AMHARA NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE PARKS DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION AUTHORITY

GRAZING PRESSURE REDUCTION STRATEGY DOCUMENT FOR SIMEN MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

(DRAFT REPORT)

July 2007 Bahir Dar

ACRONYMS
ACSI AEZ AI ANRS BoA BoARD BoCP BoFED BoTI CC C/LGZ CP CPR CSA DM DPPC EB FAO FDRE GDP G&S Ha HH HPC/LZ IDP ILDP ILRI LPL/LZ MIS MoARD MOTI NGO NGZ PaDPA RA SMBS SMNP SO SR TLU WARDO Amhara Credit and Saving Institution Agro-Ecological Zone Artificial Insemination Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Agriculture Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau of Cooperative Promotion Bureau of Finance and Economic Development Bureau of Trade and Industry Carrying Capacity Controlled/Limited Grazing Zone Crude Protein Communal Property Resources Central Statistics Authority Dry Matter Disaster Prevention And Preparedness Commission Ethiopian Birr Food And Agricultural Organization Federal Democratic Republic Of Ethiopia Gross Domestic Product Grades And Standards Hectare Household High Potential Cereal/Livestock Zone Integrated Development Project Integrated Livestock Development Projecct International Livestock Research Institute Low Potential Cereal/Livestock Zone Market Information System Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry Of Trade And Industry Non-Governmental Organization No Grazing Zone Parks Development and Protection Authority Rapid Appraisal Simen Mountains Baseline Study Simen Mountains National Park Strategic Objective Stocking Rate Tropical Livestock Unit Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ACRONYMS.............................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. III
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6.

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1 THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................5 POLICY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY......................................................................................6 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ........................................................8 1.6.1. Sample site Selection ........................................................................................9 1.6.2. Data collection................................................................................................10 1.6.3. Data Analysis..................................................................................................11 1.7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................11 1.8. ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER..................................................................................11
2. OVERVIEW OF THE SMNP .......................................................................................................... 12

2.1. 2.2.

GNERAL ...................................................................................................................12 PHYSICAL FEATURES ........................................................................................14 2.2.1. location ...........................................................................................................14 2.2.2. landscape ........................................................................................................14 2.2.3. soils .................................................................................................................15 2.2.4. vegetation........................................................................................................15 2.2.5. landuse............................................................................................................17 2.2.6. climate.............................................................................................................18 2.3. SOCIO - SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION.....................................................................19 2.3.1. Demographic Feature.....................................................................................20 2.3.2. Ethno Cultural Feature...................................................................................21 2.3.3. Market.............................................................................................................21 2.3.4. Participation in farm activities........................................................................22 2.4. AGRICULTURE AND FARMING SYSTEMS .....................................................22 2.4.1. farming systems ..............................................................................................22 2.4.2. crop production ..............................................................................................23 2.5. WILDLIFE..............................................................................................................23 2.5.1. types ................................................................................................................24 2.5.2. populations .....................................................................................................25 2.5.3. observed trend ................................................................................................25
3. LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY AND POPULATIONS.................................................................... 27

3.1. 3.2.

OVERVIEW OF LIVESTOCK IN SMNP WOREDAS .........................................27 LIVESTOCK OF SMNP KEBELES.......................................................................28 3.2.1. Households within SMNP kebeles ..................................................................29 3.2.2. Livestock resources.........................................................................................30 3.2.3. Cattle...............................................................................................................32 3.2.4. small ruminants ..............................................................................................37 3.2.5. equines ............................................................................................................41 3.2.6. Poultry ............................................................................................................42

iii

3.3. 3.4.

3.2.7. Beehives ..........................................................................................................43 LIVESTOCK MARKETING SYSTEM .................................................................44 ON-GOING LIVESTOCK RELATED INTERVENTIONS ..................................46 3.4.1. Genetic Improvement......................................................................................46 3.4.2. Feed resources................................................................................................48 3.4.3. Veterinary services .........................................................................................49 3.4.4. Extension Services ..........................................................................................49
RANGE AND FORAGE RESOURCES.......................................................................................... 50

4.

4.1. 4.2.

MAJOR FEED SOURCES......................................................................................50 NATURAL GRAZING LANDS.............................................................................51 4.2.1. Types And Extent ............................................................................................51 4.2.2. vegetation and species composition................................................................53 4.2.3. biomass productivity and nutritive value........................................................54 4.2.4. communal grazing systems in the SMNP........................................................56 4.3. STOCKING RATES AND CARRYING CAPACITY .......................................................58 4.3.1. definitions and concepts .................................................................................58 4.3.2. existing stocking rates (sr) of smnp kebeles....................................................58 4.3.3. carrying capacity (cc).....................................................................................59 4.3.4. areas of critical feed shortage ........................................................................60 4.3.5. observed effects of high stocking rates ...........................................................61 4.3.6. conclusion .......................................................................................................62 4.4. OTHER FEED RESOURCES.................................................................................64 4.4.1. crop residues...................................................................................................64 4.4.2. planted forages ...............................................................................................64 4.4.3. agro-industrial by products (aibp) .................................................................65
5. 6. ANIMAL HEALTH .......................................................................................................................... 66 MAJOR CONSTRAINTS TO EXISTING SYSTEM .................................................................... 68

6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4.

7.

LIVESTOCK RELATED .......................................................................................69 FEED RELATED....................................................................................................69 ANIMAL HEALTH RELATED .......................................................................................70 LIVESTOCK WILDLIFE COMPETITION ........................................................72
GRAZING PRESSURE REDUCTION STRATEGY.................................................................... 75

7.1. 7.2. 7.3.

GOAL......................................................................................................................76 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES (SO)..........................................................................76 DETAILED OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES ..........................................................76 7.3.1. SO 1: zonation of the park area achieved.......................................................76 7.3.2. SO 2: grazing rights limited to eligible users.................................................81 7.3.3. SO 3: reduction of animal numbers realized ..................................................83 7.3.4. SO 4: improved animal health ......................................................................87 7.3.5. SO 5: community-park collaboration enhanced ............................................89 7.4. STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................97 7.4.1. physical plan...................................................................................................97 7.4.2. financial plan ................................................................................................109
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 115 8. ANNEXES........................................................................................................................................ 120

iv

1.

INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND

World wide, mountains are characterized by a high degree of biological and cultural diversity. Apart from challenges, mountains also represent fantastic opportunities to demonstrate the importance of the environmental services provided to the societies by the specific ecosystems, and to realize sustainable development practices on the ground. In such areas, wildlife also contributes significantly to household incomes in both rural and urban communities through hunting, crafts and trade based on wildlife products; and to national economies through tourism and sale of wild animal products. In recent times, wild or semi-domesticated animals also are being considered as potential members of a farming system. Recent research indicates that native wild species often use local plants more efficiently with less negative environmental impact than do domestic animals. Domestic animals of local origin also may be better suited to their environment than animals that might be introduced from other regions. Despite the obvious contribution of wildlife to the socio-economic life, there are currently no serious attentions given to protect such resources and their habitat from damage. Studies also indicated that such areas near to settlement are heavily used for grazing (Ludi, 2005) fuel wood and construction purposes. Areas of different vegetation stratum used as source of food and habitat for wild animals areas similarly used by domestic stock and highly affected by human and over grazing pressure. Overgrazing has been becoming a widespread problem in many developing countries where its most serious impact is reduced feed supply, so that the growth and production of the animals are hindered. In areas where pastures are the communal property of a village or district, the risk of overgrazing is particularly great. A reform or new legislation can be required in order to make the utilization of communal land more efficient. Furthermore, when livestock production overlaps with wildlife habitat, the risk of serious diseases should be taken into consideration. Some livestock diseases can be transmitted to wild animals and thus pose a threat to the environment. Generally speaking, the heavier the stocking rate in an area, the greater is the risk that infectious diseases may break out. An area in which a major animal production activity is established ought to have a satisfactory veterinary service. In all types of economies, from highly developed to developing, there is increasing emphasis on programs for sustainable management of natural resources. Particularly, in areas where there are human and livestock a production activity that creates pressures and overlap with wildlife habitats requires special emphasis for sustainable management. Livestock production practices in the Simen Mountain National Park ecosystems are examples of such trends that demand an urgent and effective strategic management plans. For successful development strategies, it is necessary to treat the cause not the symptom. Hence, study on grazing pressure reduction strategy was undertaken and the report was prepared based on the study conducted through utilization of appropriate methodologies that helped to explore how the community in the Simen Mountains National Park (SMNP) and other stakeholders interact in creating pressure in and around the park. Since animals play economic and non- economic roles in small-farm systems, apart from separating the wildlife habitats from grazing areas of domestic animals, options which are available for improving livestock management were identified and suggested.
1

Successful strategic planning starts from a serious look at traditional practices. Traditional practices were developed by trial and error in the context of the natural ecosystem. For example, traditional grazing systems allowed forage to re-grow and to be conserved for the dry season. Traditional systems of lending animals, in some areas, have reduced immediate pressure on the land. Livestock management adapting traditional methods and working in concert with the natural ecosystem has not only been more likely successful, it has also been enhancing and improving the life support systems on which it depends and contributed to a sustainable agricultural system. For this main reason, by seriously considering the issues of the ecology of animal husbandry and wildlife management, Socio-cultural conditions of the SMNP and other Institutional conditions, the study was conducted through close observation and contact of the local community. The study had also encompassed the technical aspects of livestock management including policy, institutional, and organizational aspects of sustainability. For successful development strategies, it is necessary to treat the cause not the symptom.

The SMNP has been known to its outstanding physical features, unique and high number of species of fauna and flora. The park was established in 1969 with the main goal to insure the survival of endemic fauna and flora and protection of unique feature of landscape (Ludi, 2005). It was recognized by the international community as a World Heritage Site due to its unique features in 1978 (Nievergelt, 1998). The farming system characteristic in the Simen Mountains is integration of livestock and crop cultivation. However, in some cases like Gichi village, a growing number of households have no animals at all. Unfortunately, several reports confirm that Simen has not been free of problems. Interests of local residents have not been the same as those of some national and international stakeholders whose main interests lie in the protection of flora and fauna. Specifically, the main impacts of the villages inside the park have been related to the intensive use of its natural resources, in particular grazing, deforestation from cutting of firewood, and soil degradation from cultivation where all the problems have been exacerbated by a dramatic increase in human population. The natural diversity of vegetation cover and population of fauna have been affected by natural and human induced factors where many of plant species cover and the population of endemic fauna became declined. As a result, high deterioration of wild animal species, vegetation cover and natural features and increase in habitat fragmentation has been observed. Numbers of reports have clearly shown that the stocking density inside the SMNP has been very high resulted in an extremely devastating effect on the afro-alpine grassland ecosystem like deterioration with an increase of the unpalatable grasses like Festuca. The animals grazing in the park have not been just those of local people but also from relatives far from the park, the grass has been grazed until only short stubbles remain and natural processes are disrupted. Generally, Overgrazing in the SMNP has been resulted in negative consequences for the vegetation, for the soil preservation and for the chances of survival of the unique fauna. In response to the upper mentioned wide range of problems, the Simen Mountains National Park Integrated Development Program (SMNP-IDP), which is a comprehensive development intervention program, taken the initiative of conducting study on the extent and situation of grazing pressure in the SMNP in order to develop a strategy that can help in effectively tackling
2

the diverse economic, social and environmental problems. Coming up with mitigating problems of grazing pressure in these fascinating ecosystems, has required holistic approach to the required multi components efforts. Several efforts were made to reduce grazing pressure around and inside the park through awareness creation and improving participatory protection and control techniques, development of livestock improvement programs through provision of like improved animal species and forage seeds. However, regardless of these efforts, the problems on grazing pressure, vegetation cover and wild animal habitats fragmentation is still persisting. Consequently, the AMIBETI Agricultural Development and Consultancy Private Limited Company had taken the responsibility of undertaking the study on Assessment of the Simen Mountains National Park to Design a concrete Strategy for reducing Grazing pressure and Minimizing Health Risk factors. In this report, strategic solutions are planned and formulated in such a way the implementation can provide alternatives for the settlers in side the park to assure conservation through sustainable development, allowing the park and the people to co-exist and benefit from each other. 1.2. THE PROBLEM

In and around the SMNP, overgrazing and deforestation have resulted in serious degradation of natural resources, leaving the area susceptible to soil erosion by water and wind. According to our observation, extensive areas both within and outside SMNP are almost devoid of native woody vegetation due to the intensive natural resources exploitation of the people residing in and around the park. Reports confirmed that such degradation and its ecological impacts have forced both the Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf to vacate some of their original ranges and to move further up into the less disturbed highlands. Cultivation inside the park has also been a serious concern where such form of land use is known to be incompatible with conservation objectives. Because of this, soil degradation has been identified as a major problem on cultivation land inside and around the SMNP. In and around the SMNP, overgrazing and deforestation have resulted in serious degradation of natural resources, leaving the area susceptible to soil erosion by water and wind. Cultivation inside the park has also been a serious concern where such form of land use is known to be incompatible with conservation objectives.

Livestock grazing is probably the most damaging resource use in the park, given the extensive area that is used for grazing and the current overstocking (Burnand, 1998). Though there are no recent reliable data available about the number of livestock in the park and their impact, the 1996 survey work in SMNP estimated that of the 900ha of Afro-alpine vegetation in the park (before the current and proposed extensions), 25% were heavily overgrazed and 60% were heavily grazed, and left only 15% in a more or less natural status. According to Burnand 1998, the quality of the grazing lands that were overgrazed resulted in deterioration of quality with an increase of unpalatable grasses. This in turn has been having negative consequences on the vegetation cover and composition, and soil preservation. Because of this fact, livestock in the SMNP has been in direct competition with Walia ibex for grazing areas, confining the Walia ibex
3

to the steeper and less accessible areas, and has also been impacting on small mammal populations, which are the major food source for the Ethiopian wolf. It has been also reported that the contact between wildlife and livestock have also been resulted in increasing the risk for transmission of diseases. The grasslands, particularly at the higher elevations of the SMNP, have been intensely used as grazing area. According to the survey conducted at the Gich plateau by the year 1996, it was concluded that totally eroded and heavily overgrazed areas have doubled between 1973 and 1996 where this fact was further observed in November 2004 suggesting that the area was of heavy grazing or serious overgrazing has again increased since then. The stocking density inside and around the park has been very high. Overgrazing has devastated the afro-alpine grassland ecosystem. Only in the most distant areas are still in a less disturbed situation although also these areas are used for grazing. Under worse situation, particularly when there is drought, it was observed that the drought problem resulted in competition for scarce grazing land between the protected park animal population, especially the Walia ibex, and farmers livestock herds within and outside the park areas. This also had a negative effect on the available food for the Gelada baboon, which also depends primarily on the alpine grasslands. Furthermore, overgrazing in the ericaceous belt had reduced the Erica plants and the regeneration capacity of Erica seedlings and damaged to the undergrowth had a negative effect on the hiding and nesting sites. In the SMNP, soil productivity has also been declining, as soil erosion continued almost uncontrolled, nutrient mining has been taking place unchecked, manure has been collected as a substitute for fuel wood, and fallow periods have been shortened. It has been alarming to see how little investments in soil conservation and soil productivity improvements have been made in some areas, despite available technologies and the general awareness regarding the seriousness of the problem within parts of the administration. The major driving force driving behind most of the problems in the SMNP has been believed to be the population pressure. An annual growth rate of 2% led the figure to doubling about every 35 years. It has been also well understood that the majority of the population continued to depend on the agricultural sector, thus further aggravated land degradation and pressure on remaining wildlife habitats. Socio-economic problems related to such a high human pressure on available natural resources become visible by the dependency of several villages on outside assistance. Such dependencies on outside assistance are very dramatic and a clear indicator of the un- sustainability of the present livelihood. In view of all the factors and dynamics mentioned above, the observed situation is a sharply declining resource base availability for a sharply increasing population where few options can remain. It is not questionable that, in order to attain a sustainable use of natural resources in the park, the population size and the land under cultivation should be reduced to appropriate more land for grazing or reduce the number of livestock. If situations are let to continue the way they are, it must be expected that the situation of the park population will deteriorate dramatically over the coming few years, leading to sharpened conflicts with the administration of the park over the use of its natural resources.

In view of all the factors and dynamics mentioned, the observed situation is a sharply declining resource base availability for a sharply increasing population where few options can remain.

Generally speaking, there can be no hope for the park population to continue their present way of life for any lengthier period of time like what is happening today. The only option through which the long-term livelihoods of the park population can be ensured, the degradation of the natural resources of the park can be halted or reversed and the population of the park can be significantly reduced is to find an immediate practicable solution that will be acceptable by the park population.

1.3.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general objective of the assessment study (according to the Terms of Reference) was to develop a concrete strategy based on a close observation to the problem and a detail analysis that integrates technical, social, economic and administrative factors, which will serve as a guideline to significantly reduce livestock grazing in the national park. Within this general objective framework the specific objectives of the study were 1. 2. 3. 4. To assess the basic socio economic condition of the society within and around SMNP, To know the attitude of different participants on the issue related to park management, To identify some possible solutions for decreasing the grazing pressure on the park, To observe the land use of the park,

and hence come up with the following outputs developing a practicable concrete strategic document, which can be used for direct intervention as well as for formulation of a large scale program raising Stakeholders concern and awareness about the problem and enhance possible solutions

The general objective of the assessment study was to develop a concrete strategy based on a close observation to the problem and a detail analysis that integrates technical, social, economic and administrative factors, which will serve as a guideline to significantly reduce livestock grazing in the national park.

1.4.

POLICY ANALYSIS

The Environmental policy of Ethiopia: The Environmental policy of Ethiopia developed in 1997 provides a legal frame-work for sustainable development environmental resources upon which development activities can be undertaken through maintenance and preservation of the natural resource base. The over all objective is to improve and enhanced the health and quality of
5

life and to promote sustainable social and economic development through the sound management and use of natural, human-made and cultural resources and the environment as a whole so as to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The specific objectives relevant to the grazing pressure reduction strategy development include Ensure that essential ecological processes and life support systems are sustained, biological diversity is preserved and renewable natural resources are used in such a way that their regenerative and productive capabilities are maintained and where possible enhanced so that the satisfaction of the needs of future generations is not compromised; where this capability is already impaired to seek through appropriate interventions a restoration of that capability Raise public awareness and promote understanding of the essential linkages between environment and development.

The National biodiversity policy: provides a basis for preservation, development, management and sustainable use of the diversity of gene pools of Ethiopia's species of wildlife and domesticated flora and fauna and its natural and human managed ecosystem for the country's social and economic development and for the integrity of the biosphere. Regional conservation strategy: one of the major strategy document in the region: It takes holistic view of the natural, human made and cultural resources of the region and their use and abuse and seeks to integrate a coherent whole, existing and future regional planning in all sectors that have impact on the environment including agriculture, forestry, wildlife, fisheries, water, minerals, energy, tourism, urban planning and heritage conservation. Environmental Protection: the Land Use Policy was issued in 2000 along with a proclamation to determine the administration and use of the rural lands in the region. In order to implement the regional conservation strategy and the land use policy, the region has established the Regional Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use Authority (EPLAUA) with a principal objective of creating a conducive environment in which the use of rural lands could be appropriately managed and administered under the Federal and Regional Constitutions. Furthermore, many research works carried out in the field of biodiversity in the SMNP have identified the Gich plateau as a center of biodiversity. It has also been confirmed that the Gich plateau was one of the best places where an outstanding quality of the natural afro alpine grassland was found for ungulates like Walia ibex and Klipspringer. Among the three endemic plant species identified in the SMNP, Festuca gilbertiana is only found in the Gich plateau. Unfortunately, with increased invasion by people and their livestock into the Afro-alpine grassland the Gich plateau has recently been regressing from its natural state (Puff and Sileshi, 1999).

1.5.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The Simen mountains area has a historical significance and is the only area where the Walia ibex exists as endemic. It is exceptional in its breathtaking landscape, species richness and endemism and thus has favorable situation for all those interested in wildlife, spectacular landscape and
6

biological research. Its proximity to the old cultural centers like Aksum, Lalibela and Gonder also makes it convenient for visiting for those primarily interested in cultural or historical sites. The SMNP is one of the great biodiversity hotspots areas in the world that represents the afro alpine and montane ecosystems. The Afro alpine ecosystem consists of grassland and moorland, with an abundant herb layer, while heathers dominate the heath land scrub. The Park has preserved a representative part of the Ethiopian Tropical Seasonal Highland biome and contains vegetation characteristic of each. So far in the SMNP, of the plant species that are recorded to be endemic, three of them are only endemic to the Simen Mountains. These include Festuca gilbertiana, Rosutaria simensis, and Dianthus longiglum. The faunal diversity of the SMNP is also high, which is mainly related to variations in the topography and vegetation cover of the area. A total of 21 mammals including 7 endemic species, 129 bird species of which 14 are endemic, 27 aquatic invertebrates and five species of rats and shrews have been recorded in the Simen Mountains (Management plan final draft). In addition to the outstanding diversity in flora and fauna, the Simen Mountains has an exceptional diversity in landscape and altitude. The Simen Mountains nature of the landscape is characterized by deep gorges, precipices, crests, rocky areas and plains. The western rugged massif contains the highest peak of Ethiopia, Ras Dajen, which has an elevation of 4624 m.a.s.l. The mosaic pattern of the Simen Mountains promotes species richness and biodiversity, but on the other hand makes it vulnerable to environmental degradation since some habitats are taken over by man either for agriculture or wood cutting or livestock grazing (Hurni, 1986) In spite of all the above mentioned potentials, the Simen Mountains in general and the SMNP in particular, have been under heavy human population pressure, which is threatening the natural value of the mountain ecosystem. The human disturbance and habitat alteration had reported to reduce the range of habitats available to the animals in the Park. For instance, the Walia ibex has taken refuge on the cliffs of the northern escarpment and the Ethiopian wolf and klipspringer have almost abandoned their traditional habitats. Such shrinking or loss of habitat for the above species and subsequent decrease in the number of the animals has attracted the attention of the not only the national but also the international community towards the SMNP.

SMNP illustrates the complex dilemma of reconciling conservation with development in a region of great rural deprivation and poverty (Hurni and Ludi, 2000). In such a situation, the same authors have suggested that, protected area management with a strong remit for protection but without a concern for human development is no longer a valid approach. Problems of biodiversity and livelihood needs are intricately linked: without the achievement of one, the other cannot be fulfilled. Such approaches require local involvement in resource management and park planning, and empowerment in decision-making.

SMNP illustrates the complex dilemma of reconciling conservation with development in a region of great rural deprivation and poverty

Enormous efforts have been initiated by the regional and local governments, partly supported by international and bilateral donor agencies to tackle the problems in the SMNP. However, still considerable efforts are needed to reconcile conservation with sustainable development. Particularly the chronic problem associated with live stock grazing pressure demanded an urgent solution. For instance, as wildlife habitats and grazing lands of domestic animals overlap in many areas, vaccination of domestic animals against easily transmittable diseases should be considered as an immediate action. Separating wildlife habitats and grazing areas of domestic animals is an indispensable measure in order to keep a healthy population of Walia ibex and Klipspringer and hopefully increase the number of Ethiopian Wolf. According to United Nation world commission on environment, achieving sustainability will require a strategy rather than a piecemeal approach (Clayton and Radcliff, 1997). Strategy development requires a better understanding of the behavior of complex natural and human systems and the various interactions between such systems. For this reason, conservation of such high biodiversity resources with its unique habitat is essential and hence the PaDPA-IDP taken the initiative to undertake study on assessment of the problems associated with grazing pressure and development of Grazing pressure reduction strategy

1.6.

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

To make the bio-physical and socio economic assessment of grazing pressure on the Simen Mountain National Park, both primary and secondary data were exhaustively collected and utilized. Apart from a very close observation of the study area, information was collected on attitudes of different stakeholders towards the SMNP, livestock and population dynamics, education and experience, and other socio-economic characteristics of the households. In order to address the objective and successfully accomplish the planned assessment, the following major activities were undertaken; reviewing available literature and consulting relevant stakeholders observing and assessing the situation of the current livestock production, wildlife management and related interventions a draft plan of action to conduct the study developed and presented survey conducted , data collected and discussions made with all relevant stakeholders all feasible means and solution for the critical problems were identified delineations for wildlife habitat and grazing areas were identified and suggested maximum effort undertaken to address all the task listed in the TOR data were analyzed, needed management options in approach to better resources management, means of monitoring were suggested and a concrete strategic document that can serve as a guideline prepared

The assessment was made through: Reviewing a number of secondary literatures (existing documents and plans, outbreak reports and recommendations, study results and scientific articles) which have provided an outlook and reserved as basic, theoretical and practical backstops for the study.

 Set of Checklist for core activities and focus group: which was used as guideline to accomplish prioritized activities and to discuss with and collect information from various stakeholders, who were involved/ experienced in the various activities of the park to address problem in the previous periods. Collecting primary data through a comprehensive field survey and/or physical assessment of the area, covering various angles. The data used to obtain first hand information on the general condition of the park, its landscape and other features, resources available, observable problems, wildlife and livestock situations, extent and intensity of grazing and degradation, health risk trends and points, park population's characteristics and economics were closely assessed. Additional data were also gathered through semistructured questionnaires including Questionnaire administration to livestock owners/household heads: to collect all the socio-economic issues, livestock and wildlife conflicts and/or relationships, livestock feed and water sources, level of awareness on the advantage and disadvantages of the park and wildlife existence, major lively hood and livestock production constraints and possible solutions identified by the villagers to alleviate the existing threats. Professional questionnaires administered to animal health professionals working in the adjoining districts/woredas: to collect and extract vital information in relation to animal health service delivery system, facilities, experiences, bottlenecks to the delivery system and their comments and suggestions to address those problems. Interviewing park experts, guides and wildlife scouts: which helped us to gather information on the historical backgrounds and current status of the park, human-wildlifelivestock interactions and/or conflicts in and around the park, identified and prioritized key problems in the park, efforts exerted so far and suggestions to solve the existing bottlenecks sustainably in the future. Analysis of the collected primary and secondary data and identification of major findings and risk factors. The attitude of the different individuals was analysed using qualitative techniques. Whereas, the survey data were analysed by using simple descriptive statistics. 1.6.1. SAMPLE SITE SELECTION

Selection of the Sample Kebeles, where a detailed household survey conducted, was undertaken through an intensive discussion with the PaDPA ecologist (Ato Derbie Dexios). The selection was made in such away that those representative villages for little, medium and heavily grazed areas were considered. Furthermore, kebeles representing the grazing pressure problem areas within and outside the park area were taken in to account. However, the physical observation of the SMNP was undertaken in all villages except those in the Adiarkay Woreda. The following table summarizes the list of kebeles that were physically observed and a detailed household survey conducted.

TABLE 1: list of Kebele Administrations and respective villages where household surveys were conducted No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Janamora 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Debark 15. 16. 17. Wereda Adi Arkay Kebele Administration Angwakerneja Seragudela Agdamia Lori Bahiranba Atigiba Barna Sakeba Zakelta Debel Adebabay-Tsion Zebena Debir Argin-Jona Abergina Adisgie-Miligebsa Dib Bahir Village selected to conduct detailed HH survey Duhara Jona Timirk Awria Feres Lialimo Abo Argin Gichi Buitras, Kebero Remark

The target population was defined as all households within and around the park. In addition key informants were different Government and non-Government organizations concerned bodies, which are directly or indirectly involve in SMNP management, were also used as sources of data. The sources of secondary information were records of different government institutions, NGOs, and previous studies on the area.

1.6.2. DATA COLLECTION The survey was carried out to obtain information on family size, age, types of crop, number and types of livestock, and off farm activities performed by the households. The researchers held the group discussion and key informant interview. But the survey was conducted by three enumerators for 10 days. Different secondary data were also collected from concerned organizations and individuals. A series of discussions were held with the residents in the villages and concerned individuals at different levels to explain the purpose of the study. Following the introductions, group discussions were held with the community at seven selected villages and key informant interviews with stakeholders including the SMNP office, Woreda administration and Agriculture and Rural Development offices, IDP office, North Gonder Zone administration, Culture and Tourism and Agriculture Rural Development Department, Scouts, and finally with the Amhara Region Park Administration Authority. In addition to cover some gaps on group discussion, sixty-two farmers were selected through purposive sampling based on their availableness on the
10

survey date and area advantage. Moreover, the researchers made physical observation on different and important aspects of the park by using photograph and video cameras. Members of the team conducted intensive fieldwork for over two weeks, focusing on an assessment of the existing and potentials for development of the strategic document on the grazing pressure reduction. 1.6.3. DATA ANALYSIS
Both for the qualitative and quantitative data, analyses was undertaken at the field work (particularly for the qualitative data) using simple analyses techniques like use of matrix. Whereas, computer software including Excel and SPSS were utilized to analyze the data collected.

1.7.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The overriding methodology applied to study the livestock and pasture systems within the SMNP was mainly Rapid Appraisal Method. Hence, the study relied mainly on qualitative field assessments and secondary data collected from various sources especially the respective WARDOs. The veracity of these data is sometimes controversial. Moreover, the main driving force to choose this methodology has been the inherent time shortage and financial constraints. Therefore, limitations to this study first and foremost emanate from the Rapid Appraisal methodology followed in the collection of field data. Hence, the entire negative attributes of RA in terms of similar studies as detailed in several literature hold true in our case as well. What is more, the biggest limitation for the study apart from normal limitations related to use of secondary statistics and errors related to power of recall for some specific details was the low response from private stakeholders. The other problem that needs mention also relates to the simple level of investigation used during analysis, which mostly never passed the levels of descriptive statistics.

1.8.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER

The present report consists of seven major parts: The first part is an Introductory part, in which the general back ground, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, significance of the study and the methods utilized for data collection and analyses, and limitations of the study are briefly described. The second part refers to an overview of the SMNP. In this part the physical features, socio-spatial distribution, agriculture and farming systems and the wildlife past and present situations are presented. The main target and issue of the study related to livestock husbandry and populations is covered in the third part of the report. Analyses of the past and current livestock situation in the SMNP kebeles, livestock marketing systems, and the ongoing livestock related interventions are stated in details. Issues related to the major feed sources, the natural grazing land, stocking rates and carrying capacity, and other feed resources are covered within part four of this document, which is the range and forage resources. The animal health related issues are covered in the fifth part of this report, whereas issues related to the major constraints of the existing system (related to livestock, feed, and livestock/wildlife competition) are shown in the sixth part.

11

It is based on the above mentioned parts background that the grazing pressure reduction strategy was developed in the seventh part of this report. The strategy, clearly and separately, outlined the goal, strategic objectives, the detailed outputs and action plans on zonation of the park area, grazing rights limited to eligible users, reduction of livestock number, improved animal health care and community-park collaboration enhancement are well discussed and the strategic implementation plan described. Last but not least, are the list of references materials used and annex for further information that are included in the eighth and ninth chapter of the report.

2.

OVERVIEW OF THE SMNP

2.1. GNERAL

The Simen Mountains National Park (SMNP), which is found in the northwestern part of Ethiopia, is an area of great diversity and scenic beauty. It is located in the north-central highlands of Ethiopia, forms part of the Simen Mountain chains, and encompasses part of the spectacular escarpment of the Simen mountain chains, with comparatively large areas of natural vegetation and a wide variety of animal species. It covers 205 km2 areas with an altitude ranging from 1,900 to 4,543 m.a.s.l. and with average temperatures between -50C and +180C. The SMNP is surrounded by three woredas of North Gondar Administrative Zone including Debark, Janamora and Adarkay (Shiferaw et al., 2005). The park is established in 1969 with the main goal of insuring the survival of the highly endangered Walia ibex and declared as world heritage site in 1978, as it was understood for being home to a number of threatened and endemic species of wildlife (Ludi, 2005; Shiferaw et al., 2005; PaDPA, 2006). Three of the 21 large mammal species are locally endemic (Walia ibex) and endemic to Ethiopia (Ethiopian wolf and Gelada baboon), which are a national symbol and the flagship species of the park. The Walia ibex (Capra walie) and the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) are considered critically endangered and endangered species, respectively (PaDPA, 2006). The Simen Mountains are also home to many small mammal and bird species endemic to Ethiopia. The mountains are, furthermore, part of the afro-alpine center of plant diversity characterized by a high level of plant endemism. The Simen Mountains and the general landscape of the area are results of volcanic activity and geomorphologic processes over the geological history of the area. It is built up by the Trap series lava flows of the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic era that are 3000 to 3500 m thick and underlain by 500 m sandstone and limestone layers of the Mesozoic era that overlie the Precambrian crystalline basement rocks (Kazmin, 1973 in Hurni, 1982). During the Pleistocene, when the northern regions of the world were covered with glaciers, most of Africa was drenched in rain. The Simen Mountains, geologists believe, had both glaciations on the highest peaks and pouring rainfall in the rest of it during this time. The cracks in the hard resistant basalt once begun were widened and deepened by the floods that poured into them, and narrow valleys of ~1500 m deep were cut as a result. Despite its high-ranked potential wealth, the SMNP has not been free of problems or conflicts; it has been faced with critical threats. Interests of local residents have not been found to be same as those of the national and international stakeholders. Land degradation has been widespread, leading to chronic food deficits of an ever-growing portion of the local land users. Demographic trends with a continuous growth rate of more than 2% resulted in land scarcity, deforestation and overgrazing. More than 80% of SMNPs territory is subjected to human use, in particular
12

livestock grazing, agriculture and human settlement, leaving only less than 20% undisturbed (Ludi, 2005; PaDPA, 2006). Most of the plateau is over-run by domestic livestock, resulting in high risk of communicable disease transmission, erosion and reduction of the natural habitat available for the wildlife. Excessive agricultural cultivation resulted in soil erosion and further expansion of agriculture leading to deforestation and further reduction of the Walia ibex natural habitat.

Despite its high-ranked potential wealth, the SMNP has not been free of problems or conflicts; it has been faced with critical threats. Interests of local residents have not been found to be same as those of the national and international stakeholders.

The world Heritage Committee had declared to inscribe the property on the list of World Heritage in danger in 1996, realizing those bottlenecks to the wellbeing and development of park. The Committee then adopted the following benchmarks, to guide a removal of the property from the list (PaDPA, 2006). 1. 2. 3. 4. Realignment of the park's boundary to exclude the villages along the boundary; Extension of the park to include at least Mesarerya and Limalimo wildlife reserve; Significant and sustainable reduction in the human population density within the park; Effective conservation within the extended national park of a large population of wildlife.

Human-wildlife conflict has been becoming a critical threat to the survival of many globally endangered species, in particular to large and rare mammals. The numerous cases from countries all over the world demonstrate the severity of human-wildlife conflict and suggest that an in depth analysis is essential to understand the problem and support the conservation prospects of threatened and potentially endangered species (Distefano, 2004). The direct contact and grazing overlap between livestock and wildlife has been harboring high risk of dangerous communicable diseases from-to domestic-wild animals both directions, which may lead to distinction of the endangered species. Diseases were observed to cause significant morbidity and mortality in captive and free ranging wildlife. Further more, wildlife are known to be sources of many fatal zoonotic diseases such as Rabies, Tuberculosis, HIV-AIDS, Ebola, SARS, Hepatitis A and B, Brucellosis, West Nile virus, Lyme Borelliosis, Tularemia, Leptospirosis, Ehrlichiosis, Yersiniosis (plague) etc; and sources for various contagious livestock diseases (Bengis et al., 2004). In recent decades, infectious pathogens that originate in wild animals have become increasingly important throughout the world, as they have had substantial impacts on human health, agricultural production, wildlife-based economies and conservation of genetic resources. The emergence of these pathogens as significant health issues is associated with a range of causal factors, most of them linked to the sharp and exponential rise of human activity. Among these are the burgeoning human population, increased frequency and speed of local and international travel, increased human-assisted movement of animals and animal products, expansion of
13

agricultural practices, and a range of natural or anthropogenic ecological/environmental changes that alter the distribution of wild hosts and vectors (Bengis et al., 2004).

2.2.

PHYSICAL FEATURES

The park is found in three altitudinal oriented ecosystems with different wildlife habitats. It is an afro-alpine undulating grassland plateau, with precipitous escarpments dropping away north and east, giving spectacular views of peaks and canyons, which are outside the park. These ecosystems are directly linked with vegetation zone such as Afro-alpine (3700-4300 m.a.s.l.), Sub Afro-alpine /Ericaceous woodland /3000-3700 m.a.s.l. / and Montane forest belt /2000-3000 masl/. Major habitats are high plateau, Afro-alpine grass lands, tree heater and benched terraces of the escarpment, valleys, gorges, mixed woodland, hills and gravy yards. Landscape and vegetation cover as a main habitat and food source for wild animal are divers and unique (Hurni, 1986). The Simen area was built up by plateau basalt (Trapp series). These layers are composed of numerous olivine-basalt lava flows, inter bedded with tuff layers. The main part of the Simen area consists of remnants of a Hawaiian-type shield volcano, overlying the volcanic flows of the Trapp series. The extreme escarpment appeared to be preconditioned by an extended up lift of the whole massif during the tertiary, comprising major faults which can be attributed to the Rift system extending over most of East Africa to the Red Sea. Harder rocks on the foot of the escarpment preconditioned the development of the terrace-like steps which today form a favorable area for settlement and agriculture. (Hurni, 1982) 2.2.1. LOCATION Located in the north-central highlands of Ethiopia the Geographical position of the National park is between 1309-13012N and 38000-38012E in the North Gondar zone of the Amhara National Regional State in the north and north-western of Ethiopia. It is 120 Kms north-east of Gondar. 2.2.2. LANDSCAPE In terms of topography, the SMNP is characterized by diverse conditions. Elevations range from the lowest point at 1350 m.a.s.l. in the northwest to 4430 m.a.s.l., the Peak of Bwahit Mountain. Relief energy is extremely high throughout the area. Hurni (1986) distinguished four distinctive geomorphic units:

The deeply incised lowland valleys bellow 2000m.asl; The lowland terrace-like steps (roughly at 2000m.asl), which comprises the main cultivation and settlement area of this belt: The step escarpment between 2000 and 4000m.asl, extending in a SW-NE direction, which forms the main wildlife habitat; The highland plains and valleys south of the escarpment, a densely settled and cultivated area.
14

2.2.3. SOILS Different types of soil associations are found in the SMNP. Andosol is known to be the typical soil type in areas lying above 3000 m.a.s.l. whereas Pheozem, Vertisol, Luvisol, Regosol and Leptosol are the dominant soils in areas lying below 3000 m.a.s.l. Soil degradation is a major environmental problem in the area where the average soil loss rate from cultivated fields as estimated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation is 70 t / ha per year (Hurni and Ludi, 2000). Similarly the SMBS team estimated the annual soil erosion rates at around 85 t/ha in highland villages and 65 t/ha in lowland villages. Considering the low soil formation rates of 3-12 t/ha, the destructive process of soil erosion becomes even more apparent (Hurni, 1983). Reports also indicated that, although the use of manure and compost is promoted and more artificial fertilizer is available in the current times relatively, soil productivity has shown still to decline. With current levels of land degradation, available technologies and increasing population, food security would rather expected to decrease in the future. For that reason, all possible efforts are needed to increase land productivity and reduce the number of people depending on the land. Soil degradation has been identified as a major problem on cultivation land inside and around the SMNP. Based on the SMBS findings it was concluded that soil erosion not only leads to diminishing soil depth and physical alteration of the soil, but also to selective removal of specific nutriments, thereby causing chemical degradation and loss of soil productivity. It was also estimated that soil erosion rates in some areas are 20 times higher than annual soil formation rates. In some villages, soil and water conservation investments have been initiated in the past few years and are remarkable in quantity and quality. It is astonishing, however, to observe how little soil and water conservation activities were carried out in other villages despite the farreaching negative consequences of uncontrolled soil erosion. 2.2.4. VEGETATION The Simen Mountains are part of the Afro-alpine centre of plant diversity and are characterized by a high but yet un quantified level of plant endemism. The vegetation in Simen Mountains are of characteristics of the Ethiopian Tropical Seasonal Highland Biome, demonstrates the evolutionary links to both palaearctic and Afro tropical realms, and contains vegetations which are characteristics of each. The floristically rich vegetation grows in four vegetation belts: Afro montane forest, Erica/ Hypericum forest, Afromontane Grasslands and Alpine Moorlands. There are about 253 species of plants which are belonged to 176 genera and in 100 families. Of these, about 20 species of plants are endemic to the country, and 4 to 5 of plant species are near endemic to Simen Mountains (Hurni, 1986). Within these chains of mountains, the SMNP has unique botanical and zoological combinations of species that have been able to resist human interference. Erica arborea, Hypericum revoltum, and Juniperus trees and the grass varieties of festuca, Poa and Danthonia are worth mentioning among the eight plant species. Generally speaking, a considerable difference of forest cover inside and outside the SMNP could be observed. Likewise, a clear differentiation can also be made between villages in the highlands and those in the lowlands regarding strategies of forest utilization. A distinct feature of lowland agriculture is the fallowing system. In lowland villages, pressure on remaining forests is comparably lower than in highland areas where no woody biomass develops during the very short fallow periods and natural forests are the only sources of firewood and construction wood.
15

Actually, in recent times, planted Eucalyptus trees have also been serving several purposes. During the close observation and assessment of the SMNP by the study team, it was possible to conclude that, in most cases for highland villages outside the SMNP, the number of Eucalyptus trees has increased. Forests in the lowlands are also overused, although probably less than those in the highlands, as wood can be collected from fallow land. Reports from PaDPA described that the Austrian-funded IDP established several tree nurseries in the surrounding villages outside the National Park and distributed Eucalyptus seedlings annually. As Eucalyptus trees were considered by the SMNP management as alien species not welcomed inside the Park, it intervened at the Wereda office of Debark not to distribute seedlings, which, if they have not planted Eucalyptus before, are now left with no access to wood at all. Consequences are that people continue to harvest Erica wood or they have to plant Eucalyptus in clandestine. Illegal wood cutting has been reported to be a much bigger problem in the highlands with less alternative wood resources than in lowlands. On the other hand, forest fires resulting from clearing fallow land are a serious problem in lowland areas. From the group discussions conducted, it was understood that although regulations exist regarding forest use, the main problem has been the enforcement of these regulations. There seems to be no clear ownership and commitment to enforce existing regulations at the KA level. Other reports have shown that selective cutting of trees led to a thinning out of the forest. It was stated that areas that were classified as forests 30 years ago have to be called bushy areas now (Hurni & Ludi, 2000). This process has continued especially in highland Erica / Hypericum forests, where fresh cuts can be easily detected even in forests far away from villages. Although the cutting of Erica inside the Park is forbidden, many households still depend on wood resources from natural forests as not every household owns its own Eucalyptus trees for firewood or construction wood.
TABLE 2:- Altitude-dependant classification of natural vegetation of the SMNP Belt Afro-alpine Sub-Afro-alpine Montane forest 3000m Altitudes 3700m and higher 3700m 3000m Plant Formation Dominant/Major Species

Tussock grassland Giant Lobelia rhynochopetalum Rosette shrub festuca spp. Erica arborea Evergreen Microp. Shrub Hypericum revolutum Festuca macrophylla Broad leaved Dec. forest Hagenia abyssinica Evergreen Sclerop. Juniperus Procera Forest Schefflera abyssinica

Source: - SMNP Management plan (final draft)

Following altitude and slope of the area, the vegetation structure of the SMNP is well-stratified. On the plateau areas with altitudes above 3000 m.a.s.l and with slopes of up to 30%, grassland with solitary stands of Giant lobelia is the dominant vegetation structure. In grasslands livestock grazing and foraging of Gelada baboon are the main land use activities. Very often one can observe the Erica forests on the side slopes of the Simen Mountains in altitude that range between 3000 and 3800 m asl. The forest cover is denser on the middle of the mountains where human and livestock interferences are minimal. At present this forest belt is the common habitat
16

for Walia ibex, Klipspringer and Gelada baboon. It is the refuge camp for the above wild animals against being chased by humans and predators like leopard. Bush lands are most commonly found in areas below 3000 m.a.s.l. They are commonly associated with steep slopes. The steep escarpments with slopes in excess of 55% are bare rocks with light grass cover. Mostly they are suitable for paragliding and mountaineering. 2.2.5. LANDUSE It is already known and reported that seventeen Kebele Administrations have part of their land with in the park area creating a strong pressure against wildlife resources conservation. The extensive range land dominated by species of Guasa and Giant lobelia has been co-grazed by cattle, sheep and horse population with no complementary effect. Herding various species of livestock with different grazing preferences often lead to over use of the pasture land where, as a result, the beautiful plateaus of the SMNP are grazed down close to the soil surface. On the other hand, with increasing tendency of range land degradation Giant lobelia to some extent has shown increased cover or density in some parts of the plateaus. This change in vegetation structure ultimately decreases quality of the landscape scenery.

Area (SQ.Km) 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00
nd nd an an sh l t la as sl Su la m d d

Area (SQ.Km)

ed

bu

at

re s

FIGURE: - The land use/land cover of the SMNP (Source: - PaDPA, Bahir Dar Office)

The SMNP is also partly inhabited by subsistence cereal farming communities. A reconnaissance survey made on the land use and land cover of the newly demarcated park area indicated that besides grazing use, 10% of the park area is under cultivation of highland crops, barley being the most dominant crop followed by wheat and pulses. The traditional farming system has been in use without any soil and water conservation measures in place. As a result, the area has reached a critical level of land degradation. With a further intensification of agriculture that can be
17

cu

ltiv

fo

gr

expected from the growing demand for food of the inhabitants, there will be a possibility to increased use of chemical fertilizers that will have negative consequences on the natural ecosystem of the park. 2.2.6. CLIMATE The SMNP lie in the summer rainfall region where the yearly average rainfall is about 1500 mm ranging between 1000 mm and 1600 mm. The rainfall pattern in Simen Mountains is characterized by a single rainy season and the highest amount is between June and September. The temporal pattern is uni-modal with high amounts occurring between June and September, and the peak being in July. December to April constitute the dry months of the year in the SMNP. The mean annual temperature ranges between -50C and +180C. Frost may occur at night during the winter months (Nov.-Mar.) where the temperatures range from a minimum of -2.5 to +40c and to a maximum of 110c to 180c. During the day there are often drying winds. Snow occurs occasionally at altitudes of over 3800 m.a.s.l. Hurni (1986) identified three more or less distinct climatic zones in the SMNP:

Wurch zone (over 3700 m.a.s.l), alpine climate no cultivation possible High Dega zone (between 3400-3700 m.a.s.l.), cool climate upper limit of barely and potato cultivation (3700 m.a.s.l.) Dega zone (between 2400-3400 m.a.s.l.) temperate climate upper limit of wheat and pulses cultivation (3150 m.a.s.l), cultivation of barely Woina Dega zone (between 1500-2400 m.a.s.l.) sub-tropical climate upper limit of maize and teff cultivation, cultivation of maize and pulses
18

The Kola zone with its tropical climate is the main climatic zone in the NGZ, covering 56% of it, mainly outside the SMNP and in the lowlands of the buffer zone, from 8001500 m asl.

TABLE 3:- Climatic Type of SMNP Major Factors Altitude range Lower Climatic Type Upper Climatic Type

2000-3200 m 3200-4500 m Southwest monsoon (upwardly Northerly and north easterly winds Wind system decreasing influence), trade-winds only all year in the dry season Increase in cloud cover with rains. Less frequent altitude, maximum annual rain fall Clouds and Convective at about 3500 m, frequent hailstorms precipitation hailstorms with high erosivities Snow and frost Occasional snow in higher No snow, rare frost elevations, frequent frost Unfavorable for most grains and Cultivation (crop) Favorable for most Ethiopian crops and pulses except barley, potatoes and some vegetables below 3700m pulses suitability Source: SMNP Management plan final draft

2.3.

SOCIO - SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION

The issue of grazing cannot only be discussed from ecological or legal point of view. The role of livestock in the socio economic structure of the various households and communities has to be examined before putting forth any policy based on "technical fix" approach. If sustainable development should be attained, not only the use of natural resource is of concern equally important aspects are economic and social sustainability (Hurni & Ludi, 2000), especially on those parks the history of settlement of people before the establishment of parks. People living inside the Semen Mountain National Park dates back to the time of its creation, as several villages and land used for agriculture and livestock grazing were included in the protected area. Livestock has been the vehicle for savings and insurance, as banks are remote and unreliable, livestock also fulfilled social functions in ceremonies and exchanges in developing world, like Ethiopia. The contribution of the livestock sector to total GDP and agricultural GDP is estimated at about 15 and 35 percent respectively not including the value of draft power and social functions (Trade and Transformation, 2004). Though livestock production has an advantage from economic and social point of view, it has also been having a negative impact on the ecology if we cannot manage properly.
19

2.3.1. DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURE The total population with in and around the park area is estimated, as 84801people. Based on the PaDPA survey the female-headed households are only 15.69% (80 from 510 households) but when we consider the total population on the other hand from total 2735 residents 1364 (49.87%) are female. The average family size is 5.36 persons per households. This is in line with the survey done by our team; the average family size is 5.21 persons per households. From total population active labor force (age 15-65 years) are 51.62%. The annual population growth rate of the area is 2% and it is relatively low compared to the average population growth rate of the region (3%).
TABLE 4:- List of the KAs and their Population adjacent to the SMNP Total Population 5,500 4,655 2,800 5,425 4,130 4,180 3,050 5,250 3,581 9,330 6,728 3,000 5,585 6,279 4,250 8,958 2,100 84,801

No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Wereda Adi Arkay

Janamora

Debark

KA Angwakerneja Seragudela Agdamia Lori Bahiranba Atigiba Barna Sakeba Zakelta Debel Adebabay-Tsion Zebena Debir Argin-Jona Abergina Adisgie-Miligebsa Dib Bahir

Total Source: - SMNP Management plan (final draft)

Household No 1,100 931 560 1,085 826 693 1,050 1,050 770 1,866 1,607 630 1,117 966 800 1,493 420 16,964

The survey results also revealed that 66.88 percent of the sample household heads were illiterate, whereas 33.12 percent of the house hold heads were literate. To improve their skills on on-farm, off farm and non-farm activities, they highly demand training. According to the survey conducted from 510 households, 426 (83.53%) demanded additional training. On the past through different governmental and non-governmental organizations, 16 types of on farm and 20 types of off farm trainings had been given to the residents. When we see the marital status of the population, from 471 households who responded for the question, 398 (84.5%) of the respondents are married, 21(4.45%) were divorced, 48 (10.19%) were widowed, and 4(0.8%) were single. When we see the same issue by sex of households the situation even worse in female-headed households, the ratio of female headed on marital status, 2.01%, 90.48%, 93.75% and 75% are married, divorced, widowed and single respectively. Since
20

widows and divorced women are not allowed to plough, they have to lend their land in a share of crop amounting to about 50% of the yield (Hurni and Ludi, 2000). 2.3.2. ETHNO CULTURAL FEATURE Majority of residents in and around the SMNP are Amhara ethnic group. According to the park area survey done by region park administration authority the dominant religion within the park area is Muslim, accounting 71.2% of the total households and the rest 28.9% are Ethiopian Orthodox Christian follower. But when we consider the total 17 Kebeles with in and around the park area, the majority of the populations are Ethiopian Orthodox Christian follower (64%). These two religious groups Christians and Muslims live together peacefully, although in separate places. 2.3.3. MARKET Market infrastructure tends to be deficient in the area. There is lack of appropriate roads, communication means, and electricity and there is also lack of appropriate marketing facilities. The distance in km that the beneficiaries travel to get main road for accessing different services was very far. The movement of goods from producers to consumers at the lowest possible cost, consistent with the provision of the services desired by the consumer, may be termed as efficient marketing (Raju and von Oppen, 1982). The marketing areas for SMNP residents include Debark, Adi Arkay, Mekane Birhan and Zariama. In addition there are three weekly markets Arikwasiye, Ambaras, and Beles. Through these markets the land users in the Simen are integrated into a larger economic system. Marketing margins are affected by a number of factors: distance to be covered, adequacy of transport, effectiveness with which the various activities are carried out and services that are provided (FAO, 1987). When production is more scattered, supply is confined to one major season, distance are much longer and the whole marketing infrastructure is less developed, the marketing margin is then likely to be high. There are little types of cash crops that are grown in the area, like gesho (hop), chat and today some farmers tried plantation of apple. As a consequence, mainly surpluses from the subsistence production are sold, or animals are 'converted' to grain (Hurni & Ludi, 2000). Besides local products, there are a few traders who sell small household items spices, salt and sometimes clothes. Both men and women participate in marketing. Men are responsible for selling big livestock and bigger quantities of grain, where as women mostly exchange poultry and smaller quantities of grain, pulses or potatoes.

21

2.3.4. PARTICIPATION IN FARM ACTIVITIES To fulfill their daily need some of the households participate on off and non-farm activities. Exclusively agricultural rural households have lower incomes than multi active households (those with activities in both the farm and non farm sectors) and than non-farm rural households. According to the survey, 173 (33.92%) have participated on the off and non-farm activities. The major off farm and non-farm activities are apiculture, weaving, pottery, hiring horse/mule, roadwork, guiding tourists, daily labor work and petty trade.

2.4.

AGRICULTURE AND FARMING SYSTEMS

2.4.1. FARMING SYSTEMS The populations of Simen Mountain are mainly sedentary agriculturalist with a mixed farming system based on crop cultivation complements by a livestock component. In Simen, the term 'subsistence oriented farming system' means a farming system tailored mainly to meet the needs of household member (Hurni & Ludi, 2000). Crop cultivation meets most food needs, while livestock is the possibility to accumulate reserves or wealth. The cultivation is based on traditional and cultural system. Land is ploughed using mainly oxen, wherever possible; otherwise with horse and hand tools. According to 2003 report of Central Agricultural Census Commission in North Gondar Zone, out of the total rural agricultural holders those who are engaged in crop production, livestock and both crop and livestock productions were estimated to be 16.07 %, 8.58 % and 75.35 %, respectively. This is also true in SMNP. According to the survey from 510 households 280 (54.90%) own at least one cow, 327 (64.12%) own at least one sheep, and 245 (48.1%) at least one horse. Especially for highland villages, where crop production reaches its limits because of altitude and land degradation, relying more on livestock for securing the household income becomes a strategy of growing importance (DALP, 2006). The combination of crop production and livestock keeping is especially important at times of stress, e.g. if yields are inadequate (Hurni & Ludi, 2000). Livestock are kept for various economic and social reasons in the area. The major economic reasons include provision or supply of draught power, generation of cash income, food and animal dung (as an organic fertilizer and fuel). Production systems develop in response to interplay of agro-ecological, socio-economic and technological factors (Rangnekar, 2006). In resource poor areas, croplivestock mixed farming system enables farmers to minimize external inputs by internalizing the system and using a variety of crops and livestock. Thus, the mixed croplivestock farming serves as means of risk aversion since resource poor farmers prefer assured subsistence over risky high productivity.

22

Features of farming systems in the highland areas of SMNP include the following, The areas represent typically fragile resource zones; Low inputoutput croplivestock production systems; Mixed cropping and livestock keeping is the only system followed; Farming systems do not differ very much from the other highlands in N/Gondar or other zones of the Amhara region; Women play major role in croplivestock production and post-production activities; and Migration and shifting cultivation practices seem to be rare. 2.4.2. CROP PRODUCTION According to the park office report, a total of about 1161 hectares of land is cultivated within the park by the park dwellers. Additional area of land, around 1717 hectare, is also cultivated, thus making total areas under cultivation to be 2878 hectare. The most important crops cultivated in the area are: barley, wheat, horse beans, peas, linseed, lentils and teff. Barley is cultivated mainly in the Dega belt with altitude ranging from 2000m to 3715m. Wheat and the others are cultivated mainly between Erica forest and the Montana belt. About 70% of the cultivated land around the park area is occupied with barley and wheat, followed by legumes such as horse beans and peas. From 510 respondents, 469 (91.96%) have cultivated barley in the 1998/99-production season. This is in line with the survey done by our team. From 62 respondents 57 (91.9%) have cultivated barley in the 1998/99-production season. Here, barley is most favored due to its high yield, and due to altitude and temperature. Generally speaking, Simen cropping systems are heavily dependent on only a few varieties of crops (Hurni & Ludi, 2000). Majority of households owned small parcel of land, for example, according to the survey, 456 (89.41%) own less than one hectare of land. They are forced to plough steep slope and rugged lands, according to the same survey 211(41.37%) & 225 (44.11%) of the cultivated lands are rugged and steep slope lands respectively. Moreover, majority of the fields is infertile, according to the survey, only 23 (4.51%) responded their land is fertile. Their production of crop even cannot satisfy their daily food demand. For example, from 510 surveyed households who responded the question for food stock sufficiency until next production, only 52 (10.52%) responded for sufficient stock. Thus, some of the villages like Gich can feed themselves for only half year and are largely dependent on food aid (Falch, 2006). The major reasons for food shortage are natural disaster, shortage of rain, and shortage of labor, poor productivity, large family size, and shortage of land. The reasons for declining yields are degradation of soil (land had been used for long period of time and depleted of nutrients), and shortening of fallow periods (Hurni & Ludi, 2000).

2.5.

WILDLIFE

Although the National Park contributes to assure that habitats for wildlife, especially Walia ibex and Klipspringer, but also large carnivores such as Leopard, Ethiopian Wolf or Serval, continue to exist, its small spatial extension does not necessarily assure the survival of the species. In the
23

larger area of the Simen Mountains, additional areas exist which show similar bio-physical characteristics like the habitats inside the SMNP, but where no wildlife is found at this moment (Hurni, 2005). Findings from research carried out in Walk, in selected areas of Beyeda Wereda (escarpments to the east and north of the high plateau, grasslands at high altitudes around Ras Dejen) and in the vicinities of Silki, Abba Yared and Walia Kend, suggest that considerable areas existed which could serve as habitat for endangered species such as the Walia ibex or the Ethiopian Wolf. For some of these potential habitats the local population reported the occurrence of Walia in former times usually referring as far back in the period of Haile Selassie. For other areas, resident land users reported the occurrence of Walia even today, although such observations could not be corroborated. Wildlife inside the SMNP cannot survive if it has to constantly compete with human use of wildlife habitats (e.g. crop cultivation, livestock grazing, wood cutting, grass harvesting, etc.). Based on interviews and discussions held with resident land users we can conclude that an extension of the National Park with its strict regulations and prohibited activities to these areas is not welcomed, but the definition of specific management zones under the supervision of the Kebele Administration would be an option not totally rejected. On several occasions even the reintroduction of Walia ibexes in areas far outside the SMNP was discussed. Although an overall skepticism remains, there seems to be a certain willingness to consider such introduction, as it was considered an asset for promoting tourism also in these remote areas or of making the village eligible for compensation by the government for foregone resource use. Based on preliminary analysis of aerial photographs, maps, field surveys and discussions with resident land users, it can be concluded that several areas exist outside the SMNP which could be considered as habitat for Walia ibex or other endangered species. 2.5.1. TYPES The park is home to a number of threatened and endemic species. Of the wildlife, the Walia ibex (Copra walie)- a type of wild goat- is worthy of note as it is one of the major justifications for making this region into a national park. The other major wildlife resources found in the SMNP are the Simen fox (commonly known as the Ethiopian wolf), Gelada baboon, Klipspringer and menilik bushbuck are endemic to the country. Of the 21 large mammal species that can be found in the park, three are locally endemic (Walia ibex) or endemic to Ethiopia (Ethiopian wolf and Gelada baboon) these are the flagship species of SMNP. The Walia ibex (Capra walie) and the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis; also called Simen fox) are considered critically endangered and endangered, respectively (IUCN 2006 Red List). The Walia ibex can only be found in the Simen Mountains, the Ethiopian wolf is the rarest canid in the world (IUCN 2006 Red List). Other large mammal species include the Anubis baboon, Hamadryas baboon, klipspringer, leopard and golden jackal. The mountains are also home to 5 small mammal species and 14 bird species endemic to Ethiopia. Similarly, 63 bird species have been recoded and 10 of them are endemic to Ethiopia. among the bird species 25 are vultures and 4 species are raptors the endemic bird species are, spot billed plover (haplopterus melanocephalus), white collared pigeon (colmba albitorques), black winged love bird (agopornis taranta), black headed forest oriole (orioles menarche), white winged cliff chat (myrmicocichla semirufa), ruppels chat (myrmicocichla melaena), black headed siskin (serinous nigiceps), abyssinian cat bird (parophasma galinieri), abyssinian long claw (macrnyx flaricorlis), white billed starling (orychognathus albirostris).

24

2.5.2. POPULATIONS According to the draft Management plan report, the most recent number of Walia ibex is 623, the Ethiopian Wolf 70, Klipspringer 23, and Gelada Baboon to be 5000. A census carried out in 2005 estimated the population of the Simen fox in the Simen Mountains at 78 animals. 2.5.3. OBSERVED TREND The number of Walia ibex as counted and estimated in 1994, 1996 and 2004 is shown. It is very positive to see that the number of Walia has doubled within the past 10 years. In other words, the Walia population grew by about 7% per year. Such a high growth rate can be expected in populations recovering from serious stress in situations of relatively undisturbed conditions. It seems that the conditions were favorable during the last 10 years i.e. habitats were less disturbed than before, poaching could be sufficiently controlled, and food availability and habitat size were not limiting factors. Considering the increase of human and livestock population leading to considerable pressure on Walia habitats, such high growth rates for the Walia population cannot be expected in future, unless drastic measures are taken to reduce pressure on habitats or to (re-)introduce Walia in habitats outside of the current Park boundary. Similar conclusions can be made regarding the Klipspringer population, which seems to have recovered to a certain degree, but for which special emphasis of habitat protection for the future will be needed. As the Ethiopian Wolf population was not systematically observed, no conclusive statements can be made. With an estimated population of more than 623 Walia, the existence of the species seems at the moment not to be endangered in its long-term survival. However, as the whole population exists in one area only, the spread of a disease could still have a devastating impact. The outbreak of diseases becomes even more realistic, as (i) Walia habitats are also intensively used by domestic animals, including goats, which could easily transmit diseases affecting Walia, and (ii) the general nutritional status of Walia seemed to be low, as internal and external parasite infestation suggests. Immediate actions are thus necessary: A first measure could be the vaccination of domestic animals against easily transmitted diseases. This, however, is only fighting the symptoms. Longer-term measures such as the separation of Walia habitats and grazing areas of domestic animals are indispensable. A wildlife corridor is defined as a linear two-dimensional element that connects two or more patches of wildlife habitats. Objectives to use a corridor are seasonal mass movements, such as juvenile dispersal, migration to breeding or hibernating sites, or daily and nocturnal foraging trips between habitat patches. Structural attributes of a corridor are width, adjoining land use types, species composition, presence of stream or river, presence of chronic disturbance routes (path, road etc.). Linear strips of vegetation can be designated as corridors for faunas movement only if they link two or more patches. An effective corridor must contain appropriate habitat or the appropriate mix of habitats. A riparian corridor for example, might facilitate the movement of aquatic and amphibious species as well as of certain terrestrial and volant species, but might discourage movements of animals that prefer non-riparian habitats, such as desert, steppe, savanna, scrub, heath, or upland forests. The interconnected system of protected areas and links will not only function for the endangered large mammals like the walia ibex or Simen fox, but will also support, as a wake effect the recovery of dozens of other endangered species
25

TABLE 5:- The trend and Current Situation of Wildlife in the Simen Mountains (Falch, 2000) Animals Growth trend Distribution 623 Partly outside the park Walia ibex 5,000 Found everywhere Galada baboon 70 Most likely few inside the park Ethiopian wolf NA Mainly in the park Klipspringer NA Less than 4000 m Grass rate and Mole rat NA Inside the park, mainly in Limalimo block Colobus NA Abyssinian Hare Arkwasiye NA Mostly in lowland Leopard NA Both in lowland and highland Bush buck Source- SMNP Management plan final draft

26

3.

LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY AND POPULATIONS

As in other parts of the Ethiopian Highlands, subsistence small holder farmers in and around the SMNP own animals and livestock production has been a key economic activity for centuries and continues to be a major source of their livelihood. Livestock are thus an integral component of agriculture in the park area and make multifaceted contributions to the growth and development of the agricultural sector. Livestock are also closely linked to the social and cultural lives of these resource-poor farmers for whom animal ownership ensures varying degrees of sustainable farming and economic stability. Livestock help improve food and nutritional security by providing nutrient-rich food products, generate income and employment and act as a cushion against crop failure, provide drought power and manure inputs to the crop sub-sector, and contribute to foreign exchange through exports. Therefore, documenting the types and populations and studying the prevailing livestock production and management systems in terms of meat, milk, traction, and other products derived thereof are critical in understanding constraints and opportunities for improvement. Moreover, given that the central objective of the current study aims at finding solutions to the daunting grazing pressure being exerted on the limited natural vegetation of the park, it would be mandatory to discuss in detail the livestock resources in the area and the way they are managed. This section of the report, therefore, will present detail features of the livestock resources and their husbandry based on results of the primary data collection survey conducted in the study area supported with necessary secondary data gained from meticulous review of available data in the literature.

3.1.

OVERVIEW OF LIVESTOCK IN SMNP WOREDAS

The results of the survey show that the overwhelming majority (almost 70 %) of farmers in the three Woredas where SMNP is located own livestock. These livestock maintained by the farmer again are a mix of various types to meet his/her different needs. A typical herd contains cattle, goats, sheep, equines and poultry. Of all these classes of livestock, for some areas cattle are the most important species, while for others, especially in the dega highlands, sheep gain importance. Cattle primarily supply draught power, while milk, meat and skin are the other secondary products derived from cattle, in addition to manure which is collected, dried and used as the major household fuel. Small stock consisting of goats and sheep are reared primarily as an investment and a source of cash in times of need. By far, the most important function of equines is as pack animals and their role in human transport. In some areas of the SMNP, however, they are used for ploughing as well. Table 6 indicates several important points drawn from CSA (2003) which explain the importance of livestock in the area.

27

TABLE 6: The Importance of Livestock in SMNP Woredas Addi Arkay Debark Total Area (km2) 2,110 1,573 No. Of Rural Households 24,441 21,996 Agricultural Population 122,205 109,980 * Total Livestock (TLU) 85,409 72,559 Human Density (per km2) 58 70 2 Livestock Density (TLU/km ) 40 46 Number of TLUs per household 3.5 3.3

Janamora 1,209 29,391 146,955 78,050 122 65 2.7

TLU = Tropical Livestock Unit (an animal weighing 250 kgs; therefore cattle = 0.75TLU, sheep and goats = 0.1 TLU, and equines = 0.75 TLU)(MoARD, 2007).

Further reference to data in the recent CSA Agricultural Household Enumeration Survey (CSA, 2003), would show that, in 2003, 235,940 cattle, 170,854 sheep, 154,395 goats, 58,976 equines and 492,428 poultry were found in the three Woredas (Table 7). Livestock in the area can therefore be assumed to be the principal wealth of the farmer (3.1 TLU per household against 0.9 ha of farmland), and almost the only source of draught power for tillage; the prominent means of mobility in the rural areas; and transport of commodities from the farm to the market. Cattle constitute by far the largest species among the livestock population of the area. If the above mentioned small ruminants and cattle populations are converted into Tropical Livestock Units (TLU), then sheep would represent about 7% of the total, goats 7%, equines 16%, and cattle 70%. There are more sheep than goats, and due to this, sheep contribute more to fulfilling immediate cash needs of farmers in the area.
TABLE 7: Livestock Populations in SMNP Woredas (2003) Addi Arkay Debark Janamora TYPE Number TLU Number TLU Number Cattle 98,425 71,014 66,501 68,898 49,710 Sheep 18,840 47,853 104,161 1,884 4,785 Goats 74,599 39,072 40,724 7,460 3,907 Equines 11,027 21,779 26,170 7,168 14,156 Poultry 192,582 161,911 137,935 Total TLU 85,409 72,559 Rural HHs 24,441 21,996 TLU/HH 3.5 3.3 Source: CSA, 2003.

TLU 46,551 10,416 4,072 17,011 78,050 29,391 2.7

TOTAL Number 235,940 170,854 154,395 58,976 492,428

TLU 165,158 17,085 15,440 38,334 236,017 75,828 3.1

3.2.

LIVESTOCK OF SMNP KEBELES

In contrast to the above section, which gave a brief overview of livestock in the whole woredas, the following section will focus its presentation on existing situation with regard to livestock of households in kebeles utilizing park resources for grazing of their animals.

28

3.2.1. HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN SMNP KEBELES The issue of people living inside the park dates back to the time of its creation, as several villages and land used for agriculture and livestock grazing were included in the protected area (PaPDA, 2006). Accordingly, based on the recent realignment, the SMNP, located in the three Woredas of Debark, Adiarkay and Janamora, encompasses 17 Kebele Administrations. More importantly, of all the villages or Gotts in each kebele, around 38 Gotts are located within or adjacent to the park area and make use of park resources for different purposes. As can be seen from Table 8, the total population residing in the 17 Kebeles is estimated to be about 17,751 households with a total population of 88,019, including the new park extension area (ERCAND Consult, 2006). Data in the table further show that of the total HHs living within the park area, 98% were those in Kebeles of Debark woreda, while there were no HHs living within the park area in Janamora woreda. However, recently it was also observed that some people have been residing in Arquaziye of the Janamora Woreda.
TABLE 8: Details of Communities Residing Within and Adjacent to the Park Area. No. of Number Of Households Total Population Kebeles WOREDA Inside Outside Total Inside Outside AdiArkay 3 13 2,591 2,604 64 12,955 Debark 7 574 7,033 7,607 3,154 36,900 Janamora 7 0 7,340 7,340 0 34,946 TOTAL 17 587 16,964 17,551 3,218 84,801 Source: ERCAND Consult, 2006

Total 13,019 40,054 34,946 88,019

According to a recent mission report (Debonet, et al, 2006), the problem of people exploiting park resources remained unresolved at the time of the inscription of SMNP on the World Heritage List in 1978. In fact, the nomination mentions that the provincial authorities were committed to resettle the villages situated in the park to address this threat. This proposed resettlement has not been completed, however, because of the lack of alternative livelihood options and space elsewhere and, hence, the unwillingness of the villagers to move (Debonet, et al, 2006). The same sources mention that there are no accurate estimates on how many people were included in the park at its creation in 1969. However it is clear that substantially more than half of the extent of the park was under human use at the time of inscription. The 1986 management plan, on the other hand, specifies that at the time of its creation, 53% (10,000 ha) of the park was used by local communities either for cultivation (3,400 ha) or grazing (6,600 ha). Similarly, the 1994 Simen Mountains Baseline Study by the University of Berne concluded that 3,286 ha in the park were under cultivation. Population census undertaken in the same year (1994) also showed that the number of people living within the park was estimated at 11,000 (Debonet, et al, 2006). The realignment of the park boundary resulted in the exclusion of numerous villages from the park and, thus, there is an important reduction in the number of people living within the park area. According to a rapid assessment carried out in October 2005, 587 households were found living in the park (amounting to 3,218 people), whilst 1,477 households living in its immediate vicinity are cultivating plots inside the park. The total area under cultivation in the park was estimated at 2,281 ha. So it can be concluded that, thanks to the realignment of the park
29

boundary, the population within the park was reduced from 4,500 to 3,200 people, whilst the area under cultivation was reduced from 3,300 ha to 2,300 ha(ERCAND Consult, 2005). 3.2.2. LIVESTOCK RESOURCES 3.2.2.1. TYPES AND POPULATIONS A characteristic of the farming system in the Simen Mountains is the integration of livestock and crop cultivation. In order to meet all the different household needs, a household needs a balanced herd composition, including cattle, sheep or goats and transport animals. However, a significant proportion of households seem to have no animals at all. For instance, if we take the case of Gich village, the percentage of households without any animals is estimated at about 15% (Ludi, 2005). Based on this, the same source further observed that the number of households and the total amount of livestock increased, but the number of animals per household decreased between 1994 and 2004. Moreover, according to data from respective woredas, in 2007 an estimated 38,270 cattle, 59,639 sheep, 17,414 goats, 13,490 equines and 46,664 poultry were found in 17 SMNP Kebeles of the three Woredas (Table 9).
TABLE 9: Livestock Populations in the 17 SMNP Kebeles (2007) Addi Arkay Debark Janamora TYPE Number TLU Number TLU Number Cattle 10,486 13,102 14,682 7,865 9,827 Sheep 2,073 20,029 37,537 207 2,003 Goats 8,042 4,585 4,788 804 458 Equines 1,198 6,620 5,672 899 4,965 Total TLU 9,775 17,253 Share in % 21% 37% No. of Kebele 3 7 Rural HHs 2,604 7,607 TLU/HH 3.8 2.3 TLU/ Kebele 3,258 2,465 Source: Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Offices, 2007.

TLU 11,012 3,754 479 4,254 19,498 42% 7 7,340 2.7 2,785

TOTAL Number 38,270 59,639 17,414 13,490

TLU 28,703 5,964 1,741 10,118 46,526 100% 17 17,551 2.7 2,737

As can clearly be seen from the table data, the 17 Kebeles all in all possessed an estimated 46,526 TLUs, which in other words means an average 2.7 TLUs per HH. Ownership pattern however varied between the lower ranges of 2.3 TLUs per HH observed in the Kebeles of Debark to 3.8 TLUs per HH for those Kebeles in Addi Arkay woreda. Similarly, if considered on Kebele level, each Kebele in Addi Arkay woreda has higher amounts of TLUs than those in the other two woredas. Overall therefore, the 7 Kebeles in Janamora possessed 42% the total livestock numbers sharing the grazing resources of the park. The figures also show that cattle, by and large, constitute 62% of the total TLUs in the three woredas against 17% for shoats and 22% for equines. Reports of earlier studies on the park (Ludi, 2005), also show that the number of livestock a given HH owns to be the main criterion for wealth differentiation. This is especially true
30

considering there is no significant difference in land holding per HH because land was distributed according to family size during the land distribution. Thus, residents of Wezahila, in Gich, replied that households are considered rich if they have 2 oxen, 2-4 cows, 3 horses, mules or donkeys and as many as 30 sheep (Grnenfelder, 2006). Poor households are those with at least a few sheep, some might even have a horse or a donkey. The very poor or destitute households are those without any animals. Often, such households are female-headed or are short on manpower/labor force. Households without any animals are in a downward spiral of impoverishment. They were forced to sell their livestock one by one in order to meet other household needs. Very often, these poor households have to lease out their land to other farmers in return for 50% of the yield (Grnenfelder, 2006). The other distinctive feature of agriculture in the Kebeles of SMNP (like that of the AWI zone in the Amhara Region) is that horses (in addition to oxen) are used for ploughing especially in highland villages such as Gich, Ambaras or Argin. For the Amhara region, such tradition of horse ploughing is limited to areas around the SMNP and some woredas in Awi Zone. Horse ploughing however is not practiced in all places of the SMNP. It is specifically limited to: a) the dega highlands; b) easily workable soils; and c) farmlands with relatively flat topography. Thus it is not common to see horse ploughing in the lowland kola villages such as Angwa, Kerenja, or Adarmaz. Similarly, farmers prefer oxen than horses for ploughing farmlands in the steep slopes of the mountainous areas. The relatively higher proportion of equine owning HHs observed in the SMNP villages can thus partly be attributed to the above practice of horse ploughing. In line with this, village level wealth assessment exercises of previous studies (e.g. Ludi, 2005) appropriately included horse distribution as one of the variables in their matrix. Accordingly, the study for instance found that in Wezahila, one of the four hamlets of Gich village, the distribution of oxen and equines to be as presented in Table10 below.
TABLE 10: Ownership Pattern of Cattle and Equines (in %) Among HHs of Gich village OXEN EQUINES No. Of Animals Owned None 55.7% 45.7% One 30.0% 25.7% Two 14.3% 14.3% Three and above 0.0% 14.3% Source: Ludi (2005)

Another important point raised by the SMBS Study (Ludi, 2005) concerns the relative density of horses in the highland villages of the SMNP. For instance the report showed that 200 of the total 272 households residing in Gich village at that time owned either a horse or a mule to rent. Likewise, the study found that in Wezahila the total number of oxen (41) was only about half that of equines (73). Such results therefore show that at least in some villages of the park area horses are more preferred than oxen. Reasons forwarded for such pattern of ownership include that horses are (i) much cheaper than oxen (1000 EB instead of 1500 EB), and (ii) can be used for transporting goods and as riding animals and can also be used for ploughing since they are much more faster than oxen but less strong. Moreover, shifting from oxen to horses could be due to land scarcity, as the amount of cropland per household barely justifies a pair of oxen per
31

household, and income opportunity, because renting pack and riding animals to tourists is an interesting income source for many households. Especially for highland villages, where crop production reaches its limits because of altitude and land degradation, relying more on livestock for securing the household income becomes a strategy of growing importance. Although many people recognize that the grazing land on the Gich plateau is heavily overgrazed 68% of the Gich plateau has been described as heavily grazed to overgrazed (Nievergelt et al., 1998) they nevertheless aspire to increase their herd size. The grazing pressure is enormous on the Gich plateau. During a count on one evening counting all animals going back to Gich from the Saha Imet Gogo area, a total of 1,200 animals - cattle, equines, sheep has been counted, equaling roughly 600 Tropical Livestock Units (TLU), representing about 60% of the total livestock number reported for Gich. The grassland is not including forests, which are also used for grazing, or the cropland stretching from Gidr Got to Imet Gogo is about 9 km2. If the total livestock number is estimated at 1,000 TLU, then the number of TLU per hectare is more than 1. For highland areas, the stocking density is recommended at 0.5 TLU in the maximum (EHRS, 1986). 3.2.3. CATTLE With the exception of a relatively small number of animals owned purely as investment, cattle are principally kept to provide draught power and milk for subsistence. Besides this, other minor functions of cattle include power for threshing harvest and to provide manure either for household use or fertilizing fields. The cattle herd is further composed totally of local breeds, which generally are good and hardy for surviving the harsh environment, feed shortage and the myriad of diseases afflicting them, but have low productivity indices for most of the production parameters. As presented in the table below, data from respective Woreda Agriculture Offices shows that the total cattle population in the 17 SMNP Kebeles amounts to 38 thousand heads, of which 28% is found in Adi Arkay.
TABLE 11: Cattle population by type in SMNP previous Woredas (2003) WOREDA COWS OXEN IMMATURE CALVES 3,659 3,080 1,582 2,165 Addi Arkay 4,041 3,346 3,150 2,566 Debark 3,616 4,537 5,088 1,441 Janamora TOTAL 11,316 10,963 9,820 6,172 Source: Woreda agricultural offices.

TOTAL 10,486 13,102 14,682 38,270

3.2.3.1.HERD DEMOGRAPHY Analyzed on whole woreda level, the age and particularly the sex composition of cattle herds in the above Woredas seem to be regulated to a great extent by the functions they are expected to perform and to a lesser extent by the need for the perpetuation of the farm economy at certain levels of productivity. The age and sex structure of the cattle herd is therefore shown in summary form in Table12 below.

32

TABLE 12- : Age and sex structure of cattle in SMNP Woredas (2003) SEX AGE NUMBER MALES Calves (< 1 Yr) 21,446 1 - 3 Yrs 16,432 3 - 10 Yrs 64,697 > 10 Yrs 8,178 Sub-Total 110,753 FEMALES Calves (< 1 Yr) 24,653 1 - 3 Yrs 17,819 3 - 10 Yrs 74,087 > 10 Yrs 8,630 Sub-Total 125,189 TOTAL 235,940 Source: CSA, 2003.

% OF TOTAL 9% 7% 27% 3% 47% 10% 8% 31% 4% 53% 100%

In general, the sex composition of cattle found in the area is almost 1:1 (males = 47%, females = 53%). With regard to the age structure, the proportion of adult stock (cows and oxen) is relatively high at 65%. This can be easily attributed to the primary reason of traction need from oxen and the late culling age in the case of cows and the longer range of age category. This ratio moreover has a significant effect on the annual feed balance of the area as it shows a higher proportion of cattle falling beyond the growing weight-gaining age group. 3.2.3.2.OWNERSHIP PATTERNS Based on the CSA (2003) data presented on table 12 above, on the average, cattle possession worked out at 4 head of cattle in the households of Adi Arkay as compared to only 2.3 head in Janamora. Likewise, according to HH survey carried out by BoARD and BoFED in 2003 and 2004 on all 106 Woredas of ANRS, there is huge disparity in the ownership pattern of cattle. Data from these surveys clearly indicate the number of households and people who own cattle and the actual numbers owned vary between the three AEZs (Dega, W/Dega, and Kolla) as well. This disparity is further reflected in the ownership of farmland. In Table13 some of these differences are shown for the three Woredas.
TABLE 13:- Ownership Pattern of Cattle (in %) Among Woredas in SMNP WOREDA COWS OXEN HEIFER BULL 67 68 35 23 Addi Arkay 57 55 33 26 Debark 56 61 27 17 Janamora 60 62 32 22 TOTAL Source: BoARD, 2003; and BoFED, 2004.

CALVES 33 46 40 40

TOTAL 68 57 61 62

TABLE 14:- Cattle Herd Size Distribution (%) by Type across Households in SMNP COWS OXEN HEIFER BULL No. Of Animals Owned 39.7% 38.2% 68.3% 78.0% None 52.6% 58.0% 29.5% 20.7% One and Two 7.2% 3.6% 2.2% 1.2% Three and Four 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% Five and above 33

CALVES 59.8% 36.9% 3.1% 0.1%

Source: BoARD, 2003; and BoFED, 2004.

According to figures in these tables, although 62% of farmers responded to owning cattle, the actual number of the different classes of cattle owned varies with more farmers having oxen and cows than the other smaller age cattle. Significant disparity was also observed between the three AEZs. For instance, results of the BoARD and BoFED HH surveys show that while only 43% of farming HHs owned at least one head of oxen in the Dega highlands, the proportion of HHs with oxen in the Woinadega and Kolla AEZs was 62% and 73%, respectively (Fig. 1).
Proportion of HHs Owning Ox 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Dega W/Dega Kolla

3.2.3.4.DRAUGHT OXEN AVAILABILITY Oxen provide all the draught energy required for traction on the farms of the study area. Oxen power is primarily used for preparatory tillage operations and threshing, in addition to other farm operations including sowing and weeding. Although a total of 72,875 oxen are found in the three woredas the pattern of ownership is uneven. As can be seen from figure 2, around 38 % of the farming households do not possess any oxen while equally 38% own only one ox. Therefore only 24% or one quarter of the households has the two or more oxen which are necessary for traction. The pattern of oxen ownership is even worse in the mountainous dega areas of all woredas whereby only 10 % of households own a pair or more oxen. Given the land under annual crops for all three woredas (97,049 ha), the oxen: land ratio appears to be around 1.3. However, in the absence of data on the optimum requirements of oxen for traction in terms of different cropping patterns, slope and soil conditions, it is difficult to make assertions as to whether the existing oxen population is more than or less than what is optimally required. Considering the crop production system under the rainfall conditions of the study area, the period available for land preparation is short. Moreover, as the extent of the area that can be sown with crops is determined by the efficiency and timeliness of preparatory tillage operations, the availability of animal power for traction becomes a major determining factor. Therefore, it can be concluded that for at least 75 % of farms in the study area farm operations may not be timely or adequate, resulting in lower crop yields.
34

ox owning HHs Two 20% One 38%

Three 2% Four and above 2%

None 38%

3.2.3.5. CATTLE HUSBANDRY As presented earlier, farming system in the highlands of SMNP is entirely dependent on the traditional cereal/ox agriculture. Similar to other parts of northern Ethiopia therefore, draught power plays a critical part in the traditional mixed farming system. Accordingly, the functions of livestock in the study area are similar to the other Ethiopian highlands, for which proper summaries were presented by Rodriguez and Anderson (1988) as follows: Livestock and livestock products account for some 80 percent of mean farm cash income (including the value of subsistence consumption); Livestock provide draught power for cultivation, threshing and transport (900 hours of oxen time per farm per year); Since the rural capital market is limited, livestock are farmers largest capital asset; Some manure is used as fertilizer; About 2,000 kg (dry weight) of cattle manure are burned by a typical household as domestic fuel each year; and Livestock products are an integral part of the diet of farm households: about 5 percent of the food energy intake and 14 percent of the protein intake are obtained from milk, mutton or beef, chicken meat and egg consumption. As per interviews with farmers, cattle are the most important species in the study area in terms of their monetary value and their overall contribution to agricultural production. Their primary role is to supply draught power for crop production but they also supply manure, which is for the most part dried and used as household fuel. Oxen are used for total yearly work of close to 100 days, of which around 90% is for ploughing, and the remaining were for threshing and trampling. According to contacted farmers in the area, the average daily ploughing duration seems to be around 4 hours, with a range of 2 to 6 hours. This however is usually affected by seasonal variation. Farmers revealed that months of maximal
35

work were May, June, and July with an average 14 days of work per month. Conversely, the months of minimal work were reported to be February and March with less than 3 days of work, per month. Oxen were used for threshing from December to February, after the crops harvest, and for trampling mostly during July at the time of preparation of teff fields. Livestock are usually sedentary or, if movement is part of the management system, it is generally restricted to short distances. Cattle are normally grazed on communal pastures, herded by family or hired labor and kraaled at night in order to prevent theft or crop losses. Manure is often collected and calves are separated from their dams to make milking possible. Labour is obviously required for animal herding. The herders were often family members (young boys) who are always available when needed. For bigger herds, a herdsman, often a young boy from a poor family was sometimes employed with the monetary salary rates plus full boarding provisions. Farmers in these woredas do not have fixed period of time for breeding their livestock. The breeding system is uncontrolled and traditional. No selected bull kept for breeding of indigenous animals in respective kebeles. Mating usually occurs anywhere including during grazing or browsing in the field and any time. Cows usually show signs of heat throughout the year. Cows which become pregnant during the rainy months when there is relatively better feed access are less constrained than those that bear in the dry months. Delayed and uncontrolled mating of animals however seems to be one of the major reasons reducing the reproductive performance of local cows. There is no experience of using artificial insemination (AI) or pure/cross bred bulls for genetic improvement of indigenous cattle in all three woredas. Remoteness of the area and lack of good roads for semen and liquid nitrogen transport are also cited as the major reasons that make AI use in the area almost impractical. In such cases use of properly selected local bulls with proper health, feeding and other management practices is recommended as advantageous. 3.2.3.6.PRODUCTIVITY As stated earlier, almost all cattle in the SMNP Kebeles are totally composed of indigenous breeds that are of low genetic potential. This coupled with other factors such as the incidence of diseases and malnutrition, means that cattle are unable to meet the requirements of the area for animal protein. This is an important constraint to livestock development that can be overcome through the genetic improvement of indigenous stock by appropriate breeding strategies. The climatic conditions, the high density of livestock, their poor nutritional status, and inadequate coverage of veterinary services make animals vulnerable to a range of bacterial, viral and parasitic diseases. These diseases cause significant losses in terms of mortality, morbidity and impaired production and reproductive capacity. The hypothesis that livestock production parameters differ across the systems and zones on account of differences in feed resources and in the pressure imposed by various constraints holds true for the SMNP areas as well. The gross productivity of livestock production systems is generally closely linked to the basic production parameters of fertility and mortality, the difference between which allows management decisions on the trade-off between sale, consumption and investment in herd growth (Putt et al., 1987). Reported production parameters of cattle from the three WARDOs generally show that, although very wide ranges are reported for some parameters, most of the average values show that cattle
36

production in traditional systems of all areas is uniformly poor, without striking differences between woredas. In general, the available traditional systems seem to be characterized by high mortality risks, low fertility rates, low milk off take and low cattle off take. In general, cattle in all villages have a delayed mean age at first calving of 43 months, with a wide range from 38 to 48 months. The mean ages at first calving are virtually the same (43 months) in all three woredas. Calving rates are believed to be no different from similar traditional cattle systems in the region estimated at 56 percent (CSA, 2003). Milk off take per lactation of cows within the smallholder systems of the park area is also generally low, at an average of 1.25 liters and ranges from 150 to 270 liters per lactation. The collected data also indicate that the mean milk off take per lactation reported in all three woredas is generally similar. Since stock mortality is one of the most important parameters determining population dynamics and hence the gross productivity of livestock production systems (Putt et al., 1987), high mortality risks, especially among calves, may be viewed as a major constraint to the traditional cattle production systems of SMNP Woredas. 3.2.4. SMALL RUMINANTS Although cattle undoubtedly are the most important livestock species in the area, small ruminants are the next most important animals that produce food and generate income to rural households in the study area. They overall comprise about 7 % of the total TLUs in the study area. Moreover, given that both sheep and goats in the three Woredas add to about 325,429 heads, the total rural HHs of 75,828 averagely own 4.3 heads per household. Moreover, in smallholder production systems, goats and sheep raising is important because they require low initial capital and maintenance costs, are able to use marginal land and crop residues, produce meat in readily usable quantities, and are easily cared for by most family members. Small ruminants are highly prolific and need only short periods to increase flock sizes after catastrophes or in periods of high prices and thus off take rate can respond to price increases (Winrock International, 1983). The sheep enterprise in the Ethiopian highland crop and livestock system is the most important form of investment and cash income and provides social security in bad crop years (Getachew, 1988). Similar sources also mention that in other parts of West Africa, livestock cash income was 33% to 99% of total farm cash income with goat and sheep sales providing 52% of livestock cash income. Given these advantages, it is not surprising that goats and sheep are kept by most of smallholder farmers in the area. Besides, some analyses (Upton, 1984) show high rates of return from small ruminants (35% for goats and 55% for sheep). 3.2.4.1.BREED OR BREED TYPES Similar to other parts of the region, sheep and goats in the study area are in general produced in different agro-ecological zones. The fine characteristics which make these small stocks essential to smallholder families among others include: Their small size and body weight; Their higher prolificacy rate (short gestation interval and multiple birth); They are relatively drought resistant;. They are fast-growing relative to large stocks; They (particularly goats) can feed on different feed types and they are specially known for their ability to feed on fibrous feed.
37

Information on the breeds and types of sheep and goats produced in the three Woredas however is patchy and hence general breed description is largely limited to descriptions of size, color and body conformation. According to the recently issued Sheep Breeding Strategy Paper (BoARD, 2005), the sheep populations in the area are locally known as Simen Sheep and are within the breed classified as Western Amhara Dega Sheep. Such breeds are thus entirely composed of indigenous types exhibiting pronounced variation both within and between populations. Moreover, Sheep observed in such areas usually have a coat covered with course fleece. In some an admixture of a small proportion of wool is observed in the undercoat. Colors appeared both in plain and patchy patterns, the dominants being brown coat color mixed with white patches, plain white, white with brown patches. Plain black coat color however is reported to be rare. Short fat tail is the dominant tail type, curved upward at the tip. Both male and females predominantly have long naked straight head with convex facial profile. The majority of the males are not horned. Both sexes have medium sized ears, carried semi-pendulous or horizontally. In the case of goats, the main goat breeds in the area fall either to the Central highland goat or Western highland goat types found in the highlands of Gondar and Gojjam. Such goats have a predominantly straight facial profile, although some of the goats have a concave profile. Virtually all males have horns, most being straight and pointed backwards, while some have curved or spiral horns. The skins from central highland goats are an important export product. Coat color of most goats is mainly plain with some showing a patchy color pattern and others spotted. Similarly the predominant color is red brown, with the remaining goats being split between black, white and grey or combinations of these colors. Most males have a beard and rift. Wattles are present on some of males. As widely pointed out in the available literature, little effort has been made so far to improve the production of indigenous breeds and objectively investigate the production problems and animal performances. In this regard, no known exotic or crossbred sheep and goats are found in the SMNP area with the exception of leftover crosses of Awassi crossbred sheep distributed to some areas in the past years before 15 years through cooperatives. Likewise, the only recorded information available on production parameters (i.e. birth weight, weaning and maturity, growth rates and lactation rates) is that reported in the Sheep Breeding Strategy Paper. According to this source then, the live weight of a mature sheep is generally estimated to vary between 25 and 40 kg. Although shoats have, in general, smaller body size than that of cattle, the body size of sheep and goats produced in Ethiopia is even smaller than that of sheep and goats produced in neighboring East African countries having similar agro-climatic conditions, and also than that of Africa as a whole (Getachew, 1988). 3.2.4.2.POPULATIONS AND OWNERSHIP PATTERN Data obtained from respective woreda agriculture offices shows that there were a little over 77 thousand small ruminants in the 17 SMNP Kebeles of the three Woredas (Table 15). Of this total, the overwhelming majority or close to 60 thousand (77%) are sheep while the remaining 17 thousand or 23% are goats. This proportion however significantly varies between the kebeles. For instance, there are more sheep than goats in Kebeles of Janamora and Debark, while the opposite is true for Adi Arkay. Further analysis of data from small ruminant owning households revealed that mean number of sheep owned was 3.4 head, compared with 1.0 head for goats.

38

TABLE15: Small Ruminant ownership in 17 SMNP Kebeles of the three Woredas Addi Arkay Debark Janamora All 3 Woredas WOREDA Sheep Goat Sheep Goat Sheep Goat Sheep Goat 2,073 8,042 20,029 4,585 37,537 4,788 Total animals 59,639 17,414 3.1 2.6 0.6 5.1 0.7 Average per HH 0.8 3.4 1.0

The main concentrations of small ruminants in the kebeles making up the park however showed variation between the two classes. Thus, sheep were observed to be more concentrated towards the highlands of Janamora and Debark, while goats were denser in Adi Arkay. Moreover, the proportion of households owning sheep and the mean flock size were relatively higher in the higher altitude areas of Janamora than in the other woredas (Table 15). On average, HHs in Kebeles of Janamora owned closer to 6 heads of sheep and goats as compared to 3 heads in Debark and around 4 in Adi Arkay. Generally speaking the ratio of goats to sheep for all the 17 kebeles was found to be around 1 to 4. Moreover, the explanation for such a big difference in the mix between the two classes is related to the AEZ of the kebeles. Similar to the general trend observed for the whole of Amhara, sheep predominate in the highlands and goats in the lowlands. For instance a striking example of such a trend is contained in the results of the earlier mentioned BoARD and BoFED HH surveys. As can be seen from data in Table 16, the number of households owning sheep was higher in the Dega highlands of the three Woredas (46%) as compared to farmers in the Kolla areas, where only 10% of HHs owned sheep. On the other hand, more than half (54%) of HHs in Kolla areas kept goats while only 19% farm households in the Dega highlands owned goats.
TABLE16:- Proportion of HHs Owning Sheep and Goats Based on AEZ (%) Sheep Goats WOREDA Dega W/Dega Kolla Woreda Dega W/Dega Total 7% 5% 6% 0% 43% Addi Arkay 54% 28% 1% 28% 13% 49% Debark 42% 33% 30% 36% 22% 23% Janamora TOTAL 46% 21% 10% 23% 19% 39% Source: BoARD, 2003; and BoFED, 2004.

Kolla 36% 84% 69% 54%

Woreda Total 39% 48% 35% 40%

Therefore, given that most of the 17 kebles around the park being in the cooler Dega highlands, the predominance of sheep is to be fully accepted. Trends in total population and in numbers of families owning small ruminants are thus likely to continue toward goats in the Kolla and away from goats in the Dega areas. 3.2.4.3.TRADITIONAL SHOAT HUSBANDRY Given the management within livestock production systems is governed by the various objectives and strategies of the farmers, small ruminants in the study area are well integrated within the whole mixed farming system and this is believed to greatly enhance the sustainability of the system. Thus farmers in the study area often keep a few sheep and goats to sell during feasts and holidays when prices are relatively high. Traditionally, sheep are raised on native pastures and crop residues. Animals, which are to be sold during peak demand periods, may have
39

some supplemental feeding, but this traditionally includes only surplus grains and leftover household food. Forages, grains and concentrates could be used to increase animals' weight and therefore the price they will sell for. Accordingly, shoat raising farmer respondents visited in this study were asked why they chose to keep sheep or goat. Their replies indicate that they focused on small ruminants for three reasons: First, capital requirement for small ruminant purchase is small and there is enough credit and other sources of finance for running such an operation. As a result, it has often been easier to exploit such opportunities. Second, potential market opportunities for small ruminants are almost always open throughout the year. Third, compared with cattle, small ruminants require fewer resources; have shorter production cycles, faster rates of growth and greater environmental adaptability. 3.2.4.4. SHOAT PRODUCTIVITY The production parameters of small ruminants in traditional production systems of the country as well as the region reported in published and gray literature confirm that the production parameters of ruminants in the traditional systems are generally poor, without marked differences between Administrative Zones, AEZs or Woredas (CSA, 2003). The main sources of variability in output lie in sheep and goat density within a given area rather than individual animal productivity. For small ruminants to be highly productive, good levels of reproductive performance need to be achieved. However, reproductive efficiency of shoat in the area is generally low when assessed by measuring fertility, prolificacy (litter size), fecundity (fertility prolificacy) and survival. For instance, data from WARDOs show that fertility rates for sheep in the SMNP highlands average at around 90 percent and prolificacy rates of 1.10, indicating that twinning rate is generally between 0 and 10%. These are within estimates of litter size given for tropical sheep which range from 1.0 to 1.5 (Ibrahim, 1998). Mean litter size may be less than one, indicating that the rate of pre- and perinatal losses in the form of stillbirths is greater than the twinning rate in the flock. Likewise, fertility and prolificacy for goats (116 percent and 1.30) are relatively higher, but are countered by high mortality risks in all age groups, lamb and kid mortality risks being around 27 percent and 28 percent respectively (MOA, 1996). Although no detail research has been carried to characterize shoats in areas around the SMNP, studies undertaken in similar highland AEZs of Amhara region indicate towards inherent inefficiencies within the production system. For example, a study that looked into the reproductive performance of Menz sheep in the Ethiopian highlands (Mukasa-Mugerwa et al 1994) reported that ewe lambs attain puberty (first estrus) at 10 months of age and 16.9 kg mean weight or 56% of mature body weight. The onset of puberty was earlier with higher weaning weight and it is probable that poor nutrition can delay puberty by one season. Litter size is influenced by environment, age and ewe body weight at mating. The body weight is affected by nutrition. It has been well established that litter size can be increased 10 to 40% by improving the nutrition management of the cremating ewe (Ibrahim, 1998). On the other hand litter size in sheep and goats can also decrease through abortion which usually is caused by diseases, poor nutrition, and dam age. The other serious problem reported of the SMNP highland shoat production concerns lamb/kid mortality. Mortality can result from the combined effect of birth weight and mothering ability
40

especially in terms of milk production. Ewes that are undernourished often give birth to lowweight young that are likely to die of starvation. The reported average birth weights of lambs in SMNP kebeles was around 1.5 kg. Mukasa-Mugerwa et al (1994) found that Ethiopian Menz breed lambs which weigh <2.0 kg at birth are more likely to die due to starvation, mismothering and exposure (the SME syndrome). The rate of survival increased from 37% (1 kg birth weight) to 69% (1 to 2 kg birth weight) and 98% (23 kg birth weight); beyond 3 kg birth weight no losses were experienced. As lambs grow older, their chances of survival are higher: mortality is 2545% in the first year, 10% during the second year and <2% in age groups over two years. Lambs born in the wet season have low survival rates because of cold stress and disease infection especially pneumopathies. These losses affect weaning rate and hence productivity as the resources invested in the mother are wasted. Similarly, the mean off take rate for sheep, and goats in traditional systems is estimated at 36.9, and 44 percent, respectively (FAO, 2004). The same sources further put the carcass weight for sheep and goats at 10 kg/animal. Livestock in the non-traditional systems are achieving considerably higher productivity levels than in the traditional systems, a fact that demonstrates the benefits of improved nutrition, management and health. 3.2.5. EQUINES Equines are the other important animals found in large numbers in the study area and they include donkeys, horses and mules. If computed on TLU basis, equines constitute 22% of the total livestock in the area. Donkeys are entirely used as pack animals and also haul firewood and other necessities as well. Mules/horses are routinely ridden by men, using locally made saddles and bridles. Mules may also be used as pack animals. There are no camels in the study area. As stated earlier, using horses for ploughing of crop fields is one of the unique features of agriculture in the Kebeles of SMNP. This is especially dominant in highland villages such as Gich, Ambaras or Argin. For the Amhara region, such tradition of horse ploughing is limited to areas around the SMNP and some woredas in Awi Zone. Horse ploughing however is not practiced in all places of the SMNP. It is specifically limited to: a) the dega highlands; b) easily workable soils; and c) farmlands with relatively flat topography. Thus you dont see horse ploughing in the lowland kola villages such as Angwa, Kerenja, or Adarmaz. Similarly, farmers prefer oxen than horses for ploughing farmlands in the steep slopes of the mountainous areas.
Table17: Population of equines in SMNP Kebeles as\typed by species. WOREDA Addi Arkay Debark Janamora TOTAL Donkeys
1,143 1,173 3,504

Mules
52 644 330

Horses
0 4,803 1,838

5,820

1,026

6,641

TOTAL 1,195 6,620 5,672 13,487

Rural HHs 2,604 7,607 7,340 17,551

Per HH Ownership 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8

In terms of numbers, data from respective woredas show that there are a total of 5,820 donkeys, 1,026 mules, and 6,641 horses in the 17 SMNP kebeles (Table 17). About 70% of these total populations of equines are found in the mountainous highland areas while the remaining is in the plain areas. Moreover, horses make almost 50 % of the total equines.

41

As can be seen from the tabulated data, equines are more populated in Debark and Janamora than in Addi Arkay. This again is manifestly reflected in the ownership pattern of these animals. In terms of ownership per household therefore, on average two households in the Kolla plains of Adi Arkay possess one donkey between them, while those in the other two Woredas are estimated to possess at least one equine per HH. 3.2.6. POULTRY As per the data gathered from the respective WARDO, the population of poultry is estimated at 47 thousand in the 17 SMNP kebeles (Table 18). As analyzed on per HH level or per kebele, more birds are found in Addi Arkay than in the mountainous highlands of Debark and Janamora. Particularly, the ownership pattern in Debark is a bit worrying, as it is well below the regional or zonal average holdings per HH.
Table18:- Poultry population and number of Local beehives in SMNP Woredas (2003) WOREDA Poultry Rural HHs Per HH Ownership 2,604 4.2 Addi Arkay 11,013 7,607 1.8 Debark 13,925 7,340 3.0 Janamora 21,726 2.7 TOTAL 46,664 17,551 Source: CSA, 2003.

Almost all of the birds are of indigenous jungle fowl type. These birds although able to subsist by scavenging backyard areas, and able to withstand the rampant disease situation in the rural areas, they are known to be poor producers of eggs (in terms of number and size) and meat. Moreover, According to the results of the CSA (2003) enumeration for the whole woredas, of the total live birds enumerated; the overwhelming majority of 61.6% were female, while the remaining 38.4% were male birds (Table 19). Across all sexes, 229,471 (46.6%) were chicks of less than 3 months, 84,698 (17.2%) were growers aged between 3 and 5 months, and 178,259 (36.2%) were mature birds aged more than 5 months.
TABLE20:- Age and sex structure of the poultry population in all 3 woredas (2003). Sex Age Class Number % of Total 39,887 Cocks 8.1% Male 34,470 Cockerels 7.0% 114,736 Chicks 23.3% Sub-Total 189,092 38.4% 50,228 Pullets 10.2% Female 138,372 Hens 28.1% 114,736 Chicks 23.3% Sub-Total 303,336 61.6% Total 492,428 100.0% Source: CSA, 2003.

Moreover, according to the above tabulated figures, the ratio of male chicks to females of the same age is one to one (50% each). However, this ratio immediately starts to tilt towards females starting with growers and reaches almost 1 male to 4 females in the case of mature birds. For

42

instance of the whole 178,259 mature birds only around 40 thousand (22.4%) were breeding age cocks, suggesting a heavy off take of males at an early age. Similar to other parts of the region, the overwhelming majority of the poultry population in the study area is composed of nondescript indigenous birds. Thus, village chickens are generally birds of indigenous breeds living in almost symbiotic relationship with human communities. Out of a total population of close to half a million chickens in the above three woredas, the traditional village poultry sector is estimated to make up no less than 98%, from which almost the whole annual meat and egg production is produced. Albeit the acute scarcity in poultry breed characterization studies, indigenous breed are usually differentiated based on their origins and phenotypic characteristics. The small multi-colored bird is the most common type and distributed all over the area. The birds are of medium size (adults weighing 1.11.3 kg), with a small crushed comb and a lot of plumage of varying colors and are generally very active and comparatively more resistant to diseases than the exogenous or their crosses. With regard to productivity, a number of studies and research reports show that these native chickens (1.2 kg) in relation to egg weight and hen size are low producers of eggs (40-60 eggs/hen/annum), and that the eggs are small in size (30-40 g/egg). For instance, results of the recent Rural Household Socio Economic Survey (BoARD, 2004) undertaken in 56 woredas of the Amhara region found that local hens produce on the average 60 eggs per year under small holder production systems. The figure from the same survey for the exotic birds was 107 eggs per layer per year. Other studies also show that such low output is expressed not only as low egg production, but also as small sized eggs, slow growth and low survivability of chicks (Smith, 1990; Tadelle and Ogle 1996). The annual total egg production of native hen is further exacerbated by the time expended on brooding. Smith (1990) estimates that under scavenging conditions the reproductive cycle consists of a 10 day laying phase, a 21 day incubation phase and finally a 56 day brooding period. This implies a theoretical maximum number of 4.2 clutches per hen each year; although in reality the number can be 2-3 (Tadelle and Ogle 1996). Similarly, results of a study that compared the performance of 5 different native hens from different parts of the country (Tadelle, et al., 2003), found that on average a hen starts laying at around 7 months age and lays 46 eggs per year with 3 clutches, which brings the average eggs per clutch at 15-16 eggs. Native chicken in the country are also said to be slow growers. A case in point would be the recent research of Halima (2006) which compared seven chicken populations identified in northwest part of Amhara region, Ethiopia. The results show that, the final weight at 22 weeks of age, for the seven types of chicken ranged from 1.05 to 1.26 kg, averaging at 1.17 kg. 3.2.7. BEEHIVES Earlier surveys and studies carried out for the region (CSA, 2003; BoARD, 2003; and BoFED, 2004) have repeatedly shown that farmers in the study woredas engage in traditional beekeeping activities. The results of the surveys however indicate that the proportions of farmers engaged in such activities are in the lower range. As can be seen from Table 20 below, for the three woredas as a whole, no more than 14% of the farmers in the study area were found engaging in beekeeping activities and all of them use traditional hives. Moreover ownership has also been shown to significantly vary based on AEZ. Accordingly considerably more farmers in the Kolla lowlands owned hives (22%) as compared to the W/Dega and Dega AEZs which is only 9 and
43

6% respectively. Especially the Kolla areas of Janamora seem to be the best for traditional beekeeping as almost 50% of HHs owned hives (bee colonies).
TABLE20:- Proportion of HHs Owning Traditional beehives Based on AEZ (%) WOREDA Total Owning HHs in percent Beehives Dega W/Dega Kolla 13,137 0 12.3 10.9 Addi Arkay 5,969 12.0 7.5 17.5 Debark 7,254 2.1 6.2 44.9 Janamora TOTAL 26,360 5.8 9.1 22.1 Source: CSA, 2003; BoARD, 2003; BoFED, 2004.

Woreda Total 11.3 15.7 14.4 13.7

The types of hives in use are again simple in construction, usually made of a hollow log or bamboo. They are further plastered with mud and/or manure and left hanging on tree branches. These hives are fixed comb hives where the bees fill all the available space with combs from the top downwards. The honey is removed only by removing one wall of the hive and breaking or cutting out the honey combs. The hives therefore although having the advantages of cheapness and ease to make, lack the necessary qualities for continuous inspection and comb installment. Due to this and other reasons, however, the total production as well as income derived from this traditional venture is insignificant. Interviews with hive owning farmers for instance show that the average yield they get from one hive doesnt exceed 5 kgs per year. Some production estimates done by the MOA also put the average honey yield of each traditional hive at 4 - 6kgs per year. Based on this it can be assumed that no more than 1,320 quintals of crude honey is harvested from the estimated 26,360 local hives found in the study area. In turn, the price of honey in the area is increasing from year to year as the gap between production and consumption widens with time.

3.3.

LIVESTOCK MARKETING SYSTEM

With regard to marketing, live animals sold in the area reach customers through one or a combination of different marketing channels. The livestock marketing system is thus made up mainly of farmers who raise animals, trailers, traders, transporters, local butchers, bigger town markets both in the region and out of the region, and ultimately consumers. Moreover, livestock markets in the area, similar to other parts of the region, function at three levels consisting of primary, secondary, and terminal markets. The first are the primary markets which have been identified as village level markets. Examples will be markets such as Dib Bahir in Adi Arkay, Awstageb and Beles in Debark, and Inchet Kab in Janamora woredas. Such markets are where primary producers sell small number of animals to small traders, other farmers (replacement animals), and farmer-traders and in some cases to consumers. In terms of animals sheep and goats are the dominant animals marketed here. Such markets are not fenced, have no scales, and no feeds and watering facilities. Purchasing is done through eye ball negotiations. On the other hand, secondary markets (such as Debark, Adi Arkay, and Mekane Birhan), are bigger markets that serve as the next or final destination for most of the animals traded in the above mentioned primary markets. In addition to these, there are two important secondary
44

markets namely, Zarima (in Adi Arkay woreda) and May Tsemri (in Tigray region) which channel animals to other higher level terminal markets. Such markets are trader and to some extent butcher dominated markets, with relatively higher volumes of sale. A good majority of the livestock markets in the area belong to this group. Secondary markets serve the local consumers to some extent but mainly feed the terminal markets. Oddly enough, some secondary markets may serve as the terminal for other similar secondary markets. For example the livestock market in Debark town is the destination for almost all animals emanating from the SMNP kebeles within Debark woreda. However not all animals arriving in this market end here, almost half are bought by bigger traders to be trekked again to Zarima market. Similarly animals originating from the SMNP kebeles of Janamora woreda (such as Barna and Lori) first arrive in the primary market of Inchet Kab, then they may head towards the secondary markets of either Debark or May Tsemri, where those arriving in Debark may continue to Zarima. The terminal markets are located in large urban centers such as Gondar, Shire, and other similar towns in Tigray. Medium to large-scale traders and butchers dominate these markets. In the case of live animal traders, the overwhelming majority of them are small collectors or assemblers with weak asset base, low volume of trade, and moderate specialization. Surveyed animal traders also reported that except for shortage of working capital, there were no major important barriers to enter or exit the trade business in their respective markets. Consequently, most traders express profound concern that the number of participants, especially the unlicensed farmer traders, is highly increasing. Lack of effective regulation is further cited as the main reason for the proliferation of such illegitimate trade. This fierce competition is further intensified by seasonal factors in which case livestock trading activities concentrate around religious festivals with all type of producers becoming traders as well. Analysis of live animal market performance also shows that the price pattern of animals during a given year closely follow the seasonal pattern of religious festivals and feed availability. Demand fluctuations due to religious and cultural factors also have been found to have a strong bearing on prices of animal product such as milk and butter. Between year variability in animal prices, reveal that generally prices have been rising in almost all markets for the past two to three years. Meat retail prices, as well, were observed to have invariably been steadily increasing within the past 2-3 years. Long distance to even primary markets however is reported to be the biggest problem faced by most of the kebeles encompassing the SMNP. Not only are they far from markets, but also the rugged geography of the area contributes highly to their isolation. For instance farmers in areas such as Agdamiya, albeit having good animal and feed potential for fattening activities, the absence of any road to connect them to nearby areas over the escarpment limits their participation. Currently any farmer from such areas who needs to sell his sheep or goat has to carry it over his back for most of the rugged terrain. In conclusion, it can be said that the marketing system serving small farmers around SMNP is beset by several shortcomings. For instance, most informant sources argue that the producer's share from the retail price for farmers in such areas may be one of the lowest in Amhara region because of the distance and infrastructure problems. All the markets in the area have not shown any transformation from their early roots. These are still markets characterized by the
45

involvement of too many intermediaries both licensed and unlicensed. There are no viable market information and quality grading and standard systems. Trading for the overwhelming majority of traders is based on personal trust rather than legal protection, because recourse to courts takes huge amounts of time. Besides too many small and informal traders who are plagued by lack of sufficient capital or credit resources dominate the markets. As a result, both producers and traders are forced to bear higher risks; market exchanges fulfilled at high transaction costs in turn increase consumer prices; urban and rural markets still remain unstable and weakly integrated.

3.4.

ON-GOING LIVESTOCK RELATED INTERVENTIONS

Detailed descriptions of the system in the past sections have shown clearly that growth in livestock output, in almost all animal products, has primarily been driven by an increase in animal numbers. Per animal yield growth in meat, milk, and eggs has thus been negligible, more so in the case of animals in the SMNP Kebeles. Although several factors are responsible for such poor animal productivity and growth, issues related to the availability and adoptions of technologies that can mitigate the numerous problems and increase productivity are cited as the most important ones. In the future, however the sustainability of number-driven growth in livestock output would be severely constrained by declining per capita land availability and feed and fodder scarcity, implying unmet demands and higher prices. For livestock production to be competitive therefore, growth in production must result from yield-increasing and/or cost reducing technologies. Numerous technologies are available but not much progress has been made in their application on farmers fields. Smallholder livestock production is one of the development pathways needing a range of interventions which in turn require inputs and services of which, improved animals, AI, feed supply, clinical veterinary care, extension, marketing, and credit are worthy of mention. This section of the report will therefore attempt to describe what has been achieved so far in terms of livestock and pasture improvement interventions and in so doing will comment on the strength and limitations of such efforts in solving the problem to the required level and on sustainable basis. Technologies related intervention areas with livestock can simply be classified into genetic improving, feed enhancing, disease mitigating, milk processing, and marketing. What does the current situation look like in the SMNP kebeles with regard to the adoption and implementation of these technologies? 3.4.1. GENETIC IMPROVEMENT

Crossbred Heifers The vast majority of cattle used for milk production in the rural areas of SMNP are almost totally composed of indigenous zebu types, with crossbred cows only found in urban centers such as Debark. Similar to other parts of the region, there are three main routes through which smallholders obtained foundation dairy stock, namely (1)upgrading the farmers existing local Bos indicus cows, (2)through direct purchase or (3)through gifts (e.g. from development projects or relatives).
46

As per informal discussions with farmers and development agents in the watershed, the first route enables a farmer to dramatically reduce the lumpiness of the entry cost, as the costs of raising the heifer are spread out over several years. The drawback of this route is the significant risk of losing the animal during that period. The second route toward dairying is the purchase of dairy animals. The cost of a dairy cow is high compared, for example, to the monthly wage (a dairy cow costs on average more than 10 times the monthly wage of a rural male laborer), and farmers have to find different ways to meet the cost: savings from crop activities (either food crop sales, or cash crop sales, such as horticulture), savings from off-farm activities or a combination of the two. Finally obtaining the animals at no cash cost is the third route toward dairying, either as a gift from parents or through development projects. This entry into dairying may not be completely free but the cost is difficult to assess and can be considered as negligible compared with the market value of the animal. In line with the above, IDP has recognized upgrading of the local genetic base, which could be one essential component of its development program for SMNP. Often good quality Holstein Friesian crossbreds are not available or their cost prohibits use by small farmers, unless the animals are made available by government schemes. IDP has therefore recently embarked on providing such crossbred dairy heifers and cows at subsidized prices for poor farmers since 1998 EC. Accordingly, various reports of the project show, close to 50 crossbred cows have been distributed to HHs around the park in the past two years. Yet still, the effort of disseminating crossbred cows to farmers not only had started late but also the rate is still miniscule. Lack of crossbred dairy cows has thus been the major problem raised by respondent farmers contacted during the rapid appraisal fieldwork carried for this study. The other related problem raised by respondents concerns the high purchase cost of such cows and the concurrent lack of credit for this purpose. Artificial insemination (AI) Even though AI service in the Amhara Region has a 20 to 25 years history, the level of use of such services in the SMNP kebeles is non-existent. There is no AI station, which can store and deliver viable semen to farms in the park area. Albeit, the current cost per insemination of AI service (3-4 Birr/round) is not considered prohibitive to the majority of farmers, the main concern referred to by producers is the unavailability of the service when required. Recognition of these capacity problems, especially in terms of crossbred heifer distribution and AI services, has ultimately pushed the development efforts IDP to skew more and more towards bull services. Bull Services
An alternative for AI is use of bull stations where proven bulls can serve cows in heat. One or two bulls can serve for a village. Accordingly, such a program is being undertaken by IDP since the past two years. Around 6 Holstein-Friesian bulls have therefore been brought from Holleta research center and distributed to model farmers on credit basis. The arrangement is for the bull owning farmers to give service to cows of surrounding farmers on payment basis. Reports are also coming from kebeles like Miligebsa that the first batches of crossbred calves are being born from such bull services. Nonetheless, the coverage is too negligible when compared with the number of needy farmers.

47

Selection among existing cattle genotype In some areas (e.g., parts of Fogera, where a potential of good milk yield already exists), the local breeds may have as much genetic potential as can be exploited under current or projected levels of nutrition and health care. But in terms of the SMNP, there has not been any controlled program undertaken to select better animals. Sheep and Goats Even though various research and development efforts have been undertaken towards the genetic improvement of sheep and goats in Amhara region, such efforts seem to have totally bypassed the areas around the SMNP. Earlier reports show that there have been dispersed attempts to introduce crosses of foreign sheep breeds such as the Awassi around Debark during the early 80s of the Derg regime. Albeit such crossbreds having superior growth rates and good greasy wool production potential, no success stories emerge presently indicating the earlier efforts must have failed for different reasons. Anyway no genetic improvement interventions targeting the indigenous sheep and goat population of the park area have been implemented so far. Given that sheep and goats are the major sources of livelihood and cash income for most of the food insecure households in the area, the absence of any effort to improve their productivity seems to be tragic. 3.4.2. FEED RESOURCES As will be discussed in detail on chapter 4 of this report, the traditional feed resources potentially available to livestock in and around the SMNP mainly include vegetation from the grasslands of the park, natural range vegetation from common property grazing lands outside the park, grazing on fallow croplands, and crop residues. Yet still, the inadequacy of the feed resources available on-farm to meet the year-round nutrient requirements of all types of animals remains as the major biological constraint to smallholder livestock development in the area. Not only do farmers face problems with the availability of feeds and fodder; there are also problems with a lack of economical technology for optimum utilization of local feed resources. For instance, although cereal straw is by far the most important crop residue, contributing close to 50% of feed energy available to ruminants especially in the dega highland kebeles located in Debark, there is no effort even to transfer the available simple technologies to improve its palatability. Worse even, farmers in the lowland kola kebeles of SMNP, such as Angwa Kerneja, Agdamiya, and Adarmaz do not even collect and use their crop residues to feed their animals. It is left on the fields to waste. On the other hand, past research around the Globe has produced various simple technologies that can effectively overcome these problems. As an example, animal nutrition and crop breeding (straw/stover) research has yielded many new technologies that could augment feed production and thereby improve milk productivity. By way of illustration, studies at ILRI have suggested that, a 1% increase in digestibility of barley straw increases cow milk yield by 5-6% (Kristjanson, et al., 1998). Similarly, technological interventions such as the biological/chemical treatment of feed have been shown to partly overcome the problem of underfeeding of dairy
48

animals. Techniques such as urea treatment of straws, urea-molasses mineral blocks, and by-pass protein have also been shown to improve nutritional value of feed and its palatability. For instance, Birthal and Rao, (2002), report that urea treatment reduces green fodder requirement by about 20 to 40%, and increases cattle milk yield by 10-20%. It is however lamentable that, despite such benefits, the apparent application of such simple technologies is totally absent in the park area due to lack of concerted efforts on the part of research and extension to transfer the technologies and demonstrate their cost-benefit ratios. In turn, the absence of such interventions coupled with the growing ruminant populations compels smallholder producers to practice livelihood strategies inimical to nature, leading to enormous environmental costs for the valuable flora and fauna of the SMNP. 3.4.3. VETERINARY SERVICES Generally speaking, the Regional Government has been taking extensive efforts to improve the existing veterinary infrastructure both in urban and rural areas. As a result, as of 2006, livestock healthcare in and around SMNP is systematically overseen through the use of: Station Vet clinics such as those in Argin Jona; the three respective woreda Vet clinics; and sometimes even the Regional Vet Laboratory in Bahir Dar is involved when issues of higher order arise (e.g. when unknown epidemics or unexpected wildlife death occurs). Similarly there has been marked increase in the veterinary manpower of the three woredas including veterinarians, animal health assistants and animal health technicians (please refer to Section 5 of this report for details). Such infrastructure expansion coupled with modern drugs and vaccine supply has brought about a sharp decline in the occurrence of serious outbreaks of ruminant livestock diseases, such as Blackleg, and Anthrax, thereby significantly reducing mortality and production losses. All said and done, however, the infrastructure and trained human power ratios per thousand animals is still quite inadequate and varies across Woredas. Due to different reasons, veterinary and auxiliary staff numbers do not always translate into services. Compared to their counterparts in other woredas, veterinary personnel in the park area, often lack equipment, refreshment trainings, and do not have sufficient access to transport and communications. As a result, animal health problems still constitute a major constraint to smallholder farming in the area. Farmer respondents contacted during the field survey also observe that the veterinary service they receive and the drug supply are below what is needed. In almost all visited park areas, the Woreda vet clinics are far from the farmers and each vet assistant is assigned to serve a lot of Kebeles. Consequently at the levels of disease diagnosis and treatment currently prevailing, and the existing unwanted mixing of domestic animals with the wildlife in the park, not only livestock but also wildlife contracting fatal diseases have a small chance of surviving the disease. The obvious conclusion from these farmer stated problems and official statistics was that current preventive and curative technologies for mitigating animal diseases and their delivery were ineffective in the majority of the park kebeles. 3.4.4. EXTENSION SERVICES Agricultural extension still remains one of the services delivered as public good by the government. Extension on livestock development is hence part of this huge service delivery component run by the regional BoARD and its woreda offices. The current extension service can
49

further be characterized as information transmission with the aim of transferring livestock production techniques to farmers. The structure of extension service shows that the Department of livestock and fisheries development under the BOA to be the core body for tailoring the information to be disseminated through Woreda and Development centers under them. Each kebele within the park is again planned to be staffed by at least three DAs, of which one of them is specifically assigned for livestock and related extension. The system of extension promoted earlier used to be the Training and Visit (T&V) system whereby the extension agents (DAs) dealt with contact farmers. This system, however, was later evaluated and found to be non-participatory and consequently ineffective in changing the day to day life of the poor smallholder farmer. It was therefore replaced by the Participatory Agricultural Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES) in 1987/88 EC. The main feature of this system is the preparation of a technology package for each commodity and the restructuring of the recipient farmers into 5 successive layers of contact and copier farmers.

4.

RANGE AND FORAGE RESOURCES

Feed is the most important input in livestock production, and its adequate supply (quantity and quality) throughout the year is an essential prerequisite for any substantial and sustained expansion in livestock output. Animals in the study area depend almost exclusively on grazing and crop residues with great seasonal variations in quantity and quality. With regard to the park, however, various reports have repeatedly shown that the grazing resources are coming under heavy pressure especially from the ever increasing number of animals let to exploit the available natural grasslands. The following section therefore describes the existing situation with regard to available feed resources in SMNP, their adequacy, and the competition faced by the wildlife of the park in terms of grazing resources.

4.1.

MAJOR FEED SOURCES

Similar to other highlands of Amhara region, livestock feed resources in the SMNP woredas include grazed pastures (grasses, herbaceous plants, fodder trees/shrubs), crop residues, hay, cultivated forages, concentrate feeds (agro-industrial by-products, grains, feed supplements etc.) and household wastes. In line with this, data in the recent regional HH survey [BoFED (2004) and BoRD (2003)] show that the three major livestock feed sources in the three woredas to be grazing lands (used by 92% of HHs), crop residues (78%), and hay (58%). Moreover, feeding systems include communal or private natural grazing and browsing, cut-and-carry feeding, hay and crop residues. When it comes specifically to the park area however, livestock in within and around the park are fed almost entirely on natural pasture and crop residues. Grazing is on permanent communal grazing areas, fallow land and cropland after harvest. Forage availability and quality are not favorable year round and hence gains saved in the wet season are totally or partially lost in the dry season. Results of the above mentioned HH survey further indicate that, pasture from grazing lands and shrub and bush lands contributes to more than 80% of the total annual feed supplied to livestock of the study area as well. Out of 1,168 HHs interviewed in the three woredas for the

50

BoFED/BoARD survey, 944 or 81% of farmers indicated that they used grazing as the first source of feed for their animals (Table 21).

TABLE21-- First Source of Animal Feed as Ranked by Farmers No FEED TYPE Adi Arkay Janamora 1 Grazing/Browsing 84% 58% 2 Crop residue 9% 25% 3 Forage Dev. 1% 1% 4 AIBP 2% 1% 5 Hay 5% 15% TOTAL 100% 100% Source: BoFED (2004) and BoARD (2003)

Debark 78% 19% 1% 0% 3% 100%

TOTAL 81% 14% 1% 1% 4% 100%

4.2.

NATURAL GRAZING LANDS

4.2.1. TYPES AND EXTENT Many researchers and development workers agree that natural pasture comprises the largest feed resource in the highlands of Ethiopia and this holds true also for the SMNP. Estimates of the contribution of this feed resource however vary greatly. For instance, Alemayehu (1985), estimated that 80-85 percent of all feed in the highlands comes from natural pasture while some estimates (e.g. BOARD, 2004) indicate the natural pasture provides 50-60 percent. This is because the quantity and quality of native pasture varies with altitude, rainfall, soil and cropping intensity. What does this picture look like in the park area? One of the main sources referred to here was the Simen Mountains Baseline Study (SMBS) which was initiated to provide basic information on nature and human use of the area, and to develop ideas for sustainable development in a detailed assessment of the National Park and the 30 villages which make up the Park area (Hunri and Ludi, 2000). Therefore according to results of the SMBS, these 30 villages were within 8 Kebeles and had a total area of 47,069 hectares, of which 13,657 ha (29%) lies inside the park area while the remaining 33,412 ha (71%) was outside the demarcated area. The land use data collected for these villages further shows that 16% of the total area was grassland (Table 22).
Table22:- Extent of Grazing Land in 30 villages of SMNP. No. of Area In Hectares WOREDA Grass Kebe Vill ages Arable Land Bush les 3 18 10,745 967 1,803 Addi Arkay 4 9 6,461 5,528 1,478 Debark 1 3 2,907 865 455 Janamora TOTAL 8 30 20,113 7,360 3,736 Source: Hunri and Ludi, (2000).

Forest 2,426 1,409 1,261 5,096

Not Usable 7,046 2,581 1,137 10,764

Total 22,987 17,457 6,625 47,069

51

The proportion of grasslands from the total area, however, was not similar in all villages of the three woredas. As can be seen from the figure below, grasslands accounted for only 4% in the park villages located in Adi Arkay, to as large as 32% for villages in Debark.
Share of Grass Lands from Total Area
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Adiarkay Debark Janamora

Therefore, in terms of area coverage, grazing lands in the SMNP account for some 16 percent of the total area of the 30 villages (Hunri and Ludi, 2000). This in other words means a total area of 7,360 hectares is currently serving as grazing land for livestock (Table 22). These grazing areas are communally owned and are further categorized into three types: hillside grazing areas (upper slopes), bottomland grazing areas, and small grazing areas near homes. In the predominantly arable lands of respective woredas except for some pocket grazing lands or the seasonal fallow lands, the majority of the grazing areas are located in the upper slopes of the hills. In the mountainous areas as well due to the intense competition for land, livestock are left to graze on hillsides. This is especially true for the dega highland villages of Debark, such as Gich, Adebabay and Abergina. The majority of hills and mountain relief of each village are therefore constantly used for grazing except during aftermath grazing months of croplands. As they are communal property indiscriminate grazing is creating diminished vegetation cover each year (Nievergelt, 1998). Attempts have been made to reforest some of these areas through government and nongovernment endeavors but the efforts seem to bear little fruit. All classes of livestock graze these areas but shoats especially are directed towards the cliff tops. In some areas where hillsides are the sole grazing resources available, the status of protected areas of such hilly areas for wildlife has created a dilemma. On the other hand, bottomlands include grazing areas near home or arable lands which can generally be seen to be found in the plain areas. In all the three woredas such lands are mostly croplands left fallow for one or two years and which are not ploughed for that period of time. Although not used permanently, these areas produce enough amounts of forage per given unit area. They are usually stocked heavily and wherever they occur they are considered as the standing place for livestock most of the year. Information gathered from WARDO further shows that individual grazing plots are scarce to come by in the park villages with only limited number
52

of farmers having their own grazing lands. In the remaining communal plots stocking density is generally high, and closely correlated with population pressure and with cultivation intensity. Currently, with the rapid increase of human population and increasing demand for food, grazing lands are steadily shrinking being converted to arable lands, and are restricted to areas that have little value or farming potential such as hill tops, swampy areas, roadsides and other marginal land. This is particularly evident in the mixed farming highlands and mid altitudes such as the SMNP. For instance, results of group discussions held with 16 Kebeles in the three woredas for the BoFED/ BoARD survey, show that 14 kebeles or 94% of all responded that the extent of grazing areas has been shrinking steadily in the past years. Only 2 kebeles in Adi Arkay woreda replied that grazing land area has increased over time. 4.2.2. VEGETATION AND SPECIES COMPOSITION Given that permanent grazing lands within the demarcated areas of SMNP are mostly of hill areas too steep or rough for cultivation, such grazing sites used to have relatively better vegetation cover than other highland areas for most of the year. The situation however seems to have changed in recent years whereby empty spaces in most of such areas account for at least 15 - 40 % depending on the type of soil and the level of land use. These areas are mainly covered with tuft grasses and different types of shrubs while larger varieties of trees are rare. According to results of the detailed survey on the flora and fauna of the SMNP (Nievergelt, et al, 1998), six structure types were identified for the whole park based on vegetation structure (Table 23). Accordingly, grasses are the dominant herbaceous plants of grass lands but others, known as forbs (herbs that are not grasses or grass-like); sometimes form important parts of the ground cover in some areas.
TABLE23:- Vegetation Structure and Species Composition of Grasslands in SMNP Symbol Index R I II III # IV
Rock complex Rock meadows

Natural vegetation characteristics or when slightly grazed

only

Proportion in percent
2.75%

Short-grass steppe Long-grass steppe, tuft type Mosaic of II and III Long-grass steppe, tussock type Carex mire

Slanted or horizontal bare rock areas with small patches of rock meadows, often with a fringe of long-grass Horizontal surface with shallow soil over rock basement, bare patches and low open vegetation (up to 10 cm) with a high proportion of Poa simensis and annuals Dense vegetation cover, 20-40 cm high, dominated by grass species as Danthonia subulata, Festuca abyssinica, Poa simensis Like II, height of vegetation 40 -80 cm, dominated by the grass species Danthonia subulata, Festuca abyssinica, Festuca macrophylla with tendency to form tufts Slopes where the II and III patches are intricately linked Small scale pattern of large grass tussocks (mainly Festuca macrophylla, diameter 0.5 to 1.5m) separated by patches of low broad leaved herbs dominated in the dry season by Alchemilla spp. High tussocks of Carex monostachya on moist soils, in between lower herbs

44.41%

27.15% 11.28%

5.63%

1.80%

Source: Nievergelt, et al, (1998) 53

As can be seen from the table, the short grass steppes (type II) are the most important grassland structure in the park as they cover no less than 44% of the total grassland areas. The main grass species identified in such areas include Danthonia subulata, Festuca abyssinica, and Poa simensis. In their natural vegetation forms such grasses show dense vegetation cover of 20 to 40 cm high, which decreases to below 20 cm when they are heavily grazed. However when such grasslands are heavily overgrazed, in addition to the above effects, bare patches covering up to 25% the total area are observed in the dry season and cattle trails become deeper than 20 cm. The survey report next puts the Long-Grass Steppes (Type III) as the second important vegetation structure covering around 27% of the grasslands of the park. These steppes, similar to Type II have dense vegetation cover, but the vegetation here are longer in height at 40-80 cm. Dominant grass species in such tuft type Long-Grass Steppes include Danthonia subulata, Festuca abyssinica, and Festuca macrophylla with tendency to form tufts. The vegetation structures indexed as Type IV are as well Long-Grass Steppes but differ from Type III in that these ones are mainly composed of large grass tussocks rather than tufts. Type IV Long-Grass Steppes (tussock) covering close to 6% area are dominated by Small scale pattern of large grass tussocks (mainly Festuca macrophylla, diameter 0.5 to 1.5m) separated by patches of low broad leaved herbs dominated in the dry season by Alchemilla spp. These two types of Long-Grass Steppes thus cover one-third of the total grassland area of the SMNP (Nievergelt, et al, 1998). The other important type of vegetation structure identified is the Mosaic type which simply is a mix of the above two types of Long and Short-Grass steppes. It covers around 11% of the area and is composed more or less of the above mentioned grass species. Livestock grazing these natural rangelands derive most of their feed from grasses, with browse becoming increasingly important (but never dominant) as the dry season progresses. Grasslands in such areas represent deflected or disclimax vegetation with major recent influences being tree and bush removal, regular cultivation, heavy grazing pressure, and declining soil fertility. Grasses in different parts of the study area also vary according to the altitude. Most grasses are used as forage for grazing, but also provide tall and strong grass as roof thatch for the majority of rural households. For instance farmers within or around the park live in traditionally built huts (tukul), where the roofs are made of Festuca grass.

4.2.3. BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY AND NUTRITIVE VALUE No comprehensive and detailed productivity related studies covering the whole park area have been undertaken in the past and hence only patches of information exist on the productivity of natural grazing lands of the study area. Generally, however, similar to regional and country level situations, the productivity, chemical composition and nutritive value of grasses and legumes found in the grasslands of SMNP are supposed to vary greatly based on seasonal climatic changes. In line with the above, researchers such as Dunbar et al., (2002), who have previously undertaken research on the feeding habits of Gelada baboons in the SMNP state that rainfall can be grossly equated with vegetation productivity in any given month: aside from a direct effect on both nutrient content and biomass production, rainfall has a dramatic effect on grass digestibility,
54

because monthly rainfall correlates inversely with the proportion of grass that is desiccated and brown (and thus of low digestibility for grazing animals). In lack of biomass data for the Sankaber study area, the above researchers used data from the nearby Gich site as given by Iwamoto (1979), and concluded that biomass is significantly correlated with the total rainfall in the previous 2 months (r2=0.79). They further state that, although ambient temperature is a significant determinant of total grass cover, the proportion of grass that is green in any month, and the protein content of grasses, monthly biomass is not correlated with monthly variations in mean temperature (r2=0.00). Likewise, the study by Iwamoto (1979) and Falch (2000), which to some extent described vegetation profile, the biomass of green vegetation, and crude protein (CP) content of available biomass in grasslands around Gitch and Sankaber are presented briefly in Table 24 below.
Table 24--. An example of Biomass and Nutritional composition of Grasslands in the Park Area No PARAMETER SANKABER GITCH 1. Cover Type Grass 45% 78% Herb 20% 8% Bush 25% 2% Bare ground 10% 12% 2. Vegetation Biomass (Ton DM/ha) 2.0 1.4 3. CP Content Grass (Wet Season) 20% 10% Grass (Dry Season) 13% 6% Herbs (Wet Season) 25% 13% Herbs (Dry Season) 24% 12% Source: Iwamoto (1979) and Falch (2000)

The data presented in the above table therefore corporate the conclusion made by Dunbar et al., (2002) who specifically conclude that the two climatic variables index different aspects of food availability in the SMNP (biomass in the case of rainfall, and plant nutritional quality in the case of temperature). Strikingly, in both Sankaber and Gitch, the Crude Protein content of grasses during the dry season is almost half of that of the wet season (Table 24). Other studies also show that productivity of natural grassland is affected by factors such as soil fertility, the amount of browse species available, density of canopy and management practices such as rotational grazing, stocking rate, fertilizer application, burning and the length of the resting period (MoARD, 2007). The effect of seasonality on ruminant livestock production is also very important. During the mid-wet season, forage biomass is higher in quality and quantity, with crude protein up to 9 per cent in most of the native grasses (MoARD, 2007). Natural grasses and legumes are rich and highly digestible at this period. As the dry season sets in the protein level drops and the roughage quantity increases. There is an increase in lignin content and voluntary intake decreases. This is a poor feed resource, resulting in weight loss and decreased fertility and milk yield for up to 4-5 months of the year. As stated earlier accurately estimating biomass productivity of grasslands in the SMNP is obviously challenging. Notwithstanding, it has been attempted to make realistic assumptions
55

primarily based on the works of Iwamoto (1979) and Falch (2000) on the one side, and the grassland vegetation structure description of Nievergelt, et al, (1998) on the other. According to these sources, one season of uninterrupted growth of the herbaceous stratum in the most common upland grazing area of the park is assumed to produce an estimated dry matter yield of 1.4 to 2.0 tons per hectare (Table 24). Similarly, previous estimates of natural pasture yield for different highland zones of the country as a whole (MoA, 1989) was as follows: For High Potential Cereal/Livestock Zones (HPC/LZ) of savannah grass land and humid temperate pasture was 2 and 2.5 tons ha/year respectively. For both Low Potential/Cereal Livestock Zone (LPC/LZ) and for high potential Perennial/Livestock Zone (HPP/LZ) Pasture was 1.5 and 2 tons DM/ha/year respectively. The more important issue with regard to such grazing lands, however, is the marked seasonal changes, which usually affect the quality and quantity of forage (Alemayehu, 1998). Under favorable conditions dry matter yield in the grazing lands can reach as much as 2000 kg per hectare, enough to support one to two ruminant livestock units per hectare. However, after the rainy season the quantity of forage declines rapidly and the lack of woody vegetation means that little forage is available in the dry season. Given the short-term availability of high-quality pastures, storage or preservation is eminently reasonable and ecologically sound during the dry season. 4.2.4. COMMUNAL GRAZING SYSTEMS IN THE SMNP 4.2.4.1.SEASONAL VARIATIONS Livestock mainly feed on natural pasture, weeds of arable land, fallows and crop residues left after harvest. Communal grazing is the main system of feeding animals in which case most stock graze on hilltops, swamps, forest margins, roadsides and stony or unfertile lands. Individual grazing plots are almost rare. In some parts of Amhara region (especially the eastern side), however a growing number of farmers practice individual grazing plots whereby they fence small areas of pasture, which are grazed by oxen at the time of ploughing and used to feed lactating cows and young calves. As pointed out in the SMBS, most villages in and around the SMNP practice fallowing. Fallows and crop residues are thus grazed in the morning and evenings as cattle are taken to and from daytime grazing areas. Small calves, which cannot go to distant areas, graze fallows and crop residues. Cut and carry feeding is less common in much of the kebeles, although dry season feed supplementation with crop residues is a widespread feeding system especially in the cooler highlands. In general however livestock feed sources in the SMNP show slight difference by season. During the rainy season (July to September), which is the main crop production season as well, livestock in addition to their traditional grazing, feed mostly on weeds and green grass from farm strips and bunds. From October to January, the dominant feed sources are crop aftermath and range lands. From February to June, crop residues, fallow lands, and grazing on almost barren grazing lands are the primary sources of feed.
56

In most of the area, the critical feed shortage is said to occur in the period from March to June, while moderate feed shortage is observed between January and February. The period from July to October is the period of relatively adequate feed. Similar to the above, the grazing system in the area also varies by season. During the rainy season, when most arable lands are under crops, livestock are confined to graze on fallow lands, farm strips and steep hillsides. The grazing animals cause significant soil disturbance by trampling on the hillsides during the wet season, thus contributing to soil erosion. During the dry season, arable lands become grazing areas. Free and uncontrolled grazing is the dominant grazing system in the park area. As in all parts of the region, grazing lands are common property resources. Most of the grazing lands are grazed and trampled the whole year round without any resting period, resulting in depletion of the palatable species and invasion by less palatable or unpalatable ones. Moreover, grazing on crop land contributes to soil compaction and the need for frequent tillage to prepare fields for crops, making practices such as reduced tillage less feasible. 4.2.4.2.PROPERTY RIGHT REGIMES OF GRAZING LANDS Property right regimes represent social controls that influence the benefit streams that people receive from natural resources (Bromley, 1991). By defining the context within which households operate, property right regimes provide incentive frameworks within which local benefits are realized and created through use and management of livestock. Although there are numerous types of property right regimes, each with potentially different implications for resource management (Bromley, 1991) the case in the SMNP, similar to other parts of the country, totally focuses on common property regimes. In the SMNP, access to grazing is usually delimited to each kebele restricting grazing activities to more defined areas. Farmers in and around the park area do not have access to grazing over other woredas that allow for transhumance use of grazing lands, such as those we see in Alefa, Dembia, etc. For example HHs in these woredas during the rainy months moves their animals to the Metema and Quara lowlands because their grazing lands are mostly flooded in those rainy months. These differences in property right regimes add another dimension to the temporal variability associated with conservative and tracking strategies. If households have more choices regarding when and where to graze their livestock, they are allowed more degrees of freedom in dealing with environmental variability. Therefore, for a given level of environmental variability, and all other factors being equal, people with more options regarding where to graze will be able to sustain a higher level of stocking than people with fewer spatial options. In addition to dictating where livestock are allowed to be grazed spatially, property right regimes may establish exclusivity by controlling how many livestock, owned by whom, and may be grazed on a given piece of land. In cases where there is no exclusivity of property rights, open access prevails and values of grazing may be dissipated through overuse (e.g. Cheung, 1970). Therefore, if we tend to see high-tracking in this situation, we may be witnessing a rush for the spoils rather than optimum stocking strategies (Campbell et al., 2006). In this situation, restricting stocking numbers through conservative grazing strategies is likely to increase grazing values. However, in practice, resource users may negotiate tacit, if not explicit, controls regarding resource use that may prevent values from being dissipated (Campbell et al., 2006). To
57

the extent that such controls are effective in regulating animal numbers, then high-tracking may not be reflective of over-stocking and could be optimal.

4.3.

STOCKING RATES AND CARRYING CAPACITY

4.3.1. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS Grazing management is the art of integrating animals, feed, and other inputs with land, labor, and capital resources. The goal of grazing management is to market a valuable product at a profit, while maintaining or improving the productivity of grazing land resources. Grazing management relies on several principles and practices. Of these, stocking rate has the largest impact on both animal performance and forage resources. Stocking rate (SR) is defined as the number of specific kinds and classes of animals grazing or utilizing a unit of land for a specific length of time. Stocking rate influences: How well the plant can recover from grazing during the growing season Future forage production The quality of the available forage Animal performance Long-term change in species composition

Carrying Capacity (CC) is defined as the maximum stocking rate possible which is consistent with maintaining or improving vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year on the same area due to fluctuating forage production. Therefore the term carrying capacity is used to describe the forage producing capacity of various pastures and hence is a measure of its productivity. This value is obtained by assessing the forage dry matter (DM) productivity of each hectare of grazing land. For example a hectare of pasture with unimproved forage would carry less number of animals than a hectare of a well fertilized oat and vetch mix. Utilization rate refers to the amount of pasture consumed as a proportion of production. Ideally, stocking rate should match the available feed each year. Annual stocking rates can be determined by measuring the amount of pasture growing during the growing season, then calculating the animals requirement for feed and applying a percentage utilization rate which will vary with pasture type. Grazing pressure is the ratio of forage demand to the amount of forage available. It is usually measured in terms of the number of animal unit (AU) per hectare, although it may also be measured by AUs per ton of available forage. An animal unit (AU) is defined as the average annual amount of forage required for a 250 kg mature cattle, and is usually referred as a TLU. Stocking rate is thus distinct from carrying capacity and the stocking rate for a particular pasture community is a management decision made for a certain period of time with respect to current seasonal conditions. 4.3.2. EXISTING STOCKING RATES (SR) OF SMNP KEBELES Earlier reports on the park usually commented that overgrazing was one of the biggest problems and a common cause of the problem was keeping too many animals on the limited feed
58

resources. For instance, the report of Falch (2000) estimated each household in the park kebeles owned an average of 14 livestock. Therefore, one of the investigations we carried for this report concerned answering the question what is the existing stocking rate of available grazing lands in the 17 SMNP kebeles? In other words, how many animals do actually derive their feed from each hectare of grazing land? The results we found are presented in Table 25 below.
TABLE 25: Existing SR of grazing lands in the 17 SMNP Kebeles
WOREDA KEBELE

Debark

Adiarkay

Janamora

Debir Adisge Adebabay Abergina Argin Jona Zebena Dib Bahir Sub-Total Agdamiya Angwa Kerneja Seragudela Sub-Total Lori Debel Atigiba Bahiranba Zakelta Sekeba Barna Sub-Total

GRAND TOTAL

Average No. of Animals/HH 4.2 5.5 4.0 9.9 7.2 6.7 9.5 6.0 7.2 8.4 9.6 8.4 7.3 12.0 9.3 5.5 6.5 13.0 8.4 8.5 7.5

Total TLU in Kebele 2,087 3,158 1,726 1,368 1,915 1,804 1,693 13,751 1,887 3,704 3,135 8,726 1,922 2,036 1,852 1,640 1,765 2,472 3,596 15,282 37,759

Grazing Land (ha) 535 545 544 450 378 864 549 3,864 247 708 382 1,337 118 104 94 158 142 147 133 896 5,527

SR (TLU / Ha) 3.9 5.8 3.2 3.0 5.1 2.1 3.1 3.6 7.6 5.2 8.2 6.5 16.3 19.6 19.7 10.4 12.4 16.8 27.0 17.1 6.2

As can be seen from the table data, each hectare of grazing land in the SMNP kebeles overall carried an average 7 TLUs annually. The SR, however varied between kebeles and woredas ranging from a lower 2 TLUs/ha of Zebena kebele in Debark woreda to an enormous 27 TLUs/ha in Barna of Janamora. Woreda wise ranking also shows that the SR of grazing lands in Debark at 3.6 TLUs was relatively fair, when compared to that of 6.5 TLUs in Adiarkay and unacceptable levels of 17 TLUs in Janamora. Moreover, previous studies also show the stocking density inside the SMNP to be very high. The study of Falch, (2000) for example found that, in Gich village there are 55 TLU/km2 on the grazing land in the rainy season and 33 TLU/km2 in the dry season. Our results also show that the average SR of grazing lands in Debark to be around 36 TLU/km2 throughout the year. 4.3.3. CARRYING CAPACITY (CC) Given that existing SR is felt to be very high, what is the safe CC for grazing lands in the area? As discussed in section 4.2.3 above, the most common upland grazing areas of the park are assumed to produce an estimated dry matter yield of 1.4 to 2.0 tons per hectare. Taking the
59

average of the two levels, it has been assumed that the average productivity of grazing lands in the area to be 1.7 tons DM per hectare per year. Further considering that a 250 kg animal (such as an ox or cow, considered as 1TLU) consumes 2.5% of its body weight in DM each day (MOA, 1996); yearly consumption would be about 2.28 tons DM. Moreover, in view of two additional points, namely, a) part of the feed requirements of the animals will be met from other feed sources such as crop residues; and b) grazing is carried out not only on the grazing lands, but also in woodlands, shrub lands, and fallow crop lands; it has been calculated that each TLU gets close to one ton DM of its annual feed requirements from the above additional sources. Therefore, each TLU needs to fulfill at least 1.28 tons DM of its standard annual feed requirements from the respective grazing lands of each kebele. Bearing in mind all the above assumptions, the safest stocking rate (even at a utilization rate of 75%) and applying the common equation: Carrying Capacity (CC) = Herbage Yield (tDM/ha) / Animal Requirement (tDM/TLU) * use factor (%) It was found that the average stocking rate recommended for each hectare of grazing land in the SMNP was no more than 1 TLU/ha/year. Combining the conclusions of the previous section with this finding it can therefore safely be generalized that all grazing lands in the park area are stocked beyond their capacities. As described earlier, forage growth and distribution in the grasslands of SMNP are driven by precipitation and tend to be highly variable intra annually, inter annually, and spatially (Dunbar, 2002). The degree of temporal variation depends upon the average annual rainfall, with variation increasing as annual rainfall levels decrease. As a consequence, spatio-temporal variation in forage quality and quantity is high and a single, average carrying capacity does not adequately describe this complexity for the whole park. Hence, grazing lands in some kebeles may have relatively better CC than others. 4.3.4. AREAS OF CRITICAL FEED SHORTAGE The general conclusion we derived from the above two sections is that HHs in almost all areas of the SMNP own more animals than they can provide feed for. This can especially be seen from the above table which shows the number of animals owned by each HH in the 17 kebeles on average to be 7.5 animals. This in other words means each HH on the average owned 2 cattle, 5 shoats, and 1 equine. Ownership however varied between 4 animals in Debir kebele to as high as 13 in Saqba. Woreda wise comparisons also show HHs in Debark to own relatively less animals (6) than their counterparts in Adiarkay and Janamora, which averagely owned between 8 and 9 animals. Although the above numbers clearly show almost all kebeles have feed shortage problems, some are worse than others. For instance, discussions with various stakeholders and IDP experts indicate that the new kebeles of Barna, Saqba, Atgiba, and Dibil located in Janamora, are the main areas with critical feed shortage for most of the year. Parts of these kebeles were included as park territory during the recent realignment of park boundaries. Similarly, of the seven park kebeles in Debark woreda, Abergina, Argin Jona, and Adisge Miligebsa were those with larger
60

feed deficits. Consequently, these kebeles in the two woredas are the ones which heavily utilize the grasslands within the park area year round. On the other hand, the 3 park adjacent kebeles of Adiarkay had relatively better feed conditions, because they had bigger fallow lands and higher productive croplands yielding more crop residue volumes. Moreover, we can simply observe that the system of livestock grazing experienced by farmers in and around the SMNP is of the conservative type with no variability. All types of animals are let to graze the same grasslands in the park, year in year out with no human intervention of any sort to match animal numbers with available forage material. As a result, a large portion of the grasslands in the park have been found to be overgrazed and destroyed (Nevergelt, 1998). Rural communities in the SMNP kebeles lack the useful tradition of developing and enforcing use regulations of grazing areas, which have been successfully implemented in some areas of Amhara region. For instance, according to results of research undertaken in the highlands of Amhara (Benin and Pender, 2002); and Tigray (Berhanu, et.al 2001), use regulations reportedly contribute to significant regeneration of grazing lands, supporting the role of community resource management in redressing resource degradation. They also found that restricted use of grazing lands is maintained once established. In our case however, local beneficiaries do not contribute to any form of grazing land management. In other areas this has been shown to be done either through cash payments or in kind contributions for protection and uncompensated labor contribution for the development of the grazing lands. Moreover, given the crucial role of the limited forage resources, no priority is made to select type of animals to use the available grasslands of the park. The high numbers of grazing cattle and other domestic animals have an extremely devastating effect on the afro-alpine grassland ecosystem. Because of overstocking there has been some deterioration with an increase of the unpalatable grasses like Festuca. The animals grazing in the park are not just those of local people but also from relatives far from the park. The grass is grazed until only short stubbles remain and natural processes are disrupted. Overgrazing has negative consequences for the vegetation, for the soil preservation and for the chances of survival of the Simen fox in the SMNP. Grazing in the Erica-belt reduces the density of Erica plants and damages the underbrush as hiding and nesting place. 4.3.5. OBSERVED EFFECTS OF HIGH STOCKING RATES The other big issue in need of consideration in this report relates to assessment of the observed trends with regard to the area coverage, species composition, and productivity of the natural grasslands of SMNP. Accordingly, it is obvious that the majority of available study reports, research results, and other literature on the park clearly point towards a moribund and hazardous trend. Nievergelt, et al, (1998) in their illustrious survey of the flora and fauna of the SMNP, cite several evidences that show the grasslands of the park are being overburdened by the nonstop pressure from humans and their livestock. For instance, their comparison of the vegetation state of grasslands between 1973 and 1996 shows strong evidence of the growing impact of overgrazing. They found the extent of eroded and heavily overgrazed grassland areas have doubled in 23 years. At the time of their survey they found nearly a quarter of the area to be heavily overgrazed or totally destroyed. Only less than one-third of the remaining area (mainly on the edges) can be considered to be in a nearly natural state. They obviously conclude that
61

human impact has reached a level where the vegetation structure over large areas is either disturbed or destroyed and the original diversity is reduced. Livestock grazing is probably the most damaging resource use in the park, given the extensive area that is used for grazing and the current overstocking. The 1996 survey work in SMNP estimated that of the 900 ha Afro-alpine vegetation in the park (before the current and proposed extensions), 25 % are heavily overgrazed and 60% are heavily grazed, leaving only 15 % in a more or less natural status. Overgrazing is resulting in a deterioration of the quality of the grazing lands with an increase of unpalatable grasses. It has negative consequences for the vegetation cover and composition, and for soil preservation. Livestock is in direct competition with Walia ibex for grazing areas, confining the Walia ibex to the steeper and less accessible areas. The degradation and its ecological impacts have forced both the Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf to vacate some of their original ranges and to move further up into the less disturbed highlands. Moreover, contact between wildlife populations and livestock are also increasing the risk for transmission of diseases Given that degradation is mostly defined as a reduction in the natural capital of the land to provide goods and services for livestock production (e.g. Behnke and Scoones, 1993), the smallholder livestock system in most of the SMNP relies on extensive grazing of marginal grassland vegetation resources in ecosystems which are assumed to be highly vulnerable to overexploitation and therefore degradation (Nevergelt, 1998). It is thus argued that in SMNP grazing land systems uncontrolled heavy stocking levels have led to a substantial degradation of vegetation cover and soil surface condition, increased soil erosion, changes in grass/browse ratios and so on (Nevergelt, 1998). Campbell et al. (2006) define the optimal stocking strategy as one which maximizes the longterm welfare of the pastoralists under consideration. In the perspective of the SMNP therefore an optimal stocking strategy would mean one which would first and foremost ensure the sustainability of both the flora and fauna of the park and next attempts to maximize the long-term welfare of the smallholder farmers utilizing park grasslands. 4.3.6. CONCLUSION After all this discussion, then, we have to ask ourselves why do the farming HHs of SMNP kebeles do the way they do in relation to animal numbers? Following the Hypotheses of Campbell et al. (2006), we have to infer that farmers' stocking behavior depends on: a) The role of livestock in full household portfolios and the household's performance in extra-livestock sectors (remittances, off-farm income, cottage industries etc.); b) livestock prices, their determinants and their variability over time; c) property rights, social rules; d) cooperative behavior and its determinants (including bio-physical, social, and economic environments); e) bio-physical constraints and potentials; f) extent to which plantanimal systems are coupled and the likelihood of degradation and threshold effects over spatial and temporal scales; g) Values that local people hold, including time and risk preferences.

62

In recognition of the above, then, the next question would be Are people making the most out of their situations using the observed grazing strategies, or are there potential policy changes that could increase people's welfare? Similarly, the acceptable Hypotheses that would help us answer the question would include: a) Opportunistic behavior of smallholder farmers in and around the park allows them to seek out optimal stocking strategies. b) There are failures in institutional structures (e.g. decision-making, markets, and property right regimes) that prevent such HHs from realizing the full potential of grazing resources. c) Transactions costs of enforcing conservative grazing strategies prevent them from being enforced. d) It is difficult for policy to improve peoples welfare in many developing countries, where institutional and other structures are collapsed If the proposals for improving existing disequilibria systems of grazing in the park area are to be successfully implemented, there is a great need to better understand the underlying social, economic and ecological processes, rather than focusing on their outcomes. Conclusions from the above discussions about the variability of conditions likely to be important in influencing intervention mechanisms concerns mainly the inherent difficulty in trying to set one size fits all policies for all kebeles utilizing park resources for daily subsistence. To the extent that we have significant variation in social, ecological and economics conditions, it will be important to build flexibility into policies to allow for varying local conditions. Instead of policies that dictate conservative or high-tracking policies, alternative policies focuses on avoiding thresholds and monitoring natural stocks (both fauna and flora) may be warranted. In addition to this, improving livelihood outcomes for livestock owners requires special attention to strengthening, and in some instances, building local institutions. This is especially true because village organizations are primarily responsible for the management of restricted grazing areas by organizing and informing beneficiaries, and establishing and enforcing use regulations; with technical and material assistance from the concerned stakeholders such as Bureau of Agriculture, PaPDA, etc. We agree with the claim by Campbell et al. (2006) that interventions designed to alleviate poverty need to be integrated, multi-tiered and longer term. Interventions need to be designed to develop and diversify people's economic opportunities and encourage empowerment for people to direct their own needs. The findings of research done in similar highland areas of Ethiopia confirm that community grazing land management can contribute to a more sustainable use of grazing lands and the alleviation of feed shortage problems. Especially the study by Berhanu, et.al (2002), concluded that collective action for grazing land management may be more beneficial and more effective in areas with intermediate population that are far from market places. For the SMNP kebeles therefore, considering communal ownership of grazing lands will continue in the coming few years, improving collective action for their management and monitoring by building effective local institutions and regulations is strongly recommended.

63

4.4.

OTHER FEED RESOURCES

4.4.1. CROP RESIDUES Similar to other areas of the Amhara highlands, more and more land in the SMNP is being cultivated for crop production every year to satisfy the increasing human demand for food. Consequently, the grazing lands are becoming scarce and crop residues are assuming greater roles as feed source for livestock. In relation to this, data presented in the draft management plan of SMNP show that a total of 2,878 ha of land within the park boundaries is annually cultivated by HHs living inside the park and outside as well. Of this total, 1,161 ha are cultivated by the 587 HHs living inside the park, meaning an average 2 ha/HH. A recent data set obtained from PaPDA however puts the average land size cultivated by each HH residing in the park to be closer to 1.5 ha/HH. Moreover the draft management plan states barley and wheat to be the main crops grown in the area, accounting for 70% of all cultivated land. The remaining area is covered with pulse crops such as horse beans and field peas. Additionally, the plan paper citing the work of Falch (2000) puts average productivity at 2.1 ton/ha. Therefore assuming the average farmland annually cropped by each HH to be 1.5 ha, and considering the cropping pattern and productivity set above, the 17,551 rural HHs in the 17 kebeles making up the SMNP are supposed to cultivate around 26,327 hectares of land each year. As can be seen from Table 26 below, it is estimated that close to 43 thousand tons of grains are produced each year, of which 85 thousand tones of crop residues (2:1 straw to grain ratio) are annually produced in SMNP.
TABLE26:- Estimates of Crop Residue Production in SMNP Crop Area Harvested (ha) Grain Production (Ton) Cereals 18,429 38,700 Pulses 7,898 3,949 TOTAL 26,327 42,649 Source: Derived from the draft management plan of SMNP.

Crop Residues (Ton) 77,400 7,898 85,298

All the estimated amount of crop residues however, will not be used as livestock feed. This is because a) farmers use crop residues for different purposes, e.g. for roofing local houses; and b) a good part of the total crop residues produced may be left at the field. Based on this, even if we assume only one-third of the total crop residues produced annually is used for livestock, this will give us an estimated 28 thousand tones of crop residues for feed. In other words each TLU in the area can meet 0.6 ton DM or 27% of its 2.28 ton DM annual total feed requirement from crop residues. 4.4.2. PLANTED FORAGES The major assumption behind planted forages was that long-term sustainable production of livestock and cropping is dependent on dramatic changes in livestock management systems (Alemayehu and Alan, 1988). The key components of these changes are a shift towards more intensive feeding systems, with more emphasis on cut-and-carry feeding, and a gradual shift away from uncontrolled grazing, particularly on sloping areas. With regard to improved forages,
64

therefore, a lot of attempts and trials have been carried out in the past 2 decades to increase their dissemination and usage in the almost all woredas of Amhara region. Accordingly, various projects and governmental extension programs have incorporated improved forages as part of their interventions. In the SMNP woredas as well, projects such as IDP and ILDP have attempted to introduce different improved forage materials through different strategies. The improved forage introduction strategies promoted in the past were, however, limited to Oats/Vetch mixes as annual fodder crops and tree legume forages, particularly Tree Lucerne (Chamaecytisus palmensis), in the backyards of family houses. These strategies were further envisaged to be associated with an extension program to improve forage utilization. However, there was no widespread and rapid adoption of improved forages by smallholder farmers of the SMNP woredas. Obviously it is correct to assume that smallholder farmers can increase ruminant production by planting improved forage. Sown forage can increase production economically in semi-intensive systems because such forages are of better feeding value and higher yield than natural vegetation. In addition, sown pastures increase soil fertility and improve soil structure for subsequent cropping, and in some cases reduce the incidences of weeds, pests and diseases. In smallholder dairy systems, forages can increase the level of nitrogen in pasture production systems; enhance yields of protein-rich forage. This can be achieved either by use of fertilizer nitrogen on nitrogen-responsive grasses, or through the use of nitrogen-fixing legumes. To choose the most suitable forages for a sown pasture, it is necessary to define accurately both the environment in which they are to be grown and the purpose for which they are to be used. 4.4.3. AGRO-INDUSTRIAL BY PRODUCTS (AIBP) Many by-products of milling, brewing, sugar and oil industries are traditionally used for livestock feeding. New processing and preparation techniques lead to new products which can be used as unconventional animal feeds. Similar to other parts of the country, agro-industrial byproducts like oil seed cakes and flour mill byproducts, have contributed considerably to animal production of many farms, especially in urban and peri-urban areas of Amhara region. According to many research results (Wohlt, 2002), some of them such as Noug cake are a good feed resource for livestock with a reasonably high protein content of between 23-32% crude protein (CP, DM basis). In general, however, the use of supplemental feeding of AIBP is much disorganized in smallholder farms of SMNP, despite the potential existing in the area. Most development workers in the area consider the following as factors that explain this situation: (a) poor appreciation of the value of supplementation; (b) inadequate knowledge of types and ways of using supplements; (c) high cost of purchased concentrates; and (d) ignorance of opportunities for on-farm preparation of supplement mixtures. Also, the weak extension services and the lack of solid links of these with researchers have resulted in limited number of demonstrations of supplementation undertaken on small farms.

65

5.

ANIMAL HEALTH

The direct contact and grazing overlap between livestock and wildlife has been harboring high risk of dangerous communicable diseases from/to domestic/wild animals both directions, which may lead to distinction of the endangered species. Diseases were observed to cause significant morbidity and mortality in captive and free ranging wildlife. Further more wildlife are known to be sources of many fatal zoonotic diseases such as Rabies, Tuberculosis, HIV-AIDS, Ebola, SARS, Hepatitis A and B, Brucellosis, West Nile virus, Lyme Borelliosis, Tularemia, Leptospirosis, Ehrlichiosis, Yersiniosis (plague) etc; and sources for various contagious livestock diseases (Bengis et al., 2004). In recent decades, infectious pathogens that originate in wild animals have become increasingly important throughout the world, as they have had substantial impacts on human health, agricultural production, wildlife-based economies and conservation of genetic resources. The emergence of these pathogens as significant health issues is associated with a range of causal factors, most of them linked to the sharp and exponential rise of human activity. Among these are the burgeoning human population, increased frequency and speed of local and international travel, increased human-assisted movement of animals and animal products, expansion of agricultural practices, and a range of natural or anthropogenic ecological/environmental changes that alter the distribution of wild hosts and vectors (Bengis et al., 2004). The importance of wildlife as reservoirs for diseases in domestic livestock was first recognized in the 19th century (Hemilton et al., 2003). Wildlife reservoirs of disease can be complicated the control of diseases in domestic animals to such an extent that it may seem impossible to achieve the goal of control or eradication of the disease. This is because methods which have been proven for their effectiveness in the control of diseases in domestic animals such as ''test-andslaughter'' policies can not be applied in wild populations. Effective control of diseases requires an understanding of the epidemiology of a disease, including its infection dynamics within domestic as well as wildlife populations. Studies of the epidemiology of diseases in wildlife species are quite challenging because individual animals are more difficult to follow-up; wild animals are more subject to variation in environmental factors than domestic livestock; and most often the veterinary and ecological knowledge about the species involved is quite limited. Epidemiological studies of diseases in wildlife are much more difficult than studies of diseases in domestic livestock largely because the information which can be collected on the population as a whole as well as on individuals is subject to a number of limitations. These include difficulties in accessibility, identification, examination and follow-up of individuals. It can be very difficult to make observations on the interaction between individuals in the population as well as between them and other wild and domestic species. The success of diseases control strategies in a population depends to a significant extent on an adequate understanding of the epidemiology of the disease. The wider the host spectrum of an infectious organism the more difficult it is to gain sufficient insight into its epidemiology. If the major hosts include wild animal species as maintenance hosts, the problem becomes even more challenging. Historically the attention paid to wildlife diseases by regulatory agencies, wildlife advocacy groups, and educational and research institutions has been limited in comparison to that for
66

domestic animals, and people associated with population increase and social incursions into wildlife habitat has increased the opportunity for the transmission of pathogens shared within and among the domains. The uncontrolled increment in population densities of people, domestic animals, and some wildlife species favored by human societal impacts on the environment, can make the situation even more precarious, because of the increased opportunity for transmission of infectious agents (SCWDS, 1993; Bengis, 2002; Deem et al., 2005). Two-thirds of the Tran boundary diseases of domestic animals can also infect wildlife; thus there is substantial overlap between wild and domestic animals in disease epidemiology (SCWDS, 1993). Diseases transmitted from domestic livestock to wildlife can have several deleterious effects. Wild animal population can be damaged leading to unbalanced and unhealthy ecosystem and potential species loss. Besides, once a disease is established in free-ranging wild population, control means in domestic population of livestock becomes much more problematic as the infected wildlife serve as reservoir of that infection (Hemilton et al., 2003; Deem et al., 2005). Transmission of infectious diseases at the wildlife/domestic animal interface is frequently bidirectional. Many of these diseases are zoonoses and schemes for the eradication (control) of these diseases are costly and technically difficult to implement in free-ranging wildlife. Due to the technical difficulties of sampling free-ranging wildlife, surveillance and monitoring of infections in wildlife require imaginative and innovative thinking and techniques (Bengis, 2002; Deem et al, 2005). That means, simply impossible in case of poor countries, like Ethiopia. Outbreaks of diseases in free ranging Kudu, Buffalo, antelopes and other wild ruminants have been reported elsewhere in the world (Bengis et al., 2004; Shiferaw et al., 2005). Generalist pathogens such as Rabies, Tuberculosis can affect most of the wildlife and domestic animals from either source. Diseases such as Paratuberculosis, Peste des Petits Ruminatis, Foot and Mouth Disease, Malignant Catarrhal Fever, Rinderpest, Rabies, Tuberculosis, Ebola, SARS, Hepatitis A and B, Brucellosis, Pox, Malignant edema, Chronic Wasting Disease, Transmissible Spongiform Encephalitis, Infectious Bovine Rihnotrachitis, Heart water, Coxiellosis, Black-leg, Rift Valley Fever, Pustular Dermatitis, Fascioliasis, Tetanus, Canine Distemper, Parvovirus, etc can easily be transmitted from any domestic counterpart (Fox, 1998; Hargreaves et al., 2004; Laurenson, 2006).
TABLE27:- Major Animal Diseases in the SMNP and its environs prioritized by adjoining animal health professionals based on their economic and/or public health importance. Category Affected/potential hosts (causative agent) (More commonly & seriously affected) Rank Type of Disease 1 Anthrax Bacterial All warm-blooded animals including man (ruminants and equines) 2 Black-leg Bacterial All domestic and wild ruminants (cattle, buffaloes and antelopes) 3 Peste des petits ruminants Viral Domestic and wild small ruminants (caprus species) 4 Rabies Viral All mammals including man & bats (Carnivores) 5 Mannhemiasis Bacterial Small wild and domestic ruminants (ovine species) 6 Haemorrhagic Septicemia Bacterial All domestic and wild ruminants (cattle, buffaloes and antelopes) 67

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Mange Sheep and Goat pox Pustular Dermatitis Helminthosis Acariasis Lumpy skin disease Caprine pleuropneumonia Johne's disease Leech Canine distemper Parvovirus contagious

Parasitic Viral Viral Parasitic Parasitic Viral Bacterial Bacterial Parasitic Viral Viral

All domestic and wild mammals (caprus and ovine species) All small ruminants Small ruminants and man All domestic and wild mammals (small ruminants and canine species) All warm-blooded animals (ruminants) Large domestic and wild ruminants (cattle and buffaloes) Caprine species All domestic and wild ruminants (cattle, buffaloes and antelopes) All domestic and wild ruminants All domestic and wild canine species All domestic and wild canine species

In Ethiopia at least four disease incidents of domestic origin caused remarkable loss in wildlife. In 1999 and 2000, Anthrax caused more than 1700 and 525 deaths in Mango National Park. Rabies has killed 70% of population of the endangered Ethiopian wolf in the Bale Mountains National Park in the early 1990's and very recently, in 2003, it killed 65 wolves in the same area (Shiferaw et al, 2005; Laurenson, 2006, unpublished report). Rabies was reported to pose a serious threat to all wildlife, domestic animal and public health, in many areas (Cleavland and Laurenson, 2006). The ''spill-over'' infections may give rise to sporadic epidemics in populations that would otherwise remain free from infections, and can reduce wildlife populations to critically low numbers below which extinction might arise through demographic stochasticity or the action of other mortality processes. Canine Distemper Virus has been reported to cause devastating outbreaks and remarkable mortalities in wild carnivores, and has recently been diagnosed for the first time in Ethiopian wolves in the BMNP in 2006 (Laurenson 2006, unpublished report). Anthrax was also reported killing the endangered Swayne's in Senkele Sanctuary (Shiferaw et al., 2005). Whenever there is a disease outbreak involving multi species of livestock and game, the containment of the disease may be difficult as it may spread in a complex and speedy pattern. Whereby, it may lead to extinction of valuable endemic games, especially in the endangered national symbols.

6.

MAJOR CONSTRAINTS TO EXISTING SYSTEM

Constraints to livestock production in the smallholder rain fed mixed farming of the SMNP area are diverse in type and magnitude. As such there is no one factor which is an overwhelming constraint to productivity. Rather it is a combination of factors which are interdependent and of varying magnitude. The major constraints could be grouped into two broad groups: technical and-nontechnical. Nevertheless people working in the field agree threat the major constraints are the technical ones which include those concerned with seasonal feed availability, morbidity and mortality due to diseases and genetic material of the indigenous stock. Details of these constraints are presented as follows. 68

6.1.

LIVESTOCK RELATED

Almost all of the livestock found in the SMNP area are of local indigenous types and as such there is no clear and specific breed of cattle. Productivity of all classes of livestock is low reflecting an underexploited genetic resource as one of the reasons. For example, according to MOA (1996), meat off take is estimated at 7 % for beef and 33-36 % for sheep and goats with corresponding carcass weight of 100-110 kg and 8-10 kg respectively. The same sources maintain that cows do not reach maturity until 3.5 to 4 years of age, calve every other year and produce 250-300 liters of milk per lactation. Small ruminants also are comparatively unproductive due to the poor genetic base of native flock. It is clearly understood that ecological conditions, feed resources and interactions with the cropping sub-system also have their own impact on livestock productivity. The underlying factor for such low productivity, however, remains to be poor genetic potential. Previous efforts to improve animal genetics have faced several problems of which the main ones can be categorized into institutional and technical groups (MOA, 1996). A) Institutional - lack of mandated institutions / organizations for the multiplication and distribution of improved stock in the country. MOA is the only institution engaged in the provision of livestock extension and development works such as improved stock multiplication and distribution to farmers. B) Technical - lack of clearly defined breeding strategy and goal for milk and meat production from cattle and small ruminants and methods of adoption by farmers. Moreover, the traditional livestock production system does not favor the introduction of modern animal breeding. The above reasons coupled with the traditional animal husbandry experienced in the area such as uncontrolled breeding have resulted in a livestock herd with comparatively lower individual productivity.

6.2.

FEED RELATED

The single major factor to which all farmers in the area are subject is that of feed resources and animal nutrition. As has been described in Section 5 of this report, the productivity of the range resources hinges on a three to five month rainy season during which nutrient supply is sufficient for maintenance and production in terms of incremental herd growth (live weight gains plus reproduction). Once the growing season is over, the range resources may remain adequate in quantity but it deteriorates gradually in quality over the 7 to 8 month long dry season. The other challenge with regard to free and communal grazing concerns its effect on the bio-physical resources of the ecologically sensitive areas of the SMNP. In the highlands SMNP, livestock are spatially and temporally associated with grazing lands and croplands. Livestock spend considerable amount of time on croplands, particularly after grain harvest, grazing crop residues, recycling nutrients and compacting the soil. Croplands are periodically ploughed, while actions of the hoofs of grazing animals are accumulated, often compacting the grazing lands. Common grazing lands are not managed to improve biomass productivity. With increasing cultivation of steeper slopes, livestock are pushed further onto very steep slopes. Hence, lands where animals graze during the cropping season are overstocked and overgrazed. Thus, soil structural changes under varying grazing pressure influence soil erosion, and water infiltration, retention, sub-surface flows and run-off rates.

69

Moreover, forage and browse legumes play an important role in sustaining livelihoods of small- and medium-scale farmers in the tropics, mainly as a result of their contribution to economic and environmental sustainability (Peters and Lascano 2003). Legumes play a vital role in the improvement of tropical pastures, largely due to their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Apart from the direct contribution to livestock production, particularly in intensive systems such as dairy, through the provision of protein-rich fodder, legumes can improve the productivity of rangelands by increasing the amount of nitrogen available for uptake by associated grasses (Giller 2001). Despite the overwhelming evidence of the suitability of several legume species for pasture improvement in SMNP and many areas of the region, their potential for sustainable development is largely untapped and their adoption in particular has been limited. Major limitations to the adoption of forage legume based technologies include the scarcity and high cost of seed and inoculants; poor identification of entry points and target groups; difficulties associated with establishment and maintenance of legumes; limited exploitation of the multipurpose nature of many types of forage legumes; isolated efforts in feed and soil improvement; and often difficult socio-economic environments. The mentioned gaps concerning forage legumes are especially critical for the smallholder dairy and fattening systems in the SMNP as they are facing viability problems due to feed economics. The variability of quantity and quality of feed resources; particularly protein during the dry season is one of the main factors limiting smallholder dairy production in SMNP. The problems of the unavailability and high cost of purchased protein concentrates for dairy livestock feeding in SMNP have continued to rise due to inflation and recurrent droughts leading to a continued decline of the smallholder dairy industry. Smallholder dairy has the potential to increase milk production base of the watershed and the region, improve household nutrition, and empower women and youth in income generation ventures. It can assist farmers to diversify, spread farming risks and create opportunity for idling forage and browse legume resources to enter the human food chain thereby utilizing marginal farm resources.

6.3.

ANIMAL HEALTH RELATED

In general, this assessment revealed that there are considerable changes in the biodiversity and disturbance of the park ecosystem due to heavy human activities. The main impacts of the villages inside the park are related to the intensive use of its natural resources, in particular deforestation from cutting firewood, and soil degradation from cultivation and grazing, all exacerbated by a dramatic increase in human population. Logically, wildlife conservation and animal husbandry are incompatible forms of land use and should be kept apart as much as possible. Livestock grazing is probably the most damaging resource use and risk harboring to the park, given the extensive area that is used for grazing and the existing overstocking (more than 1 TLU per hectare Vs the recommended 0.5 TLU per ha). Livestock (sheep, goats and cattle) were seen grazing in the most core areas of the park, being in direct competition with Walia ibex for grazing areas, confining the endangered species to the steeps and less productive areas, and also impacting on small mammal populations, which are the major food source for the Ethiopian wolf. Specifically, ''Chenek'', ''Buahit'', ''Ayna-Meda'' and ''Qrat/Abdi washa'' were found to carry high population of livestock; especially ''Chenek'' is the area of interception to all types of animals, including sheep, cattle, goats, Walia ibex, Ethiopian wolf.

70

The direct contact between livestock and wildlife also harbors high risk of dangerous communicable diseases from both directions, which may lead to distinction of the endangered species. The existence of goats in the main habitat of Walia ibex harbours a considerable risk of genetic dilution, besides to the direct competition to feed sources and disease transmission. Since Walia ibex and domestic goat are from same family, ''Caprus'', there would be a possibility of crossbreeding between the two breeds and possibly this may lead to genetic dilution and distinction of the smaller population that is the endangered Walia ibex. This potential risk should also be considered in the case of Ethiopian wolf, domestic dog and other wild carnivores like fox and jackals. The other observed potential danger to the park is the case of ''Buahit'', especially at the spring of ''Belegez'' river. The site is used for loading-unloading of goods from and to ''Beyeda'' district. As the site is a dead-end for vehicle transportation, equines mostly donkeys are used as the only means to carry farm produces from and industrial materials and consumables to the mentioned district. As Ato Bisrat, from the SMNP, informed as the number of equines in that point reaches up to 80 animals per day and they used to stay there up to 15 days waiting for coming vehicles (Isuzus). We had able to count plus 60 donkeys and 6 horses during our arrival. The area of concentration was full of waste materials (feces, urine, excretions, etc) and with highly pungent smelling which we couldn't resist to stand there. During their stay the equines used to graze in the surrounding area and drink from the spring head of ''Belegez'' river which then crosses the conservation area along its length. This could be a critical threat to the health of the total ecology including the wildlife, the people and the environment since there are a number of dangerous inter-species diseases which could pollute /contaminate the environment and transmit to any of the partners. The other risk area observed is ''Sebat Minch'' where a large number of sheep and goat flocks were observed grazing and browsing. As their shepherds told us they were from ''Aqura'' village, which is located at the north far of the park. According to the scouts charged there, the shoat flocks used to stay in the park for weeks without returning to home. They added that dogs also are used to come with the shoats from that very village, even if it seems forbidden officially. This event could also harbor a potential threat through predation and genetic dilution of the Ethiopian wolf, besides the hazard of disease transmission, including the fatal Rabies and Parvovirus. Other dangerous activity practiced by the park villagers, as Ato Bisrat told us, is using of rodenticides to protect their cultivations (field crops). Since rodents are the major feed of the wild canids, including the endangered Ethiopian wolf, such practices undoubtedly cause a considerable mortality of those canids through their food chain. Major large animal diseases in the park and its environs, as prioritized by the veterinary services of the adjoining districts, are Anthrax, Black quarter, Peste Des Petit Ruminants (PPR), Pasteurellosis, Sheep and Goat pox, Pustular Dermatitis (ORF), Paratuberculosis, Endo- & Ecto-parasitism. Interestingly, all these diseases can seriously affect the endangered national flag, Walia ibex and other wild ruminants. Specially, Anthrax, PPR, Sheep & Goat pox, and Mange are well known to cause serious diseases with high morbidity and mortality rates in Walia ibex.
71

Similarly, diseases of carnivores mentioned by the same professionals were Rabies, Canine Distemper and Internal Parasitism. Rabies, Canine Distemper and the non-mentioned, probably mis-diagnosed, Parvovirus are known killers of wild carnivores including the endangered Ethiopian wolf, other foxes and cat species. Types of large animal vaccines provided, so far, in the Park adjacent areas are Anthrax, PPR, Pasteurellosis, Lumpy Skin Disease and Sheep-pox. Those vaccines were not used to be given regularly by planning for prevention. The strategy employed so far was to control the disease by inoculating the affected population after the occurrence of the outbreak. In fact, vaccinating all the population at risk before exposure should have been practiced in order to minimize losses due to health ailments. In the Canid groups, an attempt of vaccination was made only once when 190 dogs were vaccinated against Rabies by the group of ''Frankfurt Geological Society'', to contain the outbreak occurred in 2005. If the Park were not fortunate enough to have that group who came with the ready made Rabies vaccine for a research purpose in that event, it may have been faced with a serious challenge like that of the Bale Mountains National Park, which caused the loss of 70% of the population of Ethiopian wolves in that park. Considering the small size of its population in the SMNP, which does not exceed three quarter of a hundred; it could have been ended even with a worst effect. Various disease syndromes and outbreaks were reported occurring and causing significant morbidity and mortality in wildlife. Most of the pathogenic ecto-& indo-parasites, including mange, were identified in the highly endangered Walia ibex in the SMNP frequently. In an occasion, 87% of the total examined Walias were found positive for internal (gastrointestinal and pulmonary) parasites (Argaw et al., 2005; Shiferaw et al., 2005). Similar & identical genera of parasites were also identified in domestic sheep and goats which proves cross-contamination (Argaw et al., 2005). The second endangered Ethiopian wolf was also repeatedly affected by the fatal Rabies which was transmitted from roaming dogs owned by the park inhabitants and the nearby villagers (BRVL, disease outbreak investigation reports). Major animal diseases frequently reported from the adjoining woredas include Black-leg, Anthrax, Pasteurellosis, Sheep and Goat Pox and Rabies. Skin diseases like Mange and Dermatophilosis are also frequently reported. Vaccines given, so far, are Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR), Anthrax, Black-leg and Pasteurellosis (BRVL & woreda veterinary clinics). The continuous >2% population growth in the locality, where the majority of the population is dependent on agricultural sector, is aggravating land degradation and pressure on the remaining wildlife habitats. With increasing population and households the total number of livestock is likely to increase as well. Moreover, as crop yields are nowhere sufficient any more to sustain a household for one year, more animals have to be sold to meet immediate household needs. It makes logical to think that this condition aggravates the problem by pushing the villagers to increase their holdings as much as possible.

6.4.

LIVESTOCK WILDLIFE COMPETITION

Despite the obvious contribution of wildlife to the socio-economic life, there were no serious attentions given to protect such resources and their habitat from damage. Studies also indicated that such areas near to settlement are heavily used for grazing (Ludi, 2005) fuel wood and construction purposes. Areas of different vegetation stratum used as source of food and habitat
72

for wild animals areas similarly used by domestic stock and highly affected by human and over grazing pressure. Furthermore, when livestock production overlaps with wildlife habitat, the risk of serious diseases should be taken into consideration. Some livestock diseases can be transmitted to wild animals and thus pose a threat to the environment. Generally speaking, the heavier the stocking rate in an area, the greater is the risk that infectious diseases may break out. An area in which a major animal production activity is established ought to have a satisfactory veterinary service.

The natural diversity of vegetation cover and population of fauna have been affected by natural and human induced factors where many of plant species cover and the population of endemic fauna became declined. As a result, high deterioration of wild animal species, vegetation cover and natural features and increase in habitat fragmentation has been observed. Numbers of reports have clearly shown that the stocking density inside the SMNP has been very high resulted in an extremely devastating effect on the afro-alpine grassland ecosystem like deterioration with an increase of the unpalatable grasses like Festuca.

The quality of the grazing lands that were overgrazed resulted in deterioration of quality with an increase of unpalatable grasses. This in turn has been having negative consequences on the vegetation cover and composition, and soil preservation. Because of this fact, livestock in the SMNP has been in direct competition with Walia ibex for grazing areas, confining the Walia ibex to the steeper and less accessible areas, and has also been impacting on small mammal populations, which are the major food source for the Ethiopian wolf. It has been also reported that the contact between wildlife and livestock have also been resulted in increasing the risk for transmission of diseases. Under worse situation, particularly during drought, it was observed that the drought problem resulted in competition for scarce grazing land between the protected park animal population, especially the Walia ibex, and farmers livestock herds within and outside the park areas. This also had a negative effect on the available food for the Gelada baboon, which also depends primarily on the alpine grasslands. In spite of all the above mentioned potentials, the Simen Mountains in general and the SMNP in particular, have been under heavy human population pressure, which is threatening the natural value of the mountain ecosystem. The human disturbance and habitat alteration had reported to reduce the range of habitats available to the animals in the Park. For instance, the Walia ibex has taken refuge on the cliffs of the northern escarpment and the Ethiopian wolf and klipspringer have almost abandoned their traditional habitats. Such shrinking or loss of habitat for the above species and subsequent decrease in the number of the animals has attracted the attention of the not only the national but also the international community towards the SMNP. In and around the SMNP, overgrazing and deforestation have resulted in serious degradation of natural resources, leaving the area susceptible to soil erosion by water and wind. According to our observation, extensive areas both within and outside SMNP are almost devoid of native woody vegetation due to the intensive natural resources utilization of the people residing in and around the park. Reports confirmed that such degradation and its ecological impacts have forced both the Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf to vacate some of their original ranges and to move
73

further up into the less disturbed highlands. Cultivation inside the park has also been a serious concern where such form of land use is known to be incompatible with conservation objectives. Because of this, soil degradation has been identified as a major problem on cultivation land inside and around the SMNP. Wildlife inside the SMNP cannot survive if it has to constantly compete with human use of wildlife habitats (e.g. crop cultivation, livestock grazing, wood cutting, grass harvesting, etc.). Although the National Park contributes to assure that habitats for wildlife, especially Walia ibex and Klipspringer, but also large carnivores such as Leopard, Ethiopian Wolf or Serval, continue to exist, its small spatial extension does not necessarily assure the survival of the species. In the larger area of the Simen Mountains, additional areas exist which show similar bio-physical characteristics like the habitats inside the SMNP, but where no wildlife is found at this moment (cf. Hurni, 2005, with map). Findings from research carried out in Walk, in selected areas of Beyeda Wereda (escarpments to the east and north of the high plateau, grasslands at high altitudes around Ras Dejen) and in the vicinities of Silki, Abba Yared and Walia Kend (cf. map, p.17), suggest that considerable areas existed which could serve as habitat for endangered species such as the Walia ibex or the Ethiopian Wolf. For some of these potential habitats the local population reported the occurrence of Walia in former times usually referring as far back in the period of Haile Selassie. For other areas, resident land users reported the occurrence of Walia even today, although such observations could not be corroborated.

At present, the habitat of the Simen Fox on the Gich plateau is highly endangered by overgrazing. Pasture of livestock destroys the mosaic of long and short grass, which is an essential requirement for the Simen Fox habitat. Heavy overgrazing and trampling leads to eroded paths and soil erosion damages until the complete denudation to the rock basement. Due to intensive cattle movement at Kedadit, the connection of the potential Simen fox habitats of Set Derek and Muchila Afaf is interrupted. The target is to protect and to develop this zone in order to preserve the natural conditions for the existing of the habitat type for Simen fox and to enlarge this small area towards the West and on a broad strip along the escarpment up to Chennek, on which the mixture of long grass for hiding and short grass for predating small mammals can naturally be rehabilitated. Thus, this zone should become, in the long term, a Core Area.

74

7.

GRAZING PRESSURE REDUCTION STRATEGY

The Simen Mountains in North Gonder, where favorable climatic and agro-ecological conditions enabled agricultural development to flourish, include outstanding biodiversity and a breathtaking landscape which have attracted travelers for many centuries, more recently including tourists from around the world (Gete and Hurni. 2007). Unfortunately, because of its being inhabited for at least 2000 years, the population pressure and the competition for natural re-sources have been increasing for several decades and threaten both the livelihoods of local smallholders and the diverse fauna and flora (Grnenfelder, 2006). With regard to this, several reports indicate that one of the pressure points to the ecological sustainability of the Simen Mountains relates to livestock. Although, livestock are critically essential within the existing mixed farming systems of local smallholders, they still exert huge pressures on the vital resources of the park at an alarming level. Negative impacts from people and animals are visible throughout the area in the form of soil erosion and vegetation removal (Lundi, 2005). This in turn is causing enormous consequence for the smallholders, too. One of the unanswered and still prevailing difficulties with regard to the Simen Mountains is therefore, how to take advantage of livestock for both nature conservation and sustainable development (Grnenfelder, 2006). Of great concern is, the pressure being exerted on the already shrinking grasslands of the park. This grassland, composed of different types of short- and long-grass steppe, is intensely used as grazing area for the livestock of the smallholder farmers in the 17 SMNP kebeles. The various studies and surveys conducted within and around the park (Nievergelt et al., 1998; Lundi, 2005; Grnenfelder, 2006; Debonnet, et al., 2006) with no doubt conclude that areas showing effects of heavy grazing or serious overgrazing have continuously increased especially in the past two decades. If such grassland areas should in future again serve as a habitat for herbivores such as Walia or Klipspringer or carnivores depending on grass rats, such as the Ethiopian Wolf, then far-reaching measures excluding domestic animals from considerable areas must be considered. As aptly put by Ludi (2005), of primordial importance must thus be joint efforts of all involved stakeholders from the small farmers in the area, government agencies at the different levels to international organizations in search of opportunities for sustainable development. In so doing however, it needs to be emphasized that neither protection of flora and fauna alone nor the promotion of social and economic development of local residents contributes to solve the many problems in this unique area. What are asked for are innovative ideas which help to reconcile conservation with sustainable development, allowing the park and the people to co-exist and to benefit from each other. Based on this vision of co-existence and mutual benefit of park and people, the strategy for reducing grazing pressure has been formulated as follows. In so doing however we recommend similar to the strategy to address the issue of alternative livelihoods, the strategy to manage grazing pressure should be an integral part of the revised management plan of the SMNP.

75

7.1.

GOAL

At the outset, the grazing pressure reduction strategy process has given due consideration and taken into account the Ethiopian National Conservation Strategy, the Parks status as World Heritage Site (UNESCO) and the IUCN guidelines for National Parks (Keiner, (nd). Moreover, the basic foundations for this strategy are the Exceptional Resource Values associated with the SMNP, which include the particular resource and values for which the park is originally designated and aims to protect. Thus, the overall goal of the strategy is to contribute towards the conservation and sustenance of the unique biodiversity of the SMNP and welfare improvement of the local communities residing around the park by undertaking well defined interventions aimed at reducing the current level of grazing pressure exerted on the park resources and the competition faced
The overall goal of the strategy is to contribute towards the conservation and sustenance of the unique biodiversity of the SMNP and welfare improvement of the local communities residing around the park by undertaking well defined interventions aimed at reducing the current level of grazing pressure exerted on the park resources and the competition faced thereof by wildlife.

7.2.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES (SO)

Next step in the strategy formulation process has fully considered the situation analysis and problem identification undertaken for the SMNP and described in the previous chapters of this report to arrive at a set of objectives for the strategy which are listed as follows. Wildlife habitats that are seriously sensitive to livestock grazing identified and stratified in the perspective of core and minimum-use zones; Optimum stocking rates recommended for those parts of the SMNP where controlled grazing is to be tolerated for some more time; Reduction of Animal numbers realized through intensive livestock and feed production systems of smallholder farmers; Improved animal health care and veterinary services strengthened; Community-Park collaboration enhanced and conflicts reduced.

Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: Objective 5:

7.3.

DETAILED OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES

Outputs to be expected from the realization of each of the above 5 strategic objectives and respective activities needed to be implemented to achieve these are presented in detail hereunder. 7.3.1. SO 1: ZONATION OF THE PARK AREA ACHIEVED As described in the past sections of this report, numerous negative impacts have caused severe degradation of different facets of the SMNP ecosystem, which in turn are adversely affecting both wildlife and livestock using the park area. The main contributing factor for such ecological spiral is the uncontrolled livestock grazing systems widespread in all 17 kebeles making up the park. One repeatedly forwarded explanation attributed for the proliferation of such negative practices is the absence of any demarcation or zonation within the stratified areas of the park that

76

can guide proper implementation of specific restrictions of human and livestock use of sensitive areas. In line with the above, and given that there is an urgent need to cope with livestock grazing inside the park, SO 1 aims at the immediate creation and enforcement of no grazing zones (NGZ) and (C/LGZ) zones where limited grazing will still be tolerated but closely regulated in view of a phase out in the medium to long term. The no grazing zones will thus be determined on the basis of ecological criteria, so that they will in particular include areas currently under human use but deemed as suitable habitats for Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf. Similarly, most of the areas defined as heavily overgrazed and areas prone to erosion need to be included in this zone. Moreover, considering such an action has already been expected even in the early Management Plan of 1986 and the idea of zoning the park area has also been taken up in the most recent Draft Management Plan prepared with the support of the Austrian Development Cooperation, what needs to be done now should be the actual implementation of the plan. Therefore, Management Zones currently proposed as core area, wildlife development zone and soil rehabilitation zone in the draft management plan are taken as a good basis to determine the no grazing zones. The outputs or key targets that further define the future desirable state in the SMNP that SO 1 is envisaged to achieve will thus be the following. 1. Multiple-use zonation scheme of the park together with the rules and regulations defining allowed use for the different zones will officially be endorsed by relevant stakeholders; 2. Delimitation of the park area into zones of No Grazing (NGZ) and Controlled/Limited Grazing (C/LGZ) will actually be implemented on the ground; 3. Programs that will encourage and stimulate present dwellers within the core zone to move out of such areas will be implemented; and 4. Schemes to improve range and grassland conditions for wildlife in the NGZ will be launched. The first output will achieve not only the final copy of the zonation scheme, but also agreements will be reached through consultations between the various stakeholders on the geographical locations of the two zones and the corresponding rules and byelaws of use systems for each zone. In order for the diverse stakeholders to reach an agreement, however, will require extensive awareness creation and sensitization activities. Consequent to such an agreement and endorsing, the actual demarcation of the proposed zones on the ground will be a technical measure. Output 3, which is aimed at putting an end to the continuous conflict between people and the park goals, is taken as the core of SO 1. The biggest hurdle however, will be the actual implementation of this output as it has so far been almost impossible to persuade the park dwellers to move out. Accordingly, the specific areas to be considered within each of the above two zones are tentatively proposed as follows.

77

No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

A) CORE AREA (NO GRAZING ZONE) TABLE28:- the proposed zonation of SMNP as No Grazing Zone Wereda KA Adi Arkay Angwakerneja Seragudela Agdamia

CZ

Adarmaz forest, areas above the Minmana Village, All the escarpments around the KA Dimen forest and the escarpment above Naria Village

Janamora

Lori Bahiranba

The Senkorefa Forest, Gragn Midir forest and all other escarpments, the forest above ber), all the forest and escarpment around Meabebia, above Tiya and Tiruwatta village l escarpments Amarashema escarpment and forest above biretmitad village, escarpment and forest are village, above amiwalka village, Above jona, feleg, sigulgul village and all other escarpment, really All the escarpment north east of bwahit above sama washa village

Atigiba Barna Sakeba Zakelta Dibel Adebabay-Tsion Debark Zebena Debir Argin-Jona Abergina Adisgie-Miligebsa Dib Bahir

Kechmobwahit, sherafit, mesarriya area with one km distance from the main road to s direction The escarpment and the plateau from gelada metecha to digwa and the south of mes akura village all escarpment above girariya village All escarpment the east of amhara, the plateau north of bwahit The forest found in three villages of Islam debire and all All forest of sheh azenan limalimo south Limalimo abo village and all forest around.

The plateau around enatiye niber mekmecha talikamba south west of bwahit and Mefille Gich village setderk kedadit imet gogo plateau and all escarpment around Gibar kaba north of abergina village and all near by escarpment Kebero the plateau buyitras all escarpment from kebero werabaedel and michbign villa Escarpment above abera ,susg, teraboch village

79

B) CONTROLLED/LIMITED GRAZING ZONE (C/LGZ) TABLE 29: The proposed zonation of the SMNP as controlled/limited grazing Zone Wereda KA Angwakerneja Adi Arkay 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Janamora Seragudela Agidamia Lori Bahiramba Atigiba Barna Sakeba Zakelta Debel Adebabay-Tsion Zebena Debir Argin-Jona Abergina Adisgie-Miligebsa Dib Bahir

No. 1.

C/LGZ

The cultivated land n the grazing areas to the North and South of Adarmaz and Minmana village The small area of the cultivated land, and the grazing land of Naria Village Ardebi midir, Sherafit, wogerdema, South of Duhara, part of the amiwalka forest No limited use zone The grass (Festucca) Near to Midir Washa At about 1 kilometer from Timirk towards Mesarria (Sebatminch), Bitqua, sekettatie(towards Near by Aqura village, the Ericaceous forest and plateau, Wonbergie All the cultivated land and all the escarpment near by The plateau towards Amarashema and Buahit The forest area to the South west of Islam Debir The platue above lay zebena Afaf, Talak Amba, About 1 to 2 km distance from the road towards Enatiye and Mefilekiaw For those who are living in aberginna, the Kaba plateau. But Gich should be free The area between Buitras and Michibegn plateau (not the escarpment) No limited use zone

Debark

80

It must be well understood that the zonation that restricts livestock use is the only way to protect the endangered and extremely important wildlife and their habitat. As it will be difficult to enforce specific restrictions in a large area, a step-wise approach should be chosen whereby selected areas of great importance are excluded first from any livestock use followed by other, less important areas. Discussions made with the sample community residents in the kebele administrations where the group discussion was conducted revealed that, as long as they are compensated with their life security at least the way they are now, they are ready to accept any decision. The principal bases for zoning of the SMNP as No Grazing Zone and controlled/limited grazing Zone are the home range and distribution of the major wildlife species, the extent of pressure put by the livestock to the home range of the important wildlife habitats. Furthermore, the Wildlife corridors (those connecting the main park area from Chennek to Siliki through Arquazeye and the other one stretching between Mentaber and Tiguna connecting the northern and southern parts of the Ras Dejen wildlife reserve area) were identified and considered for the mentioned zonations. 7.3.2. SO 2: GRAZING RIGHTS LIMITED TO ELIGIBLE USERS Despite the livestock sector being very important component of the farming system in the SMNP, there is a considerable concern that the number of animals per household is much higher than the carrying capacity of land resources. Overgrazing due to very high livestock population density in the park area has also been shown to contribute most to land degradation. Data and discussions presented previously in Section 4.3.2 do clearly reveal the existing picture of heavy overgrazing in the majority of kebeles making up the SMNP. It is also apparently accepted that the rural poor in the SMNP kebeles are often trapped in the vicious poverty cycle between poor access to resources (poverty), land degradation, and lack of relevant knowledge and/or appropriate technologies to generate adequate income and opportunities to overcome land degradation. The major knowledge gap is associated mainly with poor access to livestock and feed related information or technologies and markets. Moreover, most stakeholders including farmers, development workers and administration recognize that overgrazing induced by high animal numbers to be the major cause of grassland degradation and biodiversity loss. Despite such recognition of the problem however, no definite actions have been taken so far. Reversing current levels of park resources degradation in a short period on the other hand requires the immediate implementation of SO 2 thus aim at setting sustainable use levels, inscription of bylaws for use, and regularly monitoring their application. The main targets of this SO will therefore be the areas and villages within the Controlled/Limited Grazing (C/LGZ) zone. The outputs selected for realizing this are the following. Output 1. Sustainable Stocking Rates Determined. Right after the implementation of zoning, a strict management regime will need to be put in place for the areas of the park where limited grazing will continue to be tolerated. Setting sustainable stocking rates for these areas thus will be the first measure. As discussed in Section 4.3, knowing the productivity of each of the grasslands in the various locations and altitudes of the park will be necessary. Based on this, the carrying capacity of each area then will be
81

determined. Following this, determining the optimum stocking rate to be allowed for respective areas can thus be easily achieved. Rough estimates of existing levels of stocking rates for each of the 17 kebeles has been attempted earlier in Section 4.2.2 and optimum carrying capacity for most of the area has been set at around 1 to 1.5 TLU/ha of grazing land. These rough estimates have however been made based on available secondary data, which either is too old, too general or doubtful in its veracity. For example, the only data we could get on the productivity of grasslands in the park is that done by Iwomoto in 1979 for Sankaber and Gitch. Data on livestock population of each kebele has been obtained from respective woreda offices but seems to be dubious. Collection of primary data thus becomes a must, if actual optimum stocking rates are to be determined for those parts of the SMNP where grazing is to be tolerated for some more time. For that, it will be necessary to undertake the following activities. Clearly identify HHs of each kebele eligible to use park grazing resources within the C/LGZ zone; Inventory the types and numbers of all livestock owned by each of the above HHs; Measure area sizes and estimate productivity levels of the grasslands within the C/LGZ zone through scientifically acceptable methodologies; Determine optimum carrying capacity for grazing lands in each of the 17 kebeles; Set sustainable stocking rates based on the above. Output 2. Setting and Enforcing Use Rules and By-Laws Upon successful completion of the above output, the next important step to be taken will be the task of assigning grazing rights to HHs that have been identified as eligible users of park grazing resources. This is because livestock grazing rights should be limited to the local communities living inside the park or its immediate vicinity and clear arrangements should be made on the types and numbers that will be authorized to graze in the park. Not only is it necessary to limit the type of users, but also the number and type of animals each HH is allowed to graze within a given area. Even though the grazing lands within the C/LGZ zone will still continue to be governed as common property, it does not mean it will be an open access property free for all. Rather what SO2 aims to realize will be to limit the use rights so that these resources will be owned by a defined group of users. The most effective way of achieving this in turn will be through organization of farmers into user groups, who will set their rules and enforce the strict application of agreed upon legislation. Moreover, if eligible HHs are to apply effective collective action for the management of respective grazing lands, this will require each user group prepare and agree on a set of rules of restrained access to the resource; make arrangements for financial, labor or other contributions required for the management of the resource; and lay out a system of enforcement of the use restrictions and community contributions. Sustainable resource management also requires that community rules and regulations be effectively observed. Thus, given that community members may respond to non-cooperation by cooperating to increase each others incentive to cooperate, through exhortation and penalties (Berhanu, 2002), establishment of penalty systems and strictly enforcing them will be the central pillar of collective action.
82

Monitoring of application and reporting of violators can be done in either of two ways. The most common way of protecting the grazing lands is by hiring guards paid by contributions from households in cash or in kind, or in return for benefits from using the grazing areas. If on the other hand, conditions do not permit the hire of a guard, then all households within each user group need to rotate the responsibility for guarding the grazing lands between themselves. There is also a strong need to persuade the local village communities to effect changes in the norms and rules governing the use of grazing lands in their vicinity. If by chance traditional rules and local by-laws (both written and unwritten) regarding the use and sharing of resources exist in eligible villages, these need to be identified and studied with a view to effect reform or renew their emphasis in the communities allowed a limited use of park resources. The local bylaws in resource arrangement and use should be facilitated and supported, as the rules and regulations at the local level could be implemented effectively through elders and respected members of the community with tolerance and respect. At the same time, a comprehensive program to upscale the pilot activities for on-farm fodder production, introduction of improved breeds and zero-grazing practices should be developed, targeting the people who are benefiting from the grazing rights, in exchange for and in order to achieve a gradual reduction of livestock numbers and areas where grazing is tolerated. It will be necessary to make clear arrangements with the individual livestock owners. 7.3.3. SO 3: REDUCTION OF ANIMAL NUMBERS REALIZED As repeatedly stated, in addition to the inappropriate human land use, the overstocked livestock numbers exploiting park resources has accelerated the degradation of vegetation and soils, in some areas to an extent which has resulted in long-term irreversibility (Hurni and Ludi, 2000). Land use has also intensified, basically through shortening of fallow periods and through expansion of cultivated land. Population is expected to double within 3545 years, as it has over the past decades, and livestock numbers have been increasing as well. Such changes are being perceived by all stakeholder groups, and there is a shared common view of the consequences involved. Differences, however, exist on the role of the Park vis--vis local farming, and the value of nature protection vis--vis the struggle of the local population to survive. The analysis of the livestock production, management and feed resource base of the park kebeles done for this study (refer to sections 4 and 5) shows that the livestock, land and livelihood systems are closely interlinked, which is characteristic for the mixed agricultural system of the Simen Mountains. The analysis further indicates as to the worsening situation with regard to meeting the feed requirements of all the animals owned by farmers in the area. Expressed figuratively, albeit area differences, most of the grazing lands in the 17 kebeles accommodated 3 to 20 TLUs per each ha of grazing land. This in other words means they are meeting less than 25% of the annual feed demands of available animals. Similar results have also been reported in other studies as well. For instance, a recent study on livestock in SMNP (Grnenfelder, 2006) showed that, of the available fodder resources, around 80% in the lowlands and a little less than 60% in the highlands come from private cultivation land. Almost 40% of the available fodder resources in the high-lands come from the alpine pastures, which are like other communal lands not subject to any use regulations. The study
83

thus concluded that: the pressure by livestock on soil and vegetation has increased during the last years due to increasing livestock holdings at village level and persistent management practices. For the beginning of the rainy season 2004 it was, for example, calculated that in Debir kebele only 53-79% of the total fodder requirement (based on livestock numbers) can be covered; in Argin 56-84% and in Kerneja 75-112%. During the dry season fodder resources are even scarcer, as the example of Maylham Spring, Kerneja shows. Only 44-67% of the fodder requirements can be covered in the dry season.

The pressure by livestock on soil and vegetation has increased during the last years due to increasing livestock holdings at village level and persistent management practices

According to the local smallholders, increased livestock holdings at village level in general have not resulted in improved livelihood conditions for the single households, many farmers even feel a deterioration of livelihoods since 1994 and above all since 1977 (SMBS, 2004). Changing conditions in livelihoods (e.g. lower crop production, availability of new markets, reduced grazing lands per animal) led to changing importance of livestock functions (e.g. increased importance of cash generating functions or manure production) and are sometimes followed or anticipated by an adaptation of the management practices (e.g. change of herd composition, reorganization of land use rights). Nevertheless, livestock production is low, livestock losses are high, and the present management practices cannot contribute enough to strengthening the livestock sector. Given all these problems therefore, one of the development pathways that need to be explored and implemented regards the reduction of animal numbers in and around sensitive areas. This recommendation however is not forwarded to be implemented through proclamations and regulatory systems. Rather the intention is to persuade concerned smallholder farmers to veer towards intensive livestock production systems so that they can gradually reduce their reliance on large numbers of low producing animals. Such changes towards small but intensive systems not only reduce the number of animals necessary to sustain the system, but also give room for gradually shifting from extensive grazing systems to tethered and cut-and-carry feeding systems. In so doing however, supporting such changes with enhanced livestock marketing systems will also be mandatory. To achieve the above changes therefore, the main focus initially must concentrate on attaining sustainable flow of quality, fattened animals for both domestic and export markets. This will especially be true for small ruminants, as they are mainly grown for earning cash. Furthermore, in order to stimulate such flow, the initial efforts will need to favor redirection of fattening enterprises towards more robust intensive systems that will exploit the existing resource base to complimentary advantages. The following outputs are hence proposed to achieve this objective of reducing animal numbers.

Output 1. Availability of Improved Feeds Promoted The livestock sector in the park area must make major reforms to achieve sufficient levels of the necessary nutritious feeds and nowhere is this need for change more apparent than in the
84

traditional smallholder small ruminant and cattle enterprises. Estimates of feed availability against requirements calculated for the area repeatedly indicate the fact that there exists a large gap both quantitatively and qualitatively. On the other hand, research has conclusively confirmed that as much as 10 to 15 percent of the existing live weight gain can appreciably be increased through adequate feeding of present fattening animals. Moreover the shorter time it takes an animal to reach mature marketable weight, the smaller the number of animals required to meet the cash need of the farmer. The overarching objective of this output will therefore be to increase the amount and type of feeds available to small and medium animal fatteners. This can further be realized by implementing the following development activities within this output. Expand existing forage seed multiplication and dissemination Expand grass/legume feed plots in fattening farms Introduce crop residue upgrading techniques Promote Cooperative level feed mixing plants

Output 2. Intensive Production Systems Promoted Evidently, the majority of livestock owners in the park kebeles are smallholder producers who represent the most vulnerable group, relying essentially on subsistence systems and small number of animals. The low levels of productivity, due to the lack of input and technology, and the lack of diversification have thus been singled out as the two endemic constraints preventing the farmers from providing adequately to the markets and elevating their income (through income diversification and higher returns on their production). Such HHs in the SMNP on the other hand has a great need and considerable potential for increased production from their cattle and small ruminants. The significance of these animals is more highlighted considering their full linkage into the smallholder farming system, where they fulfill several functions and are a major source of cash income. Given that both species are functionally integrated into the highland mixed farming system, particular attention needs to be given for raising their productivity. Accordingly, one of the best pathways for realizing SO 3 and reduce animal numbers will thus be to reorient the livestock production system in the area so that it moves away from its age-old traditional subsistence roots to become an activity where farm output is more responsive to market trends. Central focus area of this output will then be improving the productive efficiency of the various types of animal production. There is a considerable literature that testifies to the productive efficiency of small farms. On the basis of that, it is argued that small animal farming HHs in the SMNP, are well placed to enter markets if they can overcome some constraints. With regard to improving dairy production therefore, a two-prong approach can be followed. On the one hand farmers can maintain their local indigenous cows, without further investments in new breeds, but improve their husbandry and management so as to increase productivity. With only a little additional care of traditional herds to help promote good cattle health, good fodder and use of crop residues as supplementary feed at the beginning of the dry season, milk volume could be easily tripled. Whenever possible, however, the above approach needs to be supplemented with the introduction of crossbred cows to the area. Such an incremental approach to increasing production and productivity is believed to provide smallholders the opportunity to understand and learn market-oriented dairy enterprise well before committing larger investments. As has happened in other highland areas of the region,
85

smallholders will gradually begin to invest in dairy activities, switching traditional cows with mixed-dairy breeds to increase milk volume. In terms of sheep and goats as well, production in the area has not over the years evolved towards efficient, commercial type systems. Thus it is still rooted to the centuries-old subsistence system, with animals mainly reared to fulfill the various requirements of the mixed farming system. Consequently, growth to a mature weight of all classes of ruminants is excessively slow, which in turn leads to off take rates that are much below the potential. For example, under current production systems in the highlands of SMNP, it takes around 15 to 18 months to attain mature weight in sheep and goats and a minimum of 40 months in the case of cattle. A major goal of this output will therefore be how to shorten the time it takes an animal reach marketable weight. The following activities will thus be undertaken so as to achieve such intensive and semi-intensive production units: Sheep and goat breed improvement through introduction of fast growing indigenous breeds such as the Washera sheep and Abergelle goat Creating economies of scale for specialization by introducing production systems with flocks of at least 20 to 30 animals per HH; Implementing disease prevention and control measures; Animal housing and improved reproduction management; and Enhanced credit and extension delivery systems. The main difference between the proposed and the currently existing systems will thus mainly be related to the amount of labor and capital invested, as reflected in management strategies such as breeding and housing, and the degree of pasture development. Output 3. Market Linkages Enhanced Previous description of existing systems have clearly shown that access to livestock markets poses a key bottleneck to the expansion of smallholder meat and milk production and processing. Since the present livestock and dairy products marketing system serving farmers of the park area is in its traditional roots, not all market mechanisms are expected to be operational. Unless some of these problems are solved, enhancing the ability of poor smallholder farmers to reach markets and actively engage in them will still continue a pressing development challenge. Difficult market access restricts opportunities for income generation. Remoteness of the majority of kebeles and HHs in the SMNP results in reduced farm-gate prices; increased input costs; and lower returns to labor and capital. The strategic objective of intensifying the production system so as to reduce animal numbers in the park area should therefore focus at transforming the subsistence mode of agricultural production system into market oriented production system and its implementation has to begin in the immediate short term. If and when the proposed intensification of the production system is actually realized, then establishment of effective supply-chains successfully interconnecting farmers to distant consumers will be a must. SO 3 thus views improved livestock and products marketing as an important development strategy that can at the same time increase rural incomes and reduce the pressure on park resources. Moreover the improvement of existing rural livestock markets in the area will make a significant contribution to the overall processes of specialization and diversification programs that need to
86

appear in almost all SMNP woredas. We moreover, believe that such market oriented commodity-based specialization strategy will open new ways forward and create possibilities for a wide variety of initiatives. There are nevertheless important questions and issues, which still need to be addressed if the full benefits of such market oriented system are to be realized in the short term. In line with this therefore, the following activities are proposed as part of this output to improve the existing livestock marketing system in the area. Improve and upgrade market infrastructure, such as roads and live animal market yards; Establish and support dairy marketing cooperatives Develop and disseminate model dairy processing centers at cooperative level Establish livestock market information collection and dissemination system 7.3.4. SO 4: IMPROVED ANIMAL HEALTH CARE AND VETERINARY SERVICES STRENGTHENED Recommendations for future direction include awareness creation among stakeholders with special emphasis to the community; mass mobilization; the alignment of park boundaries by excluding villages situated on the edge of the park; extension of further habitats to Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf; relocation of villages from the park; establishment of buffer zone around the park; development of projects to support sustainable development activities in the buffer zone; provide basic requirements (food security, education, shelter, health, potable water, access, etc) in the area for better livelihoods; promote the quality and coverage of animal health delivery system; improve animal husbandry practices; regulate grazing on communal land; restrict access for livestock to core wildlife habitats and specific protection zones; and improve livestock marketing system. As wildlife habitats and grazing lands of domestic animals were found overlap in many areas, vaccination of domestic animals against easily transmissible diseases should be considered as an immediate action, to protect the endangered wildlife. Moreover, separating wildlife habitats and grazing areas of domestic animals is an indispensable measure in order to keep healthy populations of the wildlife under threat and hopefully enables to increase their numbers, otherwise their distinction.
As wildlife habitats and grazing lands of domestic animals were found overlap in many areas, vaccination of domestic animals against easily transmissible diseases should be considered as an immediate action, to protect the endangered wildlife. Moreover, separating wildlife habitats and grazing areas of domestic animals is an indispensable measure in order to keep healthy populations of the wildlife under threat and hopefully enables to increase their numbers, otherwise their distinction.

Unfortunately, quite likely that, most communicable diseases with high epidemic potential may only be detected after they have become established in a range of hosts, and have already spread
87

significantly. The logical pre-emptive counter to this scenario would be to increase disease awareness, surveillance and monitoring activities, and create a rapid response capability to investigate any disease event. Moreover, as the nature (causative agent) and pattern (spatial & temporal) of most infectious & contagious diseases are very complex and dynamics, the disease control and prevention strategy should be through a holistic (epidemiological) approach including the whole ecosystem (wildlife, livestock, people, habitat, etc). An improvement in the health of the entire ecosystem enables to improve with restoration of the wildlife habitat. Adopting of such holistic approach should be beneficial to the ecosystem and the economic situation of the local communities, as well as create a healthier environment for wildlife and livestock. This holistic approach should bring together all potential government agencies and stakeholders that have overlapping and interfaced interests including the community, decision makers, park administrators, wildlife managers, veterinarians, ecologists, sociologists, economists, livestock and environmental scientists, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Unfortunately, quite likely that, most communicable diseases with high epidemic potential may only be detected after they have become established in a range of hosts, and have already spread significantly.

In summery, within this specific strategic objective, the following Outputs are outlined for effective implementation. Output 1:- Awareness created and strengthening animal health service established Output 2:- Livestock and other animal from the No Grazing Zone strictly excluded Output 3:- Free movement and long time stay of pack-animals in the loading/unloading sites within SMNP prohibited Output 4:- use/application of any poisonous or potentially dangerous chemicals in the farmlands prohibited Output 1:- Awareness created on the problem and extent of animal health and strengthening animal health service in the SMNP Conducting regular and consecutive awareness creation and community mobilization among the inhabitants, introduction of modern animal husbandry systems, strengthening the animal health service delivery system in the surrounding structures, conducting regular disease surveillance in and around the park, regular vaccination of all domestic animals against endemic and/or emerging diseases including Anthrax, Black-leg, Haemorrhagic septicemia/Pasteurellosis, Manhaemia, Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia, Peste des petits ruminants, application of tactical and strategic de-worming of livestock in the buffer zone and surrounding areas, application of regular acaricide dipping or spraying of livestock in the buffer zone and surrounding areas establishing a veterinary unit in the park to monitor disease trends and impacts, and to advice the park management authorities on the best course of action, regular vaccination against rabies, movement restriction and killing of stray dogs through clear understanding and collaboration of the inhabitants, and designing and conducting
88

epidemiological studies to fully understand the ecological and socioeconomic implications of diseases within the context of establishing a healthy ecosystem are among the major actions to be undertaken. Output 2:- Exclusion of livestock and other animal from the No Grazing Zone achieved Based on the suggested realignment (zonation) of the park as NGZ and C/LGZ boundary, establishment of sites for regular surveillance and monitoring, exclusion of livestock from the NGZ areas of the park and minimize grazing overlap by reducing the livestock population size from the C/LGZ, and as dogs are the major reservoir and are responsible for spillover of pathogens to wild canids with epizootics, prohibition of roaming and hunting dogs introduction into the wildlife habitats will be the major actions to be taken. Output 3:- Exclusion of free movement and long time stay of pack-animals in the loading/unloading sites within SMNP Prohibition of pack-animals' stay in the loading-unloading site of ''Buahit'' and seek for other alternatives for the transportation system, construction of fences for short stay of the packanimals, enforcing the owners of the pack animals to carry sufficient food for their animals while they are staying in the loading and unloading sites, and allowing certified animals (those whose health situation is monitored and supervised) to give the mentioned service within the SMNP will be the main activities t be undertaken. Output 4:- Prohibition of use/application of any poisonous or potentially dangerous chemicals in the farmlands within and around the SMNP farm lands During the survey study, it was reported that farmers use chemicals like rodents to protect rats from damaging crops. Such activity could be very dangerous, particularly for the Simen Fox. Hence, Prohibition of application (using) of any poisonous or potentially dangerous chemicals such as rodenticides, herbicides and insecticides in the park will be the main activity of this specific output. 7.3.5. SO 5: COMMUNITY-PARK CONFLICTS REDUCED COLLABORATION ENHANCED AND

Establishment of the SMNP, similar to other protected areas, has been undertaken as the single most important method of conserving valuable wildlife and preserving biological diversity. Moreover, according to IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), as far as possible people should be separated from wildlife in all national parks. In the case of the SMNP, this has almost been illusory and impossible for the simple reason that people were residing in the park area well before it was declared as a national park to serve as protected area for wildlife sanctuary. Consequently, people residing inside the park have to bear certain costs in the form of either displacement from their traditional lands or higher levels of restriction on the use and access to the park resources. No large-scale change in land use including livestock grazing is allowed in the SMNP. As a result, the wildlife in the park has more or less been alienated from the local people, and this practice has transformed wildlife from a valuable commodity into a threat and a nuisance for some of the farming households. For these and other reasons, many farmers in the area feel the protected areas in the SMNP operate directly against their economic interests and persistent
89

encroachment into park boundaries has led to a growing recognition that this fences and fines approach has failed to achieve its objective of preserving wildlife. Hence, in much of Africa the main approach to recent wildlife management schemes has been to include the local people to gain their cooperation and support, which have eventually resulted in the so called Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (Johannesen, and Skonhoft, 2004). These projects involve varying levels of local participation, ranging from pure benefit sharing, such as transfers from wildlife-related activities, to a more far-reaching design of communitybased management in which local communities are trained to manage and control resources. While the core objective of these projects is protected area conservation (Johannesen, and Skonhoft, 2004), the aim is to achieve this by promoting economic development and by providing local people with alternative income sources that do not threaten wildlife. Moreover, several experiences from wildlife parks of many African countries have shown that, conservation-related resettlement exercises set within already unstable and dynamic contexts of economic and social change have often exacerbated preexisting conditions of poverty and social disintegration (Cernea, 1997). Accordingly, Cernea (1997) lists eight of the most significant impoverishment risks from involuntary resettlement: landlessness; joblessness; homelessness; marginalization; food insecurity; loss of access to common property resources; increased morbidity and mortality; and community disarticulation. Rural societies have developed livelihoods and subsistence strategies contingent upon access to specific local resources. As the goal of strictly protected areas is to limit or prevent human use of many of those natural resources central to rural livelihoods, conservation-related relocation has often disrupted and transformed such livelihoods, even when carried out in the most sensitive of ways (Cernea 1997). Given that the kebeles within and around the SMNP are food insecure areas with few livelihood options, fierce competition for the scarce resources available will be the norm than the exception. The goal of maintaining good relationships between park authorities and the local community will thus be not easy. Earlier development interventions however show us that conservation and sustainable development require significant cohesion on the part of the community in participation, enforcement, and derivation of benefits. For meaningful involvement of SMNPadjacent communities therefore, the alarm felt by most of the poor farmers, which in turn is brought about by the severe livelihood insecurity they currently face must be attended to. The following Outputs within this strategic objective thus need to learn from the failures of past efforts and aim to reduce conflict by stimulating park-community cooperation and collaboration. Output 1. Community outreach programs launched Output 2. Park livelihood program implemented Output 3. Mechanisms for park-community cooperation, conflict resolution and benefit sharing established Output 1. Community outreach programs launched So far, the local population in Simen has not been involved in park management thus; people consider the park more a hindrance than an opportunity. This could be changed by involving local residents in the management and conservation of natural resources (Hurni & Ludi, 2000).
90

The outreach program will provide a good opportunity for the park staff and other concerned governmental and non-governmental bodies to partnership with local people in facilitating park conservation activities. The purpose of the community outreach program was to hear the views of community leaders and the general public about grazing management, the reasons for their views, and their questions and concerns that would need to be addressed in further outreach. For this purpose, the Park should design different techniques to hear from both community leaders and the public with in and around the park area through (1) interviews and workshops with community leaders, and (2) focus group sessions with the general public. Those measures may serve to represent the aspirations of villagers in management decisions, as well as serving to socialize park management policy to its constituents. Establishment of a sense of pride and ownership of local resources is a key step in generating strong support for conservation measures. The use of focal interest group meetings instead of relying only on large village meetings is essential for ensuring broad-based community participation and equitable decision-making. This ensures the involvement of many of the more marginalized or traditionally quiet community members. To enhance understanding of the role of decreasing park grazing pressure; park authorities, agriculture and rural development office and other concerned bodies should be engaged in education and outreach activities. For this purpose, techniques of communication must be designed. Further, stakeholder meetings should be frequently held to explain to concerned villagers and to invite constructive input to share responsibility over sustained resources in and around Simen. Output 2. Park livelihood program implemented One of the facilitating approaches to minimize pressure on natural resources of SMNP is the alternative livelihood program. The alternative livelihood engagement of local communities and the private sector further enhances a local constituency for park management. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base. Based on series of discussion with the community different measure should be taken to decrease the burden of grazing. We know that there is a development of alternative livelihood for the population of SMNP by Amhara National Regional State Parks Development and Protection Authority. Therefore, before implementation of the livelihood project there must be a subsequent discussion with the community including women. Since a significant number of the Park population is illiterate or has only insufficient basic education, additional efforts should be undertaken in order to improve their education, in order to improve their job chances and thus facilitate out-migration. The following Alternative Livelihoods Strategy for the population of the Simen Mountains National Park:
91

Relocate the Park Population

The livelihood of the park will not be sustainable in the long run, no potential alternative options within the Park. Especially in the core area the residents should be relocated gradually out of the park. Relocation should first start with voluntary base and this activity must be supported by decreasing positive incentive within the park area and by increasing incentive outside the park. The relocation of the population out of the park should also start from young parts of the society. Establish New Businesses

The National Park must design and implement business alternatives based on the communities willingness and ability to perform those activities. Therefore, this decision should also be made with the collaboration of them. Furthermore, to decrease a significant amount of grazing pressure these activities must start with community in the core zone as well as with young generation of the society that easily assimilate changes. In addition agreements must be made not to return back in the park area again through active participation of the community in the planning as well as implementation of activities. Increase Cash Flow In order to raise the chances of success for the newly established businesses, the general purchasing power in the region must be increased. For this purpose, it is vital that cash must be injected into the local economy. Since there is no enough capital available on the local level, it must be brought in from outside by using different strategies, such as establishment and promotion of local credit institutions; and means of involving funds etc. Coordination

The development participants (whether governmental or non governmental organization) in the park should do a coordinated work to bring the society to sustainable development. In our group discussion as well as the key informant interview we have encounter different intervention, which harm or contradict the conservation issue. One typical example is the issue of livestock credit given by different institutions. Therefore to solve those kinds of issues there should be a strong coordination among those participants. Output 3. Mechanisms for park-community cooperation, conflict resolution and benefit sharing established There are two common park management systems in the world, the North America and British systems. The goal of the North American park systems was the preservation of scenic beauty and the protection of natural wonders so that people can enjoy them (Harris and Eisenberg, 1989). In contrast to the North American park system, the British system recognized human beings as integral component of the natural landscape and incorporated the principles of co development, sustainable resource use and rural development. The British authorities have promoted agriculture within the national parks and expressed concern when the population engaged in agriculture within the parks declined (Harmon, 1991). The increase in population and the necessity of growing more food for survival have led to the exploitation of resources within the parks. In certain other cases, parks have been encroached by
92

farmers for field crop cultivation or livestock grazing. In SMNP about 75% of the park is used in one-way or another by humans undisturbed areas hospitable to wild animals are confined to the steepest part of the escarpment (Hurni and Ludi, 2000). This overlapping land use situation creates conflicts at several levels. First, there are conflicts between land users and wild life. On one side, habitats, especially for the Walia ibex, the Simen wolf and leopards are becoming smaller due to the need to use as many areas as possible for human use, at the cost of undisturbed habitat. On the other hand, damage caused by wild life even out side the National Park by grass rats, baboons, Simen Wolf and leopards. From the farmer point of view, Wild life is a threat. For example from our group discussion held in Buitras, the community put wildlife is the third important constraint in the livestock production. As the majority of the protected are related conflicts are deeply rooted to issues of poverty and overpopulation, the solutions of which is rather a lengthy and complicated process, it might be necessary to think of conflict management' rather than conflict resolution.' Varied in nature, though, the majority of the conflicts have certain common characteristics such as involvement of a large number of stakeholder conflict management or resolution largely beyond the control of protected area managers which are influenced by several institutional, legal, political and economic factors; conflicts often complicated by scientific uncertainty and by tension between scientific and local, indigenous knowledge; and shortage of funding which inhibit protected area manager's ability to deal with conflict situations (Lewis, 1994 as quoted by Sanjay and Weber ). Local people, who once were enjoying free access to areas henceforth covered by parks and were able to meet their needs from "inside" resources, now no longer, have legal access. They have seen the park as an attempt by the government to curtail their access to their traditional rights of resource use. As a result, illegal activities such as expansion of cultivated lands and grazing have intensified, and there are many cases of confrontation between park officials and local people. In Simen people were residing in the park area well before it was declared as a national park to serve as protected area for wildlife sanctuary. The crucial matter then becomes how to maintain a harmonious relationship between a national park and communities in its surrounding area. The conflict resolution strategies have a combination of several elements such as (i) addressing the procedural interests, which mainly entails involvement of various parties interested in the conflict resolution, (ii) addressing the substantial issues, which means providing local communities with benefits from the protected area or mitigating its adverse impacts, (iii) enforcement to prevent or respond to illegal activity, (iv) education or public relations efforts, and (v) research for the development of substantive solutions to the conflicts (Lewis, 1994 as quoted by Sanjay and Weber). Several conflict resolution strategies have been proposed, which mainly focus on providing benefits to the local human population living in and around the national parks. Sharing Benefits

The future of protected areas largely depends on the conditions and standards of living of the local people. As long as the local people remain poor, they will not appreciate the aesthetic values of conservation. Programs based on revenue generated by or through national parks have

93

positive impacts on the local people, which not only offer employment opportunities but also develop in them positive feelings towards national parks (Ishwaran and Erdelen, 1990). In most of the discussion held in Simen, majority of the participant raise the issue of sharing benefit from the park. Moreover, we raised the same issue on different key informants and almost all believe benefit sharing, though the understanding between different participants is different. For example the community considers benefit-sharing issue only sharing from the revenue collected by government. But the Park Administration Office and other governmental organization consider benefit sharing in two ways, the first is the benefit collected by government and the second one is the expenditure of the tourists on different economy participants (including local guiders, cooks, pack animal renters, guards and so on). However, the demand of local society from the government-collected revenue also has got acceptance by different parties that is why in the park development plan the share of the community is also proposed. Establishment of Buffer Zones

Buffer zones are regarded as one of the suitable strategies for resolving any conflicts caused by firewood, fodder and grazing pressures. A buffer zone is an area of controlled and sustainable land use, which separates the protected area from direct human pressures and provides valued benefits to neighboring rural communities. More recently, a buffer zone has been considered an area where "restrictions placed upon resource use or special development measures are undertaken to enhance the conservation value of the area" (Sayer, 1991 cited by Sanjay and Weber). In Simen, especially on core zone particular protection should be made. A prime protection zone comprising the main habitat of Walia ibex (i.e escarpment area), parts of alpine grasslands, and remaining forests, both in the highlands and in the low lands should form the central part of the Simen wild life (Hurni and Ludi, 2000). In this regard the park office should have its own legislation section at least at expert level. Change in Local People's Attitude

To understand the interrelationship between park and local people, it is vital to become familiar with the perceptions and attitudes of the local people, with the ultimate objective of conflict resolution. It is necessary to explore the potential among local people in making decisions on how local people should be motivated for conservation. Conservation Education

One essential requirement for and basis of local people's involvement in park planning and management is conservation education to widen and deepen their perspectives. The significance of education for the understanding and implementation of conservation and sustainable development is stressed in the national conservation strategies of many countries. Little is stated, however, about the roles of parks and protected areas in promoting awareness and creating the required knowledge and skills. While local people might be aware of the environmental degradation they are causing, their immediate concern for maximizing profit makes them dismiss or suppress their awareness (Sanjay and Weber, 1990).

94

Environmental education has been considered as an effective tool in achieving conservation goals, provided their long-term benefits are highlighted (Ishwaran and Erdelen, 1990). The mass media could play a significant role in environmental education. Likewise, NGOs have high potentiality in creating public awareness (Meyers and Meyers, 1983). Any grassroots level environment education program tackling real problems and finding solutions will have, in all likelihood, an immediate impact on its participants. The acute shortage of concrete problem solving approaches might imply that the education process is largely closed off from its surrounding conditions, thus remaining of limited Increasing Financial Assistance

Adequate financing of environmental conservation programs in developing countries has been a major problem. Not only do local people give low priority to conservation efforts, but also government agencies are strapped by tight budgetary constraints. Seeking international financial and technical assistance might ease these. If protected areas in developing nations are to remain viable in the future, a great deal of support should be extended by international organizations. They can facilitate and support conservation efforts of developing nations in many ways (Ramos, 1988). To finance the proposed alternatives livelihood strategies and to undertake different activities (like, public education, enforcing the park legislation, relocation etc.), the park highly demand adequate external fund. On the other hand for sustainable financing the park should design different techniques to raise the revenue. Supportive measures for the achievement of the above goal, through food security may include:Wildlife and park conservation and development; improvement of production and productivity of rural households; designing and implementing sustainable livelihood strategies; enhancement of the qualitative contribution of the livestock sector in food security; implementing sustainable land-use practices; building human and institutional capacity; promotion and expansion of rural credit services; expansion and strengthening of off-farm employment opportunities; implementing settlement programs; and establishing tourism development strategy. To windup, by logic there is no hope for the park population to continue their present way of life for any lengthier period of time. The only option through which: a. b. c. d. The long-term livelihoods of the park population can be ensured; The degradation of the natural resources of the park can be halted or reversed; The protection of wildlife from the existing potential hazards secured; and the population of the park can be significantly reduced is to cooperate with the park population in their voluntary removal from the park, encouraged by providing them with better alternative and acceptable livelihoods in the fertile barren areas in the zone/region.

Similarly extension of the habitat available to the wildlife, in order to assure their survival, could be mandatory. In fact it needs preconditions to pull it into practice. As the fate of the park depends on what is going on the surrounding areas, coordination with all stakeholders is necessary. It needs strong policy and applicable regulations as well as clear agreement with and firm commitment from the community, regional, zonal, woreda and kebele administrators
95

regarding the use and management of the area, exclusion of livestock from such habitats, prohibition of deforestation activities, relocation (settlement) of villages. Designing and elaborating compensation schemes may be essential in employing relocation of villages to convince the villagers. Moreover, much closer collaboration of different organizations would be needed to properly address identified problems and develop appropriate solutions. The proposal for the realignment of the park boundary resulting in the exclusion of numerous villages from the park and voluntary resettlement may be faced with unwillingness of the villagers in the park, partly due to lack of awareness and lack of attractive alternative livelihood options. Strong effort, therefore, is essential in order to make them aware of the comparative advantage of resettlement and also to establish effective projects supporting the livelihood development of the community as well as welfare and security of the park. To reduce the number of livestock is possible only by intensifying animal husbandry through additional feed and forage. However, firstly, the grass to provide such fodder is simply not available, and secondly, a more intensified animal husbandry would require technical infrastructure in compatible with the park regulation. Besides, all possible efforts are needed to increase land productivity and reduce the number of people depending on the land.
Generally, for successful and sustainable result there must be mutual joint efforts of all involved stakeholders, from the local residents, government agencies at different levels to international organizations, in search of opportunities. What are needed here are positive thinking for mutualism, innovative ideas which help to reconcile conservation with sustainable development, enabling the park and the people to co-exist and to benefit from each other.

96

7.4.

STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

In terms of SMNP, as the existing livestock production system has been to some extent investigated, described and analyzed and that the major constraints behind the unfavorable competition being exerted on park resources have been identified, the next work done was to formulate physical and financial plans for the outputs listed under each strategic objective. Strategy papers typically present short- and medium-term visions and entry points for the actual implementation of the selected outputs that offer the greatest promise of success. With this in mind, the details of the plan are presented as follows.

7.4.1.

PHYSICAL PLAN

7.4.1.1 Action Plan for SO1: Zonation of the park area achieved

In order to be successful with protection and sustainable management of the SMNP, undertaking zonation f the area as No Grazing Zone and Controlled/Limited Us Zone is not questionable. Such zoning contributes to avoidance of conflict in the available resource use. This in urn could have advantages including protection of habitat for the wildlifes and protection of qualities of the natural environment, and provides a chance to rehabilitate the threatening situations of he biodiversity.

Therefore any one can sense that there is an urgent need to cope with livestock grazing inside the park, where the zonation strategic objective aims at the immediate creation and enforcement of no grazing zones (NGZ) and (C/LGZ) zones where limited grazing will still be tolerated but closely regulated in view of a phase out in the medium to long term. In the previous sections it was mentioned tat the no grazing zones will be determined on the basis of ecological criteria, so that they will in particular include areas currently under human use but deemed as suitable habitats for Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf. Furthermore, most of the heavily overgrazed and areas prone to erosion are included in this zone. For the zonation action plan proposal, the management Zones currently proposed as core area, wildlife development zone and soil rehabilitation zone in the draft management plan were taken as a good basis to determine the no grazing zones. Through the proposed action plans it is hoped that agreements will be reached through consultations between the various stakeholders on the geographical locations of the two zones and the corresponding rules and byelaws of use systems for each zone. Consequent to such an agreement and endorsing, the actual demarcation of the proposed zones on the ground will be a technical measure. Furthermore, it is hoped that this will be an end to the continuous conflict between people and the park goals. Generally any one needs to have the understanding that the zonation that restricts livestock use is the only way to protect the endangered and extremely important wildlife and their habitat. For that reason, a step-wise approach is proposed whereby selected areas of great importance are excluded first from any livestock use followed by other, less important areas.

97

TABLE 30: Action Plan for SO1: Zonation of the park area achieved Key Targets Multiple-use zonation scheme with rules and regulations Delimitation of the park area into zones of No Grazing (NGZ) and Controlled/Limited Grazing (C/LGZ) Moving out of the present dwellers within the core zone Support Outputs Activities Lead Role Role
Multiple-use zonation scheme of the park together with the rules and regulations defining allowed use for the different zones officially endorsed by relevant stakeholders Preparation of final copy of the zonation scheme Conducting meetings with the community and reaching at agreements through consultations between the various stakeholders on the geographical locations of the two zones Preparation of corresponding rules and byelaws of use systems for each zone Undertaking actual demarcation of the proposed zones on the ground with the help of GPS instrument SMNPO SMNPO WADO EPLAUA WA WADO EPLAUA WA

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

X X X

Delimitation of the park area into zones of No Grazing (NGZ) and Controlled/Limited Grazing (C/LGZ) will actually be implemented on the ground Programs that will encourage and stimulate present dwellers within the core zone to move out of such areas will be implemented -

X X SMNPO WADO EPLAUA X

Conducting extensive and continuous awareness creation and sensitization activities Implementing the proposed alternative livelihoods implementing the range and grassland conditions for wildlife in the grazing zone

SMNPO SMNPO

WADO WADO

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Schemes to improve range and grassland conditions for wildlife in the NGZ will be launched

SMNPO

WADO

X X X X X X

98

7.4.1.2 Action Plan for SO2: Grazing Rights Limited to Eligible Users Table 31: Action Plan for SO2: Grazing Rights Limited to Eligible Users Key Targets Sustainable grazing levels to be allowed within the C/LGZ zone set Bye-laws for use of such grazing lands inscribed Regular monitoring of their application achieved Outputs Sustainable Stocking Rates Determined Activities
Clearly identify HHs of each kebele eligible to use park grazing resources within the C/LGZ zone Inventory the types and numbers of all livestock owned by each of the above HHs Measure area sizes and estimate productivity levels of the grasslands within the C/LGZ zone through scientifically acceptable methodologies Determine optimum carrying capacity for grazing lands in each of the 17 kebeles Set sustainable stocking rates based on the above Organize eligible farmers into user groups Assist each user group prepare and agree on a set of rules of restrained access to the resource Agree upon the number and type of animals each HH is allowed to graze within respective C/LGZ Establishment of penalty systems and strictly enforcing them Monitoring of application and reporting of violators

Lead Role
SMNPO

Support Role
WADO EPLAUA WA

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

X X

SMNPO SMNPO

X X X X X X

SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO

X X X X WCA/WADO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Use Rules and By-Laws Set and Enforced

99

7.4.1.3 Action Plan for SO3: Reduction of Animal Numbers Realized

As detailed earlier, the reduction of animal numbers especially in and around the sensitive areas of C/LGZ zone is envisaged to be realized mainly by persuading concerned smallholder farmers to veer towards intensive livestock production systems so that they can gradually reduce their reliance on large numbers of low producing animals. Intensification of production in this case implies the application of new skills and inputs to raise yields and values per head of livestock or per unit area used for feed production. Such changes towards small but intensive systems in turn not only reduce the number of animals necessary to sustain the system, but also give room for gradually shifting from extensive grazing systems to tethered and cut-and-carry feeding systems. To achieve the above changes therefore, the main focus initially must concentrate on widely implementing the "Zero Grazing" option which allows the raising of livestock without putting their need for land and man's in competition and conflict. Using such method 2 - 3 cattle and other small ruminants can be raised in 100 m2 areas, far less than needed to support even one animal on pasture. Realization of such improved feed production practices then will allow small scale fattening and dairy operations where animals will be kept corralled with adequate shelter, shade and water. Forage is brought to them. The forage will be grown either in special plots or cut even from any vegetation - producing area of the farm. Improving existing livestock marketing systems so as to attain sustainable flow of quality, fattened animals for both domestic and export markets will then be the other intervention to be implemented in parallel to the above. To this end four main development components that integrate livestock within the farming system at the homestead level have been formulated. These are:

Forage improvement; Improved cattle and small ruminant fattening ; Improved Beekeeping; and Genetic improvement of local cows and sheep through crossbreeding.

An implementation schedule of at least five years has been worked out for each component, and the number of participant households for the respective activities is planned to increase gradually. Component 1: Improved Forage Development The major activities for achieving the targets set for this component and thereby increase the forage produced in all the 17 SMNP Kebeles include homestead forage production and small plots of Vetch/Oat mixes. Generally these feed development methods would aim to increase total DM available to livestock and to improve protein nutrition particularly during the dry season. Homestead forage production involves the establishment of plots or hedges of forage in the immediate vicinity of the house. Hedges around the house plots would comprise tree legumes or tall growing grass such as Elephant grass. The inherently higher soil fertility and good control of livestock adjacent to the house enables the establishment of highly productive species with close to maximal yields. The backyard areas would be used solely for the production of high quality forage for the supplementation of 100

lower quality feedstuffs including crop residues, particularly in backyard fattening or dairying operations; hence even small areas of 50 - 100 m2 can be significant. Further, as this development option is heavily dependent on the use of tree legumes and propagation of seedlings within nurseries before dissemination will be necessary. This component is further planned to be implemented through all the 17 park kebeles within the three woredas. It is to be recalled also that there are a total of 17,751 farming HHs in these kebeles. Therefore as can be seen from Table 32 out of these total households, 10 % will be introduced to improved forage production in Year I; and the number of new participant HHs will increase by an additional 23% annually so that around 75% of all HHs will be producing improved forages either at homestead or on farm or both by Year V. Accordingly, the number of participants is expected to be small at 1,755 farmers at the start and increase to 13,163 by YR V. Similarly, the incremental forage DM produced by these farmers starts at 1,063 tons and reaches closer to 10,000 tons by YR V. TABLE 32 Five-Year Action Plan for Forage Improvement Component DESCRIPTION 1. Homestead forage
Park Kebeles Rural HHs Newly participating HHs No of new participant HHs Cumulative no of households Tree rows per HH New rows of homestead forage Total forage rows each yr Incremental forage DM each yr

UNIT
No No % no no km km km ton % no no ha ha ha ton ton

YR 1
17 17,551 10% 1,755 1,755 0.05 88 88 597 5% 878 878 0.125 109.7 110 4 439

YR 2

YR 3

YR 4

YR 5

12% 2,106 3,861 0.05 105 193 1,313 8% 1,404 2,282 0.125 175.5 285 4 1,141

15% 2,633 6,494 0.05 132 325 2,208 12% 2,106 4,388 0.125 263.3 548 4 2,194

18% 3,159 9,653 0.05 158 483 3,282 15% 2,633 7,020 0.125 329.1 878 4 3,510

20% 3,510 13,163 0.05 176 658 4,476 20% 3,510 10,531 0.125 438.8 1316 4 5,265

2. Vetch/Oat mix plots

Proportion of participating HHs No of new participant HHs Cumulative no of households Forage plot per HH New Forage plot per year Total forage plots each yr Mean forage DM per HA Incremental forage DM each yr

Component 2: Small-Scale Animal Fattening This component aims to strategically feed cattle or sheep and goats with improved forages available to the farmers of the park area. Farmers are further assumed to fatten their animals using available on-farm feed resources supplemented by the above produced improved forages. This is an appropriate method because it builds on traditional cut and carries feeding system and requires a small amount of integral resources that are locally available. Fattening animals will moreover be very lucrative because it increases values per kg of live weight by improving weight or condition of the animal. Initially 5% of households within the 17 SMNP Kebeles are expected to participate in this project, which will then reach 60% annually by YR V. Households will fatten both cattle and small ruminants. In so doing each participating household will fatten a total of 6 animals (2 cattle and 4 shoats) annually in two rounds of 140 days. Therefore, the project which is planned to be executed in 101

five consecutive years (Table --), will start with a total of 878 HHs fattening 5,265 animals in YR I. Later on as the number of new participant HHs gradually increases, and given that the former ones are also anticipated to continue with the project, a cumulative number of 10,531 farmers are expected to fatten 63,184 animals annually by YR V. In so doing cattle which are assumed to start the fattening at about 250 kg of weight, are envisaged to gain 0.5 kg live weight per day, bringing the total weight gain of each animal to 70 kilos for each fattening round of 140 days. In the case of shoats, each animal is assumed to start the fattening at around 25 kgs and gain 0.1 kg per day to totally gain about 12 kilos in a 4-months fattening cycle. As a result, the amount of incremental meat produced by the project which initially will not exceed 165 tons will progressively increase to around 2,000 tons by YR V. Financial incomes (net profit) to accrue each year from such gains are further envisaged to start at Birr 2 million and reach Birr 24 million by YR V. Thus each participating HH will gain a net profit of Birr 2,300 each year. TABLE 33: Five-Year Action Plan for Small-Scale Animal Fattening Component DESCRIPTION Unit YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4
Total number of HHs Proportion of NEW participating HHs No of NEWLY participating HHs each yr Cumulative no of participating HHs No of cattle fattened per HH No of shoat fattened per HH Total No of Animals fattened each year - CATTLE - SHOAT Total incremental meat produced - CATTLE - SHOAT Total NET income derived from project No % No No No No No No No Ton Ton Ton '000 Birr 17,551 5% 878 878 2 4 5,265 1,755 3,510 165 123 42 2,001 8% 1,404 2,282 2 4 13,690 4,563 9,127 552 442 110 5,202 12% 2,106 4,388 2 4 26,327 8,776 17,551 825 614 211 10,004 15% 2,633 7,020 2 4 42,122 14,041 28,082 1,320 983 337 16,007

YR 5
20% 3,510 10,531 2 4 63,184 21,061 42,122 1,980 1,474 505 24,010

Component 3: Improved Beekeeping

Currently only a small portion of farmers within the park kebeles engage in traditional beekeeping activities. Due to the type of hive used and other reasons, however, the total production as well as income derived from this traditional venture is insignificant. Some production estimates forwarded for the area put the average honey yield of each traditional hive at 4 kg per year. In turn, the price of honey in the area is increasing from year to year as the gap between production and consumption widens with time. On the other hand if the production system as a whole could be changed and the necessary apiary equipments are supplied with the related peasant training, honey production both in terms of quantity and quality could be increased. This has been practically demonstrated in many parts of the region whereby the average yield per colony per year has been brought up to 30 kg by using modern hives or to around 15 kg using the Kenyan type transitional top bar hive. Moreover, as beekeeping is a seasonal job, it will not unduly compete for the farmers' useful time and hence the labor requirement for the activity is insignificant.

102

This component broadly aims to increase honey production in the area both quantitatively and qualitatively, and in effect increase the annual income of participating rural households. This objective in turn is planned to be achieved by introducing modern apiary hives and equipments to the park area and by continuously upgrading farmers capacity on contemporary apiary development schemes and methodologies. All three types of hives (Langstroth, Kenyan Top bar, and Local) will be supplied to participant HHs on credit basis.

Beekeeping Improvement activities are planned to initially cover those areas and farming households with previous traditional apiary experience. In line with this each participating household is planned to work with 2 modern, 2 Kenyan Top bar (KTB), and 2 local hives with the appropriate bee colonies. Therefore, total of 2,550 households will participate in the first five years of the project for whom 9,600 improved and local hives will be distributed. The number of hives to be distributed and the amount of honey to be produced through the three strategies is presented in Table 34.

TABLE 34: Five-Year Action Plan for Beekeeping Improvement Component DESCRIPTION Unit YR 1 YR 2 YR 3
No of NEWLY participating HHs each yr New hives each year - Langstroth - KTB - Local Cumulative number of participants Cumulative hives in that year - Langstroth - KTB - Local Honey Yielding hives - Langstroth - KTB - Local - Total honey produced in each year - Honey for sale - Income from sale of honey - Income from wax - Total project income No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Kg Kg Birr Birr Birr
600 1,200 400 400 400 600 1,200 400 400 400 660 220 220 220 11,000 9,350 251,515 9,900 261,415 825 1,650 550 550 550 1,425 2,850 950 950 950 1,853 618 618 618 28,559 26,244 705,957 27,788 733,744 975 1,950 650 650 650 2,400 4,800 1,600 1,600 1,600 3,600 1,200 1,200 1,200 55,500 51,000 1,371,900 54,000 1,425,900

YR 4
1,125 2,250 750 750 750 3,525 7,050 2,350 2,350 2,350 5,993 1,998 1,998 1,998 92,384 84,894 2,283,642 89,888 2,373,529

YR 5
1,275 2,550 850 850 850 4,800 9,600 3,200 3,200 3,200 9,120 3,040 3,040 3,040 140,600 129,200 3,475,480 136,800 3,612,280

103

TABLE 35: Action Plan for SO3: Reduction of Animal Numbers Realization Key Targets Changes towards small but intensive livestock production system achieved Proportion of HHs gradually shifting from extensive grazing systems to tethered and cut-and-carry feeding systems increased Livestock and dairy products marketing systems serving farmers of the park area improved Outputs Availability of Improved Feeds Promoted Activities
Set up forage seed multiplication and dissemination centers Increase number of farmers with grass/legume feed plots for dairy and fattening Introduce crop residue upgrading techniques Install feed mixing plants to be run by respective Cooperatives Increase number of farmers involved with market oriented cattle and shoats fattening Increase number of farmers with crossbred cows Improve local sheep breeds by crossing them with other fast growing indigenous breeds such as the Washera Increase number of farmers with modern hives Design and implement enhanced credit and extension delivery systems Improve and upgrade market infrastructure, such as roads and live animal market yards; Establish and support dairy marketing coop. Develop and disseminate model dairy processing centers at cooperative level Establish livestock market information collection and dissemination

Lead Role
SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO

Support Role
WADO

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

X X X X X X X X X X X

ARARI WCA/WADO

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Intensive Livestock Production Systems Promoted

SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Market Linkages Enhanced

104

Table 36: Action Plan for SO4: Improved Veterinary Services Achievement
Outputs Awareness created and strengthening animal health service established Livestock and other animal from the No Grazing Zone strictly excluded Free movement and long time stay of pack-animals in the loading/unloading sites within SMNP prohibited Activities Conducting regular and consecutive awareness creation and community mobilization among the inhabitants introduction of modern animal husbandry systems strengthening the animal health service delivery system in the surrounding structures conducting regular disease surveillance in and around the park regular vaccination of all domestic animals against endemic and/or emerging diseases application of tactical and strategic deworming of livestock in the buffer zone and surrounding areas application of regular acaricide dipping or spraying of livestock in the buffer zone and surrounding areas establishing a veterinary unit in the park to monitor disease trends and impacts designing and conducting epidemiological studies establishment of sites for regular surveillance and monitoring exclusion of livestock from the NGZ areas of the park and minimize grazing overlap prohibition of roaming and hunting dogs introduction into the wildlife habitats Exclusion of free movement and long time stay of pack-animals in the loading/unloading sites construction of fences for short stay of the pack-animals enforcing the owners of the pack animals to carry sufficient food for their animals Lead Role SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO Support Role WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO Year 1 1 2 3 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO WADO WADO WADO, WA WADO, WA WADO, WA WADO, WA WADO, WA WADO, WA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Year 2 1 2 3 4 Year 3 1 2 3 4

105

use/application of any poisonous or potentially dangerous chemicals in the farmlands prohibited

Prohibition of application (using) of any poisonous or potentially dangerous chemicals such as rodenticides, herbicides and insecticides in the park

SMNPO

WADO, WA

X X X X

106

TABLE 37: Action Plan for SO5: Park and Community Collaboration Enhancement Support Role Outputs Community outreach programs launched Activities Identify Key individuals in and around the park area Identify the basic problems of the park and the society together with the community Identify the main causes for those problems together with the society Incorporate education of natural resource management on the curriculum of the students Preparation of teaching materials for students on the issue of natural resources management Prepare teaching materials on the issue of natural resources management including grazing management Undertake community conferences Undertake Annual discussion with community leaders Experience sharing Monitoring activity by stakeholders Park livelihood program implemented Undertake community conferences on the issue of reallocation Selection of socially and economically feasible enterprises Preparation of proposal for finding funding agencies Demonstration of new on farm, off farm and non farm activities to the community Training on off farm and non farm activities Approval of the enterprises by the society Strengthening entrepreneurial ability of the society Networking of different development partners (NGOs and Gos) Financing the reallocation Financing the small enterprise and establishment of small enterprise Lead Role SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO WADO, WA WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 X Year 1 2 3 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Year 2 1 2 3 4 Year 3 1 2 3 4

107

Mechanisms for parkcommunity cooperation, conflict resolution and benefit sharing established

Monitoring activity by stakeholders Undertake community conferences on the issue of park management Awareness creation by using different kinds of media Demarcation of the park area Preparation of grazing management guideline together with the society Preparation of benefit sharing guideline Discussion with the society on the guidelines Enact law to grazing and benefit sharing Formation of committees both at local level, woreda and zone level Undertake meetings every month locally, woreda level quarterly and zone level annually. Hire and train dedicated scouts on each kebele and enforce the laws pertaining to them. Hire lawyers at SMNP office level Monitoring activity by stakeholders

SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO SMNPO

WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO WADO X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

108

7.4.2. FINANCIAL PLAN

7.4.1.1 Estimated Costs for SO1: Zonation of the park area achieved

TABLE 38: Estimated Costs for SO1: Zonation of the park area DESCRIPTION YR 1 YR 2
COMPONENT 1: Defining zonation scheme and rules/ regulations INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 2: Delimitation of the park area INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 3: moving out of delimited areas INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 4: improve range and grassland conditions INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL GRAND TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) TOTAL 50,000 25,000 7,500 82,500 50,000 25,000 7,500 82,500 75,000 25,000 10,000 10,000 889,800 1,071,782 196,158 2,157,740

YR 3

YR 4

YR 5

5 year Cost
50,000 50,000 10,000 110,000 50,000 50,000 10,000 110,000 175,000 125,000 30,0000 330,000 3,863,400 9,700,858 1,356,426 13,399,158

Foreign
1,929,670 1,720,658 365,033 4,015,361

Local
50,000 50,000 10,000 110,000 50,000 50,000 10,000 110,000 175,000 125,000 30,000 330,000 1,933,730 6,596,994 853,072 9,383,796

15,,000 1,5000 16,500

10,000 1,000 11,000

15,,000 1,5000 16,500 50,000 25,000 7,500 82,500 584,100 1,417,938 200,204 2,202,242

10,000 1,000 11,000 25,000 25,000 5,000 55,000 690,300 1,881,552 257,185 2,829,037

15,000 25,000 4,000 44,000 796,500 2,368,025 316,453 3,480,978

10,000 25,000 3,500 38,500 902,700 2,961,561 386,426 4,250,687

109

7.4.1.2 Estimated Costs for SO2: Grazing Rights Limited to Eligible Users

TABLE 39: Estimated Costs for SO2: Grazing Rights Limited to Eligible Users
5 year Total Cost

DESCRIPTION
COMPONENT 1: Monitoring and evaluation INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL GRAND TOTAL

YR 1

YR 2

YR 3

YR 4

YR 5

Foreign

Local

30,000 20,000 5,000 955,211 955,211

30,000 20,000 5,000 641,504 641,504

30,000 20,000 5,000 764,580 764,580

30,000 20,000 5,000 886,933 886,933

30,000 20,000 5,000 970,673 970,673

150,000 100,000 25,000 2,752,591 2,752,591

150,000 100,000 25,000 275,000 275,000

7.4.1.3 Estimated Costs for SO3: Reduction of Animal Numbers Realized

Table 40 shows the cost estimates for this Strategic Objective according to category, distributed over five years. The total cost for the five years is Birr 13.4 million, out of which

Birr 2.75 million or 21% is for the improved forage development component; Birr 4.97 million or 37% is for the small-scale fattening component; and Birr 5.67 million or 42% is for the improved Beekeeping component;

A) Investment and Operating Costs

The forage development component would involve investment costs of 396,000 Birr over 5 years. Similarly, the operating costs, which mainly involve the cost of forage seeds, seedlings, cuttings and farmer training, would amount to Birr 2.35 million over 5 years averaging at 471,000 Birr per year. On the other hand project costs for the small-scale fattening component would mainly comprise of operational costs for veterinary, feed and farmer training costs. As can be seen from Table 40, these costs for all three SMNP Woredas over the total five years would amount to 4.97 million Birr. Of this total 42% will be for the staff salary and training costs while the other remaining costs would totally be met by the beneficiary farmers themselves. Furthermore, although the major component of the operational costs would be the purchase price of the cattle and shoats at the start of the fattening period, since the farmers are assumed to fatten animals already in their possession and no purchase is envisaged to be performed, purchase price has not been included in the cost calculations. Likewise, what has been considered in calculating project income is 110

the incremental weight at current prices alone, and hence, sale prices of live animals have not been considered. In addition to this a 2 to 3 days farmer orientation and training session will be held regarding the fattening activities for part of the new participants each year.

Likewise the improved Beekeeping component would involve an investment costs of 3.85 million Birr over 5 years and out of this 1.47 million Birr or 40% of the investment total would be the purchase cost of hives which will be covered by the participating farmers through credit. The remaining investment costs will be covered by the government. On the other hand, the operating costs, although varying from year to year, would amount to 1.82 million Birr over 5 years averaging at 0.35 million Birr per year.

B) Foreign Exchange and Local Costs With regard to cost breakdown based on foreign and local costs, of the total 13.4 million Birr, 4.01 million Birr or 30% is foreign component while the remaining are local costs. Table 41 below presents the foreign and local cost breakdown of the total cost for each component. Table 41 General Cost Estimates for Strategic Objective 3. Component Forage Development Small-Scale Fattening Improved Beekeeping
TOTAL PROJECT COST

Total Cost 2,752,591 4,972,602 5,673,965 13,399,158

Foreign Cost 294,777 1,678,550 2,042,035 4,015,361

Local Cost 2,457,814 3,294,052 3,631,931 9,383,796

Foreign % 11% 34% 36% 30%

111

TABLE 42: Estimated Costs for SO3: Reduction of Animal Numbers

DESCRIPTION
COMPONENT 1: Forage Development INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 2: Small-Scale Fattening INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 3: Improved Beekeeping INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL GRAND TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) TOTAL

YR 1

YR 2

YR 3

YR 4

YR 5

5 year Total Cost

360,000 2,142,355 250,236 2,752,591

Foreign

Local

360,000 508,374 86,837 955,211

583,185 58,319 641,504

695,073 69,507 764,580

806,302 80,630 886,933

882,430 88,243 970,673

147,750 120,229 26,798 294,777

212,250 2,022,126 223,438 2,457,814

311,658 31,166 342,824 529,800 251,750 78,155 859,705 889,800 1,071,782 196,158 2,157,740

533,503 53,350 586,853 584,100 301,250 88,535 973,885 584,100 1,417,938 200,204 2,202,242

852,229 85,223 937,452 690,300 334,250 102,455 1,127,005 690,300 1,881,552 257,185 2,829,037

1,194,473 119,447 1,313,921 796,500 367,250 116,375 1,280,125 796,500 2,368,025 316,453 3,480,978

1,678,881 167,888 1,846,769 902,700 400,250 130,295 1,433,245 902,700 2,961,561 386,426 4,250,687

4,520,547 452,055 4,972,602 3,503,400 1,654,750 515,815 5,673,965 3,863,400 9,700,858 1,356,426 13,399,158

1,525,954 152,595 1,678,550 1,781,920 74,475 185,640 2,042,035 1,929,670 1,720,658 365,033 4,015,361

2,994,593 299,459 3,294,052 1,721,480 1,580,275 330,176 3,631,931 1,933,730 6,596,994 853,072 9,383,796

112

TABLE 43: Estimated Costs for SO4: Improved Veterinary Services Achievement

DESCRIPTION
COMPONENT 1:

YR 1

YR 2

YR 3

YR 4

YR 5

5 year Cost

Foreign

Local

Awareness created and strengthening animal health service established

INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 2: Livestock and other animal from the No Grazing Zone strictly excluded COMPONENT 3: Free movement and long time stay of pack-animals in the loading/unloading sites within SMNP prohibited INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 4: use/application of any 800000 1,703,221 25032 2,528,253 100000 1277415 137741 1,515,156 100000 851610 95161 1,046,771 100000 425805 52580 578,385 100000 425805 52580 578,385 1,200,000 4,683,856 363,094 6,246,950 1,200,000 4,683,856 363,094 6,246,950

15,000 1,500 16,500

10,000
1,000 11,000

5,000
5,00 5,500

5,000
5,00 5,500

5,000
5,00 5,500

40,000 4000 44,000

40,000 4000 44,000

poisonous or potentially dangerous chemicals in the farmlands prohibited

GRAND TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) TOTAL 95,000 1,703,221 26,532 2,544,753 110,000 1277415 138,741 1,526,156 951,610 851610 95,661 1,052,271 525,805 425805 53,080 583,885 525,805 425805 53,080 583,885 1,240,000 4,683,856 367,094 6,290,950

113

TABLE 44: Estimated Costs for SO5: Park and Community Collaboration Enhancement DESCRIPTION YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 year Total Cost Foreign Local

COMPONENT 1: Community outreach programs launched INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 2: Park livelihood program implemented INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL COMPONENT 3: Mechanisms for park-community cooperation, conflict resolution and benefit sharing established INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) SUB-TOTAL GRAND TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATING COSTS CONTIGENCY (10%) TOTAL

52,000 100,000 15,200 167,200

31,000 80,000 11,000 122,000

17,000 50,000 6,700 73,700

52,000 100,000 15,200 167,200

2,500 10,000 1,250 13,750

154,500 340,000 49,350 543,850

154,500 340,000 49,350 543,850

126,500 200,000 32,650 359,150

31,000,000 664,500 3,166,450 34,830,950

31,000,000 814,500 3,181,450 34,995,950

500 14,000 1,450 15,950

500 14,500 1,450 16,450

62,127,500 1,707,500 6,383,500 70,218,450

62,127,500 1,707,500 6,383,500 70,218,450

32,000 200,000 23,200 255,200 210,500 500,000 71,500 782,000

40,000 150,000 19,000 209,000 31,071,000 3,396,450 3,446,745 37,914,195

39,000 140,000 17,900 196,900 31,056,000 1,004,500 3,206,050 35,266,550

44,000 120,000 16,400 180,400 96,500 234,000 33,050 363,550

19,000 150,000 16,900 185,900 21,700 174,500 19,620 215,820

174,000 860,000 93,400 1,127,400 62,455,700 5,309,450 6,776,965 74,542,115

114

REFERENCES
AACM, 1985. Project Preparation Report. Feeds and Forage Project. Annexes, Vol.1. MOA, Addis Ababa. Alemayehu, M. 2003. Ethiopia: Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles. An electronic publication. FAO, Rome. Alemayehu Mengistu and Alan Robertson 1988. Research needs for forage development in Ethiopia: The Fourth Livestock Development Project strategies. In Dzowela, B.H. (Ed). African forage plant genetic resources, evaluation of forage germplasm and extensive livestock production systems. Proceedings of the Third Workshop held at the International Conference Centre, Arusha, Tanzania, 27-30 April 1987. Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (PANESA). 1988. ILCA, Addis Ababa. Alemayehu, M. 1985. Grass Land Ecology Study. MoA, Animal and Fishery Resource Development Department. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. Alemayehu, M. 1998. Natural Pasture Improvement Study around Smallholder Dairy Areas. MoA Small Dairy Development Project (SDDP), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ANRS BoCulT 2005. Strategic Plan for Tourism and Culture. Amhara National Regional State Park Bureau of Culture and Tourism. Bahr Dar ANRS BoFED 2004 Rural Households Socio-Economic Baseline Survey of 50 Woredas in Amhara Region. Bureau of Finance and Economic Development. Bahr Dar ANRS PaDPA (n.d.) SImen Mountains National Park Integrated Development Project October 2005 March 2007 Amhara National Regional State Park Development and Protection Authority. Bahr Dar Argaw, K., Teka, Y. and Mulat, S. (2005). Field Report on Walia ibex (Capra ibex walie) Disease Surveillance. Bengis, R.G. (2002). Infectious diseases of wildlife: Detection, Diagnosis and Management. Rev. Sci. Tech. Int. Epiz., 21(2), 399-402. Bengis, R.G., Leighton, F.A., Fischer, J.R., Artois, M., Morner, T. and Tate, C.M. (2004). The role of wildlife in emerging and re-emerging zoonoses. Rev. Sci. Tech. Int. Epiz., 23(2(, 495-511. Berhanu Gebremedhin, John Pender, Girmay Tesfay. 2002. Community resource management: the case of grazing lands in crop-livestock mixed systems in the highlands of Northern Ethiopia. Contributed paper presented at Annual Conference of International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), August 2002, Zimbabwe. Birthal, P. and Rao, P. (Eds). 2002. Technology options for sustainable livestock production in India: Proceedings of a workshop. ICRISAT-Patancheru, India. BoARD (Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development). 2003. Rural household socioeconomic baseline survey of 56 woredas in the Amhara Region. Vol. XII Rural infrastructure and mass media. Bahirdar, Ethiopia. BoFED (Bureau of Finance and Economic Development). 2006. Development indicators of Amhara Region. July, 2006. Bahirdar, Ethiopia. BoFED. (Bureau of Finance and Economic Development). 2004. Rural households socioeconomic baseline survey of 50 weredas in Amhara region. Vol V. Natural resources, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

115

Boyd, C., Blench, R., Bourn, D., Drake, L. and Stevenson, P. Reconciling interests among wildlife, livestock and people in Eastern Africa: A sustainable livelihood approach. Bromley, D.W. 1991. Testing for common versus private property. Comment, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21 (1991), pp. 9296. Cheung, S.N.S. 1970. The structure of a contract and the theory of a non-exclusive resource. Journal of Law and Economics 13 (1970), pp. 4970. Campbell, Bruce M., Iain J. Gordon, Martin K. Luckert, Lisa Petheram and Susanne Vetter 2006. In search of optimal stocking regimes in semi-arid grazing lands: One size does not fit all. School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia. Cernea, M.M. (1997) African involuntary population resettlement in a global context. The World Bank Environment Department Papers Social Assessment Series 45. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Cleavland, S. and Laurenson, K. (2006). Controlling Infectious Diseases in East African Canids. Clayton, Anthony M and Nicholas J Radcliff (1997). Suastainability A System Approach. p.158. London. Earthscan Publication ltd. CSA (Central Statistics Authorithy). 2003. Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration, 2001/02 1994 E.C. Part II, Vol. IV LIVESTOCK. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Daniel Keftasa.1988. Role of crop residues as livestock feed in Ethiopian highlands. In Dzowela, B.H. (Ed). African forage plant genetic resources, evaluation of forage germplasm and extensive livestock production systems. Proceedings of the Third Workshop held at the International Conference Centre, Arusha, Tanzania, 27-30 April 1987. Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (PANESA). 1988. ILCA, Addis Ababa. Debonnet G, Melamari L, and Bomhard B. 2006. Mission report of the Reactive Monitoring Mission to Simen Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Joint World Heritage Centre IUCN Monitoring Mission 10 17 May 2006. Deem, S.L., Karesh, W. and Weisman, W. (2005). Infectious and non-infectious diseases of wildlife. Field Veterinary Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Branox, NY 10466-1099 USA. Distefano, E. (2004). Human-wildlife conflict worldwide: Collection of case studies, analysys of management strategies and good practices. Dunbar R. I. M., Hannah-Stewart L. and Dunbar P. 2002. Forage quality and the costs of lactation for female gelada baboons. Animal Behaviour, 2002, 64, 801805. Elsevier Science Ltd. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), 1987. Agricultural Price Policies.Rome. 21p. FAO. 2004. Ethiopia: Livestock sector brief. Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL). FAO, Rome. Fox, M.W. (2000). Risk reduction in the Nilgiris biosphere reserve. Indian project for animals and nature (IPAN). Georgi, J.R. Parasites of Wildlife Transmissible to domestic animals and humans. Getachew Assamenew. 1988. Economic aspects of sheep production in the Ethiopian highland vertisol areas. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (mimeo).

116

Gete Zeleke and Hans Hurni. 2007. Global Change and the Ethiopian Mountains. A paper presented to the Global Change Research Network in African Mountains Workshop, 25-27 July 2007. Kampala, Uganda. Grnenfelder, Julia. 2006. Livestock in the Simen Mountains, Ethiopia: Its role for the livelihoods and land use of local smallholders. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Berne, Switzerland. Halima Hassen, F. W. C. Neser, Tadelle Dessie, A de Kock and E Van Marle-Koster, 2006. Studies on the growth performance of native chicken ecotypes and RIR chicken under improved management system in Northwest Ethiopia. http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd18/6/hass18076.htm. Hargreaves, S.K., Foggin, C.M., Anderson, E.C., Bastos, A.D., Thomson, G.R., Ferris, N.P. and Knowles, N.J. (2004). An investigation into the source of and spread of Foot and Mouth Disease virus from a wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe. Rev. Sci. Off. Int. Epiz. 23(3), 783-789. Harmon, D. (1991). National park residency in developed countries: the example of Great Britain. In Resident Peoples and National Parks. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. P.C. West and SR. Brechin (eds.), pp. 33-39. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Harris, L.D. and J.F. Eisenberg (1989). Enhanced linkages: necessary steps for success in conservation of faunal diversity. In Conservation in the Twenty-First Century. D. Western and M.C. Pearl (eds.). pp. 166-181. New York: Oxford University Press. Hemilton, K., Desmond, J. and Jost, C. (2003). Survey of Important Parasitic and Infectious Diseases shared by elephants and livestock in Dimbangombe, Zimbabwe. Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine (TUSVM). Hurni, H 1986 Management Plan Simen Mountains National Park and Surrounding Rural Area. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation and Development Main Department, Wildlife Conservation Organization, UNESCO. Ethiopia Hurni, H. and E. Ludi 2000. Reconciling Conservation with Sustainable Development. Centre for Development and Environment, Berne Hurni, H. and E. Ludi, 2000: Reconciling Conservation with Sustainable Development. A participatory study inside and around the Simen Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Produced with the assistance of an interdisciplinary group of contributors. Centre for Development and Environment, Berne, pp. 476. Ishwaran, N. and W. Erdelen (1990). Conserving Sinharaja - an experiment in sustainable development in Sri Lanka. Ambio 12(5), pp. 237-244. Ibrahim H. 1998. Small Ruminant Production Techniques. ILRI Manual 3. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 207 pp. Johannesen, A.B. and Skonhoft, A. 2004. Tourism, poaching and wildlife Conservation: What can integrated Conservation and development Projects accomplish? Working Paper Series No. 10/2004. Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Norway. Keiner, Marco. (nd). Towards a New Management Plan for the Simen Mountains National Park. Kock, R. (2006). The interface of people, wildlife and livestock in rangelands. Rinderpest eradication- the end of a long story or birth of a new holistic approach to multihost disease management in Africa.

117

Kock, R. and Deutsch, J. (2006). Wild rangelands: Conservation in the world's grazing ecosystems. Wildlife Conservation Society. Ludi, E. 2005. Simen Mountains Study 2004. Intermediate Report on the 2004 Field Expedition to the Simen Mountains in Northern Ethiopia. Dialogue Series. Berne, NCCR North-South. Luelseged Gebrehiwot. 1988. Assessement of the productivity of native and improved forages on vertisols in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia (Abstract). In Jutzi, S.C. et. al. (Eds). 1988. Management of vertisols in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of a conference held at ILCA, Addis Ababa. Madhusudan, M.D. (2006). Wildlife-human conflict in India: Current trends, Nature Conservation Foundation. McCabe, J.T. (2006). Pastoral land tenure, livelihood diversification, and wildlife conservation: a case study from northern Tanzania. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA. Meyers, N. and D. Meyers (1983). How the global community can respond to international environmental problems'?. Ambio 12(1), pp. 20-26. 208 Mlengeya, T. (2006). The impact of animal diseases on the management of Tanzania's National Parks and Protected Areas. MOA (Ministry of Agriculture). 1996. Ruminant livestock development strategy options. (Draft). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 1984. Livestock Sector Review (LSR). Annexe volume 1, Ministry of Agriculture. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. MoA (Ministry of Agriculture). 1989. Agroforestry Potential and Research needs, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. MOARD. (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development ). 2007. Livestock Master Plan Study, Phase I: Data Collection And Analysis. Volume C Forage and seed production; Volume D Rangelands. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Mosi, A.K. and Butterworth, M.H. The voluntary intake and digestibility of diets containing different proportions of Teff (Eragrostis tef), straw and Trifolium tembense hay when fed to sheep. Tropical Animal Production. 10(1):19-22. Mukasa-Mugerwa E. and Lahlou-Kassi A. 1995. Reproductive performance and productivity of Menz sheep in the Ethiopian highlands. Small Ruminant Research 17:167177. Nepal, Sanjay K and Karl E. Weber.___. Managing Resources and Resolving Conflicts: National Parks and Local People. PaDPA (Parks Development and Protection Authority) 2006. Project Proposal for the Development of Alternative Livelihoods for the Population of the Simen Mountains National Park, Ethiopia PADPA (2006). Development of alternative Livelihoods for the population of the Simen Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. Parks Development and Protection Authority, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Pratt, D.J., Gwynne M.D. 1977. Rangeland Management and Ecology in East Africa. Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 310. Preston, T.R. and Leng, R.A. 1987. Matching ruminant production systems with available resources in the tropics and subtropics. Penambul Books, Armidale, Australia. 245 pp.

118

Putt, S.N.H., Shaw, A.P.M., Woods, A.J., Tyler, L. & James, A.D. 1987. Veterinary epidemiology and economics in Africa: a manual for use in the design and appraisal of livestock health policy. Manual No. 3. Addis Ababa, ILCA. 130 pp. Raju, V. T. and M. von Oppen, 1982. Marketing Channels for Selected Crops in the Semi-arid Tropical India. ICRISAT, Andhra Pradesh. Progress Report No.16. 32p. Ramos, M.A (1988) The Conservation of biodiversity in Latin America: A perspective. In Biodiversity. E.O. Wilson and F.M. Peter (eds). pp. 428-436. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. Rangnekar D.V. 2006. Livestock in the livelihoods of the underprivileged communities in India: A review. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 72 pp. Riney, T. Development of the wildlife resource in Africa. The major problems and their suggested remedies. SCWDS. (1993). International Office of Epizooties (OIE) considers Diseases in wildlife. Shiferaw, F., Woldetsadik, S. and Woldearegay, B. (2005). Report on the assessment of disease risks in Walia ibex in the Simen Mountains National Park. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Smith A.J., 1990. Poultry. Macmillan, Tropical Agriculturalist series. Tadelle D., and Ogle, B. 2001. Village poultry production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2001 Dec; 33(6): 521-37 Tapela, B.N. and Omara-Ojungu, P.H. Towards bringing the gap between wildlife conservation and rural development in South Africa: The case of the Makuleke Community and the Kruger National Park. Taylor, M.S. 1984. Livestock production and feed resources. Assistance to land use planning. Ethiopia. Technical Report No. 6, FAO, Rome. Tadelle D., C. Kijora and K. J. Peters, 2003. Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in Ethiopia: Growth and Feed Utilization Potentials. International Journal of Poultry Science 2 (2): 144-152, 2003. Thomson, G.R. (2006). The trade effects of epidemic livestock diseases: likely future impact on wildlife conservation in pastoral areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Upton M. 1984. Models of improved production for small ruminants. In: J E Sumberg and K Cassaday (eds.), Sheep and goats in humid West Africa. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Walker, B. (2006). Riding the rangelands Piggyback: a resilience approach to conservation management. Winrock International. 1983. Sheep and goats in developing countries: Their present and potential role. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

119

8.

ANNEXES

ANNEX I:- DATA COLLECTION HECLIST FOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION DATA COLLECTION CHECKLIST FOR THE STUDY ON SIMIEN MOUNTAIN PARK 1. THE STUDY AREA 1.1. PHYSICAL FEATURES 1.1.1. LOCATION Zone No of Woredas within the study area and their names No of Kebeles within each Woreda within the study area and their names Any basins or sub-basins specific geographic location of the study area in latitude and longitude Rivers and their description Boundaries of the park and features demarcating the area COLLECT ANY MAP YOU CAN GET 1.1.2. LANDSCAPE Natural features Major AEZs in the study area Type of landscape features and their respective area TABLE 1: LAND TOPOGRAPHY OF SUB-BASINS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA WOREDA FLAT PLAINS MOUNTAINS Woreda Woreda as No Total % of Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) total 1 TOTAL INCLUDE LANDSCAPE MAP 1.1.3. SOILS Soil types of the different land classes within the park Productivity characterstics of these different soils Conditions related to soil erosion 1.1.4. VEGETATION General description of Natural plant communities on the flat plains and mountainous areas of the park Vegetation types based on AEZ Classification carried out based on physiognomic vegetation types The identified vegetation types and their salient features (including major plant types, area covered, dominant species, major abundance landscape, etc) 1.1.5. LANDUSE PRESENT LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA Plain Areas Mountainous Areas Whole Study Area LAND USE TYPE Area(ha % Area % Area (ha) % (ha) 1. Cropped land Annual crops Perennial crops

120

2. Grazing and Browsing land 3. Woodland and Shrubland Woodland Others 4. Curr. unproductive land 5. Currently unutilizable land 6. Homestead 7. Marsh& swamps TOTAL 1.1.6. CLIMATE Altitudes ranges Main climate types of the study area based on Koppen climate classification system, Rainfall Type, abundance months, in relation to landscape, etc Monthly and annual rainfall statistics of ten and more years for available meteorological stations within the study area 1.2. SOCIO - SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION 1.2.1. Demographic Features Estimated population Proportion residing in the rural areas Estimated number of households residing in the park areas Population density per unit area Ratio of population in the study area to the total zonal population TABLE 3: RURAL POPULATION STATISTICS FOR WOREDAS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (2006) WOREDA MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOTAL 1.2.2. Rural Workforce and Household Labor 1.2.3. Ethno-Cultural Features 2. LIVESTOCK RESOURCES 2.1. Livestock populations in Woredas within the study area Which type of livestock do they consider most important in the area? 2.1.1. Cattle 2.1.1.1. Populations Number of Cattle based on Sex and Age of Herd Woreda Male Female < 1 Yr 1 - 3 Yrs 4 + Yrs < 1 Yr 1 - 3 Yrs

4 + Yrs

2.1.1.2. Ownership pattern (needs to be filled out for each Woreda) No. Of Animals Cows Oxen Bulls and Heifers Calves Owned None One Two

121

Three Four and above 2.1.1.3. 2.1.1.4. 2.1.1.5. 2.1.1.6.

Breeds availability of crossbred animals Draught Oxen Availability How many of these animals graze within the park?

2.1.2. SMALL RUMINANTS 2.1.2.1. Breed or breed types 2.1.2.2. Populations SHEEP Woreda Lamb Ewe

Ram

GOATS Kid

Doe

Buck

2.1.2.3. Ownership pattern (needs to be filled out for each Woreda) No. Of Animals Owned SHEEP GOATS None One Two Three Four and above 2.1.2.4. How many of these animals graze within the park? 2.1.2.5. Are sheep and goats milked? 2.1.3. EQUINES 2.1.3.1. Types and populations WOREDA Donkeys Mules Horses Plain Mountain Plain Mountain Plain

Mountain

2.1.4. Poultry 2.1.5. Beehives 2.2. Management and Productivity 2.2.1. Management Farming system Seasonal livestock movements Housing systems Calf rearing systems Milking systems Breeding systems Herding Grazing 2.2.2. Productivity Estimates of weights for mature cattle Years it takes to produce a maximum sized male Average age at first calving for cows Annual calving rates

122

3. RANGE AND FORAGE RESOURCES 3.1. Major Feed Sources List of feed resources potentially available to livestock in the study area Overall order of importance Seasonal cycles of feeding systems Seasonal shift in order of importance of the different feed sources 3.2. NATURAL GRAZING LANDS 3.2.1. Types And Extent Types of land classes used for grazing and browsing Total amount of land left for grazing on Woreda basis Woreda Wise Distribution of Grazing Land (In Hectares) WOREDA PLAIN AREAS MOUNTAINO TOTAL US

Milk yield per day, lactation length, and annual production from a local cow, crossbred cow Is calving distributed through all seasons Calving intervals Culling age Estimates of total production of meat and milk from the cattle in the study area Age of first lambing/kidding Lambing/kidding interval Average birth weights Average weaning weights Average yearling weight Mature weight Fecundity rate of ewes Sheep and goat meat produced annually

REMARK

WHOLE AREA The proportion of grazing land out of total area in respective Woredas ( %) Are all grazing areas communally owned? Are there any individual grazing plots? If yes, the types and extent (in ha) by Woreda Are there specific places worthy of mention in terms of widespread use of individual grazing lands? Types of individual grazing land management systems (eg. Are they fenced? If not, how are they protected? Which types of animals are given preferential feed access on these plots? etc) Any Cut and carry feeding practiced? If yes, is it done throughout the year, or in certain months? In which months? Why only in these months? Which types of animals are the beneficiary of Cut and carry feeding? What type of forages are fed in Cut and carry systems? Any farmers who never practice free grazing of communal grazing lands? Are there some pocket grazing areas within arable lands? Are there seasonally flooded marshlands? Are there different types of grazing lands (eg. hillside grazing areas (upper slopes), bottomland grazing areas, small grazing areas near homes)?

123

 If yes, which one is the most predominant? Give estimates of their proportion in %. Which types of grazing land are more suitable for cattle? For sheep? For goats? For equines? Are different species of animals let to graze together or are they grazed separately? Any closure areas? If yes, data on Woreda basis; how are decisions to close made? How are such lands managed? For eg. Who pays for their protection? What types of fines are set for those who break the closure rules? For how long are they closed? How is the standing hay utilized? Cut and carry or loose grazing? If cut and carry how do beneficiaries share the standing hay? Any closure areas with bye-laws? If yes, collect samples. Reasons for not moving away from free grazing of communal grazing lands? 3.2.2. Species Composition Type of dominant species within the different types of grazing lands (eg. hillside grazing areas (upper slopes), bottomland grazing areas, small grazing areas near homes). most common/prolific Grasses most common/prolific legumes Are there any browse species (bushes, trees) within grazing lands? In which types of grazing lands are they dominant? Which grass species are more frequent than others? Is there widespread domination of unpalatable weeds in grazing lands? 3.2.3. Productivity Which of the above grazing land categories is more productive in vegetation biomass? Put them in order of productivity. Seasonal productivity levels of natural grasslands (max., Min., Avr.) Productivity levels of natural grasslands (max., Min., Avr.) based on altitude or AEZ. Do they feel indiscriminate grazing is creating diminished vegetation cover each year? 3.2.4. Stocking Rates And Grazing Pressure Which of the above grazing land categories is predominantly used within a given year? Give order of importance for each in terms of months used. Reasons for such use patterns? Have there been recent changes in the total area used for grazing? If yes, decreasing or increasing? Hoe do they assess stocking density of communal grazing plots? High, moderate, or low? 3.2.5. Communal Grazing Resource Management Is there any Seasonal variation in grazing land utilization (are animals left to graze different lands in different seasons)? If yes, describe seasonal rotation Is grazing on crop lands free for everyone or reserved for the owner of the cropland alone? Who administers communal grazing lands? Are there any laws or use-rules with regard to communal grazing lands? If yes, who issued them? Are they enforced in practice? Is encroachment of grazing lands a big problem? If yes, what are the major reasons? Any punishments on offenders? If yes, describe

124

Are there any collective actions to administer and manage communal grazing lands? If yes, describe. For Eg. Do communities weed grazing lands together? Which times of the year are considered as critical feed shortage months? 3.2.6. Grazing Within The Park Area 3.2.7. Wildlife/Livestock Competition 3.3. CROP RESIDUES 3.3.1. Types And Extent Types of crops whose residues are fed to animals Crop types used for aftermath grazing Estimates of crop residues available for livestock (to be filled for each Woreda) Crop Total Area Sown Yield (qt/ha) Total Grain Crop Residue (tons) (ha) Production (qts) Type Mntn Plain Mntn Plain Mountain Plain Montain plain Total Sorghum Teff Maize Wheat Barley Pulses Total 3.3.2. Quality related issues Are crop residues fed to all types of animals or to selected ones? Describe Which crop residues are more preferred by livestock Any technologies in use by farmers to improve feeding value of crop residues Handling and storage systems Are crop residues used for other purposes than feed? If yes, describe Are crop residues sold in the market? If yes, list which ones, and mention prices per local unit. Method of feeding crop residues 3.4. PLANTED FORAGES 3.4.1. Types And Extent Has there been any introduction of planted forages in the past? If yes, describe for each Woreda the type of species, area planted, number of farmers involved and the production systems used. What were the major improved forage introduction strategies promoted in the past Which ones were more successful? Why? Which ones were unsuccessful? Why? Were planted forages part of soil conservation efforts or arable cropping? To which animals are such planted forages fed primarily? 3.5. AGRO-INDUSTRIAL BY PRODUCTS (AIBP) 3.5.1. Types And Extent List the types of AIBP fed to animals in the study area Amounts of AIBP averagely used within a year 3.6. CARRYING CAPACITY AND FEED BALANCE

125

4. WILDLIFE How many hectares have been set aside for wildlife conservation? types and populations of wildlife in the park Is there any controlled utilization of wildlife resources? Is there any hunting legislation in force, which is usually designed to manage recreational hunting, and as a mechanism for raising revenue? How do you recognize the actual and potential contributions of wildlife to rural economies and nutrition as a source of food and an object of commerce? Give a brief review of human population trends and related environmental factors. Review how the associated urgent demand for increased food production is leading farmers in the vicinity of the park to shorten fallow periods, to try to obtain increased yields from low fertility soils, and to grow crops on marginal land.

126

ANNEX II:- DATA COLLECTION ON LIVESTOCCKK DISEASE Part I: Questionnaire prepared for livestock owners/household heads living in/around the SMNP Woreda_________________ PA_____________________ Village__________________ Bordering/direct contact (Yes/No)_______ Date_______________ with the SMNP

1. Income source(s) of the family/household (farmer's estimate): a) From crop farming_________% b) From livestock sale_________% c) From livestock products sale (milk, butter, eggs, skin, etc ________% d) From off-farm activities (labour, guide, etc) __________% 2. Number of livestock, poultry and bee colony owned: a. Cattle___________ d. Equine __________ b. Sheep___________ e. Poultry__________ c. Goats___________ f. Bee colony________ 3. Division of family labour in livestock management (farmer's estimate): a. Father_________% d. Son________% b. Mother________% e. Others (hired, etc)_______% c. Daughter______% 4. Livestock housing system (indoor, Carrel, loose/free): a. Cattle______________ c. Goats______________ b. Sheep______________ d. Equine_____________ 5. Feeding strategy (farmer's estimate): a. Open grazing_________% c. Tethered grazing________% b. Stall feeding_________% d. Others _________% 6. Main sources of feed (farmer's estimate): Feed type Bovine Ovine Caprine Equine Poultry Natural pasture Browse Crop residue Hay Others 7. Water sources: Water sources Season Rivers Springs Ponds Wells Ditches Dry Wet 8. What are major livestock constraints in your locality? (farmer's estimate) a. Feed shortage__________% f. Predators_________% b. Animal diseases________% g. Market problem_______% c. Water shortage_________% h. Over population_______% d. Grazing land scarcity_______% i. Others_________% Specify___________ e. Drought effect_________% __________________________________

127

9. Would you please mention common livestock diseases in your village?_____________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ______ 10. Mention the species frequently affected by the disease(s)_________________________________ 11. What were measures taken to control those diseases? By whom? ___________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ______ 12. Do you have pet animals (dogs/cats, specify type and no.)?______________________________ 13. If yes, for what purpose(s) do you keep it/them?_______________________________________ 14. How do you keep it/them?_______________________________________________________ 15. Which dog/cat diseases are occurred/occurring in your village? Please describe their common symptoms_______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _____________ 16. What do know about SMNP?______________________________________________________ 17. Do you know any wild animal(s) living in the park? (Y/N)______ 18. Would you please mention their names?_____________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 19. Do the villagers want them to be kept here? (Y/N)______ 20. What are the advantages of keeping them?___________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ______ 21. Is there any negative impact of their presence? (Y/N)______ Please mention those problems_____________________________________________________ 22. Introduction of livestock to the SMNP (Yes/No)_________ 23. Period(s) of introduction (seasonal calendar): Species of animals introduced Season Bovine Ovine Caprine Equine Bega Belg Kiremt Tsedey 24. What are the possible advantages and dangers of introducing livestock in to the park? ________________________________________________________________________ _____ 25. Do you have any concept of possible disease transmission from wild animals to human and your livestock? (Y/N) ________

128

26. How could do you/your animals acquire wild animal diseases?___________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _____ 27. What do you think about the reverse of question 23? __________________________________ 28. What are the general problems of your livelihood being living in this area? (proximity to the park; direct contact with wild animals; land degradation; ecological disturbance, etc. can be mentioned as examples). 29. Farmer's/respondent's opinions/suggestions to solve the raised problems (by whom)?

Thank you Ato_________________ for your patience! Filled by ____________________________ Date______________ Signature__________________

Part II: Questionnaire prepared for Woreda Animal Health Professionals Woreda____________________ No of PAs___________ Date________________ Name of the respondent _______________________________ Title (DVM, AHA, AHT)______ Working in the woreda from ___________E.C. Signature______________________ 1. Geographical information: a. Agro-climates: i. Wurch ________% iii. Woyna dega________% ii. Dega_________% iv. Kolla___________% 2. Meteorological information: a. Average annual rainfall ______________________mm. b. Average To Maximum____________ o C Minimum __________ o C 3. Major crops cultivated in the woreda ________________________________________________ 4. Land use: a. Cultivated land __________% c. Grazing land_________% b. Forest and bush _________% d. Others __________% 5. Farming system _______________________________________________________________ 6. Human population____________________________ 7. Animal population in the woreda: a. Cattle ___________ d. Equine __________ b. Sheep ___________ e. Poultry __________ c. Goats ___________ f. Dogs and cats __________ 8. Major livestock constraints (in order of importance): a. _______________________________________________________ b. _______________________________________________________

129

c. _______________________________________________________ d. _______________________________________________________ 9. Major wildlife species in the SMNP (if possible, give their vernacular name and estimate their population) ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 10. Major livestock and pet diseases in the woreda (in order of priority): Cattle Shoats Equines Poultry

Dogs & Cats

11. Types and frequencies of livestock and pet vaccinations practiced in the woreda ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______ 12. Major wildlife diseases in the woreda (in order of priority): Red fox Walia Ibex (Ethiopian wolf) Other ruminants Other carnivores Primates

13. Observed/suspected communicable diseases among wildlife and livestock: a. ___________________________ d. __________________________ b. ___________________________ e. __________________________ c. ___________________________ f. __________________________ 14. Any attempt/measure taken to prevent/control disease transmission from wildlife to livestock and vice versa: ____________________________________________________________________ 15. Were disease outbreaks occurred in wildlife/livestock in the last 3 years? (Y/N)______ If yes, mention the type(s) of disease(s), hosts affected and died of the outbreak___________________ 16. What did you to contain the outbreak? ______________________________________________ 17. Were your measures successful? (Y/N) _________ Why do think ________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 18. What is the current status of that problem? Contained___________ Continued___________ 19. What do you suggest to prevent such problems? Who should be responsible for those actions? (Who do what) ________________________________________________________________________ ______

130

___________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___Veterinary facilities available in the woreda (in number): a. Woreda standard clinics_________ e. Vet pharmacies_______ b. Vet. post clinics__________ f. Slaughter slab _________ c. Vaccination posts_________ g. Abattoirs d. Rural vet drug shops________ h. Private Vet clinics_______ Thank you for giving this valuable information! Filled by _______________________________ Signature_________________ ___________ Part III: Questionnaire prepared for the SMNP officials and Scouts Name of respondent _______________________________ Position ______________________ Length of stay in the PARK _______________ Signature __________________ 1. Period of foundation (E.C.) and major goals of the PARK ________________________________________________________________________ _________ 2. Altitude Range ____________________m.a.s.l. Holding area _______________km2 3. Man power in the PARK: Officials________ Scouts_________ Others___________ 4. Estimated major wildlife population in the PARK: Ser.no Species Vernacular name Est. no. of Size Size population increasing declining 1 2 3 4 5. Major PARK/wildlife constraints (in order of importance): a. _________________________________ e. ____________________________ b. _________________________________ f. ____________________________ c. _________________________________ g. ____________________________ d. _________________________________ h. ___________________________ 6. Your opinions/ suggestions to solve/alleviate these constraints ________________________________________________________________________ ______ 7. Major wildlife diseases in the PARK (in order of importance): Please fill the names of others. Ser. Red fox/ no. Walia Ibex Eth. wolf Date

131

1 2 3 4 8. Did you encounter disease outbreaks in wildlife? (Y/N) ________ If yes, 9. Mention all the affected hosts; total number of animals contracted the disease and died of it (specify species) _______________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___Major symptoms of the disease ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _____ 10. The first occurrence of the disease in the PARK _____________E.C. 11. Season of the occurrence _______________________________ 12. Name(s) of the disease(s) diagnosed (Tentative/confirmed) ________________________________________________________________________ _________ 13. Measures taken as part of containing the outbreak _____________________________________ ______ 14. Were those measures successful? (Y/N) _________ If no, why do you think?________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _____ 15. What is the current health status in the PARK's fauna? _________________________________ 16. What are the existing strategies/methods to prevent/control wildlife diseases in the PARK? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 17. Is there any veterinary professional in the PARK? (Y/N) __________ 18. If no, from where do you get veterinary services during emergency cases and how far are they/it? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ 19. Are there any development programs supporting the PARK? (GOs, NGOs)(Y/N) _________ If yes, describe their name(s) and means of support: a. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ b. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Thank you for giving this valuable information! Filled by _______________________________ Signature_________________ ___________ Date

132

ANNEX III SOCIO ECONOMIC SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE SEMEN MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK GRAZING PRESSURE ASSESSMENT Survey Questionnaire I. General Conditions 1. Date of the interview; Date _________ Month_________ Year _______ 2. Name of the interviewer ____________________________________ 3. Name of the service cooperative: ________________________________ 4. Name of the Kebele _______________________ 5. Name of the village _________________________________________ 6. Name of the interviewee (household head):__________________________ 7. Sex of the household head 1=Male 2=Female 8. Age in years ____________________ Birth place_________________ 9. Religion; 1= Orthodox Christian 2= Muslim 3= Others (specify) ______ II. Farming Experience in Number of Years; ______________________ III. Experience in Livestock Production in Number of Years; _____________ IV. Size, Sex and Age Composition Household Members; Age in Years Sex <5yrs 6-10 yrs 11-15yrs 16-65yrs >65years Male Female -Available family labor aged between 15 and 65 years old; _____________ V. Educational Level; 1. Years of schooling of the household head; __________________ 2. Years of schooling of the spouse; _________________________ 3. The schooling of other household members; No Household members Age in years Relation to the hh head Years of schooling 1 2 VI. Wealth 1. Size of land holding with exclusive right (ha); ______Area of irrigated land____ 2. Area of land allocated to different enterprises with exclusive use (ha); 1. Cropped ______2. Fallow_________ 3.Pasture _____________ 4. Unproductive land __________ 5. Others (specify) _________ 3. What activities/jobs you do during the off-farm period?_________ 4. Income from off farm activates? 1. Per day _____2.Per week _____ 3.Per month ____________ 4. Others (specify) __________________ 5. Do you have any other income source? 1. None 2. Salary 3. Pensioner 4. Remittance from abroad 5. Remittance from domestic 6. Others (specify______________ 6. How much you get per (day/week/month/year)? ______________ 7. Income of other family member per (day/week/month)_______________________ 8. Present livestock possession and sale by households; Number of Income from the sale Type of livestock Number of animals animals sold of livestock in the last owned 12 months (Br) 133

Cattle Lactating cows Dry cows Calves Heifer Bulls Oxen Small ruminants Sheep Goat Equine Donkey Horse Mule Poultry Others (specify)

VII. Grain Production; Crop Production Types of crop Area covered in Amount 2006/07 Produced(Qt) Teff Maize Barley Millet Wheat Beans Peas Others

Amount Consumed(Qt)

Amount sold (Qt) Birr

Crop rotation___________________ Fallow________________________ VIII. Distance to Market, Roads and Urban Center; Distance to the nearest livestock and other livestock product market in km; _km Distance to the nearest dry weather road; __ km, walking time ____ hrs Distance to the nearest all weather road; __ km, ____ hrs Distance to woreda town; ___ km, _____ hrs IX. Extension Services; 1. Do you have access to livestock extension services? 1. Yes 2. No 2. If yes, mention the source and how often you were visited in the last twelve months? Number of visits made by extension agent Purpose of the visit

3. Which main aspects of livestock were you advised by livestock extensionist? 4. Did you find the advice from extension agent adequate 1. Yes 2. No

134

If no, what else you needed to be advised? X. Financial Obligation; 1. Number of students in school (proxy to financial obligation); _________ 2. Rank how income from livestock and livestock product is spent; Type of Expenses Rank Expenditure incurred for students To buy grain for home consumption To buy other food To buy soap and clothes For loan repayment Expense incurred for replacement stock and other farm inputs Health expenditure Others (specify) 1. 2. XI. Credit; 1. Total amount of loan received in the last year; 1. No loan ________ 2. From formal institutions________ 3. From informal sources __________ 4. Amount repaid_____ 2. What is the purpose of taking loan? 1. For livestock production 3. Others (specify) _____________ 2. For production other than livestock 3. Did you get credit when you needed it? 1. Yes 2. No 4. Have you applied for credit this year? 1. Yes 2. No 5. If no, why? 1. Lack of collateral 3. Unfavorable burocracy 2. Dont need/want to take credit 4. Others (specify) _____ 6. On what basis do you think creditworthiness is judged? 1. Collateral 4. Relationship with these institutions 2. History of repayment 5. Others (specify) 3. Personal characteristics like hard work, health, age and knowledge of the work 7. What criteria do you use whenever you choose the lending institutions? 1. Interest rate 4.Restrictions on their use 2. Type of loan provided 5. Physical proximity 3. Non financial services provided like training 6. Others (specify)____ XII. Livestock Production ,Consumption and Sales this year; 1. Consumption of livestock product in this year (in Kg/Li); Milk Butter Cow/Ox meat Hide/ Skin Live cattle sale Shoat meat

Cow dung cake

Sale of livestock and livestock product in this year (in Br.); Milk Butter Cow/Ox meat Hide/ Skin Live cattle Shoat sale sale Draft rent Mule/ Horse rent Sale of equine

135

4.When do you sell livestock and livestock product______________________________ 5. Where do you sell livestock and livestock product___________________________ 6. Main reasons for selling livestock & livestock product in the above form in order of importance; Livestock products Reasons Milk Butter Cow dung cake Cattle Draft power rent Shoat Equine Poultry 7. Where do you get market information (information on prices and trading partners)? 8.What do you do if you cant sell livestock products on a market day at a market? 1. Take back and consume 2. Move to another market 3. Take to residential areas and look for buyers 4. Keep until next market day XIII Feeds and Feed types 1. What types of grazing system are you using? a. Zero grazing b. Semi-grazing c. Full grazing 2. Which crop residue, are using for feed? a.Teff straw b. Barley straw c. Maize stalk d.Millet straw 3. For what purpose you use crop residue a. Fuel wood b. Construction C. Other mention-------------------Do you grow fodder (Yes/no) If yes, which fodder crops Grass Forage legume Tree legume Other (mention) If no what are your major reasons for not growing fodder crops Insufficient land Insufficient labour Insufficient inputs (seeds, fertilizer and cash) Insufficient Draft animal Do you buy any feed supplement? -------If yes which feed supplements do you buy? Oil seed cake Cotton seed cake Other mention 10. From where do you buy supplements?-------How much do you spend for feed per month?--------How do you see grazing land pressure on the park?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------What will be the possible remedy to decrease such burdens of grazing? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XIV. Market Outlet and Buyer Type of Different Livestock Products Last Week; 1. Quantity of sales of livestock products and buyer type; Livestock & Unit Buyer type

136

Livestock products

Buyer type 1=consumer 2=Retailer 3=Wholesaler 4=Catering shop 6=Cooperatives 2. In deciding to whom to sell, what factors do you consider? 1. Price 2. Closeness in distance 3. Transport availability 4. Others (specify)__________________________________ 3. Reasons and Nature of change in the market outlets during the last one year; Change from _____ to _____ Reasons Outlets 1. Farm gate 2. Collection center 3. Delivery to the market 4. Others (specify) XIII. Marketing and Transactions Costs Last Week; Livestock and livestock Products Quantity and cost items 1. Qt for sale/week 2.Processing labor hour (hr) 2.1. Male labor 2.2. Female labor 3. Transportation 3.1. Labor hour (hr) -Self -Spouse -Children -Hired labor 3.2. Hired labor cost (Br) 3.3. Cost of donkey or equivalent (Br) 4.Search 4.1. Search labor (hr) 4.2. Total capital tied during search (Br) 4.3.Opportunity cost of capital tied during search (Br) 5. Loss due to spoilage - Qty - Br 6 Selling/negotiating 6.1. Labor hr 7. Sales outlet 7.1. Prices/unit by sales outlet 8. Buyer type 8.1. Prices/unit by buyer type 9. Total sales - Qty - Br 10. Mode of payment 11. Tax paid (Br) Outlets: 1=Market place 2=Collection center 3= Delivery to the market 3= Others (specify) Buyer type: 1=consumer 2=Retailer 3=Wholesaler 4=Catering shop 5=Organizations(/schools/hotels) 6=Cooperatives

137

7. Others (specify) Mode of payment: 1. Cash 2. Cash in advance 3. Credit 4. Barter 5. Others (specify)____________ XV. Major Problems (the most important problem) in Sale of Livestock Products Problems Livestock products Product related Buyer related Price related

Possible measures should be taken By the society Government Park administration

Livestock Marketing Middlemen Survey I. General 1. Date of the interview; Date _________ Month___________ Year ______ 2. Name of the interviewer _________________ _____________________ 3. Name of interviewee ____________________________________________ 4. Residence; Town ____________ Kebele ___________ 5. Type of trader 1.Wholesaler 2. Retailer 3.Catering shop 4.Farmer 5. Broker 6.Others (specify) 6. When do you trade? 1. Year round ____ 2. During holidays only _____ 3. When purchase price becomes low _____ 4. Others (specify) _________ 7. How long have you been in livestock trade? Years ____________ 8. Educational level; ___________________________________ 9. Religion 1. Orthodox Christian_______ 2. Muslim 3. Others (specify) _____ 10. Amount of capital currently used? ________________________Birr 11. How many markets do you visit per week to sale livestock products?_____ 12. Name of the market(s)?____________ ___________ __________ 13. Do you trade alone or in partnership? 1. Alone 2. Partnership 14. If in partnership, how many of them are in business? 15. How do you decide which product to market_______________________________ 16. Are products delivered to you, or do you go get them? _______________________ What is your sale strategy (Keep for certain period of time, sell as soon as possible). How do you decide sales and purchase prices/ What are the main problems you encounter in your trade (lack of clients, lack of funds, lack of product, lack of storage capacity, death during transportation, taxes, etc.)? Have any of your competitors gone out of business? If yes why? What is the basis for prices differentiation? II. Assets; 1. Asset ownership of trader; 1.None 5. Access to telephone 2.Vehicle for transport 6. Electricity 3.House 7. Radio 4.Storage equipment 8. Others (specify) __________________ 2. What is the critical asset enables to become a trader? 1= 1st Name of Asset Rank 2= 2nd Cash 138

Trust Buyer credit Sales advance Social capital like parents/friends in trade

3= 3rd 4= 4th 5=5th

3. Social capital; From how many people do you buy on credit ______________ To how many people do you sell on credit _________________ Number of friends in livestock trade_________________________ Number of family members in livestock trade__________________ Number of local trade contracts in the last week______________ Number of distance trade contracts in the last week___________ Number of partners through telephone order only____________ Was your father/mother in livestock trade? III. Choice of Source of Livestock Products; 1.What factors and levels do you consider when you buy livestock & livestock products? Livestock products Factors and levels Milk Butter Cattle Shoat Equine Poultry

Egg

2. How do you detect or measure these criteria or standards of quality? 1. __________________________________________ 2. __________________________________________ 3. __________________________________________ 4. __________________________________________ IV. Marketing and Transactions Cost Last Week; Livestock & Livestock Products Quantity and cost items Milk Butter Skin & Cattle hides 1.Qt purchased (No/kg/Lt) 2. Cost of buying 3. Sources 3.1. Prices/unit by source 4. Mode of payment 5.Processing labor hour (hr) 5.1. Male labor 5.2. Female labor 6. Transportation 6.1. Labor hour (hr) -Self -Spouse -Children -Hired labor 6.2. Hired Labor cost (Br) 6.3. Cost of donkey or equivalent (Br) 6.4. Cost of vehicle (Br) 7.Search

Shoat Equine

Poultry

Eg g

139

7.1. Search labor (hr) 7.2. Total capital tied during search (Br) 7.3.Opportunity cost of capital tied during search (Br) 8. Loss due to spoilage - Qty - Br 9. Selling/negotiating 9.1. Labor hr 10. Sales outlets 10.1. Prices/unit by outlets 11. Buyer type 11.1. Prices/unit by buyer type 12. Total sales - Qty - Br 13. Mode of payment Sources: 1.Farm gate 2. Processing plant 3. Wholesale 4.Delivered at home or shop 5. Cooperative 6. Other groups (specify) ___________________________________ Mode of payment: 1.Cash 2.Cash in advance 3.Credit 4. Others (specify)____________ Outlets: 1.Own 2. Delivery to the market place 3.Collection center 4. Delivery to the buyer 5. Others (specify) __________________________ Buyer type: 1.Consumer 2.Retailer 3.Wholesaler 4.Catering shop 5.Cooperatives 6. Others (specify) __________ V. Nature of Transaction such as Purchase and Sale of Livestock Products; 1. Is there a change of market source of livestock products during the last one year? 1. Yes 2. No 2. If yes, what is the reason for the change of source? 1. Good price 2. Short distance 3. Product quality 4. Reliable supplier 5. Mode of payment 6. Others (specify) 3. Is there a change in the market outlet during the last one year? 1. Yes 2. No 4. If yes, what is the reason for the change of market outlet? ? 1. Good price 2. Short distance 3. Take any quantity 4. Reliable buyer 5. Mode of payment 6. Others (specify) 5. Is there a change in the mode of payment in the last one year? 1. Yes 2. No 6. If yes, what is the reason for the change of mode of payment? 7. Who does purchasing/collecting livestock products for you? 1. My self 2. Brokers 3. Agents 4. Relatives 5.Others 8. What is the basis of payment to purchasers? 1. I dont pay 4. On monthly basis 2. On daily wage basis 5. As percentage of selling price 3. On kg/liter of butter/milk bought 6. Others (specify) ___________ 9. How much did you pay to purchasers on the above basis (Br)? _______ 10. How much kg/liter of livestock products did you buy/offer once? 1. Milk 2. Butter 3. Cheese 4.Yoghurt 11. How many days will it take you to sell livestock products offered once? 1. For____ _____2. ___ ________3 ___ ________4___ ________ 5 ___ ________ 12. Do the markets from where you buy livestock products vary from season to season? 1.Yes 2. No 13. If yes, what is the reason? 1. Price difference 2. Transportation problem 3. Better seasonal supply 4. Others (specify) 14. What do you do if you cant sell all the livestock products on a market day at a market?

140

1. Take back and consume ____ 2. Move to another market _______ 3. Take to residential areas and look for buyers ________ 4. Keep until next market day______________________ 15. Where do you get market information (information on price and trading partners)? 16. How do you discover/determine price at the market? VI. Main Problems with Sale and Purchase of Livestock Products (Prioritize); Livestock products Problems related to purchase Problems related to sale How to solve those mentioned problems? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Check List for Group Discussion What are the major livestock raring areas within and around park boundary? What are the major types of livestock in the area? How do you see population dynamics (when you were child and what will be in the future) comparing three time periods by their own ranking technique? How do you see livestock population dynamics (when you were child and what will be in the future) comparing three time periods by their own ranking technique? How do you see grazing land dynamics (when you were child and what will be in the future) comparing three time periods by their own ranking technique? How do you see cultivated land dynamics (when you were child and what will be in the future) comparing three periods by their own ranking technique? What are the principal uses of livestock? (Income source, Draft power, transportation, consumption, transportation purpose, prestige, others (mention----- rank! What do farmers consider the advantage and disadvantage of livestock? Where and from whom do farmers purchase livestock? Where and to whom do farmers' sale their livestock? What are the principal channels for livestock market? What types of marketing agent/ intermediaries buy and sell livestock? Who is responsible in livestock raring and marketing activity? (Men/women) What types of livestock is marketed? Who are the min buyers of livestock you sell? How would you characterize the livestock market in the marketing area (always a lot of competition among assemblers, rarely competition among assemblers)? What are the main sources of livestock feed? How do you manage grazing land? (Is there any penalty rule?) What are the main livestock diseases in the area? Where do you get veterinary service? Is the livestock market protected with fence? Where did you sale skins and hides? Are there any processing activities in the area (like milk, skin and hide)? How do you store livestock product? Is there any livestock intervention activity in the area (like livestock extension, veterinary services, improving livestock species, feed etc) How many number of each livestock each species is enough for a household? What are the main livestock production problems? What are the main livestock marketing problems? What are the possible remedies for those problems and the contribution of different actors (society, park management, kebele administration and other government organization) How can we improve the problem of grazing pressure in the park and the contribution of different actors (society, park management, kebele administration and other government organization)?

141

Check List for Key Informants I Kebele administration Number of households male--- female----Population male--- female----Religion: - Orthodox Christian------ Muslim-----Inside park Total area ________ Cultivated land ________ Grassland ________ Bush ________ Forest ________ Settlement ________ Non-usable ________ Number of livestock in the kebele administration Livestock Number Cow Oxen Bull Heifer Calves Sheep Goat Horse Mule Donkey Poultry Crop Production Types of crop Teff Maize Barley Millet Wheat Beans Peas Others

Outside park ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________

Area covered in 2006/07

Total Product

Cropping calendar

Crop rotation Fallow Farming system Major problems in livestock production Market for livestock--------- distance from kebele -----hr-----Km Utilization of improved technology Crop production Livestock improvement Irrigation Land security Agricultural inputs Previous intervention on livestock grazing How do you see grazing & livestock growth dynamics in the area?

142

How many number of each livestock unit is enough per household? What are the main reasons for livestock grazing pressure? List the main three livestock diseases in the area? Is there any record on the wild life death due to transmitted disease from livestock? What are the other problems of livestock production and marketing activities in the area? How can different actors of the society decrease grazing land pressure in the park?(KA, PA, Community and others)

143