia.
Accelerating climate change, socio-economic instability, and ecological uncertainty demand flexible, inclusive, and adaptive forest governance [36]. Gargeda State Forest in western Ethiopia thus serves as a critical case for evaluating PFM as an adaptive co-management strategy. Specifically, this study aims to assess PFM implementation structures and practices, institutional performance through governance pillars, community participation impacts on forest conservation and livelihoods, and challenges with enabling conditions for scaling up. Therefore, this study advances scholarship by conceptualizing PFM as an adaptive governance strategy, emphasizing the dynamic interactions among community participation, institutional performance, and contextual conditions through feedback mechanisms. This study addresses a gap in the literature by exploring how these factors shape sustainability outcomes in data limited environments such as Ethiopia. It also provides valuable insights for scaling community-based forest management models.
1.1 Conceptual framework
This study adopts an integrated conceptual framework that positions PFM as adaptive forest governance in Gargeda State Forest landscapes (Fig 1). Forest governance constitutes a complex, context specific process shaped by socio-political, ecological, and institutional dynamics [37]. Forest governance comprises the structures, policies, and practices that guide the management of forest resources and the decision-making processes for their sustainable use and further protection [38,39]. Although no universal definition of good governance exists, definitions vary across cultural norms, governance systems, and environmental priorities [40]. Scholarly consensus identifies core principles, including participation, transparency, accountability, coordination, equity, and institutional capacity, as foundational to effective and sustainable governance [41–43]. These principles serve both as indicators of governance quality and as drivers of institutional flexibility and adaptive capacity, particularly within community-based forest management paradigms [44,45].
Source: Developed by the Authors.
This model revolves around three interdependent pillars of forest institutional governance (1) legal and policy frameworks, (2) planning and decision-making, and (3) implementation, enforcement, and adaptation. These pillars are dynamically interlinked; together, they drive PFM toward success, legitimacy, and long term sustainability [46,47]. Primarily legal and policy frameworks form the foundation with clear, inclusive, and enforceable rules on forest ownership, access, and help to enable equitable participation. These inform planning and decision-making, where participatory and decentralized processes amplify community voices, enhance legitimacy, reflect local needs, and boost compliance. In turn, this provides the operational foundation for implementation, enforcement, and adaptive management by embedding monitoring systems, iterative feedback loops, and flexible institutional arrangements that strengthen accountability, enhance learning, and foster trust among stakeholders amid dynamic social and ecological change [46,48,49].
Therefore, these pillars shape the structure and performance of PFM institutions, including user groups, management plans, monitoring frameworks, and benefit-sharing mechanisms [17]. Community participation is treated as a key mediating mechanism through which governance arrangements translate into conservation outcomes, such as improved forest condition and reduced degradation, and livelihood outcomes, including income diversification and access to forest resources [19,50]. Operationalizing this framework through empirical analysis therefore reveals institutional strengths, gaps, and interactions that drive sustainable forest management systems.
2. Research methodology
2.1 Description of the study area
The study was conducted in the Gargeda National Forest Priority Area, located in the Kellem Wollega Zone of western Ethiopia. Covering 302,072.5 hectares, it is one of 58 priority forest areas in the region and lies approximately 652 km from Addis Ababa, between 8°13′3″–9°13′0″ E and 34°13′0″–34°53′3″ N (Fig 2). The area experiences mean annual temperatures ranging from 19 °C to 27 °C and annual rainfall between 800 and 1,270 mm, with the former and latter representing the minimum and maximum values, respectively. Elevation ranges from 465 to 3,032 m.a.s.l. [51]. The local economy is predominantly based on coffee cultivation and mixed agriculture, including livestock rearing and subsistence crop production, which together provide over 87% of local employment. Approximately 95.6% of residents live in rural areas, and 82.5% are considered economically active. Electricity access is limited to 2.5% of households, while 75% rely on firewood and 33% use charcoal as their primary energy source. The variation in altitude supports diverse vegetation types, including Afro-alpine, sub-Afro-alpine, ericaceous belts, mountain bamboo, and predominantly moist evergreen Afromontane forest [52].
Created by author in ArcGIS using USGS Landsat data (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov; public domain).
This study adopted a descriptive and explanatory research design within a case study framework of Gargeda State Forest. The descriptive aspect aimed to provide a detailed explanation of the existing PFM mechanisms, their structures, and effectiveness, while the explanatory component explored the institutional, policy, and governance factors that influenced PFM as an adaptive strategy. This approach allowed for an in-depth understanding of complex interactions among forest governance structures, community participation, and outcomes.
2.2 Type and sources of data
Primary data were collected from household (HH) surveys, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs) with FUG members, committee representatives, forest management officials, local community members, and traditional leaders involved in forest governance. Secondary data were sourced from official documents, including forest management plans, PFM agreements, policy guidelines, institutional reports, and peer-reviewed studies on adaptive governance and sustainable forest management. Integrating these sources enabled a comprehensive analysis of implementation and institutional frameworks in Gargeda Forest.
2.3 Data collection method
This study employed a multistage sampling strategy to ensure statistical representativeness at both household and PFM levels. First, the Gargeda State Forest was purposively selected as the study area based on its extensive forest cover, active PFM programs, and the documented challenge of forest conversion to coffee farms. Second, eight kebeles across three districts containing active FUGs were purposively chosen. Respondents from these FUGs were proportionally allocated according to the total group population and selected through simple random sampling from updated membership lists. Finally, households were selected using stratified random sampling. The sampling frame consisted of an estimated 1,704 active members from a total of 5,178 members across 30 FUGs. A sample size of 324 households was determined using Yamane’s formula (1967) at a 5% precision level.
Where, n is sample size, N is number of whole households in the three districts, while e is the desired level of precision and taking e as 5%.
Quantitative data were collected through household surveys administered to members of FUGs to assess key socio-economic characteristics, including educational attainment, farm landholding size, coffee farm size, livestock ownership, and household income. These data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize household conditions and to identify patterns relevant to participation in PFM. Qualitative data were collected to examine forest governance performance, PFM outputs, implementation challenges, and enabling conditions. These data were obtained through 15 KIIs and 8 FGDs conducted with community leaders, FUG committee members, and local government officials.
To assess the forest governance status of the Gargeda State Forest PFM, we selected 14 indicators (Table 1) that represent the three pillars of forest governance. Similar indicator based approaches have been applied in previous studies [53,54], however, the specific indicators used often differ according to local context, institutional arrangements, and data availability.
To gain deeper insights into forest governance processes, follow-up questions during the 15 KIIs examined the establishment and implementation of PFM arrangements. Each of the 14 indicators was assessed using a 0–5 ordinal scale (0 = absent; 1 = very weak; 2 = weak; 3 = moderate; 4 = strong; 5 = very strong). For each indicator, the most frequent score (mode) across KIIs was scored. Median values were reported to reflect the central tendency of the pillars, ensuring appropriate statistical treatment for non-interval data [55]. Percentages were calculated by converting each raw score to a proportion of the maximum possible score (5), using the formula (Eq. 2)
facilitating cross-indicator and cross-pillar comparisons following the European Forest Institute’s Forest Governance Index (FGI) protocol [56]. The scores were summarized as medians across respondents for each pillar, and individual key indicators were converted into percentages and interpreted based on experts’ knowledge and perceptions. Relevant documents, including PFM agreements, institutional reports, and published literature, were also reviewed to describe the structure and current status of the FUGs and to triangulate the findings.
2.4 Data analysis
Methodological rigor was ensured through instrument validation, expert review, pre-testing, enumerator training, and careful translation of the data collection tools, daily field checks, structured data cleaning, and sample-based verification of data entry. The mixed-methods design also supported triangulation and strengthened the credibility of the findings. Quantitative data from the household survey were coded and entered into STATA version 14.1 for analysis. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were used to summarize socio-economic characteristics, household conditions, and PFM implementation elements. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were applied to examine associations between household characteristics, participation in PFM, and perceived livelihood outcomes.
Qualitative data obtained from the KII and FGD were transcribed, translated, and analyzed thematically. Some of the data were converted into quantitative form and analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and percentages. To analyze forest governance performance based on the selected indicators, the final score from the KIIs was calculated as the percentage availability of each indicator. Overall governance performance was then estimated using the weighted median across the three pillars. Following Thapa, Prasai [57], the resulting performance was classified as very good when the average score was > 85%, good when it was 65% to 84%, medium when it was 50% to 64%, poor when it was 35% to 49%, and very poor when it was below 35%. Finally, quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated through triangulation to strengthen validity and provide a comprehensive understanding of PFM implementation and governance performance in the study area.
2.5 Ethics statement
2.5.1 Ethics approval and consent to participate.
This study did not involve experiments on humans or animals requiring institutional ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all individuals prior to their voluntary participation in KII and FGDs. All procedures were conducted in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines, including the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, with full respect for participants’ rights, dignity, privacy, and confidentiality.
3. Result
3.1 Household socio-economic characteristics
The average household had 4.7 years of formal education, indicating limited progression beyond primary schooling. The mean coffee farm area was 3.66 hectares, reflecting coffee’s importance as a livelihood source. Total landholding averaged 1.20 hectares, confirming the dominance of smallholder subsistence farming. Livestock ownership averaged 6.02 (TLU), underscoring livestock’s role as a household asset and capital buffer. The mean annual household income was 450.4 USD/year for PFM participants, situating them within a low-income rural economy (Table 2). Analysis showed minimal variation across these socio-economic factors, indicating homogeneity of the community. Moreover, OLS regression revealed no significant influence of education, farm size, livestock, or income on PFM participation at (p > 0.05), with the model explaining only 0.61% of the variance (R² = 0.0061).
3.2 The PFM structure and implementation element
Analysis of document reviews from the Kellem Wollega Zone Environmental Protection Office, summarized in Table 3, indicates that the PFM structure in the Gargeda State Forest was initiated by Farm Africa in 2013 and implemented across all administrative units within the forest landscape. A total of 30 FUGs were established, comprising 5,178 members (4,375 men and 803 women), who were collectively responsible for managing 208,021.57 hectares of forest. By 2024, however, only 10 of these groups remained functional, reflecting a substantial decline in institutional sustainability following the withdrawal of external support. Data collected from the study area further show that approximately 50% of FUGs remained active, suggesting a moderate level of overall operational performance. Upon completion of its engagement, Farm Africa transferred PFM oversight to the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program and provided approximately USD 11,500 in financial support to the remaining active FUGs.
Gender inclusion within the PFM framework remains limited. As indicated in Table 3, women constituted only 15.6% of total FUG membership, reflecting persistent gender disparities in local forest governance. Although a small number of groups, specifically Ula Waqa (34.67%), Hawwi Jirenga (29.18%), and Horo Kundi (19%), demonstrated comparatively higher levels of female participation, these cases are not representative of the broader institutional landscape. Overall, the declining functionality of FUGs and the limited integration of women point to systemic challenges in both organizational sustainability and social inclusiveness, which continue to undermine the effectiveness of PFM in the Gargeda State Forest landscape.
Fig 3 shows the proportion of FUG respondents (n = 324) who reported the presence or achievement of key PFM implementation elements in their forest management context. The bars represent the percentage of respondents answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for each indicator, with percentages reflecting ‘Yes’ responses only to indicate reported realization status.
Analysis of these responses revealed the highest reported affirmation for awareness of PFM (86%), followed by monitoring and adaptive management (80%) and forest management planning (74%). Moderate positive responses were recorded for participation in PFM meetings (64%), transparency in rule enforcement (60%), existence of FUGs (54%), and institutional support (52%). In contrast, fewer than half of respondents reported satisfaction with benefit sharing (44%), and the lowest rate confirmed women’s inclusion in PFM decision-making bodies (25%). These results reveal a stark disparity between high operational awareness and the limited realization of equitable governance and gender inclusion within FUG structures, underscoring an implementation gap between functional PFM mechanisms and inclusive governance outcomes
3.3 Governance performance and institutional indicators in PFM
Table 4 evaluates forest governance performance in Gargeda State Forest across three critical pillars: policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks; planning and decision-making; and implementation, enforcement, and compliance.
The Policy, Legal & Regulatory Framework pillar achieved a median score of 60%, signaling moderate but uneven governance capacity. Clear policies, laws, and regulations scored relatively high (80%), yet local-level enforcement remains inconsistent. Recognition of customary laws and rights earned moderate marks (60%), while inadequate financial and human resources (20%) present major challenges.
The Planning and Decision-Making pillar performed worse, with a median score of 40%, indicating poor performance and limited transparency. Inclusive participation, particularly by women’s groups, showed modest progress (40%); however, overall engagement remains low. Transparency and accountability mechanisms exist (60%) but are not widely practiced, public access to planning information is restricted (40%), and freedom from political interference is minimal (20%), revealing undue external influence over decision making.
The lowest performance was observed in the Implementation, Enforcement & Compliance pillar, with a median score of 40%, signaling critical underperformance. Law enforcement capacity is weak (20%), and judicial handling of forest crimes is limited (40%), due to delays and insufficient prosecutions. Land tenure clarity and stakeholder coordination each scored modestly (40%), while anticorruption and grievance redress mechanisms were entirely absent (0%). Although revenue management scored relatively higher (60%), transparency remains inadequate. Overall, governance in Gargeda exhibits solid legal foundations but severe weaknesses in participation, enforcement, and accountability.
3.4 FUGs participation and PFM impacts on forest conservation and livelihoods
3.4.1 Forest community perception on PFM.
The analysis of FUGs opinions on PFM (Table 5) indicates that only 20% of households are actively engaged in PFM, despite a much higher willingness to continues (77%), suggesting that low involvement stems more from institutional barriers than lack of interest. Perceptions of PFM benefits are divided, with roughly half of respondents recognizing positive outcomes, highlighting gaps in trust and benefit-sharing. While access to extension services is relatively high (68%), training participation is low (26%), pointing to a critical capacity gap that may limit effective community influence in forest governance.
3.4.2 PFM output on Forest conservation and livelihood of FUGs.
Table 6 presents data from FGD and institutional records, illustrating marked improvements in PFM outcomes across social, economic, and ecological domains. Post-implementation, community engagement in forest patrols increased from nil to 53%, women’s involvement in decision-making bodies attained 15.6%, and willingness to sustain PFM groups rose substantially from 15% to 80%, reveals increasing of communal stewardship and institutional commitment in the area. Economic gains were pronounced, with average FUGs income from honey production advancing from 15% to 62%, complemented by emergent revenue streams including 25% from firewood and timber, 10.5% from herbal and non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and 66.5% from enforcement penalties diversifying livelihoods and reinforcing PFM’s incentive structures. Ecologically, illegal extraction declined by 30%, while perceived forest condition improved from 10% to 42%, corroborated by a surge in conservation training participation from 20% to 83%; these shifts align with established PFM efficacy in mitigating degradation within Gargeda State forest ecosystems.
3.5 Challenges and enabling conditions for scaling up PFM
Table 7, which summarizes the key challenges and enabling conditions for scaling up PFM in the Gargeda State Forest, was identified through FGD and KII using a predetermined checklist. The scores reflect the relative frequency and perceived importance of each factor as reported by participants. Enabling conditions provide a foundation for collective governance, but institutional and resource gaps threaten long-term stability. The most influential enabler is NGO/donor facilitation, scoring 100%, followed by community bylaws and PFM frameworks at 98%. Other significant enablers include social cohesion and trust in leaders (80%), forest benefits to livelihoods (65%), and youth participation (62%). However, success stories as models scored lower at 40%, indicating limited impact.
Data from FGDs indicated that supervision and follow-up by experts were stronger during the involvement of Farm Africa and REDD + . Participants consistently described close collaboration with FUGs, regular communication, training opportunities, incentives, and motivational support, which were perceived as strengthening PFM performance. Financial support from Farm Africa was also reported to enhance community engagement. Following the withdrawal of these NGOs, participants noted a decline in both the frequency and quality of supervision and communication.
On the challenges side, the lack of financial resources is the most pressing issue, scoring 85%, followed by inadequate technical capacity in FUGs (80%) and inconsistent government support (72%). Other challenges include political instability and trust issues (70%), power imbalances (68%), and conflicts between customary and statutory rules (75%).The withdrawal of NGOs and funding presents a moderate challenge at 95%, highlighting dependency on external aid.
Concerns regarding access restrictions and accountability were strongly expressed during the FGDs in Gargeda State Forest. Participants highlighted tensions between formal PFM regulations and customary use rights. One participant stated “The regulations enforced by FUG are progressively restricting access to vital forest resources, including firewood, medicinal plants, livestock grazing land, and non-timber forest products. Our community’s traditional rights to these resources are not recognized without FUG membership. Concurrently, village leaders are illegally encroaching upon and seizing forest land, and a lack of accountability measures allows this to continue unchecked.” (FGD participant, Gargeda State Forest)
KIIs with officials from the Environment Protection Office (EPO) and the Oromia Forest and Wildlife Institute (OFWI) emphasized that ongoing political instability has severely constrained NGO operations and technical support. Informants reported incidents of violence, including attacks on personnel and destruction of vehicles, which limited field access and mobility. They further noted that illegal forest users involved in coffee expansion and timber extraction were coerced into paying revenues to armed groups operating in the area. As a result, REDD+ activities were discontinued at the local level and restricted to engagement at the regional bureau.
Despite initial strengths in governance and social trust, PFM in Gargeda State Forest is undermined by financial, technical, and institutional constraints, weak coordination, and political instability. KII and FGD findings show that NGO withdrawal and violence have disrupted monitoring, training, and knowledge sharing, weakening feedback and learning. Restrictive rules, exclusionary access, and unchecked encroachment limit adaptive responses, while funding gaps, coordination failures, and rebel coercion hinder institutional change. These pressures threaten long-term PFM outcomes and underscore the need for sustained support, diversified funding, and stronger community government coordination,
4. Discussion
This study delivers three core conclusions about PFM effectiveness in Ethiopia’s social ecological system context that structure the following analysis: institutional factors outweigh household socio-economic status as participation drivers; formal PFM structures fail to achieve equity due to entrenched barriers like gender exclusion and post-NGO decline; and transformative impact demands embedded accountability mechanisms. These conclusions advance social ecological systems theory by revealing governance mediation in resource constrained settings. The sections below elaborate each through integrated evidence and comparative perspectives.
The Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression revealed no significant effects of education, farmland size, livestock holdings, or household income on PFM participation (p > 0.05), corroborated by logistic regression and chi-square analyses. These results suggest that institutional and governance factors, rather than socio-economic status, are the primary drivers of household engagement in PFM. This pattern aligns with evidence from rural Ethiopia [19,58], however contrasts findings from Kenya, underscoring context-specific drivers [17]. Consistent with the global systematic review by Bhusal, Parajuli [59], which examined community-based forest management cases across different countries, the results further indicate that institutional and governance factors such as decision-making processes, clarity of rules, benefit-sharing mechanisms, as well as shared social norms, cultural values, and leadership styles are more decisive for participation than household-level socio-economic differentiation.
Findings from the PFM structure and implementation elements reveal a persistent disconnect between the formal establishment of PFM institutions and their effective and inclusive functioning in the Gargeda State Forest. Although organizational frameworks are in place, meaningful participation particularly by women remains limited, primarily due to entrenched socio-cultural norms which confine their participation. This pattern aligns with evidence from Ethiopia and broader sub Saharan Africa, where gendered power dynamics persistently constrain women’s involvement in forest governance [60,61]. The results further indicate that awareness raising initiatives alone are inadequate to address these structural barriers, emphasizing the necessity for targeted, gender responsive strategies that extend beyond nominal inclusion.
KIIs indicate that the decline in FUG activity after the withdrawal of Farm Africa reflects structural weaknesses in externally driven forest management programs. These initiatives often fail to persist without strong local ownership, adequate institutional capacity, and self-sustaining governance mechanisms, a vulnerability compounded by regional political instability. When external financial and technical support ends and local mechanisms such as revolving funds are absent, FUGs struggle to maintain essential functions, including forest patrols, regular meetings, and transparent benefit sharing. This finding aligns with critiques of top down forestry interventions in Ethiopia, which tend to foster dependency rather than long-term self-reliance [62].
Survey results indicate an encouraging uneven pattern in the implementation of PFM. High levels of community awareness and active household involvement in planning and monitoring processes suggest that outreach and engagement strategies have been largely effective [63,64]. However, persistent shortcomings in gender inclusion and benefit-sharing reveal that participation has not consistently translated into equitable decision making power or meaningful livelihood outcomes. This inconsistency points to a gap between procedural participation and substantive governance outcomes, where engagement occurs without commensurate influence or benefit distribution [65,66]. Addressing these limitations requires strengthening and institutionalizing transparent benefit sharing arrangements, embedding gender responsive governance mechanisms, and investing in sustained local capacity development to ensure that PFM evolves from nominal participation toward genuinely inclusive and equitable forest governance.
The results from forest governance pillars indicate that constraints affecting PFM arise primarily from weaknesses in institutional performance rather than from gaps in policy design. In Ethiopia and comparable contexts, governance effectiveness is undermined by low institutional credibility, fragmented enforcement, and limited accountability, despite the presence of relatively comprehensive legal and policy frameworks [12,67]. Respondent accounts further suggest that restrictive regulatory approaches have eroded customary tenure arrangements and intensified socio-economic disparities between FUG members and non-members, contradicting the participatory principles central to PFM. Limited autonomy of local organizations and ongoing exclusion prove that governance systems often reproduce social hierarchies instead of reforming them [68]. Persistent challenges, including youth exclusion, elite capture, and the lack of accessible grievance mechanisms, point to enduring governance failures and underscore the need for institutional reforms that strengthen inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in forest management systems. Similarly, the systematic exclusion of youth and women has been identified as a persistent governance challenge, reflecting entrenched social hierarchies rather than participatory ideals [69].
Accountability in PFM often remains rhetorical, especially in the absence of anti-corruption safeguards and functional grievance channels. This denies communities meaningful recourse a pattern seen across Africa and Asia [70]. The core challenge persists not from community disinterest but from institutional barriers, which fuel divergent perceptions of inequitable benefit sharing, low training uptake, and unaccountable local leadership [71]. Comparative evidence from Brazil and Indonesia demonstrates that adaptive institutions with accessible grievance systems, transparent reporting, and multi-level oversight can build trust and compliance [72]. Likewise, in Ethiopia, transforming PFM into a socially embedded system is crucial; this requires an emphasis on collective learning, procedural justice, youth empowerment, and the recognition of traditional rights for inclusive governance [73,74]. Without comprehensive reforms that prioritize equitable benefits, inclusive decision-making and robust accountability, PFM will remain procedural rather than transformative.
The results demonstrate the transformative impact of PFM on community engagement and forest governance. A notable increase in willingness to join PFM groups, along with heightened participation in forest patrols, underscores how participatory approaches foster stronger collective action and strengthen accountability. These findings are consistent with previous research, supporting the evidence presented by scholars [17,74]. PFM has strengthened local conservation capacity through expanded training and improved perceptions of forest condition, resulting in reduced unsustainable practices [75,76]. In livelihood terms, PFM has diversified income sources and strengthened rule enforcement, though persistent illegal activities and inequitable benefit distribution still constrain full realization of its goals [18]. Addressing these challenges requires robust grievance systems, consistent enforcement, and inclusive governance to maintain the positive outcomes of [27,77]
The case of the Gargeda State Forest illustrates a nuanced dynamic between enabling factors and structural impediments in scaling up how initial successes in PFM driven by NGO facilitation, adapted bylaws, and cohesive leadership were later undermined by challenges common across Africa. These include weak replication of successful models, limited institutional learning, financial constraints, inconsistent government support, and donor dependency [17]. Furthermore, power imbalances, conflicting rules, and overreliance on NGOs eroded local autonomy, restricting genuine community decision making despite surface level participation [76]. For PFM to achieve lasting impact, it must be supported by trust building legal frameworks, skilled facilitation, capacity development, and predictable funding. Without these, PFM risks becoming a symbolic effort, often followed by post project decline a pattern seen in many African contexts
5. Conclusion
This study demonstrates that PFM is a promising model for adaptive forest governance and rural livelihoods in Gargeda State Forest, western Ethiopia. Employing a robust mixed methods approach including surveys, KII, FGD, and document analysis, we captured tangible PFM group structures and real community engagement. Key positive trends include high community awareness, increased participation in training, and a willingness to actively engage in forest patrols. Notably, NGOs and the state jointly initiated the PFM program and have driven measurable improvements in forest conservation, such as reduced illegal logging, deforestation, and enhanced regeneration.
However, ongoing challenges such as the marginalization of women, inconsistent benefit sharing, and declining activity among FGUs underscore the fragility of progress, especially as donor support recedes and technical capacity remains limited. These findings align with broader regional trends, where implementation, accountability, and inclusivity shortcomings undermine strong policy frameworks. Notably, an overreliance on external actors, limited gender inclusion, fragmented enforcement, and poor dissemination of best practices persist as critical limitations.
In Gargeda, these vulnerabilities are further aggravated by regional insecurity, attacks on personnel, asset destruction, and the suspension of REDD+ initiatives, all of which have disrupted governance and field operations. Such shortcomings restrict the scalable potential of PFM for sustainable, community centered forest management. Strengthening the framework will require consistent institutional support from government agencies and NGOs, focused technical, legal, and financial assistance, as well as continuous leadership and forest management training to empower FUGs. Moreover, promoting women’s participation and actively expanding youth involvement in patrols, leadership roles, and decision making are crucial steps toward genuinely inclusive governance.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank God Almighty for strength and guidance, and gratefully acknowledge the Kellem Wollega Zone Environmental Protection Office (ZEPO), Oromia Forest and Wildlife Enterprise (OFWE), and Gargeda FUGs for their collaboration and fieldwork support. We extend special thanks to household respondents, key informants, and FGD participants for sharing their invaluable insights, as well as to our families for their encouragement and patience.
References
- 1. Wani AM, Sahoo G. Forest ecosystem services and biodiversity. In: Spatial modeling in forest resources management: rural livelihood and sustainable development; 2021. p. 529–52.
- 2.
Fichtner A, Härdtle W. Forest ecosystems: a functional and biodiversity perspective. In: Perspectives for biodiversity and ecosystems. Springer; 2021. p. 383–405.
- 3.
Ali MA, Kamraju M. Ecosystem services. In: Natural resources and society: understanding the complex relationship between humans and the environment. Springer; 2023. p. 51–63.
- 4. Sahoo G, et al. Impact and contribution of forest in mitigating global climate change. Des Eng. 2021;4:667–82.
- 5. Chama E, Shibru S, Gebre T, Demissew S, Woldu Z. Forest products monetary contribution to households’ income: a means to improve the livelihood of a low-income rural community in South Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2023;9(11):e21553. pmid:38027805
- 6.
Mansourian S, Berrahmouni N. Review of forest and landscape restoration in Africa 2021. Food & Agriculture Org.; 2021.
- 7.
Goncalves CK, et al. Companies collaborating for sustainable soy landscapes: progress and transition pathways. Proforest and CDP; 2024.
- 8. Ofozor CA, Abdul-Rahim AS, Chin L, Bani Y, Sulaiman C. Does deforestation endanger energy security? A panel GMM evidence from 47 sub-Saharan African countries. Environ Dev Sustain. 2024;27(6):12921–43.
- 9.
Wando DO. Environmental security and governance in resilience building for eastern Mau forest communities. Nakuru County, Kenya: Kenyatta University; 2023.
- 10.
Stefanos S. The politics of environment and development in Ethiopia: investors, bureaucrats, and large scale land acquisitions for agricultural investment. The University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2022.
- 11.
Zeleke A, Vidal A. Contributing to scaling up forest landscape restoration in Ethiopia. Restoration Diagnostic Applied in Sodo Guragie (SNNPR) and Meket (Amhara Region) Woredas; 2020.
- 12. Ayana AN. Forest governance dynamics in Ethiopia: histories, arrangements, and practices. Wageningen University and Research; 2014.
- 13. Ajij K. The impact of land use regulations on sustainable agricultural practices in deforestation hotspots. Law Econ. 2024;3(12):51–8.
- 14. Zegeye H. Major drivers and consequences of deforestation in Ethiopia: implications for forest conservation. Asian J Sci Technol. 2017;8(8):5166–75.
- 15. Mengist W, Asfaw A. Forest policy of Ethiopia from 1990 to 2020: An assessment of contemporary forest management approach and its impact on local livelihood. Green and Low-Carbon Econ. 2023.
- 16.
O’Hara P. Participatory Forest Management (PFM), impact, lessons and complexity in the coffee forests of South West Ethiopia. Wild Coffee Conservation by PFM (WCC-PFM) Project. Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia: University of Huddersfield; 2016. 36 p.
- 17. Mbeche R, Ateka J, Herrmann R, Grote U. Understanding forest users’ participation in Participatory Forest Management (PFM): insights from Mt. Elgon forest ecosystem, Kenya. For Policy Econ. 2021;129:102507.
- 18. Woldie Z, Alemu A, Taddese H, Tazebew E. Contributions of participatory forest management for sustainable livelihoods and forest conservation in Ethiopia. Discov Sustain. 2025;6(1):749.
- 19. Girma G, et al. Participatory forest management for improving livelihood assets and mitigating forest degradation: lesson drawn from the Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Curr Res Environ Sustain. 2023;5:100205.
- 20.
Gurung T. Community-based non-wood forest products enterprise: a sustainable business model. Dhaka: SAARC Agriculture Centre; 2017.
- 21. Abdu UAAWA. Effect of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) on local community livelihood in case of bale highlands, South East Ethiopia; 2021.
- 22. May CK. Complex adaptive governance systems: a framework to understand institutions, organizations, and people in socio-ecological systems. Socioecol Pract Res. 2022;4(1):39–54. pmid:35071989
- 23. Chaffin BC, Gunderson LH. Emergence, institutionalization and renewal: rhythms of adaptive governance in complex social-ecological systems. J Environ Manage. 2016;165:81–7. pmid:26426283
- 24. Kochskämper E. Understanding learning in water governance: the process and products of learning through participatory decision making, adaptive management, and governance learning, 2021 [Dissertation]. Lüneburg: Leuphana Universität Lüneburg; 2020.
- 25.
Latham JE. Evaluating failures in tropical forest management: incorporating local perspectives into global conservation strategies. University of York; 2013.
- 26.
Chazottes R. Political participation and accountability mechanisms in tropical forest governance. European University Institute; 2024.
- 27. Yami M, Mekuria W. Challenges in the governance of community-managed forests in Ethiopia: review. Sustainability. 2022;14(3):1478.
- 28.
Menzies NK. Our forest, your ecosystem, their timber: communities, conservation, and the state in community-based forest management. Columbia University Press; 2007.
- 29. Pulhin JM, Inoue M, Enters T. Three decades of community-based forest management in the Philippines: emerging lessons for sustainable and equitable forest management. Int For Rev. 2007;9(4):865–83.
- 30.
Abduletif E. Challenges and household perception towards participatory forest governance: The case of Gemechis Woreda Participatory Forest Management, West Hararghe Zone of Oromia regional state, Ethiopia. Haramaya University; 2019.
- 31.
Magessa K. Exploring the mismatch between policy objectives and outcomes in Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania. United Kingdom: Bangor University; 2020.
- 32. Harris J, Lawson A. Mainstreaming sustainability in public finances: where PFM meets landscape approaches. Policy Des Pract. 2022;6(3):313–27.
- 33. Wolde AA. The role of property rights on sustainable forest and agricultural land use in Ethiopia: Examining historical, contextual and policy perspective; 2025.
- 34.
Gebru MS, et al. Welfare impacts of nonfarm livelihood diversification and participatory forest management in Ilu Abba Bora Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Haramaya University; 2024.
- 35.
Fantaye Teklemariam D. Investigating the contribution of forests to the livelihood of rural communities. A focus on households in Sheko Woreda, Southwest Ethiopia. University of Huddersfield; 2021.
- 36. Zhao J, Wang H, Zhang S, Cui X, Yang Y. Reframing adaptive forest management to sustain ecosystem services under climate change. Forests. 2025;16(9):1377.
- 37. Charmakar S, Kimengsi JN, Giessen L. The manifestation of institutional bricolage and community forest management outcomes: insights from four socio-ecological settings in Nepal. J Land Use Sci. 2024;19(1):278–303.
- 38. Sotirov M, Arts B. Integrated Forest Governance in Europe: an introduction to the special issue on forest policy integration and integrated forest management. Land Use Policy. 2018;79:960–7.
- 39.
Arts B, Kleinschmit D, Pülzl H. Forest governance: connecting global to local practices. In: Practice theory and research. Routledge; 2016. p. 218–44.
- 40. Fukuyama F. Governance: what do we know, and how do we know it? Annu Rev Polit Sci. 2016;19(1):89–105.
- 41. Lalmuansanga J, Lalremruata T. Democracy and good governance: a study of its significance; 2024.
- 42. Lockwood M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes. J Environ Manage. 2010;91(3):754–66. pmid:19896262
- 43. Allan A, Rieu-Clarke A. Good governance and IWRM—a legal perspective. Irrig Drainage Syst. 2010;24(3–4):239–48.
- 44. Pomeranz EF, Stedman RC. Measuring good governance: piloting an instrument for evaluating good governance principles. J Environ Policy Plann. 2020;22(3):428–40.
- 45. N’ze AAP, Tenkoul A. Global research on good governance and sustainability: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Soc Sustain Econ Soc Cult Context. 2024;20(2).
- 46. Morgan EA, Cadman T, Mackey B. Integrating forest management across the landscape: a three pillar framework. J Environ Plan Manag. 2020;64(10):1735–69.
- 47.
Kazoora C, et al. A review of collaborative forest management in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: National Forestry Authority, Ministry of Water and Environment; 2020.
- 48.
Kofinas GP. Adaptive co-management in social-ecological governance. In: Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer; 2009. p. 77–101.
- 49. Camacho AE. Adapting governance to climate change: managing uncertainty through a learning infrastructure. Emory L J. 2009;59:1.
- 50. Chen H, Zhu T, Krott M, Maddox D. Community forestry management and livelihood development in northwest China: integration of governance, project design, and community participation. Reg Environ Change. 2012;13(1):67–75.
- 51.
ZEPO. Zonal Environmental Protection office, Kellem Wollega Zone, Dambi Dollo,Oromia, Ethiopia; 2024.
- 52. Tamene Y. Plant diversity and carbon stock analysis along environmental gradients: the case of gergeda and anbessa forests in western Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University; 2016.
- 53. Subhan Mollick A, Khalilur Rahman Md, Nabiul Islam Khan Md, Nazmus Sadath Md. Evaluation of good governance in a participatory forestry program: a case study in Madhupur Sal forests of Bangladesh. For Policy Econ. 2018;95:123–37.
- 54. Mbeyale G, Dugilo N, Lusambo L. Impacts of community-based forest management on governance in Selela village forest reserve, Monduli District, Tanzania. Tanz J For Nat Conserv. 2021;90(3):117–29.
- 55.
Johnston R. Central tendency measures. In: Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer; 2024. p. 715–6.
- 56. Hetemäki L. The role of science in forest policy–experiences by EFI. For Policy Econ. 2019;105:10–6.
- 57. Thapa S, Prasai R, Pahadi R. Does gender-based leadership affect good governance in community forest management ? A case study from Bhaktapur district. Banko Janak. 2020;30(2):59–70.
- 58. Shifarew L. The role of participatory forest management in the livelihood of rural community and economic development: the case of Jibat forest, in West Shewa zone, Oromia National Regional State. Ambo University; 2022.
- 59. Bhusal P, Parajuli R, Sills EO. What drives participation in community-based forest management? Insights from a global review. Ambio. 2026;55(6):1181–97. pmid:41310143
- 60. Gudeta Gerba T, Keno GI, Hundera MB, Tufa FA. Roles of gender in addressing structural inequality: assessment of Borana women’s endogenous institutional agents of gender amelioration in peace, conflict, and post-conflict settings. Small Wars Insurg. 2024;35(8):1467–99.
- 61. Kebede Y, Teshome F, Binu W, Kebede A, Seid A, Kasaye HK, et al. Structural, programmatic, and sociocultural intersectionality of gender influencing access-uptake of reproductive, maternal, and child health services in developing regions of Ethiopia: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0282711. pmid:36881602
- 62. Megerssa GR, Garedew W, Bekele AE, Grabs J, Jespersen K. How do institutions shape the resilience of the Ethiopian coffee sector amidst the pressures of climate change? Sustain Dev. 2025;33(6):7951–73.
- 63. Kassa H, Abiyu A, Hagazi N, Mokria M, Kassawmar T, Gitz V. Forest landscape restoration in Ethiopia: progress and challenges. Front For Glob Change. 2022;5.
- 64. Tadesse SA, Teketay D. Perceptions and attitudes of local people towards participatory forest management in Tarmaber District of North Shewa Administrative Zone, Ethiopia: the case of Wof-Washa Forests. Ecol Process. 2017;6(1):17.
- 65. Morgera E. The role of fair and equitable benefit-sharing in environmental peacebuilding. In: Research handbook on international law and environmental peacebuilding. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2023. p. 62–88.
- 66. Birnbaum S. Environmental co-governance, legitimacy, and the quest for compliance: when and why is stakeholder participation desirable? J Environ Policy Plan. 2015;18(3):306–23.
- 67. Wabelo TS. Legal and institutional frameworks regulating rural land governance in Ethiopia: towards a comparative analysis on the best practices of other African countries. BLR. 2020;11(01):64–98.
- 68. McCarthy JF, Dhiaulhaq A, Afiff S, Robinson K. Land reform rationalities and their governance effects in Indonesia: provoking land politics or addressing adverse formalisation? Geoforum. 2022;132:92–102.
- 69. Adom RK, et al. Integrating the perspectives of youth, women, and marginalised communities in addressing global environmental management challenges. Environ Manag. 2025;75(12):3261–82.
- 70. Kozanayi W, et al. Sustaining adaptive collaborative management processes. In: Responding to Environmental issues through adaptive collaborative management. 164 p.
- 71. Spiller B, Htun T, Shah K. Community engagement and participatory inclusion in mining: challenges, barriers, and opportunities; 2025.
- 72. Jewed F, Abdullah MR, Ishak I. Evaluating the effectiveness of social assistance programs for poverty reduction: evidence from Baramamase Village, Indonesia. J Islam Econ Lariba. 2025;11(2):1079–114.
- 73. Mengie T, Szemethy L. The practice of community-based forest management in northwest Ethiopia. Land. 2025;14(7):1407.
- 74. Tiki L, Marquardt K, Abdallah JM. Participatory forest management: analysis of local forest governance and implications for REDD+ implementation in the Adaba-Dodola Forest in Ethiopia. Trees For People. 2025;19:100780.
- 75. Kigenyi R, Kalulu R, Rusoke T. The influence of participatory forest monitoring on natural forest management and community welfare: a case study in Kibale National Park, Western Uganda. J Global Ecol Environ. 2024;20(4):89–101.
- 76. Nyengere J, Masuku P, Mwase W, Kathewera M, Njala AL, Tchongwe W, et al. Determinants of household participation in natural forest regeneration: evidence from a model forest in Dedza, Central Malawi. Trees For People. 2025;22:101076.
- 77. Zhang M, Zhang B. Policymaking issues: sustainable management of natural resources; 2025.