RESTORING ECOSYSTEMS TO SUSTAIN LOCAL COMMUNITIES Awash National Park

Ethiopia

ELD MOOC 2014Endangered species group

THE AWASH NATIONAL PARK

• LOCATION: central Ethiopia, some 200 km east from the country's capital Addis Ababa.

• AREA: 750 sq. km• WATER: Awash river is the park's southern

border. • VOLCANO: the dormant Filwoha mounts

above the dominating highlands. • Some rare animal SPECIES can be found in

Awash: leopards, cheetahs, lions, endangered species of antelopes and more than 460 bird species.

THE ECOSYSTEMS:GRASSLANDS AND ACACIA WOODLANDS

THE PEOPLE

AROUND 10 000 PEOPLE LIVING IN AND AROUND THE PARK

FEW ETHNIC GROUPS

EXISTING ETHNICAL PROBLEMS

NOMAD REFUGEES FROM OTHER REGIONS OF ETHIOPIA

ENTER THE PARK IN SEARCH OF BASIC NEEDS: WATER, FOOD, FIREWOOD

LACK OF MEDICAL AND VETERINARY CARE, ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES

THE CASE

• LAND USE: agriculture (mainly grazing animals), nature conservation and research (under the national park) and tourism (recreation).

• DEGRADED LAND: 70% of the total area of the NP (because of overgrazing )

• PRESERVED HABITATS: only in the "core area" of the park (225 sq. km, where the populations of endangered and endemic species of flora and fauna can still be found)

• PROBLEMS: high number of grazing animals (mainly goats), high population density of the refugees from other regions of Etiopia, living in and around the park, the lack of alternative livelihoods for these nomads, which typical way of living is to move from place to place for searching of fresh grass and water for their cattle.

TWO ALTERNATIVES

Attribute Option 1

(current situation)

Option 2

(new scenario)

1 Area of the natural ecosystems of the

NP

225 km2 600 km2 (325 km2

restored in 3 years)

2 Employment in tourism, recreation

and conservation

120 persons 2500 persons

3 People working in agriculture (goat

and cattle grazing)

1890 persons 380 persons

4 Accessibility to education For 10 % of the local

people living within the 3

km park surroundings

For 70 % of the local

people living within the 3

km park surroundings

5 Grazing area 150 km2 low-quality

grazing area (525 km2

completely overgrazed

savannah within the

park)

300 km2 (restored

grazing area within the

park plus restored buffer

area outside the park)

6 Endangered and protected species

present

2 20

METHODOLOGY

METHOD: choice experiment survey conducted within several stakeholder groups from the NP and its surroundings.

AIM: to value the biodiversity and ecosystem services used by the local communities.

PARTICIPANTS:10 representatives out of 200 planned, randomly selected households between those located up to 3 km from the border of the park.

RESULTS: the new proposed scenario is decisively more preferred that the current situation. 90% of the respondents stated that the NP has a very important role in their everyday life (ex. source of food, water and wood) and/or for some other activities in the park.

WHY TO CHOOSE THE NEW SCENARIO?

-10000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

year 1 year 2 year 3

USD

Cost-benefits analysis of endangered species value

benefits

costs

net benefits

WHY TO CHOOSE THE NEW SCENARIO?

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

year 1 year 2 year 3

USD

Cost-benefit analysis of grazing area value

benefits

costs

net benefits

WHY TO CHOOSE THE NEW SCENARIO?

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

year 1 year 2 year 3

USD

Cost-benefit analysis of employment in tourism and related services

benefits

costs

net benefits

THE RESULTS: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Option 2

year 1 year 2 year 3

Benefits 5806 5683 15162

Costs 478 1206 1261

Net benefits 5328 4477 13901

Option 1

year 1 year 2 year 3

Benefits 5806 4392 3796

Costs 12845 14466 15289

Net benefits -7039 -10073 -11493

! If the current situation continues, the costs increase every year, while the benefits decrease.

! If the new scenario will be implemented, the benefits increase 2,6x after the 3rd

year.

* Values in thousands of USD

THE RESULTS:NET PRESENT VALUE

year 1 year 2 year 3

Incremental net benefit 12367 14550 25394

Discount factor [8,5%] 1 0,9217 0,8495

Present value of INB 12367 13410 21571

Economic net present value 47348

* Values in thousands of USD

SUMMARY

To restore the degraded ecosystems

To create opportunities for alternative livelihood to the local communities

To limit the domestic animals grazing inside the NP

To engage local communities into tourism and recreation services development and conservation activities

To develop educational, healthcare and water supply infrastructure for the local communities

To increase the efforts in preservation of the species and habitats of the NP

To develop the tourism infrastructure of the NP

LITERATURE

Constanza, R. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, vol. 387, 15 May 1987.

OECD, 2002. Handbook of biodiversity valuation. A guide for policy makers.

Franks P., Kubsa A. and Gebreyes M. Awash conservation and development project. Phase II, Mid-term evaluation. Final draft, March 2003.

Tessema M. Community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 2007 George Wright Society Conference , 287.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW/countries/ET?display=graph

http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Cost-Analysis

http://larissaswedell.org/filoha-site

Prepared by: Anna Stanewa