WETLAND ASSESSMENT REPORT - AfDB

WETLAND ASSESSMENT REPORT OROMIA IAIP AND RTC SITE Report Produced by:

WSP in collaboration with Engineer Tequam Water Resources Development and

Environment Consultancy (ETWRDEC)

Date: January 2017

WETLAND ASSESSMENT REPORT Project No. 48920

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1

2 KNOWLEDGE GAPS ........................................ 1

3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................ 1

4 METHODOLOGY ............................................... 1

Wetland Delineation ................................................... 2

Wetland Classification ............................................... 3

Present Ecological State ........................................... 7

Functional Assessment .............................................9

5 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT ....................... 10

Desktop Review ...........................................................10

Results .............................................................................. 11

6 REFERENCES .................................................. 12


Page ii

TABLES

TABLE 1: HYDROGEOMORPHIC CLASSES

OF SMITH ET AL. (1995) ................... 3 TABLE 2: RAMSAR CONVENTION

WETLAND CLASSIFICATION ........ 5 TABLE 3: HEALTH CATEGORIES USED BY

WET-HEALTH FOR DESCRIBING THE INTEGRITY OF WETLANDS (AFTER MACFARLANE ET AL., 2008). ...........................................................8

TABLE 3: ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY WETLAND HABITATS........................9

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: MAJOR WETLAND BIOMES IN ETHIOPIA (BEZABIH & MOSISSA 2017) .............................................................. 7


Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION A wetland desktop screening and infield assessment, relating to the proposed Oromia IAIP development and the associated RTC site (the ‘sites’) was undertaken as part of the scoping phase. This assessment was undertaken to determine whether the proposed sites may intrude into the delineated boundary of a wetland and potential significance of the impacts on the system.

2 KNOWLEDGE GAPS Key assumptions and limitations relevant to the assessment included:

— Wetlands identified for delineation were based on a desktop review of available information and a site inspection. This is reliant on various published data sources (e.g. aerial imagery and mapping).

— Whilst the desktop review and site investigation aimed to identify and assess all wetlands within the study area, wetlands not identified during this process did not form part of this study.

— A wetland boundary comprises a gradually changing gradient of wetland indicators and varies both temporally and spatially; a wetland delineation thus occurs within a certain degree of tolerance.

— It should be recognised that there are several confounding effects on the interpretation of the historic and current extent and functioning of the respective systems such as the presence of infrastructure (roads, fencing, culverts etc.) and agricultural practices (e.g. vegetation removal, tilling, grazing, etc.).

— This report assesses the impact (on freshwater habitats) of the proposed IAIP and RTC sites only.

— The findings, results, observations, conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on best scientific and professional knowledge as well as available information.

3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The aim of the assessment is to determine the extent, health and functionality of freshwater habitats that have a potential risk of being impacted on by the proposed sites’ activities. The assessment was guided by the following objectives:

— Review any existing literature on wetland systems within the study area or region;

— Identification and delineation of wetland systems (desktop and infield);

— Description of the wetlands/wetland systems identified (if any);

— A description of the current state and functionality of the identified wetlands; and

— Identification of current and potential impacts and any associated mitigation measures.

4 METHODOLOGY The methods used for the wetland assessment Report broadly followed the approach as outlined below:

— Desktop identification of watercourses within the boundary of the proposed sites;

— Infield delineation and classification of watercourses within the proposed sites;

— Functional assessments of the potentially impacted watercourses (i.e. PES, EIS);

— Impact Assessment.

The methods and tools utilised to conduct the freshwater habitat assessments within the study area were determined utilising desktop and infield assessments together with professional opinion. An in-


Page 2

depth description of each individual method is provided in the sections that follow. Available datasets were utilised to supplement the information gathered on site.

WETLAND DELINEATION There are numerous definitions for wetlands, with no one definition being agreed upon on an international scale. This is attributed to different ideas on the boundary of between the aquatic system and the surround terrestrial environment and the natural variations in climatic conditions, hydrology, soils and vegetation communities.

According to the Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy the definition of a wetland is “areas of marsh, fen, peatland 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”. This definition is also utilised within numerous papers published in internationally accepted Journals and papers within the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) publication “Wetlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of a seminar on the resources and status of Ethiopia's wetlands” (Abebe & Gehab, 2003).

Wetland delineation includes the confirmation of the occurrence of wetland and a determination of the outermost edge of the wetland. Therefore the definition above was utilised to identify wetland areas within and around the Oromia IAIP and RTC sites. After these systems had been identified, the following wetland indicators were used to delineate the wetlands:

1 Terrain Unit Indicator

— Identify those parts of the landscape where wetlands are more likely to occur (potential position of a wetland in the landscape).

2 Soil Form and Wetness Indicator

— Identification of the morphological ‘signatures’ developed in the soil profile as a result of prolonged and frequent saturation (determined through soil sampling with a soil auger and examining the degree of soil mottling and gleying).

— Hydromorphic soil displays unique characteristics resulting from its prolonged and repeated saturation. Once a soil becomes saturated for an extended time, roots and microorganisms gradually consume the oxygen present in pore spaces in the soil. In an unsaturated soil, oxygen consumed in this way would be replenished by diffusion from the air at the soil surface.

— Once the oxygen in a saturated soil has been depleted, the soil effectively remains anaerobic. These anaerobic conditions make wetlands highly efficient in removing many pollutants from water, since the chemical mechanisms by which this is done need to take place in the absence of oxygen.

— Iron is one of the most abundant elements in soils, and is responsible for the red and brown colours of many soils. Once most of the iron has been dissolved out of a soil as a result of prolonged anaerobic conditions, the soil matrix is left a greyish, greenish or bluish colour, and is said to be gleyed.

— A fluctuating water table, common in wetlands that are seasonally or temporarily saturated, results in alternation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions in the soil. Lowering of the water table results in a switch from anaerobic to aerobic soil conditions, causing dissolved iron to return to an insoluble state and be deposited in the form of patches, or mottles, in the soil.

— Recurrence of this cycle of wetting and drying over many decades concentrates these bright, insoluble iron compounds. Thus, soil that is gleyed but has many mottles may be interpreted as indicating a zone that is seasonally or temporarily saturated.

— Coloured mottles, another feature of hydromorphic soils, are usually absent in permanently saturated soils, and are at their most prominent in seasonally saturated soils, becoming less abundant in temporarily saturated soils until they disappear altogether in dry soils.

— The hydromorphic soils must display signs of wetness within 50cm of the soil surface. This depth has been chosen because experience internationally has shown that frequent


Page 3

saturation of the soil within 50cm of the surface is necessary to support hydrophytic vegetation.

3 Vegetation Indicator

— Identification of hydrophilic vegetation associated with frequently saturated soils (Vegetation types present onsite)

— Plant communities undergo distinct changes in species composition as one moves along the wetness gradient from the centre of a wetland to its edge, and into adjacent terrestrial areas equipped to handle. Aquatic plants are not equipped to deal with the periodic drying that occurs in many wetlands, whereas terrestrial plants cannot handle long periods of flooding. Despite these constraints, certain plant species, known as hydrophytes, have developed mechanisms to deal with these stresses.

— Some species are only found in wetland environments, and are thus termed obligate hydrophytes, while others can occur in both wetland and non-wetland soils, and are known as facultative hydrophytes.

In practise the soil wetness indicator tends to be the most important, with the other indicators playing a confirmatory role. The reason is that vegetation responds relatively quickly to changes in soil moisture regime or management and may be transformed; whereas the morphological indicators in the soil are far more permanent and will hold the signs of frequent saturation long after a wetland has been drained (perhaps for several centuries).

WETLAND CLASSIFICATION In order to identify the wetland types, a characterisation of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) types was conducted. These have been defined based on the geomorphic setting of the wetland in the landscape (e.g. hillslope or valley bottom, whether drainage is open or closed), water source (surface water dominated or sub-surface water dominated), how water flows through the wetland (diffusely or channelled) and how water exits the wetland. Once these systems have been defined into individual HGM units they can be classified.

The HGM Approach considers structural components of the wetland and surrounding landscape such as plants, animals, hydrology, and soils; biological, chemical, and physical processes; and the interaction of these components and processes. Surrounding land use is addressed because it impacts structural components and processes in the wetland. Basic concepts of the HGM Approach were first published in Smith et al. (1995). The HGM Approach uses a hierarchical classification with seven current hydrogeomorphic classes (Table 1).

Table 1: Hydrogeomorphic classes of Smith et al. (1995)

Hydrogeomorphic Class

(geomorphic setting)

Water Source

(dominant)

Hydrodynamics

(dominant)

Riverine Overbank flow from channel Unidirectional and horizontal

Depression Return flow from groundwater and interflow

Vertical

Slope Return flow from groundwater

Unidirectional, horizontal

Mineral soil flats Precipitation Vertical

Organic soil flats Precipitation Vertical

Estuarine fringe Overbank flow from estuary Bidirectional, horizontal

Lacustrine fringe Overbank flow from lake Bidirectional, horizontal

The Ramsar Convention classifies wetlands habitats into three main categories and these include: (1) marine/coastal wetlands; (2) inland wetlands; (3) man-made wetlands (Table 2). The marine and coastal wetlands include estuaries, inter-tidal marshes, brackish, saline and freshwater lagoons,


Page 4

mangrove swamps, as well as coral reefs and rocky marine shores such as sea cliffs. Inland wetlands refer to such areas as lakes, rivers, streams and creeks, waterfalls, marshes, peat lands and flooded meadows. Lastly, man-made wetlands include canals, aquaculture ponds, water storage areas and wastewater treatment areas (MEA, 2005).

The codes are based upon the Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Type as approved by Recommendation 4.7 and amended by Resolutions VI.5 and VII.11 of the Conference of the Contracting Parties. The categories listed herein are intended to provide only a very broad framework to aid rapid identification of the main wetland habitats represented at each site.

Additionally, on a local scale wetlands are classified in Ethiopia based on ecological zones, hydrologic functions, geomorphologic formations and climatic conditions. These categories interlink to form four major biomes. These biomes are the afro-tropical highlands, the Somali-Musai, the Sudan- Guinea and the Sahelian zone groups (Tilahun et al., 1996) (Figure 1).


Page 5

Table 2: Ramsar Convention Wetland Classification

Marine/Coastal Wetlands Inland Wetlands

Human-made wetlands

A Permanent shallow marine waters

L Permanent inland deltas. 1 Aquaculture ponds

B Marine subtidal aquatic beds M Permanent rivers/streams/creeks 2 Ponds includes farm ponds, stock ponds, small tanks (generally below 8 ha).

C Coral reefs N Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers/streams/creeks.

3 Irrigated land includes irrigation channels and rice fields.

D Rocky marine shores O Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha) 4 Seasonally flooded agricultural land (including intensively managed or grazed wet meadow or pasture).

E Sand, shingle or pebble shores P Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha) includes floodplain lakes.

5 Salt exploitation sites

F Estuarine waters Q Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes. 6 Water storage areas reservoirs/barrages/dams/impoundments (generally over 8 ha).

G Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats.

R Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes and flats.

7 Excavations gravel/brick/clay pits; borrow pits, mining pools.

H Intertidal marshes Sp Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools.

8 Wastewater treatment areas

I Intertidal forested wetlands Ss Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools.

9 Canals and drainage channels, ditches.

J Coastal brackish/saline lagoons Tp Permanent freshwater marshes/pools ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps on inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season.

Zk(c) Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems human-made

K Coastal freshwater lagoons Ts Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soils includes


Page 6

Marine/Coastal Wetlands Inland Wetlands

Human-made wetlands

sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes.

Zk(a) Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems

U Non-forested peatlands

Va Alpine wetlands

Vt Tundra wetlands

W Shrub-dominated wetlands; shrub swamps, shrub-dominated freshwater marshes, shrub carr, alder thicket on inorganic soils.

Xf Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands includes freshwater swamp forests, seasonally flooded forests, wooded swamps on inorganic soils.

Xp Forested peatlands

Y Freshwater springs; oases.

Zg Geothermal wetlands

Zk(b) Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems, inland


Page 7

Figure 1: Major wetland biomes in Ethiopia (Bezabih & Mosissa 2017)

PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATE The approach is based on combining variables that are typically structural measures or indicators that are associated with one or more ecosystem functions. Functions normally fall into one of three major categories: (1) hydrogeomorphic (HGM) (2) biogeochemical and (3) physical habitat (USEPA, 1998b). The HGM approach includes consideration of the landscape (geomorphic setting), hydrology (water dynamics) and the use of reference sites and condition against which to benchmark monitoring programs (Butcher, 2003). HGM uses the concept of functional indices composed of different combinations of physical and biological indicators that can be quantified on a scale developed from reference wetlands to evaluate wetland functions

WET-Health is a tool designed to assess the health (present state) or integrity of a wetland. Wetland health is defined as a measure of the deviation of wetland structure and function from the wetland’s natural reference condition (Macfarlane et al. 2009). This tool is utilised to assess hydrological, geomorphological and vegetation health in three separate modules.

Hydrology is defined in this context as the distribution and movement of water through a wetland and its soils. This module focuses on changes in water inputs as a result of changes in catchment activities and characteristics that affect water supply and its timing, as well as on modifications within the wetland that alter the water distribution and retention patterns within the wetland. Geomorphology is defined in this context as the distribution and retention patterns of sediment within the wetland. This module focuses on evaluating current geomorphic health through the presence of indicators of excessive sediment inputs and/or losses for clastic (minerogenic) and organic sediment (peat). Vegetation is defined in this context as the vegetation structural and compositional state. This module evaluates changes in vegetation composition and structure as a consequence of current and historic onsite transformation and/or disturbance.

The system uses:

— An impact-based approach for those activities that do not produce clearly visible responses in wetland structure and function. The impact of irrigation or afforestation in the catchment, for example, produces invisible impacts on water inputs. This is the main approach used in the hydrological assessment.


Page 8

— An indicator-based approach for activities that produce clearly visible responses in wetland structure and function such as the presence of erosion gullies or alien plant species. This approach is mainly used in the assessment of geomorphological and vegetation health.

Each of these modules follows a broadly similar approach. Prior to assessment, the wetland is divided into hydrogeomorphic (HGM) units and their associated catchments. These are analysed separately for hydrological, geomorphological and vegetation health based on extent, intensity and magnitude of impact. This is translated into a health score. The approach is as follows:

— The extent of impact is measured as the proportion of a wetland and/or its catchment that is affected by an activity. Extent is expressed as a percentage.

— The intensity of impact is estimated by evaluating the degree of alteration that results from a given activity.

— The magnitude of impact for individual activities is the product of extent and intensity. The magnitude of individual activities in each HGM unit are combined in a structured and transparent way to calculate the overall impact of all activities that affect hydrological, geomorphological or vegetation health.

The impact of these on health is scored numerically in a coarse way in this tool. As described above, the intensity of impact and extent of impact are assessed and these are combined to determine an overall magnitude of impact score. This follows the same approach as that of WWF’s Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology (Erwin 2003), except that WET-Health does not explicitly include duration as part of the assessment. The magnitude of impact scores are combined in a structured way to produce an overall wetland health score.

Impact scores obtained for each of the modules reflect the degree of change from natural reference conditions. Resultant health scores fall into one of six health categories (A-F) on a gradient from “unmodified/natural” (Category A) to “severe/complete deviation from natural” (Category F), i.e. critically modified as depicted in Table 3, below. This approach not only provides an indication of hydrological, geomorphological and vegetation health, but also highlights the key causes of wetland degradation.

Table 3: Health categories used by WET-Health for describing the integrity of wetlands (after Macfarlane et al., 2008).

Impact Category

Description Range PES Category

None Unmodified, natural. 0 – 0.9 A

Small Largely natural with few modifications. A slight change in ecosystem processes is discernible and a small loss of natural habitats and biota may have taken place.

1 – 1.9 B

Moderate Moderately modified. A moderate change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitats has taken place but the natural habitat remains predominantly intact

2 – 3.9 C

Large Largely modified. A large change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota and has occurred.

4 – 5.9 D

Serious The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota is great but some remaining natural habitat features are still recognizable.

6 – 7.9 E

Critical Modifications have reached a critical level and the ecosystem processes have been modified completely with an almost complete loss of natural habitat and biota.

8 – 10 F

An overall wetland health score is calculated by weighting the scores obtained for each module and combining them to give an overall combined score using the following formula: Overall health rating = [(Hydrology*3) + (Geomorphology*2) + (Vegetation*2)] / 7. The rationale for this is that hydrology is weighted by a factor of 3 since it is considered to have the greatest contribution to health. This overall


Page 9

score assists in providing an overall indication of wetland health/ functionality which can in turn be used for recommending appropriate management measures.

In summary, the overall approach is to quantify the impacts of human activity or clearly visible impacts on wetland health, and then to convert the impact scores to a Present State score. The tool attempts to standardise the way that impacts are calculated and presented across each of the modules. This takes the form of assessing the spatial extent of impact of individual activities and then separately assessing the intensity of impact of each activity in the affected area. The extent and intensity are then combined to determine an overall magnitude of impact.

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT Wetlands perform a wide variety of ecological functions including provisioning of habitat for wildlife, purification of catchment surface water, floodwater attenuation, groundwater recharge, climate regulation and erosion control (Hey and Philippi, 1995; Costanza et al., 1997; Bunn et al., 1999; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; Adhikari and Bajracharaya, 2009; Jacobs et al., 2009). Furthermore, wetlands play a vital role in providing a wide range of ecosystem services for millions of people mainly living in developing countries (Shewaye, 2008; Teferi et al., 2010).

Functional assessments were developed principally for evaluating the potential impacts of developments which threaten wetland ecosystems, and are used to assess the success of wetland rehabilitation projects, by evaluating the change in wetland functioning over time (US EPA 1998f). These protocols are usually designed to estimate the change in functioning resulting from the alteration of a wetland (either positive or negative). Minimally-impacted wetlands (within each wetland class) as a reference or benchmark. Each function is scored relative to that of a reference wetlands in the same locality and class/type and subclass/subtype. The index value of each variable is accompanied by descriptions of estimates and measurements.

WET-Health (described above) is designed for the rapid assessment of the integrity of wetlands. It focuses on the question of how far a system has deviated from its historical, undisturbed reference condition, and does not assess ecosystem services. WET-EcoServices (Kotze et al., 2007) on the other hand, is designed for the rapid assessment of the delivery of ecosystem services by a wetland in its current state. It does not assess how far this state is from the reference condition (i.e., its integrity).

The WET-EcoServices tool allows measurement of ecosystem goods and services (eco-services) provided by a wetland system. Eco-services refer to the benefits obtained from ecosystems. These benefits may be derived from outputs that can be consumed directly; indirectly (which arise from functions or attributes occurring within the ecosystem), or possible future direct or indirect uses (Howe et al., 1991) (Table 3).

The values (goods) and services that wetlands provide can be broadly categorised as:

— Functions: flood alleviation, erosion control, stream flow regulation, water storage, ground water recharge, retention of pollutants, water purification, nutrient cycling, exchange of water between the surface and the groundwater and the surface and the atmosphere.

— Products: fish, fuel wood, timber, fodder for domestic animals, habitat for wetland-dependant species, rich sediments used for agriculture in the floodplains, fibre for thatching roofs and handicrafts.

— Attributes: diversity of species, aesthetic beauty, cultural heritage, tourist attractions, and recreation such as bird watching, sailing, education and archaeology.

Table 4: Ecosystem Goods and Services provided by wetland habitats

Direct Benefits Indirect Benefits

Cultural benefits

— Cultural heritage

— Tourism and recreation

Regulating and supporting benefits

— Flood attenuation

— Streamflow regulation


Page 10

— Education and research — Carbon storage

Provisioning benefits

— Provision of cultivated foods

— Provision of harvestable resources

— Provision of water for human use

— Biodiversity maintenance (red data, unique and/or migratory species; breeding/feeding site; diversity of habitats; size and rarity of the wetland type

Water quality enhancement benefits

— Sediment trapping

— Phosphate assimilation

— Nitrate assimilation

— Toxicant assimilation

— Erosion control

5 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

DESKTOP REVIEW Wetlands are estimated to cover about 6% of the earth’s surface, approximately 5.7 million km2 (WCMC, 1992). Africa has 345,000 km2 of wetlands, equating to 1% of its surface area (Finlayson and Moser, 1991). Ethiopia has more than 58 different types of wetlands which provide significant socio-economic and environmental values. Despite their small area coverage, wetlands in Ethiopia are among the most productive ecosystems, and have significant economic, social, and environmental benefits. The importance of Ethiopian wetlands goes beyond their status as habitat of many endangered flora and fauna species but they are a vital element of national and global ecosystems and economies (Mengesha 2017). Despite all this and other indispensable values, these wetlands are under severe pressure and degradation (Seid, 2017).

Globally, wetlands are under significant pressure through loss and degradation despite their critical role in providing socio-economic and ecological benefits within the larger landscape (Dahl, 1990; Dugan, 1990; Wolfson et al., 2002; Abebe & Gehab, 2003; Finlayson and D’Cruz, 2005; Mereta 2013; Bezabih & Mosissa 2017; Gebresllassie 2017; Mengesha 2017; Seid 2017). According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2015) and McCartney et al. (2010) the loss and degradation of wetlands, globally, has been driven by expansion of human settlement, irrigation agriculture, water withdrawal, industrial pollution, overexploitation and introduction of invasive alien species.

The most common threats to wetlands are the result of a combination of social, economic and climatic factors, which have increased pressure on the natural resources in Ethiopian wetlands. Wetlands in Ethiopia are being transformed and altered at a significant rate into what many people consider better alternative uses.

The main activities resulting in the transformation of wetland habitat in Ethiopia include the unregulated conversion for agricultural production (including draining and diversion of water), overgrazing, clearance and overharvesting of vegetation and appearance of alien invasive plant species (Desta and Mengistou 2009; Kassa and Teshome 2015; Mengesha 2017; Seid 2017). Another constraint to the sustainable use of African wetlands is lack of knowledge by planners and natural resource managers of the benefits that specific wetland habitats provide and techniques by which these habitats be utilised in a sustainable manner (Mengesha 2017).

As population pressure increases, there is further limited access to farmland. These farmers therefore encroach into wetlands and forest areas for conversion into agricultural land. Moreover, poor households sell firewood and charcoal (sourced from wetland areas) to cope with food insecurity (Mengesha 2017).

Apart from illegal expansion of farming into the wetlands by individual farmers, wetlands have been officially distributed to farmers, particularly to ‘landless youths’ by the local government. Land distribution to ‘landless youths’ has been carried out as a campaign throughout Oromia region in the previous three to four years (Kassa and Teshome 2015). Water abstraction for agricultural crop


Page 11

irrigation and industrial use is also severely threatening significant regional waterbodies such as lakes including Lake Tana, Ziway, Abijiata, Shalla, Abaya and Chamo (Abebe & Gheb 2003; Mengesha 2017).

The impacted wetlands provide various socioeconomic and ecological benefits to society, which are or have the ability to significantly improve the livelihood of the communities surrounding the wetland systems. As the level of wetland degradation increases their benefit is also reduced (Kassa and Teshome 2015).

Ethiopia has not yet ratified the Ramsar Convention on wetlands and, therefore, none of the identified 25 potential Ramsar wetlands in the country is designated in the list of wetlands of international importance (Mereta 2013; Harper et al. 2016). Regardless of their vital role in food security and rural livelihood, the extent, diversity, distribution and conservation status of wetlands in Ethiopia is not well documented. Furthermore, there are no clear policies and strategies that protect wetlands in the country. Although wetland related issues are included in Ethiopian water resources, agricultural and environmental policies, the implementation of wetland management and conservation in the context of the above policies is compounded by a ‘more pressing wetland task force, extension package and food security policies that may seek to convert wetlands for agricultural purposes’ (Mereta 2013).

In Ethiopia, there is a lack of efficient and sufficient coordination and policy support, relating to wetland management. Due to the absence of workable institutional arrangement and wetland management policy, sustainable wetland management and capacity building are not encouraged. The result is a shortage of skilled manpower which is capable of disseminating the concept of wise use of wetlands (Birhan et al., 2015; Seid 2017).

RESULTS The desktop screening and infield assessments of the Bulbulla IAIP and Shashemene RTC determined that there were no wetland habitats within the site boundaries or in close proximity to the site, where there was a potential for wetland habitats to been indirectly impacted.

Therefore no further functional assessments, impact assessment or mitigation measures were required for the proposed Oromia sites.


Page 12

6 REFERENCES — Abebe Y, Gheb K (eds) (2003). Wetlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of a seminar on the resources

and status of Ethiopian's wetlands: vi+116pp. IUCN- Eastern Africa Regional office, Narobi, Kenya.

— Abunje, l. (2003). The distribution and status of Ethiopian wetlands: an overview. In proceedings of a

conference on Wetlands of Ethiopia. pp.12-18

— Barbier EB, Acreman MC, Knowler D (1996). Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A guide for Policy-makers

and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau. Gland Switzerland.

— Bezabih, B. and Mosissa, T. 2017. Review on distribution, importance, threats and consequences of wetland degradation in Ethiopia. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. 9(3): 64-71

— Birhan, M., Sahlu, S., & Getiye, Z. (2015). Assessment of Challenges and Opportunities of Bee Keeping in and around Gondar, 8(3), 127–131.

— Dahl, T.E., 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

— Dugan, P. J. (ed.). 1990. Wetland Conservation: A Review of Current Issues and Required Action. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

— Desta H, Mengistou, S. 2009. Water quality parameters and macro invertebrates index of biotic integrity of the Jimma wetlands, southwestern Ethiopia. J Wetlands Ecology. 3: 77-93.

— Erwin J, 2003. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

— Finlayson, C.M. and R. D’Cruz, 2005. Inland Water Systems in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Conditions and Trends. Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press

— Harper, D. M., Tebbs, E., Bell, O. and Robinson, V. J. Conservation and Management of East Africa’s Soda Lakes, pg. 345-365. In: Schagerl, M. (ed). 2016. Soda Lakes of East Africa. Springer International, Switzerland.

— MEA, 2005. Ecosystem and human well-being: Wetland and water synthesis. World Water Resources Institute, Washington, DC

— McCartney, M., Rebelo, L-M., Sellamuttu, S., de Silva, S., 2010. Wetlands, agriculture and poverty reduction. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute, pp 39. (IWMI Research Report 137).

— Macfarlane, D., Kotze, D., Ellery, W., Walters, D., Koopman, V., Goodman, P. and Goge, M. 2009. WET-Health: A technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. Wetland Management Series. Water Research Commission Report TT 340/09.

— Mereta S.T., 2013. Water quality and ecological assessment of natural wetlands in Southwest Ethiopia. PhD thesis, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.

— Ollis, D., Snaddon, K., Job. N. and Mbona. N. 2013. Classification system for wetland and other aquatic ecosystems in South Africa. User manual: inland systems. SANBI biodiversity series 22. SANBI Pretoria.

— Seid, G. 2017. Status of Wetland Ecosystems in Ethiopia and Required Actions for Conservation. Journal of Resources Development and Management. 32: 92-100.

— Wolfson, L., Mokma, D., Schultink, G., Dersch, E., 2002. Development and use of a wetlands information system for assessing wetland functions. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 7, 207-216.

Date post:	07-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

WETLAND ASSESSMENT REPORT - AfDB

Documents