Coffee Management Intensification Has Changed the Tradition of Coffee Forest Use in Southwest Ethiopia

,


Introduction
Troughout tropical regions, traditional forest management practices are undergoing a change in response to economic development [1][2][3]. Te specifc social needs and economic and technological advancement have infuenced the way how the local people use of and interpret their forest environment [4]. Likewise, the history holds true in southwest Ethiopia where the customary rights undergo changing through time [5][6][7][8], Stellmacher and Molling 2009. Te de facto common pool forest resources usage has been gradually devolved to individual based forest resources use [6,7].
Te forest in southwest Ethiopia is increasingly modifed into a cofee production system [5,8,9]. Te tradition and cultural practices of forest management have been changed along with cofee management intensifcation [2,[10][11][12][13]. Cofee management intensifcation has changed access to and local controlling system of forest resources [6,7]. Te notion of collecting dosage of nontimber forest products such as wild cofee, spice, and others through common property or open access system is limited as a result of the cofee production system [7,[14][15][16].
In the last three decades, there is a shift in the forest conservation approach towards participatory forest management which is a remarkable change in Ethiopia [17]. Te approach has combined the conservation and development interest of forest to solve the confict between the government and local people [17][18][19][20]. Participatory forest management has changed the forest controlling system over the three regimes in Ethiopia [21,22].
Forest tenure rights are described as a legal or customary right that consists of a bundle of rights [30,32,33]. Te bundle of rights consists of the right to access, use, manage, exclude, and alienate in using the forest [31][32][33]. In the literature, forest use right is stated as the right to collect timber and nontimber forest products either for subsistence or commercial purposes, and management is stated as the right to develop the forest to generate more benefts whereas exclusion implies the right to decide who can access and use the forest (i.e., preventing others from using and benefting from the forest) and alienation implies the right to transfer including selling and leasing it [30,33]. Te property right comprises the rules that govern the local control system that dictates allowable and restricted actions in relation to forest resource use [31,32,35].
Participatory forest management has been introduced to Belete Gera in 2003 by NGOs to improve forest biodiversity management and local livelihoods [17]. According to Teketay et al. [8], participatory forest management empowers the local community to use and manage the forest resources sustainably. Te local people in and around the forest organized as "forest user group" to manage and utilize the forest resources [19,27]. Each member of the forest user group does have equal rights in accessing and using the forest resources [27]. Nevertheless, the forest has been progressively modifed for cofee production which works against the notion of participatory forest management (Pers. obs.). Cofee plots are owned on an individual basis where the presence of cofee ofers exclusive rights (de facto at the beginning and de jure gradually) in using forest resources [12,13,36,37]. As a result, the common resource pool usage has changed to an individual based forest resource use (Stellmacher 2007).
Literature has shown that poor households are more forest dependent than better-of households [14,[38][39][40][41]. Scholars have argued that market-oriented forest resources use change the tradition of forest resources use [26,28,36,38,40,42,43]. Traditional forest resources management and the use and conservation of forest biodiversity in cofee agroforest are less studied in southwest Ethiopia. Te objective of the study was to explore forest resources use in relation to cofee management intensity in southwest Ethiopia. In this paper, I argue cofee management has shifted the way how the local people shape and use the forest resources in southwest Ethiopia. Tis leads the nontimber forest products extraction from the natural environment to intensive cofee management [23,44,45]. At the same time, the common forest resource pool could be changed to individual-owned cofee agroforest. Te long-lasting traditional forest management system devolved to an intensive cofee production system that put sustainable forest management under question mark [2,11,25,44].

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
Te study was conducted at Belete Forest southwest Ethiopia in 2018 and 2019 ( Figure 1). Te total area of the Belete-Gera forest is 15000 ha [17]. Te study area has undulating topography with a chain of mountains extending further east and west along the Jimma to Bonga main road. Te altitude varies from 1000 m to 2900 m above sea level for the mountain tops [17]. Belete forest covers a chain of mountains that extend further northwest to the Gera district on the north side of the main road. Te study area is also part of the upper catchment of the Gibe-Omo river basin system and many small streams that are tributaries to the big rivers such as Gibe and Gojeb rivers that rise in the area. Te warm moist climate of southwest Ethiopia characterizes the climate of the study area. As the altitude varies from 1000 m to 2900 m above sea level, the study area is divided into Qolla (lowland), Woyna dega (mid-highland), and Dega (highland). However, the belt of cofee growing in the study area is known as Woyna dega (mid-highland) agroecology. Te local people organized into forest user groups and signed an agreement with Oromia Forest and Wildlife Enterprises to be entitled in accessing and using forest resources. Forest resource use pattern of the local people changes with time. Currently, the tradition of forest resources use is dominated by cofee production.
Te present study worked with fve forest user groups, namely Dabbiyee, Gurrattii, Qartammee, Mexxii-Cafee, and Sokii forest user groups. Te forest has been under participatory forest management for the last two decades. Te dominant ethnic group is the Oromo, most of whom are Muslim with a few Christians. Te study area is one of the largest cofee-growing areas in the Jimma zone, southwest Ethiopia. Agriculture is the means of livelihood for most of the local people. However, the livelihoods of the local people and people-forest interaction are changing rapidly [46]. Te forest users were entitled to usufruct rights. Forest use right was limited to nontimber forest products.
Te local people were introduced to the aim of the study through the forest user group committee and feld facilitator. Prior to undertaking the interview, the aim of the study was explained to each interviewee, and the discussion continued based on verbal consensus or agreement to take part in the interview process.
Tis study adopted an ethnoecological approach and guided by praxis of ethnoecology showing local people's practices in controlling and using forest resources. Discussions were undertaken to generate information on how local people control and use forest resources over time. It describes a particular setting of the pattern of forest resource use by forest users along with cofee management intensifcation. Forest users tell the story that makes sense of forest in their livelihoods [21,47,48]. Te themes of the narration in the result section were outlined based on the storytelling forest user groups. Te study employed mixed approaches including individual interview, key informant interview, and participant observation. Field notes were also taken to complement an individual interview and participant observation (walk-in-the-wood).
Nature and level of forest dependency were collected based on an individual self-reported. Nontimber forest products use and access to the forest were collected through individual interviews and key informant interviews.
Key informant interview was the tool employed to understand the tradition of forest management. Key informants were those who are knowledgeable about the land use history of the area. In the absence of documented sources (archives), oral history is used in ethnoecological studies to capture information with regard to historical events of people-forest interactions [49]. Listening to what people say may help to generate information about the experiences of forest users. Fifteen key informants were recruited with the help of the forest user group committee. Te audio of 12 key informants was recorded, transcribed, and translated for the narrative analysis. Field notes were taken for 3 key informants and expanded for analysis.
To enhance the discussion, a topic of discussion (theme) was started using the following points but not limited to the land use history of the area, forest in the livelihoods of the local people, how local people control and access forest resources, etc. NTFP users were stratifed into honey and other NTFP users, i.e., wild cofee, spice, and participants were identifed from the forest users with the help of the committee. Informants for NTFP users were those who actively collected or had an experience of collecting NTFP in their lifetime. A total of 128 forest users (n � 65 (NTFP), n � 63 (honey)) were interviewed. To enhance the discussion, a topic of discussion (theme) was started with but not limited to the experience of using nontimber forest products, changes that take place in the nontimber forest products collection area, how cofee management intensifcation afects NTFP use, etc. (Appendix). Table 1 shows the profle of the participants involved in the interview.
Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to select the informants for the interview. Both purposive and snowballing sampling techniques are nonprobability techniques. Te frst informant is purposively selected, and then, the interviewee suggests the next interviewee and so on.
Participant observation (walk-in-the-wood) was employed to confrm a change in access to nontimber forest products collection area and putting traditional beehive area International Journal of Forestry Research due to cofee intensifcation and to investigate forest products use strategy collected during an interview. Te research for this project was submitted for ethics consideration under the reference LSC 18/233 in the Department of Life Sciences and was approved under the procedures of the University of Roehampton's Ethics Committee on 11.04.18.

Weakening but Still Survive "Mummee or Luggoo".
Tis section narrates the efect of cofee management intensifcation on the local control system of forest resources over time. Te local people accessed the forest through Mummee or Luggoo. Mummee or Luggoo has a meaning of territory controlled by local people, a system that can still serve as a norm to access forest products. Te system enabled the local people to use forest products in general and honey in particular for generations. Te system worked well before the Imperial (1960s−1974) period. During the Imperial (1960s−1974), Derg (1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991), and Federal Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), although the forest belongs to the landlord and the government, respectively, the local people still well respected the tradition. After the introduction of participatory forest management in 2003, many changes were observed along with cofee production. With cofee management intensifcation, the local control system devolved into a cofee plot. Everybody had acquired cofee inside the forest and called it "this is my cofee plot." Te result showed that cofee management intensifcation inside the forest had changed the local controlling system as well as accessing the forest resources. Te informants substantiated a change in Mummee or Luggoo through time. An old man in his 60s narrated about Mummee or Luggoo as follows: "Te forest you see was known for diferent villages: Baldaa, Dungee, Laaloo etc. Tose whose family dwell in the village had the right to access and use the forest. No one could access the forest beyond their Mummee or Luggoo. Te tradition was well respected." (Key informant interview 2 September 2018).
Another interviewee narrated how the tradition (Mummee or Luggoo) started devolving with the emergence of cofee production. He recalls his memory and started talking about natural forest modifcation to cofee during the Imperial period [1960s]. He stated the introduction of cofee imposed restrictions on forest resources use. He thought for a while over the situation (natural forest modifcation to cofee) and stated as follows: "We were imposed restrictive access to the forest during the Imperial period in 1960s. Te landlord came and took away the forest. He [landlord] started modifying the forest to cofee. We became absentee landlord." (Key informant interview 2 September 2018) Studies have shown the dynamic nature of accessing forest resources [6]. Wakjira and Gole [6] have documented the tradition of forest use "Kobo" in southwest Ethiopia. Te tradition had been working until the emergency of cofee investors [6]. Ribot and Peluso [50] stated that access was similar to bundles of power to derive benefts, for instance, from the forest. Ribot and Peluso [50] indicated some forest users control access and others access through those who controlled the forest resources. Schlager and Ostrom (1992: 250) explained access as "the rights to enter a defned physical property." In southwest Ethiopia, accessing forest resources has undergone changes along with regime change [22,51]. Zewdie [22] noted that denying access to forest resources encouraged forest degradation.

Forest Belongs to All Cofee Belongs to Me "Customary
Right". Tis section deals with a change in customary rights due to cofee management intensifcation. Te local people perceive that cofee management intensifcation had changed customary rights. Customary right is the right practiced by the local communities for using the forest resources. It is well respected among the local people although it has no legal recognition. Customary right was working during the Imperial (1960s−1974), Derg (1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991), and Federal Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) period. Te result showed that traditional forest management had been changed to cofee agroforest management. Forest modifcation to cofee agroforest dates back to the arrival of landlords in 1960s. A 72 years old man came to the area as a result of cofee cultivation by the landlord in 1960s. He said "I am originally from Addis Ababa. Mr. [---] had planted cofee and brought me as his coworker in 1962. I didn't see much cofee agroforest as of today. Cofee management intensifcation is a recent phenomenon." (Key informant 4 September 2018) Cofee management intensifcation involved converting large areas of forest to cofee production as well as thinning bigger trees and removing under-growth nontimber forest products. Cofee management intensifcation had changed the nature of accessing forest resources. Cofee agroforest, a natural forest modifed for cofee production, is entitled to individuals (i.e., customary right limited to only those who own cofee plots).  Total  Key informant  45-80  Male  3  3  3  3  3  15  NTFP user  18-72  Male and female  23  13  18  11  0  65  Honey user  20-70  Male  10  16  9  7  21  63   4 International Journal of Forestry Research Schlager and Ostrom [52] have described four types of rights: access and withdrawal, management, exclusion, and alienation in resource use. Cofee management intensifcation had changed the rights to the cofee forest. Despite the forest being a common pool resource, the access and withdrawal, management, exclusion, and alienation rights go to the owner of the cofee agroforest. Previous forest users who formally organized to protect and use the forest were excluded from accessing the forest as a result of cofee plots inside the forest. Te norm is well respected among forest users. During participant observation, I came across a young lady in her 20s years old collecting fuelwood from a forest cofee area. I talked to her about why she travelled such long distances to collect fuelwood. She said "It is not possible to collect fuelwood from somebody's cofee plot. I must respect the norm." (Interview 25 November 2018) Individual and key informants had shown that cofee agroforest has changed the pattern of forest resources use. Individuals had the right to claim and restrict accessing the forest products once acquired cofee plots inside the forest. Tere is a feeling the forest belongs to all but cofee belongs to individuals. Tis notion goes to the economic and social value of the cofee. Many people talk about the place of cofee in their livelihood stating as follows:

I Have Acquired Cofee Plot "Shame to Use Nontimber
Forest Products". Tis section narrates how lifestyle changes due to the income from cofee discourage the use of nontimber forest products. I talked to forest users who have rich experience in collecting nontimber forest products. Te result showed that the local people collect nontimber forest products for subsistence as well as cash income. Many of the respondents stated that the forest was rich in nontimber forest product-bearing species. Table 2 shows the major nontimber forest products utilised in the area.
Te storytelling depicts the importance of nontimber forest products in the past. An individual interview and key informant interviews had substantiated a change in the importance of nontimber forest products with cofee management intensifcation. Te result showed that everybody had gone through the experience of collecting nontimber forest products from the forest.
Question Nontimber collector in his early 20s years narrated the experience of collecting nontimber forest products as follows: "We used to collect wild cofee and spice in the past. We acquired cofee plot and stopped the collection. At the moment non-timber collecting area is converted to cofee agroforest" (Interview 24 November 2018). Similar story was narrated by a nontimber forest product collector. She stopped nontimber forest product collection due to forest modifcation to cofee production. She stated as "I used to collect Geshoo (Rhamnus prinoides) and other NTFPs in the past. Since the area is converted to cofee agroforest, I need to travel a long distance to get NTFP. Cofee management had removed NTFP-bearing species. I have decided to acquire my own cofee plot inside the forest and stopped the NTFP collection. I have planted spice and Geshoo in my homegarden" (Interview 30 November 2018). A 45-year-old man had experienced a similar experience. He stated "I collected NTFP for the last 30 years. I got a better income from it; meanwhile, the area was converted to cofee agroforest. I acquired my cofee plot inside the cofee forest soon and stopped NTFP collection." (Interview 25 November 2018).
Lifestyle change and technological innovation were frequently mentioned reasons that have contributed to the change in nontimber forest product collection in the study area. For instance, technologically invented plastic has replaced mats and baskets (what they call Yebboo) made of phoenix leaves. Better of key informant forest users consider it shameful to visit the forest to collect phoenix leaves at the moment. A 45-year-old man stated "Te poor sold phoenix leaves and buy food. It was shameful to be seen collecting phoenix leaves among us." (Interview 25 November 2018) Insights from individual interviews showed that the collection of nontimber forest products from the natural forest is becoming obsolete in four sites. I came across active nontimber forest product collectors only at one site. It was no longer common at four sites to regularly visit the forest to International Journal of Forestry Research collect nontimber forest products. Te experience of nontimber forest products uses had changed to cofee agroforest experiences. Te informants told me that they experienced nontimber forest product collection in the early years and end up with the cofee plot. A young boy in his early 20s stated the situation as "Oh! I have acquired my cofee plots. I am not interested in nontimber forest products." (Interview 24 November 2018). Another informant stated similar history as "I acquired my cofee plot six years ago. Before that, I used to collect buna uumama (wild cofee) and oogiyo (spice). Te area where I used to collect it has now become cofee agroforest. For one thing, it is not possible to enter somebody's cofee plot. Secondly, oogiyoo is not good for cofee and I totally removed it from the cofee plot." (Interview 28 November 2018).
Interestingly, the present study showed that culturally, it is considered shameful to engage in nontimber forest product collection once you own your cofee plots. I talked to a forest user who belongs to better-of wealth category. He stated "I have my own cofee plot. I don't want to visit the forest for wild cofee and oogiyoo collection but I can pick along my trip. It is shameful in society to be seen collecting wild cofee and oogiyoo. If somebody sees me while collecting wild cofee and oogiyoo, they consider me as if I don't have something to eat at home." (Interview 24 November 2018).
Active oogiyo (spice) and buna uumama (wild cofee) collectors travel long distances as the area where the collection took place in the past was converted to cofee plots. During participant observation, I visited four diferent areas where they used to collect wild cofee and oogiyoo in the past with fve individuals, and I found that the areas were under cofee agroforest management at the moment. Tere were some observable remnant oogiyoo and wild cofee as indicators. My informant told me the area was full of wild cofee and oogiyoo before he owned it with cofee plots. He intensifed the wild cofee and removed oogiyoo from his cofee. He said "anyone can come and use both the wild cofee and oogiyoo before I owned it. Now it is mine no one can enter my cofee plot. I removed oogiyoo as it is not good for cofee." Field note 17 December 2019. During the key informant interview and individual interview, they talked about the sociocultural value of cofee implying the preferences were not only based on economic issues but also the sociocultural value that infuence the choice of the two forest products.
Interesting emerging local practices along with cofee intensifcation were cofee sharecropping (locally known as Yukuttoo) and Aggoo (collection of leftover cofee from the ground freely).
First come and frst serve was the local practice that govern forest management for nontimber forest product collection as the forest is a common pool of resources. In a cofee agroforest, the owner is entitled to decide regarding the use and management of forest resources. Some of the forest users were semimanaging oogiyoo in their cofee agroforest and a few planted it around their home. Te fndings of the present study showed forest management for the diversity of nontimber forest products had shifted to cofee based forest management practices.
Nontimber forest products are a source of livelihood for millions of people [53,54]. It means that the local people depend on the forest for nontimber forest products, and hence, allowing the local community to access the forest for nontimber forest products can motivate them to conserve the forest. Some studies have indicated the nontimber forest product potential of the forest in southwest Ethiopia [53]. However, Perez and Arnold [55] have noted that rapid global change, due to economic development, has infuenced the local forest management practices for nontimber forest products. Te notion of the right to use forest resources of the participatory forest management approach is associated with nontimber forest products. Lowore et al. [56] stated in their paper the possibility of solving forest conservation and forest based livelihoods improvement through nontimber forest products market integration.
Studies show that forest users across the world have a long history of dependence on the diversity of nontimber forest products collected from diferent land use types. Commonly collected nontimber forest products include fruits, seeds, barks, honey, spice, and leaves. Te poor tend to be the ones who are involved more in nontimber forest product collection than others due to limited income sources [57,58]. Forest cofee modifcation to cofee agroforest removed the practice of nontimber forest products. Te present study fnding showed a diferent arrangement of traditional forest management system in the study area than in other parts of southwest Ethiopia. As stated above in the study area, nontimber forest products are collected under an open-access system. Te ongoing cofee intensifcation changed the open access system to defacto private property.

I Have Many Beehive Trees in the past "Right on Trees Vs.
Right on Cofee Plot". Tis section narrates the efect of cofee management intensifcation on honey production over time. Honey is one of the major nontimber forest products in southwest Ethiopia as the production is mainly associated with the forest. Next to cofee, honey is the most marketable forest product in the study area [59] [53,56,60,61]. Te local people have managed a diversity of fora for honey production. Te tradition has positive contribution to forest biodiversity conservation in southwest Ethiopia. Bees prefer forest free from human disturbance, and the undisturbed forest is the best site for honey production.
Cofee management intensifcation had changed forest resources use for honey production. In the past, a few honey users had many beehives and beehive trees. Te informants mentioned that the number of beehive trees as well as beehives was reducing at the moment. An informant stated "I have around 15 beehive trees. I put around 200 beehives in total. At the moment I have only 7 beehives trees. Te number of beehives I put reduced by half. Te yield also reduced by half." (Interview 10 December 2018). In the past, roughly 17 kg per beehive could be harvested. At the moment, it needs roughly two to three beehives to harvest 17 kg of honey. Another informant narrated the reduction of the total number of beehive trees as well as beehive numbers remembering the memory of the past. He started using the forest for honey production in 1960s. Unlike cofee which is common only around the home, he puts beehives mainly in the natural forest. Gradually, using the forest for honey production is becoming reduced. Te area that was used for honey production area is now full of cofee with a few beehives hung up on trees. Almost all forest users gave priority to cofee over honey. One of my informants said: "Honey is possible only when you are of active age but cofee is life insurance. You can inherit cofee to your child. If you want you can sell your cofee plot. Our father advised us to have cofee plots." (Interview 13 December 2018) From a customary rights perspective, you can claim the whole area of your cofee plot but with honey, you can claim only on beehive trees. Tere were sharecropping system both for honey and cofee but honey requires skills in making beehives and climbing trees. Otherwise, the agreement is entered with skilled man share cropping what they call Yukutoo. Te sharecropping experience in the study area is dividing half. Tis could be in kind or in cash. Sharecropping with cofee is easier. Anyone can enter into the agreement as cofee doesn't require special skills. Tey plant cofee and share cofee plot when cofee get mature or they collect cofee and share the yield or cash. As a result, forest users mostly opt for cofee rather than honey. Almost all forest users acquired cofee plots inside the forest whereas only a few forest users practice traditional forest beekeeping. In the past, only a few people were practicing honey production inside the forest but gradually more people became interested and began to undertake honey production inside the forest. Some of the honey users learned their experiences from the family others from the surroundings. Unlike honey users, cofee users owned cofee plots by acquiring new land, inheriting from family, and purchasing.
"I have an area where I put beehive (i.e. Luggoo or mummee). I have three plots of cofee. I acquired one myself. I inherited another one. I bought the third plot." (Inteview 10 December 2018) Since the last ten years, cofee intensifcation put the honey production area under pressure. Te previous Mummee or Luggoo was modifed to cofee agroforest. One of my informants narrated how he lost his Mummee or Luggoo as follows: "I was not serious at the beginning when cofee started. I used my Mummee or Luggoo for some years. Ten when the cofee got mature the owner of cofee started to complain his cofee is damaged. I don't have option as cofee shows tenure. I left the area and moved to another place." (Inteview 10 December 2018). Another informant told me how he modifed his Mummee or Luggoo to cofee agroforest himself. He said "I saw people were losing their honey area I decided to modify to cofee agroforest not to lose my Mummee or Luggoo." (Inteview 14 December 2018) An area under honey production for two to three generations was modifed to a cofee agroforest. I visited the area with some of the traditional forest beekeepers. On the way, they told me about the land use history and who owns what. My feld guider started to count his previous honey bee trees. Te honey beehive tree was serving as cofee shade trees. He said "Tese were my honey beehive trees I lost the area due to cofee." (Field note 17 December 2019). He acquired the cofee plot in another area and didn't worry as such. But others were frustrated and started to semidomesticate bees around the home garden. Tose who acquired cofee plots continued using beehives inside their cofee forest. Unlike honey, forest users exercise more customary rights with cofee. Since the forest belongs to the government, both of them are considered illegal, and hence, no one can bring the case to court. Any dispute was settled through elders what they call Jarsumma. Te elders decide for the owner of cofee any time confict arises between the users.
Tucker [4] has argued that the market is the driving force that encourages forest users to modify forests to cash crops. Forest users told me cofee has more markets compared to honey. Honey was sold mainly at the local market [53]. Tere were well-developed institutions and organizations that promote the cofee market. Te dynamic nature of forest resource use tradition is related to the marketability of forest products. In the past, the price for cofee was low, and cofee was grown only for consumption. Te current lucrative price for cofee encouraged forest users to move from homegarden to forest at large. Many informants mentioned forest modifcation to cofee carried out within the last few years along with market promotion for cofee through International Journal of Forestry Research government and nongovernment organizations. An informant told me that the current price of cofee is roughly 5 times four decades ago.
Anticipating successful forest management with livelihood improvement through honey production depends on forest resources arrangement. Te current change in the tradition of forest beekeeping due to cofee intensifcation brings to attention the notion of forest conservation through honey production. Te traditional forest beekeeping forest management approach gradually moved towards cofee based forest management approach. Cofee intensifcation disturbs the bee environment and reduces beehive forage and beehive materials. Informants noted the declining number of bee colonies. Only a few of the beehives attract bees inside cofee agroforest. Another important issue is about maximizing the benefts obtained from the forest. Many informants expressed their views that existing cofee intensifcation increased forest income but reduced the obtainable forest benefts. According toWiersum and Endalamaw [53], cofee intensifcation is the traditional forest governance arrangement adaptation of forest in order to maximize the benefts of forest. Wiersum and Endalamaw [53] stated that the adapted forest cofee agroforest changes both the local norms and management intensity and rules regarding access to forest resources. Te common property arrangement changed to private-based forest access.

Conclusion
Te study explored the efect of cofee management intensifcation on the tradition of forest resource use. Traditional forest management approaches or local practices have been seen as vital for efective community based forest conservation. In this paper, accessing forest resources, the nature and level of forest dependence, and extractable forest products were narrated. I documented local narratives of forest resources pattern over a period of time and across three forest management regimes. Te fndings showed that the customary right to access and use forest resource has been subjected to change in the study area. Te forest had been under diferent forms of forest use arrangement ranging from sourcing nontimber forest products to managed cofee. Te common customary forest resources use mummee or luggoo have been undergoing change to cofee agroforest.
Currently, local people highly promote cofee agroforest to manage the natural forest in the sense that they assumed participatory forest management is meant to improve their livelihoods. Tere is a strong interest to maximize the economic beneft of cofee forest where cofee intensifcation is promoted resulting in cofee agroforest. Te local people perceive the natural forest, cofee forest, and cofee agroforest diferently. Along with cofee intensifcation, the common pool forest resource has shifted to individual based cofee agroforest. Cofee agroforest has given the local people exclusion and alienation rights with the notion of "forest belongs to all cofee belongs mine." Collectively, connection to their surrounding forest devolved into individual cofee agroforest users to the extent that collective action for common pool resources management progressively moved towards individual forest management system. Te defacto traditional local institutions have been modifed to an individual based forest resources use arrangement.
Tere is a change in forest use pattern and forest dependence due to cofee intensifcation. Although community based forest conservation recognizes registered forest user group members, some cofee plots were owned and managed by nonforest user group members. Te long tradition of local people forest management practices is on the verge of cofee based forest management practices. With cofee agroforest the traditional norm, the rules for accessing and using the forest resource are changing. Te right to beehive trees has changed to the right to cofee plot. Cofee agroforest has changed the social arrangement of forest products utilization including nontimber forest products and traditional honey production system. In the cofee agroforest, local people promote controlled utilization of forest products. Te poor are forest-dependent and attributed to nontimber forest products; however, cofee intensifcation has changed this belief in the study area. Te study fndings suggest that nontimber forest products based forest management must be seen in the context of existing forest resources usage.