![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
For centuries, the core religious values of Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church communities have ensured the protection of church forests. Despite this strong and longstanding tradition, however, communities are now facing a host of new challenges and opportunities. Our interdisciplinary research highlights ways in which the ecological status of church forests may be threatened due to new practices as well as the changing economic status of church forest communities. We find that the adaptability of these communities to changes associated with modernity might, inadvertently, be a key factor in ecological degradation. But their adaptability might also offer a window of opportunity for agents of forest conservation. Based primarily on ethnography, this article presents Ethiopian church forests as dynamic socio-religious spaces, explores the types of changes affecting the communities and their forests, and considers ways in which the church forest conservation model is evolving.
Acknowledgements
The Picker Interdisciplinary Science Institute at Colgate University and the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant # 1518501) funded the research. The work presented here is linked to an interdisciplinary project. We thank our many collaborators. In particular, the insights, support, and encouragement of Catherine L. Cardelús, Peter Scull, Carrie Woods, Eliza Kent, and Mabel Baez were essential to the completion of the manuscript. In addition, it goes without saying that our work would not have been possible without the help and support of Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church Diocese officials, local priests, community members, and government officials in South Gondar. Finally, we thank the reviewers and journal editors whose feedback improved the manuscript considerably.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Cardelús et al., “A Preliminary Assessment”; Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests”; Reynolds et al., “Changes in Community Perspectives”; Wassie, “Opportunities, Constraints.”
2 Wassie, “Opportunities, Constraints.”
3 The research team - consisting of ecologists, physical and human geographers, religion scholars, and historians - explores the socio-ecological conditions that underpin church forest protection, and the change processes affecting them.
4 Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests.”
5 Wilson, Community Resilience.
6 Bhagwat and Rutte, “Sacred Groves”; Ormsby and Bhagwat, “Sacred Forests”; Osuri et al., “Spatio-temporal Variation”; Verschuuren, Sacred Natural Sites; Wassie, “Opportunities, Constraints.”
7 See, for example, Cardelús, Lowman, and Eshete, “Uniting Church and Science”; Dudley, Higgins-Zogib, and Mansourian, “The Links Between”; Ormsby, “The Impacts”; Pungetti, Oviedo, and Hooke, Sacred Species and Sites; Ramakrishnan, Saxena, and Chandrashekara, Conserving the Sacred; UNESCO, “Lake Tana Biosphere.” See, for example, Aerts et al., “Conservation of the Ethiopian Church Forests.”
8 See, for example, Anthwal et al., “Conserving Biodiversity”; Bongers et al., “Ecological Restoration.”
9 Sheridan, “Environmental and Social History,” 73.
10 Bhagwat, Nogue, and Willis, “Cultural Drivers”; Dove, Sajise, and Doolittle, “Changing Ways of Thinking”; Kent, Sacred Groves; Sheridan and Nyamweru, “African Sacred Groves.”
11 Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests.”
12 Reynolds et al., “Sacred Natural Sites,” 1.
13 Cardelús et al., “A Preliminary Assessment.”
14 Cardelus et al., “Shadow Conservation.”
15 Scull et al., “Resilience of Ethiopian Church Forests.”
16 See Sheridan, “Environmental and Social History”; Ormsby and Ismail, “Cultural and Ecological Insights.”
17 See also Cardelús et al., “A Preliminary Assessment”; Cardelus et al., “Shadow Conservation”; Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests”; Scull et al., “Resilience of Ethiopian Church Forests.”
18 We explore the degree to which church forests are a product of community-based conservation in Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests.”
19 Cardelús et al., “A Preliminary Assessment.”
20 See, for example, Allendorf, Brandt, and Yang et al., “Local Perceptions”; Rutte, “The Sacred Commons.”
21 Kent and Orlowska, “Accidental Environmentalists.”
22 This category is, however, unclear to native speakers of Amharic who live in urban centres. See Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests” for a diagram of the church forest compound.
23 Boylston, “The Shade of the Devine,” 209.
24 Fortenberry and Carlson, “Fare for Empire.”
25 The church of Wenchet Mikael, on the day of St. Mikael.
26 Kebele worker, Tsegur Mikael.
27 The church forest of Wenchet Mikael.
28 This is confirmed by all respondents in our semi-structured interviews.
29 Wassie, “Opportunities, Constraints.”
30 Interview with the head priest, church of Tsegur Michael, near Debre Tabor head priest, 13 May 2014.
31 Woods et al., “Stone Walls.”
32 Head priest of the church of Zhara Michael.
33 First explained in the interview with a farmer (the son of the head priest) at the church of Emashenkor, 14 April 2014.
34 Many priests and monks provided us with this information, e.g. Iqa bet Tebaqi at Wenchet Mikael, 15 May 2014; local monk at the monastery of Tera Gedam, 10 May 2014.
35 Ruelle, Kssam, and Asfaw, “Human Ecology of Sacred Space.”
36 See Clapham, Transformation and Continuity.
37 McCann, “The Plow and the Forest,” 144.
38 Bhagwat et al., “Cultural Drivers,” 397.
39 Sheridan and Nyamwera, “African Sacred Groves.”
40 Reynolds et al., “Changes in Community Perspectives.”
41 The church of Wenchet Mikael, near Hamusit town.
42 Cardelus et al., “Shadow Conservation.”
43 Cardelus et al., “Shadow Conservation.”
44 An example is the church, Kole Maryam, and the monastery of Tara Gedam.
45 Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation No. 456/2005 cited in Crewett, Bogale, and Korf, “Land Tenure in Ethiopia,” 19.
46 Interview with Ato Alemayhu, kebele worker, agricultural division, Tsegur Kebele, Land Administration, Debre Tabor, May, 2014.
47 Interview, Church Administrator, the church of Wenchet Mikael, April 2014.
48 Matthiesa and Karimovb, “Financial Drivers.”
49 See, for example, Fritzsche et al., “Soil-plant Hydrology.”
50 Interview, Dr Teshome Tessera, Forestry Research Directorate at Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI).
51 Reynolds et al., “Changes in Community Perspectives.”
52 See Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests”; McCann, “The Plow and the Forest”; Nyssen et al., “Environmental Conditions”; Scull et al., “Resilience of Ethiopian Church Forests.”
53 Cardelús, Lowman, and Eshete, “Uniting Church and Science”; Lowman, “Finding Sanctuary”; Reynolds et al., “Sacred Natural Sites,” 1.
54 Chanie et al., “Eco-hydrological Impacts”; Fritzsche et al., “Soil-plant Hydrology.”
55 Moreaux, “Forests of the Lake Tana Region.”
56 Klepeis et al., “Ethiopian Church Forests.”
57 The head priest, the church of Emashenkor, 14 April 2014.
58 Interviews at the church of Emashenkor, with local former soldier, 13 April 2014.
59 TREE Foundation. TREE Foundation: Tree research, exploration and education. Accessed 25 May 2016. http://treefoundation.org/projects/church-forests-of-ethiopia/.
60 In one case the team was asked to arrange for electricity line to be connected to the village.
61 Mcleod and Palmer, “Why Conservation Needs Religion,” 239; Baird, “Conservation Implications,” 394.
62 Persoon, “Monastic Spirituality.”
63 See Reynolds, “REU Site.”
64 Agger and Jensen, “Area-based Initiatives,” 2046–2048.
65 Agger and Jensen, “Area-based Initiatives,” 2048.
66 Rutte, “The Sacred Commons,” 2388.
67 See, for example, Chhatre and Agrawal, “Forest Commons”; Ogbaharya, “Change and Continuity”, Ormsby, “The Impacts of Global and National Policy,” 792; Onyekwelu and Olusola, “Role of Sacred Grove.”