Tafesse Kefyalew Estifanos, 2008. Integrated

Transcription

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
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
Wageningen, UR
P O Box 47 6700, AA Wageningen,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-317-482247, Fax: -484839
E-mail [email protected]
Wageningen, UR
P O Box 47 6700, AA Wageningen,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-317-484812, Fax: -484839
E-mail [email protected]
2nd Supervisor
Dr.Ir. Huib Hedgsdijk
Plant research International (PRI)
Advisor
Ir.P.C. Petra Spliethoff
Wageningen International (WI)
P O Box 6708, PD Wageningen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-317-480559
E-mail: [email protected]
P O Box 47 6700, AB Wageningen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-317-495256, Fax: -495395
E-mail: [email protected]
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 sociocultural, 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.
i
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
ii
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
iii
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
iv
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).
v
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 wellknown 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.
vi
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.
vii
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 wellbeing 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
1
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
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
Kebele is the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopian administrative hierarchy which is equivalent to
peasant associations
3
5
Legend: Study Kebeles (numbered)
1
2
3
4
Galeef Qello
5
Shalla Billa
6
Desta Abijata
Daka Dallu Haran Gama
Gubata Arijo
Hadha Bosso
Lakes
Park Boundary
Figure 1: Map of Proposed Abijata Shalla Lakes National Park and location of study kebeles/sites
6
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 160C250C.
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
7
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
Arsi Negelle
ATJK
No. of
kebeles
47
38
No. of kebeles
in/adjacent to ASLNP
8
3
Population
Total area (ha)
259, 401
141,745
164,587
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).
8
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
Elevation Maximum Mean Volume
Surfac Catchme
temperature (m.a.s.l) depth (m) depth
e area nt area
0
6
3
( C)
(m)
(km2) (km2)
(10 m )
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)
28130
Abijata
26.4
325
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 SomaliMasai 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.
9
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, sociocultural 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.
10
Planning and
management
Ecological values
Based on
ecological
sustainability
Ecosystem
structure
&
processes
Ecosystem
functions
1. Production
2. Regulation
3. Habitat
4. Information
5. Carrier
Ecosyste
m Goods
&
Services
Socio-cultural
values
Based on equity
and cultural
perceptions
Economic values
Based on efficiency
and cost
effectiveness
Decision
making
process
Integrate
d cost
benefit
analysis
Stakehol
der
Involve
ment
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)
11
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.
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:
12
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).
13
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
14
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).
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
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.
15
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
Goods and services
Examples
processes and components
Regulation functions: Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems
1 Gas regulation
Role of ecosystems in bioGoods and services (examples)
geochemical cycles (e.g.
1.1 UVB-protection by O3 (preventing
CO2/O2 balance, ozone layer, disease)
1.2 Maintenance of (good) air quality
etc.)
1.3 Influence on climate (see also function 2)
♦2 Climate regulation
Influence of land cover and
Maintenance of a favorable climate (temp.,
biol. Mediated processes
precipitation, etc) for, for example, human
(e.g. DMS-production) on
habitation, health, cultivation
climate
♦3 Disturbance prevention
Influence of ecosystem
3.1 Storm protection (e.g. by coral reefs)
structure on dampening env. 3.2 Flood prevention (e.g. by wetlands and
disturbances
forests)
♦4 Water regulation
Role of land cover in
Drainage and natural irrigation
regulating runoff and river
discharge
♦5 Water supply
Filtering, retention and
Provision of water for consumptive use (e.g.
storage of fresh water (e.g. in drinking, irrigation and industrial use)
aquifers)
♦6 Soil retention/erosion
Role of vegetation root
6.1 Maintenance of arable land
control
matrix and soil biota in soil
6.2 Prevention of damage from
retention
erosion/siltation
7 Soil formation
Weathering of rock,
7.1 Maintenance of productivity on arable
accumulation of organic
land
matter
7.2 Maintenance of natural productive soils
8 Nutrient regulation
Role of biota in storage and
Maintenance of healthy soils and productive
re-cycling of nutrients (e.g.
Ecosystems
N, P and S)
9 Waste treatment
Role of vegetation and biota
9.1 Pollution control/detoxification
in removal or breakdown of
9.2 Filtering of dust particles (air quality)
xenic nutrients and
9.3 Abatement of noise pollution
compounds
10 Pollination
Role of biota in movement
10.1 Pollination of wild plant species
of floral gametes
10.2 Pollination of crops
11 Biological control
Population control through
11.1 Control of pests and diseases
trophic-dynamic relations
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 Maintenance of biological and genetic
plants and animals
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
14.1 Hunting, gathering of fish, game, fruits,
into edible plants and
etc.
animals
14.2 Small-scale subsistence farming and
aquaculture
♦15 Raw materials
Conversion of solar energy
15.1 Building and Manufacturing (e.g. lumber
into biomass for human
15.2 Fuel and energy (e.g. fuel wood
construction and other uses
15.3 Fodder and fertilizer (e.g. krill
16
16 Genetic resources
Genetic material and
evolution in wild plants and
animals
Variety in (bio)chemical
sub-stances in, and other
medicinal uses of, natural
biota
Variety of biota in natural
ecosystems with (potential)
ornamental use
16.1 Improve crop resistance to pathogens and
pests,
16.2 Other applications (e.g. health care)
17.1 Drugs and pharmaceuticals
17.2 Chemical models and tools
17.3 Test and essay organisms
♦19 Aesthetic information
Attractive landscape features
♦20 Re-creation
Variety in landscapes with
(potential) re-creational uses
Variety in natural features
with cultural and artistic
value
Variety in natural features
with spiritual and historic
value
Variety in nature with
scientific and educational
value
Enjoyment of scenery (scenic roads, housing,
etc.)
Travel to natural ecosystems for eco-tourism
and (re-creational) nature study
Use of nature as motive in books, film,
painting, folklore, national symbols, architect,
advertising, etc.
Use of nature for religious or historic purposes
(i.e. heritage value of natural ecosystems and
features)
Use of natural systems for school excursions,
etc.
Use of nature for scientific research
♦17 Medicinal resources
18 Ornamental resources
Resources for fashion, handicraft, jewellery,
pets, worship, decoration and souvenirs (e.g.
furs, feathers, ivory, orchids, butterflies,
Aquarium fish, shells, etc.)
Providing opportunities for cognitive development
Information functions
21 Cultural and artistic
information
♦22 Spiritual and historic
information
♦23 Science and education
Carrier functions
24 Habitation
♦25 Cultivation
26 Energy-conversion
27 Mining Minerals, oil,
gold, etc
28 Waste disposal Space
for solid waste disposal
29 Transportation
30 Tourism-facilities
Providing a suitable substrate or medium for human activities and
infrastructure
Living space (ranging from small settlements
Depending on the specific
land use type, different
to urban areas)
requirements are placed on
environmental conditions
(e.g. soil stability and
fertility, air and water
quality, topography, climate,
geology, etc.)
Food and raw materials from cultivated land
and aquaculture
Energy-facilities (solar, wind, water, etc.)
Transportation by land and water
Tourism-activities (outdoor sports, beachtourism, 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
17
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.
18
Table 5: Population and households characteristics of study kebeles
Woreda
Kebele
Arsi
Negelle
ATJK
Galeef Qello
Shalla Billa
Gubata Arijo
Daka Dallu Haren
Gama
Hadha Bosso
Total
Population
2457
4125
1910
1960
No. of households
inside Park
328
598
118
114
No. of households
outside Park
31
0
168
123
3232
43
446
Desta Abijata
9178
721
0
22862
1919
771
Total
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
19
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
Kebeles
Inside Park
Galeef Qello
22
Shalla Billa
36
Desta Abijata
43
Daka Dallu Haren 0
Gama
Gubata Arjo
0
Hadha Bosso
0
Total
101
Number of sample households
Inside/outside Park
0
0
0
15
18
0
33
Outside Park
0
0
0
30
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
20
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.
21
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
22
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
23
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.
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).
24
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.
Figure 7: Picture showing homestead inside ASLNP at Galeef Qello kebele
25
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.
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”.
26
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).
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 SudanGuinea and the Sahelian Transition Zone groups.
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.
27
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.
28
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
Provisioning
services
Food
Fresh water
Raw materials
Medicinal
resources
Cultivation
Regulation
services
Climate
regulation
Water
regulation
Erosion control
Supporting
services
Nursery
Refugium
Cultural
services
Recreation &
ecotourism
Spiritual8
Research &
Education
Services provided by the Park ecosystem
Wild food: harvest of Tilapia fish, fruits, hunting6,
Provision of water for drinking, irrigation and for washing
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
Drugs and pharmaceuticals: medicinal plants
Traditions7: Hot springs, Lake Abijata and Lake Shalla
Production of Crop such as Maize, Haricot Beans, Teff.)
Bee hive keeping
The vegetation cover involves in evapotranspiration to regulate
microclimate such as temperature, precipitation
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
Role of acacia woodland in holding soils
Vegetation cover to prevent wind, sheet and gully erosion,
Growth place for drought resistant Acacia trees,
Suitable reproduction habitat for fish, Pelicans, Flamingos,
Ostriches, Cormorants and Abdim’s Storks
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
Opportunities for tourism and recreational activities
Traditional beliefs, religious significance
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.
29
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.
30
Wild fruit use
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
Riverine
forest
60
Acacia
woodland
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Park
Outside Park
Kebeles
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).
31
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
32
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,
33
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
250
Lake Shalla
Respondents (%)
200
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
150
River Hora
Qello
River Bulbula
100
50
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside Park
Outside Park
Kebeles
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.
34
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.
35
Construction wood
120
Respondents (%)
100
Riverine
forest
Acacia
woodland
80
60
40
20
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Park
Kebeles
Outside Park
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.
36
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.
37
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
120
Respondents (%)
100
80
Riverine forest
60
Acacia
woodland
40
20
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside Park
Outside Park
Kebeles
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.
38
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
Acacia seyal
Acacia Senegal
Acacia tortilis
Dichrostachys cinerea
Local name
Wacho
Kertefa
Ajoo
Geto
Part used
Stem
Stem
Root
stem
Use
Agriculture tool
Agriculture tool
Agriculture tool
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.
39
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
80
70
Respondents (%)
60
Wetland
50
Farmland
40
Acacia
woodland
30
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside Park
Outside Park
Kebeles
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
40
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.
41
Grazing places
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
60
Woodland and
wetland
Wetland
50
Farmland
40
Acacia woodland
70
30
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside Park
Outside Park
Kebeles
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
42
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
90
80
Wetland
Respondents (%)
70
Farmland
60
Acacia
woodland
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside Park
Outside Park
Kebeles
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
43
physical separation. The factory’s annual saline water use budget since its establishment
is shown in Figure 20 below.
Water use from Lake Abijata
2200000
2000000
Volume of water (M3)
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
2005/2006
2004/2005
2003/2004
2002/2003
2001/2002
2000/2001
1999/2000
1998/1999
1997/1998
1996/1997
1995/1996
1994/1995
1993/1994
1992/1993
1991/1992
1990/1991
1989/1990
1988/1989
1987/1988
0
Year
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
44
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).
45
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
140
120
Respondents (%)
Lake Shalla
100
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
80
Woodland
60
40
20
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside Park
Outside Park
Kebeles
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.
46
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).
47
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
48
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).
49
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.
50
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
51
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
Dare, Dodoti
Acacia etbaica
Tedecha, Deweni grar
Acacia tortilis
Lafto, Bazira girar
Acacia abissinica
Garbi, Grar
Acacia albida
Wachu
Acacia seyal
Kontir
Acacia senegal
Bedeno, Deseret date
Balanities aegyptica
Makanissa, Bisana
Croton machrostachys
Adesa, Ades
Dichrostachys cinera
Heto, Kosso
Hagenia abissinica
--Mytenus senegalensis
--Grewia bicolor
Source: (Park Archive and field observation)
Family name
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Mimosoidae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Balanitaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Fabaceae
Rosaceae
Celastraceae
Tiliaceae
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
B. angularis
B. calyciflorus
B. pliciatilis
Cyclopoida
Mesocyclops sp.
Thermocyclops gibsoni
Clado cera
Alona spp.
Insecta
Corixids
Hydracarina
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).
52
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
1 Endemic species
2 Near
endemic
species
Common name
Yellow fronted Parrot
Wattled Ibis
Black winged lovebird
Banded Barbet
White-Winged cliff chat
Abyssinian Black- headed oriole
3 Near threatened Lesser Flamingo
species
Pallied Harrier
Basra Reed warbler
Black-winged pratincole
4 Vulnerable
Imperial Eagle
species
Lesser Kestrel
Wattled Crane
Ferruginous Duck
(Source: Park Document)
Scientific name
Pociephalus flavifrons
Bostrychia carunculata
Agapornis taranta
Lybius undatus
Myrmecocihala semirufa
Onychognathus alborosris
Phoenicogterus minor
Circus macrourus
Acrocephalus griseldis
Glareola nordanni
Aquila heliaca
Falco naumanni
Bugeranus carunculatus
Aythya nyroca
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).
53
(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
54
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
1
Animals
Major wild animal
species conserved
2
Endemic species
Common name
Grant's gazelle
Oribi
Bohor Reed buck
Anubis baboon
Golden jackal
Lesser kudu
Warthog
Scott’s Hairy Bat
White toothed shrew
Mahomet’s mouse
White toothed rat
Ethiopian grass Rat
Harrington’s Scrub rat
Scientific name
Gazella granti
Ourebia ourebi
Redunca redunca
Papio Anubis
Canis aurous
Tragelaphus Imberbis
Phacochoerus aethiopicus
Myotis scotti
Crocidura sp
Mus mahomet
Berylmys sp
Arvicanthis sp
-- --
(Source: Park document)
Photo: Tafesse K.
Figure 25: Grant’s Gazelles inside the fenced part of the Park
55
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)
56
Table 13: Tourism entrance fee payment structure for ASLNP
Types of Entrance fees
A) Ethiopian per person
Adult
Child
B) Foreign resident
Adult
Child
C) Tourist/personal
Adult
Child
Camping
Vehicle fee (depends on no. of car seat)
Fees (ETB**)
Fees ($ US)
Hours stay
3.00
2.00
0.40
0.25
48
48
30.00
10.00
3.60
1.25
48
48
50.00
25.00
20.00
10.00-20.00
6.00
3.00
2.50
1.25-2.50
48
48
48
48
(Source: Park archive)
Table 14: Revenue generation of ASLNP from entry fees (Year 1988 – 2007)
Year
1988/1989
1989/1990
1990/1991
1991/1992
1992/1993
1993/1994
1994/1995
1995/1996
1996/1997
1997/1998
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
Total
Ethiopians
1504
941
542
0
0
0
5
48
2027
1690
1208
1837
1912
2298
1934
2346
2917
21209
Foreign
residents
1731
1596
862
25
0
0
0
61
641
800
602
785
741
681
515
729
872
10641
Tourists
441
308
153
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
76
709
1145
386
930
851
1387
1697
2101
2913
13097
Total visitors/
tourists
3676
2845
1557
25
N/A
N/A
5
185
3377
3635
2196
3552
3504
4366
4146
5176
6702 (11 months data)
4979 ( 9 months data)
8990
58916
Tourism income
(in ETB14)
8760
12049
9426
0
0
0
0
8458
68524.
94263.
60,740
81800
77609
102060
115354
143000
195102
175336
236968
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.
57
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
cooperating
not cooperating
no opinion
Total
30
99
35
164
Percent
18.3
60.4
21.3
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.
58
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
1988/1989
1989/1990
1990/1991
1991/1992
1992/1993
1993/1994
1994/1995
1995/1996
1996/1997
1997/1998
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
Total
Number of students
345
486
322
0
0
0
430
0
609
220
466
392
842
N/A
N/A
N/A
1609
845
1650
8216
Remark
Park was abandoned
“
“
“
11 months data
9 months data
(Source: ASLNP Archive)
N/A means data not available
59
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
Lists of stakeholders
group
Park managers and Park Warden, experts and staff
staff
Communities
Residents inside and/or adjacent to the
Park, outside the Park
Businesses
and Hotels: Wabe Shebelle, Bekelle Molla,
enterprise
Resorts/lodges: Bishan Gari, Sabana,
Karkaro,
Soda Ash factory,
Local Government Woreda
Agriculture
and
Rural
Development (ARD) offices (Arsi
Negelle and ATJK Woredas)
Environmental
Central Rift Valley Working Group
NGOs & classes
(CRV-WG)
Responsibilities/interests
Conservation of wildlife and
ecosystem
Use natural resources and the
Park ecosystem
Making business from tourists
and visitors
Maximizing economic benefit
Protection and conservation of
Natural resources & ecosystem
Environmental conservation
15
Here super national level is to refer stakeholder that is above the national level and below the global
level.
60
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
Better living environment (easy land access and
Place of my family)
Recreation purpose
Lack of alternative
Cultural benefit
Presence of Wildlife
Easy access to Park area
Place where I born and my family place
Total
Frequency
Percent
69
42.1
5
5
3
5
54
23
164
3.0
3.0
1.8
3.0
32.9
14.0
100.0
61
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
Farmland
Grazing land
Protected Park
Protected forest
Open access land
Farm land and grazing land
Total
No. of respondents
Percent (%)
79
6
14
2
5
58
164
48.2
3.7
8.5
1.2
3.0
35.4
100.0
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
62
(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
63
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).
64
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
Regional
Government
Oromiya Agriculture and Rural
Development Bureau (OARDB)
Oromiya Environmental Protection
Authority (OEPO)
Ziway Fishery Research Centre
(ZFRC)
Biodiversity, environment and
ecosystem conservation
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)
65
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
Federal
government
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation & Biodiversity Conservation
Research (IBCR)
Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR)
Development and management
of water resources.
Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization Wildlife conservation
(EWCO)
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
Environmental
conservation
and sustainable development
Universities (AAU, Hawassa, Mekelle, research in environmental
Haromaya, etc)
issues (promote Ecosystem
conservation)
Environmental Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Conserving environment
NGOs
and Society (EWNHS)
Ecosystem conservation
associations
Ethiopian Wildlife Association (EWA)
Wildlife conservation
Travel
agencies
Tourists
Ethio-Wetland and Natural Resources Sustainable management and
conservation of wetlands
Association (EWNRA)
Ethiopian Tour Operators Association Tourism development
(ETOA)
Travel agencies
Tourism development
National tourists
Enjoyment and information
1) Federal Government
a) Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR)
66
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/wpcontent/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_Poli
cies.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.
67
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)
68
(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
Super national
Environmental NGO
HoA-REC/N
Global
NGO
Birdlife International
Tourist
Tourists
Birds and their habitat
conservation
Enjoyment and information
1. Stakeholder at Super national level
69
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 NGOGovernment 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
3%
3%
6%
28%
3%
Netherland
Sw izerland
9%
Germany
Spain
France
Chad
3%
Japan
Italy
18%
USA
27%
Figure 26: Composition of international tourists visited ASLNP by the country
70
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
71
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
Homestead
100
Farmland
90
Fallow land
Scores (%)
80
Woodland
70
Wetland
60
Lake Shalla
50
Lake Abijata
40
Hot springs
30
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Park
Outside Park
Average
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
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
Wetland
Kebeles
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
72
(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
Scores (%)
100
Homestead
90
Farmland
80
Fallow land
70
Woodland
Wetland
60
Lake Shalla
50
Lake Abijata
40
Hot springs
30
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Park
Outside Park
Average
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
Homestead
Kebeles
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.
73
Animal fodder
80
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
70
Scores (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outsid
Outside Park
e Park
Average
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
Kebeles
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.
74
Construction wood
120
Homestead
Farmland
100
Fallow land
Scores (%)
Woodland
80
Wetland
Lake Shalla
60
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
40
20
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Park
Outside Park
Average
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
Homestead
Kebeles
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.
75
Agriculture tool and household furniture making
120
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
Scores (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Park
Outside Park
Average
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
Kebeles
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.
76
Fuel wood
120
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
80
Woodland
Scores (%)
100
Wetland
60
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
40
Hot springs
20
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Outside Park
Park
Average
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
Kebeles
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.
77
Charcoal wood
120
Scores (%)
100
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
80
60
40
20
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Outside Park
Park
Average
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
Kebeles
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.
78
Medcinal resources
60
Scores (%)
50
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Woodland
40
30
20
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
10
Hot springs
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outside
Outside Park
Park
Average
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
Homestead
Kebeles
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.
79
Table 23: Average PDM scores16 of provisioning services by landscapes
Provisioning
services
Landscape units
Homestead Farmland
Fallow Woodland Wetland Lake Lake
Hot
land
Shalla Abijata springs
Food
water
Fodder and
grazing land
3.8
0.5
2.5
72.5
0
25.8
6.2
0
13.3
16.7
1.7
50.0
0
0.3
8.3
0
20
0
0.8
4.2
0
0
73.3
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
Charcoal
wood
0
0
3.3
0
8.8
1.7
87.5
98.3
0
0
0
0
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
80
Importance of landscapes
45
40
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow land
Acacia woodland
Scores (%)
35
30
25
Wetlands
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
20
15
10
5
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outsid
Outside Park
e Park
Average
Homestead
7.5
5
10
7.5
Farmland
37.5
30
40
35.8
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
Fallow land
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
7
10
1
6.0
7.5
10
5
7.5
Kebeles
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
81
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.
Spiritual
60
Homestead
Farmland
50
Fallow land
Scores (%)
40
Woodland
Wetland
30
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
20
Hot springs
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/outsi
de Park
Outside
Park
Average
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
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
Wetland
Kebeles
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
82
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
80
Homestead
Farmland
Scores (%)
70
Fallow land
Woodland
60
50
Wetland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
40
30
Hot springs
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outsi
de Park
Outside
Park
Average
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
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
0
0
0
0.0
15
25
0
13.3
5
0
0
1.7
35
60
30
41.7
Kebeles
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.
83
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
Services
Landscapes
Homestead
Farmland
Fallow
land
Woodland
Wetland
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
35
42.5
0
0
Spiritual
recreation
Lake Lake
Hot
30
13.3
1.7
1.7
0
41.7
Importance of lands cape s to all cultural s e rvice s
80
Homestead
70
Farmland
60
Fallow land
Scores (%)
Woodland
50
Wetland
40
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
30
Hot springs
20
10
0
Inside Park
Inside/Outsi
de Park
Outside
Park
Average
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
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Hot springs
0
0
0
0.0
15
25
0
13.3
5
0
0
1.7
40
60
30
43.3
Kebeles
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
84
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
120
Inside
Responses (%)
100
Inside/outside
80
Outside
60
40
20
Cr
op
s
Co
ns
W
tru
at
er
ct
io
n
Ch
w
oo
ar
d
co
al
w
oo
A
d
gr
Fu
it
el
oo
w
la
nd ood
fu
rn
Th
itu
at
re
ch
in
g
gr
G
as
r
s
M
az
ed
in
g
ci
la
na
nd
lr
es
ou
rc
es
Fr
ui
ts
0
Services
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
85
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.
86
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
Ostriches
Mammal species ( Grants
Gazelle, Bonheur, Warthog)
Landscape viewing
Shalla Hot springs
Bird watching
Ostrich farm
within the Park Head
quarter
view point
near Shalla Lake
along Lake Abijata
shore
Distance
(km)
0.05-0.1
0.1-3
Accessibility
5
10
12
by vehicle/ on foot
by vehicle
by Vehicle
by vehicle/ on foot
by vehicle/ on foot
(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
87
the fenced head quarter of the Park. As a result few respondents (only 13%) showed that
the mammals are considered they liked most
No. of respondents (%)
Liked most
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hot Springs
Unique
mammal
species
View point
Birdlife
species
Lakes and
its wetland
Attractions of the Park
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
88
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
Location
Altitude (m.a.s.l)
Surface area (km2)
Maximum depth (m)
Type of lake
Lake Chitu
7o23’N- E38o26’
1600
1
21
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.
89
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
2000
2001
2002
2003
Total
117,719
175,053
104,148
119,395
138,528
654,843
120,857
120,303
136,608
302,614
346,771
1,027,153
50,428
77,278
77,609
102,060
53,849
361,224
53,047
64,886
55,220
55,000
228,153
161
1,209
1,370
2,003
1,280
4,970
980
9,233
62,480
67,587
58,398
148,420
218,409
555,294
53,803
91,450
66,297
178,462
390,012
458,334
598,560
499,560
911,082
759,720
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.
90
Table 28: Changes in the size and volume of Lake Abijata (Year 1985-1991)
Year
1985
1989
1990
1991
Volume
(106m3)
826.2
405.0
401.4
1300.0
Area
(km2)
162.7
135.0
134.7
183.0
Maximum depth
(m)
10.2
6.8
6.75
12.0
depth Elevation
(m.a.s.l.)
1576.9
1573.5
1573.45
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
Recreation and High
ecotourism
Water supply
Medium
Performance (current use)
Low
Remark
high
Depend on upstream
water
use
and
availability
Nursery
Refugium
Not determined
low
High
High
(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.
91
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.
92
Table 30: Matrix on stakeholders’ use of and impact on ecosystem services
Stakeholder
Level
Local
Regional
National
SuperNational
Global
Stakeholders
Ecosystem services
Water
Park managers
Park staff
Hadha Bosso
Galeef Qello
Shalla Billa
DDHG
Gubata Arijo
Desta Abijata
Hotels and lodges
Soda Ash factory
Arsi Negelle ARD
office
ATJK ARD office
CRV-WG
OARDB
OEPO
ZFRC
IBCR
MoWR
EWCO
EPA
Universities (AAU,
HU, etc...)
EWNHS
EWA
EWNRA
ETOA
Travel agencies
National tourists
HoA-REC/N
Fuel wood and Charcoal
wood
Recreation and
eco-tourism
Refugium
(X)
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
XX
Birdlife
international
International
tourists
XX
X
X
X
X
Key:
XX:
X:
(X):
Stakeholders strongly use/depend on the services
Stakeholders use the services
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
93
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.
94
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
95
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.
96
7. Stakeholders indirectly use the services and have overall positive impact on the
services
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
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)
97
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
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
98
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.
99
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.
100
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.
101
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.
102
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.
19
Woreda is administrative unit equivalent to District
103
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.
104
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 subdivided 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.
105
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.
106
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
107
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
108
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.
109
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.
110
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.
111
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.
112
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 AbijataShalla 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
113
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-biodiversityconservation-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_Polici
es.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
February 2008]
[Accessed
15
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]
114
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of abbreviations and acronyms
ARD:
ASLNP:
ATJK:
AAU:
CBD:
CBOs:
CRV:
CRV-WG:
DDHG:
EIA:
EMA:
EPA:
ETB:
ETOA:
EWA:
EWCO:
EWNHS:
EWNRA:
FAO:
HoA-REC/N:
HU:
IBA’s:
IBCR:
m.a.s.l:
MEA:
MNP:
NGOs:
NRCDMD:
MoWR:
OARDB:
OEPO:
PRI:
PDM:
ZFRC:
SNNPR:
TLU:
UNESCO:
WUR:
WWF:
Agriculture and Rural Development
Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park
Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda
Addis Ababa University
Conservation and Biological Diversity
Community Based Organizations
Central Rift Valley
Central Rift Valley Working Classes
Daka Dallu Haren Gama
Environmental Impact Assessment
Ethiopia Mapping Agency
Environmental Protection Authority
Ethiopian Birr
Ethiopian Tour Operators Association
Ethiopian Wildlife Association
Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization
Ethiopian Wildlife Natural History and Society
Ethio-Wetland and Natural Resources Association
Food and Agriculture Organization
Horn of Africa Regional Environment Centre/Network
Hawassa University
Important Bird Areas
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation & Research
meter above sea level
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Mountains National Park
Non Governmental Organizations
Natural Resources Conservation and Development Main Department
Ministry of Water Resources
Oromiya Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau
Oromiya Environmental Protection Office
Plant Research International
Pebbles Distribution Method
Ziway Fishery Research Centre
Southern Nations Nationalities and People Region
Tropical Livestock Unit
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization
Wageningen University and Research Center
World Wildlife Fund
115
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
116
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
117
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
118
Appendix 4: Questionnaires
A. Household questionnaire
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!
General Information
Time
From…
interviewed:
to ……
Questionnaire
code:
Name of Kebele
(peasant association):
Name of interviewer:
Checked by:
Date:
Demographic and Socio-economic Information
Name of household:
Age:
*Role in the family:
No. of year you stay here:
Previous place you lived:
Gender:
Family size:
**Educational status:
***Main source of income:
Cattle
Sheep
Goat
Livestock you have
Donkey
Horse Others (specify)
M
F
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
119
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
1
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
Food
2
Name of services (tick the service you obtain)
Raw
materials, energy
sources
Fruits (Specify the name) ……………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
Animal products from wildlife (for
example: meat, etc). (Specify the name):
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
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
Termite Hill (clay soil)
120
Mineral salt
S.No.
Functions/Services
Others (specify)
.…………..............
Name of resource and type you use (list the name of plant or animal
or water body)
Local name
Common name
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
1.
Lake Abijata
2
Lake Shalla
3
River Bulbula
4
River Hora Qello
5
Hot springs
6
Others (specify)
Water use for (irrigation, drinking; livestock and/or human, swimming and/or bathing, washing
cloth, others). More than one choice is possible
121
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)
1
Farmland
2
Grazing land
3
Fallow land
4
Woodland
5
Location of land:
Around Lakes; Shalla or Abijata, around
wetlands, inside woodland, around hot
springs, around rivers
Size of land
(ha)
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?
122
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
11 a) Do you get income source from the Park?
Yes
No
Variable: income from park
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
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
123
springs and are living with their relatives and close friends in their area of settlement
A). Sample filled household questionnaire
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!
Name of Kebele
(peasant association):
Name of interviewer:
General Information
Time
From:10:05
interviewed:
-10:35
Questionnaire
001
code:
Galeef
Qello
Gemechu
Osho
Check
ed by:
Date:
Tafesse
Kefyalew
10 October, 2007
Demographic and Socio-economic Information
Name of household:
Teshager Kebdi
No. of year you stay here:
Age:
*Role in the family:
36
Head of household
Previous place you lived:
Gender:
Family size:
8
**Educational status:
***Main source of income:
Numb
er
Cattle
Sheep
Goat
Donk
ey
13
5
17
2
Livestock you have
Horse Others Don’t have
(specif
y)
----
36
X
M
F
Primary grade, grade
3
Agriculture
Total
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
124
Age of the respondents
Age of respondent
20
Frequency
15
10
5
0
17
20
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
40
42
46
50
54
60
67
72
85 100
Role in the family
Role of the respondents in the family
12%
1%
Head of household
(Husband)
House wife
Son
87%
125
Family size of the respondents
Family size
25
Frequency
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
25
Educational status of the respondents
Education status
60
50
Frequency
40
30
20
10
0
Illeterate
1 - 5 grade
6 - 8 grade
9 - 12 grade
Higher level
126
Source of income of the households
Main source of income
1%
1%
2%
Agriculture
Trade
Agriculture and trade
Others
96%
127
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)
1
Abijata, woodland, Farmland, wetlands, Shalla
Islands, hot springs, rivers (Bulbula or Hora Qello),
home (own) use
Woodland
Fish
Food
2
Use: for sale or
home use,
or for both)
Fruits (Specify the name): …Capparis
X
………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
Animal products from wildlife (for
example: meat, etc). (Specify the name):
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
Others (specify)
…………………................................................
…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
Keep bee hive ( on trees)♣
Raw
materials, energy
sources
X
Construction wood (for house, fence)
Wood for charcoal making
X
X
X
Fuel wood
Tool making (agricultural, household
furniture)
Wildlife products (skin, teeth, horn, etc)
X
X
Grasses as fodder
Thatching grasses
128
X
Leaves and fruits of plants as fodder
X Sand for construction
Termite Hill (clay soil)
Mineral salt
S.No.
3
Functions/Services
X Medicinal useful
Others (specify)
.…………..............
Name of resource and type you use (list the name of plant or animal
or water body)
Local name
Common name (scientific name)
Abijata, woodland, Farmland, wetlands, hot springs,
Bulbula River, Hora Qello River
Damakese
Ocimum lamifolium
Woodland
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
1.
2
Water use for (irrigation, drinking; livestock and/or human, swimming and/or bathing, washing
cloth, others). More than one choice is possible
Lake Abijata
X
Lake Shalla
3
River Bulbula
4
River Hora Qello
5
Hot springs
Washing clothes
Washing , livestock drinking, bathing
X
6
Others (specify)
129
3. a) Do you have land inside the Park area that you use for your livelihood?
Yes
No
X
Variable: Have land
b) If yes, in the following table, mention the type of land, its location and the size of land that you have.
S. No
1
2
Type of land you have (you
can choose more than one
option)
X
X
Size of land
(ha)
Farmland
Grazing land
3
Fallow land
4
Woodland
5
Location of land:
Around Lakes; Shalla or Abijata, around
wetlands, inside woodland, around hot
springs, around rivers
Others (specify)………...
………………………………..
5. Where do you take frequently your livestock for grazing?
X 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
X 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
X
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
130
8. Why do you like most living inside, adjacent or near the Park?
X
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
X 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)?
X
Yes
No
Variable: Sustainability of existing species
11 a) Do you get income source from the Park?
Yes
No X
Variable: income from park
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
X
Variable: involvement in management of the park
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
131
springs and are living with their relatives and close friends in their area of settlement
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
Background story (why it is sacred/holy)
(traditional/common name)
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
How often you go there to pray ( daily, monthly,
tree/animal
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
Place you
How often you go (daily,
gathering
gather
monthly, seasonally, yearly)
132
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!!
Name of
tourist/visitor:
Age
Sex
General Information about the respondents
Your country of origin:
M
Occupation:
Type of
Foreigner
tourist/visitor:
Local/domestic
F
Number of days you stay:
Educational status*:
Monthly income (for Ethiopian tourists
only)**:
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) 10011500ETB
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
Variable: visited ASLNP
No
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
133
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
S.
no
1
2
Reason to come here (alternatives) tick your choice(s)
5B
Importance
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
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
134
question number 7 but if your answer is no, go to question 8.
Yes
Variable: satisfied with your visit
No
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:
Name of respondent:
Age:
Gender:
Occupation:
Educational status:
Date of interview:
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
x
2. What benefit are you getting for the hotel?
It connects ASLNP with Langano (used as direction indicator)
x 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
x 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)
135
Others (specify please) ________________
4. Are you using any means of advertising your hotel associated with the proximity of ASLNP?
Yes
No.
x
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
x
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
Name of
respondent:
Age:
Gender:
Occupation:
Educational status:
Date of interview:
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
136
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
137
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 Homestead Farmland Fallow Woodland wetland Lake Lake
Hot
Total
services
land
Food
Water
Animal
fodder
Agricultural
tool and
furniture
making
Construction
wood
Fuel wood
Charcoal
wood
Medicines
Overall
Cultural
services
Spiritual
Recreation
Overall
138
B. Description of landscapes and ecosystem services used in the exercises
1) Description of the different landscape units used in PDM exercises
S No.
3
Landscape
units
Homestead
Acacia
woodland
Wetlands
4
Hot springs
5
6
7
8
Shalla Lake
Abijata Lake
Fallow land
Farmland
1
2
Description/definition
Area of human settlements inside or adjacent to the Park area
Area covered by the dominant acacia tress. This includes the natural
vegetation and mixed woodland where most trees are kept not cut.
The areas in and around Lakes that is marshy, wet, muddy covered
with grasses.
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
The Lake located inside the Park in the south Part of ASLNP
The Lake located inside the Park in the north part of ASLNP
A land kept free of growing crops during the growing season
A category of land, denoting property used for agricultural purpose
2) Description of provisioning and cultural services used in PDM exercises
Category of
Services
Provisioning
services
Services from ASLNP
Description
Food
Fresh water
Harvest of fish, fruits, crops (grains)
Provisioning of water for drinking, irrigation, bathing
and washing
grazing land and collection of grasses, fruits, leaves for
livestock feed
making agricultural tools & household furniture
Animal fodder
Agricultural tool and furniture
making wood
Construction materials
Fuel wood
Charcoal wood
Medicinal resources
Cultural
services
Spiritual
Recreation
house construction, making fences
Collection of wood to use as source of energy for
cooking and heating for own use and/or for sale
Cutting wood for charcoal to use as source of energy for
cooking and heating for own use and/or for sale
traditional medicinal plants, and traditions in the use of
water bodies
Use of landscapes for religious veneration purpose
Travel to natural ecosystem for relaxation
Note (explanation): Local Names of the landscapes and their respective English names
Local name (Oromiffa)
English name
Ganda:
Bosonaa:
Lafa Lilixii:
Lafa Qonaa:
Horaa Shaallaa:
Horaa Abiijaataa:
Lafa Hacarii:
O’aa:
Homestead
Woodland (forest)
Wetland
Farmland
Lake Shalla
Lake Abijata
Fallow Land
Hot springs
139
C) Results of PDM exercises
i) PDM scores of provisioning services by landscape units in study kebeles
Study
sites/kebeles
Ecosystem
Services
Galeef Qello
Food
Water
Animal fodder
Agri. tool and
household furniture
making
Construction wood
Fuel wood
Charcoal wood
Medicinal resources
Overall scores
Shalla Billa
Overall
scores
Gubata Arijo
Food
Water
Animal fodder
Agri. tool and
household furniture
making
House construction
Fuel wood
Charcoal making
Medicinal resources
Food
Homestead Woodland
(Gandaa)
(Bosonaa)
Landscape units
Farmland
L. Shalla
(Lafa
(Horaa
Qonaa)
Shaalaa)
75
0
0
25
15
0
10
0
L. Abijata
(Horaa
Abiijaata)
5
10
0
0
Fallow land
( Lafa
Hacarii)
2
0
15
15
Hot
springs
(O’aa)
0
50
0
0
Total
3
3
10
0
15
10
30
75
Wetland
(lafaa
Lilixii)
0
2
30
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
5
0
80
75
100
20
20
25
0
50
70
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
20
0
5
20
0
5
45
50
0
20
0
0
0
0
20
5
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
0
5
0
0
10
5
0
0
4
25
0
5
30
0
0
0
50
5
0
60
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
5
80
70
90
50
25
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
5
8
20
30
10
5
4
0
0
0
35
10
100
100
100
100
100
0
5
0
95
0
0
0
0
100
140
100
100
100
100
Water
Animal fodder
Agri. tool and
household furniture
making
Construction wood
Fuel wood
Charcoal wood
Medicinal resources
Overall
scores
Hadha Bosso
Overall
scores
Food
Water
Animal fodder
Agri. tool and
household furniture
making
Construction wood
Fuel wood
Charcoal wood
Medicinal resources
0
0
0
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
10
90
0
0
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
5
95
90
100
50
33
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
10
5
10
0
30
5
0
0
0
15
10
100
100
100
100
100
10
0
0
0
25
0
40
100
0
0
0
0
60
0
50
0
0
20
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
10
0
0
75
0
0
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
10
10
100
100
100
30
35
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
10
40
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
10
5
0
0
0
30
5
100
100
100
100
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.
141
ii) PDM Scores of cultural services by landscape units in the study Kebeles
Study
sites/Kebeles
Ecosystem
Services
Galeef Qello
Spiritual
and
religious
Recreation
Overall scores
Shalla Billa
Overall scores
Gubata Arijo
Overall scores
Hadha Bosso
Overall scores
Spiritual
and
religious
Recreation
Spiritual
and
religious
Recreation
Spiritual
and
religious
Recreation
Homestea
d
(Gandaa)
Woodland
(Bosonaa)
Wetland
(lafaa
Lilixii)
0
55
0
Landscape units
Farmland Lake
(Lafa
Shalla
Qonaa)
(Horaa
Shaalaa)
0
40
0
15
10
0
0
0
0
70
70
50
Lake
Abijata
(Horaa
Abiijaata)
5
Fallow
Hot
land ( Lafa spring
Hacarii)
s
(O’aa)
0
0
Total
0
30
30
0
10
10
0
5
0
0
40
50
0
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
50
0
0
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
60
0
100
0
25
25
0
0
0
15
15
0
0
0
70
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
100
100
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
Over all score means: The score received by the landscapes based on the overall importance in providing the cultural services
142
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) _______________________________________________________________
143
Appendix 7: Traditional medicinal plants identified in ASLNP
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Local name
Hargessa
Hidi
Anchuro
Aneno
Bedana
Damakese
Dadaho
Dergu
Hareftu
Gale adi
Scientific name
Aloe spp
Solanum spp
Kalanchoe spp
Euphorbia scoparia
Balanties aegyptica
Ocimum lamifolium
Eucelea schimperi
Achyrantes aspera
Cussonia holstii
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).
144
Appendix 8: List of Phytoplankton in Lakes: Shalla, Abijata and Chitu
Species
Cyanophycaae
Nostocales
Anabaenopsis abijatae Kebede at willen
Arthospira fusiformis
Spiralra laxissom G.S. west
Cryptophyceae
Cryptomonadales
Cryptomonas sp-1
Diatomophyceae
Eupodiscales
Aulacoseira Sp
Aulacoseira granulafa
A.agazzizti (Ostonti) Sim
Chaetoceros Maclleri Lemm
C.Cf Ceratosporum astenf
Thalassiospira Cf. Faorri (Gosse) Hosie
Bacillarialaes
Anomoeoneis Sphaero Phora (Ehr.) Pfizer
Cymbella Keptoceros (Ehr.) Gron
C.Cf. Moellori 0.mull
C.Cf. Prostrota (Berk) Cleve
Fragilariz Cf. Frustulum (Rull) Gron
Nitzschia of frustulum (Rull) Gron
N. subacieuloris Host
Surirella Cf. Brebissonis V.Ponctata
Chlorophyceae
Chlorococeales
Oocystis spp (morssorii-pova-coeustris)
Schroederia sp
oceoids Dcoval
Volovolaes
Dunalieva sp.Arthospira fusiformis
Shalla
Abijata
A
A
R
R
Chitu
A
S
R
S
S
R
C
S
R
S
S
R
S
C
R
S
A
C
R
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
145
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
Gum, medicine,
fodder, fuel wood,
charcoal, enhance
soil fertility, dye,
agro forestry
A. seyal
Tree, up to
9m
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
A. tortilis
Tree, 4-21m
B. aegyptiaca
Tree, 6-10 m
0-900 m; 100-1000 mm
year-1; 26-280C
woodland, wooded
grassland, dry scrub,
drought resistant
Up to 1500 m; 200-800
mm year-1; very
drought resistant,
flexible
requirement
D. cinerea
Shrub/tree,
4-7m
East Africa, Southern
Tropical Africa, South
And North of the
Sahara,
Middle East
In most arid to sub
humid
tropical savannahs
of Africa, Sahal,
Sudan, India, Pakistan,
Arabian peninsula
Sudan, Sahal, Ethiopia,
Somalia, Yemen, Togo,
Ghana, Cameroon,
Direct seeding;
18,000 seeds kg-1;
poor natural
regeneration;
rotation age of
20 years
Good natural
regeneration;
abundant
coppice; 22,000 seeds
kg-1; fast growth;
rotation age of 810 years
Pioneer species, seed
and coppicing;
15,000}20,000 seeds
kg-1; rotation age of
10 years
Direct seeding, root
suckers and cutting,
10,000 seeds tree-1,
500-1500 seeds kg-1,
5-8 years for maturity
Invasive, easily by root
cutting, root suckering,
39,000 seeds kg-1,
fire resistant
Fuel wood, charcoal,
furniture, hand tools,
food, fodder, medicine
450-2000m; 500-600
mm year-1; everywhere
on sandy, clayey and
loamy soils
Source: Field observation based on Demel (1996a) and Von Maydel (1986) in (Argaw et al., 1999)
146
Less quality gum,
forage, tannins dye,
fuel wood, charcoal,
construction
forage, medicine,
construction, bark for
rope making
Extremely useful for
Household utensils,
furniture, fodder, food,
medicine
Appendix 10: Records of selected birds species in ASLNP from 19701996
Species
1970 1971 1978 1981 1990
1992 1993
Greater
200 1000 818 1137 --2226 59000
Flamingos
Lesser
--300 2550 94
146,699 15180 233000
Flamingo
Black
--------------necked
greb
Great
2000 1000 810 358 12
----White
Pelican
Pink
6
7
1
90
2
----Backed
Pelican
Northern
200 500 ----5277
26697 37412
Shoveler
Avocet
54
350 13
--3341
17172 11281
Ruff
2000 750 ----61502
6522 10036
Little Stint 50
20
----24302
24071 6909
Black
--------1991
26697 706
Wing Stilt
Egyptian
1000 500 256 153 11
50
10
goose
Kitilitiz’s
--------609
3245 3694
sand piper
Gull billed --------------Tern
White
--------------winged
Black tern
Curlew
--------62
381
495
sand Piper
Marsh sand --------------Piper
----Cormorants 600 1300 3000 976 --Source: (Wondafrash and Demeke, 1999; and Park document)
1994 1995
34088 ---
1996
---
88104 102190 -----
700
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
43736 ---
---
520
30528
36528
---
--35819
-----
---------
---
---
---
---
2520
10968
650
---
---
---
2500
---
408
---
---
936
---
---
---
---
---
147
Appendix 11: Annual saline water use and product quantity by Soda
Ash Factory
No
Year
Volume (M3)
1
1987/88
2094756.51
2
1988/89
1121351.08
3
1989/90
1430242.00
4
1990/91
1814447.70
5
1991/92
1525880.75
6
1992/93
1424717.75
7
1993/94
1170576.00
8
1994/95
1685661.80
9
1995/96
1256102.01
10 1996/97
1525299.27
11 1997/98
1282709.78
12 1998/99
1242187.06
13 1999/2000
1125365.56
14 2000/01
1297594.19
15 2001/02
1551829.55
16 2002/03
1131905.05
17 2003/04
575442.07
18 2004/05
248196.30
19 2005/06
333908.00
20 2006/07
N/A
21 2007/08*
1040000
Source: (Abijata Soda Ash Factory, 2007)
Trona Production
(ton)
10000
20000
32000
21045
22097
11401
11508
12983
4987
6664
17461
8305
13098
10505
9033
2434.65
6786.81
1751.44
6750
Soda Ash
Production (ton)
7542
4508
6550
3230.2
3714.15
486.5
2992.5
Key:
* means plan for the year 2007/08
N/A: The data is not available during period of my data collection
148
Appendix 12: Pictures showing charcoal and fuel wood use from ASLNP
a) Charcoal for selling (DDHG kebele)
Photo: Tafesse K.
b) Fuel wood ready for sale (DDHG kebele)
149
Appendix 13: Pictures of livestock grazing inside ASLNP
Photo: Tafesse K.
a) Livestock grazing inside acacia woodland
b) Livestock grazing in Abijata wetland
150

Tafesse Kefyalew Estifanos, 2008. Integrated

Transcription

Similar documents

Fitger`s Lake View Office

Captain Geech

"ty ~t!diwaukee

Red Hill Lakefront Retreat - CaliforniaOutdoorProperties.com

Just Listed

Presented by:

Brant Lake Getaway

Woodland Cemetery Presents: “Meet The Author”

NWOA Membership Application - National Woodland Owners

to the article. - The FUND for Lake George