Integrated Assessment of ecosystem services and stakeholder analysis of Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park, Ethiopia
Tafesse Kefyalew Estifanos
MSc Thesis in Environmental Sciences
April 2008
Supervisors: Dr. Rudolf S. De Groot Environmental systems Analysis group
Dr. Huib Hedgsdijk Plant Research International (PRI)
Integrated Assessment of ecosystem services and stakeholders analysis of Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park, Ethiopia
By
Tafesse Kefyalew Estifanos
MSc Thesis in Environmental Sciences
April 2008
“No part of this thesis may be reproduced without contacting the Environmental Systems Analysis Group”
1st Supervisor and Examiner: 2nd Examiner Dr. Rudolf S. De Groot Prof.dr.Rik Leemans Environmental systems Analysis group Environmental systems Analysis group Wageningen, UR Wageningen, UR P O Box 47 6700, AA Wageningen, P O Box 47 6700, AA Wageningen, The Netherlands The Netherlands Tel: +31-317-482247, Fax: -484839 Tel: +31-317-484812, Fax: -484839 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]
2nd Supervisor Advisor Dr.Ir. Huib Hedgsdijk Ir.P.C. Petra Spliethoff Plant research International (PRI) Wageningen International (WI) P O Box 6708, PD Wageningen P O Box 47 6700, AB Wageningen The Netherlands The Netherlands Tel: +31-317-480559 Tel: +31-317-495256, Fax: -495395 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
i
Preface
I have done my thesis on Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park in Ethiopia because of its biodiversity, particularly important for avifauna. The Park provides various socio-cultural, ecological and economic benefits to different stakeholders. However, these services have neither received much attention by most stakeholders nor are embedded in the management of the Park. Therefore, illegal human activities and overexploitation of the Parks’ natural resources have led to large scale environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity.
An integrated assessment of the Park functions and services contributes to the identification of their benefits to different stakeholders. In addition, management of the Park is complicated because of the conflicting interests of different stakeholders. Therefore, analysis of the interests of different stakeholders could help to identify synergies and initiate a conservation platform of stakeholders with joined interests possibly resulting in payment for environmental (ecosystem) services schemes and sustainable utilization of natural resources. Thus this thesis could contribute to the conservation and management of the Park by analyzing the services to stakeholders.
For realization of my thesis different people helped me. But first and for most I thank the almighty God for giving me this chance, enthusiasm and strength to start and finalize this thesis. Next, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors: Dr. Rudolf S. de Groot, Dr.ir Huib Hengsdijk, and Ir Petra Spliethoff for guidance, continuous follow up and giving critical and constructive comments in the entire process of the thesis. This thesis would not have this shape without continuous constructive comments of the advisors.
I thank Ato Rezennom Almaw, Conservation and anti-poaching head of the Park, for his assistance in the field and providing me information. I am thankful to the Horn of Africa Regional Environmental Centre/Network and the project ‘Ecosystems for water, food, and economic development in the Central Rift Valley’ for financial support. I thank Dr. Satishkumar Belliethathan and Mr. Bart Jan van Beuzekom from Horn of Africa Regional Environmental Centre/Network for their kind cooperation and facilitating of the budget. In addition, my grateful extends to Ethiopian Wildlife Association and members, Dr. Yirmed Demeke, Ato Kassaye, Ato Dereje W/Yohannes, W/o Muluwork and Ato Mengistu Wondafrash for facilitating and administering my budget. I am thankful to the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Department of Applied Biology from Hawassa University, for assisting me in administration issues and transport facilities for my study.
I would like to mention our great time that I and Mr Mengistu Assefa had in our field work and sharing the same room. I thank him for his friendly, politeness and dedicated friend of mine who helped me a lot. My thanks extend to those individuals and organizations that supported me directly or indirectly in the field work.
Last but not least, I like to address my deepest acknowledgment to my lovely Dad (Kefyalew Estifanos) and Mom (Belayinesh Temesgen) for raising me to this stage and supported me to pursue my study.
ii
Table of Contents Pages
Preface ................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents................................................................................................................ ii Summary..............................................................................................................................v 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem statement......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Research objective ........................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Research questions........................................................................................................ 3 1.5 Structure of the report ................................................................................................... 3 2. Description of the study area ...........................................................................................5 2.1 Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park .............................................................................. 5 2.2 Arsi Negelle Woreda..................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda .......................................................................... 7 2.4 Population characteristics ............................................................................................. 8 2.5 Water resources............................................................................................................. 9
2.5.1 Lakes, rivers and hot springs ............................................................................. 9 2.5.2 The wetlands ...................................................................................................... 9
3. Methodology and literature review................................................................................10 3.1 Conceptual framework used in the study.................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Typology of ecosystem functions and services ............................................... 11 3.1.2 Ecosystem services typology used in this study .............................................. 15 3.1.3 Stakeholder Analysis ....................................................................................... 17
3.2 Sampling procedure .................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Data collection methods.............................................................................................. 19 3.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 21 4. Identification of the different landscape units ...............................................................22 4.1 Acacia woodland......................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Abijata and Shalla Lakes ............................................................................................ 23 4.3 Shalla hot springs........................................................................................................ 24 4.4 Homestead................................................................................................................... 25 4.5 Farmland ..................................................................................................................... 26 4.6 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 26 4.7 Fallow land.................................................................................................................. 27 4.8 Shalla Islands .............................................................................................................. 28 4.9 Rivers and streams ...................................................................................................... 28 4.10 Riverine forest........................................................................................................... 28 5. Identification of ecosystem services..............................................................................29 5.1 Provisioning services .................................................................................................. 30
5.1.1 Food ................................................................................................................. 30 5.1.2 Fresh water....................................................................................................... 33 5.1.3 Raw materials................................................................................................... 34 5.1.4 Medicinal Resources........................................................................................ 45
5.2 Regulating services ..................................................................................................... 47 5.2.1 Climate regulation............................................................................................ 47
iii
5.2.2 Water regulation............................................................................................... 48 5.2.3 Erosion control................................................................................................. 49
5.3 Supporting services..................................................................................................... 51 5.3.1 Nursery............................................................................................................. 51 5.3.2 Refugium.......................................................................................................... 51
5.4 Cultural services.......................................................................................................... 56 5.4.1 Recreation and ecotourism............................................................................... 56 5.4.2 Spiritual............................................................................................................ 58 5.4.3 Research and Education................................................................................... 59
6. Stakeholders identification and description...................................................................60 6.1 Identification of the different stakeholders ................................................................. 60 6.2 Description of the main Stakeholders ......................................................................... 60
6.2.1 Stakeholders at local level ............................................................................... 60 6.2.2 Stakeholders at regional level .......................................................................... 65 6.2.3 Stakeholders at the national level .................................................................... 66 6.2.4 Stakeholders at super national and global level ............................................... 69
7. Importance of ecosystem services based on local people’s perception .........................71 7.1 PDM exercise on importance of ecosystem services..................................................71
7.1.1 Scores of provisioning services in relation to landscape units ........................ 72 7.1.2 Overall importance of landscapes in all provisioning services........................ 79 7.1.3 Scores of cultural services in relation to landscape units ................................ 81 7.1.4 Overall importance of landscapes for cultural services ................................... 83
7.2 Comparison of results of household survey and PDM exercises................................ 85 7.3 Perceptions of local people on regulating and supporting services ............................ 86 8. Potential use of selected ecosystem services .................................................................87 8.1 General description of selected services ..................................................................... 87
8.1.1 Presence of attractions of the Park................................................................... 87 8.1.2 Unique landscape features of the Park............................................................. 88 8.1.3 Tourism development ...................................................................................... 90 8.1.4 Water use ......................................................................................................... 90
8.2 Potential use of the services........................................................................................ 91 9. Stakeholders use of and impact on selected ecosystem services...................................92 9.1 Analysis on uses and impacts of stakeholders on ecosystem services........................ 94 9.2 Conflict and synergy regarding use of ecosystem services ...................................... 101 10. Discussion..................................................................................................................103 10.1 Discussion on methodology.................................................................................... 103 10.2 Discussion of results ............................................................................................... 104
10.2.1 Landscape identification .............................................................................. 104 10.2.2 Ecosystem services assessment.................................................................... 104 10.2.3 Stakeholders use of and impact on ecosystem services ............................... 105
11. Conclusions and recommendations ...........................................................................106 11.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 106 11.2 Recommendations................................................................................................... 109 References........................................................................................................................111 Appendices.......................................................................................................................115 Appendix 1: List of abbreviations and acronyms ............................................................115
iv
Appendix 2: List of figures..............................................................................................116 Appendix 3: List of tables................................................................................................118 Appendix 4: Questionnaires.............................................................................................119 Appendix 5: Pebbles Distribution Method ..................................................................... 137 Appendix 6: Landscape and ecosystem services field observation checklist ................. 143 Appendix 7: Traditional medicinal plants identified in ASLNP .................................... 144 Appendix 8: List of Phytoplankton in Lakes: Shalla, Abijata and Chitu........................ 145 Appendix 9: General characteristics and uses of tree species in ASLNP....................... 146 Appendix 10: Records of selected birds species in ASLNP from 1970-1996................ 147 Appendix 11: Annual saline water use and product quantity by Soda Ash Factory....... 148 Appendix 12: Pictures showing charcoal and fuel wood use from ASLNP................... 149 Appendix 13: Pictures of livestock grazing inside ASLNP............................................ 150
v
Summary
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park is one of the nine national Parks in Ethiopia which is established for protection of aquatic birds that use Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla. Poverty, illegal settlements and agriculture practices, lack of enforcement and rapid intensification of upstream agricultural activities led to overexploitation of water resources and threatening of biodiversity in the Park. Further increase in land and water resource use will further endanger the potential and existing Park functions. Hence an integrated assessment of the Park services is important.
The aim of this thesis was to assess the use and importance of the Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park by analyzing its functions and associated services, and by investigating the stakeholders’ interaction in the use of the Park. In order to realize this, the following research questions were formulated: (1) What are the different landscape units of the Park? (2) What are the main ecosystem services provided by the Park? (3) Which ecosystem services are most important according to the local people? (4) What is the potential use of selected main services of the Park? (5) Who are the main stakeholders and how do they interact in the use of and impact on selected ecosystem services?
Field observations, household surveys, tourist surveys, Pebbles Distribution Method through community meetings, interviews and secondary information were used as data sources. Six kebeles (villages) were selected as study sites. The six kebeles were grouped into three types, i.e. three kebeles were located inside the Park boundary, two kebeles were located at the border of the Park in which some households are located inside the Park and some are outside the Park boundary (named as ‘inside/outside’), and one kebele was located outside the Park boundary. In total 164 households were randomly selected from these kebeles to analyze their use of the Park ecosystem services. In addition, 46 tourists were surveyed and 4 community meetings were held in groups of 8 people in 4 kebeles for applying the Pebbles distribution method.
The study found out that the Park area consists of ten different landscape units, i.e. acacia woodland (both natural and mixed woodland), the Lakes Abijata and Shalla, Shalla hot springs, homestead, farmland, fallow land, wetlands, Shalla Islands, Rivers Bulbula and Hora Qello and the Riverine forests.
These landscape units provide many different services to stakeholders:
a) Provisioning services: These provide an important means of livelihood to the local people. They comprise of food (crops, wild fruits, small quantities of fish), fresh water, raw materials (construction wood, wood for agricultural tools and household furniture making, thatching grass, charcoal wood, fuel wood and animal fodder) and medicinal resources (medicinal plants, Shalla hot springs and the Lakes). Water of the Lakes Abijata and Shalla are believed by the local people to be important to cure parasitic fungi infections (dermatophytes), to act as anti dandruff and to cure scalp disease (Tinea capitis).
vi
The study also showed that households mainly from kebeles inside the Park and inside/outside the Park are the major users of the Park services. There is no significant difference in the use of most Park services by the households from kebeles inside and inside/outside the Park, i.e. food, freshwater and raw materials are the major services for these households. About 96 and 94% of the households from kebeles inside the Park have arable land and use grazing land from the Park, respectively. About 91% of the households from kebeles inside/outside the Park have arable land and use grazing land from the Park. In addition, 92 and 91% of the households from kebeles inside and inside/outside the Park use freshwater from the Park, respectively. However, more households from kebeles inside/outside the Park (about 91%) are producers of charcoal as compared to 77% of households from kebeles inside the Park. This is due to their location to the nearby main road for selling while they remain out of sight of the Park management.
Generally, households from kebeles outside the Park use less provisioning services. The most important in decreasing order of use are fresh water (73%), medicinal resources (43%), followed by fuel wood collection (37%).
b) Regulation services: These include climate (microclimate) regulation, water regulation, and erosion control. These Park ecosystem services are interlinked with ecosystems adjacent to the Park. Erosion control is an important function of the acacia trees in the Park. Especially the dominant Acacia tortilis, named “sand stabilizer”, is locally well-known for its capacity to protect the soil and reduce erosion.
c) Supporting services: These include refugium and nursery services. There are 436 bird species of which 114 and 282 wetland and terrestrial birds, respectively. So far a total of 76 mammal species are recorded in the Park of which 6 endemic mammal species. Lake Abijata serves as major feeding site and Lake Shalla as nesting site for wetland birds including Great White Pelicans.
d) Cultural services: These services include recreation and ecotourism, spiritual, research and education services. The number of tourists’ visiting the Park increased from 3552 to 8990 persons in the period 1999/2000 to 2006/2007. At the same time, revenues from the Park increased from 81800 to 236968 Ethiopian Birr. The Park also serves as an important place for (inter)national researchers and students, e.g. about 1950 students visited the Park for educational purposes in 2006/2007. The Park does not provide spiritual (religious) services currently. However, in the past there was spiritual belief and veneration with respect to the woodland and Lake Shalla.
The most important services according to the perception of local people Hundred Pebbles were distributed to indicate the relative importance of Ecosystem services. Food from farmland is the most important service, which received on average 73 Pebbles according to the local people (from kebeles inside, inside/outside and outside the Park). According to all local people, fresh water from hot springs is the most important service (received 73 pebbles) which is used for livestock drinking (watering), washing cloths and bathing. Raw materials such as wood products, energy sources and animal fodder from the acacia woodland are the most important services where they received on average 90, 93 and 50 pebbles, respectively according to the local people.
vii
Medicinal resources from hot springs and woodland are the most important services, which received scores of 43 and 50 pebbles according to the PDM exercise by the local people from kebeles inside and inside/outside the Park, respectively. However, medicinal resources from hot springs and woodland received equal number of Pebbles (about 30) and are equally most important for local people from kebeles outside the Park. Potential use of ecosystems services The Park has the potential for more recreation and ecotourism services, however little has been undertaken to further exploit this service.
Stakeholders involved in the use and impact on ecosystem services There are various stakeholders with at least partly conflicting interests in the Park. About 30 stakeholders are identified from the local to the global level, i.e. 13 local stakeholders, 11 national stakeholders, 1 super national and 2 global stakeholders. The stakeholders’ use of and impact on selected ecosystem services was analyzed. A matrix was developed that included the selected ecosystem services and the list of stakeholders in which their use of and their impact on the services is determined. Based on the matrix, stakeholders are grouped into 1l categories. All local stakeholders who depend strongly on the services for livelihood have a negative impact on the ecosystem services, such as fresh water, fuel wood, charcoal wood and refugium services leading to conflicts with the Park administration. For example, local people use the woodland for fuel wood and charcoal wood but the Park administration needs to protect the acacia woodland for biodiversity conservation.
The following main recommendations are made based on the results of this study.
� Taking into account the current living standards of the local population, the local government should work with national government and NGOs to improve the socioeconomic conditions by providing better water supply, health centres, and alternative means of income.
� Despite the current dependency of the local population (inside and inside/outside the Park) on the natural resources of the Park, they are rapidly degrading their own livelihood base. Therefore, conservation awareness by the Park management and Woreda ARD offices should be raised and ownership by the local population should be developed.
� Any management plan for the ASLNP should take into account the interests of the local population inside as well as outside the Park as both groups use its resources.
� Part of the income generated by the Park should be used to improve the livelihood of the local community and to improve the capability of Park management.
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The Central Rift Valley (CRV) in Ethiopia has an area of about 13,000km2 and encompasses four lakes: Ziway, Langano Abijata and Shalla (Hengsdsdijk and Jansen, 2006) within the Ziway Shalla basin. The two Central Rift Valley lakes, Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla are separated by three kilometers of hilly land, and together form Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park (ASLNP). The Park is established mainly for conservation of spectacular number of water birds, which use Lake Abijata for feeding and Lake Shalla as nesting site (Tefera and Almaw, 2002). In addition, varieties of mammals, the Hot Springs and beautiful scenery of the Lakes has been part of the protected area (Deffar, 1998). The Park (Lake Abijata) has been submitted as a candidate site by Ethiopian government to the Ramsar Convention on wetlands (EWCO, 1989). Nevertheless, the Park has no legal boundary but functioning with proposed National Park boundary (UNESCO, 2004) .
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park is one of the most well-known tourist attraction sites of the country. It is famous for its high diversity of water birds. Large numbers of Flamingos gather in the Park, together with Great White Pelicans and a wide variety of other water birds (Legesse et al., 2005). According to some estimates, the Park provides temporary or permanent home to over 400 bird species, which amounts to almost half the number recorded for the whole country1. It is because of its geographical position that the Park provides wintering and maintenance station for such a large number of terrestrial and aquatic birds, which include Southern African, Sub-Saharan and Palaearctic species (Legesse et al., 2005). The neighboring Island of Lake Shalla is one of the few nesting sites of Pelicans found in Africa (UNESCO, 2004). Apparently the number of these birds is decreasing because of decreasing the fish at Lake Abijata affected by Soda Ash factory, which is situated at the shore. The lake water is polluted causing loss of algae on which fish feeds. As a result, the Pelicans that feed on the fish migrated (UNESCO, 2004).
The Park has high significance to biodiversity. Therefore in order to conserve the population of rare, endangered wildlife and bird species as well as their habitats and life support systems, attention has given for improving the management of ASLNP (Deffar, 1998). Furthermore, the woodland in the Park needed great effort of conservation to the existence of the Park biodiversity. Therefore, recognition of ecosystem services provided by the Park to human well-being is important issue to consider. An assessment of the conditions of ecosystems, the provision of services, and their relation to human well-being requires an integrated approach (MEA, 2005b). This will help in conservation and management of the Park ecosystem and its associated services.
Thus, to better understand the dependence of human livelihood and other stakeholders on ecosystem services, this thesis made an integrated assessment of the ecosystem services
1 http://www.ethiopiatravel.com/Abijatta%20Shalla%20Park.htm
2
of Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park (ASLNP), one of the nine National Parks in Ethiopia.
Project context
This thesis is financially supported by the Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre/Network (HoA-REC/N) and the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture Nature and Food Quality through one of its policy supporting projects: “Ecosystems for water, food and economic development in the CRV” led by Plant Research International (PRI) at Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR). HoA REC/N program is an initiative of the Science Faculty of the Addis Ababa University to bring together academia and practitioners, both from NGOS and CBOs aimed at improving environmental governance in the Horn of Africa Region. This program aims to turn the tide of environmental degradation and to ensure sustainability of livelihoods in the Horn of Africa Region, encompassing Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya Somalia and Sudan. The Central Rift Valley in Ethiopia is one of the case study areas of the HoA REC/N program.
The aim of the project “Ecosystems for food, water and economic development in CRV, Ethiopia” is to strengthen local authorities, development organizations and private sector in the field of sustainable land and water use, and sound environmental planning and management with the aim to contribute to the sustainable development of the CRV of Ethiopia. This study contributes to environmental planning and promotion of sustainable development in the CRV.
1.2 Problem statement
Inadequate conservation and unsustainable use of natural resources led to environmental degradation of the CRV, particularly the ASLNP. The area is degrading fast due to several developments. Many problems resulted from decades of uncontrolled and intensive use of natural resources, which was driven by widespread poverty. Human population growth, increased settlements, conversion of natural vegetation into agricultural land, deforestation (including the use of acacia woodland for charcoal and fuel wood), overgrazing of range lands (both wetlands and grasslands of the Park) are the main causes of degradation. Further development of the upstream development activities also put negative impact on the Park. Management of the Park is limited as a result of which it is degrading and increasingly conflicts occur between people and wildlife for grazing land and water resources. Just as in Awash and Nechsar National Parks, encroachment and settlement forced many wildlife species out of the Park due to poaching and increased competition for forage (Hillman, 1991; Jacobes and Schloeder, 2001).
Degradation negatively affects water quantity and quality, soil fertility, and biodiversity. The water level of the lakes has already decreased. The shore of Lake Abijata has retreated five to six km in dry seasons (Hengsdijk and Jansen, 2006). The land resources are clearly overgrazed by abundant livestock population, productivity of the rain fed
3
agriculture in the area is extremely low, biodiversity is under pressure and the soil remains fragile and exposed to erosion. This ecosystem destruction affects the different ecological processes and components of ASLNP.
1.3 Research objective
The aim of this thesis is to assess the use and importance of the Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park (ASLNP) by analyzing the ecosystem functions and services, and investigating the stakeholders’ interaction in the use of the Park by performing an integrated environment assessment. This thesis specifically aims at:
• Generating information about the ecosystem functions and services in terms of the benefits the ecosystem provides to humans.
• Identifying services provided by the Park for economic valuation to develop possibilities for payments of ecosystem services for conservation and sustainable management.
• Identifying the main stakeholders and analyze their relationships with the use and management of the Park.
• Raising awareness of the different stakeholders on the importance of ecosystem services to contribute to the sustainable use of resources in the Park
1.4 Research questions
The following research questions were formulated in order to reach the objectives:
1. What are the different landscape units found in ASLNP? 2. What are the existing main ecosystem services provided by ASLNP? 3. Which ecosystem services provided by ASLNP are most important according to the
perception of the local people? 4. What is the maximum potential use of selected main services? 5. Who are the main stakeholders involved in the use and management ASLNP? 6. How the main stakeholders interact in the use of and impact on selected services of
ASLNP?
1.5 Structure of the report
The report has 11 separate chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and describes its objectives. Chapter 2 describes the study area. In Chapter 3 a literature review, the methodology, the theoretical framework and the different typology approaches of the ecosystem services are described.
Chapter 4 identifies and describes the different landscape units of the study area. In Chapter 5, ecosystem functions and services of the Park are identified and assessed based on the stakeholders use. Identification and description of the main stakeholders is made in chapter 6. In Chapter 7 identification of the Park functions and services based on the importance to stakeholders are assessed in more detail.
4
Chapter 8 assesses briefly the potential use of selected ecosystem services. Analysis and interaction of stakeholders’ use of and impacts on for selected ecosystem services is made in chapter 9.
Chapter 10 presents the discussion. Finally, conclusions and recommendations based on the main findings of the study are pointed out in Chapter 11.
5
2. Description of the study area
2.1 Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park
The Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park established in 1970 has surface area of 887 km2, of which 482 km2 is covered by Lakes Abijata and Shalla. The Park is located within the Ziway-Shalla Basin, part of Ethiopia Rift Valley within altitude of 1540-2075 m.a.s.l. It is 200 km from Addis Ababa located within the Oromiya regional state. The area is characterized by a semi arid to sub-humid type of climate with mean annual precipitation and mean annual temperature of 600 mm and 250c close to the lakes, respectively (Legesse et al., 2002). The dominant vegetation is open Acacia woodland, which is extensively overgrazed and deforested because of encroachment. Major part of ASLNP is in three Woredas2 (Districts) i.e. Arsi Negelle, Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha (ATJK) and Shalla (previously Siraro) Woreda. The former two Woredas that lie within and/or adjacent to the boundaries of the ASLNP are used for this study. Both adjacent Woredas lie along the main road of Addis Ababa to Shashemene-Awassa. Therefore for this study six kebeles3 are used; five from Arsi Negelle Woreda i.e. Hadha Bosso, Galeef Qello, Shalla Billa, Gubata Arjo, Daka Dallu Haren Gama (DDHG) and Gubata Arijo and from ATJK Woreda, 1 kebele i.e. Desta Abijata kebele.
2 Woreda is administrative unit equivalent to District 3 Kebele is the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopian administrative hierarchy which is equivalent to peasant associations
6
Legend: Study Kebeles (numbered)
1 Galeef Qello 5 Gubata Arijo 2 Shalla Billa 6 Hadha Bosso 3 Desta Abijata Lakes 4 Daka Dallu Haran Gama Park Boundary
Figure 1: Map of Proposed Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park and location of study kebeles/sites
7
2.2 Arsi Negelle Woreda
Location
Arsi Negelle Woreda is found 7009”-7041” North and 38025”-38034’’ east in West Arsi zone in Oromiya state. The Woreda is 226 km from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and the Woreda administration is 19 km from ASLNP head quarter office.
Topography
The study area encompasses part of the Park which, is undulating from near small town of Dole, highly encroached and crowded with settlements. The acacia woodland is almost degraded; flat land along Addis Ababa- Shashemene highway, the lowland is hilly rocks including the crop out rocks near Shalla Lake and hot springs. Lake Abijata and its rugged catchments are found to the north in the down hill of the head quarter of ASLNP.
Climate
Conventionally, Arsi Negelle Woreda grouped Kebeles in to three climatic zones based on altitude. These are low, mid and high altitude ranging from 1500- 3070 m.a.s.l. The area is moisture stressed with minimal erratic rainfall. The annual rainfall (RF) range is 500-1150mm. It has bimodal rainfall pattern with a short rainy season (“belg”) from March to May and the main rainy season (“kiremit”) from late June - September. The dry season (“bonna”) in the area is mostly from October to February. The dry season limits water availability of the study area. The annual temperature varies within range of 160C-250C.
Vegetation and fauna
The study site is mainly covered by acacia woodland. In addition, euphorbia woodland, riverine vegetation, bush land, shrub and herbaceous species (including grasslands) are the vegetation types in the study area. The dominant acacia tree species are: Acacia tortilis, Acacia Senegal, Acacia seyal, and Acacia gerrardii. Refer Table 9 in Chapter 5 for more tree species in the Park.
In addition, the area is an important habitat for wildlife (some mammals and endemic birds) which makes it a potential area for tourism and major conservation area of biodiversity. Mammal species in the area include Grants Gazelle, Jackals, Oribi, Warthog, and others. But the majority of the mammal species have been reduced or eliminated because of habitat disturbance and severe competition with livestock for forage.
2.3 Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda
Location
Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha (ATJK) Woreda lies between 7035”–8005” north and 38020”-38055” east in the northern part of the Rift Valley. It is bordered to the North by
8
Dugda Bora Woreda, in the west by Southern Nations Nationalities Peoples Region (SNNPR), Arsi Negelle to the south and Arsi zone to the East. Ziway is the capital of the Woreda, which are 160 km from Addis Ababa and 40 km from ASLNP.
Topography
The area is characterized by plain and flat lands of volcanic origin with small mountains, hills and gorges extending from the most northern part of Central Rift Valley. The altitude ranges from 1500-2300 m.a.s.l.
Climate
Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda has semi arid and arid agro-climate zones. The Woreda receives an average annual rainfall of 760 mm. The mean monthly temperature varies from 18.50C to 21.60C with mean annual temperature of 200C.
Vegetation and fauna
The vegetation characteristic of the area is categorized as tropical savannah dominated with acacia species, Balanties, Croton, shrub and bushes. Acacia trees are dominant and important means of livelihood for the local people. The fauna of the Woreda is not exhaustively recorded yet but from the literatures and personal communication during household and field survey some wild animals are mentioned. These include: Hippopotamus, Bush Buck, Warthog, Hyena, Rabbit, Monkey, and Ape. Great White Pelicans, Flamingos, Ostrich, Ducks, and many other birds are among the avifauna.
2.4 Population characteristics
The area designated as Park is occupied by Oromos4 coming from Arsi, part of Oromiya Regional state. The people have the same culture, identity, and common traditional system which govern their society. The dominant religion is Islam. Administratively, the population is divided in to smaller administrative units called Kebeles (table 1).
Table 1: Population characteristics and area cover of Woredas
Woreda No. of kebeles
No. of kebeles in/adjacent to ASLNP
Population Total area (ha)
Arsi Negelle 47 8 259, 401 164,587 ATJK 38 3 141,745 I40,330 Source: Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development offices (2003, 2007)
4 The Oromo’s are the largest an indigenous African ethnic group found in Ethiopia and to a lesser extent in Kenya . They are the largest single ethnic group in Ethiopia, at 32.1% of the population according to the 1994 census, and today numbering around 25 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oromo).
9
2.5 Water resources
2.5.1 Lakes, rivers and hot springs
The study area includes two lakes and numerous hot springs and associated rivers around the catchments. The lakes are: Lake Shalla and Lake Abijata. The two rivers; Bulbula and Hora Qello are both flowing into Lake Abijata from Lake Ziway and Lake Langano respectively. Jido and Dedeba Rivers are also providing inflow to Lake Shalla.
Lake Abijata has been experiencing significant changes in its chemistry (Zinabu et al., 2002)) and also in its level. The abstraction of water for development activities has negative consequences. In recent development schemes, such as pumping of water from the lake for soda extraction and the utilization of water from feeder rivers and the upstream Lake Ziway for irrigation, has resulted in rapid shrinkage of Lake Abijata (Zinabu and Elias, 1989, Legesse et al., 2004). There is also an increase in siltation coming from rivers even though most are deposited at the base of the upstream lakes (Ziway and Langano). Apart from anthropogenic impacts, natural processes such as climatic change and neo-tectonics might have affected the hydrogeology of the rift (Legesse and Ayenew, 2006).
Table 2: Physical characteristics of Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla
Lakes Surface temperature (0C)
Elevation (m.a.s.l)
Maximum depth (m)
Mean depth (m)
Volume
(106 m3)
Surface area (km2)
Catchment area (km2)
Abijata 27 1580 14.2 7.6 1600 176 9625 Shalla 25 1570 266 86 3700 329 2300 Adapted from (Kebede and Willén, 1996, Ayenew, 2002, Legesse et al., 2002)
Table 3: Chemical characteristics of Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla
Lakes Salinity (gl-1) Alkalinity mgl-1) Conductivity (K25) Abijata 26.4 325 28130
Shalla 18 218 21840 Adapted from (Kebede and Willén, 1996, Ayenew, 2002, Legesse et al., 2002)
2.5.2 The wetlands
The Abijata Shalla wetlands are part of Great Rift Valley wetlands within the Somali-Masai biome wetland system. The wetlands are located within the Park which are protected within ASLNP boundary but greatly threatened by anthropogenic activities. The wetlands of ASLNP are found associated with Abijata and Shalla Lakes. These wetlands have been considered as important site for socioeconomic activity by the residents but the conservation classes look them as an important site for biodiversity. Efforts have been made to include the wetlands as Ramsar sites. They are known by presence unique avifauna and are important touristy sites especially for Flamingos and Pelicans feeding in the Lakes.
10
3. Methodology and literature review
3.1 Conceptual framework used in the study
Identification of the different ecosystem services and associated functions is done on the basis of an Integrated Environmental Assessment method. The analysis of ecosystem functions and services is developed through the work of various Authors. There are different frameworks developed at different times for the assessment of ecosystem services provided by biodiversity. These includes the framework by (Daily, 1997, Daily, 2001, De Groot et al., 2002, MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b).
Here in this thesis, an integrated assessment of ecosystem services was made based on the integrated assessment frame work developed by De Groot et al (2002). This framework is used as it clearly depicts the ecosystem processes and components translated into the respective ecosystem goods and services in a more compressive approach. The framework also shows clear linkage of the total values of the ecosystem services to their functions. The involvement of stakeholders’ and their position with respect to different processes of the framework including in planning and management is clearly depicted in the framework.
In the assessment framework, first there is ecosystem on which human depend. The dependence on ecological systems is derived from the interaction of ecological processes and components within the multi functional landscape units. (Costanza et al., 1997) and (De Groot et al., 2002) called these landscape units “Natural Capital”. These ecological structures and processes are translated into limited number of functions of ecosystem. These functions in turn provide goods and services to human. These goods and services are valued by human based on the benefits to human society in terms of ecological, socio-cultural and economic value. Ecological values are measured in terms of ecological sustainability, socio-cultural values based on equity and cultural perceptions, and economic values based on efficiency and cost effectiveness. Based on the overall values, the total economic value of the ecosystem is determined. Finally, integrated cost benefit could be made for decision making in planning and management. In all these steps of integrated assessment framework, stakeholders’ are involved since identification of the services to the decision making process.
11
After (De Groot, 1992, De Groot et al., 2002)
Key:
Main focus of this thesis
Figure 2: Role of function-analysis and valuation in environmental planning, management and decision
3.1.1 Typology of ecosystem functions and services
Ecosystems have a wide range of functions within a broad social, economical and ecological context. The ecosystem functions are related to different land cover and land use types. Different authors define ecosystem functions and associated services differently. According to De Groot (1992), Ecosystem functions are defined as “the capacity of the natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs directly or indirectly’’. The typology of ecosystem functions is described in Box 1.
In the first step of assessment in the framework, ecological complexity (structures and processes) can be translated into a more limited number of ecosystem functions. A wide range of ecosystem functions and their associated goods and services have been referred to in literature (De Groot, 1992, Costanza et al., 1997, De Groot et al., 2002, MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b) (refer table 4)
Ecosystem structure & processes
Ecosystem functions 1. Production 2. Regulation 3. Habitat 4. Information 5. Carrier
Ecosystem Goods & Services
Ecological values Based on ecological sustainability
Socio-cultural values Based on equity and cultural perceptions
Economic values Based on efficiency and cost effectiveness
Integrated cost benefit analysis
Decision making process
Stakeholder Involvement
Planning and management
12
Ecosystem functions through ecological processes and interactions of ecosystem components give us associated goods and services (De Groot, 2000). Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystem (MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b). It is the presence of human being that gives value to these ecosystem services (De Groot et al., 2002). These ecosystem services have been categorized in a number of different ways (MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b). There have been different approaches and attempts to identify and group ecosystem services. Here below, follows the different approaches made by different authors at different times.
Daily (1997) described Ecosystem services to include the production of goods — such as seafood, timber, and precursors to many industrial and pharmaceutical products — an important and familiar part of the economy. They also include basic life-support processes (such as pollination, water purification, and climate regulation), life-fulfilling conditions (such as serenity, beauty, and cultural inspiration), and preservation of options (such as conserving genetic and species diversity for future use) (Daily, 1997). Further more (Kremen et al., 2002) defined ecosystem services as ‘the set of diverse ecological functions that are essential to human welfare; these services can provide significant, measurable benefits to humanity, potentially providing an economic argument for ecosystem conservation’.
There are four components of ecosystem service framework according to(Daily, 1997). These are:
Box 1: Classification of ecosystem functions (De Groot et al., 2002)
Production functions: Photosynthesis and nutrient uptake by autotrophs converts energy, carbon dioxide, water and nutrients into a wide variety of carbohydrate structures which are then used by secondary producers to create an even larger variety of living biomass. This broad diversity in carbohydrate structures provides many ecosystem goods for human consumption, ranging from food and raw materials to energy resources and genetic material.
Regulation functions: this group of functions relates to the capacity of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to regulate essential ecological processes and life support systems through bio-geochemical cycles and other biospheric processes. In addition to maintaining ecosystem (and biosphere) health, these regulation functions provide many services that have direct and indirect benefits to humans (such as clean air, water and soil, and biological control services).
Habitat functions: natural ecosystems provide refuge and reproduction habitat to wild plants and animals and thereby contribute to the (in situ) conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes.
Information functions : Because most of human evolution took place within the context of undomesticated habitat, natural ecosystems provide an essential ‘reference function’ and contribute to the maintenance of human health by providing opportunities for reflection, spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, recreation and aesthetic experience.
Carrier functions: These are functions as a result of most human activities (for example, cultivation, habitation, transportation) which require space and a suitable substrate (soil) or medium (water, air) to support the associated infrastructure. The use of carrier functions usually involves permanent conversion of the original ecosystem.
13
1. Identification of ecosystem services (A systematic, quantitative cataloguing of the sources and consumers of ecosystem services is needed).
2. Characterization of the services (involves determination of ecological and economic attributes of the identified ecosystem services),
3. Safeguard the services: This involves a. the desired mix of service production, especially where exploitation of one
service (such as timber production) may impair the delivery of another (such as water purification);
b. Creating the institutional means of securing the desired range of options). 4. Monitoring the services/evaluating the safeguards (this involves the use of
indicators that could be used to monitor changes in the supply or quality of ecosystem services, or both. For example: certain fish stocks or of water quality, etc)
Development of framework for analysis of ecosystem services has been progressing forward. For example, an ecosystem service typology developed by Daily (2001) based on his previous work Daily (1997) focused on the wide array of important services that ecosystems and their biodiversity confer on society (Box 2).
14
Box 2: A classification of ecosystem services with illustrative examples (Daily, 2001)
1) Production of goods
Food Terrestrial animal and plant products Forage Seafood Spice products Pharmaceuticals Medicinal plants Precursors to synthetic pharmaceuticals Durable materials Natural fiber Timber Energy Biomass fuels Low-sediment water for hydropower Industrial products Waxes, oils, fragrances, dyes, latex rubber, etc Precursors to many synthetic products Genetic resources Intermediate goods that enhance the production of other goods
2) Regeneration processes
Cycling and filtration processes Detoxification and decomposition of wastes Generation and renewal of soil fertility Purification of air Purification of water Translocation processes Dispersal of seeds necessary for revegetation Pollination of crops and natural vegetation
3) Stabilization process
Coastal and river channel stability Compensation of one species for another underlying varying condition Control of the majority of potential pest species Moderation of weather extremes (such as temperature and wind) Partial stabilization of climate Regulation of Hydrological cycle (mitigation of flood and droughts)
4) Life fulfilling functions
Aesthetic beauty Cultural, intellectual, and spiritual inspiration Existence value Scientific discovery Serenity
5) Preservation of options
Maintenance of ecological components and systems needed for future supply of these goods and services and other awaiting discovery
15
On the other hand, after so many efforts on ecosystem services typology and framework, MA grouped the services into four: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services (Box 3).
3.1.2 Ecosystem services typology used in this study
Ecosystem services in this thesis is to refer “both tangible goods and intangible services provided by the park ecosystem” as used by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. These services include provisioning, regulating and cultural services that directly affect people and supporting services needed to maintain other services (MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b). In this thesis, the typology of ecosystem functions and services based on table 4 is used.
Box 3: Typology of Ecosystem Services (MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b)
1. Provisioning services: products obtained from ecosystems
Food Freshwater Fuel wood Fiber Bio-chemicals Genetic Resources
2. Regulating services: Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes
Climate regulation Disease regulation Water regulation Water Purification Pollination
3. Cultural services: non material benefits obtained from ecosystems
Spiritual and religious Recreation and Ecotourism Aesthetic Inspirational Educational Sense of place Cultural heritage
4. Supporting services: Services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services
Soil formation Nutrient cycling Primary production
16
Table 4: Functions, goods and services of natural and semi-natural ecosystems
Adapted from (Costanza et al., 1997, De Groot, 1992, De Groot et al., 2002) Functions Ecosystem processes and components
Goods and services
Examples
Regulation functions: Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems 1 Gas regulation
Role of ecosystems in bio-geochemical cycles (e.g. CO2/O2 balance, ozone layer, etc.)
Goods and services (examples) 1.1 UVB-protection by O3 (preventing disease) 1.2 Maintenance of (good) air quality 1.3 Influence on climate (see also function 2)
♦2 Climate regulation
Influence of land cover and biol. Mediated processes (e.g. DMS-production) on climate
Maintenance of a favorable climate (temp., precipitation, etc) for, for example, human habitation, health, cultivation
♦3 Disturbance prevention
Influence of ecosystem structure on dampening env. disturbances
3.1 Storm protection (e.g. by coral reefs) 3.2 Flood prevention (e.g. by wetlands and forests)
♦4 Water regulation
Role of land cover in regulating runoff and river discharge
Drainage and natural irrigation
♦5 Water supply
Filtering, retention and storage of fresh water (e.g. in aquifers)
Provision of water for consumptive use (e.g. drinking, irrigation and industrial use)
♦6 Soil retention/erosion control
Role of vegetation root matrix and soil biota in soil retention
6.1 Maintenance of arable land 6.2 Prevention of damage from erosion/siltation
7 Soil formation Weathering of rock, accumulation of organic matter
7.1 Maintenance of productivity on arable land 7.2 Maintenance of natural productive soils
8 Nutrient regulation
Role of biota in storage and re-cycling of nutrients (e.g. N, P and S)
Maintenance of healthy soils and productive Ecosystems
9 Waste treatment
Role of vegetation and biota in removal or breakdown of xenic nutrients and compounds
9.1 Pollution control/detoxification 9.2 Filtering of dust particles (air quality) 9.3 Abatement of noise pollution
10 Pollination
Role of biota in movement of floral gametes
10.1 Pollination of wild plant species 10.2 Pollination of crops
11 Biological control
Population control through trophic-dynamic relations
11.1 Control of pests and diseases 11.2 Reduction of herbivory (crop damage)
Habitat (supporting) functions: Providing habitat (suitable living space) for wild plant and animal species ♦12 Refugium function Suitable living space for wild
plants and animals Maintenance of biological and genetic diversity (and, thus, the basis for most other functions)
♦13 Nursery function Suitable reproduction-habitat Maintenance of commercially harvested species
Production functions Provision of natural resources ♦14 Food Conversion of solar energy
into edible plants and animals
14.1 Hunting, gathering of fish, game, fruits, etc. 14.2 Small-scale subsistence farming and aquaculture
♦15 Raw materials
Conversion of solar energy into biomass for human construction and other uses
15.1 Building and Manufacturing (e.g. lumber 15.2 Fuel and energy (e.g. fuel wood 15.3 Fodder and fertilizer (e.g. krill
17
16 Genetic resources Genetic material and evolution in wild plants and animals
16.1 Improve crop resistance to pathogens and pests, 16.2 Other applications (e.g. health care)
♦17 Medicinal resources
Variety in (bio)chemical sub-stances in, and other medicinal uses of, natural biota
17.1 Drugs and pharmaceuticals 17.2 Chemical models and tools 17.3 Test and essay organisms
18 Ornamental resources Variety of biota in natural ecosystems with (potential) ornamental use
Resources for fashion, handicraft, jewellery, pets, worship, decoration and souvenirs (e.g. furs, feathers, ivory, orchids, butterflies, Aquarium fish, shells, etc.)
Information functions Providing opportunities for cognitive development ♦19 Aesthetic information Attractive landscape features Enjoyment of scenery (scenic roads, housing,
etc.) ♦20 Re-creation
Variety in landscapes with (potential) re-creational uses
Travel to natural ecosystems for eco-tourism and (re-creational) nature study
21 Cultural and artistic information
Variety in natural features with cultural and artistic value
Use of nature as motive in books, film, painting, folklore, national symbols, architect, advertising, etc.
♦22 Spiritual and historic information
Variety in natural features with spiritual and historic value
Use of nature for religious or historic purposes (i.e. heritage value of natural ecosystems and features)
♦23 Science and education
Variety in nature with scientific and educational value
Use of natural systems for school excursions, etc. Use of nature for scientific research
Carrier functions
Providing a suitable substrate or medium for human activities and infrastructure
24 Habitation
Depending on the specific land use type, different requirements are placed on environmental conditions (e.g. soil stability and fertility, air and water quality, topography, climate, geology, etc.)
Living space (ranging from small settlements to urban areas)
♦25 Cultivation
Food and raw materials from cultivated land and aquaculture
26 Energy-conversion Energy-facilities (solar, wind, water, etc.) 27 Mining Minerals, oil, gold, etc
28 Waste disposal Space for solid waste disposal
29 Transportation Transportation by land and water 30 Tourism-facilities Tourism-activities (outdoor sports, beach-
tourism, etc.) ♦The shaded parts are those ecosystem services included in this study
3.1.3 Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder analysis is defined by many authors. For example the definition by (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000) used stakeholder analysis as “a tool or set of tools for
18
generating knowledge about actors- individuals and organizations – so as to understand their behavior, intentions, inter relations and interests; and for assessing the influence and resources they bear on decision making or implementation processes”. Showing the interests and influences of the different individuals, classes and organizations with respect to ASLNP is an important step in this integrated assessment process. As a result stakeholder analysis is a useful tool for managing stakeholders, and identifying opportunities to mobilize their support for a particular goal (Varvasovszky and Brugha, 2000).
In addition, stakeholder analysis by Brown et al (2001) in (De Groot et al., 2006) is defined as “a system for collecting information about classes or individuals who are affected by decisions, categorizing that information, and explaining the possible conflicts that may exist between important classes, and areas where trade-offs may be possible”. According to (De Groot et al., 2006) stakeholder analysis involves three steps:
1. Identification and selection of stakeholders: this can be based on review, observation, interviews and questionnaires based on their interest in the ecosystem.
2. Prioritization of stakeholders: This could be done through data review, observation, interview and questionnaires. Here prioritization is based on the relative level of influence and degree to which they are affected.
3. Stakeholders involvement: Here the involvement could be through data gathering techniques such as interviews, questionnaires, workshops, local platforms. There are three forms of involvement; namely consultation, participation and collaboration.
Stakeholder analysis in this study
In this thesis, the stakeholder analysis method by (De Groot et al., 2006) was used as it includes all forms of involvement in the integrated assessment procedure. Early in the process, the main stakeholders were identified as it is important in all steps the assessment, to identify the main relevant services, valuing of goods and services and decision making in planning and management of ecosystems (De Groot et al., 2006). In this thesis main stakeholders are involved in the identification of the ecosystem services of ASLNP through structured household surveys, tourist surveys, community meetings, interviews of key informants and expert consultation.
For stakeholders’ analysis, the use and impact of stakeholders for selected ecosystem services was analyzed from their interests and objectives.
3.2 Sampling procedure
Field studies were conducted in two Woredas i.e. Arsi Negelle and ATJK, more specifically in 6 kebeles, Hadha Bosso, Galeef Qello, Shalla Billa, Gubata Arjo, Daka Dallu Haren Gama (DDHG) and Desta Abijata (see Figure 1). The total population and household number of study kebeles with respect to their location are listed in table 5 below. The landscapes and ecosystem services are identified based on these kebeles.
19
Table 5: Population and households characteristics of study kebeles
Woreda Kebele Total Population
No. of households inside Park
No. of households outside Park
Galeef Qello 2457 328 31 Shalla Billa 4125 598 0 Gubata Arijo 1910 118 168 Daka Dallu Haren Gama
1960 114 123
Arsi Negelle
Hadha Bosso 3232 43 446
ATJK Desta Abijata 9178 721 0
Total 22862 1919 771
Source: Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Offices and field survey
In order to analyze if location influences the use of ecosystem services, the six kebeles are grouped in to 3, i.e. inside the Park (study sites located inside the Park boundary), inside/outside the Park (study sites located at the border of the Park, which are partly inside and partly outside the Park boundary) and outside the Park (study sites located outside the Park boundary). From inside, inside/outside and outside the Park, three, two and one kebeles are selected, respectively (see table 6 below). Reasons of selection are:
- Accessibility for field work and its closeness to the Park headquarter. - Diverse use of natural resources (natural acacia woodland, water and land
resources) - Existence of different landscape units which provide different functions and
services - Dependence of local people mainly on activities inside the Park - Most of the Park settlement and encroachment is within these areas.
The sample size of the household survey in the selected kebeles was 6% each of their total households. A random sampling technique was used to identify households.
3.3 Data collection methods
1) Mapping and field observations
Land use map of 2006 from ASTER images of Landsat 7 ETM+, topographic map of the region (EMA, 1985) and onsite field observation were used to identify the landscape units. Field observation checklists and list of landscapes were preliminarily prepared from reconnaissance survey and consulted literatures. Final check lists of landscape units were prepared after consultation of Park expert (see appendix 6).
2) Household survey
A structured household survey questionnaire was used to identify the main provisioning services. The design of the survey questionnaire was based on (De Groot et al., 2006). The final version of the questionnaire was translated into Amharic, the official language of the country, as the respondents are expected to understand the language better. The
20
questionnaire was pretested on 5% of the sample households. The purpose of the survey was explained to the households. In the survey, households selected the services used and indicated the landscape unit providing the services. Other relevant issues such as age, role in the family, family size, education status, source of income and number of livestock were also included in the questionnaire (see the questionnaire in appendix 4-A). The location of kebeles and the number of sample households are listed in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Location and composition of households used in the household survey
Number of sample households Kebeles
Inside Park Inside/outside Park Outside Park Galeef Qello 22 0 0 Shalla Billa 36 0 0 Desta Abijata 43 0 0 Daka Dallu Haren Gama
0 15
Gubata Arjo 0 18 Hadha Bosso 0 0 30 Total 101 33 30
3) Pebbles Distribution method
The Pebbles Distribution Method (PDM) by Sheil and Liswanti (2006) adjusted to the context of study area was used. In this study, PDM was used in order to rank (based on cardinal ranking method) the relative importance of ecosystem services from the landscapes based on local people knowledge. The selection of PDM participants in each kebele was made based on the number of years they stayed in the area, and social status (respected) in their society. In total eight participants were selected from each Kebele. Because of time constraint, PDM exercises were done in four Kebeles only.
For this exercise, a list of landscape units was obtained from field observation results and ecosystem services were referred from literatures (Costanza et al., 1997, De Groot, 1992, De Groot et al., 2002) and survey results. Before the exercise, agreement was made with PDM participants on the definition of each landscape units within the context of the study area. A total of eight different landscape units and eight provisioning and two cultural services were defined and used. The different landscape units were written both in local (Oromiffa) and official (Amharic) languages on papers designed for this purpose (see Appendix 5-A). To improve understanding, the figure of each landscape unit was also drawn along with the name. First, explanation was made by the facilitator in local language (Oromiffa) and he demonstrated the PDM exercise. The participants, as a group were then invited to distribute 100 Pebbles (in this case white Haricot Beans) based on the relative importance of ecosystem services from landscapes. This exercise was repeated for every ecosystem services against the landscape units. Finally, the overall scoring exercise for landscapes in providing all the services was done.
There were many intense discussions about which service was considered more important. The final scores of PDM were the result of the group discussion and
21
consensus. Finally, placing of the pebbles/Haricot beans on the paper was done by one member of the group. After agreement was reached, the scores were counted for each service and recorded on the data sheet (See the data sheet in appendix 5-A). The most important service(s) received high number of Haricot Beans. Even though the services received pebbles in terms of cardinal number, it didn’t refer to the quantification of the value in units. Instead, it referred to the degree of relative importance of the service among other services within the landscape unit. For example, a service which received 40 pebbles is 2 times more important than a service which received 20 Pebbles in a given exercise. Subsequently, participants were asked for the reason why they gave the highest rank for one service but not for others.
4) Tourist survey
A separate questionnaire was designed for tourists and recreation users to identify the reasons what motivated them to visit the Park (See Appendix 4-C). Although no systematic sampling procedure was used, the survey was conducted with purposive sampling method with efforts to include the interests of tourists and their purpose of visit. Furthermore, tourists/visitors lodging nearby but outside the Park are also included in the survey. The intended number of tourist questionnaires to be filled in was 50 but because of time constraint 46 questionnaire were achieved.
5) Key informant interview
A semi structured questionnaire and check lists were prepared for the selected key informants. Key informants were selected from elders in each kebele, individuals, classes, development enterprises, organizations (both governmental and non governmental) at different levels. Here the selection of elders at each Kebele was made based on the number of years they lived in the area (elders), those who know more about the area, and culturally and traditionally respected by the society. Two key informants from each Kebele were selected. They were asked about the local history, cultural and religious beliefs with respect to forest and trees, water bodies, wild animal, place and tradition (see the questions in appendix 4-B).
6) Literature review
Secondary data sources used include scientific articles, journals, published & unpublished documents, reports and relevant policy documents. Also, internet sources were used.
3.4 Data analysis
The collected data through household and tourist surveys were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 15 software. The SPSS data analysis was mainly based on descriptive statistics that involved, frequency distribution, percentages, cross tabulation, bar charts and pie charts of PDM results. In addition MS-Excel was used for performing charts and graphs (bar and pie charts). For interviews and field observation notes, qualitative analysis was used.
22
4. Identification of the different landscape units
This Chapter deals with identification and description of various landscapes of the study sites/kebeles.
Identification of the different landscape units is an important step in order to identify and determine the ecosystem services provided.
4.1 Acacia woodland
The main vegetation type in the Park consists of drought resistant trees and shrubs either deciduous, or with small, ever green leaves. The dominant tree species are Acacia spp (refer chapter 5 section 5.3.2). The woodland cover within the Park is alarmingly depleted through extraction for fuel wood, construction wood and charcoal. Increasing demand for land by the growing population is the other key factor contributing to deforestation (Halcrow group Ltd and Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD), 2007). The natural Acacia woodland can only be found in the fenced headquarter of the Park. The rest woodland components are found mixed with farm plots and homestead with sparsely distributed acacia trees.
Due to the disturbance, habitat loss and competition with domestic animals for forage; the acacia woodland hosts few mammals which have decreased in number. There is an Ostrich farm at headquarter of the park. The Avifauna is diverse including the endemic Yellow Fronted Parrot (Pociephalus flavifrons) (refer chapter 5: section 5.3.2 for more).
Photo by: Tafesse K. Figure 3: Picture showing part of ASLNP acacia woodland inside the Park headquarter
23
4.2 Abijata and Shalla Lakes
Abijata Lake
Lake Abijata located 70330N–90300 E, is a relatively shallow, small, alkaline, closed lake (Ayenew, 2002). Lake Ziway and Lake Langano through Bulbula River and Hora Qello River respectively are the main feeders of Lake Abijata. The main inflows of water for the two open lakes (Lake Ziway and Lake Langano) are from highlands on either sides of the rift. Lake Abijata may receive, during exceptionally prolonged high rainfall periods; an overflow from Jido River (Legesse et al., 2005).
Photo: by Tafesse K.
Figure 4: Lake Abijata retreating and with birds
Lake Abijata is productive in that there are diverse group of phytoplankton. As a result the Lake is major feeding site for aquatic and terrestrial birds including both migratory and resident ones. Flamingos and White Pelicans are among the water birds that depend on the Lake. In the past, the lake was fished by the local population but now it is rarely reported.
Lake Shalla
Lake Shalla is an alkaline closed crater lake, located in the southern part of ASLNP (7030’N – 38030’E). The Lake has the lowest altitude, 1570 m.a.s.l, from the other three lakes in the central Rift Valley. Lake Shalla is 3 km south of Lake Abijata and they are separated by an elevated strip of land, which is part of the old crater rim. The Lake occupies a deep caldera with steep rims and has a sub-basin independent of the other three lakes (3297 km2) (Legesse et al., 2005). The lake supports eight islands. The unique
24
water color is dark blue and is interesting to watch from the beach side. Most of the shore comprises steep cliffs, thus, there is little place for Wading birds.
Photo: by Tafesse K.
Figure 5: Picture showing Lake Shalla and its wadding birds
Due to high alkalinity and its high depth, the productivity of the lake is poor. It supports limited species of phytoplankton and limited population of aquatic organisms. But, the species number of wading birds might be higher. The fish population is extremely small (Humber and Kebede, 1987).
4.3 Shalla hot springs
There are many hot springs along the eastern shore of Lake Shalla; 10 km away from the Park headquarter. Volcanic activity causes hot steam, mud and perennial hot springs, which directly flow into Lake Shalla from a distance of 200-300 meters. Therefore, hot springs are hydrologically linked to Lake Shalla. The temperature of hot springs is about 93.40C and the pH of the water is 8.38 (Haki and Rakshit, 2004).
25
Photo: by Tafesse K.
Figure 6: Shalla hot springs, people bathing and the water flowing into Lake Shalla
4.4 Homestead
Homesteads are sparsely distributed everywhere inside the Park except at the shore of the lakes, on the steep hill sides and inside the fenced Park head quarter. Homesteads consist of local traditional houses, their backyard, cattle barn fenced with Acacia branches and small front yard to keep their cattle. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the location of homesteads as they are integrated in the woodland.
Photo: by Tafesse K.
Figure 7: Picture showing homestead inside ASLNP at Galeef Qello kebele
26
4.5 Farmland
ASLNP is designated area for protection of wildlife and for recreation purpose. However; larger part of the area is converted to farmland5 changing the primary use of the area to agriculture. As a result, there is a mix of farmland and acacia woodland, except inside the Park head quarter, the crop out rocks and hilly areas. The farmland reaches to every part of the Park even though the soil is not suitable for the agriculture.
Photo: by Tafesse K.
Figure 8: Farmland inside the Park viewed from the view point
Soil type in the rift valley is closely related to soil parent material and its degree of weathering. The soils are derived from weathering of the underlying rocks, from volcanic activity and from deposition of sediment. Generally, the soils are dark grayish and free draining, and lack distinct profile development. They are classified as Vitric Andosol according to FAO soil units.
4.6 Wetlands
The definition of wetlands according Ramsar Convention (1997: 2) is “areas of marsh, fen, peat land or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters”. From the five major wetland systems recognized by Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1997), the wetlands of ASLNP belong to Lacustrine wetland and riverine wetland groups.
5 Farmland in this context refers to “the land used for crop cultivation in which trees (usually acacia species) are found sparsely within or adjacent with another farm plot”.
27
In Ethiopia, wetlands are defined as “land covered by shallow water encompassing lakes, rivers, swamps, floodplains, ponds, aquifers and dams” (Abebe and Geheb, 2003). Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla provide wetlands which are unique ecological landscapes for the biological resources in the CRV. The wetlands of Abijata cover large shore area, which provides attractive scenery especially during rainy season and when Flamingos concentrate around the shore for feeding. Lake Abijata has been proposed as an international wetland National Park (EWCO, 1989) and is a protected bird sanctuary (Abebe and Geheb, 2003).
a) Shalla wetland b) Abijata wetland
Figure 9: Shalla and Abijata wetlands inside ASLNP
4.7 Fallow land
This land was previously acacia woodland, changed to agricultural land but now it is abandoned because of its low productivity. Therefore, it is bare land without crop cover and acacia trees but only with small shrubs. This land is found distributed throughout the mixed acacia woodland. It is commonly found especially in Galeef Qello and Shalla Billa Kebeles as they use more farmland and are located in the center of the Park for easy accessibility to clear more woodland.
Box 4: The classification of Ethiopian wetlands by biome (Tilahun et al., 1996) Ethiopian wetlands can be grouped into four major categories based on ecological zones, hydrological functions, geomorphologic formations and climatic conditions. These categories interlink to form four major biomes, which also describe climatic conditions in Ethiopia. These biomes are the Afro-tropical highlands, the Somali-Masai, the Sudan-Guinea and the Sahelian Transition Zone groups.
28
4.8 Shalla Islands
The eight Islands are found on the south and western part of ASLNP, specifically on the western part of Lake Shalla. They are ranging in size from a few hundred square meters to over 0.25 km2. The Islands are ecologically and culturally significant as their names indicated and are namely: Sacred Island, Pelican Island, Abdim Island, Cormorant Island, Edo Island, Flat Island, Little Island and Rock Island (Tefera and Almaw, 2002). They are remote and out of access from local people.
4.9 Rivers and streams
Within ASLNP there are two main rivers; River Bulbula and River Hora Qello. Both are feeders of Lake Abijata from Lake Ziway and Lake Langano, respectively. River Bulbula along 30 km of its way to Abijata is the major source of freshwater for the local population in the Park. The irrigation schemes around Ziway have great impact on the volume of River Bulbula. It is believed that there has been subsistence fishing in the river (personal communication with local people). The Hora Qello River is saline and not as widely used as the Bulbula River (personal communication).
The other rivers include Jido and Dedeba Rivers in which Jido River flows from the western escarpments and Dedeba River flows from the south east catchment areas to Lake Shalla.
4.10 Riverine forest
Riverine forests are found along the Bulbula River. This riverine forest is determined by the level and discharge of Bulbula River (Jansen et al., 2007). The presence of this forest is important in keeping river banks. In addition it also serves as home for wild animals and as nursery site. In the past wildlife was hunted but wild animals are now almost extinct in riverine forests (personal communication local people). The dominant trees found along the river are the Ficus species. Local people use this forest as source of fruit for food, wood for house construction and fuel wood.
29
5. Identification of ecosystem services
This Chapter deals with the identification of the ecosystem services provided by ASLNP. The various ecosystem services identified from the Park are listed in table 7.
Table 7: Ecosystem services provided by Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park
Services Services provided by the Park ecosystem Food Wild food: harvest of Tilapia fish, fruits, hunting6, Fresh water Provision of water for drinking, irrigation and for washing Raw materials Use of construction wood, agriculture tool and household furniture
making wood, fuel wood and charcoal wood from Acacia, Ficus, and Balanties trees Thatching grass, Animal fodder: grazing land and grass, leaves and fruits of trees, mineral salt , soap stone, termite hill (clay soil), sand Saline water use from Lake Abijata for industrial purpose
Medicinal resources
Drugs and pharmaceuticals: medicinal plants Traditions7: Hot springs, Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla Production of Crop such as Maize, Haricot Beans, Teff.)
Provisioning services
Cultivation Bee hive keeping
Climate regulation
The vegetation cover involves in evapotranspiration to regulate microclimate such as temperature, precipitation
Water regulation
Acacia woodland and Abijata and Shalla Lakes regulates run off and river discharge, ground water recharge Wetlands: maintain moisture, and serve as source of water
Regulation services
Erosion control Role of acacia woodland in holding soils Vegetation cover to prevent wind, sheet and gully erosion,
Nursery Growth place for drought resistant Acacia trees, Suitable reproduction habitat for fish, Pelicans, Flamingos, Ostriches, Cormorants and Abdim’s Storks
Supporting services
Refugium Habitat for aquatic organisms; Phytoplankton and Zooplanktons Habitat for wild plants such as, Acacia trees, Balanties, Ficus, Home for resident birds (Flamingos, Pelicans, Endemic Yellow Fronted Parrot, etc) Habitat for transient birds (Black winged Stilt, little Stint, Ruff and Ducks), Home for mammals
Recreation & ecotourism
Opportunities for tourism and recreational activities
Spiritual8 Traditional beliefs, religious significance
Cultural services
Research & Education
Study area for scientific community, Opportunities for formal and informal education and trainings
Within the major services presented in table 10 above, sub-services are identified. For example, raw materials include construction wood, charcoal wood, fuel wood, grass,
6 Hunting was common activity by local people from the Park in the previous times but now there is no hunting because wildlife is forced out of the Park. 7 Tradition is to mean local people belief to consider hot springs as curative 8 Previously, in the Park there was religious activity but now there is no this spiritual service.
30
leaves and fruits of trees as fodder, tool and furniture making wood, thatching grass, etc are included.
5.1 Provisioning services
In the study area, the identified provisioning services are grouped into: food, fresh water, raw materials, and medicinal resources (medicinal plants and water bodies: Shalla Hot springs, Shalla and Abijata lakes). The services from farmland and homestead landscapes are derived from the land use changes by human interference; otherwise both were part of the acacia woodland.
5.1.1 Food
A) Fruits
The most important wild plant food sources for local people are Capparis (Capparis spp), Cactus (genus; Opuntia) and Ficus species, from woodland and riverine forest.
Usually the use of the Park ecosystem has not given significant attention to wild fruits as source of main food by the locals. Totally in the kebeles, on average 52% of the households collect edible fruits from acacia woodland. Households from inside, inside/outside and outside the Park collect fruits on average 54, 79 and 20% from acacia woodland, respectively (Figure 10). Households from Desta Abijata use little fruit from acacia woodland because most acacia woodland in the Kebele is converted to farmland.
In addition, the Bulbula riverine forest also provides fruits to 67% of Desta Abijata households (inside the Park and near Bulbula River). This constitutes about 29% of the interviewed households from inside the Park (Figure 10). Ficus trees such as Ficus sycomorus and Ficus lutea (locally called “Odaa”) are the main sources of edible fruit (locally called “Sholla”).
It can be seen from the survey that in the use of fruits from the Park ecosystem, there is no difference between households who live inside the Park and inside/outside the Park. This could be attributed to the accessibility of the Park area. The inside/outside households are separated by the highway (road) from the Park; otherwise they are very close to the woodland. Furthermore, they are far from the Park headquarter for management. But households from outside the Park area have less access and have alternatives of getting fruits from outside the Park.
31
Wild fruit use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Inside Park Inside/OutsidePark
Outside Park
Kebeles
Res
pond
ents
(%
) Riverineforest
Acaciawoodland
Figure 10: Wild fruit use by local people from the Park
B) Fish
In early times, Lake Abijata contained much fish and the local population was to a large extent dependent. Currently, 6% of the respondents from inside the Park use fish from Lake Abijata. Only one Kebele (Desta Abijata) which is very close to the inlet of the River Bulbula to Lake Abijata eat fish. However, according to the local people, recently, fish production is increasing at the inlet of the Bulbula River to Lake Abijata.
C) Cultivation
i) Crop Cultivation
Cultivation of farmland is the major activity in the kebeles. Larger Part of the Park woodland is converted to agricultural land, losing its natural services but increasing its carrier function by providing food. However, the erratic rainfall and poor soil fertility result in poor crop yields. Based on field observations, agriculture is the dominant land use in the Park. Most households from inside (96%) and inside/outside (91%) the Park, have farmland inside the Park. Only 17% of the households from outside the Park use farmland from the Park. The major crops in the Park are maize (Zea mays), haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), sorghum (Sorghum sp) and teff (Eragrostis tef).
32
a) Haricot bean on farmland with in the Park
b) Maize on farmland Within the Park
Figure 11: Farmland with crops within the acacia woodland inside the Park
ii) Honey from Bee hive keeping
The local population has a long tradition in keeping bee hives in forest areas. The twigs and branches of the dominant woodland trees are used to support the traditional bee hives. Because of the decrease in woodland, bee keeping activities are few. Of the total
33
surveyed sample households, 7% keeps bee hives in the woodland. In addition, the sample household survey showed that 8 and 12% of households from inside and inside/outside the Park keep bee hive on trees of acacia woodland, respectively.
5.1.2 Fresh water
The water resources in the study kebeles are Lake Shalla, Lake Abijata, Shalla Hot springs, Bulbula River and Hora Qello River (Figure 12). A total of 92, 91 and 73% of the households from inside, inside/outside and outside the Park use water from the Park, respectively.
i) River Bulbula
River Bulbula is important freshwater source for most local people living inside and outside the Park. The river originates from Lake Ziway and enters to Lake Abijata crossing Desta Abijata Kebele. The river has multipurpose use which includes; drinking (both livestock and human), washing (bathing and washing clothes), irrigation, and swimming. About 47 and 39% of the households from inside and inside/outside the Park respectively use River Bulbula (Figure 12). All interviewed households from Desta Abijata Kebele are dependent on this river. Kebeles outside the Park such as Hadha Bosso do not use the Bulbula River because of the far distance and alternative sources (such as Lake Langano).
ii) River Hora Qello
River Hora Qello, joining Lake Abijata from Lake Langano is fresh water source for the local people inside and outside the Park. It is used for drinking (livestock), washing but seldom for swimming. From the household survey, 48 and 30% of the respondents from inside and inside/outside the Park, respectively use this river (Figure 12). All interviewed households from Desta Abijata Kebele use this river. Households from outside the Park do not use the river because of less access and presence of alternatives.
iii) Lakes (Lake Shalla and Lake Abijata)
The local population uses Lake Shalla only for washing clothes. They prefer the lake because they believe that the water has detergent property. The household survey showed that 40, 30 and 70% of the households from kebeles inside, inside/outside, and outside the Park respectively use Lake Shalla for washing (Figure 12). Households from outside the Park rely more on Lake Shalla because it is nearby and accessible than other water resources from the Park.
Lake Abijata is also used for washing cloths by households from inside the Park (43%). Use of Lake Abijata by households from inside/outside the Park and outside the Park is less, i.e. 15 and 3%, respectively (Figure 12).
iv) Hot springs
Households use hot springs mainly for washing clothes, bathing and for livestock drinking. From the household survey, 27, 46 and 37% of the households from inside,
34
inside/outside, and outside the Park are using hot springs, respectively. Households from inside the Park are less users of hot spring because of accessibility of other water resources such as River Bulbula, River Hora Qello and Lakes. But those households located inside/outside the Park (in this case Gubata Arijo Kebele) have more accessibility to Shalla Hot springs than other water resources. In addition, households use Shalla Hot springs more because of its less salinity.
Fresh water
0
50
100
150
200
250
Inside Park Inside/Outside Park Outside Park
Kebeles
Res
pond
ents
(%
)
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
River HoraQelloRiver Bulbula
Figure 12: Fresh water use 9from inside the Park by local people
According to figure 12, households use multiple water resources from the Park. Generally, households from inside the Park have access to more fresh water resources from the Park than households from outside the Park (Figure 12). They are using all water resources depending on the distance and presence of alternatives. The use of water resources by households from inside/outside kebeles is dependent on their location for accessibility.
5.1.3 Raw materials
The Park ecosystem with its associated landscapes provides raw materials for subsistence to households. These raw materials are grouped into wood products, animal fodder (use of grasses, leaves and fruits of trees and grazing land) and thatching grass.
9 Figure 13 shows the composition of water uses from different water resources by households. It does not refer to the overall percentage of the figure. Instead, each width area of the graph shows respective water resources use by households. For example, water use by households from Lake Shalla is 40, 30 and 70% respectively for households from inside, inside/outside and outside kebeles.
35
Other resources also include, mineral salt (locally called “Boji”), construction sand, Termite hill (clay soil) (locally called “Kuyisa”) and soap stone.
In addition, use of saline water is considered here. There is water abstraction from Lake Abijata for industrial purpose to use as raw material for soda ash production.
A) Wood products
The wood products include; construction wood, charcoal wood, fuel wood, agriculture tool and household furniture making woods.
i) Construction wood
Construction wood is used for local house construction and making fences. This wood is obtained from the acacia woodland and the riverine forest.
1) Acacia woodland
There is no visible use of heavy wood products from the woodland but some wood is used for light construction10 by the local population. The widely used are acacia trees. The dominant acacia species are Acacia tortilis, Acacia Senegal and Acacia seyal.
From the total surveyed households 68% indicated that they are using construction wood from the woodland. According to the survey, households from inside/outside the Park are the main users of construction wood (100%) based on acacia. Where as 70% of the households from inside the Park depend on acacia woodland for construction wood. Only 27% of the households living outside the Park use acacia woodland (Figure 13). Except Desta Abijata Kebele (in which only 30% uses) all other households (100%) from inside the Park use construction wood from the Park woodland. Households from Desta Abijata have alternative source (Bulbula Riverine forest).
2) Riverine forest
Products of riverine forest in the study area includes seldom use of timber for door, house wall and fences for local house construction. Ficus species are the dominant trees used by the local people together with acacia trees (Acacia tortilis, Acacia Senegal and Acacia seyal).
The household survey indicated that 28% of households from inside the Park use construction wood from Bulbula riverine forest (Figure 13). All forest users are from Desta Abijata Kebele, which comprise of 65% of Desta Abijata households.
In the use of construction wood from acacia woodland and riverine forest, there is no difference between those households inside and inside/outside the Park. The difference lies in the accessibility and existence of alternatives.
10 Light construction is use wood for construction of huts, making fences for cattle keeping and farm plots.
36
Construction wood
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Inside Park Inside/OutsidePark
Outside Park
Kebeles
Res
pond
ents
(%
)
RiverineforestAcaciawoodland
Figure 13: Use of construction wood from the Park by local people
ii) Charcoal Wood
The use of charcoal wood from the Park is not legal. Nevertheless, the Abijata Shalla Lakes area is an important charcoal production area because of its acacia trees. It serves as subsistence income for the households and it is the main source of energy for the near by towns and cities, including the capital, Addis Ababa.
From the total surveyed households, about 70% use acacia trees for charcoal making. Households from inside/outside the Park are the main producers of charcoal from the Park, i.e. about 91% of the households. About 77% of households from inside the Park produce charcoal. Only 23% of households from outside the Park produce charcoal from the Park area.
Local people use the charcoal for sale and own use. The survey revealed that 64, 15 and 20% of households produce the charcoal for sale, home use and for both, respectively. It can be concluded that about 84% of the households produce charcoal for sale and/or for sale and home use.
37
Photo: by Tafesse K.
Figure 14: Acacia tree fell down for charcoal production at Shalla Billa Kebele
The use of charcoal wood by households inside/outside the Park is greater than those who live inside the Park. According to the information from the interview and field observation, actual production of charcoal is done mainly by both households from inside, and inside/outside the Park. But, some households from inside the Park were reluctant to cooperate with the survey as they knew that it is illegal and are also very close to the Park administration. However, those households from inside/outside are far from the Park administration and have access to sell (adjacent to the main road) the charcoal produced. As a result they produce more charcoal.
iii) Fuel wood
1) Acacia woodland
Fuel wood occupies a special place in rural energy systems essentially for cooking food and heating homes. The women are usually involved in collection of fuel wood (Figure 15). Therefore acacia trees from the Abijata-Shalla Lakes area are extensively used for fuel wood supply, both for own use and for subsistence income.
From all the household survey, about 82% of households collect fuel wood from the woodland. The main users are households from inside/outside the Park (100%) and inside the Park (90%). Only 37% of households from outside the Park use fuel wood from the Park (Figure 16). All respondents from inside the Park (Galeef Qello and Shalla Billa kebeles) and all from inside/outside the Park (DDHG and Gubata Arijo kebeles) collect fuel wood from acacia woodland.
From the survey, 84 and 16% of the households use fuel wood for own use and for selling, respectively.
38
Photo: by Tafesse K.
Figure 15: A Girl collecting fuel wood at Shalla Billa Kebele (inside ASLNP)
2) Riverine forest
The riverine forest, besides the acacia woodland is useful in providing fuel wood. Only 5% of the households from inside the Park collect fuel wood from riverine forest. It is only households from Desta Abijata Kebele, from surveyed kebeles who use fuel wood from the riverine forest.
Fuel wood
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Inside Park Inside/Outside Park Outside Park
Kebeles
Res
pond
ents
(%
)
Riverine forest
Acaciawoodland
Figure 16: Fuel wood use by households from acacia woodland and riverine forest
In the use of fuel wood from the acacia woodland, there is no difference between households from inside the Park and inside/outside the Park. The difference is only accessibility and presence of alternative sources.
39
iv) Wood for agriculture tool and household furniture making
Use of wood for agriculture tool (locally called as “Mofer”, “ Digir ” and “Erif ”) and household furniture making is basic for the households. Households couldn’t afford to buy these basic materials for agriculture and household furniture. Therefore the only means to rely is on acacia trees from the Park. The most common tree species for agriculture tool making are listed in Table 8.
In all the surveyed households, 75% of households use wood from the woodland for agricultural tool and household furniture making. The survey indicated that households from inside (82%) and inside/outside (91%) the Park are the main users. Only about 30% households from outside the Park use agricultural tool and household furniture making wood from Park.
Table 8 : Trees used for Agricultural tool and household furniture making
Tree species Local name Part used Use Acacia seyal Wacho Stem Agriculture tool Acacia Senegal Kertefa Stem Agriculture tool Acacia tortilis Ajoo Root Agriculture tool Dichrostachys cinerea Geto stem Furniture, hand tools
Balanities aegyptica Bedena stem Agriculture tool & household furniture
(Source: this thesis)
The survey indicates that there is no significant difference in the use of wood from the Park between the household who live inside and inside/outside the Park. Both are highly dependent on the Park. But, households from outside kebeles are less users of wood for agricultural tool and household furniture making from the Park.
B) Animal fodder (Grasses, leaves and fruits)
According to the survey, 90% of the households rear livestock for source of income, labor use and getting meat and diary products. The livestock depend on fodder; grass, and on leaves and fruits of trees.
i) Grass Fodder
Households obtain grass fodder from acacia woodland, wetlands and ridges of farmland. This fodder doesn’t refer to direct grazing but important and is collected by households for later use.
1) Acacia woodland
The acacia woodland supply grasses to livestock feed. Of all surveyed households, 8.5% of the respondents obtain grass from the acacia woodland. Small population depends on woodland as source of grass; i.e. 9 and 12% of households from inside, and inside/outside the Park, respectively (Figure 17). The use of grass by households outside the Park is much little (3%) due to less accessibility and presence of alternatives.
40
2) Farmland
The grasses at the ridges of the farmland and adjacent to two landholders is kept for animal fodder. Of all surveyed households, 15% of the respondents use the farmland as source of grass fodder for their livestock. 8, 15, and 7% of households from inside, inside/outside, and outside the Park use grass from farmland, respectively (Figure 17).
3) Wetlands
Wetlands are an important part of the Park where they provide grass as fodder. Of all the surveyed households, 31% of the respondents use the wetland as source of grass fodder for their livestock. Households who live inside the Park are more users (43%) of wetlands, followed by households from inside/outside the Park (21%). How ever, households from outside the Park are less users (only 3%) of grass from wetlands (Figure 17).
Animal fodder: grass
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Inside Park Inside/Outside Park Outside Park
Kebeles
Res
pond
ents
(%
) Wetland
Farmland
Acaciawoodland
Figure 17: Grass for animal fodder use by households from three landscapes
The result of the survey shows that households who live inside the Park are the main users of wetland as source of grass. This is true because 79% of the interviewed households from Desta Abijata (inside Park) within the Kebele use the wetland. This is due to the fact that their settlement share the largest shore of Lake Abijata, where it is flat area and accessible.
ii) Leaves and fruits from trees in acacia woodland
Leaves and fruits from trees inside the Park are used for animal feed. Most common trees used for fodder are Acacia seyal, Acacia Senegal, Acacia tortilis, Dichrostachys cinerea and Balanities aegyptica. From the total surveyed households, 71% of households use this fodder during dry and fodder shortage season. The local people consider the fruit of
41
Acacia tortilis (locally called ‘Hurbu’) as life savior for their livestock during dry season. Households from both inside and inside/outside the Park are (main) equal users (82%) but households from outside the Park are generally less users (23%) of this fodder. The use depends mainly on the accessibility and lack of alternatives.
C) Grazing land
The households are using the Park ecosystem as pasture land for their livestock. The major landscapes used for grazing are; woodland, farmland and wetland. In the survey households were asked, to which landscape they frequently take their livestock for grazing. Based on the survey, a total of 80% of all households use these landscapes for grazing purpose. Most households from inside the Park (94%) and inside/outside the Park (91%) use grazing land inside the Park. Only 20% of the households from outside the Park use grazing land from the Park. The different landscapes use by households is described below.
1) Acacia woodland
Acacia woodland is the main grazing place used by households inside the Park and inside/outside Park (Figure 18). Acacia woodland is commonly used by households from inside/outside the Park (39%) because they are relatively far from the wetlands and close to the acacia woodland. In addition 23% of the households from inside the Park, use the acacia woodland for grazing their livestock. The survey showed that households from outside the Park do not use frequently the acacia woodland as they are close to the fenced Park headquarter and have alternative places outside the Park.
2) Farmland
Farm land, previously part of the woodland, is used as grazing land during non cropping season. From the household survey, only 3% of the households from inside/outside the Park farmland as grazing place.
3) Wetland
Wetlands are the major grazing place mainly during the dry season. Mostly, households from inside the Park (43%) are major users followed by households from inside/outside the Park (18%) and outside the Park (7%). Households from inside the Park (especially Desta Abijata) are dependent on Abijata wetland because of its closeness and less acacia woodland cover.
42
Grazing places
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Inside Park Inside/Outside Park Outside Park
Kebeles
Resp
onde
nts
(%) Woodland and
wetlandWetland
Farmland
Acacia woodland
Figure 18: The use of landscapes for grazing land by households
4) Acacia woodland and wetlands
On the other hand, households use both acacia woodland and wetlands for grazing land to their livestock. This is widely used by households living inside the Park (29%), and inside/outside the Park (30%) (Figure 18).
In general, households from inside and inside/outside the Park are highly dependent on the Park landscapes for grazing, especially on wetlands and acacia woodland Savannah.
D) Thatching grass
The hut (roof of local houses) of households is made from thatching grasses. Therefore collection of thatching grass for house construction is an important part of life. Woodland, farmland ridges and wetlands are places where local people collect thatching grass for their house. Mostly households from inside the Park (85%) and inside/outside the Park (70%) use thatching grass from the Park landscapes. Limited households from outside the Park (17%) obtain thatching grass from the Park. The use of thatching grass from individual landscapes is detailed below.
1) Acacia woodland
Survey results indicated that 28% of the total households use thatching grass from the acacia woodland. Households inside the Park (about 35%) followed by households from the inside/outside the Park (about 27%) use thatching grass from open woodland (Figure 19). About 7% of households from outside the Park use thatching grass from acacia woodland.
2) Farmland
43
Farmland ridges are also places where local people use thatching grass for their huts. From the household survey, 12% of the total households obtain thatching grass from farmland ridges and its adjacent area. The survey shows 13, 12 and 7% of the households from inside, inside/outside, and outside the Park use thatching grass from farmland, respectively (Figure 19).
3) Wetlands
Wetlands are places where thatching grass is collected, which is beyond reach of grazing cattle. A total of 30% of surveyed households obtain thatching grass from wetlands. 38, 30 and 3% household from inside, inside/outside, and outside the Park use thatching grass form wetlands, respectively (Figure 19). Households inside the Park and inside/outside the Park have more access to thatching grass from wetlands than households from outside the Park.
Thatching grass
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Inside Park Inside/Outside Park Outside Park
Kebeles
Res
pond
ents
(%
)
Wetland
Farmland
Acaciawoodland
Figure 19: Thatching grass use from the Park landscapes by households
Wetlands and acacia woodland are an important sources of the thatching grass for the local households inside and inside/outside the Park. This is because the Park area, even though utilized utmost by those who live inside the Park is relatively better than farmland as it is regarded as protected area.
E) Water as raw material for Soda Ash Factory
Because of its extremely high ionic concentration and salinity Lake Abijata is unsuitable for domestic, irrigation and industrial use. However, it is an important raw material for production of soda ash (Na2CO3). Saline water is pumped into artificial ponds for
44
physical separation. The factory’s annual saline water use budget since its establishment is shown in Figure 20 below.
Water use from Lake Abijata
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
2000000
2200000
1987
/198
8
1988
/198
9
1989
/199
0
1990
/199
1
1991
/199
2
1992
/199
3
1993
/199
4
1994
/199
5
1995
/199
6
1996
/199
7
1997
/199
8
1998
/199
9
1999
/200
0
2000
/200
1
2001
/200
2
2002
/200
3
2003
/200
4
2004
/200
5
2005
/200
6
Year
Vol
ume
of w
ater
(M
3)
Figure 20: Annual saline water use from Lake Abijata by Soda Ash Factory (Year 1987 –2006)
In Figure 20 above, there is an alternating trend in decrease and increase in the use of water at different years due to the fluctuating water level of Lake Abijata. But in overall, the use of water decreased from previous times except in the year 2001-2002 when water use increased.
F) Other natural resources (construction sand, mineral salt, termite hill and soapstone)
Although construction sand, mineral salt, termite hill and soap stone tend to be non renewable and can not be attributed to specific ecosystems, in this study they are considered as part of the services provided by the Park ecosystem.
Construction sand
The local people are illegally extracting sand to earn income. Local people are dealing with the brokers and car owners to sell the sand to other parts of the country. As a result trucks enter to the Park using illegal entrances with the help of locals. Sand extraction sites in the Park are at Lake Shalla shore near the hot springs, Lake Abijata shore and in the acacia wood land nearby Lake Abijata. Local people inside the Park are the main
45
extractors (about 46%) of sand. 15 and 7% of local people from inside/outside and outside the Park also extract sand from the Park, respectively.
Mineral salt (local name “Boji”)
Mineral salt is used as a fodder for the livestock. Local people extract the mineral salt (“Boji”) during dry season for sell. The local households do not use the mineral salt for their livestock because their livestock consume while grazing grass. The most common extraction site is Lake Abijata shore. It is part of Abijata wetland. Households prepare the mineral salt in sacks and bring to the high-way (road side) for sell. Of the total extractors, about 21% of the households from inside/outside the Park use “Boji” for sell. This is because they are close to Lake Abijata and to the high way. Households from inside (14%), mostly from Desta Abijata kebele and outside the Park (10%) also sell this mineral salt.
Termite Hill (local Name, “Kuyisa”)
Termite hill (clay soil) is made with termite activity. This time local population has been using this clay soil as construction material for local house. The acacia woodland and farmland are identified as the main landscapes which have termite hill. Households from inside/outside the Park are the main users (88%) of termite hill, followed by the households from inside the Park (62%). Households from outside the Park (43%) also use termite hill for their house construction.
Soapstone
Children from inside the Park are extracting Soap stone from Lake Abijata shore. They use the stone to make different artifacts, local house models and various shapes to sell for tourists.
5.1.4 Medicinal Resources
In the Park area, medicinal resources include mainly traditionally important medicinal plants and water bodies such as; natural Shalla hot springs and the Lakes.
A) Medicinal plants
Medicinal Plants utilized in the Park are harvested from wild plants inside the acacia woodland. These traditional medicinal plants are used by taking their different parts (leaves, roots and fruits in most cases). The most common locally useful medicinal plants identified in the study area are listed in Appendix 7.
The household survey shows that a total of about 40% of the households use medicinal plants from the woodland. About half (49%) of the households from inside the Park, use medicinal plants from the Park. In addition, 33 and 17% of the households from inside/outside and outside the Park use medicinal plants from acacia woodland, respectively (Figure 21).
46
B) Shalla Hot Springs
Shalla hot springs (Locally called “O’aa”) are believed by the local people to be used as curative for upper and lower respiratory infections (locally called “Cold disease”) and skin related fungal infections. Most (79%) households from inside/outside the Park are the main users of Shalla hot springs. In addition 50 and 70% of the households from inside and outside the Park are using hot springs for medication purpose, respectively (Figure 21). Here it can be seen that more local people from outside the Park, who do not have other access in the nearby are using the Shalla hot springs. There are relatively less respondents for the use of Shalla hot springs from inside the Park. This is because Desta Abijata Kebele (which comprises only 9% within Desta Abijata Kebele in the use of Shalla Hot Springs) from inside Park has got alternative hot springs (called “Oetu” hot spring) near by their settlement outside the Park. As a result more people from this kebele visit hot springs outside the Park.
C) Lakes
Both Abijata and Shalla Lakes are believed by the local people to be important to avoid parasitic fungi infections diseases (dermatophytes), act as antidandruff and cure scalp disease (Tinea capitis).
From the survey, 24 and 39% of households from inside and inside/outside the Park respectively use Lake Abijata for its medicinal value. Also 6 and 7% of households from inside and outside the Park use Lake Shalla for medication, respectively (Figure 21). As to the use of the lakes, Lake Abijata has more medicinal value than Lake Shalla.
Medcinal resources
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Inside Park Inside/Outside Park Outside Park
Kebeles
Res
pond
ents
(%
)
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Woodland
Figure 21: Use of medicinal resources11 by local population from different landscapes 11 There are multiple uses of medicinal resources by households from the Park. Therefore the figure does not show the total percentage by all medicinal resources. Instead it shows the individual medicinal resources use composition by households from different kebeles.
47
5.2 Regulating services
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park as area of biodiversity, in addition to providing direct services, it also provides indirect benefits to humans derived from regulating functions. Regulation services are services obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes and life support systems (De Groot et al., 2002, MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b). These are mainly services involved in maintenance of air, water and soil quality and biological control (De Groot, 2006). This section deals with selected ecosystem services from regulation function of ASLNP ecosystem. These include climate regulation, water regulation and erosion control.
The acacia woodland, Lakes (Abijata and Shalla), the wetlands and other functional landscape units are important components of the Park which serve as biological pool. The increasing richness of plants and vertebrates toward the equator is related primarily to climatic factors, such as water availability and topographic factors (Mutke et al., 2001). Ecosystem services depend not so much on the absolute number of species present, but on the diversity of the functions performed by different members of the ecological community. One of the services derived through interaction of ecological community and processes are regulating services.
5.2.1 Climate regulation
This sub section is dealt with a brief overview of the general climate regulation and specifically deals with the micro climate of the study area.
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park at the heart of CRV is area of various ecological processes. Climate regulation as one of product of various processes, involves maintenance of a favorable climate (especially temperature, precipitation) for human health, habitation, cultivation, recreation (De Groot, 1992, Costanza et al., 1997, De Groot et al., 2002). The earth’s climate is regulated by the content of ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, NOx, etc.). Carbon dioxide is emitted or taken up under one circumstance or other by the majority of living organisms and is related to its dynamics to changes in biodiversity (Swift et al., 2004). Ecosystem biodiversity – both terrestrial and aquatic – influences climate at local, regional and global scales.
There is no specific data collected for the study area, to determine the microclimate in terms of precipitation and temperature measurements. But the perception of the local people from the informal interview and onsite field observation was used. According to local people the temperature has been changed from previous time. The local people witnessed that the previous vegetation cover is not there now. As a result the area is getting dry and warmer than before. Even though analysis on long term data is needed according to local people and relevant works in the Ziway catchment, maximum daily temperature has tend to increase from previous times. In addition, the rainfall has already decreased and there is subsequent draught in the region. The volume of the rainfall of the sub catchments (according to the data taken from 1996-2005) at Bulbula, Hora Qello, and Abijata has shown trend of decreasing in the last 10 years (Jansen et al., 2007).
48
Local people believe that the presence of trees is important for maintaining their local conditions where they want to use the shed for them and for their livestock. Microclimate regulation could be possible through transpiration in the presence of trees. A single tree can transpire 450 liter of water per day, which consumes 1000MJ of heat energy to drive the evaporation process (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Nevertheless, deforestation can reduce evapotranspiration of moisture into the atmosphere, weakening water recycling and causing local climate drying (Foley et al., 2007). Both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity plays a major role in climate regulation, particularly through its effects on nitrogen cycling and carbon sequestration.
The wetlands of the Park are also there for regulation processes. Wetlands play an important role in the regulation of global climate by sequestering and releasing significant amounts of carbon (MEA, 2005a). According to MEA (2005) Inland water systems play two critical roles: the regulation of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) and the physical buffering of climate change impacts. Inland water systems have been identified as significant storehouses (sinks) of carbon as well as sources of carbon dioxide, as net sources of carbon sequestration in sediments, and as transporters of carbon to the sea (MEA, 2005a).
5.2.2 Water regulation
The Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park is part of hydrologically linked system in CRV. It is playing a central role in regulation and maintenance of water resources of CRV. Water regulation involves buffering of extremes in runoff and river discharge (Costanza et al., 1997, De Groot, 1992, De Groot et al., 2002). The Park as part of the CRV has both vegetation cover and terminal lakes to involve in the water regulation process. The two terminal Lakes with in ASLNP receive inflow of water from their feeders (River Bulbula and River Hora Qello). In addition they receive surface runoff and water from ground water recharge from the surrounding catchments. Therefore they are sinks of the water flow in the region. The dominant biological properties of regulating water flow and storage in the soil are the plant cover, the soil organic matter content and soil biological activity (Swift et al., 2004).
Vegetation cover contributes in controlling surface water and maintaining ground water useful for water supply. On the other hand, vegetated areas allows water to seep through and the vegetation takes up water and releases it into the air through evapotranspiration (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). The timing and magnitude of runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge can be strongly influenced by changes in land cover, including, in particular, the alterations that change the water storage potential of the system, such as the conversion of wetlands or the replacement of forests with the croplands or croplands with urban areas (MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b).
Well protected Park could maintain the hydrological cycle and control surface runoff otherwise will affect other ecosystem services as well. Studies showed that "runoff and stream discharge generally increase with increasing deforestation" even when precipitation levels stay the same (Foley et al., 2007). In addition, one model developed by (Costa and Foley, 1997) showed that "widespread deforestation" in the Amazon could
49
increase runoff and river discharge by about 20%. From this study it can be translated that protected vegetation cover along with the terminal lakes in ASLNP could play a significant role in maintaining the hydrological cycle of the region.
The wetlands in ASLNP help maintain the water cycle and moisture of the region as a result of the hydrological cycles and processes. That is, the respective wetlands serve as custodians to Abijata and Shalla Lakes. MEA (2005) described that inland wetlands are important water storage sites during wet periods and often provide a reserve of water during dry periods. On the other hand, wetlands evaporate more water than other land types, such as cultivated land, grassland, or forests (MEA, 2005a).
5.2.3 Erosion control
The diverse topography of the Park (rugged, flat, crop out rocks on hilly sides) together with poor water retention, extensive deforestation and overgrazing, the soil in the Park is susceptible to soil erosion. The area covered by acacia woodland has underneath grasses which have great ecological importance to support the fragile soil. Vegetation cover plays an important role in soil retention and prevention of landslides (MEA, 2003, MEA, 2005b). Control of erosion and trapping of sediment is regulated by the architecture of the plants at and below the soil surface, the amount (and hence the rate of decomposition and movement) of surface litter, and the physical quality and organic matter content of the soil (Swift et al., 2004, Pattanayak, 2004).
Because the Park area supports thousands of population and their huge number of livestock, the area is deforested and overgrazed leaving the area bare. Over grazing as a result of overstocking of the wetlands and the savannah grass of the acacia woodland leads to soil erosion and degradation. The stocking rate of livestock in the Abijata-Shalla Lake basin is 3 to 27 times the carrying capacity of most of Ethiopia, the average for which is 2 TLU12 per hectare (Abebe and Geheb, 2003).
The woodland cover does tend to control erosion, because of its undergrowth and litter. Experiments indicate that the erosive power of raindrops under trees actually tends to be very high because the raindrops merge before dripping off the leaves and therefore hit the ground with greater force (Wiersum, 1985, Hamilton, 1987, Brandt, 1988). If the soil surface is adequately protected by a well-developed litter layer and complete vegetative cover, other vegetation types can offer equivalent protection against erosion. Tree roots play an important role in slope stability and can indeed give the soil a certain amount of mechanical support. In ASLNP area, the acacia trees, especially Acacia tortilis are known as “sand stabilizers” as they fix and protect the soil from erosion, especially sheet and gully erosion (Figure 22). Further, in the case of forested hill slopes, the greater slope stability imparted by the root network of well developed trees reduces the number of shallow mass movements (Pattanayak, 2004).
12 TLU is tropical livestock unit. This is a standard unit used to compare different animal species. Conversion factors are: Cattle=0.7TLU: sheep/goat=0.1TLU;horse=0.8TLU; donkey=0.65TLU; Mule=0.7TLU; Pig=0.2TLU; Chicken=0.01TLU (Ghirotti, 1993 in Jansen et al, 2007).
50
Photo: Tafesse K.
Figure 22: Acacia trees fixing the soil and preventing soil from gully erosion
Wetlands as part of the ASLNP, in its natural state are usually vegetated. This vegetation reduces the velocity of flood waters and wave action, thereby lessening the potential for erosion of shorelines and floodplain areas. The root systems of wetlands vegetation bind the floodplain and shoreline soils to further resist erosive forces.
51
5.3 Supporting services
Supporting services are life support services that are important to maintain all other ecosystem services ((MEA, 2005b, MEA, 2003, De Groot et al., 2002). These services maintain the conditions from life on earth but may affect people only indirectly (by supporting and the production of another service, as soil formation supports food production) or over very long time periods (such as the role of ecosystems in producing oxygen) (MEA, 2005b). In the following sub-sections two main supporting services: Nursery services and refugium services were selected and reviewed with respect ASLNP in maintaining biodiversity. The reason for selection of these two services is because they are directly related to the conservation purpose of the Park ecosystem.
5.3.1 Nursery
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park mainly established for conservation and protection of unique avifauna has been playing a vital role for hosting diverse flora and fauna. It serves as genetic pool of drought resistant acacia trees and as breeding sites for the migratory and resident birds including the endemic ones. Lake Abijata, formerly a highly productive lake serves as major breeding site for fish. Although the most common fish species of commercial value in the Rift Valley Lakes Basin are tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), the African catfish (Clarias gariepinus), the Nile perch (Latus niloticus), Bagrus sp. Labeo sp. and Barbus, only tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)is reported to exist in Lake Abijata (Halcrow group Ltd and Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD), 2007).
The Islands of Lake Shalla are important breeding sites for Cormorants, Storks and Pelicans. Colonies of Phalacrocorax carbo and small numbers of Pelecanus onocrotalus still occur. Mostly the Islands are a regular nesting place for colony of Great White Pelican. Between the years 1965-75, 3,000-12,500 pairs of Great White Pelican (GWP) were nesting at a time and the figure could be as high as 15,000 - 20,000. In addition in one of the Islands on Lake Shalla, called Flat islands, Flamingos breed there (Kebede and Hillman, 1988).
Near the main gate of the ASLNP, there is Ostrich farm. The Ostriches (Sturthio camelus) are mainly confined to the fenced part of the Park to protect them from human interference and predators. The fenced part of the Park is used as their nesting site.
5.3.2 Refugium
The unique ecological landscapes in the Park serve as a home both for aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, such as migratory birds, wildlife, fishery resources, aquatic and terrestrial vegetation. The flora and fauna and of the ASLNP are mentioned below.
A. Vegetation
According to WWF eco-regions division, ASLNP vegetation is Acacia-Commiphora woodland ecosystem type within Somali Masai biome. It has dominant acacia trees with
52
bush land and shrubs. The dominant acacia trees are: Acacia tortilis, Acacia Senegal, Acacia seyal, and Balanties aegipticus (Table 9).
Table 9: Common tree species found within Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park
Species name Common/local name Family name Acacia etbaica Dare, Dodoti Fabaceae Acacia tortilis Tedecha, Deweni grar Fabaceae Acacia abissinica Lafto, Bazira girar Mimosoidae Acacia albida Garbi, Grar Fabaceae Acacia seyal Wachu Fabaceae Acacia senegal Kontir Fabaceae Balanities aegyptica Bedeno, Deseret date Balanitaceae Croton machrostachys Makanissa, Bisana Euphorbiaceae Dichrostachys cinera Adesa, Ades Fabaceae Hagenia abissinica Heto, Kosso Rosaceae Mytenus senegalensis --- Celastraceae Grewia bicolor --- Tiliaceae Source: (Park Archive and field observation)
B. Phytoplankton and Zooplanktons
Lake Abijata is known to be productive in phytoplankton. A dominant population of Spirulina sp was reported from Lake Abijata in the 1960s (Wood and Talling, 1988). But later it was found to be sub-dominant with frequent blooms of a nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium Anabaenopsis abijatae (Kebede and Willén, 1996) as the dominant phytoplankton species. The phytoplankton of Lake Abijata consists of 11 genera of which Anabaenopsis represented more than 50 % of the community by density (Kebede, 1996). Diatoms such as Navicula and Nitzchia were common during the wet months of March to April. Arthrospira fusiforms is a strongly dominant species usually found forming dense blooms, in the saline-alkaline Abijata and Chitu lakes. It is the major food source for vast flocks of lesser flamingo (Phoenicoptrus minor) inhabiting the lakes (Kebede, 1996).
In addition, there are zooplanktons that exist in Abijata Lake where the Great White Pelicans depend on for feeding. Table 10 below, summarizes the list of Zooplanktons.
Table 10: Zooplankton composition of Lake Abijata
Rotifera Cyclopoida Clado cera Insecta B. angularis Mesocyclops sp. Alona spp. Corixids B. calyciflorus Thermocyclops gibsoni Hydracarina B. pliciatilis Chironomidae (midges)
B. quadridentatus Source: (Kebede, 1996).
There also exist zooplanktons in Lake Shalla. Zooplanktons which belong to the family Tubificidae, Ostracoda and Chironomidae are known to exist in the Lake. In addition few nematodes are also reported to exist in the Lake (Tudorancea and Harrison, 1988).
53
C. Avifauna
The Park ecosystem serves as wintering ground and maintenance stations for large number of terrestrial and aquatic bird species. Specifically, Lake Abijata is major feeding site for many migratory and resident birds. With regard to the avifauna population, according to the record from the Park archive, a total of 436 bird species exist in the Park. Of these, 114 species are wetland birds while 282 species are terrestrial (Tefera and Almaw, 2002). Based on their status, the existing birds in ASLNP which needs special attention are grouped in to 4 for conservation purpose (Table 11).
Table 11: List of some birds grouped under special conservation concerns
Status of birds Common name Scientific name 1 Endemic species Yellow fronted Parrot Pociephalus flavifrons
Wattled Ibis Bostrychia carunculata Black winged lovebird Agapornis taranta Banded Barbet Lybius undatus White-Winged cliff chat Myrmecocihala semirufa
2 Near endemic species
Abyssinian Black- headed oriole Onychognathus alborosris Lesser Flamingo Phoenicogterus minor Pallied Harrier Circus macrourus Basra Reed warbler Acrocephalus griseldis
3 Near threatened species
Black-winged pratincole Glareola nordanni Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Wattled Crane Bugeranus carunculatus
4 Vulnerable species
Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca (Source: Park Document)
Inventory was made at different times on the number of existing birds in ASLNP. For example; there were about 230,000 individuals of threatened Lesser Flamingos and 150,000 Yellow Wagtails in 1992/93 (Hillman, 1988). Furthermore based on the inventory made in 2000, it was reported that there were 51 bird species, 44 water-fowl species and a total of 31,119 water-fowl population (Abebe and Geheb, 2003)
Studies also show that, the Park also serves as important temporary place for visitor bird population such as; Shoveler, Black Winged Stilt, Avocet, Little Stint, and Ruffs.
The population of temporary and residing birds in ASLNP was counted in different years (See Appendix 10).
54
(Picture from Ethiopian Selamta Magazine, http://www.selamta.net/birds.htm)
Figure 23: Picture of endemic Yellow Fronted Parrot
Photo: Tafesse K.
Figure 24: Pictures of Lesser Flamingos feeding in Lake Abijata
55
D. Mammals
In addition to its bird fauna, woodland together with the savannah habitat in ASLNP also provides home for mammals. According to the Park document a total of 76 mammal species have been recorded so far, of which the most commonly spotted are Grant’s gazelle, Oribi, Warthog and the Golden Jackal. The Park also hosts six endemic mammal species (Table 12). It is noted that due to land clearance and habitat destruction one can hardly see these animals during visiting times nowadays.
Table 12: List of common wild mammals and endemic mammal species in ASLNP
Animals Common name Scientific name Grant's gazelle Gazella granti Oribi Ourebia ourebi Bohor Reed buck Redunca redunca Anubis baboon Papio Anubis Golden jackal Canis aurous Lesser kudu Tragelaphus Imberbis
1 Major wild animal species conserved
Warthog Phacochoerus aethiopicus Scott’s Hairy Bat Myotis scotti White toothed shrew Crocidura sp Mahomet’s mouse Mus mahomet White toothed rat Berylmys sp Ethiopian grass Rat Arvicanthis sp
2 Endemic species
Harrington’s Scrub rat -- -- (Source: Park document)
Photo: Tafesse K.
Figure 25: Grant’s Gazelles inside the fenced part of the Park
56
5.4 Cultural services
In this section three major cultural services namely; recreation and ecotourism, spiritual, educational and research services of ASLNP were identified and illustrated in the following sub- sections.
5.4.1 Recreation and ecotourism
a) Attraction of the Park for recreation
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park has a remarkable use in recreation because of its unique landscape views, hot springs, large number of Flamingos and other diverse wetland birds. Based on the tourist survey, the use of ASLNP as tourist attraction site is described with respect to its current status for recreation purpose.
From the survey, it is revealed that 96% of surveyed tourists/visitors visited the Park for recreation purpose. Recreation users were asked about their specific purpose(s) why they visited or would like to visit ASLNP. This includes; beauty of landscapes such as (hot springs, the Lakes (Abijata and Shalla) and to watch wetland birdlife species. Therefore from the surveyed users, it is revealed that 28% of national visitors and 72% foreign visitors and/or tourists visited the Park for the beauty of landscapes and also to watch unique birdlife species (such as Flamingos and Great White Pelicans) respectively.
In addition, cultural places were one of places to be visited. From the survey, about 43.5% of local and 56.5% of foreigner recreation users’ witnessed cultural places as one of the purpose to visit ASLNP. Here the cultural places include Shalla cave which serve as receipt site, sacred islands (previously sacred places for local people), and the wilderness of the area with traditional settlements. But it could be said that there are no other more cultural places and their performance is minimal.
b)The role of ASLNP in Eco-Tourism
Since long time, Ethiopia’s share of tourist arrivals to Africa is still low compared to other east African countries. For example; tourist receipts of protected areas by the year 2003 were correspondingly low and are estimated at ETB13 3.76 million (US$ 470,000) mostly from park entry fees and sport hunting (UNESCO, 2004). This can be compared with about US$ 650 million for Tanzania in the same year. ASLNP contributed 115, 354 ETB (US$ 14419.25) in 2002/2003 (see Table 14), which is about 3.1% of the tourism revenue from protected areas of the country. Incomes generated from ASLNP are mainly from entry fees (Table 14). The arriving tourists/visitors are broadly divided into three main categories: Ethiopian, foreign residents and tourists. Tourists are those individuals who for predominantly recreational or leisure purposes or the provision of services to support this leisure travel. The fare of the entrance fee for ASLNP is based on this category of tourists/visitors (Table 13).
13 ETB is Ethiopian currency called Ethiopian Birr (one ETB=0.125 US$ by the year 2003)
57
Table 13: Tourism entrance fee payment structure for ASLNP Types of Entrance fees Fees (ETB**) Fees ($ US) Hours stay A) Ethiopian per person Adult 3.00 0.40 48 Child 2.00 0.25 48 B) Foreign resident Adult 30.00 3.60 48 Child 10.00 1.25 48 C) Tourist/personal Adult 50.00 6.00 48 Child 25.00 3.00 48 Camping 20.00 2.50 48 Vehicle fee (depends on no. of car seat) 10.00-20.00 1.25-2.50 48
(Source: Park archive)
Table 14: Revenue generation of ASLNP from entry fees (Year 1988 – 2007)
Year Ethiopians Foreign residents
Tourists Total visitors/ tourists
Tourism income (in ETB14)
1988/1989 1504 1731 441 3676 8760 1989/1990 941 1596 308 2845 12049 1990/1991 542 862 153 1557 9426 1991/1992 0 25 N/A 25 0 1992/1993 0 0 N/A N/A 0 1993/1994 0 0 N/A N/A 0 1994/1995 5 0 0 5 0 1995/1996 48 61 76 185 8458 1996/1997 2027 641 709 3377 68524. 1997/1998 1690 800 1145 3635 94263. 1998/1999 1208 602 386 2196 60,740 1999/2000 1837 785 930 3552 81800 2000/2001 1912 741 851 3504 77609 2001/2002 2298 681 1387 4366 102060 2002/2003 1934 515 1697 4146 115354 2003/2004 2346 729 2101 5176 143000 2004/2005 2917 872 2913 6702 (11 months data) 195102 2005/2006 - - - 4979 ( 9 months data) 175336 2006/2007 - - - 8990 236968 Total 21209 10641 13097 58916 1389448.40
(Source: EWCO and ASLNP archives) Key: Total visitors/tourists column shows the sum of number of Ethiopians, foreign residents and tourists who visited the Park in that year.
N/A: The data is not available for these years as the Park was abandoned due to fall of Dergue regime (military government) in 1991.
As can be seen from the above Table 14, generally the number of visitors/tourists has been increasing from year to year, in turn increasing the tourism revenue. Tourism revenue has increased from 81800 in the year 1999/2000 to 236,968 ETB in 2006/07 which is almost 3 times higher. Therefore the contribution of ASLNP for tourism development and tourism income could become great importance to the country.
14 The amount of revenue is given in Ethiopian Birr (ETB). 1ETB = 0.11188US$ at time of data collection.
58
c) Local population in tourism development
In spite of the contribution of ASLNP to tourism, the local population are not benefiting from the income. Instead their landholding conflict with the Park impacted the Park’s management and tourism development. There is no involvement of the local people in the Park planning and management. The household survey showed that all local population (100%) were not consulted or asked to be involved to the Park management.
In addition in the survey, the local people were asked about their relationship with the park management and if they would like to cooperate with the Park administration for the management of the Park. Table 15 summarizes that most (60%) are not willing to cooperate and they wanted to use the Park for farmland and grazing land.
Table 15: Local population willingness to involve in management of the Park
Frequency Percent
cooperating 30 18.3 not cooperating 99 60.4 no opinion 35 21.3 Total 164 100.0
5.4.2 Spiritual
This sub-section was based on the interview with key person from the studied kebeles. In the interview the following key issues were asked; any traditional belief for spiritual and religious purpose related to the lakes, tree and animal that are considered as sacred; presence of religious ceremony and traditional rule of protecting the sacred water, animal and trees (See the checklist in appendix 4-B).
People in the rural area usually are attached with their traditions to use natural resources as sacred places for spiritual reason. In the studied kebeles local people were considering lakes (Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla), Shalla Islands, trees in the woodland and wild animals as sacred. Local people were gathering at the Lake side and sacrifice oxen to honor or appease their super natural power (God). In addition during drought (shortage of rainfall), famine and unexpected natural disaster people gather under Ficus tree (locally called ‘Oddaa’) and pray to their super natural power (God).
But now, because of the expansion of mosque in their reach area and spread of education, there is no such spiritual and traditional belief.
From the interview made, nature and its products were considered as the most significant for spiritual purpose. During previous times the Snakes and the Ficus trees (‘Oddaa’) were kept protected because of their traditional and spiritual significance. There were traditional rules led by the Clan leaders and respected elders. These were Odako (Oromo culture), Kelecha, Tsedecha, Sera Oromo and Geda Sheni, which were used to protect the natural resources (Lakes, trees, animals and sacred places) in their area.
59
5.4.3 Research and Education
The Park as one of its objective has been promoting research and educational studies.
A) Research
As protected area and part of nature, one of the uses of ASLNP is for scientific purpose by the scientific community. From the survey, 30.4% of tourists/visitors responded that they visited the Park once or more than once for research purpose. Within the tourists/visitors, 71.4% of the foreigner and 28.4% of the local visitors visited or would like to visit the Park for research purpose.
There have been a number of research projects conducting in ASLNP by various national and international research institutes, colleges, universities and interested individuals. These also include graduate students from different universities of the country and overseas conducting researches at different times. The number and detail of research projects carried out and ongoing projects is not completely documented in the Park archive and the information is fragmented to include in this study.
B) Education
The Park constituting protected biodiversity and natural systems is useful for educational activities. From the survey it is showed that 30.4% of the tourists/visitors visited or would like to visit the Park for educational purpose once and/or more than once. These include the students from primary school, secondary school, colleges and universities. The number of students visited the Park is illustrated in table 16 below.
Table 16: Number of students visited ASLNP for education (Year 1988-2007)
Year Number of students Remark 1988/1989 345 1989/1990 486 1990/1991 322 Park was abandoned 1991/1992 0 “ 1992/1993 0 “ 1993/1994 0 “ 1994/1995 430 1995/1996 0 1996/1997 609 1997/1998 220 1998/1999 466 1999/2000 392 2000/2001 842 2001/2002 N/A 2002/2003 N/A 2003/2004 N/A 2004/2005 1609 11 months data 2005/2006 845 9 months data 2006/2007 1650 Total 8216
(Source: ASLNP Archive) N/A means data not available
60
6. Stakeholders identification and description
This chapter is designed in identifying and classifying stakeholder/interest classes in the use and management of (ecosystem services derived from) ASLNP. This is an important input for mutual understanding and bringing different interests together that will help in the development and implementation of management planning for improving ASLNP ecosystem services.
6.1 Identification of the different stakeholders
At first preliminary list of stakeholders was prepared from literatures during proposal development. This list was further developed during field work with the Park experts and use of documents (Abebe and Wondafrash, 2002). The list of stakeholders’ includes individuals, classes, businesses, organizations (both government and non government) and other relevant classes involved directly or indirectly to ASLNP. These stakeholders were included from different scales: local, regional, national, super national15 and global level.
After identification process, selection was done based on top down approach on use and/or management of Park ecosystem. Then the selected stakeholders were grouped into local, regional, national, super national and global. These stakeholders are used as main stakeholders involved in ASLNP.
6.2 Description of the main Stakeholders
6.2.1 Stakeholders at local level
Table 17: List of stakeholders at local level
Stakeholder group
Lists of stakeholders Responsibilities/interests
Park managers and staff
Park Warden, experts and staff Conservation of wildlife and ecosystem
Communities Residents inside and/or adjacent to the Park, outside the Park
Use natural resources and the Park ecosystem
Businesses and enterprise
Hotels: Wabe Shebelle, Bekelle Molla, Resorts/lodges: Bishan Gari, Sabana, Karkaro, Soda Ash factory,
Making business from tourists and visitors Maximizing economic benefit
Local Government Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) offices (Arsi Negelle and ATJK Woredas)
Protection and conservation of Natural resources & ecosystem
Environmental NGOs & classes
Central Rift Valley Working Group (CRV-WG)
Environmental conservation
15 Here super national level is to refer stakeholder that is above the national level and below the global level.
61
1. Park manager and Park staff
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park is under Oromiya Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau since 1996. The Park is functioning without proper legal recognition. However, a proposed boundary description by Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization (EWCO) in 1974 has been used by the Park authority for management. The Park has a Park warden, one wildlife expert, game guards and other administrative workers. The Park Warden is responsible for implementation of the conservation and management of the Park at the site. The game guards are involved in protecting poaching of natural resources, like: illegal hunting, extraction of mineral salt, extraction of sand, and deforestation for charcoal and fuel wood use as well as encroachment by the local community.
According to Tefera and Almaw (2002) the overall objective of the Park is to conserve the spectacular number of aquatic birds that use the lakes in the Park, their resources and the scenic beauty of the area. The other objectives that are shared with other National Parks are:
- to conserve biodiversity - to maintain ecological processes - to generate economic benefit through tourism development - to promote scientific research and education
2. Communities:
These are the local people living inside and/or adjacent to the Park. Administratively the local community belongs to ATJK, Arsi Negelle and Shalla Woredas. For this study the perception of the local people from ATJK and Arsi Negelle was taken. The local community used in this study includes Hadha Bosso, Galeef Qello, Shalla Billa, DDHG, Gubata Arijo and Desta Abijata. Previously, these people were believed to be nomads but now they get used to settle permanently in the area. In the household survey, households were asked about the reason why they prefer to live inside and/or adjacent to the Park area (see Table 18).
Table 18: Reason that local community prefer to live inside and /or adjacent to the Park
Reason to live in/close to ASLNP Frequency Percent
Better living environment (easy land access and Place of my family)
69 42.1
Recreation purpose 5 3.0 Lack of alternative 5 3.0 Cultural benefit 3 1.8 Presence of Wildlife 5 3.0 Easy access to Park area 54 32.9 Place where I born and my family place 23 14.0
Total 164 100.0 (Source: this thesis)
62
The local people believe that they were living in the area before establishment of the Park (communication with local elders). And they consider the Park as a threat to them. From table 18 above, it is indicated that local people prefer to live inside and/or adjacent to Park area because they assume that it is better living environment for them to get land access and it is place of their parent and grandparents.
In addition, the future preferences of the local people for the study area were asked in the household survey and the result is shown in the table 19 below.
Table 19: Preference of the local people for the Park area
Future preference of the area of ASLNP No. of respondents Percent (%)
Farmland 79 48.2 Grazing land 6 3.7 Protected Park 14 8.5 Protected forest 2 1.2 Open access land 5 3.0 Farm land and grazing land 58 35.4 Total 164 100.0 (Source: this thesis)
Most households (about 87%) from table 19 above responded that they prefer to have either farmland, grazing land or both instead of keeping the area protected. This is because the means of livelihood of these communities is mixed type of agriculture in which farming is the major activity followed by livestock rearing. From the surveyed households, 97% are engaged in agriculture activity. Further more, the average livestock for the kebeles/study sites is 18 per household (source: this thesis). According to the households from inside and inside/outside the Park, the land inside the Park area belongs to them. Chapter 5 details more about the use of farmland and grazing land by households of the local community.
The description of each study kebeles/sites is mentioned below.
a) Hadha Bosso
This Kebele belongs to Arsi Negelle Woreda where more than 91% of the households live outside the Park boundary. Only few households very close to the Park have landholdings inside ASLNP and have access for farming, grazing and use of woodland products. Only 17 and 20% of the households from this kebele have farmland and use the grazing land inside the Park. But most have alternative access to other areas, extending up to Lake Langano. They are close to the Park Head quarter at Dole town along the main road connecting Addis Ababa to Shashemene-Awassa.
b) Galeef Qello
More than 91% of the households live inside the Park. The head quarter of the Park administratively belongs to this Kebele. The households of this Kebele are settled at every corner of the head quarter inside the Park. They are the main users of the resources
63
(wetlands for grazing, acacia woodland as source of fuel wood, charcoal wood) and encroachment to the fenced head quarter.
c) Shalla Billa
Shalla Billa Kebele is located at the center of the Park in between Lake Shalla and Lake Abijata. All households dwell inside the Park boundary and the kebele supports about a population of 4125. All the households are dependent on the Park natural resources. The local people are known by their extraction of sand from the shore of the two Lakes and from inside the acacia woodland. In addition their livestock are dependent on the acacia woodland and wetlands as pasture land. Since this Kebele is found in the down hill of the Park head quarter, management of the local people is difficult as a result charcoal production is an important activity during night.
d) Daka Dallu Haran Gama (DDHG)
In this kebele, almost half of the households are living inside the Park. The location is close to the main acacia woodland cover on the flat topography of the Park adjacent to the main road to cities. The other half live very close /adjacent to the Park and have equal access as those who live inside the Park. Even though the kebele has a population of 1910, they are the main users of the Park area. The Kebele is situated far from the Park head quarter for management. Their location to the main road created favorable condition for marketing illegally produced charcoal, fuel wood and mineral salt (“Boji”).
e) Gubata Arijo
This kebele is situated adjacent to Hadha Bosso Kebele where more than half of the households (about 59%) are living outside the Park boundary but use the Park. The kebele is located in the most bare land portion of the park in which farmland and unproductive land is the dominant area. In most cases, households in this Kebele because of its closeness to Shalla area, and far from the Park headquarter, and situated at the border of the main road are major producer of charcoal for subsistence income.
f) Desta Abijata
This kebele belongs to ATJK Woreda and it is highly populated. It has a population of 9178 (data of 2007) in which all of them are located inside the Park. The area covers the major shores of Lake Abijata in the flat topography. Most woodland cover is converted to farmland to support the increase in population. They are extensively using the Lake Wetlands and grassland for keeping their livestock. Use of the mineral salt (“Boji”) from the shore of Lake and charcoal production from woodland are common practices in addition to the major agricultural practices. River Bulbula, crossing at this Keble before entering to Lake Abijata is main water supply, used for drinking, irrigation, bathing and washing.
3. Businesses and enterprises
64
a) Hotels and lodges
Lake Langano, one of the CRV Lakes, is highly recreational site because of its importance for swimming, enjoyable sandy beaches and its accessible location. It is located within a close reach of ASLNP, which is separated by the main highway. There are hotels and lodges along the shore of Lake Langano. The hotels include Wabe Shebelle No.1 and No.2 hotels and Bekelle Molla hotel, which are 2.8 and 3kms from the Park, respectively. The lodges include Bishan Gari (eco-lodge 20 km from Park), Sabana (about 2.8km from Park) and Karkaro (3 km from Park). The hotels and lodges have their own recreational facilities including boats, accommodation services, restaurants and bars to tourists and visitors. These are close places where national and international tourists who visit ASLNP stay mostly. The primary objective of the hotels and lodges is to make business based on the services they provide.
c) Soda Ash Factory
Soda Ash factory is a governmental enterprise established in 1989 at the shore of Lake Abijata for production of soda ash (Na2CO3) from sodium bicarbonate dissolved in lake water. Production of soda ash (sodium carbonate) is currently working as a pilot study at Lake Abijata using solar evaporation of brines from the Lake. The amount of water that is required to produce 10, 000 ton of soda Ash is in the order of 0.9 million M3 (Jansen et al., 2007). Pumping of saline water from Lake Abijata takes place in to 17 artificial ponds prepared for this purpose. There are 2 big ponds of 6km long each and 15 small sized ponds for evaporation process.
The over all objective of the factory is to produce quality standard Soda Ash and satisfy the demand of other factories for raw material (Soda Ash product) need and also to export Soda Ash to abroad that increases the profit of the factory as well as promoting the economic development of the country.
4. Local government
a) Arsi Negelle Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development (AN-ARD) Office
The Woreda ARD office is located in Arsi Negelle town, which is 15 km from ASLNP. The Woreda has several divisions grouped into teams. The Natural resource protection team is responsible for protection and conservation of natural resources in the Woreda. Protection is done through raising environmental awareness about the natural resources and their importance related to the provision of environmental services, including fertility of land for agriculture to local people through education. This activity also extends to controlling illegal natural resource utilization such as extraction of sand, charcoal production and others. On the other hand, conservation measure is through plantation of seedlings to their surrounding environment advised and guided by the Development Agents in each Kebele (personal communication with team leader of Natural resource Protection, 2007).
65
b) Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development (ATJK-ARD) office
Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda ARD office is located in the city of Ziway which is 47 km from the Park. The Natural resource division team is responsible for the natural resources in the Woreda. The role of the team is giving training for farmers about conservation of nature and how to keep forests and control illegal activities related to natural resource use such as: charcoal and other wood products. Seedlings are provided to farmers during rainy season and plant them for conservation of the area. Development Agents are near by the farmers to give advice and train practical aspects of conservation.
5. Central Rift Valley Working Group (CRV-WG)
These are voluntary group of professionals from government and NGOs with environmental interests discussing on the issues of water usage in Ziway, Langano, and Abijata Lake area to create awareness and promote advocacy for environmental conservation.
6.2.2 Stakeholders at regional level
These stakeholder classes include the regional governmental authorities.
Table 20: List of stakeholders at regional level
Stakeholder group Lists of stakeholders Responsibilities/interests Oromiya Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau (OARDB)
Biodiversity, environment and ecosystem conservation
Oromiya Environmental Protection Authority (OEPO)
Environmental conservation
Regional Government
Ziway Fishery Research Centre (ZFRC)
Fishery research in all water bodies in Oromiya region
1) Oromiya Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau (OARDB)
This is the highest regional government authority where natural resources in the region are administered under. The Oromiya Agriculture and Rural Development bureau has been managing ASLNP since 1996. The Park is linked administratively through the Forestry and Wildlife development Conservation Department with the Park management. The department has the responsibility of managing and developing the Park at the site level.
2) Oromiya Environmental Protection Office (OEPO)
This is a regional office that involves in coordination of environmental issues in Oromiya region working under the federal Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).OEPO is also involved on pollution control and on regional environmental impact assessment.
3) Ziway Fishery Research Center (ZFRC)
66
This research office is situated at Ziway town, 160 km from Addis Ababa. The center is dealing with fishery research in all water bodies in Oromiya, including the Rift Valley Lakes. The centre was set up in July 2001. Previously, it was the Fishery Development Centre under the regional bureau of agriculture since 1997. The office is providing technical assistance to fishers. This aims at increasing production and productivity by changing the way fishers work, through research and advocacy and awareness raising. The aquatic resources division in the center works mainly with NGOs on environmental protection. The center is also cooperating with the Natural Resources Division from Adami Tulu Research Centre for environmental protection.
However, with respect to Lake Abijata, since there is no commercial fishing and it is part of protected area there is no active involvement of the center now.
6.2.3 Stakeholders at the national level
These are federal governmental and non governmental organizations at the national level that have direct or indirect responsibilities on ASLNP.
Table 21: List of stakeholders at national level
Stakeholder group
Lists of stakeholders Responsibilities/interests
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation & Research (IBCR)
Biodiversity Conservation
Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) Development and management of water resources.
Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization (EWCO)
Wildlife conservation
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Environmental conservation and sustainable development
Federal government
Universities (AAU, Hawassa, Mekelle, Haromaya, etc)
research in environmental issues (promote Ecosystem conservation)
Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society (EWNHS)
Conserving environment Ecosystem conservation
Ethiopian Wildlife Association (EWA) Wildlife conservation
Ethio-Wetland and Natural Resources Association (EWNRA)
Sustainable management and conservation of wetlands
Environmental NGOs and associations
Ethiopian Tour Operators Association (ETOA)
Tourism development
Travel agencies
Travel agencies Tourism development
Tourists National tourists Enjoyment and information
1) Federal Government
a) Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR)
67
The Institute of Biodiversity Conservation (IBCR) is a national institute founded in 1976. The Institute has been working on the basis of the national policy directives since then. Since 1998 IBCR has given wider mandate on conservation of biological resources of the country giving emphasis at the local and national needs and values. The activity extends to provisioning of technical assistance to different parties with regard to the objective of biodiversity conservation. The institute as a national authority has also the duty to implement the international conventions, agreements and obligations on biodiversity issues. Therefore IBCR is responsible institute in designing and publishing national strategy and policy documents on Ethiopia's Biodiversity and distribute to relevant stakeholders. Within these strategies and policies, the overall objective of the Institute is to undertake conservation and promote the development and sustainable utilization of the country’s biological resources (http://www.ibc-et.org/?page_id=4).
One of the specific policy objectives is to encourage the participation and support of local communities in biodiversity conservation, development and utilization. Furthermore its role extends in ensuring the local people’s share of the benefit accrued as a result of using indigenous knowledge and/or germplasm (http://www.ibc-et.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/national-policy-on-biodiversity-conservation-and-research.pdf).
b) Ministry of Water resources
The Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) at the national level is responsible for the overall planning, development, management, utilization, and protection of the country’s water resources, as well as supervising all water development activities carried out by other institutions (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_profile_of_Ethiopia#Water_management.2C_Policies.2C_and_Legislation_Related_to_Water_Use_in_Agriculture).
c) Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization (EWCO)
Protection of natural resources including protected areas and country’s wildlife is managed by central and regional government. Under the central government, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is responsible through EWCO. EWCO was established in 1965 to conserve the wildlife resources of Ethiopia. EWCO under Natural Resources Conservation and Development Main Department (NRCDMD) is directly responsible for the establishment, administration and management of national Parks, sanctuaries, wildlife reserves (http://www.parks.it/world/ET/Eindex.html). These activities are still performed by the EWCO for other national Parks which are under the federal government. In addition, it oversees controlled hunting areas and wildlife reserves in the absence of other responsible agencies and where it is able to provide resources.
Since the establishment, ASLNP was under EWCO until 1996. However, the Park was handed over to regional Authority, Oromiya Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau (OARDB) since then. Currently, there is no direct active involvement of EWCO but plays regulatory role at the national level and provides technical assistance for conservation and protection. Legislation is made by EWCO and the regional state involves in execution.
68
d) Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
Under Federal level, EPA has been established recently in 1995. EPA is accountable to the federal Council of Ministers. It is involved in coordinating and regulating activities related to environment management. The over all objective of EPA is to formulate policies, strategies, laws and standards including EIA guidelines and procedures which foster social and economic development in a manner that enhances the welfare of humans and the safety of the environment in a sustainable way, and to spearhead in ensuring the effectiveness of the process of their implementation. In addition EPA coordinates and performs researches that involves in environmental protection.
e) Universities (Academics)
Addis Ababa University (AAU) the leading university in the country is involved in research activities. Researchers involve in limnology, hydrology of the lakes, on wetland biodiversity and social studies in the CRV including the Park area. In addition researchers from Hawassa University (HU), Mekelle University, Haromaya University, and others have been involved in different fields of study.
2. Environmental NGOs and associations
These classes of stakeholders consist of environmental NGOs and associations formed from interested individuals and different sectors because of their environmental concerns.
a) Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society (EWNHS)
The Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society (EWNHS), established in 1966 is local environmental NGO. The society is a non profit making organization formed by group of individuals advocating for sustainable use of natural resources. The objectives of the society are: to disseminate information and create awareness about the need of the conservation and wise use of Ethiopia’s natural resources and the environment, conduct and promote research on natural resources (fauna and flora), assist and encourage conservation and management of biodiversity sites (http://www.ewnhs.org.et/Annual%20report%202006.pdf). As part of the main mission the society has been involving on wetland birds, identification of wetland Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and promoting research and management of threatened species of wetlands including wetlands of ASLNP. EWNHS also produced site Action Plan for ASLNP. In addition, it is a birdlife partner with Birdlife international, which aims at improving the quality of life for birds, for other wildlife, and for people.
b) Ethiopian Wildlife Association (EWA)
Ethiopian wildlife Association (EWA) was established in January 2003 as an advisory professional group to assist concerned institutions, NGOs, private sector organization and local people in the conservation and sustainable utilization of the country’s biological resources, particularly wildlife (EWA, 2007)
69
(http://www.africanconservation.org/dcforum/DCForumID1/337.html). The association aimed to achieve the objective by raising the awareness on the conservation, use and management of wildlife resources. In addition, encouraging community participation in the management and conservation of wildlife protected areas could help in protecting the country’s wildlife, according to the association.
c) Ethio-Wetland and Natural Resources Association (EWNRA)
The association is formed in 2000 to involve in Ethiopia’s wetlands. EWNRA members range from experts who share particular interests and concerns over the future of wetlands in Ethiopia who come from various backgrounds and institutions. The over aim of EWNRA is to develop wetlands management, research and training capacity within Ethiopia, thereby facilitating the wise use of wetlands and developing awareness and skills for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands and their resources (http://wetlands.hud.ac.uk/ewnra/).
d) Travel agencies
These are involved in tourism industry in Ethiopia. There are more than 110 travel agencies and tour operators in Ethiopia. The aim is promoting tourism as industry by collecting and disseminating information, and providing guide services to group or individual tours in the country. One of the touristy places they have been playing active role is ASLNP where the birdlife and beauty of landscapes attract tourists.
e) Ethiopian Tour Operators Association (ETOA)
ETOA is an association from members engaged in tour operation and travel agency services. The association aimed at promoting a reliable tourism industry ensuring that tourism plays as key role in economic development and poverty reduction in sustainable environment.
f) National tourists
National tourists, commonly have not had planned visits to ASLNP for recreation purpose except mostly for organized activities and mission oriented purpose but some classes do. So the national tourism is under utilized in many cases.
6.2.4 Stakeholders at super national and global level
Table 22: List of stakeholders at super national and global level
Level Stakeholder group Stakeholders Responsibilities/interests
Super national Environmental NGO HoA-REC/N Environmental conservation
NGO Birdlife International Birds and their habitat conservation
Global
Tourist Tourists Enjoyment and information
1. Stakeholder at Super national level
70
Horn of Africa Regional Environmental Center/Network (HoA-REC/N)
HoA-REN is a network of members and partners consisting of environmental CBOs, NGOs and higher learning institutes from six countries (Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia and Eritrea) in the Horn of Africa. The network promotes intensive cooperation among and exchange of information and experiences between endogenous NGOs, CBOs, research institutions and universities in the Horn of Africa (http://www.hoarec.org/about.html). This Network is working in promoting environmental governance by paying attention to the need of natural resource management and protection of biodiversity for benefit of ecosystem. In Ethiopia, management of the lakes and wetlands of the CRV, such as of Lake Abijata and the management of the Park and buffer zone are under the attention of the HoA-REC/N.
2. Stakeholder at global Level
a) Birdlife International
Birdlife international has a main objective of conserving the world’s birds, their habitats and global biodiversity through concerted efforts of partnerships around the globe (http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/index.html). Birdlife International has ten such partners in ten different countries and through a project known as ‘African NGO-Government Partnerships for Sustainable Biodiversity Action’ attempts to conserve birds and their habitats in Africa. The aim of conserving the continent’s birds is by devising approaches that revolve around the main theme of working with people towards the sustainability in the use of natural resources.
b) International tourists
Tourists from different parts of the world visit the Park for its wildlife and unique landscapes. The geographical location, to the center of CRV, accessibility and presence of facilities around the Park and varied attractions has been contributing to the increasing inflow of tourists from all over the world to the Park. Figure 26 shows tourists visited the Park during field survey and their origin from different parts of the world.
International tourists
28%
3%
27%
18%
9%
3%
6%
3% 3%
Netherland
Sw izerland
Germany
Spain
France
Chad
Japan
Italy
USA
Figure 26: Composition of international tourists visited ASLNP by the country
71
7. Importance of ecosystem services based on local people’s perception
This chapter deals with importance of ecosystem services provided by different landscape units based on PDM exercise. Four kebeles were used for this exercise. The kebeles were generally classified into 3 classes based on their location. These were Kebeles: inside Park (includes Galeef Qello and Shalla Billa Kebeles), inside/outside Park (Gubata Arijo kebele), and outside Park (Hadha Bosso).The average score result was taken from the exercises done in Shalla Billa and Galeef Qello, inside the Park. For determining the importance of ecosystem services eight provisioning and two cultural services with respect to eight landscape units were used. For the analysis and comparison on importance of landscape units the average result was calculated for each service.
7.1 PDM exercise on importance of ecosystem services
First, list of landscape units were introduced and explanation was made on the description of identified landscape units and on provisioning and cultural services (Appendix 5-B). After thorough the discussions with members of PDM participants, it was agreed to use eight landscapes for this exercise.
In the exercise, first scoring for each of services by the landscape units was done. Secondly, the over all importance of landscapes in providing the services follows. The total count of Pebbles/Haricot Beans received for each exercise was recorded on separate data sheet. Refer appendix 5-A for data sheet and the summary of the scores of each exercises.
Figure 27: PDM participants assigning scores at Hadha Bosso Kebele
72
7.1.1 Scores of provisioning services in relation to landscape units
A) Food
The major food products obtained were crops from cultivation and collection of wild fruits from acacia woodland in the Park (refer to survey result in chapter 5). In addition, seldom fishing is reported from Lake Abijata by few local people. The PDM exercise shows that food received the highest sore in all kebeles with respect to the farmland (Figure 28) as they are clearing the woodland to satisfy their food demand. It is followed by acacia woodland in all kebeles because it provides fruits. According to participants from inside Park, fallow land received the third highest score because it also provides fruits from shrubs and remains of scattered acacia trees.
Food
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 1.5 0 10 3.8
Farmland 62.5 95 60 72.5
Fallow land 13.5 0 5 6.2
Woodland 20 5 25 16.7
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Shalla 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Abijata 2.5 0 0 0.8
Hot springs 0 0 0 0.0
Inside Park Inside/Outside
Park Outside Park Average
Figure 28: Comparison of PDM scores for food by landscape units among kebeles
B) Fresh water
Freshwater from hot springs received the highest score according to the participants from all kebeles. Shalla hot springs play an important role for the local people as they provide the major proportion of water for livestock drinking, washing clothes and bathing purpose
73
(Figure 29). This is because hot springs have much less salt concentration than the other water bodies in the Park area. Freshwater from Lake Shalla received the second highest score because the Lake is mainly used by the local population for washing clothes. Participants from inside the Park are the main users of the Lakes.
Fresh water
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 1.5 0 0 0.5
Farmland 0 0 0 0.0
Fallow land 0 0 0 0.0
Woodland 5 0 0 1.7
Wetland 1 0 0 0.3
Lake Shalla 30 10 20 20.0
Lake Abijata 7.5 0 5 4.2
Hot springs 55 90 75 73.3
Inside Park Inside/Outside
ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 29: PDM scores for water supply by landscape units among kebeles
C) Animal fodder
Animal fodder from the woodland has given the highest score by the participants from kebeles inside and inside/outside the Park. In addition, it has received a very close second rank with respect to wetlands by participants from inside the Park. This is because the local people from kebeles inside the Park are located in a place where there is access to both woodland area and the wetlands. Even though households are close to the wetlands, to some extent they prefer acacia woodland than wetland because the muddy wetland has been killing their cattle because of its inability to support them (personal communication). Animal fodder from the farmland received the highest score followed by the woodland according to the participants from outside the Park. This is because of less accessibility to the woodland.
74
Animal fodder
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 7.5 0 0 2.5
Farmland 17.5 10 50 25.8
Fallow land 10 20 10 13.3
Woodland 40 70 40 50.0
Wetland 25 0 0 8.3
Lake Shalla 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Abijata 0 0 0 0.0
Hot springs 0 0 0 0.0
Inside ParkInside/Outsid
e ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 30: PDM scores for animal fodder by landscape units among kebeles
D) Construction Wood
Construction wood (for house and fences) from the acacia woodland received the highest score by participants from all kebeles (Figure 31). The local people from inside and inside/outside the Park have also fallow land that still helps to supply construction wood than the households from outside kebeles.
75
Construction wood
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 0 0.0
Farmland 2.5 0 0 0.8
Fallow land 15 5 0 6.7
Woodland 80 95 100 91.7
Wetland 2.5 0 0 0.8
Lake Shalla 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Abijata 0 0 0 0.0
Hot springs 0 0 0 0.0
Inside ParkInside/Outside
ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 31 PDM scores for construction wood by landscape units among kebeles
E) Agriculture tool and furniture making
The use of wood for agriculture tool and household furniture making from woodland received the highest score from participants’ in all kebeles (Figure 32). Here also due to the presence of acacia trees in fallow land, the use of wood for agriculture tool and household furniture making from fallow land received the next higher score by participants from inside the Park. As a result fallow lands can contribute to the provision of wood for tool making for households inside the Park.
76
Agriculture tool and household furniture making
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 0 0.0
Farmland 5 0 0 1.7
Fallow land 22.5 10 0 10.8
Woodland 72.5 90 100 87.5
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Shalla 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Abijata 0 0 0 0.0
Hot springs 0 0 0 0.0
Inside ParkInside/Outside
ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 32: PDM scores for agricultural tool and household furniture wood by kebeles
F) Fuel Wood
Fuel wood, as energy source for local population from all kebeles, received the highest score with respect to the acacia woodland (Figure 33). Participants from inside the Park kebele give the next highest score to fuel wood with respect to the fallow land followed by farmland in the third rank. This is because local populations from kebeles inside the Park are found within a relatively better acacia woodland cover where the farmlands and the fallow lands still provide fuel wood from bushes and remains of previous acacia trees. Generally, local populations from inside the Park kebeles have more access to the acacia woodland for fuel wood than the outside kebele.
77
Fuel wood
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 0 0.0
Farmland 10 0 0 3.3
Fallow land 16.5 10 0 8.8
Woodland 72.5 90 100 87.5
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Shalla 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Abijata 0 0 0 0.0
Hot springs 0 0 0 0.0
Inside Park Inside/Outside
ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 33: PDM scores for fuel wood by landscape units among kebeles
G) Charcoal wood
Charcoal is an important source of energy and means of escaping mechanism for subsistence income, especially when there are not sufficient crops cultivated. It is used mainly for selling. Charcoal wood from the acacia woodland is the most important service according to participants from all kebeles (Figure 34). Use of wood for charcoal making is unquestioned for the local population from kebeles inside, inside/outside, or outside the Park and it is important part of livelihood and economic activity obtained from acacia woodland.
78
Charcoal wood
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 0 0.0
Farmland 0 0 0 0.0
Fallow land 5 0 0 1.7
Woodland 95 100 100 98.3
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Shalla 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Abijata 0 0 0 0.0
Hot springs 0 0 0 0.0
Inside ParkInside/Outside
ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 34: PDM scores for charcoal wood by landscape units among kebeles
H) Medicinal resources
Medicinal resources from the hot springs got the highest score followed by the acacia woodland according to the PDM participants from kebeles inside the Park (Figure 35). This is because local populations from kebeles inside the Park have better access and no other alternatives than the local populations from kebeles inside/outside and outside the Park. Medicinal plants from the acacia woodland are also used for treatment of their livestock in case of illness. Medicinal resources from acacia woodland received the highest score according to the PDM participants from kebeles inside/outside the Park (Figure 35). But medicinal resources from the woodland and the hot springs are equally most important according to the PDM participants from kebeles outside the Park. The local people from kebeles outside the Park see both resources as their alternatives incase of illness.
79
Medcinal resources
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 10 3.3
Farmland 2.5 0 10 4.2
Fallow land 2.5 30 10 14.2
Woodland 35 50 30 38.3
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Shalla 12.5 5 5 7.5
Lake Abijata 5 0 5 3.3
Hot springs 42.5 15 30 29.2
Inside ParkInside/Outside
ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 35: PDM scores for medicinal resources by landscape units among kebeles
7.1.2 Overall importance of landscapes in all provisioning services
At the end of each PDM exercise on the importance of provisioning services, the over all importance of landscape units was ranked by PDM participants (Figure 36). In addition, the average score of the services by PDM participants from all kebeles (inside, inside/outside and outside the Park) to each landscape units is calculated (table 17) in order to compare the results of the outcomes. Overall importance of the landscape units in providing provisioning services is described here based on figure 36 and table 17.
In the PDM exercises done in each kebele, it was clearly showed in figure 36 that the two landscapes, farmland and acacia woodland received the highest PDM scores among the other landscapes.
80
Table 23: Average PDM scores16 of provisioning services by landscapes Provisioning services
Landscape units
Homestead Farmland Fallow land
Woodland Wetland Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Food 3.8 72.5 6.2 16.7 0 0 0.8 0
water 0.5 0 0 1.7 0.3 20 4.2 73.3
Fodder and grazing land
2.5 25.8 13.3 50.0 8.3 0 0 0
construction wood
0 0.8 6.7 91.7 0.8 0 0 0
Agriculture tool and furniture making
0 1.7 10.8 87.5 0 0 0 0
fuel wood 0 3.3 8.8 87.5 0 0 0 0
Charcoal wood
0 0 1.7 98.3 0 0 0 0
medicinal resources
3.3 4.2 14.2 38.3 0 7.5 3.3 29.2
NB: The shaded numbers show the highest scores of the services
In general, from the average score, the farmland followed by the woodland is most important to the local people. This is due to the fact that in all kebeles the households demand farmlands to cultivate food crops as result more acacia woodland is converted to farmland. According to them, it is the landscape that they need most to get food should score highest i.e. farmland. Specifically in case of the households from inside/outside the Park they prefer acacia woodland (Figure 36) almost equally with the farmland.
Then following the farmland, acacia woodland took the second highest score from the PDM exercise. This is because acacia woodland is the most important place where local population obtains fuel wood, charcoal wood, wood for agricultural tools and household furniture, construction wood, animal fodder and place to collect medicinal plants (Table 23).
16 Average PDM score is the aggregated average score of each provisioning services by all participants (from inside, inside/outside and outside the Park) for the landscapes
81
Importance of landscapes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Acacia woodland
Wetlands
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 7.5 5 10 7.5
Farmland 37.5 30 40 35.8
Fallow land 4 5 5 4.7
Acacia woodland 22.5 33 35 30.2
Wetlands 6.5 2 2 3.5
Lake Shalla 7.5 5 2 4.8
Lake Abijata 7 10 1 6.0
Hot springs 7.5 10 5 7.5
Inside ParkInside/Outsid
e ParkOutside Park Average
Figure 36: PDM scores of landscape units in all provisioning services among kebeles
From the water sources, hot springs are the most important followed by Lake Shalla (highly preferred by households from inside Park) and Lake Abijata with close PDM scores (table 23). This is because hot springs have additional medicinal value to the households besides their direct provision of water for livestock drinking, washing clothes and bathing.
Homesteads, which received the same score with hot springs, are also important for the local population as it is home for them.
The wetlands are other landscape for providing fodder and serves as grazing land for the livestock which received almost least overall score.
7.1.3 Scores of cultural services in relation to landscape units
a) Spiritual service
The local people had been tied up to the natural resources for their spiritual and religious purpose. The most common places were the Lakes (Lake Shalla and Lake Abijata) and the acacia woodland. There was gathering around Lake and in the woodland where they
82
address their spiritual worship. From the scoring exercise, spiritual service with respect to acacia woodland is the most important service as it received the highest score followed by Lake Shalla by PDM participants from kebeles inside the Park. Spiritual service with respect to the acacia woodland and Lake Shalla received equally highest score by the PDM participants from kebeles inside/outside the Park. This shows that spiritual service is equally most important from woodland and Shalla Lake according to them. Local population from kebele outside the Park is not using the spiritual service within the Park.
Figure 37: PDM Scores of spiritual use of landscapes among kebeles
b) Recreation
Local people spend their leisure time by walking around their surroundings. Most households in the household survey replied that they spend or would like to spend their time either by staying at home, visiting relatives, visiting the nearby towns, visiting Lakes, enjoying Shalla Hot springs, or staying in acacia woodland under the shade of trees. The latter three are important parts of this exercise in which local people use the Park for recreation. In figure 38 below, recreation service received the highest score with
Spiritual
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Kebeles
Scores (%)
Homestead
Farmland Fallow land
Woodland Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 0 0.0 Farmland 0 0 0 0.0 Fallow land 0 0 0 0.0 Woodland 55 50 0 35.0
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0 Lake Shalla 40 50 0 30.0
Lake Abijata 5 0 0 1.7 Hot springs 0 0 0 0.0
Inside ParkInside/outsi
de ParkOutside
Park Average
83
respect to acacia woodland followed by the hot springs by participants from kebeles inside and outside the Park. They argue that they do not have place to go except sitting under the shade of woodland trees. On the other hand, recreation from using hot springs received the highest score by participants from kebele inside/outside the Park. The local population from kebele inside/outside the Park prefers to take bath and enjoy hot springs with friends.
Recreation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 0 0.0
Farmland 0 0 0 0.0
Fallow land 2.5 0 0 0.8
Woodland 42.5 15 70 42.5
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Shalla 15 25 0 13.3
Lake Abijata 5 0 0 1.7
Hot springs 35 60 30 41.7
Inside ParkInside/Outsi
de ParkOutside
ParkAverage
Figure 38: PDM Scores for recreation importance of landscape units among Kebeles
7.1.4 Overall importance of landscapes for cultural services
Overall scoring was done based on the current use of the landscapes to cultural services (spiritual and recreation services) by PDM participants (Figure 39). In actual sense there is not current use of the Park for spiritual purpose. As a result the local people gave the score with respect to the use of landscapes for recreation purpose. And average scoring (Table 24) is calculated from individual scores of each service by PDM participants (inside, inside/outside and outside the Park) for the respective landscapes.
On the average score from all PDM participants (inside, inside/outside and outside the Park) in table 24, it is showed that there is no significant difference in preference by the local population for using hot springs and the acacia woodland for recreation purpose.
84
Lake Shalla, previously important place for spiritual purpose took the third rank for recreation service by the local population. This is because it is close to Shalla hot springs and sometimes local people used the Lake for swimming.
Table 24: Average PDM scores of cultural services17 by landscapes
Landscapes Services Homestead Farmland Fallow
land Woodland Wetland Lake
Shalla Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Spiritual 0 0 0 35 0 30 1.7 0 recreation 0 0 0.8 42.5 0 13.3 1.7 41.7
Importance of landscapes to all cultural services
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Kebeles
Sco
res
(%)
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Homestead 0 0 0 0.0
Farmland 0 0 0 0.0
Fallow land 0 0 0 0.0
Woodland 40 15 70 41.7
Wetland 0 0 0 0.0
Lake Shalla 15 25 0 13.3
Lake Abijata 5 0 0 1.7
Hot springs 40 60 30 43.3
Inside ParkInside/Outsi
de ParkOutside
ParkAverage
Figure 39: PDM scores of landscape units in providing cultural services among kebeles
Figure 39 depicts the results of overall scoring for importance of landscapes with regard to the PDM Participants from individual location of kebeles. The acacia woodland and the hot springs received equal PDM score by participants from inside Park. This might be
17 Average PDM score is the aggregated average score of cultural services by all participants (from inside, inside/outside and outside the Park) for the respective landscapes
85
due to the accessibility of both landscapes. However, hot springs received the highest score by participants from inside/outside the Park as they prefer to enjoy the hot springs. This means that local population from kebeles inside/outside the Park prefers mostly Shalla Hot springs for recreation (Figure 39) Local population from outside the Park gave the highest score to acacia woodland followed by hot springs for recreation.
7.2 Comparison of results of household survey and PDM exercises
Both household survey and PDM exercises were used in identification of ecosystem services of the Park. In household survey, the local population identified the actual use of the services (Figure 40) regardless of ranking the importance of the services. However; PDM resulted in ranking the identified services based on participants’ preference.
According to the household survey, the most important services local people obtained from the Park are: Food (fruits, crop), water, raw materials (construction wood, charcoal wood, fuel wood, Agricultural tool and household furniture making wood, thatching grass and animal fodder (from grazing land)) and medicinal resources (Figure 40).
Dependence of local people on ecosystem services
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fruit
s
Crops
Wate
r
Construc
tion w
ood
Charc
oal w
ood
Fuelw
ood
Agri too
l and
furn
iture
That
ching
gra
ss
Graz
ing la
nd
Med
cinal re
sour
ces
Services
Resp
onse
s (%
)
Inside
Inside/outside
Outside
Source: (household survey, this thesis) Figure 40: Local population dependence on the Park for provisioning services
The survey result indicated that households from kebeles inside and inside/outside the Park are mainly dependent on the Park for the provisioning services such as food, water and raw materials for their livelihood (Figure 40). These local people use the services
86
almost equally as they do not have alternative means to depend on for their needs including cash income. Here in the survey, it seems that the local people from kebeles inside/outside the Park are the relatively more producers of the charcoal from the Park area. Actually this depends on the accessibility of the area for selling. However, it is usually the local people from kebeles inside the Park who are mainly blamed for illegal charcoal making. But this result showed that households from inside/outside the Park have much contribution to this illegal activity as they are far and out of sight from the Park administration. All in all, the survey and the PDM approaches showed the local people actual use of the services and their preference to the services based on the, respectively. As a result, both approaches are complimenting each other.
For the households who live in kebeles inside the Park, and inside/outside the Park, the result of the survey and PDM scoring did not show difference; instead PDM scoring verifies the survey result. These households depend on the Park landscapes in which they give the highest rank to the farmland and the acacia woodland where they get most of the food and the raw materials for their livelihood. In case of households from outside the Park, the households’ survey showed that households from outside the Park are less users of the services (Figure 40). How ever, during the PDM exercises they showed that they have highest preference to the services from acacia woodland and water resources.
In general, the importance of the landscapes is showed in chapter 6 with regard to the services identified in chapter 5. As a result local population dependence on the provisioning services shows that the actual use of services from the Park is higher for the households from inside and inside/outside the Park with respect to food, water and raw materials.
7.3 Perceptions of local people on regulating and supporting services
During PDM exercise, the participants were also discussing the benefits (other than provisioning and cultural services) of woodland cover while ranking its services. The benefits rose because of the regulation and supporting functions from the existence of the acacia woodland. Acacia woodland was given highest rank by the participants from inside/outside the Park. And there was a strong debate about its service as it also involves regulating hydrological cycle that they believe that rain fall is affected positively by the presence of woodland cover. In addition, the erosion control issues were pointed during their ranking exercises because acacia woodland cover could prevent/control soil erosion. The acacia woodland took the second rank in most cases of the exercises for the services mentioned in the above exercises
Therefore, it can be concluded that the PDM participants were aware of the other services; regulating and supporting services in which they get benefit from living within protected area. But they could not know by their category, instead understand from the explanation.
Despite all the above exercises, the importance of the wetlands was not considered enough by the PDM participants in all kebeles. According to their perception, mostly their benefit is inclined to use as grazing place than place of biodiversity.
87
8. Potential use of selected ecosystem services
In order to determine the sustainable use of ASLNP, its capacity to provide services needs to be taken in to consideration. The main services of the Park are identified in chapter 5 and chapter 6 of this thesis. In this chapter, an overview on the status of selected ecosystem services and their potential capacity is discussed. For a brief analysis, recreation and ecotourism, refugium, nursery and provision of water services were selected. Recreation and ecotourism service was selected because of the Park’s accessibility, proximity to facilities and cities and its straddle the way to other Protected and touristy areas. Because of presence of diverse and unique country’s place for hosting avifauna (Pelican’s and Flamingos), refugium and nursery services were selected to deal with. And also because of richness in water sources and much dependence on it by the local people, freshwater use is included for analysis of potential use.
8.1 General description of selected services
8.1.1 Presence of attractions of the Park
Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park has dual role of offering a refuge for wildlife and serving as popular tourist area. Within the Park, there are spotted areas in which tourists/visitors have been enjoying major attractions of the Park (Table 25).
Table 25: Major tourist attractions the Park is offering currently
To be visited Visiting location Distance (km)
Accessibility
Ostriches Ostrich farm 0.05-0.1 by vehicle/ on foot Mammal species ( Grants Gazelle, Bonheur, Warthog)
within the Park Head quarter
0.1-3 by vehicle/ on foot
Landscape viewing view point 5 by vehicle/ on foot Shalla Hot springs near Shalla Lake 10 by vehicle Bird watching along Lake Abijata
shore 12 by Vehicle
(Source: Park document)
In the tourist survey, tourists were asked which attractions do they liked most, to notice their feeling of visit and current status of the Park attractions. According to the survey most respondents (78%) indicated that view point for beautiful scenery and the lakes and wetlands are the most interesting attractions (Figure 41). The view point is place where the twins Lakes (Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla) with their associated wetlands are clearly seen. The timing of watching the wetland birds (such as the Flamingos and Pelicans) and their decreasing number through time is a worry for most tourists and (59%) indicated that birdlife are the most interesting attractions. And the unique hot springs are also considered as touristy sites and 53% of the tourists indicated that they liked hot springs as attraction sites. Due to habitat destruction and loss of forage it is difficult to see the mammals in the Park during day time, except for some Grants Gazelle and Warthog in
88
the fenced head quarter of the Park. As a result few respondents (only 13%) showed that the mammals are considered they liked most
Liked most
0102030405060708090
Hot Springs Uniquemammalspecies
View point Birdlifespecies
Lakes andits wetland
Attractions of the Park
No.
of r
espo
nden
ts (%
)
Figure 41: Attractions of ASLNP based on tourists feeling that they liked most
8.1.2 Unique landscape features of the Park
i) Fenced Part of ASLNP
The head quarter of ASLNP is located inside small enclosed part of the Park. At the main gate of the Park’s head quarter, there is Ostrich farm which hosts a group of ostriches with some Grant’s Gazelles.
Figure 42: Ostriches in the main head quarter of the Park
89
ii) View point
This is a beautiful spot found at the junction between the down rugged position of Lakes Abijata and Lake Shalla. It is an interesting place to watch the two lakes and their wetlands. The (Lesser and Greater) Flamingos concentrating around Lake Abijata for feeding give a remarkable color ring to its shore.
iii) Lake Chitu
Lake Chitu is a beautiful creator lake located 1.5 km south of Lake Shalla, inside ASLNP. It is believed that the Lake was connected to Lake Shalla long time ago. It is due to decline in the level of Lake Shalla, the lake is now separated. The lake is more alkaline and it provides blue green and green algae in which thousands of Flamingos depend throughout the year. The Phytoplankton composition studied from Lake Chitu includes Spirulina platensis (Kebede, 1996). This small lake is the best site of bird watching, especially the Flamingoes.
Table 26: Physical features of Lake Chitu
Features Lake Chitu Location 7o23’N- E38o26’ Altitude (m.a.s.l) 1600 Surface area (km2) 1 Maximum depth (m) 21 Type of lake Creator Source: (Legesse et al., 2002)
iv) Lake Abijata and its wetland
ASLNP is rich in wetland birds as it hosts 144 wetland bird species (Tefera and Almaw, 2002). It is selected as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) of the country as it supports globally threatened species and large population of wetland Birds. The wetland is believed to constitute the largest number of Flamingos population in the country.
The high density of Flamingos (both greater and lesser Flamingos) is subsistent directly on the blue-green algae on the surface water of Lake Abijata. Lake Abijata also forms a vital feeding ground for, Abdim's Stork and Great White Pelicans, which breed on Lake Shalla (Tefera and Almaw, 2002).
v) Hot springs
These are numerous exciting natural hot springs associated with geological faults, part of the rift creation. The current status of the hot springs could be improved better. They are important landscape to enjoy and could support more tourists if properly managed.
vi) Lake Shalla and Shalla Islands
The Lake is an important nesting and breeding site for birds (refer section 5.3.1). Shalla Islands are secured breeding sites for wetland birds, especially for Great White Pelicans.
90
The attractiveness of Lake Shalla and presence of nesting Islands are important places to enjoy and for ecotourism development.
8.1.3 Tourism development
In addition to its easy accessibility, the Park’s location to the way of Ethiopia’s multi national ethnic diversity, southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR18) and to other National Parks such as: Nechsar National Park and Mago National Park found in Gamo Gofa and South Omo respectively has been contributing for tourism industry. In terms of tourism income, ASLNP has much contribution with respect to its current status but more can be done (Table 27).
Table 27: ASLNP and other Protected Areas Revenue Generation Estimates-from Park Entry Fees (Year 1999 – 2003)
Year Awash NP
Simien MNP
ASLNP Bale MNP
Gambella NP
Omo NP
Nechsar NP
Mago NP
TOTAL Eth Birr
1999 117,719 120,857 50,428 53,047 - - 62,480 53,803 458,334 2000 175,053 120,303 77,278 64,886 - 2,003 67,587 91,450 598,560 2001 104,148 136,608 77,609 55,220 - 1,280 58,398 66,297 499,560 2002 119,395 302,614 102,060 55,000 161 4,970 148,420 178,462 911,082 2003 138,528 346,771 53,849 - 1,209 980 218,409 - 759,720 Total 654,843 1,027,153 361,224 228,153 1,370 9,233 555,294 390,012 3,227,276
Source: EWCO, Addis Ababa
8.1.4 Water use
The water resources of the Park include mainly the two terminal Lakes (Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla), hot springs, Bulbula and Hora Qello rivers. These were discussed in detail in the above sections of this study. Its location associated with high salinity would not help interested parties to use Lake Shalla except for the future plan by Soda Ash Factory which is now under study.
In most cases, it is Abijata Lake subjected to water use and sensitive to impacts because of its location and shallow depth. The upstream water use and degradation of the catchments together with the decrease in rainfall puts the lake at risk. Various studies (Ayenew, 2002, Legesse and Ayenew, 2006, Legesse et al., 2002) had involved on its hydrology and recent changes of the Lake level and volume. The volume and level of Lake Abijata was estimated at different times (Table 22). This is caused due to the change in the volume of river discharges (mainly River Bulbula and River Hora Qello) and the upstream Lakes. The discharge of Bulbula River has decreased from more than 200 million km3 per year in average years to less than 50 million m3 in 2003 and 2004. The reduced inflow to Lake Abijata has caused a reduction of the size of this lake to less than 60% of its original size (the size in 1990 and previous years) (Jansen et al., 2007).
18 SNNPR refers to Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region which is one of the nine federal states of Ethiopia and particularly known for home region of more than 56 different ethnic classes.
91
Table 28: Changes in the size and volume of Lake Abijata (Year 1985-1991)
Year
Volume (106m3)
Area (km2)
Maximum depth (m)
depth Elevation (m.a.s.l.)
1985 826.2 162.7 10.2 1576.9 1989 405.0 135.0 6.8 1573.5 1990 401.4 134.7 6.75 1573.45 1991 1300.0 183.0 12.0 1580.0 Source (Ayenew, 2002)
It can be said that the water level and volume of Lake Abijata depends on water use of the upstream, such as Ziway. Therefore any abstraction of water in the Ziway catchment results in a greater reduction in the level of Lake Abijata.
On the other hand the hot springs which are flowing annually in addition to serving as the touristy place could provide fresh water to the local population if managed well.
8.2 Potential use of the services
For complete analysis, empirical data for performance and state indicators was not collected for lack of data sources. However, for the selected services mentioned before the potential use is determined based on the household survey, field observation, and the existing data sources.
Table 29: Potential use of selected ecosystem services
Services Potential use Performance (current use) Remark Recreation and ecotourism
High Low
Water supply Medium high Depend on upstream water use and availability
Nursery High Not determined Refugium High low (threatened by human
interference)
There is high potential for recreation and ecotourism but little is exploited from it because of the improper use and management of attractive features and facilities of the Park. Nursery and refugium services could have high potential but because of the development activities in the catchments and in upstream and human pressure on the area the use has been highly threatened.
The presence of many hot springs and water supply from catchments could improve the water resources of the Pak. In addition Lake Shalla, the deepest lake, in Ethiopia could serve as source of water even though it is alkaline.
In addition, Spirulina (Spirulina platensis), a cyanobacterium (blue green algae) found in abundant population in Lake Abijata and Lake Chitu. Therefore in addition to its use as feeding ground for Flamingos, it could be used as a useful potential production site for Spirulina to use as human and animal food supplements.
92
9. Stakeholders use of and impact on selected ecosystem services
The relation of the stakeholders in the use and impact on ecosystem services of the Park ecosystem is analyzed in this section (Table 30). At first, main ecosystem services were selected as their use creates conflicts in the management of the Park ecosystem. The selected services were provisioning of water, charcoal wood, fuel wood, recreation and ecotourism, and refugium (biodiversity) services. The first three services; water, charcoal wood and fuel wood are the main livelihood dependence by the local population. On the other hand, ecotourism development, and refugium services are the objectives of the Park. Especially, the refugium function for the avifauna is the primary aim where the Park is established for. The analysis is an important step that could foster synergy for sustainable use, planning and management of the Park ecosystem.
93
Table 30: Matrix on stakeholders’ use of and impact on ecosystem services
Stakeholder Level
Stakeholders Ecosystem services
Water Fuel wood and Charcoal wood
Recreation and eco-tourism
Refugium
Park managers (X) Park staff (X) Hadha Bosso X X X Galeef Qello XX XX X Shalla Billa XX XX X DDHG XX XX X Gubata Arijo XX XX X Desta Abijata XX XX Hotels and lodges X (X) (X) Soda Ash factory XX Arsi Negelle ARD office
ATJK ARD office
Local
CRV-WG OARDB XX OEPO
Regional
ZFRC IBCR MoWR EWCO EPA Universities (AAU, HU, etc...)
EWNHS EWA EWNRA ETOA X Travel agencies X
National
National tourists X Super- National
HoA-REC/N
Birdlife international
Global
International tourists
X
Key:
XX : Stakeholders strongly use/depend on the services X: Stakeholders use the services (X): Stakeholders indirect use/depend on the services Stakeholders who have direct negative impact Stakeholders who have less/indirect negative impact Stakeholders who have over all positive impact Stakeholders who have strong direct positive impact
94
9.1 Analysis on uses and impacts of stakeholders on ecosystem services
The stakeholders based on their interest in the use and their impact on Park ecosystem services (Table 30 above) are grouped into 11 classes. These are discussed in the following sub sections.
1. Stakeholders indirect use the services and have strong positive impact
Local stakeholders
Park Managers
The Park manager is directly responsible for conservation and management of the Park and its services. The Park ecosystem and its biodiversity could be improved by protecting illegal extraction of natural resources, illegal hunting and encroachment. By doing so the refugium service of the Park could be improved. As a result, the Park manager maintains their income source as an employee of the Park.
Park staff
In addition to the direct employee as the Park staff, they have been involved as indirect users form recreation and eco tourism services. This is because they are involved as the local guides of the Park. They get additional income in doing so. Furthermore, they have positive impact in managing the Park services.
2. Stakeholders strongly use/depend on services and have direct negative impact
This group of stakeholders entirely depends on the Park services for their livelihood and/or for existence of the Project.
Local stakeholders
i) Local communities (Galeef Qello, Shalla Billa, DDHG, Gubata Arijo and Desta Abijata)
These communities are from those kebeles who live inside the Park and inside/outside the Park boundary. They strongly use water supply for their livestock and for their livelihood (refer chapter 5 of this thesis). In addition they depend on the Park for fuel wood and charcoal wood.
The use is means of livelihood and meeting their increasing demand. The increase in population put much pressure (strong negative impact) on the use of more fuel and charcoal wood from the Park, destructing the Park ecosystem without considering its sustainability.
95
ii) Soda Ash Factory
The factory is established to use primarily lake water from Abijata. The factory has a plan to use more water from Lake Shalla and it is under study. It is unquestionable that the water use by the factory impacted the quantity and quality of water adversely.
3. Stakeholders use services and have direct negative impact
a) Local stakeholders
i) Local community outside the Park (Hadha Bosso Kebele)
These are local population who live in kebeles outside the Park but using water resources, woodland resources for fuel wood and charcoal wood to support their livelihood because the Park is there. 73 and 87% of the households use Lake Shalla and Shalla Hot springs respectively. And 20 and 37% of the households from the survey indicated that they are using charcoal wood and fuel wood from the Park area respectively. They have alternatives from outside Park for the services but depend on the Park impacting the Park services negatively.
ii) Local communities (Galeef Qello, Shalla Billa, DDHG, Gubata Arijo and Hadha Bosso)
Local population uses the hot springs for recreation purpose during the weekends and in their leisure time. The unwise use of these hot springs has direct impact on the (eco) tourism attraction of the hot springs, in general for the Park.
4. Stakeholders use the services and have less/indirect negative impact
Local stakeholders
Hotels and lodges
These are business found adjacent to the Park. More attraction of tourists and visitors to the hotels and lodges could lead to an increase in the use of fuel wood (including for campfire by the tourists/visitors) and charcoal from the Park ecosystem that would have negative consequences on Park services. But Bishan Gari is an eco-lodge that opts to get more benefit from well improved Park.
5. Stakeholders strongly dependent on services and have strong positive impact
Regional stakeholder
OARDB
96
OARDB is stakeholder at the regional level involved in getting the income generated from recreation and ecotourism and related services of the Park. For example, about 412, 304 ETB was generated from Park entrance fees in the last two years (2005/06-2006/07). This is direct income for OARDB. Generally, by benefiting from the Park, it has positive impact on the Park and its services as it is directly responsible for the managing the Park.
6. Stakeholders use the services and have over all positive impact
a) National stakeholders
i) ETOA
ETOA are associations involved in promoting tourism industry. They use the recreation and ecotourism services. They have positive impact on the recreation and ecotourism service of the Park in the tourism sector.
ii) Travel agencies
Travel agencies and their tour operators are involved in ecotourism use by guiding, providing information that would promote the ecotourism service of the Park. As a result they have been benefited by involving in guiding and related activities at the same time they play positive role for promoting the recreation and ecotourism service of the Park.
iii) National tourists
There is less common practice for the local people to use the Park as recreation place except for the use of hot springs for bathing and visiting woodland sometimes. The domestic or national tourists are coming from Addis Ababa, Mekelle, Awassa and other cities in the country to enjoy the wildlife and the natural Shalla Hot springs. From the sample survey it is showed that 28% were domestic/national visitors who visited the Park during my data collection. Of these visitors, all were higher level educated.
b) Global level
International tourists
These are tourists who come from different parts of the world to enjoy the unique features of the Park. The attractions include landscapes, mammal species, and birdlife species (resident and migratory wetland birds). According to tourists’ survey, 76% of the international tourists were motivated to visit ASLNP due to presence of unique birdlife species. Further more, 84, 73, and 36% of international tourists visited the Park because they were motivated to enjoy the view point, Shalla Hot springs and mammal species within ASLNP respectively.
97
7. Stakeholders indirectly use the services and have overall positive impact on the services
a) Local stakeholders
Hotels (Wabe Shebelle, Bekelle Molla) and Lodges (Bishan Gari, Sabana, Karkaro)
Hotels and lodges are established for recreation purpose. Tourists use the recreation and ecotourism service derived from the existence of the Park. Since there is no lodge and hotel service in the Park, after visiting the Park tourists visit hotels and lodges in the nearby at Lake Langano. Development of hotels and lodges around ASLNP could contribute to tourist attraction promoting ecotourism development of the Park.
In addition, hotels and lodges benefit indirectly from the refugium service of the Park because of the presence of birds that recreation users could enjoy. It has positive contribution to the refugium service of the Park too. This is because there are riparian vegetation in and around hotels and lodges where some birds and wild animals from the Park use the area as home. According to the interview made with the Hotel Manager at Wabe Shebelle Hotel, about 20 species of birds are found in the hotel compound.
8. Stakeholders use of services not determined and has strong positive impact
a) Local stakeholders
Park managers and Park staff
The Park Manager, experts and game guards,’ use of water, fuel wood and charcoal from the Park was not determined. But these members have the responsibility in management of the Park resources. They are involved in game guarding, protecting illegal use of resources from water and shores as well as from woodland (fuel and charcoal wood uses).
b) Regional stakeholders
OARDB
Direct use of the services such as water, fuel wood, charcoal wood and refugium services were not determined but here it can be said that the office has strong positive impact on these Park services.
c) National stakeholders
i) Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR)
98
IBCR use of the refugium service was not determined but is involved in the conservation and management of biodiversity. It is involved by designing strategy and policy documents and promoting relevant stakeholders in the implementation process
ii) Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR)
MoWR is the highest national stakeholder in which its use of water was not determined but involved in the development, management and supervision of water resources of the country. The responsibility extends to the water resources of ASLNP and could have strong positive effect in the management of the Lakes and rivers of the Park.
9. Stakeholders use of services was not determined and has direct negative impact
a) Local stake holders
i) Local communities (Galeef Qello, Shalla Billa, Desta Abijata DDHG, Gubata Arijo and Hadha Bosso)
The use of refugium service by the local population was not determined. But their dependence on fuel wood, charcoal wood and water use could greatly affect the Park’s use as refugium to wild plants and animals. Furthermore settlement and agriculture practices by the local population increased the impact.
ii) Soda Ash Factory
The use of fuel wood, charcoal wood, recreation and ecotourism, and refugium services by the soda Ash factory was not determined. But the factory has strong negative impact on Lake Abijata and its fauna and flora (such as the refugiun services of wetland birds, phytoplankton, zooplanktons and fishery of the lake) that in turn has effects on the recreation and ecotourism development of the Park.
10. Stakeholders use of services not determined but has over all positive impact
a) Local stakeholders
i) Local government (Arsi Negelle Woreda ARD office, ATJK Woreda ARD offices)
Direct use of water, fuel wood and charcoal, and refugium services were not determined for this group of stakeholders but have a positive effect on the services of the Park. The Woredas ARD offices through their Natural Resource division team have been involving in protection and conservation of water and acacia woodland resources of ASLNP together with development activities.
ii) CRV-WG
99
These are voluntary groups in which their use of water was not determined but dealing on the use of water resources including Lake Abijata. In general, they are considered to have positive effect on the water use of the Park.
b) Regional stakeholders
Oromiya environmental Protection Office:
The use of the services was not determined but has an over all positive effect on management of water and biodiversity at regional level. And currently a management Plan for the Lake Abijata and Lake Ziway is under way.
c) National stakeholders
i) Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
The use of services of the Park for EPA was not determined but involved in designing and follow up of implementation of environmental policies and laws which has an overall positive impact on refugium services of the Park.
ii) Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization
This governmental organization involves in conservation of Wildlife of the country. Any wildlife resources within ASLNP are also under the regulation of EWCO. It also serves as an advisory body for conservation of wildlife resources. Even though the organization use of service was not determined but has positive effect on the biodiversity of the Park.
iii) Ethiopian Wildlife Association (EWA)
As new emerging association, it stands for the wildlife resources through advocation and advisory. It has an overall positive effect on the refugium service of the Park.
iv) Ethiopian Wildlife Natural History Society (EWNHS)
The society has long life experience and role in advocating for conservation of natural resources. The major contribution in identifying ASLNP as an important Bird Areas (IBAs) is an important positive contribution to the refugium service of the Park.
v) Ethio-Wetland and Natural Resources Association (EWNRA)
EWNRA involves in promoting and involving in the management of the wetlands of Ethiopia, including the wetlands of ASLNP. It has positive contribution to the management of the wetlands of ASLNP and to its refugium services. But the use of the refugium service by EWNRA was not determined.
100
vi) Universities (academics)
The actual use of the services under this analysis was not determined for these stakeholders. The researchers from the academic universities contribute in providing scientific information that could bring positive impact to biodiversity and water resources of the Park.
d) Super National stakeholder
HoA-REC/N
HoA-REC/N, a regional network promotes environmental governance that pays attention to natural resource protection and biodiversity conservation in the CRV. Therefore the Center/Network has positive impact in refugium service/biodiversity of the Park.
e) Global stakeholder
Birdlife international
This was considered to play a positive role in refugium services of the Park as it is engaged in conservation of birds and their habitat.
10. Stakeholders’ use of services not determined and has less/indirect negative impact
i) National stakeholders
The use of the refugium services for these stakeholders was not determined. But upon the use of recreation and ecotourism service, tourists have less/indirect negative impact on refugium service of the Park by disturbing the home of wildlife.
ii) International stakeholders
In using the recreation and ecotourism service, tourists disturb the habitat of the wild animals and avifauna that could bring about a negative effect on refugium service of the Park.
11. Stakeholders use is not determined and the impact is not clear
Regional stakeholder
ZFRC
ZFRC is regional stakeholder in which its use of the services of the Park was not determined. Furthermore, its impact on the services is not clear as the Park is not part of commercial fishing place.
101
9.2 Conflict and synergy regarding use of ecosystem services
This analysis involved in portraying the conflict and common interests of stakeholders that has been occurring on site.
a) Water use
The local community both inside and outside the Park are in need of using the lakes, hot springs, and rivers for their livelihood. But the Park manager and Park staff are interested in protecting and managing these water resources from over utilization and unwise use. In addition the Soda Ash factory depends on Lake Abijata for saline water pump but the Park managers and staff are in favor of managing of the Lake for the wetland birds and for its biodiversity.
Nevertheless, environmental NGOs and researchers from academics and various research institutions have common interest with the Park administration in the conservation and protection of the Park.
With all the parties’ interest to use the water resources, a common understanding and shared vision on the status and potentials of the water supply is important. Therefore a discussion platform on water use is useful to ensure the sustainable use of the water resources, respecting its use for the supporting and regulation functions. In the meanwhile, efficient use of the water resources and protecting the watershed from destruction by all users could help foster healthy service use.
b) Fuel wood and charcoal wood use
The local people in and around the Park seek to use the acacia woodland products as energy source (fuel wood and charcoal wood) for own use and income source. On the other hand the Park managers and staff, Woreda ARD offices are involved in protecting the woodland from over exploitation and destruction. The use of the woodland for anthropocentric use and place of biodiversity are two contrasting issues that severely threaten the park existence.
The Park administration is working closely with Woreda ARD offices to control illegal poaching and extensive use of the woodland for charcoal production.
The socioeconomic status of the local population need to be assessed and the means of livelihood need to be acknowledged. As a result awareness creation on the benefits of conservation by considering the ecological and economic values of protected Park should be addressed for common understanding on the Park. The close administrative body (Woreda ARD offices and kebele administration) needs to work closely with the local people and the Park management to bridge for common interests that could pave the way for alternatives and development options.
102
c) Recreation and Ecotourism
The local people would like to use the attraction sites and natural resources for the livelihood and place of their territory but the recreation users’ (national and international tourists) seek to enjoy the unique features of the Park and its natural resources. In addition, the Park managers and Park staff always wanted to keep the area attractive and undisturbed for sustainable recreation and ecotourism. In this sense the regional OARDB pretend to play active role as they get all benefit incurred from recreation and ecotourism with no physical income shared by the local population. And the Park administration lacks subsidy from the income it generates for additional activities of improving the Park.
Here, by clearly depicting the direct users of the Park for and from recreation the losers and winners are identified. Therefore, a fair share of the income generated from the Park by strongly dependent stakeholders could help create a shared vision and interest. This could help for designing a long term solutions and measures to balance the benefit of all parties from the Park.
d) Refugium
The local people need to use the Park natural resources such as wetlands, lakes and woodland for grazing place for their livestock, extraction of natural resources, settlement area and farming place. However, the Park manager and staff need to keep it for the home of fauna and flora. It is clear that these two interests are going far apart. Biodiversity needs keeping away from human interference. On the other hand, the local population once inside or adjacent to the Park are using and would like to use to meet their livelihood demand.
Birdlife international together with its partner EWNHS is working closely with Park administration for the improvement of the habitat of the wetland birds by making an annual inventory of the wetland birds. This effort contributed to regard the area for conservation as IBAs of the country.
It can be said here that some of the areas could be regarded by both conservationists and the local population as hotspot areas and place for existence of the wildlife. These areas should be taken as places for integrated management practices. In doing so, by educating the conservation objectives and promoting community participation with the indigenous knowledge could motivate the local masses for combined effort to respect and protect Park biodiversity.
103
10. Discussion
10.1 Discussion on methodology
For this thesis one of the primary data collection method was based on interviewing local communities living in kebeles inside, inside/outside and outside the Park. The aim was to include all kebeles inside the Park, but due to lack of time only a selection of kebeles was used for data collection. Selected kebeles, however, represented well the actual natural resource (woodland, water and land) users in the area. Some selected kebeles located inside, inside/outside the Park (partly outside the Park boundaries) and also households living outside the Park were used for the data collection which contributed to a better understanding of the relationship between the local population and the use of ecosystem services provided by the Park.
The data collection process was faced with various technical and operational challenges, such as the accessibility of the Park components, uncertainty about the Park boundary and boundaries of kebeles. With the help of local administrators and use of administrative maps from Woredas such problems were solved. More difficult was to win the confidence of the local population (especially from inside the Park) and to convince them to cooperate with the study. For example, it was difficult to get accurate information about the use of Park woodland as the production of charcoal is illegal.
In some cases, this study had to rely on rather old information because of the lack of recent literature and organized data at Woreda19 Agriculture and Rural Development offices and the Park administration. In addition, some data sources were inconsistent. Therefore, various data sources were used throughout the study to enable cross-checking.
To characterize the ecosystem services, state and performance indicators were needed. However, data required for quantifying such indicators were scarce. Based on own data collection, recreation and ecotourism services, nursery, refugium and water supply services and their potentials could be quantified.
Pebbles Distribution Method (PDM) and household surveys were used as main data sources for identification and determining the importance of ecosystem services. The PDM exercise was a bit difficult to explain to participants but it appeared an easy way to capture their opinions about the relevance of various services. In general, PDM allowed participants to interact and discuss about the use of ecosystem services and their importance.
19Woreda is administrative unit equivalent to District
104
Not all planned formal interviews with regional and national stakeholders could be made for various reasons, but mostly due to lack of time. Instead, their websites were visited and documents analyzed with respect to their interests and responsibilities.
10.2 Discussion of results
10.2.1 Landscape identification
Identification of landscape units was done mainly on the basis of field observation and use of maps. This provided an important step in the analysis of the use and importance of services for different stakeholders. I did not map landscape units with the local community but the identified landscapes were validated during the PDM exercise by the local stakeholders.
According to the land use classification of 2006 (Jansen et al., 2007) the Park consists of degraded savanna, mixed cultivated/ acacia, and intensively cultivated land. The degraded savanna includes the wetlands of Lake Abijata and the surrounding open acacia woodland in which much of degradation is visible. In the rest of the Park, mixed cultivated/acacia and intensively cultivated land can be found. The landscape units identified in this study correspond largely with this land use classification.
10.2.2 Ecosystem services assessment
Aim of the thesis was to identify all current and potential services derived from the Park. Especially data was collected for the provisioning and cultural services. For identification of the regulating and supporting services, field observations on the current status of the Park were used and supported with information from literature. Most Park services related to regulation functions could not be well separated from the rest of the CRV due to the close link with upstream activities outside the Park. As a result, the assessment of regulation functions is rather general.
a) Results of PDM exercises
Based on the discussion with PDM participants three identified landscapes units were not included, i.e. riverine forest, rivers (Bulbula and Hora Qello rivers) and Shalla Islands as they were too remote and, therefore, are hardly used by the local population used for this exercise.
There is no much frequent use of the recreation services of the Park by the local people except their visit of Shalla hot springs. However, they recognize the importance of woodland and Shalla hot springs as recreation sites. Further more the local people confirmed that the Park is not used anymore for spiritual services. As a result the overall scoring for the cultural services was based on the recreation use only.
105
The PDM exercise resulted in the relative ranking of services, but sometimes it was difficult to detail the reasons for ranking the service(s) as most important. However, PDM scoring is an easy and quick method to asses the importance of ecosystem services for local people, which is also concluded by Sheil et al. (2002).
For a complete picture of the Park services, the importance of all the services needs to be scored with PDM. But due to the limited time, the PDM exercise for regulating and supporting services was not done. Future research could focus on these services.
b) Results of household survey
Households with access to more than one landscape unit depend less on one landscape for the use of services as compared to those entirely depending on one landscape unit. For example, households from Desta Abijata kebele use wood products from both the Bulbula Riverine forest and acacia woodland. In contrast, households within the woodland of the Park are entirely dependent on the acacia woodland for any wood services. In addition, households from inside the Park have access to and use various fresh water resources of the Park. However, the local people outside the Park prefer to use only the most accessible water resources from the Park. For households from inside/outside the Park the use of the services depends on their location in the Park. In general, the use of Park services by the local population depends on the accessibility and availability of alternative services.
10.2.3 Stakeholders use of and impact on ecosystem services
Stakeholders have been identified from the local to the global level and are further sub-divided into three use categories, i.e. strongly dependent/users, users, and indirect users, and four impact classes, i.e. direct negative, less/indirect, overall positive and strong positive impacts. A matrix was developed to analyze the relationship among services, stakeholders, their use and impact. Based on this matrix, stakeholders use and impact on selected services were grouped into 11 classes. In some cases, the interests of stakeholders in ASLNP were not clearly stated hampering the classification. Based on their use of and impact on the services stakeholders may occur in more than one class due to the different interests in various services. In some cases, a stakeholder may show different and conflicting interests for services. For example, some stakeholders are resource users and conservationists at the same time. However some are users only.
106
11. Conclusions and recommendations
11.1 Conclusions
i) Identification of landscape units
In ASLNP, 10 landscapes were identified, i.e. acacia woodland (both natural and mixed woodland), the Lakes: Abijata Lake and Shalla Lake, Shalla hot springs, homestead, farmland, fallow land, wetlands, Shalla Islands, Rivers: Bulbula River and Hora Qello River and Riverine forests. These landscape units provide various services to different stakeholders. Especially the local people are dependent on the services for their livelihood.
ii) Identification and importance of ecosystem services
a) Provisioning services Main means of livelihood of the local population in and adjacent to the Park are crop cultivation and livestock. The average number of animals is about 18 per household. Provisioning services are the most common services used by the local people, including food (wild fruits, crops, smaller quantity of fish, honey), fresh water, raw materials (construction wood, wood for agriculture tools and household furniture, thatching grass, charcoal wood, fuel wood, animal fodder) and medicinal resources. The use of these services depends very much on the accessibility of the landscapes and availability of alternatives.
Most dependent users of the Park services (for food, water and raw materials) are the local people from kebeles inside and inside/outside the Park. There is no significant difference in the use of the Park services by these households. For example, 96 and 91% of the households from inside and inside/outside the Park, respectively have arable land for crop cultivation inside the Park. In addition, 94 and 91% of the households from inside and inside/outside the Park, respectively use animal fodder from inside the Park. Also for other raw materials such as construction wood, fuel wood, thatching grass, and agricultural tool and household furniture making the households use the Park landscapes.
From the study it is concluded that households from inside/outside the Park just like the households from inside the Park are the most users of the Park services. Because of their adjacent location and outside the sight of the control by the Park management the, households from kebeles inside/outside the Park are strong users of the some Park services. This is clearly shown in the production of charcoal from the woodland in which, more (91%) households from inside/outside the Park produce charcoal as compared to 77% of households from inside the Park.
107
Households outside the Park are relatively less dependent on the Park services for food and raw materials. Only 17 and 10% of households have arable land and use animal fodder (grazing land), respectively from the Park. Relatively, the commonly used services by households from kebeles outside the Park are fresh water (73%), medicinal resources (43%) and fuel wood (37%).
Based on the relative importance of the services from the Park, the local people from kebeles inside, inside/outside and outside the Park showed their relative preferences using PDM scoring method as follows:
Kebeles inside the Park
According to the local people from kebeles inside the Park provisioning of food and raw materials (animal fodder, wood products and energy sources) are the most important services obtained from arable land and acacia woodland, respectively. Local people from inside the Park clear more acacia woodland for the cultivation of crops and use of wood products for construction and energy for home use and selling. Freshwater and medicinal resources are the most important services from Shalla hot springs inside the Park.
Kebeles inside/outside the Park
Food and fresh water from arable land and Shalla hot springs respectively are the most important services from the Park according to the local people from inside/outside the Park. Local people from inside/outside the Park would like to have more arable land to increase their food production. Raw materials (animal fodder, wood products and energy sources and medicinal resources from acacia wood land are the most important services for the local people from inside/outside the Park.
Kebeles outside the Park
Food and animal fodder from farmland are the most important services for the local people outside the Park, while fresh water is the most important service from Shalla hot springs. Raw materials with regard to wood products and energy sources (charcoal wood and fuel wood) provided by acacia woodland are the most important services. Medicinal resources from the acacia woodland and Shalla hot springs are the most important services.
b) Regulating services
Regulation services of the Park are climate (microclimate) regulation, water regulation, and erosion control. Erosion control is an important function of the acacia trees in the Park, especially the dominant acacia tree, Acacia tortilis, called “sand stabilizer”, because of its ability to prevent erosion of sandy soils.
c) Supporting services
Supporting services identified from the Park are nursery and refugium services. The Park is protected mainly for the breeding, nesting and feeding sites of migratory and resident birds. There are 436 bird and 76 mammal species in the Park of which one is endemic
108
bird and 6 are endemic mammals. In addition, the Shalla Islands in the Park offer one of the most important nesting and breeding sites of Great White Pelicans in Africa.
d) Cultural services
Cultural services identified in the Park are: recreation and ecotourism, spiritual, research and education services. Recreation and ecotourism are the main income generating services of the Park. Tourists are mostly foreigners’ visiting the Park to enjoy the landscape (Shalla Hot springs, the lakes) and to watch wetland birds (Flamingos and Pelicans). The number of tourists and income from tourism is increasing through years. The number of tourists’ visiting the Park increased from 3552 to 8990 persons in the period 1999/2000 to 2006/2007. At the same time, revenues from the Park increased from 81800 to 236968 Ethiopian. In addition, local people enjoy hot springs for recreation.
The lakes, Shalla Islands and the woodlands were the most important places in the past for religious activities, but there is no spiritual service now.
There have been several research activities undertaken in the Park by different national and international scientific communities. Also the number of students using the Park for formal and informal education and for training is increasing from 392 in the year 1999/2000 to 1950 for the year 2006/2007, which is about 5 times.
iii) Potential use of selected ecosystems services
The increasing water use in the upstream of the Park by agriculture and by the Soda Ash factory threatens Lake Abijata and affects the feeding ground of Flamingos. The recreation and ecotourism service of the Park is probably not yet fully exploited to its potential. The presence of many bird species, its accessibility, and scenic views could offer opportunities for recreation and ecotourism development.
iv) Stakeholders’ use of and impact on ecosystem services
There are 30 stakeholders with an interest in ASLNP, ranging from local to global level: 13 local, 3 regional, 11 national, 1 super national and 2 global stakeholders. Based on their use and impact on selected ecosystem services, i.e. water use, fuel wood and charcoal wood use, recreation and ecotourism, and refugium services, the identified stakeholders are grouped into 11 classes. From the identified stakeholders, 15 use one or more services of the Park. From the users, 20, 40 and 53% are indirect users, users, strongly dependent/users of the services, respectively. Most users are local stakeholders who are strongly dependent on/users of the services. These local users have direct negative impact on services they use and/or on other services. Only OARDB uses the ecotourism income from the Park. In general, there are few stakeholders (Park manager, Park staff, OARDB, IBCR, and MoWR) with a strong positive impact on the selected ecosystem services. Only Park managers and Park staff have strong positive impact on the Park services at the local level. There is a serious conflict between highly dependent local users (communities and soda Ash factory) and the Park management. For example, the local people use fuel wood and charcoal wood from the woodland but the Park
109
management needs the woodland to protect the biodiversity. In addition the Soda Ash Factory uses saline water form Lake Abijata but the Park management is interested to keep the Lake undisturbed for keeping the feeding ground of the wetland birds and promotes the recreation and tourism services. Thus, there is hardly any synergy on the use of services among stakeholders at the local level with conflicting interest.
11.2 Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, recommendations for management and policy have been identified, and issues which need further study, i.e. a research agenda.
Recommendations related to management and policy
� Taking into account the current living standards of the local population, the local government should work with national government and NGOs to improve the socioeconomic conditions by providing better water supply, health centres, and alternative means of income.
� Despite the current dependency of the local population (inside and inside/outside the Park) on the natural resources of the Park, they are rapidly degrading their own livelihood base. Therefore, conservation awareness by the Park management and Woreda ARD offices should be raised and ownership by the local population should be developed.
� Any management plan for the ASLNP should take into account the interests of the local population inside as well as outside the Park as both groups use its resources.
� Part of the income generated by the Park should be used to improve the livelihood of the local community and to improve the capability of Park management.
� Strengthen the Park administration through training, financial support, and technical support to enable better monitoring of resource use and quality contributing to improved decision-making with respect to the management of the Park.
� Urgent and coordinated action is required for (eco) tourism industry, local population and federal and regional governments to further develop the unexploited tourism potential of the Park, which could contribute to a more sustainable use of the Park’s resource base. Prerequisite is that the local population shares in the benefits derived from (eco) tourism.
� OEPO needs to collaborate with OARD in implementing environmental policies concerning the use of the natural resources of the Park by local stakeholders.
Recommendations for further research
� Ecosystem services including non-renewable resources (such as sand, mineral salt, termite hill) should be quantified to assess their economic importance.
110
� The importance of regulating and supporting services of the Park for the local population needs to be assessed, for example using PDM, to gain insight in their contribution to the livelihoods of the local people.
� Further study of the ecological diversity and the potential services of wetlands of ASLNP are required to contribute to their sustainable use and management as habitat and feeding ground for wetland birds.
� The current status of Shalla Islands for recreation and ecotourism services as well as breeding site for birds needs to be studied.
� Develop alternative and affordable energy sources to reduce deforestation.
111
References
ABEBE, Y. D. & GEHEB, K. (2003) Wetlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of a seminar on the resources and status of in Ethiopia’s wetlands. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
ABEBE, Y. D. & WONDAFRASH, M. (2002) Site Action Plan for Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park EWNHS, Addis Ababa.
ARGAW, M., TEKETAY-A, D. & OLSSON, M. (1999) Soil seed flora, germination and regeneration pattern of woody species in an Acacia woodland of the Rift Valley in Ethiopia: . Academic press, Journal of Arid Environments, 43, 411-435.
AYENEW, T. (2002) Recent changes in the level of Lake Abiyata, central main Ethiopian Rift. Hydrological Sciences-Journal-des Sciences Hydrologiques, 47, 493-503.
BOLUND, P. & HUNHAMMAR, S. (1999) Ecosystem services in Urban areas. ecological economics 29, 293-301.
BRANDT, J. (1988) The transformation of rainfall energy by a tropical rainforest canopy in relation to soil erosion. Journal of Biogeography 15, 41-8.
COSTA, M. H. & FOLEY, J. A. (1997) The water balance of the Amazon basin: Dependence on vegetation cover and canopy conductance. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 23973–23989.
COSTANZA, R., D’ARGE, R., DE GROOT, R. S., FARBER, S., GRASSO, M., HANNON, B., LIMBURG, K., NAEEM, S., O’NEILL, R. V., PARUELO, J., RASKIN, R. G., SUTTON, P. & VAN DEN BELT, M. (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.
DAILY, G. C. (1997) Valuing and safeguarding earth's life-support systems. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC, Island Press.
DAILY, G. C. (2001) Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services Environmental Science and Policy, 3, 333-339.
DE GROOT, R. S. (1992) Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
DE GROOT, R. S. (2000) Ecological functions and socioeconomic values of critical natural capital as a measure for ecological integrity and environmental health. IN CRABBE, P. (Ed.) Implementing Ecological Integrity. Kluwer Academic publisher
DE GROOT, R. S. (2006) Function analysis and Valuation as a tool to assess the land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75, 175-186
DE GROOT, R. S., STUIP, M. A. M., FINLAYSON, C. M. & DAVIDSON, N. (2006) Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services Ramsar Technical report No. 3/CBD, Technical Series No.27. Montreal, Canada, Ramsar Convention Secretariat,Gland, Switzerland and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
112
DE GROOT, R. S., WILSON, M. & BOUMANS, R. (2002) A typology for the description, classification and valuation of Ecosystem Functions: Goods Services Economics 41, 393–408.
DEFFAR, G. (1998) Economic Valuation of Environmental Goods in Ethiopia: A Contingent valuation study of the Abiyata-Shalla Lakes National Parks. Studies in Environmental Economics and Development, Unit of Environmental Economics Department of Economics, Gothenburg University, Sweden
EMA (1985) Ethiopia Map at 1:2,000,000 scale showing major geographic features.
Ethiopian Mapping Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. EWCO (1989) Agro-Ecological Zonation Study. Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation
Organisation, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. FOLEY, J. A., ASNER, G. P., COSTA, M. H., COE, M. T., DEFRIES, R., GIBBS, H.
K., HOWARD, E. A., OLSON, S., PATZ, J., RAMANKUTTY, N. & SNYDER, P. (2007) Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology 5(1), 25–32.
HAKI, G. D. & RAKSHIT, S. K. (2004) Thermostable amylases from hyper-thermal springs of Ethiopia. Tropical Science, 44, 57-60.
HALCROW GROUP LTD & GENERATION INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT (GIRD) (2007) Rift Valley Lakes Basin integrated natural resource development master plan study project. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Water Resources, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
HAMILTON, L. S. (1987) What are the impacts of deforestation in the Himalayas on the Ganges-Brahmaputra lowlands and delta? Relations between assumptions and facts. . Mountain Research and Development 7, 256-263.
HENGSDSDIJK, H. & JANSEN, H. (2006) Ecosystems for water, food and economic development in the Ethiopian Central Rift Valley: Report of inception mission to Ethiopia and work plan 2006. Wageningen, Plant Research International B.V., The Netherlands.
HILLMAN, J. C. (1988) Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park: Report on status and proposals. EWCO, Addis Ababa.
HUMBER, D. & KEBEDE, E. (1987) Lakes of the Southern Ethiopian Rift: Shalla. JANSEN, H., HENGSDIJK, H., LEGESSE, D., AYENEW, T., HELLEGERS, P. &
SPLIETHOFF, P. (2007) Land and Water resources assessment in the Ethiopian Central Rift Valley; Project: ecosystems for water, food and economic development in the Ethiopian Central Rift Valley. Wageningen, Alterra, .
KEBEDE, E. (1996) Phytoplankton in a Salinity-Alkalinity Series of Lakes in the Ethiopian Rift Valley: PhD thesis. Uppsala University, Sweden.
KEBEDE, E. & HILLMAN, J. C. (1988) The conservation status of birds at lakes Abijata and Shalla. Paper presented at the 7th Pan-African Ornithological Congress (PAOC). Nairobi, Kenya.
KEBEDE, E. & WILLÉN, E. (1996) Anabaenopsis abijatae, a new cyanophyte from Lake Abijata, an alkaline, saline lake in the Ethiopian Rift Valley. Algological Studies, 80, 1-8.
113
KREMEN, C., WILLIAMS, N. M. & THORP, R. W. (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. PNAS, 99, 16812-16816
LEGESSE, D. & AYENEW, T. (2006) Effect of improper water and land resource utilization on the central Main Ethiopian Rift lakes. Quaternary International 148, 8–18.
LEGESSE, D., GASSE, F., RADAKOVITCH, O., VALLET-COULOMB, C., BONNEFILLE, R., VERSCHUREN, D., GIBERT , E. & BARKER, P. (2002) Environmental changes in a tropical lake (Lake Abiyata; Ethiopia) during recent centuries. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 187, 233–258.
LEGESSE, D., VALLET-COULOMB, C. & GASSE, F. (2004) Analysis of the hydrological response of a tropical terminal lake, Lake Abiyata (Main Ethiopian Rift Valley) to changes in climate and human activities. Journal of Hydrological Processes, 18, 487-504.
LEGESSE, D., WOLDU, Z., MEBRATE, A., MENGISTOU, S. & AYENEW, T. (2005) A Review of the Current Status and an Outline of a Future Management Plan for Lakes Abiyata And Ziway. The Federal Government of Ethiopia; Oromia Environmental Protection Office.
MEA (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, D.C. , Island Press.
MEA (2005a) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
MEA (2005b) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, D.C., Island Press
MUTKE, J., KIER, G., BRAUN, G., SCHULTZ, C. & BARTHLOTT, W. (2001) Patterns of African vascular plant diversity – a GIS based analysis Systematics and Geography of Plants, 71, 1125-36.
PATTANAYAK, S. K. (2004) Valuing watershed services: concepts and empirics from southeast Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 171–184.
RAMSAR CONVENTION BUREAU (1997) The Ramsar Convention Manual: A Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). The Gland, Ramsar Convention, RCB.
SWIFT, M. J., IZAC, M. N. & VAN NOORDWIJK, M. (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes-are we asking the right questions? Volume issue 1 pages113-134. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104, 113-134.
TEFERA, F. & ALMAW, R. (2002) Conservation and Management Issues of Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Oromiya Natural Resources Conservation and Environmental Protection Authority.
TILAHUN, S., EDWARDS, S. & E., T. B. G. (1996) Important Bird Areas of Ethiopia. A First Inventory. Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society
TUDORANCEA, C. & HARRISON, A. D. ( 1988) The benthic communities of the saline lakes Abijata and Shala (Ethiopia) Hydrobiologia, 158, 117-123.
UNESCO (2004) World Water Assessment Program: National water Development Report for Ethiopia. Addis Ababa
114
VARVASOVSZKY, Z. & BRUGHA, R. (2000) How to do (or not to do) : A Stakeholder Analysis. Health Policy and planning 15, 338-345.
WIERSUM, K. F. (1985) Effects of various vegetation layers in an Acacia auriculiformis forest plantation on surface erosion in Java, Indonesia. IN EL-SWAIFY, S., MOLDENHAUER, W.C. AND LO, A. (Ed.) Soil Erosion and Conservation. Ankeny, Iowa, USA, Soil Conservation Society of America.
WOLDE MICHAEL, K. (Ed.) (1980) A glossary of Ethiopian plant names Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
WONDAFRASH, M. & DEMEKE, Y. (1999) Field Survey Report of Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society.
WOOD, R. B. & TALLING, J. F. (1988) Chemical and algal relationships in a salinity series of Ethiopian inland waters. Hydrobiologia, 158, 29–67.
ZINABU, G. M. & ELIAS, D. (1989) Water resources and fisheries management in the Ethiopian Rift-Valley lakes. Sinet: Ethiopian Journal of Science 12, 95-109.
ZINABU, G. M., KEBEDE, E. & DESTA, Z. (2002) Long-term changes in chemical features of seven Ethiopian rift-valley lakes. Hydrobiologia, 477, 81-91.
Web reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oromo [Accessed 2 February 2008
http://www.selamta.net/birds.htm [Accessed 25 February 2008]
http://www.ibc-et.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/national-policy-on-biodiversity-conservation-and-research.pdf [Accessed date 20 February 2008]
http://www.parks.it/world/ET/Eindex.html [accessed 18 February 2008]
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_profile_of_Ethiopia#Water_management.2C_Policies.2C_and_Legislation_Related_to_Water_Use_in_Agriculture [accessed 18 February 2008]
http://www.ewnhs.org.et/Annual%20report%202006.pdf/ [accessed 29 February 2008]
http://www.africanconservation.org/dcforum/DCForumID1/337.html [Accessed 15 February 2008]
http://wetlands.hud.ac.uk/ewnra/ [Accessed 29 February 2008]
http://www.hoarec.org/about.html [Accessed 1 March 2008]
http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/index.html [Accessed 1 March 2008]
http://www.ethiopiatravel.com/Abijatta%20Shalla%20Park.htm [Accessed 17 July 2007]
115
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of abbreviations and acronyms
ARD: Agriculture and Rural Development ASLNP: Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park ATJK: Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda AAU: Addis Ababa University CBD: Conservation and Biological Diversity CBOs: Community Based Organizations CRV: Central Rift Valley CRV-WG: Central Rift Valley Working Classes DDHG: Daka Dallu Haren Gama EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment EMA: Ethiopia Mapping Agency EPA: Environmental Protection Authority ETB: Ethiopian Birr ETOA: Ethiopian Tour Operators Association EWA: Ethiopian Wildlife Association EWCO: Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization EWNHS: Ethiopian Wildlife Natural History and Society EWNRA: Ethio-Wetland and Natural Resources Association FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization HoA-REC/N: Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre/Network HU: Hawassa University IBA’s: Important Bird Areas IBCR: Institute of Biodiversity Conservation & Research m.a.s.l: meter above sea level MEA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MNP: Mountains National Park NGOs: Non Governmental Organizations NRCDMD: Natural Resources Conservation and Development Main Department MoWR: Ministry of Water Resources OARDB: Oromiya Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau OEPO: Oromiya Environmental Protection Office PRI: Plant Research International PDM: Pebbles Distribution Method ZFRC: Ziway Fishery Research Centre SNNPR: Southern Nations Nationalities and People Region TLU: Tropical Livestock Unit UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization WUR: Wageningen University and Research Center WWF: World Wildlife Fund
116
Appendix 2: List of figures Figure 1: Map of Proposed Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park and location of study
kebeles/sites ..................................................................................................................6 Figure 2: Role of function-analysis and valuation in environmental planning, management
and decision ................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: Picture showing part of ASLNP acacia woodland inside the Park headquarter .22 Figure 4: Lake Abijata retreating and with birds................................................................23 Figure 5: Picture showing Lake Shalla and its wadding birds............................................24 Figure 6: Shalla hot springs, people bathing and the water flowing into Lake Shalla .......25 Figure 7: Picture showing homestead inside ASLNP at Galeef Qello kebele....................25 Figure 8: Farmland inside the Park viewed from the view point........................................26 Figure 9: Shalla and Abijata wetlands inside ASLNP........................................................27 Figure 10: Wild fruit use by local people from the Park ....................................................31 Figure 11: Farmland with crops within the acacia woodland inside the Park ....................32 Figure 12: Fresh water use from inside the Park by local people.......................................34 Figure 13: Use of construction wood from the Park by local people .................................36 Figure 14: Acacia tree fell down for charcoal production at Shalla Billa Kebele ..............37 Figure 15: A Girl collecting fuel wood at Shalla Billa Kebele (inside ASLNP)................38 Figure 16: Fuel wood use by households from acacia woodland and riverine forest.........38 Figure 17: Grass for animal fodder use by households from three landscapes ..................40 Figure 18: The use of landscapes for grazing land by households .....................................42 Figure 19: Thatching grass use from the Park landscapes by households..........................43 Figure 20: Annual saline water use from Lake Abijata by Soda Ash Factory (Year 1987 –
2006) ...........................................................................................................................44 Figure 21: Use of medicinal resources by local population from different landscapes......46 Figure 22: Acacia trees fixing the soil and preventing soil from gully erosion..................50 Figure 23: Picture of endemic Yellow Fronted Parrot........................................................54 Figure 24: Pictures of Lesser Flamingos feeding in Lake Abijata......................................54 Figure 25: Grant’s Gazelles inside the fenced part of the Park ..........................................55 Figure 26: Composition of international tourists visited ASLNP by the country...............70 Figure 27: PDM participants assigning scores at Hadha Bosso Kebele .............................71 Figure 28: Comparison of PDM scores for food by landscape units among kebeles .........72 Figure 29: PDM scores for water supply by landscape units among kebeles.....................73 Figure 30: PDM scores for animal fodder by landscape units among kebeles...................74 Figure 31 PDM scores for construction wood by landscape units among kebeles.............75 Figure 32: PDM scores for agricultural tool and household furniture wood by kebeles....76 Figure 33: PDM scores for fuel wood by landscape units among kebeles .........................77 Figure 34: PDM scores for charcoal wood by landscape units among kebeles..................78 Figure 35: PDM scores for medicinal resources by landscape units among kebeles .........79
117
Figure 36: PDM scores of landscape units in all provisioning services among kebeles ....81 Figure 37: PDM Scores of spiritual use of landscapes among kebeles ..............................82 Figure 38: PDM Scores for recreation importance of landscape units among Kebeles .....83 Figure 39: PDM scores of landscape units in providing cultural services among kebeles.84 Figure 40: Local population dependence on the Park for provisioning services................85 Figure 41: Attractions of ASLNP based on tourists feeling that they liked most...............88 Figure 42: Ostriches in the main head quarter of the Park .................................................88
118
Appendix 3: List of tables
Table 1: Population characteristics and area cover of Woredas ...........................................8 Table 2: Physical characteristics of Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla ......................................9 Table 3: Chemical characteristics of Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla ....................................9 Table 4: Functions, goods and services of natural and semi-natural ecosystems...............16 Table 5: Population and households characteristics of study kebeles ................................19 Table 6: Location and composition of households used in the household survey..............20 Table 7: Ecosystem services provided by Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park .................29 Table 8 : Trees used for Agricultural tool and household furniture making .....................39 Table 9: Common tree species found within Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park.............52 Table 10: Zooplankton composition of Lake Abijata .........................................................52 Table 11: List of some birds grouped under special conservation concerns ......................53 Table 12: List of common wild mammals and endemic mammal species in ASLNP .......55 Table 13: Tourism entrance fee payment structure for ASLNP .........................................57 Table 14: Revenue generation of ASLNP from entry fees (Year 1988 – 2007).................57 Table 15: Local population willingness to involve in management of the Park.................58 Table 16: Number of students visited ASLNP for education (Year 1988-2007) ...............59 Table 17: List of stakeholders at local level .......................................................................60 Table 18: Reason that local community prefer to live inside and /or adjacent to the Park 61 Table 19: Preference of the local people for the Park area .................................................62 Table 20: List of stakeholders at regional level ..................................................................65 Table 21: List of stakeholders at national level ..................................................................66 Table 22: List of stakeholders at super national and global level.......................................69 Table 23: Average PDM scores of provisioning services by landscapes ...........................80 Table 24: Average PDM scores of cultural services by landscapes ...................................84 Table 25: Major tourist attractions the Park is offering currently ......................................87 Table 26: Physical features of Lake Chitu..........................................................................89 Table 27: ASLNP and other Protected Areas Revenue Generation Estimates-from Park
Entry Fees (Year 1999 – 2003)...................................................................................90 Table 28: Changes in the size and volume of Lake Abijata (Year 1985-1991)..................91 Table 29: Potential use of selected ecosystem services......................................................91 Table 30: Matrix on stakeholders’ use of and impact on ecosystem services ....................93
119
Appendix 4: Questionnaires A. Household questionnaire
General Information Name of Kebele (peasant association):
Time interviewed:
From… to ……
Checked by:
Name of interviewer: Questionnaire code:
Date:
Demographic and Socio-economic Information
Name of household: No. of year you stay here: Age: Previous place you lived: *Role in the family: Gender: M F
Family size: **Educational status: ***Main source of income:
Livestock you have Cattle Sheep Goat Donkey Horse Others (specify) Don’t have Number
Key: *Role in the family is either: Head of household (husband), house wife, daughter, son, others (include relatives, grand mother and grand father) **Educational status means: Illiterate=unable to read and write; Literate=able to read and write; primary=grade 1-5; middle=grade 6-8; secondary school= grade 9-12; higher level (college or University) =BSc, MSc and others. *** Main source of income: Agriculture, trade, employs, Agriculture and trade, others (specify) Age: 20-35 years, 36-50 years, 51-65 years, above 65 years
This survey is used for an independent study for fulfillment of MSc degree in Environmental Science Department, at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. In the survey, you are kindly requested to provide your real feeling and resource use from the Park. Your honest answers are more that helpful for the study. This survey is anonymous. The survey will take about 30 minutes.
Thank you for your cooperation in advance!
Tafesse Kefyalew Estifanos
120
1. ASLNP as protected natural ecosystem provides a large number of functions. These functions in turn give various goods and services for the local population, in general for human beings. The services include food, water supply, raw materials, medicinal, cultural services, etc. Here you are requested to choose/list the services you get and identify the landscape unit(s) from where you get those services. S.No. Function/Services Name of services (tick the service you obtain) Use: for sale or
home use, or for both)
Landscape unit you get from: Lake Shalla, Lake Abijata, woodland, Farmland, wetlands, Shalla Islands, hot springs, rivers (Bulbula or Hora Qello),
Fish
Fruits (Specify the name) …………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Animal products from wildlife (for example: meat, etc). (Specify the name): ………………………………………………… …………………………………………………
1
Food
Others (specify) …………………................................................ ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Keep bee hive ( on trees)♣
Construction wood (for house, fence)
Wood for charcoal making
Fuel wood
Tool making (agricultural, household
furniture)
Wildlife products (skin, teeth, horn, etc)
Grasses as fodder
Thatching grasses
Leaves and fruits of plants as fodder
Sand for construction
2 Raw materials, energy sources
Termite Hill (clay soil)
121
Mineral salt
Others (specify) .…………..............
Name of resource and type you use (list the name of plant or animal or water body)
S.No. Functions/Services
Local name Common name
Landscape unit you get from: Lake Shalla, Lake Abijata, woodland, Farmland, wetlands, hot springs, Bulbula River, Hora Qello River
3
Medicinal useful resources (drugs and traditions)
2. In the following table, identify the water sources and the purpose you are using the water from the Park ecosystem
S. No. Water source you use Water use for (irrigation, drinking; livestock and/or human, swimming and/or bathing, washing cloth, others). More than one choice is possible
1. Lake Abijata
2 Lake Shalla
3 River Bulbula
4 River Hora Qello
5 Hot springs
6 Others (specify)
122
3. a) Do you have land inside the Park area that you use for your livelihood? Yes No
Variable: Have land Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 b) If yes, in the following table, mention the type of land, its location and the size of land that you have.
S. No Type of land you have (you can choose more than one option)
Location of land: Around Lakes; Shalla or Abijata, around wetlands, inside woodland, around hot springs, around rivers
Size of land (ha)
1 Farmland
2 Grazing land
3 Fallow land
4 Woodland
5 Others (specify)………... ………………………………..
5. Where do you take frequently your livestock for grazing?
Inside Acacia woodland to farm land
to wetlands (around the lake shore) to woodland and wetland
other place (specify): _________________________
Variable: place of grazing land Variable code: Forest area = 1, Wetlands = 2, Farmland = 3, Fallow land = 4, others = 5 6. Where do you go for recreation when you have spare time?
To woodland to view point to watch the beauty of landscapes
To lakes to watch birds to religious places (Shalla Islands or Mosque, etc)
To enjoy drinks To Farm land
Others (specify please): _____________________________________________
Variable: Recreation place Variable code: Forests = 1, View point = 2, lakes to watch birds = 3, Islands of lake Shalla = 4, enjoy drinks = 5, Farm land = 6, others = 7
7. In the area of the National Park, according to you, what do you prefer most the area to be in the future? Farm land conserved woodland
Grazing land communal land
Well protected Park farmland and grazing land
Variable: Your future preference of the area (Park) Variable code: Farm land = 1, protected forest = 2, grazing land = 3, open access land = 4, protected Park = 5, farmland and grazing land = 6 8. Why do you like most living inside, adjacent or near the Park?
123
Better living environment20 Recreational purpose
Lack of land in other places Cultural benefit
Presence of wildlife Easy access to park area
Place where I born and my family live Variable: Reason you choose to live here (in and around Park) Variable code: Better living environment = 1, Recreation = 2, Lack of land for settlement and livelihood = 3, cultural benefit = 4, looking wildlife = 5, Easy access to the land = 6, others =7 9. If the park is maintained and protected well, what do you benefit from it? It preserves the cultural values of the area It has no benefit for me
It improves the services that I get it promotes tourist attraction
It keeps the ecosystem in sustainable way
Others (specify please): _________________
Variable: benefit of protecting the area Variable code: Preserves the cultural values =1, no benefit for me = 2, improves the resource = 3, promotes tourist attraction = 4, keeps the ecosystem sustainable = 5, others = 6 10. Do you think that the plant/animal species in the park may still be used in future (for future generations)? Yes No Variable: Sustainability of existing species Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 11 a) Do you get income source from the Park?
Yes No Variable: income from park Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 b) If Yes, what kind of income?
Salary from guiding tourists
Selling materials (for example timber, firewood, charcoal, etc)
preparing handcrafts to sell for tourists
Others (specify) ____________________________________
Variable: kind of income: Variable code: Salary = 1, guiding tourists = 2, selling materials = 3, selling handcrafts to sell for tourists = 4, others = 5 12. a) Have you been consulted for the management of the Park?
Yes No Variable: involvement in management of the park Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 b) If you are asked now, what is your suggestion/contribution? ___________________ ________________________________________________________________________ c) Now what is the relationship between the Park management and you? _____________ ________________________________________________________________________ Variable: Relationship for cooperating together Variable code: positive = 1, Negative = 0
20 Better living environment for the locals is to mean they get farm land, grazing land for their livestock, hot springs and are living with their relatives and close friends in their area of settlement
124
A). Sample filled household questionnaire
General Information Name of Kebele (peasant association):
Galeef Qello
Time interviewed:
From:10:05-10:35
Checked by:
Tafesse Kefyalew
Name of interviewer: Gemechu Osho
Questionnaire code:
001 Date: 10 October, 2007
Demographic and Socio-economic Information
Name of household: Teshager Kebdi No. of year you stay here: 36
Age: 36 Previous place you lived: *Role in the family: Head of household Gender: M F
Family size: 8 **Educational status: Primary grade, grade
3 ***Main source of income: Agriculture
Livestock you have Cattle Sheep Goat Donk
ey Horse Others
(specify)
Don’t have Total
Number
13 5 17 2 -- --- 37
Key: *Role in the family is either: Head of household (husband), house wife, daughter, son, others (include relatives, grand mother and grand father) **Educational status means: Illiterate=unable to read and write; Literate=able to read and write; primary=grade 1-5; middle=grade 6-8; secondary school= grade 9-12; higher level (college or University) =BSc, MSc and others. *** Main source of income: Agriculture, trade, employs, Agriculture and trade, others (specify) Age: 20-35 years, 36-50 years, 51-65 years, above 65 years
This survey is used for an independent study for fulfillment of MSc degree in Environmental Science Department, at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. In the survey, you are kindly requested to provide your real feeling and resource use from the Park. Your honest answers are more that helpful for the study. This survey is anonymous. The survey will take about 30 minutes.
Thank you for your cooperation in advance!
Tafesse Kefyalew Estifanos
X
125
Age of the respondents
10085726760545046424037353331292725232017
Fre
quen
cy
20
15
10
5
0
Age of respondent
Role in the family
Role of the respondents in the family
87%
12%1%
Head of household(Husband)
House wife
Son
126
Family size of the respondents
252120181716151413121110987654321
Freq
uenc
y
25
20
15
10
5
0
Family size
Educational status of the respondents
Higher level9 - 12 grade6 - 8 grade1 - 5 grade Illeterate
Freq
uenc
y
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Education status
127
Source of income of the households
Main source of income
96%
2%
1%
1%
Agriculture
Trade
Agriculture and trade
Others
128
1. ASLNP as protected natural ecosystem provides a large number of functions. These functions in turn give various goods and services for the local population, in general for human beings. The services include food, water supply, raw materials, medicinal, cultural services, etc. Here you are requested to choose/list the services you get and identify the landscape unit(s) from where you get those services. S.No. Function/Services Name of services (tick the service you obtain) Use: for sale or
home use, or for both)
Landscape unit you get from: Lake Shalla, Lake Abijata, woodland, Farmland, wetlands, Shalla Islands, hot springs, rivers (Bulbula or Hora Qello),
Fish
home (own) use Woodland
Fruits (Specify the name): …Capparis ……………………………………………… …………………………………………………
Animal products from wildlife (for example: meat, etc). (Specify the name): ………………………………………………… …………………………………………………
1
Food
Others (specify) …………………................................................ ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Keep bee hive ( on trees)♣
Construction wood (for house, fence)
Wood for charcoal making
Fuel wood
Tool making (agricultural, household
furniture)
Wildlife products (skin, teeth, horn, etc)
Grasses as fodder
2 Raw materials, energy sources
Thatching grasses
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
129
Leaves and fruits of plants as fodder
Sand for construction
Termite Hill (clay soil)
Mineral salt
Others (specify) .…………..............
Name of resource and type you use (list the name of plant or animal or water body)
S.No. Functions/Services
Local name Common name (scientific name)
Landscape unit you get from: Lake Shalla, Lake Abijata, woodland, Farmland, wetlands, hot springs, Bulbula River, Hora Qello River
Damakese Ocimum lamifolium Woodland
3
Medicinal useful resources (drugs and traditions)
2. In the following table, identify the water sources and the purpose you are using the water from the Park ecosystem
S. No. Water source you use Water use for (irrigation, drinking; livestock and/or human, swimming and/or bathing, washing cloth, others). More than one choice is possible
1. Lake Abijata
2 Lake Shalla
Washing clothes
3 River Bulbula
4 River Hora Qello
5 Hot springs Washing , livestock drinking, bathing
6 Others (specify)
X
X
X
X
X
130
3. a) Do you have land inside the Park area that you use for your livelihood? Yes No
Variable: Have land Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 b) If yes, in the following table, mention the type of land, its location and the size of land that you have.
S. No Type of land you have (you can choose more than one option)
Location of land: Around Lakes; Shalla or Abijata, around wetlands, inside woodland, around hot springs, around rivers
Size of land (ha)
1 Farmland
2 Grazing land
3 Fallow land
4 Woodland
5 Others (specify)………... ………………………………..
5. Where do you take frequently your livestock for grazing?
Inside Acacia woodland to farm land
to wetlands (around the lake shore) to woodland and wetland
other place (specify): _________________________
Variable: place of grazing land Variable code: Forest area = 1, Wetlands = 2, Farmland = 3, Fallow land = 4, others = 5 6. Where do you go for recreation when you have spare time?
To woodland to view point to watch the beauty of landscapes
To lakes to watch birds to religious places (Shalla Islands or Mosque, etc)
To enjoy drinks to Farm land
Others (specify please): Hot springs
Variable: Recreation place Variable code: Forests = 1, View point = 2, lakes to watch birds = 3, Islands of lake Shalla = 4, enjoy drinks = 5, Farm land = 6, others = 7
7. In the area of the National Park, according to you, what do you prefer most the area to be in the future? Farm land conserved woodland
Grazing land communal land
Well protected Park farmland and grazing land
Variable: Your future preference of the area (Park) Variable code: Farm land = 1, conserved woodland (forest) = 2, grazing land = 3, open access land = 4, protected Park = 5, farmland and grazing land = 6
X
X
X
X
X
X
131
8. Why do you like most living inside, adjacent or near the Park?
Better living environment21 Recreational purpose
Lack of land in other places Cultural benefit
Presence of wildlife Easy access to park area
Place where I born and my family live Variable: Reason you choose to live here (in and around Park) Variable code: Better living environment = 1, Recreation = 2, Lack of land for settlement and livelihood = 3, cultural benefit = 4, looking wildlife = 5, Easy access to the land = 6, others =7
9. If the park is maintained and protected well, what do you benefit from it? It preserves the cultural values of the area It has no benefit for me
It improves the services that I get it promotes tourist attraction
It keeps the ecosystem in sustainable way
Others (specify please): _________________
Variable: benefit of protecting the area Variable code: Preserves the cultural values =1, no benefit for me = 2, improves the resource = 3, promotes tourist attraction = 4, keeps the ecosystem sustainable = 5, others = 6 10. Do you think that the plant/animal species in the park may still be used in future (for future generations)? Yes No Variable: Sustainability of existing species Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 11 a) Do you get income source from the Park?
Yes No Variable: income from park Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 b) If Yes, what kind of income?
Salary from guiding tourists
Selling materials (for example timber, firewood, charcoal, etc)
preparing handcrafts to sell for tourists
Others (specify) ____________________________________
Variable: kind of income: Variable code: Salary = 1, guiding tourists = 2, selling materials = 3, selling handcrafts to sell for tourists = 4, others = 5 12. a) Have you been consulted for the management of the Park?
Yes No Variable: involvement in management of the park Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0 b) If you are asked now, what is your suggestion/contribution? Let the Park go away from our area ________________________________________________________________________ c) Now what is the relationship between the Park management and you? I do not want to work with the Park management___________________________________________________________________ Variable: Relationship for cooperating together Variable code: positive = 1, Negative = 0
21 Better living environment for the locals is to mean they get farm land, grazing land for their livestock, hot springs and are living with their relatives and close friends in their area of settlement
X
X
X
X
X
132
B. Questions to key persons from local people for cultural services 1. Is there place(s) inside the Park (forests or lakes) that you and your people consider sacred/historical that are protected from disturbance? Yes No If yes, complete the following table. S no. Name of place
(traditional/common name) Background story (why it is sacred/holy)
1 2 3 4 2. Is there any tradition that any tree(s) and/or animal(s) that you and your people consider sacred/holy inside the Park area? Yes No If yes, name and list frequency of your visit S. no Name of sacred
tree/animal How often you go there to pray ( daily, monthly, seasonally, yearly)
1 2 3 4 5 3. Do you have any traditional rule (s) related to forest, Lakes or other place in the Park that is still functioning in protecting the sacred places? Yes No If yes, complete the following table S no. Name of traditional rule
Who protects the area (local people, local authorities, others, specify)
1 2 3 4 4. Do you have any traditional ceremonies/festivals/religious gathering in your village that relates with forests/water/nature and the materials that are used from nature? Yes/ No If yes complete the following table. Name of gathering
Place you gather
How often you go (daily, monthly, seasonally, yearly)
133
C. Tourist survey
This survey is used for an independent study by Tafesse Kefyalew Estifanos for fulfillment of MSc degree in Environmental Science, at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. In the survey, you are kindly requested to provide your real feeling about the use of the Park as tourist attraction site, or in general your purpose of your visit. This survey is anonymous. The survey will take about 15 minutes.
Thank you for your cooperation in advance!!
General Information about the respondents Name of tourist/visitor:
Your country of origin:
Age Number of days you stay: Sex M F Educational status*:
Occupation: Monthly income (for Ethiopian tourists only)**:
Type of
tourist/visitor:
Foreigner
Local/domestic
Place where you stay (if you stay for more than one day) :
* Level of education: not educated, student, grade 10 or grade 12 complete, higher level educated (college or University) =BSc, MSc and others.
** Monthly income (in Ethiopia Birr): this is only for Ethiopian tourists and visitors: a) no income b) 200 ETB and below c) 201- 650ETB c) 651- 1000 ETB d) 1001-1500ETB e) 1501-2500ETB f) above 2500ETB
Variable code: Age: Below 20 years = 1, 36-50 years =2, 51-65 years=3, above 65 years=4 Sex: Male = 1, Female = 2; Type of tourist/visit: foreigner = 1, local/domestic = 2 Educational status: not educated =1; student = 2; grade 10 grade 12 complete = 3; higher level educated = 4; others = 5
1. Have you visited Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park before?
Yes No Variable: visited ASLNP Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0
2. If your answer in question 1 above is yes, how many times you visited the Park? _________________
Variable: Number of your visit Variable code: 1-3 times = 1, 3-5 times = 2, 5 -10 times = 3, more than 10 times = 4
3. Primarily, what motivated you to visit Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park? Select your motivation(s) by marking in the box
The presence of hot springs Presence of unique mammal species
134
Presence of unique birdlife species Fair entrance fee
Facilities in the Park View point for beautiful scenery
Accessibility (proximity to the capital city; Addis Ababa and location along the road side)
Others (specify) _______________________________
Variable: Reason you visit Variable code: presence of hot springs = 1, presence of unique mammal species = 2, presence of unique birdlife species = 3, fair entrance fee = 4, facilities in the park =5, beautiful scenery = 6, Accessibility = 7, others = 8
4. How did you hear first about Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park?
Guide book, Brochure Travel agency
Tourism Office From family and/or friends
Media (TV, NEWS, Magazine, etc) Guide
Specify please): __________________________
Variable: Hear about ASLNP Variable code: Guide book, brochure = 1, travel agency = 2, tourism office = 3, from family or friends = 4, media = 5, other means = 6
5. In the following table, you are requested to identify the reason(s) that you visited or would like to visit again the Park. From the lists stated, choose (tick) the reason (s) you come here in column 5A and also rate the importance of your visit from most important to not important (in column 5B), in relation to your purpose of visit.
Most important= 4, important= 3, least important=2, not important=1 5A 5B
S. no
Reason to come here (alternatives) tick your choice(s) Importance
1 For recreation: chose the specific purpose you want to enjoy (circle your choice) 1. For the beauty of landscape (scenery, forests, Lakes, hot springs, wetlands, etc) 2. To watch wildlife such as Birds (Flamingoes, Pelicans, Ostriches, etc) 3. Both 1 and 2
2 To visit culturally heritage/sacred place(s)
3 For scientific purposes (research)
4 Educational purpose
5 To camp in the park
6 Organized activity (excursion/guided tour), who organized the activity: ………………………………………………………………………………………...
7 Other reason(s), Specify…………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………….
6. Are you satisfied with what you visited in the park? If your answer is yes, go to
135
question number 7 but if your answer is no, go to question 8.
Yes No Variable: satisfied with your visit Variable code: Yes = 1, No = 0
7. If your answer in question 6 above is YES, select you liked most from Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park.
The hot springs unique mammal species
Beautiful view point and landscapes unique birdlife species
Wetland the forest
The lakes (Abijata, Shalla, or both) Underline if you have preference from lakes
Islands at Shalla Lake others (specify)
___________________________
Variable: rank of the component liked most Variable code: hot springs = a, unique mammal species = b, view point and landscapes = c, unique birdlife species = d, wetland = e, forest = f, farmland = g, Islands at Shalla lake = I, lakes = j, others = k
8. If your answer in question 6 above is NO, as a park what services and/or facilities did you miss in Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park? Mention in the space provided below.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Questions to hotels/lodges around the Park Name of Hotel/lodge: Occupation: Name of respondent: Educational status: Age: Date of interview: Gender: Checked by: 1. Are you getting benefit from the Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park (ASLNP)? If your answer is yes, go to question number 2. Yes No 2. What benefit are you getting for the hotel? It connects ASLNP with Langano (used as direction indicator)
Tourists visiting ASLNP stay in our lodge it creates better living environment
Its administration works in collaboration with the hotel management
As it is protected it maintain the surrounding ecosystem sustainable
Other (please specify):
3. What resources are you getting from ASLNP or from its being close to your hotel? You can choose more than one. Water supply Fish
Traditional artifacts Recreation facilities
Raw materials supply (for example: fire wood, charcoal, timber, etc)
x
x
x
136
Others (specify please) ________________
4. Are you using any means of advertising your hotel associated with the proximity of ASLNP? Yes No.
5. Do you think that the park is managed well? Yes No: 6. Are you cooperating with ASLNP staff for the better improvement of the services provided by of the park? If your answer yes, go to question 6. Yes No: 7. What is/are the cooperation/activities that you are doing together? 8. Do you think that you are considered as a stakeholder in the management and use resources of the park? If yes go to question 9, if no go to question 10. Yes No I have no Idea 9. If yes, how do you like to be involved? ____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 10. If no, why not? ______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Do you think that better management of the park would improve your benefit from the park? Yes No
12. What is your opinion about the improvement of the management and sustainable use of resources of ASLNP for you and your organization? E. Questions to Soda Ash Factory expert
Occupation: Name of respondent:
Educational status:
Age: Date of interview: Gender: 1. What benefits are you getting from Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park being situated in this area? 2. What raw materials services are you getting from ASLNP or from this area?
3. Do you think that the use of raw materials and water supply from this area is sustainable in the future? If yes how? 4. Do you have any cooperation with the park management and staff? if yes what kind of cooperation? 5. Do you think that you are considered as a stakeholder in the management and use resources of the park? if no go to question 10. 6. If your answer is in question 6 is yes, what is your opinion about the management and
resource use of ASLNP? 7. Do you have water use budget per year or per season? What is your annual consumption? F. Questions to Woreda ARD offices
1. What is the objective (role) of your ARD office with respect to the natural
x
x
137
resource conservation in the Woreda? Do you have specific role in the Park? 2. What benefits do local people from the Woreda specifically from kebeles located
inside and/or adjacent to the Park obtain from the Park natural resources? 3. What is the interest on the Woreda in the ownership of the land inside the Park? 4. How are you working with local people to integrate the existence of the Park with
settlements? 5. What is your opinion about the sustainable use and management of natural
resources in the Woreda, specifically in the Park; for example about lakes, forest, hot springs, wetlands, wildlife (birds and mammals)?
6. How are you working with local people and Park administration to tackle the environmental degradations and problems of the Park area?
7. Are you working with any development activities in the Park? If there are what is their role? And the woreda’s role?
Appendix 5: Pebbles Distribution Method
A. Scoring exercises
For each of the services (food, water, raw materials, medicine, spiritual, recreation) on the cards with respect to the landscapes, which service(s) is (are) the most important? Please distribute 100 pebbles (in this case White Haricot Beans see below) among the cards based on the relative importance of this category use.
Figure: Haricot beans (Bolokae local name) used in PDM exercises
138
Figure: Lists of landscape units on paper written in Official (Amharic) and local (Oromiffa) languages with respective diagram
Data sheet used for recording the scores of the PDM Provisioning services
Homestead Farmland Fallow land
Woodland wetland Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Total
Food Water Animal fodder
Agricultural tool and furniture making
Construction wood
Fuel wood Charcoal wood
Medicines Overall Cultural services
Spiritual Recreation Overall
139
B. Description of landscapes and ecosystem services used in the exercises
1) Description of the different landscape units used in PDM exercises
S No. Landscape units
Description/definition
1 Homestead Area of human settlements inside or adjacent to the Park area 2 Acacia
woodland Area covered by the dominant acacia tress. This includes the natural vegetation and mixed woodland where most trees are kept not cut.
3 Wetlands The areas in and around Lakes that is marshy, wet, muddy covered with grasses.
4 Hot springs A natural spring that comes out hot water from underground hotter than body temperature and therefore feels hot; may be collected in pools and flow into Lake Shalla
5 Shalla Lake The Lake located inside the Park in the south Part of ASLNP 6 Abijata Lake The Lake located inside the Park in the north part of ASLNP 7 Fallow land A land kept free of growing crops during the growing season 8 Farmland A category of land, denoting property used for agricultural purpose
2) Description of provisioning and cultural services used in PDM exercises
Category of Services
Services from ASLNP Description
Food Harvest of fish, fruits, crops (grains) Fresh water Provisioning of water for drinking, irrigation, bathing
and washing Animal fodder grazing land and collection of grasses, fruits, leaves for
livestock feed Agricultural tool and furniture making wood
making agricultural tools & household furniture
Construction materials house construction, making fences Fuel wood Collection of wood to use as source of energy for
cooking and heating for own use and/or for sale Charcoal wood Cutting wood for charcoal to use as source of energy for
cooking and heating for own use and/or for sale
Provisioning services
Medicinal resources traditional medicinal plants, and traditions in the use of water bodies
Spiritual Use of landscapes for religious veneration purpose Cultural services
Recreation Travel to natural ecosystem for relaxation
Note (explanation): Local Names of the landscapes and their respective English names
Local name (Oromiffa) English name
Ganda: Homestead Bosonaa: Woodland (forest) Lafa Lilixii: Wetland Lafa Qonaa: Farmland Horaa Shaallaa: Lake Shalla Horaa Abiijaataa: Lake Abijata Lafa Hacarii: Fallow Land O’aa: Hot springs
140
C) Results of PDM exercises
i) PDM scores of provisioning services by landscape units in study kebeles
Landscape units Study sites/kebeles
Ecosystem Services Homestead
(Gandaa) Woodland (Bosonaa)
Wetland (lafaa Lilixii)
Farmland (Lafa Qonaa)
L. Shalla (Horaa Shaalaa)
L. Abijata (Horaa Abiijaata)
Fallow land ( Lafa Hacarii)
Hot springs (O’aa)
Total
Food 3 15 0 75 0 5 2 0 100 Water 3 10 2 0 25 10 0 50 100 Animal fodder 10 30 30 15 0 0 15 0 100 Agri. tool and household furniture making
0 75 0 10 0 0 15 0 100
Construction wood 0 80 5 5 0 0 10 0 100 Fuel wood 0 75 0 20 0 0 5 0 100 Charcoal wood 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Galeef Qello
Medicinal resources 0 20 0 5 20 5 0 50 100 Overall scores 10 20 5 45 5 6 4 5 100
Food 0 25 0 50 0 0 25 0 100 Water 0 0 0 0 40 5 0 60 100 Animal fodder 5 50 20 20 0 0 5 0 100 Agri. tool and household furniture making
0 70 0 0 0 0 30 0 100
House construction 0 80 0 0 0 0 20 0 100 Fuel wood 0 70 0 0 0 0 30 0 100 Charcoal making 0 90 0 0 0 0 10 0 100
Shalla Billa
Medicinal resources 0 50 0 0 5 5 5 35 100 Overall scores
5 25 8 30 10 8 4 10 100
Gubata Arijo Food 0 5 0 95 0 0 0 0 100
141
Water 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 90 100 Animal fodder 0 70 0 10 0 0 20 0 100 Agri. tool and household furniture making
0 90 0 0 0 0 10 0 100
Construction wood 0 95 0 0 0 0 5 0 100 Fuel wood 0 90 0 0 0 0 10 0 100 Charcoal wood 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Medicinal resources 0 50 0 0 5 0 30 15 100
Overall scores
5 33 2 30 5 10 5 10 100
Food 10 25 0 60 0 0 5 0 100 Water 0 0 0 0 20 5 0 75 100 Animal fodder 0 40 0 50 0 0 10 0 100 Agri. tool and household furniture making
0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Construction wood 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Fuel wood 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Charcoal wood 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Hadha Bosso
Medicinal resources 10 30 0 10 5 5 10 30 100 Overall scores
10 35 2 40 2 1 5 5 100
Overall score means: The score received by the landscapes based on the overall importance in providing the provisioning services. This is the result of the second exercise after the exercise on the importance of provisioning services.
142
ii) PDM Scores of cultural services by landscape units in the study Kebeles
Landscape units Study sites/Kebeles
Ecosystem Services Homestea
d (Gandaa)
Woodland (Bosonaa)
Wetland (lafaa Lilixii)
Farmland (Lafa Qonaa)
Lake Shalla (Horaa Shaalaa)
Lake Abijata (Horaa Abiijaata)
Fallow land ( Lafa Hacarii)
Hot springs (O’aa)
Total
Spiritual and religious
0 55 0 0 40 5 0 0 100 Galeef Qello
Recreation 0 15 0 0 30 10 5 40 100 Overall scores 10 30 10 0 50 100 Shalla Billa Spiritual
and religious
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Recreation 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 30 100 Overall scores 70 30 Gubata Arijo Spiritual
and religious
0 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 100
Recreation 0 15 0 0 25 0 0 60 100 Overall scores 15 25 60 Hadha Bosso Spiritual
and religious
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Recreation 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 30 100 Overall scores 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 30 100
Over all score means: The score received by the landscapes based on the overall importance in providing the cultural services
143
Appendix 6: Landscape and ecosystem services field observation checklist a) Name of landscape unit: _______________________________________________ b) Geographical location: _________________________________________________ c) Physical features: Settlement around (yes/no): _____________________________ d. Climate: Temperature: _______ Rainfall: _________ Agro-ecological zone: _________________ Water sources (origin): ____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ e. Chemical characteristics (if applicable): Salinity: ___________________ Acidity: ________________ Conductivity: ________ f. Hydrological value: Water regulation: _____________Flood control:_________________ Water supply_____________________________ Erosion control/sediment retention: _____________ g. Socioeconomic and cultural values: Fishery: ______________________________ Deforestation: ______________________ Religious importance: ________________ tourism: ______________________________ Agriculture __________________________________pasture ______________________ Other activities: __________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ h. Ecological features: Main Habitat for: _________________________________________________________ Nursery site for: __________________________________________________________ i. Flora composition: Vegetation type: ______________________________________ Dominant species: _____________________ Unique feature observed (if there is any): _________________________________________ j. Fauna composition: Main wildlife species: _____________________________________________________ k. State of conservation and land use: Conservation measured taken: _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Owners/users of the landscape: ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Current land use: _________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Threats to the landscape (present): ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Threats to the landscape (potential): __________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ l. Current status: Fully degraded: _________________ partially degraded: _________________________ Untouched (intact): _________________ rehabilitating: __________________________ Ongoing activities on site and around: Research: ______________grazing _____________ farming: ___________tourist______ Other(s) _______________________________________________________________
144
Appendix 7: Traditional medicinal plants identified in ASLNP No Local name Scientific name 1 Hargessa Aloe spp 2 Hidi Solanum spp 3 Anchuro Kalanchoe spp 4 Aneno Euphorbia scoparia 5 Bedana Balanties aegyptica 6 Damakese Ocimum lamifolium 7 Dadaho Eucelea schimperi 8 Dergu Achyrantes aspera 9 Hareftu Cussonia holstii 10 Gale adi Caucanthus auriculatus
11 Marachisa Clerodendron myricoides
12 Meknisa Croton macrostachys
13 Seriti Asparagus spp 14 Tedecha Dodonea Viscosa 15 Huntuti Capparis micrantha 16 Kombolcha Maytnus ovatus 17 Dabobesa Rhus natalenus Local names are referred from (Wolde Michael, 1980).
145
Appendix 8: List of Phytoplankton in Lakes: Shalla, Abijata and Chitu Species Shalla Abijata Chitu
Cyanophycaae
Nostocales
Anabaenopsis abijatae Kebede at willen A
Arthospira fusiformis A A
Spiralra laxissom G.S. west R
Cryptophyceae R
Cryptomonadales
Cryptomonas sp-1
Diatomophyceae
Eupodiscales
Aulacoseira Sp S
Aulacoseira granulafa R
A.agazzizti (Ostonti) Sim S
Chaetoceros Maclleri Lemm S
C.Cf Ceratosporum astenf R
Thalassiospira Cf. Faorri (Gosse) Hosie C
Bacillarialaes
Anomoeoneis Sphaero Phora (Ehr.) Pfizer S
Cymbella Keptoceros (Ehr.) Gron R
C.Cf. Moellori 0.mull S
C.Cf. Prostrota (Berk) Cleve S
Fragilariz Cf. Frustulum (Rull) Gron R
Nitzschia of frustulum (Rull) Gron S
N. subacieuloris Host C
Surirella Cf. Brebissonis V.Ponctata R
Chlorophyceae
Chlorococeales
Oocystis spp (morssorii-pova-coeustris) S A
Schroederia sp C
oceoids Dcoval R
Volovolaes
Dunalieva sp.Arthospira fusiformis C
Source: (Kebede E., 1996)
Key C = Common = 0.1 - 1mg 1-1
A = Abundant = 1-10 mg 1-1 S=Sparse=0.01-0.1mg 1-1 , R=Rare=<0.01mg1-1
146
Appendix 9: General characteristics and uses of tree species in ASLNP Species Habit Habitat/ecology Distribution Propagation
Use
A. senegal Shrub/tree: 10-15 m
500-1700 m; 500-1000 mm year-1; wooded grassland, deciduous woodland, drought resistant
From Senegal to Red Sea, East and South Africa, b/n 110 and 160 North
Direct seeding; 18,000 seeds kg-1; poor natural regeneration; rotation age of 20 years
Gum, medicine, fodder, fuel wood, charcoal, enhance soil fertility, dye, agro forestry
A. seyal
Tree, up to 9 m
0-2100 m; 250-1000 mm year-1; 22-300C; woodland, wooded grass-land, drought resistant
From Senegal to the entire Sahal, Sudan and Egypt, East Africa from Somalia to Mozambique
Good natural regeneration; abundant coppice; 22,000 seeds kg-1; fast growth; rotation age of 8- 10 years
Less quality gum, forage, tannins dye, fuel wood, charcoal, construction
A. tortilis
Tree, 4-21m 0-900 m; 100-1000 mm year-1; 26-280C woodland, wooded grassland, dry scrub, drought resistant
East Africa, Southern Tropical Africa, South And North of the Sahara, Middle East
Pioneer species, seed and coppicing; 15,000}20,000 seeds kg-1; rotation age of 10 years
Fuel wood, charcoal, forage, medicine, construction, bark for rope making
B. aegyptiaca
Tree, 6-10 m Up to 1500 m; 200-800 mm year-1; very drought resistant, flexible requirement
In most arid to sub humid tropical savannahs of Africa, Sahal, Sudan, India, Pakistan, Arabian peninsula
Direct seeding, root suckers and cutting, 10,000 seeds tree-1, 500-1500 seeds kg-1, 5-8 years for maturity
Extremely useful for Fuel wood, charcoal, Household utensils, furniture, fodder, food, medicine
D. cinerea
Shrub/tree, 4-7m
450-2000m; 500-600 mm year-1; everywhere on sandy, clayey and loamy soils
Sudan, Sahal, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, Togo, Ghana, Cameroon,
Invasive, easily by root cutting, root suckering, 39,000 seeds kg-1, fire resistant
Fuel wood, charcoal, furniture, hand tools, food, fodder, medicine
Source: Field observation based on Demel (1996a) and Von Maydel (1986) in (Argaw et al., 1999)
147
Appendix 10: Records of selected birds species in ASLNP from 1970-1996 Species 1970 1971 1978 1981 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Greater Flamingos
200 1000 818 1137 --- 2226 59000 34088 --- ---
Lesser Flamingo
--- 300 2550 94 146,699 15180 233000 88104 102190 ---
Black necked greb
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 700 ---
Great White Pelican
2000 1000 810 358 12 --- --- --- --- ---
Pink Backed Pelican
6 7 1 90 2 --- --- --- --- ---
Northern Shoveler
200 500 --- --- 5277 26697 37412 43736 --- ---
Avocet 54 350 13 --- 3341 17172 11281 520 --- --- Ruff 2000 750 --- --- 61502 6522 10036 30528 35819 --- Little Stint 50 20 --- --- 24302 24071 6909 36528 --- --- Black Wing Stilt
--- --- --- --- 1991 26697 706 --- --- ---
Egyptian goose
1000 500 256 153 11 50 10 --- --- ---
Kitilitiz’s sand piper
--- --- --- --- 609 3245 3694 --- 2520 10968
Gull billed Tern
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 650 --- ---
White winged Black tern
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2500 ---
Curlew sand Piper
--- --- --- --- 62 381 495 408 --- ---
Marsh sand Piper
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 936 --- ---
Cormorants 600 1300 3000 976 --- --- --- --- --- --- Source: (Wondafrash and Demeke, 1999; and Park document)
148
Appendix 11: Annual saline water use and product quantity by Soda Ash Factory No Year Volume (M3) Trona Production
(ton) Soda Ash Production (ton)
1 1987/88 2094756.51 2 1988/89 1121351.08 3 1989/90 1430242.00 10000 4 1990/91 1814447.70 20000 5 1991/92 1525880.75 32000 6 1992/93 1424717.75 21045 7 1993/94 1170576.00 22097 8 1994/95 1685661.80 11401 9 1995/96 1256102.01 11508 10 1996/97 1525299.27 12983 11 1997/98 1282709.78 4987 12 1998/99 1242187.06 6664 13 1999/2000 1125365.56 17461 14 2000/01 1297594.19 8305 7542 15 2001/02 1551829.55 13098 4508 16 2002/03 1131905.05 10505 17 2003/04 575442.07 9033 6550 18 2004/05 248196.30 2434.65 3230.2 19 2005/06 333908.00 6786.81 3714.15 20 2006/07 N/A 1751.44 486.5 21 2007/08* 1040000 6750 2992.5 Source: (Abijata Soda Ash Factory, 2007) Key: * means plan for the year 2007/08 N/A: The data is not available during period of my data collection
149
Appendix 12: Pictures showing charcoal and fuel wood use from ASLNP
Photo: Tafesse K.
a) Charcoal for selling (DDHG kebele) b) Fuel wood ready for sale (DDHG kebele)
150
Appendix 13: Pictures of livestock grazing inside ASLNP
Photo: Tafesse K.
a) Livestock grazing inside acacia woodland b) Livestock grazing in Abijata wetland
