Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat

THE STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSERVATION

AND THREATS OF BIODIVERSITY OF BORENA SAYNT

NATIONAL PARK

Abebaw Abayneh Assefa (M. Ed in Biology)

March 2012

Mekaneselam

i Abebaw Abayneh ANRS- south Wollo administrative zone BSNP- mekaneselam mobile 0913132728

THE STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSERVATION AND

THREATS OF BIODIVERSITY OF BORENA SAYNT NATIONAL

PARK

Borena saynt National park office

By

Abebaw Abayneh Assefa (M. Ed in Biology)

March 2012

Mekaneselam

ii Abebaw Abayneh ANRS- south Wollo administrative zone BSNP- mekaneselam mobile 0913132728

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. CTPD- culture tourism and park development bureau

2. BSNP- Borena saynt national park

3. IBC- Institute of biodiversity conservation

4. PaDPA –park development and protection authority

5. CTB- culture and tourism bureau

6. EWCA- Ethiopian wildlife conservation and utilization authority

7. WPCC- woreda park coordination committee

8. ANRS- Amhara national regional state

9. EPLUB-Environmental protection land administration and use Bureau

0 Abebaw Abayneh ANRS- south Wollo administrative zone BSNP- mekaneselam mobile 0913132728

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ii

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Objectives of the Study: ................................................................................................................ 3

1. 4. Significance of the Study: ............................................................................................................ 4

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. The Status and Sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation ........................................................... 5

2.2. Reinforcements for Biodiversity Conservation .............................................................................. 7

2.3. The Park - Community Conflict Management ............................................................................... 7

2.4. Objectives of Protected Area in the 21st Century ......................................................................... 9

2.5. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation ................................................................................... 10

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1. Description of the National Park and Sampling Techniques ......................................................... 12

3.2. Sources of Data and Data Gathering Tools .................................................................................. 15

3.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 16

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.1. Status and sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP .................................................. 18

4.2. The Park Community complaints on resources utilization ............................................................ 20

4.3. Effects of Very tall Festuca on Ethiopian Wolf ............................................................................ 23

4.4. The Objectives of BSNP and extent of their attainment ............................................................... 24

4. 5. The Regulation of the National Park versus the Needs of the Local Community ......................... 28

4.6. Management Plan of BSNP and the plan’s Integration to Sectoral Plans and Strategies................ 29

4.7. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP and Their Severity ....................................... 30

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................................... 36

5.1. Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 36

5.2. Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 37

6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40

7. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 42

7.1. Appendix I: List of Tables........................................................................................................... 43

7.2. Appendix II: List of Interview Guides ......................................................................................... 49

7.3. Appendix III: List of Questionnaires ........................................................................................... 51


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Borena Saynt National Park ...................................................................................................................... 13

Figure2. The park communities of jelisa-libanos kebele participating on conference in the year 2011 ..... 19

Figure 3. Rotten festuca at mehal limesk site of the national park ...................................................................... 23

Figure 4. The decomposed festuca vegetation and Ethiopian wolf ............................................................................. 24

Figure 5. Very high population pressure (grazing of livestock, expansion of farmland and settlement) .... 32

Figure 6. The moso village on the marginal part of the park & Sekedereba farmland inside the park ...... 33

Figure 7. Settlements at the two corridor areas (Arer media and Belechuma) and Sirejet................................ 34


THE STATUS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSERVATION AND THREATS OF

BIODIVERSITY OF BORENA SAYNT NATIONAL PARK

1. INTRODUCTION: - this unit deals with the background of the study, statement of

the problem, objectives, and significance of the study.

1.1. Background of the Study: - The ANRS has 4 legally declared parks, 16 priority forest

reserves, 12 important bird areas, 1 community conservation area (Menze Guassa), 3 water

basins (Abay, Tekeze and Awash) and 58 year round flowing rivers, 5 lakes including the largest

highland lake of the country (Lake Tana) and upstream source of Blue Nile and its spectacular

fall (Abrham, 2011). Borena saynt national park, one of the four national parks in the region,

was established by the regional government to conserve biodiversity and associated scenic

features of the area and to generate income from tourism. It is located in south Wollo

administrative zone which fars 198km from Dessie in the west and 18km from Mekaneselam in

the northern direction. The primary area of Borena Saynt national park shares boundary with

three woredas namely Borena, saynt and mehal saynt. Borena Woreda shares boundary on the

south, east and west direction, with nine Kebeles, Saint Woreda on the North, with One Kebele

and M/saynt woreda on the north and the west ,with three Kebeles. Though the current size of

the old national park is 4375 hectare, 10887 hectare potential area that shares boundary with

Saynt, Legambo,Mekidela and Tenta woredas is newly demarcated in May 2011 and 2012. So

the newly merged area of the national park will have an area of 15262 hectare in the near future

(CTPD, 2011, CTPD, 2012). But opening the Belechuma and Arer media corridors are the major

challenges of expansion of the national park to the newly demarcated areas as expansion of

settlements are still continuing. The park is endowed with different faunal and floral

biodiversity. As mentioned by Lakew etal’s (2007), Denkoro-Chaka (Now Borena saynt

National Park) is an area having great varieties of biodiversity (flora and fauna diversity).

The park office (2011) also reported that Borena saynt national park (BSNP) is endowed with a

variety of biodiversity, spectacular landscapes, cultural heritage sites and natural authentic

features (historical caves, waterfalls, high cliffs, ancient graves etc…). It is the water reserves of

the surrounding area from which more than 15 rivers are flowing and providing water for

millions of people living in the lowlands. So the National Park has so much more resources than

just unique, rare and endemic species. The rich biodiversity of the national park is surrounded


by a highly degraded and eroded environment and contains isolated ecosystems. So the regional

government issued regulation number 68/2009 to look after, conserve and pass down the

biodiversity resource for the coming generation as heritages and thereby contributing for

economic development at various levels ranging from local to global scale. The national park is a

sanctuary of wild animals, plants, and birds which are endangered and endemic to Ethiopia (The

ANRS, 2009). The major threats of the national park are encroachment, lack of buffer zone, lack

of connectivity, shape, size and high population pressure (Lakew etal’s, 2007). In addition to the

threats mentioned above, the human park conflicts, fire hazards, lack of infrastructure, illegal

resource utilization and house construction and problems related to implementation of the land

administration and use proclamation are severe threats of the park.

1.2. Statement of the Problem:-though general assessment on biodiversity richness and the

threats of the protected area was made by Lakew etal’s (2007) and CTPD (2011), the study

didn’t show all the areas and the problems in detail and the severity of the various threats of

conservation of the biotic resources. The researcher participated during demarcation of the old

park in the year 2005, in the potential area assessment study and demarcation of the new

potential area in the year 2011 and has the chance of exposure for more than two years as a

warden and process coordinator in the national park. On the basis of his own observations and

experiences, he believes that there are old aged and recent problems that threaten the existence of

wildlife in the national park. He also believes that there is gap between the park regulation and

intention of the local community in utilizing some of the resources of the protected area.

1.3. Objectives of the Study: - the main aim of the study is to assess the status and

sustainability of conservation and identify the major threats of biodiversity of the national park.

So this study addresses the following specific objectives;

� It identifies relations of the park and the local communities and the gaps between them.

� It identifies the status and the sustainability of biodiversity conservation of the old

Borena saynt national park and the newly demarcated potential area of the national park

� It identifies the major threats of biodiversity of the park and their root causes

� it ranks the threats of biodiversity in accordance with the severity of influence


� It identifies the extent of emphasis given for conservation, development and attainment of

intended objectives of the park by various stakeholders from local to regional levels.

� It also gives the possible solutions for the problems mentioned above

1. 4. Significance of the Study:-this study will be important at least for the following

reasons:

� It will help to know the attitude of the local communities in conserving the park

biodiversity

� It will help to create awareness about the status and sustainability of conservation and

threats of biodiversity among policy makers, planners and implementers and accordingly

could help to take appropriate measures that enhance the sustainability of biodiversity

conservation.

� It could serve as a baseline for further in-depth studies on the park community-

interaction.


2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. The Status and Sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation

Biodiversity has been defined as the variability among living organisms from all sources

including inter allia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological

complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of

ecosystems. In short, biodiversity refers to the variety of life on earth. This variety of life

provides the building blocks to adapt to changing environmental conditions in the future. Genetic

variation brings natural selection and adaptability to changes in the environment, which

ultimately ensures species survival. Reduction in biodiversity affects these ecosystem services.

The sustainability of ecosystems depends to a large extent on the buffering capacity provided by

having a rich and healthy diversity of genes, species and habitats. Losing biodiversity is like

losing the life support systems that we, and other species, so desperately depend upon (Leveque

and Mounolou, 2003: IBC, 2005).

Ethiopia is one of the most important countries in Africa for biodiversity conservation at local,

regional and global levels. The range of habitats and vegetation is very wide, reflecting the great

diversity in climate, altitude and topography. Very high levels of endemicity are found in many

plant and animal groups. For birds, 862 species have been recorded from Ethiopia, 16 of which

are endemic. This is a higher rate of avian endemism than in any other country in the mainland

Africa. Data on other vertebrate groups are sparse but at least 6 reptiles and 34 amphibians are

thought to be endemic. There are also 280 mammals and more than 6000 plant species with high

rates of endemism. Ethiopian vertebrates, including nine endemic species and at least 43 non-

endemic species are considered threatened (IBC, 2005; Biodiversity analysis and technical

support team, 2008).

According to the EWCA (2008), Ethiopia possesses diverse, rare and endemic species of wildlife

which are of great value for tourism, education and science. So the wildlife conservation and

development authority was established to develop, conserve and utilize the wildlife resource and

to maximize its benefit.


Though there are some activities to protect wildlife, there is a great loss of biodiversity all over

the world which is about 1000 to 10000 times the background rate. The most immediate and

effective response to the imminent biodiversity crises is expansion of protected areas. Though

there are a rapid expansion of protected areas all over the world, most of them are suffering from

population pressure. Seventy percent of the poorest people of the world depend on biodiversity

for their basic needs (Ervin, etal’s, 2010). If we take Ethiopia, nearly 85% of the populations

live in rural areas, and a large part of this population depends directly or indirectly on natural

resources.

Conservation of biodiversity is crucial to the sustainability of sectors as diverse as energy,

agriculture, forestry, fisheries, wildlife, industry, health, tourism, commerce, irrigation and

power. Ethiopia’s development in the future will continue to depend on the foundation provided

by living resources and conserving biodiversity (IBC, 2005).

In order to achieve sustainable conservation of biodiversity,

� protected areas should be integrated within a broad sustainable development planning

agenda

� Protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at

the very minimum must not contribute to exacerbate poverty;

� Biodiversity should be conserved both for its value as a local livelihoods resource

and as a national and global public good;

� Equitable sharing of costs and benefits of protected areas should be ensured at local,

national and global levels;

� Where negative social, cultural and economic impacts occur, the affected

community should be fairly and fully compensated

� A gender perspective should be incorporated that encompasses the different role of

women and men in the livelihood dynamics, thus contributing to equitable benefit sharing

and more effective governance system (Scherl etal’s, 2004).


2.2. Reinforcements for Biodiversity Conservation

The forces driving the global expansion of protected areas are the unprecedented and irreversible

loss of biodiversity which led to the development of international environmental policy during

the past 25 years. During this period, the consensus was emerged as protected areas were

essential for maintaining biodiversity. There was also agreement that protected areas must

address the local communities’ concerns with development. But considerable debate faced

regarding the relative weight of social and economic objectives versus biodiversity goals in

protected area management (Naughton-Treves eta’ls, 2005). Protected areas are the cornerstone of

global biodiversity conservation. Over the past 40 years, governments and non-governmental

organizations have made unprecedented investments in the establishment of protected areas

around the world. As a result, the world’s terrestrial protected areas encompassed more than 18

million sq km in 2010, compared with just over 2 million sq km in 1970(Ervin, etal’s, 2010).

As the first decade of the 21st Century comes to a close, emerging drivers of change are

transforming our concept of protected areas as they are expected to do more in terms of their

ecological, social and economic contributions than ever before. Not only are they expected to

provide habitat for endangered wildlife, but also to contribute to livelihoods for local

communities, to generate tourism revenues to local and national economies, and to play a key

role in mitigation and adaptation to climate change, among many other diverse functions and

contributions. Protected areas are expected to do more ecologically not only by providing

habitats and refuge for species, but also by enabling humans and wildlife to adapt to the impacts

of climate change, by securing the ecosystem services upon which humanity depends, and by

mitigating climate change through the storage and sequestration of carbon (Ervin, etal’s, 2010).

2.3. The Park - Community Conflict Management

There exists an interaction between humans and wildlife that results in negative impacts on

human social, economic or cultural life, on the wildlife populations, or on the environment. Both

people and wildlife can suffer from human-wildlife conflict. Farmers suffer economically from


the loss of crops and livestock and on more serious cases, people are killed. The people who

suffer from such interaction tend to be those living on the edges of settlements and those living

close to community / state/-managed wildlife areas. On the other hand, for animals, some

wildlife populations may decline or become locally extinct as a result of extensive human-

wildlife conflict (wildlife management series, 2005).

For harmonized interaction of peoples and protected areas, all the concerned bodies of the

protected areas should develop policies, practices and forms of Protected Area management

system that enhance opportunities, reduce vulnerability, and empower the poor and

vulnerables by:

a. Building partnerships with poor communities as actors and shareholders in

protected area development;

b. Strengthening mechanisms for the poor to share actively in decision making

related to protected areas and to be empowered as conservators in their own right;

c. Developing pro-poor mechanisms to reward environmental conservers, including

payments for environmental services, minimize and mitigate damages to both

biodiversity and livelihoods, and provide fair compensation for losses from human-

wildlife conflicts and from restricted access and decreased environmental services;

d. Respecting and recognizing customary ownership, use and access rights for local

people, particularly for the poor, during the negotiation and decision making process

and preventing further loss of costmary rights

e. Improving accountability and transparency of decision making processes related to

protected areas;

f. Developing more inclusive interpretations of Protected Area categories that

reflect the interests and initiatives of the poor, including the role of community

conserved areas;

g. Fostering programmes of restoration to deal with modified and degraded areas that

yield biodiversity benefits as well as providing goods and services to improve

livelihoods within protected areas and in the land escape surrounding them (Scherl

etal’s, 2004).


PaDPA,( 2008) said the adjacent people of Borena saynt national park have got a very good

attitude to the park except some challenges as the buffer zone is very near to villages ,and some

worries as they underprivileged to expand farmland, and grazing land. But the park office

reports (2010) indicated that the current needs of the peoples are to be benefited from the park

biotic resources in a manner that do not harm the resources sustainability.

2.4. Objectives of Protected Area in the 21st Century

Nowadays, protected areas are established for biodiversity conservation, ecological service

provision, climate change adaptation and mitigation and for attaining the millennium

development goals. So they have incalculable values. Protected areas can play an important role

in reducing poverty and sustaining livelihoods provided that there is a supportive and enabling

policy environment. In order to sustain livelihoods and reduce poverty, protected area planners

and policy makers will likely need to develop and/or improve a new set of policies, including

those listed below.

a. Develop policies for the sustainable use of resources to promote livelihoods. In many

protected areas around the world, the use of natural resources is allowed, but there are no

policies delineating sustainable levels of use.

b. Develop tourism guidelines: Tourism is one of the most widely recognized economic benefits

of protected areas, and is a major source of jobs and livelihoods for those living in and around

protected areas. However, balancing tourism and associated livelihoods with the protection of

biodiversity will require policies that create clear standards and outline the best practices.

c. Develop safeguards and thresholds: In developing alternatives for sustaining livelihoods, one

of the most important steps is to develop safeguards and thresholds that balance the need for

biodiversity conservation with the needs for economic development. There is a need to

develop policies for equitable sharing of benefits of livelihood related resources of protected

areas (Ervin etal’s, 2010).

protected areas are expected to do more socially not only by sustaining communities in and

around their boundaries, but also by significantly contributing to the aims of the millennium

development goals, and by buffering humanity from the impacts of climate change. They are also


expected to do more economically not only by generating revenue to sustain their own operation,

but also by improving local and national economies through tourism, supplying of minor forest

products, fish and other resources and the provisioning of ecosystem services such as the

regulation of water supplies (Ervin etal’s, 2010).

The biodiversity, ecosystems and ecological processes of Ethiopia are of profound international

significance. The significance is not of economic value alone. The watershed value of the

Ethiopian highlands is of strategic importance. The highlands of Ethiopia attract large amounts

of orographic rainfall and there are seven major river basins that provide water for the people,

livestock, wildlife and riparian vegetation in the surrounding lowlands (Lakew etals, 2007).

2.5. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation

Though the official protection granted protected areas, national parks and wildlife preserves

worldwide face threats from outside their boundaries. These threats range from logging, mining,

and livestock grazing to the encroachment of growing human populations (Encarta, 2009). So

management of protected area in developing countries presents profound challenges, given

widespread conditions of poverty, rapid population growth and political instability. The

campaign to protect biodiverse parks and reserves in developing countries exposes political

tensions that surface for other international environmental problems, such as climate change

(Naughton-Treves eta’ls, 2005).

In Ethiopia the major threat to conservation of natural resources in general and protected areas in

particular are human activity. With over 90% of the population dependent on subsistence

agriculture, the population increase is accompanied by deforestation to release new land for

cultivation, to obtain fuel wood, for construction and the making of implements. Current fuel

wood consumption is nearly three times the sustainable supply, causing severe soil erosion and

environmental degradation. The major threats to protected areas originate from settlement within

the parks or adjacent to them as it creates pressure due to crop cultivation, grazing, deforestation,

and mineral extraction (IBC, 2005). According to Biodiversity analysis and support team (2008),


the major threats of Ethiopian biodiversity are limited governmental, institutional, and legal

capacity, population growth, land degradation, weak management of protected areas and

deforestation which are interrelated and self reinforcing.

In addition to the above threats of protected areas, the attitudes of the local communities towards

the park are a determinant factor for sustainable biodiversity conservation. According to Hussein

(2011) field observation report, there is great community grievance on the BSNP preservationist

approach which requires an urgent remedial measure. If conditions continue in such fashion, the

park community conflicts will go from simple to complex which is of difficult to give reshape

then after.

According to the Ethiopian wildlife development and conservation Authority (2008), activities

such as transferring weapons, hunting, all agricultural activities, mining, cutting and transferring

of plants and their products, destroying and transferring any natural and artificial objects are

threats of wildlife and are prohibited in national parks. Setting any fire and using any harmful

chemicals are also activities prohibited in national parks, sanctuaries and wildlife reserves.

Though the rules are mentioned here above, some seasonal utilization of the natural resources

such as beekeeping, cutting and taking of forage and medicinal plant collection may be permitted

under controlled condition, based on the agreement made between the protected area

management and the surrounding community.

Nowadays, Protection of the biodiversity requires local management by the populations

immediately concerned. The governments should know that Centralized management forms have

no universal validity. So assessing the economic interests of the society and knowing the real

implications on the areas are very important to shape policy-makers of today for sustainability of

the heritages (Leveque and Mounolou, 2003).


3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study focused on examining the status and sustainability of conservation .and threats of

biodiversity of Borena saynt national park. The methodological framework of this study was

descriptive survey. Descriptive survey was preferred to other methods as it enables to make

investigations with predictions, narration of events, comparisons, and drawing of conclusions

based on the information obtained from relatively large and representative samples.

3.1. Description of the National Park and Sampling Techniques

Borena saynt national park (bsnp) was established in 2009 by the ANRS government of Ethiopia

with regulation number 68/2009. It is found in the central Amhara development corridor of

Ethiopia, which is about 598km from Addis Ababa via Dessie, 300 km from bahir dar via

Mertulemariam and 198km from Dessie respectively. It is located 18 km far away from the head

office, mekaneselam, the town of borena woreda (district). The old park is located between

10050'45.4” and 10

053'58.3" latitude and 38

040'28.4"and 38

054’49" longitude. The area is

characterized by deep valleys and ridges with an altitude ranging from 2000m (west end) up to

3727m (yilas gora) above sea level.

Though the current size of the national park is 4375 hectare, 10887 hectare potential area that

shares boundary with Saynt, Legambo,Mekidela and Tenta woredas is newly demarcated in 2011

and 2012. So the newly merged area of the national park will have an area of 15262 hectare and

the elevation will range from 2000 to 4280m asl in the near future. The merged area of the park

is located between 10050'45.4” and 10

057'03" latitude and 38

040'28.4""and 39

010’39" longitude

(CTB, 2011, Lakew etal’s 2007, CTB, 2012).

The biodiversity of the area has been recognized and protected since the 15th century as it

endowed with a variety of biodiversity, spectacular landscapes, and natural authentic features

(PaDPA).


Figure 1. Map of Borena Saynt National Park

The park has three agro- climatic zones; Wurch, Dega and Woina dega as it has high ranges of

altitudal variation. The average temperature falls between 10oc to 20oc and Rain fall is

dominated by single rainy season i.e. June to September which is supplemented by irregular rain

fall from February to May.

The park is endowed with a significant number of larger mammals with high endemicity .There

are about 23 larger mammals, considerable number of amphibians, reptiles and smaller mammals

such as rodents and bats. The endemic mammals of the national park are Ethiopian wolf(canis

simenisi), gelada baboon (theropithecus gelada), stark’s hare and menelik bush buck(tragelaphus

scriptos meneliki).There are more than 77 bird species recorded, among these gypaetus barbatus(

lamer gayer),gyps rueppellii, stephanoaetus corinatus, Columba larveta,bostrychia

carunculata(wattled ibis) ,Abyssinian cat bird(parophosma galinieri),thick billed raven(carvous

crassirostris) Harwood francolin(endemic bird). The variability of flora is also as diverse as the

ranges of habitats and altitudinal gradients. There are 174 large plant species recorded in the

park, of which 11 of them are endemic to Ethiopia. The lower forest is dominated by podocarpus


falactus with juniper and olea with increasing olinia as we go higher. The Upper forest is

dominated by Rapanea, Dombeya, and Hagenia moving in to the lower stratum of Erica arborea

and hypericam revoltum (Abate, 2003; Lakew etal’s 2007).

Above the forest edge there is high altitude grass land dominated by festuca gelibertina (guassa)

with scattered giant lobelia (lobelli rhynohopetalum) and red hot pokers (kniphofia foliosa).

The major objective of establishing the protected area is to conserve the biodiversity and bypass

it to the fore coming generation and to benefit the people economically, socially, and

ecologically from local to global scales.

To answer the ambiguities set for this study; both quantitative and qualitative data were collected

from respondents and other relevant documentary sources were used as supplements. There were

six categories of respondents (woreda park council members, experts, scouts, contract scouts,

local communities and kebele park coordination committees). Furthermore, the office reports and

research documents were served as strong sources of evidence for the study.

Purposive and simple random sampling methods were used to select representative samples from

the local communities.

Name of

woreda

Name of kebele Population size of the kebeles Population size of conference

participants in the year 20011

M F T M F T

Borena Miskabe(014) 2165 2233 4399 113 43 156

Borena Fati-janeberu(012) 2823 2909 5732 132 24 154

Borena Abu(011) 2662 2735 5397 110 23 136

Borena Degadibi(09) 1611 1683 3294 134 24 158

Borena Hawoybetaso(08) 1798 1785 3583 72 29 101

Borena Jelisalibanos(06) 2853 2748 5601 112 42 154

Borena Anferfra(029) 1425 1375 2800 110 46 156

Borena Chirocherkos(030) 1757 1788 3545 122 30 152

Borena Chirokadis(031) 3037 3043 6080 111 45 156

Saynt Bejachilaga(08) 2648 2666 5314 131 25 156

M/saynt Samagn(030) 2726 2796 5422 108 12 120

M/saynt Wojed(036) 2125 2021 4146 143 13 156

M/saynt Kotet(041) 2342 2116 4458 141 16 157

Total 29972 29898 59771 1539 372 1912


Table1. Conference participants of the adjacent kebeles (the data of population size was taken from borena

woreda agriculture office and from individual kebele agriculture office of saynt and m/saynt woredas)

Purposively, the peoples living very near the park and the kebele park council members are

selected as they have detail knowledge about the overall situation of protected area and the local

communities. The individual samples were selected from the target population using random

sampling techniques. The size of the samples was summarized here above. For the rest

categories of respondents, availability sampling techniques were used as it is summarized below.

s/n categories target population expected

sample size

actual sample

size

1 woreda park council 30 30 23

2 experts 9 9 9

3 scouts and contract scouts 32 32 27

total 71 71 59

Table 2. The sample size of various respondent categories

The reason why the various categories of respondents were included (incorporated) into the

sample was to increase the chance of obtaining detail information as they had a day to day

exposure and awareness about the park community interaction and the threats of biodiversity.

3.2. Sources of Data and Data Gathering Tools

Both primary and secondary data were used for the study. Primary data were collected from the

woreda park council members, park experts and scouts through questionnaires that contained

both closed and open ended questions. To supplement the data from questionnaires, target group

discussions were used to secure in-depth information.

Data from local communities and kebele park council members were collected using target group

discussions to give equal chance of participation for literates and illiterates and to secure in-depth

information about their interaction with the park and the real problems there in the area of study.

The last two years observation was also used as a source of data for analysis in the overall study.


As supplement of the data gathered above, the secondary data from office reports, and research

documents were used to know the status and sustainability of conservation and the major threats

of the National park biodiversity.

The questionnaires prepared for respondents had three major parts. The first part focused on

obtaining detailed information on the status and sustainability of conservation, and on the overall

problems and factors affecting biodiversity of the park.

The closed ended question is integrated with open ended question on parts that needed further

explanation.

The second part of the questionnaire contained randomly listed possible threats that could be

rated using Likert scale to show the threats severity.

The third part of the questionnaire contained randomly listed possible threats of biodiversity that

could affect conservation of biodiversity in sustainable manner. So respondents were asked to

rank these possible threats according to the degree of their influence. All possible threats of the

park were listed and ranked by respondents according to the perceived severity of each threat in

affecting the biodiversity. Then the individual ranks were further ranked to discriminate the order

of the threats affecting the park.

Though all the questionnaires were originally prepared in English, they were translated to

Amharic language considering the English language difficulty of the respondents. Then all the

distributed questionnaires for respondents were filled and returned under close supervision of the

researcher.

3.3. Data Analysis

To attain the research objectives, the data gathered were analyzed using quantitative and

qualitative approaches. To know the status of conservation and the severity of threats affecting

the sustainability of conservation of biodiversity, the qualitative data from open ended questions,

and target group discussions were categorized, presented, narrated and described in line with the


research objectives. In addition to the above qualitative data, the analysis of quantitative data was

done using tally, frequency count and percentage as statistical tools.

In addition to the above data, the ratings and the ranks of the possible threats threatening the

biotic resources of the park were classified, tabulated, calculated and ranked according to their

influence by calculating the percentage value and the mean value of each possible threat. The

smaller the mean value of the possible threat, the higher is in its rank and its impact.

Finally, the results of the analysis and interpretation of the data obtained were discussed and

summarized to forward implications and/or recommendations on the basis of the findings.


4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the data collected from different sources using questionnaires (close and open-

ended questions), target group discussion and the documents available are presented and

discussed. Presentation of the data is followed by discussion and interpretation in line with the

major research objectives outlined.

4.1. Status and sustainability of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP

According to the emerging model, the rationale for establishing protected areas is to maintain the critical

life supporting systems. They are managed for social, economic and ecological values, with an emphasis

on maintaining ecosystem services (Ervin etal’s, 2010) .But BSN Park follows the classic model of

protection that set aside the park from any natural resource use. The local communities are

deprived from any resource of the national park which is not common to their past trends of

conservation. The park office experts and scouts mentioned that the current protection status of the

biodiversity of the park is somehow good. But it may not be long lasting as the park follows the

preservationist approach of biodiversity protection and as complaints are arising from the nearby park

communities. For the sustainable biodiversity conservation, the local communities should be benefited

from the resource directly by extraction of forage and festuca grass and dry fire wood and benefitted from

ecotourism. Similarly Scherl etal’s(2004), said in order to achieve sustainable conservation of

biodiversity, protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level,

and at the very minimum must not contribute to aggravate poverty.

Most of the woreda park coordination council members also said, the present protection of the

biodiversity of the national park is relatively good. But participating the local people in conserving the

resources and benefiting them from the resources under sustainable manner should be given due attention.

Protected area planners and policy makers will likely need to improve a new set of policies,

which allows sustainable use of resources to promote livelihoods. In many protected areas

around the world, the use of natural resources is allowed, but there are no policies delineating

sustainable levels of use (Ervin etal’s, 2010). The above study indicated that the local

communities should be benefited from the park resources by delineating the sustainable levels.


As all categories of respondents said if the communities are not benefited either directly from the natural

resources or from ecotourism revenue in a near future, they may develop a negative attitude on the park

rather than considering it as their possession. So extraction of festuca from the park should not be given

time in order to benefit the locals economically and improve their ownership and to save the park from

fire hazards. Furthermore, the above respondents said that the present status of protection of the

biodiversity of the newly demarcated portion of the national park is calling us to arrive and save it from

loss. There are rapid rate of agricultural and settlement expansion and deforestation of the Erica forest.

Conferences organized by the park office were also held twice in the 13 adjacent kebele peasant

association of the park in the years 2010 and 2011. The participants of the conference were

representatives of all the 13 kebele peoples that include the kebele administrators, religious fathers, males,

females, adolescents, school directors, DAs and community policing officers. The conference agenda was

prepared by the park office aiming to stop illegal settlement expansion, improve communal lands

protection and development, reduce threats of the biodiversity, identify the legal and illegal land holdings

inside and around the park, identify the communities need and how to reduce the conflicts that occur

among the park and the local communities.

Most of the conference participants of the adjacent kebeles of the park mentioned as they were trying to

stop illegal settlement expansion, safeguard the communal lands, and identify the land holding types in

order to stop illegal agricultural expansion. But they were not successful as the concerned woreda sector

offices didn’t support them in implementing the above activities.

Figure2. The park communities of jelisa-libanos kebele participating on conference in the year 2011


As mentioned by the conference participants, the needs of the communities are to utilize the resources

sustainably and the major threats of biodiversity of the national park are resource utilization conflicts.

The local peoples said we have been conserving it from the past to the present, but we are considered as

an enemy of the biodiversity. They said we are prohibited utilization of the non woody plant resources

having no impact on the biodiversity of the park such as extraction of forage and festuca. The

communities mentioned as extraction of such resources is the burning issue of them. The local

communities request the regional government to give them permission for extraction of the annual

resources specially the non timber plant products in sustainable manner. In addition to benefiting the

locals, collection of festuca is important for sustainability of festuca and prevention of human induced fire

hazards as some communities are disappointed by prohibition of festuca.

On the contrary some woreda park council members said that the conservation practice is so poor. To

mention witness for the poor protection practices of the scouts, the guards’ houses are stolen in the near

past. But some of them said the illegal activities are due the smaller number of the park scouts. So the

number of scouts should be increased and the newly demarcated area of the national park should be

legalized, merged with the old portion of the park and protected by the park office rapidly before loss.

The researcher field observation also indicated that there are rapid rate of deforestation, agricultural land

expansion and settlement expansion in the newly demarcated areas of the park especially on the side of

Saynt and Legambo woredas.

Some of the respondents from all categories have reservation on extraction of dry fuel wood. Collection

of dry fuel may cause damage on the living organisms and give room for the illegal actors. Furthermore it

may increase the dependency syndrome.

In general, the local communities should be benefited directly from the natural resource and tourism in

various ways as mentioned here above. In addition to resource utilization, other means of income

generating schemes are important mechanisms to supplement the communities’ livelihood and to reduce

the population pressure of the biodiversity.

.

4.2. The Park Community complaints on resources utilization

Though the major causes of Complaints are prohibition of festuca extraction from the park for different

uses such as hatch and sale, agricultural land expansion and prohibition of compensation for their land

holdings, predation of domestic animals and crop damage, fire wood collection and livestock grazing are


causes of conflict between the park and the local communities. Knowing the impacts of the protected area

on the communities is very important as it helps to take appropriate management measures. According to

Getzner etal’s (2010), regardless of the assigned category of the protected area , it is crucial to understand

the impacts of protected areas on local and regional development in terms of ecological, social and

economic dimensions. They also mentioned that there is a paradigm shift from strict protection to

sustainable use areas i.e. besides conservation function, today’s protected areas contribute to human

welfare, poverty alleviation and sustainable development.

As shown in table 3 below, nearly all the respondents mentioned as there are complaints of the local

communities as they are deprived from their traditional utilization of resources. The major causes of the

park community conflicts are land holding issues, annual plant collection, encroachment by settlement,

grazing and deforestation. So there is gap between the needs of the local communities and the national

park regulation as the regulation is so ridged.

Table 3 Opinion of respondents on local communities’ attitude about utilization of some resources

s/n questions given for respondents respondents responses

WPCC experts scouts

yes no yes no yes no

1 Is there any Park community complaint on utilization

and conservation of the biodiversity of the park?

18

(85.7)

3

(14.3)

9

(100)

27

(100)

-

2 Have you ever seen a conflict between the local

community and the park?

16

(76.2)

5

(23.8)

9

(100)

25

(92.6)

2(7.4)

3 Do you believe that there is a gap between intention of

the community and prohibition of some resources

utilization?

16

(76.2)

5

(23.8)

9

(100)

24

(88.9)

3

(11.1)

Almost all respondents also said the very tall and dry festuca is highly susceptible for natural and induced

fire hazards as there is a frequent tender, a cigarettes residue due to the high way crossing the park and as

there are some communities having a negative attitude on the national park as they are prohibited from

utilization of the resource. The CTB (2011) mentioned that festuca is a highly valuable resource for the

day to day life processes of the local communities. As it is used for hatch, forage, construction of rope and

sleeping mattress production, the local kebele administrative bodies and communities manage it properly

with great emphasis.


As mentioned by Hussein, (2011), the resources having low/no negative impact on the sustainability of

the park biodiversity should be collected out and benefited the local communities. The park should reduce

poverty rather than aggravating it. This is achieved by transforming the outdated preservationist approach

to community based development approaches. To bypass the biological resource for the fore coming

generation, the Park should give remedial measures for the chronic problems of the present local

communities.

Another study indicated that for harmonized interaction of peoples and protected areas, all the

concerned bodies of the protected areas should develop policies, practices and forms of protected

area management system that enhance opportunities, reduce vulnerability, and empower the

poor and vulnerable by:

a. Building partnerships with poor communities as actors and shareholders in

protected area development;

b. Strengthening mechanisms for the poor to share actively in decision making

related to protected areas and to be empowered as conservators in their own right;

c. Developing pro-poor mechanisms that minimize and mitigate damages to both

biodiversity and to livelihoods, and provide fair compensation for losses incurred from

human-wildlife conflicts and from restricted access and decreased environmental

services;

d. Respecting and recognizing customary ownership, use and access rights for local

people, particularly for the poor, during the negotiation and decision making process

and preventing further loss of costmary rights

e. Improving accountability and transparency of decision making processes related to

protected areas;

g. Fostering programmes of restoration of degraded areas that yield biodiversity

benefits as well as providing goods and services to improve livelihoods within protected

areas and in the land escape surrounding them (Scherl etal’s, 2004).

The above primary and secondary data indicated that the local communities should be benefited

from the park natural resources in the manner having no greater impact on sustainability of the


park biodiversity. Otherwise the complaints will be transformed to severe threats of the

biodiversity which are of difficult to reshape.

4.3. Effects of Very tall Festuca on Ethiopian Wolf

The last two seasons’ wildlife counting results of borena saynt national park office indicated that there

was no Ethiopian wolf inside the old national park. It is emigrated from the old portion of national park,

and went to the surrounding communal lands around the park and to the newly demarcated area of the

park as the festuca is managed traditionally by the local kebele administrators. The guassa is extracted

every two years which creates suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf to capture its prey.

Figure 3. Rotten festuca at mehal limesk site of the national park

Based on their experiences, almost all the respondents said the very tall festuca is not suitable habitat for

Ethiopian wolf to capture its prey. Furthermore unless it is collected with time interval, the festuca root

specially the ‘wonde guassa or ginchire guassa’ root will rot and extinct locally from the area. Studies

also indicated that the very tall festuca is not suitable for Ethiopian wolf as it covers its preys and creates

difficulty to capture the rodents. The suitable habitat of Ethiopian wolf extends from 3200m up to 4500m

with some wolves present in the montane grasslands at 3000m. The wolves use all afro alpine habitats,

but prefer open areas with short herbaceous and grass land communities where rodents are most abundant.

Their prime habitats are characterized by short herbs and grasses and low vegetation cover (Sillero-Zubiri

and Marino, 2004).


Figure 4. The decomposed festuca vegetation and Ethiopian wolf

Hussein (2011) field observation report also indicated that the Ethiopian wolf emigrated from the park

having a taller, mature and nearly dried festuca to the areas having short grasses such as Shimegera and

Belechuma where it lives along domesticated animals.

The above phenomenon highly exposes the Ethiopian wolf to rabies which is the most dangerous and

wide spread disease to affect it. Rabies is the major causes of wolf mortality (Sillero-Zubiri and Marino,

2004). The situation also increases the chance of hybridization of the wolves with common dogs.

From the above primary and secondary information, we generalize that collection of festuca with proper

management, time interval and season is very important to create suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf, to

benefit the local communities and the grazer wild animals and to sustain the festuca itself. This extraction

of festuca also improves the bond between the park and the local communities.

4.4. The Objectives of BSNP and extent of their attainment

Internationally, the rationale for establishing protected areas is to maintain the critical life supporting

systems and managed mainly for social, economic and ecological values, with an emphasis on

maintaining ecosystem services (Ervin etal’s, 2010). EWCA (2008) also stated as the objective of

the EWCA is to ensure the development, conservation and sustainable utilization of the country’s

wildlife resources. The above two conservation strategies and enforcements permitted utilization

of natural resources in sustainable manner.


Researchers stated that national parks are not established only to provide habitat for endangered

wildlife, but also to contribute to livelihoods for local communities, to generate tourism revenues

to local and national economies, and to play a key role in mitigation and adaptation to climate

change (Ervin etal’s, 2010).

According to the ANRS (2009), Borena Saynt national Park has been established to conserve the

remnant representatives of the middle altitude biodiversity of the region by the direct

conservation participation of the community and to bypass it as a heritage for the coming

generation. The park was also established aiming to benefit the local communities and the

country from tourism revenue. To attain the objectives of the borena saynt national park, the

ANRS- PaDPA (now the CTPD) set plans of activities to be implemented within a short period

of time:

1. provision of farm land compensation for the 64 farmers whose farm lands were

demarcated within the national park

2. selection and construction of campsite for scouts of the national park

3. building the park office and organizing the human resources

4. Construction of the necessary infrastructures such as road, view points, lodge and other

buildings, keeping the natural beauty of the national park and in the manner that do not

disturb the wildlife living condition.

5. Doing activities that enhance local communities’ participation in the park development

and protection and benefiting them from the resource.

6. plantation of pillars on important sites of the park boundaries

7. provision of education for the local communities about wildlife management and use

8. promoting the park for national and international organizations

9. Preparing the management plan of the park and notifying the tourism and research

potential use of the area (PaDPA).

Implementation of the short term plan mentioned here above are the duties and responsibilities of

CTPD (proclamation, 96/2003) and are the preliminary steps to attain the objectives of the

national park i.e. to conserve the biodiversity sustainably and to benefit the local communities


and the country as a whole from ecotourism. But most of the short term plans mentioned here

above didn’t arrive at the ground. To mention the status of the plans implementation:

1. No compensation has given for most of the farmers though the revised rural land

administration and use determination proclamation no 133/2006,said the farmers

expropriate their holding rights for public services by receiving the proper compensation

in advance. Researchers said where negative social, cultural and economic impacts

occur, the affected community should be fairly and fully compensated (Scherl etal’s,

2004). Though the regulation stated here above, only 12 of the farmers were given

compensation from the adjacent kebele reserve farm lands of Borena woreda. However

the phenomenon done on the rest 52 farmers are so greatly far from the regional land

administration and use laws. As the farmers are deprived from their land use rights since

2009 without compensation, they repeatedly explained their complaints to Borena woreda

administrators. Still now, the compensation is not given for the farmers though the

processes are going on in a very slow rate.

2. Though the areas appropriate for campsite were selected by the Bureau and the park

office experts before two years, no campsites are constructed in the national park. So

there is limitation in carry out patrolling during night time as there is no resting room for

scouts and their house is far away from the park. At the beginning of this physical year,

the CTPD mentioned as two million birr was allocated for constructing campsites, though

nothing is implemented until now. It is known that starting construction of the campsites

at the end of the physical year has a great negative impact on the quality of the

construction and the budget utilization.

3. The CTPD constructed very attractive park office at mekaneselam and there are well

organized human resources though there are some quality problems of the construction

due to limitation of the park office construction plan document in specifying the quality

of the raw materials. Though the regional bureau administers only this park, the activities

performed in aspects of capacity building of the park office experts is very low which is

not beyond an eye break training during organizing the office before two years.

4. The park is an open air museum having a representative natural biodiversity with very

high endemism, scenic landscapes and historical caves, and surrounded by impressive

cultural heritages, Abay river landscapes and historical religious sites. But Construction


of the necessary infrastructures such as road from mekaneselam to the park, view points,

and lodge is almost zero. Almost all of the tourists that visited the park mentioned that

the park is an open air museum, but the road from mekanneselam to the park is so bad

and the services at mekaneselam are very poor. So unless emphasis is given for

development of such infrastructures, it will have a great negative impact on attainment of

the park’s objectives.

5. The 5th component of the short term plan of the regional bureau i.e. benefiting the local

communities from tourism is the fore most important activity to attain the park

objectives. However nothing except awareness creation was done to enhance

communities’ involvement in the park development and protection and to benefit them

from the resource. It is highly dependent on activity four of the short term plan mentioned

here above.

6. There are no plantations of new pillars after its gazettement as a national park. But

remarking of the boundary using paints on natural features are practiced by the park

office experts and the park scouts. Education is being given for the local communities by

experts and scouts regularly.

7. The promotion practices done ever before were very low which is not done beyond the

very short TV and radio air time, distributing poster and leaf lets. So great emphasis

should be given for promotion of the national park using various Medias nationally and

internationally.

8. To attain the objectives of protected areas, management plan is the fundamental

requirement. Developing the management plans is an urgent priority for the worlds’

protected areas. The process of developing management plans help protected areas

manager to identify natural and cultural resources, understand key threats to those

resources, and develop plans and strategies for long term protection(Ervin etal’s, 2010).

Though management plan is the priority requirement of protected area, borena saynt

national park is being managed without management plan which is like walking closing

the eyes. So preparation of the management plan is the primary activity and the guide for

development of the park that requires due attention.


Though the attainment of the intended objectives of the national park are dependent on

implementation of the short period plans mentioned here above, the emphasis given for them is

below the minimum. So the Bureau should give emphasis as the short period plans’

implementation is backbones for sustainability of the park biodiversity and benefits the locals.

4. 5. The Regulation of the National Park versus the Needs of the Local Community

According to EWCA (2008), seasonal utilization of some natural resources of protected areas

such as beekeeping, cutting and taking of forage and medicinal plant collection may be permitted

under controlled condition, based on the agreement made between the protected area

management and the surrounding community. But the Amhara national regional state park

development and protection regulation does not give such options and rights for the park

managers, rather totally block any resource extraction from the national parks (The ANRS, 2009).

As mentioned by the park office experts and scouts, there is a gap between needs of the local

community and the national park preservationist objectives. There is neither direct use of

resources nor ecotourism revenue that the local people supplement their livelihood. Similarly

participants of the conferences held in the 13 adjacent kebeles of the park displayed their great

complaints on prohibition of collection of resources which has no/ low impact on conservation of

biodiversity but are valuable for them. So communities, scouts and experts of the park office said

extraction of resources (guassa and forage) should be permitted for local communities using

proper managerial approach, time interval and extent of resources, and the regulation of the park

should be revised in the way that allows the extraction of the resources sustainably. For

sustainability of the biotic resource of the national park, it is better that the local communities

should participate in preparing the law of the national park. The governments should know that

Centralized management forms have no universal validity. The economic interests of the society

and the real implications on the areas are very important to shape policy-makers of today for

sustainability of the heritages (Leveque and Mounolou, 2003). Many of the threats of protected

areas are resulted from the local people as they simply have left without alternative options but to steal

and poach. The management authority of a PA may solve the problems more effectively by investing


development of social services and alternative employment than by increasing the law enforcement. it is

now become clear that PAs cannot survive unless the good will of the local population supports their

existence (Menassie etal’s, 2006).

The above primary and secondary data indicated that benefiting the local people from the natural

resources of the park in sustainable manner enhances ownership of the local communities. So the

regulation of the park needs amendments in order to have some flexibility that gives

management options for the park manager and the local communities.

4.6. Management Plan of BSNP and the plan’s Integration to Sectoral Plans and

Strategies

Developing the management plans is an urgent priority for all the worlds’ protected areas. The

process of developing management plans help protected areas manager to identify natural and

cultural resources, understand key threats to those resources, and develop plans and strategies for

long term protection(Ervin etal’s, 2010). But the Borena saynt National Park is being managed

without management plan from the beginning up to now which is like walking closing the eye.

In addition to lack of the park management plan, there is no integration of plan of the park with

plans of adjacent woreda and kebele concerned bodies and stakeholders. The office experts and

scouts said the participation of adjacent woreda stakeholders for development and protections of

the biodiversity of the park are not sufficient enough. There is very loose integration of the park

office and the adjacent woreda stakeholders in conserving the biotic resources and solving the

threats and problems of the park. Researchers said in order to achieve sustainable conservation of

biodiversity, protected areas should be integrated within a broad sustainable development

planning agenda (Scherl etal’s, 2004).

The Woreda Park council members also said integration of the woreda stakeholders and the park

office are very loose. They mentioned as the present Performance of all the adjacent woredas

administrators in conserving the biodiversity is so limited assuming that the park office will take


all the responsibilities of conservation and development. They also said for sustainable

conservation and development of the park biodiversity;

1. All stakeholders specially the local communities should be actively participated in

conserving the park.

2. The conservation and development of the park should be mainstreamed and its

development plan should be included in all development plans of the adjacent woredas

and kebeles.

Ervin etal’s, (2010) said integrating the park plan and development with land use planning,

transportation, energy , tourism , agriculture ,grazing, forestry, freshwater, waste , invasive

species and climate change are very important for biodiversity conservation and poverty

reduction. Mutualistically, biodiversity conservation is crucial for sustainability of the diverse sectors

mentioned here above (IBC, 2005). Getzner etal’s (2010), also said to maximize benefits for the local

communities and to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of conservation management, it is

important to involve all groups of stakeholders in the process of establishing, designating, and managing

protected areas. Participating stakeholders in management plan preparation process is important as it

increases a sense of ownership and commitment to management objectives.

The above data indicated that though too late, the management plan of the national park should be

prepared within a short period of time and all stakeholders should be involved in conservation of the park

biodiversity, and the development plan of the park should be integrated with the plan of stakeholders at

all levels .

4.7. The Threats of Biodiversity Conservation of BSNP and Their Severity

Management of protected area in developing countries presents profound challenges, given

widespread conditions of poverty, rapid population growth and political instability. The

campaign to protect biodiverse parks and reserves in developing countries exposes political

tensions that surface for other international environmental problems such as climate change

(Naughton-Treves eta’ls, 2005).


As a reflection of poverty and rapid population growth, there are a number of factors that cause

conflicts between the biodiverse national park, Borena saynt national park, and the local

communities. the causes of conflicts are grass collection, livestock grazing, land holding

conflict (agricultural land expansion & expropriation of farm land without compensation),

construction of settlements, crop damage, predation of domesticated animals, intentions to

practice apiculture inside the park and lack of any supplementary income source to the local

livelihoods(The park office annual report,2010). The above conflicts along with the

disappointment of the local communities, as they are prohibited from the traditional festuca

utilization, are threats of biodiversity and are ranked based on their severity of influence on

biodiversity conservation.

As shown in table 1 and 2 in the appendix, office experts and scouts arranged the threats of the park

biodiversity from the highest to the lowest. Based on the data analysis, scouts and experts listed the first

11 threats of the biodiversity of the park as;

1. conflicts due to land holding issues (prohibition of compensation and inaccuracy of plot size)

2. susceptibility of the park for human induced fire

3. the root rotting of guassa due to poor management practice

4. the compliant and economic problems of the local community as they are deprived from access

of guassa for various local uses

5. negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf

6. Encroachment by settlement

7. existence of so many roads across the park that creates difficulty of patrolling

8. illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park

9. Illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass

10. auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other native species

11. Grazing of livestock inside the park respectively. The data from the likert scale is almost

congruent to the results of re-ranking of threats shown in table.

But the rating and re-ranking results of the woreda park council members are slightly different from that

of scouts and experts. The woreda park council members ranked the first 11 threats of the park as

1. conflicts due to land holding issues (prohibition of compensation and inaccuracy of plot size)

2. Illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass

3. susceptibility of the park for human induced fire


4. illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park

5. the guassa root rotting due to poor management practices

6. grazing of livestock inside the park

7. encroachment by settlement

8. existence of so many roads across the park that creates difficulty of patrolling

9. Negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf respectively

10. the compliant of the local community as they are deprived from guassa access for various

local uses and as measures has been taken on illegal resource users especially the festuca thieves

11. Deforestation of old aged trees and cultivation of the communal land around the park (table

4 and 5 in the appendix).

Studies indicated that the major threats of the borena saynt national park biodiversity conservation are

encroachment, lack of buffer zone, lack of connectivity, shape, size, the severe degradation of the

surrounding areas, agricultural land expansion, destruction of corridor, allotting the communal land for

adolescents, overgrazing, gaps in policy and legal framework, deforestation and high population pressure

( Lakew etal’s ,2007 : CTB, 2011: BSNP office,2010, Minassie etal’s,2006).

Figure 5. Very high population pressure (grazing of livestock, expansion of farmland and settlement)

According to Biodiversity analysis and technical support team (2008), the major threats of

Ethiopian biodiversity are limited governmental, institutional, and legal capacity, population

growth, land degradation, weak management of protected areas and deforestation which are

interrelated and self reinforcing.


The major threats to protected areas originate from settlement within the parks or adjacent to

them as it creates pressure due to crop cultivation, grazing, deforestation, and mineral extraction

(IBC, 2005).

In addition to the above threats of protected areas, the attitudes of the local communities towards

the park are a determinant threat of biodiversity. According to Hussein (2011), there is great

community grievance by BSNP preservationist approaches of protection which requires an

urgent reform in management. If the situation continues in such ridged fashion, the conflict will

go from simple to complex threat of biodiversity of the park which are of difficult to reshape

then after.

The above primary and secondary data indicated as the major threats of the borena saynt national park are

reflection of land degradation, poverty and population growth. The major threats of the area are

summarized as follows

1. Conflicts due to land holding issues-there are farmers having farm lands inside the park and at the

marginal parts of the national park. The sizes of the farm lands of individual farmers are not

accurately registered and farmers mentioned as they were given the land by guess referencing

some natural barriers or features. So they are expanding it from year to year without any

demarcated boundary. The other point is that there is farmers deprived cultivation of their farm

lands without compensation. This land holding issues (agricultural land expansion and

expropriation without compensation are the major causes of conflict between the park and the

local communities.

Figure 6. The moso village on the marginal part of the park & Sekedereba farmland inside the park


2. The human induced fire is also the major threat of the park biodiversity as there is disappointment

of local communities as deprived from festuca extraction and there is a tar of cigarette, as there is

a main road crossing the park. There was an indicator that fire outbreak occurred a few months

and a year before with unknown reason at Godel and Dugidedalech sites of the national park

respectively.

3. The effect of tall festuca on Ethiopian wolf, the rotting of root of ‘wonde ‘festuca and the local

communities desire to extract festuca are also the major threats of biodiversity as it causes local

extinction of species and conflict between the park and the communities.

4. Encroachment by settlement is another serious threat of the national park biodiversity which is so

severe at Belechuma and Arer media that fragmented the new portion of the potential area in to

three fragments. So opening of the two corridors is the priority action of the concerned

stakeholders following the approaches mentioned on proclamation 96/2003 and 133/2006 of

ANRS, as almost all the residences of the two villages have enough farm land and as there is

opportunities to compensate the farmers from the reserve farm land outside the park.

FIGURE 7. Settlements at the two corridor areas (Arer media and Belechuma) and Sirejet

5. Lack of connectivity and buffer zone, shape of the park, livestock grazing, deforestation of the

old aged trees in the newly demarcated potential area of the park and the communal land around

the national park and environmental degradation around the national park are threats of the park

biodiversity.


Figure 8. Rapid Erica deforestation at the edge of kebele 05 of Legambo woreda and Erica fire wood at Belechuma

of saynt woreda

6. The economic problem (poverty) of the local communities and the higher number of roads across

the park are also threats of the park biodiversity.

7. Human wildlife conflicts are also the threats of biodiversity conservation of the national park that

requires further in-depth study.


5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In this unit, the objectives of the study, the methods used and the major findings of the study are

summarized and conclusions are given based on the findings of the study. Based on the data

analysis, the major findings of the study and the summary, the possible solutions to the problems

are recommended.

5.1. Summary and Conclusion

The objective of this study was to assess the status and sustainability of conservation and identify

the major threats of biodiversity conservation of borena saynt national park using descriptive

survey. The data required for the study were gathered using qualitative and quantitative methods.

The quantitative data were collected using questionnaire, where as the qualitative data were

collected from analysis of documents, questionnaire and target group discussion.

Based on the objectives of the study, the findings of the study are summarized as follows

1. Though the present conservation of the park biodiversity is relatively good, this

preservationist approach of protection leads to the park-communities conflict which is

difficult to conserve the biodiversity sustainably and bypass the resources for the coming

generation. Furthermore, there are severe biodiversity lose in the new portion of the park.

2. To attain the objective, the local communities should be benefited from the natural resource and

from tourism in various ways. The local communities of the park should be benefited from

the park natural resources especially that of festuca in the manner having no greater

impact on sustainability of the park biodiversity. Otherwise the complaints will be

transformed to severe threats of the biodiversity which are of difficult to reshape. But Dry

fire wood should not be extracted from the national park as it may be a threat of biodiversity.

3. Extraction of festuca every three years with proper management, and season (February to April)

is very important to create suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf, to benefit the local communities

and grazers of the national park and to sustain the festuca itself. This extraction of festuca also

reduces conflicts and improves the bond between the park and the local communities.

4. The objectives of the park is to conserve the park biodiversity, to bypass it as a heritage

for the coming generation and to benefit the local communities and the country‘s


economy as a whole in sustainable manner. The attainments of the intended objectives

are dependent on implementation of the short term plans especially of infrastructure

development and preparation of management plan document. So emphasis should be

given for the short term plans’ implementation as it is crucial for conserving the park and

benefiting the local communities in sustainable manner.

5. The regulation of the national park does not give any management options and rights for

the park managers and local communities, rather totally block any resource extraction

from the national park. So the regulation of the park needs amendments with some

flexibility that gives management options for the park manager and the local

communities.

6. Developing the management plans is an urgent priority for all the national park as it helps the

manager to identify natural and cultural resources, understand key threats to those resources, and

develop plans and strategies for long term protection. Integrating the park plan and development

with diverse sectors are very important for biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, and

for sustainability of the diverse sectors.

7. The major threats of the borena saynt national park are reflection of land degradation, poverty and

population growth. So the major threats of the national park are Conflicts due to land holding

ambiguities, the human induced fire, the effect of tall festuca, encroachment by settlement, lack

of connectivity and buffer zone, shape of the park, livestock grazing, deforestation, environmental

degradation around the national park, economic problem (poverty) of the local communities, and

Human wildlife conflicts .

From the findings of the study we conclude that there are chronic threats of biodiversity

conservation of the national park that requires immediate mitigative measures. There is also gap

between the needs of the local communities and the park regulation which requires ammendments

of the regulation of the park to develop a mutuallistic interaction.

5.2. RECOMMENDATION

To attain the protected area objectives and to develop a mutalistic interaction between the park and the

local communities i.e. to conserve and pass the biodiversity to the coming generation benefiting the

present generations, the following recommendations are suggested.

1. The local communities should be benefited from the national park by extraction of festuca, and

forage in a manner having low impact on sustainability of the park biodiversity, and ecotourism


revenue within a short period of time. Agricultural activities such as poultry, beekeeping, and

high land fruit cultivation, development of forage, plantation of fast growing fire wood trees,

establishing the nursery sites that produce these seedlings, introducing eco-sound income and

power generating schemes and production of gaussa on individual farm lands should be practiced

intensively as they are important mechanisms to supplement the communities’ livelihoods and to

reduce the population pressure on the biodiversity. Development of small scale irrigation in the

adjacent kebeles of the national park is also an important option to supplement livelihoods of the

area as there is no water scarcity.

2. The regional government should set strategic plans and polices that integrate the conservation of

the remnant natural resources with plans of all sectors from regional to local levels and set a

directives that help to integrate the park development plan with the plans of diverse sectors of the

adjacent woredas and kebeles. The regional government should identify the share duties and

responsibilities and give directives for the administration, EPLuB, and agriculture sectors from

regional to local levels, the CTPD, the park office and local communities.

3. Saynt and Legambo woreda administrations, environmental protection and land administration

and agriculture sectors should stop the very rapid agricultural land and settlement expansion and

use the opportunities of compensating the farm lands inside the potential area at Arer media and

on other adjacent kebeles as there are very sufficient reserve farm lands in such kebeles.

4. The culture tourism and park development bureau should implement the short term plans

mentioned in the supportive document of gazettment of the old portion of the park. The bureau

should also solve fragmentation of the corridors, finish demarcation of the new portion of the

park and merge the two portion of the park before a much more biodiversity lose.

5. For effective development and protection of the biodiversity museum i.e. Borena saynt national

park, all stakeholders Specially EWCA and CTPD of Amhara region should have strong

integration and search for solutions for threats rather than isolating oneself from the other. There

should be flow of information between the Authority and the Bureau regarding this park. The

Authority should also support the park in capacity building practices that enhance the

conservation and development of the park. The park office should also work with tight integration

among various stakeholders at different levels.

6. Festuca should be collected out with time interval of three years following a proper management

and season to create suitable habitat for Ethiopian wolf, to benefit the local communities and the

grazer wild animals, and to sustain the festuca itself


7. The higher institutes of the country should play role in improving the livelihoods of the local

communities using different eco-sound income generating technologies in order to reduce the

population pressure of the national park.


6. REFERENCES

1. Scherl, L.,M. A. Wilson, R. Wild, J. Blockhus, P. Franks, J. A. Mcneely And T. O. Mcshane,

2004. Can Protected Areas Contribute To Poverty Reduction?: Opportunities And Limitations

Iucn, Gland, Switzerland And Cambridge, Uk,

2. Ervin, J., N. Sekhran, A. Dinu, S. Gidda, M.Vergeichik and J. Mee, 2010. Protected Areas for

The 21st Century: Lessons from Undp/Gef’s Portfolio. United Nations Development Programme

and Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity.

3. Abrham Marye and Mulugeta Seid, 2011. Natural Attractions of Amhara Region. Culture And

Tourism Bureau

4. Abrham Marye, 2011.Major Natural Attractions of the Amhara Region. Culture And Tourism

Bureau

5. Lakew Berhanu, Fanuel Kebede and Gizachew Alamirew, 2007.Biodiversity Assessment of the

Proposed Denkoro-Chaka National Park. Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia.

6. Institute Of Biodiversity Conservation, 2005.National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

7. Sillero-Zubiri, C., and J. Marino, 2004. Ethiopian Wolf

8. Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support Team, 2008.Ethiopian Biodiversity and Tropical

Forest 118/119 Assessment. The United States Agency For International Development

9. Abate Ayalew, 2003. A floristic Composition and Structural Analysis of Denkoro Forest, South

Wollo. Addis Ababa University School Of Graduate Study ,June 2003

10. Naughton-Treves, L., M., B. Holland and K.Brandon, 2005. The Role of Protected Areas In

Conserving Biodiversity And Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Down Loaded From Arjournal,

Annual Reviews Org. By University Of California.

11. ሁሴን አዳል, 2003. የቦረና ሳይነት ብሄራዊ ፓርክ ጊዜያዊ ሁኔታ፤የፓርኩ ማህበረሰብ እዉቀቶች ቅሬታዎችና የእድገት

አቅጣጫ(ከ3ኛ ድግሪ ማሟያ ጥናታቸዉ የተወሰደ የመስክ ምልከታ ሪፖርት)

12. The Ethiopian Wildlife Development, Conservation and Utilization Council of Ministries

Regulation No. 163/2008. The 15th

Years No. 26. Addis Ababa, 22nd

May 2008.


13. The Ethiopian Wildlife Development and Conservation Authority Establishment Proclamation

No. 575/2008. The 14th Year

No. 31. Addis Ababa, 22nd

May 2008.

14. A Proclamation Issued To Provide For The Revised Rural Land Administration and Use Of The

Amhara National Regional State. Proclamation No. 133/2006, Bahirdar May 29 /2006

15. የቦረና ሳይነት ብሄራዊ ፓርክ ጽ/ቤት, 2002. የቦረና ሣይንት ብሄራዊ ፓርክ ጽ/ቤት አመታዊ ��. �� 2002‹

መካነሰላም

16. The Amhara National Regional State, 2009. Borena Saynt Park Demarcation and Administrative

Determination, Council of Regional Government Regulation: Regulation No 68/2009. Bahirdar

the 5 th

June 2009.

17. Borena Saynt National Park, 2011. A Leaflet Prepared By the Park Office. Mekaneselam.

18. የፓርኮች ልማትና ጥበቃ ባለስልጣን (Draft). የቦረና ሳይንት ፓርክን ክለላ በህግ ለመወሰን የቀረበ ደጋፊ ሰነድ. ባህርዳር.

19. Gtzner,M., M. Jungmeier And S. Lange, 2010. People, Park and Money Stakeholder

Involvement and Regional Development: A Manual for Protected Areas. The Alps- Adriatic –

University Of Klagenfurt.

20. �� , 2003. �� !"� #$%� &'

(��. )�� 2003 * ��+�

21. �� , 2003. -./� !0 1� �2'3� 4�� 5��!� 67�& �� 27

�8�)$� 9�: .�� !&;� 6�� <&=!� �5>9� .� 9�: $7� �8?� 6:�

&#�@A9 �5B�. �8$ 9��. 9� 2003.

22. �� C/E�, 2003. �� !:4� FG4.

8$H�� 17/2003 J� &6&� �� K� �K�- (��, 8/"'�

23. Proclamation 96/2003. The Amhara National Regional State parks development and protection

authority establishment proclamation. Bahirdar December 2003.

24. Minassie Gashaw, Anteneh Shimelis and Yilma Delelegne, 2006. Compendium of notes on

protected area management and utilization: prepared for PaDPA of Amhara region on protected

area management, protection and utilization training, May 15-29, 2006. Debark.


7. APPENDICES


7.1. APPENDIX I: LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The scouts and experts rating results of the threatening factors of biodiversity of Borena saynt

national park using Likert scale

no the severity of threatening factors of biodiversity of the park

VH H M L VL f % f % f % f % f %

1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire

28 77.8 4 11.1 2 5.7 2. 5.7

2 the park local communities conflicts due to land holding issues

16 44.4 14 38.9 4 11.1 2 5.7

3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass

6 16.7 14 38.9 10 27.8 6 16.7

4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management practices

21 60 8 22.9 4 11.4 2 5.7

5 grazing of livestock inside the park 10 28.6 8 22.9 8 22.9 6 16.7 3 8.6 6 encroachment by settlement 14 38.9 12 33.3 7 19.4 3 8.3

7 illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park 12 33.3 10 27.8 6 16.7 5 13.9 3 8.3

8 economical problems of the community as they are prohibited to extract guassa

18 50 11 30.5 4 11.1 2 5.6 1 2.8

9 crop damage by wild animals 9 25 14 38.9 9 25 1 2.8 3 8.3

10 predation of domestic animals by leopard

8 22.9 8 22.9 8 22.9 8 22.9 3 8.6

11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other native species

6 16.7 2 5.6 7 19.4 6 16.7 15 41.7

12 accumulation complaints due to measures taken on illegal festuca users 9 25 8 22.2 8 22.2 7 19.4 4 11.1

13 prohibition of entrance of honey bee hives and construction of seat of hives inside the park

5 14.3 7 20 7 20 9 25.7 7 20

14 the compliant of the local community due to lack of access of guassa for various local uses

25 69.4 4 11.1 4 11.1 2 5.6 1 2.8

15 existence of so many roads across the park that creates difficulty of patrolling

20 55.6 7 19.4 7 19.4 1 2.8 1 2.8

16 negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf

20 55.6 9 25 2 5.6 3 8.3 2 2.8

17

poor attention given by adjacent woreda administrators to solve the problems and to protect the biodiversity

9 25 15 41.7 6 16.7 4 11.1 2 2.8

18 deforestation of old aged trees and cultivation of the communal land around the park

8 22.2 9 25 9 25 4 11.1 6 16.7

19 illegal hunting 3 8.3 1 2.8 3 8.3 5 13.9 24 66.7


Table 2. The ranks given by scouts and experts of the park on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of

the park

s/n Possible threatening factors of biodiversity total value

No.Rs Average rank

1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire 119 35 3.40 2 2 the park local communities conflicts due to land holding

issues 117 36

3.25

1

3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass 278 35 7.942857 10 4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management practices 187 36 5.194444 3 5 grazing of livestock inside the park 282 35 8.057143 12 6 encroachment by settlement 247 35 7.057143 7 7 illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park 277 35 7.914286 9 8 economical problems of the community as they are

prohibited to extract guassa 220 36

6.111111

5

9 crop damage by wild animals 280 35 8 11 10 predation of domestic animals by leopard 327 35 9.342857 17 11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other native

species 370 36

10.27778

18

12 accumulation complaints due to measures taken on illegal festuca users

313 35 8.942857

16


290 35 8.285714

13


217 36 6.027778

4


259 36 7.194444

8

16 negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf 225 35 6.428571 6 17 poor attention given by adjacent woreda administrators to

solve the problems and to protect the biodiversity 309 36

8.583333

14


307 35 8.771429

15

19 illegal hunting 570 35 16.28571 19


Table 3. The ranks given by scouts and experts of the park on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of

the park

T the ranks of the possible threats and their Frequency of threats

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 total

value

rank

1 20 6 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 119 2

2 10 10 6 4 3 1 1 1 117 1

3 1 1 3 3 7 4 4 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 278 10

4 11 2 3 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 187 3

5 1 3 3 10 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 282 12

6 1 3 3 2 8 3 3 4 4 3 1 247 7

7 1 1 3 3 7 4 4 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 277 9

8 11 3 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 220 5

9 2 1 1 2 9 1 2 6 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 280 11

10 1 7 1 3 1 2 5 2 6 2 1 2 2 327 17

11 1 3 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 5 4 370 18

12 5 2 4 1 2 1 3 4 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 313 16

13 2 2 1 5 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 7 1 2 290 13

14 11 2 3 5 3 2 1 2 1 4 2 1 217 4

15 10 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 259 8

16 12 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 225 6

17 2 3 4 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 309 15

18 4 1 9 1 1 1 1 3 5 4 5 307 14

19 1 1 4 1 2 2 6 19 570 19


Table 4. The woreda park council members rating results of the threatening factors of biodiversity of Borena saynt national park using Likert scale

No the severity of threatening factors of biodiversity of the park

VH H M L VL f % f % f % f % f %

1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire

12 52.2 4 17.4 3 13 2 8.7 2 8.7

2 the park local communities conflicts

due to land holding issues 9 39.1 7 30.4 4 17.4 2 8.7 1 4.3

3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass

7 30.4 9 39.1 4 17.4 2 8.7 1 4.3

4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management practices

9 39.1 5 21.7 5 21.7 2 8.7

5 grazing of livestock inside the park 8 34.8 6 26.1 6 26.1 2 8.7 1 4.3 6 encroachment by settlement 6 26.1 8 34.8 4 17.4 2 8.7 1 4.3 7 illegal agricultural land expansion

inside and around the park 10 43.5 5 21.7 3 13 3 13 2 8.7


4 17.4 7 30.4 5 21.7 4 17.4 3 13

9 crop damage by wild animals 2 8.7 5 21.7 2 8.7 3 13 11 47.8 10 predation of domestic animals by

leopard 2 8.7 2 8.7 5 21.7 5 21.7 8 34.8

11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other native species

3 13 3 13 2 8.7 5 21.7 10 43.5


2 8.7 9 39.1 7 30.4 5 30.4


1 4.3 3 13 3 13 6 26.1 10 43.5


1 4.3 3 13 4 17.4 8 34.8 7 30.4


3 13 8 34.8 2 8.7 7 30.4 3 13


2 8.7 1 4.3 5 21.7 7 30.4 8 34.8

17 poor attention given by adjacent woreda administrators to solve the problems and to protect the biodiversity

4 17.4 7 30.4 5 21.7 6 26.1 1 4.3


5 21.7 3 13 2 8.7 5 21.7 8 34.8

19 illegal hunting - 3 13 2 8.7 6 26.1 12 52.2


Table 5. The ranks give by woreda park council members on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of the

park

s/n Possible threatening factors total value

No.Res Average rank

1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire 89 23 3.869565 3 2 the park local communities conflicts due to land

holding issues 56 23

2.434783

1

3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass 82 23 3.565217 2 4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management

practices 112 23

4.869565

5

5 grazing of livestock inside the park 113 23 4.913043 6 6 encroachment by settlement 122 23 5.304348 7 7 illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around

the park 90 23

3.913043

4


261 23 11.34783

15

9 crop damage by wild animals 241 23 10.47826 14 10 predation of domestic animals by leopard 261 23 11.34783 15 11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other

native species 296 23

12.86957

17


177 23 7.695652

13


335 23 14.56522

18


153 23 6.652174

10


132 23 5.73913

8


140 23 6.086957

9


171 23 7.434783

12


156 23 6.782609

11

19 illegal hunting 345 23 15 19


Table 6. The ranks give by woreda park council members on threatening factors affecting the biodiversity of the

park

T Frequency of threats total

value

Re-

rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 6 4 8 2 1 2 89 3

2 12 7 1 1 1 1 56 1

3 7 6 5 3 2 82 2

4 7 5 4 2 1 1 3 112 5

5 2 6 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 113 6

6 8 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 122 7

7 7 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 90 4

8 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 5 261 15

9 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 5 241 14

10 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 6 3 261 15

11 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 296 17

12 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 177 13

13 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 3 5 335 18

14 2 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 153 10

15 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 132 8

16 4 5 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 140 9

17 1 4 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 171 12

18 1 1 5 3 5 2 1 1 2 3 1 156 11

19 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 5 345 19


7.2. APPENDIX II: LIST OF INTERVIEW GUIDES

Target group discussion guides for woreda park council members, experts and scouts

Title: the status and sustainability of conservation and threats of biodiversity of Borena saynt national park

General Information

Target groups

Region Zone woreda Sex age Educ. level occupation

M F T <3o 31-40 >41 Dip Deg M Sc

1. What do you say about the current conservation and the sustainability of biodiversity

conservation of borena saynt national park?

2. What are the major threats of biodiversity of the park?

3. What is your opinion on the intention of peoples to extract resources such as dry fire wood,

grass and guassa from the park and about the improvement of the park regulation?

4. What are the major conflicts between the protected area and the community? State the

causes and solutions for the conflicts.

5. What do you say about the current participation of the woreda stakeholders on conserving

the biodiversity of the park?

6. What is your overall comment for sustainable and effective conservation of the

biodiversity?

7. What do you say about the possible threats, their causes and solutions for the threats?

8. What do you say about the problems and status of conservation of the newly demarcated area

of the national park?


-!�+-!�+-!�+-!�+ � � � � 6$5��6$5��6$5��6$5�� L3M�*�L3M�*�L3M�*�L3M�* -�&NOM��-�&NOM��-�&NOM��-�&NOM�� -$BPQ�-$BPQ�-$BPQ�-$BPQ� &LB�.P&LB�.P&LB�.P&LB�.P �/R��/R��/R��/R� P��P��P��P�� 8ST�8ST�8ST�8ST U��U��U��U��

�V$W�V$W�V$W�V$W----�� Y��Y��Y��Y�� U��U��U��U----��!��!��!��!� �9-;�9-;�9-;�9-; .�Z�.�Z�.�Z�.�Z� O[-�O[-�O[-�O[-� $@Q�$@Q�$@Q�$@Q�

6\;'�6\;'�6\;'�6\;'� 8�Z8�Z8�Z8�Z

�/R� 5!O]^

�� 1� !�+ _4 VR` ��/.�Z �$� a'bS�

! c R <3o 31-40 >41 Rh R) #"

1. 6F� �&P � �i ��U-��!� �9-; FG4� -9-;P j'kS� '� �� ''�F?

2. m�m�!^ � �i ��U��!� $@Q� �� nP?

3. $&��5"/ �.�: V�o�* �p�� #Pq� 7'2�� $& �i 85+.O �)

8TT� �� '[?

4. -"!c�� - �i 8BH� �LH"� m�m� )sQ� �� nP? �)sQ��

8ST� 87�� )&t.

5. �i� &8\-: -6Fv "J� �!�+ 6@� 6B'� VO.�w� O&P� 5��x V�.�

�A�t4� ?

6. &j'k� Pz4# ��U-��!� 9-; &#$>� 8.�) 6&-� ��[�� \:''

6$5O�� )&t?

7. - �i ��U��!� $@Q�{ -8�$|M}nP� -87��!� '� �� 6$5O��

6&�?

8. -6R� � �i �� P$9 $'&P ��!� �)�� $&9-;P FG4 ��

5'&�?


7.3. APPENDIX III: LIST OF QUESTIONNAIRES

-!�+-!�+-!�+-!�+ � � � � 6$5��6$5��6$5��6$5�� L3M��L3M��L3M��L3M�**** -�&NOM��-�&NOM��-�&NOM��-�&NOM�� -$BPQ�-$BPQ�-$BPQ�-$BPQ� �L�'�L�'�L�'�L�' �CF7�CF7�CF7�CF7 8\�:8\�:8\�:8\�:

�V$W�V$W�V$W�V$W----�� Y��Y��Y��Y�� 6F�6F�6F�6F� O&PO&PO&PO&P �9-;�9-;�9-;�9-; FG4*FG4*FG4*FG4* �9-;P�9-;P�9-;P�9-;P j'kS��j'kS��j'kS��j'kS��

��U��U��U��U----��!��!��!��!� $@Q�$@Q�$@Q�$@Q�

6\;'�6\;'�6\;'�6\;'� 8�Z8�Z8�Z8�Z

�CF7�CF7�CF7�CF7 8\�:8\�:8\�:8\�: 5\Ok!�5\Ok!�5\Ok!�5\Ok!� 6R�T6R�T6R�T6R�T

1. ቀበሌ______________________________ ወረዳ------------ ክልል _______________ ዞን ____________

2. ጾታ ---------------------------------------

3. እድሜ -----------------------------------------

4. የትምህርት ደረጃ----------------------------

5. ስራ-------------------------------------

88O88O88O88O*-H5� �9� 1V$H 13 '[� 9O�M� H5j�j�'nP 6#�s 8��8BH�

�L$##M�� U�� OjP� ?� 8�\P -8 -� 8�$ �$�! �CF7 8�$

&$>�@nP .)� )�C #�� **

1. አሁን ባለዉ የፓርኩ የብዝሀ-ህይወት የጥበቃ ሁኔታና በጥበቃዉ ዘላቂነት ላይ ምን ትላለህ? -----------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. በፓርኩ ሀብት አጠቃቀምና በብዝሀህይወት ጥበቃዉ ላይ ከህብረተሰቡ የሚቀርቡ ቅሬታወች ቀርበዉልወታልን? ሀ) አወ ለ)

የለም ከቀረቡ ከምን ጋር የተያዙ ናቸዉ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. አሁን ያለዉ የብዝሀ-ህይወት ጥበቃ ስልት ምን ያክል ዉጤታማ ነዉ ይላሉ?--------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------- በዚህ , ላይ አስተያየት ካለወት ያብራሩት.------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. የህብረተሰቡን ደረቅ እንጨት፡ ጓሳና ሳር የማዉጣት ፍላጎት በተመለከተ ምን ይላሉ? -----------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ስለፓርኩ መተዳደሪያ ህግ ምን ይላሉ?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ህጉ መሻሻል አለበት ካሉና ከላይ የተጠቀሱትም ሀብቶች መዉጣት አለባቸዉ ካሉ ሀብቶችን ማን ማዉጣት አለበት? ሀብቶችስ

እንደትና መቸ መዉጣት አለባቸዉ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5. አሁን ያለዉን አካባቢያዊ የመሬት ይዞታ ስርዓትና የፓርኩን የብዝሀ-ህይወት ጥበቃ እንደት ትገልጸዋለህ/ለሽ? ------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. በፓርኩ ዉስጥ መሬት ያላቸዉ አ/አደሮች ካሳ/ትክ ሳይሰጣቸዉ የእርሻ መሬታቸዉን በመነጠቃቸዉ እየደረሰባቸዉ ያለዉን

ችግር እንደት ይገልጹታል? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. በፓርኩና በፓርኩ አካባቢ ባሉት የህብረተሰብ ክፍሎች መካከል ግጭት አሉ ብለዉ ያምናሉ? a, አወ b, የለም ችግሮች አሉ

ካልህ በችግሮቹ ክብደት ቅደም ተከተል መሰረት ይግለጹ ------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. የእርስዎ ወረዳ በፓርኩ ዘላቂ የብዝሀ,-ህይወት ጥበቃ ላይ ስላላቸዉ ተሳትፎ ምን ይላሉ? ------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ስለሌሎች አጎራባች ወረዳወችስ ምን ይላሉ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. ፈጣን ማስተካከያ የሚፈልግ የስነምህዳር ለዉጥ በፓርኩ ዉስጥ ተከስጠቷል ይላሉ? a, አወ b, የለም አለ ካሉ , ይግለጹት-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. ስለፓርክ ጠቀሜታ በሚገባ ታዉቃለህ? A. አወ B. አላዉቃም. C. በከፊል አዉቃለሁ. አወ ካሉ ,በአጭሩ ይግለጹ-------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. በማህበረሰቡ ከፓርኩ ሀብት እንዳይጠቀሙ በመደረጋቸዉ የተነሳ ልዩነት ክፍተት ተፈጥሯል ትላለህን ? A. አወ B. የለም.

አለ ካሉ ያብራሩት.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ለችግሮችስ መፍትሄዉ ምንድን ነዉ ይላሉ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. ህብረተሰቡ በጥብቅ ስፍራዉ ፈርጀብዙ ጠቀሜታ ላይ ስላላቸዉ የግንዛቤ ደረጃ ምን ይላሉ? ---------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. ዘላቂና ዉጤታማ የብዝሀ-ህይወት ጥበቃ ለማስፈን መደረግ አለበት የምትሉትን ጠቅላላ አስተያየት ይግለጹ?------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


88O88O88O88O*-�LH5[�� H�� #!+.�O .�ZM� (-q�:5�":5� " 8BH&�"H75��

-q� H75�) 8"�� -#R�) & �i 6.@ �nP L�[� R��Q� �5j�j� $&?S

��)�� 6��S� 8"�� -#R�) H5j�j�� 6�$� 6#�s8�� 8BH� 6�w�

-8��9 &58�� U�� -5j@�&� �4 '� �� (√) OR��**

U. -q� H75� =1 ሐ. መካከለኛ =3 �. :5� =2

&. H75� =2 መ. -q� :5� =5

- �i �U-��!� '� V�5H"� O[ �9%� 6.@!� H�� -4� �5j�j� �?�

V�$M O$�S� .�ZnP� V�.� �8v4� ; ; ; ;

5.� - �i- �i- �i- �i �U�U�U�U----��!��!��!��!� '�'�'�'� V�5H"�V�5H"�V�5H"�V�5H"� O[O[O[O[ �9%��9%��9%��9%� 6.@!�6.@!�6.@!�6.@!� O$�S�O$�S�O$�S�O$�S� .�Z.�Z.�Z.�Z

1 2 3 4 5

1 �i &"P "�� V�� 6.@ 5@'s 8?v 2 - �i P$9 O[ �8�� 14 �)�� 87�� 6&#)�4nP 3 �A!9 �V�o�� 6\;K� 4 &�)�� #$5BHO �&8.�� 5S� �p� �� $� 8-$-$ 5 �E� V�$�� &)�� !. �i 8)�� 6 -.�� EQ� �i V�5A%� �� V�.�"-� 8?v 7 - �i P$9 O&P ��A!9 V�T 8$%%� 8 -p� 8H�H� �5S� -6B��P Sm '� V�.�" O&P

��LO�� #�-�� )��

9 -w� V�$�� O� V�5H"5 O&P �"�� PR8� 10 -S�� V�5H"5 O&P �E� V�$�� 8-'� 11 �6�+�R VCm� - �i P$9 -q� 8$%%�� 0��

#9%�

12 V��Z �L!"R�nP �A!�� LOK��5P :�4!� 13 � �i 6B�� Sm!� Kx� j+ �i P$9 V�+O$A/

8H�H'nP

14 � �i 6B�� Sm!� &5&O� 6A�)0�OP[� �S-�P� p� -8H�H'nP �LOK�/� :�4

15 �i� �LO�� -�B4 8�A � -8��nP �5S� &�A!�� ^ FG4 87\�� &�99� 6$n@ 8?v

16 H� -'� O.AP p� -K� K-� '� VO.�" O&P 5C¡� 17 6�+�R �!�+ 68�� i� ��U-��!� 9-; �)��

&874� �i�� 6&8$\�

18 - �i ¢O O[ VR` \A� 88�\�nP� !. V�T8&!qnP

19 �A!9 6.� �0�


SS]ÁSS]ÁSS]ÁSS]Á*-Ÿ²=I uታ‹ - �i- �i- �i- �i �U�U�U�U----��!��!��!��!� '�'�'�'� O[O[O[O[ �9%��9%��9%��9%� 6.@!�6.@!�6.@!�6.@!� ናቸዉ }wK¨<

¾}²[²\ƒ” U¡”Á„‹ "’uu< u`L uT>ÁdÉ\ƒ }ê°• Sc[ƒ òƒ Kòƒ u}cÖ¨<

¡õƒ xታ LÃ uÅ[Í ›ekUጡ::

Tdcu=ÁTdcu=ÁTdcu=ÁTdcu=Á*-Ÿõ}— }ê°• ¾T>ÁdÉ\ƒ U¡”Á„‹ ¾SËS]Á^” Å[ÍM� ( 1'2'3'...)

¾T>Ã²< c=J” ´p}— }ê°• ¾T>ÁdÉ\ƒ U¡”Á„‹ ÅÓV ¾SÚ[h‹” Å[Í-

‹(...18'19) ÃÃ³K<::

5.� - �i- �i- �i- �i �U�U�U�U----��!��!��!��!� '�'�'�'� V�5H"�V�5H"�V�5H"�V�5H"� O[O[O[O[ �9%��9%��9%��9%� 6.@!�6.@!�6.@!�6.@!� O$�S�O$�S�O$�S�O$�S� .�Z.�Z.�Z.�Z .�Z

1 �i &"P "�� V�� 6.@ 5@'s 8?v 2 - �i P$9 O[ �8�� 14 �)�� 87�� 6&#)�4nP 3 �A!9 �V�o�� 6\;K� 4 &�)�� #$5BHO �&8.�� 5S� �p� �� $� 8-$-$ 5 �E� V�$�� &)��!. �i 8)�� 6 -.�� EQ� �i V�5A%� �� V�.�"-� 8?v 7 - �i P$9 O&P ��A!9 V�T 8$%%� 8 -p� 8H�H� �5S� -6B��P Sm '� V�.�" O&P ��LO� �)� 9 -w� V�$�� V�5H"5 O&P �"�� PR8� 10 -S�� V�5H"5 O&P �E� V�$�� 8-'� 11 6�+�R VCm� - �i P$9 -q� 8$%%�� 0�� #9%� 12 V��Z �L!"R�nP �A!�� LOK��5P :�4!� 13 � �i 6B�� Sm!� Kx� j+ �i P$9 V�+O$A/ 8H�H'nP 14 � �i 6B�� Sm!� &5&O� 6A�)0�OP[� �S-�P� p� -8H�H'nP

�LOK�/� :�4

15 �i� �LO�� -�B4 8�A � -8��nP �5S� &�A!�� ^ FG4 87\�� &�99� 6$n@ 8?v

16 H� -'� O.AP p� -K� K-� '� VO.�" O&P 5C¡� 17 6�+�R �!�+ 68�� i� ��U-��!� 9-; �)�� &874�

�i�� 6&8$\�

18 - �i ¢O O[ VR` \A� 88�\�nP� !. V�T8&!qnP 19 �A!9 6.� �0�


Questionnaires for woreda park coordination council, experts, and scouts

Title: the status and threats of biodiversity conservation of Borena saynt national park

General Information

Location of Respondents

1. Name of the kebele_________________woreda------------ Region _______________ Zone

____________

2. Sex ---------------------------------------

3. age -----------------------------------------

4. Education level----------------------------

5. occupation-------------------------------------

1. What do you say about the current conservation and the sustainability of biodiversity of

borena saynt national park? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

2. Is there any Park community complaint on utilization and conservation of the biodiversity of

the park? a. yes b. no if say yes ,mention it -----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How do you mention the effectiveness of conservation of biodiversity in the park?---------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- if you have

comments, mention it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

4. What is your opinion on extraction of resources such as dry fire wood, grass and guassa from

the park?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. How do you express the situation of the tenure rights and the conservation of biodiversity of

the park? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. How do you express the extent of the problems of the farmers that expropriate their tenure rights

without compensation inside the park?-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Have you ever seen a conflict between the local community and the park? a, yes b, no if

there are conflicts, please mention them and list the problems according to their severity------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To what extent

does the problem threaten the biodiversity conservation? ----------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------

8. What do you say about participation of the woreda stakeholders in conservation of

biodiversity? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Do you have been observing any negative ecological change that needs immediate mitigative

measure? a, yes b, no if you say yes, please mention it---------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Do you have a clear understanding on the uses of park? A. Yes B. No. C. know partially

11. Do you believe that there is a gap between intention of the community and prohibition some

resources utilization? A. Yes B. No.

If your answer is yes, verify it. What are the possible solutions for the problems you mention? ------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. What do you say about awareness of the community about the various uses of the protected

area? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. What is your overall comment for sustainable and effective conservation of the biodiversity?-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Part II

Direction: the possible problems of the park are mentioned here under in order to be ranked based on their severity. So based on the likert rating scales (Very high, High, medium, Low, and Very low), put tick mark (√) on one of the Kive alternatives on the space provided for your choice.

a. V. high =1 c. Medium =3 e. Low =4 b. High =2 d. V. low =5

How do you rate the severity of the threatening factors of biodiversity of the park mentioned here under?

No the severity of threatening factors of biodiversity of the park

1 2 3 4 5

1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire 2 the park local communities conflicts due to land holding

issues

3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass 4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management

practices

5 grazing of livestock inside the park 6 encroachment by settlement 7 illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the

park


9 crop damage by wild animals 10 predation of domestic animals by leopard 11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other

native species





16 negative effect of the highly grown guassa on ethiopian wolf



19 illegal hunting others


Part III

DIRECTION: - After reading the following threatening factors of biodiversity, give rank according to their level of influence on the biodiversity conservation on the space provided in front of each statement.

NB. Those factors which have strong influence take the upper rank (1, 2, 3, ---) and those which have minimal influence should take the lower rank (19, 18, 17, ---). (To be filled by scouts, community scouts& the park office experts)

s/n Possible threatening factors rank 1 susceptibility of the park for human induced fire 2 the park local communities conflicts due to land holding issues 3 illegal resource utilizations such fire wood, and grass 4 the rotting of root guassa due to poor management practices 5 grazing of livestock inside the park 6 encroachment by settlement 7 illegal agricultural land expansion inside and around the park 8 economical problems of the community as they are prohibited to extract guassa 9 crop damage by wild animals 10 predation of domestic animals by leopard 11 auto-invasion of some of the ecosystem by some other native species 12 accumulation complaints due to measures taken on illegal festuca users 13 prohibition of entrance of honey bee hives and construction of seat of hives inside the

park

14 the compliant of the local community due to lack of access of guassa for various local uses 15 existence of so many roads across the park that creates difficulty of patrolling 16 negative effect of the highly grown guassa on Ethiopian wolf 17 poor attention given by adjacent woreda administrators to solve the problems and to

protect the biodiversity

18 deforestation of old aged trees and cultivation of the communal land around the park 19 illegal hunting others

Date post:	18-Aug-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	abebaw-abayneh
View:	110 times
Download:	13 times

Borena saynt national park biodiversity threat

Documents